Aëtiana V: An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts, Part 3. Book 4 Text and Commentary, Book 5 Text and Commentary 9789004428362

Citation preview

PART 3

Aëtiana V Part 3

Philosophia Antiqua A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy

Editorial Board F.A.J. de Haas (Leiden) K.A. Algra (Utrecht) J. Mansfeld (Utrecht) C.J. Rowe (Durham) D.T. Runia (Melbourne) Ch. Wildberg (Princeton)

Previous Editors J.H. Waszink† W.J. Verdenius† J.C.M. Van Winden†

volume 153/3

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/pha

Aëtiana V An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts part 3 Book 4 Text and Commentary Book 5 Text and Commentary

Edited by

Jaap Mansfeld David T. Runia

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/96042463

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 0079-1687 ISBN 978-90-04-42838-6 (hardback, set) ISBN 978-90-04-42840-9 (e-book) ISBN 978-90-04-42834-8 (hardback, part 1)

ISBN 978-90-04-42835-5 (hardback, part 2) ISBN 978-90-04-42836-2 (hardback, part 3) ISBN 978-90-04-42837-9 (hardback, part 4)

Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Part 1 Preface ix Sigla and Abbreviations General Introduction

xii 1

Book 1 The Principles of Nature: Text and Commentary

101

Part 2 Sigla and Abbreviations

ix

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary

719

Book 2 Cosmology: Text and Commentary

727

Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth: Text and Commentary

1129

Part 3 Sigla and Abbreviations

ix

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary

1347

Book 4 Psychology: Text and Commentary 1355 Introduction to Book 4 1357 Title and Index 1366 Proœmium 1372 1 On the Rising of the Nile 1374 2 On the Soul 1393 3 Whether the Soul Is a Body and What Its Substance Is 1421 4 On the Parts of Soul 1449 5 On the Regent Part and in Which Part of the Body It Is Found 6 On the Motion of Soul 1495

1473

vi

contents

7 7a 8 9 10 11

On the Indestructibility of Soul 1503 On Intellect 1526 On Sensation and Sense-Objects 1537 Whether Sensations and Impressions Are True 1560 How Many Senses There Are 1583 How the Sensation and the Conception and the Reason That Is Internally Placed Occur 1591 In What Respect Impression, Impressor, Imagination, Figment Are Different 1610 On Sight, How We See 1621 On Reflections in Mirrors 1652 Whether Darkness Is Visible 1663 On Hearing 1673 On Smelling 1679 On Tasting 1683 On Voice 1688 Whether Voice Is Incorporeal and How Echo Occurs 1703 How the Soul Comes To Be Sentient and What Its Regent Part Is 1711 On Respiration 1720 On Bodily Affections and Whether the Soul Experiences Pain along with These 1731

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Book 5 Physiology: Text and Commentary 1739 Introduction to Book 5 1741 Title and Index 1754 1 On Divination 1759 2 How Dreams Occur 1772 3 What the Substance of the Semen Is 1784 4 Whether the Semen Is a Body 1796 5 Whether Females Too Release Semen 1803 6 How the Conceptions Occur 1812 7 How Males and Females Are Engendered 1817 8 How Monstrosities Occur 1830 9 Why a Woman, Although Frequently Having Intercourse, Does Not Conceive 1837 10 How Twins and Triplets Occur 1844 11 Where Resemblances to Parents or Ancestors Come From 1851 12 How It Occurs That Those Who Are Born Resemble Others and Not Their Parents 1861 13 How It Happens That Women Are Infertile and Men Without Offspring 1868

contents

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

vii

Why Female Mules Are Infertile 1876 Whether the Embryo Is a Living Being 1883 How Embryos Are Nourished 1897 What Is Fully Formed First in the Womb 1904 Why Seven-Month Babies Are Viable 1914 On the Birth of Living Beings, How They Were Born as Living Beings and Whether They Are Perishable 1934 How Many Kinds of Living Beings There Are and Whether They All Possess Sense-Perception and Reason 1948 In What Length of Time Living Beings Are Formed When They Are in the Womb 1958 Out of What Elements Each of the Generic Parts in Us Consists 1968 When and How a Human Being Commences Maturity 1978 How Sleep and Death Occur 1989 Whether Sleep and Death Pertain to the Soul or the Body 1998 How Plants Grew and Whether They Are Living Beings 2008 On Nourishment and Growth 2022 From Where the Appetites Arise in Living Beings, and Also Pleasures 2029 How Fever Occurs and Whether It Is an After-Symptom 2035 On Health and Disease and Old Age 2043

Part 4 English Translation of the Placita 2059 User’s Guide to the English Translation 2061 Book 1 The Principles of Nature 2063 Book 2 Cosmology 2089 Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth 2108 Book 4 Psychology 2120 Book 5 Physiology 2137 Appendix: List of Chapter Headings in the Translation of Qusṭā ibn Lūqā 2153 Bibliography 2158 Index of Primary and Secondary Witnesses 2283 Index of Name-Labels and Other Names 2291 Index of Fragment Collections and Extant Sources 2296 Index of Ancient and Modern Names 2309

Sigla and Abbreviations 1

Abbreviations Relating to Aëtius and His Tradition

A Ach AD Ath C E G J L Nem Nic P Ps Q (or Qusṭā) S T

Aëtius Achilles Arius Didymus Athenagoras Cyril of Alexandria Eusebius ps.Galen ps.Justin Ioannes Lydus Nemesius Nicolaus, translator of ps.Galen ps.Plutarch, Placita philosophorum and his tradition (EGQ etc.) Psellus Qusṭā ibn Lūqā Ioannes Stobaeus Theodoret of Cyrrhus

2

Sigla Relating to the Apparatus Criticus of the Edition

a

Primary Witnesses

P PP PB

tradition of ps.Plutarch papyrus, edited by J.W. Barns and H. Zilliacus (1960–1967), The Antinoopolis Papyri Parts II & III, London Byzantine manuscripts Family Manuscript Date I Mosquensis 339 12th century II Marcianus 521 13th/14th century III (Planudean family) α Ambrosianus 859 shortly before 1296 Α Parisinus 1671 1296 γ Vaticanus 139 shortly after 1296 Ε Parisinus 1672 shortly after 1302 Laur. Laurentianus 31,37 14th century

x PB

PPh

PAth PE PG

PG(Nic) PJ

PJln PC PL PQ

PSch PPs

sigla and abbreviations Plutarchi Epitome, edited by H. Diels (1879 and unaltered reprints), Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 273–444; also edited by J. Mau (1971), Plutarchus Placita Philosophorum, Plutarchi Moralia Vol. 5.2.1, X oratorum vitae; Placita philosophorum, Leipzig (Bibliotheca Teubneriana); edited by G. Lachenaud (1993), Plutarque Œuvres morales T. 12.2, Opinions des Philosophes, Paris (Collection Budé); (for earlier editions see below §4 Works frequently cited) Philo of Alexandria, edited by J.-B. Aucher (1822), Philonis Judaei sermones tres hactenus inediti, I. et II. De Providentia et III. De animalibus, ex Armena versione antiquissima ab ipso originali textu Graeco ad verbum stricte exequuta, nunc in Latium (sic!) fideliter translati, Venice; see also M. HadasLebel (1973), De Providentia I et II, Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 35, Paris Athenagoras, edited by M. Marcovich (1990), Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis, Berlin (abbr. Leg.) Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica, edited by K. Mras (1956), Eusebius Werke, Bd. VIII, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, 1982–19832, Vol. 2, Berlin (abbr. PE) Ps.Galen Historia philosopha, edited by H. Diels (1879 and later unaltered reprints), Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 595–648 (abbr. HPh); partially edited by M. Jas (2018a), Nicolaus Rheginus als Übersetzer der pseudo-Galenischen Schrift De historia philosopha: ein Beitrag zur lateinischen Überlieferung des Corpus Galenicum, Wiesbaden text of PG based on 1341 Latin translation of Nicolaus of Rhegium Ps.Justinus Cohortatio ad Graecos, edited by M. Marcovich (1990), PseudoIustinus, Cohortatio ad Graecos, De monarchia, Oratio ad Graecos, Berlin; edited by C. Riedweg (1994), Ps.-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?) Ad Graecos de vera religione (bisher “Cohortatio ad Graecos”), 2 Vols., Basel Julianus Arianista, edited by D. Hagedorn (1973), Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian, Berlin Cyrillus Contra Julianum, edited by C. Riedweg (2015), Kyrill von Alexandrien I Gegen Julian, Berlin (abbr. Juln.) Ioannes Lydus De mensibus, edited by R. Wuensch (1898), Ioannis Laurentii Lydi Liber de mensibus, Leipzig (abbr. Mens.) Qusṭā ibn Lūqā Arabic translation of ps.Plutarch Placita philosophorum, edited by H. Daiber (1980), Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung, Wiesbaden Scholia Platonica, edited by G.C. Greene (1938), Haverford PA Michael Psellus De omnifaria doctrina, edited by L.G. Westerink (1948), Utrecht (abbr. Omn.Doctr.); other works: Michaelis Pselli Oratoria minora (abbr. Or.Min.), edited by A.R. Littlewood (1985), Leipzig; Michaelis Pselli Theologica, Vol. 1 (abbr. Op.Theol. 1), edited by P. Gautier (1989), Leipzig;

sigla and abbreviations

xi

Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora, Vol. 1: Opuscula logica, physica, allegorica, alia, Leipzig (abbr. Phil.Min. 1), edited by J.M. Duffy (1992), Leipzig; Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora, Vol. 2 Opuscula psychologica, theologica, daemonologica (abbr. Phil.Min. 2), edited by D.J. O’Meara (1989), Leipzig; Michaelis Pselli Theologica, Vol. 2 (abbr. Op.Theol. 2), edited by Westerink, L.G.–Duffy, J.M. (2002), Leipzig; Ἐπιλύσεις ποικίλων ἐρωτημάτων, Michael Psellus De operatione daemonum cum notis Gaulmini: accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli (abbr. Epi.), edited by J.F. Boissonade (1838), Nuremberg (repr. Amsterdam 1964) PSy Symeon Seth Conspectus rerum naturalium, edited by A. Delatte (1939), Anecdota Atheniensia et alia, T. 2: Textes relatifs à l’histoire des sciences, Liège (abbr. CRN) PTz Ioannes Tzetzes Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem, edited by G. Hermann (1812) in Draconis Stratonicensis Liber de metris poeticis; Ioannis Tzetzes Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem, Leipzig; Ἐξήγησις Ἰωάννου Γραμματικοῦ τοῦ Τζέτζου εἰς τὴν Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάδα, edited by M. Papathomopoulos (2007), Athens PArs Arsenius Paroemiographus Apothegmata, edited by E.L. von Leutsch (1851), Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, Vol. 2, Göttingen (repr. Hildesheim 1958), 240–744 S Ioannes Stobaeus Eclogae, edited by C. Wachsmuth (1884 and unaltered reprints), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo priores qui inscribi solent Eclogae physicae et ethicae, 2 Vols., Berlin (abbr. Ecl.), with the following sigla: Manuscripts Date F Farnesinus III D 15 14th century P Parisinus 2129 15th century L Laurentianus 8.22 14th century Ioannes Stobaeus Florilegium, edited by O. Hense (1894–1916 and unaltered reprints), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo posteriores, 3 Vols., Berlin (abbr. Flor.) (for ch. 5.30) SL-ind index in ms. Laurentianus (where deviates from title in text), edited by C. Wachsmuth (1882), Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien, Berlin, pp. 5– 37 . . SP(m s ) manus secunda, where Wachsmuth has P2, e.g. at Ecl. 1.24.2d SPhot index of Photius, edited by R. Henry (1960 and unaltered reprints), Photius Bibliothèque, Vol. 2, Paris SCod.Vat. codex Vaticanus gr. 201 (according to Wachsmuth 1882, 71 derived from F) SCod.Mon. codex Monacensis gr. 396 (also named codex Augustinus, according to Wachsmuth 1882, 71 derived from F) T Theodoretus, edited by J. Raeder (1904), Theodoreti Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, Leipzig (abbr. CAG)

xii

sigla and abbreviations

In principle the manuscripts of all witnesses except PB and S are not cited; significant variation between manuscript readings is expressed through numbers, e.g. PG1, PG2 etc. b Ach

Secondary Witnesses

Achilles, edited by G. Di Maria (1996), Achillis quae feruntur astronomica et in Aratum opuscula: De universo, De Arati vita, De Phaenomenorum interpretatione, Palermo Aratus/Aratea Commentaria in Aratum, edited by E. Maass (1898), Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae, Berlin. Anonymus I, pp. 87–98 (abbr. Anon. I); Anonymus II 1, pp. 102–133 (abbr. Anon. II); Ath Athenagoras Legatio, edited by M. Marcovich (1990), Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis, Berlin (abbr. Leg.); (2000) Athenagorae qui fertur De resurrectione mortuorum, Leiden (abbr. de Res.) Epiphanius Epiphanius Ancoratus und Panarion, edited by K. Holl–H. Lietzmann (1915–1933), 3 Vols., Leipzig (citing 3rd ed. 1985–2013) Hermias Hermias Satire des philosophes païens, edited by R.P.C. Hanson (1993), SC 388, Paris Isidore of Pelusium Isidore de Péluse Lettres (nos. 1214–1700), edited by P. Évieux (1997–2000), SC 422, 454, Paris; MPG Vol. 78, edited by F. Morel (1638) Nem Nemesius, edited by M. Morani (1987), Nemesii Emeseni De natura hominis, Leipzig (abbr. NH) Ps.Justinus see above (a) Primary witnesses Scholia in Aratum Scholia in Aratum vetera, edited by J. Martin, Stuttgart 1974; Prolegomena (in Parisino Suppl.Gr. 607A servata), pp. 23–31 (abbr. Proleg.); Scholia in Aratum, pp. 37–527 Scholia in Basilium Scholia in Basilii Hexaemeron I, edited by G. Pasquali (1910) ‘Doxographica aus Basiliosscholien’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-hist.Kl. (1910) 194–228 (reprinted in Scritti Filologici, Vol. 1 (Florence 1986) 539–574); Scholia in Basilii Hexaemeron II, edited by Th. Poljakov (1982–1983), ‘The unpublished doxographical scholia on St. Basil’s Hexaemeron’, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 12–13: 1982–1983, pp. 367–369

sigla and abbreviations

3

Latin Abbreviations in the Apparatus Criticus (and Elsewhere)

⟨⟩ {} x] y ][ ̣ (sub lineam) *** ~ ♦

abiud. add. ad fin. adn. al. ap. app. append. Byz. c., cc. cf. confirm. coni. conl. contam. corr. c.q. crit. crucif. dub. duce ed. edd. emend. exh. fort. fr. gloss. hab. i.q.

litterae additae litterae deletae x lectio omnium testium sola y excepta (app. crit.) litterae qui non extant (papyri) litterae dubiae (papyri) lacuna approximat, aequivalet lemma per hypothesin abiudicavit addidit ad finem adnotatio aliter apud apparatus appendix Byzantinum caput, capita confer confirmat coniecit conlato contaminatus correxit/corrector casu quo criticus crucifixit dubitanter, dubitat primus editor, editio editores emendavit exhibet, exhibuit fortasse fragmentum, fragmenta glossa, glossema habet, habent idem quod

xiii

xiv ind. init. inv. l., ll. lac. leg. mal. marg. ms., mss. n., nn. om. p., pp. pap. paraphr. per litt. prob. proœm. prop. put. recc. reiec. rest. ret. schol. sc. scr. sec. secl. seqq. sim. s.l. subst. suppl. susp. s.v. t. t.a.q. tit. t.p.q. transcr.

sigla and abbreviations indicavit initium invertit linea, lineae lacuna legit, legunt maluit margo, in margine manuscriptum, manuscripta nota, notae omittit, omisit pagina, paginae papyrus paraphrasit per litteras probat, probavit proœmium proposuit putat, putavit recentiores reiecit restituit retinuit scholion scilicet scripsit secundum seclusit et sequentia simile, similia supra lineam substituit supplevit suspicit sub voce tomus terminus ante quem titulus terminus post quem transcribit

sigla and abbreviations transp. verb. verisim. vert. ut vid. vid. v.l. Voss.

4

xv

transposuit verbum, verba verisimiliter vertit ut videtur vide varia lectio mss. Vossii in bibliotheca Lugd.Bat.

Works Frequently Cited

This section lists authors and works that are cited by name of the author in the apparatus criticus. (Full details on editions and collections of fragments cited in the first apparatus below the Greek text are to be found in the Bibliography in Part four.) Beck Bollack Canter Corsinus Coxon

Daiber Diels DG Diels PPF Diels VS DK, Vors. Gemelli Marciano

C.D. Beck (1787), Plutarchi De Physicis philosophorum decretis libri quinque, Leipzig J. Bollack (1969), Empédocle. Vol. II: Les Origines. Édition et traduction des fragments et des témoignages, Paris W. Canter (1575), Ioannis Stobaei Eclogarum libri duo, Antwerp E. Corsinus (1750), Plutarchi De placitis philosophorum libri V, Florence A.H. Coxon, (1986), The Fragments of Parmenides. A Critical Text with Introduction and Translation, the Ancient Testimonia and a Commentary, Assen (revised and expanded edition with new translation by R. McKirahan, and new preface by M. Schofield, Las Vegas, 2009) H. Daiber (1980), Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung, Wiesbaden H. Diels (1879 and unaltered reprints), Doxographi Graeci, Berlin H. Diels (1901a), Poetarum Philosophorum Fragmenta, Berlin H. Diels (1903), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 1st edition, Berlin H. Diels and W. Kranz (1951–1952 and unaltered reprints), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edition, Berlin M.L. Gemelli Marciano (2007–2010), Die Vorsokratiker Bd. 1, Thales Anaximander Anaximenes Pythagoras und die Pythagoreer Xenophanes Heraklit; Bd. 2, Parmenides Zenon Empedokles; Bd.

xvi

sigla and abbreviations

3, Anaxagoras Melissos Diogenes von Apollonia Die antiken Atomisten: Leukipp und Demokrit. Griechisch-lateinisch-deutsch, Düsseldorf Graham D.W. Graham (2010), The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy. The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics, 2 Vols., Cambridge Heeren A.H.L. Heeren (1792–1801), Ioannis Stobaei Eclogarum Physicarum et Ethicarum libri duo, 2 Vols., Göttingen Jas M. Jas (2018a), Nicolaus Rheginus als Übersetzer der pseudo-Galenischen Schrift De historia philosopha: ein Beitrag zur lateinischen Überlieferung des Corpus Galenicum, Wiesbaden Lachenaud G. Lachenaud (1993), Plutarque Œuvres morales T. 12.2, Opinions des Philosophes, Paris Laks–Most A. Laks–G.W. Most (2016), Early Greek Philosophy, 9 Vols., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA; Les débuts de la philosophie, Paris Mansfeld R1 J. Mansfeld (1983–1986), Die Vorsokratiker Griechisch / Deutsch, 2 Vols., Stuttgart Mansfeld R2, Primavesi R2 J. Mansfeld and O. Primavesi (2011), Die Vorsokratiker Griechisch / Deutsch, Stuttgart Mau J. Mau (1971), Plutarchus Placita Philosophorum, Leipzig M–R J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (1997–2018), Aëtiana, 4 Vols. M–R 1 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (1997), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. 1: The Sources, Leiden M–R 2 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (2009), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. 2: The Compendium, Part I: Macrostructure and Microcontext, Part II: Aëtius Book II: Specimen Reconstructionis, Leiden M–R 3 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (2010), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. 3, Studies in the Doxographical Traditions of Greek Philosophy, Leiden M–R 4 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia eds. (2018), Aëtiana IV: Papers of the Melbourne Colloquium on Ancient Doxography, Leiden Mras K. Mras (1982–1983), Eusebius Die Praeparatio Evangelica, 2nd ed., 2 Vols., Berlin Meineke A. Meineke (1855–1857), Ioannis Stobaei Florilegium, 4 Vols., Leipzig Primavesi see above under Mansfeld R2 Raeder J. Raeder (1904), Theodoreti Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, Leipzig

sigla and abbreviations Reiske

Vítek Vors. Wachsmuth Westerink Wyttenbach Xylander

5

xvii

J. Reiske (1778), Plutarchi Quae supersunt omnia, Graece et Latine; principibus ex editionibus castigavit, virorumque doctorum suisque annotationibus, Vol. 9, Leipzig T. Vítek (2006), Empedoklés. II Zlomky, Prague see above DK C. Wachsmuth (1884), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo priores qui inscribi solent Eclogae physicae et ethicae, 2 Vols., Berlin L.G. Westerink (1948), Michael Psellus De omnifaria doctrina, Utrecht D. Wyttenbach (1797), Plutarchi Chaeronensis Scripta Moralia, Vol. 4, Oxford G. Xylander (Holzmann) (1574), Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, Vol. 2, Basel

Further Abbreviations

Names of authors and their works are generally abbreviated in accordance with LSJ, OLD and PGL (see below). The works of Galen are abbreviated in accordance with the list of R.J. Hankinson ed. (2008), The Cambridge Companion to Galen, Cambridge, pp. 391–397. The works of Plutarch are abbreviated in accordance with the listing in F. Montanari ed. (2015), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Leiden, pp. xlvi–xlvii. BAGD W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., Chicago CErc Cronache Ercolanesi CMG Corpus Medicorum Graecorum CPF Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini CPG M. Geerard (1974–1987), Clavis Patrum Graecarum, Turnhout DPhA R. Goulet (1989–2018), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, 7 Vols. and Suppl. Vol., Paris FDS K.-H. Hülser ed. (1987–1988), Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker, 4 Vols., Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt FGrH F. Jacoby & alii (1923–), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin & Leiden (later repr. Leiden; also Brill online) GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller LCL Loeb Classical Library, ed. by J. Henderson LLT Latin Library of Texts (Brepols)

xviii LSJ MPG MPL OLD PGL RE SC SVF TLG

sigla and abbreviations H.G. Liddell, R. Scott and H.S. Jones eds. (1996), A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement, 9th edition, Oxford Migne Patrologia Graeca Migne Patrologia Latina P.G.W. Glare ed. (1982), Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford G.W.H. Lampe ed. (1961), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa and K. Ziegler (1894–1980) Sources Chrétiennes J. ab Arnim (1903–1924), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 Vols., Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1964) Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Digital Library of Greek Literature, University of California at Irvine

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary 1

Introduction

The aim of this user’s guide is to assist the reader in making use of the present Edition and Commentary on the Placita. It is a pared down version of section 6 of the General Introduction. For references to further discussion of details see the notes to the General Introduction in Volume One.

2

The Division into Four Parts

The sequence of the Edition and Commentary is based on the insight that ps.Plutarch’s Epitome of the original no longer extant work by and large preserves the structure of Aëtius’ compendium. Part One contains the necessary preliminaries, including the General Introduction, followed by the Edition and Commentary on Book 1 on the principles of nature. Part Two comprises Book 2 on cosmology and the heavens and Book 3 on meteorology and the earth. Part Three treats Book 4 on the psychology of the human being and Book 5 on the physiology of the human being and other animals. For each of the five books, the edition of its chapters is preceded by a compact introduction giving an overview of its transmission, subject-matter, name-labels of philosophers and schools, method and sources. Part Four presents an English translation of the edited text of all five books, together with the bibliography and the indices. For all the 135 chapters of the entire work, the Edition and Commentary use an identical method and layout. Only the chapters on the pinakes and the four proœmia to Books 1–4 differ in a few respects. The essential features of this method and layout will now be explained in detail, commencing with the edition.

3

The Edition

Following the conventions of classical scholarship, the edition of the Greek text and all its accompanying apparatus are formulated in Latin. The many abbreviations and sigla that we use are set out at the beginning of Parts One to Three. For each chapter we begin with a list of the relevant testes (witnesses). First in this list are the passages from the testes primi (primary witnesses) and the name of the editor of the text edition used. These witnesses are: ps.Plutarch

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_096

1348

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

(abbreviated P) and his tradition, Stobaeus (S) and Theodoret (T). Below them on the next line, passages from the testes secundi (secondary witnesses) are listed when available, again including their abbreviation and the name of the editor used. They are always introduced with the capitalised Latin abbreviation Cf. (abbreviation of confer, i.e. ‘compare’ or ‘see also’). The text of the chapter then follows. It begins with the titulus (chapter heading), followed by the numbered lemmata, each consisting of one or more name-labels (sometimes unspecified) plus a doxa. The lines of the text are continuously numbered, as indicated in the margin, beginning with the chapter heading. Following the heading and each lemma of the chapter the primary sources for its text are indicated by the sigla (P,S,T), or (P,S) when T is lacking, or (S,T) when P is lacking, or (P,T) when S is lacking, or only one of these when only one primary source is available. The numbers after the siglum in each case indicate the number of the doxa in the sequence of the text of the primary witness as indicated in the text used.1 This system gives the crucial information on the attestation of the lemmata at a single glance. Beneath the text we first list the references to the collections of fragments of Presocratics, Academics, Peripatetics, Stoics and others where individual lemmata can be located. In the case of the Presocratics we refer only to the sixth edition of Diels-Kranz (abbreviated DK), not to collections of individual authors. Similarly for the Stoics we use where possible Von Arnim’s collection (SVF). For other authors we use the most recent collections.2 In the case of authors whose original writings survive, we refer to passages from which the doxa is derived, whether directly or indirectly. Next we present the apparatus criticus to the text. Its aim is to give full and detailed insight into all the relevant variants of the primary and secondary witnesses. It is therefore not a negative but a positive apparatus.3 This is necessary because we are not editing a single text from manuscripts and indirect quotations, but rather are reconstructing our text from a multiplicity of witnesses both direct (primi) and indirect (secundi), each of which has its own relation to the lost original Placita as collected by Aëtius.4 Some of these, such as the frag-

1 These numbers are not found in the texts of Mau, Wachsmuth and Raeder. They have been supplied by us. 2 Rarely we list two collections when they are both current or complementary, e.g. for Strato (Wehrli, Sharples) and Posidonius (Edelstein-Kidd, Theiler). 3 Contrary to our previous practice in the specimen reconstructionis of Book 2 in M–R vol. 2.2; see General Introduction, section 2.8. 4 For detailed accounts of these witnesses and the editions used see General Introduction, section 4.2–4.

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

1349

ments of ps.Plutarch in the Antinoopolis papyrus, the Arabic version of ps.Plutarch by Qusṭā ibn Lūqā translated into German by Hans Daiber, and the new critical edition of a large part of ps.Galen by Mareike Jas, have become available only quite recently. In addition we pay due attention to a variety of earlier editions and also note significant readings, conjectures and emendations when the texts of individual doxai are included in collections of fragments. In general, it is only in the case of the primary witnesses ps.Plutarch and Stobaeus (but not Theodoret) that we give the variants of the main manuscripts. For other texts we give the preferred reading of the relevant critical edition, only mentioning manuscript variants on rare occasions. The Arabic translation of Qusta is cited in Daiber’s German version. Based on these principles, the apparatus criticus not only strives to shed light on our choices, but also to inform the user about the peculiarities of the widespread tradition. Because this apparatus is necessarily often rather extensive, it proved impossible to allocate room for the translation next to the Greek text in a synoptic format without chopping up text, translation, and apparatus and creating a succession of blank spaces. For this reason the translations of the Greek text of all 135 chapters, forming a continuous English version of the treatise as a whole, have been printed in the final part, Aëtiana 5.4. Three more sections of the edition remain. First we print the texts of the testes primi (primary witnesses) for the reconstruction. In first place is always Theodoret when he has cited this text, followed—with its own sub-heading— by the traditio ps.Plutarchi, i.e. the bevy of representatives of the tradition of the Epitome available for the relevant chapter. First when available is the Antinoopolis papyrus. This is followed by the text of ps.Galen, the most important of the witnesses to this tradition. We also include texts from ps.Justin, Cyril, Lydus, Psellus, Symeon Seth and others, all of whom excerpted ps.Plutarch. For reasons of space the texts of ps.Plutarch and Stobaeus themselves (and also Eusebius’ verbatim excerpts) are not quoted separately. They can be readily found elsewhere. But it is important to note that our debts to and differences from Diels’ DG edition of Aëtius and to other editions of the primary witnesses are fully accounted for in the apparatus criticus to the Greek text, and often also further discussed in the Commentary. Next is a section setting out the testes secundi (secondary witnesses) who can also offer some assistance for the reconstruction and analysis of the text.5 They represent the doxographical traditions closest to Aëtius. Some of these, namely

5 For detailed accounts of these witnesses and the editions used see above, General Introduction, 4.5.

1350

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

Athenagoras, Achilles, and Nemesius were included by Diels in his apparatus among the aliorum ex Aetio excerpta. Because, unlike in the case of Theodoret, it is not certain that these authors actually did excerpt Aëtius, we have preferred to group them together with other passages in the Aratea, Hermias, and Scholia to various authors, regarding them as a collection of writings that are closest to the Aëtian tradition without being part of it. They are closer than the texts that we have placed in the proximate tradition.6 It should be noted that the distinction is somewhat fuzzy. Texts very close to Aëtius such as in Varro, Philodemus, Cicero and Philo of Alexandria could have been included. The difference is that these texts antedate Aëtius, whereas the testes secundi are all later than he is and so could have used his work, whereas this was impossible for the writers just mentioned. The final sub-section of the edition is a collection of parallel passages quoted from the reconstructed text of other chapters of Aëtius, which we have given the title Loci Aetiani. These passages contain various kinds of similarities: to name-label(s) plus doxa, or to parts of doxai, or to particular formulations of doxai or name-labels. They thus provide detailed information about such uniformities as are present in the Placita as a whole. Parallels in chapter headings or in the quaestiones (questions or topics) being treated, are generally placed first, followed by those relating to particular lemmata.

4

The Commentary

The second main section of each chapter contains the Commentary. It too follows a fixed and identical schema of treatment, as indicated by alphabetically numbered sections, some of which are further divided into sub-sections and sometimes even further sub-divided. By consistently using this system of divisions, we aim to organise the mass of material involved with a maximum of clarity. Each of these sections and sub-sections will now be explained in turn. A: Witnesses. In this section we present the evidence as preserved in the primary and secondary witnesses and discuss issues that it might raise. We generally commence with (1) ps.Plutarch and his tradition, since the Epitome mostly preserves the general structure of the work and its lemmata best. Sad to say, in the case of Book 5 this tradition is virtually all that we still have. Thereafter follows an analysis of the evidence as presented in (2) Stobaeus and (3)

6 See the explanation of the distinction in the General Introduction, sections 4.1 and 5.1.

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

1351

Theodoret. In this section we often engage in a first sifting of the evidence for the reconstruction of the chapter, followed by further details in section D(b) below. B: Proximate tradition and sources. This section gives an overview of the texts that can shed light on the subject and contents of the chapter. The first sub-section (1) discusses the proximate texts, i.e. the doxographical tradition which resembles the Placita in its focus on questions of the φυσικὸς λόγος, on philosophers and the answers they gave to those questions. These texts can be earlier than Aëtius and represent the anterior tradition from which he drew his material (though the evidence for the early period is rather thin). They can be contemporaneous with him or much later, even as late as Isidore of Seville and (rarely) authors writing in Arabic. The passages discussed may relate to the chapter as a whole or to individual lemmata within it. The second sub-section (2) turns the attention to the ultimate sources of the subject-matter of the chapter. For the doxai of some philosophers it is sometimes possible to pin down the exact texts on which the doxai are based, e.g. in the extant works of Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus. More often other comparative material will need to be brought to bear, again from Plato and Aristotle, but also from Hellenistic, early Imperial and late ancient texts. Here too, passages discussed may relate to the chapter as a whole or to individual lemmata within it. For both sub-sections it is the case that many or even most of the texts discussed will be printed in the third main section Further related texts below, to which we frequently cross-refer. Given the large quantity of texts involved, it is not possible to discuss all this material in great detail, but rather we will draw attention to the salient points to which it gives rise. C: Chapter heading. In this section we give detailed discussions of the type and significance of the chapter heading, including how it relates to the standard question-types that were developed on the basis of the Aristotelian example and were used throughout antiquity. We note, where applicable, the variant readings for the heading in the witnesses and motivate our choice for the chosen formulation. We also give an overview of parallel headings that are embedded in texts or book titles elsewhere. These too are cited below in the section Further related texts. D: Analysis. This section, which contains our interpretation of the contents of the chapter, consists of five sub-sections (though not all of these are always required for every chapter). D(a) context. Here we briefly discuss the place of the particular chapter within the group of chapters of which it is a member and the position of this

1352

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

group in the context of the Book as a whole. We also note possible analogies with the way other books of the Placita are structured and point out particular links that a chapter might have with chapters elsewhere and sometimes also with ancient traditions such as the Peripatos and the Stoa. D(b) number–order of lemmata. In this sub-section we return to the witnesses for the contents of the chapter and determine where possible the number of doxai originally present and the order in which they were listed. For this we depend largely on the evidence of the witnesses themselves, as informed by the understanding that we have gained of their methods, but are sometimes assisted by the secondary witnesses and indeed also by texts in the proximate tradition and beyond. For determining the sequence of the doxai it is also important to understand the argumentative structure of the chapter, often revealed in its diaereses or diaphoniae (see also the following sub-section D(c)). Here we also note how our sequence compares with that established by Diels. Often the result is the same, but there are also many cases where we reach a substantially different result, which of course is fully explained and justified. D(c) rationale–structure of chapter. This sub-section contains the nucleus of our interpretation of a chapter. It is a distinctive feature of the Placita that its chapters have an argumentative structure which is determined by the contents and position of the individual lemmata but at the same time (at least to some extent) determines their selection. The task of this section is to elucidate that structure. It may involve a listing of doxai in order of decreasing or increasing similarity according to the method of diaeresis, or it may involve a contrasting of doxai or groups of doxai in order to emphasize the conflict between them. There is much variety among the 135 chapters. It should be emphasized that the examples used above will not apply at all to monolemmatic chapters and not necessarily to other chapters with a plurality of doxai. D(d) further comments. This sub-section is divided into General points, pertaining to the chapter as a whole (if pertinent), and individual points pertaining to individual lemmata. These latter, presented in order of the place of the doxa/doxai in the chapter, may relate to the constitution of the text, and/or may enter into detailed discussions of the interpretation of the philosophical or scientific view portrayed by the contents of the lemma concerned. It will be understood that, in the light of the astonishing breadth of topics and thinkers broached in the Placita, we have had to be necessarily selective in making such comments. References are frequently made to the secondary literature, but here too we have needed to be selective. D(e) other evidence. This final sub-section of the Commentary follows on from section B above. It embarks on more substantial discussions of evidence in the wider doxographical or anterior philosophical and scientific traditions,

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

1353

including some of the secondary witnesses (especially Achilles). These can be either of a textual or of a content-related nature, depending on what is relevant for the interpretation of the chapter and/or some of its individual lemmata.

5

Further Related Texts

Our presentation of each chapter ends with a third and final section entitled E: Further Related Texts. It too is further sub-divided into two parts. E(a) Proximate tradition. Here, as the name indicates, we present an extensive collection of texts drawn from the proximate doxographical tradition, as outlined in the General Introduction, section 5.1. We print the texts in the original Greek and Latin (with occasionally some texts translated into German or English, for we have no Arabic). These texts link up with the discussion in the earlier section B(1) of the Commentary. The selection begins with General texts dealing with the subject in question and/or covering the views of a plurality of thinkers. The next section lists, where available, the texts that contain or illustrate the chapter headings or sometimes the quaestio posed by that heading. Thereafter texts are listed under the individual lemmata of the chapter. In order to facilitate the reader’s orientation, the name-labels of the relevant lemma are printed in bold italics. For all three listings the texts are most often printed in full and are presented in approximate chronological order. E(b) Sources and other parallel texts. In this sub-section we link up with the discussion in the earlier section B(2) of the Commentary and print a collection of texts relating to the wider tradition of ancient philosophical and scientific tradition, including those texts that shed light on the sources that the doxographers may have used to formulate the doxai collected in the Placita. These follow the same basic method as in the previous sub-section. They are usually printed in full in the original Latin and Greek, are divided into the same three groups in an approximately chronological sequence, and are highlighted in the same way. In the case of some texts, either very well-known or somewhat tangential to the matter at hand, we give references only. For further discussion of the texts collected in section E of the Commentary, including a justification of their extent and the method of citing them in the ancient languages only, see the General Introduction, section 6.5.

Aetius Placita Book 4 Psychology: Text and Commentary

∵

Introduction to Book 4 1

Transmission

In terms of its 24 chapters (plus proem) and 146 doxai, Book 4 of A’s compendium as transmitted down to us is on the short side. But because it contains a considerable number of long lemmata, it is in fact the second longest of the Books (4038 words; only Book 1 is longer). It is relatively well attested. PB and PQ are available for all of its chapters. (Note that to Diels’ 23 chapters we have added a ch. 4.7a consisting of the two lemmata which Diels dubiously included at the end of ch. 4.5.) The excerpts from A in T cease at 4.8, but are quite helpful as far as they go. In his excerpts from chs. 4.2–7 (the material parallel to ch. 4.6 was passed over) T usefully and significantly provides a number of parallels for lemmata in S not paralleled in P, and is the only source for three lemmata in ch. 4.4 and for one lemma in ch. 4.5—proof again of his crucial role as a source for A, for which see further above, General Introduction section 2.5. S, who of course was under no obligation to excerpt the whole work, seems to have lacked a chapter with contents corresponding to P 4.1 On the Nile, as there is not even a reference to the heading in Photius’ index. Other chapters of S have been lost because they were edited out by the Byzantine redactors, namely those corresponding to P 4.4 (for the most part), 4.5, 4.10 (where no corresponding heading in S either), 4.12, 4.14, 4.18, and the whole block of 4.20–23. At the end of Book 4 the transmission of S is unfortunately as defective as it is for the whole of Book 5, though for 4.7a he is our sole witness. For the tradition of P 4.2–7 we are only able to use E for chs. 4.4–5, since he did not excerpt the others. G declines to epitomize chs. 4.2–7, doubtless because of his alternative, namely c. 24 ‘On the soul’, which belongs with a different strand of the tradition but contains much material that is parallel. This chapter has been inserted early on, preceding all but a handful of his excerpts from P Book 1. Though he omits P 4.10, he epitomizes all of P 4.1, 4.9 and 4.11–23 in successive chapters at c. 89–104, thus preserving 16 out of 24 chapters, and so complements PB and PQ for large sections of the Book. Yet he retains only 46 doxai, or about 30%, which is lowest for all five Books. In addition there are three small scraps from the Antinoopolis papyrus, while some headings and lemmata are confirmed by Psellus. Thus chs. 4.2–9, 4.13–17 and 4.19 can be reconstructed from multiple witnesses, but for the remaining chapters we only have P and what is left of his tradition. In the latter case the number and order of the lemmata are fixed as we find them in the tradition of P. At most we can

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_097

1358

introduction to book 4

speculate on how P might have epitomized the material he found in A, in some cases comparing material found in proximate sources and other transmitted doxography or extrapolating from what we know about P’s methods elsewhere in his Epitome (for example his manipulation of name-labels). In those cases we will speak primarily about P, although it must always be borne in mind that A will be hovering in the background.

2

Subject Matter and Macrostructure

The division of subject matter between Book 4 and Books 3 and 5 on either side is not very strict. Ch. 4.1, on the Nile, belongs with the terrestrial subject matter of the second part of Book 3 (see Introduction to Book 3, section 2). The first chapters of Book 5 could also have been the last of Book 4. The exceptional absence of a proœmium for Book 5 (assuming it has not been lost, which is most unlikely) further underlines the coherence of Books 4 and 5. For the relation between Books 4 and 5 see also below, section 6. The extremely brief proœmium of Book 4 places itself in an omphalos position by referring to the treatment of the ‘parts’ of the cosmos that have been completed (sc. in Books 1–3) and to the ‘individual parts’, i.e. those pertaining to (mostly) the human being, that are to follow (sc. in Books 4–5), thus emphasizing the coherence of each of the two groups of Books of which the treatise consists as well as the unity of the treatise as a whole. For the divisions and coherence of the treatise see further above, General Introduction, section 2.7. Thus as a consequence of the inclusion of the Nile, Book 4 consists of two very different and unequal parts, namely ch. 4.1 on the exceptional river and chs. 4.2–23 on the human soul and its properties and functions, or a small hydrological part and a large psychological part. The psychological part, comprising chapters 4.2 to 4.23, can be divided into three sections: First: chs. 4.2–7 on the soul per se, i.e. its substance, parts, hegemonikon, movement and indestructibility. Groups of chapters that as to a sequential structure according to the categories and question types are comparable to chs. 4.2–7 are found in the present Book and throughout the Placita: chs. 4.8–21 on sensation and the senses, 2.1–10 on the cosmos, 2.11–12 on the heaven, 2.12–19 on the stars, 2.20–24 on the sun, 2.25–30 on the moon, 3.9–15 on the earth, and 5.3–14 on semen and insemination. Secondly: chs. 4.8–21 on epistemology, i.e. the senses in general, senseperception and its reliability, the number of the senses, two chapters on sensation and concept formation according to the Stoics, six chapters on the

introduction to book 4

1359

individual senses (but lacking one on touch!), two chapters on voice, and an addendum on the Stoic view of soul including sense perception and origin of concepts; And third: two further addenda, ch. 4.22 on a particular psycho-somatic theme and ch. 4.23 on psycho-somatic relations in general. The position of ch. 4.11, on the genesis of sense perceptions and the origin of concepts, and of 4.12, on the different senses of impression, impressor, imagination, and figment, after ch. 4.9 on the reliability of sense perceptions and presentations, is odd from a systematic point of view, and reveals that these two exclusively Stoic chapters have been inserted later at the end of the closeknit block of chs. 4.8–10, which deals with the senses in general and presents a variety of views in the usual dialectical way. We notice a comparable attempt at upgrading the psychology at the end of the account of the senses, after that of the close-knit block of chs. 4.13–20, which comprises the individual senses plus voice and also presents varieties of views. For ch. 4.21 adds a further Stoic account of the genesis and processes of sense perception and concept formation, and of the structure of soul and function of its regent part. To some extent this duplicates paragraphs in earlier chapters. On these added chapters and similar Stoic upgrades in Book 4 see Diels DG 61, 101, 178, and 182, where he omits this material from his reconstructed Vetusta placita. The fact that ch. 4.11 shows unmistakable symptoms of abridgement (Mansfeld 2013b) proves that it is Aëtian, P having epitomized his source in his usual way. In chs. 4.11 and 4.21 concept formation follows organically, so to speak, upon sense perception, and is integrated in the treatment of soul as a whole. The Stoic doctrine contains ingredients such as the formation of concepts from other concepts that are lacking in Aristotle. From the point of view of completeness and clarity, and so also from a didactic point of view, their doctrine is therefore superior to that of Aristotle, which explains its presence in Book 4. Diels saw this upgrading of the living text by the addition of Stoic material as a sign of decadence and a corruption of the genuine Placita method (see M–R 1.99–100). But a comparison with the proximate tradition shows that the rich Stoic material in A Book 4 is meant to be representative.

3

Name Labels

The number of different name-labels is very high, namely 61. Most of these, as usual, are of philosophers, but there also three scientists: Aristarchus, Eudoxus, and Euthymenes; four doctors: Asclepiades, Erasistratus, Herophilus, and Hippocrates; and even two historians: Ephorus and Herodotus. This is a little

1360

introduction to book 4

deceptive, since three of these, Euthymenes and the two historians, are only found in the exceptional ch. 4.1 ‘On the rising of the Nile’. Unusual name-labels are also found in ch. 3.17, likewise dealing with a subject not treated by Aristotle. The number of collective name-labels is definitely higher than usual: Academics 4, Peripatetics 5, Pythagoreans 2, mathematikoi 1, and of course the ubiquitous Stoics, found no less than 17 times. Hellenistic name-labels are found esp. in chapters 1 to 10, and the extent to which individual chapters have been upgraded is clear from the presence of the name-labels Asclepiades in ch. 4.2.8, Xenarchus in ch. 4.3.10 (the latest philosopher in the entire work) and Posidonius in ch. 4.13.11, while Herophilus in ch. 4.22.3 and his colleague physician Asclepiades in ch. 4.22.2 anticipate the massive presence of doctors in Book 5, with its focus on physiology. There are seven standard cases of anonymous ‘some’ or ‘others’, with three specific anonymous groups at ch. 4.9.10. There is also a quite, but not exceptionally high number of multiple name-labels per doxa—just as in Books 1 and 2—, as follows: seven times 2 and 3 names, twice 6 and 5 names, and once even a series of 11 names (ch. 4.9.1 on that the senses are false).

4

Successions and Historical Presentation

With regard to historical information we notice that the absolute chronology is pretty standard, with a peak in the fifth cent. bce. Successions play a subordinate role, Thales occurring only twice, i.e. in first position in chs 4.1.1 and 4.2.1, while Pythagoras, updated more frequently than Thales, gets initial positions in five chapters, namely 4.4.1, 4.7.1, 4.7a.1, 4.9.1, and 4.20.1 (in all cases in combination with Plato and Aristotle). With regard to the relative contributions of dialectic and historiography the Book is intermediate between Book 2 (most dialectical) and Book 3 (most historical). On the other hand it is most similar to Book 1 in respect of what name-labels are mostly used, so it may be considered more philosophical. For sections 2–4 see further the statistics and analysis of Jeremiah (2018) at M–R 4.322–336 and 354ff.

5

Proximate Tradition

The proximate tradition is very rich, with as its most important representatives Diogenes Laertius, Lucretius, and Tertullian De anima. The parallels of the Laertian physics section are found at the beginning as well as in the later part of our Book 4, namely (a) in the block of chapters about

introduction to book 4

1361

the soul per se and (b) in that about the mechanics of perception by the individual senses, as follows: (a) soul per se: ch. 4.3.3 corporeality, substance ~ Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.156 ll. 1349–1350 + 1352–1354 (lines as in Dorandi); ch. 4.4.4 parts ~ V.P. 7.157 ll. 1358–1360 (also in the ethics section: V.P. 7.110 ll. 811–813); ch. 4.5.7 regent part in the heart ~ V.P. 7.159 ll. 1386–1388; ch. 4.7.3 destructibility, various views about temporary survival ~ V.P. 7.156 ll. 1351–1352 + 157 ll. 1355–1357. (b) mechanics of perception: ch. 4.15.3 vision ~ V.P. 7.157 ll. 1360–1366; ch. 4.19.4 hearing (not in ch. 4.16!) V.P. 7.158 ll. 1366–1370. The rich parallels in Lucretius, for which see Runia at M–R 4.411–412, are important, because they antedate A’s account by more than a century and so provide information about the tradition to which A is indebted. Tertullian’s source Soranus derives from the same or a similar fons uberior. The Lucretian parallels also strongly suggest that as to the presentation and elucidation of doctrine the poet is not a mere parrot of his master, or Epicurean fundamentalist. We do, however, have to take into account that according to a Scholion on the Epistle to Herodotus (at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.66) Epicurus himself ‘in some other work’ (ἐν ἄλλοις) successively treated the substance of the soul (cf. ch. 4.3), its division into parts and the presence of the regent part in the chest (cf. ch. 4.4.7), sleep (cf. ch. 5.14), and the provenance of semen (cf. ch. 5.3). This Epicurean sequence and its contents are remarkably parallel to the section of the Stoic account cited above, so one wonders who came first. However this may be, a template, deriving from Epicurus himself and comparable to what is in DRN, will have been available to Lucretius, whose more detailed and up-todate exposition could be justified by reference to the authoritative archegete. For the situation in Book 3 see the Introduction to Book 3, section 5. Parallels between individual chapters of A (in succession 4.3, 4.5, 5.24, 5.25, 4.7, 4.4) and Tertullian’s De anima (c. 15, c. 43, c. 54, c. 14), arranged as always in double columns, are discussed by Diels DG 203–207. Since Diels it has been accepted that Tertullian is indebted to the On the Soul of the second cent. Methodist doctor Soranus, whom he cites several times. Soranus, in his turn, is indebted to the earlier doxographical tradition. The first to provide a list in two columns of the overall structural parallels between Tertullian and A Books 4 and 5, one that was also more complete than the evidence furnished by Diels, was Karpp (1934) 42–43. Karpp’s list was amplified by Waszink (1947) 31–32, who not only added further details but also a column of references to Diels’ reconstruction of the so-called Vetusta placita, apparently because in A parallels for a number of details in Tertullian are lacking. He was followed by Festugière (1953) 5–6, who omitted the Vetusta placita column. Schrijvers (1976) 233–234 = (1999) 122–123 was the first to add an overview of the important

1362

introduction to book 4

structural parallels in Lucretius Books 3 and 4 to the Aëtian-cum-Tertullian list, but unnecessarily came up with a third column containing parallels in Junius Martianus Rota’s unreliable Latin translation of 1541–1542 of ps.Galen’s Historia philosopha as reprinted in Kühn 1830 (for details see M–R 1.23–24). In the relevant chapters G of course merely excerpts P. Doxographical-dialectical parallels between Lucretius and A Book 4 (and some others) were discussed by Mansfeld (1990a) 3143–3154. The parallels between all of these accounts, as well as the Aristotelian background (on which see below) are discussed in some detail in M–R 2.139–153. Substantial parallels for these proximate sources of A’s material are also to be found elsewhere. Among these sources the most prominent are Cicero Lucullus and Tusculans, Philo De somniis, Arius Didymus, Galen De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, Alexander(?) De anima mantissa, Tertullian De anima, Iamblichus De anima, Porphyry De anima, Macrobius in Somnium Scipionis, Nemesius, Psellus De omnifaria doctrina, and the Commentaria in Dionysium Thracem.

6

Other Source Material

We noted already above that the post-Aristotelian topic of the rising of the Nile has been placed in ch. 4.1 at the beginning, as close as possible to the presentation of the sea in Book 3. In contrast, the organization of the account of the soul per se is mostly based on Aristotle’s On the Soul, and that of sense-perception on the On the Soul and its appendix, the Parva naturalia. This exposition has been upgraded by the insertion of more advanced epistemological material that is exclusively Stoic, for which see further below. The two final chapters, on respiration and the relation between bodily affections and the soul, reflect the separate account of respiration in the Parva naturalia and their focus on what is common to soul and body (Arist. Sens. 1), thus anticipating the account of themes of a similar nature and with the same antecedents in the next Book. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133 reproduces the contents of the αἰτιολογικόν, the third subpart of the second main division of the Stoic diaeresis of the physikos logos, for which see M–R 2.1.105–106 and above, General Introduction section 2.8. This subpart is again divided into two parts. Issues contained in the former of these parts are studied by physicians as well as philosophers, among which that of the location of the regent part of the soul, cf. ch. 4.5, those concerned with ‘what happens in the soul’, relevant for the whole of chs. 4.8–22, and those ‘concerning seeds’. So we have both psychology and spermatology in the same subpart of the division, which further illustrates the close relationship between Books 4 and 5. Issues contained in the second of these parts are studied by

introduction to book 4

1363

mathematikoi as well as philosophers, such as ‘how we see’ cf. ch. 4.13, ‘what is the cause of the presentation in the mirror’ cf. ch. 4.14, followed surprisingly by meteorological subjects, for which see Introduction to Book 3 section 7. The treatment of sense-perception, including the epistemological issue of its trustworthiness, in the context of psychology as part of physics agrees with Aristotle’s procedure in the On the Soul and Parva naturalia. (Our discussion in M–R 2.1.138–139 is too cautious.) We further know that Book 2 of Theophrastus’ De anima also counted as Book 5 of his Physics (Themistius in de An. 108.11 = Theophrastus fr. 307A FHS&G). And his De sensibus belongs with physics too, even if it were part of the Physikai Doxai, for the latter, as the title shows, certainly belongs with physics. In Aristotle the part of epistemological theory that deals with concept formation in some detail is found dispersed over various places, not only in the On the Soul. The interpretation of these passages is not easy; the doctrine is not presented in a systematic way, and the various accounts are not fully, or at least not easily, compatible with each other. Aristotle moreover fails to explain the origin of concepts in and from other concepts. In the On the Parts of Animals 1.1 641a33–b10 the study of intellect insofar as it is related to the objects of thought, which perhaps amounts to the study of the objects of thought themselves, is excluded from physics (cf. Met. Ζ.1 1025b27–30). This would appear to be in conflict with what happens in the On the Soul (on this controversial passage see Kullmann 2007, 309–311, with references to the discussion). This may help to explain the preference for the Stoic account in the Placita. Epistemology was treated systematically by Chrysippus in at least two treatises belonging to the physical part of philosophy, namely his Physics and his On the Soul. Diogenes Laertius cites the second Book of the On the Soul for the explanation of what is meant by an imprint, typôsis, in the soul (V.P. 7.50, SVF 2.55). The second Book of the Physics is cited as the locus classicus for the cataleptic impression (kataleptikê phantasia as the criterion V.P. 7.54, SVF 2.105)—though disagreeing with himself he also mentioned sense perception and preconception (prolepsis) as criteria in Book 1 of his On the Logos (V.P. 7.54, SVF 2.105). This title is cited in the ethical section of his catalogue, along with other titles that indicate epistemological topics (V.P. 7.201, SVF 2.17 p. 9.24–30). The second Book of his Physics is also cited for the view that ‘voice’ is corporeal (V.P. 7.55, SVF 2.140). Diogenes of Babylon cited Zeno’s argument about the location of mind and speech in the heart at the beginning of his On the Regent Part of the Soul (Galen PHP 2.5.7, SVF 1.148, SVF 3 Diog. 23; cf. Galen PHP 2.5.12, SVF 3 Diog. 29 on voice). These descriptions of what goes on in the soul and its regent part fill out the brief account of the psychological subpart of physics at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7. 133 cited above (‘the inquiry, according to which

1364

introduction to book 4

they inquire about the hegemonikon and the things that happen in the soul’). It follows that the position of the epistemological chapters and paragraphs concerned with the Stoics in A’s psychological Book 4 agrees rather well with Chrysippus’ and Diogenes of Babylon’s practice in the physical part of philosophy. To be sure, Zeno, Chrysippus, Archedemus and Eudromus placed ‘logic’ first in the order of the three parts of philosophy, but we may feel sure that this ‘logic’ (or ‘dialectic’) did not include epistemology. Note on the other hand that Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.42–52 includes treatment of phantasiai (even qua imprint in the soul, 7.46) and truth in the dialectical part of philosophy, i.e. not in physics but in logic. Also see Diocles at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.49, who tells us that the Stoics are agreed to begin with the theory of impression and sense perception. This is quite different from the position of these themes in Chrysippus and in A, but has to be seen as a later, though of course not illogical development. Because the Placita are a physical treatise (cf. physikos logos, ch. 1.oa.1[1]) and not a systematic logos of philosophy that like ps.Galen’s Historia philosopha begins with logic or dialectic, the epistemological ingredients could not be accommodated at its beginning—say, after the introductory section on the parts of philosophy in the proœmium of the treatise, just as they are in Diogenes Laertius after V.P. 7.39–41. They were not so accommodated, at any rate.

7

Other Parallels and Sources

For the ultimate sources of much of the material contained in the Book we must go back to the Peripatos, and think of the otherwise lost sources used by Aristotle, Theophrastus and their predecessors. Ch. 4.1 on the Nile is dependent on the accounts of Herodotus and ps.Aristotle’s De inundacione Nili, a characteristic it shares with the widespread tradition on this subject. It is also evident that ultimately the sources that A drew on for his psychology had access to Presocratic material (in some cases their actual works). Plato’s Timaeus (and Philebus) furnish material for the twelve doxai attributed to him in the book, though these have as a rule been modernized. Chapters on the individual senses are to some extent related to Theophrastus De sensibus, as will be discussed at the relevant chapters. For many of the chapters it emerges that the general approach, the title and some of the lemmata go back to Aristotle’s On the Soul and Parva naturalia. The wider doxographical tradition, as for instance exemplified by Cicero Tusc. 1.19–21 and elsewhere in the same book, treats the themes of the soul’s substance, its mortality versus its immortality, and the location of its regent

introduction to book 4

1365

part simultaneously. At a first glance the Placita separates these themes rather rigorously, as is clear from the chapter headings and the contents of the chapters themselves. But some traces of a less rigorous separation remain. In ch. 4.2, on the substance of soul qua incorporeal, Alcmaeon’s soul is said at 4.2.2 to be ‘immortal’ (ἀθάνατον), thus anticipating the theme of ch. 4.7. Also note that the various references to movement at ch. 4.2.1–5 anticipate the theme of ch. 4.6. The impression that A depends on an anterior treatment that was a bit less ‘pedantically’ scholastic is unavoidable. The emphasis may be different from Aristotle’s too; e.g. the focus on the hegemonikon is Hellenistic and not earlier. Later Hellenistic sources are also utilized, as proven by chapters 11–12 and 21, which exceptionally derive from Stoic sources alone, and by the focus on Stoic doctrine in other chapters.

Liber 4 Titulus et index Τ: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 Raeder, cf. 2.95, 5.16 (titulus)—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 897D–E, Diels p. 269—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā p. 188 Daiber (titulus), pinax in ms. Damascenus fol. 7v (ineditus)—PE: Eusebius PE 15.32.10, p. 407.5–8 Mras—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN praef., p. 18.13–14 + 4.56, p. 59.9–12 Delatte

Titulus ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΕΣΚΟΝΤΩΝ ΤΟ Δʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε· Index αʹ. Περὶ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως βʹ. Περὶ ψυχῆς γʹ. Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς δʹ. Περὶ μερῶν ψυχῆς εʹ. Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν ϛʹ. Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς ζʹ. Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς ζʹ+. Περὶ νοῦ ηʹ. Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν θʹ. Εἰ ἀληθεῖς αἱ αἰσθήσεις καὶ φαντασίαι ιʹ. Πόσαι εἰσὶν αἰσθήσεις ιαʹ. Πῶς γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ ἔννοια καὶ ὁ κατὰ ⟨ἐν⟩διάθεσιν λόγος ιβʹ. Τίνι διαφέρει φαντασία φανταστὸν φανταστικὸν φάντασμα ιγʹ. Περὶ ὁράσεως, πῶς ὁρῶμεν ιδʹ. Περὶ κατοπτρικῶν ἐμφάσεων ιεʹ. Εἰ ὁρατὸν τὸ σκότος ιϛʹ. Περὶ ἀκοῆς ιζʹ. Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως ιηʹ. Περὶ γεύσεως titulus : scripsimus, cf. T 4.31 et M–R 1.326 : Πλουτάρχου Τῶν ἀρεσκόντων φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν τὸ δʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(I) : βιβλίον τέταρτον ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(IΙ) : Περί τῶν ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις βιβλίον τέταρτον PB(III:E) : Die vierte Abhandlung aus dem Buch des Plutarchos über die naturwissenschaftlichen Ansichten, welche die Philosophen vertraten Q index : totum indicem om. PB(III:α) : exstat in PQ, sed hactenus ineditus (habemus huius versionem Daiberi; vid. append. infra t. 4) ‖ [3] ἀναβάσεως PB : Zunahme Q [4] Περὶ ψυχῆς PB : Was ist die Definition der Seele? Q [7] καὶ … ἐστίν PB : unter den Seelenteilen Q [10] addidimus ex S; vid. c. 4.7a et comm. ad loc. [14] ἡ αἴσθησις PB : die Sinnesempfindungen Q ‖ ⟨ἐν⟩διάθεσιν tit. c. 4.11, vid. ad loc. : διάθεσιν PB, die Logik des Denkens Q [15] φανταστικόν, φάντασμα PB : om. Q [16] Περὶ … ὁρῶμεν PΒ : Wie sieht der Gesichtssinn? Q [23] εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ PΒ : Ist der Laut ein Körper? Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_098

5

10

15

20

liber 4 titulus et index

ιθʹ. κʹ. καʹ. κβʹ. κγʹ.

Περὶ φωνῆς Εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ καὶ πῶς ἠχὼ γίνεται Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς Περὶ παθῶν σωματικῶν καὶ εἰ συναλγεῖ τούτοις ἡ ψυχή

1367

25

[26] Περὶ … ψυχή tit. c. 4.23 : συναλγεῖ αὐτοῖς PB : sie weiss Q

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 15.32.10 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Symeon Seth CRN 4 Praef. p. 18.13–14 + 4.56 Delatte vid. lib. 1 titulus et index

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses As discussed in the equivalent chapter of Book 1, for the title of the entire work and its individual books we must rely on the evidence of T, the only witness to cite the title of the original work and give the name of its author. The titles in P and those witnesses dependent on its tradition are expanded versions of the original title. The title at the head of this Book in PB is the shortest of the five, omitting the preposition Περὶ at its beginning and making no reference to the epitome character of the work. The title in Q’s translation is also short. On these titles see further Book 1 titulus et index Commentary C. For the index of chapters PB is the chief witness, though not all mss. contain it. One of the mss. of Q, Ẓāhirīya (Damascenus) 4871 contains a translation of the list and thus provides valuable additional evidence on the manuscript tradition. Daiber did not include it in his edition, but he has kindly provided the editors with a translation (see Appendix in Vol. 4). On this translation and its source see further the Book 1 titulus et index Commentary A. Eusebius only cites two chapters from this book, chs. 4.4–5, at PE 15.60–61. For the latter he gives a shortened heading in both the index to Book 15 and in the excerpt itself, but a longer (but not complete) version in his summary at PE 15.32.10. Symeon Seth also mentions some headings from this book in his

1368

liber 4 titulus et index

summary of the contents of his Book 4 which takes the place of an index. For both texts, see above, Book 1 titulus et index testes primi. For the question whether A’s text contained the index see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D. On the practice of prefacing texts with tables of content and chapter headings see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(e). C Book Title See above, section A. On how this title relates to the title of the original work see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary C. D Analysis of the Index (1) For a discussion giving the reasons why we are convinced that A’s original compendium contained these indices at the beginning of each book, see M– R 2.196–204 and Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(6) and D(e). (2) For the methodology of the reconstruction of the index see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(3). We argue that priority must be given to the chapter headings in the text of the chapters themselves, since A will have based his index on these when he compiled the work. It is thus to be assumed that the list of chapter headings in the index accurately reflects the chapter headings in the text of the Book. In case of this book there is a strong correlation between the headings in the index and those in the text of the chapters themselves, with only the heading of 4.7a, a chapter which P omitted, to be added and a very slight discrepancy between the heading in the pinax as preserved in the mss. (αὐτοῖς) and the intra-textual heading (τούτοις). (3) In this book Q also adheres rather closely to the headings as transmitted in the mss. tradition, but as can be seen in the app. crit. above there are a number of variants, mostly omissions and simplifications, but in the case of ch. 4.2 an expansion, altering the simple umbrella heading with Περί to a heading asking what the soul’s definition is. This is no doubt an innovation of the translator Qusṭā. For the headings in Eusebius, see section A above. D(e) Other Evidence For further discussion on the use of pinakes (tables of contents) in ancient works see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(e). In section E Further related texts below, we present a selection of texts ranging from Chrysippus to the very end of antiquity in which subjects relating to psychology are set in terms more or less reminiscent of the list of headings in A’s Book 4. On the groupings of themes that correspond to the contents of the Book see also above, Introduction to Book 4. Selected passages will be repeated at the relevant chapters. On these texts in general see also Mansfeld (1990a). A

liber 4 titulus et index

1369

separate study was devoted to the important evidence of the Chrysippus text; see Mansfeld (1989a). The passages in Philo also go back to doxographical traditions anterior to A; see further Book 2, Introduction, and ch. 2.11 Commentary B(1). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

Chrysippus de An. 1 verbatim at Gal. PHP 3.1.9–16 λέγω δὴ ὅτι ὁ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.885) κατὰ τὸν πρῶτον αὐτοῦ Περὶ ψυχῆς λόγον τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μνημονεύειν ἀρχόμενος, ἔνθα δὴ δεικνύναι πειρᾶται τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μόνῃ περιέχεσθαι οὑτωσὶ λέγει· ‘ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμά ἐστι σύμφυτον ἡμῖν συνεχὲς παντὶ τῷ σώματι διῆκον ἔστ᾽ ἂν ἡ τῆς ζωῆς εὔπνοια παρῇ ἐν τῷ σώματι (cf. ch. 4.3.3). ταύτης οὖν τῶν μερῶν ἑκάστῳ διατεταγμένων μορίῳ τὸ διῆκον αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν φωνὴν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ εἰς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὄψιν, τὸ δὲ εἰς ὦτα ἀκοήν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰς ῥῖνας ὄσφρησιν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰς γλῶτταν γεῦσιν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰς ὅλην τὴν σάρκα ἁφὴν καὶ τὸ εἰς ὄρχεις ἕτερόν τιν᾽ ἔχον τοιοῦτον λόγον, σπερματικόν, εἰς ὃ δὲ συμβαίνει πάντα ταῦτα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ εἶναι, μέρος ὂν αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν (cf. ch. 4.4.4). οὕτω δὲ ἐχόντων αὐτῶν τὰ μὲν λοιπὰ συμφωνεῖται, περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέρους τῆς ψυχῆς διαφωνοῦσιν ἄλλοι ἐν ἄλλοις λέγοντες αὐτὸ εἶναι τόποις (cf. ch. 4.5). οἱ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὸν θώρακά φασιν εἶναι αὐτό, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν κεφαλήν. κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα διαφωνοῦσι, ποῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ τοῦ θώρακός ἐστιν, οὐ συμφωνοῦντες αὑτοῖς. Πλάτων δὲ καὶ τριμερῆ τὴν ψυχὴν φήσας εἶναι τὸ μὲν λογιστικὸν ἔλεγεν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ εἶναι, τὸ δὲ θυμοειδὲς περὶ τὸν θώρακα, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικὸν περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλόν. οὕτω φαίνεται διαφεύγειν ὁ τόπος ἡμᾶς οὔτ᾽ αἰσθήσεως ἐκφανοῦς γενομένης, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συντετύχηκεν, οὔτε {τῶ} τῶν τεκμηρίων δι᾽ ὧν ἄν τις συλλογίσαιτο τοῦτο· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ἀντιλογία ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον προῆλθεν καὶ ἐν ἰατροῖς καὶ ἐν φιλοσόφοις.’ αὕτη πρώτη ῥῆσις γέγραπται ὑπὸ Χρυσίππου περὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ κατὰ τὸ πρότερον Περὶ ψυχῆς. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἥμισυ μέρος αὐτῷ τῆς βίβλου τὸ πρότερον ὑπὲρ οὐσίας ψυχῆς ἔχει τὴν σκέψιν. Cicero Luc. 124 tenemusne quid sit animus (cf. chs. 4.2–3)? ubi sit (cf. chs. 4.4–5)? denique sitne an ut Dicaearcho (fr. 8(f) Wehrli, 17 Mirhady) visum est ne sit quidem ullus? … si simplex (cf. ch. 4.4), utrum sit ignis an anima an sanguis (cf. ch. 4.3) an ut Xenocrates (fr. 67 Heinze, F 121 Isnardi Parente2) numerus nullo corpore, quod intellegi quale sit vix potest (cf. ch. 4.2)? Tusc. 1.18 quid sit porro ipse animus (cf. chs. 4.2–3) aut ubi (cf. chs. 4.4–5) aut unde (cf. ch. 4.5a), magna dissensio est. Philo Somn. 1.30–32 ἆρ᾽ οὖν καὶ τὸ τέταρτον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς, ὁ ἡγεμὼν νοῦς, καταληπτός ἐστιν; οὐ δήπου. τί γὰρ αὐτὸν οἰόμεθα κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι; πνεῦμα ἢ αἷμα ἢ σῶμα συνόλως (cf. ch. 4.2)–ἀλλ᾽ οὐ σῶμα, ἀσώματον δὲ λεκτέον—ἢ πέρας ἢ εἶδος ἢ ἀριθμὸν ἢ ἐνδελέχειαν ἢ ἁρμονίαν ἢ τί τῶν ὄντων (cf. ch. 4.3); (31) γεννώμενον δ᾽ εὐθὺς ἢ ἔξωθεν εἰσκρίνεται ἢ ὑπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἀέρος ἡ ἔνθερμος ἐν ἡμῖν φύσις οἷα σίδηρος ἐν χαλκέως πεπυρωμένος ὕδατι ψυχρῷ πρὸς τὸ κραταιότατον στομοῦται (cf. ch. 4.5a); διότι καὶ παρὰ τὴν ψῦξιν ὠνομάσθαι ψυχὴ δοκεῖ. τί δέ; τελευτώντων σβέννυται καὶ συμφθείρεται τοῖς σώμασιν ἢ πλεῖστον ἐπιβιοῖ χρόνον ἢ κατὰ τὸ παντελὲς ἄφθαρτόν ἐστι (cf. ch. 4.7); (32) ποῦ δ᾽ ἐμπεφώλευκεν ὁ νοῦς αὐτῷ; ἆρα οἶκον κεκλήρωται; οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἐν ἡμῖν

1370

liber 4 titulus et index

ἀνιέρωσαν αὐτῷ κεφαλήν, περὶ ἣν καὶ αἱ αἰσθήσεις λοχῶσιν, εἰκὸς εἶναι νομίσαντες ἐγγὺς οἷα μεγάλου βασιλέως ἐφεδρεύειν τοὺς δορυφόρους· οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὸ καρδίας αὐτὸν ἀγαλματοφορεῖσθαι διανοηθέντες γνωσιμαχοῦσιν (cf. ch. 4.5). Cher. 114 ποῦ γάρ μου τὸ σῶμα πρὸ γενέσεως ἦν; ποῖ δὲ καὶ χωρήσει μεταστάντος ⟨μου⟩; ποῦ δὲ καὶ τοῦ δοκοῦντος ὑφεστάναι τῶν ἡλικιῶν αἱ διαφοραί; ποῦ τὸ βρέφος, ποῦ ὁ παῖς, ποῦ ⟨ὁ⟩ ἀντίπαις, ποῦ ὁ ἄρτι ἡβῶν, ποῦ τὸ μειράκιον, ὁ πρωτογένειος, ὁ νεανίας, ὁ τέλειος ἀνήρ (ch. ch. 5.23); πόθεν δὲ ἦλθεν ἡ ψυχή (cf. ch. 4.7a), ποῖ δὲ χωρήσει, πόσον δὲ χρόνον ἡμῖν ὁμοδίαιτος ἔσται (cf. ch. 4.7); τίς δέ ἐστι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν (cf. chs. 4.2–3); πότε δὲ καὶ ἐκτησάμεθα αὐτήν; πρὸ γενέσεως; ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑπήρχομεν· μετὰ τὸν θάνατον; ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐσόμεθα οἱ μετὰ σωμάτων σύγκριτοι ποιοί, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς παλιγγενεσίαν ὁρμήσομεν οἱ μετὰ ἀσωμάτων σύγκριτοι ποιοί. Tertullian de An. 3.2 proinde enim et animae ratio (sc. concussa est) per philosophatas doctrinas hominum miscentes aquas vino (Is. 1:22): alii immortalem negant animam, alii plus quam immortalem adfirmant (cf. ch. 4.7), alii de substantia, alii de forma (cf. chs. 4.2–3), alii de unaquaque dispositione disceptant; hi statum eius aliunde ⟨de⟩ducunt (cf. ch. 4.5a), hi exitum aliorsum abducunt (cf. ch. 4.7). de An. 5.1– 6.1 fortassean extruentur magis ad auferendam animae corpulentiam, si non alios e contrario inspexerint, et quidem plures, corpus animae vindicantes (cf. chs. 4.2–3). (5.2) nec illos dico solos qui eam de manifestis corporalibus effingunt, ut Hipparchus et Heraclitus ex igni, ut Hippon et Thales ex aqua, ut Empedocles et Critias ex sanguine, ut Epicurus ex atomis (si et atomi corpulentias de coitu suo cogunt), ut Critolaus et Peripatetici eius ex quinta nescio qua substantia (si et illa corpus, quia corpora includit), sed etiam Stoicos allego, qui spiritum praedicantes animam paene nobis cum, qua proxima inter se flatus et spiritus, tamen corpus animam facile persuadebunt (cf. ch. 4.3). (5.3) denique Zeno consitum spiritum definiens animam hoc modo instruit. quo, inquit, digresso animal emoritur, corpus est; consito autem spiritu digresso animal emoritur, ergo consitus spiritus corpus est; ergo corpus est anima (cf. ch. 4.7). (5.4) vult et Cleanthes non solum corporis lineamentis, sed et animae notis similitudinem parentibus in filiis respondere, de speculo scilicet morum et ingeniorum et adfectuum, corporis autem similitudinem et dissimilitudinem capere et animam, ⟨animam⟩ itaque corpus similitudini vel dissimilitudini obnoxium (cf. ch. 5.11). (5.5) item corporalium et incorporalium passiones inter se non communicare; porro et animam compati corpori, cui laeso ictibus vulneribus ulceribus condolescit, et corpus animae, cui afflictae cura angore amore coaegrescit per detrimentum socii vigoris, cuius pudorem et pavorem rubore atque pallore testetur (cf. ch. 4.2– 3). igitur anima corpus ex corporalium passionum communione. (5.6) sed et Chrysippus manum ei porrigit constituens corporalia ab incorporalibus derelinqui omnino non posse, quia nec contingantur ab eis (unde et Lucretius (DRN 1.304): ‘tangere enim et tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res’), derelicto autem corpore ab anima affici morte. igitur corpus anima, quae nisi corporalis corpus non derelinquet. (6.1) Haec Platonici subtilitate potius quam veritate conturbant. Hermias Irr. 2–3 οἱ μὲν γάρ φασιν αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ, οἱ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα, οἱ δὲ τὸν νοῦν, οἱ δὲ τὴν κίνησιν, οἱ δὲ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, οἱ δὲ δύναμιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄστρων ῥέουσαν,

liber 4 titulus et index οἱ δὲ ἀριθμὸν κινητικόν, οἱ δὲ ὕδωρ γονοποιόν, οἱ δὲ στοιχεῖον ⟨ἢ⟩ ἀπὸ στοιχείων, οἱ δὲ ἁρμονίαν, οἱ δὲ τὸ αἷμα, οἱ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα, οἱ δὲ τὴν μονάδα, καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ τὰ ἐναντία (cf. chs. 4.2–3). πόσοι λόγοι περὶ τούτων, ἐπιχειρήσεις πόσαι, πόσαι δίκαι σοφιστῶν ἐριζόντων μᾶλλον ἢ τἀληθὲς εὑρισκόντων; ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἔστω· στασιάζουσι μὲν περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς … τὴν δὲ φύσιν αὐτῆς, οἱ μὲν ἀθάνατόν φασιν, οἱ δὲ θνητήν, οἱ δὲ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐπιδιαμένουσαν, οἱ δὲ ἀποθηριοῦσιν αὐτήν, οἱ δὲ εἰς ἀτόμους διαλύουσιν (cf. ch. 4.7).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

Pollux Onom. 2.226–227 σύγκειται μὲν δὴ ὁ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος, καὶ ἔστιν ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμα ἢ πῦρ ἢ αἷμα ἢ ὅ τι ἂν δοκῇ τοῖς σοφοῖς (cf. ch. 4.3), μέρη δ᾽ αὐτῆς νοῦς ἐπιθυμία θυμός (cf. ch. 4.4). καὶ ὁ μὲν νοῦς καὶ λογισμὸς καὶ ἡγεμονικόν, εἴτε περὶ ἐγκεφάλῳ κατὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ Πλάτωνα ἱδρυμένος, εἴτε ἐν παρεγκεφαλίδι ἢ μήνιγξιν, ὡς πολλοῖς τῶν ἰατρῶν δοκεῖ, εἴτε κατὰ τὸ μεσόφρυον, ὡς ἔλεγε Στράτων, εἴτε περὶ τὸ αἷμα, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, εἴτε περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ὡς ἡ Στοά. θυμοῦ δὲ τόπος ἄντικρυς ἡ καρδία, καθάπερ ὁ περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ τόπος ἐπιθυμίας (cf. ch. 4.5). Seneca Ep. 88.34 innumerabiles quaestiones sunt de animo tantum: unde sit (cf. ch. 4.5a), qualis sit (cf. chs. 4.2–3), quando esse incipiat, quamdiu sit, aliunde alio transeat et domicilia mutet in alias animalium formas aliasque coniectus, an non amplius quam semel serviat et emissus vagetur in toto (cf. ch. 4.7); utrum corpus sit an non sit (cf. chs. 4.2–3); quid sit facturus cum per nos aliquid facere desierit, quomodo libertate sua usurus cum ex hac effugerit cavea; an obliviscatur priorum et illinc nosse se incipiat unde corpori abductus in sublime secessit (cf. ch. 4.7). ps.Maximus Confessor de An. prol. 1–5 πρῶτον μὲν ἁπάντων ὑποθήσομαι τίνι κριτηρίῳ πέφυκεν ἡ ψυχὴ καταλαμβάνεσθαι, εἶτα δι᾽ ὧν δείκνυται ὑπάρχουσα· εἶθ᾽ ἑξῆς, εἰ οὐσία τυγχάνει οὖσα ἢ συμβεβηκός (cf. chs. 4.2–3), εἶτα τούτοις ἀκολούθως εἰ ἁπλῆ ἢ σύνθετος (cf. ch. 4.4)., εἶτ᾽ αὖθις εἰ θνητὴ ἢ ἀθάνατος (cf. ch. 4.7), τελευταῖον δὲ εἰ λογικὴ ἢ ἄλογος.

1371

Liber 4 ⟨Proœmium⟩ PB : ps.Plutarchus Plac. 897E; DG p. 384a16–18 Diels

§1

Περιωδευμένων δὲ τῶν τοῦ κόσμου μερῶν διαβήσομαι πρὸς τὰ κατὰ μέρος. (P) Loci Aetiani: §1 A 1.4.2 τὰ μὲν οὖν κυριώτατα μέρη τοῦ κόσμου τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἐγεννήθη.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The only witnesses are PB, so we have to follow the text as transmitted there. C Chapter Heading No chapter heading is needed for a proem. We have added the word ⟨Proœmium⟩ to the text and translation for the sake of clarity. D Analysis a Context The proem looks back on Books 2 and 3 and forward to the contents of Books 4 and 5 and thus is placed in the omphalos position as regards these preceding and following Books. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is only one lemma. c Rationale–Structure of Proœmium See section D(a) above and Introduction to Book 4, section 2. On this passage as an authorial comment see also M–R 2.1.50–51. e Other Evidence See below section E(b)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_099

liber 4 ⟨proœmium⟩

E b

Further Related Texts Sources and Other Parallel Texts

Ocellus 3.1 πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἀεὶ ὄντος τοῦ κόσμου ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὰ μέρη αὐτοῦ συνυπάρχειν (λέγω δὲ μέρη οὐρανόν, γῆν, τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων ὃ δὴ μετάρσιον καὶ ἀέριον ὀνομάζεται), οὐ γὰρ ἄνευ τούτων ἀλλὰ σὺν τούτοις καὶ ἐκ τούτων ὁ κόσμος. Ptolemy Synt. 1.2.170.2–6 συνάψομεν δ᾽ ἀκολούθως καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς τοῦ γαλακτίου κύκλου διαθέσεως, ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα, καὶ ὡς ἕκαστα τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ τετηρήκαμεν, πειρώμενοι τὰς κατὰ μέρος φαντασίας διατυπώσασθαι. Marcianus geogr. Periplus maris exteri 1.11.14 Müller ἡ τοίνυν θέσις καὶ περιγραφὴ τῶν δεξιῶν τῆς Λιβύης μερῶν τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον (χρὴ γὰρ πρὸ τῶν κατὰ μὲρος τὰς καθόλου προσηγορίας καὶ τὴν θέσιν δηλῶσαι τῶν τόπων).

1373

Liber 4 Caput 1 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 897F–898B; pp. 384a19–386a8 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 89; pp. 634.18–635.3 Diels; pp. 286–296 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 188–191 Daiber—PPs Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 176, p. 88 Westerink (titulus solus)

Titulus αʹ. Περὶ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως (P) §1 Θαλῆς τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμους οἴεται πνέοντας τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἀντιπροσώπους ἐπαίρειν τοῦ Νείλου τὸν ὄγκον διὰ τὸ τὰς ἐκροὰς αὐτοῦ τῇ παροιδήσει τοῦ ἀντιπαρήκοντος πελάγους ἀνακόπτεσθαι. (P1) §2 Εὐθυμένης ὁ Μασσαλιώτης ἐκ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ καὶ τῆς ἔξω θαλάσσης γλυκείας κατ᾽ αὐτὸν οὔσης νομίζει πληροῦσθαι τὸν ποταμόν. (P2) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας ἐκ τῆς χιόνος τῆς ἐν τῇ Αἰθιοπίᾳ, τηκομένης μὲν ἐν τῷ θέρει, ψυχομένης δὲ τῷ χειμῶνι. (P3) §4 Δημόκριτος τῆς χιόνος τῆς ἐν τοῖς πρὸς ἄρκτον μέρεσιν ὑπὸ θερινὰς τροπὰς ἀναλυομένης τε καὶ διαχεομένης νέφη μὲν ἐκ τῶν ἀτμῶν πιλοῦσθαι· τούτων δ᾽ ἀνελαυνομένων πρὸς μεσημβρίαν καὶ τὴν †Αἴγυπτον† ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀνέμων, ἀποτελεῖσθαι ῥαγδαίους ὄμβρους, ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἀναπίμπλασθαι τάς τε λίμνας καὶ τὸν Νεῖλον ποταμόν. (P4) §1 Thales 11A16 DK; §2 Euthymenes FGrH647 F2; §3 Anaxagoras 59A91 DK; §4 Democritus 68A99 DK caput non hab. S titulus Περὶ … ἀναβάσεως PB : Περὶ ἀναβάσεως τοῦ Νείλου PG : Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως PPs §1 [2] ἐτησίας PB(I,III) : ἐτησίους PB(II)G : winterlichen [sic!] Winde Q ‖ οἴεται PBQ : αἰτιᾶται PG ‖ τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ PBG : in Ägypten PQ ‖ [2–3] ἀντιπροσώπους PB : von vorne Q : om. PG ‖ [3–4] post ἐπαίρειν hab. lac. PG ‖ [3] ante τῇ add. καὶ PG ‖ [4] ἀνακόπτεσθαι PB : ἀντικόπτεσθαι PG : welches ihn durchquert Q ‖ post ἀντικόπτεσθαι add. καὶ πληροῦσθαι τὸν Νεῖλον PG ex §2[5] §2 [5] ἔξω] ἔξωθεν PG ‖ [6] γλυκείας … οὔσης PB : om. PG ‖ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν PB : om. Q ‖ αὐτὸν] αὐτὴν PB(III) ‖ νομίζει PB : οἴεται post ποταμὸν PG ‖ πληροῦσθαι PB : πλημμυρεῖν PG §3 [7] Ἀναξαγόρας PB(I,III)GQ : Ἀναξιμενης PB(II) ‖ τῇ] om. PB(I) ‖ ἐν2 PBQ : om. PG prob. Diels ‖ [7–8] τηκομένης … χειμῶνι PBQ : gefrieren … Sommer inv. Q ‖ [8] post δὲ hab. ἐν PB(II) §4 [9] τῆς1] om. PG ‖ ἐν PB : om. PG Jas, rest. Diels ‖ [10] τε … διαχεομένης PB : om. PG ‖ [10–11] νέφη … πιλοῦσθαι PBG : om. Q ‖ [10] μὲν PB : om. PG ‖ [10–11] πιλοῦσθαι PB : πληροῦσθαι PG ‖ [11–13] τούτων … ἀναπίμπλασθαι P(BI,III) : om. PB(II)‖ [11] ἀνελαυνομένων PB(I,II) prob. Laks–Most : ἀπελαυνομένων PB(III) : συνελαυνόμενα PG ‖ ante μεσημβρίαν add. τὴν PG ‖ pro PBGQ †Αἴγυπτον† legendum est Ἀιθιοπίαν : ‘error est, scribendum erat Ἀιθιοπίαν’ Diels conl. Anon. Flor. §4, Diod. 1.39, ‘expectes Ἀιθιοπίαν’ Mau Lachenaud ‖ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀνέμων] al. Q aber aus den winterlichen [sic!] Winden ‖ [13] ἀναπίμπλασθαι PB : ἐγείρεσθαι PG ‖ τάς … καὶ PB : om. PG ‖ τάς τε λίμνας PB : die Sümpfe, die Teiche Q (‘Doppelübersetzung’) ‖ ποταμόν PB(I,III) : τὸν ποταμόν PB(II) : om. PGQ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_100

5

10

liber 4 caput 1

§5

§6

§7

Ἡρόδοτος ὁ συγγραφεὺς ἴσον μὲν ἐκ τῶν πηγῶν φέρεσθαι χειμῶνος καὶ θέρους, φαίνεσθαι δ᾽ ἐλάττονα τοῦ χειμῶνος διὰ τὸ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ πλησίον ἰόντα τὸν ἥλιον τῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐξατμίζειν τὰ νάματα. (P5) Ἔφορος ὁ ἱστοριογράφος κατὰ θέρος φησὶν ἀναχαλᾶσθαι τὴν ὅλην Αἴγυπτον καὶ οἱονεὶ ἐξιδροῦν τὸ πολὺ νᾶμα· συνδίδωσι δ᾽ αὐτῇ καὶ ἡ Ἀραβία καὶ ἡ Λιβύη παρὰ τὸ ἀραιὸν καὶ ὑπόψαμμον. (P6) Εὔδοξος τοὺς ἱερεῖς φησι λέγειν τὰ ὄμβρια τῶν ὑδάτων κατὰ τὴν ἀντιπερίστασιν τῶν ὡρῶν· ὅταν γὰρ ἡμῖν ᾖ θέρος τοῖς ὑπὸ τὸν θερινὸν τροπικὸν οἰκοῦσιν, τότε τοῖς ὑπὸ τὸν χειμερινὸν τροπικὸν ἀντοίκοις χειμών ἐστιν, ἐξ ὧν τὸ πλημμῦρον ὕδωρ καταρρήγνυται. (P7)

§5 cf. Herodotus 2.24–25; §6 Ephorus FGrH70 F65c; §7 Eudoxus F 288 Lasserre §5 [14] ὁ συγγραφεὺς PB : om. PG : der Verfasser der Bücher Q ‖ ἐκ τῶν πηγῶν PB : die Flüsse in einem […] gleichen Strömen Q ‖ [14–15] χειμῶνος … θέρους PBQ : om. θέρους PG rest. Diels, prob. Jas ‖ [16] ἰόντα PBQ : ὄντα PG ‖ τῆς Αἰγύπτου PBG : an die Erde […], besonders nahe an die Erde Ägyptens Q ‖ ἐξατμίζειν … νάματα PBG : sodaß sie aus dem Nil Dampf entstehen läßt, um welchen die Wasser geringer werden Q §6 [17] ὁ ἱστοριογράφος PB : der Verfasser der Annalen Q ‖ [17–18] τὴν … Αἴγυπτον PB : die Erde Ägyptens Q ‖ [18] οἱονεὶ ἐξιδροῦν PB : zu ihr […] durchsickert Q ‖ συνδίδωσι PB : umfassen Q ‖ [19] παρὰ … ὑπόψαμμον PB : om. Q §7 [20–21] τῶν … ἀντιπερίστασιν PB : om. Q ‖ [20] κατὰ corr. Roeper : καὶ P ‖ [21] γὰρ corr. Diels : πὰρ᾽ P ‖ ᾖ PB(III) : εἴη PB(I,II) ‖ [23] ἐξ … καταρρήγνυται PB : Dann treten dort die Wasser zusammen und fliessen zum Nil Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 89 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀναβάσεως τοῦ Νείλου (text Jas) 89.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς τοὺς ἐτησίους ἀνέμους αἰτιᾶται πνέοντας τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἐπαίρειν […] καὶ τῇ παροιδήσει τοῦ ἀντιπαρήκοντος πελάγους ἀντικόπτεσθαι καὶ πληροῦσθαι τὸν Νεῖλον. 89.2 (~ P2) Εὐθυμένης ὁ Μασσαλιώτης ἐκ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ καὶ τῆς ἔξωθεν θαλάττης πλημμυρεῖν τὸν ποταμὸν οἴεται. 89.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξαγόρας ἐκ τῆς χιόνος τῆς ἐν τῇ Αἰθιοπίᾳ τηκομένης μὲν τῷ θέρει, ψυχομένης δὲ τῷ χειμῶνι. 89.4 (~ P4) Δημόκριτος χιόνος τῆς τοῖς ἀρκτικοῖς μέρεσιν ὑπὸ θερινὰς τροπὰς ἀναλυομένης νέφη ἐκ τῶν ἀτμῶν πληροῦσθαι καὶ συνελαυνόμενα πρὸς τὴν μεσημβρίαν καὶ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀνέμων ἀποτελεῖσθαι ῥαγδαίους ὄμβρους, ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἐγείρεσθαι τὸν Νεῖλον. 89.5 (~ P5) Ἡρόδοτος ἴσον μὲν φέρεσθαι ⟨θέρους⟩ καὶ χειμῶνος ἐκ τῶν πηγῶν, φαίνεσθαι δὲ ἐλάττονα τοῦ χειμῶνος διὰ τὸ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ πλησίον ὄντα τὸν ἥλιον τῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐξατμίζειν τὰ νάματα. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 176 (~ tit.) Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως

1375

15

20

1376

liber 4 caput 1

Loci Aetiani: §1 A 3.7.3 (de Metrodoro) τοὺς δ᾽ ἐτησίας πνεῖν τοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις παχυνθέντος ἀέρος. §4 A 3.12.2 Δημόκριτος διὰ τὸ ἀσθενέστερον εἶναι τὸ μεσημβρινὸν τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐξομένην τὴν γῆν κατὰ τοῦτο ἐγκλιθῆναι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P and his tradition, represented by PB, PG, PQ and (for the heading only) PPs. Nothing is found in S. It is possible that he found a place for it in Ecl. 1.39 Περὶ ὑδάτων, but this chapter survives only, it seems, in a severely truncated form with only a single long Aristotelian lemma taken from AD. T 4.62 (cited section E(a) General texts) refers to the discussion, but as pointed out by Raeder (1900) 90, there is no verbal parallelism (‘cum Aetianis … fortasse cohaeret, sed in verbis plurimum differt’). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is varied and rich and consists of lists and even discussions of name-labels and doxai (often including arguments contra) in a multiplicity of authors, of whom we may mention Diodorus Siculus, Seneca, and Lucan, Ammianus Marcellinus, scholia on Apollonius Rhodius, and the so-called Anonymus Florentinus (FGrH647 F1). Excerpts in a Greek translation from both the extant and the lost part of Naturales quaestiones Book 4a are extant in Ioannes Lydus, see Diels DG 228 n. 3 and Gross (1989) 174–178 (the suggestion of Williams 2008 of a common source for Seneca and Ioannes Lydus is unfounded, cf. Hine 1996, 187–189. Because Ioannes Lydus’ excerpts from the extant part are not always exact, one should be careful with those from the lost part). Seneca states that he will begin the overview of the doxai concerned with the inundation of the Nile, starting with the most ancient authorities: Nat. 4.2.17 sed nunc ad inspiciendas causas propter quas aestate Nilus crescat accedam et ab antiquissimis incipiam. As has been often pointed out, however, unlike A and most other parallel sources he does not begin with Thales (who comes a little later at Nat. 4a.2.22) but, like the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius, with Anaxagoras and the three tragic poets (Nat. 4a.2.17). ‘All of antiquity (omnis vetustas)’, he affirms, agrees with Anaxagoras. The ‘Posido-

liber 4 caput 1

1377

nian doxography’, as Kidd (1999) 295 formulates the heading of his translation of F 222 E.-K. (Greek text cited below at section E(a)§1), has a different set of names. (2) Sources. The contents of §§1–3 go back at least as far as Herodotus 2.20– 23, where these doxai are anonymous and follow each other in exactly the same order as in A. Herodotus may have used a source of Sophistic provenance. §5 with name-label summarizes Herodotus 2.24–25, so derives from an intermediate source too. The little Peripatetic treatise On the Inundation of the Nile (Liber Aristotelis De inundacione Nili), attributed to Aristotle (see below), is extant in a mediaeval Latin translation and a few fragments on papyrus. The text is printed as Aristotle frs. 246–247 Rose3; see esp. the new edition by Beullens (2014) 325–329, who keeps Rose’s page and line numbers. Some of A’s name-labels and doxai are absent from this treatise, though on the other hand it contains namelabels and doxai not found in A. Shared are four items concerned with early name-labels and doxai, namely Thales plus doxa, Anaxagoras plus doxa, the doxa of Euthymenes without name-label, and (significantly) Herodotus plus doxa. The relative order of these shared doxai is the same, although in A we have §4 Democritus between §3 Anaxagoras and §5 Herodotus, and in ps.Aristotle Diogenes between Thales and Anaxagoras, as well as two further doxai (Athenagoras, Nicagoras) between Anaxagoras and Herodotus. Nevertheless ps.Aristotle may be numbered not only among the representatives of the proximate tradition but also, possibly, among the sources of A. We note that the little treatise does not begin in the manner of a dialectical discussion but in the way of the Aristotelian/Peripatetic Problemata: propter quid = διὰ τί; ‘why?’, the question type of cause. The dialectical discussion is announced further down, ‘we shall speak of the things that are extant as said in the past by those who are in doubt about this issue’ (horum autem qui quidem existunt dicti a prius dubitantibus de ipso, hos nos dicemus). It is a mistake to compare the tract with the Problemata literature alone, for we do not find full-scale doxographies there. See also below at section D(e). It will be useful to bring the real Aristotle’s scattered references together (all quoted at section E(b) below). He does not mention the inundation of the Nile in the Meteorology, but may have it in mind when he states (Mete. 1.13 350b13– 14) that ‘the most important of its tributaries flows from the so-called Silver Mountains’. He also mentions the torrential summer rains in Aethiopia at Mete. 1.12 349a4–9 (for ῥαγδαῖα and Aethiopia see below, section D(d)§4), though without speaking of the Nile—so Alexander ad loc., in Mete. 53.15–16, eagerly supplies a reference to ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως, and Olympiodorus in Mete. 94.4–17 (cited below, section E(b) General texts) refers to the debate. The allusion to differences of opinion at Mete. 2.2 356a25–31 is a little puzzling

1378

liber 4 caput 1

because of the presence of a large river that does not behave in the same way as the Nile: the Ister (i.e. Danube) and the Nile travel over great distances and have many tributaries, which is why ‘different explanations are given regarding the sources of each of these rivers’ (περὶ τῶν πηγῶν ἄλλοι λέγουσιν ἑκάστου τῶν ποταμῶν ἄλλας αἰτίας). At APo. 2.15 98a29–33 we read: ‘why does the Nile flow more in the latter part of the month? Because the end of the month is more stormy. Why is the weather stormier then? Because the moon is waning’ (cf. GA 2.4 738a20–22). This is not about the exceptional behaviour of the Nile in summer (for the general behaviour of rivers see Mete. 1.13 349b7–8, ‘rivers always run higher in winter than in summer’), but belongs with the general explanation of inter alia the periodically varying levels of the terrestrial waters at GA 4.10 777b17–778a2, quoted above, ch. 3.17 section E(b)§1 and also D(d) further comments §1. The fuzzy situation in the pragmateiai helps to understand why an early follower of Aristotle wrote the Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως. Fowler (2000) attributes the Greek original to Posidonius, but argues that it in its turn is in part based on an earlier Peripatetic tract (by Theophrastus, as also others, e.g. already Valentinus Rose, have suspected, though this is by no means certain; see further Sharples 1998b, 197). The argument of De Nardi (2008) in favour of attribution to Aristotle himself, viz. that (as in the Meteorology) the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf are no yet seen as parts of the Indian Ocean, is insufficient. Beullens (2014), who opts for authenticity, follows some the ancient authors who either literally or by implication attribute the tract to Aristotle, but there is no proof that they were right. It is more likely that, like other supplementary works, such as the De coloribus or De spiritu, it came to be attributed to Aristotle himself: e.g. by Posidonius F 222 E.-K. (63 Theiler) on the authority of Callisthenes at Strabo 17.1.5, 790C.16–18 (cited at section E(a)§1), by Anonymus Photii cod. 249, p. 441a34–b7 (cited at section E(b)§7), and by Alexander in Mete. 53.15–16, cited above. The exceptional behaviour of the Nile in summer, toto caelo different from the behaviour of all other known rivers, called for exceptional explanations. Intriguing from the point of view of Peripatetic science is the fact that it is an individual phenomenon that has to be explained. This presumably also explains why Aristotle refrained from discussing it in the Meteorology: his science does not deal with particulars (e.g. APo. 1.18 81b6–7, de An. 2.5 417b22–23). Declaring the Nile to be the unique member of a species was apparently impossible. His one reference at APo. 2.15 98a31 to the Nile alone still deals with what he takes to be a general phenomenon. The lack of an orderly discussion in Aristotle himself as precedent helps to explain why the tradition on which A depends had to link up with the preAristotelian treatment of the issue. Aristotle, of course, could have followed

liber 4 caput 1

1379

his own advice to ‘make excerpts from the literature’ had he decided differently (Top. 1.14 105b13, ἐκλέγειν δὲ χρὴ καὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραμμένων λόγων); see M–R 2.1.158– 162. NB: Because several names are not paralleled in the Placita chapter we most of the time only provide lists of name-labels at section E(a) and (b) General texts, preferring to cite the parallels for the individual doxai at the relevant paragraphs. C Chapter Heading The heading given by PBQ is paralleled with insignificant variations in PG and PPs. It is much more informative than a simple umbrella formula (Περὶ Νείλου) would have been. It allows for the question type of cause and the categories of time and place. It is attested as a book title for Aristotle (i.e. ps.Aristotle) and Theon mathematicus. D Analysis a Context The chapter on the flooding of the Nile is rather isolated at the opening of Book 4, the rest of which deals with psychology including epistemology. This positioning may be explained as a consequence of, on the one hand, the intrusion of P 3.18 (now our A 3.5a) at the end of Book 3 and, on the other, of lack of space at the end of a scroll or perhaps codex containing either Book 3 alone or Books 1 to 3, cf. M–R 1.127–128. P 3.18 is not paralleled in G, whose c. 88 (corresponding to 3.17) is immediately followed by c. 89 (corresponding to 4.1), see ch. 3.5a Commentary A and D(a). Chs. 3.17 and 4.1 indeed belong together, the former dealing with the high and low waters of the sea (possibly not only during the twenty-four-hours period but also in the course of the solar year), the latter with the high and low waters in summer and winter of an exceptional river. As a set the chapters 3.16 plus 3.17 plus 4.1 deal with the terrestrial waters, and they appropriately bring up the rear of the πρόσγεια. Thus ch. 4.1 could serve as a transitional chapter, linking Book 4 to Book 3, though its isolated position at the very beginning remains odd. Alternatively we may regard ch. 4.1 as, so to speak, a mini-book, corresponding as to its relative self-sufficiency to Seneca, Nat. Book 4a on the Nile (originally Nat. Book 2), following immediately upon Book 3 on terrestrial waters (originally Nat. Book 1). A third possibility, suggested by the proem, is that the Nile is considered to be a particular part of one of the larger parts of cosmos treated in previous books. But the Milky Way, treated in the first chapter of Book 3, is also a particular rather than a general item (for the reasons of its placement at the beginning of the Book see ch. 3.1, Commentary D(a)).

1380

liber 4 caput 1

See also General Introduction, section 2.7. b Number–Order of Lemmata PBQ has seven lemmata, of which G, who omitted §§6–7, has five. The order of these lemmata rather strictly corresponds to the chronology of the namelabels, a rare phenomenon in the Placita. This almost certainly has to do with the history of the independent tradition concerned with the flooding of the Nile. The relative order of §§1–3 and §5 corresponds to that in Herodotus; before the lemma with his name-label (§5) another one, concerned with a virtually contemporaneous Presocratic, has been inserted as §4. The final lemmata, §§6–7, doxai of Ephorus and Eudoxus, are also concerned with near contemporaries. §7, which has Eudoxus citing the (ancient lore of) the Egyptian priests, not unelegantly and perhaps even intentionally links up with §1 on the earliest physicist, Thales, in a sort of ring composition. There is no reason to meddle with the sequence, which is also that of Diels in the DG. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The main question-type at issue is that of cause, the διὰ τί (the preposition διά occurs in §1 and §5; also cf. the opening words of the De inundacione Nili: propter quid, and the use of διά and propter in the parallel passages, e.g. Seneca Nat. 4a.17.2 causas propter quas). The categories concerned are those of time: summer, winter, and place: winds from the north in §1, the outer ocean in §2, Aethiopia in §3 (and §4), the far north in §4, Egypt explicitly in §1 and §6 (and by mistake in §4), Libya in §6, and the far south in §7. The causes of the summer flooding vary from obstructing winds that only blow in summer (§1), snow that melts in summer in the far south (§3), snow that melts in summer in the far north, the clouds then being driven to the far south where they cause heavy rains (§4), evaporation because in summer the sun comes closer (§5), excess production of water locally and further south in summer (§6), and finally production of water in the far south in our summer, when it is winter down there (§7). The sweet water from the Ocean (§2), which is entirely different from the factors listed in the other lemmata, could have figured ad finem if the chapter had been set out in the usual way of the Placita, where exceptions are often found at the end of chapters. Since the lemmata are arranged in chronological order there is hardly room for such an overarching diaeresis. The date of Euthymenes is uncertain: though sometimes believed to have been a contemporary of Pytheas (between c. 350–300 bce), it is more likely that he has to be dated to around 500 bce, see Roller (2010) 133, and Brill’s New Pauly, s.v. Euthymenes.

liber 4 caput 1

1381

Other relations between lemmata: §3, snow in Aethiopia, is opposed to §4, snow in the far north, while §5 and §6 are related because they refer to water from sources (§5) or from the soil as a whole (§6), and the rainy kinds of waters of §7 are opposed to these waters from the earth. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 The doxa of Euthymenes may be connected with the commonly found early belief that the Ocean is the origin of rivers. We note that the lemma fails to provide an explanation of the summer flooding. Euthymenes’ belief that the Niger is part of the Nile was imitated in another country: Arrian An. 6.1 tells us that Alexander, having seen crocodiles in the Indus, at first believed that the origin of the Nile was somewhere in India, that flowing through the desert it lost its name of Indus, and acquired the name Nile upon coming into another part of the world. §4 The word ῥαγδαῖα here and at Arist. Mete. 1.12 349a6 suggests that Democritus used it and Aristotle cited this when formulating his own view (it is the only instance in the Corpus Aristotelicum apart from Aud. 803a5, τῶν ὑδάτων τὰ καλούμενα ῥαγδαῖα, where note καλούμενα). This entails that the doxa may have begun its career as an excerpt from a Democritean treatise (the Κοσμογραφίη?). Diels DG ad loc., followed by other editors, points out that Αἴγυπτον is a mistake for Αἰθιοπίαν (he says ‘scribendum erat’ not ‘est’, for he does not place the correction in the text). True enough, but this mistake is hard to explain, for in the previous lemma, §3, we find Αἰθιοπίᾳ, so that perseveration of Αἰγύπτῳ in §1, further away, is not very likely. For this reason we have followed Diels’ example, too, daggered Αἴγυπτον and confined the correction to the apparatus. e Other Evidence ‘Es dürfte keinen zweiten Fall geben, daß ein Einzelproblem immer wieder mit allem Für und Wider von Herodot bis Ammianus Marcellinus in mehr oder minder geschlossenen Abhandlungen erörtert worden und soviel davon erhalten ist. Fünf größere Traktate besitzen wir noch ganz, oder wenigstens so weit, daß wir Anlage und Gedankengang überblicken: von Herodot, Aristoteles, Agatharchides, Seneca, Ailios Aristeides. Dazu kommen doxographische Zusammenstellungen verschiedener Art. … Die Nilschwelle ist geradezu ein Schulbeispiel antiker doxographisch-zetematischer Literatur. Schon Herodot zeigt den Typus voll entwickelt …’ (Rehm 1936, 572). Because of the opening formula propter quid = διὰ τί and the remark ad finem that the flooding of the Nile no longer seems to be a ‘problem’ (p. 197.2–3 R3 non iam problema videntur esse ~ Anon.Phot. p. 242.6 Thesleff/ps.Arist. fr. 246,

1382

liber 4 caput 1

p. 189.9–10 R3 φησιν ὡς τοῦτο οὐκέτι πρόβλημά), it has been argued that De inundacione Nili belongs with the Aristotelian (or Peripatetic) Problemata genre; see various contributors at Mayhew (2015) 2–3 and 16–17. Several headings of Aëtian chapters, too, begin with, or contain, the formula διὰ τί (2.30, 5.9, 5.14, 5.18). The name-labels (six) plus patronymic (four) and ethnicon (four) that are present in the opusculum are as foreign to the Problemata literature as they are at home (when providing a first introduction) in doxographical literature and similar contexts. The opusculum, dealing with a particular issue (zetema) of a causal nature and including an overview of the related discussion, combines the technique of the Problemata literature with that of dialectic. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Diodorus Siculus 1.36.7–41.10 (Agatharchides FGrH86 F19) μεγάλης δ᾽ οὔσης ἀπορίας περὶ τῆς τοῦ ποταμοῦ πληρώσεως, ἐπικεχειρήκασι πολλοὶ τῶν τε φιλοσόφων καὶ τῶν ἱστορικῶν ἀποδιδόναι τὰς ταύτης αἰτίας, περὶ ὧν ἐν κεφαλαίοις ἐροῦμεν. … τινὲς μὲν τῶν συγγραφέων ἁπλῶς οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν οὐδὲν εἰπεῖν, … τινὲς δ᾽ ἐπιβαλόμενοι λέγειν περὶ τῶν ἐπιζητουμένων πολὺ τῆς ἀληθείας διήμαρτον. οἱ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὸν Ἑλλάνικον (FrGrH4 F173), καὶ Κάδμον, ἔτι δ᾽ Ἑκαταῖον (FGrH1a F302a), καὶ πάντες οἱ τοιοῦτοι, παλαιοὶ παντάπασιν ὄντες, εἰς τὰς μυθώδεις ἀποφάσεις ἀπέκλιναν· Ἡρόδοτος δὲ ὁ πολυπράγμων … Ξενοφῶν δὲ καὶ Θουκυδίδης … οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Ἔφορον (FrGrH70 F65) καὶ Θεόπομπον (FrGrH115 F293) … 37.7 οἱ μὲν κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον ἱερεῖς … 38.2 Θαλῆς (fr. 82 Wöhrle) μὲν οὖν … 38.3 Ἀναξαγόρας δ᾽ ὁ φυσικὸς (—) … 38.8 Ἡρόδοτος δέ … 39.1 Δημόκριτος δ᾽ ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης (cf. 68A99 DK) … 39.7 Ἔφορος δὲ … 40.1 τῶν δ᾽ ἐν Μέμφει τινὲς φιλοσόφων … 41.1 Οἰνοπίδης δὲ ὁ Χῖός (fr. 11 Bodnár) 41.4 ἔγγιστα δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ προσελήλυθεν Ἀγαθαρχίδης ὁ Κνίδιος (see below) … 41.10 καὶ περὶ μὲν τῆς πληρώσεως τοῦ Νείλου, δυνάμενοι ποικιλώτερον ἀντειπεῖν πρὸς ἅπαντας, ἀρκεσθησόμεθα τοῖς εἰρημένοις (cited Theophylactes Simocatta Hist. 7.17.3–45). 1.41.4 ἔγγιστα δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ προσελήλυθεν Ἀγαθαρχίδης ὁ Κνίδιος (FGrH86 F112)· φησὶ γὰρ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν ὄρεσι γίνεσθαι συνεχεῖς ὄμβρους ἀπὸ θερινῶν τροπῶν μέχρι τῆς μετοπωρινῆς ἰσημερίας· εὐλόγως οὖν τὸν Νεῖλον ἐν μὲν τῷ χειμῶνι συστέλλεσθαι, τὴν κατὰ φύσιν ἔχοντα ῥύσιν ἀπὸ μόνων τῶν πηγῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὸ θέρος διὰ τοὺς ἐκχεομένους ὄμβρους λαμβάνειν τὴν αὔξησιν κτλ. Strabo 17.1.5, C 789.23–26 (Aristotle fr. 246 R3) οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀρχαῖοι στοχασμῷ τὸ πλέον, οἱ δ᾽ ὕστερον αὐτόπται γενηθέντες ᾔσθοντο ὑπὸ ὄμβρων θερινῶν πληρούμενον τὸν Νεῖλον, τῆς Αἰθιοπίας τῆς ἄνω κλυζομένης, καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς ἐσχάτοις ὄρεσι, παυσαμένων δὲ τῶν ὄμβρων παυομένην κατ᾽ ὀλίγον τὴν πλημμυρίδα. 17.1.5, C 790.9–21 θαυμαστὸν οὖν πῶς ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων ἀφορμῶν οὐ τελέως ἐναργὴς ἦν ἡ περὶ τῶν ὄμβρων ἱστορία τοῖς τότε, καὶ ταῦτα τῶν ἱερέων φιλοπραγμονέστερον ἀναφερόντων εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα καὶ ἀποτιθεμένων ὅσα μάθησιν περιττὴν ἐπιφαίνει. εἰ γὰρ ἄρα, τοῦτ᾽ ἐχρῆν ζητεῖν—ὅπερ καὶ νῦν ἔτι ζητεῖται—τί δή ποτε θέρους, χειμῶνος δὲ οὔ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς νοτιωτάτοις, ἐν δὲ τῇ Θηβαΐδι καὶ τῇ περὶ Συήνην οὔ, συμπίπτουσιν ὄμβροι, τὸ δ᾽ ὅτι ἐξ ὄμβρων

liber 4 caput 1 αἱ ἀναβάσεις μὴ ζητεῖν μηδὲ τοιούτων δεῖσθαι μαρτύρων οἵους Ποσειδώνιος (F 222 E.-K., 63 Theiler) εἴρηκε. φησὶ γὰρ Καλλισθένη (FGrH124 F12) λέγειν τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὄμβρων αἰτίαν τῶν θερινῶν παρὰ Ἀριστοτέλους (frs. 246–248 R3) λαβόντα, ἐκεῖνον δὲ παρὰ Θρασυάλκου τοῦ Θασίου (35.1 DK)—τῶν ἀρχαίων δὲ φυσικῶν εἷς οὗτος— ἐκεῖνον δὲ παρ᾽ ἄλλου, τὸν δὲ παρ᾽ Ὁμήρου (Od. 4.581) ‘διιπετέα’ φάσκοντος τὸν Νεῖλον ‘ἂψ δ᾽ εἰς Αἰγύπτοιο διιπετέος ποταμοῖο’. Seneca Nat. 6.8.3 nescis autem inter opiniones quibus enarratur Nili aestiva inundatio et hanc esse, e terra illum erumpere et augeri non supernis aquis sed ex intimo redditis? Nat. 4a.2.17 sed nunc ad inspiciendas causas propter quas aestate Nilus crescat accedam, et ab antiquissimis incipiam. Anaxagoras (59A91 DK) ait … Nat. 4a.2.22 si Thaleti (fr. 100 Wöhrle) credis … . Euthymenes Massiliensis testimonium dicit (see below §2) … . Nat. 4a.2.26 Oenopides Chius (fr. 11 Bodnár) ait … . Nat. 4a.2.28 Diogenes Apolloniates ait (64A18 DK) … the lost sequel has been excerpted by Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.107.40 ὁ δὲ Ἡρόδοτος … 107.45 οἱ δὲ Αἰγύπτιοί … 107.48 Ἔφορός γε μὴν ὁ Κυμαῖος (FGrH70 F65b) … 107.53 Θρασυάλκης ὁ Θάσιος (cf. DK on 35.1) … 107.58 Καλλισθένης ὁ Περιπατητικὸς (FGrH124 F12a) … 107.62 ἀλλὰ καὶ Δικαίαρχος (fr. 113 Wehrli, 126 Mirhady) … 107.64–66 ποικίλαι μὲν οὖν αἱ περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξαι, τὸ δ᾽ ἀληθὲς κατὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τέως οὐδαμοῦ· κατὰ γὰρ τὸ λόγιον (Or.Chald. fr. 183 Des Places) τὸ δ᾽ ἀτρεκὲς ἐν βαθεῖ ἐστι. see also below, this chapter, individual paragraphs. Anon. Florentinus (FGrH647 F1) 1 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος (fr. 548 Wöhrle) … 2 Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ ὁ φυσικός (—) … 3 Καλλισθένης δὲ ὁ ἱστοριογράφος (FGrH124 F12) … 4 Δημόκριτος δὲ (fr. 411 Luria) … 5 Εὐθυμένης δὲ ὁ Μασσαλιώτης … 6 Οἰνοπίδης δὲ ὁ Χῖος (fr. 11 Bodnár) … 7 Ἡρόδοτος δὲ … . Ammianus Marcellinus 22.15.4–7 origines fontium Nili, ut mihi quidem videri solet, sicut adhuc factum est, posterae quoque ignorabunt aetates. verum quoniam fabulantes poetae variantesque geographi in diversa latentem notitiam scindunt, opiniones eorum veritati confines, ut arbitror, expediam paucis. … affirmant aliqui physicorum (see below § 7) … ex Aethiopicis imbribus, qui abundanter in tractibus illis per aestus torridos cadere memorantur, exundationes eius erigi anni temporibus asserunt alii praestitutis … opinio est celebrior alia (see below §1) … . Theodoret CAG 4.62 διά τοι τοῦτο καὶ τὸν Νεῖλόν φασιν οὐ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς πλημμυρεῖν καιρόν, ἀλλὰ μεσοῦντος τοῦ θέρους ἐπικλύζειν τὴν Αἴγυπτον, ὡς τοῦ γε ἡλίου τὴν βορειοτέραν διαθέοντος ζώνην, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις μὲν ποταμοῖς ἐνοχλοῦντος, τούτου δέ γε πλεῖστον ἀπέχοντος. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλας αἰτίας τῆς τούτου γε πλημμύρας εἶναί φασί τινες, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔμοιγε ἁρμόττειν τόνδε νῦν τὸν λόγον ὑπείληφα. καὶ γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις παρεγγυῶ τῆς μὲν θείας οἰκονομίας μὴ πολυπραγμονεῖν τὰς αἰτίας, θαυμάζειν δὲ τὰ γινόμενα καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν ἀνυμνεῖν. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 4.269–271a, p. 276.5–277.10 Wendel περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναδόσεως διάφοροι αἰτίαι παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἐλέγοντο. (1) Ἀναξαγόρας μὲν γάρ (—) … (2) Νικαγόρας δέ … (3) Δημόκριτος δὲ ὁ φυσικὸς (68A99 DK) … (4) Οἰνοπίδης δὲ ὁ Χῖος (41.11 DK) … (5) Ἔφορος … (6) Θαλῆς δὲ ὁ Μιλήσιός (fr. 571 Wöhrle) … (7) Διογένης δὲ ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης (64A18 DK) … . Tzetzes Exeges. in Iliad. Α.426, schol. 85.10–45 Lolos ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδήπερ τὸ πᾶν εὐκρινήσαμεν, φέρε καὶ τὰς τῶν σοφῶν δόξας τὰς περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως εἴποιμεν· (for what fol-

1383

1384

liber 4 caput 1

lows see below §1, §3, §5) … ἐξ Αἰθιόπων ὁ ἀὴρ ἤτοι πληροῖ τὸν Νεῖλον / ὅπερ ἑτέροις γέγονεν μακρόστιχον βιβλίον / ὡς εἶπε καὶ προέγραψε τοῦτο σοφὸς ὁ γέρων. Chapter heading: Strabo 17.1.5, 790C.22–24 ἀρκέσει δύο μηνῦσαι τοὺς ποιήσαντας καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὸ περὶ τοῦ Νείλου βιβλίον, Εὔδωρόν τε καὶ Ἀρίστωνα τὸν ἐκ τῶν Περιπάτων (fr. 7 Mariotti). Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 6.712 de Nilo fluvio. Irenaeus of Lyon Haer. 2.28.2 Rousseau–Doutreleau (trans. Rufini) quid enim si temptemus exponere causam ascensionis Nili? Isidore of Seville de Nat. capitul. 43 De Nilo flumine (heading in the body of the work: De Nilo). §1 Thales: Pomponius Mela Chor. 1.53 (crescit … sive quod) aut venienti obviae adverso spiritu cursum descendentis impediunt. Diodorus Siculus 1.38.2 Θαλῆς (fr. 82 Wöhrle) μὲν οὖν, εἷς τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν ὀνομαζόμενος, φησὶ τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀντιπνέοντας ταῖς ἐκβολαῖς τοῦ ποταμοῦ κωλύειν εἰς θάλατταν προχεῖσθαι τὸ ῥεῦμα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸν πληρούμενον ἐπικλύζειν ταπεινὴν οὖσαν καὶ πεδιάδα τὴν Αἴγυπτον. Seneca Nat. 4a.2.22 si Thaleti (fr. 100 Wöhrle) credis, Etesiae descendenti Nilo resistunt, et cursum eius acto contra ostia mari sustinent: ita reverberatus in se recurrit; nec crescit, sed exitu prohibitus resistit, et quacumque mox potuit in se congestus erumpit. cf. Lucanus 10.239–247 … Zephyros quoque vana vetustas / his ascripsit aquis, quorum stata tempora flatus / continuique dies et in aëra longa potestas, / … / (244) vel quod aquas totiens rumpentis litora Nili / adsiduo feriunt coguntque resistere fluctu: / ille mora cursus adversique obice ponti / aestuat in campos. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.37 τὸν Νεῖλον εἶπε (Thales 11A1 DK) πληθύειν ἀνακοπτομένων τῶν ῥευμάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἐναντίων ὄντων. Anon. Florentinus (FGrH647 F1) §1 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος (fr. 560 Wöhrle), εἷς τῶν ζʹ̄ σοφῶν, φησὶ διὰ τοὺς ἐτησίας γίνεσθαι τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν· πνεῖν γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐναντίους τῷ ποταμῷ, καὶ τὰ στόματα κεῖσθαι κατὰ τὴν πνοὴν αὐτῶν· τὸν μὲν οὖν ἄνεμον ἐξ ἐναντίας πνέοντα κωλύειν τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐκπίπτειν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, τὸ δὲ κῦμα προσπῖπτον ἀντίον τοῖς στόμασι καὶ οὐριον ὂν ἀνακόπτειν τὸν ποταμόν, καὶ ⟨τὴν⟩ ἀναπλήρωσιν οὕτως φησὶ γίνεσθαι τοῦ ποταμοῦ. Ammianus Marcellinus 22.15.7 opinio est celebrior alia, quod spirantibus prodromis perque dies quadraginta et quinque etesiarum continuis flatibus repellentibus eius meatum velocitate cohibita superfusis fluctibus intumescit et reluctante spiritu controverso adolescens in maius hinc vi reverberante ventorum, inde urgente cursu venarum perennium progrediens in sublime integit omnia et humo suppressa per supina camporum speciem exhibet maris. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 4.269–271a, p. 277.3–7 Wendel Θαλῆς δὲ ὁ Μιλήσιός (fr. 571 Wöhrle) φησιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων συνελαυνόμενα τὰ νέφη κατὰ τὰ ὄρη τῆς Αἰθιοπίας αὐτόθι ῥήγνυσθαι· ὅταν γὰρ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐξεναντίας συστῶσιν αἱ πνοαὶ προσπίπτουσαι τῇ θαλάσσῇ, ἐκ τῆς ἀποπεμπομένης πλήσμης τὰς ὑπερχύσεις ἀναδέχεσθαι τὸν Νεῖλον. Isidore of Seville Nat. 43.1–2 Aegyptus aëris calore semper solem habet, numquam nubes vel imbres recipit. cuius loca Nilus fluvius aestatis tempore inundat, quem pro pluviis utuntur. oritur enim fluvius idem inter Austrum et ortum. Etesiarum autem flatus a Zephyri parte, id est ab occiduo, flant et habent certum tempus. nascuntur enim mense Maio. quarum flatus initio languens est, sed per dies augescit. (2) nam flant ab hora sexta in decimam.

liber 4 caput 1 harum igitur flatu resistente undis, oppositisque etiam ostiis eius, quibus in mare influit, arenarum cumulis, Nili fluctus intumescunt ac retro reverti coguntur sicque aquae erumpentes propelluntur in austrum. quibus congestis, Nilus in Aegyptum erumpit; quiescentibus quoque Etesiis ruptisque arenarum cumulis, rursus in suum alveum redit fluuius. Etym. 13.21.7 hic apud Aegyptios Nilus vocatur propter limum quem trahit, qui efficit fecunditatem; unde et Nilus dictus est, quasi νέαν ἰλύν: nam antea Nilus Latine Melo dicebatur. apparet autem in Nilide lacu, de quo in meridiem versus excipitur Aegypto, ubi Aquilonis flatibus repercussus aquis retroluctantibus intumescit, et inundationem Aegypti facit. Tzetzes Exeges. in Iliad. Α. 426, schol. 85.13–15 Lolos Θαλῆς (—) ὁμοῦ καὶ Εὐ⟨θυ⟩μενὴς ἀνὴρ Μασσαλιώτης [sic; cf. below §2] / τοὺς ἐτησίας γράφοντες ἀναπληρῶν τὸν Νεῖλον / ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐκτὸς γλυκείας ὑπηργμένης. §2 Euthymenes: Seneca Nat. 4a.2.22 Euthymenes Massiliensis testimonium dicit: ‘navigavi’, inquit, ‘Atlanticum mare. inde Nilus fluit, maior quamdiu Etesiae statum tempus observant; tunc enim eicitur mare instantibus ventis. cum resederunt, et pelagus conquiescit minorque descendenti inde vis Nilo est. ceterum dulcis mari sapor est, et similes Niloticis belvae.’ = Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.107.18–26 Εὐθυμένης δὲ ὁ Mασσαλιώτης φησὶ διαπλεῦσαι τὴν Ἀτλαντικὴν θάλατταν, ἐξ ἐκείνης τε ἰδεῖν τὸν Νεῖλον ἐκτρέχοντα καὶ τότε μᾶλλον ὀγκοῦσθαι, ὅταν οἱ λεγόμενοι ἐτήσιοι πνέωσι· τότε γάρ φησιν ἐξωθεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνέμων τὴν θάλατταν, τούτων δὲ παυομένων ἡσυχάζειν. γλυκὺ δὲ σχεδὸν τὸ τῆς Ἀτλαντικῆς θαλάττης ὕδωρ, καὶ ὅμοια ⟨τὰ⟩ ταύτης θηρία τοῖς τοῦ Νείλου. ἀντιλέγει δὲ καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ δόξῃ ὁ Σενέκας (sc. Nat. 4a.2.23–25) φάσκων κτλ. = Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.107.62– 64 (excerpted from Seneca Nat. 4a, lost) ἀλλὰ καὶ Δικαίαρχος (fr. 113 Wehrli, 126 Mirhady) ἐν Περιόδῳ γῆς ἐκ τῆς Ἀτλαντικῆς θαλάττης τὸν Νεῖλον ἀναχεῖσθαι βούλεται. Anon. Florentinus (FGrH647 F1) §5 Εὐθυμένης δὲ ὁ Μασσαλιώτης αὐτὸς πεπλευκώς φησιν εἰς τὴν ἔξω θάλασσαν ἐπιρρεῖν ἕως εἰς τὴν Λιβύην ἐστραμμένην τε εἶναι πρὸς βορέαν τε καὶ ἄρκτους, καὶ τὸν μὲν ἄλλον χρόνον κενὴν εἶναι τὴν θάλασσαν, τοῖς δὲ ἐτησίαις ἀνωθουμένην ὑπὸ τῶν πνευμάτων πληροῦσθαι καὶ ῥεῖν ἔσω ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις, παυσαμένων δὲ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀναχωρεῖν. εἶναι δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ γλυκεῖαν, καὶ κήτη παραπλήσια τοῖς ἐν τῷ Νείλῷ κροκοδείλοις καὶ ἱπποποτάμοις ἔχειν. §3 Anaxagoras: Pomponius Mela 1.53 crescit porro, sive quod solutae magnis aestibus nives ex inmanibus Aethiopiae iugis largius quam ripis accipi queant defluunt. Diodorus Siculus 1.38.4 Ἀναξαγόρας δ᾽ ὁ φυσικὸς (—) ἀπεφήνατο τῆς ἀναβάσεως αἰτίαν εἶναι τὴν τηκομένην χιόνα κατὰ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν, ᾧ καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς Εὐριπίδης μαθητὴς ὢν ἠκολούθηκε· λέγει γοῦν κτλ. Seneca Nat. 4a.2.17 Anaxagoras (59A91 DK) ait ex Aethiopiae iugis solutas nives ad Nilum usque decurrere. in eadem opinione omnis vetustas fuit: hoc Aeschylus (fr. 300 Radt) Sophocles (fr. 882 Radt) Euripides (fr. 228 Kannicht) tradunt. = Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.107.7–11 περὶ τῆς ἐν θέρει τῶν ὑδάτων ἐπιδόσεως Ἀναξαγόρας φησί, τὰς τῆς Αἰθιοπίας τηκομένας χιόνας ἀποστέλλειν τὸν Νεῖλον. καὶ ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δόξης ὅ τ᾽ Αἴσχυλος (fr. 300 Radt) καὶ Σοφοκλῆς (fr. 882 Radt) καὶ Εὐριπίδης (fr. 228 Kannicht). ὁ δὲ μέγιστος ἐν φιλοσόφοις Ῥωμαίοις Σενέκας (sc. Nat. 4a.2.17–21)

1385

1386

liber 4 caput 1

ἀντιλέγει κτλ. cf. Lucanus 10.219–220 vana fides veterum, Nilo, quod crescat in arva, / Aethiopum prodesse nives. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.5 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) τὸν δὲ Νεῖλον αὔξεσθαι κατὰ τὸ θέρος καταφερομένων εἰς αὐτὸν ὑδάτων ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἀρκτ⟨ικ⟩οῖς χιόνων. Anon. Florentinus (FGrH647 F1) §2 Αναξαγόρας δὲ ὁ φυσικός (—) φησι τῆς χιόνος τηκομένης τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν τοῦ Νείλου γίνεσθαι· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Εὐριπίδης (fr. 228 Kannicht) καὶ ἕτεροί τινες τραγωιδιῶν ποιηταί. ἀλλ᾽ Ἀναξαγόρας μὲν αὐτὴν τὴν γένεσιν ποίησιν λέγει τῆς ἀναπληρώσεως, ὡς αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν, Εὐριπίδης δὲ καὶ τὸν τόπον ἀφορίζει, λέγων οὕτως κτλ. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 4.269–271a, p. 276.6–8 Wendel Ἀναξαγόρας (—) μὲν γάρ φησι διὰ τῆξιν τῆς χιόνος πληθύειν αὐτόν, ᾧ ἕπεται καὶ Εὐριπίδης λέγων κτλ. Tzetzes Exeges. in Iliad. A.426, schol. 85.21–41 Lolos Ἀναξαγόρας (—) πάλιν δὲ μετὰ τοῦ Δημοκρίτου / καί τις ἀνὴρ Ἀρχέλαος ὁμοῦ καὶ Καλλισθένης / Αἰσχύλος (fr. 300 Radt) Εὐριπίδης (fr. 228 Kannicht) τε συντρέχουσιν Ὁμήρῳ (Od. 4.477 and 4.581) / σὺν τούτοις καὶ Διόδωρος ὁ ἱστοριογράφος (1.36.7–41.10) / ἐξ ὄμβρου καὶ χιόνος τε τῆς ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ / συντηκομένης λέγοντες κατάρδεσθαι τὸν Νεῖλον. / ὁ μὲν Αἰσχύλος οὑτωσὶ τοῖς στίχοις διαγράφων· κτλ. … ταῦτά φησιν Αἰσχύλος μέν, ὁ δ᾽ Εὐριπίδης λέγει· κτλ. … ὁ δ᾽ Ὅμηρος μονόστιχόν φησι βραχυλογίαν κτλ. §4 Democritus: Pomponius Mela 1.53 (crescit) sive quod per ea tempora flantes Etesiae aut actas a septentrione in meridiem nubes super principia eius imbre praecipitant, aut venienti obviae adverso spiritu cursum descendentis impediunt, aut harenis quas cum fluctibus litori adplicant ostia obducunt. Diodorus Siculus 1.39.1–3 Δημόκριτος δ᾽ ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης (68A99 DK) φησὶν οὐ τὸν περὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν τόπον χιονίζεσθαι, καθάπερ εἴρηκεν Εὐριπίδης (—) καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (—), ἀλλὰ τὸν περὶ τὰς ἄρκτους, καὶ τοῦτο ἐμφανὲς εἶναι πᾶσι. τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τῆς σωρευομένης χιόνος ἐν τοῖς βορείοις μέρεσι περὶ μὲν τὰς τροπὰς μένειν πεπηγός, ἐν δὲ τῷ θέρει διαλυομένων ὑπὸ τῆς θερμασίας τῶν πάγων πολλὴν τηκεδόνα γίνεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολλὰ γεννᾶσθαι καὶ παχέα νέφη περὶ τοὺς μετεωροτέρους τῶν τόπων, δαψιλοῦς τῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως πρὸς τὸ ὕψος αἰρομένης. ταῦτα δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἐλαύνεσθαι, μέχρι ἂν ὅτου προσπέσῃ τοῖς μεγίστοις ὄρεσι τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην, ἅ φησιν εἶναι περὶ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν· ἔπειτα πρὸς τούτοις οὖσιν ὑψηλοῖς βιαίως θραυόμενα παμμεγέθεις ὄμβρους γεννᾶν, ἐξ ὧν πληροῦσθαι τὸν ποταμὸν μάλιστα κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἐτησίων ὥραν. Anon. Florentinus (FGrH647 F1) §4 Δημόκριτος (fr. 411 Luria) δὲ λέγει περὶ μὲν χειμερινὰς τροπὰς τοὺς περὶ τὰς Ἄρκτους χιονίζεσθαι τόπους, περὶ τροπὰς δὲ θερινὰς μεταστάντος τοῦ ἡλίου τηκομένης τῆς χιόνος καὶ ἀτμιζομένης ἀπὸ τῆς τήξεως νέφη γίνεσθαι, ἃ τοὺς ἐτησίας ὑπολαμβάνοντας φέρειν πρὸς μεσημβρίαν· συνωθουμένων δὲ τῶν νεφῶν ἐπὶ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν καὶ τὴν Λιβύην ὄμβρον γίνεσθαι πολύν, ὃν καταρρέοντα πληροῦν τὸν Νεῖλον. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 4.269 Δημόκριτος δὲ ὁ φυσικὸς (68A99 DK) *** ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ μεσημβρίαν ὑπερκειμένου πελάγους λαμβάνειν τὸν Νεῖλον τὴν ἐπίχυσιν, ἀπογλυκαίνεσθαι δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ τὸ διάστημα καὶ τὸ μῆκος τοῦ πόρου καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ καύματος ἀφεψόμενον· διὸ καὶ ἐναντίαν φησὶν ἔχειν τὴν γεῦσιν. §5 Herodotus: Pomponius Mela 1.53 (crescit) sive quod sol hieme terris propior et ob id fontem eius minuens tunc altius abit, sinitque integrum et ut est plenissimus surgere. Diodorus Siculus 1.38.8–9 Ἡρόδοτος δέ φησι τὸν Νεῖλον

liber 4 caput 1 εἶναι μὲν φύσει τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος γίνεται κατὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν, ἐν δὲ τῷ χειμῶνι τὸν ἥλιον κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην φερόμενον ἐπισπᾶσθαι πρὸς ἑαυτὸν πολλὴν ὑγρασίαν ἐκ τοῦ Νείλου, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο περὶ τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους παρὰ φύσιν ἐλάττονα γίνεσθαι τὸν ποταμόν· τοῦ δὲ θέρους ἐπιστάντος ἀποχωροῦντα τῇ φορᾷ τὸν ἥλιον πρὸς τὰς ἄρκτους ἀναξηραίνειν καὶ ταπεινοῦν τούς τε περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα ποταμοὺς καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην χώραν τὴν ὁμοίως ἐκείνῃ κειμένην. Anon. Florentinus (FGrH647 F1) §7 Ηρόδοτος δὲ τοῖς μὲν λοιποῖς ὑπεναντία λέγει, παραπλησίως δὲ Οἰνοπίδῃ. τὴν μὲν γὰρ ῥύσιν τοῦ Νείλου φησὶ τοιαύτην ὥστε ἀεὶ πληροῦν τὸν ποταμόν, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον τοῦ χειμῶνος κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην ποιούμενον τὴν πορείαν ἀναξηραίνειν τὸν Νεῖλον, ἐπὶ δὲ τὰς θερινὰς τροπὰς μεθιστάμενον πρὸς τὴν Ἄρκτον ἰέναι. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.107.40–45 (excerpted from Seneca Nat. 4a, lost) ὁ δὲ Ἡρόδοτος παρὰ πάντων τῶν ποταμῶν ἕλκειν τὸν ἥλιον τὸ ὑγρόν φησι τὴν πρόσγειον νότου ζώνην διατρέχοντα, πρὸς δὲ τῷ θέρει πρὸς βορρᾶν ἐκκλίνοντα ἐκκαλεῖσθαι τὸν Νεῖλον, καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτὸν ἀναχεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸ θέρος. confusedly Olympiodorus in Mete. 109.3–6 ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἀριστοτέλης, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, φησὶ πηγὰς ἔχειν τὸν Νεῖλον· Ἡροδότῳ δὲ μᾶλλον πιστευτέον ἐντεῦθεν λέγοντι ἐκ τῆς ἀντοικουμένης ἔχειν τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτόν· διὸ καὶ θέρους πλημμυρεῖ, ὅτε ἐκεῖσε χειμών. Tzetzes Exeges. in Iliad. Α.426, schol. 85.16–20 Lolos ὁ Χῖος Οἰνοπίδης (fr. 11 Bodnár) δὲ σὺν ἅμα Ἡροδότῳ / πηγάς φασι τὸν ποταμὸν ξηραίνεσθαι χειμῶνι, / τῷ δ᾽ ὀμβρίῳ ὕδατι τότε πληροῦσθαι μόνῳ / τῷ θέρει θερομένας δὲ μᾶλλον ἀναβλύζειν / ὁ Νεῖλος δ᾽ οὐ βρεχόμενος ἥττων ἐστὶ χειμῶνι. §6 Ephorus: Diodorus Siculus 1.39.7 Ἔφορος (FGrH70 F65e) δὲ καινοτάτην αἰτίαν εἰσφέρων πιθανολογεῖν μὲν πειρᾶται, τῆς δ᾽ ἀληθείας οὐδαμῶς ἐπιτυγχάνων θεωρεῖται. φησὶ γὰρ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἅπασαν οὖσαν ποταμόχωστον καὶ χαύνην, ἔτι δὲ κισηρώδη τὴν φύσιν, ῥαγάδας τε μεγάλας καὶ διηνεκεῖς ἔχειν, διὰ δὲ τούτων εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναλαμβάνειν ὑγροῦ πλῆθος, καὶ κατὰ μὲν τὴν χειμερινὴν ὥραν συνέχειν ἐν ἑαυτῇ τοῦτο, κατὰ δὲ τὴν θερινὴν ὥσπερ ἱδρῶτάς τινας ἐξ αὑτῆς πανταχόθεν ἀνιέναι, καὶ διὰ τούτων πληροῦν τὸν ποταμόν. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 4.269–271a, p. 277.1–3 Wendel Ἔφορος (FGrH70 F65d) δὲ ποταμόχωστον εἶναί φησι τὴν Αἴγυπτον, ῥηγνυμένης δὲ τῆς γῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τῷ ἔαρι ἀναπηδᾶν τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ ἐπαύξεσθαι τὸ ῥεῦμα. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.107.45–48 (excerpted from Nat. 4a, lost) Ἔφορός (FGrH70 F65b) γε μὴν ὁ Κυμαῖος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν φησιν, ἀραιὰν εἶναι κατὰ φύσιν τὴν Αἴγυπτον, καὶ κατ᾽ ἔτος ἐπαγομένης ἰλύος ὑπὸ τοῦ Νείλου στεγανοῦσθαι, τὸν δὲ ποταμὸν δίκην ἱδρῶτος κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ καύματος ἐπὶ τὰ κουφότερα καὶ ἀραιότερα καταρρεῖν. §7 Eudoxus: Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.107.45–48 (excerpted from Seneca Nat. 4a, lost) οἱ δὲ Αἰγύπτιοί φασι, τοὺς ἐτησίους πάσας ἐξ ὑπερτέρου τὰς νεφέλας ἐπὶ τὸν νότον ἐξωθεῖν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν βαρείας καταφερομένης βροχῆς ἀναβλύζειν τὸν Νεῖλον. Ammianus Marcellinus 22.15.5–6 affirmant aliqui physicorum in subiectis septemtrioni spatiis, cum hiemes frigidae cuncta constringunt, magnitudines nivium congelare easque postea vi flagrantis sideris resolutas fluxis umoribus nubes efficere gravidas, quae in meridianam plagam etesiis flantibus pulsae expressaeque tepore nimio incrementa ubertim suggerere Nilo creduntur.

1387

1388 b

liber 4 caput 1

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Herodotus 2.20 ἀλλὰ Ἑλλήνων μέν τινες ἐπίσημοι βουλόμενοι γενέσθαι σοφίην ἔλεξαν περὶ τοῦ ὕδατος τούτου τριφασίας ὁδούς, τῶν τὰς μὲν δύο {τῶν ὁδῶν} οὐκ ἀξιῶ μνησθῆναι εἰ μὴ ὅσον σημῆναι βουλόμενος μοῦνον (see below §§1–3). 2.23 εἰ δὲ δεῖ μεμψάμενον γνώμας τὰς προκειμένας αὐτὸν περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων γνώμην ἀποδέξασθαι, φράσω δι᾽ ὅ τι μοι δοκέει πληθύεσθαι ὁ Νεῖλος τοῦ θέρεος (see below §5). Aristotle APo. 2.15 98a29–33 τὰ δὲ τῷ τὸ μέσον ὑπὸ τὸ ἕτερον μέσον εἶναι διαφέρει τῶν προβλημάτων, οἷον διὰ τί ὁ Νεῖλος φθίνοντος τοῦ μηνὸς μᾶλλον ῥεῖ; διότι χειμεριώτερος φθίνων ὁ μείς. διὰ τί δὲ χειμεριώτερος φθίνων; διότι ἡ σελήνη ἀπολείπει. (cf. Theophrastus Vent. 17 ποιεῖ δὲ καὶ ἡ σελήνη ταὐτὰ (sc. just as the sun) πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως· οἷον γὰρ ἀσθενὴς ἥλιός ἐστι. διὸ καὶ νύκτωρ δεινότεραι ⟨αἱ πνοαὶ⟩ καὶ αἱ σύνοδοι τῶν μηνῶν χειμερινώτεραι.) Aristotle Mete. 1.13 350b13– 14 τοῦ Νείλου τὸ ῥεῦμα τὸ πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ Ἀργυροῦ καλουμένου ὄρους. Mete. 2.2 356a25–31 μεγάλοι δὲ γίγνονται τῶν ποταμῶν οἱ μακρὰν ῥέοντες διὰ κοίλης· πολλῶν γὰρ δέχονται ῥεύματα ποταμῶν, ὑποτεμνόμενοι τῷ τόπῳ καὶ τῷ μήκει τὰς ὁδούς· διόπερ ὅ τ᾽ Ἴστρος καὶ ὁ Νεῖλος μέγιστοι τῶν ποταμῶν εἰσιν τῶν εἰς τήνδε τὴν θάλατταν ἐξιόντων. καὶ περὶ τῶν πηγῶν ἄλλοι λέγουσιν ἑκάστου τῶν ποταμῶν ἄλλας αἰτίας διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν ἐμβάλλειν. ps.Aristotle Liber de inundacione Nili (fr. 248 R3) pp. 191.16–20 + 192.11–13, text Beullens propter quid [= διὰ τί] aliis fluminibus in hyeme quidem augmentatis, in estate autem multo factis minoribus, solus eorum qui in mare fluunt, multum estate excedit fitque tantus ut civitates solae supersint velut insulae? … modi quidem igitur tales et tanti, per quos utique crescet fluvius solus. horum autem qui quidem existunt dicti a prius a dubitantibus de ipso, hos nos dicemus. Thales quidem qui de Ameo (i.e. Ἐξαμύου) Milesius (fr. 548 Wöhrle) … p. 192.22 … Diogenes autem Nakithemius (i.e. Ἀπολλοθέμιδος) Apolloniates (cf. 64A18 DK) … p. 193.1 Anaxagoras autem Egisiboli Clasomenius (cf. Anaxagoras 59A91 DK) … p. 193.13–14 rubrum quidem mare aiunt quidem coniungi ad id quod extra. … p. 194.3 Athinagoras dicebat Arimnisti … p. 195.3–4 sunt autem quidam qui aiunt … hii autem … p. 195.14 Nicagoras autem Cyprius ait … p. 196.5–19 restant adhuc tres modi dictorum, secundum quos contingit amnis augeri. … quemadmodum dicit Erodotus fabularum scriptor. … reliquum autem duarum utramque dicere est. … p. 197.1–2 nunc autem relinquetur sola causa dictorum. hanc causam dicendum. Lucretius DRN 6.715 aut quia sunt …, 724 est quoque uti possit … 729 fit quoque uti … 735 forsitan … (see further below). Pliny 5.55 causas huius incrementi varias prodidere, sed maxime probabiles etesiarum …, aut imbres Aethiopiae aestivos …. Timaeus mathematicus occultam protulit rationem … Lucanus 10.237–240 quis causas reddere possit? / sic iussit natura parens discurrere Nilum, / sic opus est mundo. Aelius Theon Progymn. 2.66.31–67.4 Patillon–Bolognesi ἔχομεν δὲ καὶ ἀνασκευὰς καὶ κατασκευὰς παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς χρειῶν καὶ γνωμῶν καὶ ἀποφάσεων καὶ τοιούτων. καὶ δὴ ἁρμόττοι ἂν εἰς τοῦτο τὸ εἶδος, ὅσα λέγεται ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἐφόρου ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν (FGrH70 F65a) πρὸς τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν παλαιοτέρων περὶ τοῦ Νείλου καταβεβλημένας ἀποφάσεις. Aelius Aristides Aegypt. (Or. 48) p. 331.15–17 Jebb πῶς ὁ Νεῖλος ἀνέρχεται καὶ τίς ἡ πρόφασις τὸ τἀναντία αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι τοῖς ἄλλοις

liber 4 caput 1 ποταμοῖς περὶ τὰς ὥρας τοῦ ἔτους. Aegypt. p. 333.36 ὦ χαριέστατε Εὐθύμενες οἷον εἰ περὶ ψυχῆς, ὅτι ἀθάνατος. … Aegypt. p. 342.21 τὴν Ἡροδότου γνώμην … Aegypt. p. 348.34 … Ἔφορος (—). Proclus in Tim. 1.119.12–121.12, esp. 120.23– 121.1 λεκτέον, ὅτι γίνονται μὲν καὶ ἀποβάσεις τοῦ Νείλου πολλάκις, ὅμως καὶ ἡ συνέχεια τῶν ὄμβρων αἰτία τῆς ἀδιακόπου τοῦ ὕδατος αὐξήσεως, καὶ τὰ μεγέθη τῶν ὀρῶν, ἐν οἷς αἱ πηγαὶ τοῦ Νείλου· δεχόμενα γὰρ ταῦτα τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν συνωθουμένων ἐκ τῶν ἐτησίων εἰς αὐτὰ νεφῶν ὄμβρους κατὰ πάσας ἑαυτῶν τὰς λαγόνας ἐπιρρεῖ ταῖς πηγαῖς ἀδιακόπως, αἳ δὲ τὸν ποταμὸν αὔξουσι πληθύουσαι. καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο ἓν εἶναι αἴτιον ὄμβρων φησὶν ὁ Θεόφραστος (fr. 211A FHS&G), τὴν τῶν νεφῶν πίλησιν πρός τινα τῶν ὀρῶν. Heliodorus Aeth. 2.28.3–4 (cited at Psell. Omn.Doctr. c. 176) αὔξεται δὲ κατὰ τὴν θερινὴν ὥραν, οὐχ ὥς τινες ᾠήθησαν πρὸς τῶν ἐτησίων ἀντικρὺ πνεόντων ἀνακοπτόμενος ἀλλ᾽ αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων τῶν ἀνέμων κατὰ τροπὴν τὴν θερινὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρκτῴων ἐπὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν πᾶν νέφος ἐλαυνόντων τε καὶ ὠθούντων, ἕως ἐπὶ τὴν διακεκαυμένην ζώνην συρράξωσι, (4) καθ᾽ ἣν τῆς πρόσω φορᾶς ἀνακόπτονται δι᾽ ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ περὶ τὰ μέρη πυρώδους, πάσης τῆς πρότερον καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν ἀθροισθείσης καὶ παχυνθείσης νοτίδος ἐξατμιζομένης, κἀκ τούτου λάβρων ὑετῶν ῥηγνυμένων ὀργᾷ τε ὁ Νεῖλος κτλ. Olympiodorus in Mete. 94.4–17 τρίτη ἀπορία· εἰ διὰ τὴν ἔνδειαν τῆς ὑγρότητος θέρους ὑετὸς οὐ γίνεται, τί δήποτε ἐν Ἀραβίᾳ καὶ ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ γίνεται θέρους ὑετός; καὶ λύομεν, ὅτι ἔστιν ὑγρότης, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκεῖ γινομένη, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ σωρευομένη. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν τῷ θέρει πνέουσιν ἐτησίαι βόρειοι ὄντες, ἐξωθοῦσιν ἐκεῖ τὰ νέφη καὶ πρῶτον προσπταίοντα Σεληναίοις ἢ Ἀργυρέοις ὄρεσι τῇ πιλήσει εἰς ὕδωρ μεταβάλλονται καὶ κατάγεται ὑετός. διὸ καὶ ὁ Νεῖλος θέρει γενέτης ἐστί. καὶ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν φασὶ τῆς ἀναβάσεως αὐτοῦ. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλας τρεῖς· μίαν μέν, ἐπειδὴ ἐν τοῖς Σεληναίοις ὄρεσι χιὼν ἀπόκειται, ἥτις ἀναλυομένη ἐν τῷ θέρει πλημμύραν ποιεῖ τῶν ὑδάτων. δευτέρα ἐπίλυσις· φασὶ τὸν Νεῖλον τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχειν ἐν τῇ ἀντοικουμένῃ· ἐπειδὴ οὖν, ὅτε ἐκεῖ ἐστι χειμών, ἐν ἡμῖν θέρος ἐστί, συμβαίνει πλεονεξίας ἐκεῖ ὑδάτων οὔσης καταρρεῖν ἐνταῦθα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πλεονάζειν τὸν Νεῖλον. τρίτη αἰτία, ἥτις αἰτιᾶται τὴν ἀντιπερίστασιν· θερμασίας γὰρ οὔσης τὸ ψυχρὸν ἀντιπεριιστάμενον πυκνοῖ καὶ ὕδωρ γεννᾷ. John Philoponus Opif. 4.5, pp. 169.19–170.8 Reichardt ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν Νεῖλον δι᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς κεκαυμένης ἐκ τῶν ἐπέκεινα τόπων φερόμενον εἰς τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ἐκχεῖσθαι πάντως ἦν ἀνάγκη· φασὶ γάρ τινες αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς ἀντοικουμένης τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχοντα φέρεσθαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς· διὸ καὶ ἐν θέρει μόνον τῶν ποταμῶν πλημμυρεῖν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐκεῖ χειμάζοντα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἔχειν γλυκύτατον· τοιαῦτα γὰρ εἶναι τὰ προθερμαινόμενα τῶν ὑδάτων. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐκ τῆς ἀντοικουμένης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν μετὰ τὸν θερινὸν τροπικὸν τῆς Λιβύης μερῶν φέρεσθαι λέγοι τις αὐτόν, μάρτυρα τούτου Πτολεμαῖον ὡς ἔγνων ἐπικαλούμενος, ἠγνόησεν ὡς ἔοικεν οὗτος τὰ Πτολεμαίῳ περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφέντα· οὐδὲ γὰρ Πτολεμαῖος, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλος οὐδεὶς τὰς πηγὰς καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν εὑρεῖν τοῦ Νείλου δεδύνηται. οὐδὲ ὁ τοῦτο νομίζων τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου ἐπέστησεν· τί γάρ φησι (Geog. 4.8[9].3); ‘τῶν ἀνθρωποφάγων Αἰθιόπων ἀπὸ δυσμῶν διήκει τὸ τῆς σελήνης ὄρος, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ὑποδέχονται τὰς χιόνας αἱ τοῦ Νείλου πηγαί’. Chapter heading: ps.Aristotle Liber de inundacione Nili (fr. 248 R3). Aristotelis Vita Menagiana no. 159 Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως. Aristotelis

1389

1390

liber 4 caput 1

Index Ptolemaei no. 26 Hein Περὶ τοῦ Νείλου γʹ. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 53.15–16 ὡς λέγει ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως. Theon of Alexandria at Sud. s.v. Θ 205, p. 2.702.14 Adler (FGrH651 F1) Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως. §1 Thales: Herodotus 2.20 (Thales fr. 13 Wöhrle) ἡ ἑτέρη μὲν λέγει τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμους εἶναι αἰτίους πληθύειν τὸν ποταμόν, κωλύοντας ἐς θάλασσαν ἐκρέειν τὸν Νεῖλον. ps.Aristotle Liber de inundacione Nili (fr. 248 R3) p. 192.14–15, text Beullens Thales quidem qui de Ameo Milesius (fr. 548 Wöhrle) a ventis annualibus repulsum inquit fluvium inundare. crescit enim si illi flant et e regione fluit ipsorum. Lucretius DRN 6.712–723 Nilus in aestatem crescit campisque redundat / unicus in terris, Aegypti totius amnis. / is rigat Aegyptum medium per saepe calorem, / aut quia sunt aestate Aquilones ostia contra, / anni tempore eo, qui Etesiae esse feruntur, / et contra fluvium flantes remorantur et, undas / cogentes sursus, replent coguntque manere. / nam dubio procul haec adverso flabra feruntur / flumine, quae gelidis ab stellis axis aguntur; / ille ex aestifera parti venit amnis ab austro / inter nigra virum percocto saecla colore / exoriens penitus media ab regione diei. Pliny Nat. 5.55 causas huius incrementi varias prodidere, sed maxime probabiles etesiarum eo tempore ex adverso flantium repercussum, ultra in ora acto mari. §2 Euthymenes: Homer Il. 21.195–197 μέγα σθένος Ὠκεανοῖο, / ἐξ οὗ περ πάντες ποταμοὶ καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα / καὶ πᾶσαι κρῆναι καὶ φρείατα μακρὰ νάουσιν. Hesiod Th. 337–338 Τηθὺς δ᾽ Ὠκεανῷ ποταμοὺς τέκε δινήεντας, / Νεῖλόν τ᾽ Ἀλφειόν τε καὶ Ἠριδανὸν βαθυδίνην κτλ. Herodotus 2.21 ἡ δ᾽ ἑτέρη ἀνεπιστημονεστέρη μέν ἐστι τῆς λελεγμένης, λόγῳ δὲ εἰπεῖν θωμασιωτέρη, ἣ λέγει ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ ῥέοντα αὐτὸν ταῦτα μηχανᾶσθαι, τὸν δὲ Ὠκεανὸν γῆν περὶ πᾶσαν ῥέειν. Hanno Peripl. 10 ἐκεῖθεν πλέοντες εἰς ἕτερον ἤλθομεν ποταμὸν μέγαν καὶ πλατὺν, γέμοντα κροκοδείλων καὶ ἵππων ποταμίων. ps.Aristotle Liber de inundacione Nili (fr. 248 R3) p. 193.26–28, text Beullens hunc autem dicebant habere cocodrillos et circumfluere exterius rubrum mare, sive veraces sint hoc dicentes sive mentientes. §3 Anaxagoras: Aeschylus fr. 300 Radt γένος μὲν αἰνεῖν ἐκμαθὼν ἐπίσταμαι / Αἰθιοπίδος γῆς, Νεῖλος ἔνθ᾽ ἑπτάρροος / †γαῖαν† κυλίνδει πνευμάτων ἐπομβρίᾳ, / ἐν ᾗ πυρωπὸν ἥλιος ἐκλάμψας φλόγα / τήκει πετραίαν χιόνα· πᾶσα δ᾽ εὐθαλὴς / Αἴγυπτος ἁγνοῦ νάματος πληρουμένη / φερέσβιον Δήμητρος ἀντέλλει στάχυν. Euripides fr. 228.1–5 Kannicht Δαναὸς ὁ πεντήκοντα θυγατέρων πατὴρ / Νείλου λιπὼν κάλλιστον †ἐκ γαίας† ὕδωρ, / ὃς ἐκ μελαμβρότοιο πληροῦται ῥοὰς / Αἰθιοπίδος γῆς, ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν τακῇ χιὼν / †τέθριππεύοντος† ἡλίου κατ᾽ αἰθέρα. Hel. 1–3 Νείλου μὲν αἵδε καλλιπάρθενοι ῥοαί, / ὃς ἀντὶ δίας ψακάδος Αἰγύπτου πέδον / λευκῆς τακείσης χιόνος ὑγραίνει γύας. Herodotus 2.22 ἡ δὲ τρίτη τῶν ὁδῶν πολλὸν ἐπιεικεστάτη ἐοῦσα μάλιστα ἔψευσται. λέγει γὰρ δὴ οὐδ᾽ αὕτη οὐδέν, φαμένη τὸν Νεῖλον ῥέειν ἀπὸ τηκομένης χιόνος, ὃς ῥέει μὲν ἐκ Λιβύης διὰ μέσων Αἰθιόπων, ἐκδιδοῖ δὲ ἐς Αἴγυπτον. ps.Aristotle Liber de inundacione Nili (fr. 248 R3) p. 193.1–2, text Beullens Anaxagoras autem Egisiboli Clasomenius propter liquefieri nivem estate repleri fluvium ait. Lucretius DRN 6.735–737 forsitan Aethiopum penitus de mon-

liber 4 caput 1 tibus altis / crescat, ubi in campos albas descendere ningues / tabificis subigit radiis sol omnia lustrans. §4 Democritus: Homer Od. 4.477 & 4.581 Αἰγύπτοιο, διιπετέος ποταμοῖο (cf. Schol., below §7). Aristotle Mete. 1.12 349a4–6 γίγνεται δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν Ἀραβίαν καὶ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν τοῦ θέρους τὰ ὕδατα καὶ οὐ τοῦ χειμῶνος, καὶ ταῦτα ῥαγδαῖα (cf. below, §7). Lucretius DRN 6.729–734 fit quoque uti pluviae forsan magis ad caput ei / tempore eo fiant, quo etesia flabra Aquilonum / nubila coniciunt in eas tunc omnia partis. / scilicet ad mediam regionem eiecta diei / cum convenerunt, ibi ad altos denique montis / contrusae nubes coguntur vique premuntur. Anon. Photii cod. 249, pp. 241.29–242.4 Thesleff ὅτι οἱ ἐτήσιαι πνέουσι κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ ἀκμαιοτάτου θέρους δι᾽ αἰτίαν τοιαύτην. ὁ ἥλιος μετεωρότερος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μεσημβρινῶν τόπων ἀρκτικώτερος γινόμενος λύει τὰ ὑγρὰ τὰ ἐν ταῖς ἄρκτοις· λυόμενα δὲ ταῦτα ἐξαεροῦται, ἐξαερούμενα δὲ πνευματοῦται, καὶ ἐκ τούτων γίνονται οἱ ἐτήσιαι ἄνεμοι, ἐκ τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς λύσεως τῶν ἀρκτικῶν ὑγρῶν γινομένων. φέρονται γοῦν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐναντίους τόπους, τοὺς μεσημβρινούς. ἐκεῖ δὴ ταῦτα ἐκφερόμενα προσπίπτει τοῖς ὑψηλοτάτοις ὄρεσι τῆς Αἰθιοπίας, καὶ πολλὰ καὶ ἀθρόα γινόμενα ἀπεργάζεται ὑετούς· καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὑετῶν τούτων ὁ Νεῖλος πλημμυρεῖ τοῦ θέρους, ἀπὸ τῶν μεσημβρινῶν καὶ ξηρῶν τόπων ῥέων. καὶ τοῦτο Ἀριστοτέλης (fr. 246 R3) ἐπραγματεύσατο κτλ. differently Diodorus Siculus Bibl. 1.391–394. §5 Herodotus: Herodotus 2.25 διεξιὼν τῆς Λιβύης τὰ ἄνω ὁ ἥλιος τάδε ποιέει. ἅτε διὰ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου αἰθρίου τε ἐόντος τοῦ ἠέρος τοῦ κατὰ ταῦτα τὰ χωρία καὶ ἀλεεινῆς τῆς χώρης ἐούσης καὶ ⟨ἄνευ⟩ ἀνέμων ψυχρῶν, διεξιὼν ποιέει οἷόν περ καὶ τὸ θέρος ἔωθε ποιέειν ἰὼν τὸ μέσον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· ἕλκει γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἑωυτὸν τὸ ὕδωρ, ἑλκύσας δὲ ἀπωθέει ἐς τὰ ἄνω χωρία, ὑπολαμβάνοντες δὲ οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ διασκιδνάντες τήκουσι· καὶ εἰσὶ οἰκότως οἱ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς χώρης πνέοντες, ὅ τε νότος καὶ ὁ λίψ, ἀνέμων πολλὸν τῶν πάντων. ps.Aristotle Liber de inundacione Nili at P.Oxy. 4458 col. i.5–14 Jakobi–Luppe Ἡρόδοτος δὲ ὁ μυ|[θογρ]άφος ἐν τῶι χειμῶνί | [φησι] τὸν ἥλιον κατὰ τὴν | [Λιβύ]ην ποιεῖσθαι πο|[ρεία]ν· ᾗ δ᾽ [ἄν] τύχη⟨ι⟩ φερό|[μεν]ος, ἐντεῦθεν ἀνάγειν | [τὸ ὑγρό]ν, περὶ δὲ τὰς θερι|[νὰς τρ]οπὰς πρὸς τὴν ἄρ|[κτον] ἰέναι. ἥκιστα δὲ ταῦ|[τα λέγ]εται μεμελημέ|νως· (refutation follows) = fr. 248 R3, p. 196.6–11, text Beullens in hyeme enim ablataque inerat aqua. hoc autem utique erit sole dessiccante, quemadmodum dicit Erodotus fabularum scriptor. non enim ait in hyeme solem per Libiam facere habundantiam [perhaps read ambulationem], nisi si contingat latus hinc ducere humorem, circa versiones autem estivales ad arctum venire. §7 Eudoxus: Aristotle Mete. 1.12 349a4–9 γίγνεται δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν Ἀραβίαν καὶ τὴν Αἰθιοπίαν τοῦ θέρους τὰ ὕδατα καὶ οὐ τοῦ χειμῶνος, καὶ ταῦτα ῥαγδαῖα, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας πολλάκις, διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν· ταχὺ γὰρ ψύχεται τῇ ἀντιπεριστάσει, ἣ γίγνεται διὰ τὸ ἀλεεινὴν εἶναι τὴν χώραν ἰσχυρῶς. Pliny Nat. 5.55 (causa incrementi) aut imbres Aethiopiae aestivos, isdem etesiis nubila illo ferentibus e reliquo orbe. Scholia in Odysseam schol. 4.477 Pontani πολλῶν λεγομένων περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως πρῶτος Ὅμηρος τὴν ἀληθεστάτην αἰτίαν εἶπε (Od. 4.477 and 4.581) ‘διιπετῆ’ προσαγορεύσας αὐτόν, διότι πληροῦται ἐκ τῶν ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ γινο-

1391

1392

liber 4 caput 1

μένων ἀδιαλείπτων τοῦ θέρους καὶ σφοδρῶν ὑετῶν, ὡς καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης (see above §3) καὶ Εὔδοξος (F 287 Lasserre) πεπύσθαι ταῦτα φάσκοντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἱερέων.

Liber 4 Caput 2 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 898B–C; pp. 386a9–387a8 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.32.10, p. 407.6–9 Mras—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 198–201 Daiber—cf. PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 4.68, p. 68.19 + 69.7–9 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.49.1a; pp. 318.17–319.8 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b29 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 5.17–18; p. 126.22–127.4 Raeder Cf. Hermias Irr. 2.1–5 Hanson; ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2.22, 7.2.20–22 Marcovich; Nem: Nemesius NH c. 2, pp. 16.12–17.10, 22.19 Morani

Titulus βʹ. Περὶ ψυχῆς (P,S,T) §1 Θαλῆς ἀπεφήνατο πρῶτος τὴν ψυχὴν φύσιν ἀεικίνητον ἢ αὐτοκίνητον. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Ἀλκμαίων φύσιν αὐτοκίνητον κατὰ ἀίδιον κίνησιν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀθάνατον αὐτὴν καὶ προσεμφερῆ τοῖς θείοις ὑπολαμβάνει. (S4,T2) §3 Πυθαγόρας ἀριθμὸν ἑαυτὸν κινοῦντα, τὸν δὲ ἀριθμὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ νοῦ παραλαμβάνει, (P2,S2,T3) §4 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ξενοκράτης. (S3,T4) §5 Πλάτων οὐσίαν νοητὴν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς κινητὴν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ἐναρμόνιον κινουμένην. (P3,T5) §6 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐντελέχειαν πρώτην σώματος φυσικοῦ, ὀργανικοῦ, δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος· τὴν δ᾽ ἐντελέχειαν ἀκουστέον ἀντὶ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας. (P4,S7,T6) §7 Δικαίαρχος ἁρμονίαν τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων. (P5,S5,T7) §8 Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ ἰατρὸς συγγυμνασίαν τῶν αἰσθήσεων. (P6,S6) §1 Thales 11A22a DK; §2 Alcmaeon 24A12 DK; §3 Pythagoras —; cf. Dörrie–Baltes 156.1; §4 Xenocrates fr. 60 Heinze, 90 Isnardi-Parente2; §5 cf. Plato Phdr. 245c, Tim. 35a–36b, 41d, ps.Plato Def. 411c; cf. Dörrie–Baltes 156.1; §6 cf. Aristoteles de An. 2.1 412a27–b1; §7 Dicaearchus fr. 12(a–c) Wehrli, cf. ap. 21A Mirhady; §8 Asclepiades cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 724, 2.37.1, p. 726 caput non hab. G (aliud c. 24 Περὶ ψυχῆς) titulus Περὶ ψυχῆς PBS : Was ist die Definition der Seele? PQ §1 [2] πρῶτος PS : om. T ‖ ἀεικίνητον ἢ αὐτοκίνητον PS : ἀκίνητον T §2 [4] Ἀλκμαίων S : Ἀλκμὰν T ‖ [5] θείοις S : θεοῖς Diels sed cf. Arist. de An. 1.2 405a32 τὰ θεῖα, Boethus ap. Eus. PE 11.28.9 τὰ θεῖα τῶν σωμάτων §3 [6] ἑαυτὸν P : αὐτὴν S : αὑτὸν Heeren Diels Wachsmuth §4 [8] Ξενοκράτης ST : ξεναγόρας SP1 ἀναξαγόρας SP2(marg.) §5 [9] κινητὴν PB(I,II)T Nem Diels DG : κινητικὴν PB(III) Mau : bewegliches Q ‖ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν PB(I,III)Q : κατὰ ῥυθμὸν PB(II) ‖ [9–10] κατ᾽ … κινουμένην P : om. T §6 [11] Ἀριστοτέλης PS : ὁ δὲ Σταγειρίτης T ‖ [12] ἐντελέχειαν PT : ἐνδελέχειαν S ‖ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ S : om. PT §7 [14] Δικαίαρχος PBQS : Κλέαρχος T : Δείναρχος Nem pp. 17.5, 17.10, 22.19 Morani (cf. Δείναρχος Hermias Irr. 2 = gloss. sec. edd.) §8 om. T

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_101

5

10

15

1394

liber 4 caput 2

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 5.16 (quaestio) οὐ μόνον ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐναντία γεγραφήκασιν· ἵνα δὲ τὴν πολλὴν αὐτῶν καταμάθωμεν ἔριν, φέρε πάλιν ἐπιδείξωμεν, τίνα περὶ ψυχῆς οἱ πολυθρύλητοι τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐδόξασαν, καὶ ὅπως αὐτοὺς ἡ κενὴ δόξα, κατὰ τὸν Τίμαιον [τίμωνα Clem. Eus.: Timon fr. 15 Wachsmuth], ‘ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι’. ἃ δέ γε ξὺν Θεῷ λέξω, ἐκ τῶν Πλουτάρχῳ καὶ Πορφυρίῳ καὶ μέντοι καὶ Ἀετίῳ ξυγγεγραμμένων ἐρῶ. Theodoretus CAG 5.17–18 17.1 (~ §1) Θαλῆς τοίνυν κέκληκε τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκίνητον φύσιν· 17.2 (~ §2) Ἀλκμὰν δὲ αὐτὴν αὐτοκίνητον εἴρηκεν· 17.3 (~ §3) ὁ δέ γε Πυθαγόρας ἀριθμὸν ἑαυτὸν κινοῦντα· 17.4 (~ §4) ξυνεφώνησε δὲ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ Ξενοκράτης· 17.5 (~ §5) ὁ δὲ Πλάτων οὐσίαν νοητὴν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς κινητήν· 17.6 (~ §6) ὁ δὲ Σταγειρίτης ἐντελέχειαν πρώτην σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ, δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος· ἐντελέχειαν δὲ τὴν ἐνέργειαν κέκληκεν· 18.1 (~ §7) Κλέαρχος δὲ τῶν τεττάρων εἶναι στοιχείων τὴν ἁρμονίαν. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 15.32.10 ἵνα δὲ τῶν σοφῶν ἔτι τὴν σοφίαν ἀποθαυμάσῃς, προσθήσω καὶ ὅσα περὶ ψυχῆς (cf. cc. 4.2–4) καὶ τοῦ ἐν αὑτοῖς ἡγεμονικοῦ (cf. c. 4.5) διεμαχέσαντο, οὐδὲ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπιγνῶναι οἵας εἶεν φύσεως δεδυνημένοι. Symeon Seth CRN 4.68 (~ tit.) Περὶ ψυχῆς 4.68 (~ P6) καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐντελέχειαν αὐτὴν Ἀριστοτέλης ὡρίσατο σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος, ἐντελέχειαν λαμβάνων τὴν ὡς εἶδος καὶ τελειότητα. Testes secundi: Hermias Irr. 2.1–5 οἱ μὲν γάρ φασιν αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ (~ ch. 4.3.4–5. 4.7), οἱ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα (~ ch. 4.3.8), οἱ δὲ τὸν νοῦν (cf. cc. 4.2.3, 4.7a.1), οἱ δὲ τὴν κίνησιν (~ §§1–2) … οἱ δὲ ἀριθμὸν κινητικόν (~ §§3–4) οἱ δὲ ἁρμονίαν (~ §7) … (seqq. vid. ch. 4.3) ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2.22 Ἀριστοτέλης δέ, ἐντελέχειαν αὐτὴν ὀνομάζων (~ §6); Coh. 7.2.20–22 οἱ δὲ τὴν κίνησιν (~ §§1–2), … οἱ δὲ ἀριθμὸν κινητικόν (~ §§3–4). Nemesius NH c. 2, pp. 16.11–17.10 (~ tit.) Περὶ ψυχῆς. διαφωνεῖται σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς παλαιοῖς ὁ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς λόγος (~ quaestio). [… : p. 16.13–21 vid. testes secundi ad c. 4.3] (16.21) πάλιν δὲ καὶ τῶν λεγόντων ἀσώματον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἄπειρος γέγονεν ἡ διαφωνία, τῶν μὲν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἀθάνατον λεγόντων, τῶν δὲ ἀσώματον μέν, οὐ μὴν οὐσίαν οὐδὲ ἀθάνατον. (~ §1) Θαλῆς (fr. 323 Wöhrle) μὲν γὰρ πρῶτος τὴν ψυχὴν ἔφησεν ἀεικίνητον καὶ αὐτοκίνητον, (~ §3) Πυθαγόρας δὲ ἀριθμὸν ἑαυτὸν κινοῦντα, (~ §5) Πλάτων δὲ οὐσίαν νοητὴν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς κινητὴν κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐναρμόνιον, (~ §6) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἐντελέχειαν πρώ-

liber 4 caput 2

1395

την σώματος φυσικοῦ, ὀργανικοῦ, δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος, (~ §7) Δείναρχος (sic, Dicaearchus fr. 11 Wehrli, 21B Mirhady) δὲ ἁρμονίαν τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων, ἀντὶ τοῦ κρᾶσιν καὶ συμφωνίαν τῶν στοιχείων· οὐ γὰρ τὴν ἐκ τῶν φθόγγων συνισταμένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ σώματι θερμῶν καὶ ψυχρῶν καὶ ὑγρῶν καὶ ξηρῶν ἐναρμόνιον κρᾶσιν καὶ συμφωνίαν βούλεται λέγειν. δῆλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι τὴν ψυχὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι λέγουσιν, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ καὶ Δείναρχος ἀνούσιον. NH 2, p. 22.19 (cf. Meletius NH p. 145.3–6) ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ Δείναρχος [sic] ἁρμονίαν ὡρίσατο τὴν ψυχὴν κτλ. (~ §7). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 4.3.1 οὗτοι πάντες οἱ προτεταγμένοι ἀσώματον τὴν ψυχὴν ὑποτίθενται, φύσιν λέγοντες αὐτοκίνητον καὶ οὐσίαν νοητὴν καὶ τοῦ φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ ζωὴν ἔχοντος ἐντελέχειαν. §1 A 1.3.1 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων ἀπεφήνατο τὸ ὕδωρ κτλ. A 1.7.11 Θαλῆς νοῦν τοῦ κόσμου τὸν θεόν, τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες· διήκειν δὲ καὶ διὰ τοῦ στοιχειώδους ὑγροῦ δύναμιν θείαν κινητικὴν αὐτοῦ. A 1.8.2 Θαλῆς Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων οἱ Στωικοὶ δαίμονας ὑπάρχειν οὐσίας ψυχικάς. §2 A 4.3.1 φύσιν … αὐτοκίνητον. §5 A 4.3.1 οὐσίαν νοητήν. A 4.6.1 Πλάτων ἀεικίνητον μὲν τὴν ψυχήν. §6 A 1.2.2 τὸ εἶδος ὃ καλοῦμεν ἐντελέχειαν. A 1.3.22 ἐντελέχειαν ἤτοι εἶδος. A 4.3.1 τοῦ φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ ζωὴν ἔχοντος ἐντελέχειαν. A 4.3.10 Ξέναρχος ὁ Περιπατητικὸς καί τινες ἕτεροι τῆς αὐτῆς αἱρέσεως τὴν κατὰ τὸ εἶδος τελειότητα καὶ ἐντελέχειαν. §§7–8 al. A 5.1.4 Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Δικαίαρχος … ἀθάνατον μὲν εἶναι οὐ νομίζοντες τὴν ψυχὴν, θείου δέ τινος μετέχειν αὐτήν. §8 cf. A 4.8.6 et 4.10.2 (de Aristotele) κοινὴν δὲ αἴσθησιν …, εἰς ἣν πᾶσαι συμβάλλουσιν αἱ ἁπλαῖ τὰς ἰδίας ἑκάστη φαντασίας.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses for P are restricted to PB and PQ (excepting some snippets in PJ). E in the final Book of the PE on the soul only includes chapters 4.4–5 of P, so 4.2 and 4.3 are absent from the Praeparatio, just like the rest of Book 4. (He announces these two chapters at PE 15.59.7, at the end of his much more generous abstracts from P’s cosmological Books 2 and 3, claiming that they show that the Greeks did not even know what concerns their own persons, as is clear from their disagreements about the parts of the soul and the seat of its regent part.) The parallel to ch. 4.2 noted in the apparatus criticus is part of a ver-

1396

liber 4 caput 2

batim quotation in E of Boethus of Sidon, and does not derive from P. G did not abstract P 4.2–7 between his chs. 89 and 90 where they would have belonged, only resuming this job after ch. 4.1 ‘On the rising of he Nile’ with P 4.8 ‘On sensation and sense-objects’. This entails that the Placita tradition proper concerned with the substance and parts and regent part and (im)mortality and (im)mobility of the soul is absent in this representative of P’s tradition. G omitted these six chapters presumably because he had already dealt with the soul and its properties in his composite c. 24 also entitled Περὶ ψυχῆς near the beginning of the Historia philosopha. The middle section of this earlier chapter deals with matters concerned with ethical issues such as the liberum arbitrium. The beginning and end sections contain some material parallel to respectively P 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.4, and though doubtless filtered through a different tradition these passages are worth adducing; we cite a number of passages under section E(a) below. (2) S has seven lemmata. In S five lemmata corresponding to five of P’s six are found right at the beginning of the very long chapter 1.49 Περὶ ψυχῆς, ‘On the soul’, in what looks like the same order at the top and the bottom of the list: P1 (Thales) = S 1.49.1a1; P2 (Pythagoras) = S 1.49.1a2. P3 (Plato) is absent. Again: P4 (Aristotle) = S 1.49.1a7; P5 (Dicaearchus) = S 1.49.1a5; P6 (Asclepiades) = S 1.49.1a7. In both sources, therefore, we have the order Thales–Pythagoras and Dicaearchus–Asclepiades. This is correct with regard to the two final lemmata, but the sequential correspondence of the first two lemmata is the accidental result of the sort of interventions we know as distinguishing traits of each of these two sources. P epitomized the original second lemma (Alcmaeon) away, so the third lemma (Pythagoras) automatically became P2, while S modified the order because apparently he wanted to place Pythagoras, the archegete of the Pythagorean Succession, next to Thales, the archegete of the Ionian Succession, so this lemma became S2. The Xenocrates lemma, also abridged away by P, then automatically became S3. (2) S replaced the lemma extant in P as P3 (Plato) with Phaedr. 247c6–7 at Ecl. 1.49.2; P’s lemma is also extant in T, so this is one of the five significant cases of P and T in agreement against S (see General Introduction, section 2.5 with n. 42). S quite frequently replaces (or illustrates) lemmata with the name-label Plato by verbatim quotations, see Diels DG 75 n. 2, M–R 1.234–235, 1.249–254, 1.265–266, 2.1.140, 2.2.369, 3.311 n. 60, 3.378, and Jeremiah (2018) at M–R 4.286 and 353. (3) From Book 4 T abstracted only chs. 4.2–5 and 4.7, passing over ch. 4.6. Because E did not copy out chs. 4.2–3, T cannot have used E as his source for P, although at CAG 5.16 (quoted above at testes primi) he announces the abstracts of ch. 4.2 following at 5.17–18 as belonging with what he has culled from ‘Plu-

liber 4 caput 2

1397

tarch, Porphyry and Aëtius’. A, mentioned third, is his real source. Among the seven lemmata of T at CAG 5.17–18 pertaining to the matter of the present chapter, parallels to no less than five of P’s six lemmata are found, in an overall order corresponding with and so confirming that of P. T omits P7 ~ S6 (Asclepiades). What is more, in the first and second blocks of lemmata he has actually preserved two items, namely §§2 and 4, that are not in P but also found in S. This again proves that T has used the source shared with S (the so-called T,S source) that turns out to be A. He has not interfered with the order of the lemmata (or the chapters), but considerably abridged them the way he usually does, except of course the already very short Xenocrates lemma (§4). See further below, ch. 4.3 Commentary A(5), and M–R 1.288 plus 1.296–298, and Mansfeld (2016 = 2018a) at M–R 4.180–187 on the T/S source (esp. 4.183 for ch. 4.2); further above, General Introduction, section 2.5. (4) The text of Nemesius NH c. 2 is more complicated (cited at testes secundi above, and below, ch. 4.3, again at testes secundi). The first word of the chapter at p. 16.12 is διαφωνεῖται, which pertains to the dissensus on the subject of the soul among the ancients (and some of his contemporaries) in general. He begins with the corporealists and goes on with the incorporealists, whereas A’s order is the opposite. The verbal parallels with P and S for ch. 4.2 at NH c. 2, pp. 16.13–17.10 are very striking, esp. for §§3–6 and are placed by Diels DG in his apparatus with T. This also holds for the parallels of NH c. 2, p. 16.16–21 with P and S for ch. 4.3, see ad loc. See the discussion at M–R 1.293–298, where we concluded that Nem shows dependence on A, which would make him a primary witness to the compendium. We now think that it is more likely that the relationship is not a direct one, but that both authors have used a wider tradition of the Placita. But see further on ch. 4.3, Commentary A(4). Not only the corporealists disagree among themselves (Nem p. 16.15 διαφέρονται), but among the incorporealists there is even ‘endless conflict’ (p. 16.22, ἄπειρος … διαφωνία): on the one hand you have Thales Pythagoras Plato, who posit that the soul is a substance and immortal (cf. A 4.7.1), and on the other those who posit that it is neither a substance nor inmortal, namely Aristotle and ‘Dinarchus’, who make it un-substantial (ἀνούσιον). This unsubstantiality recalls the view of those who deny the existence of the soul according to some doxographical accounts; for this preliminary issue see the references at section E(b) General texts. In A’s chapter the diaeresis is presented differently: §1 Thales, §2 Alcmaeon and §5 Plato posit that the soul is a substance, §3 Pythagoras and §4 Xenocrates that it is a quantity, and §6 Aristotle, §7 Dicaearchus and §8 Asclepiades that it is a quality. (5) Ps.Justin here (corresponding to §§1–4) and in chs. 4.3–6 cites doxographical material on the soul that cannot be fully traced back to P (unlike in

1398

liber 4 caput 2

chs. 1.3 and 1.7). Moreover, there is a close parallel for the material in chs. 4.2– 3 in Hermias. It was noted by Diels at DG 261, who places the texts in parallel columns. It is also difficult to trace it back to A, e.g. the phrase ὕδωρ γονοποιόν which is found in both texts but not in the extant remains of A. We should therefore regard them both as testes secundi, as we have done above. Both texts are wholly lacking in name-labels. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. For the proximate tradition see the various and variously detailed accounts of e.g. Cicero Luc. 124, Tusc. 1.19–21; Philo Somn. 1.30; Tertullian de An. 3.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak), 5.1; and Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19. To some extent these are dependent on earlier and richer versions of the tradition and include other topics, but extra material has also been incorporated subsequently: not only new doxai, but also earlier ones through retrograde contamination. The Ciceronian and Philonic parallels are particularly important because they prove the indebtedness of A to a shared anterior tradition, just as is the case in the next chapter (4.3), and in chs. 4.5, 4.7, and especially 4.9, where the parallels with Cicero show the same sort of dependence. (For Cicero as testis secundus see also above, chs. 1.3 and 1.7, and below, chs. 5.1– 2 and 5.24–25). Tertullian de An. 5.1 is explicit about the opposition between incorporealists and corporealists: the latter claim that the soul is corporeal e contrario to the former. The contrast between incorporeal and corporeal substance is also exemplified in Philo of Alexandria, Somn. 1.30, in the context of his demonstration of the unknowability of the heavens and the soul. Wendland, who discovered and analyzed this passage, at (1897) 1095 argued this proves that Philo used Diels’ Vetusta placita. In general see Mansfeld (1990a) 3065– 3085 (Aëtius and a number of parallel passages), plus 3117–3121 (Philo) and 3126–3131 (Cicero); cf. above ch. 2.11, Commentary B, and below, chs. 4.3–4.5, each time at Commentary B. These extensive earlier parallels certainly demonstrate the importance of the anterior doxographical tradition. See also Philo Cher. 114, firing off a number of questions relating to the soul several of which are parallel to issues in A Book 4 (cited at Book 4 titulus et index above, and at the appropriate chapters below). (2) Sources. The contrast between corporeal and incorporeal soul that to a large extent dominates the posterior tradition is already found in and derived from Arist. de An. 1.2; announced de An. 1.2 404b30–405a2, cited section E(b) General texts. Aristotle’s dialectical account is also among the sources of several doxai. Two pairs of lemmata ultimately derive from Arist. de An. 1.2, though in reversed order and with noteworthy modifications: §§3–4 (Middle Platonist) Pythagoras–Xenocrates derive from de An. 1.2 404b16–30, where we have

liber 4 caput 2

1399

in sequence Plato–anonymous thinkers (i.e. Xenocrates). §§1–2 Thales–Alcmaeon derive from de An. 1.2 405a19–21 plus 1.2 405a29–b1; at a first glance it is not clear whether Aristotle here presents Thales and Alcmaeon as corporealists or incorporealists (no mention of water for Thales, and no material principle at all for Alcmaeon), so a literalist doxographer could prefer the latter, though elsewhere of course Aristotle always presents Thales as a corporealist. Aristotle’s note on Alcmaeon has not been modified as strongly as the note on Thales, or as the passage on Plato and an anonymous follower, which became Pythagoras plus (correctly) Xenocrates. The Plato lemma at §5 does not echo Aristotle’s description at de An. 1.2 404b16–29; when this had been linked ad sententiam with the name-label Pythagoras, a new doxa was needed for Plato. This new doxa summarizes Tim. 35a–36b (World Soul) plus, to some extent, 41d (human souls). The corporealists Diogenes and Heraclitus, listed de An. 1.2 405a21–29 between Thales and Alcmaeon, are represented by lemmata in the complementary chapter, A 4.3, ubi vide. The emphasis on self-motion in §§3–5 may be explained by the influence of the Early Academy, with its interest in Pythagoreanism. Xenocrates’ selfmoving number and so Plato’s self-moving soul were retrospectively and creatively linked with Pythagorean number theory, see Burkert (1972) 63–64, 272 n. 165. C Chapter Heading There are no variants for the heading in Greek as found in PBS and alluded to at T 5.16, τίνα περὶ ψυχῆς οἱ πολυθρύλητοι τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐδόξασαν. It is a representative of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3, Commentary C). Q’s heading ‘Was ist die Definition der Seele?’ possibly translates a longer Greek title, e.g. Περὶ ψυχῆς τί ἔστιν, but it is more likely that in the manner of Arabic translators he amplified the wording for didactic reasons. It is also possible that he anticipates the fuller heading of the next chapter. Accordingly there is insufficient support for including this added phrase in our text. Περὶ ψυχῆς is quite familiar as a book-title. Think of Aristotle’s reference to his own treatise, e.g. GA 5.7 786b25, or Callimachus’ reference to Plato’s Phaedo by what became its standard second title (fr. 23.3–4 Pfeiffer). For the numerous issues it is capable of comprising (so to speak the whole of 4.2– 23) see above, Introduction to Book 4. In the present chapter, as it turns out, it comprises incorporealist views and the question types, or categories, of substance and quality as well as the category of quantity, while the long heading of the next chapter explicitly refers to both substance and corporeality.

1400

liber 4 caput 2

D Analysis a Context The chapter follows after the last of the cosmological chapters, 4.1 ‘On the Nile’. It is the first of the twenty-two chapters dealing in a rather firm systematic order with the human soul from various systematic points of view, and the first of a cluster of seven dealing with the soul per se. The presentation of these psychological issues largely conforms to an originally Aristotelian order of treatment, see Baltussen (1993) 205–206, and (2000a) 228–230, and M–R 2.1.37, 2.1.138– 150 on A’s chapters on the soul and the senses. Themes discussed more or less simultaneously by Aristotle (such as substance, motion and cognition) are however separated more neatly and scholastically in the Placita. Cicero Tusc. 1.19–21, an early representative of the wider doxographical tradition, treats the themes of the soul’s substance (cf. A 4.1–2), its mortality versus its immortality (cf. A 4.7), and the location of its regent part (cf. A 4.5) simultaneously, and so does his near contemporary Philo of Alexandria, Somn. 1.30–33. Our Placita separates these themes rather rigorously, as is clear from the chapter headings and the chapters themselves. But there are traces of a less rigorous dissociation. In ch. 4.2, on the substance of soul qua incorporeal, Alcmaeon’s soul is said to be immortal (4.2.2 ἀθάνατον), thus anticipating the theme of ch. 4.7. Also note that the various references (no less than five) to movement at ch. 4.2.1–5 anticipate the theme of ch. 4.6 (in the next chapter the role of movement, referred to only once at ch. 4.3.11, is incidental), and recall Aristotle on his predecessors’ account of the soul as principle of movement in de An. 1.2. The surmisal that the anterior doxographical treatment attested by Cicero (see below, section D(e)) and Philo may have been rather less scholastic is unavoidable. A somewhat similar sequence of themes is found in Lucr. DRN Books 3–4, see Schrijvers (1999) 40–42, 122–123, M–R 2.1.144–145 and in general above, Introduction to Book 4. Several doxai of ch. 4.2 are summarized by means of catchwords in the first lemma of 4.3, found in P only, see Diels’ note ad loc., DG 387. The lists of the doxai on the nature of the soul of the incorporealists (ch. 4.2) is immediately followed by that of the corporealists (ch. 4.3). The diaphonia could have been accommodated in a single chapter, as is in fact the case in other sources (e.g. Nemesius NH c. 2), and also at S 1.49.1a + 1b, where the subdivision has been introduced by Wachsmuth. Chapters 4.2 plus 4.3 thus constitute a single unit. There are other examples of twinned chapters in Book 4, e.g. ch. 4.11 plus ch. 4.12, two chapters dealing with aspects of Stoic views of sensation and concept formation, or ch. 4.13 plus ch. 4.14 on vision and mirror images. Also compare, in Book 1, chs. 1.21–22 on time, chs. 1.25–26 on necessity, and chs. 1.27– 28 on fate.

liber 4 caput 2

1401

b Number–Order of Lemmata The order as reconstructed turns out to be the same as that of Diels in the DG. The opening lemma comes first in P, S, and T, as also in the parallel account in Nem; this is due to the well-known πρῶτος εὑρετής motif (M–R 2.1.95–96), explicitly acknowledged. Thales may have come first in A for chronological reasons too, see M–R 2.1.73–96 and Jeremiah (2018) 310–319. The order of S is rather different from that of P and T, who are very close to each other. It is apparent that P did not interfere with the order, but abridged away two lemmata, the content of which is similar to that of the lemma that each time came before it, so could be considered as equivalent attachments one could dispense with: in the block §§1–2 soul according to Alcmaeon at §2 is self-moved just as according to Thales at §1, and in the block §§3–4 Xenocrates at §4 agrees with Pythagoras at §3. S’s modifications of the order can be explained (see also at section A above): he wished to have Pythagoras, one of his favoured authorities, next to Thales, thus also paying homage to absolute chronology. This move brought the Xenocrates lemma along. S left out the Plato lemma §5 in favour of an almost verbatim quotation of Phaedr. 247c6–7 at Ecl. 1.49.2. The now isolated Aristotle lemma §6 was moved to the end in S, thus anticipating the position of the incomplete Aristotelian formula at the end of the summary of ch. 4.2 at 4.3.1, a lemma omitted by S. T has preserved the original order of block §§1–2, so also left the block §§3–4 in its original location. He omitted the final lemma, Asclepiades. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter deals with the question-types ‘what is it?’ and ‘how is it?’, or the categories of substance, quantity and quality, and provides several answers. This derives from Aristotle’s agenda, see de An. 1.1 402a7–8: ‘the aim of our inquiry is to study and understand its (sc. the soul’s) nature and substance, and secondly its accidents’, and 1.1 402a23–26: ‘presumably we first need to establish to which of the genera it belongs and what it is, I mean a particular thing and a substance, or a quality, or a quantity (πότερον τόδε τι καὶ οὐσία ἢ ποιὸν ἢ ποσόν), or any other item on the list of categories’. See above, section D(a), Introduction to Book 4 section 2(1), and General Introduction section 5.2.1. Compare also cf. M–R 2.1.140–141. As is clear from the contents of the doxai and the (incomplete but) explicit summary at ch. 4.3.1, it comprises a selection of incorporealist doctrines that are opposed to the corporealist doctrines found in the next chapter, 4.3. These two chapters are analysed at Mansfeld (1990a) 3065–3085 and compared with the wider tradition (esp. Cicero) ibid. 3122–3131 and 3118–3121 (Philo). In its present form the opposition between incorporealists and corporealists (which

1402

liber 4 caput 2

recalls that between the materialists and the Friends of the Forms in Plato’s Sophist, 245e–249d) derives from Aristotle, as announced de An. 1.2 404b30–31 and then worked out in the rest of this chapter of the De anima. See Mansfeld (1990a) 3072, 3204, M–R. 2.1.57–58. It is found in numerous dialecticaldoxographical parallels, see e.g. Mansfeld (1990a) 3065–3085, and below, section E(a) & (b). §5 Aristotle provides a smooth transition from the incorporealists at §§1–4 to those of §§6–7 because the soul is the actuality of the body. §§6–7 Dicaearchus and Asclepiades are well placed at the end of the whole incorporealist series, because their views of the soul as a quality of (or supervenient on) the body are somewhat closer to those of the corporealists in the next chapter, 4.3. The series from Thales to Asclepiades virtually covers the entire time span dealt with in A’s treatise, but the chronological order is interrupted for systematic reasons, viz. by the position of §2 Alcmaeon before §3 Pythagoras and of §4 Xenocrates before §5 Plato. A diaeresis concerned with motion divides the chapter in two main parts, opposing the block of §§1–5, which stress self-motion, to that of §§6–8, which do not refer to motion. The theme of the soul’s motion occurs again as that of ch. 4.6. Within the first block §§1–2, which make the motion everlasting, are opposed to §§3–5, which do not do so. The emphasis on motion in the first part of ch. 4.2 to some extent echoes Aristotle’s discussion at de An. 1.2, where the main diaeresis is between those who make the soul the principle of motion and those who make it the principle of cognition, and where he begins with the former. For the latter in A see chs. 4.8–12 below. The negative characteristic of §§4–6 (implicitly spreading to §§7–8) relates to Aristotle’s argument against soul-motion at de An. 1.3, summarized at A 4.2.6. The doxographer takes the traditional question ‘what is the soul?’ in hand by arranging blocks of lemmata in succession according to the Aristotelian categories: of substance, §§1–2; of quantity, §§3–4; and of quality, §§6–8—thus conforming to the master’s checklist at de An. 1.1 402a22–25. A compromise or bridge position (cf. M–R 2.1.9–10, 2.1.46, 2.1.57, 2.1.59, 2.1.141, 2.1.187, 2.1.190) is occupied by §5, which combines the categories of substance and quantity. The series of lemmata as a whole is ordered according to quantity in a different way as well, viz. by number: the substances, quantities, and quality at §§1–6 are each counted as one, while at §7 the number four (explicitly) and at §8 the number five (implicitly, but explicitly in the parallels in e.g. ps.Galen Definitiones medicae and Macrobius) make their appearance.

liber 4 caput 2

1403

d

Further Comments General Points The terminology concerned with motion used by A repays a closer look. The doxographer seems to have given some thought to variatio: §1 ἀεικίνητον ἢ αὐτοκίνητον, §2 αὐτοκίνητον κατὰ ἀίδιον κίνησιν, §3(–4) ἑαυτὸν κινοῦντα, §5 ἐξ ἑαυτῆς κινητήν. The word ἀεικίνητος occurs for the first time at Plato Phdr. 245c and is a hapax in his œuvre; it does not occur in Aristotle. In A it is once found in the present chapter and once at ch. 4.6.1 (and, a rare exception, it is absent from Diels’ index in the DG). The reading αὐτ[οκ]είνητον in Phdr. 245c of the prima manus at POxy 1017 col. xx.5–6, accepted by Robin in the Budé ed. of the dialogue, was corrected by the secunda manus to ἀεικίνητον. In his commentary on the papyrus Haslam (1999) 265–267 once and for all proves the diorthotes to be right. The word αὐτοκίνητος occurs for the first time at Aristotle Phys. 8.5 258a2, and is a hapax in his oeuvre. It occurs twice in the present chapter (and is cited from this chapter at 4.3.1), but not elsewhere in the Placita. We may assume that entered the tradition because of the phrase τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν occurring in the immediate vicinity, Phdr. 245c. Individual Points §§1–2 Porphyry ad Gaur. 70F Smith at Simp. in Cat. 213.12–17 cites ‘soul is a substance that is self-moved’ (ψυχή ἐστιν οὐσία αὐτοκίνητος) as an instance of an essential definition (one of the set of οὐσιώδεις … ὅροι), or definition of the essence or substance (οὐσία). §1 The ascription to Thales of ‘everlasting motion or self-motion’ is in fact the attribution to him of an as to vocabulary modernized (and of course drastically abridged) version of Plato’s argument at Phdr. 245c–d. This transfer could be achieved because Thales is the archegete of the Ionian Succession (cf. M– R 2.1.74–96 and below ch. 4.7 Commentary D(d)§1). The Ionian Succession includes Plato, to whom as we saw self-motion (ἐξ ἑαυτῆς κινητήν) is attributed at §5, and everlasting motion (ἀεικίνητον) at ch. 4.6.1. (We note in passing that the Placita, just as POxy 1017 col. xx.5–6 secunda manus, does not attribute the term αὐτοκίνητος to Plato.) Influence has also been exercised by amalgamating the creative interpretation of the ensouled loadstone of de An. 1.2 405a19–21 with a creative interpretation of Aristotle’s cautious suggestion (note ἴσως, ‘presumably’) that Thales said that ‘everything is full of gods’ because like ‘some people, he probably believed that the soul is intermingled with the whole universe’ (de An. 1.5 411a7–8). The soul of the loadstone thus takes over the universe, cf. M–R. 2.1.178–179. See also below, ch. 4.3 Commentary D(d)§14. The inclusion of Thales among the incorporealists contrasts with the traditional attribution to him of water as the element and principle, as at ch. 1.3.1,

1404

liber 4 caput 2

and therefore excludes him from ch. 4.3.9, where only Hippo is left. That Thales’ soul is incorporeal is explicitly argued by Simplicius (perhaps Priscianus) in de An. 31.20–26. So our lemma ch. 4.2.1 seems to anticipate the interpretation Simplicius(?) formulates, or rather cites, five centuries later. John Philoponus, who thoughtlessly copies a traditional list at in de An. 9.7–11 (οἱ δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος, ὡς Θαλῆς καὶ Ἵππων ὁ ἐπίκλην ἄθεος) which attributes the concept of a soul consisting of water to Thales, later on in his commentary cautiously argues that Aristotle avoided to attribute to Thales the view that the soul consists of water (in de An. 86.22–34). Yet the theological doxa attributed to Thales at ch. 1.7.2 endows the principle water with a (Stoicizing) divine motive power (διήκειν δὲ καὶ διὰ τοῦ στοιχειώδους ὑγροῦ δύναμιν θείαν κινητικὴν αὐτοῦ). This is consistent with the doctrine of ch. 4.2.1. As to the principle or element, the Thales of the Placita to whom an ever-moving or self-moving soul, or motive divine power, is attributed has clearly been promoted to a higher level. This cannot be the invention of the doxographer, who here undoubtedly relies on an interpretative commentary tradition of which in this way we catch a glimpse. The difference of opinion among the late commentators is significant and suggests that their dispute had a long history; the texts are quoted below, section E(b)§1. §2 The Alcmaeon lemma closely follows Aristotle at de An. 1.2 405a29–b1, cf. Mansfeld (1990a) 3078 n. 80, 3090, Baltussen (1993) 219, and now Mansfeld (2015b). As a matter of fact, the gist of its second clause (about the soul’s immortality and resemblance to the gods) would be in a more appropriate position in ch. 4.7, heading ‘On the indestructibility of soul’. Though the term αὐτοκίνητος, not paralleled in Aristotle, was added, in other respects the excerpt retained its original extent, thus attesting the tenacity of the tradition. Parallel echoes are at Cicero ND 1.27, and Boethus at Porph. de An. adv. Boeth. (243F Smith) at Eus. PE 11.28.9 (cited in the apparatus criticus at §2 above). Also cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.83 ad finem: ‘Cette brève doxographie sur l’ âme semble très dépendante d’Aristote, De l’âme, I 2, 405 a 29–b 1’ writes J.-F. Balaudé ad loc., Goulet-Cazé (1999) 1009. Whether Aristotle correctly reflects Alcmaeon’s thought is maybe doubtful, because the reason he gives is so very Aristotelian: the soul is immortal because the ‘things divine, the moon, the sun, the stars, and the whole heavens are in a state of perpetual motion (κινεῖσθαι αἐί)’. At any rate Aristotle’s θεῖα shows that Diels’ conjecture θεοῖς is not good; Diels presumably forgot about or missed the relation of the lemma to Aristotle’s sentence. What is more, immediately before the Alcmaeon passage Aristotle speaks of Heraclitus’ principle as always moving: it is in ‘perpetual flux’ (de An. 2.1 405a27, ῥέον ἀεί)—an interpretation of Heraclitus’ thought, also found with Plato, that is not universally accepted today. The attribution of perpetual motion is one of the reasons for the incorporation of Alcmaeon’s doxa in ch. 4.2, since perpetual

liber 4 caput 2

1405

motion and self-motion are (more platonico) believed to be equivalent in §1. Thus, on the basis of Aristotle’s note Alcmaeon was interpreted as having anticipated Plato already in antiquity, and not only by modern scholars who add to this note the placitum deriving from his treatment as independent and so corroborative evidence. See e.g. Alcmaeon 14A10 DK3 = 24A12 DK5, Zeller–Nestle (1919) 599 n. 1, Guthrie (1962–1981) 1.351, Barnes (1981) 117–118; contra Mansfeld (2015b). §§3–4 ‘Number’ in general as tantamount to Intellect is a simplification. Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b16–18 attributes to Plato the view that the soul knows its objects—‘like by like’—because it is composed of the same ultimate principles. Immediately after, at de An. 1.2 404b22 (a reference to the Περὶ φιλοσοφίας we cannot check), he attributes to him and, presumably, other Platonists the idea that One stands for Intellect; A 1.7.21 at S 1.1.29b20 attributes this view to Xenocrates. The definitions of Plato and Xenocrates are also mentioned together at Aristotle Top. 6.3 140b2–3. The phrase ἀριθμὸν ἐαυτὸν κινοῦντα in §3 is by implication attributed to Xenocrates in §4, which finds confirmation in frs. 96–99, 101–107 Isnardi-Parente2 (e.g. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Xenocrates numerum se moventem). Note that Aristotle de An. 1.2 only alludes very briefly to the World Soul and human souls of the Timaeus, but does so at greater length in the next chapter, de An. 1.3 406b26–407a2, where he provides a remarkably succinct and precise account of the construction of the World Soul according to the ‘harmonic numbers’. The soul moves the body because it is interwoven with it, and the revolutions of the heavens are the motions of the soul. That Aristotle (a bit surreptitiously) includes the human soul is clear from his verbatim quotation at 406b30 of the formula Tim. 42a5–6, αἴσθησιν […] σύμφυτον (‘inborn perception’), from the passage dealing with the construction of the human soul. See also Dörrie–Baltes (2002) 54, 242–244, though they fail to print the Xenocrates lemma. §6 For the afterlife of Aristotle’s definition see Mansfeld (1992b) 141–146. Cicero’s ἐνδελέχειαν (Tusc. 1.22), however, is not a scribal error, as is clear from his exegesis which may be compared to that of entelecheia at AD fr. 5 Diels at Stob. (ch. Περὶ ἰδεῶν) 1.12.1b, p. 135.5–7 ἐντελέχειαν ⟨δ᾽⟩ αὐτὸ προσεῖπεν ἤτοι διὰ τὸ ἐνδελεχῶς ὑπάρχειν, ἢ ὅτι τῶν μετεχόντων αὐτοῦ ἕκαστον παρέχεται τέλειον. Note that S has ἐνδελέχειαν σώματος the first time and ἐντελέχειαν the second; Epiphanius Haer. 3. p. 508.9 has ἐνδελέχειαν σώματος too. The other word is also at Philo Somn. 1.30; it follows that the vulgarizing corruption was in the text he used, just as in one place of that used by S. A comparable confusion seems to be behind Anon. Londiniensis Iatr. col. i.24–25 and ii.9, where we read ἐντρέχεια, ‘aptitude’. For a defence of the view that Aristotle may have used the term ἐνδελέχεια see however Dörrie–Baltes (2002) 1.159. Note that ἐνδελέχειαν at ch. 1.18.6

1406

liber 4 caput 2

ἀναιρετικὴν γὰρ εἶναι τὴν κατ᾽ ἐνδελέχειαν αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ τόπου) φύσιν τῆς τε τῶν ὄντων συμπαθείας καὶ τῆς τῶν σωμάτων ἀλληλουχίας, must mean something like ‘actual existence’, for if not a scribal error it means the same as ἐντελέχεια. §7 We note in passing that the doctrine of the ‘soul as harmony’, famous from the discussion in Plato’s Phaedo and Aristotle’s De anima (1.4) and found in other doxographical accounts as well (where it is sometimes attributed to Pythagoras and/or Philolaus), is absent, perhaps because of an accident in transmission, or, more likely, because the epitomator or one of his predecessors believed that the references to it in (§5 and) §7 were sufficient. The attribution to Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus elsewhere of the view that the soul does not exist has some force in the context of a diaphonic presentation (namely as a zero position, see section E(a) &(b) §§0, §§7–8). Actually, however, both these men merely held that the soul does not exist in the usual sense, viz. as something apart from the body. The attribution by implication in §7 of the idea that the soul is an incorporeal is at odds with this view. The confusion of Dicaearchus with the orator Dinarchus of Corinth or with (perhaps) the Peripatetic Clearchus occurs more often, see e.g. Sharples (2001a) 145 n. 10. It is merely a matter of the interpretation of an abbreviation. For Galen’s reference to Andronicus quoted under section E(b) see Moraux (1973) 134–135 n. 9, and Caston (1997) 351–353. §8 (Five) senses: cf. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19, ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.373.3– 5, 379.8–9K., see section E(b)§8. In view of the arrangement of the lemmata in ascending order according to number, the Asclepiades lemma (content paralleled in other sources) gives the t.p.q. of the composition of the chapter. The senses in general are the subject of ch. 4.8, their number (in the context of the present chapter in P’s version apparently less relevant) of ch. 4.10. e Other Evidence In the proximate tradition Cicero Tusc. 1.19–22 presents the corporealists before the incorporealists (though appending Democritus ad finem), and so do Philo Somn. 1.30 and Nem NH 2, p. 16.13–17.10, while Tertullian de An. 5 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak), like A, has first the incorporealists and then the corporealists. To some extent doxai and name-labels are confirmed by Nemesius, who lists Thales, Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Deinarchus (sic, for Dicaearchus). Galen PHP 7.3.19 opposes the view that the soul is incorporeal to the view that it is corporeal (i.e., pneuma), and QAM c. 5, p. 32.5–8 Bazou the view that it is corporeal to the view that it is incorporeal (‘e.g. Plato’). For the quaestio in Galen’s De propriis placitis, where it is one of the important issues (with Galen characteristically abstaining from committing himself), see below, section E(b). Tertullian de An. 3.2 (cited above at Book 4 titulus et index) lists as issues on which the philo-

liber 4 caput 2

1407

sophers disagree the soul’s mortality vs. immortality (cf. ch. 4.7), its substance (cf. chs. 4.2–3), form, condition, and origin (cf. ch. 4.7a). The contrast between calling the soul either body or incorporeal is discussed in Ptolemy’s On the Criterion and Hegemonikon §7; his point of view is that names i.e. qualifications are irrelevant (he deals with the soul as composed of corporeal elements in the sequel of the treatise). For Nemesius see above, section A(4). Twenty-two chapters in Psellus’ De omnifaria docrina share the heading Περὶ ψυχῆς, and so does G c. 24, a chapter outside the tradition of P. A doxography on the soul that to some extent depends on the Placita is found in the 13th cent. author Barhebraeus, Candélabre des sanctuaires, 8th base introd., trans. Bakoš (1948) 1–2: ‘Des opinions que les anciens ont eu sur l’âme humaine. … Certains, donc, ont dit que c’ est un corps (cf. ch. 4.3); d’autres, par contre, que c’est un accident qui subsiste dans le corps; d’ autres, par contre, que ce n’est pas un corps, mais non plus un accident dans le corps’ (thus, an incorporeal). Early names plus doxai listed for the first category are Democritus, Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, for the second Alexander of Aphrodisias, and for the third Aristotle, the Peripatetics, and Gregory of Nyssa. A similar doxography dealing with the principles is found elsewhere in Barhebraeus Candélabre des sanctuaires, namely at 2nd base introd.; see above, ch. 1.3, Commentary D(e) ad finem. See also Dörrie–Baltes (2002), texts 1.2–12, rich commentary 1.145–170 (on Cic. Tusc. 1.18–22, Macr. Somn. 1.14 + 1.19–20, and Nem NH 2 p. 16.12–17.14). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts (see also above at Book 4 titulus et index, Related texts, and below, ch. 4.3, section E(a) General texts): Cicero Tusc. 1.19–22: see below §0. Tusc. 1.66 (= Cons. fr. 11) animorum nulla in terris origo inveniri potest; nihil enim est in animis mixtum atque concretum aut quod ex terra natum atque fictum esse videatur, nihil ne aut umidum quidem aut flabile aut igneum. his enim in naturis nihil inest, quod vim memoriae mentis cogitationis habeat, quod et praeterita teneat et futura provideat et complecti possit praesentia. quae sola divina sunt, nec invenietur umquam, unde ad hominem venire possint nisi a deo. singularis est igitur quaedam natura atque vis animi seiuncta ab his usitatis notisque naturis. Tusc. 1.70 quae est eius natura? propria, puto, et sua. sed fac igneam, fac spirabilem: nihil ad id de quo agimus. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.30 τί γὰρ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν νοῦν) οἰόμεθα κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι; πνεῦμα ἢ αἷμα ἢ σῶμα συνόλως—ἀλλ᾽ οὐ σῶμα, ἀσώματον δὲ λεκτέον. Mut. 10 τίς γὰρ ψυχῆς οὐσίαν εἶδεν; ἧς ἡ ἀδηλότης μυρίας ἔριδας σοφισταῖς ἐγέννησεν ἐναντίας εἰσηγουμένοις γνώμας ἢ καὶ ὅλοις γένεσιν ἀντιστατούσας. Cher. 114 τίς δέ ἐστι τὴν οὐσίαν (sc. of the soul), ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν; Seneca Ep. 121.12 nos quoque animum habere

1408

liber 4 caput 2

nos scimus: quid sit animus, ubi sit, qualis sit aut unde nescimus. Nat. 7.25.2 habere nos animum, cuius imperio et impellimur et revocamur, omnes fatebuntur. quid tamen sit animus ille rector dominusque nostri non magis tibi quisquam expediet quam ubi sit. alius illum dicet spiritum esse, alius concentum quendam, alius vim divinam et dei partem, alius tenuissimum animae, alius incorporalem potentiam; non deerit qui sanguinem dicat, qui calorem. ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.355.11–17 K. κθʹ. ψυχή ἐστιν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτοκίνητος κατὰ Πλάτωνα (but Phdr. 245c we must read ἀεικίνητον). κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς (SVF 2.780) σῶμα λεπτομερὲς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους. κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη (de An. 2.1 412a27–b1) ἐντελέχεια σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. ἄλλως. ψυχή ἐστι πνεῦμα παρεσπαρμένον ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι δι᾽ οὗ ζῶμεν καὶ λογιζόμεθα καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἐνεργοῦμεν ὑπηρετοῦντος τοῦ σώματος. Galen PHP 7.7.25 εἰ δὲ καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς οὐσίας ἀποφήνασθαι χρή, δυοῖν θάτερον ἀναγκαῖον εἰπεῖν· ἢ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸ οἷον αὐγοειδές τε καὶ αἰθερῶδες σῶμα λεκτέον αὐτήν, εἰς ὃ κἂν μὴ βούλωνται κατ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν ἀφικνοῦνται Στωϊκοί (—) τε καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, ἢ αὐτὴν μὲν ἀσώματον ὑπάρχειν οὐσίαν, ὄχημα δὲ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῆς εἶναι τουτὶ τὸ σῶμα δι᾽ οὗ μέσου τὴν πρὸς τἆλλα σώματα κοινωνίαν λαμβάνει. Loc.Aff. 8.158.11–159.7 ὥσπερ δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα φιλονεικίαν αἰσχρὰν ἐπιδείκνυνται προφανῶς, οὕτως ἄνοιαν, ὅταν οἴωνται πάνθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν σαλεύεσθαι τὰ δόγματα, κᾂν ἓν ὁτιοῦν ἐλεγχθῇ· τινὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀκολουθεῖ, καθάπερ γε πάλιν ἕτερα μάχεται, τινὰ δὲ οὔτ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν οὔτε μάχην ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει, καθάπερ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ περὶ τοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικοῦ (cf. ch. 4.5). ἐάν τε γὰρ ἐν καρδίᾳ τις ἐάν τ᾽ ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ περιέχεσθαι τοῦτό φησι, δυνατόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ καὶ περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν στοιχείων ἣν ἂν ἐθελήσῃ δόξαν ἑλομένῳ μήτε μάχεσθαι τούτῳ μήτ᾽ ἀκολουθεῖν· καὶ περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς ὁμοίως (cf. ch. 1.24), ὥσπέρ γε καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς οὐσίας. Propr.Plac. 3, p. 173.13–18 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami ψυχὴν μὲν ἔχειν ἡμὰς πέπεισμαι καθάπερ ἅπαντες ἄνθρωποι· τὸ γὰρ τοῦ κινεῖσθαι κατὰ προαίρεσιν αἰσθάνεσθαί τε διὰ τῶν αἰσθητικῶν ὀργάνων αἴτον ἅπαντας ὁρῶ ψυχὴν ὀνομάζοντας· ἥτις δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία τῆς ψυχῆς ἀγνοεῖν ὁμολογῶ καὶ πολύ γε μᾶλλον, εἰ ἀθάνατος ἐστιν ἤ θνητή. Propr.Plac. 7, p. 179.13–13 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami καθάπερ οὖν ἰατρῷ περ⟨ιτ⟩τὸν το γινῶσκειν, εἴτ᾽ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ εἴτ᾽ οὐκ ἀθάνατος …, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς εἴτ᾽ ἀσώματός ἐστιν παντάπασιν, ὡς ὁ Πλάτων ὑπέλαβεν, εἴτε σωματοειδὴς ὡς ὁ Χρύσιππος οἵεται κτλ. Propr.Plac. 14, p. 187.23–188.2 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami (= Sub.Nat.Fac. 4.760.13–461.4 K.) οἱ δὲ τὴν φυσικὴν ὀνομαζομένην ἐκπονήσαντες θεωρίαν, ἄλλως ἄλλοι πείσαντες ἑαυτοὺς, οἱ μὲν ἀσωμάτους τινὰς ἀπεφήναντο δυνάμεις ἐνοικεῖν ταῖς αἰσθηταῖς οὐσίαις, οἱ δὲ αὐτὰς ἐνεργεῖν τὰς οὐσίας κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκάστην φύσιν … τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν αὐτὴν οἱ μὲν ἀσώματόν τινα νομίζουσιν οὐσίαν εἶναι, τινὲς δὲ πνεῦμα, καθάπερ ἄλλοι μηδὲ εἶναί τινα ὕπαρξιν αὐτῆς ἰδίαν. Aquilius Def. 76 Rashed ψυχή ἐστιν οὐσία ἀσώματος λογικὴ (cf. ch. 4.11) ἀθάνατος (cf. ch. 4.7) αὐτοκίνητος (cf. ch. 4.6). Sextus Empiricus M. 7.348 ἐχρῆν καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν … τῇ ἑαυτῆς φύσει συνεπιβάλλειν δι᾽ ἥν, οὐσίᾳ τῇ ἐξ ἧς ἐστι, τόπῳ τῷ ἐν ᾧ πέφυκε, τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν. P. 2.58 ἀλλὰ διαφωνεῖ περί τε τῆς οὐσίας αὑτῆς. P. 2.31–32 τῶν περὶ ψυχῆς διαλαβόντων, ἵνα τὴν πολλὴν καὶ ἀνήνυτον μάχην παραλίπωμεν, οἱ μὲν μὴ εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἔφασαν,

liber 4 caput 2 … (32) οἱ δὲ εἶναι, οἱ δὲ ἐπέσχον. Tertullian de An. 3.2 alii de substantia, alii de forma … disceptant. de An. 5.1 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak) accerserit (sc. Plato) Eubulum aliquem et Critolaum (fr. 17 Wehrli) et Xenocratem (fr. 67 Heinze, F 122 Isnardi Parente2) et isto in loco amicum Platonis Aristotelem. fortassean exstruentur magis ad auferendam animae corpulentiam, si non alios e contrario inspexerint, et quidem plures, corpus animae vindicantes. Lactantius Op.D. 17.2 Perrin quid autem sit anima nondum inter philosophos convenit nec umquam fortasse conveniet. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 1.38, p. 33.15 Marchesi qui … monstravit … quid sit sensus, quid anima. Iamblichus de An. fr. 2 Finamore– Dillon at Stob. 1.49.32, p. 363.11–12 τινὲς εἰς τὰς τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων ἀρχὰς τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπαναφέρουσιν + pp. 363.26–364.1 μετὰ δὴ ταῦτα τοὺς εἰς μαθηματικὴν οὐσίαν ἐντιθέντας τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς καταλέγω διευκρινημένως + p. 365.5–6 ἴθι δὴ οὖν ἐπὶ τὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν ἀσώματον οὐσίαν ἐπανίωμεν, διακρίνοντες καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐν τάξει τὰς περὶ ψυχῆς πάσας δόξας. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19–20 non ab re est ut haec de anima disputatio in fine sententias omnium qui de anima videntur pronuntiasse contineat. Platon dixit animam essentiam se moventem, Xenocrates (fr. 60 Heinze, F 96 Isnardi Parente2) numerum se moventem, Aristoteles ἐντελέχειαν, Pythagoras et Philolaus (44A23 DK) harmoniam, Posidonius (F 140 E.-K., 391b Theiler) ideam, Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 722) quinque sensuum exercitium sibi consonum. … (20) … obtinuit tamen non minus de incorporalitate eius quam de immortalitate sententia. Ambrose of Milan de Noe 92, p. 478.3–5 Schenkl ideo in principio sanctus Moyses informavit nos atque instruxit de insufflatione animae, ut non laberemur opinionibus diversis philosophorum, qui sibi ipsi constare non possunt. de Is. 2.4 pp. 644.23–645.5 Schenkl non ergo sanguis (cf. ch. 4.3.13) anima, quia carnis est sanguis, neque armonia anima, quia et huiusmodi armonia carnis est, neque aer (cf. ch. 4.3.2, 4.3.8) anima, quia aliud est flatilis spiritus, aliud anima, neque ignis (cf. ch. 4.3.7) anima, neque entelechia anima, sed anima est vivens, quia factus est Adam in animam viventem, eo quod insensibile atque exanimum corpus anima vivificet et gubernet. Calcidius in Tim. cc. 213–235 cf. below. Augustine de Trin. 10.6.10–7.22 Mountain–Glorie cum itaque … (sc. mens) corpus se esse putat. … (7.20) qui vero eius substantiam vitam quandam nequaquam corpoream … repererunt. ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 613.4–7 πολλὴν μὲν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν παρὰ τοῖς προτέροις ἀντίρρησιν περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς γενομένην, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἵνα μὴ τὸν τῆς εἰσαγωγῆς τρόπον ὑπερβαίνειν δοκῶμεν τὰ πᾶσιν εἰρημένα περὶ ταύτης διεξιόντες, ὅσα τοῖς ὀνομαστοτάτοις εἰρῆσθαι περὶ ταύτης νομίζομεν ὡς ἐν βραχέσι πειρώμεθα λέγειν. John Philoponus in de An. 9.2–10.8 (excerpted by Psellus Phil.Min. 2 op. 13, pp. 32.18–33.3 O’Meara). Chapter heading: Calcidius in Tim. c. 7, p. 61.1 Waszink De anima et partibus eius et locis. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 1.112 De anima. §0 Whether it exists: Lucretius DRN 3.101 … nulla cum in parte siet mens. Cicero Luc. 124 si est (sc. animus) Cicero Tusc. 1.21 Dicaearchus (fr. 7 Wehrli, 19 Mirhady) … nihil omnino esse animum et hoc esse nomen totum inane frustraque animalia et animantis appellari, neque in homine inesse animum vel

1409

1410

liber 4 caput 2

animam nec in bestia, vimque omnem eam, qua vel agamus quid vel sentiamus, in omnibus corporibus vivis aequabiliter esse fusam nec separabilem a corpore esse, quippe quae nulla sit, nec sit quicquam nisi corpus unum et simplex, ita figuratum, ut temperatione naturae vigeat et sentiat. Tusc. 1.24 quid de Dicaearcho (fr. 8(c) Wehrli, 14 Mirhady) dicam, qui nihil omnino animum dicat esse? Tusc. 1.51 Dicaearchus (fr. 8(e), 16 Mirhady) quidem et Aristoxenus (fr. 118 Wehrli, Ia 1 20 Kaiser) … nullum omnino animum esse dixerunt. Luc. 124 an, ut Dicaearcho (fr. 8(f) Wehrli, 17 Mirhady) visum est, ne sit quidem ullus (sc. animus)? Atticus fr. 7.7 Des Places at Eus. PE 15.9.10 Δικαίαρχος (fr. 8(i) Wehrli, 20 Mirhady) … ἀνῄρηκε τὴν ὅλην ὑπόστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.349 οἱ μὲν μηδέν φασιν εἶναι αὐτὴν παρὰ τὸ πῶς ἔχον σῶμα, καθάπερ ὁ Δικαίαρχος (fr. 8(a) Wehrli, 24 Mirhady). P. 2.31 οἱ μὲν μὴ εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν (sc. τὴν διάνοιαν) ἔφασαν, ὡς οἱ περὶ τὸν Μεσσήνιον Δικαίαρχον (fr. 8(b) Wehrli, 18 Mirhady), οἱ δὲ εἶναι, οἱ δὲ ἐπέσχον. Tertullian de An. 15.1 (Soranus de An. fr. 12 Podolak) qui negant principale, ipsam prius animam nihil censuerunt. confused Lactantius Op.D. 16.12 Perrin sive enim mentis locus nullus est, sed per totum corpus sparsa discurrit, quod et fieri potest et a Xenocrate (fr. 71 Heinze, F 127 Isnardi Parente2) Platonis discipulo disputatum est, siquidem sensus in qualibet parte corporis praesto est. Inst. 7.13.9 Heck–Wlosok quid Aristoxenus (fr. 120(c) Wehrli, IV 1 20 Kaiser), qui negavit omnino ullam esse animam, etiam cum vivit in corpore? Iamblichus de An. fr. 9 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. 1.49.32, p. 367.4–9 ἢ τὸ τῇ φύσει συμμεμιγμένον ἢ τὸ τοῦ σώματος ὂν ὥσπερ τὸ ἐψυχῶσθαι, αὐτῇ δὴ μὴ παρὸν τῇ ψυχῇ ὥσπερ ὑπάρχειν, οἷα δὴ λέγεται περὶ ψυχῆς παρὰ Δικαιάρχῳ τῷ Μεσσηνίῳ (fr. 8(k) Wehrli, 23 Mirhady). §1 Thales: Porphyry ad Gaur. 70F Smith at Simp. in Cat. 213.12–17 (verbatim) ἔστιν δὲ ἐννοηματικὸς (sc. λόγος) ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων τοῖς πᾶσιν εἰλημμένος καὶ κοινῇ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενος, οἷον … ‘ψυχή ἐστιν ἀφ᾽ ἧς ὑπάρχει τὸ ζῆν’ …. οὐσιώδεις δέ εἰσιν ὅροι οἱ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν τῶν ὁριζομένων διδάσκοντες, οἷον ‘ψυχή ἐστιν οὐσία αὐτοκίνητος’. ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 613.10–11 οἱ δὲ κινήσεως ἀρχὴν πάντων τῶν γινομένων τε καὶ τῶν ὄντων. §2 Alcmaeon: Cicero ND 1.27 Crotoniates autem Alcmaeo (24A12 DK), qui soli et lunae reliquisque sideribus animoque praeterea divinitatem dedit, non sensit sese mortalibus rebus inmortalitatem dare. Clement of Alexandria Protr. 66.9–10 Marcovich ὁ γάρ τοι Κροτωνιάτης Ἀλκμαίων (24A12 DK) θεοὺς ᾤετο τοὺς ἀστέρας εἶναι ἐμψύχους ὄντας. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.83 (Alcmaeon, 24A1 DK) ἔφη δὲ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον, καὶ κινεῖσθαι αὐτὴν συνεχὲς ὡς τὸν ἥλιον. Boethus at de An. adv. Boeth. at Porph. (243F Smith) at Eus. PE 11.28.9 εἰς ὅπερ (sc. τὸ συνεχὲς καὶ ἄπαυστον τῆς κινήσεως) ἀπιδὼν καὶ ὁ Κροτωνιάτης φυσικὸς (VS 1 add. p. 495.46–47) εἶπεν ἀθάνατον αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν ψυχὴν) οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν ἠρεμίαν φύσει φεύγειν, ὥσπερ τὰ θεῖα τῶν σωμάτων. §§3–4 Pythagoras Xenocrates: Cicero Tusc. 1.20 Xenocrates (fr. 67 Heinze, F 119 Isnardi Parente2) animi figuram et quasi corpus negavit esse ullum, numerum dixit esse, cuius vis, ut iam ante Pythagorae visum erat, in natura maxuma esset. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Platon dixit animam essentiam se moven-

liber 4 caput 2 tem, Xenocrates (fr. 60 Heinze, F 96 Isnardi Parente2) numerum se moventem, … Posidonius ideam (F 140 E.-K., 391b Theiler). Iamblichus de An. fr. 4 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. 1.49.32, p. 364.9–10 ὡς δ᾽ αὐτοκίνητον (sc. ἀριθμὸν) Ξενοκράτης (fr. 60 Heinze, F 98 Isnardi Parente2). John Philoponus in de An. 81.25–29 (on de An. 1.2 404b27–28) Ξενοκράτης (fr. 60 Heinze, F 104 Isnardi Parente2) ὁ τούτου διάδοχος ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων ὁρίζεται τὴν ψυχὴν εἰπὼν αὐτὴν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι κινοῦντα ἑαυτόν, διὰ μὲν τὸ γνωστικὴν εἶναι αὐτὴν τῶν ὄντων ἀριθμὸν εἰπὼν ὡς Πυθαγόρειος (ἀρχὴ γὰρ πάντων ὁ ἀριθμὸς κατ᾽ αὐτούς), διὰ δὲ τὸ κινητικὴν εἶναι τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀναθεὶς αὐτῇ. §3 Pythagoras: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.30 ἢ ἀριθμόν. §4 Xenocrates: Cicero Luc. 124 si simplex, … ut Xenocrates (fr. 67 Heinze, F 121 Isnardi Parente2) numerus nullo corpore, quod intellegi quale sit vix potest. Tusc. 1.20 Xenocrates (fr. 67 Heinze, F 119 Isnardi Parente2) animi figuram et quasi corpus negavit esse ullum, numerum dixit esse. Tusc. 1.41 si vero aut numerus quidam est animus. §5 Plato: Cicero Tusc. 1.54 cum pateat igitur aeternum id esse, quod se ipsum moveat, quis est qui hanc naturam animis esse tributam neget? ND 2.32 audiamus enim Platonem … cui duo placet esse motus, unum suum alterum externum, esse autem divinius quod ipsum ex se sua sponte moveatur quam quod pulsu agitetur alieno. hunc autem motum in solis animis esse ponit, ab isque principium motus esse ductum putat. ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.355.11–12 K. see above, General texts. Ambrose of Milan Ep. 21.1, p. 154.6–8 Faller aut, ut illa patricia quaedam eorum prosapia Platonis disputat, quod ‘ipsum se movet et non movetur ab alio’, ipsa tibi anima videtur. Calcidius in Tim. c. 226 est igitur anima iuxta Platonem substantia carens corpore semet ipsam movens rationabilis. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Plato dixit animam essentiam se moventem. ps.Galen HPh c. 24. DG p. 613.12–13 τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν αὐτῆς οἱ μὲν ἀσώματον ἔφασαν, ὡς Πλάτων. §6 Aristotle: Cicero Tusc. 1.22 Aristoteles (fr. 27 Walzer/Ross) … quintam quandam naturam censet esse, e qua sit mens; … quintum genus adhibet vacans nomine et sic ipsum animum ἐνδελέχειαν appellat novo nomine quasi quandam continuatam motionem et perennem. Tusc. 1.65 sin autem est quinta quaedam natura, ab Aristotele (fr. 27 Walzer/Ross) inducta primum, haec et deorum est et animorum. Philo Somn. 1.30 ἢ ἐνδελέχειαν. ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.355.11– 15 K. κθʹ. κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη (de An. 2 1.412a27–b1) ἐντελέχεια σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. Arius Didymus fr. 2 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.12.1b, pp. 134.19–135.7 τὸ εἶδος, ὃ καὶ μορφὴν καλεῖ καὶ ἐντελέχειαν καὶ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι καὶ οὐσίαν τὴν κατὰ τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἐνέργειαν· οὕτως αὐτῷ πλούσιόν τε καὶ πολυώνυμόν ἐστι τὸ εἶδος. …. ἐντελέχειαν ⟨δ᾽⟩ αὐτὸ προσεῖπεν ἤτοι διὰ τὸ ἐνδελεχῶς ὑπάρχειν ἢ ὅτι τῶν μετεχόντων αὐτοῦ ἕκαστον παρέχεται τέλειον. Hippolytus Ref. 7.19.5–6 ὁ δὲ Περὶ ψυχῆς αὐτῷ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀσαφής· ἐν τρισὶ γὰρ συγγράμ⟨μ⟩ασιν ὅλοις οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν σαφῶς ὅ τι φρονεῖ περὶ ψυχῆς Ἀριστοτέλης. ὃν γὰρ ἀποδίδωσι τῆς ψυχῆς ὅρον ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ῥᾴδιον, τὸ δὲ ὑπὸ ὅρου δεδηλωμένον ἐστὶ δυσεύρετον. ἔστι γάρ, φησί, ψυχὴ φυσικοῦ σώματος ὀργανικοῦ ἐντελέχεια· ἣ

1411

1412

liber 4 caput 2

τίς ποτ᾽ ἐστι, λόγων ⟨πάνυ πολλῶν⟩ δεῖται καὶ μεγάλης ζητήσεως. Ref. 7.24.2 τήν τε ψυχὴν ἔργον καὶ ἀποτέλεσμα ⟨τοῦ σώματ⟩ός φησιν εἶναι ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης, φυσικοῦ σώματος ὀργανικοῦ ἐντελέχειαν. Iamblichus de An. fr. 3 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.32, p. 363.19–25 ὡς δὲ τῶν Ἀριστοτελικῶν τινες ὑφηγοῦνται, εἶδός ἐστι τὸ περὶ τοῖς σώμασιν, ἢ ποιότης ἁπλῆ ἀσώματος ἢ ποιότης οὐσιώδης τελεία· (ᾗ παράκειται δόξῃ οὐ παραδοθεῖσα μέν, δυναμένη δὲ πιθανῶς λέγεσθαι αἵρεσις, ἡ τὴν συνδρομὴν τῶν ὅλων ποιοτήτων καὶ τὸ ἓν αὐτῶν κεφάλαιον, εἴτε τὸ ἐπιγιγνόμενον ἢ τὸ προϋπάρχον, τιθεμένη τὴν ψυχήν). Calcidius in Tim. c. 222 Aristoteles animam definit hactenus (Arist. de An. 2.1 412a27–b1): anima est prima perfectio corporis naturalis organici possibilitate vitam habens, …. hanc igitur speciem qua formantur singula generaliter Aristoteles entelechiam, id est absolutam perfectionem, vocat. in Tim. c. 223 manifestant (sc. auctores Peripatetici) principio animam neque corporeum quicquam esse vel sensibile sed intelligibile potius et sine corpore. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Aristoteles entelechiam [sive endelechiam ms P, endilichiam ms C]. in Somn. 1.14.20 Critolaus Peripateticus (fr. 18 Wehrli) constare eam de quinta essentia. Ambrose of Milan de Noe 92, p. 478.12 Schenkl Aristoteles endelechiam dixit. de Is. 2.4, MPL 14.530A neque entelechia anima. Ep. 21.8–11 Faller ut Aristoteles … quintum quoddam elementi genus induxit …, id est entelechian, ex quo componeres et velut fingeres animi substantiam. Epiphanius Haer. 3, p. 508.9 Holl τὴν ψυχὴν ἐνδελέχειαν σώματος λέγει. §7 Dicaearchus: Cicero Tusc. 1.41 Dicaearchum (fr. 8(d) Wehrli, 15 Mirhady) vero cum Aristoxeno (fr. 120(b) Wehrli, Ia 1 15 Kaiser) … omittamus, quorum alter ne condoluisse quidem umquam videtur, qui animum se habere non sentiat, alter ita delectatur suis cantibus, ut eos etiam ad haec transferre conetur. ἁρμονίαν autem etc. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.30 ἢ ἁρμονίαν. Tertullian de An. 15.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 12 Podolak) Messenius aliqui Dicaearchus (fr. 8(h) Wehrli, 25 Mirhady), ex medicis autem Andreas et Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 727) ita abstulerunt principale, dum in animo ipso volunt esse sensus, quorum vindicatur principale. Ambrose of Milan Ep. 21.4– 6 Faller aut nervorum harmoniam animam putas, ut vulgus philosophorum interpraetatur. de Is. 4, p. 645.1–2 Schenkl neque armonia anima, quia et huiusmodi armonia carnis est. Augustine de Trin. 10.7.13–17 Mountain–Glorie alii eam nullam esse substantiam quia nisi corpus nullam substantiam poterant cogitare et eam corpus esse non inveniebant, sed ipsam temperationem corporis nostri vel compagem primordiorum quibus ista caro tamquam connectitur esse opinati sunt. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Pythagoras et Philolaus (44A23 DK) harmoniam. §8 Asclepiades: Tertullian de An. 15.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 12 Podolak) Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 727) etiam illa argumentatione vectatur, quod pleraque animalia ademptis eis partibus corporis, in quibus plurimum existimatur principale consistere, et insuper vivant aliquatenus … si capita decideris, … si corda detraxeris etc. (cf. Aristotle de An. 1.5 411b19–20 φαίνεται δὲ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ διαιρούμενα ζῆν καὶ τῶν ζῴων ἔνια τῶν ἐντόμων κτλ.) ps.Galen

liber 4 caput 2 Def.Med. 19.373.3–5 K. ϟθʹ. Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Βιθυνός (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 721)· ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς οὗτος καὶ τὴν ⟨συν⟩γυμνασίαν τῶν πέντε αἰσθήσεων ἀπεφήνατο εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. Def.Med. 19.379.8–9 K. ριστʹ. ὥσπερ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Βιθυνός (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 721) φησιν καὶ τὴν ⟨σ⟩υνγυμνασίαν τῶν πέντε αἰσθήσεων ψυχὴν εἶναι. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 722) quinque sensuum exercitium sibi consonum. Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.14.115 etenim nihil aliud esse dicit animam quam sensuum omnium coetum. intellectum autem occultarum vel latentium rerum per solubilem fieri motum sensuum … hoc est Asclepiadis (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 713) dogma. ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 613.7–9 ψυχὴν τοίνυν οἱ μὲν πνεῦμα παντὶ τῷ σώματι περικείμενον ὅπου μὲν μᾶλλον, ὅπου δὲ ἧττον νομίζουσιν εἶναι (οὗτοι δὲ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀσκληπιάδην (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 714) εἰσίν).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle de An. 1.2 403b20–28 ἐπισκοποῦντας δὲ περὶ ψυχῆς ἀναγκαῖον ἅμα, διαποροῦντας περὶ ὧν εὐπορεῖν δεῖ προελθόντας, τὰς τῶν προτέρων δόξας συμπαραλαμβάνειν, ὅσοι τι περὶ αὐτῆς ἀπεφήναντο, ὅπως τὰ μὲν καλῶς εἰρημένα λάβωμεν, εἰ δέ τι μὴ καλῶς, τοῦτ᾽ εὐλαβηθῶμεν. ἀρχὴ δὲ τῆς ζητήσεως προθέσθαι τὰ μάλιστα δοκοῦνθ᾽ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῇ κατὰ φύσιν. τὸ ἔμψυχον δὴ τοῦ ἀψύχου δυσὶ μάλιστα διαφέρειν δοκεῖ, κινήσει τε καὶ τῷ αἰσθάνεσθαι. παρειλήφαμεν δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν προγενεστέρων σχεδὸν δύο ταῦτα περὶ ψυχῆς. de An. 1.2 404b30– 405a1 διαφέρονται δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν, τίνες καὶ πόσαι, μάλιστα μὲν οἱ σωματικὰς ποιοῦντες τοῖς ἀσωμάτους, τούτοις δ᾽ οἱ μίξαντες καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀποφηνάμενοι [see also at ch. 4.3, section E(b) General texts]. Chrysippus de An. I at Gal. PHP 3.1.16 (SVF 2.885) τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἥμισυ μέρος αὐτῷ τῆς βίβλου τὸ πρότερον (sc. Περὶ ψυχῆς) ὑπὲρ οὐσίας ψυχῆς ἔχει τὴν σκέψιν. Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. xxxi.40–42a Manetti καὶ μήν, φασίν, | ὅ[τι] ἐστὶ σῶμα ἡ ψυχή οἱ πλείους τῶν φιλοσόφων | λ[έγ]ουσι καὶ ἀσώματον δὲ αὐτὴν ἀπολεί|[πον]τες οὐσίαν ἥ⟨ν⟩τινὰ αὐτὴν ἔχειν ἔφασαν. Alcinous Did. c. 5, p. 157.27–36 H. οἷον ζητῶν εἰ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, ὑποθέμενος αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ζητῶ εἰ ἀεικίνητος, καὶ τοῦτο ἀποδείξας ζητῶ εἰ τὸ ἀεικίνητον αὐτοκίνητον, καὶ πάλιν τοῦτο ἀποδείξας σκοπῶ εἰ τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀρχὴ κινήσεως· εἶτα εἰ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἀγένητος, ὅπερ τίθενται ὡς ὁμολογούμενον, τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου ὄντος· ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἀρξάμενος ἐναργοῦς ὄντος συνθήσω τοιαύτην ἀπόδειξιν· εἰ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἀγένητον, καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ἀρχὴ κινήσεως, τὸ αὐτοκίνητον, τὸ αὐτοκίνητον δὲ ψυχή, ἄφθαρτος ἄρα καὶ ἀγένητος καὶ ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχή. cf. ibid. c. 25, p. 178.13–23 H. ἔτι τε ἡ ψυχὴ … καθ᾽ αὑτήν. Atticus fr. 7.2–5 bis Des Places (verbatim) at Eus. PE 15.11.4 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα ὅσα περὶ αὐτῆς εἰρήκασιν ἄλλοι, αἰσχύνην ἡμῖν φέρει. πῶς γὰρ οὐκ αἰσχρὸς ὁ ἐντελέχειαν τιθεὶς τὴν ψυχὴν λόγος σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ. fr. 7.34–42 Des Places (verbatim) at Eus. PE 15.9.7–8 ὁ δέ (sc. Aristotle), ὅσῳπερ Πλάτων ἀπεσέμνυνε τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς πρᾶγμα … τοσῷδε ἐφιλονείκησε καθελεῖν καὶ ἀτιμάσαι καὶ μικροῦ δεῖν μηδὲν ἀποφῆναι τὴν ψυχήν· (8) οὔτε γὰρ πνεῦμα οὔτε πῦρ οὔτε ὅλως σῶμα (see also at ch. 4.3, section E(a) General texts), ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἀσώματον οἷον εἶναί τε ἐφ᾽ αὑτοῦ καὶ κινεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὅσον ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος ἀκίνητον εἶναι καὶ ὡς εἰπεῖν ἄψυχον. Alexander

1413

1414

liber 4 caput 2

of Aphrodisias de An. 1.2–3 ἡ μὲν πρόθεσις ἡμῖν, περὶ ψυχῆς εἰπεῖν τῆς ⟨τοῦ⟩ ἐν γενέσει τε καὶ φθορᾷ σώματος, τίς τέ ἐστιν αὐτῆς ἡ οὐσία κτλ. ps.Alexander Quaest. fr. 2 Vitelli at FS Gomperz 1902 p. 93.13–14 λέγει (sc. Plato) δὲ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀσώματόν τινα οὐσίαν καὶ ἄφθαρτον εἶναι, ὧν θάτερον περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ ὑπὸ Ἀριστοτέλους δείκνυται. oἱ δὲ (sc. Stoici, not in SVF) … λέγουσι δὲ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν σῶμα εἶναι. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 101.3, 101.13–15. Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. i.21–24 Manetti ψυχὴ δὲ λέγεται τριχῶς· | [ἥ τε] τῶι ὅλωι σώματι παρεσπαρ|μένη καὶ τὸ μόριον τὸ λογιστικὸν | [κ]αὶ ἔτι ἡ ἐντρέχεια (sic). Galen PHP 7.3.19 ἴσως ἄν τις ὑπονοήσειε τὸ κατὰ τὰς κοιλίας τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου πνεῦμα δυοῖν θάτερον, εἰ μὲν ἀσώματός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῆς ὑπάρχειν, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, οἰκητήριον, εἰ δὲ σῶμα, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ {πνεῦμα} τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι. QAM c. 5, p. 32.5–8 Bazou εἰ μὲν γὰρ εἶδός ἐστιν ὁμοιομεροῦς σώματος ἡ ψυχή, τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας ἕξομεν ἐπιστημονικωτάτην· εἰ δ᾽ ὑποθοίμεθα ταύτην ἀσώματον εἶναι φύσιν ἰδίαν ἔχουσαν, ὡς ὁ Πλάτων ἔλεγεν κτλ. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 7, p. 11.10–21 καὶ σῶμα μὲν καλοῦμεν τὸ ἐξ ὀστέων καὶ σαρκῶν καὶ τῶν τοιούτων αἰσθητῶν, ψυχὴν δὲ τὸ τῶν ἐν τούτοις ἢ διὰ τούτων κινήσεως αἴτιον, οὗ τῶν δυνάμεων μόνων ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα· εἰ δὲ καὶ ταύτην σῶμα δεῖ καλεῖν, οὐ πολυπραγμονητέον νῦν· οὐ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν ὑποκειμένων φύσεων ζητοῦμεν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν αὐταῖς διαφοράν, ἣν ἔργῳ κατανενοήκαμεν ἀμετάστατον οὖσαν, κἂν μυριάκις τις ἀντιστρέφῃ τὰς ὀνομασίας αὐτῶν ἢ νῦν μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀσώματον εἶναι φάσκῃ κατὰ τοὺς νομοθετοῦντας σῶμα καλεῖσθαι τὸ αἰσθήσει γνώριμον, νῦν δὲ σῶμα κατὰ τοὺς τὸ ποιῆσαι καὶ παθεῖν οἷόν τε σῶμα ὁριζομένους. Plotinus Enn. 4.7.[2].1–83. Enn. 4.2.[4].1.1–4 τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν τίς ποτέ ἐστι ζητοῦντες σῶμα οὐδὲν αὐτὴν δείξαντες εἶναι, οὐδ᾽ ἐν ἀσωμάτοις αὖ ἁρμονίαν, τό τε τῆς ἐντελεχείας οὔτε ἀληθὲς οὕτως, ὡς λέγεται, οὔτε δηλωτικὸν ὂν τοῦ τί ἐστιν ἀφέντες. Enn. 4.7.[2].2.1–3 τοῦτο οὖν τίνα φύσιν ἔχει; ἢ σῶμα μὲν ὂν … εἰ δὲ μὴ σῶμα εἴη, ἀλλὰ φύσεως ἄλλης. Porphyry de An. adv. Boeth. 249F Smith at Eus. PE 15.11.4 (verbatim) τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα ὅσα περὶ αὐτῆς εἰρήκασιν ἄλλοι, αἰσχύνην ἡμῖν φέρει. πῶς γὰρ οὐκ αἰσχρὸς ὁ ἐντελέχειαν τιθεὶς τὴν ψυχὴν λόγος σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ; πῶς δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνης γέμων ὁ πνεῦμά πως ἔχον αὐτὴν ἀποδιδοὺς ἢ πῦρ νοερόν, τῇ περιψύξει καὶ οἷον βαφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀναφθὲν ἢ στομωθέν, ὅ τε ἀτόμων ἄθροισμα θεὶς ἢ ὅλως ἀπὸ σώματος αὐτὴν γεννᾶσθαι ἀποφαινόμενος; ὃν δὴ λόγον ἐν Νόμοις (10 891d–e) ἀσεβῶν ἀσεβῆ εἶναι ἀπεφήνατο. αἰσχύνης οὖν πάντες οὗτοι πλήρεις λόγοι. ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ λέγοντι αὐτοκίνητον (cf. Pl. Phdr. 245c τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν) οὐσίαν οὐκ ἄν τις, φησίν, αἰσχυνθείη. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 10.32–35 οἱ μὲν οὖν Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ Πλάτων οὐσίαν αὐτήν φασιν· οἱ δὲ ἁρμονίαν σωμάτων εἰπόντες καὶ οἱ τοιάνδε κρᾶσιν ἐν τῷ ποιῷ τίθενται. Ξενοκράτης (fr. 60 Heinze, F 100 Isnardi Parente2) δὲ ἀριθμὸν αὐτὴν θέμενος ἐν ποσῷ δοκεῖ. Eusebius Hist.Eccl. 4.18.5 καὶ ἄλλο σχολικὸν Περὶ ψυχῆς (sc. εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλήλυθεν), ἐν ᾧ διαφόρους πεύσεις προτείνας (sc. ὁ Ἰουστῖνος) περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν προβλήματος, τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησιν φιλοσόφων παρατίθεται τὰς δόξας, αἷς καὶ ἀντιλέξειν ὑπισχνεῖται τήν τε αὐτὸς αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν ἑτέρῳ παραθήσεσθαι συγγράμματι. John Philoponus in de An. 9.3–5 καθόλου δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν οἱ μέν φασιν ἀσώματον εἶναι, οἱ δὲ σῶμα· καὶ τῶν σῶμα οἱ μὲν ἁπλοῦν, οἱ δὲ σύνθετον· καὶ τῶν σύνθετον

liber 4 caput 2 οἱ μὲν ἐκ συνημμένων σωμάτων, οἱ δὲ ἀσυνάπτων. Barhebraeus Candélabre des sanctuaires, 8th base introd., translated Bakoš (1948) 1–2 (cited in text above, section D(e)). Chapter heading: ps.Plato Ep. 13.363a ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς λόγῳ. Aristotle de An. 1.1 402a3–4 τὴν Περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἱστορίαν. Sens. 1 436b10 εἴρηται πρότερον ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς. GA 5.1 779b22–23 ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ τούτων ἔτι πρότερον ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς διωρισμένοις (see also Bonitz 102b60–103a8). Callimachus Epigr. 23.3–4 Pfeiffer Πλάτωνος / ἓν τὸ Περὶ ψυχῆς γράμμ᾽ ἀναλεξάμενος. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1115A Ἀριστοτέλους … τὰ Περὶ ψυχῆς …, Δικαιάρχου (fr. 5 Wehrli, 13 Mirhady) δὲ τὰ Περὶ ψυχῆς. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.58 τέταρτος Φαίδων ἢ περὶ ψυχῆς, ἠθικός. 4.4 (Speusippus fr. 1 Lang, 2 Isnardi Parente, test. 1 Tarán) Περὶ ψυχῆς αʹ. 4.13 (Xenocrates p. 158 Heinze, test. 2 Isnardi Parente2) Περὶ ψυχῆς αʹ βʹ. 5.87 (Heraclides Ponticus fr. 22 Wehrli, 1 Schütrumpf) Περὶ ψυχῆς· καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν Περὶ ψυχῆς. 7.157 (SVF 3 Antip. 49) Περὶ ψυχῆς. 9.47 (Democritus 68B5e–f DK) Tetralogia IV 3 Περὶ νοῦ. 4 Περὶ αἰσθησίων (ταῦτά τινες ὁμοῦ γράφοντες Περὶ ψυχῆς ἐπιγράφουσι). Lactantius Inst. 7.22.19 Heck–Wlosok Plato De anima disserens. Galen Foet.Form. 4.699.16–18 K. περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ Χρυσίππου (SVF 2.743) λεγομένων ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ γράμμασιν ἐπισκέπτομαι. PHP 3.1.9 ὁ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.885) κατὰ τὸν πρῶτον αὐτοῦ Περὶ ψυχῆς λόγον. Origen CC 5.57, p. 368.22–23 Marcovich παρὰ τῷ Χαιρωνεῖ Πλουτάρχῳ (fr. 173 Sandbach) ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς. Themistius in de An. 108.11 (Theophr. fr. 307A FHSG) ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν, δευτέρῳ δὲ τῶν Περὶ ψυχῆς. Ambrose of Milan de Isaac vel anima. Cassiodorus de Anima. Scholia vetera in Iliadem 12.386d Erbse, Ποσειδωνίῳ (F 28a E.-K., 389a Theiler) ἐν τρίτῳ Περὶ ψυχῆς. ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 613.3 Περὶ ψυχῆς. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 30 and passim Περὶ ψυχῆς. §0 Whether it exists: Atticus fr. 7.51–53 Des Places (verbatim) at Eus. PE 15.9.10 ⟨τούτῳ⟩ (sc. Aristotle) τοιγαροῦν ἑπόμενος Δικαίαρχος (fr. 8(i) Wehrli, 20 Mirhady) καὶ τἀκόλουθον ἱκανὸς ὢν θεωρεῖν ἀνῄρηκε τὴν ὅλην ὑπόστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς. Galen Propr.Plac. 14, p. 188.1 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami (= Sub.Nat.Fac. 4.760.4–5 K). καθάπερ ἄλλοι μηδὲ εἶναί τινα ὕπαρξιν αὐτῆς ἰδίαν. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 101.5–6 τό γε εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν γνωριμώτατον καὶ φανερώτατον. ps.Plutarch Lib.Aegr. 5 (Heraclides of Pontus fr. 72 Wehrli, 80 Schütrumpf) ἔνιοι δ᾽ ἄντικρυς καὶ δόξαν καὶ διαλογισμὸν εἰς τὸ σῶμα κατατείνουσιν, οὐδ᾽ εἶναι οὐσίαν τὸ παράπαν ψυχῆς λέγοντες, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ σώματος διαφορᾷ καὶ ποιότητι καὶ δυνάμει συντελεῖσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ Περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἅιδου βιβλίον ἐπιγραφόμενον, ἐν ᾧ τὴν ψυχὴν τῇ οὐσίᾳ παρυπάρχειν ἀποφαίνεται ὁ λόγος, οἱ μὲν οὐδ᾽ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν Ἡρακλείδου νομίζουσιν, οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἀντιπαρεξαγωγὴν συντετάχθαι τῶν εἰρημένων ἑτέροις περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς. ὅτῳ δὴ γεγραμμένον ἄντικρυς ἀναιρεῖ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς, ὡς τοῦ σώματος ἔχοντος ἐν αὑτῷ τὰς εἰρημένας δυνάμεις πάσας. §1 Thales: Plato Phdr. 245c ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος. τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον. τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο κινοῦν καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου κινούμενον, παῦλαν ἔχον κινήσεως, παῦλαν ἔχει ζωῆς. μόνον δὴ τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν, ἅτε οὐκ ἀπολεῖπον ἑαυτό, οὔποτε λήγει κινού-

1415

1416

liber 4 caput 2

μενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅσα κινεῖται τοῦτο πηγὴ καὶ ἀρχὴ κινήσεως. ps.Plato Def. 411c ψυχὴ τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν· αἰτία κινήσεως ζωτικῆς ζῴων. Aristotle de An. 1.2 404a20–25 ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ δὲ φέρονται καὶ ὅσοι λέγουσι τὴν ψυχὴν ‘τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν’· ἐοίκασι γὰρ οὗτοι πάντες ὑπειληφέναι τὴν κίνησιν οἰκειότατον εἶναι τῇ ψυχῇ, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα κινεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ταύτην δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, διὰ τὸ μηθὲν ὁρᾶν κινοῦν ὃ μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ κινεῖται. de An. 1.2 405a19–21 ἔοικε δὲ καὶ Θαλῆς (11A22 DK) ἐξ ὧν ἀπομνημονεύουσι κινητικόν τι τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν, εἴπερ τὴν λίθον ἔφη ψυχὴν ἔχειν. Galen Trem.Palp. 7.616.13–15 καὶ ἥ γε φύσις καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν (sc. τὸ ἔμφυτον θερμὸν), ὥστ᾽ οὐσίαν αὐτοκίνητόν τε καὶ ἀεικίνητον αὐτὸ νοῶν οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοις. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.24 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν πρῶτον εἰπεῖν φασιν ἀθανάτους τὰς ψυχάς· ὧν ἐστι Χοιρίλος ὁ ποιητής (fr. 12 Bernabé). … Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ καὶ Ἱππίας (86B7 DK) φασὶν αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀψύχοις μεταδιδόναι ψυχῆς, τεκμαιρόμενον ἐκ τῆς λίθου τῆς μαγνήτιδος καὶ τοῦ ἠλέκτρου. V.P. 9.7 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) καὶ πάντα ψυχῶν εἶναι καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη. Sententiae Sexti (Append. 2A, 559) ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ νοῦς αὐτοκίνητος καὶ ἀεικίνητος. Themistius in de An. 13.21–23 ἔοικε δὲ καὶ Θαλῆς (fr. 301 Wöhrle) κινητικόν τι τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν, εἴπερ διὰ τοῦτο ἔφη τὸν σίδηρον ἕλκεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς λίθου τῆς ἡρακλείας, ὅτι ἔμψυχος ἐκείνη ἡ λίθος. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 31.20–26 τοσοῦτον δὲ περὶ Θαλοῦ (fr. 422 Wöhrle) ἱστορήσας (sc. Aristotle), καὶ τοῦτο μετά τινος ἐπιτιμήσεως, ὅτι τῇ μαγνήτιδι λίθῳ ψυχὴν ἐδίδου ὡς κινητικῇ τοῦ σιδήρου, ἵνα κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον κινητικὴν εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν πιστώσηται, οὐκέτι τὸ ὕδωρ εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνέπεμψεν, καίτοι στοιχεῖον τὸ ὕδωρ τιθέμενον, ἐπειδὴ τῶν σωμάτων τὸ ὕδωρ ἔλεγε στοιχεῖον, εἰκὸς δὲ ἀσώματον αὐτὴν ἐκεῖνον ὑποτίθεσθαι. John Philoponus in de An. 9.10–12 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος, ὡς Θαλῆς (fr. 440 Wöhrle) καὶ Ἵππων ὁ ἐπίκλην ἄθεος· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὴν γονὴν ἑώρων ἐξ ὑγρᾶς οὖσαν οὐσίας, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὕδωρ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων ἐνόμισαν. in de An. 86.23–34 οὐ γὰρ εἶπε (sc. Aristotle) φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Θαλῆς (fr. 442 Wöhrle) τὸ ὕδωρ ψυχὴν τίθεται καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἕλκειν φησὶ τὸν σίδηρον τὴν λίθον ὡς ἔμψυχον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐξ ὕδατος οὖσαν. … διὰ ταῦτα τούτου μὲν οὐ λέγει εἶναι τὴν δόξαν ταύτην ὅτι ἐξ ὕδατος ἡ ψυχή, ἀλλὰ τοσοῦτον μόνον ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν κίνησιν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀπένειμεν. Aristotle de An. 1.5 411a7–8 καὶ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δή τινες αὐτὴν μεμῖχθαί φασιν, ὅθεν ἴσως καὶ Θαλῆς (11A22 DK) ᾠήθη πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔχει τινὰς ἀπορίας κτλ. Themistius in de An. 35.26–29 ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἑτέρα τις δόξα παρὰ τὰς εἰρημένας περὶ ψυχῆς, ἐν παντὶ τῷ ὄντι μεμῖχθαι λέγουσα τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ διὰ παντὸς διήκειν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ πᾶν αὐτοῦ μόριον ἔμψυχον εἶναι. διὰ γὰρ ταύτην τὴν δόξαν καὶ Θαλῆς (fr. 302 Wöhrle) ᾠήθη πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι. John Philoponus in de An. 188.14–18 ἑτέραν δόξαν ἐκτίθεται (sc. Aristotle) περὶ ψυχῆς. ὑπενόησαν, φησί, τινὲς ψυχὴν ἐν παντὶ σώματι μεμῖχθαι, ὡς πᾶν εἶναι σῶμα ἔμψυχον· ἐκ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης δόξης καὶ τὸν Θαλῆν (fr. 443 Wöhrle) νομίσαι πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι, τοπικῶς ὑπονοοῦντος τοῦ Θαλοῦ πανταχοῦ εἶναι τὸ θεῖον, ἢ τῷ αὐτὴν τὴν ψυχὴν θεὸν ὑπονοεῖν, ἢ θείας μοίρας αὐτὴν εἶναι. §2 Alcmaeon: Aristotle de An. 1.2 405a29–b1 παραπλησίως δὲ τούτοις (sc. Thales Diogenes Heraclitus) καὶ Ἀλκμαίων (24A12 DK) ἔοικεν ὑπολαβεῖν περὶ ψυχῆς· φησὶ γὰρ αὐτὴν ἀθάνατον εἶναι διὰ τὸ ἐοικέναι τοῖς ἀθανάτοις· τοῦτο δ᾽ ὑπάρ-

liber 4 caput 2 χειν αὐτῇ ὡς ἀεὶ κινουμένῃ· κινεῖσθαι γὰρ καὶ τὰ θεῖα πάντα συνεχῶς ἀεί, σελήνην, ἥλιον, τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ὅλον. Boethus at Porph. de An. adv. Boeth. (243F Smith) at Eus. PE 11.28.7–9 εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ παντὸς ὀλέθρου κρείττων τις φύσις, πολλοὺς ἀναμείναντα χρὴ καὶ περιηγησάμενον λόγους ἀποφήνασθαι. (8) τὸ μέντοι τῶν περὶ ἡμᾶς ὁμοιότερον μηδὲν γενέσθαι θεῷ ψυχῆς, οὐ πολλῆς ἄν τις δεηθεὶς πραγματείας πιστεύσειεν, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ συνεχὲς καὶ ἄπαυστον τῆς κινήσεως, ἣν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνδίδωσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν νοῦ. (9) εἰς ὅπερ ἀπιδὼν καὶ ὁ Κροτωνιάτης φυσικὸς (cf. VS 1 app. p. 495.45–46) εἶπεν ἀθάνατον αὐτὴν οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν ἠρεμίαν φύσει φεύγειν, ὥσπερ τὰ θεῖα τῶν σωμάτων. Porphyry de An. adv. Boeth. (249F Smith) at Eus. PE 15.11.4 ‘ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ λέγοντι (sc. Plato) αὐτοκίνητον οὐσίαν οὐκ ἄν τις’, φησίν, ‘αἰσχυνθείη’. §§3–5 Pythagoras Xenocrates Plato: Aristotle de An. 1.2 404a20–21 ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ δὲ φέρονται καὶ ὅσοι λέγουσι τὴν ψυχὴν ‘τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν’ (Pl. Phdr. 245c). de An. 1.2 404b16–30 Πλάτων ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ … ἔνιοι (Xenocrates fr. 60 Heinze, F 85 Isnardi Parente2) συνέπλεξαν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, ἀποφηνάμενοι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀριθμὸν κινοῦνθ᾽ ἑαυτόν. Top. 6.3 140b2–4 (Xenocrates fr. 60 Heinze, F 89 Isnardi Parente2) τοιοῦτος δὲ καὶ ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς ὅρος, εἴπερ ἀριθμὸς αὐτὸς αὑτὸν κινῶν ἐστιν· καὶ γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν ψυχή, καθάπερ Πλάτων (Phdr. 245c) ὥρισται. APo. 2.8 93a21–24 τὸ δ᾽ εἰ ἔστιν ὁτὲ μὲν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἔχομεν, ὁτὲ δ᾽ ἔχοντές τι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πράγματος, οἷον … καὶ ψυχήν, ὅτι ‘αὐτὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν’ (Pl. Phdr. 245c). Plutarch An.Procr. 1013C–D ἀριθμόν γε μὴν ὁ Πλάτων οὐδέποτε τὴν ψυχὴν προσεῖπεν ἀλλὰ κίνησιν αὐτοκίνητον ἀεὶ καὶ ‘κινήσεως πηγὴν καὶ ἀρχήν’ (Phdr. 245c πηγὴ καὶ ἀρχὴ κινήσεως)· ἀριθμῷ δὲ καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἁρμονίᾳ διακεκόσμηκε τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς ὑποκειμένην καὶ δεχομένην τὸ κάλλιστον εἶδος ὑπὸ τούτων ἐγγιγνόμενον. οἶμαι δὲ μὴ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ (D) κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν συνεστάναι τὴν ψυχὴν τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς ἀριθμὸν ὑπάρχειν, ἐπεὶ ⟨καὶ⟩ καθ᾽ ἁρμονίαν συνέστηκεν ἁρμονία δ᾽ οὔκ ἐστιν, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς (Phd. 92) ἀπέδειξεν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.67 (on Plato’s soul) αὐτοκίνητόν τε εἶναι. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 10.32–33 οἱ μὲν οὖν Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ Πλάτων οὐσίαν αὐτήν φασιν. §4 Xenocrates: Plutarch An.Procr. 1012D Ξενοκράτης (fr. 68 Heinze, F 108 Isnardi Parente2) … τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀριθμὸν αὐτὸν ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον ἀποφηνάμενος. Themistius in de An. 32.22–31 ἀλλὰ χρὴ παραβάλλειν τὰ Ἀνδρονίκου (see below §7) πρὸς τὰ ἐκείνου (sc. Porphyry’s), ὅσῳ καὶ σαφέστερα καὶ πιθανώτερα πρὸς σύστασιν τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Ξενοκράτους (fr. 61 Heinze, F 180 Isnardi Parente2). ‘ἀριθμὸν γὰρ ἐκάλουν’ φησὶ ‘τὴν ψυχήν, ὅτι μηδὲν ζῶον ἐξ ἁπλοῦ σώματος, ἀλλὰ κατά τινας λόγους καὶ ἀριθμοὺς κραθέντων τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων. σχεδὸν οὖν ταὐτὸν ἀπεφαίνοντο τοῖς ἁρμονίαν αὐτὴν τιθεμένοις, πλὴν ὅσῳ σαφέστερον οὗτοι τῇ προσθήκῃ τὸν λόγον ἐποίουν, οὐ πάντα ἀριθμόν, ἀλλὰ τὸν κινοῦντα ἑαυτὸν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀφοριζόμενοι, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι μὴ πᾶσαν ἁρμονίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁρμόζουσαν ἑαυτήν· αὐτὴ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς κράσεως ταύτης αἰτία καὶ τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς μίξεως τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων.’ Favonius Eulogius in Somn. 5.6 estque numerus, ut Xenocrates (fr. 16 Heinze, F 134 Isnardi Parente2) censuit, animus. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 10.34–35 Ξενοκράτης (fr. 60 Heinze, F 100 Isnardi Parente2) δὲ ἀριθμὸν αὐτὴν θέμενος ἐν ποσῷ δοκεῖ. John Philo-

1417

1418

liber 4 caput 2

ponus in de An. 165.24–26 (Xenocrates fr. 65 Heinze, F 117 Isnardi Parente2) ἀριθμοὺς δὲ τὰ εἴδη ἐκάλουν, ὡς εἴρηται· καὶ αὐτὸς (sc. Arist. de An. 3.4 429a2728) γοῦν ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς φησιν ‘καὶ εὖ δὴ οἱ λέγοντες τὴν ψυχὴν τόπον εἰδῶν’. ἀριθμὸν μὲν οὖν διὰ τοῦτο, κινοῦντα δὲ αὑτὸν διὰ τὸ αὐτοζῶν αὐτῆς. §5 Plato: Plato Tim. 33c–36e. Aristotle de An. 1.3 406b25–407a2, esp. 406b29 κατὰ τοὺς ἁρμονικοὺς ἀριθμούς. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.67–68 (on Plato) ἀρχήν τε ἔχειν (sc. τὴν ψυχὴν) ἀριθμητικήν, τὸ δὲ σῶμα γεωμετρικήν· ὡρίζετο δὲ αὐτὴν ἰδέαν τοῦ πάντῃ διεστῶτος πνεύματος. αὐτοκίνητόν τε εἶναι …. (68) διαιρεθεῖσάν τε κατὰ ἁρμονικὰ διαστήματα δύο κύκλους ποιεῖν συνημμένους, ὧν τὸν ἐντὸς κύκλον ἑξαχῆ τμηθέντα τοὺς ἅπαντας ἑπτὰ κύκλους ποιεῖν. καὶ τοῦτον μὲν κατὰ διάμετρον κ⟨ιν⟩εῖσθαι ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ ἔσωθεν, τὸν δὲ κατὰ πλευρὰν ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιά. §6 Aristotle: Aristotle de An. 2.1 412a19–22 ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα τὴν ψυχὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι ὡς εἶδος σώματος φυσικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. ἡ δ᾽ οὐσία ἐντελέχεια· τοιούτου ἄρα σώματος ἐντελέχεια. de An. 2.1 412b4–6 εἰ δή τι κοινὸν ἐπὶ πάσης ψυχῆς δεῖ λέγειν, εἴη ἂν ἐντελέχεια ἡ πρώτη σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ. Plutarch Plat.Quaest. 1006D Ἀριστοτέλης (mix of de An. 2.1 412a27–28 and b5–6) ὡρίσατο τὴν ψυχὴν ‘ἐντελέχειαν σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος’. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 16.10–14 (soul is) ἐντελέχεια οὖν ἡ πρώτη σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ. ἔστι γὰρ ὀργανικὸν σῶμα τὸ ἔχον πλείω τε καὶ διαφέροντα μέρη ψυχικαῖς δυνάμεσιν ὑπηρετεῖσθαι δυνάμενα. διὸ τὸ ὀργανικὸν σῶμα καὶ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχειν λέγει, τῷ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχον ἀντὶ τοῦ δυναμένου κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ζῆν χρώμενος. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) An.Mant. 104.21–24 ἔστι δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ ἐντελέχεια οὖσα δι᾽ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος. πᾶν γὰρ ἔμψυχον τὸ ἐμψύχου μέρος. καὶ ἔστιν ἐντελέχεια ἡ ψυχὴ οὔτε ὡς τὸ σχῆμα τῶν ἐσχηματισμένων, οὔτε ὡς ἡ θέσις καὶ τάξις τῶν συγκειμένων, οὐθ᾽ ὡς διάθεσίς τις καὶ πάθος, οὔθ᾽ ὡς μῖξις ἢ κρᾶσις. Plotinus Enn. 4.2.[4].1.3–4 τό τε τῆς ἐντελεχείας οὔτε ἀληθὲς οὕτως, ὡς λέγεται, οὔτε δηλωτικὸν ὂν τοῦ τί ἐστιν ἀφέντες. Enn. 4.7.[2].85.1–5 τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐντελεχείας ὧδ᾽ ἄν τις ἐπισκέψαιτο, πῶς περὶ ψυχῆς λέγεται· τὴν ψυχήν φασιν ἐν τῷ συνθέτῳ εἴδους τάξιν ὡς πρὸς ὕλην τὸ σῶμα ἔμψυχον ⟨ὂν⟩ ἔχειν, σώματος δὲ οὐ παντὸς εἶδος οὐδὲ ᾗ σῶμα, ἀλλὰ φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32–33 (on Aristotle) καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν δὲ ἀσώματον, ἐντελέχειαν οὖσαν τὴν πρώτην σώματος {γὰρ} φυσικοῦ καὶ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. (33) λέγει δὲ τὴν ἐντελέχειαν ἧς ἐστιν εἶδός τι ἀσώματον. διττὴ δ᾽ ἐστὶν αὕτη κατ᾽ αὐτόν· ἡ μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν, ὡς ἐν τῷ κηρῷ ὁ Ἑρμῆς ἐπιτηδειότητα ἔχοντι ἐπιδέξασθαι τοὺς χαρακτῆρας, καὶ {ὁ} ἐν τῷ χαλκῷ ἀνδριάς· καθ᾽ ἕξιν δὲ λέγεται ἐντελέχεια ἡ τοῦ συντετελεσμένου Ἑρμοῦ ἢ ἀνδριάντος. σώματος δὲ φυσικοῦ, ἐπεὶ τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι χειρόκμητα, ὡς τὰ ὑπὸ τεχνιτῶν γινόμενα, οἷον πύργος, πλοῖον· τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ φύσεως, ὡς φυτὰ καὶ τὰ τῶν ζῴων. ὀργανικοῦ δὲ εἶπε, τούτεστι πρός τι κατεσκευασμένου, ὡς ἡ ὅρασις πρὸς τὸ ὁρᾶν καὶ ἡ ἀκοὴ πρὸς τὸ ἀκούειν· δυνάμει δὲ ζωὴν ἔχοντος, οἷον ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Porphyry de An. adv. Boeth. (249F Smith) at Eus. PE 15.11.4 πῶς γὰρ οὐκ αἰσχρὸς ὁ ἐντελέχειαν τιθεὶς τὴν ψυχὴν λόγος σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ; P. 31 Smith at Sud. s.v. Π 2098, p. 4.178.24–25 Adler Πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην ⟨περὶ⟩ τοῦ εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἐντελέχειαν. Iamblichus de An. fr. 9 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl.

liber 4 caput 2 1.49.32, pp. 366.26–367.2 ἕτεροι (sc. τῶν Ἀριστοτελικῶν) δὲ τελειότητα αὐτὴν ἀφορίζονται κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τοῦ θείου σώματος, ἣν ἐντελέχειαν καλεῖ Ἀριστοτέλης. §7 Dicaearchus: Aristotle de An. 1.4 407b30–32 ἁρμονίαν γάρ τινα αὐτὴν λέγουσι· καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἁρμονίαν κρᾶσιν καὶ σύνθεσιν ἐναντίων εἶναι, καὶ τὸ σῶμα συγκεῖσθαι ἐξ ἐναντίων. Pol. 8.5 1340b18–19 διὸ πολλοί φασι τῶν σοφῶν οἱ μὲν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, οἱ δ᾽ ἔχειν ἁρμονίαν. Lucretius DRN 3.98–101 sensum animi certa non esse in parte locatum, / verum habitum quendam vitalem corporis esse, / harmoniam Grai quam dicunt, quod faciat nos / vivere cum sensu, nulla cum in parte siet mens. DRN 3.117–118 nunc animam quoque ut in membris cognoscere possis / esse neque harmonia corpus sentire solere. Cicero Tusc. 1.19–20 Aristoxenus (fr. 120(a) Wehrli, I a 1 05 Kaiser) … ipsius corporis intentionem quandam, velut in cantu et fidibus quae ἁρμονία dicitur: sic ex corporis totius natura et figura varios motus cieri tamquam in cantu sonos, … (20) dixit aliquid (sc. animam harmoniam esse) quod ipsum quale esset erat multo ante et dictum et explanatum a Platone. Tusc. 1.11 Aristoxeni (fr. 119 Wehrli, Ia 1 10 Kaiser) harmonia. Lactantius Op.D. Perrin 16.13–14 illud autem cave ne umquam simile veri putaveris quod Aristoxenus (fr. 120(d) Wehrli, IV 1 25 Kaiser) dicit, mentem omnino nullam esse, sed quasi harmoniam in fidibus ex constructione corporis et conpagibus viscerum vim sentiendi existere. … (14) volunt enim animum simili ratione constare in homine qua concors modulatio constat in fidibus, scilicet ut singularum corporis partium firma coniunctio membrorumque omnium consentiens in unum vigor motum illum sensibilem faciat animumque concinnet sicut nervi bene intenti conspirantum sonum. Seneca Nat. 7.25.2 alius concentum quondam. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1119A–B ἢ τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ἔστιν οὐσία ψυχῆς ἀλλ᾽ (B) αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα κεκραμένον ἔσχηκε τὴν τοῦ φρονεῖν καὶ ζῆν δύναμιν. Galen QAM c. 4, pp. 26.9–27.1 Bazou [text after Scr.Min. p. 2.44 cf. Bazou pp. 26.9–27.1, where the name of Andronicus is attested by the Arabic version] Ἀνδρόνικον δὲ τὸν Περιπατητικόν (cf. above §4), ὅτι μὲν ὅλως ἐτόλμησεν ἀποφήνασθαι τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς ⟨κρᾶσιν ἢ δύναμιν εἶναι τοῦ σώματος add. Müller non prob. Bazou⟩ ὡς ἐλεύθερος ἀνὴρ ἄνευ τοῦ περιπλέκειν ἀσαφῶς, ἐπαινῶ τε πάνυ … , ὅτι δ᾽ ἤτοι κρᾶσιν εἶναί φησιν ἢ δύναμιν ἑπομένην τῇ κράσει, μέμφομαι τῇ προσθέσει τῆς δυνάμεως (but cf. Nemesius NH c. 2, p. 23.24–24.4 Γαληνὸς δὲ ἀποφαίνεται μὲν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διαμαρτύρεται ἐν τοῖς Ἀποδεικτικοῖς λόγοις ὡς οὐδὲν εἴη περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποφηνάμενος· ἔοικε δέ, ἐξ ὧν λέγει, δοκιμάζειν μᾶλλον τὸ κρᾶσιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν (ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐπακολουθεῖν τὴν τῶν ἠθῶν διαφοράν), ἐκ τῶν Ἱπποκράτους κατασκευάζων τὸν λόγον). Propr.Plac. 14, p. 187.27–28 Boudon-Millot– Pietrobelli, text Lami (= Sub.Nat.Fac. 4.760.17–18 K.) ἤτοι γε ἐκ τῆς τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων κράσεως γενομένην. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 24.18–26.12. Plotinus Enn. 4.7.[2].84.2–5 ἆρ᾽ οὖν ἕτερον μὲν σώματος, σώματος δέ τι, οἷον ἁρμονία; τοῦτο γὰρ ἁρμονίαν τῶν ἀμφὶ Πυθαγόραν λεγόντων ἕτερον τρόπον ᾠήθησαν αὐτὸ τοιοῦτόν τι εἶναι οἷον καὶ ἡ περὶ χορδὰς ἁρμονία. Enn. 4.2.[4].1.1–3 τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν τίς ποτέ ἐστι ζητοῦντες σῶμα οὐδὲν αὐτὴν δείξαντες εἶναι, οὐδ᾽ ἐν ἀσωμάτοις αὖ ἁρμονίαν. Andronicus of Rhodes at Them. in de An. 32.26–31 σχεδὸν οὖν ταὐτὸν ἀπεφαίνοντο τοῖς ἁρμονίαν αὐτὴν τιθεμένοις, πλὴν ὅσῳ σαφέ-

1419

1420

liber 4 caput 2

στερον οὗτοι τῇ προσθήκῃ τὸν λόγον ἐποίουν, οὐ πάντα ἀριθμόν, ἀλλὰ τὸν κινοῦντα ἑαυτὸν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀφοριζόμενοι, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι μὴ πᾶσαν ἁρμονίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁρμόζουσαν ἑαυτήν· αὐτὴ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς κράσεως ταύτης αἰτία καὶ τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς μίξεως τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 10.33–34 οἱ δὲ ἁρμονίαν σωμάτων εἰπόντες καὶ οἱ τοιάνδε κρᾶσιν ἐν τῷ ποιῷ τίθενται. §8 Asclepiades: Galen Ut.Resp. 4.484.1–3 K. Ἀσκληπιάδῃ (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 717) δὲ οὐ{δὲ} ταῦτα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ δι᾽ ἑτέρων ἡμῖν εἰρημένα πρὸς τοὺς Περὶ ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ λόγους μάχεται. Libr.Propr. 11, p. 19.38–39 K. μικρὸν δ᾽ ἄλλο τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχον ‘Περὶ οὐσίας τῆς ψυχῆς κατ᾽ Ἀσκληπιάδην’ (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 720). in Off.Med. 18B.660.10–14 K. πεπεισμένοι δέ εἰσιν ὡσαύτως ἅπαντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ κίνησιν εἶναί … καὶ νοῦν καὶ μνήμην καὶ προαίρεσιν, ἃ πρὸς ἄλλοις πολλοῖς ἀνατρέπειν ἐπεχείρησεν Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 720) ὡς οὐκ ὄντα. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.350 καὶ οἱ μὲν διαφέρειν αὐτὴν τῶν αἰσθήσεων, ὡς οἱ πλείους, οἱ δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις, καθάπερ διά τινων ὀπῶν τῶν αἰσθητηρίων προκύπτουσαν, ἧς στάσεως ἦρξε Στράτων (fr. 109 Wehrli, 61 Sharples) τε ὁ φυσικὸς καὶ Αἰνησίδημος (fr. B24A Polito). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.51 ἔλεγέ (on Protagoras, 80A1 DK) τε μηδὲν εἶναι ψυχὴν παρὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, καθὰ καὶ Πλάτων φησὶν ἐν Θεαιτήτῳ (cf. 152a). Tertullian de An. 14.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 11 Podolak) non longe hoc exemplum est a Stratone (fr. 108 Wehrli, 59 Sharples) et Aenesidemo (fr. B24C Polito) et Heraclito (T 652 Mouraviev); nam et ipsi unitatem animae tuentur, quae in totum corpus diffusa et ubique ipsa, velut flatus in calamo per cavernas, ita per sensualia variis modis emicet, non tam concisa quam dispensata. differently Calcidius in Tim. c. 215 aut enim moles quadam sunt leves et globosae eaedemque admodum delicatae, ex quibus anima subsistit, quod totum spiritus est, ut Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 714) putat.

Liber 4 Caput 3 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 898C–D; pp. 387a9–389a7 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 190–193 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.49.1b pp. 319.10–320.15 Wachsmuth T: Theodoretus CAG 5.18; p. 127.5–14 Raeder Cf. Hermias Irr. 2.1–3.1 Hanson; ps.Iustinus Coh. 7.2.15–22 Marcovich; Nem: Nemesius NH c. 2, p. 16.12–21 Morani

Titulus γʹ. Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς (P) §1 οὗτοι πάντες οἱ προτεταγμένοι ἀσώματον τὴν ψυχὴν ὑποτίθενται, φύσιν λέγοντες αὐτοκίνητον καὶ οὐσίαν νοητὴν καὶ τοῦ φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ ζωὴν ἔχοντος ἐντελέχειαν. (P1) §2 Ἀναξιμένης Ἀναξίμανδρος Ἀναξαγόρας Ἀρχέλαος Διογένης ἀεροειδῆ ἔλεγόν τε καὶ σῶμα. (P2,S1,T1) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ πνεῦμα νοερὸν θερμόν. (P3,S2,T2) §4 Παρμενίδης δὲ καὶ Ἵππασος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος πυρώδη. (S3,T3) §5 Δημόκριτος πυρῶδες σύγκριμα ἐκ τῶν λόγῳ θεωρητῶν, σφαιρικὰς μὲν ἐχόντων τὰς ἰδέας, πυρίνην δὲ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅπερ σῶμα εἶναι. (P4,S4) §6 Ἡρακλείδης φωτοειδῆ τὴν ψυχὴν ὡρίσατο. (S5,T5) §7 Λεύκιππος ἐκ πυρὸς εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. (S6) §8 Διογένης ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης ἐξ ἀέρος τὴν ψυχήν. (S7) §9 Ἵππων ἐξ ὕδατος τὴν ψυχήν. (S8) §2 Anaximenes ad 13A23 DK; Anaximander 12A29 DK; Anaxagoras 59A93 DK; Archelaus 60A17 DK; Diogenes T5b Laks; §3 Stoici SVF 2.779; §4 Parmenides 28A45 DK; Hippasus 18.9 DK; Heraclitus T 460 Mouraviev; §5 Democritus 68A102 DK; §6 Heraclides Ponticus fr. 98a,d Wehrli, 46a,d Schütrumpf; §7 Leucippus 67A28 DK; §8 Diogenes T5b Laks; §9 Hippo 38A10 DK caput non hab. G (aliud c. 24 Περὶ ψυχῆς) titulus Εἰ … αὐτῆς PBQ : Περὶ ψυχῆς tit. S 1.49 §1 [3] φύσιν Reiske, eine … Natur Q : φύσει PB §1 non hab. S §2 [5] Ἀναξιμένης … Διογένης scripsimus : οἱ δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ Ἀναξαγόρου P : om. Ἀναξίμανδρος S prob. Bäumker non prob. Diels DG, cui Διογένης ‘abundare’ videbatur, secl. Wachsmuth prob. Wöhrle fr. Ar 138 non prob. Laks ad T5b : Ἀναξιμένης δὲ καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Ἀρχέλαος T (quod typis exaratur 12A29 DK) ‖ [6] ἔλεγόν … σῶμα P : om. S : τε (δὲ Diels DG qui comma post ἀεροειδῆ pos.) … σῶμα om. T §3 [7] πνεῦμα PS : πνευματικὴν T ‖ νοερὸν S : om. PT ‖ θερμόν PS : πλείστου μετέχουσαν τοῦ θερμοῦ T §4 om. P ‖ [8] Ἵππασος SPhotT : πήγασος SFP ‖ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος T prob. Diels 18.9 DK, dub. addidimus : om. S quod prob. Diels 28A45 DK §5 [9] θεωρητῶν P : θεωρικῶν S §6 [1] Ἡρακλείδης T(MDSCV) melius T1 : Ἡράκλειτος S (marg. Ηρακλείδης SP) T(KBL) melius T2 §§7–10 om. PT ‖ §7 [13] post ψυχήν add. ἀπεφήνατο S(P)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_102

5

10

15

1422

liber 4 caput 3

§10 Ξέναρχος ὁ Περιπατητικὸς καί τινες ἕτεροι τῆς αὐτῆς αἱρέσεως τὴν κατὰ τὸ εἶδος τελειότητα καὶ ἐντελέχειαν, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν οὖσαν ἅμα καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος συντεταγμένην. (S9) §11 Ἐπίκουρος κρᾶμα ἐκ τεττάρων, ἐκ ποιοῦ πυρώδους, ἐκ ποιοῦ ἀερώδους, ἐκ ποιοῦ πνευματικοῦ, ἐκ τετάρτου τινὸς ἀκατονομάστου, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν αὐτῷ τὸ αἰσθητικόν· ὧν τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα κίνησιν, τὸν δὲ ἀέρα ἠρεμίαν, τὸ δὲ θερμὸν τὴν φαινομένην θερμότητα τοῦ σώματος, τὸ δ᾽ ἀκατονόμαστον τὴν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐμποιεῖν αἴσθησιν, ἐν οὐδενὶ γὰρ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων στοιχείων εἶναι αἴσθησιν. (P5,S10,T5) §12 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μῖγμα ἐξ αἰθερώδους καὶ ἀερώδους ⟨καὶ ὑδατώδους καὶ γεώδους⟩ οὐσίας. (T6) §13 Κριτίας ἐξ αἵματος εἶπε καὶ ἐξ ὑγροῦ. (T7) §14 Ἡράκλειτος τὴν μὲν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ὑγρῶν, τὴν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκτὸς καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναθυμιάσεως, ὁμογενῆ. (P6) §10 Xenarchus—; §11 Epicurus fr. 315 Usener; §12 Empedocles—; §13 Critias—; §14 Heraclitus 22A15 DK §11[19] post Ἐπίκουρος add. δὲ ὁ Νεοκλέους T ‖ ποιοῦ πυρώδους PB(II)S (mg. γρ. γεώδους PB(II)) : ποιοῦ γε πυρώδους PB(I) : ποιοῦ om. T : Qualität Q ‖ [19–20] ποιοῦ ἀερώδους SF : om. SP1 (marg. add. ἀερώδους· θερμοῦ SP2) : ποιοῦ1 om. T ‖ glaubte, daß add. Q ‖ [20] ποιοῦ om. T ‖ [21] τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν αὐτῷ Heeren Diels : ὃ ἦν αὐτῷ P : τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν αὐτὴ S ‖ τὸ1 S : om. P ‖ [21– 25] τοῦτο … αἴσθησιν om. T : ὧν … αἴσθησιν om. P ‖ [23] ἐμποιεῖν Heeren ex cod. Vat. : ἐμποιεῖ SFP ‖ [24] εἶναι SF : om. SP §§12–13 om. P, non hab. S ‖ [26–27] lac. indicavimus et supplevimus cf. c. 5.25.4 cum suppl. Dielesiano §14 om. TS ‖ [29] glaubte, daß add. Q ‖ [30] ἐν αὐτοῖς] von Innen Q

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 5.18 (5.16–17 vid. test. prim. ad c. 4.2) 18.1 (~ §2) Ἀναξιμένης δὲ καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Ἀρχέλαος ἀερώδη τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν φύσιν εἰρήκασιν. 18.2 (~ §3) οἱ δέ γε Στωϊκοὶ πνευματικήν, πλείστου μετέχουσαν τοῦ θερμοῦ. 18.3 (~ §4) Παρμενίδης δὲ καὶ Ἵππασος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος πυρώδη ταύτην κεκλήκασιν. 18.4 (~ §6) ὁ δὲ Ἡρακλείδης φωτοειδῆ. 18.5 (~ §11) Ἐπίκουρος δὲ ὁ Νεοκλέους τεττάρων τινῶν ποιοτήτων κρᾶμα, πυρώδους καὶ ἀερώδους καὶ πνευματικοῦ καὶ τετάρτου τινὸς ἀκατονομάστου. 18.6 (~ §12) ὁ δὲ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μῖγμα ἐξ αἰθερώδους καὶ ἀερώδους οὐσίας. 18.7 (~ §13) Κριτίας δὲ ἐξ αἵματος εἶπε καὶ ἐξ ὑγροῦ. 18.8 (~ §§5/7/8/9/10/14) καὶ ἄλλοι δ᾽ αὖ ἄλλα λεληρήκασιν ἐναντία.

20

25

30

liber 4 caput 3 Testes secundi: Hermias Irr. 2.1–3.1 οἱ μὲν γάρ φασιν αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ (~ §3–4), οἱ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα (~ §8), … οἱ δὲ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν (~ §14), οἱ δὲ ὕδωρ γονοποιόν (~ §9), … οἱ δὲ τὸ αἷμα (~ §13), οἱ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα (~ §3), οἱ δὲ τὴν μονάδα, καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ τὰ ἐναντία. πόσοι λόγοι περὶ τούτων, ἐπιχειρήσεις πόσαι, πόσαι δίκαι σοφιστῶν ἐριζόντων μᾶλλον ἢ τἀληθὲς εὑρισκόντων; στασιάζουσι μὲν περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς (~ quaestio). ps.Iustinus Coh. 7.2.15–22 τὴν γοῦν ἀνθρωπίνην ψυχὴν ἔνιοι μὲν τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν φιλοσόφων ἐν ἡμῖν, ἕτεροι δὲ περὶ ἡμᾶς εἶναί φασιν (~ §14)· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ συμφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις προῄρηνται, ἀλλ᾽, ὥσπερ τὴν ἄγνοιαν διαφόρως μερισάμενοι, καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς φιλονεικεῖν καὶ στασιάζειν πρὸς ἀλλήλους προῄρηνται (~ quaestio). οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν φασι πῦρ εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν (~ §2), οἱ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα (~ §2), οἱ δὲ τὸν νοῦν (cf. cc. 4.2.3, 4.7a.1), οἱ δὲ τὴν κίνησιν (cf. c. 4.2.1–3), οἱ δὲ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν (~ §14), ἄλλοι δέ τινες δύναμιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄστρων ῥέουσαν (cf. §6, Macr. in Somn. 1.14.19), οἱ δὲ ἀριθμὸν κινητικόν (cf. c. 4.2.3–4), ἕτεροι δὲ ὕδωρ γονοποιόν (~ §9). Nemesius NH c. 2, p. 16.12–21 διαφωνεῖται σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς παλαιοῖς ὁ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς λόγος (~ quaestio). Δημόκριτος (—) μὲν γὰρ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ πᾶν τὸ τῶν Στωικῶν φιλοσόφων σύστημα σῶμα τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποφαίνονται, καὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ οὗτοι οἱ σῶμα τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποφαινόμενοι διαφέρονται περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς· (~ §3) οἱ μὲν γὰρ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.773) πνεῦμα λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἔνθερμον καὶ διάπυρον, (~ §13) Κριτίας (—) δὲ αἷμα, (~ §9) Ἵππων δὲ ὁ φιλόσοφος (—) ὕδωρ, (~ §5) Δημόκριτος (fr. 451 Luria) δὲ πῦρ (τὰ γὰρ σφαιροειδῆ σχήματα τῶν ἀτόμων συγκιρνάμενα, πῦρ τε καὶ ἀήρ, ψυχὴν ἀποτελεῖ). (~ §14) Ἡράκλειτος (T 866 Mouraviev) δὲ τὴν μὲν τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν, τὴν δὲ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ἀπό τε τῆς ἐκτὸς καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναθυμιάσεως ὁμογενῆ πεφυκέναι. Loci Aetiani: §1 A 4.2.2 Ἀλκμαίων φύσιν αὐτοκίνητον. A 4.2.5 Πλάτων οὐσίαν νοητήν. A 4.2.6 Αριστοτέλης ἐντελέχειαν πρώτην σώματος φυσικοῦ, ὀργανικοῦ, δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος ἐντελέχειαν. §2 A 1.3.3 Ἀναξιμένης δ᾽ ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων ἀέρα ἀπεφήνατο· ἐκ γὰρ τούτου τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναλύεσθαι, ‘οἷον ἡ ψυχή’, φησίν, ‘ἡ ἡμετέρα ἀὴρ οὖσα συγκρατεῖ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ὅλον τὸν κόσμον πνεῦμα καὶ ἀὴρ περιέχει’· λέγεται δὲ συνωνύμως ἀὴρ καὶ πνεῦμα. §3 A 1.7.19 Ποσειδώνιος πνεῦμα νοερὸν καὶ πυρῶδες (sc. τὸν θεόν). A 4.8.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ … πνεύματα νοερά. §4 A 1.3.9 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Ἵππασος ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων τὸ πῦρ. §5 A 4.4.7 … Δημόκριτος … τὸ μὲν λογικὸν ἔχουσαν ἐν τῷ θώρακι καθιδρυμένον. A 4.7a.2 … Δημόκριτος ταὐτὸν νοῦν καὶ ψυχή. §9 A 1.3.1 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων ἀπεφήνατο τὸ ὕδωρ … στοχάζεται δ᾽ ἐκ τούτου πρῶτον, ὅτι πάντων τῶν ζῴων ἡ γονὴ ἀρχή ἐστιν, ὑγρὰ οὖσα.

1423

1424

liber 4 caput 3

§11[6]–[7] al. A 4.4.6 de Pythagorae successoribus ἐκ πέντε στοιχείων τὸ σῶμα κραθῆναι φάντες—τοῖς γὰρ τέτταρσι ξυνέταξαν τὸ αἰθέριον—ἰσαρίθμους εἶναι ἔφασαν ταύτῃ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τὰς δυνάμεις. §12 A 4.5.9 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐν τῇ τοῦ αἵματος συστάσει (sc. τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικόν). A 5.24.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν θάνατον γεγενῆσθαι διαχωρισμὸν τοῦ πυρώδους ⟨καὶ ἀερώδουϲ καὶ ὑδατώδους καὶ γεώδους suppl. Diels⟩, ἐξ ὧν ἡ σύγκρισις τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ συνεστάθη· ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο κοινὸν εἶναι τὸν θάνατον σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς· ὕπνον δὲ γίνεσθαι διαχωρισμὸν τοῦ πυρώδους. §14 A 1.7.17 Διογένης καὶ Κλεάνθης καὶ Οἰνοπίδης τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν (sc. θεόν εἶναι φασιν). A 2.3 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος. A 2.3.1 oἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχον τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. A 2.4.4 Ἀρχέλαος ὑπὸ θερμοῦ καὶ ἐμψυχίας [60.14 DK : ἐμψυχρίας Meineke Diels DG Wachsmuth] συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον. A 4.4.8 ὁ δὲ Δημόκριτος πάντα μετέχειν φησὶ ψυχῆς ποιᾶς, καὶ τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων, διότι ἀεὶ διαφανῶς τινος θερμοῦ καὶ αἰσθητικοῦ μετέχει, τοῦ πλείονος διαπνεομένου. A 4.7.2 ὁ δὲ Ἡράκλειτος ἐξιοῦσαν τοῦ σώματος εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀναχωρεῖν ψυχὴν πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενές.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the absence of E and G, the witnesses for P are confined to PB and PQ. As we have seen at ch. 4.2 (Commentary A) and shall also see at chs. 4.4, 4.6 and 4.7, there are parallels in the mixed bag of G c. 24 (see traditio proxima), which have reached their destination via a different route. E in the final Book of the PE only includes chapters 4.4–5 of P Books 4 and 5, so ch. 4.3 is absent, cf. Commentary A(1) at ch. 4.2 above. (2) P has abridged rather thoroughly, as is clear when we set off his six lemmata, or, excluding the summarizing first lemma found in P alone, his five doxai, against the ten lemmata of S, or against the seven doxai of T. Missing are §§4, 6–9 and 12–13, but P6 (Heraclitus) is the only witness to the final lemma of the chapter. (3) S and T have left out other doxai; in his concluding remark that ‘others have said other contrary things’ T obviously refers to what he has omitted. S has left out lemmata corresponding to P6 (Heraclitus), T6 (Empedocles), and T7 (Critias), and T has omitted a lemma corresponding to P4 and S4 (Democritus). Between his Heraclides (S5) and Epicurus lemma (S10) S has preserved no less than four lemmata omitted by both P and T. P at P6 (Heraclitus) is the only witness to the final lemma of the chapter. Because E did not copy out chs.

liber 4 caput 3

1425

4.2–3, T cannot have used E as his source for P, although at CAG 5.16 (cited ch. 4.2 at testes primi) he includes the abstracts of ch. 4.3 following at 5.18 as belonging with what he has culled from ‘Plutarch, Porphyry and Aëtius’. T has preserved two rather particular lemmata ad finem, T6 (Empedocles) and T7 (Critias), which are not paralleled in either P or S, or indeed anywhere else in precisely this particular form. A, mentioned third at CAG 5.16, is his real source. (4) Several doxai and name-labels are confirmed by Nem (cited at testes secundi above), who lists the Stoics (~ §3), Critias (~ §13), Hippo (~ §9), Democritus (~ §5), and Heraclitus (~ §14). Three of these doxai are preserved in only one of the three main witnesses each, namely Heraclitus only in P, Hippo only in S, and Critias only in T. The verbal parallels with P and S for ch. 4.3 at NH c. 2, p. 16.16–21 are very striking for §§3, 5, 13, and 14. They were placed by Diels DG 389 in his apparatus to the right column together with T, where we also find the single Critias lemma in T and Nem (= §14 Diels). In the case of §14 the verbal parallelism is particularly close, as can be seen when juxtaposed: A §14: Ἡράκλειτος τὴν μὲν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ὑγρῶν, τὴν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκτὸς καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναθυμιάσεως, ὁμογενῆ.

Nem p. 16.19–21: Ἡράκλειτος δὲ τὴν μὲν τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν, τὴν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ἀπό τε τῆς ἐκτὸς καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναθυμιάσεως, ὁμογενῆ πεφυκέναι.

It might be concluded that Nem drew on A for this doxa, as we were inclined to do in our discussion at M–R 1.293–294. But taking all the evidence into account for chs. 4.2–3 (and also 4.12–13) we now think it is better to postulate a common tradition for both texts, i.e. an uberior fons. See below, section D(e) and also our comments above on ch. 4.2, Commentary A(4). On Hermias and ps.Justin, who for this and the previous chapter reveal a striking convergence noted by Diels DG 261, see our remarks at ch. 4.2 Commentary A(5). In relation to the present chapter we may refer to his citations of doxai corresponding to §2, §14, §6, and §9. (5) T 5.18 has two extra lemmata compared with PBQ but corresponding with S, namely §4 Parmenides Hippasus and §6 Heraclides, which again proves him to have used and abstracted the source shared with S, that is, A. In S the name-label of §6 is written as Heraclitus, a common confusion (corrected in the margin of ms P). Furthermore, in §2 P summarizes several name-labels in his inaccurate phrase οἱ δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ Ἀναξαγόρου, while T and S share two name-labels, namely Ἀναξιμένης and Ἀρχέλαος, which have been left out in P. The historically improbable Ἀναξίμανδρος is found only in T’s version of §6 and could

1426

liber 4 caput 3

have been added by him, but unlike Baümker we have kept it, for a view of his followers may have been attributed to him. T on the other hand does not include Διογένης, found only in S; Diels would like to omit (‘abundare videtur’), but we have kept it. Extras in T as compared with PBQ, not confirmed by S but paralleled in the wider doxographical tradition, are §§12–13 Empedocles and Critias (we have seen above that Critias is found in the strikingly parallel passage in Nemesius). These should be assigned to A too. The addition of Heraclitus after Hippasus that T makes to A’s lemma §4 is perhaps more doubtful, see above, ch. 1.3, Commentary D(e)§7, but we prefer to keep it as well, see below, section D(e)§4/§14. Finally, T seems to have remembered a source which payed attention to personalia, for he writes ‘Epicurus the son of Nicocles’ (see app. crit. to §11), and cf. below, ch. 4.4 Commentary A(3) and ch. 4.5, Commentary D(d)§7. See further above, ch. 4.2 Commentary A(3); further M–R 1.288 and 1.296– 298, and Mansfeld (2018) at M–R 4.180–187 on the T/S source (esp. 4.183 for ch. 4.2); cf. further above, General Introduction section 2.5. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. For the proximate tradition see the various and detailed accounts of e.g. Cicero Luc. 124, Tusc. 1.19–21; Philo Somn. 1.30; Tertullian de An. 5.1–6, 9.5 (~ Soranus fr. 2 and 5 Podolak); and Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19–20. To some extent these are dependent on earlier and richer versions of the tradition, but extra material has also been incorporated subsequently: not only new doxai, but also earlier ones through retrograde contamination Wendland, who discovered and analyzed the Philo passage, at (1897) 1095 argued this proves that Philo used Diels’ Vetusta placita. The Ciceronian and Philonic parallels are particularly important because they prove the indebtedness of A to a shared anterior tradition, just as in ch. 4.2 (where see at Commentary B), and then in chs. 4.5, 4.7, and as especially in 4.9, where the parallels with Cicero show the same sort of dependence on an anterior tradition as in chs. 4.2–3. In general see Mansfeld (1990a) 3065–3085 (Aëtius and a number of parallel passages), plus 3117–3121 (Philo) and 3126–3131 (Cicero); cf. above ch. 2.11, Commentary B and ch. 4.2, Commentary B, and below, ch. 4.5, Commentary B. (2) Sources. The name-labels and earlier versions of the contents of four lemmata are found at various places in Aristotle de An. 1.2, and they occur in the virtually the same relative order (in Aristotle, Critias is last): §5 Democritus ~ Arist. de An. 1.2 403b31–404a5, §8 Diogenes ~ 405a21–22, §13 Critias ~ 405b5– 6, §14 Heraclitus ~ 405a25–27. The contrast between corporeal and (almost) incorporeal soul too is already found in this chapter of Aristotle; also see the

liber 4 caput 3

1427

announcement de An. 1.2 404b30–405a2, quoted section E(b) General texts. So the situation is analogous to that in ch. 4.2, where see at Commentary B. C Chapter Heading In P only; no variants (S subsumes the material under the general title used for ch. 4.2). Because of its further specification it is more informative than the umbrella heading of ch. 4.2. Note the limitation to the question type or category of οὐσία, substance, and the precise reference to the dominant attribute of corporeality (which shows that substance is here corporeal, not incorporeal as in the previous chapter). For οὐσία compare the headings of chs. 1.22, 1.26, 1.28, 2.11 (where see discussion at Commentary C), 2.13, 2.20, 2.25, and 5.3. For chapter headings with εἰ compare 1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 2.9, 4.9, 4.15, 4.20, 5.4, 5.5, 5.15, and 5.20 and above, ch. 1.1 Commentary A. D Analysis a Context This is the second of the twenty-three chapters dealing with the human soul from various systematic points of view, and the second dealing with the soul per se. It is the counterpart of 4.2 on the incorporealist doxai (where see Commentary D(a) on the wider context and D(c) on rationale) and complements the account of ‘what’ the soul ‘is’ by dealing with the corporealist views. It is followed by 4.4, on the parts of soul. For the Stoic syllogisms concerned with the corporeality of the soul that are appended to the corporealist doxai elsewhere, viz. in the parallel passages in Tertullian and Nemesius see below, (e) other evidence. b Number–Order of Lemmata The relative order is the same in all three sources, so the lemmatic order of the chapter as restored (which only ad finem differs from that of Diels in the DG, who has the Heraclitus lemma not in the final position but as no. 12) is virtually independent from the lemmata contents, though encouragingly confirmed by them. P2 (Anaxagoras) + P3 (Stoics) + P4 (Democritus) correspond with S1 (Anaximenes Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes) + S2 (Stoics) + S4 (Democritus), as well as with T1 (Anaximenes Anaximander Anaxagoras Archelaus) + T2 (Stoics). All sources have an Epicurus lemma at or near the end, viz. at P5, T5, and S10. T4 (Heraclides) corresponds with S5 (Heraclides), and is found in the same relative location. Nem provides the parallel for the Heraclitus lemma (P6) in final position. Why the Heraclitus lemma is absent in S is not immediately clear. Perhaps the reason is that the final lemma of the series of excerpts from A 4.3 in S, with name-label Epicurus, is followed by a brief quotation from

1428

liber 4 caput 3

Plato and a short abstract as well as a series of substantial ones from Hermetic literature (1.49.1b = first sentence of Corpus Hermeticum fr. xix; 1.49.2 = Pl. Phdr. 247c; 1.49.3 = CH fr. xx; 1.49.4 = CH fr. xvii; 1.49.5 = CH fr. iii; and 1. 49.6 = CH fr. xix Nock and Festugière). This material may have made the Heraclitus lemma seem superfluous. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter, like ch. 4.2 with which it should be studied in tandem, deals with the question-types ‘what is it?’ and ‘how is it?’, or the categories of substance, quantity and quality, and provides several answers. This derives from Aristotle’s agenda, see de An. 1.1 402a7–8, and for further details above, ch. 4.2, Commentary D(c). As is clear from the contents of the doxai and the summary at ch. 4.3.1, the present chapter lists a selection of corporealist doctrines, which are opposed to the incorporealist doctrines found in 4.2. These two chapters are analysed at Mansfeld (1990a) 3065–3085 and compared with the wider tradition (esp. Cicero) ibid. 3122–3131 and 3118–3121 (Philo). The set of corporeal substances involved recalls those found in ch. 1.3 on the principles (and elements) and the cosmological chs. 2.11, 2.13, 2.20, and 2.25. When the soul consists of (a) corporeal substance(s), these are related to or even derived from substances to be found in the world outside. Ch. 4.3 consists of three individual lemmata and two blocks. The first lemma provides the explicit link with the previous chapter by summarizing its contents. The two blocks are arranged according to number, i.e. the category of quantity: the doxai of the first block, §§2–9 (plus §10) are about a single substance or, as in the Democritus lemma, a homogeneous compound, while those of the second block, §§11–13, are about a mixture, or blend, of four (§11 plus §12 as emended) respectively two (§13) substances. Thus the basic diaeresis of the chapter is one between monists and pluralists which, as we have seen at ch. 1.3 Commentary D(c) and ch. 1.7 Commentary D(c), also holds for the original structure of the chapter on the archai, and for the second part of the chapter on the gods. The arrangement itself, however, which at §13 turns into a descending series, is not what one would expect, although a series of lemmata in first ascending and then descending order, the change in number being accompanied by an additional aspect, is once also found elsewhere in the Placita, namely at ch. 3.9.1–3, ‘one–two–one-and-finite’. Also compare ch. 4.4.1–7 with Commentary D(c), and ch. 4.8.1–4 with Commentary D(c)§§1–6, and for the descending order ch. 1.11.2–5 with Commentary D(c). The Empedocles lemma (§12) as emended and containing a wet element is placed between the Epicurus lemma (§11), where no wet element is listed, and the Critias lemma (§13), which refers not only to blood but cryptically also to ‘moisture’ in general. Perhaps the

liber 4 caput 3

1429

phrase καὶ ἐξ ὑγροῦ should not be translated as ‘and from moisture’ but as ‘that is, from moisture’: blood is a liquid. The lemmata sequence is further determined by a diaeresis according to substance. §10, which is about a single substance, ends the series of the monists plus the quasi-monist Democritus, so appropriately comes at the end of the first main part of the chapter. The doxographer then begins afresh with the pluralists. The order two–four has been dispreferred in favour of four–two because (and this is the second reason for not interfering) the final lemma, §14 Heraclitus, is now smoothly associated with the penultimate lemma, §13 Critias, because the ‘moistures’ (ὑγρῶν) of the former connect up with the ‘moisture’ (ὑγροῦ) of the latter. In the context of the present series of chapters the Heraclitean doxa is exceptional in that it not only speaks of human souls but also mentions the Soul of the cosmos (the only precise parallel for the latter formula in A is 1.7.8 at S 1.1.29b7, while the equivalent formula ‘Soul of the All’ is found in the Heraclitus lemma at ch. 4.7.2). Its position at the end of the chapter is therefore fully justified. It links up with ch. 4.4.8, also a final lemma, and with 4.7.2, which is also about individual souls in relation to a general Soul. The doxai of the monists of the first block are ordered by a diaeresis (in the sense of an ordered list) according to the nature of the elements, or substances, at issue. The chief division is between §§2–5, substances leading up to or related to fire on the one hand, and on the other imitating a descensus from periphery to centre, §6 (aetherial?) light, §7 fire, §8 air, and §9 water. For §10 see below, further comments. The linkage between the lemmata at §§2–5 is noteworthy: the air-like substance of §2 Anaximenes Anaximander Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes links up with the warm pneuma of §3 the Stoics, while the warmth of this pneuma preludes upon the fiery substance of §4 Parmenides and Hippasus, the homogeneous fiery mixture of §5 Democritus (and the fire of §7 Leucippus). The Milesians will be first for diadochical reasons, as is more often the case. Also note the explicit connection between §2 σῶμα, §5 σῶμα, and §11 σώματος, which ensures that we do not forget that the chapter is about the corporealists. d

Further Comments General Points The opposition corporealists vs. incorporealists derives from Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b30–31 quoted section E(b) General texts, see Mansfeld (1990a) 3072, 3204, M–R. 2.57–58, and is found in numerous dialectical-doxographical parallels, see material in Mansfeld (1990a) 3065–3085, and above, ch. 4.2 Commentary B and D(c). The explicit reference at §1 to the incorporeals echoes part of the diaeresis

1430

liber 4 caput 3

as expressed in parallel sources. See also Dörrie–Baltes (2002), texts 1.2–12, rich commentary 1.145–170 (on Cicero Tusc. 1.18–22, Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19–20 and Nem NH 2 p. 16.12–17.14). Individual Points §2 Diels believed that the name-label Diogenes (S only) had been interpolated from §8 below, but there is a difference between ‘airy’ and ‘air’ affording a measure of pseudoprecision, so this part of the lemma may derive from a slightly different interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, or (perhaps mistakenly or) more doxographico pertain to Diogenes of Babylonia. It seems more prudent to preserve it. Cf. Commentary D(d) at A 4.9.9 below. The presence here of the name-labels Anaximenes and Diogenes is what one would expect, unlike that of Anaximander (to whom a view associated with his follower Anaximenes is attributed, a not uncommon procedure), while Anaxagoras and in his wake Archelaus are seen as successors of Anaximenes. The quasi-information provided by the lemma is taken at face value by Congourdeau (2007) 133–134. §3 The passage at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.156–157 is almost exactly parallel. For the intelligent pneuma cf. ch. 4.8.1. §§4 & 14 Heraclitus: The attribution of more than one view to one philosopher in a single chapter is paralleled elsewhere in A, see e.g. the examples cited at M.-R. 2.2.523. So we prefer to keep T’s additional name-label ‘Heraclitus’, which is moreover confirmed by Tertullian de An. 5. §4 The attribution to Parmenides of a fiery soul may be (but may also not be) a far echo of Theophrastus’ claim that ‘the better and purer understanding derives from the hot’ (Sens. 3). §5 Democritus: the formula ‘things which are perceptible by reason (alone)’ at a first glance may suggest that the substance is incorporeal, but its fiery power entails explicitly that it is corporeal. This had to be said or needed to be emphasized, hence the addition of the final clause. The formula is found eight times in P, seven times in S, and often elsewhere. Presumably Epicurean coinage, e.g. Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.47, so never intended to apply to the incorporeal. §6 aetherial(?) light: cf. Plutarch De E 390A τὸν δὲ πέμπτον (sc. κόσμον) οὐρανὸν οἱ δὲ φῶς, οἱ δ᾽ αἰθέρα καλοῦσιν, οἱ δ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πέμπτην οὐσίαν. §8 That the soul is air is also attributed to Heraclitus ‘according to some’ (i.e. Aenesidemus) at Tertullian. de An. 9.5 (Aenesidemus fr. B26 Polito, quoted section B(a)§2) and Sextus Empiricus M. 9.360. (But two Heraclitean doxai in this chapter will have been enough for A.) §9 Thales is not mentioned because he has been converted into an incorporealist; see above, ch. 4.2, Commentary D(d) at §1. That he is an incorporealist

liber 4 caput 3

1431

is also the view of Simplicius (perhaps Priscianus) in de An. 31.24–26 quoted above, ch. 4.2, section E(b)§1, while John Philoponus in de An. 86.23–34, quoted below section E(b)§9, not unreasonably speculates that Aristotle declined to attribute a gross materialist tenet to Thales and so refrained from attributing the view that the soul consists of water to him. §10 Xenarchus is to be dated between ca. 85 bce and the beginning of the Common Era, see Strabo 14.5.4, Diels DG 100, Moraux (1973) 1.197, Falcon (2012) 11–12. So he is even somewhat later than Posidonius and Asclepiades, the last authorities to be mentioned elsewhere in A, and the last in the socalled Vetusta placita according to Diels DG 185, who therefore believes, ibid. 100, 184, that the lemma with name-label Xenarchus is a later (i.e. in his view Aëtian) addition, foreign to the earlier and according to him better tradition he baptized Vetusta placita. Moraux, o.c . 207, believes that Xenarchus like Alexander of Aphrodisias argued that the soul is inseparable from the body, but the wording of the lemma (μετὰ τοῦ σώματος συντεταγμένην) seems to be against this. The present passage is the earliest instance of this combination of the terms εἶδος, τελειότης, and ἐντελέχεια, paralleled only in Alexander of Aphrodisias, De anima (cf. Falcon 2012, 133) and ps.Alexander De anima mantissa; see below at section E(b)§10. This shows on the one hand how carefully the doxographer composed this abstract, and on the other what Alexander’s formula owes to his Peripatetic predecessors. At de An. 19.21–23 Alexander mentions—and subsequently refutes—the view of unidentified opponents who say that ‘the soul is the form of the body, but make it one of the corporeal components of the living being, such as fire or air’ (οἱ δὲ λέγοντες εἶδος μὲν εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ σώματος, ἓν δέ τι τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἐν τῷ ζῴῳ σωμάτων ποιοῦντες αὐτήν, οἷον πῦρ ἢ ἀέρα ἤ τι ἄλλο). He may very well have Xenarchus (and his Peripatetic colleagues) in mind. The assumption that the soul qua εἶδος is corporeal is evidence of Stoic influence (see e.g. Alex. Mixt. 226.10–14 = SVF 2.1047), and is of course at odds with the views of Aristotle and Alexander. But it is also possible that Xenarchus’ view was considered by A to be a compromise position between corporeal and incorporeal and therefore quoted at the end of the series of corporealist monists, see Mansfeld (1990a) 3093. For Alexander’s view that the soul supervenes upon the blend of the corporeal elements see Donini (1970). §11 The references to the perceptive part (αἰσθητικόν) and perception (αἴσθησις) anticipate the treatment of αἴσθησις in chs. (4.4 and) 4.8–12. The reference to the pneuma as causing movement is the only mention of movement in the present chapter, while in the previous chapter this concept plays a quite

1432

liber 4 caput 3

important part (explicitly at 4.2.1–5). The first Lucretian text quoted at section E(b)§11 is closer to Aristotle’s description of Democritus’ view cited there, §5, than to Epicurus’ doctrine. Pace Scalas (2015), Hippolytus’ testimony that the soul according to Epicurus consists of blood is just one of his inaccuracies. §§12–13 The Empedocles doxa as transmitted by T alone, which has the soul consist of a blend of the fiery and the aerial element, is unique. A blend of an aetherial and an airy substance is only attested for the moon, see Philo Somn. 1.145 (SVF 2.674), κρᾶμα … ἔκ τε αἰθερώδους οὐσίας καὶ ἀερώδους; for the doctrine cf. ch. 2.25.4, the moon as μικτὴν ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος. The other secondary evidence attributes to Empedocles (and sometimes to Critias as well) the tenet that the soul is blood. In the Empedocles doxa at ch. 4.5.8 the regent part is said to be blood, which flatly contradicts the doxa of ch. 4.3.12 as transmitted by T. We believe that the way out is to emend the text, following Diels’ emendation in DK (not in the DG) of a similarly mutilated Empedocles lemma at P 5.25.4 (quoted above among the Loci Aetiani), and to add the watery and earthy components. This emendation of P 5.25.4 has been missed by Mau and Lachenaud. It has been noticed and rejected by others, who however are unaware of the presence of the word ἀερώδους at ch. 4.3.12 and have neglected the latter lemma. For ἀερώδης in Empedoclean doxai see also chs. 4.22.1 and 5.15.3, and for all the adjectives at ch. 5.25.4. The contradiction with ch. 4.5.8 now disappears, when we recall that according to Empedocles as reported by Theophrastus (Sens. 10– 11) the blood ‘we chiefly think with’ consists of a blend of the (four) elements (κεκρᾶσθαι τὰ στοιχεῖα), that according to the verbatim fragment 31B05.3 DK this blend will be most perfect in the region of the heart, and that according to another verbatim fragment (31B109 DK) ‘we see earth with earth, water with water, shining aether with aether, but destroying fire with fire, love with love, and sorry strife with strife’. The latter is paraphrased by Theophrastus (Sens. 10, ‘listing how we recognize each with each’), who quotes 31B107 as its sequel. Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b13–15, who quotes B109 in full, introduces the lines with the words ‘Empedocles thought that the soul is composed of all the elements (ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων πάντων, our emphasis), and believes that each of these is a soul’ (i.e. that each has a cognitive capacity). We may safely assume that the lemma (as restored above) derives from this Aristotelian introduction and Theophrastean discussion of what is Empedocles’ original doctrine. The corporeal Empedoclean soul here figures as a blend of the physical elements, that is, of the famous ‘four’. We assume that T just omitted the two heavier elements, which perhaps he found insufficiently psychic. Or perhaps a partly parallel Pythagorean tenet in the Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.28 may help explain

liber 4 caput 3

1433

the omission. This makes the soul a blend of warm and cold aither: εἶναι δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπόσπασμα αἰθέρος καὶ τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ τοῦ ψυχροῦ. Also compare a rather late passage, ps.Galen (i.e. Porphyry) Ad Gaurum ch. 11.3, who says that the soul upon entering the body may have attracted and so brings along ‘something aetherial or pneumatic or airy’ (διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἐγκόσμιος ἐφέλκοιτό τι σῶμα αἰθερῶδες ἢ πνευματῶδες ἢ ἀερῶδες). However this may be, we may safely restore the text of A, mutilated by T, by means of Diels’ emendation of the lemma in P 5.25. The doxa attributed to Critias in T alone is singular too, for in a ‘blend of blood and moisture’ the moisture seems to be superfluous. Presumably what we have here is a fabricated doxa. That the name-labels Empedocles and Critias are cited together is paralleled in those doxographical passages where the same tenet is attributed to both, viz. Galen PHP 2.8.47, αἷμά … τὴν ψυχήν, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Κριτίας ὑπέλαβον, and Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.20, Empedocles et Critias sanguinem. John Philoponus in de An. 9.19–21 notoriously even goes so far as to attribute Empedocles fr. B105.3 DK to Critias. §14 Polito’s suggestion (2014) 336 that this passage attributes to Heraclitus the exhalation of soul from blood and seawater is too specific. One of the ancestors of §14 Heraclitus is Aristotle’s relatively modest note on the Ephesian at de An. 1.2 405a25–27, ‘and Heraclitus says the principle is soul, since it is the evaporation (ἀναθυμίασις) from which he constructs the other things; and it is most incorporeal and forever streaming’. Note that at de An. 1.5 411a7–8, ‘and some say that it is intermingled in the universe, which presumably is why Thales though all things are full of gods’, he does not mention Heraclitus among those who think so (see above, ch. 4.2, Commentary D(d)§1). But we may believe that he has him in mind, and also thinks of Diogenes of Apollonia, whose air is mentioned de An. 1.2 405a21–24 immediately before the passage about the exhalation as the principle of soul in Heraclitus, and whose role as principle of all things and as the cause that makes the soul possess knowledge is attested for us e.g. at 64B4 DK, ‘humans and the other living being live by breathing in the air, and that is for them both soul and thought’. Theophrastus said of Diogenes that ‘the air inside perceives as it is a portion of the god’ (μόριον τοῦ θεοῦ, Sens. 42), see Burkert (2011) 474. Presumably Aristotle also has Democritus in mind, whose view that the outside air contains soul particles which we inhale when breathing is described both at de An. 1.4 403b31–404a16 and Resp. 4 471b30–472a26. He goes on to argue against the view that soul pervades the universe, de An. 1.5 411a9–13: ‘why does the soul fail to create a living being when it is in air or fire, but does so only when in a mixture of elements—and one also may wonder why soul in air is purer and less mortal than that in living beings’. This makes it all the more interesting that at De generatione animalium 3.11 762a18–

1434

liber 4 caput 3

21, explaining spontaneous generation, he says that ‘in a way all things are full of soul (τρόπον τινὰ πάντα ψυχῆς εἶναι πλήρη), since animals and plants are formed in the earth and in the water because in earth water is present, and in water pneuma is present, and in all pneuma soul-heat is present’. The contradiction is perhaps weakened by the fact that in the latter passage the elements are mixed. On this mysterious pneuma and the difficulties of Aristotle’s view see Kullmann (2007) 422 and esp. (2014) 222–226. For anathymiasis and the relation of soul to moisture one should compare the difficult fragments Heraclitus 22B36 DK, ‘for souls it is death that water is born, for water death that earth is born, and from earth water is born, and from water a soul’, and 22B12 DK, transmitted by AD on Cleanthes on Zeno (AD fr. 39 Diels, SVF 1.141 and 1.519), esp. the final clause of its Heraclitean ingredient: ‘souls too are evaporated from the moistures’. Matters paradoxically become clearer the farther away from Heraclitus one gets. The first text that is close to §14, though it by no means speaks of a World Soul or of a Soul of the Whole or the All, tells us that according to some of his followers (note the τινές) ‘the exhalation in the body occurs in the same way as in the cosmos’, ps.Aristotle Probl. 13.6 908a30–31, ‘just as some of Heraclitus’ followers say that evaporation occurs, just as in the Whole, so also in the body’ etc. (fr. 66 ( f 3) Marcovich). What we have here is already a Heraclitus interpretatus, and this group of followers may well be later than Aristotle. The term World Soul (§14 τὴν … τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν) is not found in the parallel to §14 in Nemesius, who however has the equivalent formula first found Plato Tim. 41d4–5, and then, in our context, in the Heraclitus lemma at A 4.7.2, viz. τὴν … τοῦ παντὸς ψυχήν. The attribution to Heraclitus of something like a Soul (or soul) beyond the body, or rather of a ‘regent part’ that is ‘outside’, is found Tertullian de An. 15.4, ‘that you refrain from believing that this regent part operates outside (as) according to Heraclitus’, so this was already a part of the Heraclitus material in the earlier doxographical tradition. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.349, ‘others believe that (the understanding) is outside the body, like Aenesidemus according to Heraclitus’ (fr. B24A Polito), specifies that this interpretation is linked with Aenesidemus. Also see M. 7.129–134 (fr. B29 Polito), which attributes to Heraclitus the view that we become intelligent by breathing in the Divine Logos, in a passage often believed to derive from Aenesidemus. In our present context we do not have to analyse the development of this interpretative attitude, but may observe that its various instances are not so easily harmonized. See e.g. Waszink (1947) 227; Mansfeld (1990a) 3066 with n. 18, 3164 with n. 517, 3166, also on Aenesidemus; Polito (2004) and Betegh (2007), who deal with Heraclitus’ soul-stuff outside the human body; general overview of Aenesidemus on Heraclitus on soul at Polito (2014) 320–331, 335–

liber 4 caput 3

1435

339; and Mansfeld (2015c). Ch. 4.7.2 should also be compared; this tenet goes a significant step further by speaking of a return of Heraclitean souls to the Soul of the All. Though according to the verbatim fragments of Heraclitus there is something out there that is both dominant and rational (e.g. 22B32, B64 DK), the uninhibited use of the concept of a World Soul, of which human souls are parts, shows the mark of an interpretatio Stoica. See also Calcidius in Tim. c. 251 (SVF 2.1198), ‘with the Stoics’ consent Heraclitus links our reason with the divine reason’. The affinity between human souls and a super-Soul is indeed attested abundantly for the Stoics, and the return of the souls to this super-Soul (as at 4.7.2) is also explicitly attributed to some among them, see AD fr. 39 Diels (SVF 2.821), ‘they say there is a Soul in the Whole, which they call aether and air, surrounding in a circle land and sea and exhaled from these […]. Some say that the Soul of the Whole is everlasting, and that in the end the rest are commingled with it’. These ‘some’, presumably, are Cleanthes and his followers, for according to Cleanthes all souls survive until the ekpyrosis, while Chrysippus accorded this privilege only to the souls of the wise, Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.157 (SVF 1.522 = 2.811). For the affinity and the parts (not the return) see also Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.156 (SVF 2.774), ‘it (sc. the animal soul) is destructible, but that of the Whole, of which those in living beings are parts, is indestructible’. At ch. 4.3.14 (and 4.7.2) the human soul is said to be ὁμογενῆ, ‘of the same kind’ as that of the cosmos. Although one of the questions formulated by Aristotle de An. 1.1 402b1–3 is ‘whether every soul is of the same kind (πότερον ὁμοειδὴς ἅπασα ψυχή) or not; and if not, whether the difference is one of species (εἴδει) or of genus (γένει)’, the context shows that he does not think of human souls in relation to a super-Soul, but of the different souls of various species of animals, of that of man, of a god (and surely even of plants), and esp. of the three main types of soul: vegetative, aesthetic, rational. See Aristotle de An. 2.3 414a29–b33, and Alexander de An. 16.18–17.1; the three types of soul are not ὁμοειδεῖς. e Other Evidence Nem NH c. 2, p. 17 10–14 provides a further elaboration of §14, distinguishing between (1) those who speak of a single soul of all things that fragments itself into individual beings and comes together again towards itself, as do the Manichaeans and others, (2) those who say there are many souls, different as to species (e.g. Aristotle), and (3) those who say there is one soul as well as many (sc. Plato, see NH p. 33.20 Morani). We should also refer to a series of Stoic syllogisms in Tertullian—attributed to Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus—that follow paragraphs dealing with the

1436

liber 4 caput 3

various doxai concerned with the incorporeality vs. the corporeality of the soul. These syllogisms prove to Tertullian’s satisfaction that the soul is corporeal. There are important parallels in Nem, who however argues in some detail in favour of the incorporeality of the soul. At Tert. de An. 5.1–2 we have two series of doxai corresponding to those at A 4.2–3 (in that order), immediately followed, at de An. 5.3–6, by four Stoic syllogisms (~ SVF 1.137: Zeno; SVF 1.518: Cleanthes, two syllogisms; SVF 2.791: Chrysippus). In Nemesius’ much longer account we have two series of doxai corresponding to those at A 4.3–2 (in the order as reversed by him) at NH p. 16.12–17.10, followed at some distance by the two syllogisms of Cleanthes and that of Chrysippus, announced p. 20.12– 14: Cleanthes at p. 20.14–17 + 21.6–9 (~ SVF 1.518), Chrysippus at p. 22.3–6 (~ SVF 1.137, 2.790). The conclusion in our view can only be that both Tertullian and Nemesius derive from an uberior fons, that is, from an earlier representative of the doxographical tradition, which had already been updated by the insertion of Stoic syllogisms as an appendix to a plurilemmatic chapter on the corporeality of the soul, just as A is updated by the addition of the two Stoic chapters 4.11–12 after 4.9–10. Similar Stoic Wandersyllogismen are quoted elsewhere. A variety of Cleanthes’ first argument is attributed to Panaetius at Cicero Tusc. 1.79 (T 120 Alesse); this is about the immortality not the (in)corporeality of the soul, two themes that are of course related, see, e.g. Cic. Tusc. 1.18–25, Macrob. in Somn. 1.14.20 obtinuit non minus de incorporalitate eius quam de immortalitate sententia, Aug. Trin. 10.vii.17–25, Gal. Propr.Plac. 3.1, 7.1, 7.4, καθάπερ οὖν ⟨οὐ χρήσιμον⟩ ἰατρῷ πε(ρὶ τοῦ)το γινῶσκειν εἴτ᾽ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ εἴτ᾽ οὐκ ἀθάνατος …, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς εἴτ᾽ ἀσώματός ἐστιν παντάπασιν … εἴτε σωματοειδὴς κτλ. Arguments concerned with corporeality are cited anonymously and briefly at Alexander of Aphrodisias de An.Mant. 117.9–11 (corresponding to the second syllogism of Cleanthes) and 117.21–23 (corresponding to that of Chrysippus), cf. SVF 2.792. Such syllogisms are also cited much later at Calc. in Tim. c. 220: one attributed to Zeno (~ SVF 1.138), but corresponding to that of Chrysippus, and one attributed to Chrysippus (not in SVF). The context in ps.Alexander is not doxographical, that in Calcidius only to some extent. The quotations concerning the corporeality of the soul in ps.Alexander and Calcidius, which differ among themselves, may derive from a handbook. A handbook may also have been the source of a doxographical predecessor of A used by Tertullian and Nemesius. See further Waszink (1947) 127–129, Dörrie (1959) 131–140, Sharples (2008) 162– 164, and for an overview of various suggestions concerning the sources issue Sharples–Van der Eijk (2008) 57 n. 277. In our view the varieties of attribution, formulation, and scope suggest the influence of intermediary sources, but to some extent they also depend on the aims of the quoting authors.

liber 4 caput 3

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: (see also above at ch. 4.2 section E(a) General texts) Lucretius DRN 3.161–167 haec eadem ratio naturam animi atque animai / corpoream docet esse; ubi enim propellere membra, / corripere ex somno corpus mutareque vultum / atque hominem totum regere ac versare videtur, / quorum nil fieri sine tactu posse videmus / nec tactum porro sine corpore, nonne fatendumst / corporea natura animum constare animamque? Cicero Luc. 124 si simplex (sc. the soul), utrum sit ignis an anima an sanguis an ut Xenocrates (cf. ch. 4.2.4) numerus nullo corpore, quod intellegi quale sit vix potest. Philo of Alexandria Cher. 114 τίς δέ ἐστι τὴν οὐσίαν (sc. of the soul), ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν; Pollux Onomast. 2.226 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) ἔστιν ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμα ἢ πῦρ ἢ αἷμα ἢ ὅ τι ἂν δοκῇ τοῖς σοφοῖς. Tertullian de An. 5.1–5 (details see below). Lactantius Op.D. 17.2 Perrin quid autem sit anima nondum inter philosophos convenit, nec umquam fortasse conveniet. alii sanguinem esse dixerunt, alii ignem, alii ventum, unde anima vel animus nomen accepit, quod graece ventus ἄνεμος dicitur: nec illorum tamen quisquam dixisse aliquid videtur. Servius auctus in Aen. 1.98, p. 49.12–15 ‘effundere’ secundum eos qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam, ut ipse alibi (Aen. 9.347) ‘purpuream vomit ille animam’. nam alio loco aliorum opinionem sequitur, qui dicunt spiritum esse animam, unde est (Aen. 4.705) ‘atque in ventos vita recessit’. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19– 20 non ab re est ut haec de anima disputatio in fine sententias omnium qui de anima videntur pronuntiasse contineat. … Hippocrates (sc. dixit animam essentiam) spiritum tenuem per corpus omne dispersum, Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 98b Wehrli, 46B Schütrumpf) lucem, Heraclitus physicus (22A15 DK) scintillam stellaris essentiae, Zenon (SVF 1.137) concretum corpori spiritum, Democritus (68A103 DK) spiritum insertum atomis hac facilitate motus ut corpus illi omne sit pervium, (20) Critolaus Peripateticus (fr. 17 Wehrli) constare eam de quinta essentia, Hipparchus [here as elsewhere mistake for Hippasus, 18.9 DK] ignem, Anaximenes (fr. 117 Wöhrle) aëra, Empedocles (—) et Critias (—) sanguinem, Parmenides (—) ex terra et igne, Xenophanes (21A50 DK) ex terra et aqua, Boethos (SVF 3 Boeth. 10) ex aëre et igne, Epicurus (fr. 314 Usener) speciem ex igne et aëre et spiritu mixtam. Calcidius in Tim. cc. 213–235 (details see below). Ambrose of Milan de Is. 2.4 non ergo sanguis anima, quia carnis est sanguis, neque armonia (cf. ch. 4.2.7) anima, quia et huiusmodi armonia carnis est, neque aer anima, quia aliud est flatilis spiritus, aliud anima, neque ignis anima, neque entelechia (cf. ch. 4.2.6) anima, sed anima est vivens, quia factus est Adam in animam viventem, eo quod insensibile atque exanimum corpus anima vivificet et gubernet. Augustine de Trin. e.g. (other examples see below) 10.10.5–8 Mountain–Glorie neque enim omnis mens aërem se existimat, sed aliae ignem, aliae cerebrum, aliaeque aliud corpus et aliud aliae sicut supra (sc. de Trin. 10.7.2–33) commemoravi. de Trin. 10.10.32–37 utrum enim aëris sit vis videndi, reminiscendi, intelligendi, volendi, cogitandi, sciendi, iudicandi; an ignis, an cerebri, an sanguinis, an atomorum, an praeter usitata quattuor

1437

1438

liber 4 caput 3

elementa quinti necscio cuius corporis, an ipsius carnis nostrae compago vel temperamentum (cf. ch. 4.2.7) haec efficere valeat dubitaverunt homines, et alius hoc, alius illud affirmare conatus est. ps.Galen HPh c. 24, p. 613.13 οἱ δὲ σῶμα. §2 Anaximenes Anaximander Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes: Cicero Luc. 124 an anima. Tusc. 1.19 animum alii autem animam, ut fere nostri. Tusc. 1.40 sive illi sint animales, id est spirabiles. Tusc. 1.60 sive anima … sit animus. ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.355.11–12 K. κθʹ. κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς (SVF 2.780) σῶμα λεπτομερὲς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους. Tertullian de An. 9.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 6 Podolak) non, ut aër sit substantia eius, etsi hoc Aenesidemo (fr. B26 Polito) visum est et Anaximeni (fr. 58 Wöhrle), puto secundum quosdam et Heraclito (fr. 116 (b) Marcovich). Lactantius Op.D. 17.2 Perrin alii ventum, unde anima vel animus nomen accepit quod graece ventus ἄνεμος dicitur. Op.D. 17.5 at illi ventum putant, hoc falluntur quod ex aëre spiritum ducentes vivere videmur. Varro ita definit: ‘anima est aër conceptus ore, defervefactus in pulmone, temperatus in corde, diffusus in corpore’. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.20 Anaximenes (fr. 117 Wöhrle) aëra. §3 Stoics: Cicero Tusc. 1.42 animus … ex inflammata anima constat, ut potissimum videri constat Panaetio (T 119 Alesse). Tusc. 1.65 si deus aut anima aut ignis est, idem est animus hominis. Tusc. 1.70 sed … fac spirabilem. Pollux Onom. 2.226 πνεῦμα. Tertullian de An. 5.2–3 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak) sed etiam Stoicos (SVF 2.773) allego, qui spiritum praedicantes animam paene nobiscum, qua proxima inter se flatus et spiritus, tamen corpus animam facile persuadebunt. (3) denique Zeno (cf. SVF 1.137), consitum spiritum (sc. πνεῦμα σύμφυτον) animam definiens etc. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.156–157 τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αἰσθητικὴν ⟨φύσιν add. ab Arnim non prob. Dorandi⟩. ταύτην δὲ εἶναι τὸ συμφυὲς ἡμῖν πνεῦμα· διὸ καὶ σῶμα εἶναι. (157) Ζήνων δ᾽ ὁ Κιτιεὺς (SVF 1.135) καὶ Ἀντίπατρος (SVF 3 Ant. 49) ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 139 E.-K., 390 Theiler) πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν· τούτῳ γὰρ ἡμᾶς εἶναι ἔμπνους καὶ ὑπὸ τούτου κινεῖσθαι (cf. ch. 4.6). Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Zenon (SVF 1.137) concretum corpori spiritum. Calcidius in Tim. c. 221 ergo spiritum animam esse dicentes corpus esse animam plane fatentur (SVF 2.796, 2.879). ps.Galen HPh c. 24, p. 613.13–14 πνεῦμα γὰρ εἶναι ταύτην ὑπενόησαν καὶ οὗτοι (sc. Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἐξ αὐτοῦ (—)). Suda s.v. Ψ 164, p. 4.852.19 Adler ψυχή· πνεῦμα νοερόν. §4 Parmenides Hippasus Heraclitus: Priscian Inst.Gramm. at Gr.Lat. 2.341.20–21 Keil simplex Ennius (Varia fr. 51 Vahlen) protulit in Epicharmo (23B48 DK): ‘terra corpus est, at mentis ignis est’ pro mens. Cicero Luc. 124 utrum sit ignis. Tusc. 1.19 Zenoni Stoico (SVF 1.134) animus ignis videtur. Tusc. 1.40 sive ignei. Tusc. 1.60 sive ignis sit animus. Tusc. 1.70 sed fac igneam. Tertullian de An. 5.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak) ut Hipparchus [thus as often instead of Hippasus, 18.9 DK] et Heraclitus (T 650 Mouraviev) ex igne. Lactantius Op.D. 17.2 Perrin alii ignem. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Heraclitus physicus (22A15 DK) scintillam stellari essentiae. 1.14.20 Parmenides (28A45

liber 4 caput 3 DK) ex terra et igne. Augustine de Trin. 10.7.12–13 Mountain–Glorie alii ignem substantiam eius esse dixerunt. §5 Democritus: Cicero Tusc. 1.22 Democritum (fr. 449 Luria) … levibus et rotundis corpusculis efficientem animum concursu quodam fortuito. Tusc. 1.42 illam … individuorum corporum levium et rutundorum concursionem fortuitam, quam tamen Democritus (—) concalefactam et spirabilem, id est animalem, esse volt. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 (on Democritus, 68A1 DK) τόν τε ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοιούτων λείων καὶ περιφερῶν ὄγκων συγκεκρίσθαι, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁμοίως. Calcidius in Tim. c. 215 aut ignitae atomi iuxta Democritum (—), qui ex isdem corporibus et ignem et animam censet excudi. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Democritus (68A103 DK) spiritum insertum atomis hac facilitate motus ut corpus illi omne sit pervium. Augustine de Trin. 10.7.10–12 Mountain alii ex minutissimis individuisque corpusculis, quas atomos dicunt, concurrentibus in se atque cohaerentibus, eam confici crediderunt. §6 Heraclides: Tertullian de An. 9.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 6 Podolak) nec ut lumen, etsi hoc placuit Pontico Heraclidi (fr. 98c Wehrli, 46C Schütrumpf). Lactantius Op.D. Perrin 17.3 videtur ergo anima similis esse lumini, quae non ipsa sit sanguis, sed umore sanguinis alatur ut lumen oleo. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 98b Wehrli, 46B Schütrumpf) lucem. §7 Leucippus: Pollux Onom. 2.226 ἢ πῦρ. Lactantius Op.D. 17.2 Perrin alii ignem. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.20 Hipparchus [thus as often instead of Hippasus] ignem … Augustine de Trin. 10.7.12–13 Mountain–Glorie alii ignem substantiam eius esse dixerunt. Ambrose of Milan de Is. 4, p. 645.3 Schenkl. Ep. 21.1.4 Faller aut ignem. §8 Diogenes of Apollonia: Ambrose of Milan de Is. 2.4, p. 645.2–3 Schenkl neque aër anima, quia aliud est flatilis spiritus, aliud anima. Augustine de Trin. 10.7.12–13 Mountain Glorie alii aërem … substantiam eius esse dixerunt. de Trin. 10.10.1–3 cum ergo verbi gratia mens aërem se putat, aërem intellegere putat, se tamen intellegere scit; aërem autem se esse non scit sed putat. §9 Hippo: Tertullian de An. 5.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak) ut Hippon (—) et Thales (fr. 221 Wöhrle) ex aqua. Hippolytus Ref. 1.16.2 (Hippo 38A3 DK) τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ποτὲ μὲν ἐγκέφαλον λέγει, ποτὲ δὲ ὕδωρ· καὶ γὰρ τὸ σπέρμα εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον ἡμῖν ἐξ ὑγροῦ, ἐξ οὗ φησι ψυχὴν γίνεσθαι. §10 Xenarchus Peripatetics: Tertullian de An. 5.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak) ut Critolaus (fr. 17 Wehrli) et Peripatetici eius ex quinta nescio qua substantia (si et illa corpus, quia corpora includit). Iamblichus de An. fr. 3 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.32, p. 363.19–21 ὡς δὲ τῶν Ἀριστοτελικῶν τινες ὑφηγοῦνται, εἶδός ἐστι τὸ περὶ τοῖς σώμασιν … ἢ ποιότης οὐσιώδης τελεία. de An. fr. 9 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. 1.49.32, pp. 367.26–368.2 ἕτεροι (sc. τῶν Ἀριστοτελικῶν) δὲ τελειότητα αὐτὴν ἀφορίζονται κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τοῦ θείου σώματος, ἣν ἐντελέχειαν καλεῖ Ἀριστοτέλης, ὥσπερ δὴ ἐν ἐνίοις Θεόφραστος (fr. 269 FHS&G). §11 Epicurus: Lucretius DRN 3.161–176 haec eadem ratio naturam animi atque animai / corpoream docet esse etc. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 3.94

1439

1440

liber 4 caput 3

de animi et animae natura sensuque. at DRN 3.136 animum et animam coniuncta esse. at DRN 3.228 tertiam anima esse mentem. at DRN 3.241 quartam sine nomine animam. at DRN 3.624 de sensibus animae et animi. Tertullian de An. 5.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak) ut Epicurus (—) ex atomis (si et atomi corpulentias de coito suo cogunt). Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.20 Epicurus (fr. 215 Usener) speciem ex igne et aëre et spiritu mixtam. Calcidius in Tim. c. 215 vel id ipsum atomi casu quodam et sine causa concurrentes in unum et animam creantes, ut Epicuro (—) placet, ob similitudinem atomorum, quarum una commota omnem spiritum, id est animam, moveri simul. differently ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 613.11–12 Ἐπίκουρος (—) δὲ τὸν ἐφελκόμενον ἔξωθεν ἀέρα διὰ τῆς εἰσπνοῆς τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπέλαβεν. also differently Hippolytus Ref. 1.22.5 (fr. 340 Usener) τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων λύεσθαι ἅμα τοῖς σώμασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ συγγεννᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς τίθεται· αἷμα γὰρ αὐτὰς εἶναι. §§12–13 Empedocles Critias: Cicero Luc. 124 an sanguis. Tertullian de An. 5.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 2 Podolak) ut Empedocles (—) et Critias (—) ex sanguine. §12 Empedocles: Iamblichus de An. fr. 2 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.32, pp. 363.11–18 τινὲς εἰς τὰς τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων ἀρχὰς τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπαναφέρουσιν. εἶναι μὲν γὰρ τὰ πρῶτα σώματα ἄτομα, πρὸ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων στοιχειωδέστερα· … ταῦτα τοίνυν ἄπειρα ἔχειν σχήματα, ἓν δὲ αὐτῶν εἶναι τὸ σφαιροειδές, ἀπὸ δὴ τῶν σφαιροειδῶν ἀτόμων εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. §13 Critias: Cicero Tusc. 1.19 Empedocles animum esse censet cordi suffusum sanguinem (sc. αἷμα περικάρδιον, 31B105.3 DK). Tusc. 1.41 aut in Empedocleo (—) sanguine. Luc. 124 an sanguis. Pollux Onom. 2.226 ἢ αἷμα. Lactantius Op.D. 17.2 Perrin alii sanguinem esse dixerunt. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.20 Empedocles (—) et Critias (—) sanguinem. Ambrose of Milan de Noe 92, p. 478.6–7 Schenkl ut Critias (—) et eius discipuli, sanguinem esse animam dicentes. de Is. 4, p. 644.23–645.1 Schenkl non ergo sanguis anima, quia carnis est sanguis. Ep. 21.1.4 Faller aut sanguinem. Augustine de Trin. 10.7.4 Mountain alii sanguinem. §14 Heraclitus: Cicero ND 1.27 Pythagoras (—), qui censuit animum esse per naturam rerum omnem intentum et commeantem, ex quo nostri animi carperentur (cf. Arist. de An. 1.2 404a16–18 ἔοικε δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων λεγόμενον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διάνοιαν [sc. the same as Democritus’]· ἔφασαν γάρ τινες αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ξύσματα). Arius Didymus fr. 39.4 Diels at Eus. PE 15.20.4 (SVF 2.821) εἶναι δὲ ψυχὴν ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ φασίν, ὃ καλοῦσιν αἰθέρα, καὶ ἀέρα κύκλῳ περὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν, καὶ ἐκ τούτων ἀναθυμιάσεις, τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς ψυχὰς προσπεφυκέναι ταύτῃ, ὅσαι τε ἐν ζῴοις εἰσὶ καὶ ὅσαι ἐν τῷ περιέχοντι· διαμένειν γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὰς τῶν ἀποθανόντων ψυχάς. Tertullian de An. 3.2 hi statum eius aliunde ⟨de⟩ducunt, … prout … aut Heracliti (T 646 Mouraviev) maeror … persuaserunt. de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13 Podolak) ut neque extrinsecus agitari putes principale istud secundum Heraclitum (at fr. 115 Marcovich, p. 395). Calcidius in Tim. c. 251 Heraclitus (T 778 Mouraviev) vere consentientibus Stoicis (SVF 2.1198) rationem nostram cum divina ratione conectit etc.

liber 4 caput 3

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Phd. 96b καὶ πότερον τὸ αἷμά (Empedocles 31A76 DK) ἐστιν ᾧ φρονοῦμεν, ἢ ὁ ἀὴρ (cf. Anaximenes 13A23 DK) ἢ τὸ πῦρ (—); ἢ τούτων μὲν οὐδέν, ὁ δ᾽ ἐγκέφαλός ἐστιν ὁ τὰς αἰσθήσεις παρέχων (Alcmaeon 24A11 DK). Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b30–405a2 διαφέρονται δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν, τίνες καὶ πόσαι, μάλιστα μὲν οἱ σωματικὰς ποιοῦντες τοῖς ἀσωμάτους, τούτοις δ᾽ οἱ μίξαντες καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀποφηνάμενοι. Seneca Nat. 7.25 habere nos animum, cuius imperio et impellimur et revocamur, omnes fatebuntur; quid tamen sit animus ille rector dominusque nostri, non magis tibi quisquam expediet quam ubi sit. alius illum dicet spiritum esse, alius concentum quondam (cf. ch. 4.2.7), alius vim divinam et dei partem, alius tenuissimum animae, alius incorporalem potentiam (cf. ch. 4.2); non deerit qui sanguinem dicat, qui calorem. Galen PHP 7.3.19 δυοῖν θάτερον, εἰ μὲν ἀσώματός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῆς ὑπάρχειν (sc. τὸ κατὰ τὰς κοιλίας τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου πνεῦμα), ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, οἰκητήριον, εἰ δὲ σῶμα, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ, πνεῦμα, τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι. in Epid.vi p. 272.19–25 Wenkebach– Pfaff μέγιστον δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα κινεῖται δόγμα διαπεφωνημένον καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς φιλοσόφοις. ἔνιοι μὲν ἡγοῦνται μίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι ψυχῆς τε καὶ φύσεως, οἱ μὲν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τιθέμενοι τὴν ὕπαρξιν αὐτῶν, οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῇ τοῦ σώματος ἰδιότητι· τινὲς δὲ οὐ μίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκατέρᾳ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναί φασι καὶ οὐ σμικρῷ δέ τινι διαφερούσας, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλῳ τῷ γένει. QAM c. 5, p. 32.5–8 Bazou εἰ μὲν γὰρ εἶδός ἐστιν ὁμοιομεροῦς σώματος ἡ ψυχή, τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας ἕξομεν ἐπιστημονικωτάτην· εἰ δ᾽ ὑποθοίμεθα ταύτην ἀσώματον εἶναι φύσιν ἰδίαν ἔχουσαν, ὡς ὁ Πλάτων ἔλεγεν κτλ. HNH 15.25.1–12 K. κακῶς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἔνιοι κατεψεύσαντο Ξενοφάνους (—), ὥσπερ καὶ Σαβῖνος, ὡδί πως γράψας αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν· ‘οὔτε γὰρ τὸ πάμπαν ἀέρα λέγω τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὥσπερ Ἀναξιμένης (13A22 DK), οὔτε πῦρ, ὡς Ἡράκλειτος (T 579 Mouraviev), οὔτε ὕδωρ, ὡς Θαλῆς (fr. 182 Wöhrle), οὔτε γῆν, ὡς ἔν τινι Ξενοφάνης.’ οὐδαμόθι γὰρ εὑρίσκεται Ξενοφάνης ἀποφηνάμενος οὕτως. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Σαβῖνος αὐτὸς εὔδηλός ἐστιν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ καταψευδόμενος, οὐχ ὑπ᾽ ἀγνοίας ἐσφαλμένος· ἢ πάντως ἂν ὀνομαστὶ προσέγραψε τὸ βιβλίον, ἐν ᾧ ταῦτα ἀπεφήνατο· νῦν δ᾽ οὕτως ἔγραψεν· ‘οὔτε γῆν, ὡς ἔν τινι Ξενοφάνης.’ καὶ Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 5a Diels, 231 FHS&G; not in DK) δ᾽ ἂν ἐν ταῖς τῶν Φυσικῶν δοξῶν ἐπιτομαῖς τὴν Ξενοφάνους δόξαν, εἴπερ οὕτως εἶχεν, ἐγεγράφει. Propr.Plac. 7, p. 179.16–19 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami οὕτω καὶ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς εἴτ᾽ ἀσώματός ἐστιν παντάπασιν ὡς ὁ Πλάτων ὑπέλαβεν, εἴτε σωματοειδὴς ὡς ὁ Χρύσιππος οἴεται, πνεῦμα μὲν ἀποφηνάμενος ὑπάρχειν αὐτήν. Atticus fr. 7.1–9 bis Des Places at Eus. PE 15.11.4 (verbatim) τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα ὅσα περὶ αὐτῆς εἰρήκασιν ἄλλοι, αἰσχύνην ἡμῖν φέρει. πῶς γὰρ οὐκ αἰσχρὸς ὁ ἐντελέχειαν τιθεὶς τὴν ψυχὴν λόγος σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ (cf. ch. 4.2.6); πῶς δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνης γέμων ὁ πνεῦμά πως ἔχον αὐτὴν ἀποδιδοὺς ἢ πῦρ νοερόν, τῇ περιψύξει καὶ οἷον βαφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀναφθὲν ἢ στομωθέν, ὅ τε ἀτόμων ἄθροισμα θεὶς ἢ ὅλως ἀπὸ σώματος αὐτὴν γεννᾶσθαι ἀποφαινόμενος; Longinus fr. 20 Patillon–Brisson, 72(a–c) Männlein–Robert at Eus. PE 15.21.1 συνελόντι δ᾽ εἰπεῖν, πόρρω μοι δοκοῦσιν ἀφεστηκέναι τοῦ τὰ δέοντα λογίζεσθαι πάντες ἐφεξῆς ὁπόσοι τὴν ψυχὴν σῶμα ἀπεφήναντο. ποῦ γὰρ ὅλως ἐγχωρεῖ παραπλήσιον εἶναί τινι τῶν στοιχείων τὸ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν θεῖναι, ποῦ δὲ ἐπὶ

1441

1442

liber 4 caput 3

τὰς κράσεις καὶ μίξεις ἀνενεγκεῖν; … τῶν δὲ περὶ ψυχὴν ἴχνος οὐδὲν οὐδὲ τεκμήριον ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν εὑρίσκεται, κἂν εἰ φιλοτιμοῖτό τις ὡς Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.800) ἅπαντα λίθον κινεῖν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐρευνᾶν δύναμιν σώματος εἰς γένεσιν τῶν περὶ ψυχῆς πράξεων. Porphyry de An. adv. Boeth. (249F Smith) at Eus. PE 15.11.4 πῶς δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνης γέμων ὁ πνεῦμά πως ἔχον αὐτὴν ἀποδιδοὺς ἢ πῦρ νοερόν (SVF 2.806), τῇ περιψύξει καὶ οἷον βαφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀναφθὲν ἢ στομωθέν, ὅ τε ἀτόμων ἄθροισμα θεὶς (—) ἢ ὅ ὅλως ἀπὸ σώματος αὐτὴν γεννᾶσθαι ἀποφαινόμενος; Chapter heading: Porphyry Plot. 24 ἡ δὲ τετάρτη ἐννεὰς … τὰ περὶ ψυχῆς εἴληχε συγγράμματα. ἔχει δὲ τάδε· αʹ Περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν τίς ποτέ ἐστι. βʹ Περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς δεύτερον = Plotinus Enn. 4.1.[21]tit., 4.2.[4]tit. Cassiodorus de An. c. 4. De definitione animae. §2 Anaximenes Anaximander Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes: Aristotle de An. 1.2 405a21–22 Διογένης (64A20 DK) δ᾽ ὥσπερ καὶ ἕτεροί τινες ἀέρα. Lucretius DRN 3.44 aut etiam venti (sc. animi naturam esse). Plotinus Enn. 4.7.[2].6.40 εἴτ᾽ οὖν εἰς ἀέρα. Iamblichus de An. fr. 8 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.32, p. 366.16–20 ἢ τὸν ἀναπνεόμενον ἀέρα ψυχὴν νομίζουσιν· ὥσπερ Ἀριστοτέλης (de An. 1.5 410b26–30) μὲν ἐν τοῖς Ὀρφικοῖς ἔπεσί (1B11 DK, 421(I) Bernabé) φησι λέγεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν εἰσιέναι ἐκ τοῦ ὅλου ἀναπνεόντων ἡμῶν φερομένην ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνέμων. John Philoponus in de An. 9.9–10 οἱ δὲ ἀερίαν, ὡς Ἀναξιμένης (13A23 DK) καί τινες τῶν Στωικῶν (—). §3 Stoics: Chrysippus de An. I at Gal. PHP 3.1.10 (SVF 2.885, verbatim) ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμά ἐστι σύμφυτον ἡμῖν συνεχὲς παντὶ τῷ σώματι διῆκον ἔστ᾽ ἂν ἡ τῆς ζωῆς εὔπνοια παρῇ ἐν τῷ σώματι. Seneca Nat. 7.25.2 alius illum dicet spiritum esse. Doxography C (attributed to AD) at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.5b7, p. 64.21–23 (SVF 3.305) τὴν γὰρ διάνοιαν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν σῶμα εἶναι· τὸ γὰρ συμφυὲς πνεῦμα ἡμῖν ἔνθερμον ὂν ψυχὴν ἡγοῦνται. Galen QAM c. 4, 784.10–12 K. ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσία κατὰ ποιὰν κρᾶσιν ἀέρος τε καὶ πυρὸς γίγνεται κατὰ τοὺς Στωϊκούς (SVF 2.787). PHP 7.3.19 εἰ δὲ σῶμα, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι. in Epid. vi p. 273.2.1–6 Wenkebach–Pfaff τοῖς Στωικοῖς (SVF 2.715) δ᾽ ἔθος ἐστὶ φύσιν μὲν ὀνομάζειν, ᾗ τὰ φυτὰ διοικεῖται, ψυχὴν δὲ ᾗ τὰ ζῷα, τὴν οὐσίαν ἀμφοτέρων μὲν τίθενται τὸ σύμφυτον πνεῦμα καὶ διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων οἴονται ποιότητι· ξηρότερον μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὑγρότερον δὲ τὸ τῆς φύσεως εἶναι. Propr.Plac. 7, p. 179.18–19 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami εἴτε σωματοειδὴς ὡς ὁ Χρύσιππος οἴεται, πνεῦμα μὲν ἀποφηνάμενος αὐτὴν εἶναι. Propr.Plac. 14, p. 188.1 Boudon-Millot– Pietrobelli, text Lami (= Sub.Nat.Fac. 4.761.4 K.) τινὲς δὲ πνεῦμα. SMT 11.731.3– 6 K. οἱ μὲν οὖν Στωϊκοὶ (SVF 2.777) ταὐτὸν τοῦτο τὸ πνεῦμα τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς εἶναι δοξάζουσιν· ἡμεῖς δὲ περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς οὔτε πάνυ τι τολμῶμεν ἀποφαίνεσθαι καὶ πρὸς τὰ παρόντα περιττὸν ὑπολαμβάνομεν. Hierocles El.Eth. col. 3.56–61 Bastianini–Long πρῶτον [το]ίνυν οὐκ ἀγνοητέον ὡς, | καθάπε[ρ] τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ζ[ῴο]υ θικτόν ἐστι, ἵν᾽ οὕτως εἴπω, καὶ | ἁπτόν, οὕτως ο[ὖν] καὶ ἡ [ψ]υχή· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ τοῦ γένους ἐστὶ τῶν σω-|μά[των—ἀλλ᾽ [ἐ]ν [τοῖς] οἰκείοις τοῦτο παρίσταται λό|γοις [ἀν]ηκ[έ]σ[το]υς ἀποφαίνουσι τὰς τῶν ἄλλων | ὑ[πὲρ τῆς ψ[υχῆς ἀτο]πίας λε[γόν]των φοράς. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 26.16–17 οἵ τε ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.786), πνεῦμα αὐτὴν λέγοντες εἶναι συγκείμενόν πως ἔκ τε πυρὸς καὶ

liber 4 caput 3 ἀέρος. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 115.6–7 (SVF 2.785) ἔτι εἰ ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμα, ἢ πῦρ ἢ πνεῦμα λεπτομερές ἐστι διὰ παντὸς διῆκον τοῦ ἐμψύχου σώματος. Plotinus Enn. 4.7.[2].3–8 passim. Porphyry de An. adv. Boeth. (fr. 249F Smith) at Eus. PE 15.11.4 (SVF 2.806) πῶς δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνης γέμων ὁ πνεῦμά πως ἔχον αὐτὴν ἀποδιδοὺς ἢ πῦρ νοερόν; Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.19 (on Xenophanes!, 21A1 DK) πρῶτός τε ἀπεφήνατο ὅτι … ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμα. Cassiodorus de An. c. 10.1–7 Halporn De qualitate animae. qualitatem itaque substantiae huius auctores igneam esse dixerunt propterea quod mobili semper ardore vegetetur et iuncta corpori calore suo membra vivificet. deinde quod cuncta caelestia flammeo referunt vigore constare, non isto fumeo, consumptibili, et temporali, sed ex tranquillo nutritore atque immortali. §4 Parmenides Hippasus Heraclitus: Theophrastus Sens. 3 Παρμενίδης (28A46 DK) μὲν γὰρ ὅλως οὐδὲν ἀφώρικεν ἀλλὰ μόνον, ὅτι δυοῖν ὄντοιν στοιχείοιν κατὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον ἐστὶν ἡ γνῶσις. ἐὰν γὰρ ὑπεραίρῃ τὸ θερμὸν ἢ τὸ ψυχρόν, ἄλλην γίνεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν, βελτίω δὲ καὶ καθαρωτέραν τὴν διὰ τὸ θερμόν. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.130 (cf. Aenesidemus B29 Polito) ἡ ἐπιξενωθεῖσα τοῖς ἡμετέροις σώμασιν ἀπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος μοῖρα. John Philoponus in de An. 9.7–9 οἱ δὲ πῦρ, ὡς Ἡράκλειτος (T 969 Mouraviev), ἐπειδὴ καὶ πῦρ ἔλεγεν εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων· οὕτως οὖν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν πυρίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ εὐκίνητον. §5/§11 Democritus Epicurus: Papyrus Genevenus inv. 203, B27–29 at CPF I.1** p. 6 Democritus 2T σῶμα ἔφασ[αν οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον, καὶ ὁ] | Δημόκριτ[ος ὁμο]ίως σ[υγ]κ[ρινο]μέν[ων ἰ]|δεῶν σῶμ[α αὐτὴ]ν (sc. τὴν ψυχὴν) εἶπ[εν. Iamblichus de An. fr. 2 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.32, p. 363.16–17 ἀπὸ δὴ τῶν σφαιροειδῶν ἀτόμων εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. §5 Democritus: Aristotle de An. 1.2 403b31–404a2 Δημόκριτος (fr. 443a Luria) μὲν πῦρ τι καὶ θερμόν φησιν αὐτὴν εἶναι· ἀπείρων γὰρ ὄντων σχημάτων καὶ ἀτόμων τὰ σφαιροειδῆ πῦρ καὶ ψυχὴν λέγει. Resp. 4 472a4–6 (Democritus, 68A106 DK) λέγει δ᾽ὡς ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ θερμὸν ταὐτόν, τὰ πρῶτα σχήματα τῶν σφαιροειδῶν. Theophrastus Sens. 58 (on Democritus, 68A135 DK) φανερόν, ὅτι τῇ κράσει τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖ τὸ φρονεῖν, ὅπερ ἴσως αὐτῷ καὶ κατὰ λόγον ἐστὶ σῶμα ποιοῦντι τὴν ψυχήν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 (on Democritus, 68A1 DK) τόν τε ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοιούτων λείων καὶ περιφερῶν ὄγκων συγκεκρίσθαι, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁμοίως. (differently Scholia in Epicurum Ep.Hdt. 66 at D.L. V.P. 10.66 λέγει (fr. 311 Usener) ἐν ἄλλοις καὶ ἐξ ἀτόμων αὐτὴν συγκεῖσθαι λειοτάτων καὶ στρογγυλωτάτων, πολλῷ τινι διαφερουσῶν τῶν τοῦ πυρός.) Porphyry de An. adv. Boeth. (fr. 249F Smith) at Eus. PE 15.11.4 πῶς δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνης γέμων … ὅ τε ἀτόμων ἄθροισμα θείς; John Philoponus in de An. 9.16–19 τῶν δὲ σύνθετον σῶμα ὑπειληφότων οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀσυνάπτων στοιχείων, ὡς Δημόκριτος καὶ Λεύκιππος (—) καὶ ἁπλῶς οἱ τὰ ἄτομα εἰσάγοντες· ἔλεγον μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὰς τῶν ὄντων τὰ ἄτομα καὶ τὸ κενόν· εἶναι οὖν τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκ σφαιρικῶν ἀτόμων διὰ τὸ εὐκίνητον. §6 Heraclides: Plutarch Lat.Viv. 1130B (Heraclides Ponticus fr. 100 Wehrli, 48 Schütrumpf) αὐτήν τε τὴν ψυχὴν ἔνιοι τῶν φιλοσόφων φῶς εἶναι τῇ οὐσίᾳ νομίζουσιν κτλ. Clement of Alexandria Paed. 2.2.29.3 οὕτω δ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν ὑπάρξαι καθαρὰ καὶ ξηρὰ καὶ φωτοειδής, ‘αὐγὴ δὲ ψυχὴ ξηρὰ σοφωτάτη καὶ ἀρί-

1443

1444

liber 4 caput 3

στη’ (Heraclitus fr. 68 (a7) Marcovich). John Philoponus in An. 9.5–7 τῶν δὲ ἁπλοῦν σῶμα εἰρηκότων τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι οἱ μὲν εἰρήκασιν αἰθέριον εἶναι σῶμα, ταὐτὸν δέ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν οὐράνιον, ὥσπερ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικός (fr. 99 Wehrli, 47 Schütrumpf). §§8–9 Diogenes of Apollonia Hippo: Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 32.16–20 ἐτίθετο μὲν καὶ Θαλῆς (fr. 423 Wöhrle) ὕδωρ τὸ στοιχεῖον, ἀλλὰ σωμάτων, καὶ οὐχὶ τὴν ψυχὴν πάντως σῶμα ᾤετο. ⟨τὸν⟩ δὲ Ἵππωνα … φορτικὸν καλεῖ οὐ μόνον ὡς παχυμερέστερον αὐτὴν λέγοντα στοιχεῖον κτλ. §8 Diogenes of Apollonia: Aristotle de An. 1.2 405a21–22 Διογένης (64A20 DK) δ᾽ ὥσπερ καὶ ἕτεροί τινες ἀέρα. §9 Hippo: Aristotle de An. 1.2 405b1–3 τῶν δὲ φορτικωτέρων καὶ ὕδωρ τινὲς ἀπεφήναντο, καθάπερ Ἵππων· πεισθῆναι δ᾽ ἐοίκασιν ἐκ τῆς γονῆς, ὅτι πάντων ὑγρά. John Philoponus in de An. 9.10–12 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος, ὡς Θαλῆς (fr. 440 Wöhrle) καὶ Ἵππων (—) ὁ ἐπίκλην ἄθεος· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὴν γονὴν ἑώρων ἐξ ὑγρᾶς οὖσαν οὐσίας, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὕδωρ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων ἐνόμισαν. differently in de An. 86.23–34 οὐ γὰρ εἶπε φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Θαλῆς (—) τὸ ὕδωρ ψυχὴν τίθεται καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἕλκειν φησὶ τὸν σίδηρον τὴν λίθον ὡς ἔμψυχον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐξ ὕδατος οὖσαν. … διὰ ταῦτα τούτου μὲν οὐ λέγει εἶναι τὴν δόξαν ταύτην ὅτι ἐξ ὕδατος ἡ ψυχή, ἀλλὰ τοσοῦτον μόνον ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν κίνησιν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀπένειμεν. ἐφεξῆς δὲ Ἵππωνά (—) φησι τοῦτο δοξάσαι ὅτι ἐξ ὕδατος ἡ ψυχή· καὶ γὰρ τῶν πάντων ἀρχὴν καὶ αὐτὸς ἔλεγε τὸ ὕδωρ. §10 Xenarchus Peripatetics: Galen PHP 7.7.25 εἰ δὲ καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς οὐσίας ἀποφήνασθαι χρή, δυοῖν θάτερον ἀναγκαῖον εἰπεῖν· ἢ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸ οἷον αὐγοειδές τε καὶ αἰθερῶδες σῶμα λεκτέον αὐτήν, εἰς ὃ κἂν μὴ βούλωνται κατ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν ἀφικνοῦνται Στωϊκοί (—) τε καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, ἢ αὐτὴν μὲν ἀσώματον ὑπάρχειν οὐσίαν, ὄχημα δὲ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῆς εἶναι τουτὶ τὸ σῶμα δι᾽ οὗ μέσου τὴν πρὸς τἆλλα σώματα κοινωνίαν λαμβάνει. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 16.4–6 τὸ δὲ εἶδος, οὗ ἐστιν εἶδος, ἐδείχθη καὶ τελειότης ὄν, ἔθος δὲ Ἀριστοτέλει τὴν τελειότητα καὶ ἐντελέχειαν λέγειν. cf. de An. 17.12–13. de An. 23.30–24.1. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 103.2–4 ψυχὴ ἄρα ἐστὶν ἡ κατὰ τὸ εἶδος οὐσία. τὸ δὲ εἶδος τελειότητά τε καὶ ἐντελέχειαν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης λέγει. Plotinus Enn. 4.7.[2].85.1– 50. §11 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.63 ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμά ἐστι λεπτομερές … προσεμφερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν ἔχοντι καὶ πῇ μὲν τούτῳ προσεμφερές, πῇ δὲ τούτῳ· ἔστι δέ τι μέρος πολλὴν παραλλαγὴν εἰληφὸς τῇ λεπτομερείᾳ καὶ αὐτῶν τούτων, συμπαθὲς δὲ τοῦτο μᾶλλον καὶ τῷ λοιπῷ ἀθροίσματι· τοῦτο δὲ πᾶν αἱ δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς δηλοῦσι καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ αἱ εὐκινησίαι καὶ αἱ διανοήσεις. Lucretius DRN 3.203–205 nunc igitur quoniamst animi natura reperta / mobilis egregie, perquam constare necessest / corporibus parvis et levibus atque rutundis. DRN 3.231–242 nec tamen haec simplex nobis natura putanda est, / tenuis enim quaedam moribundos deserit aura / mixta vapore, vapor porro trahit aëra secum; / … / (237) iam triplex animi est igitur natura reperta; / nec tamen haec sat sunt ad sensum cuncta creandum, / nil horum quoniam recipit mens posse creare / sensiferos motus et quae quis [Smith, alii alia: quaedam

liber 4 caput 3 codd.] mente volutat. / quarta quoque his igitur quaedam natura necessest / adtribuatur; east omnino nominis expers. DRN 3.269–272. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1118D–E (Epicurus fr. 315 Usener) τὴν οὐσίαν συμπηγνύντες αὐτῆς ἔκ τινος θερμοῦ καὶ πνευματικοῦ καὶ ἀερώδους οὐκ ἐξικνοῦνται πρὸς τὸ κυριώτατον ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαγορεύουσι· τὸ γὰρ ᾧ κρίνει καὶ μνημονεύει καὶ φιλεῖ καὶ μισεῖ, καὶ ὅλως τὸ φρόνιμον καὶ λογιστικὸν ἔκ τινός φησιν ‘ἀκατονομάστου’ ποιότητος ἐπιγίνεσθαι. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 26.17–18 καὶ οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον (—)· καὶ γὰρ κατ᾽ ἐκείνους σύνθετος ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκ πλειόνων τινῶν καὶ διαφερόντων σωμάτων. §12 Empedocles: Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b11–15 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B109 DK) μὲν ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων πάντων (sc. τὴν ψυχήν), εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἕκαστον ψυχὴν τούτων, λέγων οὕτως: ‘γαίῃ μὲν γὰρ γαῖαν ὀπώπαμεν, ὕδατι δ᾽ ὕδωρ, / αἰθέρι δ᾽ αἰθέρα δῖαν, ἀτὰρ πυρὶ πῦρ ἀΐδηλον’. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.115–116 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ὁ Ἀκραγαντῖνος (—) κατὰ μὲν τοὺς ἁπλούστερον δοκοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐξηγεῖσθαι ἓξ κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας παραδίδωσιν. δύο γὰρ δραστηρίους τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὰς ὑποθέμενος, Φιλίαν καὶ Νεῖκος, ἅμα τε τῶν τεσσάρων μνησθεὶς ὡς ὑλικῶν, γῆς τε καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος καὶ πυρός, πάντων ταῦτα ἔφη κριτήρια τυγχάνειν. (116) παλαιὰ γάρ τις … ἄνωθεν παρὰ τοῖς φυσικοῖς κυλίεται δόξα περὶ τοῦ τὰ ὅμοια τῶν ὁμοίων εἶναι γνωριστικά. M. 7.121 cites Empedocles 31B109 DK. Empedocles 31B105.3 DK αἷμα γὰρ ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα. Theophrastus Sens. 10 (Empedocles 31A86 DK) τῷ αἵματι μάλιστα φρονεῖν· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ μάλιστα κεκρᾶσθαί {ἐστι} τὰ στοιχεῖα τῶν μερῶν. Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. V.P. 8.28 εἶναι δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπόσπασμα αἰθέρος καὶ τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ τοῦ ψυχροῦ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.29 (on Zeno of Elea, 29A1 DK) γεγενῆσθαι δὲ τὴν τῶν πάντων φύσιν ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ, λαμβανόντων αὐτῶν εἰς ἄλληλα τὴν μεταβολήν· … ψυχὴν κρᾶμα ὑπάρχειν ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων (sc. θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ) κατὰ μηδενὸς τούτων ἐπικράτησιν. §13 Critias: Plato Phd. 96b καὶ πότερον τὸ αἷμά (Empedocles 31A76 DK) ἐστιν ᾧ φρονοῦμεν. Aristotle de An. 1.2 405b5–6 ἕτεροι δ᾽ αἷμα, καθάπερ Κριτίας (see also above §12). Lucretius DRN 3.43 animi naturam sanguinis esse. Seneca Nat. 7.25.2 non deerit qui sanguinem dicat. Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 τρέφεσθαί τε τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος. Galen PHP 2.8.47 αἷμά φησιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Κριτίας ὑπέλαβον (v. also PHP 2.8.48 below §14). Plotinus Enn. 4.7.[2].6.40 εἴτ᾽ οὖν εἰς αἷμα. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 32.22 ὁ δὲ τὸ αἷμα τὴν ψυχὴν θέμενος Κριτίας (—) εἴτε ὁ τῶν τριάκοντα γενόμενος εἷς εἴτε σοφιστής τις, οὐδὲν ἡμῖν διοίσει. John Philoponus in An. 9.19–21 οἱ δὲ ἐκ συνημμένων, ὡς Κριτίας ὁ εἷς τῶν τριάκοντα· αἷμα γὰρ ἔλεγεν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν· ‘αἷμα γάρ’, φησίν, ‘ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα’ (N.B. = Empedocles 31B105.3 DK). §14 Heraclitus: Aristotle de An. 1.2 405a25–27 καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (T 189 Mouraviev) δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναί φησι ψυχήν, εἴπερ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, ἐξ ἧς τἆλλα συνίστησιν· καὶ ἀσωματώτατόν τε καὶ ῥέον ἀεί. ps.Aristotle Probl. 13.6 908a28–34 διὰ τί, ἐάν τις σκόροδα φάγῃ, τὸ οὖρον ὄζει, ἄλλων δὲ ἐχόντων ἰσχυρὰν ὀσμὴν οὐκ

1445

1446

liber 4 caput 3

ὄζει ἐδεσθέντων; πότερον, ὥσπερ τινὲς τῶν Ἡρακλειτιζόντων (Heraclitus 66 ( f 3) Marcovich) φασὶν ὅτι ἀναθυμιᾶται, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ, καὶ ἐν τῷ σώματι, εἶτα πάλιν ψυχθὲν συνίσταται ἐκεῖ μὲν ὑγρόν, ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὖρον, ἡ ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς ἀναθυμίασις, ἐξ οὗ ἐγένετο αὕτη συμμιγνυμένη, ποιεῖ τὴν ὀσμήν; αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν, ὅταν μεταβάλλῃ. Aristotle de An. 1.5 410b27–30 τοῦτο δὲ πέπονθε καὶ ὁ ἐν τοῖς Ὀρφικοῖς καλουμένοις ἔπεσι (1B11 DK, 421(I) Bernabé) λόγος· φησὶ γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὅλου εἰσιέναι ἀναπνεόντων, φερομένην ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνέμων. de An. 1.5 411a7–8 καὶ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δή τινες αὐτὴν μεμῖχθαί φασιν, ὅθεν ἴσως καὶ Θαλῆς (fr. 32 Wöhrle) ᾠήθη πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι. de An. 1.2 404a1–13 (Democritus fr. 200 Luria) πῦρ τι καὶ θερμόν φησιν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν ψυχήν) εἶναι· ἀπείρων γὰρ ὄντων σχημάτων καὶ ἀτόμων τὰ σφαιροειδῆ πῦρ καὶ ψυχὴν λέγει (οἷον ἐν τῷ ἀέρι τὰ καλούμενα ξύσματα, ἃ φαίνεται ἐν ταῖς διὰ τῶν θυρίδων ἀκτῖσιν), … διὸ καὶ τοῦ ζῆν ὅρον εἶναι τὴν ἀναπνοήν· συνάγοντος γὰρ τοῦ περιέχοντος τὰ σώματα καὶ ἐκθλίβοντος τῶν σχημάτων τὰ παρέχοντα τοῖς ζῴοις τὴν κίνησιν διὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ αὐτὰ ἠρεμεῖν μηδέποτε, βοήθειαν γίνεσθαι θύραθεν ἐπεισιόντων ἄλλων τοιούτων ἐν τῷ ἀναπνεῖν. de An. 1.2 404a16–19 ἔοικε δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων (58B.40 DK) λεγόμενον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διάνοιαν· ἔφασαν γάρ τινες αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ξύσματα, οἱ δὲ τὸ ταῦτα κινοῦν. Resp. 4 472a6–11 (68A106 DK) ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἀέρι πολὺν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι τῶν τοιούτων ἃ καλεῖ ἐκεῖνος νοῦν καὶ ψυχήν· ἀναπνέοντος οὖν καὶ εἰσιόντος τοῦ ἀέρος συνεισιόντα ταῦτα καὶ ἀνείργοντα τὴν θλίψιν κωλύειν τὴν ἐνοῦσαν ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις διιέναι ψυχήν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ ἀναπνεῖν καὶ ἐκπνεῖν εἶναι τὸ ζῆν καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν. GA 3.11 762a18–21 γίνεται δ᾽ ἐν γῇ καὶ ἐν ὑγρῷ τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ διὰ τὸ ἐν γῇ μὲν ὕδωρ ὑπάρχειν ἐν δ᾽ ὕδατι πνεῦμα, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ παντὶ θερμότητα ψυχικήν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ πάντα ψυχῆς εἶναι πλήρη. Cleanthes at AD fr. 39 Diels at Eus. PE 15.20.2– 3 Κλεάνθης (SVF 1.519) … φησιν ὅτι Ζήνων (SVF 1.141) τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει αἰσθητικὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, καθάπερ Ἡράκλειτος· βουλόμενος γὰρ ἐμφανίσαι ὅτι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀναθυμιώμεναι νοεραὶ ἀεὶ γίνονται, εἴκασεν αὐτὰς τοῖς ποταμοῖς, λέγων οὕτως· ‘ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ· καὶ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιῶνται’ (22B12 DK). ἀναθυμίασιν μὲν οὖν ὁμοίως τῷ Ἡρακλείτῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποφαίνει Ζήνων, αἰσθητικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι τυποῦσθαί τε δύναται τὸ μέρος τὸ ἡγούμενον αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ὄντων καὶ ὑπαρχόντων διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ παραδέχεσθαι τὰς τυπώσεις. Diogenes of Babylon at Gal. PHP 2.8.44 (SVF 3 Diog. 30, verbatim) ‘τό’ φησι ‘κινοῦν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὰς κατὰ προαίρεσιν κινήσεις ψυχική τίς ἐστιν ἀναθυμίασις, πᾶσα δὲ ἀναθυμίασις ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς ἀνάγεται, ὥστε τὸ κινοῦν πρῶτον τὰς κατὰ προαίρεσιν κινήσεις καὶ τὸ τρέφον ἡμᾶς ἀνάγκη ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν εἶναι.’ Manilius 4.884–885 … nostrumque parentem / pars sua perspicimus genitique accedimus astris. Seneca Dial. 8.5.5 an illud verum sit quo maxime probatur homines divini esse spiritus, partem ac veluti scintillas quasdam astrorum in terram desiluisse atque alieno loco haesisse. Plutarch Virt.Mor. 441F ἥ τ᾽ ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ μέρος ἢ μίμημα τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὖσα. CN 1084F–1085A (SVF 2.847) φαντασία γάρ τις ἡ ἔννοιά ἐστι, φαντασία δὲ τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ· ψυχῆς δὲ φύσις ἀναθυμίασις, ἣν τυπωθῆναι μὲν ἐργῶδες διὰ μανότητα δεξαμένην δὲ τηρῆσαι τύπωσιν ἀδύνατον. ἥ τε γὰρ τροφὴ καὶ ἡ γένεσις αὐτῆς ἐξ (1085A) ὑγρῶν οὖσα συνεχῆ τὴν ἐπιφορὰν ἔχει καὶ τὴν ἀνάλωσιν, ἥ τε πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα τῆς ἀνα-

liber 4 caput 3 πνοῆς ἐπιμιξία καινὴν ἀεὶ ποιεῖ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, ἐξισταμένην καὶ τρεπομένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θύραθεν ἐμβάλλοντος ὀχετοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἐξιόντος. ps.Plutarch Hom. 2 c. 127, 1406–1408 Kindstrand αὐτὴν δὲ ψυχὴν οἱ Στωικοὶ (—) ὁρίζονται πνεῦμα ⟨ἠμῖν̣⟩ συμφυὲς καὶ ἀναθυμίασιν αἰσθητικήν, ἀναδιδομένην ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑγρῶν. Marcus Aurelius 5.33 αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ψυχάριον ἀναθυμίασις ἀφ᾽ αἵματος. Galen PHP 2.8.48 εἰ δέ γε ἕποιτο (sc. Diogenes of Babylon, SVF 3 Diog. 30) Κλεάνθει (SVF 1.521) καὶ Χρυσίππῳ (—) καὶ Ζήνωνι (SVF 1.140) τρέφεσθαι μὲν ἐξ αἵματος φήσαντι τὴν ψυχήν, οὐσίαν δ᾽ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχειν τὸ πνεῦμα (see also PHP 2.8.47 above §12). Ut.Resp. 5.502.6–8 K. καίτοι κἀκ τῆς τοῦ αἵματος ἀναθυμιάσεως οὐκ ἀπεικὸς αὐτὸ (sc. τὸ ψυχικὸν πνεῦμα) τρέφεσθαι, καθάπερ καὶ πολλοῖς (SVF 2.782) ὅσοι γὰρ οἴονται τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι πνεῦμα, διασῴζεσθαι λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἔκ τε τῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως τοῦ αἵματος καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν εἰσπνοὴν ἀέρος ἑλκομένου διὰ τῆς τραχείας ἀρτηρίας εἴσω τοῦ σώματος. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.127–129 ἀρέσκει γὰρ τῷ φυσικῷ (sc. Ἡρακλείτῳ, 22A16 DK) τὸ περιέχον ἡμᾶς λογικόν τε ὂν καὶ φρενῆρες. … (129) τοῦτον οὖν τὸν θεῖον λόγον καθ᾽ Ἡράκλειτον δι᾽ ἀναπνοῆς σπάσαντες νοεροὶ γινόμεθα, καὶ ἐν μὲν ὕπνοις ληθαῖοι, κατὰ δὲ ἔγερσιν πάλιν ἔμφρονες κτλ. M. 7.349 οἱ μὲν ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος (sc. εἶναι τὴν διάνοιαν), ὡς Αἰνησίδημος (fr. B29 Polito) κατὰ Ἡράκλειτον (T 689 Mouraviev). M. 8.286 καὶ μὴν ῥητῶς ὁ Ἡράκλειτός (T 690 Mouraviev) φησι τὸ μὴ εἶναι λογικὸν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, μόνον δ᾽ ὑπάρχειν φρενῆρες τὸ περιέχον. M. 9.337 ὁ δὲ Αἰνησίδημος (fr. B25 Polito) κατὰ Ἡράκλειτον (T 698 Mouraviev) καὶ ἕτερόν φησι τὸ μέρος τοῦ ὅλου καὶ ταὐτόν· ἡ γὰρ οὐσία καὶ ὅλη ἐστὶ καὶ μέρος, ὅλη μὲν κατὰ τὸν κόσμον, μέρος δὲ κατὰ τὴν τοῦδε τοῦ ζῴου φύσιν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Phys. lib. 4, schol. 47* Rashed οἱ Στωικοὶ … τὸν δὲ νοῦν ἔλεγον εἶναι τὸ λεπτομερὲς πνεῦμα τὸ διὰ πάντων διῆκον καὶ συνέχον πάντα· ὃ δὴ καὶ ψυχὴν τοῦ κόσμου ἔλεγον καὶ πλείους ψυχὰς ἐν ἑκάστῳ εἶναι, μίαν μὲν τὴν ὡς φύσιν καὶ μέρος τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς, ἄλλην δὲ τὴν οἰκείαν ἑκάστου. Longinus fr. 20 Patillon–Brisson (= 72(e) Männlein–Robert) at Eus. PE 15.21.3, cf. at Theod. CAG 5.27 Ζήνωνι (SVF 1.139) μὲν γὰρ καὶ Κλεάνθει (SVF 1.520) νεμεσήσειέ τις ἂν δικαίως οὕτως σφόδρα ὑβριστικῶς περὶ αὐτῆς διαλεχθεῖσι καὶ ταὐτὸν ἄμφω τοῦ στερεοῦ σώματος [sic] εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν φήσασι. τί γάρ, ὦ πρὸς θεῶν, κοινὸν ὅλως ἀναθυμιάσει καὶ ψυχῇ; Themistius in de An. 13.26–28 καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (T 764 Mouraviev) δὲ ἣν ἀρχὴν τίθεται τῶν ὄντων, ταύτην τίθεται καὶ ψυχήν· πῦρ γὰρ καὶ οὗτος. τὴν γὰρ ἀναθυμίασιν ἐξ ἧς τὰ ἄλλα συνίστησιν οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ πῦρ ὑποληπτέον, τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἀσώματον καὶ ῥέον ἀεί. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 31.26–30 σαφῆ δὲ τὰ περὶ Διογένους (—) ἱστορημένα. περὶ δὲ Ἡρακλείτου (T 955 Mouraviev) συλλογιζομένῳ ἔοικεν, οὐχ ὡς σαφῶς λέγοντος πῦρ ἢ ἀναθυμίασιν ξηρὰν τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τοῦ πυρὸς πρὸς τῷ λεπτομερεῖ καὶ τὸ εὐκίνητον ἔχοντος καὶ τῷ κινεῖσθαι τὰ ἄλλα κινοῦντος, καὶ διὰ ταῦτά {τε} τῇ ψυχῇ προσήκοντος ὡς διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῶντος ἰούσῃ σώματος καὶ ὡς τῷ κινεῖσθαι κινητικῇ καὶ ἔτι ὡς γνωστικῇ. κτλ. John Philoponus in de An. 87.10–13 (Heraclitus T 972A Mouraviev) εἴρηται πολλάκις ὅτι ἀρχὴν ἔλεγεν εἶναι τῶν ὄντων οὗτος τὸ πῦρ, πῦρ δὲ οὐ τὴν φλόγα· ὡς γὰρ Ἀριστοτέλης (cf. GC 2.3 330b25–26, Mete. 1.3 340b23–24) φησίν, ἡ φλὸξ ὑπερβολή ἐστι πυρός· ἀλλὰ πῦρ ἔλεγε τὴν ξηρὰν ἀναθυμίασιν· ἐκ ταύτης οὖν εἶναι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὡς εὐκινήτου καὶ λεπτομερεστάτης κτλ.

1447

1448

liber 4 caput 3

Diogenes of Apollonia 64B4 DK ἄνθρωποι γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα ἀναπνέοντα ζώει τῷ ἀέρι. καὶ τοῦτο αὐτοῖς καὶ ψυχή ἐστι καὶ νόησις. Theophrastus Sens. 42 (Diogenes of Apollonia 64A19 DK) ὁ ἐντὸς ἀὴρ αἰσθάνεται μικρὸν ὢν μόριον τοῦ θεοῦ. Xenophon Mem. 1.4.8 σὺ δὲ σαυτῷ δοκεῖς τι φρόνιμον ἔχειν; ἄλλοθι δὲ οὐδαμοῦ οὐδὲν οἴει φρόνιμον εἶναι; καὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἰδὼς ὅτι γῆς τε μικρὸν μέρος ἐν τῷ σώματι πολλῆς οὔσης ἔχεις καὶ ὑγροῦ βραχὺ πολλοῦ ὄντος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δήπου μεγάλων ὄντων ἑκάστου μικρὸν μέρος λαβόντι τὸ σῶμα συνήρμοσταί σοι· νοῦν δὲ μόνον ἄρα οὐδαμοῦ ὄντα σε εὐτυχῶς πως δοκεῖς συναρπάσαι, καὶ τάδε τὰ ὑπερμεγέθη καὶ πλῆθος ἄπειρα δι᾽ ἀφροσύνην τινά, ὡς οἴει, εὐτάκτως ἔχειν; Plato Phlb. 30a τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σῶμα ἆρ᾽ οὐ ψυχὴν φήσομεν ἔχειν;—δῆλον ὅτι φήσομεν.—πόθεν, ὦ φίλε Πρώταρχε, λαβόν, εἴπερ μὴ τό γε τοῦ παντὸς σῶμα ἔμψυχον ὂν ἐτύγχανε, ταὐτά γε ἔχον τούτῳ καὶ ἔτι πάντῃ καλλίονα; Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 τρέφεσθαί τε τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος. at D.L. 8.32 εἶναί τε πάντα τὸν ἀέρα ψυχῶν ἔμπλεων. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.7 (on the Magi, Arist. fr. 36 R3) ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰδώλων πλήρη εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, κατ᾽ ἀπόρροιαν ὑπ᾽ ἀναθυμιάσεως εἰσκρινομένων ταῖς ὄψεσι τῶν ὀξυδερκῶν. Plotinus Enn. 4.3[27].1.17–33 νῦν δὲ πάλιν ἐπανίωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς λέγοντας ἐκ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς καὶ τὰς ἡμετέρας εἶναι. … παραθήσονται δὲ καὶ Πλάτωνα (cf. Phlb. 30a, Tim. 30b) τοῦτο δοξάζοντα, ὅταν πιστούμενος τὸ πᾶν ἔμψυχον εἶναι λέγῃ, ὡς σῶμα μέρος ὂν τοῦ παντὸς τὸ ἡμέτερον, οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν ἡμετέραν μέρος τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς εἶναι. καὶ τὸ συνέπεσθαι δὲ ἡμᾶς τῇ τοῦ παντὸς περιφορᾷ καὶ λεγόμενον καὶ δεικνύμενον ἐναργῶς εἶναι, καὶ τὰ ἤθη καὶ τὰς τύχας ἐκεῖθεν λαμβάνοντας εἴσω τε γενομένους ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἡμᾶς τὴν ψυχὴν λαμβάνειν. καὶ ὅπερ ἐπὶ ἡμῶν μέρος ἕκαστον ἡμῶν παρὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας ψυχῆς λαμβάνει, οὕτω καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀνὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον μέρη πρὸς τὸ ὅλον ὄντας παρὰ τῆς ὅλης ψυχῆς μεταλαμβάνειν ὡς μέρη.

Liber 4 Caput 4 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 898E–F; pp. 389a8–390a23 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.60 pp. 420.21–421.10 Mras—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 192–193 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.49.7a, p. 325.7–8 + 1.50.35, p. 477.18–19 Wachsmuth T: Theodoretus CAG 5.19–21 pp. 127.14–128.8 Raeder Cf. ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2.17–21 Marcovich; Nem: Nemesius NH c. 15 p. 72.4–20 Morani

Titulus δʹ. Περὶ μερῶν ψυχῆς (P,S) §1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων κατὰ μὲν τὸν ἀνωτάτω λόγον διμερῆ τὴν ψυχήν, τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἔχειν λογικὸν τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον· κατὰ δὲ τὸ προσεχὲς καὶ ἀκριβὲς τριμερῆ, τὸ γὰρ ἄλογον διαιροῦσιν εἴς τε τὸ θυμικὸν καὶ τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν. (P1,T1) §2 Ξενοκράτης τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικὸν, τὸ δὲ λογικόν. (T2) §3 Ἀριστοτέλης πέντε ἐνεργείας, τὴν ὀρεκτικήν, τὴν θρεπτικήν, τὴν αἰσθητικήν, τὴν μεταβατικήν, τὴν διανοητικήν. (T3) §4 οἱ Στωικοὶ ἐξ ὀκτὼ μερῶν φασι συνεστάναι, πέντε μὲν τῶν αἰσθητικῶν, ὁρατικοῦ ἀκουστικοῦ ὀσφρητικοῦ γευστικοῦ ἁπτικοῦ, ἕκτου δὲ φωνητικοῦ, ἑβδόμου δὲ σπερματικοῦ, ὀγδόου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέταται διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων, προσφερῶς ταῖς τοῦ πολύποδος πλεκτάναις. (P2,T4) §5 Ἀπολλοφάνης ⟨ἐξ ἐννέα μερῶν φησι τὴν ψυχὴν συνεστάναι⟩. (S1) §6 οἱ δέ γε Πυθαγόρου διάδοχοι ἐκ πέντε στοιχείων τὸ σῶμα κραθῆναι φάντες—τοῖς γὰρ τέτταρσι ξυνέταξαν τὸ αἰθέριον—ἰσαρίθμους εἶναι ἔφασαν ταύτῃ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τὰς δυνάμεις· καὶ ταύτας ὠνομάκασι νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν καὶ ἐπιστήμην καὶ δόξαν καὶ αἴσθησιν. (T5) §1 Pythagoras Plato cf. e.g. Resp. 4 439d–e; §2 Xenocrates fr. 70 Heinze, F 126 Isnardi Parente2; §3 cf. Arist. de An. 2.2 413b11–13, 2.3 414a31–32; §4 Stoici SVF 2.827; §5 Apollophanes cf. SVF 1.405; §6 Pythagorae successores fort. cf. Arist. de An. 1.2 404b21–24, ubi deest φρόνησις caput non hab. G titulus μερῶν ψυχῆς PBQ : τῆς add. PES : περὶ τὴν ταύτης διαίρεσιν paraphr. T §1 [3] ἔχειν PEQ Diels : ἔχει PB Mau Lachenaud : om. T §3 [7] Ἀριστοτέλης scripsimus : ὁ δὲ Νικομάχου variatio T ret. Diels in app. §4 [9] φασι PBQ : om. PE ‖ [11] δέ PE : om. PBQ ‖ δ᾽ PE cf. Q : om. PB ‖ [12] ἐπιτέταται Zeller prob. Mau Lachenaud : ἐπιτέτακται PB : τέτακται PE : τέταται Mras : geordnet werden Q ‖ [12–13] προσφερῶς … πλεκτάναις PBE : wie (bei) dem Gewebe der Füße des ‘vielfüßig’ genannten Lebewesens Q §5 om. PT ‖ [1] Ἀπολλοφάνης ⟨ἐξ ἐννέα μερῶν φησι τὴν ψυχὴν συνεστάναι⟩ ex indice Photiano atque Tert. de An. 14.2 in novem penes Apollophanem suppl. Wachsmuth Elter secutus §6 om. P non hab. S ‖ ταύτῃ Τmss.1 Raeder : τούτοις : Τmss.2 Diels, cf. Gaisford

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_103

5

10

15

1450 §7

§8

liber 4 caput 4

Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος διμερῆ τὴν ψυχήν, τὸ μὲν λογικὸν ἔχουσαν ἐν τῷ θώρακι καθιδρυμένον, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν σύγκρισιν τοῦ σώματος διεσπαρμένον. (P3) ὁ δὲ Δημόκριτος πάντα μετέχειν φησὶ ψυχῆς ποιᾶς, καὶ τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων, διότι ἀεὶ διαφανῶς τινος θερμοῦ καὶ αἰσθητικοῦ μετέχει, τοῦ πλείονος διαπνεομένου. (P4,S2)

§7 Democritus 68A105 DK, Epicurus fr. 312 Usener, cf. Schol.Ep. Hdt. 66; §8 Democritus 68A117 DK §8 [22–24] ὁ δὲ Δημόκριτος … διαπνεομένου PBQ : Δημόκριτος τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων αἰσθάνεσθαι S ‖ [22] φησὶ PB Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud : φύσει PE Mras ‖ [23] αἐὶ διαφανῶς PB : ἀφανῶς PE prob. Mras, ‘vix recte’ Diels DG : etwas Leuchtendes Q

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 5.19–21 (CAG 5.16–17 vid. test. prim. ad c. 4.2) 5.19 (~ quaestio) καὶ μέντοι καὶ περὶ τὴν ταύτης διαίρεσιν πλείστη γε τούτοις γεγένηται διαμάχη. 5.19.1 (~ §1) Πυθαγόρας μὲν γὰρ καὶ Πλάτων διμερῆ ταύτην εἰρήκασι, καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτῆς εἶναι λογικόν, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον. διχῇ δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τὸ ἄλογον ἔτεμον, καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτοῦ θυμικὸν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικόν. 5.19.2 (~ §2) ὁ δὲ Ξενοκράτης, καὶ ταῦτα τρίτος ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος ὤν—Σπευσίππου γὰρ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἀδελφιδοῦ γεγένηται φοιτητής—τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικὸν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς ἔφη, τὸ δὲ λογικόν. 5.20.1 (~ §3) ὁ δὲ Νικομάχου πέντε εἶναι ταύτης ἔφησεν ἐνεργείας, τὴν ὀρεκτικήν, τὴν θρεπτικήν, τὴν αἰσθητικήν, τὴν μεταβατικήν, τὴν διανοητικήν. 5.20.2 (~ §4) ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τοῦτον οἱ Στωϊκοὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἔστερξαν· ἐξ ὀκτὼ γὰρ μερῶν ἔφασαν τὴν ψυχὴν ξυνεστάναι, τῆς ὀπτικῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῆς ἀκουστικῆς καὶ τῆς ὀσφρητικῆς καὶ τῆς γευστικῆς καὶ τῆς ἁπτικῆς· ἕκτον δὲ τὸ φωνητικὸν ἔφασαν καὶ τὸ σπερματικὸν ἕβδομον καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονοῦν ὄγδοον, ὑφ᾽ οὗ τούτων ἕκαστον ἐνεργεῖται. εἶπον δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ ταῖς τοῦ πολύποδος ἐοικέναι πλεκτάναις. 5.21.1 (~ §6) οἱ δέ γε Πυθαγόρου διάδοχοι ἐκ πέντε στοιχείων τὸ σῶμα κραθῆναι φάντες—τοῖς γὰρ τέτταρσι ξυνέταξαν τὸ αἰθέριον—ἰσαρίθμους εἶναι ἔφασαν ταύτῃ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τὰς δυνάμεις· καὶ ταύτας ὠνομάκασι νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν καὶ ἐπιστήμην καὶ δόξαν καὶ αἴσθησιν. Testes secundi: ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2.17–21 Πλάτων μὲν γὰρ τριμερῆ αὐτὴν εἶναί φησι, καὶ τὸ μὲν λογικὸν αὐτῆς, τὸ δὲ θυμικόν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικὸν εἶναι λέγει (~ §1)· Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ οὐ κοινοτέραν τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναί φησιν, ἐν ᾧ περιείληπται καὶ τὰ φθαρτὰ μόρια, ἀλλὰ τὸ λογικὸν μόνον. Nemesius NH c. 15, p. 72.4–20 διαιροῦσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλως εἰς δυνάμεις ἢ εἴδη ἢ μέρη τὴν ψυχήν (~ quaestio), εἴς τε τὸ φυτικόν, ὃ καὶ θρεπτικὸν καὶ παθητικὸν καλεῖ-

20

liber 4 caput 4 ται, καὶ εἰς τὸ αἰσθητικὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ λογικόν. (~ §4) Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Στωϊκὸς (SVF 1.143) ὀκταμερῆ φησιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, διαιρῶν αὐτὴν εἴς τε τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, καὶ εἰς τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις, καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ τὸ σπερματικόν. Παναίτιος (T 125 Alesse) δὲ ὁ φιλόσοφος τὸ μὲν φωνητικὸν τῆς καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν κινήσεως μέρος εἶναι βούλεται λέγων ὀρθότατα· τὸ δὲ σπερματικόν οὐ τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος, ἀλλὰ τῆς φύσεως (~ §4). (~ §3) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἐν μὲν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς πέντε εἶναι λέγει τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς, τό τε φυτικὸν καὶ τὸ αἰσθητικὸν καὶ τὸ κινητικὸν κατὰ τόπον καὶ τὸ ὀρεκτικὸν καὶ τὸ διανοητικόν· φυτικὸν λέγων τὸ τρέφον καὶ αὔξειν καὶ γεννᾶν ποιοῦν καὶ διαπλάσσον τὰ σώματα· καλεῖ δὲ τὸ φυτικὸν καὶ θρεπτικόν, τὸ πᾶν ἀπὸ τοῦ κρατίστου μέρους καλῶν τοῦ τρέφοντος, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μέρη τοῦ φυτικοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει. οὕτω μὲν ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς (de An. 2.3 414a31–414b1), ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς (EN 1.7 1102a27–28) εἰς δύο τὰ πρῶτα καὶ γενικώτατα διαιρεῖ τὴν ψυχήν, εἴς τε τὸ λογικὸν καὶ τὸ ἄλογον· ὑποδιαιρεῖ δὲ τὸ ἄλογον εἴς τε τὸ ἐπιπειθὲς λόγῳ καὶ εἰς τὸ μὴ κατήκοον λόγου. Loci Aetiani: §1 A 4.7.1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων τὸ μὲν λογικὸν … τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον. §4 A 4.5.7 (Ἀριστο⟨τέ⟩λης) oἱ Στωικοὶ πάντες ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ ἢ τῷ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν πνεύματι (sc. εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν). A 4.8.1 … τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· πάλιν δ᾽ αἰσθητήρια λέγεται πνεύματα νοερὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα τεταμένα. A 4.10.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ πέντε τὰς εἰδικὰς αἰσθήσεις, ὅρασιν ἀκοὴν ὄσφρησιν γεῦσιν ἁφήν. A 4.15.3 Χρύσιππος κατὰ τὴν συνέντασιν τοῦ μεταξὺ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς, νυγέντος μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρατικοῦ πνεύματος, ὅπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῆς κόρης διήκει. A 4.21.2–4 (de Stoicis) ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἑπτὰ μέρη ἐστὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκπεφυκότα καὶ ἐκτεινόμενα εἰς τὸ σῶμα, καθάπερ αἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ πολύποδος πλεκτάναι· τῶν δ᾽ ἑπτὰ μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς πέντε μέν εἰσι τὰ αἰσθητήρια, ὅρασις ὄσφρησις ἀκοὴ γεῦσις καὶ ἁφή· ὧν ἡ μὲν ὅρασίς ἐστι πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν, ἀκοὴ δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις τῶν ὤτων, ὄσφρησις δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι μυκτήρων {λεπτῦνον}, γεῦσις δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι γλώττης, ἁφὴ δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ἐπιφανείας εἰς θίξιν εὐαίσθητον τῶν προσπιπτόντων. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν τὸ μὲν λέγεται σπερματικόν, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῶν παραστατῶν· τὸ δέ ᾽φωνᾶεν᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος εἰρημένον, ὃ καὶ φωνη⟨τικ⟩ὸν (scripsimus) καλοῦσιν, ἐστὶ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι φάρυγγος καὶ γλώττης καὶ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων. A 4.23.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, τὰς δ᾽ αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ. §6 A 1.3.7[36–43] διὰ τοῦτο οὖν νοῦς ἡ μονάς, ᾧ ταῦτα νοοῦμεν, καὶ ἡ δυὰς δ᾽ ἡ ἀόριστος ἐπιστήμη, εἰκότως· πᾶσα γὰρ ἀπόδειξις καὶ πᾶσα πίστις ἐπιστήμης, πρὸς δὲ καὶ πᾶς συλλογισμὸς ἔκ τινων ὁμολογουμένων τὸ ἀμφισβητούμενον συνάγει καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἀποδείκνυται ἕτερον· ὧν ἡ ἐπιστήμη κατάληψίς ἐστι, διὸ εἴη ἂν δυάς. ἡ δὲ δόξα τριὰς ἐκ καταλήψεώς ἐστιν, εὐλόγως, ὅτι πολλῶν ἐστιν ἡ δόξα. A 1.3.21 Ἀριστοτέλης … πέμπτον δέ τι σῶμα αἰθέριον. A 1.7.23 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν μὲν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν εἶδος ⟨χωριστόν⟩ ἐπιβεβηκότα τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰθέριον

1451

1452

liber 4 caput 4

σῶμα, τὸ πέμπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καλούμενον. A 1.12.3 Ἀριστοτέλης βαρύτατον μὲν εἶναι τὴν γῆν ἁπλῶς, κουφότατον δὲ τὸ πῦρ· ἀέρα δὲ καὶ ὕδωρ ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλως. μηδὲν δὲ πῦρ κυκλοτερῶς φύσει κινεῖσθαι, μόνον δὲ τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα. A 1.28.1 αὕτη δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ αἰθέριον σῶμα. A 2.30.7 … τοῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει (sc. Ἀριστοτέλης) σῶμα πέμπτον. A 4.9.11 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων καθαρὸν ἕκαστον εἶναι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐξ ἑκάστου στοιχείου προσερχόμενον. πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὴν ὅρασιν τὸ αἰθηριὸν πεφυκέναι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀκοὴν τὸ πνευματικόν, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ὄσφρησιν τὸ πυρῶδες, πρὸς δὲ τὴν γεῦσιν τὸ ὑγρόν, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἁφὴν τὸ γεῶδες. §7 A 4.5.6 Παρμενίδης ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ θώρακι καὶ Ἐπίκουρος. Al. A 4.5.1 Πλάτων Δημόκριτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ κεφαλῇ. §8 A 4.7a.2 Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Δημόκριτος ταὐτὸν νοῦν καὶ ψυχήν, καθ᾽ οὓς οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη ζῷον ἄλογον κυρίως. A 5.20.5 Διογένης μετέχειν μὲν αὐτὰ τοῦ νοητοῦ καὶ ἀέρος.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses are P and T (and S via Photius’ index, see at (2) below). For this chapter in the P tradition we do have the evidence of E, but are lacking G. The latter does, however, supply parallel information in a different section of his tract (cf. above at ch. 4.2, Commentary A). As we have seen at chs. 4.2 and 4.3 and shall see at chs. 4.6 and 4.7, there are parallels in the mixed bag of G c. 24 (see traditio proxima), which have reached this destination via a different route. G there moreover has lemmata concerned with the topic of the present chapter that are not paralleled in A, which perhaps entails that in A as compared with an anterior tradition some lemmata have been lost—a thought that is encouraged by the presence of a very full series of soul-parts in Tertullian De anima 14.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 10 Podolak). (2) In the mss. of S the chapter is lacking, so reconstruction is more difficult, but Wachsmuth following Elter (1880) 40 has restored in S a reference to Apollophanes, not paralleled in either P, T, or G, from Photius’ index of names and Tertullian’s enumeration of doxai. See S Ecl. 1.49.7a with annotation in the apparatus and below, section D(b). (3) As noted above, for P we have PB, PQ, and this time also PE who from Book 4 cites a mere two chapters, viz. 4.4–5, so at least includes our present chapter. P has four lemmata, T five, G five (though not directly from P). G’s five moreover contain two lemmata (anonymous philosophers who hold that there are no parts; Mnesarchus who disagrees with ‘the Stoics’) to which noth-

liber 4 caput 4

1453

ing corresponds in either P or T, but the view that the soul has no parts is also found in this context in Tertullian. Only two lemmata of P and T, one on Pythagoras–Plato (P1 and T1) and one on the Stoics (P2 and T4), correspond with each other; these are to some extent paralleled in G, as is the Aristotle lemma (T3 only). T is more wordy than usual, and must have consulted or remembered a source which payed attention to Successions and other personalia (for other cases see above, at ch. 4.3 Commentary A(5) ad finem, and below, ch. 4.5, Commentary D(d)§7), for he adds that Xenocrates is said to be third counting from Plato and to have been a pupil of Plato’s nephew Speusippus (no such details at A 1.3.20 Diels). That the name-label Aristotle is replaced by the formula ‘the son of Nicomachus’ (parallel only at A 1.3.12 Diels, patronymic as part of full credentials) is a more standard though entirely similar embellishment. We have restored the proper name in the text. And his ‘the diadochoi of Pythagoras’ probably replaces the standard formula oἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου. Because no help is available for those among T’s this time rather wordy lemmata which are not paralleled in the more austere P, reconstructing A’s text is this time trickier than usual, and impossible to determine exactly. (4) Special difficulties are caused by P’s two final lemmata. P3 (Democritus– Epicurus) is not paralleled in the other sources; P4 (Democritus) however is paralleled in an abridged form at S 1.50.35 (Δημόκριτος τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων αἰσθάνεσθαι, printed by Diels as ch. 4.9.20), i.e. not in the Stobaean chapter on the soul but in that on sensation etc. The relation of S 1.50.35 to the rest of ch. 4.9 is not obvious. Diels noticed the parallel between the two lemmata, see DG apparatus for A 4.9.20 and p. 2.111.30 DK on 68A117, but decided (we do not know his reasons) to refrain from placing the two lemmata next to each other in parallel columns either at the end of ch. 4.4 or at that of ch. 4.9. As P is an epitome, the final position of P4 ~ A 4.4.8 is secure. Because S habitually rearranges matters, that of the parallel Stobaean lemma at the end of 4.9 is less certain. See also the preliminary account at Mansfeld (1990a) 3190– 3192. (5) S, as we have seen, is missing apart from a probable reference to Apollophanes and a summary version of §8. §§2, 3, and 6 are not in PBE but present in T, who therefore cannot have taken this extra material from the tradition of P. Just as elsewhere he must have taken it from A, but this time no confirmation can be forthcoming from S. (6) On ps.Justin’s brief text, which this time is not very close to either P or A and has no parallel in Hermias, see our remarks at ch. 4.2 Commentary A(5).

1454

liber 4 caput 4

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The parts of souls are paralleled in detail in Tertullian, De an.14, see above, section A(1). On the Aëtian chapter and its parallels in the tradition see e.g. Mansfeld (1990a) 3085–3089. The parallel passage at the end of the mixed bag of physical and ethical excerpts deriving from a different tradition that constitute G c. 24 (cited below, section E(b) General texts ad finem) is less obviously structured by numbers in succession, though a bit of computation will go a long way to recover this structure. But while T, in preserving §6, has also preserved an intimation of the category of place, a category more clearly attested at §§7–8 as extant in P, this aspect has been lost in G. On the other hand G has preserved, though in a somewhat odd position, the entirely relevant tenet according to which the soul has no parts at all, which is not found in P and T. (2) Sources. The explicit issue of the parts derives from Arist. de An. 1.2 402b1 σκεπτέον δὲ καὶ εἰ μεριστὴ ἢ ἀμερής (cf. 1.5 411b5, 3.9 432a22–23), see Mansfeld (1990a) 3087, 3203–3204, 3210, M–R. 2.139–142, and above, Introduction to Book 4, section (6). Alexander in Sens. 1.3–5 tells us that Aristotle in the De anima treated περί τε ψυχῆς τῆς συμπάσης κοινῶς καὶ καθόλου καὶ ἰδίᾳ περὶ ἑκάστης τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτῆς, πόσαι τέ εἰσι καὶ τίνες καὶ ἐν τίσιν ἑκάστῃ αὐτῶν τὸ εἶναι. See also section D(e) below. C Chapter Heading Of the standard umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C). As a heading it is found in P only, but referred to by G who begins with εἶναι δὲ τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς; it is implicit in T, who speaks of the διαίρεσις of the soul, as does Nem NH 15, p. 72.3, and in Tertullian de An. 14.2, dividitur … in partes. It covers the lemmata of ch. 4 in a general way only, and in relation to the two final lemmata could have been augmented with the specification ἐν τίνι (or ποῦ) ἐστίν, pertaining to the category of place, as noted above on the proximate tradition. D Analysis a Context Ch. 4.4, dealing with a quantitative aspect of soul, follows on upon the two chapters dealing with the soul’s substance/definition, 4.2–3, just as ch. 2.12 ‘On the division of heaven, into how many circles it is divided’ follows after ch. 2.11, ‘On the heaven, what is its substance’, as ch. 2.21 ‘On the size of the sun’ follows after ch. 2.20, ‘On the substance of the sun’, and ch. 2.26, ‘On the size of the moon’, follows after ch. 2.25, ‘On the substance of the moon’. It is followed by ch. 4.5, ‘On the regent part and in what place it is’, which is in fact mostly about

liber 4 caput 4

1455

the location (category of place) of the regent part. The two final lemmata of ch. 4.4 anticipate this theme by including references to the location of parts of the soul, which at the same time helps explain their final position, close to the next chapter. Compare Chrysippus, who in Book I of his On the soul at Galen PHP 3.1.9–15 (SVF 2.885, cited above at Book 4 titulus et index, Further Related Texts), first says what the soul is, next lists its (eight) parts, and then discusses the location of its regent part. b Number–Order of Lemmata P and T confirm each other as to the relative order. Since the chapter deals with the number of the parts (category of quantity) one expects the lemmata to follow each other on either a rising or a descending scale. In a parallel dialectical-doxographical passage, viz. Tertullian de An. 14.2, we for instance find an ascending series of soul-parts from two via three, five, six, seven, eight, nine, twelve, and fourteen, to as far as seventeen: a total of ten lemmata. As we do not know to what extent Tertullian’s list may have grown in the meantime it is pointless to speculate about lemmata that may have been lost in P and T, though G’s again partly different account too suggests that more material may have been present originally. The rising scale of P and T changes to a descending scale ad finem. Compare chs. 4.3.1–13 and 4.8.1–4, both times with Commentary D(c). P moreover has only four lemmata, and T and G only have five. In P the order according to number is: P1 (Pythagoras Plato): two but also three parts, P2 (Stoics): eight parts. So a quite rigorous abridgement though still a rising scale; P then makes a new start with P 3 (Democritus Epicurus): two parts, so a descending scale beginning at P2 which is simultaneously the end of one and the beginning of another series. T has T1 (Pythagoras Plato), contents precisely parallel to ‘two or rather three’ as at P1, adds T2 (Xenocrates) as a parallel for the Pythagorean/Platonic bipartition, goes on with T3 (Aristotle): five parts, T4 (Stoics): eight parts, all on a rising scale, but then appends a lemma T5 (Pythagoreans) where we again find five parts, thus finishing with a descending scale beginning at the end of the other scale, viz. T4. The proximate parallel passage in G has G1 (Plato): three parts, G2 (Aristotle): five parts (we have to do the computation ourselves), G3 (Stoics): four parts, surprisingly, but since the αἰσθητικόν counts as five we get in fact eight parts as in the other sources. G4, no parts at all, looks out of place; it could have stood at the beginning (as in the parallel at Tert. de An. 14.1), or at the end, and seems to have been cited in its actual position as the odd view different from all the others. However this may be, G ends with G5 (Mnesarchus), a formally dissenting Stoic tenet allowing for only two parts because the speaking and the generative part have been

1456

liber 4 caput 4

included in the sensing part (now comprising seven sub-parts, not five as in G3). G5 follows upon G3, on Stoics, as T2 follows upon T1, on Pythagoreans/Platonists. We have placed the nine parts of Apollophanes (name-label of this hypothetical lemma according to the index of Photius for S, augmented with the doxa from Tertullian) at the end of the rising part of the scale. P3 (Democritus Epicurus) provides an extra reference to the location in the body of the two parts mentioned, which agrees with the position of the lemma near the end of the chapter. P4 (Democritus) comes last because of its special character: it is not about the parts of the single human soul, but about souls of things as partaking of a general soul-substance. P4 links up with 4.3.14, also a final lemma and also about individual souls in relation to an overarching Soul. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The rationale of the chapter is quite straightforward as long as we look at the main tradition, viz. P and T. In the first part of the chapter the lemmata are listed one after the other according to the number of the parts of soul, so it is the category of quantity that determines their sequence. Number may even override other considerations: §3, the Aristotle lemma, comes before §4, the Stoics lemma, because for Aristotle we have the number five and for the Stoics the number eight. Yet it is clear that the Aristotle lemma echoes the well-known distinction between part of soul and psychic function (An. 2.3 414a29–32), and attributes functions or faculties, ‘activities’, rather than parts, to the Aristotelian concept of the soul, although Aristotle himself may use ‘part’ (μόριον) and ‘function’ (δύναμις) interchangeably. (A distinction explicitly acknowledged elsewhere, e.g. Tert. de An. 14.3, Them. in de An. 117.1–6.) The Aristotle lemma could also have been placed after the Apollophanes lemma (§5), the better to indicate that we are no longer dividing into parts but distinguishing according to function. In §6, too, ‘powers’ of soul, that is to say functions are mentioned, not parts, so from the point of view of function the Aristotle lemma could indeed have been placed immediately before the lemma with the namelabel Pythagoreans. Presumably the order in our reconstruction of the chapter (an order based on the principle of least intervention in the orderings of the sources) is as it is because §6, in mentioning the elements of the (human) body, preludes upon the body in §7 and the bodies in §8, and thus also, to some extent, upon the category of place. For in these two final lemmata of the chapter too the category of place comes into view. §7 (Democritus, Epicurus) refers to the location in the body of the two parts of soul. §8 (Democritus) is about the soul of things in general, and that there is some part (in a very literal sense) of soul everywhere. This makes for a rather smooth transition to the next chapter, 4.5,

liber 4 caput 4

1457

which is determined by the category of place. We may further note that two of the three final lemmata of ch. 4 are concerned with the category of substance as well. According to §6, name-label Pythagoreans, the five psychic functions that are listed are dependent on the five elements that constitute the body. According to §8, there exists a something that is both warm and sensing out there as well as in here. d

Further Comments General Points It is of some importance to note that the division of the soul into parts entails that into a rational and an irrational part, or parts (cf. chs. 4.5.15, 4.7.5), and/or into reason and perception. So it has cognitive import and helps to prepare the ground for the discussion of perception in chs. 4.8–12 and of thought/reason in chs. 4.7a and 4.11. Individual Points §1 On the doxai of this lemma see Vander Waerdt (1985b) and Runia (1986) 301– 306. Bipartition and tripartition of the soul could (and sometimes did) give rise to differences of opinion and open diaphonia, but here they are presented as complementary. Also note that the problematic issue of the location of the two or three parts or functions of the soul according to Plato (later reinterpreted by Galen, see Vegetti 2000, and by the tradition represented by Alcinous and Apuleius, see at section E(b) §3) is not mentioned, so the category of place plays no part in this lemma. We only read in the next chapter, 4.5.1, that according to Plato the location of regent part, the λογικόν, is the head. The necessary emendation of Tertullian de An. 14 nunc in duas a Platone, nunc in tres, ⟨nunc in quattuor a Zenone⟩ was made by Philippson (1937) 152 n. 6 (missed by Waszink). ‘The highest account (or definition)’ because these two parts are the ἀνωτάτω γένη (cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.110, SVF 1.211); the ‘proximate account (or definition)’ because they (sub)divide (διαιροῦσιν) the second genus into two species. For the idea see Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.49, τοῦ δὴ ⟨δια⟩λόγου τοῦ Πλατωνικοῦ δύ᾽ εἰσὶν ἀνωτάτω χαρακτῆρες, ὅ τε ὑφηγητικὸς καὶ ὁ ζητητικός. διαιρεῖται δὲ ὁ ὑφηγητικὸς εἰς ἄλλους δύο χαρακτῆρας κτλ.; for the terminology cf. the division of Eudorus fr. 3 Mazzarelli at Simplicius in Phys. 181.10–13, κατὰ τὸν ἀνωτάτω λόγον φατέον τοὺς Πυθαγορικοὺς τὸ ἓν ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων λέγειν, κατὰ δὲ τὸν δεύτερον λόγον δύο ἀρχὰς τῶν ἀποτελουμένων εἶναι, τό τε ἓν καὶ τὴν ἐναντίαν τούτῳ φύσιν. Also cf. Nem NH 15, p. 72.18–20, εἰς δύο τὰ πρῶτα καὶ γενικώτατα διαιρεῖ τὴν ψυχήν, … ὑποδιαιρεῖ δὲ τὸ ἄλογον, and Heraclitus All.Hom. 17.6–8, τὴν γὰρ ὅλην ψυχὴν διῄρηκεν εἰς γένη δύο, … τοῦ δ᾽ ἀλόγου μέρους ἰδικωτέραν ὑφίσταται διαίρεσιν, both cited at section E(b)§1.

1458

liber 4 caput 4

§3 Aristotle. The parallel in Nem explicitly states that Aristotle’s definition belongs with physics. A combination of five Platonic and Aristotelian parts/functions is at Plutarch De E 390E–F. Though the lemma, as noted at section D(c) above, reflects a preference for functions or faculties, ‘activities’, over parts, both Plutarch and Alexander of Aphrodisias may use the words μόρια and δυνάμεις interchangeably, see section E(b)§3. For Aristotle these ‘parts’ are different qua definition, not as to location, cf. de An. 2.2 413b13–16, πότερον δὲ τούτων ἕκαστόν ἐστι ψυχὴ ἢ μόριον ψυχῆς, καὶ εἰ μόριον, πότερον οὕτως ὥστ᾽ εἶναι χωριστὸν λόγῳ μόνον ἢ καὶ τόπῳ, περὶ μὲν τινῶν τούτων οὐ χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν. Also see de An. 3.4 429a10–14. The issue is also discussed in ps.Plutarch Utrum pars an facultas animi affectibus subiecta sit. §§4–5 Stoics. The related passages in Nem and G are further variations on the theme of slight differences of view in the Stoic school. §6 Arist. Sens. 2 437a20–22 tells us that his predecessors were confronted with the vexing problem of connecting the five senses to the four elements: ἔνιοι μὲν ζητοῦσι κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῶν σωμάτων· οὐκ εὐποροῦντες δὲ πρὸς τέτταρα πέντ᾽ οὔσας συνάγειν, γλίχονται περὶ τῆς πέμπτης. The Pythagorean doctrine found in §6, neglected in the literature on the topic, presumably belongs with the context of Plutarch’s extensive numerological exposition on the number five at De E 387D–391E, though the parallel is not precise. The five elements are of course standard Aristotelian fare, but we should also think of the Pythagoreanism of the Ancient Academy, see Baltes (1999). Speusippus, for instance, fr. 4 Lang (F 122 Isnardi Parente, 28 Tarán), calls the five elements Pythagorean. Another backdrop is Plato’s unwritten doctrine as described by Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b22–24. In this Aristotelian passage φρόνησις is lacking, just as in the Neopythagorean parallel in the Placita itself, above ch. 1.3.7 [74–89] about the tetrad, which is also different in that there is no mention of the four (let alone five) elements. Burkert (1972) 69–70 with n. 10 correctly points out that what is at §6 is Platonism posing as Pythagoreanism, but pace Burkert we contend that, ultimately, A also depends on Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b22–24, via Platonizing and Pythagoreanizing intermediaries. The passages are proof of Neopythagorean colouring. An important parallel is found below at ch. 4.9.11, where Pythagoras(!) and Plato are said to hold that each sense (rather than, as here, each cognitive function, sensation only being one of five) is connected with one of five elements: ‘The aetherial is attached to sight, the pneumatic to hearing, the fire-like to smell, the wet to taste, and the earth-like to touch’. The only element identified in ch. 4.4.6, τὸ αἰθέριον, corresponds with the αἰθερῶδες of ch. 4.9.11, and the (probable, because not explicit) correspondence between aether/mind in the first passage with aether/sight in the second is telling: as a further backdrop we may assume an argument from the visible to the invisible,

liber 4 caput 4

1459

as in the case of Posidonius F 85 E.-K. (fr. 395a Theiler) at Sextus Empiricus M. 7.93. For the correspondence between aether and mind see also the doctrine attributed to Aristotle in the harmonizing Antiochean account of the history of philosophy at Cicero Varr. 1.26, quintum genus, e quo essent astra mentesque, singulare eorumque quattuor quae supra dixi dissimile Aristoteles quoddam esse rebatur. Baltes (1978) 35–36 lists thirteen passages where the senses are connected with the elements; as a fourteenth we should add A 4.4.6, and as a fifteenth the passage from ps.Hippocrates Letter to Ptolemy cited section E(b)§6. §7 The name-label Democritus has caused offence, because at ch. 4.5.1 Democritus is said to have placed the regent part, equivalent to the λογικόν, ‘in the whole head’, not in the chest as here. Cf. Diels DG ad loc., ‘Democritus male videtur a Plutarcho additus [sc. here in 4.4.7] cf. 5.1’, who thinks of a blunder by P rather than A. But the Placita tradition concerned with Democritus’ psychology is firmly Aristotelian. The substance of the soul assigned to him at A 4.3.5 derives from de An. 1.2 403b31–404a2 and 405a8–13, see section E(b)§7, where we learn that soul-atoms are breathed in (and out). Ibid. 404a26–32 we learn that according Democritus soul and mind are the same, which is echoed at A 4.7a.2 (4.5.12 Diels, again see section E(b)§7). The conclusion that for this kind of soul/mind the chest is the right location is obvious, even if it is based on Aristotle’s information only and is merely a conclusion drawn by one of A’s doxographical predecessors. Complementing our explanation so far could be the fact that, more doxographico, the tenet of Epicurus is also attributed to uratomist Democritus. Which, again from a purely doxographical point of view, need not mean that the attribution of the tenet that the regent part is in the head to Democritus at A 4.5.1 is entirely false. This alternative attribution may very well derive from a different current of the tradition, a more biographical or diadochical one, which attributed this view to Democritus because he was believed to be the teacher of Hippocrates, who is mentioned together with Democritus and Plato in T’s version of the lemma. See the preliminary discussion of the evidence at Mansfeld (1990a) 3088–3089 n. 120. It is a not uncommon practice in ancient historiography to preserve various bits of information even when these conflict with each other, for instance already at the basic level of whose son someone is or what city he came from. §8 See the parallels cited in section E(b); for the backdrop cf. above, ch. 4.3, Commentary (d)§14. The idea is attested for Parmenides and Empedocles in verbatim fragments. See also Mansfeld (1990a) 3191. e Other Evidence Parts or functions of what we may call ‘soul’ (noos/nous, thumos, menos, phrenes, ker, kradie) are of course already familiar from Homer and poetry in gen-

1460

liber 4 caput 4

eral, see Jahn (1987). In Plato the division of the soul into two or three parts is a topic in several dialogues. The theme is on Aristotle’s checklist of issues at the beginning of the De anima, 1.1 402b1, σκεπτέον δὲ καὶ εἰ μεριστὴ ἢ ἀμερής, and widely illustrated in the treatise. It is found in quite a few dialecticaldoxographical parallels, see material in Mansfeld (1990a) 3085–3089. The division of the soul is also an important topic in Hellenistic philosophy, and later in the treatises of Porphyry and Iamblichus partially preserved by Stobaeus. Cf. Dörrie (1959) 104: ‘Schon Aetios ließ in seiner Doxographie dem Abschnitt über das Wesen der Seele (4.3) ein Kapitel über ihre Teile (4.4) folgen. Wahrscheinlich folgte Porphyrios [sc. in the Symmikta Zetemata] dieser sinnvollen Einteilung des Stoffes.’ For curiosity’s sake one may mention the seven corporeal parts of the soul according to the (Hellenistic) pseudo-Hippocratic De hebdomadibus, cf. section E(b) General texts; see West (1971) 380–381, Mansfeld (1971) 209–211. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Luc. 124 si est (sc. animus, tenemus), trisne partes habeat ut Platoni placuit, rationis irae cupiditatis, an simplex unusque sit? si simplex, utrum sit … (for the sequel see ch. 4.3, section E(a) General texts). Pollux Onom. 2.226 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) μέρη δ᾽ αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς ψυχῆς) νοῦς ἐπιθυμία θυμός. Tertullian de An. 14.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 10 Podolak) dividitur autem in partes (for the details see below). ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.459.11–13 K. υξζʹ. ὁ ἐγκέφαλος τὴν ψυχικὴν ἔχει δύναμιν καὶ ταύτης τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὅπερ ἐστὶ λογιστικὸν καὶ ὁ νοῦς, ἡ δὲ καρδία τὸ θυμικὸν, τὸ δὲ ἧπαρ τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν. Galen PHP 6.2.3–6 ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ Πλάτων εἶναί (4) φησιν ἐκ τριῶν μερῶν συγκειμένην. εἰκάζει (Resp. 588c–d) δ᾽ οὕτω τὸ μὲν ἐπιθυμητικὸν θηρίῳ ποικίλῳ τε καὶ πολυκεφάλῳ, τὸ δὲ θυμοειδὲς λέοντι, τὸ δὲ λογιστικὸν ἀνθρώπῳ. … (5) … ὁ μὲν οὖν Πλάτων καὶ τοῖς τόποις τοῦ σώματος κεχωρίσθαι νομίζων αὐτὰ καὶ ταῖς οὐσίαις πάμπολυ διαλλάττειν εὐλόγως εἴδη τε καὶ μέρη προσαγορεύει· ὁ δ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλης τε καὶ ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F 146 E.-K., 399 Theiler) εἴδη μὲν ἢ μέρη ψυχῆς οὐκ ὀνομάζουσιν, δυνάμεις δ᾽ εἶναί φασι μιᾶς οὐσίας ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ὁρμωμένης· ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος (—) ὥσπερ εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν, οὕτως καὶ εἰς δύναμιν μίαν ἄγει καὶ τὸν (6) θυμὸν καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν. Lactantius Op.D. 18.1–3 Perrin sequitur alia et ipsa inextricabilis quaestio, idem ne sit anima et animus an vero aliud sit illud quo vivimus, aliud autem quo sentimus et sapimus. non desunt argumenta in utramque partem. (2) qui unum esse dicunt, hanc rationem secuntur, quod neque vivi sine sensu possit nec sentiri sine vita, ideoque non posse esse diversum id quod separari non potest, sed quidquid est illud, et vivendi officium et sentiendi habere rationem. idcirco animum et animam indifferenter appellant duo Epicurei poetae (sc. Empedocles(?) and Lucretius). (3) qui autem dicunt esse diversa, sic argumentantur: ex eo posse intellegi aliud esse mentem, aliud animam, quia incolumi

liber 4 caput 4 anima mens possit extingui, quod accidere soleat insanis, item quod anima morte sopiatur, animus somno et quidem sic, ut non tantum quid faciat aut ubi sit ignoret, sed etiam rerum falsarum contemplatione fallatur. Porphyry de An. (251F Smith) at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 350.9–12 διαπεφώνηται δὲ … τοῖς παλαιοῖς … ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ περὶ τῶν μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ ὅλως τί τὸ μέρος καὶ τίς ἡ δύναμις καὶ τίνι ταῦτα διενήνοχεν. Iamblichus de An. at Stob. 1.49.33, p. 367.33 (heading bracketed at fr. 10 Finamore–Dillon) ἐν ταὐτῷ [sc. the Περὶ ψυχῆς]· περὶ δυνάμεων ψυχῆς. de An. at Stob. 1.49.34, p. 369.5 (heading bracketed at fr. 12 Finamore– Dillon) ἐν ταὐτῷ· περὶ πλήθους δυνάμεων. de An. at Stob. 1.49.35, p. 369.18–19 (heading bracketed at fr. 13 Finamore–Dillon) ἐν ταὐτῷ· περὶ τῶν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τῶν προστιθεμένων αὐτῇ δυνάμεων. Eusebius PE 15.59.7 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ περὶ θαλάσσης (i.e. ch. 3.16 at Eus. PE 15.59.1–6). ὅπως δὲ οἱ περὶ τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου οὐρανίων τε πέρι καὶ αἰθερίων καὶ τῆς τῶν ὅλων καταλήψεως φυσιολογεῖν ἐπαγγειλάμενοι οὐδὲ τὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ᾔδεσαν, μάθοις ἂν ἐξ ὧν καὶ περὶ τούτων ὧδέ πως διαπεφωνήκασιν· (chs. 4.4–5 follow on). ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 615.1–10 εἶναι δὲ τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς Πλάτων μὲν τρία νενόμικε λογικὸν θυμικὸν ἐπιθυμητικόν (~§2). Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ προσήγαγε καὶ τὸ φυσικόν τε καὶ τὸ ζωτικόν (~§3). Στωικοὶ (—) δὲ τέσσαρα μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς εἶναί φασι λογικὸν αἰσθητικὸν φωνητικὸν σπερματικόν (~§6)· τινὲς δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἁπλῆν καὶ ἀμερῆ τυγχάνειν εἰρήκασιν (~§0). οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπολαμβάνουσιν ἢ φρόνησιν ὑπάρχειν, ἣν καὶ νοῦν καὶ νόησιν προσειρήκασι (—). Μνήσαρχος δὲ τὴν Στωικῶν ὑπόληψιν ἐπικρίνων τὸ φωνητικὸν ⟨καὶ⟩ τὸ σπερματικὸν περιεῖλεν οἰηθεὶς τῆς αἰσθητικῆς δυνάμεως ταῦτα μετέχειν, μέρη δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ᾠήθη μόνον τὸ λογικὸν καὶ τὸ αἰσθητικόν, ᾧ καὶ μᾶλλον ἄν τις συγχωρήσειεν εὐλόγως (~§6). Chapter heading: Calcidius in Tim. c. 7, p. 61.1 Waszink De anima et partibus eius et locis. Suda s.v. Φ 862, p. 775.28–776.7 Adler φυσικὸς λόγος παρὰ φιλοσόφοις … ἔστι δὲ φυσικοῦ μὲν περὶ πάντων τῶν εἰρημένων τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν διαλεχθῆναι. §0 Question of existence: Tertullian de An. 14.1 singularis alioquin et simplex et de suo tota est, non magis instructilis aliunde quam divisibilis ex se. de An. 14.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 10 Podolak) non longe hoc exemplum (sc. organum Archimedis) est a Stratone (fr. 108 Wehrli, 59 Sharples) et Aenesidemo (fr. B24C Polito) et Heraclito (p. 578 on fr. 115 Marcovich); nam et ipsi unitatem animae tuentur, quae in totum corpus et ubique ipsa, velut flatus in calamo per cavernas, ita per sensualia variis modis emicet, non tam concisa quam dispensata. §1 Pythagoras Plato: Chrysippus de An. at Gal. PHP 3.1.14 (SVF 2.885, verbatim) Πλάτων δὲ καὶ τριμερῆ τὴν ψυχὴν φήσας εἶναι, τὸ μὲν λογιστικὸν ἔλεγεν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ εἶναι, τὸ δὲ θυμοειδὲς περὶ τὸν θώρακα, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπιθυμητικὸν περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλόν. Cicero Luc. 124 trisne partes habeat ut Platoni placuit, rationis irae cupiditatis. Tusc. 1.20 Plato triplicem finxit animum, cuius principatum, id est rationem, in capite sicut in arce posuit, et duas partes parere voluit, iram et cupiditatem, quas locis disclusit. Tusc. 4.10 veterem illam equidem Pythagorae primum, dein Platonis discriptionem sequar, qui animum in duas partes dividunt: alteram rationis participem faciunt, alteram expertem. Divisiones Aris-

1461

1462

liber 4 caput 4

toteleae at D.L. 3.90 = cod. Marc., p. 15.2–5 Mutschmann ἡ ψυχὴ διαιρεῖται εἰς τρία· τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῆς ἐστι λογιστικόν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικόν, τὸ δὲ θυμικόν. Tertullian de An. 16.1 Plato bifariam partitur animam, per rationale et irrationale. de An. 16.3 Plato soli Deo segregans rationale duo genera subdividit ex inrationali, indignativum, quod appellant θυμικόν, et concupiscentivum, quod vocant ἐπιθυμητικόν. de An. 14.2 (SVF 1.405) nunc in duas (sc. partes dividitur) a Platone, nunc in tres a Zenone [sic, cf. SVF 1.144; but we must accept Philippson’s emendation nunc in tres—sc. iterum a Platone—, ⟨nunc in quattuor⟩—sc. hegemonicum, aestheticum, vocem, generativum—a Zenone]. Calcidius in Tim. c. 229 est enim quaedam virtus eius (sc. of the soul according to Plato) in ratiocinando et item alia quae dicitur vigor iracundiae et item quae cupit, quae species sunt appetitus quae tamen rationi naturaliter pareant. erit igitur optima virtus eius quae ratiocinatur, ceterae secundae ac tertiae potestatis. Augustine C.D. 14.19.1–7 Dombart–Kalb illi philosophi, qui veritati proprius accesserunt, iram atque libidinem vitiosas animi partes esse confessi sunt, … ac per hoc opus habere moderatrice mente atque ratione. quam partem animi tertiam velut in arce quadam ad istas regendas perhibent conlocatam. Epiphanius Haer. 3.22, p. 507.5–6 Holl (on Plato) εἶναι δὲ αὐτῆς τρία μέρη, λογικὸν θυμικὸν καὶ ἐπιθυμητικόν. §3 Aristotle: Tertullian de An. 14.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 12 Podolak) nunc in quinque (sc. by Aristotle). de An. 14.3 (Soranus de An. fr. 12 Podolak) non tam partes animae habebuntur quam vires et efficaciae et operae, sicut de quibusdam et Aristoteles iudicavit. non enim membra sunt substantiae animalis, sed ingenia, ut motorium, ut actorium, ut cogitatorium, et si qua in hunc modum distinguunt, ut et ipsi illi quinque notissimi sensus, vuisus auditus gustus tactus odoratus. Iamblichus de An. fr. 12 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.34, p. 369.14–17 Wachsmuth Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ εἰς πέντε αὐτὰς (sc. τὰς δυνάμεις) διαιρεῖ, φύσιν (i.e., θρεπτικόν), αἴσθησιν, κίνησιν κατὰ τόπον, ὄρεξιν, διανόησιν. Nemesius NH c. 6, p. 56.5–21 ἔστι δὲ αἰσθητήρια μὲν πέντε· … ἔδει τοίνυν, … ἐπειδὴ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, τέσσαρας εἶναι καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδήπερ ὁ ἀτμὸς καὶ τὸ τῶν ὀσμῶν γένος μεταξὺ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶν ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος …, τούτου χάριν πέμπτον αἰσθητήριον ἡ ὄσφρησις ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως ἐξεύρηται, ἵνα μηδὲν τῶν δυναμένων εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλθεῖν διαφύγῃ τὴν αἴσθησιν. §§4–5 Stoics Apollophanes: Tertullian de An. 14.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 10 Podolak) (SVF 1.144, 405) ⟨nunc in quattuor—sc. hegemonicum aestheticum vocem generativum—a Zenone⟩, … in sex a Panaetio (T 128 Alesse), … etiam in octo penes Chrysippum, etiam in novem penes Apollophanem (SVF 1.405), sed et in duodecim apud quosdam Stoicorum, et in duas amplius apud Posidonium (F 147 E.-K., 396 Theiler), qui a duobus exorsus titulis, principale, quod aiunt hegemonicon, et a rationali, quod aiunt λογικόν, in decem septem inde prosecuit. §4 Stoics: Arius Didymus fr. 39.5 Diels at Eus. PE 15.20.5 (SVF 2.821) ἔχειν δὲ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικόν τι ἐν αὑτῇ, ὃ δὴ ζωὴ καὶ αἴσθησίς ἐστι καὶ ὁρμή. fr. 39 Diels at Eus. PE 15.20.3 (SVF 1.141, 1.519) αἰσθητικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο λέγει

liber 4 caput 4 (sc. τὴν ψυχὴν Ζήνων) ὅτι τυποῦσθαί τε δύναται τὸ μέρος τὸ ἡγούμενον αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ὄντων καὶ ὑπαρχόντων διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ παραδέχεσθαι τὰς τυπώσεις. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.110 (SVF 2.828, in the ethics section) φασὶ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι ὀκταμερῆ· μέρη γὰρ αὐτῆς τά τε πέντε αἰσθητήρια καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν μόριον καὶ τὸ διανοητικόν, ὅπερ ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἡ διάνοια, καὶ τὸ γεννητικόν. V.P. 7.157 (SVF 2.828, in the physics section) μέρη δὲ ψυχῆς λέγουσιν ὀκτώ, τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ τοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν σπερματικοὺς λόγους καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ τὸ λογιστικόν. Iamblichus de An. fr. 12 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.34, p. 369.6–9 Wachsmuth οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος (SVF 2.831) ὀκταμερῆ τὴν ψυχὴν {δια}δοξάζουσι, περὶ ⟨ἣν⟩ τὰς δυνάμεις εἶναι πλείονας, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ ἐνυπαρχουσῶν φαντασίας, συγκαταθέσεως, ὁρμῆς, λόγου. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.11.50.3–4 ἡ τὸν ἄνθρωπον συνέχουσα δεκάς, ἣν ἐπὶ κεφαλαίων τὰ προειρημένα τρία ἐδήλωσεν μέτρα. (4) εἴη δ᾽ ἂν σῶμά τε καὶ ψυχὴ αἵ τε πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ σπερματικὸν καὶ τὸ διανοητικὸν ἢ πνευματικὸν ἢ ὅπως καὶ βούλει καλεῖν. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 3.94 de animi et animae natura sensuque. Calcidius in Tim. c. 220 haec igitur, inquit (sc. Chrysippus, SVF 2.879), octo in partes divisa invenitur; constat enim e principali et quinque sensibus, etiam vocali substantia et serendi procreandique potentia. porro partes animae velut ex capite fontis cordis sede manantes per universum corpus porriguntur omniaque membra usque quaque vitali spiritu complent reguntque et moderantur etc. sicut aranea in medietate cassis omnia filorum tenet pedibus exordia …, sic animum principale … sensuum exordia retinere etc. §7 Democritus Epicurus: ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.378.9–11 K. ριδʹ. ὑπηρετικὸν μέρος τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ ὑποτεταγμένον καὶ ὑπηρετοῦν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ, τεταγμένον δὲ ἐν τῷ ἄλλῳ λοιπῷ σώματι. §8 Democritus: Cicero Tusc. 1.82 fac enim sic animum interire ut corpus: num igitur aliquis dolor aut omnino post mortem sensus in corpore est? nemo id quidem dicit, etsi Democritum (68A160 DK) insimulat Epicurus (fr. 17* Usener), Democritii negant. Tertullian de An. 51.2 ad hoc (sc. ut velint credi etiam post mortem quasdam animas adhaerere corporibus) et Democritus (68A160 DK) crementa unguium et comarum in sepulturis aliquanti temporis denotat. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 21.19–22 ὁμοίως καὶ εἰ λάβοι τις τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσθανόμενα κινεῖσθαι, καὶ ἐκ τούτου οἴοιτο δεικνύναι ὅτι τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων αἰσθάνεται, ὡς ᾤετο Δημόκριτος (68A117 DK). Epiphanius Pan. 3.33, p. 508.11–13 Holl Στράτων{ὢν} ἐκ Λαμψάκου (fr. 48 Wehrli, 47 Sharples) τὴν θερμὴν οὐσίαν ἔλεγεν αἰτίαν πάντων ὑπάρχειν. … καὶ πᾶν ζῷον ἔλεγε νοῦ δεκτικὸν εἶναι.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle de An. 1.1 402b1 σκεπτέον δὲ καὶ εἰ μεριστὴ ἢ ἀμερής. EN 1.13 1102a23–32 θεωρητέον δὴ καὶ τῷ πολιτικῷ περὶ ψυχῆς, θεωρητέον δὲ τούτων χάριν, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἱκανῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὰ ζητούμενα· τὸ γὰρ ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἐξακριβοῦν ἐργωδέστερον ἴσως ἐστὶ τῶν προκειμένων. λέγεται δὲ περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις ἀρκούντως ἔνια, καὶ χρηστέον αὐτοῖς· οἷον τὸ μὲν ἄλογον αὐτῆς εἶναι, τὸ

1463

1464

liber 4 caput 4

δὲ λόγον ἔχον. ταῦτα δὲ πότερον διώρισται καθάπερ τὰ τοῦ σώματος μόρια καὶ πᾶν τὸ μεριστόν, ἢ τῷ λόγῳ δύο ἐστὶν ἀχώριστα πεφυκότα καθάπερ ἐν τῇ περιφερείᾳ τὸ κυρτὸν καὶ τὸ κοῖλον, οὐθὲν διαφέρει πρὸς τὸ παρόν. EE 2.1 1219b32–33 διαφέρει δ᾽ οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ εἰ μεριστὴ ἡ ψυχὴ οὔτ᾽ εἰ ἀμερής, ἔχει μέντοι δυνάμεις διαφόρους. Corpus Hippocraticum Hebd. 10.114 West anima[m] itaque septenarium habet etc. Clement of Alexandria Paed. 3.1.1.2 τριγενοῦς οὖν ὑπαρχούσης τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ νοερόν, ὃ δὴ λογιστικὸν καλεῖται, ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ ἔνδον, ὁ τοῦ φαινομένου τοῦδε ἄρχων ἀνθρώπου, αὐτὸν δὲ ἐκεῖνον ἄλλος ἄγει, θεός· τὸ δὲ θυμικόν, θηριῶδες ὄν, πλησίον μανίας οἰκεῖ· πολύμορφον δὲ τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν καὶ τρίτον, ὑπὲρ τὸν Πρωτέα τὸν θαλάττιον δαίμονα ποικίλον, ἄλλοτε ἄλλως μετασχηματιζόμενον, εἰς μοιχείας καὶ λαγνείας καὶ εἰς φθορὰς ἐξαρεσκευόμενον. Galen PHP 5.7.1–3 μεταβήσομαι δ᾽ ἤδη πρὸς τὴν ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος εἰρημένην ἐπίδειξιν ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ τῆς Πολιτείας ὑπὲρ τοῦ τρία τῆς ψυχῆς εἶναι μόρια τὰ καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν ἡμᾶς κινοῦντα. γινώσκειν δὲ χρὴ κἀνταῦθα τὸ μὲν ὅτι μόρια διαφέροντ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἐστίν, οὐκ ἀναγκαστικῶς ἀποδεικνύμενον· οὐδὲ γὰρ μᾶλλον τρεῖς εἶναι δυνάμεις ἢ τρία μόρια δείκνυσιν ὁ λόγος· ὅτι μέν⟨τοι⟩ γε τρία τὰ σύμπαντ᾽ ἐστὶν εἴτε μόρια ψυχῆς εἴτε δυνάμεις ὑφ᾽ ὧν ὁ βίος ἡμῶν διοικεῖται, βιαστικῶς τε καὶ ἀναντιρρήτως ἀποδείκνυται. ὥστε καὶ ἐκ τῶν νῦν λεχθησομένων ἡ μὲν τοῦ Χρυσίππου (—) διαβληθήσεται δόξα κατασκευασθήσεται δὲ τὸ κοινὸν Ἀριστοτέλει καὶ Πλάτωνι καὶ Ποσειδωνίῳ (F 143 E.-K., 421a Theiler) δόγμα, τὸ καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μὲν ἡμᾶς δύναμιν λογίζεσθαι, καθ᾽ ἑτέραν δὲ θυμοῦσθαι, κατ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἐπιθυμεῖν. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 1.3–4 τίνες αἱ δυνάμεις καὶ πόσαι. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.234 φασὶ γὰρ ψυχὴν λέγεσθαι διχῶς, τό τε συνέχον τὴν ὅλην σύγκρισιν καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων (253F Smith) at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 350.9–12 διαπεφώνηται … τοῖς παλαιοῖς … τὰ περὶ τῶν μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ ὅλως τί τὸ μέρος καὶ τίς ἡ δύναμις καὶ τίνι ταῦτα διενήνοχεν. Servius auctus in Aen. 5.81, p. 602.4–12 Thilo nam Plato et Aristoteles et omnes periti dicunt in homine quattuor esse animas: unam vitalem, ut in vermibus, qui tantum moventur: aliam sensualem, ut in mutis animalibus, in quibus est sensus et timoris et gaudii: tertiam intellectualem, ut in hominibus, qui et cogitare et recte iudicare possunt: esse etiam quartam infra omnes quae φυσική vocatur ⟦naturalis,⟧ ut est in herbis et arboribus, quae etiam motu carentes, vitam tamen habent; nam et nascuntur et crescunt et pereunt. Proclus in Remp. 1.233.29–234.8 οἶδα δὲ ἔγωγε τὸν Πορφύριον (263F Smith) ἐν τοῖς Συμμίκτοις ἱστοροῦντα προβλήμασι Μηδίου πρὸς Λογγῖνον (fr. 21 Patillon– Brisson, 69 Männlein-Robert) συνουσίαν τινὰ περὶ τῶν μορίων τῆς ψυχῆς, ἣν οὐκ ἄξιον παραδραμεῖν. τοῦ γὰρ Μηδίου τὴν ψυχὴν ὀκταμερῆ ποιοῦντος καὶ διαιροῦντος εἰς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, εἰς τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις, εἰς τὸ σπερματικόν, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν εἰς τὸ φωνητικόν, τὸν Λογγῖνον φάναι· τί οὖν τὸ μίαν τὴν ψυχὴν ποιοῦν εἰς ὀκτὼ διῃρημένην; τὸν δὲ Μήδιον ἀντερωτῆσαι· τί δὲ τὸ μίαν ποιοῦν τὴν ψυχὴν κατὰ Πλάτωνα τριμερῆ οὖσαν; Hermias in Phaedr. 3.215, p. 244.27–28 καὶ ἐπὶ ψυχῆς δεῖ σκοπεῖν, πρῶτον μὲν εἰ μονοειδής ἐστιν ἢ τριμερὴς, καὶ εἰ τριμερὴς διελέσθαι τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς. Themistius in de An. 117.1–9 καίτοι γε αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἀπορίαν ἔχει πολλήν, πότερον δεῖ μόρια λέγειν ψυχῆς μεγέθει καὶ τόπῳ διεστηκότα, ἢ δυνάμεις πλείους ἐν ταὐτῷ ὑποκειμένῳ διαφερούσας, ὥσπερ εἶχεν ἐπὶ τοῦ μήλου τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ

liber 4 caput 4 τὸ εὐῶδες καὶ τὸ λευκόν. εἰ δὲ μόρια, πόσα ἄρα τὸν ἀριθμόν, καὶ εἰ μόνα τὰ τρία, ὡς τίθενταί τινες, ἢ καὶ πλείω. σχεδὸν γὰρ οὐκ εὐαρίθμητα φαίνεται τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς, εἰ τοιαύτας λαμβάνοι τις τὰς διαφοράς, αἷς τὸν θυμὸν καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν καὶ τὸν λογισμὸν χωρίζουσι· φαίνεται γὰρ ἄλλα μόρια μείζω διάστασιν ἔχοντα τούτων. Servius in Aen. 8.564, p. 2.279.14–16 Thilo ‘cui tris animas’ per transitum ostendit illam Platonis et Aristotelis contentionem, qui dubitant, utrum quattuor, an tres animae sint in homine, φυσικὴ αἰσθητικὴ νοητική, remota κινητική. Suda s.v. Ψ 164, p. 4.852.19–20 Adler ψυχή· … ὅτι μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ εἴδη τρία· λογιζόμενον, θυμούμενον, ἐπιθυμοῦν. Chapter heading: Philo of Alexandria Sacr. 112 τὸν περὶ τῶν μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς λόγον ἡγεμονικοῦ τε καὶ ὑπηκόου. Galen Libr.Propr. c. 16.3, 19.46.19–20 K. Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν καὶ δυνάμεων τρία (= Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς εἰδῶν, Foet.Form. 4.701.16 K.). §1 Pythagoras Plato: Plato Resp. 4 439d–e ‘οὐ δὴ ἀλόγως’, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ‘ἀξιώσομεν αὐτὰ διττά τε καὶ ἕτερα ἀλλήλων εἶναι, τὸ μὲν ᾧ λογίζεται λογιστικὸν προσαγορεύοντες τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸ δὲ ᾧ ἐρᾷ τε καὶ πεινῇ καὶ διψῇ καὶ περὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἐπιθυμίας ἐπτόηται ἀλόγιστόν τε καὶ ἐπιθυμητικόν, πληρώσεών τινων καὶ ἡδονῶν ἑταῖρον’. ‘οὔκ, ἀλλ᾽ εἰκότως’, ἔφη, ‘ἡγοίμεθ᾽ ἂν οὕτως’. ‘ταῦτα μὲν τοίνυν’, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ‘δύο ἡμῖν ὡρίσθω εἴδη ἐν ψυχῇ ἐνόντα· τὸ δὲ δὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ καὶ ᾧ θυμούμεθα πότερον τρίτον, ἢ τούτων ποτέρῳ ἂν εἴη ὁμοφυές’ (cited at Gal. PHP 6.2.11). Tim. 89e εἴπομεν πολλάκις, ὅτι τρία τριχῇ ψυχῆς ἐν ἡμῖν εἴδη κατῴκισται (cited at Gal. PHP 6.2.11). Aristotle Top. 5.4 133a30–31 οἷον ἐπεὶ ἀνθρώπου, ᾗ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι, λέγεται ἴδιον τὸ τριμερῆ ψυχὴν ἔχειν. de An. 3.9 432a22–26 ἔχει δὲ ἀπορίαν εὐθὺς πῶς τε δεῖ μόρια λέγειν τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ πόσα. τρόπον γάρ τινα ἄπειρα φαίνεται, καὶ οὐ μόνον ἅ τινες λέγουσι διορίζοντες, λογιστικὸν καὶ θυμικὸν καὶ ἐπιθυμητικόν, οἱ δὲ τὸ λόγον ἔχον καὶ τὸ ἄλογον. ps.Aristotle MM 1.1.8 Πλάτων διείλετο τὴν ψυχὴν εἴς τε τὸ λόγον ἔχον καὶ εἰς τὸ ἄλογον. VV 1 1249a30–31 τριμεροῦς δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς λαμβανομένης κατὰ Πλάτωνα. Philo of Alexandria Leg. 1.70 νοητέον οὖν ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡμῶν τριμερὴς ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ ἔχει μέρος τὸ μὲν λογικόν, τὸ δὲ θυμικόν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικόν. ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ ἔχει μέρος τὸ μὲν λογικόν, τὸ δὲ θυμικόν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικόν. καὶ συμβέβηκε τοῦ μὲν λογικοῦ χωρίον εἶναι καὶ ἐνδιαίτημα τὴν κεφαλήν, τοῦ δὲ θυμικοῦ τὰ στέρνα, τοῦ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ τὸ ἦτρον. Leg. 3.115 τριμερῆ συμβέβηκε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν εἶναι καὶ ἔχειν μέρος μὲν ἓν λογιστικόν, δεύτερον δὲ θυμικόν, τρίτον δὲ ἐπιθυμητικόν. Congr. 26 τῆς γὰρ ψυχῆς ἡμῶν διμεροῦς ὑπαρχούσης καὶ τὸ μὲν λογικὸν τὸ δὲ ἄλογον ἐχούσης. Anon. Lond. Iatr. col. xvi.33–44 Manetti [λ]έγει δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ὡς τρι|[μ]ερής ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μέν τι αὐτῆς ἐστιν λογικόν, | τὸ δὲ θυμικόν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητι|κόν. καὶ τὸ μὲν λογικὸν ἀπολείπει περὶ | τοὺς κατὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν τόπους· εὐφυεῖς γὰρ | ο[ὕ]τοι πρὸς παραδοχὴν τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ. | [τὸ] δὲ θυμικὸν ἔταξεν περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, | [οὐ] πόρρω μὲν τεταγμένον τοῦ λογικοῦ, | [ὑπ]οτεταγμένον δὲ τῶι λογικῶι, | [ἵν]α δὴ καὶ ὑπήκο⟨ον⟩ αὐτῶι γίνηται τὸ μέντοι | [γε]̣ ἐπιθυμ⟨ητ⟩ικὸν ἔταξεν μεταξὺ δια|[φρά]γματος καὶ ὀμφαλοῦ. Galen PHP 5.4.3 τὸ μὲν δὴ τὰς δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς τρεῖς εἶναι τὸν ἀριθμόν, αἷς ἐπιθυμοῦμέν τε καὶ θυμούμεθα καὶ λογιζόμεθα, καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 142 E.-K, 414 Theiler) ὁμολογεῖ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης· τὸ δὲ καὶ τοῖς τόποις αὐτὰς ἀλλή-

1465

1466

liber 4 caput 4

λων κεχωρίσθαι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν μὴ μόνον ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῇ δυνάμεις πολλάς, ἀλλὰ καὶ σύνθετον ἐκ μορίων ὑπάρχειν ἑτερογενῶν τε καὶ διαφερόντων ταῖς οὐσίαις Ἱπποκράτους ἐστὶ καὶ Πλάτωνος δόγμα. in Tim. fr. 2.64–67 Schröder ὁ δὲ Πλάτων οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν τὸ λογιστικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς τῷ ἀλόγῳ καὶ ἐπιθυμητικῷ φησιν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερον ἐκείνου, καὶ τοῦτο καὶ τῷ θυμοειδεῖ πολλάκις διαμάχεσθαι, καὶ μέντοι καὶ σύμμαχον ἔχειν ποτὲ τὸ θυμοειδὲς κατὰ τοῦ ἐπιθυμ⟨ητ⟩ικοῦ, ⟨ἐν ἄλλῳ μέρει τοῦ⟩ σώματος ᾠκισμένον. QAM c. 3, p. 13.9–12 Bazou. Maximus of Tyre Diss. 20.4 καὶ μὴν τῆς ψυχῆς δίχα νενεμημένης, ὡς ὁ Πλάτωνός φησιν λόγος, ἧς τῷ μὲν τῶν μερῶν ὄνομα λόγος, τῷ δὲ πάθος. Diss. 27.5 λέξω δὲ οὐκ ἐμαυτοῦ λόγον, ἀλλὰ ἐξ Ἀκαδημίας ὁρμηθέντα καὶ ἐπιχώριον τῆς Πλάτωνος μούσης τε καὶ ἑστίας· ἀπεδέξατο δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης αὐτοῦ· ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ πορρωτέρω ἐπανάγω· ὑποπτεύω γὰρ ἐξ Ἰταλίας Ἀθήναζε ἐλθεῖν τὸν λόγον, Πυθαγορείων τινῶν ἐμπορίαν ταύτην καλὴν στειλαμένων εἰς τὴν ἀρχαίαν Ἑλλάδα. ὁ δ᾽ οὖν λόγος ταύτῃ ἔχει. ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ νενέμηται δίχα κατὰ πρώτην νομήν, καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτῆς ἐστιν λόγος, τὸ δὲ πάθος. Heraclitus All.Hom. 17.6–8 (Plato as imitator of Homer) τὴν γὰρ ὅλην ψυχὴν διῄρηκεν εἰς γένη δύο, τό τε λογιστικὸν καὶ τὸ ἄλογον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ προσαγορευόμενον. τοῦ δ᾽ ἀλόγου μέρους ἰδικωτέραν ὑφίσταται διαίρεσιν, εἰς δύο μερίζων, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐπιθυμητικὸν ὀνομάζει, τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον θυμοειδές, καὶ καθάπερ δὲ οἴκους τινὰς ἑκάστῳ μερίζει καὶ διατριβὰς ἐν τῷ σώματι διένειμεν· τὸ μὲν οὖν λογικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀκρόπολίν τινα τὴν ἀνωτάτω τῆς κεφαλῆς μοῖραν εἰληχέναι νομίζει, πᾶσι τοῖς αἰσθητηρίοις ἐν κύκλῳ δορυφορούμενον, τοῦ δ᾽ ἀλόγου μέρους ὁ μὲν θυμὸς οἰκεῖ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, αἱ δὲ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ὀρέξεις ἐν ἥπατι. Apuleius Plat. 1.207 tres partes animae ducat esse, rationabilem, id est mentis optumam portionem, hanc ait capitis arcem tenere; irascentiam vero procul a ratione ad domicilium cordis deductam esse obsequique eam in loco respondere sapientiae; cupidinem atque adpetitus, postremam mentis portionem, infernas abdominis sedes tenere. Plat. 1.216 tripertitam animam idem dicit: primam eius rationabilem esse partem, aliam excandescentiam vel irritabilitatem, tertiam appetitus; eandem cupiditatem possumus nuncupare. sed tunc animanti sanitatem adesse, vires, pulchritudinem, cum ratio totam regit parentesque ei inferiores duae partes concordantesque inter se iracundia et voluptas nihil appetunt, nihil commovent, quod inutile esse duxerit ratio. Apuleius Plat. lib. 3(?) sive Anonymus Compendiosa expositio 2.13–16 Stover hic animam in partes dividit et demonstrat quemadmodum una sit rationalis, altera θυμοειδής, id est animositas, tertia desiderii quam ἐπιθυμητικόν vocat. Ptolemy Harm. 3.5 ἔστι τοίνυν τὰ μὲν πρῶτα τῆς ψυχῆς μέρη τρία, νοερόν, αἰσθητικόν, ἑκτικόν, τὰ δὲ πρῶτα τῶν ὁμοφώνων καὶ συμφώνων εἴδη τρία, τό τε διὰ πασῶν ὁμόφωνον καὶ σύμφωνα τό τε διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων, ὥστε ἐφαρμόζεσθαι τὸ μὲν διὰ πασῶν τῷ νοερῷ— πλεῖστον γὰρ ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τὸ ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἴσον καὶ ἀδιάφορον—τὸ δὲ διὰ πέντε τῷ αἰσθητικῷ, τὸ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων τῷ ἑκτικῷ. Iudic. c. 14, 21.2–7 τὸ μὲν ὀρεκτικὸν καὶ ἀεροειδέστερον περὶ τὴν γαστέρα καὶ τὸ ἦτρόν πως ἀναστρέφεσθαι, τὸ δὲ θυμικὸν καὶ πυροειδέστερον περὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα καὶ τὴν καρδίαν· τὸ δὲ διανοητικὸν ἀμέριστον ὂν τῇ οὐσίᾳ καθιδρῦσθαι μὲν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.67 (on Plato) εἶναι (sc. τὴν ψυχὴν) … τριμερῆ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῆς

liber 4 caput 4 λογιστικὸν μέρος περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν καθιδρῦσθαι, τὸ δὲ θυμοειδὲς περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικὸν περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλὸν καὶ τὸ ἧπαρ συνίστασθαι. Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων 253F Smith at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 350.12–13 παρὰ δὲ Πλατώνι καὶ Ἀριστοτέλει ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς τριμερὴς ἡ ψυχὴ λέγεται εἶναι. Iamblichus de An. fr. 11 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.33, pp. 368.23–369.2 Wachsmuth κατὰ δὲ Πλάτωνα ἄλλως μὲν λέγεται ἡ ψυχὴ τριμερής, ὡς ἐν ἑτέραις οὐσίαις τριπλῇ ζωῆς παραλλάττουσα, ἄλλως δὲ πολυδύναμος, οὐκέτι κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ζωῆς διαφέρουσα, ἐν ταὐτῷ δὲ πολλαῖς ἰδιότησι διακρινομένη. de An. fr. 12 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.34, p. 369.9–11 Wachsmuth οἱ δὲ περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀρχύτας καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν ψυχὴν τριμερῆ ἀποφαίνονται, διαιροῦντες εἰς λογισμὸν καὶ θυμὸν καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν. Gregory of Nyssa Ep. ad Letoium MPG 45, p. 224.12–14 τρία ἐστὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν θεωρούμενα κατὰ τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν· τό τε λογικὸν, καὶ τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν, καὶ τὸ θυμοειδές. Macrobius in Somn. 1.6.42 ternarius (sc. numerus) vero adsignat animam tribus suis partibus absolutam, quarum prima est ratio quam λογιστικόν appellant, secunda animositas quam θυμικόν vocant, tertia cupiditas quae ἐπιθυμητικόν nuncupatur. Proclus in Remp. 1.234.3–5 (Porphyry 263F Smith) τὸν δὲ Μήδιον ἀντερωτῆσαι· τί δὲ τὸ μίαν ποιοῦν τὴν ψυχὴν κατὰ Πλάτωνα τριμερῆ οὖσαν; τοῦτο δὴ οὖν ἡμεῖς ἀξιώσωμεν λόγου τινός. differently Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 τὴν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴν διῃρῆσθαι τριχῆ, εἴς τε νοῦν καὶ φρένας καὶ θυμόν. νοῦν μὲν οὖν καὶ θυμὸν εἶναι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις, φρένας δὲ μόνον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ. εἶναι δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ καρδίας μέχρις ἐγκεφάλου· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μέρος αὐτῆς ὑπάρχειν θυμόν, φρένας δὲ καὶ νοῦν τὰ ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ. §3 Aristotle: Aristotle de An. 2.2 413b11–13 ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχὴ τῶν εἰρημένων τούτων ἀρχὴ καὶ τούτοις ὥρισται, θρεπτικῷ, αἰσθητικῷ, διανοητικῷ, κινήσει. de An. 2.2 413b27–28 τά δὲ λοιπὰ μόρια τῆς ψυχῆς. de An. 2.3 414a31–32 δυνάμεις δ᾽ εἴπομεν θρεπτικόν, αἰσθητικόν, ὀρεκτικόν, κινητικὸν κατὰ τόπον, διανοητικόν. Iuv. 1 467b10–18 ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ ψυχῆς ἐν ἑτέροις διώρισται, καὶ δῆλον ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι σῶμα τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ὅτι γ᾽ ἔν τινι τοῦ σώματος ὑπάρχει μορίῳ φανερόν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τινὶ τῶν ἐχόντων δύναμιν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις, τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ μόρια ἢ δυνάμεις, ὁποτέρως ποτὲ δεῖ καλεῖν, ἀφείσθω τὰ νῦν. Philo of Alexandria Mos. 2.81 ἡ πεντὰς αἰσθήσεων ἀριθμός ἐστιν. Plant. 133 αἰσθήσεως πεντὰς αριθμὸς οἰκεῖος (also QE 2.97). Nicolaus of Damascus at Porph. at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a (Porphyry 253F Smith), pp. 353.12–354.4 Νικόλαος δὲ οὐκ ἠξίου τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν λαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον κατὰ τὸ ποιόν. … ἀκούει τοίνυν Νικόλαος τὰ μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς ὡς δυνάμεις τοῦ ἔχοντος· τὸ γὰρ ζῷον καὶ ὅλως τὸ ἔμψυχον τῷ ψυχὴν ἔχειν πολλὰ δύναται, οἷον ζῆν, αἰσθάνεσθαι, κινεῖσθαι, νοεῖν, ὀρέγεσθαι, ὧν πάντων αἰτία καὶ ἀρχὴ ἡ ψυχή. ταύτας οὖν τὰς δυνάμεις, ἀφ᾽ ὧν λέγεται τὸ ἔμψυχον ταῦτα δρᾶν ἢ πάσχειν, μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς τίθεται ὡς εἴρηται. Plutarch Def.Or. 429E ἔνειμε γὰρ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς αἰσθήσεις πέντε καὶ μέρη ψυχῆς, φυτικὸν αἰσθητικὸν ἐπιθυμητικὸν θυμοειδὲς λογιστικόν. Galen QAM c. 4, p. 27.1–3 Bazou εἰ γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ πολλὰς ἔχει δυνάμεις οὐσία τις οὖσα καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ὀρθῶς Ἀριστοτέλει λέλεκται. Maximus of Tyre Diss. 11.8 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν λογικῇ ψυχῇ (sc. κρεῖττον δὲ τὸ λογικὸν ἐστὶν τοῦ

1467

1468

liber 4 caput 4

ἀλόγου), ἐπειδήπερ ἐστὶν ἡ πᾶσα ὥσπερ ἄθροισμά τι, θρεπτικόν, αὐξητικόν, κινητικόν, παθητικόν, νοητικόν. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An.Mant. 105.3 δύναμεις. de An.Mant. 105.18 μόρια. differently Doxographia Ethica C (attributed to AD) at Stob. Nicolaus of Damascus at Porph. at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.13, p. 117.11– 12 τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς τὸ μὲν εἶναι λογικόν, τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον. at Stob. 2.7.20, p. 137.17–18 διμερῆ πρὸς τὴν παροῦσαν θεωρίαν (sc. ἐν τοῖς Ἠθικοῖς) ὑπέθεντο τὴν ψυχήν, τὸ μὲν λόγον ἔχουσαν, τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον. Alcinous Did. c. 17, p. 173.7–15 H. τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν κατὰ λόγον περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν καθίδρυσαν, … ἐν τούτῳ καὶ τὸ λογιστικὸν τῷ τόπῳ καὶ τὸ κρῖνόν τε καὶ τὸ θεωροῦν· τὸ δὲ παθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς κατωτέρω ἐποίησαν, τὸ μὲν θυμικὸν περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικὸν περὶ τὸ ἦτρον καὶ τοὺς περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλὸν τόπους. Did. c. 23, p. 176.12–22 H. τὸ θεῖον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀθάνατον κατῴκισαν ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος ἐπὶ τῆς οἷον ἀκροπόλεως … οἴκησίν τε ἀπονείμαντες αὐτῷ τὴν κεφαλήν, … τὸ μὲν γὰρ θυμικὸν ἔταξαν ἐν καρδίᾳ, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικὸν ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ τόπῳ τοῦ τε πρὸς τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ὅρου καὶ τῶν φρενῶν. Did. c. 24, p. 176.35–41 H. ὅτι δὲ τριμερής ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ κατὰ τὰς δυνάμεις, καὶ κατὰ λόγον τὰ μέρη αὐτῆς τόποις ἰδίοις διανενέμηται, μάθοιμεν ἂν ἐντεῦθεν. πρῶτον μὲν δὴ τὰ φύσει χωριζόμενα ἕτερα ὑπάρχει·φύσει δὲ χωρίζεται τὸ παθητικὸν καὶ λογιστικόν, εἴ γε τὸ μὲν περὶ τὰ νοητά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ περὶ τὰ λυπηρὰ καὶ ἡδέα, προσέτι τοῦ παθητικοῦ καὶ περὶ τὰ ζῷα ὄντος. Did. c. 29, p. 182.19–27 H. Apuleius Plat. 13 at enim cum tres partes animae ducat esse, rationabilem, id est mentis optumam portionem, hanc ait capitis arcem tenere, irascentiam vero procul a ratione ad domicilium cordis deductam esse obsequique eam in loco respondere sapientiae, cupidinem atque appetitus, postremam mentis portionem, infernas abdominis sedes tenere. Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. xvi.33–36 Manetti [λ]έγει δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς τρι|[μ]ερής ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ μέν τι αὐτῆς ἐστι λογικόν, | τὸ δὲ θυμικόν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητι|[κ]όν κτλ. Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων 253F Smith at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 351.11–19 τὰ μὲν μέρη παρῃτεῖτο Ἀριστοτέλης ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, τὰς δὲ δυνάμεις οὐκέτι. τὸ γὰρ ἑτερομερὲς εὐθὺς ὑποκειμένου παραλλαγὴν εἰσάγειν, τὸ δὲ ἑτεροδύναμον καὶ περὶ ἓν ὑποκείμενον ἐνίστασθαι. Λογγῖνος (fr. 23 Patillon–Brisson, 71 Männlein–Robert) δὲ οὐδὲ τὸ ζῷον πολυμερὲς εἶναι ἀλλ᾽ ἀμερές, πολυδύναμον δέ, τὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐν τοῖς σώμασι πολυμερῆ φάσκων τὴν ψυχὴν γίγνεσθαι, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν οὖσαν ἀμερῆ. ὅτι δὲ οὐ πολυμερής, οὐ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ μονοδύναμος· ἐνδέχεσθαι γὰρ ἓν ἀμερὲς δυνάμεις πλείους ἔχειν. ps.Plutarch Utr.Pars 1 περὶ τῆς παθητικῆς καὶ ἀλόγου ζωῆς, πότερα μέρος ἐστὶ τῆς ἀνθρώπου ψυχῆς ἢ δύναμις, ἐπισκεπτέον. ἐοίκασι γὰρ τῶν ἀρχαίων οἱ μὲν οὕτως, οἱ δ᾽ ἐκείνως ἀποφηνάμενοι περὶ αὐτῆς. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.7 habet ergo (sc. anima) et purissimam ex mente, de qua est nata, rationem quod λογικόν vocatur et ex sua natura accipit praebendi sensus praebendique incrementi seminarium, quorum unum αἰσθητικόν alterum φυτικόν nuncupatur. sed ex his primum id est λογικόν quod innatum sibi ex mente sumpsit, sicut vere divinum est, ita solis divinis aptum; reliqua duo, αἰσθητικόν et φυτικόν, ut a divinis recedunt, ita convenientia sunt caducis. §4 Stoics: Chrysippus de An. at Gal. PHP 3.1.9–11 (verbatim) ὁ Χρύσιππος … οὑτωσὶ λέγει (SVF 2.885)· ‘ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμά ἐστι σύμφυτον ἡμῖν συνεχὲς παντὶ

liber 4 caput 4 τῷ σώματι διῆκον ἔστ᾽ ἂν ἡ τῆς ζωῆς εὔπνοια παρῇ ἐν τῷ σώματι. ταύτης οὖν τῶν μερῶν ἑκάστῳ διατεταγμένων μορίῳ τὸ διῆκον αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν φωνὴν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ εἰς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὄψιν, τὸ δὲ εἰς ὦτα ἀκοήν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰς ῥῖνας ὄσφρησιν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰς γλῶτταν γεῦσιν, τὸ δ᾽ εἰς ὅλην τὴν σάρκα ἁφὴν καὶ τὸ εἰς ὄρχεις ἕτερόν τιν᾽ ἔχον τοιοῦτον λόγον, σπερματικόν, εἰς ὃ δὲ συμβαίνει πάντα ταῦτα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ εἶναι, μέρος ὂν αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.’ Philo of Alexandria Opif. 117 αὐτίκα τῆς ἡμετέρας ψυχῆς τὸ δίχα τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέρος ἑπταχῆ σχίζεται, εἰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὸ φωνητήριον ὄργανον καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ γόνιμον· ἃ δὴ πάντα καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς θαύμασιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ νευροσπαστούμενα τοτὲ μὲν ἠρεμεῖ τοτὲ δὲ κινεῖται τὰς ἁρμοττούσας σχέσεις καὶ κινήσεις ἕκαστον. Her. 232 τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄλογον ψυχῆς μέρος ἑξαχῆ διελὼν ὁ δημιουργὸς ἑπτὰ μοίρας εἰργάζετο, ὅρασιν, ἀκοήν, γεῦσιν, ὄσφρησιν, ἁφήν, φωνήν, γόνιμον, τὸ δὲ λογικόν, ὃ δὴ νοῦς ὠνομάσθη, ἄσχιστον εἴασε κατὰ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ὁμοιότητα οὐρανοῦ. Mut. 110–111 ‘τῷ ἱερεῖ’, φησὶν οὖν (Exod 2:16), τῆς κρίσεως καὶ τῆς δίκης ‘εἰσὶν ἑπτὰ θυγατέρες’, συμβολικῶς αἱ τοῦ ἀλόγου δυνάμεις, γονή τε καὶ φωνὴ καὶ πέντε αἰσθήσεις, ποιμαίνουσαι τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ πατρός. διὰ γὰρ τῶν ἑπτὰ δυνάμεων τούτων αἱ προβάσεις καὶ παραυξήσεις τοῦ πατρὸς νοῦ ταῖς ἐγγινομέναις καταλήψεσι συνίστανται. Leg. 1.111–112 ψυχῆς γε μὴν τὸ ἄλογον ἑπταμερές, αἰσθήσεις πέντε καὶ φωνητήριον ὄργανον καὶ τὸ διῆκον ἄχρι παραστατῶν, ὃ δὴ γόνιμόν ἐστι. Fug. 182 (SVF 2.861) τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἡμῶν ἐοικὸς πηγῇ δυνάμεις πολλὰς οἷα διὰ γῆς φλεβῶν ἀνομβροῦν, τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας ἄχρι τῶν αἰσθήσεων {ὀργάνων}, ὀφθαλμῶν, ὤτων, ῥινῶν, τῶν ἄλλων, ἀποστέλλει· αἱ δ᾽ εἰσὶ παντὸς ζῴου περὶ κεφαλὴν καὶ πρόσωπον. ποτίζεται οὖν ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς τοῦ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικοῦ τὸ σώματος ἡγεμονικὸν πρόσωπον, τὸ μὲν ὁρατικὸν πνεῦμα τείνοντος εἰς ὄμματα, τὸ δὲ ἀκουστικὸν εἰς οὖς, εἰς δὲ μυκτῆρας τὸ ὀσφρήσεως, τὸ δ᾽ αὖ γεύσεως εἰς στόμα καὶ τὸ ἁφῆς εἰς σύμπασαν τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν. See also 30, Abr. 29–30. Seneca Ep. 92.1 in animo esse partes ministras, per quas movemur alimurque, propter ipsum principale nobis datas. Ep. 121.10 ‘constitutio’ inquit ‘est, ut vos dicitis, principale animi quodam modo se habens erga corpus’. Galen PHP 5.3.7 (SVF 2.841) ⟨μόρια δὲ⟩ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς αὐτὸς σὺ δι᾽ ἑτέρων ἐκδιδάσκεις, τό τε ἀκουστικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὀπτικὸν ἔτι τε πρὸς τούτοις φωνητικόν τε καὶ γεννητικόν, καὶ πρὸ πάντων αὐτῶν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸν λόγον ἔφης συνίστασθαι. Sextus Empiricus M. 9.102 πάσης γὰρ φύσεως καὶ ψυχῆς ἡ καταρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως γίνεσθαι δοκεῖ ἀπὸ ἡγεμονικοῦ, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ἐπὶ τὰ μέρη τοῦ ὅλου ἐξαποστελλόμεναι δυνάμεις ὡς ἀπό τινος πηγῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐξαποστέλλονται, ὥστε πᾶσαν δύναμιν τὴν περὶ τὸ μέρος οὖσαν καὶ περὶ τὸ ὅλον εἶναι διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡγεμονικοῦ διαδίδοσθαι. Proclus in Remp. 1.234.3–7 (Porphyry 263F Smith) τοῦ γὰρ Μηδίου τὴν ψυχὴν ὀκταμερῆ ποιοῦντος καὶ διαιροῦντος εἰς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, εἰς τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις, εἰς τὸ σπερματικόν, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν εἰς τὸ φωνητικόν. τὸν Λογγῖνον (fr. 21 Patillon–Brisson, 69 Männlein–Robert) φάναι· τί οὖν τὸ μίαν τὴν ψυχὴν ποιοῦν εἰς ὀκτὼ διῃρημένην; Plotinus Enn. 6.1[42].12– 14 τὰς δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς πῶς (sc. τίνι ἂν διέλοι); ἐπιθυμητικοῦ, θυμοειδοῦς, λογιστικοῦ. ἢ ταῖς διαφοραῖςτῶν ἐνεργειῶν, αἳ γίνονται κατ᾽ αὐτάς, ὅτι γεννητικαὶ αὗται τούτων. Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων 253F Smith at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 350.13–17 αὐτίκα οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.830) ὀκταμερῆ τὴν ψυχὴν θέντες

1469

1470

liber 4 caput 4

καὶ πέντε μὲν μέρη τὰ αἰσθητικὰ λαβόντες, ἕκτον δὲ τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ ἕβδομον τὸ σπερματικόν, {καὶ} λοιπὸν τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν κτλ. Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων (251F Smith) at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.24, p. 348.1–9 Ἀρίστων (SVF 1.377) ἀντιληπτικὴν δύναμιν τῆς ψυχῆς θέμενος ταύτην διαιρεῖ εἰς δύο, τὸ μέν τι μέρος φάσκων μετά τινος τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ὡς τὰ πολλὰ κινεῖσθαι, ὃ αἰσθητικὸν καλεῖ, ἀρχὴν καὶ πηγὴν ὑπάρχον τῶν κατὰ μέρος αἰσθήσεων, τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ καὶ χωρὶς ὀργάνων, ὃ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀλόγων οὐκ ὠνομάσθαι …, ἐν δὲ τοῖς λογικοῖς, ἐν οἷς δὴ μάλιστα ⟨ἢ⟩ μόνοις φαίνεται, νοῦν προσαγορεύεσθαι. Scholia vetera in Iliadem 12.386d Erbse δοκεῖ αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ Ὁμήρῳ) καὶ τοῖς ὀστοῖς τὸ ψυχικὸν παρεσπάρθαι, ὡς καὶ Ποσειδωνίῳ (F 28a E.-K., 389a Theiler) ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ Περὶ ψυχῆς. see also SVF 2.823–833. §6 Pythagoreans: Aristotle de Αn. 1.2 404b21–24 (Test.Plat. 25A Gaiser, A22 Isnardi Parente) ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἄλλως, νοῦν μὲν τὸ ἕν, ἐπιστήμην δὲ τὰ δύο (μοναχῶς γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ἕν), τὸν δὲ τοῦ ἐπιπέδου ἀριθμὸν δόξαν, αἴσθησιν δὲ τὸν τοῦ στερεοῦ. Plutarch De E 390B εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἳ καὶ τὰς τῶν αἰσθήσεων δυνάμεις ἰσαρίθμους οὔσας τοῖς πρώτοις ἐκείνοις συνοικειοῦσι, τὴν μὲν ἁφὴν ὁρῶντες ἀντίτυπον οὖσαν καὶ γεώδη, τὴν δὲ γεῦσιν ὑγρότητι τῶν γευστῶν τὰς ποιότητας προσιεμένην. ἀὴρ δὲ πληγεὶς ἐν ἀκοῇ γίγνεται φωνὴ καὶ ψόφος. δυεῖν δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ὀσμὴ μέν, ἣν ἡ ὄσφρησις εἴληχεν, ἀναθυμίασις οὖσα καὶ γεννωμένη θερμότητι πυρῶδές ἐστιν, αἰθέρι δὲ καὶ φωτὶ διὰ συγγένειαν διαλαμπούσης τῆς ὄψεως γίγνεται κρᾶσις ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὁμοιοπαθὴς καὶ σύμπηξις. also De E 390F. Def.Or. 429E (on the parts of soul). Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 14.18–23 λέγει δέ τινας τῶν περὶ αἰσθήσεων εἰρηκότων ζητεῖν ἑκάστην αἴσθησιν ἐξ ἑκάστου τῶν σωματικῶν στοιχείων ποιεῖν, καὶ {πέντε τῶν αἰσθήσεων οὐσῶν} οὐκ εὐποροῦντας συνάγειν εἰς τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα πέντε οὔσας αὐτὰς ζητεῖν περὶ τῆς πέμπτης, ἐκ τίνος αὐτὴν χρὴ λέγειν εἶναι σώματος. λέγοιτο δ᾽ ἂν τοῦτο περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ δόξης, ἥτις ἀναφέρεται μὲν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους, εἴρηται δ᾽ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ (Tim. 66d–e). Sextus Empiricus M. 7.93 καὶ ὡς τὸ μὲν φῶς, φησὶν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F 85 E.-K., 395a Theiler) τὸν Πλάτωνος Τίμαιον ἐξηγούμενος, ὑπὸ τῆς φωτοειδοῦς ὄψεως καταλαμβάνεται, ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀεροειδοῦς ἀκοῆς κτλ. Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων 253F Smith at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 351.11–12 τὰ μὲν μέρη παρῃτεῖτο Ἀριστοτέλης ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, τὰς δὲ δυνάμεις οὐκέτι. ps.Hippocrates Ep.Ptol., p. 287.1–7 Ermerins αἰσθητήρια δέ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πέντε· ὅρασις, ὄσφρησις, ἀκοὴ, γεῦσις καὶ ἁφή· ἡ μὲν ὅρασις ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, ἡ δὲ ὄσφρησις ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς, ἡ δὲ γεῦσις ἐκ τοῦ ὑγροῦ, ἡ δὲ ἁφὴ ἐκ τῆς γῆς. δυνάμεις εἰσὶ τῆς ψυχῆς πέντε· νοῦς, διάνοια, δόξα, φαντασία καὶ αἴσθησις. Ammonius in Isag. 11.16–17 πάλιν δὲ τῆς ἡμετέρας ψυχῆς διτταὶ αἱ ἐνέργειαι, αἱ μὲν γνωστικαὶ οἷον νοῦς διάνοια δόξα φαντασία καὶ αἴσθησις κτλ. ps.Elias/David in Isag. 18.11 Westerink γνωστικαὶ μὲν δυνάμεις εἰσὶ τῆς ψυχῆς αἱ ἀνωτέρω λεχθεῖσαι εʹ, νοῦς διάνοια δόξα φαντασία καὶ ἡ καθόλου αἴσθησις. Symeon Seth CRN 4.83 (~ §6) αἰσθήσεων πέντε οὐσῶν τῆς ψυχῆς, καθάπερ καὶ τοῦ σώματος, ἤτοι νοῦ, διανοίας, δόξης, φαντασίας καὶ αἰσθήσεως κτλ. §7 Democritus Epicurus: Democritus at Gal. Med.Exp. 15.7 Walzer Δημόκριτος (68B125 DK) … ἐποίησε τὰς αἰσθήσεις λεγούσας πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν οὕτως· ‘τάλαινα φρήν, παρ᾽ ἡμέων λαβοῦσα τὰς πίστεις ἡμέας καταβάλλεις; πτῶμά τοι τὸ

liber 4 caput 4 κατάβλημα’. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.63 ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμά ἐστι λεπτομερὲς παρ᾽ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα παρεσπαρμένον, προσεμφερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν ἔχοντι καὶ πῇ μὲν τούτῳ προσεμφερές, πῇ δὲ τούτῳ. ἔστι δέ τὸ μέρος πολλὴν παραλλαγὴν εἰληφὸς τῇ λεπτομερείᾳ καὶ αὐτῶν τούτων, συμπαθὲς διὰ τοῦτο μᾶλλον καὶ τῷ λοιπῷ ἀθροίσματι· … καὶ μὴν καὶ ὅτι ἔχει ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς αἰσθήσεως τὴν πλείστην αἰτίαν δεῖ κατέχειν. Scholia in Epicurum Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.66 (fr. 311 Usener) λέγει ἐν ἄλλοις … τὸ μέν τι ἄλογον αὐτῆς, ὃ τῷ λοιπῷ παρεσπάρθαι σώματι· τὸ δὲ λογικὸν ἐν τῷ θώρακι, ὡς δῆλον ἔκ τε τῶν φόβων καὶ τῆς χαρᾶς. Lucretius DRN 3.136–144 nunc animum atque animam dico coniuncta teneri / inter se atque unam naturam conficere ex se, / sed caput esse quasi et dominari in corpore toto / consilium, quod nos animum mentemque vocamus. / idque situm media regione in pectoris haeret. / hic exultat enim pavor ac metus, haec loca circum / laetitiae mulcent: hic ergo mens animusquest. / cetera pars animae per totum dissita corpus / paret et ad numen mentis momenque movetur. DRN 3.370– 373 illud in his rebus nequaquam sumere possis, / Democriti (68A108 DK) quod sancta viri sententia ponit, / corporis atque animi primordia singula primis / adposita alternis variare, ac nectere membra. Varro at Lact. Op.D. 17.5 Varro ita definit: anima est aër … temperatus in corde, diffusus in corpus. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 37 col. I.1–7 Smith … μὴ ζῆν αἰτίαν ἡ ψυχὴ πα|ρέχει τῇ φύσει. καὶ γὰρ εἰ | μὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἴσον τῶν | ἀτόμων ἔχει τῷ σώμα|τι, μετά τε τοῦ λογικοῦ | τιθεμένη μέρους αὐτῆς | καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου κτλ. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.349 οἱ δὲ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι (sc. τὴν διάνοιαν περιέχεσθαι), καθάπερ τινὲς κατὰ Δημόκριτον (68A107 DK). Servius auctus in Aen. 10.487, p. 2.442.1–6 Thilo ‘[…] animusque secuntur’: ⟦‘animus’⟧ pro anima: nam animus consilii est, anima vitae. ⟦quidam secundum Epicureos (—) animam per totum corpus divisam esse volunt, et exinde posse fieri ut quis amputata parte corporis vivat: animum vero esse τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν animae, sine quo vivere non possumus: ergo secundum sectam sibi notam poetam locutum⟧. §8 Democritus: Parmenides 22B16.2–4 DK τὸ γὰρ αὐτό / ἔστιν ὅπερ φρονέει μελέων φύσις ἀνθρώποισιν / καὶ πᾶσιν καὶ παντί. ps.Epicharmus 23B4.1–2 DK, fr. 278.1–2 Kassel–Austin at D.L. 3.16 Εὔμαιε, τὸ σοφόν ἐστιν οὐ καθ᾽ ἓν μόνον, / ἀλλ᾽ ὅσσα περ ζῇ, πάντα καὶ γνώμαν ἔχει. Theophrastus Sens. 4 (Parmenides 28A46 DK) … φησι τὸν νεκρὸν φωτὸς μὲν καὶ θερμοῦ καὶ φωνῆς οὐκ αἰσθάνεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἔκλειψιν τοῦ πυρός, ψυχροῦ δὲ καὶ σιωπῆς καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων αἰσθάνεσθαι. καὶ ὅλως δὲ πᾶν τὸ ὂν ἔχειν τινὰ γνῶσιν. Sextus Empiricus M. 8.286 ὁ δὲ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἔτι παραδοξότερον πάντα ἠξίου λογικὰ τυγχάνειν, καὶ οὐ ζῷα μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ φυτά, ῥητῶς γράφων (31B110.10 DK)· ‘πάντα γὰρ ἴσθι φρόνησιν ἔχειν καὶ νώματος αἶσαν’. Aristotle GA 3.11 762a18–21 (on spontaneous generation) γίνεται δ᾽ ἐν γῇ καὶ ἐν ὑγρῷ τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ διὰ τὸ ἐν γῇ μὲν ὕδωρ ὑπάρχειν ἐν δ᾽ ὕδατι πνεῦμα, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ παντὶ θερμότητα ψυχικήν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ πάντα ψυχῆς εἶναι πλήρη (cf. ibid. 2.3 736b29–737a7 πάσης μὲν οὖν ψυχῆς δύναμις ἑτέρου σώματος ἔοικε κεκοινωνηκέναι καὶ θειοτέρου τῶν καλουμένων στοιχείων κτλ.). Galen Propr.Plac. 7, p. 179.24–26 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami ἢ διὰ παντὸς μορίου τῶν στερεῶν σωματῶν τεταμένον, ὡς μηδὲν αὐτῶν εἶναι ψυχῆς ἄμοιρον. Propr.Plac. 13,

1471

1472

liber 4 caput 4

p. 186.19–31 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami (= Sub.Nat.Fac. 4.758.2–16) ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἐν Τιμαίῳ … εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον ἐκτετάσθαι λέγῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ … (but) οὐδὲ διὰ τῶν λίθων καὶ τῶν ὀστράκων καὶ τῆς ψάμμου καὶ τῶν κατακαιομένων ἢ σηπομένων νεκρῶν ζώων τὴν τοῦ κόσμου διήκειν ψυχήν. Hippolytus (Archelaus, 60A4 DK) Ref. 1.9.6 νοῦν δὲ λέγει πᾶσιν ἐμφύεσθαι ζῴοις ὁμοίως.

Liber 4 Caput 5 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 899A–B; pp. 391a1–392a2 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.61.1–10, p. 421.11–24 Mras—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 192–195 Daiber T: Theodoretus CAG 5.22, p. 128.8–19 Raeder

Titulus εʹ. Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν (P,T) §1 Πλάτων Δημόκριτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ κεφαλῇ. (P1,T1b) §2 Ἱπποκράτης ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ. (T1a) §3 Στράτων ἐν μεσοφρύῳ. (P2,T2) §4 Ἐρασίστρατος δὲ ὁ ἰατρὸς περὶ τὴν τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου μήνιγγα, ἣν ἐπικρανίδα λέγει. (P3,T3) §5 Ἡρόφιλος ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου κοιλίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶ καὶ βάσις. (P4,T4) §6 Παρμενίδης ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ θώρακι καὶ Ἐπίκουρος. (P5,T5) §7 Ἀριστο⟨τέ⟩λης οἱ Στωικοὶ πάντες ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ ἢ τῷ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν πνεύματι. (P6,T6) §8 Διογένης ἐν τῇ ἀρτηριακῇ κοιλίᾳ τῆς καρδίας, ἥτις ἐστὶ πνευματική. (P7,T7) §1 Democritus 68A105 DK; Plato cf. e.g. Tht. 184d, Tim. 44d–e; §2 Hippocrates cf. Morb.Sacr. 14, 17; §3 Strato fr. 119a,b Wehrli, 57 Sharples; §4 Erasistratus fr. 40 Garofalo; §5 Herophilus fr. 137a Von Staden; §6 Parmenides 28A45 DK; Epicurus fr. 312 Usener; §7 cf. Aristoteles Iuv. 3 469a4–7, 469a33–b1, PA 3.4 665b18–23; Stoici SVF 2.838; §8 Diogenes 64A20 DK cf. Empedocles 31A97 DK, Diogenes S2 Laks, probabilior Diogenes Stoicus cf. SVF 3 Diog. 30 caput non hab. GS titulus τί … ἐστίν PB : περὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ PE : Über den leitenden Teil unter den Seelenteilen Q : ὅσα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ χώρας διηνέχθησαν paraphr. T §§1–2 Πλάτων … ἐγκεφάλῳ : Πλάτων Δημόκριτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ κεφαλῇ P : Ἱπποκράτης μὲν γὰρ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Πλάτων ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ τοῦτο ἱδρῦσθαι εἰρήκασιν T §2 [3] Ἱπποκράτης … ἐγκεφάλῳ : om. P : nomen et placitum addidimus ex T 5.22, cf. Tert. de An. 15.5 in cerebro secundum Hippocratem §4 [5] ὁ ἰατρὸς om. P sive add. T ‖ τὴν PB(I)EQT : om. PB(I,III) ‖ τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου PBET : om. PQ §5 [7] ἥτις … βάσις PB : om. T : καὶ om. PEQ §6 [8] Παρμενίδης … Ἐπίκουρος PB(I,III) : Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ θώρακι PB(II) : Parmenides und Epikuros Q : καὶ Ἐπίκουρος om. PE : olim schol. in marg. susp. Diels ‖ post θώρακι add. sine uncis τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν DK ad 28A45 §7 [9] Ἀριστο⟨τέ⟩λης … πάντες scripsimus : oἱ Στωικοὶ πάντες PBQ : Ἐπίκουρος οἱ Στωικοὶ πάντες PE : Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοκλῆς καὶ τῶν Στωικῶν ἡ ξυμμορία T : Ἀριστο⟨τέλης καὶ Διο⟩κλῆς coni. Diels DG 204 n. 1 prob. Wellmann (1901) 122 n. : Ἀριστοτέλης vulgo prob. Raeder quod Aetio tribuendum ‖ [9–10] τῷ … πνεύματι PBQ : om. PE §8 [11] Διογένης PBQ : Διοκλῆς Wellmann (1901) 122 n. ‖ τῇ … κοιλίᾳ PBT : der linken der beiden Höhlungen Q ‖ τῆς καρδίας PB(I,II) : περὶ καρδίαν PB(III)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_104

5

10

1474

liber 4 caput 5

§9 §10 §11 §12 §13

15

Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐν τῇ τοῦ αἵματος συστάσει. (P8,T6) οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ τραχήλῳ τῆς καρδίας, (P9) οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ περικαρδίῳ ὑμένι, (P10,T8) οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ διαφράγματι. (P11,T9) τῶν νεωτέρων τινὲς διήκειν ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς μέχρι τοῦ διαφράγματος. (P12) §14 Πυθαγόρας τὸ μὲν ζωτικὸν περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, τὸ δὲ λογικὸν καὶ νοερὸν περὶ τὴν κεφαλήν. (P13) §9 Empedocles 31A97 DK; §10 anonymi—; §11 anonymi—; §12 anonymi—; §13 recentiores—; §14 Pythagoras—

§9 om. T ‖ [13] ἐν … συστάσει PB : συστάσει om. PE, suppl. Mras (κοιλία PE(ms.B)) : glaubte, daß jener im Blut ist Q : οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ αἵματι T ‖ fort. ⟨περικαρδίου⟩ post αἵματος addendum, cf. §11 et Emp. 31B105.3 DK §10 om. TPE ‖ [14] τῷ τραχήλῳ PBQ : τῇ κοιλίᾳ T §11 [15] περικαρδίῳ PB(I)ET : περὶ τὴν καρδίαν PB(III) : welches über dem Herzen liegt Q §12 [16] διαφράγματι PBT : Zwerchfell Q : διαφράγματι τῶν νεφρῶν PE, φρενῶν coni. Mras conl. Pl. Tim. 70a §§13–14 om. T §14 [20] κεφαλήν PBE : Gehirn Q

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 5.22 Τ 5.22 (quaestio) ὅσα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ χώρας διηνέχθησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ῥᾴδιον διαγνῶναι. 5.22.1 (~ §1–2) Ἱπποκράτης μὲν γὰρ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Πλάτων ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ τοῦτο ἱδρῦσθαι εἰρήκασιν. 5.22.2 (~ §3) ὁ δὲ Στράτων ἐν μεσοφρύῳ. 5.22.3 (~ §4) Ἐρασίστρατος δὲ ὁ ἰατρὸς περὶ τὴν τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου μήνιγγα, ἣν ἐπικρανίδα λέγει. 5.22.4 (~ §5) Ἡρόφιλος δὲ ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου κοιλίᾳ. 5.22.5 (~ §6) Παρμενίδης δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ θώρακι. 5.22.6 (~ §§7–9) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοκλῆς καὶ τῶν Στωϊκῶν ἡ ξυμμορία τὴν καρδίαν ἀπεκλήρωσαν τούτῳ. 5.22.7 (~ §8) οἱ μὲν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τῆς καρδίας. 5.22.8 (~ §11) καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐν τῷ περικαρδίῳ ὑμένι. 5.22.9 (~ §12) οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ διαφράγματι. Loci Aetiani: titulus A 4.21 πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. §1 A 4.4.7 Δημόκριτος vid. infra §6 A 1.6.3 σφαιροειδὴς γὰρ ὁ κόσμος, ὃ πάντων τῶν σχημάτων πρωτεύει· μόνον γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσιν ὁμοιοῦται· περιφερὴς δ᾽ ὢν ἔχει τὰ μέρη περιφερῆ· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ κατὰ τὸν Πλάτωνα ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τὸ ἱερώτατον συνέστηκε νοῦς. A 4.16.4 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πλήττεσθαι τὸν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀέρα· τοῦτον δ᾽ ἀνακλᾶσθαι εἰς τὰ ἡγεμονικὰ καὶ γίνεσθαι τῆς ἀκοῆς τὴν αἴσθησιν. A 4.21.5 αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὥσπερ ἐν κόσμῳ ⟨ὁ θεὸς⟩ κατοικεῖ

20

liber 4 caput 5

1475

ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σφαιροειδεῖ κεφαλῇ. A 5.17.3 Ἀλκμαίων τὴν κεφαλήν (sc. πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν τῇ γαστρί), ἐν ᾗ ἔστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. §2 A 4.17.1 Ἀλκμαίων ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. §3 A 5.24.4 Στράτων οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν μὲν ὕπνον γίνεσθαι ἀνέσει τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος … φερομένου δ᾽ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ⟨ἤ⟩ μεσόφρυον. §6 A 4.4.7 Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος διμερῆ τὴν ψυχήν, τὸ μὲν λογικὸν ἔχουσαν ἐν τῷ θώρακι καθιδρυμένον, τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν σύγκρισιν τοῦ σώματος διεσπαρμένον. A 4.23.2 Ἐπίκουρος καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις· τὸ γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν ἀπαθές. §7 al. A 4.21.4 (de Stoicis) αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὥσπερ ἐν κόσμῳ κατοικεῖ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σφαιροειδεῖ κεφαλῇ. §8 A 4.18.2 Διογένης … διὰ τὸ συνάπτειν τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος εἰς αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν γλώτταν) φλέβας διαχεῖσθαι τοὺς χυμοὺς ἑλκομένους ἐπὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ σπογγιᾶς. A 5.17.4 οἱ ἰατροὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ἐν ᾗ αἱ φλέβες καὶ αἱ ἀρτηρίαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The only witnesses for this chapter are P and T. The witnesses for P are PB, PE, and PQ. P has thirteen lemmata, which makes this one of his longest chapters in terms of lemmata. As has been previously noted, in the final Book of the Praeparatio evangelica E includes P’s chapters 4.4–5. He omits §10 (= P9), and moves the name-label Epicurus from P5 to his version of P6. S is unfortunately lost, which makes the reconstruction of the chapter difficult (we do not include in the present chapter the two lemmata from S Diels DG 392 located ad finem; for these see ch. 4.7a below). Although the doxographical tradition is a living and open one, that is, one hospitable to further material, so later evidence could have come in independently from what was in A, comparison with the wider and richer dialectical-doxographical tradition leads one to suspect that P, true to his method, has abridged the chapter. T too has been abridging and summarizing and as is his wont done so even more rigorously than P, but his remaining lemmata are very close to their parallels in P. (2) T has only nine lemmata. Evidence not paralleled in P, namely §2, the information regarding Hippocrates and the brain which itself is confirmed by other representatives of the doxographical tradition, again confirms that T here does not derive from P but from A as the uberior fons. P and T’s shared ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ in §6 is in favour of preserving P’s ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ κεφαλῇ in §1. The first lemma

1476

liber 4 caput 5

in T combines the contents of the first two lemmata in A, combining the three name-labels Hippocrates Democritus Plato, and for the doxa itself omitting ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ κεφαλῇ in favour of ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ. In this way we get the required contrast between the first paragraph of the section dealing with the head and the first paragraph of the section dealing with the chest, viz. of §1 with §6. The restored name-label Ἀριστο⟨τέ⟩λης at the beginning of §7, not paralleled in P (or E), is based on T’s Ἀριστοκλῆς. The overall resemblance between P and T, and the extra lemmata concerned with early name-labels to be found in other strands of the tradition (e.g. Macrobius), suggest that A already abridged the material. At any rate the exceptionally rich and diverse dialectical-doxographical parallels suggest that P and T must have considerably abridged their source, which again makes us deplore the loss of S. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. For the proximate tradition see the various and variously detailed accounts of e.g. Cicero Tusc. 1.19–21 (who includes related issues), Philo Somn. 1.32, and Tertullian de An. 1.5. Paul Wendland, who discovered and analyzed the Philo passage, argued at (1897) 1095 that this proves that Philo used Diels’ Vetusta placita. In general see Mansfeld (1990a) 3092–3108 (P and T, Soranus, Pollux, Anonymus Parisinus olim Darembergii sive Fuchsii), plus 3108–3131 (Alexander, Calcidius), 3117 (Philo), and 3127 (Cicero); cf. above ch. 2.11, Commentary B; ch. 4.2, Commentary B; and ch. 4.3, Commentary B. To some extent Cicero, Philo, Soranus and Tertullian are dependent on earlier and richer versions of the tradition, but extra material has also been incorporated subsequently: not only new tenets, but also earlier ones through retrograde contamination. For the much earlier version of our chapter abstracted by Chrysippus see below, section D(e). (2) Sources. See below, section E(b) General texts, for the widespread tradition. The hegemonikon is what we think with and even, according to some, the seat of our feelings. Before the term hegemonikon became popular the discussion about the location of this part or function was formulated in terms of ‘what we think with’ or ‘what is primary’. The opposition between brain and heart is already found in the Corpus Hippocraticum, namely at De morbo sacro chs. 14 and 17, where the author argues for the brain against those who favour the heart as the seat of the seat of both ‘understanding’ (ξύνεσις) and emotion. It is touched upon at Plato Phd. 96b, who lists no less than three of the fourteen alternative views in our Placita chapter, namely that ‘what we think with’ (ᾧ φρονοῦμεν) is blood (cf. §9), or air (cf. §§7–8), or the brain (cf. §2); cf. Mansfeld (2000a) 8–10 = M–R 3.191–193. The location of the regent part and the conflicting views concerning its location are not at all an issue in Aristotle’s

liber 4 caput 5

1477

psychological treatise, see M–R 2.1.142. He briefly refers to it elsewhere, viz. Met. Ζ.10 1035b25–28 and Met. Δ.1 1013a4–7, where he speaks of the ‘first (part),’ be this heart or brain, or ‘the primary (part), in which the essence and the logos are present’ (ἐν ᾧ πρώτῳ ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ οὐσία). For the problem discussed in these passages this issue is (as he says) irrelevant, which obviously implies that in another context it is not. Cf. below, ch. 5.17, Commentary B(b). According to Demetrius Laco (below section E(a)§6) Epicurus argued in favour of the position of the hegemonikon in the chest against ‘many doctors’ (we may think of Hippocratics, perhaps of Epicurus’ near contemporary Herophilus) who placed it in the head (see below, section E(b)§§7/14). Alexander of Aphrodisias updates the issue from a Peripatetic point of view by arguing at some length in favour of the chest and the heart as the seat of the hegemonikon, de An. 98.8– 100.13, and clearly refers to the diaphonia as formulated in the doxographical tradition and its dependants, see Mansfeld (1990a) 3108–3122 and Accatino– Donini (1996) 309. Bergeron–Dufour (2008) 360–364, 373 are not aware of the doxographical background. C Chapter Heading A long and detailed heading, preserved in P only. It is concerned with the question type/category of substance and the category of place. Compare the heading of ch. 2.5a, ‘Where does the cosmos have its regent part’ (ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὁ κόσμος), derived by us from the general heading of S 1.21; see M– R 2.1.186, 2.2.374. Also cf. the heading of ch. 4.21 ‘How the soul comes to be sentient and what is its regent part’ (πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν in P, τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν in S). It is echoed at Alexander de An. 94.7–8, see section E(b) General texts. For the τί ἐστι aspect see above, ch. 1.1, Commentary C. According to Galen PHP 7.1.1 there were far too many books dealing with the hegemonikon. E’s brief version Περὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ, presumably of his own devising, is noteworthy. A similar title is attested for one of the Stoic scholarchs, Galen PHP 2.5.7 ‘Diogenes of Babylon wrote in his On the Regent Part of the Soul’ (ἔγραψεν ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικοῦ Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος, SVF 3 Diog. 29), and for Ptolemy’s extant treatise On the Criterion and the Hegemonikon (Περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ). Galen PHP 3.3.24 (SVF 2.906) and elsewhere refers to Book 1 of Chrysippus’ On the Soul with the formula ὁ περὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ λόγος. D Analysis a Context Our chapter follows on after ch. 4 dealing with the parts of soul, which in §1, §2, §4 (with the term ἡγεμονικοῦ), §6 and §7 distinguishes the rational or thinking

1478

liber 4 caput 5

part of soul from another part or parts of soul, and in §7 also anticipates the category of place of ch. 4.5. It is followed at some distance (in our reconstruction) by a short chapter on intellect (ch. 7a). The regent part can be qualified as intellect, e.g. Philo Leg. 1.39, ‘just as the regent part of the body is the face, so the regent part of the soul is the intellect’ (ὥσπερ σώματος ἡγεμονικόν ἐστι πρόσωπον, οὕτως ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικόν ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς). This is not generally so in ch. 4.5, but there is a hint in the final lemma, where the regent part qua ‘rational and intelligent’ or nous-like (λογικὸν καὶ νοερὸν), is said to be in the head. By and large the chapters on the soul and the senses in Book 4 follow the order of treatment of these topics in Aristotle’s De anima and in Chrysippus’ On the Soul, see M–R 2.1.138–144, 145–147, and above, Introduction to Book 4, section 6, and ch. 4.2, Commentary D(a) and (c). At de An. 3.4 Aristotle argues that the thinking part of the soul has no bodily organ, so lacks a specific location. The insertion of the present topic in the (Aristotelian) series of psychological chapters of the doxography mirrors the priorities of the Hellenistic philosophical agenda: for the main schools, the Stoics and Epicureans, the soul is corporeal, so its regent part must have a location in physical space. Disagreement about its location virtually never stopped. b Number–Order of Lemmata The fourteen lemmata of P and the nine of T as found in the sources, that is, as not interfered with by our reconstruction (our addition of §2), occur in exactly the same relative order, so must reproduce the order of A. From this point of view the reconstruction of the chapter is very safe. The only differences as to number and sequence with Diels’ chapter in the DG are on the one hand the addition of lemma 4.5.2 (Hippocrates), and on the other our distribution of the four doxai of a single Dielsian paragraph over §§9–12. See further above at section A. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The rationale of the chapter, which in a very conspicuous way provides answers to the question ‘where?’ and so is about the category of place, is determined by a sequence of bodily parts a capite ad calcem. At the same time it is concerned with the category of substance, because it tells us what these parts are. The main diaphonia is between first the head as a whole, §§1–5, and second the thorax as a whole, §§6–13 so the list goes down from the head to the chest. In each of these main parts we find again a movement from top to bottom: in the region of the head from the membrane of the brain to the ventricle at its basis, in the region of the chest from the pneuma about the heart to the diaphragm at the boundary between chest and belly. And in each of these main parts there is

liber 4 caput 5

1479

a further subdivision, viz. into the parts of the head and into those of the heart, respectively. At the end, §§14–15, we find two compromise positions, two varieties of ‘both’. The ‘younger ones’, not further identified (perhaps later Hellenistic philosophers or later doctors), say that the regent part outflanks the main division and reaches from the head to the diaphragm so is in both locations. A different overarching view is assigned to Pythagoras, who at a first glance is somewhat strangely said to have thought of two regent parts, a rational one in the head and a biotic one (ζωτικόν) in the heart, each occupying one of the main positions. This can actually be paralleled, see below, section D(d). d

Further Comments General Points In view of the openness of the tradition one should be reluctant to attribute to A every extra piece of information in Tertullian or Macrobius or Augustine or Caelius Aurelianus. Diels DG 202–204 attributed the richer information in Cicero and the later sources to his hypothetical Vetusta placita. We prefer to speak of the anterior doxographical tradition in general. Of specific interest is the presence of medical tenets, some with name-labels, and some without. ‘Doctors’ (no names, but some doxai correspond) were already mentioned in the passage of Chrysippus On Soul (see below, section D(e)), which constitutes our earliest evidence for a collection of doxai concerned with the location of the regent part in a diaeresis including parts of the chest and parts of the head. The third subpart of the generic division of Stoic physics, called aetiologikon and dealing with the hegemonikon and related issues, was shared between philosophers and doctors, see M–R 2.1.105–107. An even earlier discussion of the seat of the regent part, with reference to doctors (no names, but they are said to be ‘numerous’), is in Epicurus fr. 313 Usener in Demetrius Laco, cited section E(b)§§4–5. Here, however, there is no evidence of a full diaeresis, and Demetrius only tells us that Epicurus argued against the doctors, not that he did so against the philosophers as well (though it is likely enough that in the lost portion of the text he included the latter, for refraining from cricizing his philosophical opponents is not typical of Epicurus). See Mansfeld (1990a) 3177–3179. Names of doctors are also listed at Tertullian de An. 15.3: Strato (the Erasistratean), Andreas, Asclepiades, Herophilus, Erasistratus, Diocles, Hippocrates, and Soranus (who may be Tertullian’s immediate source, see Waszink 1947, 224, and Podolak 2011, 117–120, 144–148). Individual Points §1 For the name-label Democritus, whose doxa here conflicts with that of ch. 4.4.7, see the tentative explanation at ch. 4.4 Commentary D(d)§7 above.

1480

liber 4 caput 5

§2 Hippocrates is not placed first, as in T’s lemma, because he places the regent part in the brain, i.e. in a part of the head, and not in the head as a whole. The head as a whole is taken care of at the beginning of the series concerned with the head, in §1, just as the chest as a whole is taken care of in §6, at the beginning of the series concerned with the chest. For further observations on the links between this chapter on the ἡγεμονικόν and ch. 5.17 see Mansfeld (1990a) 3013, 3212–3216. §3 On Strato’s regent part in ps.Plutarch De aegritudine et libidine ch. 4, partly cited section E(b)§2, see Sandbach (1969) 42–43 n. c. §7 Diels DG 204 n. 1 naturally pointed out that T’s Aristocles must be a mistake and suggested Ἀριστο⟨τέλης καί Διο⟩κλῆς, though he did not put this reading in his text at DG 391, where he cites the traditional conjecture Ἀριστο⟨τέ⟩λης. His own conjecture is too clever (it is questioned at Mansfeld 1990a, 3095, considered too speculative by Runia 1999a, 208 = M–R 3.2.534, and not mentioned by Van der Eijk 2000–2001). It is simpler to assume a trivial case of perseveration, the -κλῆς after Ἀριστο- echoing the -κλῆς after Ἐμπεδο- in T. The mistake is scribal (a case of mishearing or -reading) and not to be explained as a wilful modification on the part of T. At CAG 5.17 (~ A 4.2.6, see ad loc.) T replaced A’s name-label by the more recherché ὁ δὲ Σταγειρίτης; he added similar information on Aristotle and Epicurus and Xenocrates and others in earlier chapters, see above, ch. 4.3 Commentary A(5) ad finem and 4.4 Commentary A(3). The ethnicon is paralleled at CAG 4.11, where it derives from A’s chapter on the principles, as is clear from P 1.3.12 (and in P it occurs only here), and confirmed at Ach 3.3, p. 9.16 (the only occurrence in Ach). So T lets on that he knows whom he is writing about. It is also relevant that the combined name-labels Aristotle and Stoa are paralleled in Pollux in a very similar context, though he ascribes different doxai to the two name-labels Aristotle and the Stoa (Onomast. 2.226– 227 εἴτε περὶ τὸ αἷμα, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, εἴτε περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ὡς ἡ Στοά). The view involved is well-attested for Aristotle, e.g. Iuv. 3 469a4, 469a33– b1, PA 3.4 665b18–23. (It is attested for Diocles too, see frs. 78, 80, 102, 108 Van der Eijk, so one understands why Diels was tempted). The Stoic doxa is that of the majority. πάντες fails to take the view of those Stoics into account who placed the regent part in the head. In the Placita this minority view is stated in the Stoic chapter 4.21.1 & 4, where the regent part is the ‘highest part’, and located ‘in our spherical head’. πάντες is explicit. So there is a long-distance diaphonia, possibly unintentional, between chs. 4.5.7 and 4.21.4. §8 Perhaps a doxographer wished to suggest, or even believed, that the name-label Diogenes pertains not to the Stoic philosopher from Babylon but to the earlier philosopher from Apollonia, though qua contents it is more likely

liber 4 caput 5

1481

that the doxa represents a refinement of the general Stoic view (above, §4). A lemma in the chapter ‘On taste’, 4.18.2, links the tongue via veins ‘to the sense and the regent part’; it is more likely that this pertains to the Stoic Diogenes as well, since the route to the regent part via a sense is a Stoic idea—the said sense consisting of a pneumatic current. §9 This view goes all the way back to Empedocles 31B105 DK. Both Tertullian and Calcidius quote the third line, in a different Latin translation each time, and a partial translation is already found at Cicero Tusc. 1.19. Perhaps we should cautiously suppose that the fuller quotation entered the tradition at a later moment, though it cannot be excluded that it was quoted by A and/or already by one of his predecessors. Verbatim quotations of Empedocles have been preserved in other Placita chapters, viz. at 1.3.19 (31B6 DK) and 1.30.1 (31B8 DK). That the blood at the heart is meant and not blood in general is clear from the position of the doxa in the sequence of lemmata, so θέσει not φύσει. Perhaps, moreover, we should consider adding the adjective περικάρδιος, used by Empedocles himself, translated in a passage depending on the wider doxographical tradition by Cicero (cited above), and here used a few lines down, at §11. On the other hand ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 tells us that according to Empedocles the regent part is neither in the head nor in the breast but in the blood, and that people are more capable depending on the part of the body where it is present to a greater extent. This is a not unfair summary of (an account like) Theophrastus Sens. 10–11 as a whole, which contains the lapidary phrase ‘we think mostly with the blood’. The version of the doxa found in the (unemended) Aëtian lemma de facto turns its content into a compromise position comparable to that formulated in the Stromateis, but as pointed out above its position in the chapter shows that de iure it belongs with the second horn of the diaphonia. Even so, the parallel in the other ps.Plutarch shows what sort of inference could be based on the shorter version. Diels DG 222, in his presentation of the evidence he could find for the (partial) dependence of sections and lemmata of the Placita on Theophrastus’ De sensibus, compared §9 with Sens. 10 τῷ αἵματι μάλιστα φρονεῖν, of course adding that the point about the ἡγεμονικόν is ‘recentiore sermone expressum’. Ibid. 223 he expresses himself more strongly, arguing that the attribution to Philolaus of a ἡγεμονικόν of the cosmos at ch. 2.4.15 Diels (~ 2.5a.4 M–R—he could have referred to ch. 2.5a as a whole, inclusive of the heading) is a case of ‘fraus’, and he refers back to our §9 for the same situation. For Diels on what he sees as doxographical fraud see M–R 1.99–100. §12 E adds τῶν νεφρῶν after διαφράγμα, thus preserving extra material (rare in E, see M–R 1.139 with n. 54). From an anatomical point of view this reading is unobjectionable, because the kindneys are immediately below the diaphragm,

1482

liber 4 caput 5

the position of which is thus indicated quite precisely. Mras, referring to Plato Tim. 72a, conjectures φρενῶν (another word for diaphhragm) for E’s νεφρῶν. The phrase διαφράγμα τῶν φρενῶν presumably is supposed to mean ‘the partition consisting of the diaphragm’. However, this brilliant conjecture seems hardly necessary. Since τῶν νεφρῶν may be no more than a glossema, we have not included these words in the text. §13 In A the formula τῶν νεωτέρων τινες is only paralleled at ch. 2.29.4–5, where the context shows that later Pythagoreans are meant (the better text of S contrasts them with ‘the Pythagoreans according to the research of Aristotle and the assertion of Philip of Opus’, fr. x Tarán). The striking parallel with the psychology of Alexander Polyhistor’s Pythagorean Hypomnemata at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.30 (quoted section E(b) ad loc.) suggest that this identification applies also here. The doxa attributed to Pythagoras himself at §14 is paralleled at V.P. 8.30 as well; Theiler (1982) 335–336 attributes these doxai to Posidonius. §14 For two regent parts, one in the head and one in the chest, compare Calcidius in Tim. cc. 231–232 (a sentence from c. 231 is quoted section E(a)§14). There is also a link with the first two of the four principles of the rational living being according to Philolaus, see 44B13 DK (cited below section E(b)§14): ‘the head is the (seat) of the intellect, the heart of life and sensation … the brain (contains) the principle of man, the heart of the living being’. It is very likely that the doxa refers to these kinds of reports. So the name-label Pythagoras may have supplanted Philolaus. e Other Evidence The Ciceronian and Philonic parallels are important because they show the indebtedness of A to a shared anterior tradition, just as in the previous chapters (4.2 and 4.3), and as in ch. 4.9 below, where A’s parallels with Cicero show the same sort of dependence. The evidence in Tertullian, as indicated above, is also richer. More sensationally, as far as we know a version of the present Placita chapter was for the first time cited by Chrysippus in Book 1 of his On Soul (cited above Book 4 titulus et index, related texts, and in part below section E(a) General texts)—a unique testimony concerning the use of a predecessor of our Placita chapter in the third cent. bce, see Mansfeld (1989a). Qua importance for the history of doxography this testimony is on a similar level as the evidence of PPack2 1499 for ch. 4.16, where see at Commentary B, Proximate tradition. See further above at section B, sources.

liber 4 caput 5

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Chrysippus de An. at Gal. PHP 3.1.12–15 (SVF 2.885 verbatim, i.e. ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικοῦ λόγῳ PHP 3.8.39) περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέρους τῆς ψυχῆς διαφωνοῦσιν ἄλλοι ἐν ἄλλοις λέγοντες αὐτὸ εἶναι τόποις· οἱ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὸν θώρακά φασιν εἶναι αὐτό, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὴν κεφαλήν. κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα διαφωνοῦσι, ποῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ τοῦ θώρακός ἐστιν, οὐ συμφωνοῦντες αὑτοῖς. … οὕτω φαίνεται διαφεύγειν ὁ τόπος ἡμᾶς … · οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ἀντιλογία ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον προῆλθεν καὶ ἐν ἰατροῖς καὶ ἐν φιλοσόφοις. Lucretius DRN 3.548–549 et quoniam mens est hominis pars una locoque / fixa manet certo. DRN 3.615–621 denique cur animi numquam mens consiliumque / gignitur in capite aut pedibus (cf. below, Seneca Ep. 113.23) manibusve, sed unis / sedibus et certis regionibus omnibus haeret (etc.). DRN 3.789–792 = 5.133–136 quod si posset enim, multo prius ipsa animi vis / in capite aut umeris aut imis calcibus esse / posset et innasci quavis in parte soleret, / tandem in eodem homine atque in eodem vase manere. Cicero Tusc. 1.18–19 quid sit porro ipse animus aut ubi aut unde, magna dissensio est. aliis cor ipsum animus videtur. … (19) aliis pars quaedam cerebri visa est animi principatum tenere; aliis nec cor ipsum placet nec cerebri quandam partem esse animum, sed alii in corde, alii in cerebro dixerunt animi esse sedem et locum. Tusc. 1.70 in quo igitur loco est (sc. mens hominis)? credo equidem in capite et cur credam adferre possum. sed alias, ubi sit animus; certe quidem in te est. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.32 ποῦ δ᾽ ἐμπεφώλευκεν ὁ νοῦς αὐτῷ; ἆρα οἶκον κεκλήρωται; οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνιέρωσαν αὐτῷ κεφαλήν, περὶ ἣν καὶ αἱ αἰσθήσεις λοχῶσιν, εἰκὸς εἶναι νομίσαντες ἐγγὺς οἷα μεγάλου βασιλέως ἐφεδρεύειν τοὺς δορυφόρους· οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὸ καρδίας αὐτὸν ἀγαλματοφορεῖσθαι διανοηθέντες γνωσιμαχοῦσιν. Spec. 1.213–214 οὔτε δὲ καρδίαν οὔτε ἐγκέφαλον, τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τῷ ἑτέρῳ τούτων ἐνδιαιτωμένου. Post. 137 ὅπερ (sc. ἡγεμονικὸν) εἴτε μήνιγγα εἴτε καρδίαν εἶναι συντέτευχεν, οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοὶ φιλοσοφείτωσαν. Pollux Onom. 2.226–227 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) μέρη δ᾽ αὐτῆς νοῦς ἐπιθυμία θυμός. καὶ ὁ μὲν νοῦς καὶ λογισμὸς καὶ ἡγεμονικόν, εἴτε περὶ ἐγκεφάλῳ κατὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ Πλάτωνα ἱδρυμένος, εἴτε ἐν παρεγκεφαλίδι ἢ μήνιγξιν, ὡς πολλοῖς τῶν ἰατρῶν δοκεῖ, εἴτε κατὰ τὸ μεσόφρυον, ὡς ἔλεγε Στράτων, εἴτε περὶ τὸ αἷμα, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, εἴτε περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ὡς ἡ Στοά. θυμοῦ δὲ τόπος ἄντικρυς ἡ καρδία, καθάπερ ὁ περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ τόπος ἐπιθυμίας. Seneca Ep. 113.23 ne putes autem primum me ex nostris non ex praescripto loqui, sed meae sententiae esse: inter Cleanthen (—) et discipulum eius Chrysippum (SVF 2.836) non convenit, quid sit ambulatio. Cleanthes ait spiritum esse a principali usque in pedes permissum, Chrysippus ipsum principale. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1119A ἢ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ κυριώτατον, ᾧ φρονοῦμεν καὶ λογιζόμεθα καὶ πράττομεν, ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἐστι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ καὶ ψυχῆς μόρια πάντα καὶ σώματος ὄργανα τῆς τούτου δυνάμεως; ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.378.4–8 K. ριγʹ. ἡγεμονικόν ἐστι ψυχῆς τὸ ἄρχον τῶν μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸ βασιλεῦον καὶ ἐπιτάσσον, καθιδρυμένον δὲ ἐν τῇ βάσει τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου. οἱ δὲ οὕτως· ἡγεμονικὸν ψυχῆς ἐστι τὸ κατάρχον τῆς ὅλης τοῦ ζώου διοικήσεως, τεταγμένον δὲ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ {τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου}. Galen Loc.Aff. 8.158.11–160.7 ὥσπερ δ᾽

1483

1484

liber 4 caput 5

ἐνταῦθα φιλονεικίαν αἰσχρὰν ἐπιδείκνυνται προφανῶς, οὕτως ἄνοιαν, ὅταν οἴωνται πάνθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν σαλεύεσθαι τὰ δόγματα, κᾂν ἓν ὁτιοῦν ἐλεγχθῇ· τινὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀκολουθεῖ, καθάπερ γε πάλιν ἕτερα μάχεται, τινὰ δὲ οὔτ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν οὔτε μάχην ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει, καθάπερ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ περὶ τοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικοῦ. ἐάν τε γὰρ ἐν καρδίᾳ τις ἐάν τ᾽ ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ περιέχεσθαι τοῦτό φησι, δυνατόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ καὶ περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν στοιχείων ἣν ἂν ἐθελήσῃ δόξαν ἑλομένῳ μήτε μάχεσθαι τούτῳ μήτ᾽ ἀκολουθεῖν. … οὐδενὶ γὰρ ὧν εἴρηκα δογμάτων οὔτ᾽ ἀκολουθία τίς ἐστιν οὔτε μάχη πρὸς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν, ἐάν τε ἐν καρδίᾳ τις ἐάν τε ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ φησὶ περιέχεσθαι. προδιδόασιν οὖν ὅλην τὴν δογματικὴν αἵρεσιν οἱ τοιαύτας γράφοντες θεραπείας· περὶ γὰρ ἡγεμονικοῦ ψυχῆς ἀποδείξεων οὐσῶν ἐναργῶν, ὡς ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποις πεπιστεῦσθαι τὸ μόριον ἐν ᾧ κατῴκισται, μόνοις ἰατρῶν τε καὶ φιλοσόφων τοῖς ἀρίστοις οὐ φαίνεται, τοῖς ἐν καρδίᾳ τιθεμένοις αὐτό. τὰς μὲν οὖν ἀποδείξεις ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν εἶπον ἐν οἷς ἔγραψα περὶ τῶν Ἱπποκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος δογμάτων· ὅτι δὲ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις πεπίστευται, τὸ μὲν λογιζόμενον ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ καθιδρύσθαι, τὸ δ᾽ ἀνδρεῖόν τε καὶ θυμοειδὲς ἐν καρδίᾳ, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπιθυμητικὸν ἐν ἥπατι, μαθεῖν ἔστιν ὁσημέραι λεγόντων αὐτῶν ἀκούοντα, πρὸς μὲν τὸν ἀνόητον, ὡς ἐγκέφαλον οὐκ ἔχει· πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἄτολμον καὶ δειλὸν, ὡς ἀκάρδιος εἴη· τοῦ Τιτυοῦ δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀετοῦ τὸ ἧπαρ ἐσθιόμενον, οὐ μόνον ἐν ποιήμασι λεγόντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλαττόντων τε καὶ γραφόντων. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.4.14.4–5.15.1 δευτέρα δ᾽ ἦν διαφορὰ προβλημάτων ἐφ᾽ οὗ τὰ μὲν ἔργα καὶ πάθη γινώσκομεν ἅπαντες, ἀγνοοῦμεν δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν, οἷον ἐν τίνι τοῦ σώματος μορίῳ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν ἐστι τῆς ψυχῆς. … (5.15.1) φασὶν οὖν τινες μὴ ἐγχωρεῖν πλείους ἀρχὰς ἑνὸς εἶναι ζῴου. ὁμογενεῖς μὲν οὖν ἀρχὰς οὐκ ἐγχωρεῖ πλείους ὑπάρχειν ἑνὸς ζῴου, διαφερούσας δὲ τοῖς γένεσιν οὐδὲν ἄτοπον. Tertullian de An. 15.1–3 (Soranus de An. fr. 12[a] Podolak) inprimis an sit aliqui summus in anima gradus vitalis et sapientialis, quod ἡγεμονικόν appellant, id est principale, quia si negetur, totus animae status periclitatur. denique qui negant principale, ipsam prius animam nihil censuerunt. (2) Messenius aliqui Dicaearchus (fr. 8h Wehrli, 25 Mirhady) … ex medicis autem Andreas et Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 727) … abstulerunt principale, dum in animo ipso volunt esse sensus, quorum vindicatur principale. Asclepiades etiam illa argumentatione vectatur, quod pleraque animalia ademptis eis partibus corporis, in quibus plurimum existimatur principale consistere, et insuper vivant aliquatenus … si capita decideris, … si corda detraxeris; itaque principale non esse, quo, si fuisset, amisso cum suis sedibus vigor animae non perseveraret. (3) sed plures et philosophi adversus Dicaearchum: Plato Strato (fr. 116 Wehrli, 56 Sharples) Epicurus (—) Democritus (fr. 458 Luria) Empedocles (—) Socrates Aristoteles, et medici adversus Andrean et Asclepiaden: Herophilus (T 139 Von Staden) Erasistratus (—) Diocles (fr. 37 Van der Eijk) Hippocrates et ipse Soranus. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.313 εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸν τόπον ὁ νοῦς qτὸν ἐν ᾧ ἔστι συγκαταλαμβάνει ἑαυτῷ, ἐχρῆν μὴ διαφωνεῖσθαι τοῦτον παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, τῶν μὲν κεφαλὴν λεγόντων εἶναι τῶν δὲ θώρακα, καὶ ἐπ᾽ εἴδους τῶν μὲν ἐγκέφαλον τῶν δὲ μήνιγγα, τινῶν δὲ καρδίαν, ἄλλων δὲ ἥπατος πύλας ἤ τι τοιοῦτο μέρος τοῦ σώματος. M. 7.348–349 τὴν διάνοιαν … (349) οἱ μὲν μηδέν φασιν εἶναι αὐτὴν παρὰ τὸ πῶς ἔχον σῶμα, καθάπερ ὁ Δικαίαρχος (fr. 8a Wehrli, 24 Mirhady), οἱ δὲ εἶναι μὲν

liber 4 caput 5 ἔλεξαν, οὐκ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ τόπῳ περιέχεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος, ὡς Αἰνησίδημος (fr. B24A Polito) κατὰ Ἡράκλειτον (T 689 Mouraviev), οἱ δὲ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι, καθάπερ τινὲς κατὰ Δημόκριτον (68A107 DK), οἱ δὲ ἐν μέρει τοῦ σώματος, ὧν πάλιν πολυσχιδεῖς εἰσιν αἱ γνῶμαι. M. 7.380 εἰ ἔστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, καὶ ἐν τίνι τόπῳ ἔστιν, οὐχ ὡμολόγηται, ἄλλων μὲν οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ὑπάρχειν τι λεγόντων ἡγεμονικόν, ὡς τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀσκληπιάδην (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 726), τινῶν δὲ εἶναι μὲν νομιζόντων, οὐ συμφωνούντων δὲ περὶ τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐτὸ τόπου. P. 1.128 περὶ γὰρ ἕκαστον τῶν τόπων ἐν οἷς τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι δοκοῦσιν οἱ δογματικοί, χυμούς τινας ὑποκειμένους θεωροῦμεν, εἴτε περὶ ἐγκέφαλον εἴτε περὶ καρδίαν εἴτε περὶ ὁτιδήποτε οὖν μέρος τοῦ ζῴου τοῦτο τίθεσθαι βούλοιτό τις. Tertullian Res. 15.16 sed etsi in cerebro vel in medio superciliorum discrimine vel ubiubi philosophis placet principalitas sensuum consecrata est, quod ἡγεμονικὸν appellatur, caro erit omne animae cogitatorium. Lactantius Op.D. 16.1 Perrin mentis quoque rationem incomprehensibilem esse quis nesciat nisi qui omnino illam non habet, cum ipsa mens quo loco sit aut cuiusmodi nesciatur? varia ergo a philosophis de natura eius et loco disputata sunt. Op.D. 16.11 sive igitur in capite mens habitat sive in pectore, potestne aliquis conprehendere quae vis rationis efficiat ut sensus ille inconprehensibilis aut in medulla cerebri haereat aut in illo sanguine bipertito qui est conclusus in corde. Calcidius in Tim. cc. 213–214 quod hegemonicon a philosophis dicitur, … . sed quoniam de hoc diversae opiniones philosophorum tam veterum quam novorum extiterunt, recensendae nobis singulae sunt. Gregory of Nyssa Opif.Hom. c. 12, MPG 44, p. 156.33–53 οἱ μὲν ἐν καρδίᾳ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι τίθενται, οἱ δὲ τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ τὸν νοῦν ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαί φασιν, ἐπιπολαίοις τισὶ πιθανότησι τὰς τοιαύτας ἐπινοίας κρατοῦντες. ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῇ καρδίᾳ προστιθεὶς τὴν ἡγεμονίαν, τὴν κατὰ τόπον αὐτῆς θέσιν ποιεῖται τοῦ λόγου τεκμήριον, διὰ τὸ δοκεῖν πως τὴν μέσην τοῦ παντὸς σώματος ἐπέχειν χώραν αὐτὴν, ὡς τῆς προαιρετικῆς κινήσεως εὐκόλως ἐκ τοῦ μέσου πρὸς ἅπαν μεριζομένης σῶμα, καὶ οὕτως εἰς ἐνέργειαν προϊούσης. καὶ μαρτύριον ποιεῖται τοῦ λόγου τὴν λυπηράν τε καὶ θυμώδη τοῦ ἀνθρώπου διάθεσιν, ὅτι δοκεῖ πως τὰ τοιαῦτα πάθη συγκινεῖν τὸ μέρος τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν συμπάθειαν. οἱ δὲ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἀφιεροῦντες τῷ λογισμῷ, ὥσπερ ἀκρόπολίν τινα τοῦ παντὸς σώματος τὴν κεφαλὴν δεδομῆσθαι παρὰ τῆς φύσεως λέγουσιν· ἐνοικεῖν δὲ ταύτῃ καθάπερ τινὰ βασιλέα τὸν νοῦν, οἷόν τισιν ἀγγελιαφόροις ἢ ὑπασπισταῖ, τοῖς αἰσθητηρίοις ἐν κύκλῳ δορυφορούμενον. σημεῖον δὲ καὶ οὗτοι τῆς τοιαύτης ὑπονοίας ποιοῦνται, τὸ παράγεσθαι τοῦ καθεστῶτος τὸν λογισμὸν τῶν κεκακωμένων τὰς μήνιγγας κτλ. Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.8.53–54 see details below. Augustine Trin. 10.7.1–5 Mountain–Glorie et quia sibi bene conscia est principatus sui quo corpus regit, hinc factum est ut quidam quaererent quid corporis amplius valet in corpore, et hoc esse mentem vel omnino totam animam existimarent. itaque alii sanguinem, alii cerebrum, alii cor. differently Nemesius NH c. 3, pp. 41.5–42.8 (using a Neoplatonist source) ἡ δὲ ψυχή, ἀσώματος οὖσα καὶ μὴ περιγραφομένη τόπῳ, ὅλη δι᾽ ὅλου χωρεῖ καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς ἑαυτῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι μέρος φωτιζόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ἐν ᾧ μὴ ὅλη πάρεστιν. οὐ γὰρ κρατεῖται ὑπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὴ κρατεῖ τὸ σῶμα, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ σώματί ἐστιν ὡς ἐν ἀγγείῳ ἢ ἀσκῷ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸ σῶμα ἐν αὐτῇ. μὴ κωλυόμενα γὰρ ὑπὸ

1485

1486

liber 4 caput 5

τῶν σωμάτων τὰ νοητά, ἀλλὰ διὰ παντὸς σώματος χωροῦντα καὶ διαφοιτῶντα καὶ διεξιόντα, οὐχ οἷά τέ ἐστιν ὑπὸ τόπου σωματικοῦ κατέχεσθαι· νοητὰ γὰρ ὄντα ἐν νοητοῖς καὶ τόποις ἐστίν, ἢ γὰρ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἢ ἐν τοῖς ὑπερκειμένοις νοητοῖς, ὡς ἡ ψυχὴ ποτὲ μὲν ἐν ἑαυτῇ ἐστιν, ὅταν λογίζηται, ποτὲ δὲ ἐν τῷ νῷ, ὅταν νοῇ. … ἀμέγεθες γὰρ ὂν καὶ ἄογκον καὶ ἀμερὲς τῆς κατὰ μέρος τοπικῆς περιγραφῆς κρεῖττόν ἐστιν. τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἔχον μέρος ποίῳ δύναται τόπῳ περιγράφεσθαι. … (42.4) δέδεικται γὰρ μὴ δύνασθαι περιληφθῆναι τόπῳ· ὅταν οὖν ἐν σχέσει γένηται νοητὸν τόπου τινὸς ἢ πράγματος ἐν τόπῳ ὄντος, καταχρηστικώτερον λέγομεν ἐκεῖ αὐτὸ εἶναι διὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκεῖ, τὸν τόπον ἀντὶ τῆς σχέσεως καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας λαμβάνοντες. Chapter heading: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. the Stoics) … (133) τόν τ᾽ αἰτιολογικὸν εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν διμερῆ· μιᾷ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπισκέψει ἐπικοινωνεῖν τὴν τῶν ἰατρῶν ζήτησιν, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητοῦσι περί τε τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς, excerpted at Suda s.v. Φ 862, p. 4.775.28–29 Adler φυσικὸς λόγος παρὰ φιλοσόφοις … διεξέρχονται περὶ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ. Calcidius in Tim. c. 7 De anima et partibus eius et locis. §0 Whether it exists: Tertullian de An. 15.1 (Soranus de An. fr. 12[a] Podolak) denique qui negant principale, ipsam prius animam nihil censuerunt etc. (see General texts). Lactantius Op.D. 16.1 Perrin mentis quoque rationem incomprehensibilem esse quis nesciat nisi qui omnino illam non habet, cum ipsa mens quo loco sit aut cuiusmodi nesciatur? Calcidius in Tim. c. 214 qui dividuam fore silvae substantiam censuerunt interponentes immenso inani modo expertia, modo partes quidem, sed indifferentes, sui similes, tum atomos vel solidos moles, nullum locum certum definitumque principali animae parti dederunt; also c. 216. Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.14.115 (Asclepiades cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 713) deinde regnum animae aliqua in parte corporis constitutum negat. §§1–2 Plato Democritus Hippocrates: Ptolemy Iudic. c. 15, pp. 21.23–22.6 τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐφωδευμένων, ὅτι μὲν ἡγεμονικὸν γίνεται τοῦ σώματος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς, οὐδὲ εἷς ἂν ἀπορήσειεν· εἰ δ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν οὕτως ἁπλῶς ληπτέον καὶ οὐχ ὡς τῶν πρός τι ὄν, ὡδί πως κατὰ τὸ κεφαλαιῶδες διοριστέον· ἐὰν μὲν γὰρ τὸ βέλτιστον ἁπλῶς καὶ τιμιώτατον καλῶμεν ἡγεμονικόν, ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ τοῦτο ἔσται. δέδεικται γὰρ ἡμῖν ἱκανῶς, ὅτι τὸ διανοητικὸν καὶ δυνάμει καὶ οὐσίᾳ τιμιώτερον καὶ θειότερόν ἐστιν ἔν τε τῷ παντὶ καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν· καὶ ὅτι τόπος αὐτοῦ τὰ ἀνωτάτω, τοῦ κόσμου μὲν ὁ οὐρανός, ἀνθρώπου δὲ ἡ κορυφή. §1 Plato Democritus: Chrysippus de An. at Gal. PHP 3.1.14 (verbatim) Πλάτων … τὸ μὲν λογιστικὸν ἔλεγεν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ εἶναι. Cicero Tusc. 1.20 Plato … principatum, id est rationem, in capite sicut in arce posuit. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.32 οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνιέρωσαν αὐτῷ κεφαλήν. Pollux Onom. 2.225–226 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) καὶ ὁ μὲν νοῦς καὶ λογισμὸς καὶ ἡγεμονικόν, εἴτε περὶ ἐγκεφάλῳ κατὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ Πλάτωνα ἱδρυμένος. Censorinus DN c. 6.1 Hippon (38A15 DK) vero caput (sc. primum in infante formari censuit), in quo est animi principale. Tertullian de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[a] Podolak) in capite concludi secundum Platonem, neque in vertice

liber 4 caput 5 potius [i.e. in a part of the head, doxa not paralleled in A] praesidere secundum Xenocratem (fr. 72 Heinze, F 128 Isnardi Parente2). Lactantius Op.D. 5.6 Perrin in summo vero constructionis eius (sc. corporis) quam similem navali carinae diximus, caput conlocauit, in quo esset regimen totius animantis, ‘datumque illi hoc nomen est’, ut quidem Varro (fr. 33 Goetz & Schoell) ad Ciceronem scribit, ‘quod hinc capiant initium sensus ac nervi’. Op.D. 16.6–8 Perrin videtur enim mens, quae dominatum corporis tenet, in summo capite constituta tamquam in caelo deus, sed cum in aliqua sit cogitatione, commeare ad pectus et quasi ad secretum aliquod penetrale secedere, ut consilium tamquam ex thensauro recondito eliciat ac proferat; (7) ideoque cum intenti ad cogitandum sumus et cum mens occupata in altum se abdiderit, neque audire quae circumsonant neque videre quae obstant solemus. (8) id vero sive ita est, admirandum profecto est quomodo id fiat, cum ad pectus a cerebro nullum iter pateat, sin autem non est ita, tamen nihilo minus admirandum est quod divina nescio qua ratione fiat ut ita esse videatur. Calcidius in Tim. c. 213 principalem animae potestatem asserit in capite sedes habere (Tim. 45a–b). in Tim. c. 231 rationabili velut arx corporis et regia, utpote virtuti quae regali quadam eminentia praestet, id est domicilium capitis, in quo habitet animae principale, quod ad similitudinem mundi sit exaedificatum, teres et globosum …. dogma Platonis probatur, quod animae vis principalis in cerebri locata sit sede. §2 Hippocrates: Demetrius Laco Apor.Test., PHerc 1012 col. 47.8–11 (see below §§4–5). Cicero Tusc. 1.19 alii in cerebro dixerunt animi esse sedem et locum. Tusc.1.19 cerebrum. Tusc. 1.41 cerebrove. Tertullian de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[a] Podolak) in cerebro … secundum Hippocratem. ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.459.11–12 K. υξζʹ. ὁ ἐγκέφαλος τὴν ψυχικὴν ἔχει δύναμιν καὶ ταύτης τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὅπερ ἐστὶ λογιστικὸν καὶ ὁ νοῦς. Lactantius Op.D. Perrin 16.4 alii sedem eius in cerebro esse dixerunt. Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.8.53 alii igitur cerebrum pati dixerunt. Tard.Pass. 1.4.60 sive quod in capite fiat, quod multorum philosophorum iudicio sacrum atque templum est partis animae in corpore natae. §3 Strato: Pollux Onom. 2.226 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) εἴτε κατὰ τὸ μεσόφρυον, ὡς ἔλεγε Στράτων (fr. 121 Wehrli, app. fr. 57 Sharples). Tertullian de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[a] Podolak) in superciliorum meditullio, ut Strato physicus (fr. 120 Wehrli, 58 Sharples). §§4–5 Erasistratus Herophilus: Demetrius Laco Apor.Test., PHerc 1012 col. xl.8–11 Puglia μετὰ ταῦτα δ᾽ ἀντιπροφέ|ρεται (sc. Epicurus, fr. 313 Usener) τὴν σημηωσιν, ᾗ | χρῶνται πολλοὶ τῶν ἰα|τρῶ[ν ὑ]πὲρ το[ῦ τὸ]ν λογισμὸν ἐν κεφα[λῆι ἐστηρ]ίχθαι. Cicero Tusc. 1.19 aliis pars quaedam cerebri visa est animi principatum tenere. Pollux Onomast. 2.226 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) εἴτε ἐν παρεγκεφαλίδι ἢ μήνιγξιν, ὡς πολλοῖς τῶν ἰατρῶν δοκεῖ. §4 Erasistratus: Tertullian de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[a] Podolak) nec in membranulis, ut Strato (sc. the Erasistratean) et Erasistratus (fr. 41 Garofalo). Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.8.53 alii membranas, alii et cerebrum et membranas.

1487

1488

liber 4 caput 5

§5 Herophilus: Tertullian de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[a] Podolak) circa cerebri fundamenta, ut Herophilus (T 139 Von Staden). Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.8.53 alii eius (sc. cerebri) fundum sive basin. §6 Parmenides: Demetrius Laco Apor.Test. (PHerc 1012) col. xlvi.1–3 + xlvii.5–6 Puglia κα]|τελέξαθ᾽ ὁ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 313 Usener) καὶ π[ε]|ρὶ τοῦ τόποῦ λογιζομέ|νου μέρους τῆς ψυχῆς … φανερῶς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸν | θώρακα ἡ ὁλκὴ γείνεται (for continuation see above §§4–5). Lucretius DRN 3.138–144 sed caput esse quasi et dominari in corpore toto / consilium, quod nos animum mentemque vocamus. / idque situm media regione in pectoris haeret. / hic exultat enim pavor ac metus, haec loca circum / laetitiae mulcent: hic ergo mens animusquest. / cetera pars animae per totum dissita corpus / paret et ad numen mentis momenque movetur. Tertullian de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[a] Podolak) in tota lorica pectoris, ut Epicurus (fr. 312 Usener). §7 Aristotle Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.32 οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὸ καρδίας αὐτὸν ἀγαλματοφορεῖσθαι. Pollux Onomast. 2.226 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) εἴτε περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ὡς ἡ Στοά (—). Arius Didymus fr. 39 Diels, DG p. 471.15– 16 at Eus. PE 15.20.6 (SVF 2.821) ἔχειν δὲ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικόν τι ἐν αὑτῇ, ὃ δὴ ζωὴ καὶ αἴσθησίς ἐστι καὶ ὁρμή. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.159 (SVF 2.837) ἡγεμονικὸν δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ κυριώτατον τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ αἱ φαντασίαι καὶ αἱ ὁρμαὶ γίνονται καὶ ὅθεν ὁ λόγος ἀναπέμπεται (cf. chs. 4.11–12, 4.21)· ὅπερ εἶναι ἐν καρδίᾳ. Calcidius in Tim. c. 220 Stoici (SVF 2.879) vero cor quidem sedem esse principalis animae partis consentiunt nec tamen sanguinem qui cum corpore nascitur. in Tim. 224 principalis vero animae pars … hanc vero Aristoteles asserit locatam esse in penetralibus cordis. Caelius Aurelianus Cer.Pass. 1.8.53 alii cor, alii cordis summitatem. §9 Empedocles: Cicero Tusc. 1.19 Empedocles animum esse censet cordi suffusum sanguinem (namely αἷμα περικάρδιον, 31B105.3 DK). Pollux Onom. 2.226 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) εἴτε περὶ τὸ αἷμα, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης. ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (fr. 179 Sandbach) at Eus. PE 1.8.10 (on Empedocles, 31A30 DK) τὸ δ᾽ ἡγεμονικὸν οὔτ᾽ ἐν κεφαλῇ οὔτ᾽ ἐν θώρακι ἀλλ᾽ ἐν αἵματι· ὅθεν καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν μέρος τοῦ σώματος πλεῖον ᾖ παρεσπαρμένον {τὸ ἡγεμονικόν}, οἴεται κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο προτερεῖν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Tertullian de An. 15.5 (Soranus de An. fr. 13a] Podolak) ut et ille versus Orphei vel Empedoclis (31B105.3 DK): ‘namque homini sanguis circumcordialis est sensus’. Calcidius in Tim. c. 218 Empedocles quidem principalem animae vim constituit in corde, dicens (31B105.3 DK): ‘sanguine cordis enim noster viget intellectus’, siquidem intimis sensibus nostris sentiamus ea quae sunt extra nos propter cognationem. ideoque ait (31B109.1–2 DK): ‘terram terreno sentimus, at aethera flammis, humorem humecto, nostro spirabile flatu’. sed de his omnibus, qualia sint quantamve inter se habeant differentiam, cordis sanguine diiudicamus (cf. also above under General texts, Augustine Trin. 10.vii.4 alii sanguinem). §11 Anonymi: Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.8.53–54 alii membranam, quae cor circumtegit, alii arteriarum eam, quam Graeci ἀορτήν appellant, alii venam crassam, quam iidem φλέβα παχείαν vocaverunt.

liber 4 caput 5 §12 Later anonymi: Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.8.54 alii diaphragma. §14 Pythagoras: Calcidius in Tim. cc. 231–232 … dogma Platonis probatur, quod animae vis principalis in cerebri locata sit sede. (232) illud vero aliud principale, quod secundae dignitatis esse praediximus, non rationabilis animantis, sed id ipsum animantis. commune ergo ut animalis in corde et medietate, ut vero rationabilis animantis in cerebro.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Corpus Hippocraticum Morb.Sacr. 17 διὸ φημὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον εἶναι τὸν ἑρμηνεύοντα τὴν ξύνεσιν. … λέγουσι δέ τινες ὡς φρονέομεν τῇ καρδίῃ καὶ τὸ ἀνιώμενον τοῦτό ἐστι καὶ τὸ φροντίζον· τὸ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει. Plato Phd. 96b καὶ πότερον τὸ αἷμά ἐστιν ᾧ φρονοῦμεν (Empedocles 31A76 DK) ἢ ὁ ἀὴρ (cf. Anaximenes 13A23 DK) ἢ τὸ πῦρ, ἢ τούτων μὲν οὐδέν, ὁ δ᾽ ἐγκέφαλός ἐστιν (cf. Alcmaeon 24A11DK) ὁ τὰς αἰσθήσεις παρέχων τοῦ ἀκούειν καὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὀσφραίνεσθαι, ἐκ τούτων δὲ γίγνοιτο μνήμη καὶ δόξα, ἐκ δὲ μνήμης καὶ δόξης λαβούσης τὸ ἠρεμεῖν, κατὰ ταῦτα γίγνεσθαι ἐπιστήμην. Aristotle Met. Δ.2 1013a4–7 (ἀρχὴ λέγεται) … ὅθεν πρῶτον γίγνεται ἐνυπάρχοντος, οἷον ὡς πλοίου τρόπις καὶ οἰκίας θεμέλιος, καὶ τῶν ζῴων οἱ μὲν καρδίαν οἱ δὲ ἐγκέφαλον οἱ δ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι τοιοῦτον ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. Met. Ζ.10 1035b25–28 ἔνια δὲ ἅμα, ὅσα κύρια καὶ ἐν ᾧ πρώτῳ ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ οὐσία, οἷον εἰ τοῦτο καρδία ἢ ἐγκέφαλος· διαφέρει γὰρ οὐθὲν πότερον τοιοῦτον. Cicero ND 2.29 omnem enim naturam necesse est, quae non solitaria sit neque simplex sed cum alio iuncta atque conexa, habere aliquem in se principatum, ut in homine mentem, in belva quiddam simile mentis unde oriantur rerum adpetitus; in arborum autem et earum rerum quae gignuntur e terra radicibus inesse principatus putatur. principatum autem id dico quod Graeci ἡγεμονικὸν vocant, quo nihil in quoque genere nec potest nec debet esse praestantius. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 218.23–24 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποὺ ἡ ζήτησις, ὅταν ζητῆται ἐν ποτέρῳ μᾶλλον τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ἐν καρδίᾳ ἢ ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ. de An. 94.7–8 ποῦ δέ ἐστιν τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ ἐν τίνι μορίῳ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ πότερον ἐν ἑνὶ ὑποκειμένῳ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν πᾶσα ἡ ψυχὴ κατὰ τὰς δυνάμεις μόνον καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἔχουσα τὰς διαφοράς, ἢ καὶ κατὰ τόπον εἰσὶν ἀλλήλων αἱ τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεις κεχωρισμέναι, ἄξιον ἐπὶ τούτοις ἰδεῖν. de An. 99.30–100.1 τὰ δὲ λεγόμενα πρὸς δεῖξιν τοῦ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν περὶ κεφαλήν τε καὶ ἐγκέφαλον εἶναι τὰ μέν ἐστι κενά κτλ. Galen PHP 2.5.40–41 λοιπὸν εἴτ᾽ ἐγκέφαλός ἐστιν εἴτε καρδία τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονοῦν, οὐδὲν οἶμαι διαφέρειν εἴς γε τὴν τοῦ προκειμένου λόγου διάλυσιν. PHP 7.1.1 oὐκ ἐγὼ τοῦ μήκους τῆς πραγματείας αἴτιος … ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ψευδῶν λόγων ὧν ἠρώτησαν ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονικοῦ ψυχῆς οὐκ ὀλίγας πληρώσαντες βίβλους. ArsMed. c. 37.10, 1.409.6–10 K. ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονικοῦ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων, ὅσα περὶ φυσικῶν ἢ ψυχικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ζητεῖται, διὰ πολυβίβλου πραγματείας ἐδηλώσαμεν, ἣν Περὶ τῶν Ἱπποκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος δογμάτων ἐπιγράφομεν. Gregory of Nyssa Opif.Hom. MPG 44, p. 156.34–49 οἱ μὲν ἐν καρδίᾳ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι τίθενται, οἱ δὲ τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ τὸν νοῦν ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαί φασιν, ἐπιπολαίοις τισὶ πιθανότησι τὰς τοιαύτας ἐπινοίας κρατοῦντες. ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῇ καρδίᾳ προστιθεὶς τὴν ἡγεμονίαν, τὴν κατὰ τόπον αὐτῆς θέσιν ποιεῖται τοῦ λόγου τεκμήριον, διὰ τὸ δοκεῖν πως

1489

1490

liber 4 caput 5

τὴν μέσην τοῦ παντὸς σώματος ἐπέχειν χώραν αὐτὴν, ὡς τῆς προαιρετικῆς κινήσεως εὐκόλως ἐκ τοῦ μέσου πρὸς ἅπαν μεριζομένης σῶμα. … οἱ δὲ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἀφιεροῦντες τῷ λογισμῷ, ὥσπερ ἀκρόπολίν τινα τοῦ παντὸς σώματος τὴν κεφαλὴν δεδομῆσθαι παρὰ τῆς φύσεως λέγουσιν· ἐνοικεῖν δὲ ταύτῃ καθάπερ τινὰ βασιλέα τὸν νοῦν. Stephanus in Progn. 1.48, pp. 124.30–126.15 Duffy ‘ἢν γὰρ αἱ ὄψιες πυκνὰ κινέωνται, μανῆναι τούτους ἐλπίς’ (ps.Hipp. Progn. 7, p. 2.126.6 Littré): ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ῥησειδίου κατασκευάζουσιν οἱ ἐξηγηταὶ ὅτι ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ ἐστὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· ἐὰν γὰρ ἡ βλάβη τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν δηλοῖ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον κακῶς διακείμενον, ἡ δὲ παραφροσύνη βλάβη ἐστὶ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, οὐκοῦν ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ ἐστὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. ὁ δὲ νέος ἐξηγητὴς (perhaps Asclepius) λέγει ὅτι ‘καὶ πόθεν δῆλον ὅτι ἐν καρδίᾳ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν; τί γάρ; …’. καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἐν δισταγμῷ ἐστιν ἡ τοιαύτη ζήτησις, εἴτε ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ ἐστὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἴτε ἐν καρδίᾳ. Cassiodorus de An. c. 10.1–14 Halporn quidam sedem animae, quamvis sit corpore toto diffusa, in corde esse voluerunt, dicentes quod ibi purissimus sanguis et vitalis spiritus continetur ut inde etiam cogitationes sive malas sive bonas exire confirment; quod animae virtutem operari posse non dubium est. plurimi autem in capite insidere manifestant, si fas est cum reverentia tamen dicere, ad similitudinem aliquam divinitatis, quae licet omnia ineffabili substantia sua repleat, scriptura tamen caelos insidere confirmat. dignum enim fuit ut arcem peteret quae se noverat caelesti operatione sublimen et tali loco prae ceteris versari unde reliqua membra debuissent competenti regimine gubernari. nam et ipsa figura capitis sphaeroides pulcherrima est in qua sibi immortalis atque rationalis anima dignam faceret mansionem. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 54.2–6 κεφαλαίαν δὲ Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν φρόνησιν ἄν τις εἴποι· καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ βρέγματος κατὰ τὸ ἀντικέφαλον ἐναποκεῖσθαι λέγεται πρὸς ταῖς ῥίζαις τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ φρόνησις. Dionysius of Aigai Dict. at Phot. Bibl. 185, p. 130b15–18 Henry ϟηʹ. ὅτι οὐ περὶ καρδίαν τὸ διανοητικὸν ἀλλὰ περὶ κεφαλήν, ϟθʹ. καὶ ὅτι οὐ περὶ κεφαλὴν ἀλλὰ περὶ καρδίαν τὸ διανοητικόν, ρʹ. ὅτι τὸ διανοητικόν ἐστι περὶ κοιλίαν ἐγκεφάλου. Tzetzes Exeges. in Iliad. A.97, schol. 94 Lolos ‘στῆ δ᾽ ὄπιθεν’ ἐντεῦθεν διδάσκει (sc. Homer) ἡμᾶς καὶ περὶ ποῖον μέρος τῆς κεφαλῆς τὸ λογιστικὸν κεῖται, κἂν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς περὶ τὴν καρδίαν φησὶ τὸ λογιστικὸν εἶναι λέγων· ‘αἷμα γὰρ ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα’ (31B105.3 DK). Shakespeare Merchant of Venice 64–66 ‘Tell me where is fancy bred, or in the heart or in the head? How begot, how nourishèd?’ Chapter heading: Galen PHP 2.5.7 ἔγραψεν ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικοῦ Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος (SVF 3 Diog. 29). PHP 3.3.24 ἐμπέπλησται γὰρ ὁ Περὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ λόγος ὑπὸ Χρυσίππου (SVF 2.906) γεγραμμένος ἐπῶν ποιητικῶν. Cassiodorus de An. c. 10 de sede animae. §0 Whether it exists: Galen in Hipp.Off.Med. 18b.660.12–14 K. νοῦν καὶ μνήμην καὶ προαίρεσιν, ἃ πρὸς ἄλλοις πολλοῖς ἀνατρέπειν ἐπεχείρησεν Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 720). Sextus Empiricus M. 7.202 ἔοικε … ὁ Ἀντίοχος (fr. 66 Luck) … Ἀσκληπιάδην τὸν ἰατρὸν (—) αἰνίττεσθαι, ἀναιροῦντα μὲν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. M. 7.380 ἄλλων μὲν οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ὑπάρχειν τι λεγόντων ἡγεμονικόν, ὡς τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀσκληπιάδην (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 726).

liber 4 caput 5 §§1–3 Plato Democritus Hippocrates Strato: ps.Galen Int. c. 11.2, 14.710.1– 3 K. ἔστι (sc. ὁ ἐγκέφαλος) δ᾽ ἁπλοῦν σῶμα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀρχικὸν καὶ κυριώτατον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν. διὸ καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῷ πιστεύουσιν, ὡς Πλάτων καὶ Ἱπποκράτης (see also §2). §1 Plato Democritus: Plato Tht. 184d, Tim. 44c–d, 69d–71a, 73b–d. Alcinous Did. 17, p. 173.7–8 H. τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν κατὰ λόγον περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν καθίδρυσαν. Did. 23, p. 176.12–15 τὸ θεῖον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀθάνατον κατῴκισαν ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος ἐπὶ τῆς οἷον ἀκροπόλεως … οἴκησίν τε ἀπονείμαντες αὐτῷ τὴν κεφαλήν. Apuleius Plat. 1.207 at enim cum tres partes animae ducat esse, rationabilem, id est mentis optumam portionem, hanc ait capitis arcem tenere. ps.Galen Int. c. 13.9, 14.732.18–733.2 K. φρενῖτις … συνίσταται δὲ περὶ ἐγκέφαλον. Galen PHP 7.6.12– 13. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.10 soli ergo homini rationem, id est vim mentis, infudit cui sedes in capite est. §2 Hippocrates: Corpus Hippocraticum Morb.Sacr. 14 τούτῳ (sc. τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ) φρονεῦμεν μάλιστα καὶ νοεῦμεν καὶ βλέπομεν καὶ ἀκούομεν καὶ γινώσκομεν τά τε αἰσχρὰ καὶ τὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ κακὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἡδέα καὶ ἀηδέα κτλ. Morb.Sacr. 17 διὸ φημὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον εἶναι τὸν ἑρμηνεύοντα τὴν ξύνεσιν. Soranus[?] Vit.Hipp. 12 ἐν δὲ ταῖς πολλαῖς εἰκόσιν ἐσκεπασμένος τὴν κεφαλὴν γράφεται (sc. ὁ Ἱπποκράτης), … οἱ δὲ δι᾽ ἔμφασιν τοῦ δεῖν τὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ χωρίον φρουρεῖν. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 15 p. 22.1–6 see above, section E(a)§§1–2. Galen Propr.Plac. 6, p. 177.10–13 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami (= fr. ined. 6 Helmreich 1894) πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐδείξαμεν αἰσθητικὸν εἶναι τὸ μόριον, ὡς καὶ τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἔδοξεν εἶναι, ⟨ἐν⟩ ᾧ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικόν ἐστιν· ἐπιρρεῖν γοῦν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου διὰ τῶν νεύρων ἐπὶ πάντα τοῦ σώματος τὰ μόρια δύναμιν αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ τῆς καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν κινήσεως. Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 φρένας δὲ καὶ νοῦν τὰ ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ. Iamblichus Protr. p. 123.13–15 Pistelli τούτῳ δὲ ἔοικε καὶ τὸ ἐγκέφαλον μη ἔσθιε· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς οὗτος ἡγεμονικόν· ἐστι τοῦ φρονεῖν ὄργανον. Anon. Parisinus (olim Fuchsii) Morb.Acut. 1.1.4 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[c] Podolak) ὁ δὲ Ἱπποκράτης τὸν μὲν νοῦν φησιν ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ τετάχθαι καθάπερ τι ἱερὸν ἄγαλμα ἐν ἀκροπόλει τοῦ σώματος (see also §1). §3 Strato: ps.Plutarch Lib.Aegr. 4 (Strato fr. 111 Wehrli, 63B Sharples) διὸ καὶ προσκόψαντες αὐτίκα τὰς ὀφρῦς συνάγομεν, τῷ πληγέντι μορίῳ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τὴν αἴσθησιν ὀξέως ἀποδιδόντος. §4 Erasistratus: Galen PHP 7.3.6–10 Ἐρασίστρατος (fr. 289 Garofalo) δ᾽ ἄχρι πολλοῦ τὴν ἔξωθεν μοῖραν ὁρῶν μόνην τοῦ νεύρου τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς παχείας μήνιγγος ὁρμωμένην, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνης ᾤετο πεφυκέναι σύμπαν τὸ νεῦρον καὶ μεστά γε τὰ πλεῖστα τούτου τῶν συγγραμμάτων ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης τὸν ἐγκέφαλον μήνιγγος πεφυκέναι φάσκοντος τὰ νεῦρα. (8) ἔχει δ᾽ ἡ ῥῆσις αὐτοῦ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον· ‘ἐθεωροῦμεν δὲ καὶ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου … (9) … καὶ ὁ ἐγκέφαλος παραπλήσιος ὢν νήστει καὶ πολύπλοκος, πολὺ δ᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον τούτου ἡ ἐπεγκρανὶς πολλοῖς ἑλιγμοῖς καὶ ποικίλοις κατεσκεύαστο. (10) ὥστε μαθεῖν ⟨ἐκ⟩ τούτων τὸν θεωροῦντα ὅτι ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων, ἐλάφου τε καὶ λαγωοῦ καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο κατὰ τὸ τρέχειν πολύ τι τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων ὑπεραίρει τοῖς πρὸς ταῦτα χρησίμοις εὖ κατε-

1491

1492

liber 4 caput 5

σκευασμένον μυσί τε καὶ νεύροις, οὕτω καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ, ἐπειδὴ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων πολὺ τῷ διανοεῖσθαι περίεστι, πολὺ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι ⟨καὶ⟩ πολύπλοκον. … ’ Propr.Plac. 7, p. 179.19–22 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami οὐ διωρισάμεος δὲ σαφῶς, ὡς Ἐρασίστρατος διωρίσατο, πότερον αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ κατά τινος κοίλου ἐν τῷ τοῦ ζῴου σώματι περιέχεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ψυχικόν, ἢ δι᾽ ὅλων διελήλυθεν τῶν στερεῶν σωμάτων. Corpus Hermeticum 10.11 τῷ ὑμένι τῆς κεφαλῆς ταύτης, ⟨ἐν ᾗ⟩ ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή. Anon. Parisinus (olim Fuchsii) Morb.Acut. 1.1.1 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[c] Podolak) Ἐρασίστρατος (fr. 176 Garofalo) μὲν ἐξ ἀκολούθου τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δογμάτων φησὶ γίνεσθαι τὴν φρενῖτιν κατά τι πάθος τῶν κατὰ τὴν μήνιγγα ἐνεργειῶν· οὗ γὰρ τόπου κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἡ νόησις φρόνησις, ἐπὶ τούτου ἡ παρανόησις παραφρόνησις ἂν εἴη. ps.Galen Int. c. 13.9, 14.732.18–733.3 K. φρενῖτις … συνίσταται δὲ περὶ … ἢ μήνιγγας. §5 Herophilus: ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.378.5–6 K. ριγʹ. … ἐν τῇ βάσει τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου. ps.Galen Int. c. 11.3, 14.711.6–8 K. κοιλίας δὲ ἔχει ὁ ἐγκέφαλος δύο· κατ᾽ ἐνίους δὲ μίαν· ἔνθα τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἵδρυται. Galen UP 8.11, 3.667.7–10 K. καὶ οἷς γε τετάρτη τις αὕτη κοιλία (sc. τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τὴν κοινὴν κοιλότητα μόριον ἐγκεφάλου … οὐκ ἂν ἀλόγως δόξειεν ὠνομάσθαι καμάριόν τε καὶ ψαλιδοειδές) νενόμισται, κυριωτάτην εἶναί φασιν αὐτὴν ἁπασῶν τῶν καθ᾽ ὅλον τὸν ἐγκέφαλον. Ἡρόφιλος (fr. 78 (resp. 138) Von Staden) μὴν οὐ ταύτην, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν τῇ παρεγκεφαλίδι κυριωτέραν ἔοικεν ὑπολαμβάνειν. §6 Parmenides: Parmenides 28B6.4–6 DK αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς, ἣν δὴ βροτοὶ εἰδότες οὐδὲν / πλάζονται, δίκρανοι· ἀμηχανίη γὰρ ἐν αὐτῶν / στήθεσιν ἰθύνει πλαγκτὸν νόον. Lucretius DRN 3.138–140 sed caput esse quasi et dominari in corpore toto / consilium, quod nos animum mentemque vocamus, / idque situm media regione in pectoris haeret. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.66 λέγει (Epicurus fr. 311 Usener) ἐν ἄλλοις … τὸ δὲ λογικὸν ἐν τῷ θώρακι, ὡς δῆλον ἔκ τε τῶν φόβων καὶ τῆς χαρᾶς. Lactantius Op.D. 16.3 Perrin quidem sedem mentis in pectore esse voluerunt. §7/§14 Aristotle Stoics Pythagoras: Galen PHP 1.6.3 Ἐρασίστρατος (fr. 203 Garofalo) μὲν γὰρ ζωτικοῦ πνεύματος, Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.897) δὲ τοῦ ψυχικοῦ πνεύματος πλήρη φησὶν εἶναι τὴν κοιλίαν ταύτην τὴν ἀριστερὰν τῆς καρδίας. §7 Aristotle: Aristotle Iuv. 3 469a6–9 ἀνάγκη καὶ τῆς αἰσθητικῆς καὶ τῆς θρεπτικῆς ψυχῆς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῖς ἐναίμοις. GA 2.1 735a23–25 εἰ ἡ καρδία πρῶτον ἔν τισι ζῴοις γίγνεται, ἐν δὲ τοῖς μὴ ἔχουσι καρδίαν τὸ ταύτῃ ἀνάλογον, ἐκ ταύτης ἂν εἴη ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῖς ἔχουσι. GA 2.6 743b25–26 τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῶν αἰσθήσεων εἶναι καὶ τοῦ ζῴου παντός (cf. Bonitz 365b34–54, ‘animae facultates, quae in corde sedem habent’). PA 3.9 672b30–33 καλοῦνται (sc. τὸ διάζωμα) φρένες ὡς μετέχουσαί τι τοῦ φρονεῖν. αἱ δὲ μετέχουσι μὲν οὐδέν, ἐγγὺς δ᾽ οὖσαι τῶν μετεχόντων ἐπίδηλον ποιοῦσι τὴν μεταβολὴν τῆς διανοίας. ps.Aristotle Probl. 30.1 954a34–36 πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς εἶναι τοῦ νοεροῦ τόπου (sc. τῆς καρδίας) τὴν θερμότητα ταύτην (sc. τῆς χολῆς μελαίνης) νοσήμασιν ἁλίσκονται μανικοῖς ἢ ἐνθουσιαστικοῖς. ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.378.8 K. ριγʹ. … ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ. Galen PHP 6.1.1 προὔκειτο μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπισκέψασθαι περὶ τῶν διοικουσῶν ἡμᾶς δυνάμεων, εἴτ᾽ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας μόνης ὁρμῶνται σύμπασαι, καθάπερ Ἀριστοτέλης

liber 4 caput 5 τε καὶ Θεόφραστος ὑπελάμβανον. PHP 3.1.9 (SVF 3.885 ad init.) ὁ Χρύσιππος κατὰ τὸ⟨ν⟩ πρῶτον αὐτοῦ περὶ ψυχῆς λόγον τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μνημονεύειν ἀρχόμενος, ἔνθα δὴ δεικνύναι πειρᾶται τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μόνῃ περιέχεσθαι. Propr.Plac. 8, p. 180.23–25 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami Χρύσιππος δὲ καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν περὶ μὲν ἡγεμονικοῦ ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ μορίῳ σώματος κατῴκισται γεγράψασιν. more substantial version PHP 8.1.10 (not in SVF, probably not verbatim) ὁ Χρύσιππος ἔγραψεν· ἔνθα τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐνταῦθα καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· τὰ δὲ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν καρδίᾳ· ἐν ταύτῃ ἄρα καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. criticizing other Stoics Chrysippus de An. at Gal. PHP 3.8.3–4 (SVF 2.908, verbatim) ἀκούω δέ τινας λέγειν παραμυθουμένους πρὸς τὸ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος. τὸ γὰρ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν, μῆτιν οὖσαν καὶ οἷον φρόνησιν, ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς γενέσθαι τοῦ Διὸς σύμβολόν φασιν εἶναι τοῦ ταύτῃ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι· οὐ γὰρ ἄλλως ἂν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ γενέσθαι μῆτιν καὶ φρόνησιν, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἐν ταύτῃ ἐστί· πιθανοῦ μέν τινος ἐχόμενοι, διαμαρτάνοντες δ᾽ ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνεται καὶ ἀγνοοῦντες τὰ περὶ τούτων ἱστορούμενα κτλ. also PHP 2.5.6–24 (SVF 1.148, 2.894, 3 Diog. 29). Anon. Parisinus (olim Fuchsii) Morb.Acut. 1.1.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[c] Podolak) Πραξαγόρας (fr. 62 Steckerl) δὲ φλεγμονὴν τῆς καρδίας εἶναί φησι τὴν φρενῖτιν, ἧς καὶ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἔργον φρόνησιν οἴεται εἶναι. John Philoponus in de An. 587.25 ἐν καρδίᾳ γὰρ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης δοξάζει τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Scholia vetera in Iladem 10.10a Erbse ‘νειόθεν ἐκ κραδίης’: ἐκ τῶν ἐσωτάτω λογισμῶν· ἔνδον γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιλογισμοῖς τὰ δεινὰ ὁρῶν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν στένει. ἐντεῦθεν κινηθεὶς Φιλότιμος (fr. 1 Steckerl) ἐν καρδίᾳ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἔθετο· ὅθεν γὰρ τὸ χαίρειν καὶ τὸ λυπεῖσθαι τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχει, δῆλον ὅτι ὁ νοῦς ἐκεῖθεν ἤρτηται. SVF 2.834–849. §8 Diogenes Stoicus: Galen PHP 2.8.40 οὔθ᾽ ὅταν ὁ Διογένης (SVF 3 Diog. 30) εἴπῃ: ‘ὃ πρῶτον τροφῆς καὶ πνεύματος ἀρύεται, ἐν τούτῳ ὑπάρχει τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ὃ δὲ πρῶτον τροφῆς καὶ πνεύματος ἀρύεται, ἡ καρδία’. PHP 1.6.3 Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.897) δὲ τοῦ ψυχικοῦ πνεύματος πλήρη φησὶν εἶναι τὴν κοιλίαν ταύτην (sc. τὴν ἀριστερὰν τῆς καρδίας). §9 Empedocles: Empedocles 31B105.3 DK αἷμα γὰρ ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα. Corpus Hippocraticum Morb. 1.30 φρενῖτις δὲ ὧδε ἔχει· τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πλεῖστον ξυμβάλλεται μέρος συνέσιος· ἔνιοι δὲ λέγουσι, τὸ πᾶν (cited ps.Gal. de Ccausa affectionum p. 18.28–30 Helmreich). NH 6, p. 178.15–27 Jouanna ὁρέοντες ἀποσφαζομένους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ τὸ αἷμα ῥέον ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, τοῦτο νομίζουσιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ. Flat. 14 ἡγεῦμαι δὲ ἔμπροσθεν, μηδὲν εἶναι μᾶλλον τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι ξυμβαλλόμενον ἐς φρόνησιν, ἢ τὸ αἷμα. Plato Phd. 96b καὶ πότερον τὸ αἷμά (on Empedocles, 31A76 DK) ἐστιν ᾧ φρονοῦμεν. Theophrastus Sens. 10 (on Empedocles, 31A86 DK) διὸ καὶ τῷ αἵματι μάλιστα φρονεῖν· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ μάλιστα κεκρᾶσθαί {ἐστι} τὰ στοιχεῖα τῶν μερῶν. Porphyry de Styge at Stob. Ecl. 1.4.53, p. 424.9–19 Wachsmuth (377F Smith) οἴεται γὰρ καὶ Ὅμηρος, καθὰ καὶ πλεῖστοι τῶν μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ὑπέλαβον, ἐν τῷ αἵματι εἶναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὴν περὶ τὰ θνητὰ φρόνησιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν μετ᾽ αὐτὸν πολλοὶ τοῦτο πιστοῦνται δεικνύντες ὅτι καὶ ὑπερθερμανθὲν ὑπὸ πυρετοῦ καὶ χολῆς ἀφραίνειν ποιεῖ καὶ ἀνοηταίνειν. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε οὕτω φαίνεται ὡς ὀργάνου πρὸς σύνεσιν τοῦ αἵματος ὄντος λέγειν (31B105 DK follows). cf. Hippolytus Ref. 1.22.5 (Epicurus fr. 340 Usener)

1493

1494

liber 4 caput 5

τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων λύεσθαι ἅμα τοῖς σώμασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ συγγεννᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς τίθεται· αἷμα γὰρ αὐτὰς εἶναι. §12 Anonymi: ps.Galen Int. c. 13.9, 14.732.18–733.4 K. φρενῖτις … συνίσταται … ἢ ὥς τινες λέγουσι περὶ φρένας, ὃ διάφραγμα καλεῖται. Anon. Parisinus (olim Fuchsii) Morb.Acut. 1.1.3 ὁ δὲ Διοκλῆς (fr. 72 Van der Eijk) φλεγμονὴν τοῦ διαφράγματός φησιν εἶναι τὴν φρενῖτιν (ἀπὸ τόπου καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ ἐνεργείας τὸ πάθος καλῶν), συνδιατιθεμένης καὶ τῆς καρδίας (ἔοικε γὰρ καὶ οὗτος τὴν φρόνησιν περὶ ταύτην ἀπολείπειν). §13 Later anonymi: cf. Erasistratus fr. 112B Garofalo at Gal. PHP 4.1.25 Ἐρασίστρατος οὖν οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ὥσπερ οὗτοι (sc. Hippocrates and Plato) τὸ ζητούμενον λαμβάνων, ἀλλὰ μετὰ κατασκευῆς λόγων οὐκ ὀλίγης, ἐκ μὲν κεφαλῆς φησι τὸ ψυχικόν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς καρδίας τὸ ζωτικὸν ὁρμᾶσθαι πνεῦμα. §14 Pythagoras: Philolaus 44B13 DK at Iambl. Theol.Ar. 25.17–26.3 = Nicom. Ar. 25.17–26.3 καὶ τέσσαρες ἀρχαὶ τοῦ ζώιου τοῦ λογικοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ Φιλόλαος ἐν τῷ Περὶ φύσεως λέγει· ‘ἐγκέφαλος, καρδία, ὀμφαλός, αἰδοῖον· κεφαλὰ μὲν νόου, καρδία δὲ ψυχᾶς καὶ αἰσθήσιος, ὀμφαλὸς δὲ ῥιζώσιος καὶ ἀναφύσιος τοῦ πρώτου, αἰδοῖον δὲ σπέρματος {καὶ} καταβολᾶς τε καὶ γεννήσιος. ἐγκέφαλος δὲ ⟨ἔχει⟩ τὰν ἀνθρώπω ἀρχάν, καρδία δὲ τὰν ζώου, ὀμφαλὸς δὲ τὰν φυτοῦ, αἰδοῖον δὲ τὰν ξυναπάντων· πάντα γὰρ ἀπὸ σπέρματος καὶ θάλλοντι καὶ βλαστάνοντι.’ Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) ap. D.L. 8.30 εἶναι δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ καρδίας μέχρις ἐγκεφάλου· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μέρος αὐτῆς ὑπάρχειν θυμόν, φρένας δὲ καὶ νοῦν τὰ ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 15, p. 22.10–12 ἑκάστη τῶν ψυχικῶν δυνάμεων ἡγεμονικὸν ἔσται τοῦ οἰκείου ἔργου καὶ οὕτως πανταχῇ τοῦ σώματος ἐροῦμεν τὰ ἡγεμονικά. Iudic. c. 16, p. 22.13–19 καλῶς ἂν οὖν ἔχοι συγκεράσασί πως ἀμφότερα τὰ σημαινόμενα τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, δύο ποιεῖν αὐτὰ λαβοῦσιν ἀπὸ τῶν κυριωτάτων· τὸ μὲν ὡς τοῦ ζῆν αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ὡς τοῦ εὖ ζῆν αἰτιώτατον· καὶ τὸ μὲν ὡς κατὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, τὸ δὲ ὡς κατὰ τὸ βέλτιον· κυριώτατον δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς μὲν τὸ ζῆν μόνον τὸ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν· πρὸς δὲ τό τε ζῆν καὶ τὸ εὖ ζῆν, τὸ περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον.

Liber 4 Caput 6 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 899B; pp. 392a3–10 Diels—PJ: ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2.23– 25 Marcovich—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā p. 195 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.49.7b–c, p. 325.11–16 Wachsmuth Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 2, p. 28.12–14, p. 29.13–15 Morani

Titulus ϛʹ. Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς (P,S) §1 Πλάτων ἀεικίνητον μὲν τὴν ψυχήν, τὸν δὲ νοῦν ἀκίνητον τῆς μεταβατικῆς κινήσεως. (P1,S2) §2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἀκίνητον τὴν ψυχὴν πάσης κινήσεως προηγουμένην, τῆς δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μετέχειν, καθάπερ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰ πέρατα καὶ καθάπαξ τὰ περὶ τοῖς σώμασιν εἴδη. (P2,S1) §1 Plato cf. Phdr. 245b–c; §2 Aristoteles cf. de An. 1.3 405b32–406a2, 406a17–20; 1.4 408b30– 31 caput non hab. G titulus Περὶ … ψυχῆς P : Περὶ κινήσεως καῖ ἀφθαρσίας (tit. cc. 4.6–7) ψυχῆς S §1 [2–3] Πλάτων … κινήσεως P : Πλάτων ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀεικίνητον S ‖ [2] τῆς PB(I,II)Q : πάσης PB(III) §2 [4] προηγουμένην PB(I,III)JQS prob. Diels Mau : προηγουμένης PB(II) ‖ [5–6] τὰ σχήματα … καθάπαξ S : om. PBQ (per haplographiam) ‖ [6] τὰ … σώμασιν S : περὶ τὰ σώματα dub. Diels conl. 4.8.9[30] : ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασιν Meineke : τὰ εἴδη τῶν σωμάτων PB : wie die Körper an den Formen teilhaben Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2 (~ §1) καὶ ὁ μὲν ⟨Πλάτων⟩ ἀεικίνητον αὐτὴν εἶναι λέγει. (~ §2) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἀκίνητον αὐτὴν εἶναί φησιν, ἁπάσης κινήσεως προηγουμένην Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 2, p. 28.12–14 (~ ch. 4.2.6) (de Aristotele) ἔπειτά φησιν ἐντελέχειαν οὖσαν τὴν ψυχὴν, (~ §2) ἀκίνητον εἶναι καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν, κινεῖσθαι δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός. NH c. 2, p. 29.13–15 τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ κατὰ φύσιν ἀεικίνητος οὖσα, κινουμένη κατὰ φύσιν ἠρεμεῖν οὐ δύναται· ἡ γὰρ ἠρεμία φθορὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστι καὶ παντὸς ἀεικινήτου (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 1.13.6–7 Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἐφεξῆς τὸ πρῶτον αἴτιον ἀκίνητον ἀπεφήναντο. Στωικοὶ τὸ πρῶτον αἴτιον ὡρίσαντο κινητόν. §1 A 4.2.1 Θαλῆς τὴν ψυχήν φύσιν ἀεικίνητον ἢ αὐτοκίνητον. A 4.2.2 Αλκμαίων φύσιν αὐτοκίνητον. A 4.2.5 Πλάτων οὐσίαν νοητήν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς κινητήν. §2 A 1.7.23 ᾽Αριστοτέλης … ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ λόγος ἀκίνητος αἴτιος τῆς κινήσεως κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν. A 4.20.1 πᾶσα δ᾽ ἐπιφάνεια ἀσώματος. συγκινεῖται μὲν γὰρ τοῖς σώμασιν.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_105

5

1496

liber 4 caput 6

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses are P (represented by PB, PQ but not by PE; on PJ see below (2)), and S. P has two lemmata, P1 and P2. Ad sententiam the main point is the same in S. Parallel to P2, S at 1.49.7b has a single lemma with name-label Aristotle. Parallel to P1, S coalesces one name-label (Plato) and the two different attributes of the soul (ἄφθαρτον and ἀεικίνητον) from A 4.7.1 and A 4.6.1, in that order, at 1.49.7c. Lactantius Op.D. 17.1 (see section E(a)§1) and G c. 24 DG p. 613.15–16 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Πλάτων ἀεικίνητον καὶ οὐδέποτε διαφθαρησομένην interestingly provide a parallel for S’s coalescence. (2) The diaeresis of ps.Justin is very close to P (the verbal parallels are exact), so it is very likely that in this case, differing from chs. 4.2–4, he drew on the Epitome. On the question of his relation to P and A see also General Introduction section 4.1.(3), and our remarks in ch. 4.2 Commentary A(5). (3) T has not excerpted this chapter. (4) The numbering and division at S Ecl. 1.49.7a (= A 4.4.5), 7b, and 7c based on the chapters of A in the DG introduced (as always) by Wachsmuth in S proves quite confusing here, for to our surprise he has failed to notice that S has coalesced the two chapters 4.6 and 4.7. This intervention is compounded by partly mistaken references, as Wachsmuth refers 1.49.7b to A 4.3.2 instead of 4.6.2, and 1.49.7c to A 4.3.1 instead of 4.6.1 (but his references to the pages of DG are correct). We note that S’s coalescence results in his reversing the order of the doxai. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. In G this material probably arrived from a parallel tradition. G c. 24 DG 613.16 notes that Plato’s soul is ἀεικίνητον (as at Phdr. 245c), but this has to do more with its indestructibility (as in A 4.7) than with a contrast to something that does not move. Several lines up, p. 613.10–11, he tells us that ‘according to some it is the principle of the motion of all the things that are and are becoming’, οἱ δὲ κινήσεως ἀρχὴν πάντων τῶν γινομένων καὶ τῶν ὄντων. This is best interpreted as another reminiscence of the famous passage in Phaedrus. The parallel chapter in Iamblichus has also preserved the contrasting views of Stoics and physicists and others who attribute corporeal movements to the soul, see Festugière (1953) 11. (2) Sources. Both lemmata go back in part to passages in Plato and Aristotle, namely the famous passage in the Phaedrus on the ever-moving self-moved

liber 4 caput 6

1497

immortal soul as principle of motion (246b–c), and esp. the third chapter of Book 1 of the De anima, which begins by criticizing Plato’s view of self-motion, continues this criticism further down, and for the soul admits only motion per accidens. Thus, the diaphonia of the present chapter is anticipated in Aristotle. C Chapter Heading The heading is again a case of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), and here refers precisely to one aspect: the soul’s motion, a concept about which questions can be put in all categories, see Theophrastus fr. 153B FHS&G at ch. 1.23 above, Commentary C. It is found in PB, confirmed by PQ, and also occurs in S. It is clearly adumbrated by the embedded heading at Aristotle de An. 1.3 405b30–31, cited below section E(b) Chapter heading. But note that S coalesces the two headings of chs. 4.6 and 4.7 into a single short sub-heading of his major ch. 1.49 at 1.49.7b, p. 325.9: ‘On movement and indestructibility of soul’ (Περὶ κινήσεως καὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς). Though the phrase κίνησις ψυχῆς is not unusual, Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς cannot be paralleled as a phrase, heading, or title. For parallels for the heading of ch. 4.7 see at that chapter, Commentary C. D Analysis a Context This is the penultimate chapter of the cluster of six on the soul per se. Together with ch. 7 it forms a sort of appendix in which remaining issues are mopped up, after the rather more substantial chs. 4.2–5. The Placita didactically separate themes that may be treated together in other literature and often are in fact so treated, cf. Diels (1897) 112, cited above, Introduction to Book 1, section 2. S for the sake of efficiency again combines them—an efficiency much enhanced by the ruthless Byzantine excerptors of the pages corresponding to chs. 4.6– 7. The soul’s motion is a major theme in the critical overview of doctrines in Aristotle’s De anima, see e.g. on the predecessors 1.2 403b28–29; M–R 2.1.143– 144. The νοῦς mentioned in the second clause of §1 connects up with the theme of ch. 4.7a Περὶ νοῦ. b Number–Order of Lemmata Both P and S have two lemmata. The order in S is the converse of that in P. But S at Ecl. 1.49.7b–c has interfered with the sequence, so we should follow that of P just as Diels has done in the DG. S moreover has coalesced the Plato lemma of ch. 4.7.1 with that of 4.6.1, thus reading Πλάτων ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀεικίνητον, in the process considerably abridging the contents. This new lemma S2 serves to introduce the verbatim quotation in S of Plato, Phd. 69e–70b, which in its turn justifies the abridgement of the original lemma, of which we have a much

1498

liber 4 caput 6

fuller text in P1 (cf. Jeremiah 2018 at M–R 4.286 and 353). On the other hand the text of the second lemma has (as so often) been somewhat abridged in P. Diels has bracketed {ἄφθαρτον καὶ} at 4.6.1, though he could have divided the contents of the coalesced lemma over chs. 4.6 and 4.7 in his column for S, as we do now in the text of both reconstructed chapters. The chapter comprises the main diaphonia going back to Aristotle (cf. above, section A). Now Aristotle at de An. 1.3 406b15–25 also includes Democritus’ view of the soul’s self-motion, not represented in the present chapter, as a parallel to Plato’s view. The previous ch. 4.2 moreover attributes self-motion to the soul not only to Plato in §5, but also to Thales in §1, Alcmaeon in §2, Pythagoras in §3, and Xenocrates in §4 (no Democritus here either). Xenocrates’ view that the soul is a self-moving number is sharply criticized at de An. 1.4 408b32–409a10 (followed by further criticism of Democritus) and at de An. 1.5 409a31–b8 together with that of Democritus. We note that in ch. 4.2.6 on Aristotle, motion is not mentioned. Arguably, one of A’s little chapters, anticipated in the extensive discussion of the question in de An. 1.3–5, was required for the main diaphonia regarding the soul’s motion including Aristotle’s own view, while there was apparently no need to repeat the parallels to Plato’s view. So in this sense the chapter is complete. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter is about the categories of action and passivity. The main division, or rather diaphonia, is between perpetual mobility on the one hand and immobility on the other, and recalls the diaphonia in A at S 1.13.1d = ch. 1.11.6–7, two lemmata of the chapter ‘On causes’, where according to Thales the First Cause is immobile, whereas the Stoics held it to be moving. See M–R 3.381, where it is pointed out that this diaphonia may represent a separate chapter of an earlier version. Our dilemmatic ch. 4.6 shows that two lemmata may indeed be sufficient for a diaphonic chapter, cf. ch. 4.7a, and in Book 2 chs. 2.8, 2.10, 2.12, and 2.18. We have seen that the soul’s self-motion is already a theme in ch. 4.2. In ch. 4.2 as well as in the present chapter motion is taken in a strictly corporealist sense: there is no reference to thought or perception or emotion as motions of the soul. Here, in ch. 4.6, both opposed doxai also sport an exception of their own, which to some extent conflicts with the general position in a sort of internal sub-diaeresis. Though the Platonic soul is perpetually moving, its (indwelling) mind is said to be immobile as far as locomotion is concerned. The Aristotelian soul is said to be immobile and prior to each kind of motion, yet is (exceptionally) able to participate in (loco)motion per accidens, just as the shapes and boundaries and forms of things do. These exceptions constitute a subsidiary point in the context of the debate of the soul’s motion in general.

liber 4 caput 6

1499

d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This Plato is a Plato interpretatus. The immobility of the Platonic nous is attested in e.g. Plutarch An.Procr. 1024C. This makes the evidence of the Placita, about contemporaneous with the genuine Plutarch, quite interesting, while the Plutarchan parallel reveals the impact of Middle Platonism also in the present lemma. We must however note that Plutarch speaks of the Nous of the World Soul, A of the nous of man. Its immobility explicitly pertains to locomotion, so thinking qua motion is not excluded. Aristotle, whose Immobile Mover is a Nous, ascribes an immobile Nous to Anaxagoras at Phys. 8.5 256b24–27. For ἀεικίνητον rather than αὐτοκίνητον at Pl. Phdr. 245c see the definitive account of Haslam (1999) 265–267. §2 Aristotle. P’s abridgement does not do much harm, because ps.Justin (see testes primi) confirms the reading of S. The doxa reproduces Aristotle’s doctrine remarkably well, esp. in the longer version extant in S: the shapes, boundaries and forms echo the colour and length mentioned as moving along with things as stated in Arist. de An. 1.3, and motion per accidens is indeed Aristotle’s view of the motion permitted for soul. e Other Evidence The main opposition, between Plato and Aristotle, is echoed in various ways in the later literature; see esp. the long discussion at Macrobius in Somn. 2.12.16– 2.16. The issue of the soul’s motion is often treated together with that of its mortality or immortality, put in a different next chapter in the Placita. S coalesced the two chapters under a common heading, as is still visible from what is left of them at 1.49.7a–b. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 3.182 de mobilitate animi. ad DRN 4.722 de animi motu. Hippolytus Ref. 1.19.10 καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν οἱ μέν φασιν αὐτὸν ἀγένητον λέγειν καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ὅταν λέγῃ (Pl. Phdr. 245c)· ‘ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος· τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον’, καὶ ὅταν αὐτοκίνητον αὐτὴν ἀποδεικνύῃ καὶ ἀρχὴν κινήσεως. Iamblichus de An. fr. 16 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.36 370.14–26 W. τίς οὖν ἀνήκοός ἐστι τῆς Περιπατητικῆς δόξης, ἣ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκίνητον μὲν εἶναί φησιν, αἰτίαν δὲ κινήσεων; εἰ δὴ καὶ ἀνενέργητόν ἐστι τὸ ἀκίνητον, ἔσται καὶ χορηγὸν τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνενέργητον. εἰ δ᾽, ὡς ἔνιοι λέγουσι, τέλος καὶ συνοχὴ καὶ ἕνωσις καὶ μόνιμος αἰτία τῶν κινήσεών ἐστιν ἡ ἐνέργεια καὶ ταύτην ἐν ἑαυτῇ συνείληφεν ἡ κατ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλην ἀκίνητος ἐντελέχεια τῆς ψυχῆς, ἔσται ἀπὸ τῆς τελειοτάτης ἐνεργείας προϊοῦσα {ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς} ἡ ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἕκαστα τῶν ζῴων ἔργοις ἀπεργασία. αὕτη τοίνυν κατά γε Πλάτωνα πολλοῦ δεῖ ἡ αὐτὴ

1500

liber 4 caput 6

εἶναι τῇ συμφύτῳ τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίᾳ καὶ ζωῇ. also pp. 371.22–372.2 οὐ μὴν ἔτι γε τούτοις συγχωροῦσιν οἱ σῶμα τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπολαμβάνοντες, οἷον οἱ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.801) καὶ ἄλλοι πλείονες· οὐδ᾽ ὅσοι συγκεκρᾶσθαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὴν γένεσιν οἴονται, ὥσπερ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν φυσικῶν· οὐδὲ ὅσοι βλάστημα αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ποιοῦσιν ἐν ἁρμονίας εἴδει οὖσαν. πάντες γὰρ οὗτοι σωματοειδεῖς τὰς κινήσεις αὐτῇ ἀποδιδόασιν. §1 Plato: Cicero Tusc. 1.66–67 (Cons. fr. 10) (deus) mens soluta … ipsaque praedita motu sempiterno. (67) hoc e genere atque eadem e natura est humana mens. Lactantius Op.D. 17.1 Perrin nec … immortalem esse animam non intelligemus, quoniam quidquid viget moveturque per se semper nec videri nec tangi potest, aeternum sit necesse est. ps.Galen HPh c. 24 DG p. 613.16 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Πλάτων ἀεικίνητον. §2 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 17 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.56, p. 496.20–23 τοῦ δὲ κινητικοῦ κατὰ τόπον ὃ δὴ προσείπομεν ὁρμητικόν, τὸ πρῶτον κινοῦν, καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις ἀκίνητον εἶναι. Calcidius in Tim. c. 223 (on the Peripatetics) animam … , quae tamen recipiatur a corpore, quippe corpori perfectionem det ipsa sitque eius entelechia, res per semet ipsam immobilis, sicut sunt artes et disciplinae, ex accidenti vero aliquo mobilis propterea quod sit in animalibus quae, dum vivunt, moventur.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Top. 2.4 111b4–8 ἐὰν οὖν τι τεθῇ λεγόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ὁπωσοῦν, οἷον τὴν ψυχὴν κινεῖσθαι, σκοπεῖν εἰ κατά τι τῶν εἰδῶν τῶν τῆς κινήσεως ἐνδέχεται τὴν ψυχὴν κινεῖσθαι, οἷον αὔξεσθαι ἢ φθείρεσθαι ἢ γίγνεσθαι ἢ ὅσα ἄλλα κινήσεως εἴδη· εἰ γὰρ κατὰ μηδέν, δῆλον ὅτι οὐ κινεῖται. de An. 1.2 403b28–31 φασὶ γὰρ ἔνιοι καὶ μάλιστα καὶ πρώτως ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ κινοῦν, οἰηθέντες δὲ τὸ μὴ κινούμενον αὐτὸ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι κινεῖν ἕτερον, τῶν κινουμένων τι τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπέλαβον εἶναι. de An. 1.3 405b31–406a2 ἴσως γὰρ οὐ μόνον ψεῦδός ἐστι τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς τοιαύτην εἶναι οἵαν (406a1) φασὶν οἱ λέγοντες ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ κινοῦν ἑαυτὸ (Pl. Phdr. 245b–c) ἢ δυνάμενον κινεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων τὸ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῇ κίνησιν. 1.3 de An. 1.3 406a11–12 νῦν ἐπισκοποῦμεν περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς εἰ καθ᾽ αὑτὴν κινεῖται καὶ μετέχει κινήσεως. Tertullian de An. 6.3 dehinc si corporis est moveri extrinsecus ab aliquo, ostendimus autem supra (sc. in the De censu animae) moveri animam et ab alio, cum vaticinatur, cum furit, utique extrinsecus, cum ab alio, merito quod movebitur extrinsecus ab alio secundum exempli propositionem corpus agnoscam. enimvero si ab alio moveri corporis est, quanto magis movere aliud? anima autem movet corpus, et conatus eius extrinsecus foris parent. Macrobius in Somn. 2.12.16–end of ch. 2.16 (too long to quote). in Somn. 2.12.16 in fine autem validissimum immortalitatis animae argumentum ponit (sc. Cicero following Plato) quia ipsa corpori praestat agitatum. 2.13.9 his praemissis iam quibus syllogismis de immortalitate animae diversi sectatores Platonis ratiocinati sint oportet aperiri. 2.14.2 Aristoteles vero adeo non adquiescit, ut animam non solum ex se non moveri, sed ne moveri quidem penitus conetur adserere. 2.15.1 contra has tam subtiles et argutas et

liber 4 caput 6 veri similes argumentationes accingendum est secundum sectatores Platonis, qui inceptum quo Aristoteles tam veram tamque validam definitionem magistri sauciare temptaverat subruerunt. Chapter heading: Aristotle de An. 1.3 405b31 (beginning of chapter) ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ πρῶτον μὲν περὶ κινήσεως (sc. τῆς ψυχῆς). §1 Plato: Plato Phdr. 245c (cited Calc. in Tim. c. 57) ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος. τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον κτλ. cf. Cicero Rep. 6.27 (= Somn.Scip.) nam quod semper movetur, aeternum est etc., cited Macrobius in Somn. 2.13.1–6 quod quale sit ex ipsis verbis Ciceronis quae sequuntur invenies … omnis hic locus de Phaedro Platonis ad verbum a Cicerone translatus est, in quo validissimis argumentis animae immortalitas adseritur, et haec est argumentorum summa, esse animam mortis inmunem quoniam ex se movetur. ND 2.32 audiamus enim Platonem quasi quendam deum philosophorum; cui duo placet esse motus, unum suum alterum externum, esse autem divinius quod ipsum ex se sua sponte moveatur quam quod pulsu agitetur alieno. hunc autem motum in solis animis esse ponit, ab isque principium motus esse ductum putat. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 84 τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἐὰν ἀνέλῃς ψυχῆς, καὶ αὐτὴν πάντως συνανελεῖς. Plutarch An.Procr. 1013C κίνησιν αὐτοκίνητον ἀεὶ καὶ ‘κινήσεως πηγὴν καὶ ἀρχήν’ (sc. ὁ Πλάτων τὴν ψυχὴν προσεῖπεν Phdr. 245c). Ep.An.Procr. 1032B ὁ δὲ νοῦς αὐτὸς ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μόνιμος ἦν καὶ ἀκίνητος. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.67 (soul according to Plato) αὐτοκίνητόν τε εἶναι. Alcinous Did. c. 5, p. 157.27–36 H. ζητῶν εἰ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, ὑποθέμενος αὐτὸ τοῦτο ζητῶ εἰ ἀεικίνητος, καὶ τοῦτο ἀποδείξας ζητῶ εἰ τὸ ἀεικίνητον αὐτοκίνητον, καὶ πάλιν τοῦτο ἀποδείξας σκοπῶ εἰ τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀρχὴ κινήσεως, εἶτα εἰ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἀγένητος, ὅπερ τίθενται ὡς ὁμολογούμενον, τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου ὄντος· ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἀρξάμενος ἐναργοῦς ὄντος συνθήσω τοιαύτην ἀπόδειξιν· ἡ ἀρχὴ ἀγένητον, καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ἀρχὴ κινήσεως τὸ αὐτοκίνητον, τὸ αὐτοκίνητον δὲ ψυχή, ἄφθαρτος ἄρα καὶ ἀγένητος καὶ ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχή. c. 25, p. 178.15–23 H. τό γε μὴν αὐτοκίνητον ἀρχικῶς ἀεικίνητον, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον ἀθάνατον· αὐτοκίνητον δὲ ἡ ψυχή. τὸ δὲ αὐτοκίνητον ἀρχὴ πάσης κινήσεως καὶ γενέσεως, ἀρχὴ δὲ ἀγένητον καὶ ἀνώλεθρον, ὥστε ἥ τε τῶν ὅλων ψυχὴ τοιαύτη ἂν εἴη καὶ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη, τοῦ αὐτοῦ γε κράματος ἀμφότεραι μεταλαβοῦσαι. αὐτοκίνητον δέ φησι τὴν ψυχήν, ὅτι σύμφυτον ἔχει τὴν ζωὴν ἀεὶ ἐνεργοῦσαν καθ᾽ αὑτήν. Plotinus Enn. 5.1.[10].8 ἥπτετο μὲν οὖν καὶ Παρμενίδης (cf. 28B3 DK) πρότερον τῆς τοιαύτης δόξης (sc. Plato’s) καθόσον εἰς ταὐτὸ συνῆγεν ὂν καὶ νοῦν … σωματικὴν πᾶσαν κίνησιν ἐξαίρων ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Porphyrius Sent. 21.21–24 οὐκ ἦν (sc. ἡ ψυχή) ἐξ ἀζωίας καὶ ζωῆς συγκείμενον πρᾶγμα, ἀλλὰ ζωὴ μόνον· καὶ τοῦτο ἦν τῷ Πλάτωνι τὸ οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ λόγον τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αὐτοκίνητον. Macrobius in Somn. 2.15.6 Plato enim cum dicit animam ex se moveri, id est cum αὐτοκίνητον (cf. Phdr. 245c τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν) vocat, non vult eam inter illa numerari quae ex se quidem videntur moveri, sed a causa quae intra se latet moventur, ut moventur animalia auctore quidem alio sed occulto, nam ab anima moventur, aut ut moventur arbores, quarum etsi non videtur agitator, a natura tamen eas interius latente constat agitari; sed Plato ita animam dicit ex se moveri ut non aliam causam vel extrinsecus accidentem vel interius latentem huius motus dicat auctorem.

1501

1502

liber 4 caput 6

§2 Aristotle: Aristotle de An. 1.3 408b30–31 ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐχ οἷόν τε κινεῖσθαι τὴν ψυχήν, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων. de An. 1.3 406a16–20 εἰ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ κινεῖν ἑαυτήν, οὐ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς αὐτῇ τὸ κινεῖσθαι ὑπάρξει, ὥσπερ τῷ λευκῷ ἢ τῷ τριπήχει· κινεῖται γὰρ καὶ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός· ᾧ γὰρ ὑπάρχουσιν, ἐκεῖνο κινεῖται, τὸ σῶμα. de An. 3.8 433b15–17 ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν ἀκίνητον τὸ πρακτὸν ἀγαθόν, τὸ δὲ κινοῦν καὶ κινούμενον τὸ ὀρεκτικόν. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 22.7–15 ὡς γὰρ ἡ βαρύτης αἰτία μὲν γίνεται τῇ γῇ τῆς εἰς τὸ κάτω φορᾶς καὶ κατὰ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐστι κινητική, οὐ μὴν κινουμένη καθ᾽ αὑτήν … , οὕτως καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ τῶν ζῴων πασῶν τῶν ὡς ζῴου κινήσεων ἔχουσα τὴν αἰτίαν, ἐπεὶ κατὰ ταύτην αὐτῷ ἡ τοῦ κινεῖσθαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐξουσία, οὐκ αὐτὴ κινουμένη καθ᾽ αὑτὴν οὕτως κινεῖ τὸ σῶμα. κινουμένῳ μέντοι τῷ σώματι συγκινεῖται καὶ αὐτή, καὶ γίνεται κινουμένη κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ὅπερ καὶ πᾶν εἶδος πάσχειν ἀνάγκη συνὸν καὶ συνοδεῦον τῷ σώματι, οὗ ἐστι, τῷ εἶναι ἀχώριστον αὐτοῦ. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 106.6–7 αὐτὴ γὰρ ἀκίνητος καθ᾽ αὑτήν. Porphyry de An. adv. Boeth. 247F Smith (verbatim) at Eus. PE 15.11.1 πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἐντελέχειαν τὴν ψυχὴν εἰπόντα καὶ ἀκίνητον παντελῶς οὖσαν κινεῖν ὑπειληφότα ῥητέον, πόθεν οἱ ἐνθουσιασμοὶ τοῦ ζῴου μηδὲν μὲν ξυνιέντος ὧν ὁρᾷ τε καὶ λέγει, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς καὶ τὸ μέλλον καὶ μὴ ἐνεστὼς βλεπούσης καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸ κινουμένης, πόθεν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ζῴου συστάσεως αἱ τῆς ὡς ζῴου ψυχῆς βουλαί τε καὶ σκέψεις καὶ θελήσεις, ῥοπαὶ οὖσαι τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ οὐ τοῦ σώματος; Themistius in Phys. 40.19–21 ὅταν (sc. ὁ φυσικὸς) τὰ σχήματα θεωρῇ, ὡς πέρατα φυσικοῦ σώματος αὐτὰ θεωρεῖ, ὁ δὲ μαθηματικὸς οὐχ ὡς πέρατα, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς εἴδη τινὰ ὄντα καθ᾽ αὑτὰ ἁπάσης ἔξω κινήσεως. Macrobius in Somn. 2.14.2 Aristoteles vero adeo non adquiescit, ut animam non solum ex se non moveri, sed ne moveri quidem penitus conetur adserere.

Liber 4 Caput 7 PB: ps.Plutarchus 899C; pp. 392a11–393a13 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 194– 195 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.49.7c, p. 325.9 + 15 Wachsmuth T: Theodoretus CAG 1.63, p. 21.3–6, 5.23–24, pp. 128.19–129.4 Raeder Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 2, pp. 16.22–17.1 Morani; ps.Ath.: ps.Athenagoras de Res. 20.1, p. 45.25–29 Marcovich; Hermias Irr. 3.6–10 Hanson; ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2.19–23 Marcovich; Epiphanius Haer. 3.508.21–24 Holl

Titulus ζʹ. Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς (P,S) §1 Πυθαγόρας Ἀναξαγόρας Διογένης Πλάτων Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ξενοκράτης ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. (P1a,S1,T1) §2 Ἡράκλειτος ἐξιοῦσαν τοῦ σώματος εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀναχωρεῖν ψυχὴν πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενές. (P1b,T2) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ ἐξιοῦσαν ἐκ τῶν σωμάτων οὔπω φθείρεσθαι· τὴν μὲν ἀσθενεστέραν ἅμα τοῖς συγκρίμασι {γίνεσθαι}, ταύτην δ᾽ εἶναι τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων· τὴν δ᾽ ἰσχυροτέραν, οἵα ἐστὶ περὶ τοὺς σοφούς, καὶ μέχρι τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἐκπυρώσεως ⟨ἐπιδιαμένειν⟩. (P2,T3) §1 Pythagoras—; Anaxagoras 59A93 DK; Diogenes 64A20 DK, T5c Laks; Plato cf. Phdr. 245c; Empedocles—; Xenocrates fr. 74 Heinze, F 130 Isnardi Parente2; §2 Heraclitus 22A17 DK; §3 Stoici SVF 2.810 caput non hab. G §§1[3]–2[4] τὴν ψυχήν …. ὁ δὲ Ἡράκλειτος T (qui verisimiliter ὁ δὲ add.) : τὴν ψυχὴν*** ἐξιοῦσαν PBQ, lac. indic. Reiske prob. edd. ‖ γὰρ post ψυχὴν add. PBQ lac. occultans §1 [2] Πυθαγόρας … Ξενοκράτης T : Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων PBQ : Πλάτων S ‖ [3] ἄφθαρτον … ψυχήν PBQT : ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀεικίνητον S cf. app. crit. ad c. 4.6[2–3] §2 [4] ὁ δὲ Ἡράκλειτος T : om. PBQ ‖ ⟨Ἡ. ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν⟩ ante ἐξιοῦσαν perperam add. Diels 22A17 DK ex T, ubi invenitur in §1 (ut etiam in P) ‖ ἐξιοῦσαν PBQ : τὰς ἀπαλλαττομένας T ‖ post ἐξιοῦσαν interpol. γὰρ P ‖ τοῦ σώματος T: om. PBQ ‖ [5] πρὸς … ὁμογενές PBQ : al. T ἔφησεν, οἷα δὴ ὁμογενῆ τε οὖσαν καὶ ὁμοούσιον §3 [6] ἐξιοῦσαν … σωμάτων PB : wenn die Seele den Körper verläßt Q : τὰς χωριζομένας τῶν σωμάτων ψυχὰς T ‖ οὔπω φθείρεσθαι coni. Diels prob. ab Arnim Lachenaud : ὑποφέρεσθαι PB : crucif. Mau : om. PQ : διαρκεῖν μὲν T ‖ [7] {γίνεσθαι} seclusimus vid. comm. D(d)§3 : verba τὴν μὲν ἀσθενεστέραν ἅμα τοῖς συγκρίμασι †γίνεσθαι† PB tamquam aliena ab hoc lemmate secl. Diels DG : bleibt die schwache (Seele) mit den Dingen zusammen, die mit ihr zusammenhängen Q : τὴν μὲν ἀσθενεστέραν ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον T : ⟨ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιδιαμένειν τινὰς χρόνους καθ᾽ αὑτήν, καὶ⟩ τὴν μὲν ἀσθενεστέραν ⟨ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον⟩ coni. Diels DG in app. : ⟨καὶ⟩ τὴν μὲν ἀσθενεστέραν ἀμα⟨υρὸν⟩ {τοῖς} σύγκριμα{σι} γίνεσθαι perperam coni. Arnim prob. Algra ‖ [7–8] ταύτην … ἀπαιδεύτων PBQ : om. T ‖ [8] οἵα … σοφούς PBQ : om. T ‖ [8] καὶ PBQ : om. T ‖ [9] ⟨ἐπιδιαμένειν⟩ coniecimus : non hab. PBQ vid. comm. D(d)§3

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_106

5

1504 §4 §5

liber 4 caput 7

Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος Ἀριστοτέλης φθαρτὴν τῷ σώματι συνδιαφθειρομένην. (P3,T4) Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων τὸ μὲν λογικὸν ἄφθαρτον· καὶ γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν οὐ θεὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἔργον τοῦ ἀιδίου θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν· τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον φθαρτόν. (P4,T5)

§4 Democritus 68A109 DK; Aristoteles Resp. 17 478b22–479a7; Epicurus fr. 336 Usener; §5 Pythagoras—; Plato cf. Tim. 30b, 69c–e §4 [10] Ἀριστοτέλης T : om. PBQ, prob. DK ad 68A109 §5 [12] post λογικὸν add. T αὐτῆς ‖ [12–13] καὶ … ὑπάρχειν PBQ : om. T ‖ οὐ … ἀλλ᾽ PBQ : ἀθάνατον coni. Diels ‖ [13] τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον φθαρτόν PBQ : inv. T

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 1.63, 5.23–24 1.63 (quaestio) oἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀθάνατον ἔφασαν τὴν ψυχήν, οἱ δὲ θνητήν, οἱ δὲ μικτήν τινα ὡρίσαντο καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτῆς θνητόν, τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον ἔφασαν. 5.23.1 (~ §1) καὶ Πυθαγόρας μὲν καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Διογένης καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Ξενοκράτης ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπεφήναντο· 5.23.2 (~ §2) ὁ δὲ Ἡράκλειτος τὰς ἀπαλλαττομένας τοῦ σώματος εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀναχωρεῖν ψυχὴν ἔφησεν, οἷα δὴ ὁμογενῆ τε οὖσαν καὶ ὁμοούσιον. 5.23.3 (~ §3) οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ τὰς χωριζομένας τῶν σωμάτων ψυχὰς διαρκεῖν μὲν καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰς ζῆν ἔφασαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν ἀσθενεστέραν ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον, τὴν δὲ ἰσχυροτέραν μέχρι τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἐκπυρώσεως. 5.24.1 (~ §4) Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης φθαρτὴν εἶναι ταύτην ἀνέδην εἰρήκασι· 5.24.2 (~ §5) Πλάτων δὲ καὶ Πυθαγόρας τὸ μὲν λογικὸν αὐτῆς ἄφθαρτον εἶναι, φθαρτὸν δὲ τὸ ἄλογον. cf. 1.63 οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀθάνατον ἔφασαν τὴν ψυχήν (~ §1), οἱ δὲ θνητήν (~ §4), οἱ δὲ μικτήν τινα ὡρίσαντο καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτῆς θνητόν, τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον ἔφασαν (~ §5). Testes secundi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Hermias Irr. 3.6–10 στασιάζουσι μὲν περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς … τὴν δὲ φύσιν αὐτῆς οἱ μὲν ἀθάνατόν φασιν, οἱ δὲ θνητήν (~ quaestio), οἱ δὲ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐπιδιαμένουσαν (~ P3). οἱ δὲ ἀποθηριοῦσιν αὐτήν, οἱ δὲ εἰς ἀτόμους διαλύουσιν (~ P4), οἱ δὲ τρὶς ἐνσωματοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ τρισχιλίων ἐτῶν περιόδους αὐτῇ ὁρίζουσιν. ps.Iustinus Coh. 6.2.19–23 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ οὐ κοινὸν ὅρον τῆς ψυχῆς εἶναί φησιν, ἐν ᾧ περιείληπται καὶ τὰ φθαρτὰ μόρια, ἀλλὰ τὸ λογικὸν μόνον (~ P5). καὶ ὁ μὲν Πλάτων ‘ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος’ κέκραγε λέγων· Ἀριστοτέλης δέ, ἐντελέχειαν αὐτὴν ὀνομάζων, οὐκ ἀθάνατον, ἀλλὰ θνητὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι βούλεται (~ quaestio).

10

liber 4 caput 7

1505

ps.Athenagoras de Res. 20.1 ἤτοι γὰρ παντελής ἐστι σβέσις τῆς ζωῆς ὁ θάνατος συνδιαλυομένης τῷ σώματι τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ συνδιαφθειρομένης, ἢ μένει ⟨μὲν⟩ ἡ ψυχὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἄλυτος ἀσκέδαστος ἀδιάφθορος, φθείρεται δὲ καὶ διαλύεται τὸ σῶμα, οὐδεμίαν ἔτι σῷζον οὔτε μνήμην τῶν εἰργασμένων, οὔτ᾽ αἴσθησιν τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ παθημάτων (~ quaestio). Nemesius NH c. 2, pp. 16.22–17.1 τῶν μὲν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἀθάνατον λεγόντων, τῶν δὲ ἀσώματον μὲν, οὐ μὴν οὐσίαν οὐδὲ ἀθάνατον (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.4 Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος. §1 A 4.2.2 Αλκμαίων […] ἀθάνατον αὐτήν. A 5.25.1 Ἀριστοτέλης …. θάνατον δ᾽ εἶναι μόνου τοῦ σώματος οὐ ψυχῆς· ταύτης γὰρ οὐχ ὑπάρχει θάνατος. al. A 5.25.2 Ἀναξαγόρας … εἶναι δὲ καὶ ψυχῆς θάνατον τὸν διαχωρισμόν. A 5.25.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν θάνατον γεγενῆσθαι διαχωρισμὸν τοῦ πυρώδους ⟨καὶ ἀερώδους καὶ ὑδατώδους καὶ γεώδους⟩, ἐξ ὧν ἡ σύγκρισις τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ συνεστάθη· ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο κοινὸν εἶναι τὸν θάνατον σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς. §2 A 2.3 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος. A 2.3.1 oἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχον τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. A 4.2.14 Ἡράκλειτος τὴν μὲν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ὑγρῶν, τὴν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκτὸς καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναθυμιάσεως, ὁμογενῆ. §4 A 5.1.4 Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Δικαίαρχος … ἀθάνατον μὲν εἶναι οὐ νομίζοντες τὴν ψυχήν, θείου δέ τινος μετέχειν αὐτήν. §5 A 4.4.1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων κατὰ μὲν τὸν ἀνωτάτω λόγον διμερῆ τὴν ψυχήν, τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἔχειν λογικὸν τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses for P are PB and PQ. E and G did not excerpt this chapter. P has four lemmata, T five. Comparison with T shows that four name-labels, viz. Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Empedocles, and Xenocrates have been eliminated in the first lemma of P. Either through an unfortunate application of the technique of abridgement, or, perhaps no less likely, because of an accident in the transmission the name-label Heraclitus, attested by T, has been eliminated in what originally was the second lemma. This happened in the entire tradition of P (including PQ), so at an early stage of the transmission. (For similar cases see Diels DG 64, and above at ch. 1.21, Commentary A(4)). The net result is that the return of the souls to the Soul of the All is attributed to Pythagoras and

1506

liber 4 caput 7

Plato, acceptance of which fails to surprise in relation to the Middle Platonist or Neopythagoreanizing backdrop that is regularly to be discerned in the Placita. Because of the parallels in T we are again in a position to detect the birth or fabrication of a new, though spurious, doxa here in P. The theme of the chapter is anticipated at T 1.63, see ch. 1.3 Commentary A(5)(a). (2) That T indeed used A here is proved beyond any doubt (1) by his two distinct paragraphs (§§1–2) and his preservation of the name-label Heraclitus (§2), fallen by the wayside in P’s tradition inclusive of Q’s copy of the Greek text, while in P, as we have seen, §2 has been unfortunately fused with §1. T cannot therefore have copied P here. The four extra names in T for §1 as compared with P also show that he abstracted A not P, unless one wants to avail oneself of the hypothesis that he imported them from somewhere else. But this move fails to neutralize the point about the blend of §1 with §2. For T’s contribution see Mansfeld (2018a) at M–R 4.180–187, and esp. 4.184–186 on 4.7.1–2 and on the parallel case of extra names in T (and this time also in S) as compared with P in 2.1.1–2; also above, General Introduction section 2.5. After ch. 4.7 no further chapters from Book 4 (or Book 5) are abstracted by T. (3) S has only one lemma, parallel to P1, a very brief and partly different one, in which he coalesces a single name-label (Plato) and the two different attributes of the soul (ἄφθαρτον and ἀεικίνητον) from §7.1 and §6.1, in that reversed order. For Wachsmuth’s numbering and division into 7a, 7b, and 7c based on the chapters of A in the DG see ch. 4.6 Commentary A(2) above. Lactantius Op.D. 17.1 (see section E(b) General texts) and G c. 24 p. 613.15–16 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Πλάτων ἀεικίνητον καὶ οὐδέποτε διαφθαρησομένην interestingly provide a parallel for S’s coalescence of the two chapters. (4) The testes secundi are well-represented, but none of them (including ps.Justin) are particularly close to either P or A. (5) The parallel evidence of G in the first non-Placita part of his compendium (see section E(a) General texts), equivalent to three lemmata in the order P 4– 5–3, is useful, and he interestingly preserves the name-label Dicaearchus for §4. Though P’s chapter was not abstracted by E, his reference to Xenophanes, Pythagoras and Anaxagoras at PE 14.15.11 may be a fuzzy reminiscence of P 4.7. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The main division is also found in Cicero; further at G c. 24, DG p. 613.14–19, who opposes Epicurus and Dicaearchus (θνητὴν … ψυχήν) to Plato and the Stoics (ἀθάνατον—for the word cf. A 4.2.2), but corrects the Stoics lemma by adding—the sentence is mutilated—that the immortality of the soul lasts a whole cosmic period(?), but that this soul too will be destroyed (διαφθαρῆναι). The name-label Dicaearchus is lacking in P and T, but may have

liber 4 caput 7

1507

been present in A because it is extant in G, who depends on the wider doxographical tradition as well. A further difference is that G has θνητὴν and ἀθάνατον where P and T have ἄφθαρτον and φθαρτήν, though as we see G also has διαφθαρῆναι. In G we seem to have an echo of the above-mentioned notion that immortality is not the same as indestructibility. (2) Sources. In e.g. Plato’s Phaedo (followed by many) the indestructibility of the soul is a large issue, in Aristotle’s De anima it is not. The views of the Stoics and Epicurus and his followers are rather widely attested. C Chapter Heading Another umbrella heading (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) of the kind that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), but a precise one, focusing on a specific property. Found in P only, but note that S 49.7a ad finem combines the headings of chs. 4.6 and 4.7 into a single sub-heading of Ecl. ch. 1.49: ‘On the movement and indestructibility of soul’ (Περὶ κινήσεως καὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς). A touch insufficient, because the chapter also deals with the destructibility of soul. Compare the similarly unsatisfactory heading of ch. 2.4, ‘Whether the cosmos is indestructible’ (Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος), on which see M–R 2.2.358, and ch. 2.4, Commentary C. See also ch. 5.26, Commentary D(b). The heading, title, or expression Περὶ κινήσεως καὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς can be paralleled. It occurs at Philo Somn. 1.181 and Strabo 15.1.59 (Megasthenes FGrH 715 fr. 33 Jacoby, comparing a doctrine of the Brahmins with one of Plato, see M–R 2.1.37). As an embedded phrase (‘eorum fit mentio quae proxime vel antecedunt vel sequntur’, Bonitz 95b33) such a formula is the predecessor or equivalent of the heading, or title, see M–R 2.1.48, 159–161, 162–163, 170, 202–204. The second book of a treatise with this title is cited for Numenius at Origen CC 5.57, p. 368.23–24 Marcovich, τῷ Πυθαγορείῳ Νουμηνίῳ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς (Numenius fr. 29 Des Places); see Des Places (1973) 117. D Analysis a Context This is the last of the group of six chapters dealing with the soul per se. Together with ch. 4.6 it forms a sort of appendix in which remaining issues are mopped up, following on after the more substantial chs. 4.2–5. The Placita didactically separates themes that may be treated together in other literature, and often are, see Diels’ acerbic remark cited in the Introduction to Book 1, section 2. The next series, chs. 4.8–12, continue the psychology by dealing in detail with the senses and sensation in general. In Aristotle’s De anima, too, the discussion of sensation and the senses in Books 2.5–3.2 follows on after that of more general issues discussed in the previous Book and chapters.

1508

liber 4 caput 7

b Number–Order of Lemmata The four lemmata of P and the five of T, taking into account that P1 is a misleading, or at any rate mistaken blend of two successive lemma, occur in exactly the same order, which therefore should correspond to the order of A. Whether originally there were more lemmata in A we cannot know, as S is almost entirely lost. T’s Aëtian material on the soul ends at CAG 5.24 with three lemmata Diels printed at the bottom of DG 393 as the final section of 4.7, although they are not about this theme at all, but about the issue of whether and in what sense a soul may be attributed to plants, and whether plants may be called ‘living beings’, ζῷα. They are precisely paralleled at Clement Strom. 8.4.10.3–4; see Mansfeld (1990a) 3187–3190 and below, ch. 5.26 Commentary D(e). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The category at issue is that of time. The main division, or rather diaphonia, is between the indestructibility of soul, as in §1 and less explicitly stated §2, and its destructibility as in §4. It constitutes a very clear example of A’s method. In Aristotle’s De anima this is not a prominent issue, see M–R 2.1.144. We note the diaeresis on a gliding scale: §1 soul indestructible, §2 soul eventually destroyed by absorption into Soul, §3 some souls immediately destroyed, others eventually by absorption into Soul, §4 souls immediately destroyed, §5 compromise: a part of soul indestructible, another part destructible. Actually the final lemma, placed in the standard compromise position at the end of the chapter, renders the diaphonia harmless by accepting both contrasting qualifications, viz. by positing that one part of the soul is indestructible and another is not. d

Further Comments Individual Points §§1 & 5 The contrast between lemmata 1 and 5, viz. on the one hand the tenet of (Pythagoras and) Plato that the whole soul is indestructible and on the other the tenet that this only holds for its rational part mirrors the development of Plato’s unitary soul, as in Phaedo, to one with parts, as in Republic and Timaeus (though in §5 there is no emphasis on differing locations for the parts as developed in the latter work). §§1–2 See above at section A(2) on Theodoret’s use of A. §1 Alcmaeon’s acceptance of the view that the soul is immortal (ἀθάνατον not ἄφθαρτον) was included at ch. 4.2.2, and is not repeated here. The doctrine is attributed to both Plato’s purported master Pherecydes (in Cicero) and Thales (in Diogenes Laertius), as archegete of respectively the Italic/Pythagorean and

liber 4 caput 7

1509

the Ionian Succession, see section E(a)§1. At ch. 4.2.1 (where see for further information Commentary D(d)§1) the view that ‘the soul is ever-moving or rather self-moved’ is also attributed to Thales, and ibid. 4.2.2, name-label Alcmaeon, the soul’s self-motion proves its immortality—which explains by what sort of reasoning this view came to be attributed to Thales as well. A here has gathered quite an impressive number of supporters for it. For Plato the indestructibility of the soul has to be proved separately, see e.g. Phd. 96b, while Strato physicus (ap. Damascius in Phd. (versio 1) sect. 438, p. 231 Westerink = fr. 123h Wehrli, 80.185 Sharples) states that a stone, though immortal (ἀθάνατος), i.e. not ‘dying’, is not ‘indestructible’ (ἀνώλεθρος). Though these words can be used interchangeably, their meanings were sometimes carefully distinguished, e.g. Aristotle Cael. 2.1 284a11–13 ‘the ancients assigned heaven, the upper region, to the gods, in the belief that it alone is immortal; our present argument attests that it is indestructible and ungenerated’ (tr. Guthrie LCL modified: τὸν δ᾽ οὐρανὸν καὶ τὸν ἄνω τόπον οἱ μὲν ἀρχαῖοι τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπένειμαν ὡς ὄντα μόνον ἀθάνατον· ὁ δὲ νῦν μαρτυρεῖ λόγος ὡς ἄφθαρτος καὶ ἀγένητος). Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 108.30–109.1, however, attributes to Aristotle the view that the mind which enters from outside is ‘immortal’ (εἰκότως ἀθάνατος ὑπ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλους καλεῖται νοῦς). Sharples (2008) 151 refers to Aristotle de An. 3.5 430a23, ‘and only that is immortal and everlasting’ (καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀΐδιον). Note that Aristotle carefully adds ‘everlasting’ to ‘immortal’, and that Cicero, aware of this problem, translates Phdr. 245c τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον as nam quod semper movetur, aeternum est, not as immortale est (Resp. 6.27 = Somn.Scip.). Damascius reports Strato’s argument, but other late Platonists often just go on to speak of the soul’s ‘immortality’. Plato’s argument, variously reproduced by later Platonists in syllogistic form (listed Macrobius in Somn. 2,13.9–12), in later commentators (from Hermias to John Philoponus) ended up as a mere example of a syllogism; for some texts see below, section E(b)§1. Commentators on Macrobius (Flamant 1977, Regali 1990, Armisen-Marchetti 2003), who argue that the Platonists mentioned here by Macrobius are fictional, have overlooked the late followers. For the attribution to Aristotle of the view that the intellect enters from outside see below, ch. 7a, Commentary D(d)§1, and M–R 2.1.144. According to Anaxagoras as cited at ch. 5.25.2 the soul is mortal, like the body: this conflicts with the first lemma of the present chapter, where the presence of the name-label is in fact surprising. §2 Compare the Heraclitus lemma ch. 4.3.14 and our remarks there at Commentary D(d)§14. Our sources now go a quite significant step further, for here human souls are said to return to the Soul of the universe; cf. Dörrie-Baltes (2002) 2.190, 416–417, and for parallels section D(e) below. We have seen that

1510

liber 4 caput 7

Aristotle cautiously suggested that Thales said that ‘everything is full of gods’ because like ‘some people, he believed that the soul is intermingled with the whole universe’ (de An. 1.2 411a7–8). T goes further than P in adding ὁμοούσιον, ‘con-substantial’, to ὁμογενές (Heraclitus fr. 66 ( f 3) n. 2 Marcovich). The word ὁμοούσιος does not occur before the first cent. ce; it is not uncommon in Irenaeus and Origen, and may be thought to belong with bishop Theodoret’s theological vocabulary. But it occurs in a comparable way in Plotinus Enn. 4.7[2].10.19, διὰ συγγένειαν καὶ τὸ ὁμοούσιον (sc. τῆς ψυχῆς τοῖς θεῖοις), so could have entered the open Placita tradition before T’s time. On the term in Gnostic, Hermetic and Christian literature before T see Beatrice (2002), who on its use in Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus points out (p. 257): ‘only in the general meaning of “made of the same nature” or “of the same substance”, without any particular theological connotation’. Aristotle’s question about affinity (402b2, ὁμοειδής) is different. The context shows that he is not thinking of souls as parts of a super-Soul, but of parts, or components, of the single human soul, which (as the component elements of Empedocles’ cognitive faculty at de An. 1.2 404b12) may be characterised as individual souls themselves. §3 For the Stoic view see the parallel passages collected by Pease ad Cic. ND 1.27 and the texts collected at SVF 2.809–822. We have restored the text ad probabilem sententiam, bracketing the superfluous γίνεσθαι (which is also odd: cf. Philo Somn. 1.31 συμφθείρεται and ps.Alexander fr. 2 Vitelli φθείρεσθαι σὺν τοῖς φθειρομένοις), and we have borrowed ἐπιδιαμένειν from the parallel accounts in Diogenes of Oenoanda, Diogenes Laertius, Hippolytus, and Origen (ἐπιμένειν or διαμένειν, found in G and AD, are also possible); see texts below at section E(a)§3. The close parallel with the physical section of the Stoic doxography at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.156–157 was indicated by Von Arnim, who prints §3 as SVF 2.810 and part of the Diogenes passage as SVF 2.811, though he also divides it over SVF 1.171, 1.522, and 2.774. §4 Aristotle restricted indestructibility to a part (or function) of nous, de An. 3.5. §5 For a generous discussion of the differences between Plato and Aristotle concerning the immortality of the soul see Atticus fr. 7 Des Places at Eusebius PE 15.9. For the view sometimes (wrongly) attributed to Plato that the soul is a god cf. Tertullian de An. 24.1–2. For the idea see the poetic line attributed to Euripides or Menander, quoted by various authors (see Kannicht 2004, 2.988 ad loc.). For Diogenes of Apollonia see ad ch. 4.3 above, Commentary D(d)§14. That the World Soul is a god is Stoic doctrine; that the human soul (or a part of the human soul) is a god, or at least divine, can be concluded from the fact that

liber 4 caput 7

1511

according to the Stoics the human soul is a part of the divine Soul (SVF 2.774, quoted at §2 above). A’s rejection, in line with Plato’s account in the Timaeus, where the soul is the creation of the Demiurge, is explicit, and may have an anti-Stoic point. For the Plutarchean parallel cited at section E(b)§5 below see Ferrari (1996). The formula ‘the product of the eternal God’ sounds Christian, but here only blends, in a Middle Platonist way, the Demiurge who produces both the World Soul and human souls in the Timaeus with Aristotle’s First God: we only have the term ‘product’, not the act of creation. e Other Evidence There are several parallels for the doctrine ascribed to Heraclitus at §2. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.19 on the soul according to Heraclitus physicus as ‘a spark of stellar essence’ (scintillam stellaris essentiae) may be due to Stoic influence. Cf. Seneca Dial. 8.5.5 ‘or whether that theory is true which strives especially to prove that man is part of the divine spirit, and that some sparks, as it were, of the stars fell down to earth and remained in a strange place’ (tr. Basore LCL, slightly modified). Or due to the influence of Platonism, cf. Plato Tim. 41d–42b, Cicero Resp. 6.15 (= Somn.Scip.) ‘humans, … and to them has the mind been given from those eternal fires you call constellations and stars’ (homines …., eisque animus datus est ex illis sempiternis ignibus, quae sidera et stellas vocatis). Or of later Platonism, e.g. Numenius (fr. 31 Des Places at Porph. Antr. 21–23) and Porphyry (e.g. in Tim. 1 frs. 16, 22, 2. fr. 80 Sodano), who have the soul descend to the body through a star. Or of all of these together. On the scattered evidence for astral immortality see Burkert (1972) 360–368. See also Tardieu (1975), who mainly discusses Gnostic examples, cites the passage of Seneca, and hypothesizes that the metaphor of the ‘spark of soul’, scintilla animae, is originally Platonic. But his evidence for this hypothesis consists of Proclus’ interpretation of souls as stars in the myth of Er. Seneca’s formula ‘in a strange place’ (in alieno loco) is Platonic or Pythagorean rather than Stoic. The expression is paralleled in the Aenesidemean account of Heraclitus in Sextus Empiricus M. 7.130, where the inhaled portion of the Divine Logos is said to be ‘a stranger in our bodies’ (ἡ ἐπιξενωθεῖσα τοῖς ἡμετέροις σώμασιν ἀπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος μοῖρα). Also compare Philo Agr. 65 (on Gen 47:4, παροικεῖν, οὐ κατοικεῖν ἤλθομεν, ‘we have come to dwell as strangers, not as inhabitants’): ‘in reality each soul of a wise man has won heaven as its fatherland and been given earth as a foreign country, and it regards the house of wisdom as its own but the body as foreign, believing it dwells there as in a foreign country’ (τῷ γὰρ ὄντι πᾶσα ψυχὴ σοφοῦ πατρίδα μὲν οὐρανόν, ξένην δὲ γῆν ἔλαχε, καὶ νομίζει τὸν μὲν σοφίας οἶκον ἴδιον, τὸν δὲ σώματος ὀθνεῖον, ᾧ καὶ παρεπιδημεῖν οἴεται). And Plutarch Ex. 607C–D (commenting on the lines of Emp. 31B115

1512

liber 4 caput 7

DK he quotes): ‘we are strangers and fugitives … ; as the soul has come here from elsewhere he kindly calls its birth a “journey to foreign country” ’ (ξένους καὶ φυγάδας ἡμᾶς ὄντας … τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ἀλλαχόθεν ἡκούσης δεῦρο τὴν γένεσιν ἀποδημίαν ὑποκορίζεται τῷ πραοτάτῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων). A different evaluation is found at Tranq. 477C, where the wise man ‘despises those who bewail life as a place of evils or a place of exile for our souls’ (καταφρονεῖ τῶν ὀδυρομένων καὶ λοιδορούντων τὸν βίον, ὥς τινα κακῶν χώραν ἢ φυγαδικὸν τόπον ἐνταῦθα ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀποδεδειγμένον). See further Mansfeld (2015c) at Mansfeld (2018d) 231–233. For the conflict between Plato and Aristotle see above, ch. 4.6 Commentary D(e), where the question of immortality vs. mortality hinges on that of (self-)motion. Ptolemy allows himself a parody of the Stoic doctrine, in which the soul is immediately dispersed, while the body continues to exist (note the verbal form ἐπιδιαμένον); cited below section E(b)§3. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Luc. 124 … et quidquid est, mortale sit an aeternum, nam utramque in partem multa dicuntur. Tusc. 1.18 sunt enim qui discessum animi a corpore putent esse mortem; sunt qui nullum censeant fieri discessum, sed una animum et corpus occidere, animumque in corpore extingui. qui discedere animum censent, alii statim dissipari, alii diu permanere, alii semper. Tusc. 1.26–58. Tusc. 1.76–79. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.31 τί δέ; τελευτώντων σβέννυται καὶ συμφθείρεται τοῖς σώμασιν ἢ πλεῖστον ἐπιβιοῖ χρόνον ἢ κατὰ τὸ παντελὲς ἄφθαρτόν ἐστι; Cher. 114 ποῖ δὲ χωρήσει (sc. the soul), πόσον δὲ χρόνον ἡμῖν ὁμοδίαιτος ἔσται; Seneca Ep. 88.34 innumerabiles quaestiones sunt de animo tantum: … quamdiu sit, aliunde alio transeat et domicilia mutet in alias animalium formas aliasque coniectus, an non amplius quam semel serviat et emissus vagetur in toto; … quid sit facturus cum per nos aliquid facere desierit, quomodo libertate sua usurus cum ex hac effugerit cavea. Galen QAM c. 3, p. 13.12–16 Bazou ὅτι δ᾽ ἐκ τούτων τῶν εἰδῶν τε καὶ μερῶν τῆς ὅλης ψυχῆς τὸ λογιστικὸν ἀθάνατόν ἐστι, Πλάτων μὲν φαίνεται πεπεισμένος, ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὔθ᾽ ὡς ἔστιν οὔθ᾽ ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἔχω διατείνεσθαι πρὸς αὐτόν. Propr.Plac. 3, p. 173.16–18 BoudonMillot–Pietrobelli, text Lami ἥτις δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία τῆς ψυχῆς ἀγνοεῖν ὁμολογῶ, καὶ πολύ γε μᾶλλον, εἰ ἀθάνατος ἐστιν ἤ θνητή. Propr.Plac. 7, p. 179.14–16 BoudonMillot–Pietrobelli, text Lami καθάπερ οὖν ἰατρῷ περ⟨ιτ⟩τὸν γινῶσκειν εἴτ᾽ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ εἴτ᾽ οὐκ ἀθάνατος πρὸς τὰς ἰάσεις. Propr.Plac. 15, p. 188.26– 35 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami (= Sub.Nat.Fac. 4.762.16–763.7 K.) τήν γε μὴν ψυχὴν, εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατος οὖσα ταῖς σωματικαῖς οὐσίαις κεραννυμένη τὰ ζῶα διοικεῖ, γινώσκειν βεβαίως οὐκ ἀπαγγέλλομαι, καθάπερ οὐδὲ εἰ μηδεμία καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν ἐστιν ἡ οὐσία ψυχῆς· ἐκεῖνο μέντοι φαίνεταί μοι σαφῶς ὅτι, καθὸ εἰσοικίζηται τοῖς σώμασι, δουλεύει ταῖς φύσεσιν αὐτῶν, αἵπερ εἰσὶν, ὡς ἔφην, ἐκ τῆς τῶν τετ-

liber 4 caput 7 τάρων στοιχείων ποιᾶς κράσεως γιγνόμεναι. καὶ κατά γε τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν ἰατρικὴν τέχνην οὐδὲν ἡγοῦμαι βλαβήσεσθαι τινα διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τῆς καλουμένης ἐμψυχώσεώς τε καὶ μετεμψυχώσεως. Sextus Empiricus M. 9.72–73 (SVF 2.812) καὶ (sc. according to the Stoics) καθ᾽ αὑτὰς δὲ διαμένουσι καὶ οὐχ, ὡς ἔλεγεν ὁ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 337 Usener), ἀπολυθεῖσαι τῶν σωμάτων καπνοῦ δίκην σκίδνανται. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρότερον τὸ σῶμα διακρατητικὸν ἦν αὐτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐταὶ τῷ σώματι συμμονῆς ἦσαν αἴτιαι, πολὺ δὲ πρότερον καὶ ἑαυταῖς. P 1.151 δογματικὰς δὲ ὑπολήψεις ἀλλήλαις ἀντιτίθεμεν, ὅταν λέγωμεν … τοὺς μὲν θνητὴν τὴν ψυχὴν (sc. ἀποφαίνεσθαι), τοὺς δὲ ἀθάνατον. Hippolytus Ref. 1.2.11 οὗτος (sc. ὁ Πυθαγόρας) καὶ ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον εἶπε καὶ μετενσωμάτωσιν κτλ. Ref. 1.19.10 (on Plato’s followers) καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν οἱ μέν φασιν αὐτὸν ἀγένητον λέγειν καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ὅταν λέγῃ (Phdr. 245c)· ‘ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος· τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον’ καὶ ὅταν αὐτοκίνητον αὐτὴν ἀποδεικνύῃ καὶ ἀρχὴν κινήσεως· οἱ δὲ γενητὴν μέν, ἄφθαρτον δὲ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ βούλησιν. οἱ δὲ σύνθετον καὶ γενητὴν καὶ φθαρτήν κτλ. Ref. 6.25.4 λέγει δὲ Πυθαγόρας … εἶναι δὲ αὐτὰς (sc. τὰς ψυχὰς) θνητὰς μέν, ὅταν ὦσιν ἐν τῷ σώματι—οἱονεὶ ἐγκατορωρυγμένας {ὡς} ἐν τάφῳ—, ἀνίστασθαι δὲ καὶ γίνεσθαι ἀθανάτους, ὅταν τῶν σωμάτων ἀπολυθῶσιν. Ref. 1.20.3–4 (on Aristotle) καὶ σχεδὸν τὰ πλεῖστα τῷ Πλάτωνι σύμφωνός ἐστιν πλὴν τοῦ περὶ ψυχῆς δόγματος· (4) ὁ μὲν γὰρ Πλάτων ἀθάνατον, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐπιδιαμένειν ⟨***⟩ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ταύτην ἐναφανίζεσθαι τῷ πέμπτῳ σώματι, ὃ ὑποτίθεται εἶναι μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων τεσσάρων, τοῦ τε πυρὸς καὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος λεπτότερον, οἷον πνεῦμα. Ref. 6.26.3 (on Pythagoras) δύνασθαι οὖν φησί ποτε τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ θνητὴν γενέσθαι, ἐὰν ὑπὸ τῶν Ἐριννύων κρατῆται—τουτέστι τῶν παθῶν—, καὶ ἀθάνατον, ἐὰν τὰς Ἐριννῦς ἐκφύγῃ, ἅ ἐστι ⟨τὰ⟩ πάθη. Hermogenes Id. 1.6.8.3– 4 Patillon οἷον εἰ περὶ ψυχῆς, ὅτι ἀθάνατος. Tertullian de An. 3.2 alii immortalem negant animam, alii plus quam immortalem adfirmant. de An. 51.1–2 sed quidam ad immortalitatem animae, quam quidem non a deo edocti infirme tuentur, ita argumentationes emendicant, ut velint credi etiam post mortem quasdam animas adhaerere corporibus. (2) ad hoc enim et Plato, etsi quas vult animas ad caelum statim expedit, in Politia tamen cuiusdam insepulti cadaver opponit longo tempore sine ulla labe prae animae scilicet individuitate (sic; Resp. 614b is different) servatum. ad hoc et Democritus (68A160 DK) crementa unguium et comarum in sepulturis aliquanti temporis denotat. de An. 54.1– 2 omnes ferme philosophi, qui immortalitatem animae, qualiter volunt, tamen vindicant, ut Pythagoras (—), ut Empedocles (—), ut Plato, quique aliquod illi tempus indulgent ab excessu usque in conflagrationem universitatis, ut Stoici (SVF 2.814), suas solas, id est sapientium, animas in supernis mansionibus collocant. (2) Plato quidem non temere philosophorum animabus hoc praestat, sed eorum qui philosophiam scilicet exornaverint amore puerorum. … . itaque apud illum in aetherem sublimantur animae sapientes, apud Arium (?AD fr. 39 Diels) in aërem, apud Stoicos (SVF 2.814) sub lunam. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 1.38, p. 33.16–20 Marchesi (qui … monstravit) mortis particeps degat an inmortalitatis perpetuitate donata sit (sc. anima), qui status nos maneat, cum dissolutis abierimus a membris, visuri ne nos sumus an memoriam nullam nostri

1513

1514

liber 4 caput 7

sensus et recordationem habituri. Adv.Nat. 2.57, pp. 131.16–132.2 non alia neque absimili ratione de animarum ab his condicione disseritur. hic enim eas retur et esse perpetuas et superesse mortalium functioni, superesse ille non credit, sed cum ipsis corporibus interire: alterius vero sententia est nihil eas continuo perpeti, sed post hominem positum aliquid eis ad vitam dari, mortalitatis deinde in iura succedere. et cum omnia nequeant veri esse consortia, ita tamen fortibus et validissimis probationibus omnes agunt, ut repperire non possis quidnam tibi videatur falsum, quamvis ex omni parte diversa dici aspicias et rerum contrarietatibus dissonare. Lactantius Op.D. 17.1 nec … immortalem esse animam non intelligemus, quoniam quidquid viget moveturque per se semper nec videri nec tangi potest, aeternum sit necesse est. Inst. 7.7.12–14 inmortales esse animas Pherecydes (fr. 85a Schibli) et Plato disputaverunt: haec vero propria est in nostra religione doctrina. ergo Dicaearchus (fr. 10b Wehrli 29 Mirhady) cum Democrito (fr. 466 Luria) erravit, qui perire cum corpore ac dissolui argumentatus est (cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.38–41). (13) esse inferos Zeno Stoicus (SVF 1.147) docuit et sedes piorum ab inpiis esse discretas et illos quidem quietas ac delectabiles incolere regiones, hos vero luere poenas in tenebrosis locis atque in caeni voraginibus horrendis: idem nobis prophetae palam faciunt. ergo Epicurus (fr. 341 Usener) erravit, qui poetarum id esse figmentum putavit et illas inferorum poenas quae ferantur in hac esse vita interpretatus est (cf. Lucr. DRN 3.978–1023). (14) totam igitur veritatem et omne divinae religionis arcanum philosophi attigerunt, sed aliis refellentibus defendere id quod invenerant nequiverunt, quia singulis ratio non quadravit, nec ea quae vera senserant in summam redigere potuerunt, sicut nos superius fecimus. Iamblichus de An. fr. 36 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.43, p. 383.15–22 ἐν ταύτῳ· Περὶ θανάτου. ἐπειδὰν μετὰ τὸν τῇδε βίον ἡ τελευτὴ συμπίπτῃ, τί ποτε συμβαῖνόν ἐστι; πότερον ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ γενέσει προϋπῆρχεν ἢ συνυφίστατο ἢ ὑστέρα πως ἐπεγίγνετο τοῖς σώμασιν ἡ ψυχὴ κατὰ τὰς διαφόρους αἱρέσεις, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀποθνῄσκειν προφθείρεται τοῦ σώματος ἢ συναπόλλυται αὐτῷ ἢ καὶ διαμένει καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν μετὰ τὴν ἐνθένδε ἔξοδον; τὸ μὲν οὖν πᾶν κεφάλαιον τοιοῦτον· μέρη δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ κατὰ τὰ εἴδη διαίρεσις δέχεται πολλὰς τοιαύτας ἀμφισβητήσεις (continued below, section E(b) §3). Eusebius PE 14.15.11 πλὴν ἀλλὰ φυσικοὶ καὶ ἄλλοι Ξενοφάνης (—) καὶ Πυθαγόρας (—), συνακμάσαντες Ἀναξαγόρᾳ (—), περὶ ἀφθαρσίας θεοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας ἐφιλοσόφησαν. Nemesius NH 2, pp. 23.24–24.4 Γαληνὸς δὲ ἀποφαίνεται μὲν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διαμαρτύρεται ἐν τοῖς Ἀποδεικτικοῖς λόγοις ὡς οὐδὲν εἴη περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποφηνάμενος· ἔοικε δέ, ἐξ ὧν λέγει, δοκιμάζειν μᾶλλον τὸ κρᾶσιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν (ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐπακολουθεῖν τὴν τῶν ἠθῶν διαφοράν), ἐκ τῶν Ἱπποκράτους κατασκευάζων τὸν λόγον. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ θνητὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι οἴεται, οὐ πᾶσαν δέ, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἄλογον μόνην ψυχὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. περὶ δὲ τῆς λογικῆς ἀμφιβάλλει, λέγων οὕτως· ⟨***⟩ (sed cf. Galen QAM c. 4, p. 26.9–27.1 Bazou Ἀνδρόνικον δὲ τὸν Περιπατητικόν, ὅτι μὲν ὅλως ἐτόλμησεν ἀποφήνασθαι τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς … ἐπαινῶ τε πάνυ … , ὅτι δ᾽ ἤτοι κρᾶσιν εἶναί φησιν ἢ δύναμιν ἑπομένην τῇ κράσει, μέμφομαι τῇ προσθέσει τῆς δυνάμεως). ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 613.12–17 θνητὴν μὲν ψυχὴν ὁ Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ Δικαίαρχος (fr. 10a Wehrli, 28 Mirhady) ᾠήθησαν, ἀθάνατον δὲ Πλάτων καὶ οἱ

liber 4 caput 7 Στωικοί (—). ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Πλάτων ἀεικίνητον καὶ οὐδέποτε διαφθαρησομένην. οἱ Στωικοὶ δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τοῦ κόσμου μεταβολὴν διαμένειν ἀθάνατον, ἕως ἂν ⟨ᾖ⟩ ἡ τοῦ κόσμου μεταβολὴ συστᾶσα *** καὶ ταύτην τυχεῖν διαφθαρῆναι ᾠήθησαν. Augustine Trin. 10.7.17–24 Mountain–Glorie eique omnes eam mortalem esse senserunt quia sive corpus esset sive aliqua compositio corporis non posset utique immortaliter permanere. qui vero eius substantiam vitam quandam nequaquam corpoream … repererunt, consequenter et immortalem … probare conati sunt. Servius auctus in Aen. 4.705, p. 586.1–6 Thilo ‘in ventos vita recessit’ id est anima, ut in quarto Georgicorum (4.224) ‘quemque sibi tenues nascentem arcessere vitas’. et dicendo ‘in ventos’ aut eos sequitur, qui animam aërem dicunt, hoc est in materiam suam rediit: aut certe eos qui dicunt animam perire cum corpore, ut intellegamus ‘evanuit, in ventos recessit’, ut in nono (Aen. 9.312–313) ‘sed aurae omnia discerpunt’. Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 289.3–14 Usener (on Phars. 9.1) alii existimant animas statim elisas corpore solvi ac dissipari in principia sua, inter quos Epicurus (—). alii solidas quidem, postquam exierint de corpore, permanere, sed deinde tractu temporis dissipari: haec opinio Stoicorum (SVF 2.817). alii integras decedere, sicuti venerint in corpora, et semper manere. haec auctoritas in duas opiniones scinditur. alii enim dicunt liberatas a vinculo corporis in caelum reverti, inter quos sunt Peripatetici et cum Platone suo Academici. alii ire per corpora multorum animalium, quadringentesimo sexsagesimo et altero anno rursus in corpora reverti humana: huius opinionis conditor Pythagoras. p. 290.18–22 Usener (ad Phars. 9.6; cf. below) mixtum dogma cum Platonico Stoicorum (—). qui virorum fortium animas existimant in modum siderum vagari in aëre et esse sic inmortales, ut non moriantur sed resolvantur, secundum Platonem ne resolvantur quidem. §1 + §3 Pythagoras Anaxagoras Diogenes Plato Empedocles Xenocrates Stoics: Tertullian de An. 3.2 hi exitum aliorsum abducunt. de An. 54.1 omnes ferme philosophi, qui immortalitatem animae […] vindicant, ut Pythagoras (—), ut Empedocles (—), ut Plato, quique aliquod illi tempus indulgent ab excessu usque in conflagrationem universitatis, ut Stoici (—), suas solas, id est sapientium, animas in supernis mansionibus collocant. §1 Pythagoras Anaxagoras Diogenes Plato Empedocles Xenocrates: Cicero Tusc. 1.38–39 Pherecydes Syrius (7A5 DK) primus dixit animos esse hominum sempiternos …. hanc opinionem discipulus eius Pythagoras (—) maxime confirmavit. … (39) Platonem ferunt, ut Pythagoreos cognosceret, in Italiam venisse et didicisse Pythagorea omnia primumque de animorum aeternitate non solum sensisse idem quod Pythagoram, sed rationem etiam attulisse. Tusc. 5.38 humanus autem animus decerptus ex mente divina cum alio nullo nisi cum ipso deo, si hoc fas est dictu, comparari potest. Div. 1.110 altera divinatio est naturalis, ut ante dixi; quae physica disputandi subtilitate referenda est ad naturam deorum, a qua, ut doctissimis sapientissimisque placuit, haustos animos et libatos habemus; cumque omnia completa et referta sint aeterno sensu et mente divina, necesse est cognatione divinorum animorum animos humanos commoveri. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.24 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν

1515

1516

liber 4 caput 7

πρῶτον εἰπεῖν φασιν ἀθανάτους τὰς ψυχάς· ὧν ἐστι Χοιρίλος ὁ ποιητής (fr. 12 Bernabé). Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 289.7–8 Usener (cf. above, General texts) alii integras (sc. animas) decedere, sicuti venerint in corpora, et semper manere. §2 Heraclitus: Cicero ND 1.27 Pythagoras, qui censuit animum esse per naturam rerum omnem intentum et commeantem, ex quo nostri animi carperentur. Macrobius in Somn. 1.14.20 Heraclitus physicus (22A15 DK) scintillam stellari essentiae. Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 288.9–11 Usener (cf. above, General texts) alii enim dicunt (sc. animas) liberatas a vinculo corporis in caelum reverti, inter quos sunt Peripatetici et cum Platone suo Academici. §3 Stoics: Cicero Tusc. 1.77 Stoici … diu mansuros aiunt animos, semper negant. Arius Didymus fr. 39.6–7 Diels, DG p. 471.18–24 at Eus. PE 15.20.6–7 τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν γενητήν τε καὶ φθαρτὴν λέγουσιν (SVF 2.809). οὐκ εὐθὺς δὲ τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλαγεῖσαν φθείρεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιμένειν τινὰς χρόνους καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν· τὴν μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων μέχρι τῆς εἰς πῦρ ἀναλύσεως τῶν πάντων, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων πρὸς ποσούς τινας χρόνους. (7) τὸ δὲ διαμένειν τὰς ψυχὰς οὕτως λέγουσιν, ὅτι διαμένομεν ἡμεῖς ψυχαὶ γενομένοι τοῦ σώματος χωρισθέντες καὶ εἰς ἐλάττω μεταβαλόντες οὐσίαν τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, τὰς δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων καὶ ἀλόγων ζῴων ψυχὰς συναπόλλυσθαι τοῖς σώμασι. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 39.iii.13–iv.12 Smith οἱ Στ[ω]ικοὶ δὲ | ([κ]αὶ γὰρ ἐντ[αῦ]θα και|νότερα λ[έ]γειν ἄλ|λων θέλ[ο]υσιν) ἁπλῶ[ς] | μὲν ἀφθ[ά]ρτους οὔ | φασι τὰς [ψυ]χάς, ἤδη | δὲ τὰς μὲ[ν τῶν ἀφυ|]ῶν εὐθέως μετὰ τὴ[ν] | διάκρισιν τοῦ σώμα|τος φθείρεσθαι λέ|γουσιν, τὰς δὲ τῶν σπ[ου]|δαίων ἐπιδιαμένειν | ἀνδρῶν, καὶ αὐτὰς | δὲ φθείρεσθαί ποτε. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.156 (physical section) (SVF 2.774) τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αἰσθητικὴν ⟨φύσιν add. ab Arnim non prob. Dorandi⟩. ταύτην δὲ εἶναι τὸ συμφυὲς ἡμῖν πνεῦμα· διὸ καὶ σῶμα εἶναι καὶ μετὰ τὸν θάνατον ἐπιμένειν· φθαρτὴν δὲ ὑπάρχειν. τὴν δὲ τῶν ὅλων ἄφθαρτον, ἧς μέρη εἶναι τὰς ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις. V.P. 7.157 Κλεάνθης (SVF 1.522) μὲν οὖν πάσας ἐπιδιαμένειν μέχρι ⟨τῆς⟩ ἐκπυρώσεως, Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.811) δὲ τὰς τῶν σοφῶν μόνων. Hippolytus Ref. 1.21.3 τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν λέγουσι (SVF 2.807) μὲν ἀθάνατον, εἶναι δὲ σῶμα καὶ γενέσθαι ἐκ τῆς περιψύξεως τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ περιέχοντος· διὸ καὶ καλεῖσθαι ψυχήν. Iamblichus de An. fr. 36 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.43, p. 383.24–384.2 ἆρά γε πνιγμῷ τῶν ἀρτηρίων ἀποκλειομένων τοῦ δέχεσθαι τὸ ἐκτὸς πνεῦμα, ἢ ἐκλυομένου τοῦ τόνου καὶ παριεμένου, ἢ τοῦ θερμοῦ ἐναποσβεννυμένου πως εἰς τὰ εἴσω τὰ ζῶντα πρότερον εἰσαῦθις ἀποθνῄσκει; ἀλλ᾽ εἰ οὕτως γίγνεται ὁ θάνατος, προαναιρεῖται ἢ συναναιρεῖται ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι, καθάπερ Κουρνουτος οἴεται. Theodoret CAG 5.26 (= AD fr. 39.6 at Eus. PE 15.20.6–7, wrongly attributed to Numenius, see text cited above) τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν γενητήν τε καὶ φθαρτὴν λέγουσιν. οὐκ εὐθὺς δὲ τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλαγεῖσαν φθείρεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιμένειν τινὰς χρόνους καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν· τὴν μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων μέχρι τῆς εἰς πῦρ ἀναλύσεως τῶν πάντων, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων πρὸς ποσούς τινας χρόνους. τὸ δὲ διαμένειν τὰς ψυχὰς οὕτως λέγουσιν, ὅτι διαμένομεν ἡμεῖς ψυχαὶ γενομένοι τοῦ σώματος χωρισθέντες καὶ εἰς ἐλάττω μεταβαλόντες οὐσίαν τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, τὰς δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων καὶ ἀλόγων ζῴων ψυχὰς συναπόλλυσθαι τοῖς σώμασι. Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 289.5–7 Usener (SVF 2.817) alii solidas quidem, postquam exierint de cor-

liber 4 caput 7 pore, permanere, sed deinde tractu temporis dissipari: haec opinio Stoicorum (cf. above, General texts). p. 290.18–21 Usener dogma … Stoicorum (SVF 2.817). qui virorum fortium animas existimant in modum siderum vagari in aëre et esse sic inmortales, ut non moriantur sed resolvantur (cf. above, General texts). Epiphanius Haer. 3 p. 508.21–24 (SVF 1.146) ἔλεγε (sc. Zenon Citiensis) δὲ καὶ μετὰ χωρισμὸν τοῦ σώματος *** καὶ ἐκάλει τὴν ψυχὴν πολυχρόνιον πνεῦμα, οὐ μὴν δὲ ἄφθαρτον δι᾽ ὅλου ἔλεγεν αὐτὴν εἶναι· ἐκδαπανᾶται γὰρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πολλοῦ χρόνου εἰς τὸ ἀφανές, ὥς φησι. §4 Epicurus Democritus Aristotle: Cicero Tusc. 1.18 una animum et corpus occidere. Iamblichus de An. fr. 36 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. 1.49.43, p. 384.12– 18 εἰ δὲ παρέσπαρται μὲν καὶ ἔνεστιν ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι καθαπερεὶ ἐν ἀσκῷ πνεῦμα, περιεχομένη ἢ συμμιγνυμένη πρὸς αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγκινουμένη ὥσπερ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ξύσματα διὰ τῶν θυρίδων φαινόμενα (cf. Arist. de An. 1.2 404a34 ~ Leucippus 67A28 DK) δῆλόν που τοῦτο ὅτι ἔξεισιν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐκβαίνειν διαφορεῖται καὶ διασκεδάννυται, ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος (—) καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 337 Usener) ἀποφαίνονται. Hippolytus Ref. 1.22.5 (Epicurus fr. 340 Usener) τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων λύεσθαι ἅμα τοῖς σώμασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ συγγεννᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς τίθεται· αἷμα [sic] γὰρ αὐτὰς εἶναι, οὗ ἐξελθόντος ἢ τραπέντος ἀπόλλυσθαι ὅλον τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Ref. 1.20.6 (on Aristotle) τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν τὴν μὲν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου ἀθάνατον εἶναι, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν κόσμον ἀίδιον, τὴν δὲ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς προείπομεν, ἀφανιζεσθαι. Lactantius Inst. 7.13.7–8 Heck–Wlosok falsa est ergo Democriti (—) et Epicuri (fr. 336 Usener) et Dicaearchi (fr. 10b Wehrli, 29 Mirhady) de animae dissolutione sententia. … (8) quia non pervidebant animae rationem, quae tam subtilis est, ut oculos humanae mentis effugiat, interire dixerunt. ps.Galen HPh c. 24, DG p. 613.14–15 θνητὴν μὲν ψυχὴν ὁ Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ Δικαίαρχος (fr. 10a Wehrli, 28 Mirhady). Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 3.417 animam nativam et mortalem esse. at DRN 3.445 animam et corpus simul nasci et simul interire. at DRN 5.59 animam nativam esse. Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 288.3–5 Usener (cf. above, General texts) alii existimant animas statim elisas corpore solvi ac dissipari in principia sua, inter quos Epicurus (—). §5 Plato Pythagoras: Tertullian de An. 24.1 quia hoc et deum credidit. Lactantius Op.D. 17.4 Perrin unde apparet animam nescio quid esse deo similis. Proclus in Tim. 3.234.8–18 Diehl τί τὸ ἀθάνατόν ἐστι τοῦτο καὶ τί τὸ θνητόν, ἐζήτηται παρὰ τοῖς τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐξηγηταῖς. καὶ οἱ μὲν τὴν λογικὴν ψυχὴν μόνην ἀθάνατον ἀπολείποντες φθείρουσι τήν τε ἄλογον ζωὴν σύμπασαν καὶ τὸ πνευματικὸν ὄχημα τῆς ψυχῆς, κατὰ τὴν εἰς γένεσιν ῥοπὴν τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ὑπόστασιν διδόντες αὐτοῖς μόνον τε τὸν νοῦν ἀθάνατον διατηροῦντες ὡς μόνον καὶ μένοντα καὶ ὁμοιούμενον τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ μὴ φθειρόμενον, ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιότεροι καὶ ἕπεσθαι τῇ λέξει κρίναντες, δι᾽ ἧς ὁ Πλάτων φθείρει τὴν ἄλογον, θνητὴν αὐτὴν καλῶν, τοὺς Ἀττικοὺς (fr. 15 Des Places) λέγω καὶ Ἀλβίνους (fr. 15 Gioè) καὶ τοιούτους τινάς. Suda s.v. Ψ 164, p. 4.853.3–4 Adler ὅτι Πλάτων τὴν τῶν ἀλόγων ψυχὴν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ διαλόγοις θνητὴν ὡμολόγηκεν.

1517

1518 b

liber 4 caput 7

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Apol. 40c δυοῖν γὰρ θάτερόν ἐστιν τὸ τεθνάναι· ἢ γὰρ οἷον μηδὲν εἶναι μηδὲ αἴσθησιν μηδεμίαν μηδενὸς ἔχειν τὸν τεθνεῶτα, ἢ κατὰ τὰ λεγόμενα μεταβολή τις τυγχάνει οὖσα καὶ μετοίκησις τῇ ψυχῇ τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἐνθένδε εἰς ἄλλον τόπον. Aristotle SE 17 176b16–17 πότερον γὰρ φθαρτὴ ἢ ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχὴ τῶν ζῴων, οὐ διώρισται τοῖς πολλοῖς. Top. 2.3 110a38–b3 οὐ γὰρ ἀπόχρη πρὸς τὸ δεῖξαι ὅτι παντὶ ὑπάρχει τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς διαλεχθῆναι, οἷον εἰ ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ ἀθάνατος, ὅτι ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος. ps.Plato Ax. 370d πολλοὺς καὶ καλοὺς εἶναι λόγους περὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας τῆς ψυχῆς. Lucretius DRN 1.112–116 ignoratur enim quae sit natura animai, / nata sit an contra nascentibus insinuetur / et simul intereat nobiscum morte dirempta / an tenebras Orci visat vastasque lacunas, / an pecudes alias divinitus insinuet se. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant.Rom. 8.62.1 εἰ μὲν οὖν ἅμα τοῖς σώμασι διαλυομένοις καὶ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὁτιδήποτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνο, συνδιαλύεται, καὶ οὐδαμῇ οὐθὲν ἔτι ἐστίν, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως μακαρίους ὑπολάβω τοὺς μηθὲν μὲν ἀπολαύσαντας τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀγαθόν, δι᾽ αὐτὴν δὲ ταύτην ἀπολομένους. εἰ δ᾽ ἄφθαρτοι μέχρι τοῦ παντὸς αἱ ψυχαὶ τυγχάνουσιν ἡμῶν οὖσαι καθάπερ οἴονταί τινες, ἢ χρόνον τινὰ μετὰ τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν σωμάτων ἔτι διαμένουσι, μήκιστον μὲν αἱ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἐλάχιστον δ᾽ αἱ τῶν κακῶν, ἀποχρῶσα τιμὴ φαίνοιτ᾽ ἄν, οἷς ἀρετὴν ἀσκοῦσιν ἠναντιώθη τὰ ἐκ τῆς τύχης, ἡ παρὰ τῶν ζώντων εὐλογία καὶ μνήμη μέχρι πλείστου παραμείνασα χρόνου. Anon. Photii cod. 249, p. 240.5–7 Thesleff ὅτι καὶ Πλάτων, φησι, καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἀθάνατον ὁμοίως λέγουσι τὴν ψυχήν, κἄν τινες εἰς τὸν Ἀριστοτέλους νοῦν οὐκ ἐμβαίνοντες θνητὴν αὐτὴν νομίζουσιν αὐτὸν λέγειν. Diogenes of Oenoanda frs. 38–39 Smith see below. Galen QAM c. 3, p. 16.3–11 εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ λογιζόμενον εἶδος τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστι θνητόν, ἔσται καὶ αὐτὸ κρᾶσίς τις ἐγκεφάλου …· εἰ δ᾽ ἀθάνατον ἔσται, ὡς ὁ Πλάτων βούλεται, διὰ τί χωρίζεται ⟨αὒτη add. Bazou⟩ ψυχθέντος σφοδρῶς ἢ ὑπερθερμανθέντος ἢ ὑπερξηρανθέντος ἢ ὑπερυγρανθέντος τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου, καλῶς ἂν ἐπεποιήκει γράψας αὐτός, ὥσπερ καὶ τἆλλα τὰ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἔγραψε. in Epid. vi p. 272.19–25 Wenkebach–Pfaff μέγιστον δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα κινεῖται δόγμα διαπεφωνημένον καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς φιλοσόφοις. ἔνιοι μὲν ἡγοῦνται μίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι ψυχῆς τε καὶ φύσεως, … τινὲς δὲ οὐ μίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκατέρᾳ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναί φασι καὶ οὐ σμικρῷ γ᾽ ⟨εἴδει⟩ τινὶ διαφερούσας, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλῳ τῷ γένει, ὅπου γε καὶ τὴν μὲν τῆς φύσεως φθαρτὴν εἶναι ἡγοῦνται, τὴν δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ἄφθαρτον. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 76.26–28 ἑαυτοῖς ἐναντίως δοξάζουσιν, ἐν μὲν τοῖς σοφοῖς … περὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας τῆς ψυχῆς, περὶ τῶν τοιούτων. ps.Alexander Quaest. fr. 2 Vitelli at FS Gomperz Vienna 1902 p. 93.16–17 λέγει (sc. Plato) δὲ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀσώματόν τινα οὐσίαν καὶ ἄφθαρτον εἶναι, ὧν θάτερον περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ ὑπὸ Ἀριστοτέλους δείκνυται. oἱ δὲ (sc. the Stoics) … λέγουσι δὲ καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν σῶμα εἶναι, λέγουσι δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ φθαρτὴν, καὶ τὰς μέν τινας τῶν ψυχῶν φθείρεσθαι σὺν τoῖς φθειρομένοις ἔχουσιν αὐτάς, τὰς δὲ σῴζεσθαι ἕως τῆς παραλογωτάτης ἐκπυρώσεως. Probl. 2 pr. 19–23 ὥσπερ γὰρ ψυχὴ ὁμολογηθεῖσα μὲν τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀθάνατος διὰ τὸ ἀσώματον καὶ αὐτοκίνητον, ἑτέροις δὲ διαπεφώνητο τοὔμπαλιν ὁ λόγος. φασὶ γὰρ φθαρτὴν αὐτήν, τῷ πάθει βαπτιζομένην τῆς ὕλης. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.151 (tenth mode) δογματικὰς δὲ ὑπολήψεις ἀλλήλαις ἀντιτίθεμεν, ὅταν λέγωμεν … τοὺς μὲν θνητὴν τὴν ψυχὴν (sc. ἀποφαίνεσθα),

liber 4 caput 7 τοὺς δὲ ἀθάνατον. Plotinus Enn. 4.7.[2].1.1–4 (opening lines) εἰ δέ ἐστιν ἀθάνατος ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἢ φθείρεται πᾶς, ἢ τὰ μὲν αὐτοῦ ἄπεισιν εἰς σκέδασιν καὶ φθοράν, τὰ δὲ μένει εἰς ἀεί, ἅπερ ἐστὶν αὐτός, ὧδ᾽ ἄν τις μάθοι κατὰ φύσιν ἐπισκοπούμενος (κτλ.). Origen CC 3.22, p. 167.16–20 Marcovich ὥσπερ οἴονταί τινες περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχῆς ὡς παραχρῆμα διαφθειρομένης, διεφθάρη καὶ τούτων ἡ ψυχή· ἢ κατὰ τὴν δόξαν τῶν λεγόντων ἐπιδιαμένειν ἢ ἀθάνατον αὐτὴν εἶναι ἐπιδιαμένουσιν οὗτοι ἢ ἀθάνατοί εἰσι, καὶ θεοὶ μὲν οὐκ εἰσὶν ἥρωες δέ· ἢ οὐδὲ ἥρωες ἀλλ᾽ ἁπαξαπλῶς ψυχαί; CC 1.13, p. 16.21–26 Marcovich ὡς εἰ λέγοιμεν καὶ τὸν Πλατωνικόν, πιστεύοντα τῇ ἀθανασίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῖς περὶ αὐτῆς λεγομένοις περὶ μετενσωματώσεως, μωρίαν ἀνειληφέναι ὡς πρὸς τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς (SVF 2.819) διασύροντας τὴν τούτων συγκατάθεσιν, καὶ ὡς πρὸς Περιπατητικοὺς θρυλοῦντας τὰ Πλάτωνος τερετίσματα (cf. Aristotle APr. 1.22 83a33, Atticus fr. 13.1 at Eus. PE 15.13.1, Themistius in APr. 34.34–35.3), καὶ ὡς πρὸς Ἐπικουρείους (fr. 369 Usener) δεισιδαιμονίαν ἐγκαλοῦντας τοῖς εἰσάγουσι πρόνοιαν καὶ θεὸν ἐφιστᾶσι τοῖς ὅλοις. Eusebius PE 14.10.3 (Porphyry 246F Smith) ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν οἷς ἀντέγραψε Βοήθῳ Περὶ ψυχῆς ὁ αὐτὸς ὧδε γράφων ὁμολογεῖ πρὸς λέξιν· ‘… ὡς τὰ μὲν τῶν ἐννοιῶν καὶ τὰ τῆς ἱστορίας ἀναμφιλέκτως συνίστησι τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι ἀθάνατον· οἱ δὲ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν παρὰ τῶν φιλοσόφων κομισθέντες λόγοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι εὐανάτρεπτοι διὰ τὴν ἐν πᾶσιν εὑρησιλογίαν τῶν ἐριστικῶν. τίς γὰρ λόγος τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ οὐκ ἀμφισβητήσιμος τοῖς ἑτεροδόξοις, ὅπου καὶ περὶ τῶν δοκούντων ἐναργῶν ἐπέχειν αὐτῶν τισιν ἐδόκει;’ Lactantius Inst. 7.13.5–6 Heck–Wlosok polites quidam consuluit Apollinem Milesium utrumne maneat anima post mortem an dissolvatur, et respondit his versibus (Greek text of poem follows) = Theosophorum graecorum fr. 37 Erbse ὅτι πυθομένου τινὸς τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα, πότερον μένει ἡ ψυχὴ μετὰ θάνατον ἢ διαλύεται, ἀπεκρίθη οὕτως· ‘ψυχή, μέχρι μὲν [μὲν μέχρις Lact.] οὗ δεσμοῖς πρὸς σῶμα κρατεῖται / φθαρτόν, ἐοῦσ᾽ ἀπαθὴς ταῖς τοῦδ᾽ [φθαρτὰ νοοῦσα πάθη θηνηταῖς Lact.] ἀλγηδόσιν εἴκει· / ἡνίκα δ᾽ αὖτε λύσιν βρότεον [ἀνάλυσιν βροτέην Lact.] μετὰ σῶμα μαρανθέν / ὠκίστην εὕρητ᾽ [εὕρηται Lact.], εἰς αἰθέρα πᾶσα φορεῖται / αἰὲν ἀγήραος οὖσα, μένει δ᾽ ἐς πάμπαν ἀτειρής. / τοῦτο δὲ πρωτογόνος θεία [πρωτογόνος γὰρ τοῦτο θεία Lact.] διέταξε πρόνοια’. Cyranides 1.7.76–77 Kaimakes ἐρώτησις πρὸς τὸν τεχνίτην. ‘λέγε μοι πρότερον· ἡ ψυχὴ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἢ θνητή’; κτλ. Olympiodorus in Phd. 10.2.1, p. 139 Westerink τρεῖς γὰρ αὗται δόξαι ψευδεῖς περὶ ψυχῆς γεγόνασι, see below §§2–3, §4. Damascius (olim Olympiodorus) in Phd. 177.1– 7, pp. 107–109 Westerink ὅτι οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς ἄχρι τῆς ἐμψύχου ἕξεως ἀπαθανατίζουσιν, ὡς Νουμήνιος (fr. 46a Des Places)· οἱ δὲ μέχρι τῆς φύσεως, ὡς Πλωτῖνος ἔνι ὅπου (Enn. 4.7.[2]14)· οἱ δὲ μέχρι τῆς ἀλογίας, ὡς τῶν μὲν παλαιῶν Ξενοκράτης (fr. 75 Heinze, F 131 Isnardi Parente2) καὶ Σπεύσιππος (fr. 55 Lang, 99 Isnardi Parente, 55 Tarán), τῶν δὲ νεωτέρων Ἰάμβλιχος (de An. fr. 36 Finamore– Dillon?) καὶ Πλούταρχος· οἱ δὲ μέχρι μόνης τῆς λογικῆς, ὡς Πρόκλος (e.g. in Remp. 1.215.5–6) καὶ Πορφύριος (450F Smith)· οἱ δὲ μέχρι μόνου τοῦ νοῦ, φθείρουσι γὰρ τὴν δόξαν, ὡς πολλοὶ τῶν Περιπατητικῶν· οἱ δὲ (sc. the Stoics, —) μέχρι τῆς ὅλης ψυχῆς, φθείρουσι γὰρ τὰς μερικὰς εἰς τὴν ὅλην. Simplicius in Ench. p. 1.47–2.11 Dübner = p. 194.35–44 Hadot καὶ τοῦτο δ᾽ ἄν τις τῶν λόγων τούτων θαυμάσειεν, ὅτι τοὺς πειθομένους καὶ ἐργαζομένους τὰ λεγόμενα μακαρίους ἀποτελοῦσι καὶ εὐδαί-

1519

1520

liber 4 caput 7

μονας, οὐδὲν δεηθέντας τὰς μετὰ θάνατον τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀμοιβὰς ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, κἂν πάντως ἀκολουθῶσι καὶ αὗται. τὸ γὰρ ὡς ὀργάνοις χρώμενον τῷ σώματι καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις πάθεσι πάντη πάντως χωριστὴν ἔχει τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ ἐπιδιαμένουσαν μετὰ τὴν ἐκείνων φθοράν, καὶ δηλονότι καὶ τὴν τελειότητα σύστοιχον τῇ οὐσίᾳ. ἀλλὰ κἂν θνητήν τις ὑποθῆται τὴν ψυχήν, συναπολλυμένην τῷ σώματι, ὁ κατὰ ταύτας ζῶν τὰς ὑποθήκας, τὴν ἑαυτοῦ τελειότητα ἀπολαμβάνων, τὸ οἰκεῖον καρπούμενος ἀγαθὸν, εὐδαίμων ὄντως ἐστὶ καὶ μακάριος. in Ench. p. 110.25–32 Dübner = p. 394.58–62 Hadot ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο ἄξιον ἐπισκέψεως, εἰ περὶ τῶν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ὅλως οὐ μαντευτέον· πῶς χρὴ ὑπολαβεῖν περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς; πότερον θνητή ἐστιν, ἢ ἀθάνατος; καὶ εἰ χρὴ τῷδέ τινι διδασκάλῳ χρήσασθαι; πολλοὶ γὰρ τῶν παλαιῶν φαίνονται περὶ τῆς φύσεως τῶν ὄντων ἐρωτήσαντες, καίτοι τὸ ὑπολαμβάνειν τοίως ἢ τοίως ἡμέτερόν φαμεν καὶ τῶν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν εἶναι. Zeno of Verona Tractatus 1.2.4 philosophi de anima varia disserunt, sed tamen hanc esse inmortalem ⟨et⟩ Epicuri (—), Dicaearchi (fr. 29 app. Mirhady) Democritique (—) vanitatem argumentatione manifesta convincunt. Chapter heading: Strabo 15.1.59 (Megasthenes FGrH715 F33) Πλάτων περί τε ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.181 ἴσως δὲ καὶ τὸ περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς ὑπαινίττεται δόγμα. Origen CC 5.57, p. 368.23–24 Marcovich τῷ Πυθαγορείῳ Νουμηνίῳ (fr. 29 Des Places) ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς. cf. Plotinus Enn. 4.7[2] title also cited by Porphyry Plot. 25 Περὶ ἀθανασίας ψυχῆς, but at Plot. 4 he writes Περὶ ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας. Salustius ιϛʹ. Ὅτι ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχή. §1 & §3 Pythagoras Anaxagoras Diogenes Plato Empedocles Xenocrates Stoics: Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 38 i.3–7 Smith καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν μὲν γὰ[ρ ἡ] | ψυχὴ οὔτ᾽ εἶναι δύνα[ταί] | ποτε, εἰ καὶ πολλὰ π[ερὶ] | [τού]του φλυαρεῖ Πλ[άτων] | [καὶ οἱ] Στωικοί. §1 Pythagoras Anaxagoras Diogenes Plato Empedocles Xenocrates: Herodotus 2.123 πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ τόνδε τὸν λόγον Αἰγύπτιοί εἰσι οἱ εἰπόντες, ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ ἀθάνατός ἐστι, τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος …· τῶν ἐγὼ εἰδὼς τὰ οὐνόματα οὐ γράφω. Plato Phd. 73a τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον, εἰ μὴ ἦν που ἡμῖν ἡ ψυχὴ πρὶν ἐν τῷδε τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ εἴδει γενέσθαι· ὥστε καὶ ταύτῃ ἀθάνατον ἡ ψυχή τι ἔοικεν εἶναι. Phd. 88b ὅτι ἔστι ψυχὴ παντάπασιν ἀθάνατόν τε καὶ ἀνώλεθρον. Phd. 106c–e οὐκοῦν καὶ νῦν περὶ τοῦ ἀθανάτου, εἰ μὲν ἡμῖν ὁμολογεῖται καὶ ἀνώλεθρον εἶναι, ψυχὴ ἂν εἴη πρὸς τῷ ἀθά(d)νατος εἶναι καὶ ἀνώλεθρος. Phdr. 245c–246a ψυχὴ πᾶσα ἀθάνατος. τὸ γὰρ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον. … (d) … ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀγένητόν ἐστιν, καὶ ἀδιάφθορον αὐτὸ ἀνάγκη εἶναι. … (e) … μὴ ἄλλο τι εἶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ κινοῦν ἢ ψυχήν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀγένητόν τε καὶ ἀθάνατον ψυχὴ ἂν εἴη. (tr. Cicero Resp. 6.27 (= Somn.Scip.) nam quod semper movetur, aeternum est. … id autem nec nasci potest nec mori. … cum pateat igitur aeternum id esse quod se ipsum moveat, quis est qui hanc naturam animis esse tributam neget?) Leg. 10.896a– b φημί γε· εἰ δ᾽ ἔστι τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχον, ἆρα ἔτι ποθοῦμεν μὴ ἱκανῶς δεδεῖχθαι ψυχὴν ταὐτὸν ὂν καὶ τὴν χσπρώτην γένεσιν καὶ κίνησιν τῶν τε ὄντων καὶ γεγονότων καὶ ἐσομένων καὶ πάντων αὖ τῶν ἐναντίων τούτοις, ἐπειδή γε ἀνεφάνη μεταβολῆς τε καὶ κινήσεως ἁπάσης αἰτία ἅπασιν;—οὔκ, ἀλλὰ ἱκανώτατα δέδεικται ψυχὴ τῶν πάντων πρεσβυτάτη, γενομένη γε ἀρχὴ κινήσεως. Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex.

liber 4 caput 7 Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.28 ἀθάνατόν τ᾽ εἶναι αὐτήν, ἐπειδήπερ καὶ τὸ ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἀπέσπασται ἀθάνατόν ἐστι. 8.30 (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) καὶ τὸ μὲν φρόνιμον ἀθάνατον, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ θνητά. ps.Plutarch Cons. 120D–E ὁ δὲ θεῖος Πλάτων πολλὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς περὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς εἴρηκεν, οὐκ ὀλίγα δ᾽ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ καὶ τῷ Μένωνι καὶ τῷ Γοργίᾳ καὶ σποράδην ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις διαλόγοις. Flavius Josephus B.J. 2.154 (on the Essenes) ἔρρωται παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 39 iii.6–8 Smith [π]ῶς οὖν, | ὦ Πλά[τω]ν, [γε]νήσεταί | [σ]οι ἀ[φθαρσί]α; Alcinous Did. c. 5, p. 157.27–36 H. ζητῶν εἰ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, ὑποθέμενος αὐτὸ τοῦτο ζητῶ εἰ ἀεικίνητος, καὶ τοῦτο ἀποδείξας ζητῶ εἰ τὸ ἀεικίνητον αὐτοκίνητον, καὶ πάλιν τοῦτο ἀποδείξας σκοπῶ εἰ τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀρχὴ κινήσεως, εἶτα εἰ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἀγένητος, ὅπερ τίθενται ὡς ὁμολογούμενον, τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου ὄντος· ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἀρξάμενος ἐναργοῦς ὄντος συνθήσω τοιαύτην ἀπόδειξιν· ἡ ἀρχὴ ἀγένητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ἀρχὴ κινήσεως τὸ αὐτοκίνητον, τὸ αὐτοκίνητον δὲ ψυχή, ἄφθαρτος ἄρα καὶ ἀγένητος καὶ ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχή. Atticus fr. 7.1 Des Places at Eus. PE 15.9.1 (verbatim) ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς τί καὶ λέγοιμεν ἄν; δῆλα γὰρ ταῦτα οὐ μόνον τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη σχεδὸν καὶ τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἅπασιν, ὅτι Πλάτων μὲν ἀθάνατον τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπολείπει καὶ πολλοὺς ὑπὲρ τούτου λόγους πεποίηται, ποικίλως καὶ παντοίως ἀποδεικνὺς ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχή (cf. Theodoret CAG 5.47). Apuleius Plat. lib. 3(?) sive Anon. Compendiosa expositio 8.10 Stover ab his de immortalitate animae loquitur. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.67 (on Plato) ἀθάνατον ἔλεγε τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ πολλὰ μεταμφιεννυμένην σώματα. Porphyry VP 19 (Pythagoras 14.8a DK) μάλιστα μέντοι γνώριμα παρὰ πᾶσιν ἐγένετο πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀθάνατον εἶναι φησὶ τὴν ψυχήν. Macrobius in Somn. 2.13.9–14.1 his praemissis iam quibus syllogismis de immortalitate animae diversi sectatores Platonis ratiocinati sint oportet aperiri. sunt enim qui per gradus syllogismorum ad unum finem probationis evadunt, certam sibi propositionem sequentis ex antecedentis conclusione facientes. (10) apud quos hic prior est: ‘anima ex se movetur, quicquid autem ex se movetur semper movetur, igitur anima semper movetur’. secundus ita, qui nascitur ex prioris fine: ‘anima semper movetur, quod autem semper movetur immortale est, igitur anima immortalis est’. et ita in duobus syllogismis duae res probantur, id est et semper moveri animam, ut in priore, et esse immortalem ut colligitur de secundo. alii vero usque ad tertium gradum ita argumentando procedunt: ‘anima ex se movetur, quod autem ex se movetur principium motus est, igitur anima principium motus est’. rursus ex hac conclusione nascitur propositio: ‘anima principium motus est, quod autem principium motus est natum non est, igitur anima nata non est’. tertio loco: ‘anima nata non est, quod autem natum non est, immortale est; igitur anima immortalis est’. (11) alii vero omnem ratiocinationem suam in unius syllogismi compendium redegerunt: … ‘anima ex se movetur; quod ex se movetur principium motus est; quod principium motus est natum non est; quod natum non est immortale est; igitur anima immortalis est’. (14.1) sed harum omnium ratiocinationum apud eum potest postrema conclusio de animae immortalitate constare, qui primam pro-

1521

1522

liber 4 caput 7

positionem, id est ex se moveri animam, non refellit; hac enim in fide non recepta, debilia fiunt omnia quae sequuntur. Hermias in Phdr. p. 104.4–11 Lucarini– Moreschini πρότερον δὲ αὐτὰς ψιλὰς ἐκθώμεθα τῶν συλλογισμῶν τὰς προτάσεις ἐν τάξει, ἐπειδὴ σποράδην αὐτὰς ὁ Πλάτων ἐξέθετο. ὁ μὲν οὖν πρότερος τοιοῦτός ἐστιν· ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοκίνητος· τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀεικίνητον· τὸ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον· ἡ ψυχὴ ἄρα ἀθάνατος. οὗτος οὖν ἡμῖν δείξει ὁ λόγος ὅτι ἐξ ἑαυτῆς οὐ φθείρεται. ⟨ὁ δὲ δεύτερος τοιοῦτος·⟩ ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοκίνητος· τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀρχὴ κινήσεως· ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως ἀγένητος· τὸ ἀγένητον ἄφθαρτον· τὸ ἄφθαρτον ἀθάνατον· ἡ ψυχὴ ἄρα ἀθάνατος. Ammonius Hermeiou in Isag. 35.19–22 ὥσπερ ὁ Πλάτων τὸν περὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας τῆς ψυχῆς λόγον ἀποδεῖξαι βουλόμενος τῷ λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς ἐχρήσατο, λέγων ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοκίνητος, τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀεικίνητον, τὸ ἀεικίνητον ἀθάνατον, ἡ ψυχὴ ἄρα ἀθάνατος. Simplicius in Cat. 14.31–33 ὁ γὰρ δεικνὺς ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ ἀθάνατος διὰ μέσου τοῦ αὐτοκινήτου λέγει οὕτως· ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοκίνητος, τὸ αὐτοκίνητον ἀθάνατον· καὶ οὕτως ἐπάγει τὸ συμπέρασμα, ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ ἀθάνατος. John Philoponus in APr. 11.32–35. Olympiodorus Prol. 17.35–36. in Phaed. 3.3.9–10 οὕτω γὰρ ἐν μὲν τῷ Φαίδρῳ (245c–246a) ἔδειξε τὴν ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον ὁρισάμενος τὸν κατηγορούμενον ὅρον μέσον ὄντα τὸ αὐτοκίνητον. David Prol. 47.12– 15. §§2–3 Heraclitus Stoics: Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.14.105.1 (cited Eus. PE 13.13.32) παραπλήσια τούτῳ (Heraclitus T 642 Mouraviev) καὶ οἱ ἐλλογιμώτατοι τῶν Στωϊκῶν (SVF 2.590) δογματίζουσι περί τε … καὶ τῆς τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν ἐπιδιαμονῆς. Calcidius in Tim. c. 251 Heraclitus (T 778 Mouraviev) vero consentientibus Stoicis (SVF 2.1198) rationem nostram cum divina ratione conectit regente ac moderante mundana. Olympiodorus in Phd. 10.2.11–14, p. 139 Westerink (not in SVF) τρίτη (sc. ψευδὴς περὶ ψυχῆς) δόξα ἡ λέγουσα τὴν μὲν ἀπαίδευτον ψυχὴν ἐξιοῦσαν τοῦ σώματος εὐθὺς φθείρεσθαι, τὴν δὲ πεπαιδευμένην στομωθεῖσαν ταῖς ἀρεταῖς ἐπιμένειν τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου, ἧς δόξης ἦν καὶ ὁ Ἡράκλειτος (T 1001 Mouraviev). §2 Seneca Nat. 7.25.2 alius vim divinam et dei partem (sc. dicet animum esse). Manilius 4.884–893 … nostrumque parentem / pars sua perspicimus genitique accedimus astris. / an dubium est habitare deum sub pectore nostro / in caelumque redire animas caeloque venire, / utque sit ex omni constructus corpore mundus / aëris atque ignis summi terraeque marisque / hospitium menti totum quae infusa gubernet, / sic esse in nobis terrenae corpora sortis / sanguineasque animas animo, qui cuncta gubernat / dispensatque hominem? Seneca Dial. 8.5.5 an illud verum sit quo maxime probatur homines divini esse spiritus, partem ac veluti scintillas quasdam astrorum in terram desiluisse atque alieno loco haesisse. Arius Didymus fr. 39.5 Diels, DG p. 471.13–16 at Eus. PE 15.20.5 (SVF 2.821) ἔνιοι δὲ τὴν μὲν τοῦ ὅλου (sc. ψυχὴν) ἀΐδιον, τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς συμμίγνυσθαι ἐπὶ τελευτῇ εἰς ἐκείνην. Hippolytus Ref. 6.25.4 λέγει δὲ Πυθαγόρας … καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ζῴων ἀπὸ τῶν ἄστρων φέ(ρ)εσθαι. ps.Galen An.Ut. 19.172.1 K. ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ ἀπόῤῥοια μὲν τῆς πάσης ψυχῆς ⟨οὖσα⟩. Apuleius Plat. 1.9 illam fontem animarum omnium, caelestam animam. Macrobius in Somn. 1.6.20 mundi anima quae animarum omnium fons est.

liber 4 caput 7 §3 Stoics: Seneca Dial. 26.6–7 et cum tempus advenerit, quo se mundus renovaturus extinguat, viribus ista se suis caedent et sidera sideribus incurrent et omni flagrante materia uno igni quicquid nunc ex disposito lucet ardebit. (7) nos quoque felices animae et aeterna sortitae, cum deo visum erit iterum ista moliri, labentibus cunctis et ipsae parva ruinae ingentis accessio in antiqua elementa vertemur. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 7, pp. 11.24–12.9 ὅτι δὲ καὶ τάς τε αἰσθητικὰς καὶ τὰς ἄλλας πάσας κινήσεις τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ οὐ τῷ σώματι ποιούμεθα, κατανοήσαιμεν ἂν εἰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν ἐπιβάλοιμεν αὐτῶν τῇ διαλύσει, καθ᾽ ἣν ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς λεπτομερείας καθάπερ ὕδωρ ἢ πνεῦμα τοῦ συνέχοντος ἀνεθὲν εὐθὺς εἰς τὰ οἰκεῖα στοιχεῖα πέφυκε χωρεῖν, ὡς εὐλόγως ἂν μηκέτι τὰς ἀνθρωπικὰς ποιήσασθαι κινήσεις, τὸ δὲ σῶμα διὰ τὸ τῆς ὕλης παχυμερὲς ἐπιδιαμένον συχνὸν χρόνον ἐν ταῖς αὐταῖς καταστάσεσιν, ὅμως οὐδεμίαν φαίνεται ποιούμενον οὔτε αἴσθησιν οὔτε ὅλως κίνησίν τινα τῶν προτέρων. Atticus fr. 7 Des Places at Eus. PE 15.9.6 (verbatim) τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἄλλων οἱ μὲν ἐπιδιαμένειν συνεχώρησαν. Marcus Aurelius 4.21. Calcidius in Tim. c. 220 (SVF 2.879). SVF 2.809–822. Themistius in de An. 17.3–5 ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως Ζήνωνι (SVF 1.145) μὲν ὑπολείπεταί τις ἀπολογία κεκρᾶσθαι ὅλην δι᾽ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος φάσκοντι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτῆς ἄνευ φθορᾶς τοῦ συγκρίματος μὴ ποιοῦντι. §§4–5 Epicurus Democritus Aristotle Plato Pythagoras: Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 90.13–15 ὁ νοῦς ἄρα ὁ τοῦτο νοήσας ἄφθαρτός ἐστιν, οὐχ ὁ ὑποκείμενός τε καὶ ὑλικός· ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ σὺν τῇ ψυχῇ, ἧς ἐστι δύναμις, φθειρομένῃ φθείρεται. §4 Epicurus Democritus Aristotle: Plato Phd. 80d ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ ἄρα … ἀπαλλαττομένη τοῦ σώματος εὐθὺς διαπεφύσηται καὶ ἀπόλωλεν, ὥς φασιν οἱ πολλοὶ ἄνθρωποι; Aristotle de An. 2.2 413b24–27 περὶ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τῆς θεωρητικῆς δυνάμεως οὐδέν πω φανερόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔοικε ψυχῆς γένος ἕτερον εἶναι, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἐνδέχεσθαι χωρίζεσθαι, καθάπερ τὸ ἀΐδιον τοῦ φθαρτοῦ. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.65 λυομένου τοῦ ὅλου ἀθροίσματος ἡ ψυχὴ διασπείρεται. Lucretius DRN 3.437–444 crede animam quoque diffundi multoque perire / ocius et citius dissolvi in corpora prima, / cum semel ex hominis membris ablata recessit; / quippe etenim corpus, quod vas quasi constitit eius, / cum cohibere nequit conquassatum ex aliqua re / ac rarefactum detracto sanguine venis, / aëre qui credas posse hanc cohiberier ullo, / corpore qui nostro rarus magis incohibens sit? Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 καὶ τὸ μὲν φρόνιμον ἀθάνατον, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ θνητά. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 21.22–24 οὖσα δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ εἶδος τοῦ σώματος, ὁποῖον προείρηται, τῷ ἀχώριστον εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος καὶ συμφθείροιτο ἂν τῷ σώματι, ὅση γε αὐτῆς φθαρτοῦ σώματος εἶδός ἐστιν. Olympiodorus in Phd. 10.2.2–6, p. 139 Westerink μία μὲν (sc. ψευδὴς δόξα περὶ ψυχῆς) ἡ λέγουσα ἅμα φθείρεσθαι τῷ σώματι τὴν ψυχήν, ὡς ἡ λέγουσα τὴν ψυχὴν ἁρμονίαν, ἧς δόξης ἦν ὁ Σιμμίας (Phd. 85e3–86d4) καί τινες τῶν Πυθαγορείων. δευτέρα δὲ ἡ λέγουσα τὴν ψυχὴν οἷον σῶμα οὖσαν λεπτομερὲς καὶ καπνῷ ἐοικυῖαν μετὰ τὴν ἔξοδον τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος σκεδάννυσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι, ἧς δόξης ἦν καὶ ὁ ποιητής κτλ. John Philoponus in de An. 10.1–3 οἱ δὲ πᾶσαν ἀχώριστον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θνητήν, ὧν ἐστιν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Ἀφροδισιεύς, ὃς καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην πειρᾶται εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δόξαν συγκατασπᾶν.

1523

1524

liber 4 caput 7

§5 Plato Pythagoras: Plato Tim. 30b διὰ δὴ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε νοῦν μὲν ἐν ψυχῇ, ψυχὴν δ᾽ ἐν σώματι συνιστὰς τὸ πᾶν συνετεκταίνετο, ὅπως ὅτι κάλλιστον εἴη κατὰ φύσιν ἄριστόν τε ἔργον ἀπειργασμένος. Tim. 72d τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ ψυχῆς, ὅσον θνητὸν ἔχει καὶ ὅσον θεῖον. Tim. 90a τὸ δὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ψυχῆς εἴδους διανοεῖσθαι δεῖ τῇδε, ὡς ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ δέδωκεν. Tim. 69c– e οἱ δὲ μιμούμενοι, παραλαβόντες ἀρχὴν ψυχῆς ἀθάνατον, τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο θνητὸν σῶμα αὐτῇ περιετόρνευσαν ὄχημά τε πᾶν τὸ σῶμα ἔδοσαν ἄλλο τε εἶδος ἐν αὐτῷ ψυχῆς προσῳκοδόμουν τὸ θνητόν, δεινὰ καὶ ἀναγκαῖα ἐν ἑαυτῷ (d) παθήματα ἔχον, πρῶτον μὲν ἡδονήν, … ἔτι δ᾽ αὖ θάρρος καὶ φόβον, ἄφρονε συμβούλω, θυμὸν δὲ δυσπαραμύθητον, ἐλπίδα δ᾽ εὐπαράγωγον· αἰσθήσει δὲ ἀλόγῳ καὶ ἐπιχειρητῇ παντὸς ἔρωτι συγκερασάμενοι ταῦτα, ἀναγκαίως τὸ θνητὸν γένος συνέθεσαν. καὶ διὰ ταῦτα δὴ σεβόμενοι μιαίνειν τὸ θεῖον, ὅτι μὴ πᾶσα ἦν ἀνάγκη, χωρὶς ἐκείνου κατοικίζουσιν εἰς ἄλλην τοῦ σώματος οἴκησιν τὸ θνητόν. … (e) … ἐν δὴ τοῖς στήθεσιν καὶ τῷ καλουμένῳ θώρακι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς θνητὸν γένος ἐνέδουν. (cf. Galen PHP 9.9.8 ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις ἓξ ὑπομνήμασι τῆσδε τῆς πραγματείας οὔτε περὶ τῆς οὐσίας εἰπών τι τῶν τριῶν εἰδῶν τῆς ψυχῆς οὔτε περὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας οὔθ᾽ ὅλως ζητήσας πότερα κυρίως ὀνομάζων εἴρηκεν ἐν Τιμαίῳ θνητὰ τὰ δύο μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ ταύτην αὐτοῖς ἐπήνεγκε τὴν προσηγορίαν ἀθανάτοις οὖσιν ὡς χείροσι τοῦ λογιστικοῦ καὶ ὡς κατὰ τὰ θνητὰ τῶν ζῴων ἐνεργοῦσι μόνον.) Euripides fr. 1018 Snell/Kannicht = Menander Mon. 588 Jäkel ὁ νοῦς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἐν ἑκάστῳ θεός. Xenophon Mem. 4.3.14 ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἀνθρώπου γε ψυχή, ἥ, εἴπερ τι καὶ ἄλλο τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, τοῦ θείου μετέχει, ὅτι μὲν βασιλεύει ἐν ἡμῖν, φανερόν. Cicero Resp. 6.26 (= Somn.Scip.) mens cuiusque is est quisque, non ea figura, quae digito demonstrari potest. deum te igitur scito esse, siquidem est deus, qui viget, qui sentit, qui meminit, qui providet, qui tam regit et moderatur et movet id corpus, cui praepositus est, quam hunc mundum ille princeps deus; et ut mundum ex quadam parte mortalem ipse deus aeternus, sic fragile corpus animus sempiternus movet. Varr. 1.29 quam vim animum esse dicunt mundi, eandemque esse mentem sapientiamque perfectam, quem deum appellant. Tusc. 1.65 divina mallem ad nos (sc. transferebat Homerus). quae autem divina? vigere, sapere, invenire, meminisse. ergo animus qui *** ut ego dico, divinus est, ut Euripides (fr. 1018 Snell/Kannicht) dicere audet, deus. et quidem, si deus aut anima aut ignis est, idem est animus hominis. ND 1.28 quo modo porro deus iste, si nihil esset nisi animus, aut infixus aut infusus esset in mundo? Seneca Ep. 31.11 quid aliud voces hunc (sc. animum bonum) quam deum in corpore humano hospitantem? Alcinous c. 25, pp. 177.16–178.26 H. τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον ἀποφαίνει τοῦτον ἐπιὼν τὸν τρόπον …· εἰ δὲ ἀθάνατον ἡ ψυχή, καὶ ἀνώλεθρον ἂν εἴη· ἀσώματος γάρ ἐστιν οὐσία. … καὶ μὴν ἡγεμονεύει ἡ ψυχὴ φύσει· τὸ δὲ τῇ φύσει ἡγεμονικὸν τῷ θείῳ ἔοικεν· ὥστε ψυχὴ τῷ θείῳ ἐοικυῖα ἀνώλεθρος ἂν εἴη καὶ ἄφθαρτος. … ὅτι μὲν οὖν αἱ λογικαὶ ψυχαὶ ἀθάνατοι ὑπάρχουσι κατὰ τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον, βεβαιώσαιτ᾽ ἄν τις· εἰ δὲ καὶ αἱ ἄλογοι, τοῦτο τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων ὑπάρχει. Atticus fr. 7.13 Des Places at Eus. PE 15.9.6 καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὴ πᾶσαν βούλεται (sc. Aristotle) τὴν ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον εἶναι, τόν γε νοῦν ὁμολογεῖ (with Plato) θεῖόν τε καὶ ἄφθαρτον εἶναι. Boethus at Porphyry 243F Smith at Eus. PE 11.28.7– 11 εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ παντὸς ὀλέθρου κρείττων τις φύσις, πολλοὺς

liber 4 caput 7 ἀναμείναντα χρὴ καὶ περιηγησάμενον λόγους ἀποφήνασθαι. (8) τὸ μέντοι τῶν περὶ ἡμᾶς ὁμοιότερον μηδὲν γενέσθαι θεῷ ψυχῆς, οὐ πολλῆς ἄν τις δεηθεὶς πραγματείας πιστεύσειεν, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ συνεχὲς καὶ ἄπαυστον τῆς κινήσεως, ἣν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνδίδωσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν νοῦ. (9) εἰς ὅπερ ἀπιδὼν καὶ ὁ Κροτωνιάτης φυσικὸς (see ch. 4.2.2 above) εἶπεν ἀθάνατον αὐτὴν οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν ἠρεμίαν φύσει φεύγειν, ὥσπερ τὰ θεῖα τῶν σωμάτων. … (11) εἰ γὰρ ὡς ὁμοιότατον τῷ θείῳ πάντων χρημάτων ἡ ψυχὴ δείκνυται, τίς ἔτι χρεία τῶν ἄλλων δεῖσθαι λόγων εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς κτλ. John Philoponus in de An. 12.15–22 δείξομεν οὖν ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι τε πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἀσώματος καὶ ὅτι μόνη ἡ λογικὴ χωριστὴ παντὸς σώματος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀθάνατος, καὶ ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἄλογος τοῦ μὲν παχέος τούτου χωριστή, ἀχώριστος δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ ἔτι εἰ ὅλως ἐστὶν αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ πνευματικὸν σῶμα, καὶ ὅτι ἐπιδιαμένει μετὰ τὴν ἔξοδον τὴν ἐκ τούτου τοῦ σώματος ἐπί τινα χρόνον, καὶ ὅτι ἡ φυτικὴ ἐν τῷ παχεῖ τούτῳ τῷ σώματι τὸ εἶναι ἔχει καὶ συμφθείρεται αὐτῷ. Plutarch An.Procr. 1027A μὴ πᾶν ἔργον εἶναι θεοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀλλὰ σύμφυτον ἔχουσαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ τὴν τοῦ κακοῦ μοῖραν. Plat.Quaest. 1001C ἡ δὲ ψυχή … οὐκ ἔργον ἐστὶ τοῦ θεοῦ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ μέρος. Celsus at Orig. CC 4.52, p. 269.12 Marcovich καὶ ψυχὴ μὲν θεοῦ ἔργον, σώματος δὲ ἄλλη φύσις. Seneca Ep. 66.12 ratio autem nihil aliud est quam in corpus humanum pars divini spiritus mersa. Aristotle Met. Δ.7 1072b28–29 φαμὲν δὴ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι ζῷον ἀΐδιον ἄριστον. Alcinous Did. 10 p. 164.34 H. ὁ πρῶτος θεὸς ἀίδιός ἐστιν. ps.Athanasius Disp.Ar. MPG 28.452.32–33 ὅτι ἀϊδίου Θεοῦ τυγχάνει ἔργον ὁ κόσμος.

1525

Liber 4 Caput 7a S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.48.7, p. 317.15–19 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b29 Henry (titulus solus)—cf. PSy CRN 4.83, p. 78.15 Delatte (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 5.28, p. 130.9–10 Raeder Cf. Hermias Irr. 2.2 Hanson; ps.Iustinus Coh. 7.2.20 Marcovich; Nem: Nemesius NH c. 1, p. 1.14–15 Morani

Titulus ε+ʹ. Περὶ νοῦ (S) §1 Πυθαγόρας Ἀναξαγόρας Πλάτων Ξενοκράτης Κλεάνθης θύραθεν εἰσκρίνεσθαι τὸν νοῦν. (S1,T1) §2 Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Δημόκριτος ταὐτὸν νοῦν καὶ ψυχήν, καθ᾽ οὓς οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη ζῷον ἄλογον κυρίως. (S2) §1 Pythagoras—; Anaxagoras 59A93 DK; Plato—; Xenocrates fr. 69 Heinze, F 125 Isnardi Parente2; Cleanthes SVF 1.523 (abiud. ab Arnim); §2 Parmenides 28A45 DK; Empedocles 31A96 DK, cf. 31B110.10 DK; Democritus— lemmata non hab. PBQG titulum addidimus ex tit. Stob. 1.48 ap. Phot. §1 [2] Πυθαγόρας … Κλεάνθης S : καὶ οἱ περὶ Πλάτωνα δὲ καὶ Πυθαγόραν T ‖ [2–3] θύραθεν … νοῦν S : θύραθεν τοῦτον εἰσκρίνεσθαι T ‖ ad fin. λέγουσιν add. T §2 non hab. T ‖ [4] ταὐτὸν SP : αὐτὸν SF ‖ νοῦν καὶ ψυχήν : νοῦς καὶ ψυχή S, corr. Diels

Testes primi: Theodoretus 5.28 28.1 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ περὶ Πλάτωνα δὲ καὶ Πυθαγόραν θύραθεν τοῦτον εἰσκρίνεσθαι λέγουσιν. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Symeon Seth CRN 4.83 (~ tit.) Περὶ νοῦ Testes secundi: Hermias Irr. 2.2 οἱ δὲ τὸν νοῦν (sc. ψυχὴν εἶναι) (~ §2). ps.Iustinus Coh. 7.2.20 οἱ δὲ τὸν νοῦν (sc. εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν) (~ §2). Nemesius NH c. 1, p. 1.14–15 τινὲς δὲ οὐ διεστείλαντο ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸν νοῦν (~ §2). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 4.7.4 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων τὸ μὲν λογικὸν ἄφθαρτον· καὶ γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν οὐ θεὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἔργον τοῦ ἀιδίου θεοῦ ὑπάρχειν· τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον φθαρτόν. titulus A 1.25.4 Λεύκιππος … ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_107

5

liber 4 caput 7a

1527

§1 A 4.7.1 Πυθαγόρας Ἀναξαγόρας Διογένης Πλάτων Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ξενοκράτης ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. §2 A 4.7.2 Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος Ἀριστοτέλης φθαρτὴν τῷ σώματι συνδιαφθειρομένην. A 4.4.8 ὁ δὲ Δημόκριτος πάντα μετέχειν φησὶ ψυχῆς ποιᾶς, καὶ τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων, διότι ἀεὶ διαφανῶς τινος θερμοῦ καὶ αἰσθητικοῦ μετέχει, τοῦ πλείονος διαπνεομένου.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) This material, inserted by Diels as §§11–12 at the end of ch. 4.5, is absent from P and his tradition. Both lemmata are found in S, and a shorter version of the first lemma is cited in T, which was missed by Diels but not by Raeder (cf. M– R 1.274). It is rejected by Frede (1999b) 145, who believes that this lemma does not derive from A but from a much later source, like its immediate environment in T. Frede is followed by Gourinat (2018) at M–R 4.30–32. Mansfeld (2018a) at M–R 4.183 with n. 29 argues against this view. Scholten’s footnote (2015) 369– 370 n. 45 is unclear. Diels, though expressing doubt in the apparatus, as we just saw decided to append S’s lemmata at the end of P’s ch. 4.5, the chapter on the regent part that is absent from S (and from E). Gourinat (2011) 146 n. 21 protests strongly: this combination ‘constitue sans doute le pire example des faiblesses de sa [sc. Diels’] méthode de réconstruction’. In his view Diels failed to acknowledge that S replaced P’s Hellenistic material with Neoplatonist evidence he believed to be equivalent, and which he preferred. ‘Diels fausse ainsi notre vision des pratiques de composition de Stobée, de ses orientations philosophiques et de celles de sa source’. But like Frede, Gourinat has refused the parallel for §1 in T. (2) The presence of §1 in T, paralleled in S but absent in P, is important, for it provides further incontrovertible proof that T used not P but A as a source. See Mansfeld (2016d) at M–R 4.180–187 on the T,S source, and esp. 4.183–184 with n. 29 for ch. 4.7.1 = Diels 4.5.11; further above, General Introduction, section 2.5. This consolidates the argument in favour of the derivation of the diaphonically opposed §2 (now in S alone) from A. The terse style of both these lemmata with their series of name-labels is entirely in tune with that of the Placita. The evidence of Symeon Seth is interesting because as it seems it is independent of S, but also of P. The evidence of the testes secundi is not very helpful.

1528

liber 4 caput 7a

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The issue is mentioned in the doxographical overview of Philo Somn. 1.30, ὁ ἡγεμὼν νοῦς […] ἢ ἔξωθεν εἰσκρίνεται; cf. Opif. 67, cited section E(a) General texts, on which see Runia (2001) 219–220, and Cher. 114, cited at Book 4 titulus et index above; also above, ch. 2.11, Commentary B and ch. 4.2, Commentary A. It is also found in Sextus Empiricus P. 2.26. The parallels in Tertullian are located in a separate chapter, where he argues against the notion that intellect should be radically distinguished from soul. (2) Sources. Theophrastus’Physics as cited by Diogenes Laertius attributes to Parmenides the view that soul and intellect—psyche and nous—are the same (Phys.Op. fr. 6a Diels, 227D FHS&G at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.22), which is not paralleled verbatim in the Parmenides paragraphs of the De sensibus. What we have at Sens. 4, quoted Diels DG 222 as ‘Theophrasti vestigia’ (cf. ibid. 142) in relation to our ch. 4.7a.2 (= A 4.5.12 Diels), is slightly different: τὸ γὰρ αἰσθάνεσθαι καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ὡς ταὐτὸ λέγει—a comment on Parmenides 28B16 DK. Aristotle de An. 3.3 427a19–27 attributes this view to ‘all the ancients’; cf. Met. Γ.5 1009b11–31, where among other evidence he also cites the Parmenides fragment. That psyche and nous are the same Aristotle attributes to Democritus (de An. 1.2 404a26–32) and (reluctantly) to Anaxagoras (de An. 1.2 404b1–3). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 attributes this identification to Democritus too. So Aristotle uses both formulations, while Theophrastus in the De sensibus only uses one. The phrase ‘as Theophrastus records in the Physics, citing the tenets of about all’ (καθὰ μέμνηται καὶ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς, πάντων σχεδὸν ἐκτιθέμενος τὰ δόγματα), in this passage of Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.22, has been interpreted by Diels (DG 103, 166), followed by many and now also by Zhmud (2013a) 164, as proving that Theophrastus in the Physikôn Doxai (as Usener and Diels influentially called the work, followed by Zhmud though Physikai Doxai makes better sense) systematically discussed the tenets of the natural philosophers on the entire range of subjects later treated by Aëtius. But apart from the question of how reliable Diogenes’ reference is, the phrase itself need not imply more than that Theophrastus in the passage referred to discussed the views on the identity of soul and intellect, or of sense perception and thought, of virtually all concerned. According to Themistius in de An. 108.11 (Thphr. fr. i Barbotin; frs. 137 no. 1a, 307A FHS&G), Book 2 of Theophrastus’ De anima is Book 5 of his Physics (ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν, δευτέρῳ δὲ τῶν Περὶ ψυχῆς). The simplest solution is that Theophrastus discussed these earlier views in his De anima, just as Aristotle had done in Book 1 of his De anima. This does not entail that the De sensibus is part of the De anima, for Aristotle too wrote a De sensu next to a De anima. This would make sense of Diogenes’ reference.

liber 4 caput 7a

1529

If Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.22 on Parmenides is attributed to Theophrastus, V.P. 9.44 on Democritus should be attributed to Theophrastus as well. Diels did not do this, possibly because the phrase about the identity of soul and mind is attested not for Theophrastus but for Aristotle. But the theoretical backdrop of the identity of perceiving and thinking is attested for both Peripatetics, and this could be paraphrased as the sameness of soul and mind. C Chapter Heading The heading, of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), is that of S ch. 1.48, not in the mss. but from the index of Photius, and may have been abridged in the usual way by S. According to §1 it pertains to the subsidiary question unde, according to §2 it comprises an equivalence of nous with psyche. The wording in A is not certain; it could have been e.g. Πόθεν ἐστὶν ὁ νοῦς. D Analysis a Context In S’s chapter the two lemmata are sandwiched between a fragment of ps.Archytas and an abstract from Iamblichus’ treatise On Soul (which begins with πάλιν τοίνυν περὶ τοῦ νοῦ) in Ecl. 1.48 with the heading ‘On Intellect’, on which see Festugière (1953) 11. In S this separate chapter comes before ch. 49 with heading ‘On Soul’, in which abstracts from Aëtian chapters 4.2–6 are preserved. Soul follows nous in the Neoplatonist hierarchy: S’s order of treatment is often according to his own (Neoplatonist) priorities, think of his positioning of the theology of ch. 1.7 in ch. 1 of his Book 1 before the principles of ch. 1.3 in his own ch. 1.10. A separate Aëtian chapter on the possible provenance of intellect from outside and the question of whether it is identical with soul is quite well placed after the block of chapters on the soul and before the chapters on sense perception. Diels’ decision (as he was aware himself, for he wrote in the apparatus ad DG 392b ‘dubium an hoc capitulum ad c. 5 referendum’) to append the lemmata in the right-hand column of ch. 4.5 on the location of the regent part as 4.5.11–12 is arbitrary. T’s (shorter) lemma is interpolated four paragraphs down from his account of soul at CAG 5.28 in an account of views on the relation of intellect to soul and the status of intellect. The reason will have been that in the source used by him, i.e. A, the evidence on nous was distinguished from and followed after that on the soul per se. Accordingly, we have preferred to give this chapter the number 4.7a, instead of 4.5a. Diels remarkably enough failed to print the lemma from T 5.28 at DG 392. In T it is part of a series of views on the relation of intellect to soul and the status of intellect. This follows upon contrasting views concerned with what the Stoics

1530

liber 4 caput 7a

believed about the mortality or relative immortality of the soul, CAG 5.26–27, and as we noted is located at some distance from T’s Aëtian material on the soul per se, which at CAG 5.24 ends with three lemmata Diels printed at the bottom of DG 393 as the final part of the Aëtian chapter 4.7 ‘On the indestructibility of soul’, although they are not about this theme at all, but on the issue of whether and in what sense a soul may be attributed to plants, and whether they may be called ‘living beings’ (ζῷα). See below, section D(b), above, ch. 4.7, Commentary D(c), and Mansfeld (1990a) 3187–3190. b Number–Order of Lemmata T has one lemma, S two. As already noted, Diels placed them at the end of ch. 4.5, that is, after the account of the location of the regent part. His motive, presumably, is that ‘intellect’ may indeed be equivalent with ‘regent part’. The fact, however, that (1) the main source is a chapter (with its own specific title) in S different from that in which the (other) lemmata of ch. 4.5 are preserved, that (2) the lemma in T is found at some distance from the material for ch. 4.5, and (3) that in Tertullian and Nemesius, too, the issues of the relation between soul and intellect and of intellect’s origin are discussed in chapters that are not found near their accounts of the regent part, further justifies our decision not to accept Diels’ reconstruction of ch. 4.5 ad finem, and to allocate the two lemmata to a chapter of their own instead. This entails that P eliminated an entire chapter. See also M–R 2.1.142–143, 2.2.470, and for the splitting up of Dielsian chapters M–R 2.2, chs. 2a, 5a, 17a. A reversal of the lemmata order in this (new) chapter is defensible, but we have preferred not to interfere with S’s order. Perhaps our two lemmata are the remains of an uberius caput. Even so the multiple name-labels give pretty good coverage. S may very well have left out one or two lemmata because he preferred the fragment from Iamblichus’ On the Soul (cited below at section E(b) General texts), which he copies out immediately after the two Aëtian lemmata. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter §1 is concerned with the subsidiary question type unde, πόθεν (cf. e.g. the headings of chs. 2.5 and 2.17 and see Mansfeld (1990a) 3092 n. 138, 3125–3126, 3133, 3138–3139, 3150, 3194), and posits a separate status for intellect. It seems a bit odd that Aristotle himself is not included, in contrast to other name-labels whose connection with such a status for intellect is, at best, a matter of interpretation. Perhaps the name-label has dropped out. §2 is about the question type and category of substance. The assumption is that there is no distinction between intellect and soul. In the De anima the latter position is attributed by Aristotle to Anaxagoras and Democritus, see sec-

liber 4 caput 7a

1531

tion B above and section E(b)§2 below. The two lemmata suffice to set out a complete diaphonia, just as e.g. in ch. 4.6: §1 is about a separate status for intellect, while §2 denies that intellect and soul may be distinguished from each other, so that there can be no separate status for intellect. This further supports the separate status of the little bilemmatic chapter. d

Further Comments General Points The evidence has been streamlined. The diaphonia between §1 and §2 is to some extent false or at any rate incomplete, since soul too, according to a part of the evidence not reflected in our chapter, was believed by some to enter from outside. But the somewhat strange contrast between intellect entering from outside on the one hand and the lack of difference between soul and intellect on the other is precisely paralleled in the fragment from Iamblichus’ De anima quoted below section E(a) General texts. Finamore and Dillon (2002) 118–119, commenting on the Iamblichus passage, find this difficult to explain, but should have taken the Aëtian lemmata into account, copied out by S immediately before the Iamblichus passage. The diaphonia was used by the Pyrrhonists, see Sextus Empiricus P. 2.26, and note the parallel clause οὐδέν ἐστι ζῷον ἄλογον, ἀλλὰ καὶ νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικά ἐστι πάντα κτλ. Note that Themistius (in de An. 108.12–13), after a substantial verbatim quotation of Theophrastus on the potential and actual intellect, actually says that in what follows in Book 5 of Physics, or Book 2 of De anima, ‘concerning the potential intellect as well they (namely Aristotle and Theophrastus) find almost the same difficulties, whether it is from the outside or connate’ etc. (περὶ τοῦ δυνάμει νοῦ σχεδὸν τὰ αὐτὰ διαποροῦσιν, εἴτε ἔξωθέν ἐστιν εἴτε συμφυής), as cited at greater length ad fr. i Barbotin and FHS&G fr. 307A. Individual Points §1 Because it is the purpose of the chapter to achieve a diaphonia, one should not be surprised by, or shocked (as Von Arnim apparently was) at the array of name-labels: the status of intellect as a separate component is in need of supporters. Similar views are attributed by Aristotle to the Pythagoreans (de An. 1.2 404a16–18) and ‘the Orphic poem’ (de An. 1.5 410b27–30, the soul arriving with the winds). Also cf. Varro at Lactantius Op.D. 17.5, on the ‘soul inhaled by the mouth’. Attribution to Plato may have been achieved by combining the doctrine of metensomatosis with the idea that of the three parts of the soul only the highest part is immortal. See also Alcinous Did. 25, p. 178.34 H., and cf. Tertullian de An. 3.2, hi statum eius aliunde ⟨de⟩ducunt. The attribution to Anaxagoras may

1532

liber 4 caput 7a

be connected with the special status of Nous (and nous) in his system. That to Cleanthes may be an echo of the Stoic view that the embryo becomes ensouled at its first breath (SVF 2.804–808). §2 The second clause of the doxa gives the grounds for the first. Because there is no living being (animal) that does not possess some reason—the tacit other premise being that all animals are ensouled—there is no ground for distinguishing between humans and other animals as if only humans had reason, so no grounds for distinguishing between reason and non-reason, or between intellect and soul. See also Mansfeld (1990a) 3192. The combination of the name-labels Parmenides and Empedocles and Democritus plus doxa echoes Aristotle Met. Γ.5 1009b12–31 (quoted section E(b)§2), where the present identification of soul and mind (explicitly paralleled for Democritus and Anaxagoras elsewhere in Aristotle, see again section E(b)§2) is expressed as a lack of distinction between sense perception and thought. See further Mansfeld (1996) and (2018b). See also M–R 2.1.142–143. e Further Evidence One is struck by the absence of the name-label Democritus in the first doxa, since Aristotle tells us that soul-atoms (and soul does not differ from intellect for Democritus, Aristotle says, see next lemma with section E(b)§2) ‘enter from outside’, θύραθεν ἐπεισιόντων, in the act of breathing, de An. 1.2 404a13. In this context he even attributes a θύραθεν νοῦς to him, Resp. 4 472a22. The presence of this name-label would presumably have weakened the diaphonia (Democritus’ presence is at any rate restricted to the next lemma because of the identification of soul and intellect Aristotle attributed to him). Ch. 4.3 section E(b)§14, with Commentary D(d)§14, presents some evidence of antecedents in Aristotle for the attribution of a sort of exterior soul or nous to certain Presocratics. So the Aëtian lemma 4.7a.1 seems to derive from Aristotle no less than from Theophrastus. See also above, section D(d)§1, and M– R 2.1.143. As is well known, Aristotle’s text GA 2.3 736b27–28, λείπεται δὴ τὸν νοῦν μόνον θύραθεν ἐπεισιέναι καὶ θεῖον εἶναι μόνον, probably in combination with de An. 3.5 430a17–22 (cf. Moraux 1973, 231), in both Middle Platonist and Aristotelian circles gave rise to the attribution to Aristotle himself of the view that the intellect enters from outside. It is attributed to Cratippus by Cicero, see section E(b)§1, who even ventures to amplify this attribution into one of a World Soul. For an argument contra of this external origin in relation to Aristotle see Berti (2008) 295–328; also cf. Moraux (1984) 2.406–425. The bald statement of §1 fails to tell us whether or not the intellect entering from outside exists separately or derives from a divine Intellect. Our chapter in

liber 4 caput 7a

1533

no way anticipates the history of the views concerned with this intellect from, say, Alexander of Aphrodisias onwards. For Alexander see e.g. Moraux (2001) 343–353, 373–382, 386–394, and for this subsequent development the still useful overview of Kurfess (1911). The fragment of Iamblichus De anima quoted below, section E(a) General texts, may give some impression of the later debate. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.30–31 ἆρ᾽ οὖν … ὁ ἡγεμὼν νοῦς … τί γὰρ αὐτὸν οἰόμεθα …, γεννώμενον δ᾽ εὐθὺς ἢ ἔξωθεν εἰσκρίνεται … ; Cher. 114 πόθεν δὲ ἦλθεν ἡ ψυχή; Tertullian de An. 12.1 proinde et animu⟨s⟩ sive mens est νοῦς apud Graecos. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.349 οἱ μὲν ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος (sc. εἶναι τὴν διάνοιαν), ὡς Αἰνησίδημος (fr. B24A Polito) κατὰ Ἡράκλειτον (T 689 Mouraviev). Arnobius Adv.Nat. 1.38, p. 33.15–16 Marchesi (qui … monstravit) advolaritne ad nos (sc. anima) sponte an cum ipsis sata sit et procreata visceribus. Iamblichus de An. fr. 15 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. 1.48.8, pp. 317.20– 318.15 Ἰαμβλίχου ἐκ τοῦ Περὶ ψυχῆς. πάλιν τοίνυν περὶ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ πασῶν τῶν κρειττόνων δυνάμεων τῆς ψυχῆς οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ (SVF 1.149, 2.835) λέγουσι μὴ εὐθὺς ἐμφύεσθαι τὸν λόγον, ὕστερον δὲ συναθροίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ φαντασιῶν περὶ δεκατέσσαρα ἔτη. οἱ δ᾽ ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος (Tim. 43d–44a) καὶ Πυθαγόρου παρεῖναι μὲν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀρτιγενέσι τὸν λόγον φασίν, ἐπισκοτεῖσθαί γε μὴν {ἐν} τοῖς ἔξωθεν καὶ μὴ ἐνεργεῖν τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡσυχάζειν. ἤδη τοίνυν περὶ τοῦ νοῦ πολλοὶ μὲν Περιπατητικοὶ τὸν ἐκ σπέρματος καὶ {τὸν} ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως ἄλλον νοῦν ὑποθέμενοι, ὡς αὐτίκα μάλα ἀποβλαστάνοντα ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης γενέσεως, καὶ χωριστὸν καὶ θύραθεν ἐπικαλούμενον ἕτερον παραγίγνεσθαι λέγουσιν ὀψιαίτατα, ἐπειδὰν τελειωθῇ μὲν ὁ κατὰ δύναμιν νοῦς, ἐπιτηδείως δὲ μετέχῃ τῆς κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν νοήσεως. πολλοὶ δὲ αὐτῶν τῶν Πλατωνικῶν καὶ τὸν νοῦν τῇ ψυχῇ ἅμα τῇ πρώτῃ εἰσόδῳ αὐτῆς εἰς τὸ σῶμα συνεισάγουσιν, οὐδὲ εἶναι ὅλως ἑτέραν μὲν αὐτήν, ἕτερον δὲ αὐτῆς τὸν νοῦν. §2 Parmenides Empedocles Democritus: Tertullian de An. 12.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 8 Podolak) tamen eundem (sc. mentem) alibi animam edicit (sc. Anaxagoras). de An. 12.6 (Soranus de An. fr. 9 Podolak) unum erunt utrumque (sc. mens et anima) et Democritus (fr. 68 Luria) obtinebit differentiam tollens. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.22 (on Parmenides, 28A1 DK) καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὸν νοῦν ταὐτὸν εἶναι, καθὰ μέμνηται καὶ Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 6a Diels, fr. 227D FHS&G) ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς, πάντων σχεδὸν ἐκτιθέμενος τὰ δόγματα. V.P. 9.44 (on Democritus, 68A1 DK) τὴν ψυχὴν … καὶ νοῦν ταὐτὸν εἶναι. Lactantius Op.D. 18.2 Perrin qui unum esse dicunt (sc. animam et animum) hanc rationem secuntur, quod neque vivi sine sensu possit neque sentiri sine vita … idcirco animum et animam indifferenter appellant duo Epicurei poetae (sc. Empedocles(?) and Lucretius).

1534 b

liber 4 caput 7a

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle de An. 2.2 413b24–27 περὶ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τῆς θεωρητικῆς δυνάμεως οὐδέν πω φανερόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔοικε ψυχῆς γένος ἕτερον εἶναι, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἐνδέχεσθαι χωρίζεσθαι, καθάπερ τὸ ἀΐδιον τοῦ φθαρτοῦ. ps.Philoponus in de An. 518.8–18 ἰστέον γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νοῦς τρία τινὰ σημαίνει παρὰ Ἀριστοτέλει. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ τρία ἄλλως μὲν λέγει Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Ἀφροδισιεύς (fr. 1 Moraux), ἄλλως δὲ ὁ Πλούταρχος· ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν Ἀλέξανδρος πρῶτον σημαινόμενον λέγει τοῦ νοῦ τὸν δυνάμει νοῦν, ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν παίδων· ἐν γὰρ τοῖς παισὶν ὁ δυνάμει νοῦς ἐστι. δεύτερον σημαινόμενον τοῦ δυνάμει ὁ καθ᾽ ἕξιν νοῦς, ὥσπερ ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν τελείων ἀνθρώπων· οἱ γὰρ τέλειοι ἄνθρωποι εἴδησιν λοιπὸν ἔχοντες τῶν πραγμάτων τὸν καθ᾽ ἕξιν νοῦν ἔχειν λέγονται. τρίτον σημαινόμενόν ἐστι τοῦ νοῦ ὁ ἐνεργείᾳ νοῦς, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θύραθεν, ὁ παντέλειος, ὁ μὴ ὢν καθ᾽ ἕξιν ἢ κατὰ τὸ δυνάμει, ἵνα καὶ ἁπλοῦς ᾖ ἀεὶ ἐνεργείᾳ ὤν, ὁ κυβερνῶν τὸ πᾶν. ταῦτα τὰ τρία σημαινόμενα τοῦ νοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον. Lactantius Op.D. 18.1 Perrrin sequitur alia et ipsa inextricabilis quaestio, idemne sit anima et animus an vero aliud sit illud quo vivimus, aliud autem quo sentimus et sapimus. Chapter heading: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.87 (Heraclides of Pontus fr. 22 Wehrli, 1 Schütrumpf) Περὶ νοῦ. V.P. 9.46 (Democritus 68B5e–f DK) Tetralogia IV 3 Περὶ νοῦ. 4 Περὶ αἰσθησίων (ταῦτά τινες ὁμοῦ γράφοντες Περὶ ψυχῆς ἐπιγράφουσι). ps.Archytas 47B9.5 DK at Iambl. CMSc 35.27–36.1 Περὶ νοῦ καὶ αἰσθάσιος (‘unecht’). ps.Brotinus p. 55.21 Thesleff at Iambl. CMSc 34.20 Βροτῖνος ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ καὶ διανοίας. ps.Alexander of Aphrodisias An.Mant. 106.18 tit. Περὶ νοῦ. Porphyry Plot. 4 Περὶ νοῦ καὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν καὶ τοῦ ὄντος. Plot. 5 Περὶ νοῦ καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ τὰ νοητὰ καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ. Sallustius de Deis ιεʹ. Περὶ νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς. §1 Pythagoras Anaxagoras Plato Xenocrates Cleanthes: cf. Aristotle GA 2.3 736b28–29 λείπεται δὴ τὸν νοῦν μόνον θύραθεν ἐπεισιέναι, καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι θεῖον μόνον. de An. 3.5 430a17–23 καὶ οὗτος ὁ νοῦς χωριστὸς καὶ ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἀμιγής … χωρισθεὶς δ᾽ ἐστὶ μόνον τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ ἐστί, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀΐδιον. de An. 1.2 403b31–404a15 (on Democritus and Leucippus). Resp. 4 472a20– 22 (Democritus, 68A106 DK) οὐ λέγει δὲ οὐδὲ περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ ἀναπνεῖν τί τὸ αἴτιον, πότερον ἔσωθεν ἢ ἔξωθεν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ ὁ θύραθεν νοῦς τηρεῖ τὴν βοήθειαν. Theophrastus fr. ia Barbotin, 307A FHS&G at Themist. in de An. 107.30–33 (verbatim) ἄμεινον δὲ καὶ τὰ Θεοφράστου παραθέσθαι περί τε τοῦ δυνάμει νοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἐνεργείᾳ. περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ δυνάμει τάδε φησίν· ‘ὁ δὲ νοῦς πῶς ποτε ἔξωθεν ὢν καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπίθετος ὅμως συμφυής’. Philo of Alexandria Opif. 67 τὴν γὰρ τοῦ λογισμοῦ τα νῦν ὑπερθετέον διὰ τοὺς φάσκοντας θύραθεν αὐτὸν ἐπεισιέναι θεῖον καὶ ἀίδιον ὄντα. Cicero Div. 1.70 … ratio est, qua Cratippus noster uti solet, animos hominum quadam ex parte extrinsecus esse tractos et haustos (ex quo intellegitur esse extra divinum animum, humanus unde ducatur). Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 90.23–91.4 ὁ οὖν νοούμενος ἄφθαρτος ἐν ἡμῖν νοῦς (οὗτός ἐστιν ὅ τ⟨ε⟩ [ὅτι mss., corr. Accatino–Donini (1994) 375] χωριστός τ⟨οῦ⟩ [τε mss., corr. Accatino–Donini (1994) 375] ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἄφθαρτος νοῦς, ὃν καὶ θύραθεν Ἀριστοτέλης λέγει, νοῦς ὁ ἔξωθεν γινόμενος ἐν ἡμῖν), ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡ δύναμις

liber 4 caput 7a τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχῆς, οὐδὲ ἡ ἕξις, καθ᾽ ἣν ἕξιν ὁ δυνάμει νοῦς τά τε ἄλλα καὶ τοῦτον νοεῖ. Atticus fr. 7.13 Des Places at Eus. PE 15.9.13 (verbatim) τίς μὲν οὖν τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὴν φύσιν ὁ νοῦς, ὅθεν ὤν, καὶ πόθεν ἐπεισκρινόμενος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις αὐτὸς (sc. Aristotle) ἂν εἰδείη, εἴ γέ τι συνίησιν ὧν λέγει περὶ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ μὴ τὸ ἄπορον τοῦ πράγματος τῷ ἀσαφεῖ τοῦ λόγου περιστέλλων ἐξίσταται τὸν ἔλεγχον, ὥσπερ αἱ σηπίαι τὸ δυσθήρευτον ἐκ τοῦ σκοτεινοῦ ποριζόμενος. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.16.135.1 ἐπεισκρίνεται δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ προσεισκρίνεται τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ᾧ διαλογιζόμεθα, οὐ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος καταβολὴν γεννώμενον. Iamblichus de An. fr. 15 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. 1.48.8, p. 318.5–11 ἤδη τοίνυν … πολλοὶ μὲν Περιπατητικοὶ … χωριστὸν καὶ θύραθεν ἐπικαλούμενον ἕτερον (sc. νοῦν) παραγίγνεσθαι λέγουσιν ὀψιαίτατα, ἐπειδὰν τελειωθῇ μὲν ὁ κατὰ δύναμιν νοῦς, ἐπιτηδείως δὲ μετέχῃ τῆς κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν νοήσεως. Themistius in de An. 108.12–13 περὶ τοῦ δυνάμει νοῦ σχεδὸν τὰ αὐτὰ διαποροῦσιν (sc. Aristotle and Theophrastus), εἴτε ἔξωθέν ἐστιν εἴτε συμφυής. ps.Alexander of Aphrodisias An.Mant. 108.22–23 θύραθέν ἐστι λεγόμενος νοῦς ὁ ποιητικός, οὐκ ὢν μόριον καὶ δύναμίς τις τῆς ἡμετέρας ψυχῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἔξωθεν γινόμενος ἐν ἡμῖν. An.Mant. 108.29–109.1 διὸ καὶ ποιητικὸς νοῦς, ὁ κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν θύραθεν ὢν τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος, εἰκότως ἀθάνατος ὑπ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλους καλεῖται νοῦς. Hermias in Phdr. 1.51, p. 52.10–11 Lucarini–Moreschini τὴν λογικὴν ψυχὴν ἐπικτητὸν εἶναι ἔφατο (sc. Plato), τουτέστιν ἔξωθεν εἰσκρίνεσθαι (ταύτην γὰρ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἔφατο εἶναι τὸν θύραθεν νοῦν). Simplicius in Phys. 964.29–965.4 ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὸν κορυφαῖον ἀρέσκει τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους ἑταίρων τὸν Θεόφραστον (fr. xiii Barbotin, 271 FHS&G) ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Περὶ κινήσεως αὐτοῦ λέγοντα, ὅτι ‘… εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ ὁ νοῦς κρεῖττόν τι καὶ θειότερον, ἅτε δὴ ἔξωθεν ἐπεισιὼν καὶ παντέλειος’. §2 Parmenides Empedocles Democritus: Empedocles 31B110.10 DK. πάντα γὰρ ἴσθι φρόνησιν ἔχειν καὶ νώματος αἶσαν. Aristotle de An. 1.2 404a25–b3 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας ψυχὴν εἶναι λέγει τὴν κινοῦσαν, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος εἴρηκεν ὡς τὸ πᾶν ἐκίνησε νοῦς· οὐ μὴν παντελῶς γ᾽ ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος (68A101 DK). ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ ἁπλῶς ταὐτὸν ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν (τὸ γὰρ ἀληθὲς εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον, διὸ καλῶς ποιῆσαι τὸν Ὅμηρον (—) ὡς ὁ Ἕκτωρ ‘κεῖτ᾽ ἀλλοφρονέων’· οὐ δὴ χρῆται τῷ νῷ ὡς δυνάμει τινὶ περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ ταὐτὸ λέγει ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν) (404b) Ἀναξαγόρας (59A100 DK) δ᾽ ἧττον διασαφεῖ περὶ αὐτῶν· πολλαχοῦ μὲν γὰρ τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ καλῶς καὶ ὀρθῶς τὸν νοῦν λέγει, ἑτέρωθι δὲ τὸν νοῦν εἶναι ταὐτὸν τῇ ψυχῇ. de An. 1.2 405a8–9 Δημόκριτος (68A101 DK) δὲ καὶ γλαφυρωτέρως εἴρηκεν ἀποφαινόμενος διὰ τί τούτων ἑκάτερον· ψυχὴν μὲν γὰρ εἶναι ταὐτὸ καὶ νοῦν. Resp. 4 472a3–14 (Democritus, 68A106 DK) λέγει δ᾽ ὡς ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ θερμὸν ταὐτόν, τὰ πρῶτα σχήματα τῶν σφαιροειδῶν. ἐκκρινομένων οὖν αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἐκθλίβοντος, βοήθειαν γίνεσθαι τὴν ἀναπνοήν φησιν. ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἀέρι πολὺν ἀριθμὸν εἶναι τῶν τοιούτων ἃ καλεῖ ἐκεῖνος νοῦν καὶ ψυχήν· ἀναπνέοντος οὖν καὶ εἰσιόντος τοῦ ἀέρος συνεισιόντα ταῦτα καὶ ἀνείργοντα τὴν θλίψιν κωλύειν τὴν ἐνοῦσαν ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις διιέναι ψυχήν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ ἀναπνεῖν καὶ ἐκπνεῖν εἶναι τὸ ζῆν καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν· ὅταν γὰρ κρατῇ τὸ περιέχον συνθλῖβον, καὶ μηκέτι ⟨τὸ⟩ θύραθεν εἰσιὸν δύνηται ἀνείργειν, μὴ δυναμένου ἀναπνεῖν, τότε συμβαίνειν τὸν θάνατον τοῖς ζῴοις. Met. Γ.5 1009b12–31 ὅλως δὲ διὰ τὸ ὑπολαμβάνειν φρόνησιν μὲν τὴν αἴσθησιν, ταύτην δ᾽ εἶναι

1535

1536

liber 4 caput 7a

ἀλλοίωσιν, τὸ φαινόμενον κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀληθὲς εἶναί φασιν· ἐκ τούτων γὰρ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἕκαστος τοιαύταις δόξαις γεγένηνται ἔνοχοι. καὶ γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μεταβάλλοντας τὴν ἕξιν μεταβάλλειν φησὶ τὴν φρόνησιν (31B106 DK)· ‘πρὸς παρεὸν γὰρ μῆτις ἐναύξεται ἀνθρώποισιν.’ καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις δὲ λέγει (31B108 DK) ὅτι ‘ὅσσον ⟨γ᾽⟩ ἀλλοῖοι μετέφυν, τόσον ἄρ σφισιν αἰεί / καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ἀλλοῖα παρίστατο’. καὶ Παρμενίδης δὲ ἀποφαίνεται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (28B16 DK)· ‘ὡς γὰρ ἑκάστοτ᾽ ἔχει κρᾶσιν μελέων πολυκάμπτων, / τὼς νόος ἀνθρώποισι παρίσταται· τὸ γὰρ αὐτό / ἔστιν ὅπερ φρονέει, μελέων φύσις ἀνθρώποισιν / καὶ πᾶσιν καὶ παντί· τὸ γὰρ πλέον ἐστὶ νόημα’· Ἀναξαγόρου (59A28 DK) δὲ καὶ ἀπόφθεγμα μνημονεύεται πρὸς τῶν ἑταίρων τινάς, ὅτι τοιαῦτ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἔσται τὰ ὄντα οἷα ἂν ὑπολάβωσιν. φασὶ δὲ (cf. above Democritus 68A101 DK) καὶ τὸν Ὅμηρον (—) ταύτην ἔχοντα φαίνεσθαι τὴν δόξαν, ὅτι ἐποίησε τὸν Ἕκτορα, ὡς ἐξέστη ὑπὸ τῆς πληγῆς, ‘κεῖσθαι ἀλλοφρονέοντα’, ὡς φρονοῦντας μὲν καὶ τοὺς παραφρονοῦντας ἀλλ᾽ οὐ ταὐτά. Theophrastus Sens. 25 (Alcmaeon 24A5 DK) ὡς ἕτερον ὂν τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι, καὶ οὔ, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, ταὐτόν. Theophrastus Sens. 3–4 (on Parmenides, 28A46 DK) δυοῖν ὄντοιν στοιχείοιν κατὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον ἐστὶν ἡ γνῶσις. ἐὰν γὰρ ὑπεραίρῃ τὸ θερμὸν ἢ τὸ ψυχρόν, ἄλλην γίνεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν, βελτίω δὲ καὶ καθαρωτέραν τὴν διὰ τὸ θερμόν· μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ταύτην δεῖσθαί τινος συμμετρίας· … (4) τὸ γὰρ αἰσθάνεσθαι καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ὡς ταὐτὸ λέγει … καὶ ὅλως δὲ πᾶν τὸ ὂν ἔχειν τινὰ γνῶσιν. Lucretius DRN 3.422–424 atque animam verbi causa cum dicere pergam, / mortalem esse docens, animum quoque dicere credas, / quatenus est unum inter se coniunctaque res est. Sextus Empiricus P. 2.26 δείκνυται ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς ἐποχῆς τρόπῳ (i.e. P. 1.40–78), ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστι ζῷον ἄλογον, ἀλλὰ καὶ νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικά ἐστι πάντα ὅσον ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν δογματικῶν) λεγομένοις. ps.Philoponus in de An. 71.18– 33 ταὐτὸν γὰρ ὑπελάμβανον εἶναι ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν, ὥσπερ καὶ Δημόκριτος· ἔχομεν οὖν τοῦτο ἐναργῶς παρ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰρημένον ὅτι ταὐτὸν νοῦς καὶ ψυχὴ οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ τοῦτο κατασκευάζει. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Δημόκριτος (31B133 DK), φησί, καὶ πρόδηλός ἐστι τοῦτο βουλόμενος· ἄντικρυς γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ φαινόμενον ταὐτόν ἐστι, καὶ οὐδὲν διαφέρειν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὸ τῆι αἰσθήσει φαινόμενον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ἑκάστῳ καὶ τὸ δοκοῦν τοῦτο καὶ εἶναι ἀληθές, ὥσπερ καὶ Πρωταγόρας (—) ἔλεγε, κατά γε τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον διαφερόντων, καὶ τῆς μὲν αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῆς φαντασίας περὶ τὸ φαινόμενον ἐχούσης, τοῦ δὲ νοῦ περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν. εἰ τοίνυν νοῦς μὲν περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ψυχὴ δὲ ἔχει περὶ τὸ φαινόμενον, τὸ ἀληθὲς δὲ ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ φαινομένῳ, ὡς Δημοκρίτῳ δοκεῖ, καὶ ὁ νοῦς ἄρα ταὐτὸν τῇ ψυχῇ. ὡς γὰρ ἔχει ὁ νοῦς πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, οὕτως ἡ ψυχὴ πρὸς τὸ φαινόμενον· οὐκοῦν καὶ ἐναλλὰξ ὡς τὸ φαινόμενον πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, οὕτως ὁ νοῦς πρὸς τὴν ψυχήν. εἰ τοίνυν ταὐτὸν τὸ φαινόμενον καὶ τὸ ἀληθές, καὶ ὁ νοῦς ἄρα καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ταὐτόν. differently Pythagorica Hypomnemata in Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 νοῦν μὲν οὖν καὶ θυμὸν εἶναι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις, φρένας δὲ μόνον ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ.

Liber 4 Caput 8 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 4 verso (1960) p. 78, (1967) p. 182 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus 899D–E; pp. 393a14–395a5 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 90; p. 635.4–12 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 196–197 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. IV p. 232.7–15 Meineke = A 4.1, DG pp. 393b1–394b9 + 1.50.1– 2a, p. 472.6–15 + 1.51.3–6, p. 473.1–19 + 1.50.10–16, p. 474.6–23 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b29–30 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 6 p. 55.13–19; c. 6, pp. 56.24–57.5; c. 7 p. 59.13 Morani

Titulus ηʹ. Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ ὁρίζονται οὕτως τὴν αἴσθησιν· ‘αἴσθησίς ἐστιν ἀντίληψις δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου ἢ κατάληψις’· πολλαχῶς δὲ λέγεται ἡ αἴσθησις, ἥ τε γὰρ ἕξις καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια· καὶ ἡ φαντασία ἡ καταληπτικὴ δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου γίνεται κατὰ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· {ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται} πάλιν δ᾽ αἰσθητήρια λέγεται πνεύματα νοερά, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ⟨ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται⟩ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα τεταμένα. (P1,S1) §1 Stoici SVF 2.850 titulus Περὶ αἰσθήσεως (sive -ων) … αἰσθητῶν (sive –οῦ) P : Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν καὶ εἰ ἀληθεῖς αἱ αἰσθήσεις (~ tit. c. 4.9) SL-indPhot ‖ αἰσθήσεως PB(I,II,III:α)G : αἰσθήσεων PB(III:AE)Q ‖ αἰσθητῶν PBQS : αἰσθητοῦ PG §1 lemma Stobaei hab. Diels DG, sed ut contam. ex P abiud. Diels (1881) 349, quem secutus Wachsmuth ‖ [2] οἱ Στωικοὶ … αἴσθησιν PBQ : al. PG κατὰ τοὺς Στωικοὺς ‖ τὴν αἴσθησιν] die Sinnesempfindungen Q ‖ post ἀντίληψις hab. SL αἰσθητοῦ, del. Meineke, om. Diels ‖ δι᾽ SL : om. PBQ ‖ [3] αἰσθητηρίου PBS : der Sinnesobjekte Q (cf. τῶν αἰσθητῶν Nem p. 56.24–57.1) : αἰσθητοῦ PG ‖ ἢ PBQ : om. SL ‖ πολλαχῶς … αἴσθησις PB(I,III)SL : πολλαχῶς δὲ γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις PB(II) : om. PQ : ἀντίληψις δὲ πολλαχῶς λέγεται PG ‖ [4] ἡ4 PB : om. SLPGQ(ut vid.) ‖ καταληπτικὴ PB : καταληπτικὰ SL : ein Erfassen Q ‖ [5] γίνεται … ἡγεμονικόν ab Arnim prob. Mau Lachenaud : γίνονται καὶ τὸ ὄγδοον ἡγεμονικόν PB (ὄγδοον ex η dittographia sec. Mau, verisimiliter glossema byzant. ex 4.4.4 ὀγδόου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ὄγδοον non hab. PGQ) : durch das leitende Organ selbst Q ‖ [4–5] δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου γίνεται] καὶ αἰσθητικὴ PG ‖ [5] κατὰ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν] καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν PG prob. Diels ‖ {ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται} uncis inclusimus vid. ad ll. 6–7 : om. PQ, textus graecus antiquitus corruptus sec. Diels, qui συνίσταται ut emblema byzant. in app. relegavit : {συνίσταται} secl. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [5–6] πάλιν δ᾽ αἰσθητήρια] πᾶσα αἰσθητὴ βία (sic pro αἰσθητήρια) γίγνεται PG ‖ δ᾽ PB : om. PG : in app. relegavit Diels, om. ab Arnim, uncis incl. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [6] αἰσθητήρια P : αἴσθησις maluit Diels DG p. 55 prob. Torraca ‖ λέγεται PBQ : λέγονται SL ‖ πνεύματα PB : τὰ πνεύματα SL : πάλιν τὰ πνεύματα PG : unter diesem Aspekt … das Vernunftpneuma Q ‖ [6–7] ⟨ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται⟩ ex l. 5 hic transponimus legem Brinkmanni secuti ‖ [7] ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα PBQ : ἐπὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα PG ‖ τεταμένα PB(III) : ἀνατεταμένα PG : τεταγμένα PB(I,II) : bis zu den … gehende Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_108

5

1538 §2

§3

§4

§5 §6

§7 §8 §9

liber 4 caput 8

Ἐπίκουρος· ‘τὸ μόριόν ἐστιν ἡ αἴσθησις, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ δύναμις, καὶ τὸ ἐπαίσθημα, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ ἐνέργημα’· ὥστε διχῶς παρ᾽ αὐτῷ λέγεσθαι αἴσθησιν μὲν τὴν δύναμιν, αἰσθητὸν δὲ τὸ ἐνέργημα. (P2,S2) Πλάτων τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀποφαίνεται ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος κοινωνίαν πρὸς τὰ ἐκτός· ἡ μὲν γὰρ δύναμις ψυχῆς, τὸ δ᾽ ὄργανον σώματος· ἄμφω δὲ διὰ φαντασίας ἀντιληπτικὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν. (P3,S3) κατὰ τοὺς Περιπατητικοὺς τετραχῶς· ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, δι᾽ οὗ τὸ ὄργανον καὶ αἰσθητήριον, καθ᾽ ὃ ἡ ἐνέργεια, καὶ ⟨οὗ⟩ ἕνεκα τὸ αἰσθητόν. (S4) Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὰς νοήσεις ἑτεροιώσεις εἶναι τοῦ σώματος. (S5) Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν αἴσθησιν ἑτεροίωσιν αἰσθητ⟨ικ⟩οῦ καὶ μεσότητα ⟨αἰσθητοῦ⟩· κοινὴν δὲ αἴσθησιν τὴν τῶν συνθέτων εἰδῶν κριτικήν, εἰς ἣν πᾶσαι συμβάλλουσιν αἱ ἁπλαῖ τὰς ἰδίας ἑκάστη ⟨φαντασίας⟩, ἐν ᾗ τὸ μεταβατικὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου εἰς ἕτερον οἷον σχήματος ⟨καὶ⟩ κινήσεως σώματος, ἐν μεθορίῳ τοῦ λογικοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου, μνήμης καὶ νοῦ μετέχουσα, διατείνουσα καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἄλογα τῶν ζῴων, καθὸ ποσὴν διανοίας ἀναλογίαν ἔχει· κοινὰ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὄψεως μὲν καὶ ἁφῆς σχῆμα, ὄψεως δὲ καὶ ἀκοῆς διάστημα, πασῶν δὲ κίνησις καὶ μέγεθος καὶ ἀριθμός. (S6) ⟨οἱ⟩ Στωικοὶ τήνδε τὴν κοινὴν αἴσθησιν ἐντὸς ἁφὴν προσαγορεύουσι, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα. (S7) οἱ Στωικοὶ σωμάτων τὰς αἰσθήσεις. (S11) οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων τῶν περὶ τὰ σώματα ἀσωμάτων λόγων, ἅπερ ἤδη σχήματα προσαγορεύουσι. (S12)

§2 Epicurus fr. 249 Usener; §3 Plato cf. Phlb. 34a, Tim. 43c, 46c, Def. 414c; §4 Peripatetici—; §5 Leucippus 67A30 DK; Democritus frs. 68 et 436 Luria; §6 Aristoteles cf. de An. 2.4 415b24, 2.11 424a4–5, 3.1 425a13–15; §7 Stoici SVF 2.852; §8 Stoici SVF 2.851; §9 anonymi— §2 [8] Ἐπίκουρος PBSL : Die Anhänger des Epikouros Q ‖ τὸ μόριον : τό ⟨τε⟩ μόριον Usener, Wachsmuth, fort. PQ ‖ [9–10] ἐνέργημα bis PB : ἐνάργημα bis coni. Steckel ex D.L. 10.72, 10.91, 10.93, 10.96 fort. recte ‖ [9] ὅπερ SL : ὅθεν PB(I)SL : wodurch Q ‖ ὥστε … ἐνέργημα2] om. PB(I) ‖ [10] post αἴσθησιν add. ⟨αἰσθητικὴν⟩ Diels (1917a) 71 n. 1 §3 [12] τὸ δ᾽ ὄργανον] τὰ δὲ ὄργανα PG ‖ [13] διὰ φαντασίας ἀντιληπτικὰ] al. PG συνελθόντα ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι ‖ [φαν]τ̣ασιας PP : φαντασίας coni. Reiske prob. Diels : φαντασίαν PSL Mau Lachenaud ‖ post ἔξωθεν add. γίνεται PB : non hab. PP(ut vid.)GSL §§4–9 lemmata om. PPBG ‖ §4 [15] ⟨οὗ⟩ add. Meineke prob. edd. §6 [19] αἰσθητ⟨ικ⟩οῦ scripsimus : αἰσθητοῦ S ‖ [20–23] κοινὴν … κινήσεως iterantur infra c. 4.10.2 ‖ [20] ⟨αἰσθητοῦ⟩ addidimus : lac. post μεσότητα ind. Meineke, negant Diels Wachsmuth ‖ συνθέτων Diels ex c. 4.10.2 prob. Wachsmuth : συνθέντων SL : om. SP ‖ [21] πᾶσαι Diels ex c. 4.10.2 : πάλαι SPL ‖ τὰς ἰδίας SP cf. c. 4.10.2 : τοῖς ἰδίοις SL ‖ ⟨φαντασίας⟩ et [22] ⟨καί⟩ add. Diels ex c. 4.10.2 ‖ [23] λογικοῦ SP : λόγου SL §7 [27] ⟨οἱ⟩ add. Sarti prob. Diels Wachsmuth §9 [30] ἀπὸ … ἀρχαίων SL prob. Wachsmuth : ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων maluit Diels (qui μαθηματικῶν intendebat sec. Wachsmuth)

10

15

20

25

30

liber 4 caput 8

§10 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν νόησιν γίνεσθαι εἰδώλων ἔξωθεν προσιόντων· μηδενὶ γὰρ ἐπιβάλλειν μηδετέραν χωρὶς τοῦ προσπίπτοντος εἰδώλου. (P4,S13) §11 οἱ ἄλλοι εἰδῶν ἢ σχημάτων ἑτεροιώσει ⟨ἢ⟩ ἐν ψυχῇ τυπώσει, ἀπορροίαις πάντως μᾶλλον ἢ εἰδώλοις. (S14) §12 οἱ Στωικοὶ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν εἶναι συγκατάθεσιν καὶ κατάληψιν. (S15) §13 ⟨οἱ⟩ Ἀκαδημαικοὶ μὴ εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις μήτε καταλήψεις μήτε συγκαταθέσεις. (S16) §14 οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ οὐκ ἄνευ μὲν συγκαταθέσεως τὰς αἰσθήσεις, οὐ μέντοι συγκαταθέσεις. (S17) §10 Leucippus 67A30 DK; Democritus frs. 68 et 436 Luria; Epicurus—; §11 anonymi—; §12 Stoici SVF 2.72; §13 Academici—; §14 Peripatetici— §10 [32] Ἐπίκουρος S : om. PPBQ ‖ [32–33] καὶ … γͅίνεσθαι] om. PG ‖ γίνεσθαι] γένεσθαι PP ‖ [33–34] μηδενὶ … εἰδώλου om. PG ‖ [34] εἰδώλου PBQ : om. S §§11–14 om. PBG §11 [35] ἑτεροιώσει ⟨ἢ⟩ ἐν ψυχῇ : ἑτεροιώσιν ἐν πάσῃ S : ἑτεροιώσει susp. Diels, prob. Wachsmuth : ⟨ἢ⟩ add. Wachsmuth : ψυχῇ susp. Diels ‖ [36] πάντως Wachsmuth : πάντα S Diels §13 [38] οἱ add. Sarti

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis fr. 4 verso (~ P §3.2–3, §10.1–2 or P §3[12–13], §10[32– 33] see on ch. 4.22) [ψυχη̣ ]ς ̣ τ̣ο̣ δ̣ ο̣ργ̣ [αν]ο̣ν̣ [σωματος αμφω δε δια] [φαν]τ̣ασιας αντιλη̣ [μπτικα των εξωθεν] [Λευκ]ιππος Δημο[κριτος την αισθησιν και] [την] ν̣οησιν γεν̣[εσθαι, κτλ. ps.Galenus HPh c. 90 Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητοῦ (~ tit.) (text Diels) 90.1 (~P1) κατὰ τοὺς Στωικοὺς αἴσθησίς ἐστιν ἀντίληψις αἰσθητοῦ· ἀντίληψις δὲ πολλαχῶς λέγεται. ἥ τε γὰρ ἕξις καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια καὶ ἡ φαντασία καταληπτικὴ καὶ αἰσθητικὴ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ πᾶσα αἰσθητὴ βία [sic] γίγνεται. πάλιν τὰ πνεύματα νοερὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀνατεταμένα. 90.2 (~P3) Πλάτων τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀποφαίνεται ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος κοινωνίαν πρὸς τὰ ἐκτός· ἡ μὲν γὰρ δύναμις ψυχῆς, τὰ δὲ ὄργανα σώματος. ἄμφω δὲ συνελθόντα ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν ἔξωθεν. 90.3 (~P4) Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος τὴν αἴσθησιν εἰδώλων πρόσθεν προσιόντων. Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 6 p. 55.13–19 οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ … φαντασίαν μὲν λέγοντες τὸ πάθος τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ ἐνδεικνύμενον ἐν ἑαυτῷ {καὶ τὸ πεποιηκὸς φανταστόν} (ὅταν γὰρ

1539

35

40

1540

liber 4 caput 8 λευκὸν ἴδωμεν, ἐγγίνεταί τι πάθος τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκ τῆς λήψεως αὐτοῦ. ὡς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητηρίοις ἐγγίνεται πάθος, ὅταν αἰσθάνηται, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, ὅταν ἐννοήσῃ· εἰκόνα γὰρ ἐν ἑαυτῇ δέχεται τοῦ νοητοῦ) (~§1). NH c. 6 pp. 56.24–57.5 καλεῖται δὲ πολλαχῶς [scripsimus, πολλάκις mss. prob. Morani, Sharples– Van der Eijk] αἴσθησις καὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια. ἔστι δὲ αἴσθησις ἀντίληψις τῶν αἰσθητῶν. δοκεῖ δὲ οὗτος ὁ ὅρος οὐκ αὐτῆς εἶναι τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἀλλὰ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς. διὸ καὶ οὕτως ὁρίζονται τὴν αἴσθησιν· πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα τεταμένον. ἔστι δὲ καὶ οὕτως· δύναμιν ψυχῆς ἀντιληπτικὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν, αἰσθητήριον δὲ ὄργανον τῆς ἀντιλήψεως τῶν αἰσθητῶν (~§1). Πλάτων (cf. Phlb. 34a, Tim. 43c, 46c, Def. 414c) δὲ τὴν αἴσθησιν λέγει ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος κοινωνίαν πρὸς τὰ ἐκτός. ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ψυχῆς, τὸ δὲ ὄργανον σώματος· ἄμφω δὲ διὰ φαντασίας ἀντιληπτικὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν (~ §3).

Loci Aetiani: §1 A 4.4.4 oἱ Στωικοὶ ἐξ ὀκτὼ μερῶν φασι συνεστάναι … ὀγδόου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέταται διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων. Α 4.9.4 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ἀληθεῖς, τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν τὰς μὲν ἀληθεῖς τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς … καὶ γὰρ αἰσθητῶν ἐστι φαντασία καὶ νοητῶν. A 4.11 titulus Πῶς γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις κτλ. Α 4.12.1 Χρύσιππος … φαντασία μὲν οὖν ἐστι πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενον, ἐνδεικνύμενον ἐν αὑτῷ καὶ τὸ πεποιηκός· οἷον ἐπειδὰν δι᾽ ὄψεως θεωρῶμέν τι λευκόν, ἔστι πάθος τὸ ἐγγεγενημένον διὰ τῆς ὁράσεως ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ. A 4.13.5 Ἵππαρχος ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρου φησὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀποτεινομένας ἀκτῖνας τοῖς πέρασιν αὑτῶν, οἱονεὶ χειρῶν ἐπαφαῖς, περικαθαπτούσας τοῖς ἐκτὸς σώμασι τὴν ἀντίληψιν αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸ ὁρατικὸν ἀναδιδόναι. A 4.13.8 Ἀλκμαίων κατὰ τὴν τοῦ διαφανοῦς ἀντίληψιν. A 4.15.3 τοῦ ὁρατικοῦ πνεύματος, ὅπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῆς κόρης διήκει. A 4.21.1 oἱ Στωικοί φασιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνώτατον μέρος τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τὸ ποιοῦν τὰς φαντασίας καὶ συγκαταθέσεις καὶ αἰσθήσεις καὶ ὁρμάς. A 4.21.2 ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἑπτὰ μέρη ἐστὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκπεφυκότα καὶ ἐκτεινόμενα εἰς τὸ σῶμα … τῶν δ᾽ ἑπτὰ μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς πέντε μέν εἰσι τὰ αἰσθητήρια. A 4.23.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, τὰς δ᾽ αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ. §2 A 4.3.11 … τὸ δ᾽ ἀκατονόμαστον τὴν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐμποιεῖν αἴσθησιν, ἐν οὐδενὶ γὰρ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων στοιχείων εἶναι αἴσθησιν. A 4.9.6 τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἑκάστου ἑκάστῃ ἐναρμόττοντος. A 4.23.2 Ἐπίκουρος καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις· τὸ γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν ἀπαθές. §4 A 1.11.1 Πλάτων τριχῶς τὸ αἴτιον· φησὶ γὰρ ὑφ᾽ οὗ ἐξ οὗ πρὸς ὅ· κυριώτερον δ᾽ ἡγεῖται τὸ ὑφ᾽ οὗ. A 1.11.4 Ἀριστοτέλης δηλοῦν ἕκαστον χρώμενον σχήμασι τῆς ἑρμηνείας τοιούτοις, τό τε ἐξ οὗ λέγοντα τὴν ὕλην, καὶ τὸ ὑφ᾽ οὗ τὸ ποιοῦν, τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ ὃ τὸ εἶδος, τὸ δὲ δι᾽ ὃ τὸ τέλος. A 5.30.2 Ἡρόφιλος τὰς νόσους συμπίπτειν ὡς μὲν ὑφ᾽ οὗ ὑπερβολὴ θερμότητος ἢ ψυχρότητος· ὡς δ᾽ ἐξ οὗ διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς ἢ ἔνδειαν· ὡς δ᾽ ἐν οἷς, ἢ αἷμα ἢ μυελὸν ἢ ἐγκέφαλον. §6 A 4.4.3 Αριστοτέλης πέντε ἐνεργείας, … τὴν αἰσθητικήν. A 4.9.3 Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν αἴσθησιν μὴ πλανᾶσθαι περὶ τὸ ἴδιον, περὶ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκός. A 4.10.2 Ἀριστοτέλης … κοινὴν δ᾽ αἴσθησιν τὴν τῶν συνθέτων εἰδῶν κριτικήν, εἰς ἣν πᾶσαι

liber 4 caput 8

1541

συμβάλλουσιν αἱ ἁπλαῖ τὰς ἰδίας ἑκάστη φαντασίας· ἐν ᾗ τὸ μεταβατικὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου πρὸς ἕτερον, οἱονεὶ σχήματος καὶ κινήσεως. A 4.2.8 συγγυμνασίαν τῶν αἰσθήσεων. §8 A 4.9.8 Χρύσιππος τὸ μὲν γενικὸν ἡδὺ νοητόν, τὸ δὲ εἰδικὸν καὶ προσπῖπτον ἤδη αἰσθητόν. A 4.9.18 oἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν σοφὸν αἰσθήσει καταληπτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους τεκμηριωδῶς. §9 A 1.14.1 σχῆμά ἐστιν ἐπιφάνεια καὶ περιγραφὴ καὶ πέρας σώματος. A 4.13.4 Ἀρίσταρχος σχήματα συνδιατυποῦντά πως αὑτοῖς τὸν ἀέρα (sc. ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων φέρεσθαι). §10 A 4.5a.2 … Δημόκριτος ταὐτὸν νοῦν καὶ ψυχήν …. A 4.9.5 Επίκουρος πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶσαν φαντασίαν ἀληθῆ κτλ. A 4.13.1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος κατὰ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν οἴονται τὸ ὁρατικὸν συμβαίνειν πάθος. A 4.14.2 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὰς κατοπτρικὰς ἐμφάσεις γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ὑποστάσεις, ἅτινα φέρεσθαι μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν συνίστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν. §11 A 4.13.2 Τιμαγόρας, εἷς τῶν παραχαραξάντων ἐν συχνοῖς τὴν Ἐπικούρειον αἵρεσιν, ἀντὶ τῶν εἰδώλων ταῖς ἀπορροίαις χρῆται. A 4.13.3 Στράτων χρώματά φησιν ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων φέρεσθαι συγχρῴζοντ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὸν μεταξὺ ἀέρα. A 4.13.4 Ἀρίσταρχος σχήματα συνδιατυποῦντά πως αὑτοῖς τὸν ἀέρα. A 4.20.1 τὸ σχῆμα τὸ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν κατὰ ποιὰν πλῆξιν γίνεσθαι φωνήν· πᾶσα δ᾽ ἐπιφάνεια ἀσώματος. συγκινεῖται μὲν γὰρ τοῖς σώμασιν, αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἀσώματος πάντως καθέστηκεν. §12 A 4.9.4 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ἀληθεῖς, τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν τὰς μὲν ἀληθεῖς τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς. A 4.21.1 οἱ Στωικοί φασιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνώτατον μέρος τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τὸ ποιοῦν τὰς φαντασίας καὶ συγκαταθέσεις καὶ αἰσθήσεις καὶ ὁρμάς· καὶ τοῦτο λογισμὸν καλοῦσιν. §13 A 4.9.2 οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀκαδημίας ὑγιεῖς μέν (sc. τὰς αἰσθήσεις), ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτῶν οἷόν ⟨τε⟩ λαβεῖν ἀληθινὰς φαντασίας, οὐ μὴν ἀκριβεῖς.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses are P and S. P has four lemmata, three of which are paralleled in G. For Book 4, beginning with the present chapter, complete chapters of S have only been preserved in L, the Florentine florilegium. Diels includes this evidence in the right-hand columns of the DG. In the manuscripts of the main tradition only lemmata with the name-labels Plato and Aristotle are extant, and sometimes not even those. Thus for the present chapter S has no less than thirteen lemmata, all except §3 (Plato) and (in ms. P only) §6 (Aristotle) extant only in SL. T, as we have seen, stopped excerpting A after ch. 4.7a, the last

1542

liber 4 caput 8

chapter to be paralleled in the CAG. Diels included the first lemma transmitted in SL (the same as P’s first) in his edition in DG. But in his article in response to Elter’s dissertation, (1880) 349, he argued that it had been interpolated by John of Damascus from PB. Wachsmuth followed Diels in his edition of S, noting in his apparatus on p. 472: ‘prima tantum illius ecl. … non Stobaei est sed ex [ps.]Plutarcho a gnomologio Laurentiano adscitum, ut nunc ipse Dielesius probavit’. Daiber (1980) 481 fails to mention that interpolation has been suggested and has not seen that Wachsmuth does not include this text. It was not yet excluded by Meineke as noted in the list of witnesses above the text. At M–R 1.267–268 and 1.295 we argued against Diels and continue to accept the lemma as genuinely present in S. (2) The situation in S (S as restored in Wachsmuth’s edition by the inclusion of the evidence of SL) is complicated. In Ecl. 1.50 S has combined blocks of lemmata from at least chs. 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 (also ch. 5.28, see below, ch. 4.9 Commentary A(2) and A(4) and ch. 5.28 Commentary A and D(c)). The blocks of ch. 4.8 have been distributed over three different places, viz. ch. 4.8.2–3 at Ecl. 1.50.1.2–2a, p. 472.6–15, ch. 4.8.4–7 at Ecl. 1.50.3–6, p. 473.1–19, and ch. 4.8.8– 14 at Ecl. 1.50.10–16, p. 474.6–23 Wachsmuth. In between blocks one and two we find at Ecl. 1.50.2b, p. 472.16–21 a verbatim excerpt from Plato’s Philebus in the usual Stobaean way illustrating ch. 4.8.3, the Plato lemma. More interestingly, in between blocks two and three S inserted three lemmata from ch. 4.10, viz. 4.10.3 + 4.10.5–6 at Ecl. 1.50.7–9, pp. 473.20–474.5 (4.10.1–2 + 4.10.4 are found in the next Stobaean chapter, Ecl. 1.51.2–4, pp. 481.17–482.8); see Commentary A at ch. 4.10 below. Thus these excerpts from ch. 4.10 interrupt the lemmata sequence of ch. 4.8. They are then followed by the remaining seven belonging to ch. 4.8, before SL moves on to the contents of ch. 4.9. Wachsmuth simply copied out the sequence of lemmata belonging to ch. 4.8 (minus §1) in L. It is surely most likely that L just copied out the sequence in S, so his decision is unobjectionable. S’s chapter ends after the last excerpt from A with six excerpts from Plato, namely one from the Phaedo, four from the Theaetetus in succession, and one from the Timaeus, which in various ways deal with the reliability of the senses (the theme of the next chapter, 4.9). (3) Eleven of S’s fourteen lemmata are not paralleled in P (but conversely none of P’s four lemmata are missing in S). G’s three lemmata too are paralleled in both P and S. Important parallels for §1 and §3 are found in Nem. We accept Diels’ view that Ecl. 1.50.7–9, both (as we have seen) preceded and followed by lemmata from ch. 4.8, belong in another chapter, viz. ch. 4.10. S must have moved them here rather than just SL. Wachsmuth in the apparatus ad c. 50.7 disagrees: ‘sed quamquam forma ad sensuum numerum, de quo illo capite agitur, spectare videtur, ex a r g u m e n t o potius ad hoc referendum est’.

liber 4 caput 8

1543

But Ecl. 1.50.7–9 are in the first place (and 50.7 and 50.9 exclusively) concerned with the number of the senses, not with sensation, and 1.50.8 (= ch. 4.10.5) is about the αἰσθήσεις as organs, not as sensations, and about their number (more than five), though also mentioning the sense objects. (4) The order of S’s fourteen lemmata and of the surviving four lemmata of P is the same. It appears that S copied out the whole chapter without disturbing the lemmata order, as becomes clear when we subtract the interpolated Plato quotation at S 50.2b and the interpolated lemmata from ch. 4.10 at S 50.7. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. AD provides parallels for the Aristotle lemma. Fr. 15 Diels (cited below, section E(a)§6) describes the αἰσθητικόν, shared by all living beings, as fivefold, i.e. consisting of the five senses, and adds the compound sense, comprising the functions of imagination, memory, and opining which is not devoid of intellect. We have sensation when a sense is affected in some way. (2) Sources. Aristotle and Theophrastus: In de An. 1.2 Aristotle points out that the predecessors (Presocratics, Plato, even Xenocrates) made the soul the principle of movement (cf. A ch. 4.6, but also 4.2.1–5 and 4.3.11, see above, ch. 4.2, Commentary D(a)), or of sensation and knowledge, or of movement as well as of sensation and knowledge. Sensation and its objects are the theme of Theophrastus De sensu et sensibilibus, but the approach and contents there differ from what we find in A. Aristotle in his De sensu discussed the senses (singling out the theories of vision of Empedocles and Democritus) and the objects of sight, taste (mentioning Empedocles) and smell (mentioning Democritus). As to thematic issues the chapter also echoes themes from Aristotle De anima Books 2 and 3, e.g. de An. 3.4 about knowledge (nous). Note that Aristotle at de An. 2.5 first discusses sensation in general, then, at 2.6, begins his account with the objects of sense: 2.6 418a7–8, λεκτέον δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην αἴσθησιν περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πρῶτον, ‘in discussing the particular senses we must speak first of the objects of sense’, and in the chapters that follow discusses the senses one after the other together with their objects, starting with sight and the visible. Theophrastus in the De sensu systematically discusses a number of Presocratics as well as Plato for two to five senses, and then Democritus and Plato for the sense objects. In our present chapter the main roles are reserved for the Hellenistic philosophers. Of the Presocratics now only Democritus and Leucippus are left (we do not know who or what ‘the followers or successors of the ancients’ are supposed to be; for suggestions see below), while Plato, too, is included; this is perhaps an echo of the restrictions of the second part of Theophrastus’ treatise. The summaries based on the works of Plato and

1544

liber 4 caput 8

Aristotle are quite competently done. About the sources for the Hellenistic theories nothing much can be said, though such parallels as are available inspire some confidence. At DG 215 Diels includes ch. 4.8.6 among his sparse examples of a close reading—according to him by A—of the text of Aristotle’s pragmateiai (‘[i]psius Aristotelis doctrina … ex accurata eius lectione hausta’; cf. chs. 1.9.1, 1.23.2, 1.29.2, 4.9.3, and 5.3.1, each at Commentary B). The definition at the beginning of §6, Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν αἴσθησιν ἑτεροίωσιν αἰσθητ⟨ικ⟩οῦ καὶ μεσότητα ⟨αἰσθητοῦ⟩, is close to de An. 2.11 424a4–5 ὡς τῆς αἰσθήσεως οἷον μεσότητός τινος οὔσης τῆς ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ἐναντιώσεως (‘which means that the sense is a sort of mean between the relevant sensible extremes’, tr. Hett LCL), but ad sententiam rather than ad verbum. So it is less close than Diels claimed. C Chapter Heading Another example of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (cf. ch. 1.1, Commentary C). In S it is not included in the text of the mss., but is only found in the indices of L and Photius, both of which add the first part of the heading of the next chapter, Εἰ ἀληθεῖς αἱ αἰσθήσεις (‘Whether the sensations are true’), to the Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν of the present chapter, connecting them with καί. The Aristotelian title Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν (‘On sensation and sense-objects’), nr. 44 on the list of titles in the Aristotelian catalogue of Ptolemy (Hein 1985. 527), which is the same as the heading of our chapter, is cited by Aristotle himself, e.g. PA 2.7 653a19–20, GA 5.2 781a21, and by Galen and Alexander of Aphrodisias (texts below section E(b) Chapter heading). αἴσθησις may mean both ‘sense’ qua ‘organ’ or ‘sensor’, ‘seat of sensation’, and qua ‘sense of’, i.e., ‘sensation’, ‘perception’, or more generally ‘awareness’. On the basis of the various traditions of P alone a decision between Περὶ αἰσθήσεως and Περὶ αἰσθήσεων as first part of the heading for A is not easy. Diels follows G, who has Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητοῦ (the difference between αἰσθητοῦ and αἰσθητῶν is insignificant), and S, who as we saw combines the titles of chs. 4.8 and 4.9, and who has περὶ αἰσθήσεως. Mau and Lachenaud approve of Diels’ heading, and we follow suit, as sensation in general is the main theme in ch. 4.8. As an embedded phrase (‘eorum fit mentio quae proxime vel antecedunt vel sequuntur’ writes Bonitz 95b33) a formula such as περὶ αἰσθήσεων or –ως is the predecessor or equivalent of the heading, or title, see M–R 2.1.48, 159–161, 162– 163, 170, 202–204. One should compare the title of Theophrastus’ treatise (inappositely translated as ‘On sensations’ at FGS&G fr. 265.4). The treatise begins with the phrase περὶ δ᾽ αἰσθήσεως [note the singular—with περί it is repeated throughout the treatise] αἱ μὲν πολλαὶ καὶ καθόλου δόξαι δύ᾽ εἰσιν (‘the many doxai

liber 4 caput 8

1545

on sensation’ etc.). White (2002) 20–22 argues that with one exception the titles of Theophrastus’ opuscula correspond to the first noun of the opusculum concerned: the correct form of the title should be Περὶ αἰσθήσεως. But at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.42 and in some mss. Theophrastus’ title is given as Περὶ αἰσθήσεων, just as the title of Aristotle’s treatise begins with Περὶ αἰσθήσεων in some mss. of the Parva Naturalia. The second part of Theophrastus’ treatise begins with the formula (c. 59) περὶ δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν (‘and on the sense-objects’), thus echoing the second half of Aristotle’s title. In view of the fluctuating nature of titles in antiquity it is hard, perhaps even impossible to decide what is the correct form for Theophrastus. Also note another reference of Aristotle to ‘On the senses’ at Mete. 3.4 372b9–10, ἔστω δὲ περὶ τούτων ἡμῖν τεθεωρημένον ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις δεικνυμένοις. Galen De instrumento odoratus 5.3 (cited below, section E(b) Chapter heading) too adverts to variant titles. D Analysis a Context Following upon the eight chapters dealing with the soul per se, this is the first of five dealing with cognitive issues in a more general way; thereafter, in chs. 4.13–19 (or 20), the individual senses are treated. By and large, true to A’s stated purpose of presenting the physikos logos (ch. 1.1.1), the emphasis falls on the physical and mechanistic aspects of cognition, though with exceptions, namely ch. 4.9 about truth and falsity and ch. 4.12 about the distinction between trustworthy and untrustworthy presentations. But these topics too may be included in the treatment of cognition in physics, see above, Introduction to Book 4 section 6. The issues treated in this series of chapters are roughly the same as those in Aristotle de An. 1.2 (overview of the predecessors’ views on the soul as the principle of sensation and cognition), 2.5–10 (sensation), and 3.4–8 (cognition), and in Lucretius DRN Books 3–4, cf. M–R 2.1.145–146. The echoes of Theophrastus’ De sensibus listed by Diels DG 222–225 are not sufficient to support his thesis of a large-scale influence of this treatise (as part of what he called the Physikôn Doxai) on the Placita. See below, ch. 4.10 Commentary D(e), and Ax (1986) 77– 86 on A chs. 4.16 + 4.19–20, and Baltussen (1993) 203–205 and (2000b). We note that an account of touch is lacking in both A and Lucretius (only a brief mention together with sight at DRN 4.233); this shared lacuna may indeed point to common ancestry, see M–R 2.1.151. The absence of touch is more surprising in what purports to be a standard overview like the present one, for though not counting as a separate sense in the Timaeus it is of primary importance in Aristotle’s account of sense perception and generally present in literature on the senses.

1546

liber 4 caput 8

The first issue in the present group is the nature of sensation(s) and sense objects in general (category/question-type of substance), and where (category of place) and how (question-type of cause) they occur or are found, the next that of their truthfulness (category/question-type of quality). A chapter dealing with the number of the senses (category of quantity) follows. We note once again the importance of a treatment according to categories and question types. The section is concluded by two often-discussed and important chapters, 4.11–12, dealing respectively with the Stoic analysis of the cognitive process from sensation to concept-formation, and with Chrysippus’ distinctions between various forms of real and imagined impressions. b Number–Order of Lemmata P has four lemmata of which G omits one, S has twelve (for the first one see above, section A). The sequence in P still corresponds with that of S even when Diels’ excision of Ecl. 1.50.7–9 from this chapter is not accepted, as it is by us. That G’s order corresponds with that of P is not surprising, as it does so most of the time. The first lemma of A’s chapter, §1 on the Stoics, comes first because it explicitly provides a proper definition (οἱ Στωικοὶ ὁρίζονται οὕτως τὴν αἴσθησιν). Compare the same formula in the same relative position at ch. 1.6.1, ὁρίζονται δὲ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ οὐσίαν οἱ Στωικοὶ οὕτως, the formula Πλάτων τὴν φωνὴν ὁρίζεται at ch. 4.19.1, to be distinguished from the nominal definitions at the beginning of chs. 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.14, and 1.15. Also ch. 2.1 begins with a proper definition, of ‘cosmos’, in this case a discovery attributed to Pythagoras. The lemmata at ch. 4.8.2–3 have the same relative position in both P and S, while G omits §2, so in G the Plato lemma follows immediately upon the Stoics lemma. §§4–9 are not paralleled in either P or G, but there is no reason to interfere with S’s order. If, reasonably, we assume that §§4–9 were simply abridged away by P, the position of P4 (Leucippus Democritus) after these omitted lemmata perfectly corresponds with the relative position of the same lemma in S (where there is one name-label more: Epicurus). Finally, there is no reason to interfere with S’s positioning of §§12–14 at the end. Quite the contrary; this is where they belong, because to some extent they anticipate the details of the theories of cognition set out in the next chapters. Unless, of course, one wishes to place them in a brief chapter of their own—but unlike for ch. 4.7a there is no evidence for the heading of such a chapter. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Though it comprises several themes, the overall unity of this rich chapter is certain because of the precedent not only of Aristotle’s account in De anima Books 2 and 3, but also of his monobiblos with the same title, Περὶ αἰσθήσεως

liber 4 caput 8

1547

καὶ αἰσθητῶν, and of Theophrastus’ monobiblos Περὶ αἰσθήσεων, the second part of which deals with the objects of sense (though these are not mentioned in its title). Alexander of Aphrodisias in the introduction to his Commentary on Aristotle’s De sensu mentions as one of the topics of the De anima περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, τί τὸ ἑκάστῃ αἰσθήσει αἰσθητὸν καὶ τίνι ὄντι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν τὸ αἰσθητῷ εἶναι ὑπάρχει (in Sens. 1.14–17). These several themes, moreover, are connected by terminology and association: the Stoic and other definitions of sensation and sense object(s) include those of the sense organ(s) already largely treated by Aristotle (μὴ οἷόν τε ἦν ἄνευ αἰσθητηρίου αἰσθάνεσθαι τίνος, in Sens. 1.12–13), and involve various explanations of the sensory process, even diaphonically opposed ones. Related issues treated are questions such as to what extent soul, or body, or both are concerned; whether sensations are of bodies or incorporeals; and the extent to which according to various schools sensation amounts to cognition. The fourteen lemmata naturally fall into four blocks, the first of which, §§1– 6, has an appendix (§7). We note that three lemmata explicitly mention the number of meanings of the term αἴσθησις (see below, section D(d) General points), namely §1, Stoics: many meanings (in fact three); §2, Epicurus: two meanings; §4, Peripatetics: four meanings. §3, Plato, seems to be about a single meaning. The sequence according to the category of quantity, i.e., many (viz., 3)–2–1(?)–4 begins as a descending order (if, that is, we may take §3 as representing the number 1), but then turns into an ascending one in the last lemma. The converse of such a rather irregular order can be paralleled, cf. ch. 4.3.1–13: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 2: first ascending then descending, and ch. 4.4.1–7: 2 or 3, 5, 8, 9, 5, 2: first ascending then descending, too. §§5–6 are linked by the concept of ‘alteration’ (ἑτεροίωσις), though in the case of the Atomists this is an alteration of the body, and in that of Aristotle one of the sensing part/function of the soul. This opposition recalls the diaphonic contrast, stretching over two chapters, between Aristotle’s concept of soul as incorporeal at ch. 4.2.6 and Democritus’ and Leucippus’ concept of the soul as corporeal at ch. 4.3.5 and 4.3.7. §§6–7 are linked by the authentically Aristotelian concept of sensus communis, for §7 is a sort of appendix to §6 citing the quite different Stoic application of this concept. §§8–9 belong together as the two sides of a diaphonia: §8 says sensation is of bodies, the puzzling §9 that it is of incorporeals. §§10–11 also belong together as the two sides of a diaphonia: §10 says sensation comes about through images, §11 that it comes about through emanations. This opposition between incoming images and emanations is one of the main themes in chs. 4.13 and 4.14.

1548

liber 4 caput 8

§§12–14 belong together because they list three different views, viz. those of the Stoics, the Academic Sceptics, and the Peripatetics on the all-important issue, in Hellenistic theories of knowledge, of the relation between sensation (αἴσθησις), assent (συγκατάθεσις), and, especially, cognition (κατάληψις). The first two tenets constitute an obvious diaphonia, as the Stoics (§12) are said to hold that every sensation is an assent and a cognition, and the Academics (§13) that no sensations are either cognitions or assents. The affirmation that the Stoics hold every sensation to be, or rather to imply, assent and cognition, fails to represent the true state of affairs. So their tenet has been modified, more doxographico, the better to express the diaphonia. The view attributed to the Peripatetics (§14) that sensations do not occur without assent but are not (themselves) assents, clearly is a compromise position. The term cognition (κατάληψις) in §§12 (Stoics)–13 (Academics) provides a backwards link with §1, where one of two denotations of sensation according to the Stoics is κατάληψις through a sense organ: a modest variety of ring composition. d

Further Comments General Points We note the absence of the Cyrenaics, who held that only the affections (πάθη) are perceptible. §§1–6 give the definitions and explanations, linked to various namelabels and arranged on a gliding scale, or diaeresis—in the sense of a listing in an ordered sequence—, of the words ‘sensation’ (αἴσθησις), ‘sense object’ (αἰσθητόν), ‘impression’ (φαντασία), ‘sense-organ’ or ‘sensor’ (αἰσθητήριον, μόριον), and ‘cognition’ (κατάληψις). Note terms such as §1 λέγεται and §2 λεγέσθαι, which point at verbatim quotation. In §§1–4 the definitions concerned are of the nominal or conceptual variety, the Stoic definition at the beginning of §1 being an exception; see further above, ch. 1.9 Commentary D(d), general points. Individual Points Chapter heading Our decision in favour of Περὶ αἰσθήσεως in the singular is based on the fact that αἴσθησις (‘sensation’, ‘sense-perception’ in general) is not only defined in the first lemma, but is also the main subject in the others. The individual senses are dealt with in later chapters. Note moreover that the alternative heading, Περὶ αἰσθήσεων, may mean not only ‘On senses’, but also ‘On sensations’. See further section C above. §1 The practice of commencing a chapter with a definition in which its subject is the first word followed by ἐστί occurs several times elsewhere in order to

liber 4 caput 8

1549

introduce an introductory definition (chs. 1.9–12, 1.14–15, 1.23, 2.30, 3.1, cf. 1.25.1, 5.3). The present lemma, with the name-label as its first word, states explicitly that it is a definition: ὁρίζονται, and in chs. 1.6.1, 1.23.1, 4.19.1, 5.3.1 and 5.29.1 we find name-labels too. ἀντίληψις is a weaker form of αἴσθησις than κατάληψις. Part of the text as transmitted is corrupt. Diels despaired of healing it; see references in the apparatus criticus. The word ὄγδοον does not make much sense; Mau ingeniously suggested a mechanical corruption, viz. the interpretation of the first letter of ἡγεμονικοῦ as a number symbol. It is simpler to assume that a gloss deriving from ch. 4.4.4, where the regent part is counted as the eighth part, strayed into the text in the Byzantine tradition. The emendation of lines 5– 6 printed by Mau (followed, as usual, by Lachenaud), viz. ἀφ᾽ οὗ {συνίσταται} πάλιν {δ᾽} is difficult to accept, because the postulated corruption is hard, if not impossible to explain. It is in fact a combination of suggestions of earlier editors, some of whom bracketed συνίσταται or, like Diels, banished the word to the apparatus, and Von Arnim (whose apparatus is defective, as it usually is), who just omitted the δ᾽. Diels had likewise banished this connecting particle to the apparatus. Torraca in his translation (with comment p. 456 n. 128) follows Diels’ wilder suggestions. It is not only better but also simpler to assume that the words ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται were inadvertently left out, then added in the tympanon, from where they were put back in the wrong place, a not unusual phenomenon (Brinkmann’s law, see Brinkmann 1902). In the present case, this is entirely understandable: they were inserted after ἡγεμονικόν in line 5 instead of after ἡγεμονικοῦ in line 6. The ‘sensors’, or percipient currents of pneuma, are produced by the regent part, or ‘grow out of it’, as ch. 4.21.2 has it: ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἑπτὰ μέρη ἐστὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκπεφυκότα καὶ ἐκτεινόμενα εἰς τὸ σῶμα … τῶν δ᾽ ἑπτὰ μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς πέντε μέν εἰσι τὰ αἰσθητήρια. Perception (αἴσθησις) and ‘grasping’ or cognition (κατάληψις) are not only receptive but also active, as the word κατάληψις itself and the simile of the tentacles of the octopus (ch. 4.4.4) make clear. As parallels for our translation of ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται we are able to cite Ptolemy Geog. 4.3.17 καὶ τὸ καλούμενον Κίρνα ὄρος … ἀφ᾽ οὗ αἱ λίμναι συνίστανται συνάπτουσαι ἀλλήλαις ‘der sogenannte Kirna-(Kinna)Berg—von ihm gehen Seen aus, die mit einander verbunden sind’ (tr. Stückelberger–Graßhoff). Also cf. Paulus Alexandrinus Elementa apotelesmatica p. 13.1–3 Boer. §1[3–5] The well-known Aristotelian formula πολλαχῶς λέγεται is also used e.g. by Philo Fug. 177 and Strabo 8.3.30. Just as the concepts ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια it is not part of the original Stoic phraseology. One may compare the Aristotelizing presentation at ch. 4.11.2–3, where see Commentary D(e)§§2–3 ad fin.

1550

liber 4 caput 8

§2 The Epicurus lemma exploits an ambiguity of the term αἴσθησις, which can mean both the organ or seat of sensation, and the sensation itself. Thus on the one hand αἴσθησις means ‘sense’, i.e., the organ or seat of sensation: the ‘bodily part’ or region (μόριον), which is the sensory ‘faculty’, or ‘power’, and on the other the ‘activity’ of this organ, or seat: the actually accomplished sensation which is the ‘sense object’ (αἰσθητόν). Steckel’s conjecture ἐνάργημα (a term used by Epicurus) for ἐνέργημα is very tempting but unnecessary, though a parallel for the pair δύναμις: ἐνέργημα is not found in Epicurus’ remains. In the Placita a doxa as a rule is in oratio obliqua depending on a verb of declaration. In the present lemma we have one of the rare examples of oratio recta (cf. chs. 2.5.1, 4.11, 4.12). This implies, or so we believe, that part of the lemma is an (abridged) verbatim quotation of Epicurus or at least derives from an actual Epicurean text. The formulas ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ δύναμις and ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ ἐνέργημα are not part of the quotation but explicative glosses anticipating the final phrase of the lemma (where the specific Epicurean term ἐπαίσθημα—cf. the fragment of, perhaps, the Canon at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.32 = Epic. fr. 36 Usener—has been replaced by the neutral αἰσθητόν). §5, §6, & §10 The present chapter is the only one in the Placita to contain the word ἑτεροίωσις, and does so three times. This suggests a shared origin of these lemmata, or a shared influence. §5 That the sensations and thoughts according to Leucippus and Democritus are alterations of the body is the only echo in our chapter of the view of Aristotle, partly but importantly shared by Theophrastus, that according to the ancients sensation and thought are the same and a matter of bodily alteration. That some philosophers fail to distinguish between sensation and thought, and others not, is one of the diaeretic criteria in the De sensibus. The modest echo in the present chapter of Theophrastus’ treatise signifies a diluted influence, pace Diels’ general hypothesis. See further the passages cited below, section E(b)§5, and Mansfeld (1996). §6 The lines [20] κοινὴν … [22] κινήσεως are also found below in ch. 4.10 on the question of how many senses there are, where they are combined with a first phrase, namely Ἀριστοτέλης ἕκτην μὲν οὐ λέγει, to form the lemma 4.10.2 of S as preserved in L. In ch. 4.10 this κοινὴν … κινήσεως part of S’s lemma is paralleled in P, together with both the lemma before and the lemma after it, which occupy the same position in S as preserved in L as they do in P. This proves the authenticity of [20] κοινὴν … [22] κινήσεως and corroborates its placement in ch. 4.10. In the present chapter we do not have P for ch. 4.8.6 but only S as preserved in L, whose text here is a little bit different from his own text for ch. 4.10.2 in Ecl. 1.51.3 W. and from that of P at 4.10.2. Heeren and Meineke needlessly complicated matters further, see the apparatus of Diels DG 395b and

liber 4 caput 8

1551

399b, and Wachsmuth pp. 473 and 482. Diels used the text of ch. 4.10.2 to correct 4.8.6. (There is no reason in principle why A could not have largely repeated a lemma elsewhere if the subject-matter encouraged it. This happens in Book 2, see ch. 2.5.3 Philolaus.) Aristotle never said that sensation changes the object of sensation, so if we do not wish to impute a gross mistake to A, S’s transmitted αἰσθητοῦ (‘object of sensation’) has to be emended. The simplest change is into αἰσθητ⟨ικ⟩οῦ, ‘organ of sensation’ (the term is paralleled in AD fr. 13 Diels quoted below section E(a)§6). We may compare P 4.21.4, where φωνήν has to be changed into φωνη⟨τικό⟩ν, though Diels forgot to do so and Von Arnim at SVF 2.836 just quoted the text of the DG. Also see ch. 2.4.10, where παθητικόν, preserved in S, is corrupted into παθητόν in P; the word παθητός is not part of Aristotle’s vocabulary, and a change from παθητικόν into παθητόν is easier to understand than one the other way round. The simple error in §6 occurred through a misreading of a ligature or through haplography. Once the defective reading was there, the necessary αἰσθητοῦ after μεσότητα was omitted in a next stage because it seemed superfluous (as it seemed superfluous to Diels and others). This lemma, neglected by scholars, presents a later, though by and large correct systematisation and more precise formulation of Aristotle’s doctrine. The exact attribution, for instance, of particular common sensibles to two senses and of others to all the senses cannot be paralleled exactly in the pragmateiai. For phrases in Alexander and Themistius that come close see section E(b)§6. §7 For self-awareness, ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα, see Cicero Fin. 3.16–17 on Stoic sensus sui in the context of oikeiosis, partly cited at section E(b)§7; discussion of this passage at Engberg-Pedersen (1990) 66–72. Also the citation of Chrysippus at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.85 (SVF 3.178), and esp. the three passages from Hierocles’ Stoicheiosis Ethike likewise quoted at section E(b)§7. Excellent discussion at Bastianini–Long (1992) 379–396, to some extent summarized at Ramelli–Konstan (2009) 39–41; see further below at ch. 4.11, Commentary D(d)§§2–3. A Cyrenaic parallel is at Cicero Luc. 20. For Epicureanism cf. Lucretius DRN 2.433–439, who distinguishes between two kinds of touch, one reacting to things impinging from outside, the other registering what happens in our body, and Sedley (1989). §8 κριτικήν: cf. A 4.10.2 below. The term κριτήριον, perhaps surprisingly, does not occur in the Placita, and the verb κρινεῖν is not used either. κριτήριον is used in a cognitive sense AD fr. 16 Diels at S 58.1 (on Aristotle) κριτήρια δ᾽ εἶναι τῆς τούτων (sc. τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὰς διανοητικὰς κινήσεις) γνώσεως τόν τε νοῦν καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν, τὸν μὲν τῶν νοητῶν, τὴν δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν. §9 The objects of sense are unexpectedly said to be incorporeals. Possibly the lemma has been formulated to allow for a perfect but purely doxograph-

1552

liber 4 caput 8

ical diaphonia with the corporealism of the Stoics of the preceding lemma, cf. above section D(c)§§8–9. The formula οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων is also puzzling. Diels wanted to read ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων, almost certainly intending μαθηματικῶν (as Wachsmuth suggests), ‘the followers of the mathematicians’. This formula can be paralleled—significantly enough only in the Placita, viz. at ch. 2.31.2, οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθηματικῶν, and S 1.52.16 at ch. 4.14.3, οἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου καὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν. In view of the parallel at ch. 4.13.4 (Ἀρίσταρχος σχήματα συνδιατυποῦντά πως αὑτοῖς τὸν ἀέρα (sc. ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων φέρεσθαι)) a possible correction would be οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων μαθηματικῶν. Wachsmuth ad loc. argues for the transmitted ‘ancients’: ‘significantur enim ei qui philosophiam τῶν ἀρχαίων i. e. Platonis Aristotelisve profitentur’, which in view of the contrast with the coporealist Stoics seems plausible, provided it is restricted to Peripatetics, and Platonists friendly towards Aristotle’s views. οἱ ἀρχαῖοι may pertain to people from long ago, but also to people from not so long ago. For the unclear name-label οἱ ἀρχαῖοι in P for A 1.17.1 (G substitutes οἱ παλαιότεροι) S has Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. At ch. 4.2.1 Thales is included among the incorporealists, and Simplicius (perhaps Priscianus) in de An. 31.20–26 even argues explicitly that according to him the soul is incorporeal, see at ch. 4.2 Commentary D(b). Even so, it seems doubtful whether we may go as far as include to him among those who hold that sense data are ‘incorporeal logoi about bodies they also call ‘shapes’’. So it seems best to preserve the ambiguous ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων. e Other Evidence Parallels are found in the first place in Nem (just as in the case of ch. 4.12), who however abridges and paraphrases and has preserved much less material, viz. only passages dealing with the Stoics and Plato. If Nem does not depend on A and his tradition, he must depend on a closely related tradition. Some further parallels are found in Philo, Sextus Empiricus and Arius Didymus. The lemma on aisthesis in ps.Galen’s Medical Definitions is very complete. Though it lacks name-labels, it provides a good overview of the various options, just like the Aëtian chapter. See at section E(a)§5 below. For Aristotle and Theophrastus see above at section B. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Photius Bibl. cod. 212, p. 170b9–12 (Aenesidemus fr. 8B Polito) καὶ ὁ γʹ δὲ αὐτῷ λόγος περὶ … καὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὰς ἰδιωμάτων, τὰς ὁμοίας περιεργαζόμενος ἐναντιολογίας, εἰς τὸ ἀνέφικτον καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ὑποφέρει καὶ αὐτά. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 1.38, p. 33.15 Marchesi (qui … monstravit …) quid sit sensus.

liber 4 caput 8 Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 3.350 de sensu corporis et animi. ad DRN 3.624 de sensibus animi et animae. §1 Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Fug. 182 (SVF 2.861) ποτίζεται οὖν, ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς τοῦ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικοῦ τὸ σώματος ἡγεμονικὸν πρόσωπον, τὸ μὲν ὁρατικὸν πνεῦμα τείνοντος εἰς ὄμματα, τὸ δ᾽ ἀκουστικὸν εἰς οὖς, εἰς δὲ μυκτῆρας τὸ ὀσφρήσεως, τὸ δ᾽ αὖ γεύσεως εἰς στόμα, καὶ τὸ ἁφῆς εἰς σύμπασαν τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν. ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.378.12–379.5 K. ριεʹ. αἴσθησίς ἐστι πάθος ψυχῆς διὰ σώματος ἀγγελικὸν τοῦ κινητικοῦ. τί διαφέρει αἴσθησις καὶ αἰσθητήριον καὶ αἰσθητὸν καὶ αἰσθητικόν; διαφέρει. αἴσθησις μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐνεργοῦσα δύναμις, αἰσθητήριον δὲ τὸ αἴσθησίν τινα ἐμπεπιστευμένον ὄργανον, αἰσθητὸν δὲ τὸ τῇ αἰσθήσει ὑποπῖπτον, αἰσθητικὸν δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ αἰσθανόμενον, οἷον αἴσθησις μέν, ὅρασις, γεῦσις, ὄσφρησις καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ αἰσθήσεις ἀκοὴ καὶ ἁφή. αἰσθητήριον ἤτοι ὀφθαλμὸς ἢ ῥὶς ἢ γλῶττα, ἃ καὶ ὄργανα αἰσθητικὰ προσαγορεύεται. αἰσθητὸν δὲ τὸ ξύλον ἢ ὁ λίθος ἢ κίων καὶ πάντα τὰ ὑποπίπτοντα ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν. αἰσθητικὸν δὲ ὁ Θέων καὶ ὁ Δίων καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα αἰσθάνεται ζῶα. Alcinous Did. c. 4, p. 154.34–36 H. ἡ μὲν οὖν αἴσθησίς ἐστι πάθος ψυχῆς διὰ σώματος ἀπαγγελτικὸν προηγουμένως τῆς πεπονθυίας δυνάμεως. Arius Didymus fr. 39.3 Diels, DG p. 471.5–9 at Eus. PE 15.20.3 (SVF 1.519) ἀναθυμίασιν μὲν οὖν ὁμοίως τῷ Ἡρακλείτῳ (T 257 Mouraviev) τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποφαίνει Ζήνων (SVF 1.141), αἰσθητικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι τυποῦσθαί τε δύναται τὸ μέρος τὸ ἡγούμενον αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ὄντων καὶ ὑπαρχόντων διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ παραδέχεσθαι τὰς τυπώσεις. ταῦτα γὰρ ἴδια ψυχῆς ἐστι. fr. 39.5 Diels DG p. 471.15–16 at Eus. PE 15.20.5 (SVF 2.821) ἔχειν δὲ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικόν τι ἐν αὑτῇ, ὃ δὴ ζωὴ καὶ αἴσθησίς ἐστι καὶ ὁρμή. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.350 καὶ οἱ μὲν διαφέρειν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν διάνοια) τῶν αἰσθήσεων, ὡς οἱ πλείους, οἱ δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις, καθάπερ διά τινων ὀπῶν τῶν αἰσθητηρίων προκύπτουσαν, ἧς στάσεως ἦρξε Στράτων τε ὁ φυσικὸς (fr. 109 Wehrli, 61 Sharples) καὶ Αἰνησίδημος (fr. B24A Polito). Iamblichus de An. fr. 11 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.33, p. 368.14–16 (SVF 2.826) πνεύματα γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ φασιν οὗτοι διατείνειν ἄλλα κατ᾽ ἄλλα, τὰ μὲν εἰς ὀφθαλμούς, τὰ δὲ εἰς ὦτα, τὰ δὲ εἰς ἄλλα αἰσθητήρια. §6 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 15 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.51.5, p. 482.11–19 Ἀριστοτέλους. τὸ δὲ αἰσθητικόν, ὃ δὴ κοινῶς ἁπάντων τῶν ζῴων ἴδιον (αἰσθήσει γὰρ διαφέρειν τὸ ζῷον τοῦ φυτοῦ) πενταπλοῦν ἐοικέναι. τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ μὲν ὅρασιν τὸ δ᾽ ἀκοὴν τὸ δ᾽ ὄσφρησιν τὸ δὲ γεῦσιν τὸ δ᾽ ἁφήν. ὑπάρχειν δέ τινα καὶ σύνθετον αἴσθησιν, ἐν ᾗ τό τε φανταστικὸν πᾶν γίνεσθαι καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ μνημονευτικὸν καὶ τὸ δοξαστικόν, ὅπερ οὖν οὐδ᾽ ἄμοιρον τοῦ νοῦ τυγχάνει. αἰσθάνεσθαι δ᾽ ἡμᾶς παθούσης τι τῆς αἰσθήσεως. fr. 16 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.58, p. 497.15–19 Ἀριστοτέλους. φαντασίαν δ᾽ εἶναι πάθος τι καὶ κίνησιν τῆς κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν αἰσθήσεως, ὠνομάσθαι δ᾽ ἀπὸ μιᾶς τῶν αἰσθήσεων, τῆς ὁράσεως· τὸ ⟨γὰρ⟩ φαίνεσθαι παρὰ τὸ φάος ἔχειν τὴν ἐπίρρησιν· τοῦτο δ᾽ οἰκεῖον εἶναι τῆς ὄψεως. Tertullian de An. 12.4 nam et sensus passiones facit Aristoteles. quidni? et sentire enim pati est, quia pati sentire est. §11 Anonymi: Aquilius Def. 4 Rashed φαντασία ἐστὶ τύπωσις ἡγεμονικοῦ.

1553

1554 b

liber 4 caput 8

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General text pertaining to the whole: (relating to whole of chs. 4.8–10, 12– 20, and 22–23, plus 5.24–25, and 29–30) Aristotle Sens. 1 436a6–b7 φαίνεται δὲ τὰ μέγιστα, καὶ τὰ κοινὰ καὶ τὰ ἴδια τῶν ζῴων, κοινὰ τῆς τε ψυχῆς ὄντα καὶ τοῦ σώματος, οἷον αἴσθησις καὶ μνήμη καὶ θυμὸς καὶ ἐπιθυμία καὶ ὅλως ὄρεξις, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἡδονὴ καὶ λύπη· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα σχεδὸν ὑπάρχει πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὰ μὲν πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν μετεχόντων ζωῆς κοινά, τὰ δὲ τῶν ζῴων ἐνίοις. τυγχάνουσι δὲ τούτων τὰ μέγιστα τέτταρες οὖσαι συζυγίαι τὸν ἀριθμόν, οἷον ἐγρήγορσις καὶ ὕπνος, καὶ νεότης καὶ γῆρας, καὶ ἀναπνοὴ καὶ ἐκπνοή, καὶ ζωὴ καὶ θάνατος·περὶ ὧν θεωρητέον, τί τε ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας συμβαίνει. φυσικοῦ δὲ καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσου τὰς πρώτας ἰδεῖν ἀρχάς· οὔτε γὰρ ὑγίειαν οὔτε νόσον οἷόν τε γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ἐστερημένοις ζωῆς. διὸ σχεδὸν τῶν περὶ φύσεως οἱ πλεῖστοι καὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν οἱ φιλοσοφωτέρως τὴν τέχνην μετιόντες, οἱ μὲν τελευτῶσιν εἰς τὰ περὶ ἰατρικῆς, oἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν περὶ φύσεως ἄρχονται. (436b) ὅτι δὲ πάντα τὰ λεχθέντα κοινὰ τῆς τε ψυχῆς ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦ σώματος, οὐκ ἄδηλον. πάντα γὰρ τὰ μὲν μετ᾽ αἰσθήσεως συμβαίνει, τὰ δὲ δι᾽ αἰσθήσεως, ἔνια δὲ τὰ μὲν πάθη ταύτης ὄντα τυγχάνει, τὰ δ᾽ ἕξεις, τὰ δὲ φυλακαὶ καὶ σωτηρίαι, τὰ δὲ φθοραὶ καὶ στερήσεις· ἡ δ᾽ αἴσθησις ὅτι διὰ σώματος γίγνεται τῇ ψυχῇ, δῆλον. General texts: Aristotle de An. 1.2 403b25–28 τὸ ἔμψυχον δὴ τοῦ ἀψύχου δυσὶ μάλιστα διαφέρειν δοκεῖ, κινήσει τε καὶ τῷ αἰσθάνεσθαι. παρειλήφαμεν δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν προγενεστέρων σχεδὸν δύο ταῦτα περὶ ψυχῆς. de An. 1.2 404b8–11 ὅσοι δ᾽ἐπὶ τὸ γινώσκειν καὶ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι τῶν ὄντων, οὗτοι δὲ λέγουσι τὴν ψυχὴν τὰς ἀρχάς, οἱ μὲν πλείους ποιοῦντες, ταύτας, οἱ δὲ μίαν, ταύτην. Theophrastus Sens. 1 περὶ δ᾽ αἰσθήσεως αἱ μὲν πολλαὶ καὶ καθόλου δόξαι δύ᾽ εἰσιν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῷ ὁμοίῳ ποιοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ τῷ ἐναντίῳ. Παρμενίδης (28A46 DK) μὲν καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A86 DK) καὶ Πλάτων τῷ ὁμοίῳ, οἱ δὲ περὶ Ἀναξαγόραν (—) καὶ Ἡράκλειτον (T 205 Mouraviev) τῷ ἐναντίῳ. Sens. 58 μὲν οὖν περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ τοῦ φρονεῖν δόξαι σχεδὸν αὖται καὶ τοσαῦται τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι παρὰ τῶν πρότερον. Sens. 59–60 περὶ δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, τίς ἡ φύσις καὶ ποῖον ἕκαστόν ἐστιν, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι παραλείπουσιν. … (60) Δημόκριτος (68A135 DK) δὲ καὶ Πλάτων ἐπὶ πλεῖστόν εἰσιν ἡμμένοι, καθ᾽ ἕκαστον γὰρ ἀφορίζουσι. Chapter heading: Aristotle de An. 2.6 418a7–8 λεκτέον δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην αἴσθησιν περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πρῶτον. Sens. 3 439a6–8 περὶ δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον αἰσθητήριον … καθόλου μὲν εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς. GA 5.2 781a21 ὥσπερ εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς Περὶ αἰσθήσεως. PA 1.1 641b2–4 ἡ αὐτὴ θεωρία τῶν πρὸς ἄλληλα πάντων, καθάπερ καὶ περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν. Theophrastus Sens. 1 περὶ δ᾽ αἰσθήσεως. Sens. 59 περὶ δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, τίς ἡ φύσις καὶ ποῖον ἕκαστόν ἐστιν. Galen Instr.Od. 5.3 ἔοικε δέ τι τοιοῦτον καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης λέγειν … κἀν τῷ Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν (ἐπιγράφεται δὲ τοῦτο καὶ καθ᾽ ἕτερον τρόπον ὧδε Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητηρίων, ἐπειδὴ τὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ὄργανα καλεῖν οὕτως ἔθος ἐστὶν Ἀριστοτέλει). Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 38.19– 20 ὁ περὶ αἰσθήσεως λόγος. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.59 (Strato fr. 18 Wehrli, 1 Sharples) Περὶ αἰσθήσεως. V.P. 7.174 (Cleanthes, SVF 1.481) Περὶ αἰσθήσεως. 7.178 (Sphaerus SVF 1.620) Περὶ αἰσθητηρίων. Porphyry Plot. 5 Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης. Plotinus Enn. 4.6.[41] Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης.

liber 4 caput 8 §1 Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Leg. 2.36–37 διὰ γὰρ ταύτης (sc. τῆς αἰσθήσεως κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν) ποιούμεθα τὰς τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀντιλήψεις. Plutarch SR 1038C (SVF 2.724) ἡ γὰρ οἰκείωσις αἴσθησις ἔοικε τοῦ οἰκείου καὶ ἀντίληψις εἶναι. Anonymus in Theaetetum col. 66.39–43 Bastianini–Sedley πᾶσαν γὰρ ἀντίλημ|ψιν εἴτε δι᾽ αἰσθητη|ρίου εἴτε δι᾽ [ἄλ]λου τι|νὸς ἐκάλουν [αἴ]σθη|σιν. Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 φρένας δὲ καὶ νοῦν τὰ ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ· σταγόνας δ᾽ εἶναι ἀπὸ τούτων τὰς αἰσθήσεις. … τοὺς δὲ λόγους ψυχῆς ἀνέμους εἶναι. at D.L. 8.29 τήν τ᾽ αἴσθησιν κοινῶς καὶ κατ᾽ εἶδος τὴν ὅρασιν ἀτμόν τιν᾽ ἄγαν εἶναι θερμόν. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.201 (Antiochus fr. 66 Luck, verbatim) ἄλλος δέ τις (sc. Asclepiades (—)), ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὐδενὸς δεύτερος, ἁπτόμενος δὲ καὶ φιλοσοφίας, ἐπείθετο τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ὄντως καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀντιλήψεις εἶναι. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.45–46 (SVF 2.53) τὴν δὲ φαντασίαν εἶναι τύπωσιν ἐν ψυχῇ, τοῦ ὀνόματος οἰκείως μετενηνεγμένου ἀπὸ τῶν τύπων τῶν ἐν τῷ κηρῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ δακτυλίου γινομένων. (46) τῆς δὲ φαντασίας τὴν μὲν καταληπτικήν, τὴν δὲ ἀκατάληπτον. V.P. 7.51 (SVF 2.61) τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς αἱ μέν εἰσιν αἰσθητικαί, αἱ δ᾽ οὔ· αἰσθητικαὶ μὲν αἱ δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου ἢ αἰσθητηρίων λαμβανόμεναι. V.P. 7.52 (SVF 2.71) αἴσθησις δὲ λέγεται κατὰ τοὺς Στωικοὺς τό τ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ἡγεμονικοῦ πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις διῆκον καὶ ἡ δι᾽ αὐτῶν κατάληψις καὶ ἡ περὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια κατασκευή, καθ᾽ ἥν τινες πηροὶ γίνονται. καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια δὲ αἴσθησις καλεῖται. V.P. 7.159 (SVF 2.837) ἡγεμονικὸν δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ κυριώτατον τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ αἱ φαντασίαι καὶ αἱ ὁρμαὶ γίνονται καὶ ὅθεν ὁ λόγος ἀναπέμπεται· ὅπερ εἶναι ἐν καρδίᾳ. SVF 1.55–59, 1.484, 2.52–81, 2.850–862. §2 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep. Hdt. at D.L. 10.48 οὐθὲν γὰρ τούτων ἀντιμαρτυρεῖται ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν, ἂν βλέπῃ τις τίνα τρόπον τὰς ἐναργείας. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.32 (Epicurus fr. 36 Usener) τὸ τὰ ἐπαισθήματα δ᾽ ὑφεστάναι πιστοῦται τὴν τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἀλήθειαν. V.P. 10.33 (Epicurus fr. 255 Usener + p. 181 adn. 7) ἐναργεῖς οὖν εἰσιν αἱ προλήψεις. καὶ τὸ δοξαστὸν ἀπὸ προτέρου τινὸς ἐναργοῦς ἤρτηται. §3 Plato: Plato Phlb. 34a (quoted Stob. Ecl. 1.50.2b, p. 472.16–21 λέγει δὲ ἐν τῷ Φιλήβῳ ὧδε·) τὸ δ᾽ ἐν ἑνὶ πάθει τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὸ σῶμα κοινῇ γιγνόμενον κοινῇ καὶ κινεῖσθαι, ταύτην δ᾽ αὖ τὴν κίνησιν ὀνομάζων αἴσθησιν οὐκ ἀπὸ τρόπου φθέγγοι᾽ ἄν. Tim. 43c διὰ τοῦ σώματος αἱ κινήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχὴν φερόμεναι προσπίπτοιεν· αἳ δὴ καὶ ἔπειτα διὰ ταῦτα ἐκλήθησάν τε καὶ νῦν ἔτι αἰσθήσεις συνάπασαι κέκληνται. ps.Plato Def. 414c αἴσθησις ψυχῆς φορά· νοῦ κίνησις· ψυχῆς διὰ σώματος εἰσάγγελσις εἰς ὥρας ἀνθρώπων, ἀφ᾽ ἧς γίγνεται ψυχῆς ἄλογος δύναμις γνωριστικὴ διὰ σώματος. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.12 ἔτι φησὶν ὁ Ἄλκιμος (Ad Amynt. FGrH560 F7) καὶ ταυτί· ‘φασὶν οἱ σοφοὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τὰ μὲν διὰ τοῦ σώματος αἰσθάνεσθαι οἷον ἀκούουσαν, βλέπουσαν, τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν ἐνθυμεῖσθαι μηδὲν τῷ σώματι χρωμένην.’ Porphyry Sent. 41.14–16 δῆλον ὡς αἱ μὲν αἰσθητικαὶ δυνάμεις διὰ σώματος κέκτηνται τὸ ἐνεργεῖν. §4 Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.21 (on Potamo) ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτῷ, καθά φησιν ἐν τῇ Στοιχειώσει, κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι τὸ μὲν ὡς ὑφ᾽ οὗ γίνεται ἡ κρίσις, τουτέστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· τὸ δὲ ὡς δι᾽ οὗ, οἷον τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην φαντασίαν. §5 Leucippus Democritus: Aristotle de An. 1.2 427a19–27 δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ νοεῖν καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ὥσπερ αἰσθάνεσθαί τι εἶναι ἀμφοτέροις γὰρ τούτοις κρίνει τι

1555

1556

liber 4 caput 8

ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ γνωρίζει τῶν ὄντων καὶ οἵ γε ἀρχαῖοι τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι ταὐτὸν εἶναί φασιν. … πάντες γὰρ οὗτοι τὸ νοεῖν σωματικὸν ὥσπερ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. de An. 1.2 427b6–13 ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν, φανερόν· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ πᾶσι μέτεστι, τοῦ δὲ ὀλίγοις τῶν ζῴων. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὸ νοεῖν, ἐν ᾧ ἐστι τὸ ὀρθῶς καὶ τὸ μὴ ὀρθῶς, τὸ μὲν ὀρθῶς φρόνησις καὶ ἐπιστήμη καὶ δόξα ἀληθής, τὸ δὲ μὴ ὀρθῶς τἀναντία τούτων—οὐδὲ τοῦτό ἐστι ταὐτὸ τῷ αἰσθάνεσθαι· ἡ μὲν γὰρ αἴσθησις τῶν ἰδίων ἀεὶ ἀληθής, καὶ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζῴοις, διανοεῖσθαι δ᾽ ἐνδέχεται καὶ ψευδῶς, καὶ οὐδενὶ ὑπάρχει ᾧ μὴ καὶ λόγος. Met. Γ.5 1009b12–15 ὅλως δὲ διὰ τὸ ὑπολαμβάνειν φρόνησιν μὲν τὴν αἴσθησιν, ταύτην δ᾽ εἶναι ἀλλοίωσιν, τὸ φαινόμενον κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀληθὲς εἶναί φασιν (sc. the Presocratics in general). Theophrastus Sens. 3–4 Παρμενίδης (28A46 DK) μὲν γὰρ ὅλως οὐδὲν ἀφώρικεν ἀλλὰ μόνον ὅτι δυοῖν ὄντοιν στοιχείοιν κατὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον ἐστὶν ἡ γνῶσις. … (4) τὸ γὰρ αἰσθάνεσθαι καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ὡς ταὐτὸ λέγει. Sens. 23 (Empedocles 31A86 DK) καὶ συμβαίνει ταὐτὸ εἶναι τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι. Sens. 25 (Alcmaeon 24B5 DK) ὡς ἕτερον ὂν τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι, καὶ οὔ, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, ταὐτόν. §6 Aristotle: Aristotle Cat. 8 9b5–8 τῷ δὲ κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἑκάστην τῶν εἰρημένων ποιοτήτων πάθους εἶναι ποιητικὴν παθητικαὶ ποιότητες λέγονται· ἥ τε γὰρ γλυκύτης πάθος τι κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν ἐμποιεῖ κτλ. Phys. 7.3 247a6–7 γίγνεσθαι δ᾽ αὐτὰς (sc. ἀρεταὶ and κακίαι) ἀναγκαῖον ἀλλοιουμένου τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ μέρους, ἀλλοιωθήσεται δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν. de An. 2.4 415b24 ἡ μὲν γὰρ αἴσθησις ἀλλοίωσίς τις εἶναι δοκεῖ. de An. 2.5 416b33–35 ἡ δ᾽ αἴσθησις ἐν τῷ κινεῖσθαί τε καὶ πάσχειν συμβαίνει, καθάπερ εἴρηται· δοκεῖ γὰρ ἀλλοίωσίς τις εἶναι. de An. 2.11 424a1 τὸ γὰρ αἰσθάνεσθαι πάσχειν τι ἐστίν. de An. 2.11 424a4–5 ὡς τῆς αἰσθήσεως οἷον μεσότητός τινος οὔσης τῆς ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ἐναντιώσεως. Somn. 2 459a24– 25 τὰ γὰρ αἰσθητὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον αἰσθητήριον ἡμῖν ἐμποιοῦσιν αἴσθησιν. de An. 3.1 425a13–15 ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τῶν κοινῶν οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι αἰσθητήριόν τι ἴδιον, ὧν ἑκάστῃ αἰσθήσει αἰσθανόμεθα κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οἷον κινήσεως, στάσεως, σχήματος, μεγέθους, ἀριθμοῦ, ἑνός. de An. 3.9 432a30–31 τὸ αἰσθητικόν, ὃ οὔτε ὡς ἄλογον οὔτε ὡς λόγον ἔχον θείη ἄν τις ῥᾳδίως. Sens. 1 437a8–9 λέγω δὲ κοινὰ μέγεθος, σχῆμα, κίνησιν, ἀριθμόν. de An. 2.6 418a17–18 κοινὰ δὲ κίνησις, ἠρεμία, ἀριθμός, σχῆμα, μέγεθος. Insomn. 1 458b4–6 κοινὰ δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῶν αἰσθήσεων οἷον σχῆμα καὶ μέγεθος καὶ κίνησις καὶ τἆλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα. Mem. 1 450a12–13 ἡ δὲ μνήμη, καὶ ἡ τῶν νοητῶν, οὐκ ἄνευ φαντάσματός ἐστιν, ⟨καὶ τὸ φάντασμα τῆς κοινῆς αἰσθήσεως πάθος ἐστίν⟩· ὥστε τοῦ νοῦ μὲν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἂν εἴη, καθ᾽ αὑτὸ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου αἰσθητικοῦ. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 59.8–9 διὸ καὶ εὐλόγως ἄν τις μεσότητα τὴν αἴσθησιν λέγοι τῆς ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ἐναντιώσεως. de An. 41.1–5 ἔστι δὲ τοιαῦτα (sc. κοινά), ὅσα τὸ μὲν γνωρίζεσθαι δι᾽ αἰσθήσεως ἔχει, πλείους μέντοι εἰσὶν αὐτῶν αἰσθήσεις διάκονοι. μεθ᾽ ὧν γὰρ τὸ ἑκάστῃ αἰσθήσει ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ὑποπίπτει, μετὰ τούτων καὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια τὴν ἐπὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν αὐτῶν ποιεῖται διάδοσιν. τοιαῦτα δέ ἐστι κίνησις, ἠρεμία, ἀριθμός, σχῆμα, μέγεθος. de An. 50.24–25 ὁμοίως δὲ τῇ ἀκοῇ καὶ τὴν ὄψιν ὑποληπτέον τοῦ διαστήματος ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 11, pp. 16.13–17.5 καθ᾽ αὑτὴν μὲν οὖν ἑκάστη τῶν δυνάμεων ὅταν τὸ ἴδιον καὶ οἰκεῖον μόνον ἐπισκοπῇ κατὰ τὸ τῶν συμπεπλεγμένων ἀπερίσπαστον ἀληθεύειν

liber 4 caput 8 πέφυκεν· ὡς ὅταν ὄψις μὲν χρώματα· φωνὰς δ᾽ ἀκοή· γεῦσις δὲ χυμούς· ἀτμοὺς δ᾽ ὄσφρησις· ἁφὴ δὲ †ποιότητας† [perhaps τῶν ἁπτῶν or ἁπτὰς ποιότητας]· … ἄλλαι δ᾽ ἄλλαις συμπλακεῖσαι καὶ κοινωνήσασαι τῆς τῶν ὑποκειμένων κρίσεως—τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὅταν ἤτοι τῶν αὐτῶν πλείους ὦσιν ἀντιλήψεις, ὡς ἐν μὲν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὄγκου, μεγέθους, πλήθους, σχήματος, θέσεως, τάξεως, κινήσεως. Opt. 2.2–3, p. 12.3–13 Lejeune dicimus ergo quod visus cognoscit corpus magnitudinem colorem figuram situm motum et quietem. … prius autem incipiamus ab eo (sc. modo) qui est secundum dispositionem rerum videndarum: quarum alie videntur vere, alie prime et alie sequenter. Opt. 2.7, pp. 13.17–14.1 Lejeune colores quidem splendidos cognoscit visus simpliciter; cetera vero per istos, non secundum quod colores, sed secundum quod terminos habent tantum. figures enim et magnitudines cognoscit per terminos rei colorate, situm autem per locum eius. cognoscit etiam ipsorum colorum motum et quietum per mutationes eorum et privationem mutationis. Sextus Empiricus M. 9.146 καὶ μὴν ἡ αἴσθησις ἑτεροίωσίς τις ἐστίν· ἀμήχανον γὰρ τὸ δι᾽ αἰσθήσεώς τινος ἀντιλαμβανόμενον μὴ ἑτεροιοῦσθαι, ἀλλὰ οὕτω διακεῖσθαι, ὡς πρὸ τῆς ἀντιλήψεως διέκειτο. Themistius in de An. 57.37–38 κοινὰ δὲ πλειόνων κίνησις ἠρεμία ἀριθμὸς σχῆμα μέγεθος. ἀλλὰ κίνησις μὲν ἁπασῶν κοινόν τι τῶν αἰσθήσεων. in de An. 82.36–37 κοινὸν γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα ὄψεως καὶ ἁφῆς. §7 Stoics: Cicero Fin. 3.16 fieri autem non posset ut appeterent aliquid (sc. parvi), nisi sensum haberent sui eoque se diligerent. Luc. 20 quid de tactu et eo quidem quem philosophi interiorem vocant aut doloris aut voluptatis, in quo Cyrenaici (fr. IV A 209 Giannantoni) solo putant veri esse iudicium, quia sentiatur. Luc. 76 quid Cyrenaei (fr. IV A 209 Giannantoni) videntur, minime contempti philosophi, qui negant esse quicquam quod percipi possit extrinsecus, ea se sola percipere quae tactu intumo sentiant, ut dolorem ut voluptatem. Luc. 142 Cyrenaicorum (fr. IV A 209 Giannantoni), qui praeter permotiones intumas nihil putant esse iudicii. Lucretius DRN 4.433–439 (on the Epicureans) … tactus uterque. / tactus enim, tactus, pro divum numina sancta, / corporis est sensus, vel cum res extera sese / insinuat, vel cum laedit quae in corpore natast / aut iuvat egrediens genitalis per Veneris res, / aut ex offensu cum turbant corpore in ipso, / semina confundunt inter se concita sensum. Seneca Ep. 121.5 quaerebamus, an esset omnibus animalibus constitutionis suae sensus. Ep. 121.11 infans … animal esse se sentit. Ep. 121.12 qualis ad nos … animi nostri sensus, quamvis naturam eius ignoremus ac sedem, talis ad omnia animalia constitutionis suae sensus est. necesse enim est id sentient, per quod alia quoque sentiunt. Plutarch SR 1038C ἡ γὰρ οἰκείωσις αἴσθησις ἔοικε τοῦ οἰκείου καὶ ἀντίληψις εἶναι. Hierocles El.Eth. capitulatio 1a Bastianini–Long εἰ αἰσθάν[ε]ται τὸ ζῷον ἑαυτοῦ. El.Eth. col. 1.37–39 Bastianini–Long οὐκ ἀγνοητέον [ὅ]τι | τὸ ζῶιον εὐθὺς ἅμα [τῷ] γεν[έσ]θαι αἰσθάνεται [ἑα]υ|τοῦ. El.Eth. col. 4.38–44 Bastianini–Long ἐπεὶ | τοί[νυν γένος οὐδὲν] ἕτερ[όν] ἐστὶ τ[ὸ] ζ[ῷον ἢ [τὸ] σύνθετον ἐκ σώμα|τος [καὶ] ψυχῆς, ἄμφω δ᾽ ἐστὶ θι[κ]τὰ καὶ πρόσβλητα καὶ τῇ [π]ροσ|ερεί[σει] δὴ ὑπόπτωτα, ἔτ[ι] δὲ δι᾽ ὅλων κέκραται, καὶ [θά]|τερ[ον] μέν ἐστιν αὐτῶν δύναμι[ς αἰ]σθητική, τὸ δ αὐτ[ὸ] | τοῦτο καὶ τρόπον, ὃν [ὑ]πεδείξ[αμεν], κινεῖται, δῆλον ὅτι δ[ι]|ανεκῶς αἰσθάνο[ι]τ᾽ ἂν τ[ὸ ζῷον] ἑαυτοῦ. El.Eth. col. 6.1–6 Bastianini–Long καθόλου

1557

1558

liber 4 caput 8

γὰρ ο[ὐ σ]υντε|λε[ῖται] τῶν ἐκτός τινος [ἀντ]ίληψις δίχα τῆς ἑ|αυ[τῶν] αἰσθήσεως. μετὰ γὰρ τ[ῆς] τοῦ λευκοῦ φέρε εἰπεῖν | [αἰσθ]ήσεως καὶ ἑαυτῶν αἰσθανόμεθα λευκαινομένων καὶ μετὰ | ⟨τῆς⟩ τοῦ γλυκέως γλυκαζομένων καὶ μετὰ τῆς τοῦ θερμοῦ | θερμαινομένων κἀπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τἀνάλογον. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 12.1–2, p. 17.17–18.1 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἀπολελυμένα καὶ πρῶτα κριτήρια χωρὶς λόγου τινὸς αὐτόθεν ἐστὶ καταληπτικὰ καὶ μὴ δεόμενα κατά γε τὴν ἐνάργειαν αὐτὴν ἑτέρας ἀρχῆς· ἀντιλαμβάνεται γὰρ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἰδίων κινήσεων κατὰ τὴν ἐντὸς συναίσθησιν· ἔπειτα ἤδη τῶν πρώτων αἰσθητηρίων, καὶ τῶν ὅσα τῶν ἔξωθεν στερέμνια καὶ μετέχοντα τῶν εἰδῶν κτλ. Galen PHP 3.1.23–2532 ὁ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.886, verbatim) … ὧδέ πως γράφει κατὰ λέξιν· ‘κοινῇ δέ μοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ πολλοὶ φέρεσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦτο ὡσανεὶ συναισθανόμενοι περὶ τὸν θώρακα αὑτοῖς τῶν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν παθῶν γιγνομένων καὶ μάλιστα καθ᾽ ὃν ἡ καρδία τέτακται τόπον, οἷον μάλιστα ἐπὶ τῶν λυπῶν καὶ τῶν φόβων καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀργῆς καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ θυμοῦ· ⟨ὡσανεὶ γὰρ⟩ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἀναθυμιωμένου καὶ ὠθουμένου ἐκτὸς ἐπί τινα καὶ ἐμφυσῶντος τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ τὰς χεῖρας γίγνεσθαι ἡμῖν ἐμφάσεις.’ Dig.Puls. 8.792.16–793.11 K. ὅτι δ᾽ οὐ προσιόντος, ἢ ἀπιόντος, ἢ θλίβοντος, ἢ ἁπτομένου, ἢ ἀπωθουμένου πρώτην αἴσθησιν ἔχομεν, ἄνευ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἡμέτερον σῶμα παθημάτων, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ οἴομαι λανθάνειν. … (SVF 2.79) πρῶτα γάρ ἐστιν αἰσθητὰ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις σώμασι τὰ παθήματα, δεύτερα δὲ τὰ τούτων ποιητικὰ, ἐκτὸς ὑποκείμενα. Oenomaus of Gadara at Eus. PE 6.7.10 ἆρά γέ τί ἐσμεν ἐγώ τε καὶ σύ; φαίης ἄν· τοῦτο δὲ ὁπόθεν ἴσμεν; τῷ ποτ᾽ ἄρα τοῦτο εἰδέναι ἐκρίναμεν; ἢ οὐκ ἄλλο ἱκανὸν οὕτως, ὡς ἡ συναίσθησίς τε καὶ ἀντίληψις ἡμῶν αὐτῶν; Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.85 καθά φησιν ὁ Χρύσιππος (SVF 3.178) ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ τελῶν, πρῶτον οἰκεῖον λέγων εἶναι παντὶ ζῴῳ τὴν αὑτοῦ σύστασιν καὶ τὴν ταύτης συνείδησιν [συναίσθησιν Dyroff, συντήρησιν Giusta fort. recte sec. Dorandi]. Plotinus Enn. 3.4.[15]4.9–10 (on the World Soul) τί οὖν; συναίσθησιν (sc. ἔχει), ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς τῶν ἐντὸς ἡμῶν; Enn. 4.4.[28]21–23 ἀλλὰ συναίσθησιν μὲν αὐτοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἡμῶν συναισθανόμεθα, δοτέον, αἴσθησιν δὲ ἀεὶ ἑτέρου οὖσαν οὐ δοτέον; Doxography A at Stob. 2.7.3c, p. 47.12–20 ὑποτελὶς δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ πρῶτον οἰκεῖον τοῦ ζῴου πάθος, ἀφ᾽ οὗ κατήρξατο συναισθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον τῆς συστάσεως αὑτοῦ, οὔπω λογικὸν ⟨ὂν⟩ ἀλλ᾽ ἄλογον, κατὰ τοὺς φυσικοὺς καὶ σπερματικοὺς λόγους, ὥσπερ τὸ θρεπτικὸν καὶ τὸ αἰσθητικόν, καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον ῥίζης τόπον ἐπέχει, οὐδέ πω φυτοῦ· γενόμενον γὰρ τὸ ζῷον ᾠκειώθη τινὶ πάντως εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὑποτελίς, κεῖται δ᾽ ἔν τινι τῶν τριῶν· ἢ γὰρ ἐν ἡδονῇ [sc. according to Epicurus] ἢ ἐν ἀοχλησίᾳ (according to the Megarians?) ἢ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις κατὰ φύσιν (sc. according to the Stoics). §9 The followers of the ancients: Sextus Empiricus M. 10.259 (cf. Xenocrates F 43 Isnardi Parente2) καὶ τὰ στερεὰ σχήματα προεπινοεῖται τῶν σωμάτων, ἀσώματον ἔχοντα τὴν φύσιν κτλ. Corpus Hermeticum fr. 8.4 Nock–Festugière at Stob. Ecl. 1.4.8, p. 73.14–16 τρίτον δέ ἐστιν εἶδος ἀσωμάτων ὃ περὶ τὰ σώματά ἐστι συμβεβηκός, τόπος, χρόνος, κίνησις, σχῆμα, ἐπιφάνεια, μέγεθος, εἶδος. §10 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Cicero Fin. 1.21 quae sequitur sunt tota Democriti (frs. 182, 470 Luria), atomi, inane, imagines, quae εἴδωλα nominant, quorum incursione non solum videamus, sed etiam cogitemus. ND 1.108 vos autem non modo oculis imagines sed etiam animis inculcatis. Lucretius

liber 4 caput 8 DRN 4.752–756 nunc igitur docui quoniam me forte leonum / cernere per simulacra, oculos quaecumque lacessunt, / scire licet mentem simili ratione moveri / per simulacra leonum ⟨et⟩ cetera quae videt aeque / nec minus atque oculi, nisi quod mage tenvia cernit. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.13.87.3 Δημόκριτος (69A79 DK) … τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πεποίηκεν εἴδωλα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις προσπίπτοντα καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις ἀπὸ τῆς θείας οὐσίας. §11 Anonymi: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.45 (SVF 2.53) τὴν δὲ φαντασίαν εἶναι τύπωσιν ἐν ψυχῇ, τοῦ ὀνόματος οἰκείως μετενηνεγμένου ἀπὸ τῶν τύπων τῶν ἐν τῷ κηρῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ δακτυλίου γινομένων. §12 Stoics: Cicero Luc. 108 (SVF 2.73) dicunt enim Stoici sensus ipsos adsensus esse. Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων 253F Smith at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 349.23–27 τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.74) τὴν αἴσθησιν οὐκ ἐν τῇ φαντασίᾳ ἱστάντων μόνον, ἀλλὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀναρτώντων ἀπὸ τῆς συγκαταθέσεως. αἰσθητικὴ γὰρ φαντασία συγκατάθεσίς ἐστιν ἢ αἴσθησις τῆς συγκαταθέσεως καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν οὔσης. §13 Academics: Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων 253F Smith at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, pp. 349.28–350.7 κατὰ μέντοι τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀκαδημίας ἡ αἴσθησις ἐπὶ τῆς δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου φαντασίας ψιλὴ τίθεται καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μέτοχος ἰδιώματος, ὅτι μηδὲ συγκαταθέσεως μέτοχος. κἂν ᾖ δὲ μετὰ συγκαταθέσεως συγκατακειμένη φαντασία δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου ἡ αἴσθησις, οὐ πάντως καὶ ἀρετῆς μέτοχος ἡ αἴσθησις ἔσται, εἰ μὴ συγκατάθεσις εἴη τῶν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν.

1559

Liber 4 Caput 9 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 899F; pp. 396a1–397a4 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 90; p. 635.13–16 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 196–199 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.50.17–35, p. 475.1–477.17 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b30 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus θʹ. Εἰ ἀληθεῖς αἱ αἰσθήσεις καὶ φαντασίαι (P,S) §1 Πυθαγόρας Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ξενοφάνης Παρμενίδης Ζήνων Μέλισσος Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Μητρόδωρος Πρωταγόρας Πλάτων ψευδεῖς εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις. (S1) §2 οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀκαδημίας ὑγιεῖς μέν, ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτῶν οἴονται λαβεῖν ἀληθινὰς φαντασίας, οὐ μὴν ἀκριβεῖς. (S2) §3 Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν αἴσθησιν μὴ πλανᾶσθαι περὶ τὸ ἴδιον, περὶ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκός. (S3) §4 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ἀληθεῖς, τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν τὰς μὲν ἀληθεῖς τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς. (P1,S4) §5 Ἐπίκουρος πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶσαν φαντασίαν ἀληθῆ, τῶν δὲ δοξῶν τὰς μὲν ἀληθεῖς τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς. καὶ ἡ μὲν αἴσθησις μοναχῶς ψευδοποιεῖται τὰ κατὰ τὰ νοητά, ἡ δὲ φαντασία διχῶς· καὶ γὰρ αἰσθητῶν ἐστι φαντασία καὶ νοητῶν. (P2,S5) §1 Pythagoras—; Empedocles—; Xenophanes 21A49 DK; Parmenides 28A49 DK; cf. Zeno 29A23 DK; cf. Melissus 30A14 DK; Anaxagoras 59A96 DK; Democritus fr. 54 Luria; Metrodorus 70A22 DK; Protagoras—; Plato—; §2 Academici—; §3 Aristoteles cf. de An. 2.6 418a11–12; §4 Stoici SVF 2.78; §5 Epicurus fr. 248 Usener qui secl. καὶ ἡ […] νοητῶν quia ‘pertinent ad Stoicos l.s. §4’ titulus Εἰ … φαντασίαι PBQ : Εἰ ἀληθὴς ἡ αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ φαντασία PG : Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν (~ tit. c. 4.8) καὶ εἰ ἀληθεῖς αἱ αἰσθήσεις SLPhot §§1–3 om. P §2 [5] οἴονται SL Diels, cf. A 4.13.1 : οἷόν τε Usener Wachsmuth §4 [9] μὲν αἰσθήσεις PB, inv. ord. PG §5 [11–12] Ἐπίκουρος … ψευδεῖς PBQS : om. PG ‖ [12–14] καὶ … νοητῶν Epicuro abiud. et Stoicis attrib. Usener, ut implicite PG omittendo Επίκουρος … ψευδεῖς : dub. Wachsmuth : non prob. ab Arnim ‖ [12–13] ψευδοποιεῖται PBQ : ψευδοποιεῖ τα SL ‖ [τὰ1] secl. Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [13] κατὰ νοητὰ PBQ : καὶ τὰ νοήματα PG : κατανοητά SL, corr. Meineke Wachsmuth ‖ post διχῶς add. νοεῖται SL : non hab. P : secl. vel om. edd. ‖ αἰσθητῶν P : αἰσθητον SL, corr. edd. ‖ [14] νοητῶν P : νοητὸν SL, corr. edd.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_109

5

10

liber 4 caput 9

§6

§7 §8 §9

§10

§11

§12 §13

Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος Ἡρακλείδης παρὰ τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν πόρων τὰς κατὰ μέρος αἰσθήσεις γίνεσθαι τοῦ οἰκείου, τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἑκάστου ἑκάστῃ ἐναρμόττοντος. (P3,S6) οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ παρὰ τὰς δυνάμεις τῶν αἰσθητηρίων. (S7) οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι φύσει τὰ αἰσθητά, (S8) Λεύκιππος δὲ Δημόκριτος Διογένης νόμῳ, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ δόξῃ καὶ πάθεσι τοῖς ἡμετέροις· μηδὲν δ᾽ εἶναι ἀληθὲς μηδὲ καταληπτὸν ἐκτὸς τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων, ἀτόμων καὶ κενοῦ· ταῦτα γὰρ εἶναι μόνα φύσει, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τούτων, θέσει καὶ τάξει καὶ σχήματι διαφέροντα ἀλλήλων, συμβεβηκότα. (S9) οἱ τὰ ἄτομα καὶ οἱ τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ καὶ οἱ τὰ ἀμερῆ καὶ τὰ ἐλάχιστα πάντ᾽ ἐν πᾶσι τὰ αἰσθητὰ ἀναμεμῖχθαι καὶ μηδὲν αὐτῶν εἰλικρινὲς ὑπάρχειν, παρὰ δὲ τὰς ἐπικρατείας ὀνομάζεσθαι τοῖον ἢ τοῖον καὶ παρὰ τὴν πολυαύγειαν. (S10) Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων καθαρὸν ἕκαστον εἶναι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐξ ἑκάστου στοιχείου προσερχόμενον. πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὴν ὅρασιν τὸ αἰθερῶδες πεφυκέναι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀκοὴν τὸ πνευματικόν, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ὄσφρησιν τὸ πυρῶδες, πρὸς δὲ τὴν γεῦσιν τὸ ὑγρόν, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἁφὴν τὸ γεῶδες. (S11) Ἐπίκουρος τῶν αἰσθητῶν ⟨τὰς⟩ ἡδονὰς ἤδη καὶ τὰς λύπας. (S12) οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ τῶν νοητῶν· οὐ γὰρ πᾶσι φαίνεται τὰ αὐτὰ ἡδέα τε καὶ λυπηρὰ καθάπερ λευκά τε καὶ μέλανα. (S13)

§6 Parmenides 28A47 DK; Empedocles 31A90 DK; Anaxagoras—; Democritus fr. 437 Luria; Epicurus cf. Ep.Hdt. ap. D.L. 10.49; Heraclides Ponticus fr. 122a,b Wehrli, 63A,B Schütrumpf; §7 Peripatetici—; §8 anonymi—; §9 Leucippus 67A32 DK; Democritus frs. 95 et 243 Luria; Diogenes 64A23 DK, S3 Laks; §10 Atomistae—; Homoeomeristae;—Ameristae—; Elachistae—; §11 Pythagoras—; Plato cf. Tim. 45b–c, 65c–d, 66d, 67b; §12 Epicurus fr. 261 Usener; §13 Peripatetici— §6 [15] Παρμενίδης … Ἐπίκουρος S : Παρμενίδης etἈναξαγόρας … Ἐπίκουρος om. PB ‖ [16] παρὰ PB : περὶ SL ‖ [17] ἑκάστῃ PB(II) : ἑκάστης PB(Ι,ΙΙΙ), ἑκάστην SL ‖ ἐναρμόττοντος corr. Diels ex 1.15.3 et Thphr. Sens. 9 prob. Laks–Most : ἀναρμόττοντος SL : ἁρμόζοντος PB, infolge der Einpassung Q §§7–20 om. P §7 [19] παρὰ corr. Meineke : περὶ SL §9 [21] post Δημόκριτος hab. SL καὶ, quod delevimus ‖ [23] φύσει corr. Meineke : φύσεις SL §10 [26] ‘post ἐλάχιστα audiendum λέγοντες, sed non addendum’ cf. Diels ad DG 315a1, Wachsmuth §11 [30] (π)υθαγόρας πλάτων marg. SF : Πυθαγόρου καὶ Πλάτωνος lemma add. SP : καὶ om. etiam SL Diels, ret. Wachsmuth ‖ καθαρὸν SF : καθόλου coni. Roethke ‖ [31] προσερχόμενον S : προερχόμενον Diels Wachsmuth §12 [35] ⟨τὰς1⟩ : add. Wachsmuth

1561 15

20

25

30

35

1562

liber 4 caput 9

§14 Χρύσιππος τὸ μὲν γενικὸν ἡδὺ νοητόν, τὸ δὲ εἰδικὸν καὶ προσπῖπτον ἤδη αἰσθητόν. (S14) §15 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς ἡδονὰς γίνεσθαι τοῖς μὲν ὁμοίοις ⟨ἐκ⟩ τῶν ὁμοίων κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἐλλεῖπον πρὸς τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν, ὥστε τῷ ἐλλείποντι ἡ ὄρεξις τοῦ ὁμοίου· τὰς δ᾽ ἀλγηδόνας τοῖς ἐναντίοις, ἠλλοτριῶσθαι γὰρ πρὸς ἄλληλα ὅσα διαφέρει κατά τε τὴν σύγκρισιν καὶ τὴν τῶν στοιχείων κρᾶσιν. (S15) §16 Ἀναξαγόρας πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν μετὰ πόνου. (S16) §17 ⟨οἱ⟩ ἄλλοι ἐπιγίγνεσθαι ἤτοι ἡδονὴν ἢ πόνον οὐδὲ συμπεφυκέναι. (S17) §18 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν σοφὸν αἰσθήσει καταληπτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους τεκμηριωδῶς· (S18) §19 οἱ Ἀκαδημαικοὶ λόγῳ γνώριμον· (S19) §20 Ἐπίκουρος σοφῷ μόνῳ τὸν σοφόν. (S20) §14 Chrysippus SVF 2.81; §15 Empedocles 31A95 DK; §16 Anaxagoras 59A94 DK; §17 anonymi—; §18 Stoici SVF 1.204, 3.568; §19 Academici—; §20 Epicurus— §14 [38–39] post αἰσθητόν hab. lemma Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐλλείψει τροφῆς τὴν ὄρεξιν S (= A 4.9.14 Diels, 28A50 DK), quod cap. 5.28 attribuendum §15 [40] ⟨ἐκ⟩ τῶν ὁμοίων Meineke prob. Diels : τῶν ὁμοίων S : secl. Karsten prob. Wachsmuth Laks–Most ‖ [41] πρὸς S, prob. Wachsmuth : παρὰ Usener ‖ [42] ἠλλοτριῶσθαι corr. Meineke : ἢ ἀλλοτριῶσθαι SL (ἢ secl. Karsten) ‖ [43] ἄλληλα corr. Karsten prob. Diels Wachsmuth Laks–Most : ἄλλα SL §17 [46] ⟨οἱ⟩ add. Wachsmuth : om. vulg. ‖ πόνο⟨ν οὐδὲ⟩ coni. Wachsmuth : πόνους SL : lac. post πόνους ind. et ⟨οὐ μέντοι⟩ add. Meineke §18 [47] καταληπτὸν SL Wachsmuth : καταληπτικὸν Diels §19 [49] λόγῳ corr. Diels : λόγων SL §20 [50] post σοφὸν lac. ind. Diels, γνώριμον audiendum maluit Wachsmuth

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 91 (~ tit.) Εἰ ἀληθὴς ἡ αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ φαντασία (text Diels) 91.1 (~ P1) οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις μὲν ἀληθεῖς, τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν τὰς μὲν ἀληθεῖς, τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς. 91.2 (~ P2) καὶ αἱ μὲν αἰσθήσεις μοναχῶς ψευδοποιοῦνται καὶ τὰ νοήματα διττῶς. καὶ γὰρ αἰσθητῶν ἐστι φαντασία καὶ νοητῶν. Loci Aetiani: §2 A 4.8.13 οἱ Ἀκαδημαικοὶ μὴ εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις μήτε καταλήψεις μήτε συγκαταθέσεις. §4 A 4.15.1 Σφαῖρος ὁ Στωικὸς ὁρατὸν εἶναι τὸ σκότος … · καὶ οὐ ψεύδεται ἡ ὅρασις, βλέπεται γὰρ ταῖς ἀληθείαις, ὅτι ἔστι σκότος. §6 A 1.15.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸ τοῖς πόροις τῆς ὄψεως ἐναρμόττον. A 4.13.1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος κατὰ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν οἴονται τὸ ὁρατικὸν συμβαίνειν πάθος. §7 A 1.11.8 oἱ Περιπατητικοὶ τῶν αἰτίων εἶναι τὰ μὲν αἰσθητά, τὰ δὲ νοητά. A 4.14.2 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὰς κατοπτρικὰς ἐμφάσεις γίνεσθαι κατ᾽

40

45

50

liber 4 caput 9

1563

εἰδώλων παραστάσεις, ἅτινα φέρεσθαι μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν συνίστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν. §9 A 1.15.8 Δημόκριτος φύσει μὲν μηδὲν εἶναι χρῶμα, τὰ μὲν γὰρ στοιχεῖα ἄποια, τά τε ναστὰ καὶ τὸ κενόν· τὰ δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν συγκρίματα κεχρῶσθαι διαταγῇ τε καὶ ῥυθμῷ καὶ προτροπῇ, ὧν ἣ μέν ἐστι τάξις, ὃ δὲ σχῆμα, ἣ δὲ θέσις· παρὰ ταῦτα γὰρ αἱ φαντασίαι. τούτων δὲ τῶν πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν χρωμάτων τέτταρες αἱ διαφοραί, λευκοῦ, μέλανος, ἐρυθροῦ, ὠχροῦ. §10 A 1.3.28 Διόδωρος ἐπίκλην Κρόνος τὰ ἀμερῆ σώματα ἄπειρα, τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ λεγόμενα καὶ ἐλάχιστα. A 1.9.7 οἱ δὲ τὰ ἀμερῆ καὶ τὰς ἀτόμους ἄμορφον. A 1.13.3 Ξενοκράτης καὶ Διόδωρος ἀμερῆ τὰ ἐλάχιστα ὡρίζοντο. A 1.15.11 οἳ δὲ τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ ποιότητος μετέχειν τὰ πρῶτα, οἳ δὲ τὰ ἄτομα πάντα συλλήβδην ἄχροα, ἐξ ἀποίων δὲ τῶν λόγῳ θεωρητῶν τὰς αἰσθητὰς ὑποφαίνουσι γίγνεσθαι ποιότητας. A 1.16.2 οἱ τὰς ἀτόμους ⟨εἰσάγοντες⟩ περὶ τὰ ἀμερῆ ἵστασθαι καὶ μὴ εἰς ἄπειρον εἶναι τὴν τομήν. §11 A 4.4.6 oἱ δέ γε Πυθαγόρου διάδοχοι ἐκ πέντε στοιχείων τὸ σῶμα κραθῆναι φάντες—τοῖς γὰρ τέτταρσι ξυνέταξαν τὸ αἰθέριον—ἰσαρίθμους εἶναι ἔφασαν ταύτῃ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τὰς δυνάμεις. A 4.6.11 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων καθαρὸν ἕκαστον εἶναι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐξ ἑκάστου στοιχείου προσερχόμενον. A 4.10.5 Δημόκριτος πλείους μὲν εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις τῶν αἰσθητῶν, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἀναλογίζειν τὰ αἰσθητὰ τῷ πλήθει λανθάνειν. §14 A 4.9.7 ⟨οἱ⟩ Στωικοὶ τήνδε τὴν κοινὴν αἴσθησιν ἐντὸς ἁφὴν προσαγορεύουσι, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα. A 4.10.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ πέντε τὰς εἰδικὰς αἰσθήσεις. §15 A 5.28.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς μὲν ὀρέξεις γίνεσθαι τοῖς ζῴοις κατὰ τὰς ἐλλείψεις τῶν ἀποτελούντων ἕκαστα στοιχείων, τὰς δ᾽ ἡδονὰς ἐξ † ὑγροῦ καὶ τὰς τῶν κινδύνων καὶ ὁμοίων κινήσεις † (infolge der in der Art sich gleichenden Wachstumsbewegungen PQ), τὰς δ᾽ ὀχλήσεις καὶ τὰς … entsteht infolge der im Berühren und Zusammentreffen im Widerspruch stehenden Dinge PQ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses are P as represented by PB, PG, and PQ, as well as S. PBQ have a mere three lemmata, two of which are more or less paralleled in PG. S on the other hand has no less than twenty lemmata, all of which except §3 (Aristotle) and §11 (Pythagoras Plato) are extant only in SL, the Florentine florilegium, cf. ch. 4.8 above at Commentary A(1). T as we have seen stopped excerpting A after ch. 4.7a, the last chapter to be paralleled in the CAG. (2) It should be noted that S in Ecl. 1.50 has combined blocks of lemmata from at least three chapters, viz. 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, see ch. 4.8 at Commentary

1564

liber 4 caput 9

A (2), and below, ch. 4.10 at Commentary A(3). The lemma on desire and food at Ecl. 1.50.25 p. 476.8–10 Wachsmuth, namely ‘Parmenides and Empedocles declare that desire arises from a deficiency of food’ (Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐλλείψει τροφῆς τὴν ὄρεξιν), which Diels incorporated in his ch. 4.9.14 because it occurs in the midst of lemmata belonging with ch. 4.9, in fact belongs in ch. 5.28 Πόθεν αἱ ὀρέξεις γίνονται τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ αἱ ἡδοναί (‘From where do desires arise in living beings and also pleasures’), see ch. 5.28.2 (and ch. 5.28 Commentary A and D(c)), while the Democritus lemma at Ecl. 1.50.35, p. 477.18–19 Wachsmuth ‘Democritus (says) that dead bodies have sensation’ (Δημόκριτος τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων αἰσθάνεσθαι), which became ch. 4.9.20 Diels, is an abstract from ch. 4.8, so has been cited by us at the above location. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Parallel doxographical evidence is found in the other ps.Plutarch, Stromateis ch. 4, who however has only excerpted material dealing with Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Zeno. For the proximate tradition we have also adduced several fragments of Aristocles, which are rather similar to what is in Cicero. For Cicero cf. below, section D(e). (2) Sources. Diels DG 222, in his too optimistic presentation of the (in our view meagre) evidence for the descent of sections and lemmata of the Placita from Theophrastus’ De sensibus, cites §15 Empedocles and Sens. 16 as ‘similia’, adding that the words κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἐλλεῖπον πρὸς τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν ‘certa a Theophrasto tacta non sunt. sed optima est memoria et cum Empedoclea doctrina egregie consentiens’, just as is the case in chs. 4.14.1 and 4.17.2. ‘Ergo nisi alibi Theophrastus illa repetierat, ipsius philosophi verba nescio quo pacto innotuisse videntur.’ Several lemmata of the present chapter are related to what is found in Theophrastus’ treatise, e.g. the pithy §16 Anaxagoras is remarkably close to the first clause at Sens. 29. The information about Presocratic philosophers is also in a more general way indebted to Aristotle. About the sources for the Hellenistic theories nothing much can be said, though such parallels as are available inspire some confidence. C Chapter Heading A very precise heading, and one of the eleven headings beginning with εἰ; for the other ten see chs. 1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 4.3, 4.9, 4.15, 4.20, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.15. S in the heading of Ecl. 1.50 (a combination of the headings of A 4.8 and 4.9) omits καὶ φαντασίαι. The wording of the full heading is to some extent paralleled in an introductory formula at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.49 (SVF 2.52) ‘the Stoics are wont to start with the account of impression and sensation’ (ἀρέσκει τοῖς Στωικοῖς τὸν περὶ φαντασίας καὶ αἰσθήσεως προτάττειν λόγον), though the terms are

liber 4 caput 9

1565

listed the other way round. Aristotle in the De anima announced his treatment of phantasia at 3.3 427b29, ‘determining the nature of impression/imagination’ (περὶ φαντασίας διορίσαντας), and at the end of what has become a chapter in our modern editions neatly concluded it with 429a8–9 ‘let this suffice as to the nature and cause of impression/imagination’; he refers to this section at Mem. 1 449b30–31. This type of embedded formula is the predecessor of the heading, or title, see M–R 2.1.48, 159–161, 162–163, 170, 202–204. Epicurus wrote a book entitled On impression. For these texts see below, section E(b) Chapter heading. The title of S Ecl. 1.58 (alternative to that of P 4.12) is Περὶ φαντασίας καὶ κριτηρίου, the second ingredient of which is remarkably enough not paralleled in A. D Analysis a Context Chapter 4.9 is the second of a series of five substantial chapters concerned with cognitive issues in a more general way. It deals with the reliability of sensations and impressions (truth or falsity: category/question-type of quality), and follows upon the chapter dealing with the nature of sensation(s) and sense objects in general (category/question-type of substance), and with where (category of place) and how (question-type of cause) they occur or are found. It is itself then followed by a chapter concerned with the number of the senses (category of quantity). We note again the importance of treatment according to categories and question-types. In Aristotle (as in A) the account of the senses’ reliability is also found before that of the individual senses (de An. 2.6). In Lucretius (DRN 4.478–521) it has been wedged in between the treatment of vision and that of hearing etc. b Number–Order of Lemmata As noted T has not excerpted the chapter. The relative order of PBQ’s three lemmata is exactly the same as that of the three lemmata in SL that as to contents are parallel to those in PBQ, so we may assume that it is correct to follow the order of SL, as we have done. The large amount of material in S suggests that he excerpted A’s complete chapter. Our order of lemmata is the same as Diels’ in the DG, though we have omitted ch. 4.9.14 and 4.9.20 Diels (see at section A above), and split up 4.9.8 and 4.9.16 Diels into two lemmata each. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The structure of this rich chapter is comparable to that of ch. 4.8, for here, too, a variety of interrelated themes are included. Six blocks of lemmata consisting of related tenets in more or less diaphonic opposition may be dis-

1566

liber 4 caput 9

tinguished. As a matter of fact the contents of ch. 4.9 could have been distributed over several separate chapters. There are a quite unusual number of name-labels occurring more than once, namely Pythagoras (twice), Parmenides (twice), Anaxagoras (three times), Empedocles (three times), Democritus (three times), Plato (twice), Academics (twice), Stoics (twice), and Epicurus (four times). This may suggest that S, our only source for §§1–3 and the long series of §§7–20, coalesced several chapters. Because it is not clear where the caesurae would have to be (there are several options), we have not ventured to interfere with the single chapter. The first block, §§1–5, comprises variously opposed views concerned with the truth-value of sensation(s), from the thesis of Pythagoras & alii in §1 that the sensations are false (the impressions are not mentioned), to the diaphonically opposed and famous thesis of Epicurus in §5 that every sensation and every impression is true, and that falsity is a matter of the opinion. In between we have three tenets that gradually grow more distant from the negative view of Pythagoras & alii and closer to the positive view of Epicurus. This gliding scale is systematic rather than chronological: the Academics of §2 are not Plato’s immediate pupils but representatives of the Sceptical Academy, just as those mentioned at chs. 4.8.13 above and 4.9.19 below. The second block, §§6–7, opposes those who argue that each sense organ perceives its proper object in a mechanical way because of the matching sizes of the pores, to those who hold that the proper sense objects are perceived depending on the (actual) capacities of the sense organs. The third block, §§8–9, opposes the majority who hold that sense objects are natural, i.e. exist in reality, to (a simplified version of the views of) Leucippus, Democritus and Diogenes, who argue that they are a matter of convention, or habit, and that only the atoms and space are natural, i.e. real, and true. The fourth block, §§10–11, opposes the Atomists and those representing similar theories, who defend the sophisticated view that all sense objects are blended and none exist in a pure state, so that things get their name from the dominating ingredient, to Pythagoras and Plato who, on the contrary, are said to argue that sense objects do exist in a pure state, and that each of the five elemental substances is adapted to a specific sense organ, or conversely. The first four blocks together deal with perception of sense data by the sense organs. The fifth block, §§12–17, deals with a different kind of sense objects, namely the pleasant and the painful. Thus awareness of internal sense data appears to be included (cf. above ch. 4.8, Commentary D(d)§7, and below, ch. 4.11, Commentary D(d)3).

liber 4 caput 9

1567

The block begins with a group of three doxai, §§12–14, comprising two diaphonically opposed tenets and one compromise view. Epicurus (§12) holds that pleasures and pains belong with the sense objects, but the Peripatetics (§13) are made to disagree: visual objects like black and white appear the same to everyone, but pleasant and painful things do not, so they must be counted among the objects of thought. The reasonable compromise tenet (§14) is adorned with the name-label Chrysippus: the pleasant in general is an object of thought, but the individual pleasant thing one encounters is a sense object. From these factual statements we then switch to a tenet concerned with a materialist and mechanical explanation of the origin of pleasant or painful sensations (the question-type of cause): Empedocles (§15) argues that pleasures come about when what is lacking is compensated for by something similar, and pains when something dissimilar intrudes. The block ends with two opposed views (§§16– 17): according to Anaxagoras every sensation is painful, but according to the others pleasure or pain do not inhere to the sense objects, but are supervenient upon them. We should make a distinction between perceptions of pleasure and pain per se on the one hand (§§12–14), and of pleasure or pain (§15), or pain (stress) alone (§16), as unavoidable ingredients of perception, or as after-effects (§17), on the other. The sixth and final block, §§18–20, returns to the issue of the contrast between sensation and thought of §§12–14, but in a particular way, viz. by dealing with the question, all-important in Hellenistic philosophy, of how you are supposed to know that someone is a Wise Man. The Stoics hold that the Wise Man can be grasped by sensation if one uses his individual appearance as a sign (which is the beginning of an argument). The Academics, on the other hand, hold that he becomes known by reason (or argument). The view attributed to Epicurus does not fit either one of the horns of this diaphonia, for he idiosyncratically applies the doctrine of like knows like, and posits that the Wise Man can only be identified by another Wise Man—thus dodging the epistemological issue. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The name-labels constitute a checklist of predecessors claimed by Pyrrhonists and Academics alike. See below, section E(a) & (b), both times at §1. Note that Sextus too argues that Parmenides rejects sense perception (after citing 28B7.3–5 DK immediately following on after 28B1), although the ‘tongue’ in these lines is not the organ of taste but the instrument of speech, see Barnes (1979) 296–297, Coxon (1986) 182, and Mansfeld (2018b). This quotation and interpretation are also found in D.L. 9.22, see Rocca-Serra (1987) 261–264, who

1568

liber 4 caput 9

proves that they go back to a shared source (or tradition). See now Mansfeld (2018c). Pythagoras may have been included as the predecessor of Plato, i.e. is the Platonizing Pythagoras usually encountered in the Placita. §2 For a possible connection between the contents of this lemma and the anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus and Potamo’s epistemology as described by Diogenes Laertius (cited at section E(b)§2) see Hatzimichali (2011) 88–89. §3 The account of Aristotle’s evaluation of sensation is far from complete, but not false. The phrase Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν αἴσθησιν μὴ πλανᾶσθαι περὶ τὸ ἴδιον, περὶ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκός has been abstracted from de An. 2.6 418a11–12 λέγω δ᾽ ἴδιον μὲν ὃ μὴ ἐνδέχεται ἑτέρᾳ αἰσθήσει αἰσθάνεσθαι, καὶ περὶ ὃ μὴ ἐνδέχεται ἀπατηθῆναι. His concept of phantasia is wider than ‘impression’, for it also includes imagination; but in the present chapter this does not matter. §§4–5 Usener reallocated §5 καὶ ἡ … νοητῶν from the Epicurus lemma to the Stoics lemma, §4. But perhaps the phrase ψευδοποιεῖται τὰ κατὰ νοητά pertains to the Epicurean idea of the connection of thoughts with sensations as a possible source of error. Yet one understands Usener’s problem, for the second sentence of the lemma remains difficult to explain. §6 Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus are discussed in Theophrastus De sensibus, who credits Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus with (matching) pores and perceptibles, and this doctrine is now also attributed retroactively to Parmenides, who according to Sens. 1 shares the ‘by likeness doctrine’ of sense perception with Empedocles. Laks (1990) 16 argues that the phrase ἀλλὰ καὶ ταύτην δεῖσθαί τινος συμμετρίας at Sens. 3 means that the hot element according to Theophrastus has to match what it perceives. It is certainly plausible that the phrase was interpreted in this way and so helps to understand our lemma, but far from certain that it is correct. We believe that Theophrastus means that the mixture should not become too hot, cf. on Democritus on the mind that becomes unhinged at Sens. 58. One cannot, at any rate, introduce pores at Sens. 3. §9 The Diogenes coupled with Leucippus and Democritus can hardly be anyone else than Diogenes of Smyrna (or Cyrene), a pupil of Metrodorus of Chius. Diels DG 676, referring to the present lemma, says ‘Placitorum fortasse hoc [sc. §9] ad eum referendum’. See Laks (2008) 239–240, who points out that there are other name-labels too that occur in the Placita only once. Whether or not the doxographer believed that the Smyrnaean is the same person as the Apollonian or did not care, is another matter. The ethnicon Ἀπολλωνιάτης of ch. 1.3.10 is also found at ch. 4.3.8. Repetition elsewhere of the ethnicon or affiliation after the first introduction is rare, and suggests that in such cases the doxographer wanted to preclude confusion. But the name-

liber 4 caput 9

1569

label Diogenes occurs several times without ethnicon, and it is (for us) sometimes difficult to know who is meant. At 1.7.7, Διογένης καὶ Κλεάνθης καὶ Οἰνοπίδης τὴν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχήν, sc. τὸν θεὸν, one should probably think of Diogenes the Stoic. But Diogenes of Apollonia cannot be excluded, see Aristotle’s view of him at de An. 1.2 405a21–24 in context, and Theophrastus’ at Sens. 42: ὁ ἐντὸς ἀὴρ αἰσθάνεται μικρὸν ὢν μόριον τοῦ θεοῦ. Also cf. Commentary D(d) at ch. 4.3.2. For the doxa cf. above, ch. 1.15.8 ‘Democritus (says that) no colour exists by nature, for the elements are without quality, being the solids (i.e. atoms) and the void. But the compounds formed from these are coloured by ‘turning’, by ‘rhythm’ and by ‘inter-contact’, of which the first means order, the next shape and the last position. For it is on the basis of these that the impressions (on the senses arise)’. See further above, ch. 1.15 Commentary B, sources. The present paragraph gives us a more Skeptical Democritus. §11 The first application in the present chapter of the well-known maxim ‘like to like’ or ‘like knows like’. Aristotle first interprets and quotes Empedocles (‘by earth we see earth’ etc., see below, §15), and then refers to Plato’s construction ‘of the soul out of the elements in the Timaeus’, explaining that according to Plato ‘like can only be known by like’ and ‘things are derived from the principles’ (de An. 1.2 404b11–18). Aristotle does not tell us that the elements out of which Plato constructs the soul at Tim. 35a are derived from the Forms of the Same, the Different, and Being. A reader coming upon this passage in the De anima immediately after the quotation of Empedocles could perhaps believe that Plato’s soul is constructed out of earth etc. For the relation between the senses and the four elements fire, air, water, and earth later interpreters were in a position to refer to Tim. 45b–c (fire: sight—where note 45c4 ὅμοιον πρὸς ὅμοιον), 67b (hearing: air), 65c–d (taste: water and earth), and 66d (smell: a Zwischenelement, viz., the intermediate between water and air). See Baltes (1999) 40–42, who ibid. 35–36 lists thirteen passages where the senses are related to the elements. As a fourteenth we must add ch. 4.4.6. Baltes convincingly argues, ibid. 42–46, that the minority view according to which the five senses are connected with five elements, i.e., the standard four plus the aether, goes back to the Early Academy. Ps.Plato Epinomis 981b–c mentions five elements, with aether as fifth; the five regular bodies of Tim. 53c–56b were interpreted as representing elements; and Speusippus in Athenaeus Deipn. 2 61c (fr. 5 Lang, F 123 Isnardi Parente, 6 Tarán) speaks of what he calls a Pythagorean theory, according to which there are five elements corresponding to the five regular bodies. Only Plutarch De E 390B and A 4.9.11 (= 4.9.10 Diels) mention the aether when speaking of a correspondence between sight and one of the elements, see Baltes ibid. 35, 37 (but A 4.4.6 should be included as well, where

1570

liber 4 caput 9

a Pythagorean doctrine is cited with aether as one of five elements). See also Dörrie-Baltes (1998) 190, 192–193, with commentary 564, 567–570, where it is concluded that the five-elements-doctrine is a ‘Randerscheinung’ in ancient Platonism. A related issue occurs in long-distance diaphonic opposition at A 4.9.5, name-label Democritus: there are more senses than kinds of sense-objects. At A 2.7.4 four or rather five elements are attributed to Plato: Πλάτων πῦρ πρῶτον εἶτ᾽ αἰθέρα μεθ᾽ ὃν ἀέρα ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ὕδωρ, τελευταίαν δὲ γῆν· ἐνίοτε δὲ τὸν αἰθέρα τῷ πυρὶ συνάπτει, ‘sometimes he links up aether with fire’. See Dörrie-Baltes (1998) 190 with commentary 564; ibid. 190–194 with commentary 558–570, parallel passages. §13 This is second application of the maxim ‘like to like’ (we note the presence of the word ὁμοίου). §15 Diels DG 222 argues in favour of a clear link with Sens. 18, rightly endorsed by Baltussen (1993) 215. §16 Not mentioned by Diels or Baltussen, but the placitum is clearly dependent on a phrase in Sens. 16. According to this information Anaxagoras made no distinction between outer and inner sensation. §18 For the argument from signs see Chrysippus’ ipsissima verba at Galen PHP 2.7.6 (~ SVF 2.887) οὕτω φαίνεται διαφεύγειν ὁ τόπος ἡμᾶς οὔτε αἰσθήσεως ἐκφανοῦς γιγνομένης, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συντέτευχεν, οὔτε τῶν τεκμηρίων δι᾽ ὧν ἄν τις συλλογίσαιτο τοῦτο. §20 This view is also attributed to Xenophanes in an anecdote which has him chatting with Empedocles, see below, section E(b)§20. e Other Evidence Of particular importance is the agreement on a large scale between our present chapter and Cicero’s critical reportage of earlier views on sensation in the Lucullus, for which see at section E(a) General texts. This connection does not appear to have been noticed before. We have already observed a similar relationship between the chapters on the soul’s substance, regent part, and indestructibility (A 4.2–3 and 4.7) and Cicero’s treatment of these matters in the Tusculanae disputationes. See also below, Introduction to Book 5, section 5, on Ciceronian parallels for chs. 5.1–2 and 5.24–25. The relationship again proves dependence on a shared anterior tradition. Cicero’s stance in the Lucullus is that of an Academic. This lends some support to the suggestion of Mansfeld (1990a) 3063–3064, who argues for Academic influence on the Placita.

liber 4 caput 9

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Luc. 19 ordiamur igitur a sensibus. quorum ita clara iudicia et certa sunt, ut, si optio naturae nostrae detur et ab ea deus aliqui requirat contentane sit suis integris incorruptisque sensibus an postulet melius aliquid, non videam quid quaerat amplius. nec vero hoc loco expectandum est dum de remo inflexo aut de collo columbae respondeam; non enim is sum qui quidquid videtur tale dicam esse quale videatur; Epicurus (fr. 252 Usener) hoc viderit et alia multa. meo autem iudicio ita est maxima in sensibus veritas, si et sani sunt ac valentes et omnia removentur quae obstant et inpediunt. Luc. 142–143 venio enim iam ad tertiam partem philosophiae. aliud iudicium Protagorae (—) est qui putet id cuique verum esse quod cuique videatur, aliud Cyrenaicorum (fr. IV A 209 Giannantoni), qui praeter permotiones intumas nihil putant esse iudicii, aliud Epicuri (fr. 245 Usener), qui omne iudicium in sensibus et in rerum notitiis et in voluptate constituit; Plato autem omne iudicium veritatis veritatemque ipsam abductam ab opinionibus et a sensibus cogitationis ipsius et mentis esse voluit. (143) num quid horum probat noster Antiochus (fr. 5 Luck)? Ac.Po. 44 (Arcesilaus F 9 Mette) earum rerum obscuritate, quae ad confessionem ignorationis adduxerant Socratem et {vel ut} iam ante Socratem Democritum (frs. ii, 58 Luria) Anaxagoram (59A95 DK) Empedoclem (—) omnes paene veteres, qui nihil cognosci, nihil percipi, nihil sciri posse dixerunt, angustos sensus imbecillos animos brevia curricula vitae, et, ut Democritus, in profundo veritatem (cf. 68B117 DK) esse demersam, opinionibus et institutis omnia teneri, nihil veritati relinqui, deinceps omnia tenebris circumfusa esse dixerunt. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.89 πρῶτοι δ᾽ ἔδοξαν οἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω (fr. 142 Wöhrle) φυσικοὶ τὴν περὶ κριτηρίου σκέψιν εἰσηγήσασθαι. καταγνόντες γὰρ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐν πολλοῖς ὡς ἀπίστου. M. 7.369 πῶς δὲ οὐχὶ καὶ ἡ περὶ τῶν ἀνωτάτω πραγμάτων διάστασις παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις ἀφαιρεῖται τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας γνῶσιν; εἰ γὰρ τῶν φυσικῶν οἱ μὲν πάντα ἀνῃρήκασι τὰ φαινόμενα, ὡς οἱ περὶ Δημόκριτον (68A110 DK), οἱ δὲ πάντα ἔθεσαν, ὡς οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἐπίκουρον (fr. 247 Usener) καὶ Πρωταγόραν (—), οἱ δὲ τινὰ μὲν ἀνεῖλον τινὰ δὲ ἔθεσαν, ὡς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—) καὶ τοῦ Περιπάτου; M. 7.388 εἰ γὰρ κριτήριον ἀπολειπτέον τὴν φαντασίαν, ἤτοι πᾶσαν ἀληθῆ φαντασίαν λεκτέον εἶναι, καθὼς ἔλεγεν ὁ Πρωταγόρας (—), ἢ πᾶσαν ψευδῆ, ὡς ἔφασκε Ξενιάδης ὁ Κορίνθιος (81 DK, cf. M. 7.53), ἢ τινὰ μὲν ἀληθῆ τινὰ δὲ ψευδῆ, ὡς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—) καὶ τῆς Ἀκαδημίας, ἔτι δὲ τοῦ Περιπάτου. Μ. 8.184–186 οὔποτε πεπαύσονται περὶ αὐτῆς οἱ φυσικοὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους πολεμοῦντες, ἐπείπερ ὁ μὲν Δημόκριτος (—) μηδὲν ὑποκεῖσθαί φησι τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἀλλὰ κενοπαθείας τινὰς αἰσθήσεων εἶναι τὰς ἀντιλήψεις αὐτῶν, καὶ οὔτε γλυκύ τι περὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχειν, οὐ πικρὸν ἢ θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν ἢ λευκὸν ἢ μέλαν, οὐκ ἄλλο τι τῶν πᾶσι φαινομένων· παθῶν γὰρ ἡμετέρων ἦν ὀνόματα ταῦτα. ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 247 Usener, p. 182.30–33) πάντα ἔλεγε τὰ αἰσθητὰ τοιαῦτα ὑποκεῖσθαι ὁποῖα φαίνεται καὶ κατ᾽ αἴσθησιν προσπίπτει, μηδέποτε ψευδομένης τῆς αἰσθήσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῶν ψεύδεσθαι ταύτην δοκούντων. οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.76) καὶ τοῦ Περιπάτου μέσην ὁδὸν τεμόντες ἔνια μὲν ὑποκεῖσθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἔλεξαν ὡς ἀληθῆ, ἔνια δὲ μὴ ὑπάρχειν, ψευδομένης περὶ αὐτῶν τῆς

1571

1572

liber 4 caput 9

αἰσθήσεως. Tertullian de An. 17 (Soranus fr. 14 Podolak) see below §§1, 2, 3, 5. Eusebius PE 14.20.1 + 14.16.13–17.1 (Aristocles frs. 6–7 Chiesara) γεγόνασι δέ τινες οἱ ἀξιοῦντες τῇ αἰσθήσει καὶ ταῖς φαντασίαις μοναις δεῖν πιστεύειν. ἔνιοι μέντοι φασὶ καὶ τὸν Ὅμηρον αἰνίττεσθαι τὸ τοιοῦτο πάντων ἀποφαίνοντα τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ἀρχήν (Il. 14.246), ὡς ἐν ῥύσει τῶν πραγμάτων ὄντων (cf. Pl. Tht. 152d)· ὧν δ᾽ ἴσμεν ἔοικε μὲν καὶ Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος (70A24 DK) τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο λέγειν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἄντικρύς γε Πρωταγόρας ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης (—) εἶπεν. … (Eusebius himself: ἐπειδὴ τῶν φυσικῶν φιλοσόφων οἱ μὲν πάντα κατέβαλλον ἐπὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, οἱ δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τούτοις ἀνθεῖλκον, ὡς οἱ περὶ Ξενοφάνη τὸν Κολοφώνιον (21A49 DK) καὶ Παρμενίδην τὸν Ἐλεάτην (—), οἳ δὴ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἀνῄρουν κτλ.) … (17.1) ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐγένοντο τούτοις τὴν ἐναντίαν φωνὴν ἀφιέντες. οἴονται γὰρ δεῖν τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὰς φαντασίας καταβάλλειν, αὐτῷ δὲ μόνον τῷ λόγῳ πιστεύειν. τοιαῦτα γάρ τινα πρότερον μὲν Ξενοφάνης (—) καὶ Παρμενίδης (test. 132 Coxon) καὶ Ζήνων (—) καὶ Μέλισσος (—) ἔλεγον κτλ. Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.476 de vero sensu quare cognoscatur. at DRN 4.513 de falso sensu. §1 Pythagoras Empedocles Xenophanes Parmenides Zeno Melissus Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus Protagoras Plato: Cicero Varr. 30–31 tertia deinde philosophiae pars, quae erat in ratione et in disserendo, sic tractabatur ab utrisque (sc. Academics, Peripatetics). quamquam oriretur a sensibus, tamen non esse iudicium veritatis in sensibus: mentem volebant rerum esse iudicem; solam censebant idoneam cui crederetur. … (31) sensus autem omnis hebetes et tardos esse arbitrabantur nec percipere ullo modo res eas quae subiectae sensibus viderentur, quod aut essent ita parvae ut sub sensum cadere non possent, aut ita mobiles et concitatae ut nihil umquam unum esset ⟨et⟩ constans, ne idem quidem, quia continenter laberentur et fluerent omnia. Varr. 44–45 cum Zenone (—) … ut accepimus, Arcesilas (F 9 Mette) sibi omne certamen instituit, non pertinacia aut studio vincendi … (for what follows see above, General texts). Luc. 14 similiter vos (sc. Academics), cum … philosophiam bene iam constitutam velitis, Empedoclen (—), Anaxagoran (—), Democritum (—), Parmeniden (test. 100 Coxon) Xenophanen (—), Platonem etiam et Socratem profertis. Luc. 73–74 ille (sc. Democritus, cf. 68B165 DK) esse verum plane negat {esse}; sensus quidem non obscuros dicit sed tenebricosos (sic enim appellat eos) (cf. 68B11 DK). … Chius Metrodorus (70B1 DK) initio libri qui est De natura ‘nego’ inquit ‘scire nos sciamusne aliquid an nihil sciamus, ne id ipsum quidem nescire aut scire nos, nec omnino sitne aliquid an nihil sit’. (74) furere tibi Empedocles (—) videtur: at mihi dignissimum rebus is de quibus loquitur sonum fundere. num ergo is excaecat nos aut orbat sensibus, si parum magnam vim censet in is esse ad ea quae sub eos subiecta sunt iudicanda? Parmenides (test. 101 Coxon), Xenophanes (21A25 DK), minus bonis quamquam versibus sed tamen illi versibus increpant eorum adrogantiam quasi irati, qui cum sciri nihil possit audeant se scire dicere. et ab iis aiebat removendum Socratem et Platonem. cur, an de ullis certius possum dicere? … multi sermones perscripti sunt e quibus dubitari non possit quin Socrati nihil sit visum sciri posse. quid

liber 4 caput 9 dicam de Platone, qui certe tam multis libris haec persecutus non esset nisi probavisset. Luc. 142 aliud iudicium Protagorae (—) est qui putet id cuique verum esse quod cuique videatur … Plato autem omne iudicium veritatis veritatemque ipsam abductam ab opinionibus et a sensibus cogitationis ipsius et mentis esse voluit. ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 at Eus. PE 1.8.4 (fr. 179 Sandbach) ἀποφαίνεται (on Xenophanes, 21A32 DK) δὲ καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ψευδεῖς, καὶ καθόλου σὺν αὐταῖς καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν λόγον διαβάλλει. Strom. 5 at Eus. PE 1.8.5 Παρμενίδης (28A22 DK) … τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐκβάλλει ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας. Strom. 6 at Eus. PE 1.8.6 Ζήνων δ᾽ ὁ Ἐλεάτης (29A23 DK) ἴδιον μὲν οὐδὲν ἐξέθετο, διηπόρησε δὲ περὶ τούτων ἐπὶ πλεῖον. Aristocles fr. 7 Chiesara at Eus. PE 14.17.1 ἄλλοι δ᾽ … οἴονται γὰρ δεῖν τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὰς φαντασίας καταβάλλειν, αὐτῷ δὲ μόνον τῷ λόγῳ πιστεύειν. τοιαῦτα γάρ τινα πρότερον μὲν Ξενοφάνης (21A49 DK) καὶ Παρμενίδης (—) καὶ Ζήνων (—) καὶ Μέλισσος (—) ἔλεγον κτλ. at Eus. PE 14.17.7 ὅ γέ τοι Μέλισσος (30A14 DK) ἐθέλων ἐπιδεικνύναι, διότι τῶν φαινομένων καὶ ἐν ὄψει τούτων οὐδὲν εἴη τῷ ὄντι, διὰ τῶν φαινομένων ἀποδείκνυσιν αὐτῶν· φησὶ γοῦν (30B8.2–3 DK follows). Sextus Empiricus M. 7.90 ὁ μὲν φυσικώτατος Ἀναξαγόρας (59B21 DK) ὡς ἀσθενεῖς διαβάλλων τὰς αἰσθήσεις ‘ὑπὸ ἀφαυρότητος αὐτῶν’ φησὶν ‘οὐ δυνατοί ἐσμεν κρίνειν τἀληθές’. M. 7.122 ἄλλοι δὲ ἦσαν οἱ λέγοντες κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα (on 31B2 DK) κριτήριον εἶναι τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον. Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.1 Ξενοφάνης … ἔφη πρῶτος ἀκαταληψίαν εἶναι πάντων, εἰπὼν οὕτως· (21B34.3–4 DK follows). Tertullian de An. 17.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 14 Podolak) fidem (sc. sensuum) … damnant, secundum quosdam et Heraclitus (T 654 Mouraviev) et Diocles (fr. 38 dub. Van der Eijk) et Empedocles (—), certe Plato in Timaeo (28c, 51aff.) inrationalem pronuntians sensualitatem et opinioni coimplicitam. Theodoret CAG 2.10, p. 38.17–20 Παρμενίδης … ὁ Ἐλεάτης (—) ὡσαύτως … ψεῦδος δὲ ἀπέφηνε τῶν αἰσθήσεων τὸ κριτήριον, ἥκιστα λέγων ἐφικνεῖσθαι τοῦτο τῆς ἀληθείας. Epiphanius Haer. 3.506.15–17 Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος (70A23 DK) ἔφη μηδένα μηδὲν ἐπίστασθαι, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα ἃ δοκοῦμεν γινώσκειν ἀκριβῶς οὐκ ἐπιστάμεθα, οὐδὲ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι δεῖ προσέχειν· δοκήσει γάρ ἐστι τὰ πάντα. Sextus Empiricus M. 8.56 οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Δημόκριτον (fr. 61 Luria) καὶ Πλάτωνα ἀθετοῦντες μὲν τὰς αἰσθήσεις, ἀναιροῦντες δὲ τὰ αἰσθητά, μόνοις δ᾽ ἑπόμενοι τοῖς νοητοῖς, συγχέουσι τὰ πράγματα. M. 7.137–139 καὶ δὴ ἐν μὲν τούτοις πᾶσαν σχεδὸν κινεῖ κατάληψιν, ⟨εἰ⟩ (138) καὶ μόνον ἐξαιρέτως καθάπτεται τῶν αἰσθήσεων· ἐν δὲ τοῖς Κανόσι δύο φησὶν εἶναι γνώσεις, τὴν μὲν διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων τὴν δὲ διὰ τῆς διανοίας, ὧν τὴν μὲν διὰ τῆς διανοίας γνησίην καλεῖ, προσμαρτυρῶν αὐτῇ τὸ πιστὸν εἰς ἀληθείας κρίσιν, τὴν δὲ διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων σκοτίην ὀνομάζει, ἀφαιρούμενος αὐτῆς τὸ πρὸς διάγνωσιν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς (139) ἀπλανές. λέγει δὲ κατὰ λέξιν (Democritus 68B11 DK)· ‘γνώμης δὲ δύο εἰσὶν ἰδέαι, ἡ μὲν γνησίη, ἡ δὲ σκοτίη· καὶ σκοτίης μὲν τάδε σύμπαντα, ὄψις ἀκοὴ ὀδμὴ γεῦσις ψαῦσις· ἡ δὲ γνησίη, ἀποκεκριμένη δὲ ταύτης’. §2 Academics: Cicero Luc. 103 ait (sc. Clitomachus) vehementer errare eos qui dicant ab Academia sensus eripi, a quibus numquam dictum sit aut colorem aut saporem aut sonum nullum esse, illud sit disputatum, non inesse in iis pro-

1573

1574

liber 4 caput 9

priam quae nusquam alibi esset veri et certi notam. Tertullian de An. 17.2 (Soranus de An. fr. 14 Podolak) horum (sc. sensuum) fidem Academici durius damnant. §4 Stoics: Cicero Luc. 75 sed quid eos (sc. Stilbo Diodoraus Alexinus) colligam, cum habeam Chrysippum (SVF 2.109), qui fulcire putatur porticum Stoicorum: quam multa ille contra sensus, quam multa contra omnia quae in consuetudine probantur. ‘at dissolvit idem.’ mihi quidem non videtur, sed dissolverit sane: certe tam multa non collegisset quae nos fallerent probabilitate magna, nisi videret is resisti non facile posse. ND 1.70 Zenon (SVF 1.63) autem nonnulla visa esse falsa, non omnia. Tertullian de An. 17.4 (Soranus de An. fr. 14 Podolak) moderantius Stoici (—) non omnem sensum, nec semper, de mendacio onerant. §5 Epicurus: Cicero Luc. 79 veracis suos esse sensus dicit Epicurus (fr. 251 Usener). igitur semper auctorem habes, et eum qui magno suo periculo causam agat; eo enim rem demittit Epicurus, si unus sensus semel in vita mentitus sit, nulli umquam esse credendum. Luc. 82 sed ab hoc credulo, qui numquam sensus mentiri putat, discedamus. ND 1.70 timuit Epicurus (fr. 251 Usener) ne, si unum visum esset falsum, nullum esset verum: omnes sensus veri nuntios dixit esse. Aristocles fr. 6 Chiesara at Eus. PE 14.20.9 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἔτι νῦν εἰσί τινες οἱ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν καὶ πᾶσαν φαντασίαν ἀληθῆ λέγοντες εἶναι, μικρὰ καὶ περὶ τούτων εἴπωμεν. … καὶ μὴν εἴ γε πᾶσα αἴσθησις ἀληθὴς ἦν, οὐκ ἔδει τοσοῦτον διαφέρειν αὐτάς. Tertullian de An. 17.4 (Soranus de An. fr. 14 Podolak) Epicurei (at fr. 247, p. 183.5–8 Usener) constantius parem omnibus atque perpetuam defendunt veritatem, sed alia via. non enim sensum mentiri, sed opinionem. sensum enim pati, non opinari; animam enim opinari. §9 Leucippus Democritus Diogenes: Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 7 col. 2.2– 8 Smith ἐσφά|λη δ᾽ ἀναξίως ἑαυτοῦ | καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 61 Luria), τὰς | ἀτόμους μόνας κατ᾽ ἀ|λήθειαν εἰπὼν ὑπάρχειν | ἐν τοῖς οὖσι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ | νομιστεὶ ἅπαντα. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 (on Democritus, 68A1 DK) ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους καὶ κενόν, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντα νενομίσθαι. §10 Other views about smallest parts: Sextus Empiricus P. 3.32 Δημόκριτος (—) δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—) ἀτόμους, Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ ὁ Κλαζομένιος (—) ὁμοιομερείας, Διόδωρος δὲ ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Κρόνος (fr. 117C Döring, II F 8 Giannantoni) ἐλάχιστα καὶ ἀμερῆ σώματα, Ἡρακλείδης δὲ ὁ Ποντικὸς (fr. 119b Wehrli, 60B Schütrumpf) καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Βιθυνὸς (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1.726) ἀνάρμους ὄγκους (sc. τὰς ὑλικὰς ἀρχὰς εἶναι).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

Chapter heading: Aristotle de An. 3.3 427b29 περὶ φαντασίας διορίσαντας. de An. 3.3 429a8–9 περὶ μὲν οὖν φαντασίας, τί ἐστι καὶ διὰ τί ἐστιν, εἰρήσθω ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον. Mem. 1 449b30–31, ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ φαντασίας εἴρηται πρότερον ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς. Epicurus at D.L. 10.28 Περὶ φαντασίας. Diocles Magnes at D.L. 7.49 ἀρέσκει τοῖς Στωικοῖς (SVF 2.52) τὸν περὶ φαντασίας καὶ αἰσθήσεως προτάττειν λόγον.

liber 4 caput 9 §1 Pythagoras Empedocles Xenophanes Parmenides Zeno Melissus Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus Protagoras Plato: Parmenides 28B7.3–6 DK ‘μηδέ σ᾽ ἔθος πολύπειρον ὁδὸν κατὰ τήνδε βιάσθω / νωμᾶν ἄσκοπον ὄμμα καὶ ἠχήεσσαν ἀκουήν / καὶ γλῶσσαν, κρῖναι δὲ λόγωι πολύδηριν ἔλεγχον / ἐξ ἐμέθεν ῥηθέντα’. Sextus Empiricus, after citing these lines, comments M. 7.114 (cf. at Parmenides 28B1 DK) καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει προσδιασαφεῖ τὸ μὴ δεῖν αἰσθήσεσι προσέχειν ἀλλὰ τῷ λόγῷ. … οὗτος … τὸν ἐπιστημονικὸν λόγον κανόνα τῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀληθείας ἀναγορεύσας ἀπέστη τῆς τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἐπιστάσεως. cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.22 who states κριτήριον δὲ τὸν λόγον εἶπε· τάς τε αἰσθήσεις μὴ ἀκριβεῖς ὑπάρχει, and then cites B735 in support. Aristotle GC 1.8 325a13–15 (Parmenides 28A25 DK) ὑπερβάντες τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ παριδόντες αὐτὴν ὡς τῷ λόγῳ δέον ἀκολουθεῖν, ἓν καὶ ἀκίνητον τὸ πᾶν εἶναί φασι καὶ ἄπειρον ἔνιοι (sc. Melissus). differently Met. A.3 984b1–4 (Parmenides 28A24 DK) τῶν μὲν οὖν ἓν φασκόντων εἶναι τὸ πᾶν οὐθενὶ συνέβη τὴν τοιαύτην συνιδεῖν αἰτίαν πλὴν εἰ ἄρα Παρμενίδῃ, καὶ τούτῳ κατὰ τοσοῦτον ὅσον οὐ μόνον ἓν ἀλλὰ καὶ δύο πως τίθησιν αἰτίας εἶναι. differently also Met. A.5 986b27–35 Παρμενίδης (28A24 DK) δὲ … ἀναγκαζόμενος δ᾽ ἀκολουθεῖν τοῖς φαινομένοις, καὶ τὸ ἓν μὲν κατὰ τὸν λόγον πλείω δὲ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ὑπολαμβάνων εἶναι, δύο τὰς αἰτίας καὶ δύο τὰς ἀρχὰς πάλιν τίθησι κτλ. Timon of Phlius fr. 4 Wachsmuth, 818 SH at D.L. 9.22–23 (Parmenides 28A1 DK) τάς τε αἰσθήσεις μὴ ἀκριβεῖς ὑπάρχειν. … (23) διὸ καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ φησιν ὁ Τίμων· ‘Παρμενίδου τε βίην μεγαλόφρονος οὐ πολύδοξον, / ὅς ῥ᾽ ἀπὸ φαντασίας ἀπάτης ἀνενείκατο νώσεις’. fr. 5 Wachsmuth, 819 SH at D.L. 9.25 Ζήνων Ἐλεάτης (29A1 DK). … περὶ τούτου καὶ Μελίσσου (—) Τίμων φησὶ ταῦτα· ‘ἀμφοτερογλώσσου τε μέγα σθένος οὐκ ἀλαπαδνὸν / Ζήνωνος πάντων ἐπιλήπτορος, ἠδὲ Μέλισσον, / πολλῶν φαντασμῶν ἐπάνω, παύρων γε μὲν ἥσσω’. Philodemus Rhet. fr. incert. iii.6–11, p. 2.169 Sudhaus οὐδὲ κατὰ Παρμενίδην (28A49 DK) καὶ Μέλισσον (30A14 DK) ἓν τὸ πᾶν λέγοντας εἶναι καὶ διὰ τὸ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ψευδεῖς εἶναι. Anon. Photii (on the Pythagoreans) cod. 249, p. 240.35 Thesleff ἔστι δὲ αἴσθησις μὲν γνῶσις ψευδὴς διὰ σώματος. Melissus 30B8.(2)–(5) DK. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.89–90 πρῶτοι δ᾽ ἔδοξαν οἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω φυσικοὶ τὴν περὶ κριτηρίου σκέψιν εἰσηγήσασθαι. καταγνόντες γὰρ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐν πολλοῖς ὡς ἀπίστου, τὸν λόγον κριτὴν τῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀληθείας ἐπέστησαν· … (90) ἔνθεν ὁ μὲν φυσικώτατος Ἀναξαγόρας (59B21 DK) ὡς ἀσθενεῖς διαβάλλων τὰς αἰσθήσεις ‘ὑπὸ ἀφαυρότητος αὐτῶν’ φησὶν ‘οὐ δυνατοί ἐσμεν κρίνειν τἀληθές’. M. 7.122 κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα (on 31B2 DK) κριτήριον εἶναι τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον (differently 31B3.9–13 DK). M. 7.126 ὁ δὲ Ἡράκλειτος (cf. 22B107 DK), ἐπεὶ πάλιν ἐδόκει δυσὶν ὠργανῶσθαι ὁ ἄνθρωπος πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας γνῶσιν, αἰσθήσει τε καὶ λόγῳ, τούτων τὴν ⟨μὲν⟩ αἴσθησιν παραπλησίως τοῖς προειρημένοις φυσικοῖς ἄπιστον εἶναι νενόμικεν, τὸν δὲ λόγον ὑποτίθεται κριτήριον (but see on Protagoras (e.g.) D.L. 9.51 (80A1 DK) ἔλεγέ τε μηδὲν εἶναι ψυχὴν [ἐπιστήμην prop. Zeller] παρὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, καθὰ καὶ Πλάτων φησὶν ἐν Θεαιτήτῳ (cf. 152a), καὶ πάντα εἶναι ἀληθῆ.) M. 8.56 οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Δημόκριτον (—) καὶ Πλάτωνα ἀθετοῦντες μὲν τὰς αἰσθήσεις, ἀναιροῦντες δὲ τὰ αἰσθητά, μόνοις δ᾽ ἑπόμενοι τοῖς νοητοῖς, συγχέουσι τὰ πράγματα. Seneca Ep. 58.26 omnia ista quae sensibus serviunt, quae nos accendunt et inrit-

1575

1576

liber 4 caput 9

ant, negat Plato ex iis esse quae vere sint. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1121F–1122A ὁ δ᾽ Ἀρκεσίλαος (fr. 7 Mette) τοσοῦτον ἀπέδει τοῦ καινοτομίας τινὰ δόξαν ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ὑποποιεῖσθαί τι τῶν παλαιῶν ὥστε ἐγκαλεῖν τοὺς τότε σοφιστάς ὅτι προστρίβεται Σω κράτει καὶ Πλάτωνι καὶ Παρμενίδῃ (—) καὶ Ἡρακλείτῳ (—) τὰ περὶ τῆς ἐποχῆς δόγματα καὶ τῆς ἀκαταληψίας οὐδὲν δεομένοις, ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἀναγωγὴν καὶ βεβαίωσιν αὐτῶν εἰς ἄνδρας ἐνδόξους ποιούμενος. Galen SMT 11.461.14–462.2 K. καί τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν Ἀναξαγόραν (—) ἐπικαλοῦνται μάρτυρα, περὶ τῆς χιόνος ἀποφηνάμενον, ὡς οὐκ εἴη λευκή. οὗτος ἄρα, φασὶ, φυσικὸς ἀνὴρ ὑπὲρ τὴν αἴσθησίν ἐστιν καὶ καταφρονεῖ μὲν τῶν ταύτης φαντασμάτων, ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν λόγον ἀνέρχεται, καὶ τούτῳ τὴν τῶν ὄντων θηρᾶται φύσιν. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.11.67.3 τοῦτο ἄρα βούλεται καὶ τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ ἡ τῆς πενταετίας σιωπή, ἣν τοῖς γνωρίμοις παρεγγυᾷ, ὡς δὴ ἀποστραφέντες τῶν αἰσθητῶν ψιλῷ τῷ νῷ τὸ θεῖον ἐποπτεύοιεν. ps.Plutarch Mus. 1144F Πυθαγόρας δ᾽ ὁ σεμνὸς ἀπεδοκίμαζε τὴν κρίσιν τῆς μουσικῆς τὴν διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως· νῷ γὰρ ληπτὴν τὴν ταύτης ἀρετὴν ἔφασκεν εἶναι. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.95 αἱ δ᾽ αἰσθήσεις ψεύδονται. Olympiodorus in Phaed. 4.7 ἀεὶ ψεύδεσθαι λέγει τὴν αἴσθησιν ὁ Πλάτων διότι οὐ κυρίως γινώσκει. συμπεφυρμένον γὰρ ἔχει τὸ πάθος τῇ γνώσει διὰ πάθους γινώσκουσα· καὶ τὰ πόρρω οἶδεν (ἐπεὶ τὸν πυρῆνα τῆς μήλης τὸν ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ οὐχ ὁρᾷ, καὶ ἡ ἁφὴ δὲ διὰ μέσου ἀέρος ἀντιλαμβάνεται), ὅπερ αἴτιον μὴ ἀκριβοῦς γνώσεως. διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο τὸν νοῦν φαμεν ἀκριβῶς γινώσκειν κτλ. §2 Academics: Anonymus in Theaetetum col. ii.23–32 Bastianini–Sedley λέγω δὲ | νῦν κριτήριον τὸ [δ]ι᾽ | οὗ κρίνομεν ὡς ὀρ[γ]ά|ν[ο]υ. [δ]εῖ γὰρ ἔχειν ὧι | κρινοῦμεν τὰ πρά|γματα. εἶτα ὅταν ἀκρκι|βὲς ἦι τοῦτο, ἡ τῶν κα|λῶς κριθέντων μό|νιμος παραδοχὴ γί|ν[ε]τ[α]ι ἐπιστήμη. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1118B ὁ δὲ τὰς αἰσθήσεις λόγος ἐπαγόμενος ὡς οὐκ ἀκριβεῖς οὐδ᾽ ἀσφαλεῖς πρὸς πίστιν οὔσας οὐκ ἀναιρεῖ τὸ φαίνεσθαι τῶν πραγμάτων ἡμῖν ἕκαστον, ἀλλὰ χρωμένοις κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι τὸ πιστεύειν ὡς ἀληθέσι πάντῃ καὶ ἀδιαπτώτοις οὐ δίδωσιν αὐταῖς. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.235 οἱ δὲ περὶ Φίλωνά (F 1 Mette) φασιν ὅσον μὲν ἐπὶ τῷ Στωικῷ (—) κριτηρίῳ, τουτέστι τῇ καταληπτικῇ φαντασίᾳ, ἀκατάληπτα εἶναι τὰ πράγματα, ὅσον δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτῶν, καταληπτά. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.21 (on Potamo) ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτῷ, καθά φησιν ἐν τῇ Στοιχειώσει, κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι τὸ μὲν ὡς ὑφ᾽ οὗ γίνεται ἡ κρίσις, τουτέστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· τὸ δὲ ὡς δι᾽ οὗ, οἷον τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην φαντασίαν. §3 Aristotle: Aristotle de An. 2.6 418a11–12 λέγω δ᾽ ἴδιον μὲν ὃ μὴ ἐνδέχεται ἑτέρᾳ αἰσθήσει αἰσθάνεσθαι, καὶ περὶ ὃ μὴ ἐνδέχεται ἀπατηθῆναι. Sens. 4 442b5– 9 μέγεθος γὰρ καὶ σχῆμα καὶ τὸ τραχὺ καὶ τὸ λεῖον, ἔτι δὲ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ ἀμβλὺ τὸ ἐν τοῖς ὄγκοις, κοινὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεών ἐστιν, εἰ δὲ μὴ πασῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὄψεώς γε καὶ ἁφῆς. διὸ καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀπατῶνται, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἰδίων οὐκ ἀπατῶνται, οἷον ἡ ὄψις περὶ χρώματος καὶ ἡ ἀκοὴ περὶ ψόφων. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 11, pp. 16.13–17.5 καθ᾽ αὑτὴν μὲν οὖν ἑκάστη τῶν δυνάμεων ὅταν τὸ ἴδιον καὶ οἰκεῖον μόνον ἐπισκοπῇ κατὰ τὸ τῶν συμπεπλεγμένων ἀπερίσπαστον ἀληθεύειν πέφυκεν· ὡς ὅταν ὄψις μὲν χρώματα· φωνὰς δ᾽ ἀκοή· γεῦσις δὲ χυμούς· ἀτμοὺς δ᾽ ὄσφρησις· ἁφὴ δὲ †ποιότητας† [perhaps read τῶν ἁπτῶν or ἁπτὰς ποιότητας]· … ἄλλαι δ᾽ ἄλλαις συμπλακεῖσαι

liber 4 caput 9 καὶ κοινωνήσασαι τῆς τῶν ὑποκειμένων κρίσεως—τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὅταν ἤτοι τῶν αὐτῶν πλείους ὦσιν ἀντιλήψεις, ὡς ἐν μὲν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὄγκου, μεγέθους, πλήθους, σχήματος, θέσεως, τάξεως, κινήσεως. §4 Stoics: Sextus Empiricus M. 8.63 (Epicurus fr. 253 Usener) πλανᾶσθαι δὲ τοὺς τινὰς μὲν τῶν φαντασιῶν λέγοντας ἀληθεῖς, τινὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς κτλ. M. 7.388 τινὰ (sc. τῶν φαντασιῶν) μὲν ἀληθῆ τινὰ δὲ ψευδῆ, ὡς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—) καὶ τῆς Ἀκαδημίας, ἔτι δὲ τοῦ Περιπάτου. M. 8.185 οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.76) καὶ τοῦ Περιπάτου μέσην ὁδὸν τεμόντες ἔνια μὲν ὑποκεῖσθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἔλεξαν ὡς ἀληθῆ, ἔνια δὲ μὴ ὑπάρχειν, ψευδομένης περὶ αὐτῶν τῆς αἰσθήσεως. Diocles Magnes at D.L. 7.49 ἀρέσκει τοῖς Στωικοῖς (SVF 2.52) τὸν περὶ φαντασίας καὶ αἰσθήσεως προτάττειν λόγον, καθότι τὸ κριτήριον, ᾧ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῶν πραγμάτων γινώσκεται, κατὰ γένος φαντασία ἐστί. Plutarch SR 1036C τοὺς πάντων ὁμοῦ τῶν Ἀκαδημαϊκῶν λόγους εἰς ταὐτὸ συμφορηθέντας οὐκ ἀξίους εἶναι παραβαλεῖν οἷς Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.109) ἔγραψεν εἰς διαβολὴν τῶν αἰσθήσεων. … βουληθεὶς αὖθις συνειπεῖν τῇ συνηθείᾳ καὶ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἐνδεέστερος γέγονεν αὑτοῦ. §5 Epicurus: Epicurus RS 24 εἰ τιν᾽ ἐκβαλεῖς ἁπλῶς αἴσθησιν καὶ μὴ διαιρήσεις τὸ δοξαζόμενον καὶ τὸ προσμένον καὶ τὸ παρὸν ἤδη κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ πᾶσαν φανταστικὴν ἐπιβολὴν τῆς διανοίας, συνταράξεις καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς αἰσθήσεις τῇ ματαίῳ δόξῃ, ὥστε τὸ κριτήριον ἅπαν ἐκβαλεῖς. Demetrius Laco Ap.Test. (PHerc. 1012) col. 72.2–7 Puglia ζητουμένου | γὰρ τοῦ πῶς τὰς αἰσθήσεις | λέγομεν ἀληθεῖς κατ᾽ ἀνα|φορὰν τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ αἰσθη|τά, ‘καθόσον γὰρ ταῦτα ἀ|ληθῆ’, ‘δυσοδία γὰρ ἐντρο|χάζειν δοκεῖ’. Philodemus Piet. 1.673–674 Obbink τὰς φαντασ[ίας ἀλη]θεῖς εἶναι. Lucretius DRN 4.379 nec tamen hic oculos falli concedimus hilum. DRN 4.478–479 invenies primis ab sensibus esse creatam / notitiem veri neque sensus posse refelli. DRN 4.482–483 quid maiore fide porro quam sensus haberi / debet? DRN 4.462–468 cetera de genere hoc mirande multa videmus, / quae violare fidem quasi sensibus omnia quaerunt, / ne quiquam, quoniam pars horum maxima fallit / propter opinatus animi, quos addimus ipsi, / pro visis ut sint quae non sunt sensibus visa; / nam nihil aegrius est quam res secernere apertas / ab dubiis, animus quas ab se protinus addit. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1109A–B Ἐπικουρείῳ (fr. 250 Usener) δόγματι κέχρηται τῷ ‘πάσας εἶναι τὰς δι᾽ αἰσθήσεως φαντασίας ἀληθεῖς’. Sextus Empiricus M. 8.63 ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 253 Usener) ἔλεγε μὲν πάντα τὰ αἰσθητὰ εἶναι ἀληθῆ, καὶ πᾶσαν φαντασίαν ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος εἶναι, καὶ τοιαύτην ὁποῖόν ἐστι τὸ κινοῦν τὴν αἴσθησιν, πλανᾶσθαι δὲ τοὺς τινὰς μὲν τῶν φαντασιῶν λέγοντας ἀληθεῖς, τινὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς παρὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι χωρίζειν δόξαν ἀπὸ ἐναργείας. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.31 ἐν τοίνυν τῷ Κανόνι λέγων ἐστὶν ὁ Ἐπίκουρος (p. 70, fr. 35 Usener) κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ προλήψεις καὶ τὰ πάθη, οἱ δ᾽ Ἐπικούρειοι καὶ τὰς φανταστικὰς ἐπιβολὰς τῆς διανοίας. §6 Parmenides Empedocles Anaxagoras Democritus Epicurus Heraclides: Theophrastus Sens. 7 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A86 DK) δὲ περὶ ἁπασῶν ὁμοίως λέγει καί φησι τῷ ἐναρμόττειν εἰς τοὺς πόρους τοὺς ἑκάστης αἰσθάνεσθαι· διὸ καὶ οὐ δύνασθαι τὰ ἀλλήλων κρίνειν, ὅτι τῶν μὲν εὐρύτεροί πως, τῶν δὲ στενώτεροι τυγχάνουσιν οἱ πόροι πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητόν. Sens. 9 (31A86 DK) περὶ δὲ γεύσεως καὶ ἁφῆς οὐ διορίζε-

1577

1578

liber 4 caput 9

ται καθ᾽ ἑκατέραν οὔτε πῶς οὔτε δι᾽ ἃ γίγνονται, πλὴν τὸ κοινὸν ὅτι τῷ ἐναρμόττειν τοῖς πόροις αἴσθησίς ἐστιν. Sens. 35 (Anaxagoras 59A92 DK) τὸ δὲ πρὸς τὰ μεγέθη τὴν συμμετρίαν ἀποδιδόναι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἔοικεν ὁμοίως λέγειν Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ· τῷ γὰρ ἐναρμόττειν τοῖς πόροις ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν. Sens. 80 ὁρᾶν δέ φησι (Democritus 68A135 DK) διὰ τὴν ἀπορροὴν καὶ τὴν ἔμφασιν τὴν εἰς τὴν ὄψιν. Epicurus (on eidola) Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.49 τύπων τινῶν ἐπεισιόντων ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων ὁμοχρόων τε καὶ ὁμοιομόρφων κατὰ τὸ ἐναρμόττον μέγεθος εἰς τὴν ὄψιν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν. Plutarch Quaest.Conv. 735A φησιν Δημόκριτος (68A77 DK) ‘ἐγκαταβυσσοῦσθαι’ τὰ εἴδωλα διὰ τῶν πόρων εἰς τὰ σώματα καὶ ποιεῖν τὰς κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον ὄψεις ἐπαναφερόμενα· φοιτᾶν δὲ ταῦτα πανταχόθεν ἀπιόντα καὶ σκευῶν καὶ ἱματίων καὶ φυτῶν, μάλιστα δὲ ζῴων ὑπὸ σάλου πολλοῦ καὶ θερμότητος οὐ μόνον ἔχοντα μορφοειδεῖς τοῦ σώματος ἐκμεμαγμένας ὁμοιότητας (ὡς Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 326 Usener) οἴεται μέχρι τούτου Δημοκρίτῳ συνεπόμενος, ἐνταῦθα δὲ προλιπὼν τὸν λόγον). §7 Peripatetics: Aristotle de An. 2.12 424a17–25 καθόλου δὲ περὶ πάσης αἰσθήσεως δεῖ λαβεῖν ὅτι ἡ μὲν αἴσθησίς ἐστι τὸ δεκτικὸν τῶν αἰσθητῶν εἰδῶν ἄνευ τῆς ὕλης, …. αἰσθητήριον δὲ πρῶτον ἐν ᾧ ἡ τοιαύτη δύναμις. §9 Leucippus Democritus Diogenes: Aristotle Met. Α.4 985b13–19 (Leucippus 67A6 DK) ταύτας μέντοι τρεῖς εἶναι λέγουσι, σχῆμά τε καὶ τάξιν καὶ θέσιν· διαφέρειν γάρ φασι τὸ ὂν ‘ῥυσμῷ’ καὶ ‘διαθιγῇ’ καὶ ‘τροπῇ’ μόνον· τούτων δὲ ὁ μὲν ‘ῥυσμὸς’ σχῆμά ἐστιν ἡ δὲ ‘διαθιγὴ’ τάξις ἡ δὲ ‘τροπὴ’ θέσις. Theophrastus Sens. 63 (Democritus 68A135 DK) σημεῖον δ᾽ ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶ φύσει (sc. τὰ αἰσθητὰ) τὸ μὴ ταὐτὰ πᾶσι φαίνεσθαι τοῖς ζώιοις. Plutarch Colot. 1110E τὸ γὰρ ‘νόμῳ χροιὴν’ εἶναι καὶ ‘νόμῳ γλυκύ’ καὶ νόμῳ σύγκρισιν ⟨ἅπασαν perperam add. Westman⟩ ⟨‘ἐτεῇ δὲ τὸ κενὸν καὶ add. Wyttenbach alii⟩ τὰς ἀτόμους᾽ εἰρημένον φησὶν (sc. Colotes) ὑπὸ Δημοκρίτου (fr. 61 Luria) ⟨μάχεσθαι add. Reiske alii⟩ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι. Galen Hipp.Elem. c. 2.12–13, 1.417.9–14 K. ‘νόμῳ’ γὰρ ‘χροιὴ νόμῳ γλυκὺ νόμῳ πικρὸν, ἐτεῇ δ᾽ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν’ ὁ Δημόκριτός (68A49 DK, B125 DK) φησιν, ἐκ τῆς συνόδου τῶν ἀτόμων γίγνεσθαι νομίζων ἁπάσας τὰς αἰσθητὰς ποιότητας ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς αἰσθανομένους αὐτῶν, φύσει δ᾽ οὐδὲν εἶναι λευκὸν ἢ μέλαν ἢ ξανθὸν ἢ ἐρυθρὸν ἢ γλυκὺ ἢ πικρόν. Med.Exp. 15.7.6–11 Walzer ὃς γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἄρξασθαι δύναται τῆς ἐναργείας χωρίς, πῶς ἂν οὗτος πιστὸς εἴη, παρ᾽ ἧς ἔλαβε τὰς ἀρχάς, κατὰ ταύτης θρασυνόμενος; τοῦτο καὶ Δημόκριτος (68B125 DK) εἰδὼς ὁπότε τὰ φαινόμενα διέβαλε ‘νόμῳ χροιή, νόμῳ γλυκύ, νόμῳ πικρόν’ εἰπὼν ‘ἐτεῇ δ᾽ ἄτομα καὶ κενόν’ ἐποίησε τὰς αἰσθήσεις λεγούσας πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν οὕτως· ‘τάλαινα φρήν, παρ᾽ ἡμέων λαβοῦσα τὰς πίστεις ἡμέας καταβάλλεις; πτῶμά τοι τὸ κατάβλημα’. Alexander of Aphrodisias Mixt. 213.18–23 οἱ μὲν ἄτομα σώματα ἄπειρα τῷ πλήθει, κατὰ σχῆμα καὶ μέγεθος μόνον τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα διαφορὰν ἔχοντα, τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰ στοιχεῖά φασιν εἶναι, καὶ τῇ τούτων συνθέσει τε καὶ ποιᾷ περιπλοκῇ ἔτι τε τάξει καὶ θέσει τἆλλα γίνεσθαι· ἐφ᾽ ἧς δόξης πρῶτοι μὲν Λεύκιππός τε καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 124 Luria) γενέσθαι δοκοῦσιν, ὕστεροι δὲ Ἐπίκουρός (—) τε καὶ οἱ τὴν αὐτὴν τούτῳ τραπέντες. Sextus Empiricus 7.135–136 Δημόκριτος (68B9 DK) δὲ ὁτὲ μὲν ἀναιρεῖ τὰ φαινόμενα ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι καὶ τούτων λέγει μηδὲν φαίνεσθαι κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ μόνον κατὰ δόξαν, ἀληθὲς δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ὑπάρχειν τὸ ἀτόμους εἶναι καὶ κενόν· ‘νόμῳ’ γάρ φησι ‘γλυκύ’ καὶ ‘νόμῳ πικρόν, νόμῳ θερμόν, νόμῳ ψυχρόν, νόμῳ χροιή, ἐτεῇ δὲ

liber 4 caput 9 ἄτομα καὶ κενόν’. (ὅπερ ⟨ἔστι⟩· νομίζεται μὲν εἶναι καὶ δοξάζεται τὰ αἰσθητά, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἄτομα μόνον καὶ τὸ κενόν). ἐν δὲ τοῖς Κρατυντηρίοις, καίπερ ὑπεσχημένος ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι τὸ κράτος τῆς πίστεως ἀναθεῖναι, οὐδὲν ἧττον εὑρίσκεται τούτων καταδικάζων. φησὶ γάρ· ‘ἡμεῖς δὲ τῷ μὲν ἐόντι οὐδὲν ἀτρεκὲς συνίεμεν, μεταπίπτον δὲ κατά τε σώματος διαθήκην καὶ τῶν ἐπεισιόντων καὶ τῶν ἀντιστηριζόντων.’ M. 8.6 Δημόκριτος (fr. 92 Luria) … μηδὲν ὑποκεῖσθαι φύσει αἰσθητόν, τῶν τὰ πάντα συγκρινουσῶν ἀτόμων πάσης αἰσθητῆς ποιότητος ἔρημον ἐχουσῶν φύσιν. See also above ch. 1.15, section E(b)§8. §10 Other views about smallest parts: Papyrus Derveni col. xix.1–2 ἐκ [τοῦ δ]ὲ [τ]ὰ ἐόντα, ἓν [ἕκ]αστον κέκ[λητ]αι ἀπὸ τοῦ | ἐπικρατοῦντος. Aristotle Phys. 1.4 187b1–7 (on Anaxagoras, not in DK) διό φασι πᾶν ἐν παντὶ μεμῖχθαι, διότι πᾶν ἐκ παντὸς ἑώρων γιγνόμενον· φαίνεσθαι δὲ διαφέροντα καὶ προσαγορεύεσθαι ἕτερα ἀλλήλων ἐκ τοῦ μάλισθ᾽ ὑπερέχοντος διὰ πλῆθος ἐν τῇ μίξει τῶν ἀπείρων· εἰλικρινῶς μὲν γὰρ ὅλον λευκὸν ἢ μέλαν ἢ γλυκὺ ἢ σάρκα ἢ ὀστοῦν οὐκ εἶναι, ὅτου δὲ πλεῖστον ἕκαστον ἔχει, τοῦτο δοκεῖν εἶναι τὴν φύσιν τοῦ πράγματος. Theophrastus Sens. 67 (Democritus 68A135 DK) οὗ δ᾽ ἂν ἐνῇ πλεῖστον, τοῦτο μάλιστα ἐνισχύειν πρός τε τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν. criticized by Galen Hipp.Elem. c. 6.32, 1.467.4–8 K. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ἀθήναιος, ἀλλὰ τὰ τούτων συνθετικὰ ὄντως εἶναι στοιχεῖα. δῆλον οὖν, ὡς ὑπερβαίνει τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα καὶ ὄντως ἁπλᾶ τῷ λογισμῷ προϊών, ἃ μηκέτ᾽ ἐγχωρεῖ λέγειν ἐπικρατείᾳ τοῖα ἢ τοῖα γίγνεσθαι. Simplicius in Phys. 27.7–11 (Theophrastus Phys.Op. fr. 4 Diels, 228A FHS&G) πάντων (sc. τῶν ὁμοιομερῶν) μὲν ἐν πᾶσιν ὄντων, ἑκάστου δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν ἐν αὐτῷ χαρακτηριζομένου. χρυσὸς γὰρ φαίνεται ἐκεῖνο, ἐν ᾧ πολὺ χρυσίον ἐστὶ καίτοι πάντων ἐνόντων. λέγει γοῦν Ἀναξαγόρας (59A41, B12 DK) ὅτι ‘ἐν παντὶ παντὸς μοῖρα ἔνεστι καὶ ὅτῳ πλεῖστα ἔνι, ταῦτα ἐνδηλότατα ἓν ἕκαστόν ἐστι καὶ ἦν’. in Phys. 155.23–26 ὅτι δὲ Ἀναξαγόρας (on 59B1 DK) ἐξ ἑνὸς μίγματος ἄπειρα τῷ πλήθει ὁμοιομερῆ ἀποκρίνεσθαί φησιν πάντων μὲν ἐν παντὶ ἐνόντων, ἑκάστου δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν χαρακτηριζομένου, δηλοῖ διὰ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν Φυσικῶν λέγων κτλ. §11 Pythagoras Plato: Empedocles 31B109 DK γαίῃ μὲν γὰρ γαῖαν ὀπώπαμεν, ὕδατι δ᾽ ὕδωρ, / αἰθέρι δ᾽ αἰθέρα δίᾳ, ἀτὰρ πυρὶ πῦρ ἀΐδηλον. Plato Resp. 508a–b τίνα οὖν ἔχεις αἰτιάσασθαι τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ θεῶν τούτου κύριον, οὗ ἡμῖν τὸ φῶς ὄψιν τε ποιεῖ ὁρᾶν ὅτι κάλλιστα καὶ τὰ ὁρώμενα ὁρᾶσθαι;—ὅνπερ καὶ σύ, ἔφη, καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι· τὸν ἥλιον γὰρ δῆλον ὅτι ἐρωτᾷς.—ἆρ᾽ οὖν ὧδε πέφυκεν ὄψις πρὸς τοῦτον τὸν θεόν;—πῶς;—οὐκ ἔστιν ἥλιος ἡ ὄψις οὔτε αὐτὴ οὔτ᾽ ἐν ᾧ ἐγγίγνεται, ὃ (b) δὴ καλοῦμεν ὄμμα.—οὐ γὰρ οὖν.—ἀλλ᾽ ἡλιοειδέστατόν γε οἶμαι τῶν περὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ὀργάνων. Tim. 45b τοῦ πυρὸς ὅσον τὸ μὲν κάειν οὐκ ἔσχε, τὸ δὲ παρέχειν φῶς ἥμερον, οἰκεῖον ἑκάστης ἡμέρας, σῶμα ἐμηχανήσαντο γίγνεσθαι. τὸ γὰρ ἐντὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸν ὂν τούτου πῦρ εἰλικρινὲς ἐποίησαν διὰ τῶν ὀμμάτων ῥεῖν λεῖον. Tim. 67b ὅλως μὲν οὖν φωνὴν θῶμεν τὴν δι᾽ ὤτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου τε καὶ αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς πληγὴν διαδιδομένην, τὴν δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς κίνησιν, ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς μὲν ἀρχομένην, τελευτῶσαν δὲ περὶ τὴν τοῦ ἥπατος ἕδραν, ἀκοήν. Aristotle Sens. 2 437a20–b12 ἔνιοι μὲν ζητοῦσι κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῶν σωμάτων· οὐκ εὐποροῦντες δὲ πρὸς τέτταρα πέντ᾽ οὔσας συνάγειν, γλίχονται περὶ τῆς πέμ-

1579

1580

liber 4 caput 9

πτης. ποιοῦσι δὲ πάντες τὴν ὄψιν πυρὸς … εἴ γε πῦρ ἦν, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A91 DK) φησὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ (Tim. 68a) γέγραπται κτλ. Sens. 2 438b17– 439a1 φανερὸν ὡς εἰ δεῖ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀποδιδόναι καὶ προσάπτειν ἕκαστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἑνὶ τῶν στοιχείων, τοῦ μὲν ὄμματος τὸ ὁρατικὸν ὕδατος ὑποληπτέον, ἀέρος δὲ τὸ τῶν ψόφων αἰσθητικόν, πυρὸς δὲ τὴν ὄσφρησιν … τὸ δ᾽ ἁπτικὸν γῆς, τὸ δὲ γευστικὸν εἶδός τι ἁφῆς ἐστίν κτλ. de An. 1.2 404b21–24 (Test.Plat. 25A Gaiser, A22 Isnardi Parente) ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἄλλως, νοῦν μὲν τὸ ἕν, ἐπιστήμην δὲ τὰ δύο (μοναχῶς γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ἕν), τὸν δὲ τοῦ ἐπιπέδου ἀριθμὸν δόξαν, αἴσθησιν δὲ τὸν τοῦ στερεοῦ. Plutarch De E 390B εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἳ καὶ τὰς τῶν αἰσθήσεων δυνάμεις ἰσαρίθμους οὔσας τοῖς πρώτοις ἐκείνοις συνοικειοῦσι, τὴν μὲν ἁφὴν ὁρῶντες ἀντίτυπον οὖσαν καὶ γεώδη, τὴν δὲ γεῦσιν ὑγρότητι τῶν γευστῶν τὰς ποιότητας προσιεμένην. ἀὴρ δὲ πληγεὶς ἐν ἀκοῇ γίγνεται φωνὴ καὶ ψόφος. δυεῖν δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ὀσμὴ μέν, ἣν ἡ ὄσφρησις εἴληχεν, ἀναθυμίασις οὖσα καὶ γεννωμένη θερμότητι πυρῶδές ἐστιν, αἰθέρι δὲ καὶ φωτὶ διὰ συγγένειαν διαλαμπούσης τῆς ὄψεως γίγνεται κρᾶσις ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὁμοιοπαθὴς καὶ σύμπηξις. De E 390F, Sil.Or. 429E (on the parts of soul). Sextus Empiricus M. 7.93 καὶ ὡς τὸ μὲν φῶς, φησὶν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F 85 E.-K., 395a Theiler) τὸν Πλάτωνος Τίμαιον ἐξηγούμενος, ὑπὸ τῆς φωτοειδοῦς ὄψεως καταλαμβάνεται, ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀεροειδοῦς ἀκοῆς κτλ. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 14.18–23 λέγει δέ τινας τῶν περὶ αἰσθήσεων εἰρηκότων ζητεῖν ἑκάστην αἴσθησιν ἐξ ἑκάστου τῶν σωματικῶν στοιχείων ποιεῖν, καὶ {πέντε τῶν αἰσθήσεων οὐσῶν} οὐκ εὐποροῦντας συνάγειν εἰς τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα πέντε οὔσας αὐτὰς ζητεῖν περὶ τῆς πέμπτης, ἐκ τίνος αὐτὴν χρὴ λέγειν εἶναι σώματος. λέγοιτο δ᾽ ἂν τοῦτο περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ δόξης, ἥτις ἀναφέρεται μὲν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους, εἴρηται δ᾽ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ (Tim. 45b–c, 65c–d, 66d, 67b). Galen PHP 7.5.42–6.1 δεόντως οὖν ἐροῦμεν αὐγοειδὲς μὲν εἶναι τὸ τῆς ὄψεως ὄργανον, ἀεροειδὲς δὲ τὸ τῆς ἀκοῆς, ἀτμοειδὲς δὲ τὸ τῆς ὀδμῆς καὶ τὸ μὲν τῆς γεύσεως ὑγρόν, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἁφῆς γεῶδες. (43) οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν ἑτέρως ἔχειν αὐτὰ τῆς ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ἀλλοιώσεως χρῄζοντα καὶ τοῦτ᾽, ἄρ᾽ ἦν ὃ βούλεται δηλοῦν ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐν οἷς φησι … (quotation of 31B109 DK). (44) αἰσθανόμεθα γὰρ ὄντως τῷ μὲν γεωδεστέρῳ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ ἁφή, τῆς γεώδους φύσεως ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς, τῷ δ᾽ αὐγοειδεστάτῳ, ⟨τῷ⟩ τῆς ὄψεως, τῆς αὐγοειδοῦς, καθάπερ γε καὶ τῷ κατὰ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀεροειδεῖ γιγνομένῳ τῶν ἰδίων ἀέρος παθημάτων ἡ διάγνωσις ἀποτελεῖται. καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ τῷ κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν ὑγρῷ καὶ σπογγοειδεῖ τὴν φύσιν ὄντι τῶν χυμῶν ἡμῖν αἴσθησις γίγνεται. (45) λοιπὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς ὀσφρήσεως ὄργανον, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ῥῖνα πόροις, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς πέρασι τῶν προσθίων ἐγκεφάλου κοιλιῶν, εἰς ἅπερ ἀνήκουσιν οἱ κατὰ τὴν ῥῖνα πόροι· κατὰ τοῦτο γάρ τοι τὸ μόριον ἀτμοειδεστάτας εἶναι συμβέβηκε τὰς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ. … (6.1) πέμπτον γὰρ δὴ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν αἰσθητήριον, οὐκ ὄντων πέντε στοιχείων, ἐπειδὴ τὸ τῶν ὀσμῶν γένος ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶν ἀέρος τε καὶ ὕδατος, ὡς καὶ Πλάτων εἶπεν ἐν Τιμαίῳ (Tim. 66d–e). followed by Nemesius NH 6, p. 56.6–20 καὶ τῷ μὲν γεωδεστάτῳ καὶ σωματικωτάτῳ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ ἁφή, τῆς γεώδους φύσεως αἰσθάνεται, τῷ δὲ αὐγοειδεστάτῳ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ ὄψις, τῶν αὐγοειδῶν, ὡς καὶ τῷ ⟨κατὰ τὴν ἀκοὴν⟩ ἀερώδει τῶν τοῦ ἀέρος παθημάτων (ἀὴρ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φωνῆς οὐσία ἢ ἀέρος πληγή), καὶ τῷ σπογγοειδεῖ δὲ καὶ ὑδατοειδεῖ

liber 4 caput 9 τῷ κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν τῶν χυμῶν ἀντιλαμβάνεται· ἕκαστον γὰρ τῶν αἰσθητῶν διὰ τοῦ οἰκείου γνωρίζεσθαι πέφυκεν. ἔδει τοίνυν κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον, ἐπειδὴ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, τέσσαρας εἶναι καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδήπερ ὁ ἀτμὸς καὶ τὸ τῶν ὀσμῶν γένος μεταξὺ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶν ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος … τούτου χάριν πέμπτον αἰσθητήριον ἡ ὄσφρησις ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως ἐξεύρηται. Corpus Hippocraticum Ep.Ptol. p. 287.1–7 Ermerins αἰσθητήρια δέ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πέντε· ὅρασις ὄσφρησις ἀκοή γεῦσις καὶ ἁφή· ἡ μὲν ὅρασις ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, ἡ δὲ ὄσφρησις ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς, ἡ δὲ γεῦσις ἐκ τοῦ ὑγροῦ, ἡ δὲ ἁφὴ ἐκ τῆς γῆς. δυνάμεις εἰσὶ τῆς ψυχῆς πέντε· νοῦς διάνοια δόξα φαντασία καὶ αἴσθησις. §14 Chrysippus: Philo of Alexandria Leg. 1.24 πρὸ τοῦ ἀνατεῖλαι τὰ κατὰ μέρος αἰσθητὰ ἦν τὸ γενικὸν αἰσθητὸν προμηθείᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος. Seneca Ep. 58.16 quod generalis est, tamquam homo generalis, sub oculos non venit; sed specialis venit, ut Cicero et Cato. animal non videtur; cogitatur. videtur autem species eius, equus et canis. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.61 (SVF 3 Diog. 25) εἶδος δέ ἐστι τὸ ὑπὸ γένους περιεχόμενον …· εἰδικώτατον δέ ἐστιν ὃ εἶδος ὂν εἶδος οὐκ ἔχει, ὥσπερ ὁ Σωκράτης. §15 Empedocles: Theophrastus Sens. 1 Παρμενίδης (28A46 DK) μὲν καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) καὶ Πλάτων τῷ ὁμοίῳ (sc. ποιοῦσιν τὴν αἴσθησιν). Sens. 9 (Empedocles 31A86 DK) ἥδεσθαι δὲ τοῖς ὁμοίοις κατά τε ⟨τὰ⟩ μόρια καὶ τὴν κρᾶσιν, λυπεῖσθαι δὲ τοῖς ἐναντίοις. Sens. 16 (Empedocles 31A86 DK) ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ λύπην ὁμολογουμένως ἀποδίδωσιν ἥδεσθαι μὲν ποιῶν τοῖς ὁμοίοις, λυπεῖσθαι δὲ τοῖς ἐναντίοις. §16 Anaxagoras: Aristotle EN 7.15 1154b7–8 ἀεὶ γὰρ πονεῖ τὸ ζῷον, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ φυσιολόγοι (59A94 DK) μαρτυροῦσι, τὸ ὁρᾶν, τὸ ἀκούειν φάσκοντες εἶναι λυπηρόν. Theophrastus Sens. 29 (59A92 DK) ἅπασαν δ᾽ αἴσθησιν μετὰ λύπης. Aspasius in EN (ad loc.) p. 156.13–20 ἀεὶ γὰρ πονεῖν τὸ ζῷον, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ φυσιολόγοι λέγουσιν. ὁ γὰρ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A94 DK) ἔλεγεν ἀεὶ πονεῖν τὸ ζῷον διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων. ταῦτα δὲ οὐχ ὡς συγκατατιθέμενος λέγει ἀλλ᾽ ἱστορῶν· ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἐδόκει γε αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ ἐν πόνῳ εἶναι τὸ ζῷον. καὶ τὸν Ἀναξαγόραν αἰτιᾶται Θεόφραστος (fr. 555 FHS&G) ἐν Ἠθικοῖς λέγων ὅτι *** ‘ἐξελαύνει ἡδονὴ λύπην ἥ γε ἐναντία’, οἷον ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ πίνειν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ διψῆν, ‘καὶ ἡ τυχοῦσα’, τουτέστιν ἥτις οὖν ἂν εἴη ‘ἰσχυρά’, ὥστε ἐνίοτε πεῖναν ἐξελαύνει καὶ ἀκοῆς ἡδονή, ὅταν ᾄσμασιν ἢ ἄλλοις τισὶν ἀκούσμασι διαφερόντως χαίρωμεν. Theophrastus Sens. 17 καίτοι πολλάκις αἰσθανόμενοι λυπούμεθα κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν αἴσθησιν, ὡς ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A92 DK) φησίν, ἀεί· πᾶσαν γὰρ αἴσθησιν εἶναι μετὰ λύπης. §17 Others: Doxography C (Peripatetic, ascribed to AD) at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.10, p. 88.16–21 (SVF 3.378) ἐπιθυμίαν μὲν οὖν καὶ φόβον προηγεῖσθαι, τὴν μὲν πρὸς τὸ φαινόμενον ἀγαθόν, τὸν δὲ πρὸς τὸ φαινόμενον κακόν. ἐπιγίγνεσθαι δὲ τούτοις ἡδονὴν καὶ λύπην, ἡδονὴν μὲν ὅταν τυγχάνωμεν ὧν ἐπεθυμοῦμεν ἢ ἐκφύγωμεν ἃ ἐφοβούμεθα· λύπην δέ, ὅταν ἀποτυγχάνωμεν ὧν ἐπεθυμοῦμεν ἢ περιπέσωμεν οἷς ἐφοβούμεθα. Dio Chrysostomus Or. 8.23 ὁ μὲν οὖν πόνος διὰ τῆς ἁφῆς ἐπιγίγνεται ὡς τὸ πολὺ καὶ ταύτῃ πρόσεισιν, ἡ δὲ ἡδονὴ κατὰ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν ὁπόσας ἄνθρωπος αἰσθήσεις ἔχει.

1581

1582

liber 4 caput 9

§20 Epicurus: Bacchylides Pae. fr. 2.1–2 Irigoin at Clem.Alex. Strom. 5.68.5 ἕτερος ἐξ ἑτέρου σοφὸς / τό τε πάλαι τό τε νῦν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.20 Ἐμπεδοκλέους δὲ εἰπόντος αὐτῷ (sc. Ξενοφάνει, 21A1 & A20 DK) ὅτι ἀνεύρετός ἐστιν ὁ σοφός, ‘εἰκότως,’ ἔφη· ‘σοφὸν γὰρ εἶναι δεῖ τὸν ἐπιγνωσόμενον τὸν σοφόν.’ Cf. Gnomologium Parisinum 6.54 Searby.

Liber 4 Caput 10 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 900A; p. 399a1–14 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 198– 199 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.51.2–4, pp. 481.16–482.8 + 1.50.7–9, pp. 473.20–474.5 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b30–31 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH 15, p. 72.7–9 Morani

Titulus ιʹ. Πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ αἰσθήσεις (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ πέντε τὰς εἰδικὰς αἰσθήσεις, ὅρασιν ἀκοὴν ὄσφρησιν γεῦσιν ἁφήν. (P1,S4) §2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἕκτην μὲν οὐ λέγει, κοινὴν δ᾽ αἴσθησιν τὴν τῶν συνθέτων εἰδῶν κριτικήν, εἰς ἣν πᾶσαι συμβάλλουσιν αἱ ἁπλαῖ τὰς ἰδίας ἑκάστη φαντασίας· ἐν ᾗ τὸ μεταβατικὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου πρὸς ἕτερον, οἱονεὶ σχήματος καὶ κινήσεως. (P2,S5) §3 † Πελλῆς πλείους αἰσθήσεις εἶναι περὶ τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα †. (S1) §4 Δημόκριτος πλείους εἶναι αἰσθήσεις, περὶ τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα καὶ περὶ τοὺς σοφοὺς καὶ περὶ τοὺς θεούς. (P3,S6) §5 Δημόκριτος πλείους μὲν εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις τῶν αἰσθητῶν, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἀναλογίζειν τὰ αἰσθητὰ τῷ πλήθει λανθάνειν. (S2) §6 οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι παρίσους. (S6) §1 Stoici SVF 2.853; §2 Aristoteles cf. de An. 3.1 424b22–23, 425a14–16; §3—; §4 Democritus 68A116 DK; §5 Democritus 68A115 DK; §6 anonymi— caput non hab. PEGT titulus Πόσαι … αἰσθήσεις PBQ : καὶ ποίας οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας ἑκάστη add. SLPhot : αἱ om. PB(II) : εἰσὶν post αἰσθήσεις PB(I) §1 [2] εἰδικὰς PB(III) : ἰδικὰς PB(I,II)SL §2 [4] ἕκτην : ἕκτον S corr. Meineke ‖ [4–7] κοινὴν … κινήσεως PB : cf. supra c. 4.8.6[20– 22] ‖ τὴν PB : om. SL ‖ συνθέτων] συνθέντων SL ‖ [6–7] ἐν … κινήσεως PBSL : ἀφ᾽ om. PQ (?) non vertit Daiber (dabei bewegt sich der eine (Sinn) zum anderen (in gleicher Weise) wie die Fortbewegung verläuft, welche bei den Gestalten und Bewegungen stattfindet Q) ‖ [7] δείκνυται add. PB post κινήσεως non hab. PQSL secl. Diels prob. Mau Gigon, sed ret. Lachenaud §3 [8] lemma abundans crucifiximus : Ἀπελλῆς ind. Phot. : πελλῆς SL : ‘vereor ne … nihil sit nisi Ἀριστοτέλης lemma errore praefixum insequentis paragaphi’ Diels DG et crucif. †Ἀπελλῆς† (‘prima [sc. littera] rubricatori relicta’), †πελλῆς† Wachsmuth, qui add. ‘fort. Ἐμπεδοκλης’ ‖ verba πλείους … ζῷα SL : iterata ex c. 4.4[9] sec. Diels ‖ πλείους SL : ὁμοίους Usener : ‘crediderim tamen Aetium ἀλλοίους […] ἄ. ζ. scripsisse, ut haec opposita sint verbis’ (sc. 4.4[9]) ‘καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἄλογα τῶν ζῴων’ Wachsmuth ‖ §4 [9–10] περὶ1 … θεούς PB(I,II) : καὶ περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ σοφούς PB(III) : in den unvernünftigen [sic!] und weisen Lebewesen Q §5 [11] τῷ δὲ SL : τὸ δὲ Usener ‖ [12] ἀναλογίζειν SL prob. Wachsmuth : crucif. Diels qui prop. ἀναλογεῖν

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_110

5

10

1584

liber 4 caput 10

Testes secundi: Nemesius NH 15 p. 72.7–9 (~ §1) Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Στωϊκὸς (SVF 1.143) ὀκταμερῆ φησιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, διαιρῶν αὐτὴν εἴς τε τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, καὶ εἰς τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις κτλ. Loci Aetiani: §1 A 4.4.4 οἱ Στωικοὶ … πέντε (sc. μερῶν) μὲν τῶν αἰσθητικῶν, ὁρατικοῦ ἀκουστικοῦ ὀσφρητικοῦ γευστικοῦ ἁπτικοῦ. A 4.9.14 Χρύσιππος τὸ μὲν γενικὸν ἡδὺ νοητόν, τὸ δὲ εἰδικὸν καὶ προσπῖπτον ἤδη αἰσθητόν. A 4.21.1–2 οἱ Στωικοὶ … πέντε μέν εἰσι τὰ αἰσθητήρια, ὅρασις ὄσφρησις ἀκοὴ γεῦσις καὶ ἁφή. §2 = A 4.8.6 Ἀριστοτέλης … κοινὴν δὲ αἴσθησιν τὴν τῶν συνθέτων εἰδῶν κριτικήν, εἰς ἣν πᾶσαι συμβάλλουσιν αἱ ἁπλαῖ τὰς ἰδίας ἑκάστη ⟨φαντασίας⟩, ἐν ᾗ τὸ μεταβατικὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου εἰς ἕτερον οἷον σχήματος ⟨καὶ⟩ κινήσεως σώματος. §5 A 4.4.6 oἱ δέ γε Πυθαγόρου διάδοχοι ἐκ πέντε στοιχείων τὸ σῶμα κραθῆναι φάντες—τοῖς γὰρ τέτταρσι ξυνέταξαν τὸ αἰθέριον—ἰσαρίθμους εἶναι ἔφασαν ταύτῃ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τὰς δυνάμεις. A 4.9.11 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων καθαρὸν ἕκαστον εἶναι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐξ ἑκάστου στοιχείου προσερχόμενον. πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὴν ὅρασιν τὸ αἰθηριὸν πεφυκέναι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀκοὴν τὸ πνευματικόν, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ὄσφρησιν τὸ πυρῶδες, πρὸς δὲ τὴν γεῦσιν τὸ ὑγρόν, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἁφὴν τὸ γεῶδες.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses for P are only PB and PQ. G has not excerpted the chapter. Ps prefers a chapter entitled Περὶ τῶν πέντε αἰσθήσεων that brings together a series of brief descriptions or definitions of the senses equivalent to A 4.13 & 16–19 (but using P as his model). (2) T, as we have noticed, is no longer excerpting A. (3) S has six lemmata, which are divided over two different chapters, viz. Ecl. 1.50 and 1.51: three of them, i.e. ch. 4.10.3 + 4.10.5–6, are at Ecl. 1.50.7–9, pp. 473.20–474.5. These excerpts according to Diels interrupt the sequence of lemmata S abstracted from ch. 4.8, while Wachsmuth ad loc. prefers to locate them in that chapter (see above, ch. 4.8, Commentary A(2) and ch. 4.9, Commentary A(2) and A(4)). Three more lemmata, i.e. ch. 4.10.1–2 + 4.10.4, are found in the next Stobaean chapter, Ecl. 1.51.2–4, pp. 481.17–482.8. All the lemmata of S except ch. 4.10.2 (Aristotle) are extant only in ms L, the Florentine florilegium, cf. above, ch. 4.8 Commentary A(1).

liber 4 caput 10

1585

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is poor. Unfortunately other evidence for views pertaining to more than the five canonical senses, and in particular to the views of Democritus, is virtually non-existent. (2) Sources. Aristotle several times discusses the issue of the number of the senses and resolutely defends the number five, e.g. de An. 3.1 425a13–b11. So does Alexander of Aphrodisias, e.g. de An. 66.1–9. The Stoics too limit the number of the senses to five. We do not know how this reliable information reached the Placita. C Chapter Heading A precise heading, in P, concerned with the category of quantity, and confirmed by the first part of the heading of S 1.51, a short chapter which has the long and detailed heading ‘How many senses are there, and what is the substance and performance of each?’ (Πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ αἰσθήσεις καὶ ποίας οὐσίας καὶ ἐνεργείας ἑκάστη). For the dialectical aspect of the question word see above, ch. 1.1, Commentary C. This long version, added by Wachsmuth from Photius and the index of SL, looks ahead to the chapters treating the individual senses. Alexander of Aphrodisias in the introduction to his Commentary on Aristotle’s De sensu mentions as one of the topics of the De anima ‘on the function of sensation … and saying what it is and in how many senses it is divided’ (περὶ τῆς αἰσθητικῆς δυνάμεως …, καὶ τίς τέ ἐστιν εἰπὼν καὶ εἰς πόσας αἰσθήσεις διαιρεῖται, in Sens. 1.5–7). D Analysis a Context Chapter 4.10 is the third of a series of five chapters concerned with cognitive issues in a more general way. It deals with the number of the senses (category of quantity), and follows upon the chapter dealing with the reliability of sensations and impressions (truth or falsity: category/question-type of quality). It is followed by two chapters (4.11–12) specially devoted to Stoic views on these issues, dealing respectively with the cognitive process from sensation to concept-formation, and with distinctions between various forms of real or imaginary impressions. b Number–Order of Lemmata P has only three lemmata, S more. As indicated above there is a difference of opinion between Diels and Wachsmuth. According to Diels S provides six lemmata for the present chapter divided between Ecl. 1.50 and 1.51, according to Wachsmuth only three, in Ecl. 1.51 (see above, section A). Diels argued

1586

liber 4 caput 10

that §§3 and 5–6 of ch. 4.10 had been wrongly coalesced by S in 1.50 with the lemmata from ch. 4.8, while Wachsmuth believed that they really belong in ch. 4.8. For the first of these L, the Florentine florilegium, which is the only source for S here, has the enigmatic name-label πελλῆς in §3. Diels DG 399b13 prints †Ἀπελλῆς, Wachsmuth Ecl. 1.473.21 †πελλῆς (see below, section D(d)§3). But Wachsmuth needed to change the text of §3 from πλείους into ἀλλοίους (and even to suggest that πελλῆς is a corruption of the regular name-label Ἐμπεδοκλῆς) in order to create a diaphonic connection between the Aristotle lemma ch. 4.8.6, according to which the sensus communis is shared to some extent by the animals, whereas ch. 4.10.3 (with this conjecture!) appears to deny this commonality. It is clear that this reconstruction needs too many extra hypotheses, and that Diels, who fished out lemmata dealing with the category of quantity, must be right. The fact that the text of §3 in Ecl. 1.50 anticipates that of §4 in Ecl. 1.51 is a further argument in favour of Diels’ rearrangement, as he already pointed out himself. The fact that the two Democritus lemmata §4 and §5 have virtually the same beginnings (§4 Δημόκριτος πλείους εἶναι αἰσθήσεις, §5 Δημόκριτος πλείους μὲν εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις) may have contributed to the creation of the false lemma §3 in S, as Diels ad loc. already suggested. The strange namelabel πελλῆς is combined with a duplication of the first part of §4. It could have been relegated to the critical apparatus, but we have left it in the text, as an illustration of what may happen with doxai. The lemmata order. The sequence of lemmata from §1 to §4 is not the same in P and S if we take the order of the chapters into account. For §§5–6 we follow the order of S, and their final position is warranted by the fact that in S they come after §3, itself a misguided anticipation of §4, so they follow after §4. Our reconstruction of the chapter and the order of its lemmata thus turns out to be the same as that of Diels in the DG. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The rationale of the chapter is quite straightforward. The lemmata are arranged according to number (category of quantity), starting with the standard quintet in §1. In §2 Aristotle too sticks to five senses, though he adds the sensus communis (as in ch. 4.8.6). The other side of the diaeresis is provided by two Democritus lemmata. The first, §4, claims that there are more senses (than five, of course)—interestingly enough claiming this not only and perhaps with some justification for gods and animals, but also for Wise Men. The second, §5, takes up the theme of chs. 4.4.6 and 4.9.11, namely the issue of the relation between the number of the senses and the number of the kinds of elemental sense objects. Democritus is credited with the view that there are more senses than kinds of sense objects, but it is not clear how this should work out in rela-

liber 4 caput 10

1587

tion to human beings, Wise Men, gods, and animals. The anonymous §6 (one wonders who these ‘others’ may be) provides a compromise tenet; or rather one which fails to fit the diaeresis, because ‘equally balanced’ may perhaps be both less and more than five. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 For the passage [4] κοινὴν … [7] κινήσεως repeated from ch. 4.8.2 see at this chapter, Commentary D(d)§6. §3 The doxa is duplicated from the next lemma, as Diels noted. The first letter of the name-label is lacking in the Laurentianus ms., but present in Photius’ index (cod. 167, p. 114a27 Henry), as noted by Elter (1880) 41. An Ἀπελλῆς is on the list of pupils of Chrysippus at Philodemus Index Stoicorum col. 47.3, who may or may not be identical with the Ἀπολλᾶν in Chrysippus’ catalogue at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.193 (where the recentiores read ἀπελλᾶν) and V.P. 7.197. The proper name Πελλῆς does exist but is quite rare (Apollonius Rhodius Arg. 1.177, Diodorus Siculus 4.3.23); no intellectual of this name is known. It seems safest to follow Diels and obelize the lemma. §5 A related issue occurs in long-distance diaphonic opposition at ch. 4.4.6 and ch. 4.6.11, name-labels respectively ‘Pythagoras’ followers’ and ‘Pythagoras Plato’, where the number of the kinds of sense-objects equals that of the senses. e Other Evidence The number of the senses is not only discussed by Aristotle in the De anima, but is also one of three main criteria for distinguishing and classifying doctrines in Theophrastus’ De sensibus, see Mansfeld (1996). He discusses views also according to the number of senses involved (category of quantity): a first group (who believe perception occurs ‘by similarity’) beginning with Parmenides who failed to determine the number, then Plato with two (!) senses, sight and hearing—numbered, as we know, by Plato himself as ‘third’ (Tim. 67a τρίτον) and ‘fourth’ (67c τέταρτον) ‘perceiving part’ (αἱσθητικὸν ἐν ἡμιν μέρος)—, and finally Empedocles with five. Then a second group (who believe perception occurs ‘by contrast’), comprising inter alios Alcmaeon with four senses (as it would appear) and Anaxagoras with five. See section E(b) General texts. More than five is only a side issue in de Sens. 6 (Plato did not say whether there are other senses than the canonical five), while in the present chapter the main diaeresis according to quantity is between five senses or more (more than five are attributed to Democritus), and less than five is not mentioned. The relation to the De sensibus is even more faint than in ch. 4.8; cf. above, 4.8, Commentary D(a).

1588

liber 4 caput 10

The first author to mention the five canonical senses is Empedocles (31B3.10–13 DK); one cannot say that Parmenides is concerned with sense perception in a specific way because for him eyes, ears, and tongue (as the organ of speech, 28B7.4–5 DK) are means of judgement and communication rather than sense organs, just as eyes and ears are for Heraclitus (22B55, B101a DK), see Mansfeld (1999d) and (2018b). The Hippocratic author cited at section E(b)§3– 5 puts (what we would call) mental and sensorial faculties on a par. The parallels for a discussion of the number of the senses reveal that the issue, though not spectacular, was often related to that of the number of elemental sense-objects, see Baltes (1978). We now know that animals have more or other senses than we do, think of electric sense, magnetic sense, echolocation, and infrared and ultraviolet vision (e.g. von Frisch proved that bees do not see red but see ultraviolet). For Montaigne and Leibniz speculating on animal senses unknown to us see Strickland (2016) 78–79. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.379.6–9 K. ριστʹ. αἰσθήσεις εἰσὶ πέντε, ὅρασις, ἀκοὴ, γεῦσις, ὄσφρησις, ἁφή. διακονοῦνται δὲ αὗται καὶ ὑπηρετοῦνται τῇ ψυχῇ, ὥσπερ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Βιθυνός (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 721) φησιν καὶ τὴν ⟨συγ⟩γυμνασίαν τῶν πέντε αἰσθήσεων ψυχὴν εἶναι. §2 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 15 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.51.5, p. 482.9–19 Ἀριστοτέλους· τὸ δὲ αἰσθητικόν, … πενταπλοῦν ἐοικέναι. τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ μὲν ὅρασιν τὸ δ᾽ ἀκοὴν τὸ δ᾽ ὄσφρησιν τὸ δὲ γεῦσιν τὸ δ᾽ ἁφήν. ὑπάρχειν δέ τινα καὶ σύνθετον αἴσθησιν ….

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Theophrastus Sens. 5 Πλάτων δὲ ἐπὶ πλέον μὲν ἧπται τῶν κατὰ μέρος, οὐ μὴν εἴρηκέ γε περὶ ἁπασῶν, ἀλλὰ μόνον περὶ ἀκοῆς καὶ ὄψεως. Sens. 6 (also on Plato) περὶ δὲ ὀσφρήσεως καὶ γεύσεως καὶ ἁφῆς ὅλως οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν [sic], οὐδὲ εἰ παρὰ ταύτας ἄλλαι τινές εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀκριβολογεῖται περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν. Sens. 7 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A86 DK) δὲ περὶ ἁπασῶν ὁμοίως λέγει. Sens. 26 (Alcmaeon 24A5 DK) περὶ δὲ ἁφῆς οὐκ εἴρηκεν οὔτε πῶς οὔτε τίνι γίνεται. Sens. 27 Ἀναξαγόρας (59A92 DK) … καθ᾽ ἑκάστην δ᾽ ἰδίᾳ πειρᾶται διαριθμεῖν. Themistius in de An. 80.4–10 οὐδεμία ἄρα αἴσθησις τοῖς ζώοις ἐλλείπει, λέγω δὲ οὐ πᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τελείοις καὶ μὴ κολοβοῖς μηδὲ οἷον πεπηρωμένοις· τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα ζώφυτα μίαν ἔχει τὴν ἁφήν, τὰ δὲ ἴσως καὶ τὴν γεῦσιν, τὰ δὲ ἴσως καὶ τὴν ὄσφρησιν, ὅσα δὲ πορευτικὰ καὶ τέλεια, ταῦτα ἔχει τὰς πέντε πάσας· φαίνεται γὰρ καὶ ἡ ἀσπάλαξ ὑπὸ τὸ δέρμα ἔχουσα ὀφθαλμούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδήπερ πρὸς τὸν βίον οὐκ ἦν αὐτῇ ἀναγκαία ἡ ὄψις, ἐξεπλήρωσε μὲν καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης ἡ φύσις τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν αἰσθήσεων. John Philoponus in de An. 450.35–451.5 ‘ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν αἴσθη-

liber 4 caput 10 σις ἑτέρα παρὰ τὰς πέντε’ (de An. 3.1 424b22)—ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῷ πέρατι τοῦ δευτέρου λόγου ἐζήτει, εἰ μία ἐστὶν ἡ ἁφὴ ἢ πολλαί, νῦν δείκνυσιν ὅτι πέντε εἰσὶ καὶ μόνον αἰσθήσεις, ἵνα τούτου δεικνυμένου δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μία ἐστὶν ἡ ἁφή. δικαίως δὲ τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ἐπειδὴ τῶν ζῴων τὰ μὲν δύο ἔχει αἰσθήσεις, τινὰ δὲ τρεῖς, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ζητεῖ πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ αἰσθήσεις· εἰ γὰρ πάντα τὰ ζῷα εἶχον τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις, περιττὴ ἦν ἡ περὶ τούτου ζήτησις. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 2.10, p. 31.12–14 συγγενὴς γὰρ ἡ πεντὰς τῇ αἰσθήσει, ἥτις πενταχῶς τέμνεται, εἰς ὅρασιν ἀκοὴν γεῦσιν ὄσφρησιν καὶ ἁφήν. §1 Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Mos. 2.81 ἡ πεντὰς αἰσθήσεων ἀριθμός ἐστιν. Plant. 133. QE 2.97. Abr. 147 συμβολικῶς ἡ πεντάπολις αἱ ἐν ἡμῖν πέντε αἰσθήσεις εἰσί, τὰ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὄργανα. Aulus Gellius 19.2.1 quinque sunt hominum sensus, quos Graeci αἰσθήσεις appellant, per quos voluptas animo aut corpori quaeri videtur: gustus, tactus, odoratus, visus, auditus. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.110 (SVF 2.828) φασὶ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι ὀκταμερῆ· μέρη γὰρ αὐτῆς τά τε πέντε αἰσθητήρια κτλ. Galen Adv.Lyc. c. 4.10, 18A.222.4–6 K. παρὰ ταύτας γὰρ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἄλλην αἴσθησιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰσὶν αἱ πᾶσαι πέντε, γεῦσις καὶ ἀκοὴ καὶ ὄψις καὶ ὄσφρησίς τε καὶ ἁφή. Tertullian de An. 17.1 contingit nos illorum etiam quinque sensuum quaestio, quos in primis litteris discimus, quoniam et hinc aliquid haereticis procuratur. visus est et auditus et odoratus et gustus et tactus. Porphyry Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων 253F Smith at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.25a, p. 350.13–14 (SVF 2.830) οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς ὀκταμερῆ τὴν ψυχὴν θέντες καὶ πέντε μὲν μέρη τὰ αἰσθητικὰ λαβόντες κτλ. Plutarch Def.Or. 429E ἔνειμε γὰρ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς αἰσθήσεις πέντε. §2 Aristotle: Aristotle de An. 3.1 424b22–23 ὅτι δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν αἴσθησις ἑτέρα παρὰ τὰς πέντε (λέγω δὲ ταύτας ὄψιν, ἀκοήν, ὄσφρησιν, γεῦσιν, ἁφήν), ἐκ τῶνδε πιστεύσειεν ἄν τις κτλ. de An. 3.1 425a14–18 ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τῶν κοινῶν οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι αἰσθητήριόν τι ἴδιον, ὧν ἑκάστῃ αἰσθήσει αἰσθανόμεθα κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οἷον κινήσεως, στάσεως, σχήματος, μεγέθους, ἀριθμοῦ· ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα κινήσει αἰσθανόμεθα, οἷον μέγεθος κινήσει (ὥστε καὶ σχῆμα· μέγεθος γάρ τι τὸ σχῆμα). Sens. 5 444b19–21. ps.Alexander Probl. 2.61.1–3 Ideler διὰ τί πέντε μόναι αἰσθήσεις καὶ μὴ πλείους ἢ ἐλάττους; ὅτι πρὸς τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν αἰσθητῶν καὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια. Simplicius (? perhaps Priscianus Lydus) in de An. 173.7–17 πόθεν οὖν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλη αἴσθησις παρὰ τὰς πέντε; οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς ἡ πίστις· πλείω γὰρ τῶν ἡμῖν φανερῶν ζῴων τὰ ἀφανῆ, τὰ μὲν καὶ θνητά, τὰ δὲ ὅσα δαιμόνια. οὐδὲ μὴν ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων, ὡς ἰδίως ἑκάστου οἰκείᾳ ὑποπίπτοντος αἰσθήσει τεσσάρων ὄντων καὶ τῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως, ἧς λέγεται εἶναι ἡ ὄσφρησις, ὡς τοῦ πυρὸς μὲν ἡ ὄψις, ἀέρος δὲ ἡ ἀκοὴ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν αἱ λοιπαί, ὕδατος ἡ γεῦσις καὶ γῆς ἡ ἁφή. οὐ γὰρ τῇ ὄψει μόνῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ἁφῇ ὡς θερμὸν γνωρίζεται τὸ πῦρ. ἄδηλον οὖν, μὴ καὶ ἄλλη τίς ἐστιν αὐτῷ ποιότης, ἣν ἀγνοοῦμεν ἡμεῖς διὰ τὸ ἀντιληπτικὴν αὐτῆς ἐλλείπειν ἡμῖν αἴσθησιν. πόθεν οὖν, ὅτι πέντε μόναι αἱ αἰσθήσεις, πιστοῦται ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης; ἔκ τε τῆς ζωτικῆς ἐν ἡμῖν τελειότητος καὶ ἐκ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων μὴ ἐλλειπόντων. §§3–5 Democritus: Corpus Hippocraticum Diaet. 23.5–8 δι᾽ ἑπτὰ σχημάτων καὶ ἡ αἴσθησις ἡ ἀνθρώπων, ἀκοὴ ψόφων, ὄψις φανερῶν, ῥὶν ὀδμῆς, γλῶσσα ἡδονῆς καὶ ἀηδίης, στόμα διαλέκτου, σῶμα ψαύσιος θερμοῦ ἢ ψυχροῦ, πνεύματος διέξοδοι ἔσω καὶ ἔξω· διὰ τούτων γνῶσις ἀνθρώποισιν.

1589

1590

liber 4 caput 10

§4 Democritus: Theophrastus Sens. 6 (on Plato) περὶ δὲ ὀσφρήσεως καὶ γεύσεως καὶ ἁφῆς ὅλως οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν [sic], οὐδὲ εἰ παρὰ ταύτας ἄλλαι τινές εἰσιν. Sextus Empiricus 9.140 περιττοτέρας γὰρ αἰσθήσεις ἔχων ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀμείνων αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ θεοῦ) γενήσεται, δέον μᾶλλον, ὡς ἔλεγεν ὁ Καρνεάδης (F3 Mette), σὺν ταῖς πᾶσιν ὑπαρχούσαις πέντε ταύταις αἰσθήσεσι καὶ ἄλλας αὐτῷ περισσοτέρας προσμαρτυρεῖν, ἵν᾽ ἔχῃ πλειόνων ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι πραγμάτων, ἀλλὰ μὴ τῶν πέντε ἀφαιρεῖν. P. 1.96–98 (Aenesidemean trope) πλείονας δὲ τῶν φαινομένων ἡμῖν ποιοτήτων ἔχειν τὸ μῆλον ποιότητας δύνασθαι οὕτως ἐπιλογιζόμεθα. ἐννοήσωμέν τινα ἐκ γενετῆς ἁφὴν μὲν ἔχοντα καὶ ὄσφρησιν καὶ γεῦσιν, μήτε δὲ ἀκούοντα μήτε ὁρῶντα. οὗτος τοίνυν ὑπολήψεται μήτε ὁρατόν τι εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν μήτε ἀκουστόν, ἀλλὰ μόνα ἐκεῖνα τὰ τρία γένη τῶν ποιο(97)τήτων ὑπάρχειν ὧν ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι δύναται. καὶ ἡμᾶς οὖν ἐνδέχεται τὰς πέντε μόνας αἰσθήσεις ἔχοντας μόνον ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὸ μῆλον ποιοτήτων, ὧν ἐσμεν ἀντιληπτικοί· ὑποκεῖσθαι δὲ ἄλλας οἷόν τέ ἐστι ποιότητας, ὑποπιπτούσας ἑτέροις αἰσθητηρίοις, ὧν ἡμεῖς οὐ μετεσχήκαμεν, διὸ οὐδὲ ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὰς αἰσθητῶν. (98) ἀλλ᾽ ἡ φύσις συνεμετρήσατο, φήσει τις, τὰς αἰσθήσεις πρὸς τὰ αἰσθητά. ποία φύσις, διαφωνίας τοσαύτης ἀνεπικρίτου παρὰ τοῖς δογματικοῖς οὔσης περὶ τῆς ὑπάρξεως τῆς κατ᾽ αὐτήν; Montaigne Essais Livre 2 Chap. 12 (Apologie de Raimond de Sebonde) p. 625 Balsamo & alii La premiere consideration que j’ay sur le subject des sens, c’est que je mets en doubte que l’homme soit pourveu de tous sens naturels. Je voy plusieurs animaux, qui vivent une vie entiere et parfaicte, les uns sans la veue, autres sans l’ouye: qui sçait si a nous aussi il ne manque pas encore un, deux, trois, et plusieurs autres sens? Car s’il en manque quelqu’un, nostre discours n’en peut découvrir le defaut. C’est le privilege des sens d’estre l’extreme borne de nostre apercevance : Il n’y a rien au delà d’eux, qui nous puisse servir à les descouvrir. Leibniz Monadologie 25 Aussi voïons nous que la Nature a donné des perceptions relevées aux animaux, par les soins qu’elle a pris de leur fournir des organes qui ramassent plusieurs raïons de lumière ou plusieurs ondulations de l’air, pour les faire avoir plus d’efficace par leur union. Il y a quelque chose d’approchant dans l’odeur, dans le goût et dans l’attouchement, et peut-être dans quantité d’autres sens, qui nous sont inconnûs.

Liber 4 Caput 11 PP : Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 4 recto (1960) p. 78, (1967) p. 182 Barns– Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 900B–D; pp. 400a1–401a10 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 92; pp. 635.17–636.6 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 198– 201 Daiber

Titulus ιαʹ. Πῶς γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ ἔννοια καὶ ὁ κατὰ ⟨ἐν⟩διάθεσιν λόγος (P) §1 οἱ Στωικοί φασιν· ὅταν γεννηθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μέρος τῆς ψυχῆς ὥσπερ χαρτίον εὐεργὸν εἰς ἀπογραφήν· εἰς τοῦτο μίαν ἑκάστην τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἐναπογράφεται. πρῶτος δὲ ὁ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς τρόπος ὁ διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων· αἰσθανόμενοι γάρ τινος οἷον λευκοῦ ἀπελθόντος αὐτοῦ μνήμην ἔχουσιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ὁμοειδεῖς πολλαὶ μνῆμαι γένωνται, τότε φαμὲν ἔχειν ἐμπειρίαν· ἐμπειρία γάρ ἐστι τὸ τῶν ὁμοειδῶν φαντασιῶν πλῆθος. τῶν δ᾽ ἐννοιῶν αἱ μὲν φυσικῶς γίνονται κατὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους τρόπους καὶ ἀνεπιτεχνήτως, αἱ δ᾽ ἤδη δι᾽ ἡμετέρας διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐπιμελείας· αὗται μὲν οὖν ἔννοιαι καλοῦνται μόνον, ἐκεῖναι δὲ καὶ προλήψεις. §1[1–24] SVF 2.83; §1[12–14] SVF 1.149 caput non hab. ST titulus [1] ἔννοια PB : νόησις PG : Gedanke Q ‖ ⟨ἐν⟩διάθεσιν Wyttenbach edd. : διάθεσιν PBG ‖ [2] λόγος PB : λογισμός PG : Logik des Denkens Q §1 [3] γεννηθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος PB : ἄνθρωπος γένηται PG ‖ [4] post ψυχῆς add. αὐτοῦ PG ‖ χαρτίον PB Mau Lachenaud : χάρτην PG prob. Diels ‖ εὐεργὸν PG : ἐνεργὸν sive -γῶν PB : das gut gearbeitete und vorbereitete Blatt Papier, in welchem eine Bereitschaft … ist Q ‖ [4–5] μίαν … ἐννοιῶν PB : οὖν μία ἑκάστη τῶν διανοιῶν αἰσθήσεις PG ‖ [5] ἐναπογράφεται PB(Ι,ΙΙΙ) : ἐναπογράφει τῆς αὑτοῦ φαντασίας PG : ἀπογράφει PB(ΙΙ) : aufgeschrieben Q ‖ [6–7] πρῶτος … ἔχουσιν om PG ‖ αἰσθανόμενοι PB Mau Lachenaud : αἰσθόμενοι Diels prob. Long–Sedley ‖ [7] τινος PB(I,II) : τινες PB(III) ‖ λευκοῦ PB : schwarzen [sic] Menschen Q ‖ [8] post μνῆμαι add. φαντασιῶν PG, fort. recte ‖ φαμὲν PB(ΙΙ,ΙΙΙ)G : φασὶν PB(Ι) : wird zuteil Q ‖ [8–9] ἐμπειρίαν· ἐμπειρία PBQ : ἐμπειρίαν om. PG suppl. Diels ‖ [9] τὸ τῶν ὁμοειδῶν PB : τὸ τῶν om. PG : in der Art einander ähnlichen und gleichen Dingen Q ‖ φαντασιῶν PG edd. : om. PBQ : ⟨ἐννοιῶν⟩ coni. Reiske ‖ πλῆθος PBG : Schulung durch den haüfigen Umgang Q (i.e. om. φαντασιῶν et add. διδασκαλία ut ap. [13]?) ‖ [10] ante τῶν lac. stat. Sandbach ‖ φυσικῶς PGQ : φυσικαὶ PB ‖ [11] ἀνεπιτεχνήτως PB : οὐ τεχνικῶς PG ‖ [11–12] διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐπιμελείας PB : ἐπιμελείας καὶ διδασκαλίας PG ‖ [12] μὲν οὖν PB : δὲ καὶ PG ‖ μόνον edd., cf. nur Q : μόναι PBG ‖ ἐκεῖναι δὲ PB : om. PG ‖ [12–13] καὶ προλήψεις PBG : Auffassungen und Deutungen Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_111

5

10

1592

liber 4 caput 11

ὁ δὲ λόγος, καθ᾽ ὃν προσαγορευόμεθα λογικοί, ἐκ τῶν προλήψεων συμπληροῦσθαι λέγεται κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα. ἔστι δ᾽ ἐννόημα φάντασμα διανοίας λογικοῦ ζῴου· τὸ γὰρ φάντασμα, ἐπειδὰν λογικῇ προσπίπτῃ ψυχῇ, τότε ἐννόημα καλεῖται, εἰληφὸς τοὔνομα παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ. διόπερ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις ὅσα προσπίπτει φαντάσματα, ⟨φαντάσματα μόνον ἐστίν⟩· ὅσα δὲ καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ἡμῖν γε, ταῦτα {φαντάσματα μόνον ἐστίν· ὅσα δὲ ἡμῖν, ταῦτα} καὶ φαντάσματα κατὰ γένος καὶ ἐννοήματα κατ᾽ εἶδος· ὥσπερ τὰ δηνάρια καὶ οἱ στατῆρες αὐτὰ μὲν καθ᾽ αὑτὰ ὑπάρχει δηνάρια ⟨καὶ⟩ στατῆρες, ἐὰν δ᾽ εἰς πλοίων δοθῇ μίσθωσιν, τηνικαῦτα πρὸς τῷ δηνάρια εἶναι καὶ ναῦλα λέγεται. (P1) [14] προλήψεων PBG : Deutungen Q ‖ [15] post συμπληροῦσθαι add. μὲν PG ‖ πρώτην PBGQ edd. : δευτέραν perperam coni. Ritter–Preller ‖ [16] ἔστι δ᾽ ἐννόημα Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud : ἔστι δὲ νόημα PBQ : τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι νόημα PG ‖ φάντασμα PB cf. PP : φαντασίας PG ‖ διανοίας PB : διάνοια PG ‖ [17] τότε PB : om. PG ‖ [18] τοῦ νοῦ PGQ edd. : τὸν νοῦν PB ‖ in der Sprache der Griechen add. Q ‖ [19] ἀλόγοις PB(II)GQ : ἀλλοίοις PB(I), ἄλλοις PB(III) ‖ [20] ὅσα ex PG (qui post διόπερ pos.) Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud : οὐ PBQ ‖ [20] φαντάσματα μόνον ἐστὶν PG, ex PG et ex PB [21] ubi antiquitus falso repetita (et ubi non hab. PG) in [20] add. Diels Mau Lachenaud : φαντάσματα, non hab. Long–Sedley ‖ [20] ὅσα … γε Mau prob. Lachenaud : ὅσα δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς PG prob. Diels : den Leuten und der Gottheit Q ‖ ἡμῖν PBG : den Leuten Q ‖ καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς om. PB(II,III) ‖ [21] φαντάσματα … ταῦτα om. PB(I) del. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ καὶ φαντάσματα PBQ : om. PG ‖ [22] κατὰ … εἶδος PB : κατὰ γένος καὶ κατ᾽ εἶδος νοήματα PG ‖ [22–24] ὥσπερ … λέγεται om. PG ‖ [22] στατῆρες PB : Drachmen Q ‖ [23] ὑπάρχει PB(I,II) : ὑπάρχειν PB(III) ‖ ⟨καὶ⟩ add. Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud ‖ στατῆρες PB : Drachmen Q ‖ πλοίων PB(I,II) Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud : πλοίου PB(III)Q(ut vid.), Schiffsmiete an einen Seemann Q ‖ und Drachmen post δηνάρια add. Q ‖ [24] λέγεται PB(I,III) : λέγονται PB(II)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis fr. 4 verso (~ P §1.16–17) εννο]η̣ μ̣ [α] φ̣α̣ν̣[τασμα] [διανοιας λογικου ζ]ω̣ου το γαρ φ[αν] [τασμα επειδαν λογικ]η προσπιπτ̣[η ψυ] [χη τοτε εννοημα καλ]ειται ειλη[φος ps.Galenus HPh c. 92 (~ tit.) Πῶς γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ νόησις καὶ ὁ κατὰ διάθεσιν λογισμός (text Diels). 92.1 (~ P1[3–5]) οἱ Στωικοί φασιν· ὅταν ἄνθρωπος γένηται, ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μέρος τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ χάρτην εὔεργον εἰς ἀπογραφήν· εἰς τοῦτο οὖν μία ἑκάστη τῶν διανοιῶν αἰσθήσεις ἐναπογράφει τῆς αὑτοῦ φαντασίας. 92.2 (~ P3[8–9]) 4 ὅταν δὲ ὁμοειδεῖς πολλαὶ μνῆμαι φαντασιῶν γένωνται, τότε φαμὲν ἔχειν ⟨ἐμπειρίαν⟩. ἐμπειρία γάρ ἐστιν ὁμοειδῶν φαντασιῶν πλῆθος.

15

20

25

liber 4 caput 11 92.3 (~ P4[10–12]) τῶν δ᾽ ἐννοιῶν ⟨αἱ⟩ μὲν φυσικῶς γίγνονται κατὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους τρόπους καὶ οὐ τεχνικῶς, αἱ δὲ δι᾽ ἡμετέρας ἐπιμελείας καὶ διδασκαλίας. αὗται δὲ καὶ ἔννοιαι καλοῦνται μόναι καὶ προλήψεις· 92.4 (~ P5[14–15]) ὁ δὲ λόγος, καθ᾽ ὃν προσαγορευόμεθα λογικοί, ἐκ τῶν προλήψεων συμπληροῦσθαι μὲν λέγεται κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα. 92.5 (~ P6[16–18]) τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι νόημα φαντασίας, διάνοια λογικοῦ ζῴου. τὸ γὰρ φάντασμα ἐπειδὰν λογικῇ προσπίπτῃ ψυχῇ, ἐννόημα καλεῖται εἰληφὸς τοὔνομα παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ· 92.6 (~ P7[19–22]) διόπερ ὅσα τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις προσπίπτει, φαντάσματα μόνον ἐστίν, ὅσα δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς, ταῦτα *** κατὰ γένος καὶ κατ᾽ εἶδος νοήματα. Loci Aetiani: §1[1–12] A 1.6 [5–19] ἔσχον δ᾽ ἔννοιαν τούτου (sc. τοῦ θείου) πρῶτον μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ κάλλους τῶν ἐμφαινομένων προσλαμβάνοντες· … καλὸς δ᾽ ὁ κόσμος· δῆλον δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ χρώματος καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸν κόσμον τῶν ἀστέρων ποικιλίας. … καὶ τὸ χρῶμα δὲ καλόν· κυανώσει γὰρ κέχρωσται, ὃ πορφύρας μέν ἐστι μελάντερον στίλβουσαν δ᾽ ἔχει τὴν ποιότητα· καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν τῷ τῆς χροιᾶς συντόνῳ διακόπτον τηλικαύτην ἀέρος σύστασιν ἐκ τοσούτων διαστημάτων θεωρεῖται. §1[6–7] A 4.8.7 ⟨οἱ⟩ Στωικοὶ τήνδε τὴν κοινὴν αἴσθησιν ἐντὸς ἁφὴν προσαγορεύουσι, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα. A 4.12[3–6] ἐπειδὰν δι᾽ ὄψεως θεωρῶμέν τι λευκόν, ἔστι πάθος τὸ ἐγγεγενημένον διὰ τῆς ὁράσεως ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ· καὶ ⟨κατὰ⟩ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν, ὅτι ὑπόκειται λευκὸν κινοῦν ἡμᾶς. §1[10–13] A 1.10.5 οἱ ⟨δὲ⟩ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος Στωικοὶ ἐννοήματα ἡμέτερα τὰς ἰδέας ἔφασαν. §1[14–18] A 5.20.3 Ἀναξαγόρας πάντα τὰ ζῷα λόγον ἔχειν τὸν ἐνεργητικόν, τὸν δ᾽ οἱονεὶ νοῦν μὴ ἔχειν τὸν προφορικόν, τὸν λεγόμενον τοῦ νοῦ ἑρμηνέα. al. A 4.12[18–19] φάντασμα δ᾽ ἐστίν, ἐφ᾽ ὃ ἑλκόμεθα κατὰ τὸν φανταστικὸν διάκενον ἑλκυσμόν. §1[14–15] A 5.23.1 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ ἄρχεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῆς τελειότητος περὶ τὴν δευτέραν ἑβδομάδα, περὶ ἣν ὁ σπερματικὸς κινεῖται ὀρρός· τὰ γὰρ δένδρα ἄρχεται τότε τελειότητος, ὅταν ἄρχηται γεννᾶν τὰ σπέρματα, ἀτελῆ δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ ἄωρα καὶ ἄκαρπα ὄντα. A 5.23.2 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα, καθ᾽ ἣν ἔννοια γίνεται καλῶν τε καὶ αἰσχρῶν καὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἀρχή. §1[16–18] A 1.10.6 οἱ ⟨δὲ⟩ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος Στωικοὶ ἐννοήματα ἡμέτερα τὰς ἰδέας ἔφασαν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

1593

1594

liber 4 caput 11

Commentary A Witnesses The only witnesses for chs. 4.11 and 4.12 are PB and PQ, supported by PP with consecutive snippets for §1[16–17], and partly confirmed by PG. For this chapter G has included all but §1[6–7] and the final part from [22] ὥσπερ in his Epitome. Heading and text of S are lost, but since part of the heading of its companion chapter, 4.12, is preserved in the index of Photius, it is quite certain that originally it was also present in S. T as we have seen had no use for chapters after 4.7a. For its presence in A (Diels believed it had been added by P) see also above, Introduction to Book 4, section 5. There is no multiplicity of Placita lemmata in the usual sense of the word in our witnesses. The chapter is thus in fact monolemmatic, cf. below, section D(b). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. In the proximate tradition parallel accounts of concept formation according to the Stoics are provided by Sextus Empiricus and Diogenes Laertius, cited below at section E(a) General texts, to which we may add the Epicurean account in Diogenes Laertius discussed below, section D(e), and cited at section E(b) General texts. Something is also found in the cousin writing of Nem, but the passage from NH c. 14, cited below (par acquit de conscience) at section E(a)§1[16–18], is rather distant from our chapter. On the other hand NH c. 12 contains a parallel to ch. 4.21.1 and begins with a backward glance at NH c. 6, which is parallel to ch. 4.12, which in its turn is a sort of continuation of the present chapter. The parallels with Ptolemy’s On the Criterion and Hegemonikon §12, an account conforming to mainstream opinion (Long 1998), show that Stoic view of concept formation is also widely taken into account by others. (2) Sources. Direct provenance from a Stoic source, as Diels DG 61 already surmised, is virtually certain because ch. 4.11 is entirely in oratio recta (‘The Stoics say’), and with the exception of the introductory phrase (‘Chrysippus says that these four are different from one another’) the companion piece ch. 4.12 is in oratio recta too. Oratio recta is comparatively rare in the Placita. As intermediary source we may suppose a Stoic handbook, or one containing Stoic doctrine, just as is the case for chs. 4.12, 4.15 and 4.21. In this context the verbal first persons plural §1[8] ‘we say’ (φαμέν) and §1[14] ‘we are called’ (προσαγορευόμεθα) and the personal pronoun §1[21] ‘(to) us’ (ἡμῖν), contrast significantly with the descriptive verbal third persons §1[3] ‘he has’ ἔχει, §1[5] ‘he transcribes’ (ἐναπογράφεται) and §1[7] ‘they have’ (ἔχουσιν). Interesting is also the difference

liber 4 caput 11

1595

between ‘we say’, that is, we teachers, philosophers, Stoics on the one hand, and ‘we are called’, that is: ‘we humans’ on the other, the possession of logos being a defining trait of being human as well as divine according to Stoic doctrine, as is also expressed by the phrase §1[20] ‘to the gods and to us’ (τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ ἡμῖν). The parallels show that this terminology and these notions had become ingredients of a philosophical koine. See also further below ch. 4.12, at Commentary B. C Chapter Heading A long, detailed and precise heading, focused on the question type of cause. For the dialectical aspect of the question word see above, ch. 1.1, Commentary C, and for headings containing the formula πῶς γίνεται (or γίνονται): (‘how do/does x come to be’) see above, ch. 1.4 at Commentary C. The heading also adverts us to ingredients lacking in the text of P’s excerpt. This is the only case of the formula in Book 4, but there are a further nine instances in Book 5, indicating a strong interest in causal explanation. PB’s text is confirmed by PG and PQ. This time there is not even (part of) a heading in S, though he has a partial one for the heading of ch. 4.12. D Analysis a Context Chapter 4.11 is the first of two paired chapters dealing with aspects of exclusively Stoic views on concept formation, sensation, and thought, so not set off against those of other philosophers. That they belong together, though A in his usual scholastic manner has distributed the contents over different chapters, is also clear from parallel accounts of concept formation for which see below, at section D(e). The lack of references to views ascribed to others is unusual, though there are other cases of chapters devoted to a single doctrine only, e.g. Atomist doctrine in ch. 1.4, or Stoic in chs. 4.15 and 4.21. Our two chapters follow on after chs. 4.9–10, which deal in the standard Aëtian way with multiple views concerning the issues of what sensation and sense-objects are, and of how many senses there are. They are followed by chs. 4.13–20, devoted to varieties of views concerned with the individual senses, and to views on issues connected with these individual senses, namely the nature of mirror images (4.14), of darkness (4.15), and of voice (4.19–20). The two chapters 4.11 and 4.12 are in part different from each other, because the meaning of the crucial word φάντασμα in ch. 4.11 is different from that in ch. 4.12. In this way we are perhaps made aware of a difference of views among Stoics whom we cannot identify further here. Compare e.g. ch. 1.14.5–6, where Cleanthes is ‘the only one among the Stoics’ to hold that the shape of fire is conical. The contrast may have pleased the com-

1596

liber 4 caput 11

piler of the Placita, since it agrees with the genre’s penchant for diaphonia, and thus may have favoured the inclusion of the chapters in the collection in this format. Diels DG 61 rejected chs. 4.11–12 out of hand as foreign to the original polylemmatic doxographical tradition and methodology, and solved what he saw as the problem of their presence by arguing their provenience from a Stoic source. We, however, see the presence of these items as a conscious effort to improve and upgrade the account by including in the texte vivant a substantial (and for us today indispensable) account of Stoic views after the general chapters on sense perception and before those on the individual senses, all of which provide less information on the Stoics. So here too we are faced with the insertion of other material in an exposition that by and large follows an originally Aristotelian pattern, just as is the case of ch. 4.5 on the regent part (see M–R 2.1.37, 39, 147–148). For parallels with and differences from the Stoic doxography in Diogenes Laertius V.P. Book 7 see above, Introduction to Book 4, section 5. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no need to divide this chapter into numbered lemmata, though Diels did so (as with §1 of ch. 1.7). We are dealing with a single name-label and a single doctrine. We have divided this over eight unnumbered sections to help follow the complicated argument. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In the absence of a plurality of views there is no diaeretic and/or diaphonic structure. The account describes and causally explains ontogenetic processes and their outcome, and cites the definitions of several important terms: §1[9] ἐμπειρία, [12–13] ἔννοια and προλῆψις as distinguished from each other, and [16– 22] ἐννοῆμα and φαντάσμα as both different from each other and to some extent convergent. These definitions are perfect and sectarian ((as opposed to nominal or conceptual definitions, see above, ch. 1.9, at Commentary D(d)), and describe the individuality of these general concepts by means of individual examples. By way of a conclusion this peculiar situation is illustrated by a typically Stoic simile. d

Further Comments General Points (1) This account of cognitive ontogenesis seems to mirror that of cognitive phylogenesis. Little is known of a Stoic Kulturentstehungslehre, but something is about their view of the origin of language from ‘primary sounds’, or ‘words’

liber 4 caput 11

1597

(πρωταὶ φωναί, Origen C.C. 1.24; cunabula verborum, Augustine De dial. c. 6.10.9) and the development of further vocabulary from these through e.g. ‘proximity’ (vicinitas), or ‘resemblance’ (similitudo), or ‘transfer’ (abusio), i.e. varieties of analogy, or through ‘contrast’ (contrarium, all in Aug. De dial. c. 6). The relation between these ‘words from the cradle’ and those in such ways derived from them is analogous to that of the relation between ‘natural’ concepts and those produced by our ‘teaching and instruction’. For well-founded suggestions in this direction see Allan (2005) 15–17, 23–30, for the texts below section E(b)§1[6– 15]. A parallel for the distinction between the two kinds of concepts is found in the two kinds of perception admitted by Diogenes of Babylon, namely ‘natural’ (αὐτοφυής) and ‘scientific’ (ἐπιστημονικός) perception; see section E(b)§1[10– 13]. (2) As to sensation the emphasis is on the receptive side of the process, unlike in ch. 4.21. (3) The chapter heading promises more than the text of the chapter delivers, for we are not told how a sensation comes about, or what is the logos we acquire. In our text no other ‘manner’ follows after the ‘first (or: primary) manner of registration’ of §1[6], which is of a particular type of sense object and so instantiates physical preconceptions. Scholars have debated whether the ‘memories’ of §1[8] represent a further such manner. Pace Long–Sedley (1987) 2.241 we believe that this is not the case. §1[10–11] speaks of ‘aforesaid ways’ (plural), but only one way has so far been mentioned and described, so a second way of primary concept formation has been the victim of epitomization. §1[14– 15] fails to tell us that the reason, or speech, mentioned there is not just reason in general but the logos endiathetos announced in the heading: further proof of abridgement. For what follows see also Mansfeld (2013b). As is clear from the examples provided at §1[6–7], this first, or primary, manner is actualized through each of the individual senses, and pertains to external objects and their sense data: colours, sounds, smells and so on (cf. also ch. 4.12.1[5–8]). This leaves room for a manner of registration that does not occur via the individual senses but through the oikeiosis (‘appropriation’) of the psycho-corporeal person as a whole: the ‘inner touch, according to which we are also aware of ourselves’, to cite ch. 4.8.7 (at this earlier chapter see also Commentary D(d) §7, and the texts there cited at section E(b)§7). The parallel passage on (Stoic) concept-formation from Ptolemy cited below section E(b) General texts, includes a reference to inner perception. Also see the passage on self-awareness and oikeiosis in Stobaeus’ Ethical Doxography A, cited ibid. Note that the Stoic Hierocles, El.Eth. col. 1.44–46 Bastianini–Long, argues against ‘slow-witted opponents who believe that sensation has only been given by nature to the living being for awareness in relation to external objects, and

1598

liber 4 caput 11

not also in relation to that of itself’ (δοκοῦσι γὰρ τὴν αἴσ[θη]σιν ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῷ δ[(ε)]δόσθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἐκτὸς [ἀ]ντίλη[ψιν], οὐκέ[τι δὲ καὶ] πρὸς τ[ὴ]ν ἑαυτοῦ). This is incontrovertible evidence for a standard second manner of registration and concept formation. Compare the distinction between the perception of external data such as hot and white, and the clarity of internal data of a moral nature at Plu. CN 1070C, ‘and this too in matters concerning good things and evil and objects of choice and avoidance and things congenial and repugnant, the clarity of which ought to be more manifest than that of things hot and cold and white and black, since the impressions are incidental to sensations entering from without whereas the former are generated intrinsically from the startingpoints within us’ (tr. Cherniss LCL, modified). See Pohlenz (1940) 92–93, and Babut at Casevitz–Babut (2002) 216–219. Oikeiosis takes place from the moment of birth through ‘awareness’ (αἴσθησις) of the self and then of what is pleasant or painful in the sense of what needs to be accepted or rejected: i.e. proto-ethical notions. See the passages cited above at ch. 4.8, section E(b)§7, from Cicero Fin. 3.16 (who mentions the parvi), Sen. Ep. 121 (who 121.8 mentions the infans), Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.85, and above all Hierocles’ Ethike Stoicheiosis; cf. Inwood (1999), Long (1999), and esp. Bastianini–Long (1992) 379–396, Long (1996c); see further above at ch. 4.8, Commentary D(e)§9. Relevant is also the passage on the hypotelis (a term attested for Herillus at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.165 = SVF 1.411), or sub-telos, at Doxography A at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.3c, p. 47.12–20: ‘the hypotelis is the first proper condition (pathos) of the living being, from the moment that the living being began to be aware of its own condition (ἀφ᾽ οὗ κατήρξατο συναισθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον τῆς συστάσεως αὑτοῦ), when it is not yet rational but irrational, according to the natural and spermatic logoi in the same way as the vegetative and sentient faculties, and of such faculties it occupies the place of a root, not yet of a plant; for when the living being is born it accommodates itself to something right from the start; this is the hypotelis.’ Strangely, Solmsen (1961) 622 argues that the Stoic concept of αἴσθησις was ‘probably stripped clear of the irrational accretions of pleasure and pain’. The notion of self-awareness or inner sensation is at home in the world of the Placita. At ch. 4.8.7, however, it has not been preserved in P’s epitome, but only in S’s more generous abstract of the chapter! And as we argue it is also lost in P’s abridgement of ch. 4.11, while in the present case no comfort is forthcoming from the parallel abstract of S, irretrievably lost. We therefore believe that one of the consequences of P’s abridgment of A’s chapter is the loss, or rather the elimination, of a reference to the acquisition of ethical preconceptions, understandable in an epitomized doxography concerned with physics. The argument contra of Dyson (2013) is neither here nor there. It is perfectly possible to make sense of the evidence concerning Stoic concept formation

liber 4 caput 11

1599

inclusive of our actual ch. 4.11 without assuming that something is missing in it, which is what Dyson does or attempts to do, but this does not entail that the picture provided by the text of P’s abstract alone is complete. Secondary concepts do not have a natural origin (§1[10] φυσικῶς), but a cultural one (§1[11–12] δι᾽ ἡμετέρας διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐπιμελείας), so need not be treated in detail in a physical treatise. For the acquisition of certain ethical conceptions—not preconceptions—by teaching according to ‘Aristotle’. See further below, section D(d) General texts (3). A passage in Sextus Empiricus, on which see Reesor (1989) 57, reveals the relation between inner reason and ethical issues (P. 1.65, quoted at section E(b)§1[14–15]). (4) For concept formation both natural and cultural see also above, ch. 1.6, ‘From where did human beings obtain a conception of gods’, with Commentary D(c) and D(e). Individual Points §1[3–5] The regent part of the soul of the newborn human is compared with a sheet of papyrus in a certain condition. The formula χαρτὴν εὐεργὸν εἰς ἀπογραφήν should not be translated as ‘a sheet of paper ready for writing upon’. On such a tabula rasa one may write anything, which can hardly be the point of a passage that illustrates the reliability of what is ‘written’, that is, of the preconceptions. Engberg-Pedersen (1990) 252 n. 1 rejects the notion of a tabula rasa and translates ‘well adapted for writing upon’ (his italics). The word εὐεργόν (cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.136 ~ SVF 1.102, 2.580) entails that the χάρτης, the papyrus, is of the kind that has been specially prepared to warrant the legibility of the written text and the survival of the document (for information on the various qualities of papyrus available and the purposes for which they were used see Pliny the Elder, Nat. 13.24). The word ἀπογραφή does not just mean ‘writing’, but stands for ‘transcript’, or ‘copy’; the quality and condition of the papyrus enable one to produce a good and durable copy of an original. Note that in spite of the announcement in the heading we are not told how the sensations come about, only that this happens: P clearly has abridged something out of the text. The papyrus simile (only one case in Rolke 1975, 38) may well be an alternative to that of the writing tablet, the literal impression (typosis) upon which by the phantasia was rejected as being too crude by Chrysippus (at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.50 ~ SVF 2.55 etc.). The papyrus sheet reminds one of Aristotle’s ‘tablet which bears no actual writing’ (γραμματείῳ ᾧ μηθὲν ἐνυπάρχει ἐντελεχείᾳ γεγραμμένον) at de An. 3.4 430b30–a2, and of Plato’s tablet representing memory at Tht. 191c–d. §1[8–9] Formation of the class of concepts called ‘preconceptions’ (see at §1[10–13] below) through the accumulation and unification of memories of

1600

liber 4 caput 11

impressions impressively recalls well-known passages from Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Posterior Analytics, cited and discussed by scholars in this context and cited at section E(b)§1[3–9]. This ingredient is consistent with the Peripatetic background of the Placita, cf. M–R 2.1.71, 147–148, 152. For a comparable presence of Aristotelian phraseology see above, ch. 4.8.1, Commentary D(e). So the present chapter shows the extent to which Stoic epistemology is indebted to Aristotle’s pioneering efforts. In Aristotle the part of epistemological theory that deals with concept formation in some detail is much less clear and exhaustive than the Stoic doctrine, and therefore less interesting from a didactic point of view as well. It is found dispersed over various places, esp. APo. 1.18 81b1–9, APo. 2.19 99b36–100a6, and Met. A.1 980a28–981a1 (see below at section E(b)§1[3–9]). Cf. also de An. 3.4–6, on nous and thought, which is about the means and instruments of acquiring knowledge, so psychological rather than epistemological. The interpretation of these passages is not easy, and they are not fully, or at least not easily, compatible with each other. What is more, in the De partibus animalium 1.1 641a33–b10 the study of nous insofar as it is related to the objects of thought, which perhaps amounts to the study of the objects of thought themselves, is excluded from physics. This appears to be in conflict with what happens in the De anima (on this controversial passage see Kullmann 2007, 309–311, with references to the discussion). And Aristotle’s doctrine lacks an account of the formation of (secondary) concepts from other concepts, or ‘by teaching and instruction’, and the useful distinction between secondary ‘concepts’ and ‘preconceptions’. §1[10–13] προλήψεις, ‘preconceptions’: this is not the place for an account of the discussion concerned with the complicated history and interpretation of the Epicurean and Stoic notion of prolepsis. On the formation of preconceptions in childhood see Frede (1999a) 315, 319–320, who translates the word as ‘anticipations’ and helpfully emphasizes that they come to us naturally and unavoidably and ‘just capture the common content of cognitive impressions’. At Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.54, ‘the preconception is a natural conception of the universals’ (ἔστι δ᾽ ἡ πρόληψις ἔννοια φυσικὴ τῶν καθόλου), with emphasis on natural. §1[15] κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα: this process reaches its completion ‘at the age of seven years’, see above on Cicero Fin. 3.16 (parvi), Seneca Ep. 121.6 (infans). The logos prophorikos, not mentioned here (presumably another sign of epitomization), is completed at age fourteen, when sexual maturity is reached—so is not merely a matter of logos in the sense of speech or reason in the cognitive sense consisting of the preconceptions, but also of logos in the productive sense: a part of the divine Logos that at age fourteen becomes generative and so comparable to the divine Logos, who is generative all the time.

liber 4 caput 11

1601

The ages of man are the theme of ch. 5.23, where P’s coalesced monolemmatic text is rather different from G’s triad of lemmata which we prefer, see ad loc.; but even so matters are far from clear. It deals not only with the first seven years, the only hebdomad of the present chapter, but also with the second and third seven years period. The first and second are attributed to Heraclitus and the Stoics (standard Stoic doctrine), but only mention physical not mental development, while the present chapter only mentions the latter. But the second view, of Aristotle, is quite close to the present Stoic view, attributing a beginning of ethical consciousness and instruction to the first hebdomad. An anonymous third doxa puts mental and physical development as late as the third hebdomad. §1[15] The meaning of ‘apparition’ (φάντασμα) here is close to the neutral, or even positive, usage of Aristotle (e.g. Mem. 1 449b31–450a1) and Epicurus (e.g. Ep.Hdt. at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.75, Ep.Pyth. at V.P. 10.88), and different from that in the next chapter, where it means ‘figment’ (as also occurs in Arist. Protr. fr. 101). For these texts see below at section E(b)§1[15–17]. It is not certain that this usage is really Stoic. See Long–Sedley (1987) 2.185, who argue that ‘this text is completely out of step with all the other Stoic evidence on ἐννοήματα’. §1[17] For Q’s addition Sprache der Griechen (app. crit.) cf. chs. 1.8 (heading), 2.1.1[2], 3.7.2[6], 4.12.1[9], and 4.19.3[7]. He points out the derivation of Einsicht (ἐννόημα) from Verstand (νοῦς) which is not obvious in Arabic. §1[22–24] Denarii and staters, when used to pay for a trip on board a boat, are not only called denarii and staters but also ‘boat trip fare’, ναῦλα. A comparable name change is found in a passage of Clement about the different names of the one virtue as depending on the circumstances, the gist of which has plausibly been attributed to Zeno’s pupil Aristo (Clement Strom. 1.20.98 ~ SVF 1.376): ‘one and the same drachma is called boat trip fare when given to the shipowner, tax when to the tax collector, rent when to the landlord, pay when to the teacher, and deposit when to the seller’. It has not been seen that what is in A is an update of what is in Clement: in P the drachma has been replaced by other coinage. Q has even preserved the drachma three times, which may well be right. The stater is a Greek coin, already cited in early texts and here present, apparently, to represent the Greek side of the purse (just as drachma in Q, who has this coin name instead of stater and appears to have preserved the original coinage). The denarius, Greek δηνάριον, is a Roman coin, which does not seem to have become a common currency in the Greek East before the first century ce. The word turns up for the first time in literary (or semi-literary) texts in the first century ce, for the earliest such attestations are several passages in the New Testament, and, surprisingly, the present Aëtian lemma. Diels DG 101 noticed the presence of the two coin types, but said he failed to see why

1602

liber 4 caput 11

both were needed; the unknown Stoic author of the original simile in his view should have been content with the stater alone. So A had a Roman public in mind, unless (Diels says) it was P who interpolated the denarius. But one may phrase this insight in a more positive way, and argue that apart from illustrating an interesting detail of Stoic epistemology the simile not only confirms the probable date for the Aëtian Placita, but also (just as chs. 4.11–12 themselves) testifies to the process of updating such functional and therefore open texts were subjected to; see M–R 1.xix–xx, M–R 2.1.99, 139, 148. e Other Evidence See above, and also section E(a)&(b), in each case General texts. The account of the Stoic doctrine of concept formation at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.52–53 (SVF 2.87) is not entirely clear, so we slightly reorder the list. The acquisition of concepts ‘by confrontation’ (κατὰ περίπτωσιν, sc. of sense objects, αἰσθητά) or ‘naturally’ (φυσικῶς, e.g. of moral notions like δίκαιόν τι καὶ ἀγαθόν) on the one hand is combined with nine ways of deriving concepts from other concepts on the other, namely by means of ‘similarity’ (καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα), ‘transposition’ (κατὰ μετάθεσιν), ‘analogy’ (κατ᾽ ἀναλογίαν, both ‘by magnification’, αὐξητικῶς, and ‘by dimunition’, μειωτικῶς), ‘combination’ (σύνθεσιν), ‘opposition’ (κατ᾽ ἐναντίωσιν), ‘transition’ (κατὰ μετάβασίν), or ‘privation’ (κατὰ στέρησιν). These nine ways need not be discussed in a physical treatise. The various versions of this doctrine in Sextus Empiricus, too, make a proper and explicit distinction between what is acquired ‘by confrontation’ on the one hand and in various ways derived from other concepts on the other. Ptolemy too makes this distinction, and moreover includes the inner perception, or awareness (τὴν ἐντὸς συναίσθησιν), lacking in these other accounts; his version begins with it. Interestingly, he states that we become aware of our sense organs before we perceive exterior sense data. And he includes the φαντάσματα (‘figments of the imagination’) which are among the subjects of A’s next chapter, 4.12. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.241 (SVF 2.64) briefly states that ‘the impression (φαντασία) is produced either by what is outside or by our inner experiences’. Lammert (1917) ad loc. in his edition of Ptolemy’s On the Criterion pp. 17–18 excellently lists the parallels in the Placita, Sextus Empiricus, and Diogenes Laertius. The doxographical Epicurean account at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.32–33, cited section E(b) General texts, is remarkably parallel to the Stoic doctrine. It begins with what is a quasi-quotation of Epicurus, for it refers to the Letter to Herodotus and Kuriai Doxai together without corresponding to anything in either of these works verbatim. It deals with the origin of concepts from the senses/sensations, including the secondary concepts generated by means of combination etc. only mentioned but not described in our chapter, but

liber 4 caput 11

1603

described in detail in the Stoic doxography at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.53 (cited above, and below at section E(a) General texts), followed by a description of the preconception as deriving from the memory of what has repeatedly shown itself in the outside world. According to the Stoics the process of combination is a matter not of nature but of culture, while according to Lucretius DRN 4.728–743 the perception and notion of a centaur derive from the combination out there of a part of the image of a human being coalesced with one of a horse, so is natural, and this also holds for cetera de genere hoc, although Centaurs etc. do not exist as living beings (cf. also DRN 5.886–898). Asmis (1984) 21–24 and 61–66 argues that what we have at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.31–33 is the attempt of later Epicureans to explain the doctrine of the master (cf. 10.33 λέγουσιν). It is clear that some of the wording (καταλῆψις, περιπτῶσις) of this doxographical account, and so to some degree its contents, has been influenced by the Stoic doctrine, as argued e.g. by Manuwald (1972) 9–10 and Glidden (1985) 181–186. Aristotelian ideas about this process (see above, section D(d)§1[8–9]) colour both the Stoic and the Epicurean account. The terse reference in the Epicurean text to the perceptions of the mad (plus the dreaming, true according to Epicurus) parallels the long final section of the next chapter, ch. 4.12[18–28], so that the Epicurean account combines ingredients from, or is to some extent parallel to, both our Placita chapters. This is also true of Sextus Empiricus M. 8.56–60, cited below section E(a) General texts. See also further below at ch. 4.12, Commentary D(e). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Aquilius Def. 8 Rashed ἔννοιά ἐστι νόησις ἐναποκειμένη τῇ ψυχῇ. Def. 10 μνήμη ἐστὶ σωτηρία νοήσεως. Sextus Empiricus M. 3.40–42 καθόλου τε πᾶν τὸ νοούμενον κατὰ δύο τοὺς πρώτους ἐπινοεῖται τρόπους· ἢ γὰρ κατὰ περίπτωσιν ἐναργῆ ἢ κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναργῶν μετάβασιν, καὶ ταύτην τρισσήν· ἢ γὰρ ὁμοιωτικῶς ἢ ἐπισυνθετικῶς ἢ ἀναλογιστικῶς κτλ. M. 8.56–60 (SVF 2.88) πᾶσα γὰρ νόησις ἀπὸ αἰσθήσεως γίνεται ἢ οὐ χωρὶς αἰσθήσεως, καὶ ἢ ἀπὸ περιπτώσεως ἢ οὐκ ἄνευ περιπτώσεως. ὅθεν οὐδὲ τὰς λεγομένας ψευδεῖς φαντασίας, οἷον τὰς καθ᾽ ὕπνους ἢ τὰς κατὰ μανίαν, εὑρήσομεν ἀπηρτημένας τῶν διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως κατὰ περίπτωσιν ἡμῖν ἐγνωσμένων. καὶ γὰρ ὁ κατὰ μανίαν Ἐρινύας αὑτῷ ἀναπλάσσων ‘τὰς αἱματωποὺς καὶ δρακοντώδεις κόρας’ (Eur. Or. 256) ἐκ τῶν πεφηνότων αὑτῷ σύνθετον μορφὴν νοεῖ (for ὅθεν … νοεῖ see below, ch. 4.12 section E(b)§1[20– 28]). … (58) καὶ καθόλου οὐδὲν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν ὃ μὴ ἔχει τις αὑτῷ κατὰ περίπτωσιν ἐγνωσμένον. τοῦτο γὰρ ἢ κατὰ ὁμοιότητα τῶν ἐν περιπτώσει πεφηνότων ληφθήσεται ἢ κατὰ παραύξησιν ἢ κατὰ μείωσιν ἢ κατ᾽ ἐπισύνθεσιν. … (60) πάσης οὖν ἐπινοίας προηγεῖσθαι δεῖ τὴν διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως περίπτωσιν. M. 9.393– 394 καθόλου τε τὸ ἐπινοούμενον πᾶν ἤτοι κατ᾽ ἐμπέλασιν τῶν ἐναργῶν νοεῖται ἢ

1604

liber 4 caput 11

κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναργῶν μετάβασιν, … (394) κατ᾽ ἐμπέλασιν μὲν οὖν τῶν ἐναργῶν νοεῖται ὡς λευκὸν καὶ μέλαν καὶ γλυκὺ καὶ πικρόν· ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ εἰ αἰσθητά ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἧττον νοεῖται. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.52–54 ἡ δὲ κατάληψις γίνεται κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς (SVF 2.84) αἰσθήσει μὲν λευκῶν καὶ μελάνων καὶ τραχέων καὶ λείων … (SVF 2.87) τῶν γὰρ νοουμένων τὰ μὲν κατὰ περίπτωσιν ἐνοήθη, τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα, τὰ δὲ κατ᾽ ἀναλογίαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ μετάθεσιν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ σύνθεσιν, τὰ δὲ κατ᾽ ἐναντίωσιν. (53) κατὰ περίπτωσιν μὲν οὖν ἐνοήθη τὰ αἰσθητά· … νοεῖται δὲ καὶ κατὰ μετάβασίν τινα, … φυσικῶς δὲ νοεῖται δίκαιόν τι καὶ ἀγαθόν. … (54) … ἔστι δ᾽ ἡ πρόληψις ἔννοια φυσικὴ τῶν καθόλου (Posid. F 42 E.-K., 460 Theiler, but the definition of πρόληψσις will be Chrysippean). §1[3–13] Stoics: Nemesius NH c. 13, pp. 68.15–69.4 τὸ δὲ μνημονευτικόν ἐστι μνήμης καὶ ἀναμνήσεως αἴτιόν τε καὶ ταμιεῖον. ἔστι δὲ μνήμη, ὡς μὲν Ὠριγένης [Ἀριστοτέλης Morani alii] φησίν, φαντασία ἐγκαταλελειμμένη ἀπό τινος αἰσθήσεως τῆς κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν φαινομένης, ὡς δὲ Πλάτων (Phlb. 34a), σωτηρία αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ νοήσεως· ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ τῶν μὲν αἰσθητῶν διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἀντιλαμβάνεται καὶ γίνεται δόξα (e.g. Tht. 179c), τῶν δὲ νοητῶν διὰ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ γίνεται νόησις· ὅταν οὖν τοὺς τύπους (Tht. 192a) ὧν τε ἐδόξασεν ὧν τε ἐνόησε διασῴζῃ, μνημονεύειν λέγεται. ἔοικε δὲ νόησιν λέγειν ὁ Πλάτων ἐν τούτοις οὐ τὴν κυρίως νόησιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν διανόησιν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ αἰσθητὰ μνημονεύεται καθ᾽ ἑαυτά, τὰ δὲ νοητὰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῶν διανοητῶν ἡ μνήμη ἐκ προλαβούσης φαντασίας περιγίνεται· τὰ δὲ κυρίως νοητά, ὅτι μὲν ἐμάθομεν ἢ ἠκούσαμεν, μεμνήμεθα, τῆς δὲ οὐσίας αὐτῶν μνήμην οὐκ ἔχομεν· οὐ γὰρ ἐκ προηγησαμένης φαντασίας ἡ τῶν νοητῶν ἀνάληψις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ μαθήσεως ἢ φυσικῆς ἐννοίας. §1[8–9] Stoics: David Prol. 44.5–6 (version of the techne-definition differs from those at SVF 1.73, where ἐμπειρίᾳ is lacking) ἢ πάλιν τέχνη ἐστὶ σύστημα ἐκ καταλήψεων ἐμπειρίᾳ συγγεγυμνασμένη πρός τι τέλος εὔχρηστον τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ. [Cf. Aristotle Met. A.1 980a28–981a16, cited below section E(b)§1[3–9]] §1[10–13] Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.54 (—) ἔστι δ᾽ ἡ πρόληψις ἔννοια φυσικὴ τῶν καθόλου. §1[14–15] Stoics: Sextus Empiricus M. 8.275 (SVF 2.223) φασιν, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐχὶ τῷ προφορικῷ λόγῳ διαφέρει τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων (καὶ γὰρ κόρακες καὶ ψιττακοὶ καὶ κίτται ἐνάρθρους προφέρονται φωνάς), ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐνδιαθέτῳ. §1[16–18] Stoics: Nemesius NH c. 14, p. 71.9–13 ἔστι δὲ ἐνδιάθετος μὲν λόγος τὸ κίνημα τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ ἐν τῷ διαλογιστικῷ γινόμενον ἄνευ τινὸς ἐκφωνήσεως, ὅθεν πολλάκις καὶ σιωπῶντες λόγον ὅλον παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς διεξερχόμεθα καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὀνείροις διαλεγόμεθα. κατὰ τοῦτο δὲ μάλιστα λογικοὶ πάντες ἐσμέν· οὐ γὰρ οὕτω κατὰ τὸν προφορικὸν λόγον ὡς κατὰ τοῦτον. καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ γενετῆς κωφοὶ καὶ οἱ διὰ πάθος ἢ νόσημα τὴν φωνὴν ἀποβαλόντες οὐδὲν ἧττον λογικοί εἰσιν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Men. 86c ἔγωγε ἐκεῖνο ἂν ἥδιστα, ὅπερ ἠρόμην τὸ πρῶτον, καὶ σκεψαίμην καὶ ἀκούσαιμι, πότερον ὡς διδακτῷ ὄντι αὐτῷ δεῖ ἐπιχειρεῖν, ἢ ὡς φύσει ἢ ὡς τίνι ποτὲ τρόπῳ παραγιγνομένης τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τῆς ἀρετῆς (etc. etc.). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.31–33 (Epicurus frs. 457 & 255 Usener) λέγει

liber 4 caput 11 δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ Πρὸς Ἡρόδοτον ἐπιτομῇ καὶ ἐν ταῖς Κυρίαις δόξαις· … (32) … ‘ὑφέστηκε δὲ τό τε ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀκούειν ὥσπερ τὸ ἀλγεῖν· ὅθεν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀδήλων ἀπὸ τῶν φαινομένων χρὴ σημειοῦσθαι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ αἱ ἐπίνοιαι πᾶσαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων γεγόνασι κατά τε περίπτωσιν καὶ ἀναλογίαν καὶ ὁμοιότητα καὶ σύνθεσιν, συμβαλλομένου τι καὶ τοῦ λογισμοῦ. τά τε τῶν μαινομένων φαντάσματα καὶ ⟨τὰ⟩ κατ᾽ ὄναρ ἀληθῆ, κινεῖ γάρ· τὸ δὲ μὴ ὂν οὐ κινεῖ’. (33) τὴν δὲ πρόληψιν λέγουσιν οἱονεὶ κατάληψιν ἢ δόξαν ὀρθὴν ἢ ἔννοιαν ἢ καθολικὴν νόησιν ἐναποκειμένην, τουτέστι μνήμην τοῦ πολλάκις ἔξωθεν φανέντος, οἷον τὸ ‘τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος’· ἅμα γὰρ τῷ ῥηθῆναι ‘ἄνθρωπος’ εὐθὺς κατὰ πρόληψιν καὶ ὁ τύπος αὐτοῦ νοεῖται προηγουμένων τῶν αἰσθήσεων. cf. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.37–38. Chrysippus Περὶ παθῶν θεραπευτικὸς and Περὶ τοῦ λόγου ap. Gal. PHP 5.3.1–2 (SVF 2.841) ‘ἔστι δέ γε τῆς ψυχῆς μέρη δι᾽ ὧν ὁ ἐν αὐτῇ λόγος συνέστηκεν’· ἀναμιμνήσκων ἴσως ἡμᾶς τῶν ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τοῦ λόγου γεγραμμένων ὧν σὺ διῆλθες, ὡς ἔστιν ἐννοιῶν τέ τινων καὶ προλήψεων ἄθροισμα. (2) ἀλλ᾽ εἴπερ ἑκάστην τῶν ἐννοιῶν καὶ προλήψεων εἶναι μόριον νομίζεις τῆς ψυχῆς, ἁμαρτάνεις διττά. Περὶ τοῦ λόγου Book 1 at D.L. V.P. 7.54 ὁ δὲ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.105) διαφερόμενος πρὸς αὑτὸν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ λόγου κριτήριά φησιν εἶναι αἴσθησιν καὶ πρόληψιν. Philo of Alexandria Deus 42–43 (SVF 2.458) see below, ch. 4.12 section E(a)§1. Plutarch Soll.An. 962C λόγος μὲν γὰρ ἐγγίγνεται φύσει, σπουδαῖος δὲ λόγος καὶ τέλειος ἐξ ἐπιμελείας καὶ διδασκαλίας (quoted Porphyry Abst. 3.23). Sextus Empiricus M. 7.373 (SVF 1.64, 2.56) μνήμη θησαυρισμὸς οὖσα φαντασιῶν. M. 8.203 ἔτι πᾶν αἰσθητὸν ὡς αἰσθητὸν ἀδίδακτόν ἐστιν. οὔτε γὰρ τὸ λευκὸν χρῶμα διδάσκεταί τις ὁρᾶν οὔτε τοῦ γλυκέος μανθάνει γεύεσθαι, οὐ θερμοῦ ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς τοιούτου· ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ φύσεως καὶ ἀδιδάκτως πάντων αὐτῶν πάρεστιν ἡμῖν ἡ γνῶσις. τὸ δὲ σημεῖον ὡς σημεῖον μετὰ πολλῶν, ὥς φασι, μόχθων διδάσκεται. Cicero Luc. 30 mens enim ipsa, quae sensuum fons est atque etiam ipsa sensus est, naturalem vim habet, quam intendit ad ea quibus movetur. itaque alia visa sic arripit ut iis statim utatur, alia quasi recondit, e quibus memoria oritur; cetera autem similitudinibus construit, ex quibus efficiuntur notitiae rerum, quas Graeci tum ἐννοίας tum προλήμψεις vocant. Fin. 3.33 (SVF 3.72) cumque rerum notiones in animis fiant, si aut usu aliquid cognitum sit aut coniunctione aut similitudine aut collatione rationis …. ND 1.44 cum enim non instituto aliquo aut more aut lege sit opinio constituta maneatque ad unum omnium firma consensio, intellegi necesse est esse deos, quoniam insitas eorum vel potius innatas cognitiones habemus; de quo autem omnium natura consentit, id verum esse necesse est; esse igitur deos confitendum est. quod quoniam fere constat inter omnis non philosophos solum sed etiam indoctos, fatemur constare illud etiam, hanc nos habere sive anticipationem, ut ante dixi, sive praenotionem deorum (sunt enim rebus novis nova ponenda nomina, ut Epicurus ipse (fr. 255 Usener) πρόληψιν appellavit, quam antea nemo eo verbo nominarat). ps.Plato Def. 414c αἴσθησις … ψυχῆς διὰ σώματος εἰσάγγελσις εἰς ὥρας ἀνθρώπων, ἀφ᾽ ἧς γίγνεται ψυχῆς ἄλογος δύναμις γνωριστικὴ διὰ σώματος. Alcinous Did. c. 4, p. 154.34–40 H. ἡ μὲν οὖν αἴσθησίς ἐστι πάθος ψυχῆς διὰ σώματος ἀπαγγελτικὸν προηγουμένως τῆς πεπονθυίας δυνάμεως· ὁπόταν δὲ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων κατὰ

1605

1606

liber 4 caput 11

τὴν αἴσθησιν τύπος ἐγγένηται, ὅπερ ἐστὶν αἴσθησις, ἔπειτα οὗτος μὴ διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος ἐξίτηλος γένηται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμμονος καὶ σωζόμενος, ἡ τούτου σωτηρία μνήμη καλεῖται. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 68.4–12 δεῖ νοεῖν γίνεσθαι ἐν ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τῶν περὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ οἷον τύπον τινὰ καὶ ἀναζωγράφημα ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ αἰσθητηρίῳ (τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα, ἐν ᾧ ἡ αἰσθητικὴ τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμίς ἐστι), ἐγκατάλειμμά τι ὂν τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ γινομένης κινήσεως, ὃ καὶ μηκέτι τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ παρόντος ὑπομένει τε καὶ σώζεται, ὂν ὥσπερ εἰκών τις αὐτοῦ, ὃ καὶ τῆς μνήμης ἡμῖν σωζόμενον αἴτιον γίνεται. τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐγκατάλειμμα καὶ τὸν τοιοῦτον ὥσπερ τύπον φαντασίαν καλοῦσιν. (from here = SVF 2.59) διὸ καὶ ὁρίζονται τὴν φαντασίαν τύπωσιν ἐν ψυχῇ καὶ τύπωσιν ἐν ἡγεμονικῷ. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.241 (SVF 2.64) ἡ φαντασία γίνεται ἤτοι τῶν ἐκτὸς ἢ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν παθῶν. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 12, pp. 17.17–18.12 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἀπολελυμένα καὶ πρῶτα κριτήρια χωρὶς λόγου τινὸς αὐτόθεν ἐστὶ καταληπτικὰ καὶ μὴ δεόμενα κατά γε τὴν ἐνάργειαν αὐτὴν ἑτέρας ἀρχῆς· ἀντιλαμβάνεται γὰρ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἰδίων κινήσεων κατὰ τὴν ἐντὸς συναίσθησιν· ἔπειτα ἤδη τῶν πρώτων αἰσθητηρίων, καὶ τῶν ὅσα τῶν ἔξωθεν στερέμνια καὶ μετέχοντα τῶν εἰδῶν, καὶ κατὰ τὴν διατεινομένην ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν μνήμην ἤδη τῶν εἰδῶν αὐτῶν ὡς κεχωρισμένων τινῶν καὶ ἀπηλλαγμένων τῆς τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὑποστάσεως· ἀφ᾽ ὧν αἱ παραποιήσεις καὶ μεταβάσεις ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν μηδ᾽ ὅλως δι᾽ αἰσθήσεων νενοημένων εἴδωλα καὶ φαντάσματα διατείνονται μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν τε καὶ νύκτωρ· αἱ μὲν ἀπό τινος ὁμοιότητος καὶ ἀναλογίας, ὡς αἱ τῶν δαιμονίων μορφῶν (for παραποιήσεις … μορφῶν see below, ch. 4.12, section E(b)§1[20–28]), αἱ δὲ ἀπὸ συνθέσεως, ὡς αἱ τῶν γιγάντων ἢ τῶν καλουμένων νάνων καὶ εἴ τι παραπλήσιον τούτοις δὲ τοῖς ἁπλοῖς καὶ ἀσυλλογίστοις κριτηρίοις ἐπισυναφθεὶς ὁ τῆς διανοίας ἐνδιάθετος λόγος κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἀπολελυμένην ἐπιβολὴν καὶ αὐτὸς ἔτι δοξάζει μόνον κτλ. Chapter heading: Sextus Empiricus P. 1.65 ἴδωμεν οὖν πρότερον περὶ τοῦ ἐνδιαθέτου. §1[3–9] Stoics: Plato Phlb. 34a σωτηρίαν τοίνυν αἰσθήσεως τὴν μνήμην λέγων ὀρθῶς ἄν τις λέγοι κατά γε τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 83.2–11 γεννᾶται γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος αἰσθήσεις ἔχων, καθ᾽ ἃς ἐνεργῶν φαντασίας λαμβάνει. ὁρῶν οὖν ἑκάστοτε καὶ ἀκούων καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἄλλας αἰσθήσεις αἰσθανόμενος καὶ τυπούμενος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν πρῶτον μὲν ἐν τῇ τῶν τύπων τούτων τηρήσει μνημονεύειν ἐθίζεται, ἔπειτα δὲ ἔκ τε μνήμης καὶ τῆς συνεχοῦς κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐνεργείας περὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ γίνεταί τις αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ‘τόδε τε καὶ καθέκαστον’ ἐπὶ τὸ ‘τοιόνδε καὶ καθόλου’ μετάβασις δι᾽ ἐμπειρίας. τοῦδε γὰρ τοῦ λευκοῦ καὶ τοῦδε τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἀντιλαμβανομένης ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων ἀντιλήψεων ἔλαβεν τὸ εἶναι τὸ τοιόνδε χρῶμα λευκόν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθητῶν ἑκάστου. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 3, p. 6.18–19 ἡ δ᾽ ἔννοια (sc.ἔοικε) τῇ μνήμῃ καὶ ἀναγραφῇ τῶν ῥηθέντων. Iudic. c. 2, p. 5.18–22 τῆς τε γὰρ αἰσθητικῆς δυνάμεως αἰσθητήρια μέν ἐστι τὰ τοῦ σώματος ὄργανα δι᾽ ὧν ἅπτεται τῶν αἰσθητῶν· φαντασία δ᾽ ἡ τύπωσις καὶ διάδοσις ἡ ἐπὶ τὸν νοῦν, οὗ τὴν κατοχὴν καὶ μνήμην τῶν διαδοθέντων καλοῦμεν ἔννοιαν. Galen Inst.Log. c. 3, p. 7.22–8.3 ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πραγμάτων ἔχομεν μνήμας, ὅταν μὲν ⟨κατὰ⟩ κινήσεις ταύτας ποιησώμεθα καθάπερ εἰ τύχοι Ἀθηναίων, ὀνομαζέσθω τοῦτο ἡμῖν νόησις, ὅταν δὲ ἡσυχάζουσαι τύχωσιν, ἔννοιαι.

liber 4 caput 11 §1[4] Stoics: Plato Tht. 191c–d (Σω.) θὲς δή μοι λόγου ἕνεκα ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἡμῶν ἐνὸν κήρινον ἐκμαγεῖον, τῷ μὲν μεῖζον, τῷ δ᾽ ἔλαττον, καὶ τῷ μὲν καθαρωτέρου κηροῦ, τῷ δὲ κοπρωδεστέρου, καὶ σκλη(d)ροτέρου, ἐνίοις δὲ ὑγροτέρου, ἔστι δ᾽ οἷς μετρίως ἔχοντος. (Θεαι.) Τίθημι. (Σω.) δῶρον τοίνυν αὐτὸ φῶμεν εἶναι τῆς τῶν Μουσῶν μητρὸς Μνημοσύνης, καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ὅτι ἂν βουληθῶμεν μνημονεῦσαι ὧν ἂν ἴδωμεν ἢ ἀκούσωμεν ἢ αὐτοὶ ἐννοήσωμεν, ὑπέχοντας αὐτὸ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι καὶ ἐννοίαις, ἀποτυποῦσθαι, ὥσπερ δακτυλίων σημεῖα ἐνσημαινομένους. Aristotle de An. 3.4 430b30–a2 δυνάμει πώς ἐστι τὰ νοητὰ ὁ νοῦς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐντελεχείᾳ οὐδέν, πρὶν ἂν νοῇ· δυνάμει δ᾽ οὕτως ὥσπερ ἐν γραμματείῳ ᾧ μηθὲν ἐνυπάρχει ἐντελεχείᾳ γεγραμμένον· ὅπερ συμβαίνει ἐπὶ τοῦ νοῦ. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 84.24–27 ἐπιτηδειότης τις ἄρα μόνον ἐστὶν ὁ ὑλικὸς νοῦς πρὸς τὴν τῶν εἰδῶν ὑποδοχὴν ἐοικὼς πινακίδι ἀγράφῳ, μᾶλλον δὲ τῷ τῆς πινακίδος ἀγράφῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ πινακίδι αὐτῇ. αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ γραμματεῖον ἤδη τι τῶν ὄντων ἐστίν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 6.3 (on Antisthenes, F 171 Prince) πρός τε τὸ Ποντικὸν μειράκιον μέλλον φοιτᾶν αὐτῷ καὶ πυθόμενον τίνων αὐτῷ δεῖ, φησί, ‘βιβλαρίου καινοῦ καὶ γραφείου καινοῦ καὶ πινακιδίου καινοῦ’, τὸν νοῦν παρεμφαίνων. §1[6–15] Stoics: Augustine C.D. 8.7 Dombart–Kalb ipsi Stoici (SVF 2.106), qui cum vehementer amaverint sollertiam disputandi, quam dialecticam nominant, a corporis sensibus eam ducendam putarunt, hinc asseverantes animum concipere notiones, quas appellant ἐννοίας, earum rerum scilicet quas definiendo explicant; hinc propagari atque conecti totam discendi docendique rationem. Cf. on language Origen CC 1.24 ὡς νομίζουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.146), φύσει (sc. εἰσὶ τὰ ὀνόματα), μιμουμένων τῶν πρώτων φωνῶν τὰ πράγματα, καθ᾽ ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα, and Augustine de Dial. c. 6.10.9–16 haec quasi cunabula verborum esse crediderunt (sc. Stoici, FDS 644), ubi sensus rerum cum sonorum sensu concordarent, hinc ad ipsarum inter se rerum similitudinem processisse licentiam nominandi; ut cum verbi causa crux propterea dicta sit, quod ipsius verbi asperitas cum doloris quem crux efficit asperitate concordat, crura tamen non propter asperitatem doloris sed, quod longitudine atque duritie inter membra cetera sint ligno ⟨crucis⟩ similiora, sic appellata sint (etc.). §1[6–9] Stoics: Plato Phd. 96b ἢ τούτων μὲν οὐδέν, ὁ δ᾽ ἐγκέφαλός ἐστιν ὁ τὰς αἰσθήσεις παρέχων τοῦ ἀκούειν καὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὀσφραίνεσθαι (Alcmaeon 24A11 DK), ἐκ τούτων δὲ γίγνοιτο μνήμη καὶ δόξα, ἐκ δὲ μνήμης καὶ δόξης λαβούσης τὸ ἠρεμεῖν, κατὰ ταῦτα γίγνεσθαι ἐπιστήμην; Aristotle Int. 1 16a3–4 ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθημάτων (i.e. images, thoughts?) σύμβολα. APo. 2.19 99b36–100a8 ἐνούσης δ᾽ αἰσθήσεως τοῖς μὲν τῶν ζῴων ἐγγίγνεται μονὴ τοῦ αἰσθήματος, τοῖς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐγγίγνεται. ὅσοις μὲν οὖν μὴ ἐγγίγνεται, ἢ ὅλως ἢ περὶ ἃ μὴ ἐγγίγνεται, οὐκ ἔστι τούτοις γνῶσις ἔξω τοῦ αἰσθάνεσθαι· ἐν οἷς δ᾽ ἔνεστιν αἰσθομένοις ἔχειν ἔτι ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ. πολλῶν δὲ τοιούτων γινομένων ἤδη διαφορά τις γίνεται, ὥστε τοῖς μὲν γίνεσθαι λόγον ἐκ τῆς τῶν τοιούτων μονῆς, τοῖς δὲ μή. ἐκ μὲν οὖν αἰσθήσεως γίνεται μνήμη, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, ἐκ δὲ μνήμης πολλάκις τοῦ αὐτοῦ γινομένης ἐμπειρία· αἱ γὰρ πολλαὶ μνῆμαι τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἐμπειρία μία ἐστίν. ἐκ δ᾽ ἐμπειρίας ἢ ἐκ παντὸς ἠρεμήσαντος τοῦ καθόλου ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, τοῦ ἑνὸς παρὰ τὰ πολλά, ὃ ἂν ἐν ἅπασιν ἓν ἐνῇ ἐκείνοις τὸ αὐτό, τέχνης ἀρχὴ καὶ ἐπιστήμης. Mem. 1 449b24–

1607

1608

liber 4 caput 11

24 ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἡ μνήμη οὔτε αἴσθησις οὔτε ὑπόληψις, ἀλλὰ τούτων τινὸς ἕξις ἢ πάθος, ὅταν γένηται χρόνος. Met. A.1 980a28–981a16 γίγνεται δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς μνήμης ἐμπειρία τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· αἱ γὰρ πολλαὶ μνῆμαι τοῦ αὐτοῦ πράγματος μιᾶς ἐμπειρίας δύναμιν ἀποτελοῦσιν. … (a15) ἡ μὲν ἐμπειρία τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστόν ἐστι γνῶσις, ἡ δὲ τέχνη τῶν καθόλου. (cf. David Prol. 44.5–6, cited above, section E(a)§1[8–9]) Plutarch CN 1085A–B (SVF 2.847) ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως παρακούουσιν ἑαυτῶν, ὥστε τὰς ἐννοίας ⟨ἐν⟩αποκειμένας τινὰς ὁριζόμενοι νοήσεις μνήμας δὲ μονίμους καὶ σχετικὰς τυπώσεις. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.373 (SVF 1.64, 2.56) μνήμη, θησαυρισμὸς οὖσα φαντασιῶν. §1[10–13] Stoics: Philodemus de Mus. 4 col. 34.2–8 Delattre συ[γκεχωρ]ηκέναι (sc. Diogenes of Babylon, SVF 3 Diog 61) δ᾽ αὐτ|ῶι (sc. with Speusippus—or: αὖ τ|ῶι, i.e. ‘accepting the idea’) τὰ μὲν [αὐτο]φυοῦς αἰσ|θήσεως δε[ῖσ]θαι, τὰ δ᾽ ἐπιστη|μονικῆς, τά τε θερμὰ μὲν | καὶ τὰ ψυχρὰ τῆ[ς αὐ]τοφυοῦς, τὸ | δ᾽ ἡρμοσμὲν[ον] καὶ ἀνάρμο|στον τῆς ἐπ[ιστη]μονικῆς. de Mus. 4 col. 115.26–41. Delattre. cf. Speusippus fr. 34 Isnardi Parente, 75 Tarán ap. S.E. M. 7.145–146. §1[14–15] Stoics: Aristotle HA 9.1 581a12–18 φέρειν δὲ σπέρμα πρῶτον ἄρχεται τὸ ἄρρεν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ἐν τοῖς ἔτεσι τοῖς δὶς ἑπτὰ τετελεσμένοις· ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἡ τρίχωσις τῆς ἥβης ἄρχεται, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ μέλλοντα σπέρμα φέρειν ἀνθεῖν πρῶτον Ἀλκμαίων φησὶν ὁ Κροτωνιάτης (24A15 DK). περὶ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον τοῦτον ἥ τε φωνὴ μεταβάλλειν ἄρχεται ἐπὶ τὸ τραχύτερον καὶ ἀνωμαλέστερον κτλ. Philo of Alexandria Leg. 1.10 λογικόν τέ φασιν ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑπταετίαν γίνεσθαι, ὅτε ἤδη ἱκανός ἐστιν ἑρμηνεὺς εἶναι τῶν συνήθων ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων τὴν λογικὴν ἕξιν περιπεποιημένος, κατὰ δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἑπταετίαν ἄκρως τελειοῦσθαι· τελείωσις δέ ἐστι δύναμις τῆς τοῦ ὁμοίου σπορᾶς. Sextus Empiricus M. 11.8 (SVF 2.224) εἴ τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, ἐκεῖνο ζῷόν ἐστι λογικὸν θνητόν. P. 1.65 (—) ἴδωμεν οὖν πρότερον περὶ τοῦ ἐνδιαθέτου. οὗτος τοίνυν κατὰ τοὺς μάλιστα ἡμῖν ἀντιδοξοῦντας νῦν δογματικούς, τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—), ἐν τούτοις ἔοικε σαλεύειν, τῇ αἱρέσει τῶν οἰκείων καὶ φυγῇ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, τῇ γνώσει τῶν εἰς τοῦτο συντεινουσῶν τεχνῶν, τῇ ἀντιλήψει τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν ἀρετῶν ⟨καὶ⟩ τῶν περὶ τὰ πάθη. Ptolemy Iudic. 2, p. 6.2–5 τοῦ δὲ λογικοῦ, καθὸ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἴδιον ὥρισται, διάνοια μέν ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐνδιάθετος διέξοδός τις οὖσα καὶ ἀναπόλησις καὶ διάκρισις τῶν μνημονευθέντων. Iamblichus de An. fr. 15 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. 1.48.8, p. 317.21–24 πάλιν τοίνυν περὶ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ πασῶν τῶν κρειττόνων δυνάμεων τῆς ψυχῆς οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ (SVF 1.149, 2.835) λέγουσι μὴ εὐθὺς ἐμφύεσθαι τὸν λόγον, ὕστερον δὲ συναθροίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ φαντασιῶν περὶ δεκατέσσαρα ἔτη. Scholia Platonica Alc. 121e, p. 99 Greene = pp. 152–153 Cufalo δὶς ἑπτα· τότε γὰρ ὁ τέλειος ἐν ἡμῖν ἀποφαίνεται λόγος, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης (cf. Pol. 7.17 1336b37–1337a3)) καὶ Ζήνων (SVF 1.149) καὶ Ἀλκμαίων ὁ Πυθαγόριος (cf. Arist. HA 9.1 581a12–18 above, and on Alcmaeon 24A15 DK) φασίν. §1[16–18] Stoics: Aristotle de An. 3.7 431a16–17 οὐδέποτε νοεῖ ἄνευ φαντάσματος ἡ ψυχή. Mem. 1 450a12–14 ἡ δὲ μνήμη, καὶ ἡ τῶν νοητῶν, οὐκ ἄνευ φαντάσματός ἐστιν, ⟨καὶ τὸ φάντασμα τῆς κοινῆς αἰσθήσεως πάθος ἐστίν⟩· ὥστε τοῦ νοῦ μὲν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἂν εἴη, καθ᾽ αὑτὸ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου αἰσθητικοῦ. Protr. fr. 101 Düring ap. Iambl. Protr. p. 46.27–28 Pistelli τὰ μὲν καθ᾽ ὕπνον φαντάσματα

liber 4 caput 11 ψευδῆ, τὰ δ᾽ ἐγρηγορόσιν ἀληθῆ. cf. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.75 τὰς φύσεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ἔθνη ἴδια πασχούσας πάθη καὶ ἴδια λαμβανούσας φαντάσματα. Chrysippus de An. at Gal. PHP 5.2.26 (SVF 3.471, verbatim) ἐν ψυχῇ λογικῇ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.61 (SVF 3 Diog. 25) εἶδος δέ ἐστι τὸ ὑπὸ γένους περιεχόμενον, ὡς ὑπὸ τοῦ ζῴου ὁ ἄνθρωπος περιέχεται. γενικώτατον δέ ἐστιν ὃ γένος ὂν γένος οὐκ ἔχει, οἷον τὸ ὄν· εἰδικώτατον δέ ἐστιν ὃ εἶδος ὂν εἶδος οὐκ ἔχει, ὥσπερ ὁ Σωκράτης. §1[19–20] Stoics: Sextus Empiricus M. 9.131 τί οὖν φασιν οἱ Στωικοὶ (SVF 3.370) δικαιοσύνην τινὰ καὶ ἐπιπλοκὴν ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ τοὺς θεούς; οὐ καθόσον ἔστι τὸ ἐληλακὸς διὰ πάντων πνεῦμα, ἐπεὶ ἂν καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄλογα τῶν ζῴων ἐσῴζετό τι δίκαιον ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ λόγον ἔχομεν τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους τε καὶ θεοὺς διατείνοντα, οὗ τὰ ἄλογα τῶν ζῴων μὴ μετέχοντα οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τι πρὸς ἡμᾶς δίκαιον. §1[22–24] Stoics: Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1.20.98.1 (SVF 1.376) μιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς δραχμῆς τῷ μὲν ναυκλήρῳ δοθείσης λέγεσθαι ναῦλον, τῷ δὲ τελώνῃ τέλος καὶ ἐνοίκιον μὲν τῷ σταθμούχῳ, μισθὸν δὲ τῷ διδασκάλῳ καὶ τῷ πιπράσκοντι ἀρραβῶνα.

1609

Liber 4 Caput 12 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 900D–901A; pp. 401a11–402a32 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 93; p. 636.7–18 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 200–203 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.58, p. 1.497.13 Wachsmuth, titulus solus ex Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b35 Henry Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 6, p. 55.8–56.2; c. 12, p. 68.4–6 Morani

Titulus ιβʹ. Τίνι διαφέρει φαντασία φανταστὸν φανταστικὸν φάντασμα (P,cf.S) §1 Χρύσιππος διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων φησὶ τέτταρα ταῦτα. φαντασία μὲν οὖν ἐστι πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενον, ἐνδεικνύμενον ἐν αὑτῷ καὶ τὸ πεποιηκός· οἷον ἐπειδὰν δι᾽ ὄψεως θεωρῶμέν τι λευκόν, ἔστι πάθος τὸ ἐγγεγενημένον διὰ τῆς ὁράσεως ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ· καὶ ⟨κατὰ⟩ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν, ὅτι ὑπόκειται λευκὸν κινοῦν ἡμᾶς· ὁμοίως καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁφῆς καὶ τῆς ὀσφρήσεως. εἴρηται δ᾽ ἡ φαντασία ἀπὸ τοῦ φωτός· καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ φῶς αὑτὸ δείκνυσι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ περιεχόμενα, καὶ ἡ φαντασία δείκνυσιν ἑαυτὴν καὶ τὸ πεποιηκὸς αὐτήν. φανταστὸν δὲ τὸ ποιοῦν τὴν φαντασίαν· οἷον τὸ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι ἂν δύνηται κινεῖν τὴν ψυχήν, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι φανταστόν. §1[1–28] SVF 2.83 caput non hab. ST titulus Τίνι … φάντασμα PB(I,III) : φανταστὸν om. PB(II) : Was ist der Unterschied zwischen der Einbildung und dem Eingebildeten? Q : al. Περὶ φαντασίας PG, Περὶ φαντασίας καὶ κριτηρίου SPhot §1 [3] φησὶ ante διαφέρειν PG ‖ ἀλλήλων + τέτταρα ταῦτα PB : zwischen der Einbildung, dem Eingebildeten und dem Phantasiebild Q ‖ post ταῦτα add. ex tit. φαντασία φανταστὸν φανταστικὸν φάντασμα PG ‖ [4] post γινόμενον add. καὶ PG ‖ ἐν αὑτῷ Diels ex Nem. prob. Mau Lachenaud, cf. in sich selbst Q : ἐν αὐτῷ PB(I,III:α) : ἑαυτῷ PB(III:ΑE) : αὐτό τε PG ‖ [5] δι᾽ ὄψεως PBQ : om. PG ‖ τι λευκόν coni. Reiske cf. c. 4.11.2 : τὸ λευκόν P ‖ ante ἔστι add. ὅ PG ‖ [5–8] τὸ ἐγγεγενημένον … ὀσφρήσεως PB : al. PG ἐγένετο τῇ ψυχῇ ἐναλλακτικὸν τοῦ πεπονθότος ‖ [6] ⟨κατὰ⟩ add. Wyttenbach prob. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ τοῦτο τὸ PB : τὸ deletum malebat Reiske, non hab. PQ ut vid. ‖ [7] εἰπεῖν … ἡμᾶς PB : diese Einwirkung hat eine Grundlage, welche uns bewegt Q (om. εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν PQ) ‖ [7] ὁμοίως post ἁφῆς et om. καὶ PB(II) ‖ [9–11] ἀπὸ τοῦ … αὐτήν PB : al. PG ἐκ τοῦ φαίνεσθαι αὐτήν τε καὶ τὸ πεποιηκός ‖ εἴρηται … φωτός PB : in der Sprache der Griechen ‘Einbildung’ nach dem Licht genannt. Denn sie ist in ihr von ihm abgeleitet Q ‖ [9] ἡ PB(I,II)Q : om. PB(III)G ‖ μὲν add. post φαντασία PB(II) ‖ αὑτὸ Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud : αὐτὸ PB : αὐτὴν PG : om. PQ ‖ [12] φανταστὸν … φαντασίαν PBQ : ὅπερ ἐστὶ φανταστόν PG ‖ [12–13] τὸ ψυχρὸν … ψυχήν PB : al. PG εἴ τι ἄλλο διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων δύναται κινεῖν τὴν ψυχὴν ‖ [13] δύνηται PB(III:E) : δύναται PB(I,II) ‖ τοῦτ᾽ … φανταστὸν PB : om. PQ : φανταστόν ἐστι PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_112

5

10

liber 4 caput 12

φανταστικὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ διάκενος ἑλκυσμός, πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀπ᾽ οὐδενὸς φανταστοῦ γινόμενον, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ σκιαμαχοῦντος καὶ κενοῖς ἐπιφέροντος τὰς χεῖρας· τῇ γὰρ φαντασίᾳ ὑπόκειταί τι φανταστόν, τῷ δὲ φανταστικῷ οὐδέν. φάντασμα δ᾽ ἐστίν, ἐφ᾽ ὃ ἑλκόμεθα κατὰ τὸν φανταστικὸν διάκενον ἑλκυσμόν· ταῦτα δὲ γίνεται ἐπὶ τῶν μελαγχολώντων καὶ μεμηνότων· ὁ γοῦν τραγικὸς Ὀρέστης ὅταν λέγῃ· ὦ μῆτερ, ἱκετεύω σε, μὴ ᾽πίσειέ μοι τὰς αἱματωποὺς καὶ δρακοντώδεις κόρας· αὗται γάρ, αὗται πλησίον θρώσκουσί μου. λέγει μὲν αὐτὰ ὡς μεμηνὼς ὁρᾷ δ᾽ οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ δοκεῖ μόνον· διὸ καί φησιν αὐτῷ Ἠλέκτρα· μέν᾽, ὦ ταλαίπωρ᾽, ἀτρέμα σοῖς ἐν δεμνίοις· ὁρᾷς γὰρ οὐδὲν ὧν δοκεῖς σάφ᾽ εἰδέναι, ὡς καὶ παρ᾽ Ὁμήρῳ Θεοκλύμενος. (P1) §1[21–27] Euripides Or. 255–257, 258–259; §1[28] Homerus Od. 20.350–358 [14] ἐστὶ PB : om. PG ‖ πάθος PBG : om. PQ ‖ [15] γινόμενον, … τοῦ PB : om. PG ‖ [15–17] καὶ … οὐδέν PB : om. PG ‖ [15] κενοῖς coni. Reiske : κενὰς PB : om. PQ ‖ [15–16] ἐπιφέροντος … χεῖρας PB(III) : τὰς om. PB(I,II) : eifrig wünscht, sie [sc. die Schatten] mit der Hand zu ergreifen Q ‖ [16–17] τῷ δὲ φανταστικῷ PB(I,III)Q : τὸ δὲ φανταστικὸν PB(II) ‖ [19] καὶ μεμηνότων PB : om. PG ‖ [20–27] ὁ γοῦν … εἰδέναι PB : al. PG ὥσπερ ἐπὶ Ὀρέστου ‖ [20] post λέγῃ in seiner Dichtung add. Q ‖ [21] ὦ μῆτερ PB(I,III)Q : om. P(II) ‖ [23] θρώσκουσί PB : zu verschlingen Q ‖ [24] μεμηνὼς PB : gesund war und keine Krankheit hatte Q ‖ [26] σοῖς ἐν δεμνίοις PB : in Deinem Wahnsinn Q ‖ [28] ὡς καὶ PB : καὶ τοῦ PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 93 Περὶ φαντασιῶν (~ tit) (text Diels). 93.1 (~ P1[3–8]) Χρύσιππός φησι διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων τέτταρα ταῦτα φαντασίαν φανταστὸν φανταστικὸν φάντασμα. φαντασία μὲν οὖν ἐστι πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενον καὶ ἐνδεικνύμενον αὐτό τε καὶ τὸ πεποιηκός· οἷον ἐπειδὰν ἴδωμεν τὸ λευκόν, ὅ ἐστι πάθος, ἐγένετο τῇ ψυχῇ ἐναλλακτικὸν τοῦ πεπονθότος· 93.2 (~ P1[9–11]) εἴρηται δὲ φαντασία ἐκ τοῦ φαίνεσθαι αὐτήν τε καὶ τὸ πεποιηκός, 93.3 (~ P1[12–13]) ὅπερ ἐστὶ φανταστόν· οἷον τὸ λευκὸν καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων δύναται κινεῖν τὴν ψυχὴν φανταστόν ἐστι, 93.4 (~ P1[14–17]) φανταστικὸν δὲ διάκενος ἑλκυσμός, πάθος ἐν ψυχῇ ἀπ᾽ οὐδενὸς φανταστοῦ σκιομαχοῦντος. 93.5 (~ P1[18–19]) φάντασμα δὲ ἐστίν, ἐφ᾽ ὃ ἑλκόμεθα κατὰ τὸν φανταστικὸν διάκενον ἑλκυσμόν· ταῦτα δὲ γίνεται ἐπὶ τῶν μελαγχολώντων 93.6 (~ P1[20–27]) ὥσπερ ἐπὶ Ὀρέστου 93.7 (~ P1[28]) καὶ τοῦ παρ᾽ Ὁμήρῳ Θεοκλυμένου.

1611

15

20

25

1612

liber 4 caput 12

Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 6, p. 55.8–56.2 (~ tit.) Περὶ τοῦ φανταστικοῦ. (~ §1[9–19]) φανταστικὸν μὲν οὖν ἐστι δύναμις τῆς ἀλόγου ψυχῆς διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἐνεργοῦσα· φανταστὸν δὲ τὸ τῇ φαντασίᾳ ὑποπῖπτον, ὡς αἰσθήσει αἰσθητόν· φαντασία δέ ἐστι πάθος τῆς ἀλόγου ψυχῆς ὑπὸ φανταστοῦ τινος γινόμενον· φάντασμα δὲ πάθος διάκενον ἐν τοῖς ἀλόγοις τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπ᾽ οὐδενὸς φανταστοῦ γινόμενον. (~ §1[1–18]) οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ τέσσαρα ταῦτά φασι, φαντασίαν, φανταστόν, φανταστικόν, φάντασμα, φαντασίαν μὲν λέγοντες τὸ πάθος τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ ἐνδεικνύμενον ἐν ἑαυτῷ {καὶ τὸ πεποιηκὸς φανταστόν}. ὅταν γὰρ λευκὸν ἴδωμεν ἐγγίνεταί τι πάθος τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκ τῆς λήψεως αὐτοῦ· ὡς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητηρίοις ἐγγίνεται πάθος, ὅταν αἰσθάνηται, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, ὅταν ἐννοήσῃ. εἰκόνα γὰρ ἐν ἑαυτῇ δέχεται τοῦ νοητοῦ, φανταστὸν δὲ τὸ πεποιηκὸς τὴν φαντασίαν αἰσθητόν, οἷον τὸ λευκὸν καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι δύναται κινεῖν τὴν ψυχήν, φανταστικὸν δὲ τὸν διάκενον διελκυσμὸν ἄνευ φανταστοῦ, φάντασμα δὲ ὃ ἐφέλκομεν κατὰ τὸν φανταστικὸν διάκενον ἑλκυσμόν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν μεμηνότων καὶ μελαγχολώντων. ἡ δὲ διαφωνία τούτοις περὶ τὴν ἐναλλαγὴν μόνην γέγονε τῶν ὀνομάτων. cf. NH c. 12, p. 68.4–6 τοῦ μὲν οὖν φανταστικοῦ ἥ τε δύναμις καὶ τὰ ὄργανα καὶ τὰ μόρια καὶ τῶν μορίων ἡ κοινωνία τε καὶ διαφορὰ τὸν ἐνδεχόμενον τρόπον ὡς ἐν βραχέσιν ἱκανῶς εἴρηται (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 1.2.tit. Τίνι διαφέρει ἀρχὴ καὶ στοιχεῖα. §1[3–8] A 4.9.4 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ἀληθεῖς, τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν τὰς μὲν ἀληθεῖς τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς. A 4.10.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ πέντε τὰς εἰδικὰς αἰσθήσεις, ὅρασιν ἀκοὴν ὄσφρησιν γεῦσιν ἁφήν. A 4.11 (de Stoicis) titulus Πῶς γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις κτλ. Α 4.11[6–7] πρῶτος δὲ ὁ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς τρόπος ὁ διὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων· αἰσθανόμενοι γάρ τινος οἷον λευκοῦ ἀπελθόντος αὐτοῦ μνήμην ἔχουσιν. A 4.21.1 οἱ Στωικοί φασιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνώτατον μέρος τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τὸ ποιοῦν τὰς φαντασίας καὶ συγκαταθέσεις καὶ αἰσθήσεις καὶ ὁρμάς. A 4.21[2–14] τῶν δ᾽ ἑπτὰ μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς πέντε μέν εἰσι τὰ αἰσθητήρια, ὅρασις ὄσφρησις ἀκοὴ γεῦσις καὶ ἁφή· ὧν ἡ μὲν ὅρασίς ἐστι πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν, ἀκοὴ δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις των, ὄσφρησις δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι μυκτήρων {λεπτῦνον}, γεῦσις δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι γλώττης, ἁφὴ δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ἐπιφανείας εἰς θίξιν εὐαίσθητον τῶν προσπιπτόντων. A 4.23.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, τὰς δ᾽ αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ. §§1[18–19] al. A 4.11[16–22] ἔστι δ᾽ ἐννόημα φάντασμα διανοίας λογικοῦ ζῴου· τὸ γὰρ φάντασμα, ἐπειδὰν λογικῇ προσπίπτῃ ψυχῇ, τότε ἐννόημα καλεῖται, εἰληφὸς τοὔνομα παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ. διόπερ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις ὅσα προσπίπτει φαντάσματα, ⟨φαντάσματα μόνον ἐστίν⟩· ὅσα δὲ καὶ θεοῖς καὶ ἡμῖν γε, ταῦτα {φαντάσματα μόνον ἐστίν· ὅσα δὲ ἡμῖν, ταῦτα} καὶ φαντάσματα κατὰ γένος καὶ ἐννοήματα κατ᾽ εἶδος.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

liber 4 caput 12

1613

Commentary A Witnesses The only witnesses are PB and PQ, largely confirmed by G who has edited out the poetical quotations near the end. For 4.12 (in contrast to ch. 4.11) it is also witnessed by Nem, who will have derived it from a parallel doxographical tradition (see above, chs. 4.2–3, Commentary A). Only part of the heading is preserved for S in the index of Photius, but this is sufficient to demonstrate that his anthology must originally have contained the chapter. T again did not excerpt it. There is no need to divide this chapter into lemmata, as we are dealing with a single name-label, and a single doctrine just as in the previous chapter. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. A rather free but not inaccurate version of what is in A 4.12 is found at Nem NH c. 6 p. 55.14–56.2, cited above at testes secundi (the second parallel in the apparatus of DG); see e.g. Jaeger (1914) 7–12. This is preceded by a brief paragraph, p. 55.9–13, also cited above at testes secundi, which Diels DG ad loc. also derives from A, but this is not entirely certain. At DG 61 he argues that the Nemesian parallels are excerpts from A and so prove that what is in P also derives from A. But in the case of Nem p. 55.9–13 there are interesting differences. This briefly deals with the four terms at issue in a different order, viz. φανταστικὸν φανταστὸν φαντασία φάντασμα: ‘fancy’ and its object occur, respectively, before and after impression and its object. Here the φανταστικόν is a faculty of the irrational soul, the φανταστόν the object of the φαντασία, the φαντασία an affection of the irrational soul brought about by a φανταστόν, and the φάντασμα a groundless movement in the irrational parts of the soul that in no way derives from a φανταστόν. This looks like a dualist rewriting of Stoic psychical monism. Also note that Nem has the bland name-label ‘the Stoics’ (p. 55.13), whereas ch. 4.12 has ‘Chrysippus’; but this is not decisive, since such differences in designation also exist between P and S, see e.g. P at A 1.6[1] ‘the Stoics’ and S at A 1.7.10[73] ‘Posidonius’ for the same doxa, or P at 1.18.5 ‘the Stoics’, while S here reads ‘Zeno and his followers’. We note that Nem tones down the difference between these two accounts by stating that the ‘diaphonia’ (his term) is not more than a ‘terminological variation’, ἐναλλαγὴν … τῶν ὀνομάτων. (2) Sources. Provenance from a Stoic source, as Diels DG 61 already surmised, is virtually certain because, with the exception of the introductory phrase (‘Chrysippus says that these four are different from one another’), ch. 4.12, just as ch. 4.11, is in oratio recta. See also at ch. 4.11 above, Commentary D(a). The first persons plural §1[5] ‘we observe’ (θεωρῶμέν), §1[7] ‘we are able’ (ἔχομεν)

1614

liber 4 caput 12

and §1[18] ‘we are attracted’ (ἑλκόμεθα), and the personal pronoun §1[7] ‘us’ (ἡμᾶς) are significant, just as the verb forms and pronoun in ch. 4.11 (where see Commentary B): ‘we’ and ‘us’, that is, ‘we humans’, as in staunch Stoic theory. The quotations from Euripidean tragedy and the reference to the seer in Homer point to quotation-happy Chrysippus as well. As intermediary source we may posit a Stoic handbook, or one providing Stoic doctrine, just as in the case of chs. 4.11, 4.15 and 4.21. Nem NH c. 12 contains a parallel to A 4.21.1, and begins with a backward glance at NH c. 6. C Chapter Heading The long and precise heading is only found in PB, but as to content (though as we have seen the four items are listed in a different order the first time) also in the cousin writing of Nem. For the dialectical aspect of the question word see above, ch. 1.1, Commentary C, and for the parallel phrase τίνι διαφέρει ch. 1.2: the difference is between distinct species. PQ only has the first two items. PG has a very short heading, Περὶ φαντασιῶν, of the umbrella type περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα that dominates in the Placita; ‘fortasse rectius’ according to Diels DG 401 ad loc., who fails to take into account that PG lists the four items immediately after the phrase ‘those four’ (τέτταρα ταῦτα) he has taken from PB. SPhot has combined an umbrella part of a heading, viz. Περὶ φαντασίας with another part, namely καὶ κριτηρίου (Περὶ κριτηρίου is first attested as a book title for Epicurus at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.27 and Posidonius at V.P. 7.54, as a chapter heading Sextus Empiricus M. 7.29). For this latter part there is no parallel in P. The combined evidence in PB, in PQ, in the text not the heading of PG, and in the text of Nem is in favour attributing the long heading to A. Decisive is the fact that the first phrase of the first lemma in P (also cited in Nem, who as heading only has Περὶ τοῦ φανταστικοῦ) refers to the four concepts in the title. D Analysis a Context Ch. 4.12 is the second of two chapters dealing with aspects of exclusively Stoic views on concept formation, sensation, and thought, so not with those of other philosophers or schools. These chapters have been inserted in the original Placita to upgrade the epistemological section. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no multiplicity of Placita lemmata in the usual sense of the word. It is in fact a monolemmatic chapter, just as the previous one. The division in paragraphs introduced by us merely mirrors the progress of the argument.

liber 4 caput 12

1615

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In the absence of a plurality of views the chapter, like ch. 4.11, has no diaeretic and/or diaphonic structure. The account distinguishes and defines four etymologically and semantically related terms pertaining to sensation, imagination, and concept formation. The definitions concerned are complete and sectarian definitions (as opposed to nominal or conceptual definitions, see above, ch. 1.9, at Commentary D(d), General points), here paradoxically concerned with the specific individuality of general concepts. d

Further Comments General Points Most of the notions as defined here are consistent with those of ch. 4.11. Individual Points §1[7] ‘enables us to say’: we, as adults, are able to formulate a meaningful sentence, a proposition, corresponding to precisely this phantasia. As Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.49 (SVF 2.52) tells us: ‘the impression (φαντασία) comes first, and then the mind, unable to keep silent, brings out in speech what it experiences by the agency of the phantasia’. §1[7–8] ‘And similarly when we are affected through touch and smell’; that is, the presentations of touch and smell reveal both themselves and their contents. Hearing and taste are not mentioned, though without doubt they could have been; they may have been abridged away by P. For their presence compare the largely parallel passage Sextus Empiricus M. 7.162 (SVF 2.63) cited section E(b)§1[9–11], on the modification in the soul caused by the impression: ‘we become aware of two things, one being the alteration itself, i.e. (aware) of the impression, the second of what brings this modification about internally, i.e. the visible object; and with regard to the other senses (this happens) in virtually the same way. Just as light reveals itself and all the things it contains, so also the impression, being the originator of the knowledge present in the living being, is bound (both) to reveal itself in the manner of light and to become indicative of the evident object that produced it’ (tr. Bury LCL, modified). P’s account is worthwhile also from another point of view. It is generally accepted that according to a standard Stoic view only bodies are capable of ποῖειν as well as πάσχειν, and that the effect of a(n active) body qua cause upon and in another body (a passive one) is an ‘incorporeal’; see AD fr. 18 Diels (SVF 1.89, 2.336, Posid. F 95 E.–K) and the other texts cited above at ch. 1.11 section E(a)§5. But according to Chrysippus as cited in the present chapter, an object that is perceived produces, that is, causes, an impression (phantasia): an ‘affection (πάθος—think of πάσχειν as the opposite of ποῖειν) that has come about

1616

liber 4 caput 12

in the soul through seeing’, ‘and it is ⟨in correspondence with⟩ this affection that we are able to say (εἰπεῖν) that there exists a white object that moves us’. A body, say a white knife, causes the impression of a white knife in the soul. This impression is not an incorporeal effect, for it is an ‘imprinting, τύπωσις, in the soul’ (see the texts cited below, section E(b) §1[3–6] and the echo at ch. 4.8.11 above). Thus it would seem, pace the generally accepted view, that the Stoic theory of causation also allows for corporeal changes as effects of other bodies operating as causes. But this is a matter we cannot go into further here. §1[9–11] The derivation of φαντασία from φῶς/φάος is already found in Aristotle, then in AD and Alexander of Aphrodisias; see section E(a)&(b) §1[9–11], and immediately above for a translation of the passage in Sextus Empiricus. For Q’s explanation with reference to the Sprache der Griechen (app. crit.) cf. chs. 1.8 (heading), 2.1.1[2], 3.7.2[6], 4.11.1[17], and 4.19.3[7]. There is no etymological link in Arabic, so his public needs an explanation. §1[15–16] καθάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ σκιαμαχοῦντος καὶ κενοῖς ἐπιφέροντος τὰς χεῖρας: cf. Seneca Nat. 7.14.1, solvere ista quid aliud est quam manum exercere et in ventum iactare brac⟨c⟩hia? Vottero (1989) and Parroni (2002) ad loc. refer to similar expressions in Greek and Latin at Otto (1890) nr. 28. ‘Seneca si referisce all’allenamento dei pugili’ (Vottero, loc. cit., who also cites the apostle Paul 1 Cor. 9:26, ἐγὼ … οὕτως πυκτεύω ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων). Cf. John Chrysostom, Ad pop. Antioch., MPG 49 p. 47.18–20, καὶ καθάπερ ὁ σκιᾷ πυκτεύων καὶ τὸν ἀέρα δέρων οὐδένα πλῆξαι δυνήσεται, οὕτως ὁ τῷ δικαίῳ πολεμῶν σκιαμαχεῖ μόνον. §1[18–19] The definition and meaning here of ‘phantasm’, φάντασμα, are squarely opposed to the meaning of this term in A 4.11[16]: ‘apparition’, ‘mental image’ in the earlier chapter over against ‘figment’, the usual meaning in Stoic language, in the present one. This contrast, which may be due to the doxographer rather than to his source, may have favoured the inclusion of this material in the doxography, since it chimes in with the familiar Aëtian predilection for diaeresis and diaphonia, this time not found in a single chapter but stretched to encompass two. See also Commentary D(a) at ch. 4.11 above. §1[20–28] Such quotations of Euripides and Homer are typically Chrysippean, e.g. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.180 (SVF 2.1), the bon mot on Chrysippus’ Medea; in general Galen PHP 2.2.5 (SVF 2.883), PHP 3.5.21–22 (SVF 2.884); see Tieleman (1996) 220–248. The quoted lines of the Orestes are also found in passages in Sextus Empiricus (see testes II) where the various kinds of phantasia are discussed, thus confirming the solid Stoic background of our present chapter. For the misguided attempt of Prof. Schubert to claim Plutarch of Chaeronea as author see Mansfeld (2018a) at M–R 4.195.

liber 4 caput 12

1617

e Other Evidence A full parallel for the distinction between the four concepts of the heading is found in Nem, see at testes secundi and our discussion above in section B. The brief parallel for delusions in Ptolemy Iudic. c. 12.3, p. 18.3–8 is interesting also for its position in a general account that for the most part is paralleled in ch. 4.11. This also holds for the Epicurean account at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.32–33 for which see above, ch. 4.11 Commentary D(e), and for Sextus Empiricus, who, in one of his accounts of (Stoic) concept formation (M. 8.56–60) cites a line from Euripides’ Orestes also found among A’s more generous quotations. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Arius Didymus fr. 16 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.58, p. 497.15–25 Ἀριστοτέλης φαντασίαν δ᾽ εἶναι πάθος τι καὶ κίνησιν τῆς κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν αἰσθήσεως. ὠνομάσθαι δ᾽ ἀπὸ μιᾶς τῶν αἰσθήσεων τῆς ὁράσεως· τὸ ⟨γὰρ⟩ φαίνεσθαι παρὰ τὸ φάος ἔχειν τὴν ἐπίρρησιν. τοῦτο δ᾽ οἰκεῖον εἶναι τῆς ὄψεως, διατείνειν δὲ ⟨εἰς⟩ πάσας τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ τὰς διανοητικὰς κινήσεις· καὶ γὰρ ταύτας ὁμωνύμως λέγεσθαι φαντασίας. κριτήρια δ᾽ εἶναι τῆς τούτων γνώσεως τόν τε νοῦν καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν, τὸν μὲν τῶν νοητῶν, τὴν δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν. οὔτε γὰρ τὸ καθόλου δύναιτ᾽ ἂν αἴσθησις ἐπικρίνειν οὔτε τὸ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον νοῦς. πάντα δ᾽ ἐκ τούτων συνεστάναι καὶ διὰ τούτων. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.51 τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς (SVF 2.61) αἱ μέν εἰσιν αἰσθητικαί, αἱ δ᾽ οὔ· αἰσθητικαὶ μὲν αἱ δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου ἢ αἰσθητηρίων λαμβανόμεναι, οὐκ αἰσθητικαὶ δ᾽ αἱ διὰ τῆς διανοίας, καθάπερ τῶν ἀσωμάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν λόγῳ λαμβανομένων. τῶν δ᾽ αἰσθητικῶν ⟨αἱ μὲν⟩ ἀπὸ ὑπαρχόντων μετ᾽ εἴξεως καὶ συγκαταθέσεως γίνονται. εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν φαντασιῶν καὶ ἐμφάσεις αἱ ὡσάν ἀπὸ ὑπαρχόντων γινόμεναι. ἔτι τῶν φαντασιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι λογικαί, αἱ δὲ ἄλογοι· λογικαὶ μὲν αἱ τῶν λογικῶν ζῴων, ἄλογοι δὲ αἱ τῶν ἀλόγων. αἱ μὲν οὖν λογικαὶ νοήσεις εἰσίν, αἱ δ᾽ ἄλογοι οὐ τετυχήκασιν ὀνόματος. καὶ αἱ μέν εἰσι τεχνικαί, αἱ δὲ ἄτεχνοι· ἄλλως γοῦν θεωρεῖται ὑπὸ τεχνίτου εἰκὼν καὶ ἄλλως ὑπὸ ἀτέχνου. Chapter heading: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.49 ἀρέσκει τοῖς Στωικοῖς τὸν περὶ φαντασίας καὶ αἰσθήσεως προτάττειν λόγον, καθότι τὸ κριτήριον (cf. heading in Stobaeus), ᾧ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῶν πραγμάτων γινώσκεται … V.P. 7.53 (on the Stoics) τοιάδε τινὰ καὶ περὶ φαντασίας καὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ νοήσεως δογματίζουσι. §1[5–8] Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.49 (Diocles of Magnesia) (SVF 2.52) προηγεῖται γὰρ ἡ φαντασία, εἶθ᾽ ἡ διάνοια ἐκλαλητικὴ ὑπάρχουσα, ὃ πάσχει ὑπὸ τῆς φαντασίας, τοῦτο ἐκφέρει λόγῳ. V.P. 7.52 (SVF 2.84) ἡ δὲ κατάληψις γίνεται κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς αἰσθήσει μὲν λευκῶν καὶ μελάνων καὶ τραχέων καὶ λείων. §1[9–19] Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.50 (SVF 2.55) διαφέρει δὲ φαντασία καὶ φάντασμα· φάντασμα μὲν γάρ ἐστι δόκησις διανοίας, οἵα γίνεται κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους, φαντασία δέ ἐστι τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ. §1[9–11] Stoics: Arius Didymus fr. 16 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.58, p. 497.15–19 Ἀριστοτέλους· φαντασίαν δ᾽ εἶναι πάθος τι καὶ κίνησιν τῆς κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν αἰσθή-

1618

liber 4 caput 12

σεως, ὠνομάσθαι δ᾽ ἀπὸ μιᾶς τῶν αἰσθήσεων, τῆς ὁράσεως· τὸ ⟨γὰρ⟩ φαίνεσθαι παρὰ τὸ φάος ἔχειν τὴν ἐπίρρησιν· τοῦτο δ᾽ οἰκεῖον εἶναι τῆς ὄψεως. §1[18–19] Stoics: differently Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.61 (SVF 1.65, 3 Diog. 25) ἐννόημα δέ ἐστι φάντασμα διανοίας, οὔτε τὶ ὂν οὔτε ποιόν, ὡσανεὶ δέ τι ὂν καὶ ὡσανεὶ ποιόν, οἷον γίνεται ἀνατύπωμα ἵππου καὶ μὴ παρόντος.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle de An. 3.3 427b29 περὶ φαντασίας διορίσαντας. Insomn. 1 459a15 ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ φαντασίας ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς εἴρηται (also Mem. 1 449b30). Epicurus at D.L. 10.29 (list of writings) περὶ φαντασίας. §1[3–6] Stoics: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.49–50 on τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ συνεχοῦς τὴν φαντασίαν. Cicero Fat. 43 (SVF 2.974) visum obiectum imprimet illud quidem et quasi signabit [i.e. τυπώσει] in animo suam speciem. Philo of Alexandria Leg. 1.61 (SVF 2.843) τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἡμῶν πανδεχές ἐστι καὶ ἔοικε κηρῷ πάντας τύπους καλούς τε καὶ αἰσχροὺς δεχομένῳ. Deus 42–44 (SVF 2.458) αἴσθησις μὲν οὖν, ὡς αὐτό που δηλοῖ τοὔνομα, εἴσθεσίς τις οὖσα τὰ φανέντα ἐπεισφέρει τῷ νῷ· τούτῳ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ μέγιστόν ἐστι ταμεῖον καὶ πανδεχές, πάνθ᾽ ὅσα δι᾽ ὁράσεως καὶ ἀκοῆς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθητικῶν ὀργάνων ἐντίθεται καὶ ἐναποθησαυρίζεται. (43) φαντασία δέ ἐστι τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ· ὧν γὰρ εἰσήγαγεν ἑκάστη τῶν αἰσθήσεων, ὥσπερ δακτύλιός τις ἢ σφραγὶς ἐναπεμάξατο τὸν οἰκεῖον χαρακτῆρα· κηρῷ δὲ ἐοικὼς ὁ νοῦς τὸ ἐκμαγεῖον δεξάμενος ἄκρως παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ φυλάττει, μέχρις ἂν ἡ ἀντίπαλος μνήμης τὸν τύπον λεάνασα λήθη ἀμυδρὸν ἐργάσηται ἢ παντελῶς ἀφανίσῃ. (44) τὸ δὲ φανὲν καὶ τυπῶσαν τοτὲ μὲν οἰκείως τοτὲ δὲ ὡς ἑτέρως διέθηκε τὴν ψυχήν. Sacr. 137 (SVF 2.842) τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν κατὰ ἀμερῆ χρόνων διαστήματα πολλὰς πρὸς ἑκάτερον τό τε εὖ καὶ χεῖρον τροπὰς λαμβάνον καὶ διαλλάττοντας ἀεὶ τύπους δέχεται τοτὲ μὲν καθαροῦ καὶ δοκίμου τοτὲ δὲ παρακεκομμένου καὶ κιβδήλου νομίσματος. Aquilius Def. 4 Rashed φαντασία ἐστὶ τύπωσις ἡγεμονικοῦ. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.228–230 (on the Stoics) φαντασία οὖν ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ. περὶ ἧς εὐθὺς καὶ διέστησαν· Κλεάνθης (SVF 1.484) μὲν γὰρ ἤκουσε τὴν τύπωσιν κατὰ εἰσοχήν τε καὶ ἐξοχήν, ὥσπερ καὶ ⟨τὴν⟩ διὰ τῶν δακτυλίων γινομένην τοῦ κηροῦ τύπωσιν, (229) Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.56) δὲ ἄτοπον ἡγεῖτο τὸ τοιοῦτον … (230) αὐτὸς οὖν τὴν τύπωσιν εἰρῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος (SVF 1.58) ὑπενόει ἀντὶ τῆς ἑτεροιώσεως, ὥστ᾽ εἶναι τοιοῦτον τὸν λόγον ‘φαντασία ἐστὶν ἑτεροίωσις ψυχῆς’. §1[7–8] Stoics: Sextus Empiricus M. 8.70 (SVF 2.187) λεκτὸν δὲ ὑπάρχειν φασὶ τὸ κατὰ λογικὴν φαντασίαν ὑφιστάμενον, λογικὴν δὲ εἶναι φαντασίαν καθ᾽ ἣν τὸ φαντασθὲν ἔστι λόγῳ παραστῆσαι. §1[12–13] Stoics: Aristotle de An. 3.3 429a1–4 ἡ φαντασία ἂν εἴη κίνησις ὑπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως τῆς κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν γιγνομένη. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἡ ὄψις μάλιστα αἴσθησίς ἐστι, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ἀπὸ τοῦ φάους εἴληφεν, ὅτι ἄνευ φωτὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.161–163 (SVF 2.63) ἐν ἄρα τῷ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐναργείας πάθει τῆς ψυχῆς ζητητέον ἐστὶ τὸ κριτήριον. τοῦτο δὲ τὸ πάθος αὑτοῦ ⟨τε⟩ ἐνδεικτικὸν ὀφείλει τυγχάνειν καὶ τοῦ ἐμποιήσαντος αὐτὸ φαινομένου, ὅπερ πάθος ἐστὶν οὐχ ἕτερον τῆς φαντασίας. (162) ὅθεν καὶ φαντασίαν ῥητέον εἶναι πάθος τι περὶ τὸ ζῷον ἑαυτοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου παραστατικόν. οἷον προσβλέψαντές τινι, φησὶν ὁ Ἀντίοχος (fr. 56

liber 4 caput 12 Luck), διατιθέμεθά πως τὴν ὄψιν, καὶ οὐχ οὕτως αὐτὴν διακειμένην ἴσχομεν ὡς πρὶν τοῦ βλέψαι διακειμένην εἴχομεν· κατὰ μέντοι τὴν τοιαύτην ἀλλοίωσιν δυεῖν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα, ἑνὸς μὲν αὐτῆς τῆς ἀλλοιώσεως, τουτέστι τῆς φαντασίας, δευτέρου δὲ τοῦ τὴν ἀλλοίωσιν ἐμποιήσαντος, τουτέστι τοῦ ὁρατοῦ. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθήσεων τὸ παραπλήσιον. ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ φῶς ἑαυτό τε δείκνυσι καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὕτω καὶ ἡ φαντασία, ἀρχηγὸς οὖσα τῆς περὶ τὸ ζῷον εἰδήσεως, φωτὸς δίκην ἑαυτήν τε ἐμφανίζειν ὀφείλει καὶ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτὴν ἐναργοῦς ἐνδεικτικὴ καθεστάναι. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 73.3–7 ἐπεὶ γὰρ κυριωτάτη τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἡ ὄψις εἶναι δοκεῖ, ταύτης δὲ ἡ ἐνέργεια διὰ φωτός (ἄνευ γὰρ φωτὸς ἀδύνατον τὴν κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ὄψιν γενέσθαι), ἀπὸ τοῦ τῇ κυριωτάτῃ τῶν αἰσθήσεων αἰτίου τῆς ἐνεργείας, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ φῶς, ἀπὸ τούτου τῇ φαντασίᾳ τοὔνομα. §1[14–15] Stoics: Plato Sph. 266d–e τῆς τοίνυν εἰδωλουργικῆς ἀναμνησθῶμεν ὅτι τὸ μὲν εἰκαστικόν, τὸ δὲ φανταστικὸν ἔμελλεν εἶναι γένος, εἰ τὸ ψεῦδος ὄντως ὂν ψεῦδος καὶ τῶν ὄντων ἕν τι φανείη πεφυκός. §1[19–28] Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.32 (part of Epicurus fr. 257 Usener) τά τε τῶν μαινομένων φαντάσματα καὶ ⟨τὰ⟩ κατ᾽ ὄναρ ἀληθῆ, κινεῖ γάρ· τὸ δὲ μὴ ὂν οὐ κινεῖ. §1[19] Stoics: Plato Sph. 266b τά τε ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις καὶ ὅσα μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν φαντάσματα αὐτοφυῆ λέγεται κτλ. §1[20–28] Stoics: Cornutus Comp. c. 10, p. 9.1–11 Torres αἱ λεγόμεναι Ἐριννύες … ἐρευνήτριαι τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων οὖσαι …. σεμναὶ δ᾽ ὄντως αὗται αἱ θεαὶ καὶ Εὐμενίδες εἰσί· κατὰ γὰρ τὴν εἰς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εὐμένειαν τῆς φύσεως διατέτακται καὶ τὸ τὴν πονηρίαν κολάζεσθαι. φρικώδεις δὲ τὰς ὄψεις ἔχουσι, πυρὶ καὶ μάστιξι τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς διώκουσαι καὶ ὀφιοπλόκαμοι λεγόμεναι, τῷ τοιαύτην τοῖς κακοῖς φαντασίαν ποιεῖν, ἃς ἂν ἀποτίνωσι ποινὰς ἀντὶ τῶν πλημμελημάτων. Quintilian Decl. 314.17 nec tamen illa mihi vana quorundam videtur esse persuasio, qui credunt non extrinsecus has furias venire nec ullius deorum inpulsu hanc mortalibus incidisse dementiam, sed nasci intus: conscientiam esse quae torqueat, animum esse qui urat. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 12.3, p. 18.3–8 (cf. above ch. 4.11 section B(b) General texts) ἀφ᾽ ὧν αἱ παραποιήσεις καὶ μεταβάσεις ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν μηδ᾽ ὅλως δι᾽ αἰσθήσεων νενοημένων εἴδωλα καὶ φαντάσματα διατείνονται μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν τε καὶ νύκτωρ· αἱ μὲν ἀπό τινος ὁμοιότητος καὶ ἀναλογίας, ὡς αἱ τῶν δαιμονίων μορφῶν κτλ. Sextus Empiricus Μ. 8.67 διακένους γὰρ εἶναί τινας φαντασίας ὡμολογήκασιν (sc. οἱ Στωικοί, cf. at SVF 2.65), ὁποῖαι προσέπιπτον τῷ Ὀρέστῃ ἀπὸ τῶν Ἐρινύων. M. 7.241 (SVF 2.64) ἡ φαντασία γίνεται ἤτοι τῶν ἐκτὸς ἢ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν παθῶν (ὃ δὴ κυριώτερον διάκενος ἑλκυσμὸς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς καλεῖται). M. 8.56–57 (SVF 2.88) πᾶσα γὰρ νόησις ἀπὸ αἰσθήσεως γίνεται ἢ οὐ χωρὶς αἰσθήσεως, καὶ ἢ ἀπὸ περιπτώσεως ἢ οὐκ ἄνευ περιπτώσεως. (57) ὅθεν οὐδὲ τὰς λεγομένας ψευδεῖς φαντασίας, οἷον τὰς καθ᾽ ὕπνους ἢ τὰς κατὰ μανίαν, εὑρήσομεν ἀπηρτημένας τῶν διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως κατὰ περίπτωσιν ἡμῖν ἐγνωσμένων. καὶ γὰρ ὁ κατὰ μανίαν Ἐρινύας αὑτῷ ἀναπλάσσων ‘τὰς αἱματωποὺς καὶ δρακοντώδεις κόρας’ (Eur. Or. 256) ἐκ τῶν πεφηνότων αὑτῷ σύνθετον μορφὴν νοεῖ. M. 7.170 τούτων δὲ τῶν φαντασιῶν ἡ μὲν φανερῶς ψευδὴς καὶ μὴ φαινομένη ἀληθὴς παραγράψιμός ἐστι καὶ οὐ κριτήριον, ἐάν τε ⟨ … ⟩ ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος μέν, διαφώνως δὲ τῷ ὑπάρχοντι καὶ μὴ κατ᾽

1619

1620

liber 4 caput 12

αὐτὸ τὸ ὑπάρχον, ὁποία ἦν ἡ ἀπὸ Ἠλέκτρας προσπεσοῦσα τῷ Ὀρέστῃ, μίαν τῶν Ἐρινύων αὐτὴν δοξάζοντι καὶ κεκραγότι (Eur. Or. 264) ‘μέθες· μί᾽ οὖσα τῶν ἐμῶν Ἐρινύων’. M. 7.244–245 (SVF 2.65) ἀληθεῖς δὲ καὶ ψευδεῖς (sc. εἰσὶ φαντασίαι), ὁποία προσέπιπτεν Ὀρέστῃ κατὰ μανίαν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἠλέκτρας (καθὸ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντός τινος προσέπιπτεν, ἦν ἀληθής, ὑπῆρχε γὰρ Ἠλέκτρα, (245) καθὸ δ᾽ ὡς ἀπὸ Ἐρινύος, ψευδής, οὐκ ἦν γὰρ Ἐρινύς), καὶ πάλιν εἴ τις ἀπὸ Δίωνος ζῶντος κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ὡς ἀπὸ παρεστῶτος ὀνειροπολεῖται ψευδῆ καὶ διάκενον ἑλκυσμόν. M. 8.63–64 ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 253 Usener) ἔλεγε μὲν πάντα τὰ αἰσθητὰ εἶναι ἀληθῆ, καὶ πᾶσαν φαντασίαν ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος εἶναι, καὶ τοιαύτην ὁποῖόν ἐστι τὸ κινοῦν τὴν αἴσθησιν, πλανᾶσθαι δὲ τοὺς τινὰς μὲν τῶν φαντασιῶν λέγοντας ἀληθεῖς, τινὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς παρὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι χωρίζειν δόξαν ἀπὸ ἐναργείας. ἐπὶ γοῦν τοῦ Ὀρέστου, ὅτε ἐδόκει βλέπειν τὰς Ἐρινύας, ἡ μὲν αἴσθησις ὑπ᾽ εἰδώλων κινουμένη ἀληθὴς ἦν (ὑπέκειτο γὰρ τὰ εἴδωλα), ὁ δὲ νοῦς οἰόμενος, ὅτι στερέμνιοί εἰσιν Ἐρινύες ἐψευδοδόξει. Tertullian de An. 17.9 qui insaniunt, alios in aliis vident, ut Orestes matrem in sorore et Aiax Ulixen in armento, ut Athamas et Agave in filiis bestias. ps.Longinus Subl. 8–9 ὁ λέγων Ὀρέστης (Eur. Or. 264–265) ‘μέθες· μί᾽ οὖσα τῶν ἐμῶν Ἐρινύων / μέσον μ᾽ ὀχμάζεις, ὡς βάλῃς ἐς τάρταρον’ (9) φαντάζεται ταῦθ᾽ ὅτι μαίνεται. Subl. 15.2 ὡς δ᾽ ἕτερόν τι ἡ ῥητορικὴ φαντασία βούλεται καὶ ἕτερον ἡ παρὰ ποιηταῖς οὐκ ἂν λάθοι σε, …, ἀμφότεραι δ᾽ ὅμως τό τε παθητικὸν ἐπιζητοῦσι καὶ τὸ συγκεκινημένον (Eur. Or. 255–257)· ‘ὦ μῆτερ, ἱκετεύω σε, μὴ ‘πίσειέ μοι / τὰς αἱματωποὺς καὶ δρακοντώδεις κόρας· / αὗται γάρ, αὗται πλησίον θρώσκουσί μου.’ … ἐνταῦθ᾽ ὁ ποιητὴς αὐτὸς εἶδεν Ἐρινύας· ὃ δ᾽ ἐφαντάσθη, μικροῦ δεῖν θεάσασθαι καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἠνάγκασεν. Scholia in Euripidem Or. 257.4 τὰς Ἐρινύας ἐνθουσιαστικῶς φαντάζεται ὁρᾶν. Appendix proverbiorum Cent. 3.31 Schneidewin–Von Leutsch Vol. 1, and Suda s.v. T 899, p. 4.582.9–11 Adler (Aristoph. Plut. 423) ἴσως Ἐριν(ν)υς ἐστιν ἐκ τραγῳδίας: τὰ γὰρ ἀποτρόπαια τῶν φαντασμάτων τραγῳδοῖς μᾶλλον ἁρμόττει.

Liber 4 Caput 13 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 901A–901C; pp. 403a1–404a15 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 94; p. 636.8–18 Diels; pp. 297–305 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 202– 203 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.2–3, p. 60 Westerink—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 4.71, p. 71.4–11 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.52.1–8, pp. 483.5–484.13 + 1.52.10–13, pp. 484.23–485.9 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b31–32 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 7, pp. 57.16–58.15 Morani

Titulus ιγʹ. Περὶ ὁράσεως, πῶς ὁρῶμεν (P,S) §1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος κατὰ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν οἴονται τὸ ὁρατικὸν συμβαίνειν πάθος. {καὶ κατά τινων ἀκτίνων εἴσκρισιν μετὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἔνστασιν πάλιν ὑποστρεφουσῶν πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν}. (P1,S1) §2 Τιμαγόρας, εἷς τῶν παραχαραξάντων ἐν συχνοῖς τὴν Ἐπικούρειον αἵρεσιν, ἀντὶ τῶν εἰδώλων ταῖς ἀπορροίαις χρῆται. (S2) §3 Στράτων χρώματά φησιν ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων φέρεσθαι συγχρῴζοντ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὸν μεταξὺ ἀέρα. (S3) §4 Ἀρίσταρχος σχήματα συνδιατυποῦντά πως αὑτοῖς τὸν ἀέρα. (S4) §5 Ἵππαρχος ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρου φησὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀποτεινομένας ἀκτῖνας τοῖς πέρασιν αὑτῶν, οἱονεὶ χειρῶν ἐπαφαῖς, περικαθαπτούσας τοῖς §1 Leucippus Democritus 67A29 DK; Epicurus fr. 318 Usener; §2 Timagoras—; §3 Strato fr. 113 Wehrli, 64 Sharples; §4 Aristarchus—; §§5–6 Archytas fr. A25 text B Huffman; §5 Hipparchus— caput non hab. PET titulus Περὶ ὁράσεως (καὶ add. PB(III)Q) πῶς ὁρῶμεν PBQ : Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν PG : Περὶ ὁράσεως καὶ κατοπτρικῶν ἐμφάσεων (~ tit. c. 4.14) SPhot (non hab. SFPL), cf. Περὶ ὄψεως Nem §1 [2] Λεύκιππος … Ἐπίκουρος SL : Δημόκριτος (καὶ add PG, cf. Q) Ἐπίκουρος P ‖ εἰδώλων PBGSL : Einbildungen PQ ‖ οἴονται PGSL : ᾤοντο PBQ ‖ [3] πάθος SL : om. P ‖ ὁρατικὸν … πάθος] ὁρᾶν ante συμβαίνειν PG ‖ [3–4] verba καὶ κατά … ὄψιν seclusimus Wachsmuth secuti : hab. PΒSL, cf. (Einbildungen), welche sich in den Sehstrahlen bilden und zum Gesichts(sinn) zurückkehren Q qui verba εἴσκρισιν … ἔνστασιν non vertit : non hab. PG : ret. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [3] εἴσκρισιν PGSL: εἰσκρίσεις PB : eintritt Q : crucif. Mau : ἔγκρισιν SL : ἔκκρισιν coni. Diels prob. Lachenaud : ἔκχυσιν ex PG §2 laudant in app. Mau Lachenaud sed ad §9[1] pertinet §2 [6] Τιμαγόρας edd. : (δ)ιμαγόρας SL §3 [8] Στράτων corr. Meineke : Ἀτράτων SL ‖ συγχρῴζοντ᾽ corr. Meineke : συγχροίζοντ᾽ SL : post συγχρῴζοντ᾽ add. αὑτοῖς Meineke §4 [10] Ἀρίσταρχος corr. Diels : Ἀρισταγόρας SL §5 [11] ἀκτῖνας PBQ : om. SL ‖ [12–13] τοῖς … αὑτῶν PBSL : so daß sie durch ihre Enden auf die gesehene Dinge stoßen Q ‖ [12] περικαθαπτούσας SL : welche berühren Q : -σαις PB ‖ [12–13] τοῖς … σώμασι PBSL : was außerhalb des Körpers ist Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_113

5

10

1622

§6

§7

§8 §9 §10 §11 §12

§13

liber 4 caput 13

ἐκτὸς σώμασι τὴν ἀντίληψιν αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸ ὁρατικὸν ἀναδιδόναι. (P3,S5) ἔνιοι καὶ Πυθαγόραν τῇ δόξῃ ταύτῃ συνεπιγράφουσιν, ἅτε δὴ βεβαιωτὴν τῶν μαθημάτων· καὶ πρὸς τούτῳ Παρμενίδην ἐμφαίνοντα τοῦτο διὰ τῶν ποιημάτων. (S6) Πλάτων συναύγειαν τοῦ μὲν ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν φωτὸς ἐπὶ ποσὸν ἀπορρέοντος εἰς τὸν ὁμογενῆ ἀέρα, τοῦ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἀντιφερομένου, τοῦ δὲ περὶ τὸν μεταξὺ ἀέρα, εὐδιάχυτον ὄντα καὶ εὔτρεπτον, συντεινομένου τῷ πυρώδει τῆς ὄψεως. αὕτη λέγεται Πλατωνικὴ συναύγεια. (P4,S7) Ἀλκμαίων κατὰ τὴν τοῦ διαφανοῦς ἀντίληψιν. (S8) Ἀριστοτέλης κατὰ κίνησιν τοῦ κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν διαφανοῦς. (S9) τῶν Ἀκαδημαικῶν τινες κατά τι⟨νων ἀκτί⟩νων ἔκχυσιν μετὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἔνστασιν πάλιν ὑποστρεφουσῶν πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν. (S10) Ποσειδώνιος ⟨αὐ⟩γῶν αὐτὴν σύμφυσιν ὀνομάζει. (S11) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ πρὸς τὸ διὰ τῶν ἀκτίνων καὶ πρὸς τὸ διὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ἐκδοχὰς παρέχεται· πλείους δὲ πρὸς ⟨τὸ⟩ δεύτερον· τὰς γὰρ ἀπορροίας ἀποδέχεται. (P2a,S12) Ἑστιαῖος ὁ Περίνθιος τοῖς εἰδώλοις τὰς ἀκτῖνας ἀνέμιξε, προσαγορεύσας τὸ γιγνόμενον ἀκτινείδωλον συνθέτως. (P2b,S13)

§6 Pythagoras—, Parmenides 28A48 DK; §7 Plato cf. Tim. 45b–46a; §8 Alcmaeon 24A10 DK; §9 Aristoteles cf. de An. 2.7 418a31–b10, Sens. 2 438b2–5; §10 Academici—; §11 Posidonius F 194 E.-K., 395c Theiler; §12 Empedocles 31A90 DK; §13 Hestiaeus fr. 4 Lasserre §6 [17] τοῦτο SL : ταὐτὸ maluit Meineke §7 [18–19] συναύγειαν … ἀέρα PBS : συναυγασμὸν PG ‖ [18] ante συναύγειαν add. κατὰ PB, cf. PG ‖ [19] ὁμογενῆ PBQSL : ὅμοιον PG ‖ ἀέρα PBSL : om. PQ ‖ [19–22] τοῦ δὲ … συναύγεια om. PG ‖ [19–21]τοῦ δὲ … ὄψεως PBSL] om. PG ‖ [19– 20] τοῦ δὲ … ἀέρα om. PB(II) ‖ [19] post ἀπὸ add. μὲν P secl. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ [20] ἀντιφερομένου S cf. Nem : φερομένου P ‖ post φερομένου add. ἀπορρεῖν P secl. Diels ut ‘ex [19] ἀπορρέοντος’ Mau ‘ut schol.’ Lachenaud ‖ τοῦ δὲ περὶ τὸν S cf. Nem : τὸν δὲ P ‖ [21] εὔτρεπτον PBQSF : εὔτρεπον SPL ‖ [21–22] αὕτη … συναύγεια PBQSL : secl. Heeren ‖ [22] Πλατωνικὴ PBQSL Diels Mau Lachenaud : Πλάτωνι ἡ coni. Usener prob. Wachsmuth §8 [23] ἀντίληψιν SL Wachsmuth : ἀντίλαμψιν ‘non necessario’ corr. Diels DG 223 et DK ad 24A10 cf. Thphr. Sens. 26 ἀντιφαίνῃ §9 [24] post nomen ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς add. S ex titulo §10 [25] τῶν Ἀκαδημαικῶν τινες SL : ἕτεροι PG ‖ τι⟨νων ἀκτί⟩νων scripsimus : τινων SL : post τινων add. ἀκτίνων Sarti ex §1, prob. Diels Wachsmuth §11 [27] ⟨αὐ⟩γῶν coni. Wachsmuth : γοῦν SL, post γοῦν add. αὐγῶν Diels DG 853b §12 [28] de P nomenἘμπεδοκλῆς falso in §12 transferente vid. Diels DG 64 ‖ [29] ⟨τὸ⟩ add. Diels prob. Laks–Most §13 [31] Ἑστιαῖος ὁ Περίνθιος SL : Ἐμπεδοκλῆς PBQ : lemma ut Empedocleum genuinum accep. Mau Lachenaud alii ‖ ἀνέμιξε PB prob. Diels Wachsmuth : προσέμιξε SL : ‘ex insequ. vocabulo transvectum’ Diels ‖ [32] ἀκτινείδωλον corr. Meineke prob. edd. : ἀκτίνας εἰδώλου PB : bilderhaltige Strahlen Q : ἀκτίν᾽ εἰδώλων SL : ἀκτίνας ἐξ εἰδώλων coni. Reiske : εἰδωλακτίνας coni. Karsten ‖ συνθέτως PB(I,IΙI) : συνθέους PB(II), cf. das davon Zusammengesetzte Q : om. SL

15

20

25

30

liber 4 caput 13 Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 94 (~ tit.) Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν (text Jas) 94.1 (~ P1a) Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος κατ᾽ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν οἴονται τὸ ὁρᾶν συμβαίνειν. 94.2 (~ P1b) ἕτεροι κατ᾽ ἀκτίνων ἔκχυσιν, μετὰ ⟨τὴν πρὸς⟩ τὸ προκείμενον ἔνστασιν πάλιν ὑποστραφεισῶν πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν. 94.3 (~ P2–3) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῖς εἰδώλοις τὰς ἀκτῖνάς […] φησιν ἐφ᾽ ἑκατέρου τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀποτεινομένας τοῖς πέρασιν αὑτῶν οἷον χειρῶν ἐπαφαῖς περικαθαπτούσαις τοῖς ἐκτὸς σώμασι τὴν αἴσθησιν πρὸς τὸ ὁρᾶν προσάγειν. 94.4 (~ P4) Πλάτων κατὰ συναυγασμὸν τοῦ ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν φωτὸς ἐπὶ ποσὸν ἀπορρέοντος εἰς τὸν ὅμοιον ἀέρα. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.2–4 (~ P7) ἡ ὅρασις γίνεται ὅταν τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν φῶς ἐκφερόμενον συναντήσῃ τῷ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἀπορρέοντι, ὅπερ ὁ Πλάτων ὀνομάζει συναύγειαν. cf. c. 89 supra cit. A 1.15 Symeon Seth CRN 4.71 (~ tit.) Περὶ ὁράσεως, περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν 4.71 περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν πολλὰς ἔσχον οἱ παλαιοὶ ἀμφιβολίας καὶ ἄμφω τὰ μέρη τοσοῦτον ἕκαστον τὴν ἰδίαν δόξαν ἐκράτυνεν ὡς καὶ τὸν πρῶτον φιλόσοφον ἐπαπορῆσαι τίνι τούτων τὴν νικῶσαν ἐπιψηφίσοιτο. οἱ μὲν οὖν Ἀριστοτελικοὶ ἐδόξασαν ὡς τὰ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἰνδάλματα διαπορθμεύει ὁ ἀὴρ ἐπὶ τὸ κρυσταλλοειδὲς τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ καὶ τοῦτο διαφανὲς ὂν δέχεται τὸν τύπον τῶν ὁρατῶν. οἱ δὲ γεωμέτραι καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀπεφήναντο ὡς ἀκτῖνές τινες ἐξέρχονται ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ καταλαμβάνουσι τὸ ὁρατόν, παρεικάσαντες ταύτας ταῖς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτῖσιν (~ quaestio). Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 7, pp. 57.17–58.15 Περὶ ὄψεως (~ tit.). ἡ ὄψις ὁμωνύμως λέγεται· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ αἰσθητήριον καὶ ἡ δύναμις ἡ αἰσθητική. (~ §5) Ἵππαρχος δέ φησιν ἀκτῖνας ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀποτεινομένας τοῖς πέρασιν ἑαυτῶν, καθάπερ χειρῶν ἐπαφαῖς καθαπτούσας τοῖς ἐκτὸς σώμασι, τὴν ἀντίληψιν αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸ ὁρατικὸν ἀναδιδόναι. οἱ δὲ γεωμέτραι (—) …. (~ §1) οἱ δὲ Ἐπικούρειοι (Epicurus add. ad fr. 318 p. 353 Usener) εἴδωλα τῶν φαινομένων προσπίπτειν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς. (~ §9) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ οὐκ εἴδωλον σωματικόν, ἀλλὰ ποιότητα δι᾽ ἀλλοιώσεως τοῦ πέριξ ἀέρος ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἄχρι τῆς ὄψεως παραγίνεσθαι. (~ §7) Πλάτων (cf. Tim. 45b–46a) δὲ κατὰ συναύγειαν τοῦ μὲν ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν φωτὸς ἐπὶ ποσὸν ἀπορρέοντος εἰς τὸν ὁμογενῆ ἀέρα, τοῦ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἀντιφερομένου, τοῦ δὲ περὶ τὸν μεταξὺ ἀέρα εὐδιάχυτον ὄντα καὶ εὔτρεπτον συνεκτεινομένου τῷ πυροειδεῖ τῆς ὄψεως. Γαληνὸς δὲ συμφώνως Πλάτωνι περὶ τῆς ὄψεως ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ τῆς συμφωνίας (PHP 7.7) λέγει κτλ. [excerptum ap. Psell. Philos.Min. vol. 2, p. 26.22–27.2 O’Meara]

1623

1624

liber 4 caput 13

Loci Aetiani: quaestio al. A 3.5.3 ὁρῶμεν δὴ κατὰ γραμμὰς ἢ κατ᾽ εὐθείας ἢ κατὰ καμπύλας ἢ κατ᾽ ἀνακλωμένας, γραμμὰς ἀδήλους λόγῳ θεωρητὰς καὶ ἀσωμάτους. κατὰ μὲν οὖν εὐθείας ὁρῶμεν τὰ ἐν ἀέρι καὶ τὰ διὰ τῶν λίθων τῶν διαυγῶν καὶ κεράτων· λεπτομερῆ γὰρ ταῦτα πάντα. καμπύλας δὲ γραμμὰς καθ᾽ ὕδατος βλέπομεν γινομένας· κάμπτεται γὰρ ἡ ὄψις βίᾳ διὰ τὴν πυκνοτέραν τοῦ ὕδατος ὕλην· διὸ καὶ τὴν κώπην ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ μακρόθεν καμπτομένην ὁρῶμεν. τρίτος τρόπος τοῦ βλέπειν τὰ ἀνακλώμενα ὡς τὰ κατοπτρικά. A 4.14.4 δύναταί τις πᾶσι τούτοις τοῖς κεφαλαίοις χρῆσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν. A 5.12.3b (c. 5.12, Πῶς ἄλλοις γίνονται ὅμοιοι οἱ γεννώμενοι καὶ οὐ τοῖς γονεῦσιν) κατὰ ῥευμάτων εἰσκρίσεις καὶ ἀκτίνων οὐκ εἰδώλων γίνεσθαι τὰς ἄλλων ὁμοιότητας. §1 A 4.8.10 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν νόησιν γίνεσθαι εἰδώλων ἔξωθεν προσιόντων· μηδενὶ γὰρ ἐπιβάλλειν μηδετέραν χωρὶς τοῦ προσπίπτοντος εἰδώλου. A 4.14.2 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὰς κατοπτρικὰς ἐμφάσεις γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ εἰδώλων παραστάσεις, ἅτινα φέρεσθαι μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν συνίστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν. A 5.2.1 Δημόκριτος τοὺς ὀνείρους γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὰς τῶν εἰδώλων παραστάσεις. §§2–4 A 4.8.11 οἱ ἄλλοι εἰδῶν ἢ σχημάτων ἑτεροιώσει ⟨ἢ⟩ ἐν ψυχῇ τυπώσει, ἀπορροίαις πάντως μᾶλλον ἢ εἰδώλοις. §4 A 1.15.5 Ἀρίσταρχος Σάμιος μαθηματικός, ἀκουστὴς Στράτωνος, φῶς εἶναι τὸ χρῶμα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἐπιπῖπτον. A 4.8.9 οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων *** τῶν περὶ τὰ σώματα ἀσωμάτων λόγων, ἅπερ ἤδη σχήματα προσαγορεύουσι. A 4.20.1 τὸ σχῆμα τὸ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν κατὰ ποιὰν πλῆξιν γίνεσθαι φωνήν· πᾶσα δ᾽ ἐπιφάνεια ἀσώματος. συγκινεῖται μὲν γὰρ τοῖς σώμασιν, αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἀσώματος πάντως καθέστηκεν. §§5–6 A 4.14.3 οἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου καὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ὄψεως· φέρεσθαι μὲν γὰρ τὴν ὄψιν τεταμένην ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν χαλκόν, ἐντυχοῦσαν δὲ πυκνῷ καὶ λείῳ πληχθεῖσαν ὑποστρέφειν αὐτὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτήν, ὅμοιόν τι πάσχουσαν τῇ ἐκτάσει τῆς χειρὸς καὶ τῇ ἐπὶ τὸν ὦμον ἀντεπιστροφῇ. §7 A 1.15.4 Πλάτων (sc. χρῶμα εἶναι) φλόγα ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων σύμμετρα μόρια ἔχουσαν πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν. §11 differently A 4.15.2 Χρύσιππος κατὰ τὴν συνέντασιν τοῦ μεταξὺ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς, νυγέντος μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρατικοῦ πνεύματος, ὅπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῆς κόρης διήκει, κατὰ δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὸν περικείμενον ἀέρα ἐπιβολὴν ἐντείνοντος αὐτὸν κωνοειδῶς, ὅταν ᾖ ὁμογενὴς ὁ ἀήρ. προχέονται δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνες πύριναι. A 4.21.2 (de Stoicis) ἡ μὲν ὅρασίς ἐστι πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν. §12 A 1.15.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (sc. χρῶμα εἶναι) τὸ τοῖς πόροις τῆς ὄψεως ἐναρμόττον. A 1.15.3 ap. Q Empedokles war der Meinung, daß die Farbe etwas ist, worauf die Sehstrahlen fallen. A 4.14.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς κατ᾽ ἀπορροίας τὰς συνισταμένας μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κατόπτρου, πιλουμένας δ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐκκρινομένου ἐκ τοῦ κατόπτρου πυρώδους καὶ τὸν προκείμενον ἀέρα, εἰς ὃν φέρεται τὰ ῥεύματα, συμμεταφέροντος.

liber 4 caput 13

1625

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) There are two witnesses, P, represented in various ways by PB, PG and PQ, and S, i.e. as preserved in SL, the Florentine florilegium (for the contribution of SL see ch. 4.8 above at Commentary A(1)). P has five lemmata, S thirteen. The tradition is less good than one would wish. P has not only abridged the chapter rather drastically, but also coalesced two different lemmata to create a new Empedocles lemma that has fooled some scholars, but not Diels DG 64. And G added further reductions of his own (although the mistaken coalescence of P2 & P3 involving the disappearance of the name-label Hipparchus may have occurred in the textual transmission rather than been perpetrated by the epitomator). Furthermore an accident occurred in the transmission of P between the periods of PG and PQ. In G’s copy of P the second lemma of A (name-label Academics in S, §10) had not yet lost this label and therefore not yet become amalgamated with the first lemma. This is proved because G does in fact have a name-label replacing ‘some Academics’ for this lemma, viz. ‘others’. The resulting amalgamation of the two parts of the first lemma was achieved by restoring the text of pre-Byzantine P in an abusive way through the interpolation of a καί, ‘and’. This was compounded by the replacement of ἔκχυσιν with εἴσκρισιν. (The result is still awkward as ὑποστρεφουσῶν, ‘turning back’, entails that the rays first travelled in the opposite direction). Diels did realize this (cf. his comments in the Prolegomena p. 55), but did not realize that their origin in SL occurred through contamination from PB (see his later comments in 1881, 349). In his text in DG he still retained the additional lines in both columns of his text, but they were rightly bracketed by Wachsmuth; cf. also Haas (1907) 362–363 n. 55. Mau and Lachenaud, who edit P, of course retain the lines in their text of PB. Psellus refers to the Plato lemma (§7) though not correctly. Symeon Seth characterizes the discussion on the issue in general terms. (2) Of A ch. 4.13 as found in S’s ch. 1.52, the direct tradition has only preserved the paragraphs concerned with Aristotle (§9) and Plato (§7); see M–R 1.202– 203 and also the analysis at 1.228–231. What appears to be the complete ch. 4.13 is extant, together with its companion ch. 4.14, in SL. Apart from this material S 1.52 as reconstructed contains AD fr. 17 Diels (the first sentence of which (our §9), however, should be attributed to A, see at section D(b) below), two rather long passages from the Timaeus, and a passage from the pseudo-Pythagorean Aristombrotos. Via the florilegium rather more lemmata have been preserved

1626

liber 4 caput 13

in S than in P, but unfortunately contamination has occurred, since as noted above the first lemma in SL has been amplified with the additional material from PB. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Parallel accounts are found in Galen, Calcidius, Numenius, and esp. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?)’s De anima mantissa, but in these more or even a good deal more attention is given to the theories of Aristotle and the Stoics. For the series of parallels in the Mantissa see Sharples (1998a) 394–397. Galen PHP 7.7.22.4–23.2, πολύ γε τούτου (sc. Epicurus) κρείττων Ἀριστοτέλης, οὐκ εἴδωλον σωματικὸν ἀλλὰ ποιότητα δι᾽ ἀλλοιώσεως τοῦ πέριξ ἀέρος ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἄγων ἄχρι τῆς ὄψεως (p. 474.15–17 De Lacy) refers to Aristotle’s view in his account of vision, viz. after his references to the Stoics and Epicurus, the latter ad sententiam corresponding to ch. 4.13.1. The ‘cousin writing’ of Nem NH c. 7, p. 58.9–11, copying Galen for the Epicureans and Aristotle almost verbatim but also indebted to the doxographical lemmata of which he modifies the sequence, lists Aristotle’s doctrine between that of the Epicureans and (Galen plus) Plato (the latter virtually identical with ch. 4.13.7, then followed by abstracts from Galen’s discussion of Plato’s theory of vision at PHP 7.5 and 7.7). The connection between a treatment of vision and one of mirror images (as between the present chapter and the next) is mentioned at Alcinous Did. c. 18 p. 173.32–34 H. It is also a feature of the lists of issues shared with the mathematicians that constitute a subpart of the Stoic physikos logos at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133. Lucretius’ extensive account of vision at DRN 4.26– 468 includes one of mirrors and mirror images at 4.269–323. So does Galen’s account of vision at PHP 7.7. The first of the ten Skeptical Modes in Sextus Empiricus discusses the oddities of visual perception in general first and those of mirrors next, P. 1.44–49. Calcidius in Tim. cc. 236–248, chapter de visu, and cc. 257–259, in the chapter de imaginibus, discusses in succession as well as together various views on vision and reflection in mirrors, some among which are parallel to tenets found in chs. 4.13–14. Geminus’ account of mathematics cited by Proclus in Eucl. p. 40.9–22, and Heron Def. c. 125.12, list optics, catoptrics and ‘scenography’ as related sub-disciplines, quoted on ch. 3.5 section E(b)§4 (for ‘scenography’ see also Geminus(?), Fr.Opt. p. 28.10–30.11 Schöne = Heron Def. 135.13, τί τὸ σκηνογραφικόν κτλ., and Clement of Alexandria Strom. 656.1, cited below, ch. 4.14, section E(a) General texts). Ptolemy’s and the great Arabic scientist ibn al-Haytham’s (Alhacen’s) Optics deal with in succession optics (direct vision), catoptrics (reflection, ἀνάκλασις, vision via mirrors) and dioptrics (refracted vision, as of a coin in water), cf. above, ch. 3.5, Commentary D(d)§3,

liber 4 caput 13

1627

and below, section D(a). For the Optics ascribed to Ptolemy, the Greek original of which most probably is to be dated to the sixth cent. ce or even later, see the detailed exposition of Siebert (2014a). For further details on chs. 4.13–14 see M–R 2.1.146, 2.2.182–191. (2) Sources. The connection between a treatment of vision and one of mirror images is traditional and at least as early as Plato, see Tim. 45b–46c. There is an incidental reference to reflection near the end of Aristotle’s De anima, at 3.12 435a5–10, where however he does not mention mirror images but contrasts two views of the visual process (cf. below, ch. 4.14, Commentary D(c)). The main diaphonia (as almost explicitly expressed in §12) is formulated in Aristotle Sens. 2 437b23–438a5. Several individual lemmata go back to Aristotle, and we also discern the influence of Theophrastus’ De sensibus; both had access to original Presocratic sources. Baltussen (1993) 219 points out that Theophrastus’ treatment of Alcmaeon is far more elaborate than that of Aristotle and Aëtius. Agreeing with Diels he also states that all occurrences of Alcmaeon in Aëtius (sc. in Book 4) have their counterpart in the De sensibus. This is mostly correct for Book 4 (for A 4.2.2 as from Aristotle see above, ch. 4.2 at Commentary D(d)§2). In their Alcmaeon chapter Laks–Most (2016e), frs. D11–D19, conveniently couple the evidence on the senses from Theophrastus with the Aëtian lemmata. We also note the presence of Hellenistic data, and more especially of namelabels from the domain of the sciences: Aristarchus and Hipparchus (compare other ‘scientific’ chapters, e.g. chs. 3.17 and 4.1). Interesting are also the presence of Plato’s pupil Hestiaeus of Perinthus (cited only once elsewhere in the Placita at ch. 1.22.4 on the οὐσία of time) and of the renegade Epicurean Tima(sa)goras (found only here in the Placita). That the chapter has been updated is also clear from the presence of Posidonius at §11. C Chapter Heading The long heading of PB and PQ, Περὶ ὁράσεως, πῶς ὁρῶμεν, should probably be attributed to A. It combines the umbrella type with a further specification referring to the question type of cause. For the umbrella type and the dialectical implication of the question word πῶς see above, ch. 1.3, commentary C. PG abridges to Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν, while the heading of S, extant only in the index of Photius, in the usual way of this source combines two headings, viz. here the abridged heading of the present chapter with the heading of the next. The formula περὶ ὁράσεως may be a successor of the often-found formula περὶ ὄψεως (also περὶ ὄψιος), which serves both as embedded heading, or indication of the theme treated, and as a book-title. For Περὶ ὁράσεως in a title see Plotinus Enn. 2.8[35], Περὶ ὁράσεως ἢ πῶς τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα μικρὰ φαίνεται (the

1628

liber 4 caput 13

first part of the title is not found at Porph. Plot. 5 and 24, where the first word is Πῶς). For the embedded heading περὶ ὄψεως cf. Aristotle GA 5.2 781b28–29 καὶ περὶ μὲν ὄψεως καὶ ἀκοῆς καὶ ὀσφρήσεως εἴρηται, Theophastus Sens. 5 Πλάτων … οὐ μὴν εἴρηκέ γε περὶ ἁπασῶν, ἀλλὰ μόνον περὶ ἀκοῆς καὶ ὄψεως, Sens. 8, 38, 55, 57, and 86. For its use as a book title cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.49 Theophrastus’ treatise Περὶ ὄψεως αʹ βʹ γʹ δʹ, V.P. 5.59 Strato’s Περὶ ὄψεως, and V.P. 7.4 Zeno’s Περὶ ὄψεως. The extant Hippocratic treatise Περὶ ὄψιος, Latin title De visu, is a fragment dealing with diseases of the eye (‘eye’ being one of the meanings of ὄψις), not with vision. S 1.52.21 cites a fragment of the Περὶ ὄψιος of the Pseudopythagorean Aristombrotus (the same version is found in the mss. of a late Hippocratic tract, meaning ‘On the eyes’ rather than ‘On vision’). Book 8 of Alexander’s teacher Sosigenes’ Περὶ ὄψεως is cited at in Mete. 143.13–14. Epicurus wrote a Περὶ τοῦ ὁρᾶν (Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.28). This plethora of titles and headings shows how important this topic was believed to be. The second component of A’s heading, πῶς ὁρῶμεν, is attested as embedded heading or book-title at Alexander de An. 43.16 ὡς δέδεικται ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν ἐζητημένοις, in Sens. 25.25–26 ἔλεγεν (sc. Aristotle) ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν, in Mete. 141.11–12 ἐδείχθη ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν, ὧν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς ἐμνημόνευσε, and Porphyry Plot. 5 (chronological catalogue of Plotinus, title of the early treatise Enn. 4.7[2]), Περὶ ψυχῆς τρίτον ἢ Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν. But in the systematic catalogue Plot. 25 Porphyry has Περὶ ψυχῆς τρίτον ἢ Περὶ ὄψεως, which illustrates that the formulas Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν and Περὶ ὄψεως are equivalent. Πῶς ὁρῶμεν occurs as the title of an issue in the Stoic list of problems in physics found at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133. Clearly A’s chapter heading stands in a long and continuing tradition of reflection on this subject; see also below, section D(e). D Analysis a Context The chapter is the first of a cluster of three dealing with vision and two related issues, namely the question of mirror images, ch. 4.14, and the paradoxical issue of the visibility of darkness, ch. 4.15. The connection between a treatment of vision and one of mirror images is traditional and is found at least as early as Plato, see Tim. 45b–46c (cf. above, section B(2)). To quote Simon (1988) 18 on the theory of vision in antiquity: ‘On ne peut pas … retracer la théorie de la vision indépendamment de celle des miroirs, bien que très tôt (en langage du temps) l’optique et la catoptrique aient été étudiées dans des traités ou du moins des chapitres indépendants. Le statut qu’ on confère à l’ image réfléchie ou réfractée depend de l’idée qu’on se fait de la vision, et réciproquement cette

liber 4 caput 13

1629

dernière ne progresse qu’à mesure que s’éclaire la formation de l’ image’. See also below, ch. 4.14 Commentary D(a). In terms of its theme our chapter is also connected with ch. 1.15 ‘On colours’. The cluster on vision comes after that dealing with sensation and sense objects in general at chs. 4.8–12, and begins the treatment of the individual senses: ch. 4.16 hearing, 4.17 smell, and 4.18 taste (in the same order as Aristotle’s in de An. 2.7–10). Note that a separate treatment (chapter) concerned with touch is absent, although ch. 4.10.1–2 stipulates that there are five senses according to Stoics and Aristotle and touch is also mentioned elsewhere (ch. 4.8.6, 4.8.7, 4.9.11), and though a chapter Περὶ ἁφῆς is found in Nem, and of course an account περὶ … τοῦ ἁπτοῦ καὶ περὶ ἁφῆς was present in Arist. de An. 2.11. Vision by means of extramission and optics are also treated in ch. 3.5.3 (cited above, loci Aetiani), together with mirror images. b Number–Order of Lemmata This chapter is more than usually complicated and our presentation deviates markedly from that of Diels. P has four lemmata in Mau’s edition, S thirteen in that of Wachsmuth (if we give back to A an Aristotelian phrase which Diels attributed to AD). Starting with P, we see that two of his four lemmata are combinations of two originally Aëtian lemmata, viz. (1) P1 of A 4.13.1 + 4.13.9, and (2) P2 of A 4.13.12 + 4.13.13. For the history of P1 see also above, at section A. (1) The present single ps.Plutarchean §1 is a conflation of two lemmata with different name-labels: Atomists vs. Academics, representing the main diaphonia: images vs. rays. The Academics lemma, in A much further down in the chapter, must have been promoted to second position by P in order to present this diaphonia right from the start. But because the name-label of the second lemma had fallen by the wayside at some time between the dates of PG’s epitome and PQ’s translation they were amalgamated, thus obliterating the diaphonia. (2) In the case of the doxai of chs. 4.13.12 and 4.13.13, because they are very similar, P in his usual way abridged his predecessor so as to produce a single lemma, in the process weeding out the second name-label, Hestiaeus, and omitting the more complicated Empedoclean doxa, thus saddling the Hestiaeus doxa with the name-label Empedocles; see Diels DG 64, and for similar mishaps cf. ch. 1.20 (with Commentary D(b)) as well as ch. 4.7.1–2 (with Commentary A). P then promoted this new lemma to a position immediately after the first two in order to present a compromise embracing the two alternatives (cf. M–R 2.1.9–10, 2.1.46, 2.1.57, 2.1.59, 2.1.141, 2.1.187, 2.1.190; below, section D(c)). Diels mechanically followed the order of lemmata in PB, which entailed rejecting that of S. But it is clear that the order of SL is to be preferred. After

1630

liber 4 caput 13

all, it is more than likely, as we noted above in section A, that the chapter in S is complete, i.e. that he simply wrote it out. S2, listing the dissident Epicurean Timagoras, harmoniously follows upon S1/P1 as soon as the interpolated tenet (already shorn of its name-label in P’s tradition subsequent to PG) of S10 is deleted. In the text of the DG Diels did not yet bracket this phrase, thus providing an obstacle to the restoration of the original order. Later he argued for deletion in the paper cited below, section D(d)§1; this was accepted by Wachsmuth. Mau (followed by Lachenaud) edited a text of PB, not of A, so naturally stuck to P’s order and reading. Furthermore, P2 (name-label Empedocles combined with tenet of Hestiaeus) comes before P3 (Hipparchus), while on the contrary S5 (Hipparchus) comes before S12 (Empedocles) plus S13 (Hestiaeus). But as we saw, P’s lemma P2 provides a rewarding contrast to what comes before, which explains why it was reallocated to a position before P3, the Hipparchus lemma. Thus the tenet of §10 was moved upwards by P to a position immediately after the original first lemma of A, and the new lemma P2 followed suit. The combination of the name-label Empedocles with the tenet of Hestiaeus in P2 confirms the order of S 12 (Empedocles)—S13 (Hestiaeus) for A, while the relative order of P3 (Hipparchus) and P4 (Plato) is the same as that of S5 and S7, so also derives from A. Diels implicitly assumed that an Aëtian lemma with name-label Aristotle had been lost. But S at 1.52.9, p. 484.15–21, i.e. between A 4.13.8 (Alcmaeon) and 4.13.10 (Academics), has a passage describing Aristotle’s theory of vision (and hearing). Diels attributed it as fr. 17 to AD: see DG ad loc., and pp. 73–74, but none of his criteria for attribution to AD are valid for this first phrase. In this text vision is concerned with τοῦ διαφανοῦς, just as is the case for Alcmaeon in §8. Of course the replacement of Aëtian lemmata with name-label Plato, or Aristotle, or Stoics, with fragments of Arius Didymus (or quotations from Plato) is a not infrequent occurrence in S, cf. M–R 1.234–235, 1.265–266, 2.1.140, 2.2.369, 3.311 n. 60, 3.378 and Jeremiah (2018) at M–R 4.286, 353. But there are also cases where Aëtian lemmata have been coalesced with excerpts from AD: Diels DG 75 n. 2 already thought of the passages printed at chs. 1.7.31, 1.18.6, 1.23.2, 3.1.7, 3.2.3, and 3.7.4. For more such coalesced passages see M–R 1.322–327. We take it that this is also what happened here, and that the first phrase of the passage Diels attributed to AD is to be given back to A. P, then, who so drastically reduced the number of lemmata in this chapter, must have omitted this Aristotle lemma as well. Lemmata with other Stoic views (i.e. other than Posidonius’ at §11), among which that regarding the standard visual cone one would have expected to find here, are only found in ch. 4.15 below.

liber 4 caput 13

1631

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The main diaphonia is between the penetration of images (or effluences, or forms, or shapes, or qualities) from the external objects into the visual faculty on the one side, and the effluence of visual rays from the eyes towards the objects on the other: intromission (or ingestion) versus extramission. This basic opposition between intentionality and passivity, or receptivity, is reflected in the vocabulary of numerous languages, see e.g. Vendryes (1932) and Christol (2005). For examples in Greek starting from the early poets see Mugler (1964) s.v. ἁκτίς 22–24, ὄψις 290–295, εἴδωλον 117–118, etc. That the sun ‘sees [i.e. illuminates] with its rays’ is found e.g. in Homer, Hesiod and Aeschylus(?) (Od. 11.16 Ἠέλιος φαέθων καταδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν, cf. Theog. 758–761 with West 1966 ad loc., h.Cer. 70, Aeschylus Pr. 793–797). The eye is, so to speak, a little sun, the sun an enormous eye, note the abundant material cited by Verdenius (1948) 163–164. See also Aristophanes Thesm. 16–17 ‘(Aether) first constructed what we must see with: the eye, closely imitating the sun’s disk’ (ᾧ μὲν βλέπειν χρὴ πρῶτ᾽ ἐμηχανήσατο / ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντίμιμον ἡλίου τροχῷ), also cited Verdenius loc. cit., and by Rashed (2005) 27–28. The Pythagoreans and ‘others’ are said to have called the eyes ‘gates of the sun’, see the Pythagorean Hypomnemata of Alexander Polyhistor at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.29 (ἡλίου πύλας καλεῖ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς) and Hesychius Lex. s.v. H 175 Latte ἠελίοιο πύλας (οἱ δὲ ἀλληγορικῶς τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς). The view according to which both visual rays and effluences etc. from objects are needed may be seen as avoiding, or outreaching, the diaphonia by having it both ways, as is intimated disertis verbis by Theophrastus Sens. 5, on Plato’s compromise theory of vision, and Sophonias in de An. 75.2–5. This solution may be further refined by introducing a helpful modification of the air (qua unavoidable medium) by means of external fire (i.e. a source of light) between objects and eyes that combines with the fire issuing from the eyes, as in Plato (see below on συναύγεια). Instead of air as the in-between we also encounter a transparent medium that is suddenly filled with light and conveys the visual data, first in Aristotle. The views of Plato and Aristotle have the advantage of explaining why we cannot see in the dark, which both the bare intromission theory and the bare extramission theory fail to do (for the latter see Aristotle’s criticism, Sens. 2 437b11–14, in part cited below section E(b)§12, fuller text translated ch. 4.15 Commentary D(d)§1, Greek text ibid. section E(b)§2). It should however be noted that the present chapter fails to provide an adequate presentation of the doxai of Plato and Aristotle, a not uncommon deficiency in the Placita. The basic oppositions are presented in terms of blocks. The first block consists of §§1–4, and deals with visual data travelling from the objects to the

1632

liber 4 caput 13

visual faculty. The first subdivision of this block, §§1–2, is about images (Leucippus Democritus Epicurus) or effluences (Timagoras) penetrating from outside. §2 is a sort of appendix to §1, providing a revised version of its doctrine (the contrast is exaggerated by A, who emphasizes Timagoras’ unorthodoxy because doxography is interested in examples of dissent). The second subdivision, §§3–4, introduces the intermediate air and is about its acquiring the colours travelling from coloured objects (§3, Strato), or the shapes of these objects (§4, Aristarchus). The second block consists of §§5–6 and deals with the visual rays issuing from the eyes that reach out to the objects and send back their grasp of them to the visual faculty. §5 gives the name-label of the astronomer and mathematician Hipparchus, §6 adds Pythagoras qua important mathematician (because of his status!), cf. below, section D(d)§§5–6, and adds Parmenides because of a purported passage in his Poem. Blocks one and two are thus opposed diaphonically. The third block consists of §§7–11: the doctrine of Plato, encompassing the alternatives of the first two blocks (but note that this Plato implicitly rejects the images), and some variations of this doctrine concerned with an intermediate substance or agent. The co-illumination (συναύγεια, not a term of Plato) is the product of the cooperation between the light issuing from the eyes, the light travelling from the objects that comes to meet it, and the light of the intermediate air exerting itself in unison with the fiery element of the visual organ (§7). The (too) terse Alcmaeon lemma (§8) can only be properly understood by consulting its antecedent in Theophrastus quoted at section E(b)§8. As formulated here it is made to anticipate Aristotle’s doctrine of the transparent in actuality. The view of the Academics of §10, mentioning an effusion of visual rays that return to the organ of vision after their contact with the objects, is less complicated than that of §7. That attributed to Posidonius (§11) is formulated in an even simpler manner, viz. as a combination of light beams, presumably of beams issuing from the eyes with beams travelling from the objects: again a variety of the Platonic doctrine. The fourth and final block, consisting of §§12–13, comprises two compromise positions. Empedocles (§12) can be read as accepting both visual rays and images, though perhaps his preference is for images. No such preference in the case of Histiaeus (§13), who blends images and visual rays and calls this compound by the name of ‘ray-image’. Within each block there is a clear gradation, a diaeresis of successive tenets that gradually diverge from each other on a gliding scale. For a preliminary analysis see M–R 2.1.186–188; also cf. Gourinat (2011) 185– 186. For the rather different rationale of P’s revised chapter see immediately below, section D(d)§1 ad fin.

liber 4 caput 13

1633

d

Further Comments General Points Greek theoretical optics and the concomitant theory of vision are deficient because the study of lenses is not included. Lenses only became objects of scientific inquiry in the Middle Ages. In Antiquity lense-shaped objects were used as burning glasses, possibly also for magnifying purposes, but this did not lead to theorizing about their properties. Passages from ancient authors on lenses used for burning are cited Rau (1982) App. ii, 23–25, e.g. Aristotle APo. 1.31 88a14–17, Theophrastus Ign. 73, Pliny Nat. 37.28. For Goethe’s translation of 4.13.1 + 4.14.1 ‘Democritus und Epicurus nach Plutarch’ see below, ch. 4.14, Commentary D(d) ad init. Individual Points §1 The doctrine of Leucippus and Democritus has here been reduced to that of Epicurus. We may note that according to the Etymologicum magnum Democritus ascribed night vision to the owl because of ‘the fire in its eyes’ (text cited below section E(b)§1). If this is historically correct, his doctrine of vision is similar to the dual theory of Empedocles (see §12), and the information on his theory of vision found elsewhere incomplete. P1: ‘Offenbar ist hier an das atomistische Placitum ein fremdes, Platonisches angeflickt’, says Diels (1881) 849; cf. M–R 1.267. He argues (ibid. 849–850) that P has coalesced two lemmata, viz. §1 and §10, and correctly pointed out that in the Florentine manuscript L the augmented but false ps.Plutarchean lemma replaced the original Aëtian lemma as the first of its series of abstracts from S. What happened however is even a bit more complicated, see at section A above. Diels’ conjecture ἔκκρισιν (presumably inspired by G’s ἔκχυσιν) for P’s εἴσκρισιν and S’s equivalent ἔγκρισιν are moreover both Verschlimmbesserungen. We note however that the first part of the attached Platonic placitum entered the Arabic tradition via Q, see Koetschet (2017) 172 with n. 11, who points out that al-Razī tells us that he had read and excerpted Q’s translation. P2–4: After P1 as reflected in PG, i.e. before the corruption attested by PB and PQ, the newly forged Empedocles lemma P2 did provide a compromise: not an opposition between images or rays but rather a blend of these, though we do not hear in which direction the combined product is supposed to travel. After the occurrence of the corruption and the subsequent modifications of the text of the now unified first lemma P2 becomes an appended variation: not penetrating images as well as rays but a blend of images and rays. P’s chapter in its final shape has its own doxographical logic, rather different from A’s original intentions and even more remote from historical correctness, but apparently still useful for the purposes of discussion and teaching.

1634

liber 4 caput 13

§2 Timagoras (or Timasagoras, as he is called in the papyri) follows after the Atomists because he is an Epicurean, however dissident. The difference between images and effluences is real, though at a first glance perhaps less important in the context of the main diaphonia of the present chapter: Timagoras is still on the same side of the divide as Epicurus. Also note that the real Epicurus, speaking of images, mentions effluences too (Ep.Hdt. 46). However also in the next chapter (4.14.1) an effluences doctrine is contrasted with an images doctrine (4.14.2), in a sequence that is the converse of the first two lemmata of ch. 4.13. The doxography is interested in instances of dissent within a school, so of course has some interest in insisting on the difference here. Interestingly enough Cicero calls Timagoras a true-blue Epicurean, maiorum similis (Luc. 80). On Timagoras see further Verde (2010), who however suggests that a biased tradition may be postulated. §3 Treatises Περὶ ὄψεως and Περὶ χρωμάτων are attested for Strato at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.59. On Strato’s view that colour mixes with air see Ganson (2004) 359–360. §4 Aristarchus follows after Strato because he is the latter’s pupil, see ch. 1.15.5. Mutandis mutatis his position is comparable to that of Timagoras vis-à-vis Epicurus, or Xenocrates vis-à-vis Pythagoras at ch. 4.2.3. For σχήματα cf. Plato Men. 76c–d on Empedocles, quoted at section E(b) (and also Epicurus’ μορφαί, Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.49, or Lucretius’ formae rerum, DRN 4.104). §5 Lejeune (1948) 22 n. 2 believes that the view is too ‘simpliste’ to be attributed to the astronomer Hipparchus, though perhaps, he adds, it is ‘fort incomplètement exprimée’. But Hipparchus may have seen and referred to Egyptian pictures of the sun disk (the god Aten or Aton) with rays ending in hands (see www. images Aten). In the next lemma, §6, the name-labels of ur-mathematician Pythagoras and of Parmenides are added to the tenet of Hipparchus on the authority of certain authorities (cf. M–R 2.1.191–192), thus providing it with mathematical and physicist titres de noblesse. For the metaphor of touching with the hands compare also that of bending the outstretched hand back to the shoulder at ch. 4.14.3 below, now attributed to ‘the followers of Pythagoras and the mathematicians’ (cf. ch. 4.13 Commentary D(d)§3). The basic idea is the same as that of the standard Stoic doctrine at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.157 cited below at ch. 4.15, E(b)§2, where contact between the base of visual cone (for which see e.g. Euclid) with the object seen is compared with that by means of a stick (βακτηρία). Vision is seen as a kind of touch. For Posidonius’ etymology of ὀψίς (‘sight’) from ἅπτω, ἅψω (‘I touch, will touch’) see below, section D(d)§11. In general see also below, ch. 4.15 Commentary D(d)§1 and section E(b)§2.

liber 4 caput 13

1635

Cherniss (1951) 154 n. 6, commenting on Plutarch Fac. 921D (also see his Loeb ed. ad loc.), argues that the name-label Hipparchus at §5 is a standard mistake (for Hippasus or Archippus); Thesleff (1965) 92 suggests ‘possibly’ Hippasus. But Hipparchus is not only an astronomer but also a mathematician. Pace Lejeune, Cherniss, and Thesleff, he may represent the view of the mathematicians in general (e.g. that of Euclid’s Optics, or of Heron), which otherwise is absent from our Placita chapter (but see chs. 3.5.3–6 and 4.14.3, cited at Loci Aetiani above). The optical cone of Euclid’s first definition is not mentioned (we have to wait till ch. 4.15.2). Jones (1994) 49–56 argues that the body of the text (accordingly apart from the introduction) of the so-called recensio Theonis of the Euclidean Optics is the original version of the work. The designation recensio Theonis has been maintained by us as a matter of convenience. See now Siebert (2014a), who argues that, although more research of esp. the manuscript tradition of the various versions is needed, the Euclidean Optics (like those of Ptolemy) were updated in late antiquity. §6 Theophrastus Sens. 3–4 (28A46) finds no evidence enabling him to attribute to Parmenides a theory of perception through the individual senses, see Mansfeld (2018c). This shows that the attribution of the theory of Hipparchus to him, though hard to explain, is as farfetched as that to Pythagoras, the reference to the Poem notwithstanding. §7 The lemma has been assembled from Tim. 45b–c and 67c, and focuses on the central part of Plato’s exposition, namely the fusion of the various types of light. The mention of the congenerate air looks like a misunderstanding: in Plato it is the external light that is akin to that issuing from the eyes. συναύγεια presumably is short for συμπαγὲς γενόμενον ἓν σῶμα οἰκειωθὲν συνέστη (Tim. 45c4). For all this see Baltussen (2000a) 232–233. §8 The anatomy of the visual apparatus as based on dissection described by Calcidius in Tim. c. 246 (cited section E(a)§8) is that of Herophilus rather than Alcmaeon; see Mansfeld (1975) 28–30, pace Perilli (2001) 59–62. §9 ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς echoes the ὁρῶμεν of the chapter heading and is paralleled at ch. 4.15.2[9] ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς below, so the formula is acceptable for A. Also cf. the parallel beginning of ch. 4.16.2[5] Ἀλκμαίων ἀκούειν ἡμᾶς. In the physical fragments concerned with the Peripatetics Diels attributes to AD the only parallel of an infinitive plus ἡμᾶς is in fr. 15, αἰσθάνεσθαι δ᾽ ἡμᾶς παθούσης τι τῆς αἰσθήσεως; this is not, however, at the beginning but at the end of the excerpt. For the problems pertaining to Aristotle’s theory (or rather theories) of vision see above, ch. 3.5, Commentary D(d)§§4–6. §11 The Posidonian αὐγῶν σύμφυσις is synonymous with the Platonic συναύγεια of §9; see Diels’ note ad loc., DG 853: ‘Posidonius etiam hic πλατωνίζει’,

1636

liber 4 caput 13

and Kidd on F 194 E.-K.: ‘another clear interpretation of Plato, Tim. 45cf’. Compare Posidonius’ etymologizing F 193 E.-K. cited section E(b)§11, ‘the etymology of ‘sight’ (ὀψίς) derives from ‘I touch, will touch’ (ἅπτω, ἅψω), being a kind of touching (ἁψίς) that introduces and illuminates each of the underlying objects, like fire’. For vision as touch see above, section D(d)§4. Kidd’s comment on F 193 E.-K. is confused. He replaces ἐμποιοῦσα by ἐλλαμποῦσα, not realizing that ἐμποιοῦσα pertains to the production of the image in the eye, and that according to this witness too Posidonius follows what Theophrastus calls Plato’s compromise position. §§12–13 For the coalescence of these two paragraphs see above, section A. §12 The point about the two views of Empedocles (and so the main opposition of the whole chapter) derives from the passage in Aristotle quoted below, section E(b)§12; see M–R. 2.1.190–191. Theophrastus too argues that Empedocles speaks both of the fire in the eye, and of colours traveling to it as effluences (Sens. 7). O’Brien (1969) argues that Aristotle’s attribution of a visual ray to Empedocles is mistaken and says (p. 140) that ‘Theophrastus says nothing about fire leaving the eye as a factor in the act of vision’. But what he says at Sens. 7 is that ‘the fire in the eye (τὸ … ἐντὸς αὐτῆς … πῦρ) passes through (διιέναι) the water and earth that surround it because it is fine-textured, just as the light in lanterns’. So he appears to agree with Aristotle after all. (We cannot enter here into the constitutio and interpretation of the difficult fragment 31B84 DK as a whole, for which see e.g. Rashed 2005 and Primavesi 2011, 510 and 2013, 701–702). In ch. 1.15.3 ‘On colours’, the Greek tradition consisting of P and S, representing one side of the opposition, hasἘμπεδοκλῆς χρῶμα τὸ τοῖς πόροις τῆς ὄψεως ἐναρμόττον (‘Empedocles (says) that colour is what fits the pores of the eyes’), while Q, representing the other side, has Empedokles war der Meinung, daß die Farbe etwas ist, worauf die Sehstrahlen fallen. This difference cannot be due to a mistranslation on Q’s part, so represents a genuine reading, or rather tradition; see above, ch. 1.15, Commentary D(d)§3. When taken together these witnesses for ch. 1.15.3 are in agreement with the contents of the present paragraph. At M–R. 2.1.190–191 we argue that the note at §12 on Empedocles’ preference for the effluences theory is a reference to (a part of) the anterior doxographical tradition (but we now no longer believe that πλείους refers to interpreters rather than possibilities of interpretation). Ch. 4.14.3 apparently describes the combination of a fiery beam issuing from the eyes and effluences that come to be on the surface of a mirror. The word ἀκτίς is attested for Empedocles in the verbatim fragment 31B84.6 DK, while the term ἀπορροαί is attested at 31B89 DK. Primavesi (2013) 701–702 argues against the assumption of visual rays by Empedocles and rejects Aristotle’s interpretation of 31B84 DK. But the

liber 4 caput 13

1637

fact that—just, as we may recall, the sun shines with rays—‘the fire shines out with rays’ (31B84.5–6 DK πῦρ δ᾽ ἔξω … / λάμπεσκεν … ἀκτίνεσσιν, cf. B84.11 πῦρ δ᾽ ἔξω διίεσκον, ‘the fire jumped out’) at the very least makes Aristotle’s reading understandable, and even plausible. e Other Evidence The Pyrrhonist view (cited below, section E(b)§0) is that we do not know ‘how we see’, a clear reference to the multiplicity of views resulting in diaphonia. For their overviews of contrasting and compromise doxai Apuleius and Calcidius and numerous others consulted sources that are close to the Placita. The author of the fragmentary optical treatise ascribed to Geminus argued that from the point of view of mathematical optics the alternatives intromission and extramission as well as the compromise view are equally unimportant, while Euclid had argued in favour of the extramission theory. The alternatives are mentioned—to give some examples—as late as in the Optics of the Arabic scientist ibn al-Haytham in the eleventh, by the Byzantine commentator Sophonias’ in de Anima in the thirteenth, by the Italian humanist and polymath Leon Battista Alberti’s De pictura in the fifteenth (who says they are out of date), and by the learned Italian physician Mercuriale’s De morbis oculorum in the late sixteenth century (see section E(b) General texts ad fin.). For the tradition in the Islamic world and its Greek precedents see Adamson (2016) 77–83, for alRazī’s criticism of the extramission theory Koetschet (2017). Goethe, Farbenlehre (Didaktischer Teil, Einleitung) writes: ‘Hierbei erinnern wir uns der alten ionischen Schule, welche mit so großer Bedeutsamkeit immer wiederholte: nur von Gleichem werde Gleiches erkannt; wie auch der Worte eines alten Mystikers [sc. Plotinus, see section E(a)§11], die wir in deutschen Reimen folgendermaßen ausdrücken möchten: Wär’ nicht das Auge sonnenhaft, / Wie könnten wir das Licht erblicken? / Lebt’ nicht in uns des Gottes eigne Kraft, / Wie könnt’ uns Göttliches entzücken? Jene unmittelbare Verwandtschaft des Lichts und des Auges wird niemand läugnen, aber sich beide zugleich als eins und dasselbe zu denken, hat mehr Schwierigkeit. Indessen wird es faßlicher, wenn man behauptet, im Auge wohne ein ruhendes Licht, das bei der mindesten Veranlassung von innen oder von außen erregt werde.’ E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Geminus(?) Fr.Opt. p. 24.7–15 Schöne at Her. Def. c. 135.11 ὅτι οὔτε φυσιολογεῖ ἡ ὀπτικὴ οὔτε ζητεῖ, εἴτε ἀπόρροιαί τινες ἐπὶ τὰ πέρατα τῶν σωμάτων φέρονται ἀπὸ τῶν ὄψεων ἀκτίνων ἐκχεομένων, εἴτε ἀπορρέοντα εἴδωλα ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν εἴσω τῶν ὄψεων εἰσδύεται κατὰ στάθμην ἐνεχθέντα, εἴτε συνεκτείνεται

1638

liber 4 caput 13

ἢ συμφέρεται ὁ μεταξὺ ἀὴρ τῷ τῆς ὄψεως αὐγοειδεῖ πνεύματι, μόνον δὲ σκοπεῖ, εἰ σώζεται καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ὑπόθεσιν ἡ ἰθυτένεια τῆς φορᾶς ἢ τάσεως καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὴν συναγωγὴν εἰς γωνίαν τὴν σύννευσιν γίνεσθαι, ἐπειδὰν μειζόνων ἢ ἐλαττόνων ὄψεως ᾖ θεωρία. Vitruvius 7 proœm 11 Democritus (cf. 68B15b DK) et Anaxagoras (59A39 DK) de eadem re scripserunt, quemadmodum oporteat ad aciem oculorum radiorumque extentionem certo loco centro constituto lineas ratione naturali respondere, uti de certa re certae imagines aedificiorum in scaenarum picturis redderent speciem et, quae in directis planisque frontibus sint figurata, alia abscedentia, alia prominentia esse videantur. 6.2.3 hoc autem sive simulacrorum inpulsu seu radiorum ex oculis effusionibus, uti physicis placet, videmus. Philo of Alexandria Ebr. 190 αὐτίκα τῶν χρωμάτων ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα πῶς; ἆρ᾽ οὐ σὺν ἀέρι καὶ φωτί, τοῖς ἐκτός, καὶ τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ὄψιν ὑγρῷ; ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.379.10–15 K. ριζʹ. ὅρασίς ἐστιν ἡ γινομένη διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τῷ συγκεκραμμένῳ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεύματι λεπτῷ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν τῆς κόρης τόπον τυγχάνοντι, δι᾽ οὗ αἱ ὁρατικαὶ ἀντιλήψεις γίνονται. τί ἐστιν ὄψις; ὄψις ἐστὶ δύναμις οὐσίας ἀερώδους φανώδης, ὅρασις δ᾽ ἐνεργητική. ps.Galen Introd. C. 10.4, 14.702.4–8 K. γεγόνασι (sc. αἳ βλεφαρίδες) δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἀπευθύνειν τὸ ὁρατικὸν πνεῦμα ἢ, ὥς τινες λέγουσι, τὰς ἔνδοθεν ἐκχεομένας ἀκτῖνας εἰς τὸ διορᾷν. ἀμέλει τούτων ἐκπεσουσῶν ἢ καὶ κατακλωμένων, οὐκέτι ὁμοίως ἐπ᾽ εὐθὺ, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ μακρὸν δύναται βλέπειν τὸ ζῶον. Aulus Gellius NA 5.16.2 de videndi ratione deque cernendi natura diversas esse opiniones philosophorum animadvertimus. Aquilius Def. 6a Rashed ὄψις ἐστὶν αἴσθησις κριτικὴ τῶν ὁρατῶν. Lactantius Op.D. Perrin 8.10–11 ne forte existimes aut imaginum incursione nos cernere, ut philosophi disserunt, quoniam videndi officium in eo debet esse quod videt, non in eo quo videtur, aut intentione aëris, cum acie aut effusione radiorum, quoniam, si ita esset, tardius quam oculos advertimus videremus, donec intentus aer cum acie aut effusi radii ad id quod videndum esset pervenirent. (11) cum autem videamus eodem momento temporis, plerumque vero aliud agentes nihilominus tamen universa quae contra sunt posita tueamur, verius et manifestius est mentem esse quae per oculos ea quae sunt opposita transpiciat quasi per fenestras perlucente vitro aut speculari lapide (sc. beryllus/ βήρυλλος) obductas. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.7 p. 73.3 Marchesi cum videre nos dicimus, radiorum et luminis intentione videamus an rerum imagines advolent et nostris in pupulis sidant? Calcidius in Tim. c. 236 incipit (sc. Plato) ab optimo praeclarissimoque sensuum omnium visu …. sed quoniam de hoc plerique alii post ipsum opiniones varias libris suis conditis sunt executi, eae quae sunt in honore perstringam, quo perfectior propositae rei tractatus habeatur. in Tim. 236–248 see below. Chapter heading: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. the Stoics) … (133) τοῦ δ᾽ ἑτέρου (sc. μέρους) καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων ἀντιποιεῖσθαι, οἷον πῶς ὁρῶμεν, τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς κατοπτρικῆς φαντασίας (cf. tit. ch. 4.14), excerpted Suda s.v. Φ 862 pp. 4.775.28–776.2 Adler φυσικὸς λόγος παρὰ φιλοσόφοις. … πῶς ὁρῶμεν· τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς κατοπτρικῆς φαντασίας. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.387 de visu. Calcidius in Tim. c. 7, p. 60.16 Waszink de visu.

liber 4 caput 13 §1 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Aulus Gellius NA 5.16.3 Epicurus (fr. 319 Usener) affluere semper ex omnibus corporibus simulacra quaedam corporum ipsorum eaque sese in oculos inferre atque ita fieri sensum videndi putat. Apuleius Apol. 15 (pertains also to ch. 4.14) num, ut ait Epicurus (cf. fr. 320 Usener), profectae a nobis imagines velut quaedam exuviae iugi fluore a corporibus manantes, cum leve aliquid et solidum offenderunt, illisae reflectantur et retro expressae contraversim respondeant, an, ut alii philosophi disputant, radii nostri seu mediis oculis proliquati et lumini extrario mixti atque ita uniti, ut Plato arbitratur, seu tantum oculis profecti sine ullo foris amminiculo, ut Archytas (47A25 DK, fr. 25 Huffman) putat, seu intentu aëris { f }acti, ut Stoici (—) rentur, cum alicui corpori inciderunt spisso et splendido et levi, paribus angulis quibus inciderant resultent ad faciem suam reduces atque ita, quod extra tangant ac visant, id intra speculum imaginentur. Sextus Empiricus P. 3.51 αἱ μὲν αἰσθήσεις κατὰ ἐπέρεισιν καὶ νύξιν ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι δοκοῦσι τῶν αἰσθητῶν, οἷον ἡ ὅρασις, … ἐάν τε κατὰ εἰδώλων ἀποκρίσεις τε καὶ ἐπικρίσεις, ἐάν τε ⟨κατ᾽⟩ ἀκτίνων ἢ χρωμάτων ἀποχύσεις. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 (Democritus 68A1 DK) ὁρᾶν δ᾽ ἡμᾶς κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ἐμπτώσεις. 9.47–48 (Democritus 68A33, B15b DK) μαθηματικὰ δὲ τάδε· … (48) Ἀκτινογραφίη. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.29 de simulacris. at DRN 4.98 de imaginibus. Calcidius in Tim. c. 236 omnes qui rerum initia corpora censuerunt vel coetu innumerabilium minutorum congesto inani vel perpetuorum continuata proceritate, dicunt videre nos simulacrorum incursionibus; fluidam quippe materiem formatas iuxta sui similitudinem exudare subtiles corporum fusiones, quae sunt visibilium simulacra rerum, eaque cum visus noster incurrerit, hausta et recepta meatibus transmittat ad eum per quem sentimus spiritum. §2 Timagoras: differently Cicero Luc. 80 itaque Timagoras Epicureus negat sibi umquam cum oculum torsisset duas ex lucerna flammulas esse visas; opinionis enim esse mendacium non oculorum: sic hic quidem, maiorum similis. §5 Hipparchus: Calcidius in Tim. c. 238 geometrae cum Peripatetici concinentes radii effusione visum operari putant, cum per fulgidam lucidamque pupulae stolam in directum emicans radius serenam porrigit lineam, quae gyris oculorum circumvecta motibus dispergat undique lucem contemplationis. §7 Plato: Aulus Gellius NA 5.16.4 Plato existimat genus quoddam ignis lucisque de oculis exire idque coniunctum continuatumque vel cum luce solis vel cum alterius ignis lumine sua vi et externa nixum efficere, ut, quaecumque offenderit inlustraveritque, cernamus. Galen Plat.Tim. c. 7.15–24 trans. Kraus– Walzer oculos ad videndum (sc. dicit creatos esse). quod fieri dicit propter substantiam splendidam et lucidam quae (emissa) ex pupilla [‘from the membranes’ trans. Koetschet 2017, 174] egreditur atque cum aëre qui nos circumdat coniungitur, et dum ei similis est cum illo permiscetur et sicut et ille permutatur permutatur, ita ut res percipiamus quae extrinsecus (appareant). hanc autem orationem iam in septimo tractatu libri mei De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis exposui, ubi etian plura (invenies). et argumenta genuinis demonstrationibus fulta in tertio decimo tractatu libri mei De demonstratione affero. Calcidius in

1639

1640

liber 4 caput 13

Tim. cc. 244–245 censet enim Plato lumen ex oculis profundi purum et liquatum, quod sit velut flos quidam ignis intimi nostri habens cum solstitiali lumine cognationem, solis porro lumen instrumentum animae fore ad visibilium specierum contemplationem, siquidem ad oculos feratur, quorum levigata soliditas et tersa rotunditas, utpote munita tunicis textis tenui nervorum subtemine, fert facile obviam lucem. … (245) tribus ergo his concurrentibus visus existit trinaque est ratio videndi: lumen caloris intimi per oculos means, quae principalis est causa, lumen extra positum, consanguineum lumini nostro, …, lumen quoque quod ex corporibus visibilium specierum fluit. §8 Alcmaeon: differently Calcidius in Tim. c. 246 demonstranda igitur oculi natura est, de qua cum plerique alii tum Alcmaeo Crotoniensis (24A10 DK), in physicis excercitatus quique primus exsectionem aggredi est ausus, et Callisthenes, Aristotelis auditor, et Herophilus (fr. 86 Von Staden) multa et praeclara in lucem protulerunt. duas esse angustas semitas quae a cerebri sede, in qua est sita potestas animae summa et principalis, ad oculorum cavernas meent naturalem spiritum continentes; quae cum ex uno initio eademque radice progressae aliquantisper coniunctae sint in frontis intimis, separatae bivii specie perveniant ad oculorum concavas sedes, qua superciliorum obliqui tramites porriguntur, sinuataeque illic tunicarum gremio naturalem humorem recipiente globos complent munitos tegmine palpebrarum, ex quo appellantur orbes. porro quod ex una sede progrediantur luciferae semitae, docet quidem sectio principaliter, nihilo minus tamen intellegitur ex eo quoque, quod uterque oculus moveatur una nec alter sine altero moveri queat. oculi porro ipsius continentiam in quattuor membranis seu tunicis notaverunt disparili soliditate; quarum differentiam proprietatemque si quis persequi velit, maiorem proposita materia suscipiet laborem. §9 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 17 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.52.9.1b, p. 484.16–19 (on Aristotle) διαφανὲς δὲ οὐ μόνον εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καί τινα τῶν συνισταμένων ποθέν, οἷον ὕαλον καὶ κρύσταλλον καί τινας τῶν λαμπρῶν λίθων. §11 Posidonius: differently Aulus Gellius NA 5.16.2 Stoici (SVF 2.871) causas esse videndi dicunt radiorum ex oculis in ea, quae videri queunt, emissionem aërisque simul intentionem.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Antiphon de Ver. at POxy 1364, F44(b)6–9 Pendrick τῇ αὐγῇ | μετὰ τῆς ὄψε|ως (‘visual ray’) ὁρῶμεν. Aristotle Cael. 2.8 290a17–21 ἡ γὰρ ὄψις ἀποτεινομένη μακρὰν ἑλίσσεται διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν. ὅπερ αἴτιον ἴσως καὶ τοῦ στίλβειν φαίνεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς ἐνδεδεμένους, τοὺς δὲ πλάνητας μὴ στίλβειν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πλάνητες ἐγγύς εἰσιν, ὥστ᾽ ἐγκρατὴς οὖσα πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀφικνεῖται ἡ ὄψις. GA 5.1 781a2–7 οὐθὲν γὰρ διαφέρει τὸ λέγειν ὁρᾶν, ὥσπερ τινές (sc. Pl. Tim. 45b–c) φασι, τῷ τὴν ὄψιν ἐξιέναι (ἂν γὰρ μὴ ᾖ τι πρὸ τῶν ὀμμάτων, διασκεδαννυμένην ἀνάγκη ἐλάττω προσπίπτειν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις καὶ ἧττον τὰ πόρρωθεν ὁρᾶν), ἢ τὸ τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων κινήσει ὁρᾶν. ὁμοίως γὰρ ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν ὄψιν τῇ κινήσει ὁρᾶν. Po. 4 1449a18–19 σκηνογραφίαν Σοφοκλῆς (sc. introduced). Mete. 3.2 372a29–32 ὅτι

liber 4 caput 13 μὲν οὖν ἡ ὄψις ἀνακλᾶται, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὕδατος, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ ἀέρος καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν λείαν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν δεικνυμένων δεῖ λαμβάνειν τὴν πίστιν (cf. below, Alex.Aphr. in Mete. 141.3–20). de An. 3.12 435a5–8 (on perception εἰ διὰ τοῦ μεταξὺ αἰσθητικὸν εἴη τῷ ἐκεῖνο μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ πάσχειν καὶ κινεῖσθαι, 434b28–29) διὸ καὶ περὶ ἀνακλάσεως βέλτιον ἢ τὴν ὄψιν ἐξιοῦσαν ἀνακλᾶσθαι τὸν ἀέρα πάσχειν ὑπὸ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ χρώματος, μέχρι περ οὗ ἂν ᾖ εἷς. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ λείου ἐστὶν εἷς. Sens. 2 438a5–10 Δημόκριτος (68A121 DK) δ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ὕδωρ εἶναί φησι, λέγει καλῶς, ὅτι δ᾽ οἴεται τὸ ὁρᾶν εἶναι τὴν ἔμφασιν, οὐ καλῶς· τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ συμβαίνει ὅτι τὸ ὄμμα λεῖον, καὶ ἔστιν οὐκ ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὁρῶντι· ἀνάκλασις γὰρ τὸ πάθος, ἀλλὰ καθόλου περὶ τῶν ἐμφαινομένων καὶ ἀνακλάσεως οὐδέν πω δῆλον ἦν, ὡς ἔοικεν. Sens. 2 438a25–29 ἄλογον δὲ ὅλως τὸ ἐξιόντι τινὶ τὴν ὄψιν ὁρᾶν, καὶ ἀποτείνεσθαι μέχρι τῶν ἄστρων, ἢ μέχρι τινὸς ἐξιοῦσαν συμφύεσθαι, καθάπερ λέγουσί τινες. τούτου μὲν γὰρ βέλτιον τὸ ἐν ⟨τῇ⟩ ἀρχῇ συμφύεσθαι τοῦ ὄμματος. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο εὔηθες. Sens. 2 437b23–438a4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (on 31B84 DK) δ᾽ ἔοικε νομίζοντι ὁτὲ μὲν ἐξιόντος τοῦ φωτός, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, βλέπειν· λέγει γοῦν οὕτως· (31B84 DK follows) …· ὁτὲ μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὁρᾶν φησίν, ὁτὲ δὲ ταῖς ἀπορροίαις ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων. Sens. 3 440a15–17 τὸ μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι, λέγειν ἀπόρροιαν εἶναι τὴν χρόαν καὶ ὁρᾶσθαι διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἄτοπον. Theophrastus Sens. 5 Πλάτων … τὴν μὲν ὄψιν ποιεῖ πυρός (διὸ καὶ τὸ χρῶμα φλόγα τιν᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων σύμμετρα μόρια τῇ ὄψει ἔχουσαν), ὡς ἀπορροῆς τε γινομένης καὶ δέον συναρμόττειν ἀλλήλοις ἐξιοῦσαν μέχρι τινὸς συμφύεσθαι τῇ ἀπορροῇ καὶ οὕτως ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς· ὥσπερ ἂν εἰς τὸ μέσον τιθεὶς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δόξαν τῶν τε φασκόντων προσπίπτειν τὴν ὄψιν καὶ τῶν φέρεσθαι πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρατῶν. ps.Plato Def. 411c ὄψις ἕξις διακριτικὴ σωμάτων. Euclid Opt. (rec. Theonis) 148.22–26 πρὸς δὲ τὸ τῇ ὄψει μὴ προσπίπτειν τι εἴδωλον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁρωμένου εἰς τὸ κινῆσαι αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ καταλαβεῖν τὸ ὁρώμενον ἔφερεν αἰτίας τοιαύτας κτλ. … εἰ ἦν κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ἔμπτωσιν τὸ ὁρατικὸν πάθος, καὶ ἀπὸ παντὸς σώματος διηνεκῶς εἴδωλα ἀπέρρεεν, ἃ κινεῖ ἡμῶν τὴν αἴσθησιν κτλ. Opt. (rec. Theonis) 152.1–3 πρὸς οὖν τὸ πιστὸν εἶναι κατὰ τὸ παρὸν τὸ ἀκτῖνας εἶναι τὰς ἐκχεομένας καὶ κινούσας τὸ ὁρατικὸν πάθος ἀρκούντως ἐδόκει εἰρῆσθαι. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.49 δεῖ δὲ καὶ νομίζειν ἐπεισιόντος τινὸς ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν τὰς μορφὰς ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς καὶ διανοεῖσθαι· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐναποσφραγίσαιτο τὰ ἔξω τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν τοῦ τε χρώματος καὶ τῆς μορφῆς διὰ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ μεταξὺ ἡμῶν τε κἀκείνων, οὐδὲ διὰ τῶν ἀκτίνων ἢ ὧν δήποτε ῥευμάτων ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα παραγινομένων, οὕτως ὡς τύπων τινῶν ἐπεισιόντων ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων ὁμοχρόων τε καὶ ὁμοιομόρφων κατὰ τὸ ἐναρμόττον μέγεθος εἰς τὴν ὄψιν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν. Cicero Att. 2.3.2 Cyrus aiebat viridariorum [corr. Lambinus, v(i)ridiorum ms.] διαφάσεις latis luminibus non tam esse suavis; etenim ἔστω ὄψις μὲν ἡ Α, τὸ δὲ ὁρώμενον ΒΓ, ἀκτῖνες δὲ ⟨Α⟩Γ Α⟨Β⟩ [Keyser (1993) 68, †ΑΙΤΑ† mss.]. vides autem cetera. nam si κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ἐμπτώσεις videremus, valde laborarent εἴδωλα in angustiis; nunc fit lepide illa ἔκχυσις radiorum. Fam. 15.16.1–2 fit enim nescio qui ut quasi coram adesse videare cum scribo aliquid ad te, neque id κατ᾽ εἰδ⟨ώλ⟩ων φαντασίας, ut dicunt tui amici novi, qui putant etiam διανοητικὰς φαντασίας spectris Catianis excitari. nam, ne te fugiat, Catius Insuber Ἐπικούρειος, qui nuper est mortuus, quae ille

1641

1642

liber 4 caput 13

Gargettius et iam ante Democritus εἴδωλα, hic spectra nominat. his autem spectris etiam si oculi possent feriri, quod ⟨pup⟩ulis ipsa incurrunt, animus qui possit ego non video. … neque solum de te, qui mihi haeres in medullis, sed si insulam Britanniam coepero cogitare, eius εἴδωλον mihi advolabit ad pectus? Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 141.3–20 (on Mete. 3.2 372a29–30, see above) οὐκ ἀρέσκεται μὲν τῇ δόξῃ τῇ δι᾽ ἀκτίνων ἐκχύσεως ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς λεγούσῃ, καθά φασιν οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων, ᾗ δόξῃ ἀκόλουθός ἐστι καὶ ἡ δι᾽ ἀνακλάσεως τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων ἀκτίνων ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς πάντα τὰ δι᾽ ἐμφάσεως ὁρώμενα λέγουσα· οὔτε γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνάς τινας ἐκχεομένας καὶ προσπιπτούσας τῷ ὁρατῷ τοῦ ὁρᾶν αἰτίας ἡμῖν οἷόν τε γίνεσθαι οὔτε τὰς αὐτὰς ταύτας ἀνακλωμένας ἀπὸ τῶν κατόπτρων καὶ πάντων τῶν διὰ τοιούτων ὁρωμένων ἐπὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον τὴν αἰτίαν πάλιν ἡμῖν παρέχειν τοῦ ταῦτα ὁρᾶν, τῆς τῶν ἀκτίνων ἀνακλάσεως πρὸς ἴσας γινομένης γωνίας. ὅτι γὰρ ἀδύνατα ταῦτα, ἐδείχθη ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν, ὧν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς ἐμνημόνευσε. δοκεῖ γὰρ αὐτῷ τὰ μὲν ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας ὁρώμενα ὁρᾶσθαι οὐ δι᾽ ἀκτίνων, ἀλλὰ τῷ τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ τε ὁρωμένου καὶ τῆς ὄψεως διαφανὲς ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρωμένου χρώματος πάσχειν καὶ μεταδιδόναι τούτου τοῦ πάθους τῇ ὄψει, οὔσῃ καὶ αὐτῇ διαφανεῖ· τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸ εἶναι διαφανεῖ· τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν ὁρᾶσθαι δοκοῦντα ὁρᾶσθαι τῷ πρῶτον ἐν τοῖς ἐνόπτροις τε καὶ ἐνοπτρικοῖς πᾶσι τὴν τοῦ ὁρωμένου ἔμφασιν γινομένην διὰ τοῦ μεταξὺ διαφανοῦς εἶτα ἀπὸ τούτου πάλιν ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὴν ὄψιν διὰ τοῦ διαφανοῦς πάλιν τοῦ μεταξὺ τοῦ τε ἐνόπτρου καὶ τῆς ὄψεως. Galen Cons. c. 1, p. 9.9–13 Müller εἶθ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν εἴπωμεν ἀνατρέποντες λόγῳ νομίζουσιν ἅμα τούτῳ καὶ τὴν τοῦ πράγματος ὕπαρξιν ἀνῃρηκέναι, καθάπερ εἴ τις ἁπάσαις ἀντειπὼν ταῖς περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν δόξαις οὐδ᾽ ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς συγχωροίη. de Demonstr. at Rhazes Kitab Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi As-sukuk ʿala Galinus 9.13f. + 9.22f. + 10.2f. (trans. Strohmaier 1998, 272–273) ‘Bei allen Leuten ist es klar, daß das Sehen nicht dadurch geschieht, daß zu ihm Bilder von einem jeden der gesehenen Dinge fließen … Die Rede dessen, der behauptet, daß vom Auge Strahlen ausgehen, bis sie zu dem Gesehenen gelangen, ist eine Unmöglichkeit, weil sich die Strahlen nicht bis zu den Sternen ausdehnen können. Vielmehr wäre es besser zu sagen, daß die Gestalt der Sterne und der gesehenene Objekte mit dem Gesichtssinn durch die Vermittlung des Leuchtenden verbunden ist. ⟨Aber⟩ [addidimus] diese Ansicht ist ein Geschwätz, denn sie würde zur Folge haben, daß die Bilder der großen Berge in das Sehorgan fallen.’ PHP 7.5.1–5 τὸ βλεπόμενον σῶμα δυοῖν θάτερον· ἢ πέμπον τι πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ σὺν ἐκείνῳ καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐνδείκνυται διάγνωσιν, ἢ εἴπερ αὐτὸ μηδὲν πέμπει, περιμένει τινὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀφικέσθαι δύναμιν αἰσθητικὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτό. (2) πότερον οὖν αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἀληθέστερον ὧδ᾽ ἂν μάλιστα κριθείη· διὰ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν κόρην τρήματος ὁρῶμεν, ὅπερ εἰ περιέμενε πρὸς ἑαυτὸ παραγενέσθαι τινὰ μοῖραν ἢ δύναμιν ἢ εἴδωλον ἢ ποιότητα τῶν ἐκτὸς ὑποκειμένων σωμάτων, οὐκ ἂν τοῦ βλεπομένου τὸ μέγεθος ἐγνώκειμεν, οἷον ὄρους εἰ τύχοι μεγίστου. … (4) τὸ δὲ ὀπτικὸν οὐχ οἷόν τε τοσαύτην ῥύσιν ἐκτεινόμενον λαμβάνειν ὡς περιχεῖσθαι παντὶ τῷ βλεπομένῳ σώματι· τοῦτο γὰρ ὅμοιόν ἐστι τῷ τῶν Στωϊκῶν σταλαγμῷ (cf. SVF 2.480) κεραννυμένῳ τῇ πάσῃ θαλάττῃ. (5) λείπεται οὖν ἔτι τὸν πέριξ ἀέρα τοιοῦτον ὄργανον ἡμῖν γίγνεσθαι καθ᾽ ὃν ὁρῶμεν χρόνον, ὁποῖον ἐν τῷ σώματι τὸ νεῦρον ὑπάρχει διὰ παντός. PHP 7.7.20–26 μὴ

liber 4 caput 13 τοίνυν ὡς διὰ βακτηρίας τοῦ πέριξ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς οἱ Στωϊκοὶ (SVF 2.865) λεγέτωσαν … (21) πολὺ τοίνυν ἄμεινον ὡς ἐν ἐσφαλμένοις Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 319 Usener) ἀπεφήνατο τῶν Στωϊκῶν …. (22) ἐκεῖνοι μὲν γὰρ τῶν ὁρατῶν οὐδὲν ἄγουσιν ἄχρι τῆς ὀπτικῆς δυνάμεως, ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος ἀπεφήνατο ἄγειν· καὶ πολύ γε τούτου κρείττων Ἀριστοτέλης (de An. 2.7 419a13–21), οὐκ εἴδωλον σωματικὸν ἀλλὰ ποιότητα δι᾽ ἀλλοιώσεως τοῦ πέριξ ἀέρος ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἄγων ἄχρι τῆς ὄψεως. CP c. 26, p. 148.5–11 Hankinson puta mox in iis quae manifeste apparent, aut veniente aliquo ab hiis quae videntur ad oculos nostros aut aliquo a nobis ad singulum illorum aut omnino eo quod a nobis existit id quod ab eis fertur contangente videmus, aut neque ex illis ad nos neque a nobis ad illa lato aliquo sed per intermedium sicut per baculum sensatio nostra de eis fit. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 127.27 tit. Πρὸς τοὺς δι᾽ ἀκτίνων λέγοντας γίνεσθαι τὸ ὁρᾶν. de An.Mant. 130.13 tit. Πρὸς τοὺς διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀέρος συνεντάσεως τὸ ὁρᾶν ποιοῦντας. de An.Mant. 134.28–29 tit. Πρὸς τοὺς διὰ τῆς τῶν εἰδώλων ἐμπτώσεως τὸ ὁρᾶν λέγοντας γίνεσθαι. de An.Mant. 136.29 tit. Πρὸς τοὺς διὰ τῆς ἀπορροίας τῆς ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν τὸ ὁρᾶν ⟨γίνεσθαι⟩ λέγοντας. ps.Alexander Probl. 2.53.3–9 Ideler τινὲς ἐκ πολλῆς κακίας ψυχῆς, φύσιν ἔχοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς καλοῖς δάκνεσθαι, τῷ ἀμέτρῳ φθόνῳ τῆς κακίας αὐτοῖς διεγειρομένης, ὥσπερ ἰώδης τις καὶ φθοροποιὸς ἀκτὶς ἔξεισιν ἀπὸ τῆς κόρης αὐτῶν· καὶ αὐτὴ εἰσιοῦσα διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ φθονουμένου τρέψει τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν φύσιν εἰς δυσκρασίαν καὶ τοὺς χυμοὺς ἐπὶ σῆψιν καὶ εἰς νόσον ἄγει τὰ σώματα τούτων. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.7 (on the Magi, Arist. fr. 36 R3) ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰδώλων πλήρη εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, κατ᾽ ἀπόρροιαν ὑπ᾽ ἀναθυμιάσεως εἰσκρινομένων ταῖς ὄψεσι τῶν ὀξυδερκῶν. 9.103 (according to the Sceptics) τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ὁρῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ τὸ ὅτι τόδε νοοῦμεν γινώσκομεν, πῶς δ᾽ ὁρῶμεν ἢ πῶς νοοῦμεν ἀγνοοῦμεν. Plotinus Enn. 4.5[29]2.8–13 καὶ οἱ ἐκχέοντες δὲ τὰς ὄψεις οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν ἀκολουθοῦν τὸ πάντως μεταξύ τι εἶναι, εἰ μὴ φοβοῖντο μὴ πέσῃ ἡ ἀκτίς· ἀλλὰ φωτός ἐστι, καὶ τὸ φῶς εὐθυποροῦν. οἱ δὲ τὴν ἔνστασιν αἰτιώμενοι δέοιντο ἂν πάντως τοῦ μεταξύ. οἱ δὲ τῶν εἰδώλων προστάται διὰ τοῦ κενοῦ λέγοντες διιέναι χώραν ζητοῦσιν, ἵνα μὴ κωλυθῇ. ps.Galen (i.e. Porphyry) ad Gaur. 11.2 οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρᾷ οὐ κώνου μέχρις οὐρανοῦ διαταθέντος ἀπὸ τῆς κόρης οὐδὲ ἀκτίνων περιχύσεως εἰς τὸ ὁρατὸν γωνίας κλάσει ἀπεργασαμένης οὐδ᾽ εἰδώλων ἐκρυέντων ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων εἰς τὸ ὁρῶν, τῷ δ᾽ ἐπιτηδείως ἡρμόσθαι τὸ μὲν ὁρᾶν τὸ δ᾽ ὁρᾶσθαι. Porphyry at Nem. NH 7, p. 59.13–18 Πορφύριος (264F Smith) δὲ ἐν τῷ Περὶ αἰσθήσεως οὔτε κῶνον οὔτε εἴδωλον οὔτε ἄλλο τί φησιν αἴτιον εἶναι τοῦ ὁρᾶν ἀλλὰ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτὴν ἐντυγχάνουσαν τοῖς ὁρατοῖς ἐπιγινώσκειν ἑαυτὴν οὖσαν τὰ ὁρατὰ τῷ τὴν ψυχὴν συνέχειν πάντα τὰ ὄντα καὶ εἶναι τὰ πάντα ψυχὴν συνέχουσαν σώματα διάφορα. μίαν γὰρ βουλόμενος εἶναι πάντων ψυχὴν τὴν λογικὴν εἰκότως φησὶ γνωρίζειν ἑαυτὴν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.7.8 cum videre nos dicimus, radiorum et luminis intentione videamus an rerum imagines advolent et nostris in pupulis sidant? Iamblichus CMSc c. 25.43–48 (Archytas fr. 25 text C. Huffman—after Aristotle’s de Pythagoreis?) οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι διατρίψαντες ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασι καὶ τό τε ἀκριβὲς τῶν λόγων ἀγαπήσαντες, ὅτι μόνα εἶχεν ἀποδείξεις ὧν μετεχειρίζοντο ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ὁμολογούμενα ὁρῶντες ἔνισον τὰ περὶ τὴν ἁρμονίαν ὅτι δι᾽ ἀριθμῶν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ὄψιν μαθήματα ⟨ὅτι⟩ διὰ ⟨δια⟩γραμμάτων,

1643

1644

liber 4 caput 13

ὅλως αἴτια τῶν ὄντων ταῦτα ᾠήθησαν εἶναι καὶ τὰς τούτων ἀρχάς. Macrobius Sat. 7.14.3–5 + 13–14 ipsam vero videndi naturam non insubide introspexit Epicurus (cf. fr. 319 Usener), cuius in hoc non est ut aestimo improbanda sententia, adstipulante praecipue Democrito (fr. 471 Luria), qui sicut in ceteris ita et in hoc paria senserunt. ergo censet Epicurus ab omnibus corporibus iugi fluore quaepiam simulacra manare, nec umquam tantulam moram intervenire quin ultro ferantur inani figura cohaerentes corporum exuviae, quarum receptacula in nostris oculis sunt et ideo ad deputatam sibi a natura sedem proprii sensus recurrunt. … (13–14) in propatulo est … quod decepit Epicurum. … constat autem visum nobis hac provenire ratione. genuinem lumen e pupula, quaecumque eam verteris, directa linea emicat. id oculorum domesticum profluvium, si repperit in circumfuso nobis aëre lucem, per eam directim pergit quam diu corpus offendat. … ergo tria ista necessaria nobis sunt: lumen quod de nobis emittimus, et ut aër qui interiacet lucidus sit, et corpus quo offenso desinat intentio. Hunain ibn Ishaq The Book of the Ten Treatises of the Eye III, pp. 31.20–33.31 Meyerhof. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) al Sifa p. 734 Horten–Wiedemann (pertains also to ch. 4.14) ‘Für die optische Wahrnehmung dieser Bilder gibt es drei Theorien. 1. Die Lehre von den Sehstrahlen; nach ihr tritt aus dem Auge ein Strahl aus, der sich von sich selbst aus bis zu dem glatten Gegenstande, den Spiegel, erstreckt. Dabei verwandelt er die in der Welt vorhandenen Strahlen, die sich ihm beimischen. … 2. Nach der Lehre der reinen (muhassalin) Naturphilosophen treten aus dem Auge absolut keine Strahlen aus. Es liegt vielmehr im Objekt selbst begründet, daß es sich im Auge abzeichnet, wenn es sich diesem gegenüber befindet; dabei muß das zwischen beiden liegende Medium durchsichtig und das Objekt ein Selbstleuchter sein. … 3. Die dritte Theorie behauptet: Das Bild des Objekts wird so, wie letzteres in Wirklichkeit ist, im Spiegel abgebildet.’ de An. (trans. lat.) 3.5.32–47 Van Riet dicimus ergo quod famosae sententiae de hoc (sc. de visu) tres sunt, quamvis unaquaeque earum habeat subdivisiones. una enim earum est sententia eorum qui tenent quod radii lineares exeunt de pupilla ad modum pyramidis, cuius caput est versus oculum et eius basis ad partem rei visae. … alia vero sententia est eius qui tenet quod radius exit de pupilla, sed de toto eo non tantum pervenit quod tangat haemispaerium caeli nisi per disgregationem ex qua provenit dilatio visus, sed, cum egreditur et coniungitur aeri lucido, fit ei aer instrumentum et apprehendet per illum. tertia autem sententia est eius qui tenet quod, sicut alia sensibilia non apprehenduntur ex hoc quod aliquid sensum pertingat ad illa vel offendat in illa vel coniungatur eis aut transmittat nuntium ad illa, sic visio non fit ideo quod radius exeat aliquo modo et occurrat viso, sed quia forma visi pervenit ad visum, translucente reddente ipsam. (Engl. trans. from the Arabic of Avicenna’s own abridgement of this passage in his Masriqiyun at Hasse 2000, 119–120). Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) Kitab al-Manazir (i.e. Optics) 1.1.[3] Sabra ‘Natural scientists (i.e. philosophers of nature) have inquired into the nature of this subject according to their art …. The learned among them settled upon the opinion that vision is effected by a form which comes from the visible object to the eye

liber 4 caput 13 and through which sight perceives the form of the object. Mathematicians … have continued through the ages to disagree about the principles of this subject. But for all … the divergence of their views, in general they agree that vision is effected by a ray which issues from the eye to the visible object and by means of which sight perceives the object’ etc. Eustratius in EN 271.3–5 ὡς γὰρ περὶ τὸ λευκὸν ἡ ὅρασις ἐνεργεῖ εἴτε εἰσδεχομένη εἴτε ἐκπέμπουσα κατὰ τὰς διαφόρους δόξας τῶν περὶ τῆς ὀπτικῆς φιλοσοφησάντων, καὶ περὶ τὸ μέλαν ὡσαύτως. Barhebraeus Butyrum Sapientiae V.II.i.1–3, p. 151 Takahashi ‘Concerning how vision works there have been three opinions. One is that which says that a ray goes out from the visual organ and meets the object seen and conveys its image to the visual organ. … The second opinion asserts that the image of the object seen is imprinted as it is in the eye and is seen. … The third opinion is that of the natural philosophers who are correct in (their) inquiry, who say: When the object seen is (placed) opposite the visual organ and there is a transparent body between them, a likeness of the object seen is formed in the eye.’ Sophonias in de An. 75.2–5 πῶς ποτε καὶ τὸ ὁρᾶν γίνεται, πότερον κατά τινων ἀκτίνων σωματικῶν ἐκπομπὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀμμάτων, ὥσπερ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ λέγουσιν, ἢ τῇ εἰσδοχῇ τῆς τῶν ὁρωμένων ποιότητος, ὥσπερ οἱ φυσικοί; ἢ ἕτερόν τι μᾶλλον καὶ τρίτον, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔσται δήπου κατὰ συναύγειαν; Leon Battista Alberti De pictura 1.5, pp. 103–104 Sinisgalli exordiamurque a Philosophorum sententia, qui metiri superficies affirmant radijs quibusdam quasi visendi ministris, quos idcirdco visivos nuncupant, quod per eos rerum simulacra sensui imprimantur. … verum non minima fuit, apud priscos, disceptatio a superficie, an ab oculo ipsi radji erumpant. quae disceptatio sane difficilis, atque apud nos admodum inutilis pretereatur. Hieronymus Mercurialis De morbis oculorum fol. 2A (cf. Vanagt 2011, 119) cum visio sit potius passio, quam actio; nam clarum est, visionem fieri patiente humore crystallino …. pro cuius resolutione dicendum est, fuisse peculiare Peripateticorum dogma, quod visio fiat per solam specierum receptionem, & ideo non est mirum, si Princeps dixerit, magis passione, quam actione perfici. medici alia via incedentes existimarunt (sc. visionem) fieri per receptionem specierum, & radiorum emissionem; unde cum receptio speciei passio quaedam sit, emissio autem, potius actio, iure dictum est, esse haec symptomata in genere actionis loesae (i.e. laesae). Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 3.2 372a31–32 ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν δεικνυμένων. GA 5.2 781b28–29 καὶ περὶ μὲν ὄψεως … εἴρηται. Theophrastus Sens. 8 περὶ μὲν ὄψεως σχεδὸν ταῦτα λέγει. ps.Aristotle Probl. 16.1 913a26–27 δείκνυται ἐν τοῖς Ὀπτικοῖς. Probl. 31 tit. Ὅσα περὶ ὀφθαλμούς. Corpus Hippocraticum Περὶ ὄψιος. Aristombrotos Vis. p. 54.24 Thesleff Ἀριστομβρότου Περὶ ὄψιος. Galen PHP 7.5.1 μάλιστα δ᾽ ἂν πεισθείη τις τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι μαθὼν ὅπως εὔλογόν ἐστιν ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 43.16 ὡς δέδεικται ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν ἐζητημένοις. in Sens. 25.25–26 ἔλεγεν (sc. Aristotle) ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν. in Mete. 141.11–12 ἐδείχθη ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν, ὧν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς ἐμνημόνευσε. Fihrist 7.1, p. 609 Dodge (title in catalogue of Alexander’s books) ‘That Visual Perceptions do not Exist

1645

1646

liber 4 caput 13

Except by Rays Traced from the Eye and a Refutation of Whoever Speaks of Diffusion of the Rays.’ Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.26 (on Aristotle) no. 114.Ὀπτικὸν αʹ. V.P. 5.49 (Theophrastus fr. 265.5 FHS&G) Περὶ ὄψεως αʹ βʹ γʹ δʹ. V.P. 5.59 (Strato fr. 18 Wehrli, 1 Sharples) no. 19. Περὶ ὄψεως. V.P. 7.4 (SVF 1.41, Zeno) Περὶ ὄψεως. Porphyry Plot. 5 (tit. Enn. 4.5[29]) Περὶ ψυχῆς τρίτον ἢ Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν. Plotinus Enn. 2.8[35] Περὶ ὁράσεως ἢ πῶς τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα μικρὰ φαίνεται. Enn. 4.5[29] same title Porph. Plot. 25 Περὶ ψυχῆς τρίτον ἢ Περὶ ὄψεως. Enn. 4.5[29].1.15–16 περὶ δὲ τῆς ὁράσεως—εἰ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀκοῆς, ὕστερον—ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ ὁρᾶν κτλ. Vita Aristotelis Marciana 4, Düring 97 Ὀπτικὰ προβλήματα. Suda s.v. Φ 418 φιλόσοφος (i.e. Philip of Opus fr. i Tarán, F31, F 32–33 Lasserre), p. 4.733.34 Adler Ὀπτικῶν βʹ, Ἐνοπτικῶν βʹ. §0 Whether it exists: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.103–104 (Aenesidemus fr. 5 Polito) τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ὁρῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ {τὸ} ὅτι τόδε νοοῦμεν γινώσκομεν, πῶς δ᾽ ὁρῶμεν ἢ πῶς νοοῦμεν ἀγνοοῦμεν. … (104) οὐ γὰρ τὸ ὁρᾶν ἀναιρεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πῶς ὁρᾶν ἀγνοεῖν. §1 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Aristotle Div. 2 464a5–6 ὥσπερ λέγει Δημόκριτος (fr. 472 Luria) εἴδωλα καὶ ἀπορροίας αἰτιώμενος. Sens. 2 438a5–12 Δημόκριτος (68A121 DK) … ὅτι δ᾽ οἴεται τὸ ὁρᾶν εἶναι τὴν ἔμφασιν, οὐ καλῶς· … ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ ἐπελθεῖν αὐτῷ ἀπορῆσαι διὰ τί ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρᾷ μόνον, τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἐν οἷς ἐμφαίνεται τὰ εἴδωλα. Sens. 2 438a25–27 ἄλογον δὲ ὅλως τὸ ἐξιόντι τινὶ τὴν ὄψιν ὁρᾶν, καὶ ἀποτείνεσθαι μέχρι τῶν ἄστρων, ἢ μέχρι τινὸς ἐξιοῦσαν συμφύεσθαι, καθάπερ λέγουσί τινες. Theophrastus Sens. 50 (on Democritus, 68A135 DK) ὁρᾶν μὲν οὖν ποιεῖ τῇ ἐμφάσει· ταύτην δὲ ἰδίως λέγει· τὴν γὰρ ἔμφασιν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ κόρῃ γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀέρα τὸν μεταξὺ τῆς ὄψεως καὶ τοῦ ὁρωμένου τυποῦσθαι συστελλόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρωμένου καὶ τοῦ ὁρῶντος· ἅπαντος γὰρ ἀεὶ γίνεσθαί τινα ἀπορροήν· ἔπειτα τοῦτον στερεὸν ὄντα καὶ ἀλλόχρων ἐμφαίνεσθαι τοῖς ὄμμασιν ὑγροῖς. καὶ τὸ μὲν πυκνὸν οὐ δέχεσθαι, τὸ δὲ ὑγρὸν διιέναι. Sens. 80 (Democritus 68A135 DK) ὁρᾶν δέ φησι διὰ τὴν ἀπορροὴν καὶ τὴν ἔμφασιν τὴν εἰς τὴν ὄψιν. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.46 καὶ μὴν καὶ τύποι ὁμοιοσχήμονες τοῖς στερεμνίοις εἰσί … · τούτους δὲ τοὺς τύπους εἴδωλα προσαγορεύομεν κτλ. Cicero ND 1.108 vos autem non modo oculis imagines sed etiam animis inculcatis. Fin. 1.21 quae sequitur sunt tota Democriti (fr. 182 Luria), atomi, inane, imagines, quae εἴδωλα nominant, quorum incursione non solum videamus, sed etiam cogitemus. Lucretius DRN 4.256–258 illud in his rebus minime mirabile habendumst, / cur, ea quae feriant oculos simulacra videri / singula cum nequeant, res ipsae perspiciantur. DRN 6.921–923 principio omnibus ab rebus, quascumque videmus, / perpetuo fluere ac mitti spargique necessest / corpora quae feriant oculos visumque lacessant. Galen PHP 7.7.21–22 πολὺ τοίνυν ἄμεινον ὡς ἐν ἐσφαλμένοις Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 319 Usener) ἀπεφήνατο τῶν Στωϊκῶν. (22) ἐκεῖνοι μὲν γὰρ τῶν ὁρατῶν οὐδὲν ἄγουσιν ἄχρι τῆς ὀπτικῆς δυνάμεως, ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος ἀπεφήνατο ἄγειν. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 9.ii.9–14 Smith τὰ οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν πρα|γμάτων ῥέοντα εἴδω|λα, ἐνπείπτοντα ἡμῶν | ταῖς ὄψεσιν, τοῦ τε ὁρᾶν | ἡμᾶς τὰ ὑποκείμενα | αἴτια γείνεται. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 24.18–21 ἡγεῖται δὲ αὐτός (sc. Democritus, fr. 477 Luria) τε καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ Λεύκιππος καὶ ὕστε-

liber 4 caput 13 ρον δὲ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἐπίκουρον (fr. 319 Usener) εἴδωλά τινα ἀπορρέοντα ὁμοιόμορφα τοῖς ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἀπορρεῖ (ταῦτα δέ ἐστι τὰ ὁρατά) ἐμπίπτειν τοῖς τῶν ὁρώντων ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ οὕτως τὸ ὁρᾶν γίνεσθαι. in Sens. 56.10–16 ἣ ἦν δόξα προκαταβεβλημένη περὶ τοῦ ὁρᾶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων, ὡς ἄρα τοῦ ὁρᾶν κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀπόρροιαν γινομένου· εἴδωλα γάρ τινα ὁμοιόμορφα ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων συνεχῶς ἀπορρέοντα καὶ ἐμπίπτοντα τῇ ὄψει τοῦ ὁρᾶν ᾐτιῶντο. τοιοῦτοι δὲ ἦσαν οἵ τε περὶ Λεύκιππον (67A29 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτον. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 (on Democritus, 68A1 DK) ὁρᾶν δ᾽ ἡμᾶς κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ἐμπτώσεις. Etymologicum magnum s.v. p. 260.40– 41 Kallierges δείκελον· παρὰ δὲ Δημοκρίτῳ (68B123 DK) κατ᾽ εἶδος ὁμοία τοῖς πράγμασιν ἀπόρροια. Etymologicum magnum p. 333.12–18 Kallierges s.v. γλαύξ· ἔστι γὰρ ὀξυωπέστατον τὸ ζῷον, ἐν νυκτὶ ὁρᾶν δυνάμενον. Δημόκριτος (68A157 DK) δὲ ἱστορεῖ, ὅτι μόνον τῶν γαμψωνύχων καὶ σαρκοφάγων μὴ τυφλὰ τίκτει, ὅτι πολὺ πυρῶδες καὶ θερμὸν περὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχει· ὃ σφοδρῶς ὀξὺ καὶ τμητικὸν ὑπάρχον, διαιρεῖ καὶ ἀναμίγνυσι τὴν ὅρασιν· διὸ καὶ ἐν ταῖς σκοτομήνῃσιν ὁρᾷ, διὰ τὸ πυρῶδες τῶν ὄψεων. Gregory of Nyssa in Cant. 105.11–13 Langerbeck φασὶ γὰρ οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα φυσιολογεῖν ἐπιστήμονες ὅτι τὰς τῶν εἰδώλων ἐμπτώσεις δεχόμενος, αἳ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἀπορρέουσιν, οὕτως ἐνεργεῖ τὴν ὄψιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός. §3 Strato: Plutarch Quaest.Conv. 626A (Hieronymus of Rhodes fr. 53 Wehrli) ὅτι τοῖς προσπίπτουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρατῶν εἴδεσιν πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν κτλ. Plotinus Enn. 4.5[29]2.4–6 εἰ δὲ τροπὴν ἐργάζεται τὸ ὑποκείμενον σῶμα κεχρωσμένον, τί κωλύει τὴν τροπὴν εὐθὺς πρὸς τὸ ὄμμα ἰέναι μηδενὸς ὄντος μεταξύ; §5 Hipparchus: ps.Aristotle Probl. 31.16 959a2–6 διὰ τί οἱ μύωπες συνάγοντες τὰ βλέφαρα ὁρῶσιν; ἢ δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν τῆς ὄψεως, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ πρὸς τὰ πόρρω τὴν χεῖρα προσάγοντες, οὕτω καὶ τὰ βλέφαρα πρὸς τὰ ἐγγὺς προστίθενται ὥσπερ χεῖρα; Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 3, p. 2.187.17–18 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.29.2 (Posidonius fr. 338b Theiler) ὄψις δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον αὐτὸ ἐκπέμπεται. Plotinus Enn. 4.5[29]2.12–13 καὶ οἱ ἐκχέοντες δὲ τὰς ὄψεις οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν ἀκολουθοῦν τὸ πάντως μεταξύ τι εἶναι, εἰ μὴ φοβοῖντο μὴ πέσῃ ἡ ἀκτίς· ἀλλὰ φωτός ἐστι, καὶ τὸ φῶς εὐθυποροῦν. Porphyry in Harm. p. 32.7–8 & 17–20 ἡ ὅρασις ἐκπέμπουσα ἐπὶ τὸ ὑποκείμενον τὴν ὄψιν κατὰ διάδοσιν, ὥς φασιν οἱ μαθηματικοί, τὴν ἀντίληψιν ποιεῖται τοῦ ὑποκειμένου. … ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὄψις τὰ ἐκτὸς ὁρᾷ ἐπιβάλλουσα αὐτοῖς, ὧν τὴν ἀντίληψιν ποιεῖται, λέγω δ᾽ ἐπί τε μείζονος καὶ ἐλάττονος διαστήματος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δόξαν οὐκ ἀπίθανον ἡμῖν τοῦ αὐτὴν θεωρεῖν τὰ ἐν σχέσει παρέχει. §6 Pythagoras: Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.29 τήν τ᾽ αἴσθησιν κοινῶς καὶ κατ᾽ εἶδος τὴν ὅρασιν ἀτμόν τιν᾽ ἄγαν εἶναι θερμόν. καὶ διὰ τοῦτον λέγεται δι᾽ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν καὶ δι᾽ ὕδατος· ἀντερείδεσθαι γὰρ τὸ θερμὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ ψυχροῦ. ἐπεί τοι εἰ ψυχρὸς ἦν ὁ ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασιν ἀτμός, διειστήκει ἂν πρὸς τὸν ὅμοιον ἀέρα· νῦν δὲ ἔστιν ἐν οἷς ἡλίου πύλας καλεῖ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς. §7 Plato: Plato Tht. 156d–e ἐπειδὰν οὖν ὄμμα καὶ ἄλλο τι τῶν τούτῳ συμμέτρων πλησιάσαν γεννήσῃ τὴν λευκότητά τε καὶ αἴσθησιν αὐτῇ σύμφυτον, ἃ οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐγένετο ἑκατέρου ἐκείνων πρὸς ἄλλο ἐλθόντος, τότε δὴ μεταξὺ φερομένων τῆς μὲν ὄψεως πρὸς τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, τῆς δὲ λευκότητος πρὸς τοῦ συναποτίκτοντος τὸ χρῶμα, ὁ μὲν ὀφθαλμὸς ἄρα ὄψεως ἔμπλεως ἐγένετο καὶ ὁρᾷ δὴ τότε καὶ ἐγένετο

1647

1648

liber 4 caput 13

οὔ τι ὄψις ἀλλ᾽ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρῶν, τὸ δὲ συγγεννῆσαν τὸ χρῶμα λευκότητος περιεπλήσθη καὶ ἐγένετο οὐ λευκότης αὖ ἀλλὰ λευκόν. Resp. 507d–508b ἐνούσης που ἐν ὄμμασιν ὄψεως καὶ ἐπιχειροῦντος τοῦ ἔχοντος χρῆσθαι αὐτῇ, παρούσης δὲ χρόας ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἐὰν μὴ (e) παραγένηται γένος τρίτον ἰδίᾳ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πεφυκός, οἶσθα ὅτι ἥ τε ὄψις οὐδὲν ὄψεται, τά τε χρώματα ἔσται ἀόρατα. κτλ. Tim. 45b–d (cited Galen PHP 7.6.5–9) τὸ γὰρ ἐντὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸν ὂν τούτου πῦρ εἰλικρινὲς ἐποίησαν διὰ τῶν ὀμμάτων ῥεῖν λεῖον καὶ πυκνὸν ὅλον μέν, μάλιστα δὲ τὸ μέσον συμπιλήσαντες (c) τῶν ὀμμάτων, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἄλλο ὅσον παχύτερον στέγειν πᾶν, τὸ τοιοῦτον δὲ μόνον αὐτὸ καθαρὸν διηθεῖν. ὅταν οὖν μεθημερινὸν ᾖ φῶς περὶ τὸ τῆς ὄψεως ῥεῦμα, τότε ἐκπῖπτον ὅμοιον πρὸς ὅμοιον, συμπαγὲς γενόμενον, ἓν σῶμα οἰκειωθὲν συνέστη κατὰ τὴν τῶν ὀμμάτων εὐθυωρίαν, ὅπῃπερ ἂν ἀντερείδῃ τὸ προσπῖπτον ἔνδοθεν πρὸς ὃ τῶν ἔξω συνέπεσεν. ὁμοιοπαθὲς δὴ δι᾽ ὁμοιότητα πᾶν γενόμενον, ὅτου τε ἂν αὐτό (d) ποτε ἐφάπτηται καὶ ὃ ἂν ἄλλο ἐκείνου, τούτων τὰς κινήσεις διαδιδὸν εἰς ἅπαν τὸ σῶμα μέχρι τῆς ψυχῆς αἴσθησιν παρέσχετο ταύτην ᾗ δὴ ὁρᾶν φαμεν. Tim. 67c τέταρτον δὴ λοιπὸν ἔτι γένος ἡμῖν αἰσθητικόν, ὃ διελέσθαι δεῖ συχνὰ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ποικίλματα κεκτημένον, ἃ σύμπαντα μὲν χρόας ἐκαλέσαμεν, φλόγα τῶν σωμάτων ἑκάστων ἀπορρέουσαν, ὄψει σύμμετρα μόρια ἔχουσαν πρὸς αἴσθησιν· ὄψεως δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν αὐτὸ περὶ τῶν αἰτίων τῆς γενέσεως ἐρρήθη. Theophrastus Sens. 5 τὴν μὲν ὄψιν ποιεῖ (sc. Plato) πυρός (διὸ καὶ τὸ χρῶμα φλόγα τιν᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων σύμμετρα μόρια τῇ ὄψει ἔχουσαν), ὡς ἀπορροῆς τε γινομένης καὶ δέον συναρμόττειν ἀλλήλοις ἐξιοῦσαν μέχρι τινὸς συμφύεσθαι τῇ ἀπορροῇ καὶ οὕτως ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς· ὥσπερ ἂν εἰς τὸ μέσον τιθεὶς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δόξαν τῶν τε φασκόντων προσπίπτειν τὴν ὄψιν καὶ τῶν φέρεσθαι πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρατῶν. Plutarch Quaest.Conv. 626C ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν Πλατωνικὴν φυλάττοντες ἀρχὴν ἐλέγομεν ὅτι πνεῦμα τῶν ὀμμάτων αὐγοειδὲς ἐκπῖπτον ἀνακίρναται τῷ περὶ τὰ σώματα φωτὶ καὶ λαμβάνει σύμπηξιν, ὥσθ᾽ ἓν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν σῶμα δι᾽ ὅλου συμπαθὲς γενέσθαι κτλ. Alcinous Did. 18 p. 173.16– 23 H. ἱδρύσαντες δὲ περὶ τὸ πρόσωπον τὰ φωσφόρα ὄμματα καθεῖρξαν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ φωτοειδές, ὅπερ λεῖον ὑπάρχον καὶ πυκνὸν ἀδελφὸν ᾤοντο εἶναι τοῦ μεθημερινοῦ φωτός. τοῦτο δὴ ῥᾷστα δι᾽ ὅλων μὲν τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, μάλιστα δὲ κατὰ τὸ μέσον αὐτῶν διεκθεῖ, τὸ καθαρώτατόν τε καὶ εἰλικρινέστατον· ὃ γινόμενον συμπαγὲς τῷ ἔξωθεν, ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ, ὁρατικὴν αἴσθησιν παρέχεται· ὅθεν καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς νύκτωρ ἀπιόντος ἢ σκοτωθέντος οὐκέτι προσφύεται τὸ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ῥεῦμα τῷ πλησίον ἀέρι, συνεχόμενον δὲ ἐντὸς ὁμαλύνει τε καὶ διαχεῖ τὰς ἐν ἡμῖν κινήσεις, ἐπαγωγὸν ὕπνου γινόμενον, παρ᾽ ὃ καὶ μύει τὰ βλέφαρα. Pollux Onom. 2.63 ὁ δὲ Πλάτων (Tim. 45b) εἴρηκε φωσφόρα ὄμματα· λέγοιντο δ᾽ ἂν ὀφθαλμοὶ λάμποντες, στίλβοντες, θυμοειδεῖς, πυρώδεις· μαρμαρυγὰς ἀφιέντες, αἴγλην, αὐγήν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 33.1–2 ὁ γὰρ Πλάτων σύμφυσιν εἶπε γίνεσθαι τοῦ τ᾽ ἐξιόντος ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως φωτὸς καὶ τοῦ ἐκτός. Plotinus Enn. 4.5[29].2.1–4 εἰ μὲν οὖν τοιοῦτόν ἐστι τὸ ὁρᾶν, οἷον τὸ τῆς ὄψεως φῶς συνάπτειν πρὸς τὸ μεταξὺ [φῶς del. edd.] μέχρι τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ, δεῖ μεταξὺ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ φῶς, καὶ ἡ ὑπόθεσις αὕτη τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦτο ζητεῖ. Enn. 4.5[29].4.1–4 ἀλλὰ τὸ συναφὲς τῆς ὄψεως φῶς πρὸς τὸ περὶ τὴν ὄψιν καὶ μέχρι τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ πῶς; ἢ πρῶτον μὲν τοῦ μεταξὺ ἀέρος οὐ δεῖται, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἂν ἀέρος ἄνευ λέγοιτο. Enn. 6.7[38].1.1–2 ὁ θεὸς ἢ θεός τις τὰς ψυχὰς φωσφόρα περὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἔθηκεν ὄμματα. Augustine Gen. ad litt. 1.16, p. 23.9–19

liber 4 caput 13 Zycha iactus enim radiorum ex oculis nostris cuiusdam quidem lucis est iactus et contrahi potest, cum aërem, qui est oculis nostris proximus, intuemur, et emitti, cum ad eandem rectitudinem quae sunt longe posita adtendimus. nec sane, cum contrahitur, omnino cernere, quae longe sunt, desinit, sed certe obscurius, quam cum in ea obtutus emittitur. sed tamen ea lux, quae in sensu videntis est, tam exigua docetur, ut, nisi adiuvetur extraria luce, nihil videre possimus; et quia discerni ab ea non potest, quo exemplo demonstrari possit emissio in diem et contractio lucis in noctem, sicut dixi, reperire difficile est. Damianus Opt. 6.1 γινώσκειν δὲ δεῖ ὅτι τὸ κωνικὸν τοῦτο καὶ φωτοειδὲς τῆς ὄψεως σχῆμα διὰ τῶν ἀδήλων πόρων τῆς κόρης φερόμενον σχίζεται ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἰς κεχωρισμένας μὲν ἀλλήλων ἀκτῖνας, συναυγαζούσας δὲ πάντα τὸν μεταξὺ αὐτῶν τόπον, τουτέστιν ὅλου τοῦ κώνου τὸ βάθος. §8 Alcmaeon: Theophrastus Sens. 26 (Alcmaeon 24A5 DK) ὀφθαλμοὺς δὲ ὁρᾶν διὰ τοῦ πέριξ ὕδατος· ὅτι δ᾽ ἔχει πῦρ δῆλον εἶναι, πληγέντος γὰρ ἐκλάμπειν. ὁρᾶν δὲ τῷ στίλβοντι καὶ τῷ διαφανεῖ, ὅταν ἀντιφαίνῃ, καὶ ὅσῳ ἂν καθαρώτερον ᾖ, μᾶλλον. §9 Aristotle: Aristotle Top. 1.14 105b6–10 ὅτι ὁρῶμεν εἰσδεχόμενοί τι, οὐκ ἐκπέμποντες· καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθήσεων οὕτως· ἀκούομέν τε γὰρ εἰσδεχόμενοί τι, οὐκ ἐκπέμποντες, καὶ γευόμεθα ὡσαύτως· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων. de An. 2.6 418a31–b10 πᾶν δὲ χρῶμα κινητικόν ἐστι τοῦ κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν διαφανοῦς, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ ἡ φύσις· διόπερ οὐχ ὁρατὸν ἄνευ φωτός, ἀλλὰ πᾶν τὸ ἑκάστου χρῶμα ἐν φωτὶ ὁρᾶται. διὸ περὶ φωτὸς πρῶτον λεκτέον τί ἐστιν. ἔστι δή τι διαφανές· διαφανὲς δὲ λέγω ὃ ἔστι μὲν ὁρατόν, οὐ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ δὲ ὁρατὸν ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀλλότριον χρῶμα. τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστιν ἀὴρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ πολλὰ τῶν στερεῶν· οὐ γὰρ ᾗ ὕδωρ οὐδ᾽ ᾗ ἀὴρ, διαφανές, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἔστι τις φύσις ἐνυπάρχουσα ἡ αὐτὴ ἐν τούτοις ἀμφοτέροις καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀϊδίῳ τῷ ἄνω σώματι. φῶς δέ ἐστιν ἡ τούτου ἐνέργεια, τοῦ διαφανοῦς ᾗ διαφανές. Sens. 2 438b2–5 περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ἄνευ φωτὸς μὴ ὁρᾶν εἴρηται ἐν ἄλλοις· ἀλλ᾽ εἴτε φῶς εἴτ᾽ ἀήρ ἐστι τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ ὁρωμένου καὶ τοῦ ὄμματος, ἡ διὰ τούτου κίνησίς ἐστιν ἡ ποιοῦσα τὸ ὁρᾶν. differently Mete. 3.2 372a29–32 ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ ὄψις ἀνακλᾶται, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὕδατος, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ ἀέρος καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν λείαν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν δεικνυμένων δεῖ λαμβάνειν τὴν πίστιν. Mete. 3.4.373b2–9 διὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς ὄψεως ἀσθένειαν πολλάκις καὶ ἄνευ συστάσεως ποιεῖ ἀνάκλασιν, οἷόν ποτε συνέβαινέ τινι πάθος ἠρέμα καὶ οὐκ ὀξὺ βλέποντι· ἀεὶ γὰρ εἴδωλον ἐδόκει προηγεῖσθαι βαδίζοντι αὐτῷ, ἐξ ἐναντίας βλέπον πρὸς αὐτόν. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔπασχε διὰ τὸ τὴν ὄψιν ἀνακλᾶσθαι πρὸς αὐτόν· οὕτω γὰρ ἀσθενὴς ἦν καὶ λεπτὴ πάμπαν ὑπὸ τῆς ἀρρωστίας, ὥστ᾽ ἔνοπτρον ἐγίγνετο καὶ ὁ πλησίον ἀήρ. cf. Seneca Nat. 1.3.7 Aristoteles idem iudicat: ‘ab omni’ inquit ‘levitate acies radios suos replicat; nihil autem est levius aqua et aëre; ergo etiam ab aëre spisso visus noster in nos redit. ubi vero acies hebes et infirma est, qualislibet aëris ictu deficiet. quidam itaque hoc genere valetudinis laborant ut ipsi sibi videantur occurrere, ut ubique imaginem suam cernant. quare? quia infirma vis oculorum non potest perrumpere ne sibi quidem proximum aëra, sed resistit’. §10 Academics: Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 127.28–29 εἰ κατὰ ἀκτίνων ἔκχυσιν καὶ πρόπτωσιν τὸ ὁρᾶν, δῆλον ὅτι σώματα αὗται. Plotinus

1649

1650

liber 4 caput 13

Enn. 4.5[29]2.8–12 καὶ οἱ ἐκχέοντες δὲ τὰς ὄψεις οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν ἀκολουθοῦν τὸ πάντως μεταξύ τι εἶναι, εἰ μὴ φοβοῖντο μὴ πέσῃ ἡ ἀκτίς· …. οἱ δὲ τὴν ἔνστασιν αἰτιώμενοι δέοιντο ἂν πάντως τοῦ μεταξύ. §11 Posidonius: Etymologicum magnum p. 645.52–54 Kallierges ὀψίς· ὡς μὲν Ποσειδώνιος (F 193 E.-K., 394 Theiler), παρὰ τὸ ἅπτω ἅψω, ἁψίς τις οὖσα, ἡ φῶς ἐμποιοῦσα καὶ καταυγάζουσα τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἕκαστα, ὡς πῦρ. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.93 καὶ ὡς τὸ μὲν φῶς, φησὶν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F 85 E.-K., 395a Theiler) τὸν Πλάτωνος Τίμαιον ἐξηγούμενος, ὑπὸ τῆς φωτοειδοῦς ὄψεως καταλαμβάνεται ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀεροειδοῦς ἀκοῆς, οὕτω καὶ ἡ τῶν ὅλων φύσις ὑπὸ συγγενοῦς ὀφείλει καταλαμβάνεσθαι τοῦ λόγου. M. 7.119 Πλάτων δὲ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ (Tim. 45b) πρὸς παράστασιν τοῦ ἀσώματον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει τῆς ἀποδείξεως κέχρηται. εἰ γὰρ ἡ μὲν ὅρασις, φησί, φωτὸς ἀντιλαμβανομένη εὐθύς ἐστι φωτοειδής, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ ἀέρα πεπληγμένον κρίνουσα, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὴν φωνήν, εὐθὺς ἀεροειδὴς θεωρεῖται, ἡ δὲ ὄσφρησις ἀτμοὺς γνωρίζουσα πάντως ἐστὶν ἀτμοειδὴς καὶ ἡ γεῦσις χυλοὺς χυλοειδής, κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ τὰς ἀσωμάτους ἰδέας λαμβάνουσα κτλ. Plotinus Enn. 1.6[1].9 οὐ γὰρ ἂν πώποτε εἶδεν ὀφθαλμὸς ἥλιον ἡλιοειδὴς μὴ γεγενημένος κτλ. (Ficino’s translation read by Goethe runs neque vero oculus unquam videret solem, nisi factus solaris esset). §12 Empedocles: Empedocles 31B84.5–11 DK πῦρ δ᾽ ἔξω διαθρῶισκον, ὅσον ταναώτερον ἦεν, / λάμπεσκεν κατὰ βηλὸν ἀτειρέσιν ἀκτίνεσσιν· […] / (11) πῦρ δ᾽ ἔξω διίεσκον, ὅσον ταναώτερον ἦεν. 31B89 DK γνούς, ὅτι πάντων εἰσὶν ἀπορροαί, ὅσσ᾽ ἐγένοντο. Plato Men. 76c–d oὐκοῦν λέγετε ἀπορροάς τινας τῶν ὄντων κατὰ Ἐμπεδοκλέα (31A92 DK);—σφόδρα γε.—καὶ πόρους εἰς οὓς καὶ δι᾽ ὧν αἱ ἀπορροαὶ πορεύονται;—πάνυ γε.—καὶ τῶν ἀπορροῶν τὰς μὲν ἁρμόττειν ἐνίοις τῶν (d) πόρων, τὰς δὲ ἐλάττους ἢ μείζους εἶναι;—ἔστι ταῦτα.—oὐκοῦν καὶ ὄψιν καλεῖς τι;—ἔγωγε.—ἐκ τούτων δὴ ‘σύνες ὅ τοι λέγω’, ἔφη Πίνδαρος (fr. 105a Maehler). ἔστιν γὰρ χρόα ἀπορροὴ σχημάτων ὄψει σύμμετρος καὶ αἰσθητός. Aristotle Sens. 2 437b10–15 ἐπεὶ εἴ γε πῦρ ἦν (sc. ὁ ὀφθαλμός), καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (cf. 31B84 DK) φησὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ (Tim. 45b–46a) γέγραπται, καὶ συνέβαινε τὸ ὁρᾶν ἐξιόντος ὥσπερ ἐκ λαμπτῆρος τοῦ φωτός (κτλ). Sens. 2 437b23–438a4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (on 31B84 DK) δ᾽ ἔοικε νομίζοντι ὁτὲ μὲν ἐξιόντος τοῦ φωτός, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, βλέπειν· λέγει γοῦν οὕτως· (31B84 DK follows) … · ὁτὲ μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὁρᾶν φησίν, ὁτὲ δὲ ταῖς ἀπορροίαις ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων. GC 1.8 324b26–29 τοῖς μὲν οὖν δοκεῖ πάσχειν ἕκαστον διά τινων πόρων εἰσιόντος τοῦ ποιοῦντος ἐσχάτου καὶ κυριωτάτου, καὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον καὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ ἀκούειν ἡμᾶς φασι καὶ τὰς ἄλλας αἰσθήσεις αἰσθάνεσθαι πάσας. … οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπί τινων οὕτω διώρισαν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A87 DK). Theophrastus Sens. 7 φησὶ (Empedocles 31A86 DK) τὸ μὲν ἐντὸς αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς ὄψεως) εἶναι πῦρ, τὸ δὲ περὶ αὐτὸ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα, δι᾽ ὧν διιέναι λεπτὸν ὂν καθάπερ τὸ ἐν τοῖς λαμπτῆρσι φῶς. … φέρεσθαι δὲ τὰ χρώματα πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν διὰ τὴν ἀπορροήν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 23.6–24.9 λέγει δὲ αὐτὸν ποτὲ μὲν τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως ἐκπεμπόμενον φῶς αἰτιᾶσθαι τοῦ ὁρᾶν, ποτὲ δὲ ἀπορροίας τινὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων. καὶ πρῶτόν γε παρατίθεται αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔπη (sc. 31B84 DK) δι᾽ ὧν ἡγεῖται καὶ αὐτὸς πῦρ εἶναι τὸ φῶς καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν προχεῖσθαί τε καὶ ἐκπέμπεσθαι καὶ τούτῳ τὸ ὁρᾶν γίνεσθαι. … δείξας δὲ αὐτὸν διὰ

liber 4 caput 13 τούτων τῶν ἐπῶν ταῦτα λέγοντα, προστίθησι τὸ ὁτὲ μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὁρᾶν φησίν, ὁτὲ δὲ ταῖς ἀπορροίαις ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀπορρεῖν τινά, ἃ προσπίπτοντα τῇ ὄψει, ὅταν ἐναρμόσῃ τοῖς ἐν αὐτῇ πόροις τῷ εἶναι σύμμετρα, εἴσω τε χωρεῖν καὶ οὕτως τὸ ὁρᾶν γίνεσθαι. ταύτης τῆς δόξης καὶ Πλάτων μνημονεύει ὡς οὔσης Ἐμπεδοκλέους ἐν Μένωνι (76c–d), καὶ ὁρίζεται κατὰ τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἐκείνου τὸ χρῶμα ἀπορροὴν σωμάτων ὄψει σύμμετρον καὶ αἰσθητήν. in Sens. 56.15–16 ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οὕτω (sc. εἴδωλα γάρ τινα ὁμοιόμορφα ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων συνεχῶς ἀπορρέοντα καὶ ἐμπίπτοντα τῇ ὄψει) τὸ ὁρᾶν γίνεσθαι λέγει, ὡς πρὸ ὀλίγου ἐμνημόνευσεν.

1651

Liber 4 Caput 14 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 901C–D; p. 405a1–25 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 95; pp. 636.27–637.4 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 203–205 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.52.14–16, pp. 485.11–486.2 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b32 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus ιδʹ. Περὶ κατοπτρικῶν ἐμφάσεων (P,S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς κατ᾽ ἀπορροίας τὰς συνισταμένας μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κατόπτρου, πιλουμένας δ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐκκρινομένου ἐκ τοῦ κατόπτρου πυρώδους καὶ τὸν προκείμενον ἀέρα, εἰς ὃν φέρεται τὰ ῥεύματα, συμμεταφέροντος. (P1,S1) §2 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὰς κατοπτρικὰς ἐμφάσεις γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ εἰδώλων παραστάσεις, ἅτινα φέρεσθαι μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν, συνίστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατόπτρου, κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν. (P2,S2) §3 οἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου καὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν κατ᾽ ἀντανακλάσεις τῆς ὄψεως· φέρεσθαι μὲν γὰρ τὴν ὄψιν τεταμένην ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν χαλκόν, ἐντυχοῦσαν δὲ πυκνῷ καὶ λείῳ πληχθεῖσαν ὑποστρέφειν αὐτὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτήν, ὅμοιόν τι πάσχουσαν τῇ ἐκτάσει τῆς χειρὸς καὶ τῇ ἐπὶ τὸν ὦμον ἀντεπιστροφῇ. (P3,S3) §1 Empedocles 31A88 DK; §2 Leucippus, Democritus 67A31 DK; Epicurus fr. 320 Usener; §3 Pythagorei et mathematici Archytas fr. A25 text A Huffman titulus κατοπτρικῶν ἐμφάσεων PBS : κατόπτρων PG : Bilder, welche in den Spiegeln gesehen werden Q §1 [2] κατ᾽ ἀπορροίας PBSL : das Fließen von Strahlen aus dem Gesichtssinn Q ‖ ἐπιφανείας PB(I,III)QSL : ἐμφανείας PB(II) ‖ [3] πιλουμένας SL prob. Diels Lachenaud : τελειουμένας PB crucif. Mau : sie werden sichtbar Q ‖ [4] πυρώδους PBSL : Strahlen Q ‖ [4–5] συμμεταφέροντος PB : durch ihre Rückkehr zu dem Gesichtssinn Q : συντρεφόντος SL, corr. Diels Wachsmuth §2 [6] Λεύκιππος … Ἐπίκουρος SL : Λεύκιππος om. PBG : Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος om. PQ ‖ [7] παραστάσεις scripsimus cf. c. 5.2.1 τὰς τῶν εἰδώλων παραστάσεις : ὑποστάσεις PB crucif. Lachenaud prob. Koenen (1995) 48–49 : ἐπιστάσεις PG, dub. an rectius Mau : Einprägen, die sich in ihnen ausdrücken Q : ἐμφάσεις SL Diels DG : ἐνστάσεις coni. Meineke (cf. c. 4.13.10[2]) prob. Diels VS Laks–Most : ἀποστάσεις coni. Usener cf. Epicur. fr. 320 ‖ ἅτινα … ἡμῶν] om. PQ ‖ [8] κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν PB : κατὰ ἀντιστροφήν PG : auf dem Wege der Rückkehr zu ihnen (den Dingen) Q : κατ᾽ ἀντεπιστροφήν SL §3 [9] οἱ PBGQ : om. SL, corr. edd., οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν coni. Usener ‖ καὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν SL : om PBGQ ‖ ἀντανακλάσεις PBG : ἀνάκλασιν SL ‖ [10] τεταμένην PBGQ : τεταγμένην SL, corr. edd. ‖ [11] ἐντυχοῦσαν PG editores : στειχοῦσαν PB : om. PQ ‖ [11–13] αὐτὴν … ἀντεπιστροφῇ om. PG ‖ [11] πληχθεῖσαν PBS : πληγεῖσαν PG : om. Q ‖ [12] χειρὸς … ὦμον PBSL : der Vorderarm zum Oberarm Q ‖ τῇ PBQ : τῆς SL corr. edd. ‖ [13] ἀντεπιστροφῇ PBQ : -φῆς SL corr. edd.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_114

5

10

liber 4 caput 14

§4

δύναταί τις πᾶσι τούτοις τοῖς κεφαλαίοις χρῆσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν. (P4,S4)

§4— §4 [14–15] δύναταί … ὁρῶμεν PB SL : ut ex glossemate exorta perperam secl. Wachsmuth ‖ [14] κεφαλαίοις PBSL : Berichte Q ‖ χρῆσασθαι SL : χρῆσθαι PB : auf die Frage von jemandem add. Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 95 Περὶ κατόπτρων (~ tit.) (text Diels) 95.1 (~ P2) Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος τὰς κατοπτρικὰς ἐμφάσεις γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ἐπιστάσεις, ἅτινα φέρεσθαι μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν, συνίστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατόπτρου κατὰ ἀντιστροφήν. 95.2 (~ P3) οἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου κατὰ τὰς ἀντανακλάσεις τῆς ὄψεως. φέρεσθαι μὲν γὰρ τὴν ὄψιν τεταμένην ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν χαλκόν, ἐντυχοῦσαν δὲ πυκνῷ καὶ λείῳ πληγεῖσαν ὑποστρέφειν. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 2.20.12 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ (sc. τὸν ἥλιον), δεχόμενον μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πυρὸς τὴν ἀνταύγειαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τό τε φῶς καὶ τὴν ἀλέαν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ διττοὺς ἡλίους γίγνεσθαι, τό τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πυροειδὲς κατὰ τὸ ἐσοπτροειδές, εἰ μή τις καὶ τρίτον λέξει, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐγήν. A 2.20.13 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, ἀεὶ κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον· τὸν δὲ φαινόμενον ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τῷ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ θερμομιγοῦς πεπληρωμένῳ, ἀπὸ κυκλοτεροῦς τῆς γῆς κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν ἐγγιγνομένην εἰς τὸν Ὄλυμπον τὸν κρυσταλλοειδῆ. A 3.1.4 τινὲς δὲ κατοπτρικὴν εἶναι φαντασίαν τοῦ ἡλίου τὰς αὐγὰς πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνακλῶντος, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἴριδος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφῶν συμβαίνει. A 3.2.2 ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, παραπλησίαν ταῖς κατοπτρικαῖς ἐμφάσεσιν. §1 A 1.15.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (sc. χρῶμα εἶναι) τὸ τοῖς πόροις τῆς ὄψεως ἐναρμόττον. A 4.13.7 τοῦ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἀντιφερομένου, τοῦ δὲ περὶ τὸν μεταξὺ ἀέρα, εὐδιάχυτον ὄντα καὶ εὔτρεπτον, συντεινομένου τῷ πυρώδει τῆς ὄψεως. A 4.13.12 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ πρὸς τὸ διὰ τῶν ἀκτίνων καὶ πρὸς τὸ διὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ἐκδοχὰς παρέχεται· πλείους δὲ πρὸς ⟨τὸ⟩ δεύτερον· τὰς γὰρ ἀπορροίας ἀποδέχεται. §2 A 4.8.10 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν νόησιν γίνεσθαι εἰδώλων ἔξωθεν προσιόντων· μηδενὶ γὰρ ἐπιβάλλειν μηδετέραν χωρὶς τοῦ προσπίπτοντος εἰδώλου. A 4.13.1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος κατὰ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν οἴονται τὸ ὁρατικὸν συμβαίνειν πάθος. §3 A 2.24.1 Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ἐκλείπειν τὸν ἥλιον τῆς σελήνης αὐτὸν ὑποτρεχούσης κατὰ κάθετον …· βλέπεσθαι δὲ τοῦτο κατοπτρικῶς ὑποτιθεμένῳ τῷ δίσκῳ.

1653

15

1654

liber 4 caput 14

A 3.2.1 …· ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, παραπλησίαν ταῖς κατοπτρικαῖς ἐμφάσεσιν. A 3.5.6 τρίτος τρόπος τοῦ βλέπειν τὰ ἀνακλώμενα ὡς τὰ κατοπτρικά· ἔστιν οὖν τὸ τῆς ἴριδος πάθος τοιοῦτον. δεῖ γὰρ ἐπινοῆσαι τὴν ὑγρὰν ἀναθυμίασιν εἰς νέφος μεταβάλλουσαν, εἶτ᾽ ἐκ τού⟨του⟩ κατὰ βραχὺ εἰς μικρὰς ῥανίδας νοτιζούσας· ὅταν οὖν ὁ ἥλιος γένηται εἰς δυσμάς, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἶριν ἄντικρυς ἡλίου φαίνεσθαι, ὅτε ἡ ὄψις προσπεσοῦσα ταῖς ῥανίσιν ἀνακλᾶται, ὥστε γίνεσθαι τὴν ἶριν. A 4.13.5 Ἵππαρχος ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρου φησὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀποτεινομένας ⟨ἀκτῖνας⟩ τοῖς πέρασιν αὑτῶν, οἱονεὶ χειρῶν ἐπαφαῖς + A 4.13.6 ἔνιοι καὶ Πυθαγόραν τῇ δόξῃ ταύτῃ συνεπιγράφουσιν. §4 A 4.13.tit. Περὶ ὁράσεως, πῶς ὁρῶμεν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses There are two witnesses for this rather brief chapter, P, represented in various ways by PB, PG and PQ, and S. As we pointed out above at ch. 4.8 Commentary A(1), for chs. 4.8 and following in Book 4 the direct tradition of S has incidentally only preserved lemmata concerned with Aristotle and Plato, but ch. 4.14 has no such lemmata. The whole chapter (assuming no lemmata are lost) is extant only in the Florentine florilegium. The contents and order of the four lemmata are the same in both witnesses, and there is no interpolation in S. It would seem that S copied out the chapter. Wachsmuth’s bracketing of §4 (‘videntur tamen antiquitus ex glossemate exorta’), even though he admits that it is also found in P, is strange. S will have copied it out although in his context such authorial comments are far from immediately relevant. See below, section D(d)§4. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Of the few parallel laudationes of various views about the issue, the reference to Empedocles Democritus Epicurus in the fragment of a commentary on Alcibiades 1 extant in two papyrus fragments may derive from an earlier cousin of A. See POxy 1609 at Adorno & alii, CPF (1992) 8–9, 148, esp. (2005) 55 (cited below at E(a)§§1–2), also to be consulted for further discussion of the tradition concerned with Plato’s view of reflection. The rich literature on optics is only reflected in §3, and no names of real mathematicians are given (that of the honorary ur-mathematician Pythagoras has to suffice). No excerpts are given from Plato or Aristotle or Stoic literature (unless one wishes to include

liber 4 caput 14

1655

these philosophers among the followers of Pythagoras, which will hardly do). The focus is upon Empedocles and the Atomists as opponents of the followers of Pythagoras and the mathematicians. (2) Sources. Ultimately these will be the authors mentioned, via, presumably, literature pertaining to the conflict between images (§§1–2) and reflection of visual rays (§3). For the relation to ch. 4.13 see below, section D(a). C Chapter Heading The heading of PB, of the umbrella type that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), is confirmed by that of PQ, and by the second half of S’s combined heading, extant in the index of Photius. PG has abridged to Περὶ κατόπτρων. As parallels in book titles we may mention Euclid’s extant Κατοπτρικά (cf. Opt. §19.14 ὡς ἐν τοῖς Κατοπτρικοῖς λέγεται, Opt. rec. Theonis 176.18–19 τοῦτο γὰρ δείκνυται ἐν τοῖς Κατοπτρικοῖς) and Archimedes’ lost Περὶ κατοπτρικῶν (fr. 17.5 Heiberg, καθὰ καὶ Ἀρχιμήδης ἐν τοῖς Περὶ κατοπτρικῶν ἀπέδειξεν). A book titled Κατοπτρικά is also attributed to Heron mechanicus (Damianus Opt. 14.5–6 ἀπέδειξε γὰρ ὁ μηχανικὸς Ἥρων ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ Κατοπτρικοῖς), but this attribution is not accepted by Jones (2001) 149–151 for the extant Latin De speculis (ps.Ptolemy). D Analysis a Context The chapter is the second of a cluster of three dealing with vision and two related issues, namely the production of mirror images and the visibility of darkness. For the connection between the treatment of vision and that of mirror images see above, ch. 4.13 at Commentary D(a). The link between vision and mirror images also appears on the lists of issues shared by philosophers with mathematicians that constitute a subpart of the Stoic physikos logos at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133; text below section E(a), General texts. It is explicitly emphasized in the final lemma of the present chapter. b Number–Order of Lemmata P and S have the same four lemmata, and both have them in the same order, accepted by Diels and us. Of these four lemmata the first three are concerned in the usual way with different positions concerned with the issue at hand, while the fourth is a rare example of an authorial remark. This lemma appositely concludes the chapter. The differences between the versions of P and S are minimal. P unsurprisingly leaves out a few name-labels: ‘Leucippus’ in §2, and ‘mathematicians’ in §3. The complicated technical nature of the catoptrics

1656

liber 4 caput 14

involved in §§1–3 apparently precluded abridgement of content. The fact that this time S does not have more lemmata than P suggests that A’s chapter survives complete, although the parallel account of Apuleius (cited below section E(b)§§1–2) contains more and in part different doxai. Seneca’s account (cited ibid.) limits itself to the main diaphonia without citing name-labels, while Apuleius’ provides more named lemmata than A, namely four to A’s three. In part these are different: Stoics and Archytas instead of Empedocles. There can be no doubt that Apuleius’ information too derives from a doxographical overview. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter There is an interesting difference between §2 on the one hand and §1 plus §3 on the other, as §2 is explicitly about seeing oneself in a mirror (a question of interest already e.g. at Plato Alc. I 162d–163c), while §1 and §3 are compatible with (also) seeing reflections of something else. The strong diaeresis is between effluences (ἀπόρροιαι, §1) or streams (ῥεύματα, §1: sc. of effluences, see Diels DG index verborum s.v. ῥεῦμα) or images (εἴδωλα, §2) on the one hand and optical reflection (ἀνάκλασις, §3) on the other. The ἀπόρροιαι and εἴδωλα also occur in ch. 4.13, ‘On vision, how we see’. Apart from ἀντανακλάσεις (PB) or ἀνάκλασιν (SL) in the present chapter the only other instances in Book 4 are at chs. 4.16.4 and 4.20.2, where ἀνακλᾶσθαι and ἀντανακλᾶται are not used of light but of sound. The substantive ἀνάκλασις and the verb ἀνακλᾶν are found somewhat more often in A Books 2 (chs. 2.20.12, 2.20.13, 2.30.2) and 3 (chs. 3.1.4, 3.2.2; no less than three times in the chapter on the rainbow, where refraction and reflection play an important part: chs. 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.5). At ch. 4.13 Commentary D(a) above we have seen that reflection in mirrors or on similar smooth surfaces does not play a significant part in Aristotle’s De anima. It is, however, an important feature in the Meteorology where both verb and noun are found quite often. See below, section D(d)§3. All three lemmata of our chapter are concerned with the process as a whole, namely with what leaves (indirectly) the seen object or the eye, with the contact with the mirror, and with the trajectory from the mirror to the visual organ. The differences are limited to the physical nature of the reflections (these, after all, are what the chapter is about). Thus, we have a diaeretic listing of, in succession, (§1): reflections in mirrors as effluences that come together (συνισταμένας) at the mirror’s surface and are compressed by the fiery beam issuing from the mirror, which also takes along the air before it into which the streams (i.e. these effluences) are flowing; §2, the same as really subsisting images, which start from ourselves, come together (συνίστασθαι) at the mirror, turn back and make them-

liber 4 caput 14

1657

selves manifest to us; and §3, the reflection of the visual beam, which stretches towards and strikes the smooth and hard bronze object, and is thrown back upon itself. The final lemma comments on a further use to which one can put these lemmata, for each of them is also involved with ‘how we see’. It is important further because it informs us that the term for lemma or paragraph is κεφάλαιον. See below, section D(d)§4. d

Further Comments General Points For mirrors see Mugler (1964), s.v. ἔνοπτρον, 146–147. Lejeune (1957) 4 writes: ‘La catoptrique suppose expressément la théorie de la perception visuelle élaborée par l’optique. Elle est visiblement l’application, grace à une hypothèse supplémentaire féconde, des principes et des methodes de l’ optique proprement dite au cas des miroirs.’ Individual Points §1 Diels DG 222, in his presentation of the (thin) evidence for the dependence of sections and lemmata of the Placita on Theophrastus’ De sensibus, refers to this lemma as ‘cum Empedoclea doctrina egregie consentiens’. But there is no precise Theophrastean parallel, only the already mentioned (above, section B(1)) POxy 1609 + PPrinc inv. AM 11224C, fr. A (which became available to scholars only later). Perhaps Diels had Sens. 7 in mind, ‘colours are brought to our eyes by means of effluence’ (ἀπορροήν). There is, of course, sufficient evidence for the theory of ἀπόρροιαι, e.g. Empedocles 31A89, 31A92 DK (Plato, Men. 76), Aristotle Sens. 2 438a4 after his quotation of 31B84 DK, and above ch. 4.13.12 (with section E(b) ad loc.). Choosing between P’s τελειουμένας and S’s πιλουμένας is not easy, but πιλουμένας may perhaps be preferred because of a partial parallel in Theophrastus’ account of Democritus’ (not Empedocles’) theory of vision, where it is the air between the eye and the object (not effluences or images) that is compressed by them (τὸν ἀέρα τὸν μεταξὺ τῆς ὄψεως καὶ τοῦ ὁρωμένου τυποῦσθαι συστελλόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρωμένου καὶ τοῦ ὁρῶντος, Sens. 50; cf. Burkert 1977, 100, rather than Avotins 1980, 434–444, who believes that Ep.Hdt. 49 κατὰ τὸ ἐναρμόττον μέγεθος εἰς τὴν ὄψιν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν pertains to texture not size). According to Epicurus images are compressed by συνίζησις so as to fit into the eye, Nat. fr. 23.43.11– 13 Arrighetti; see also Alexander of Aphrodisias de An.Mant. 135.9–10, pace Sharples (2008) 189. For compression in this context cf. also Plato Tim. 45b συμπιλήσαντες. The fiery substance separated off from the mirror presumably is the returning fiery beam that originally came from the eye.

1658

liber 4 caput 14

Q’s very free paraphrase brings the lemma more in line with the two other lemmata. §2 This compressed account, esp. the terse formula κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν ad finem, can be supplemented by the passage from Lucretius quoted at section E(b)§2, which shows that the images ‘by being flung back by incessant and unremitting repulsion give back a vision from the surface of mirrors’. Mugler (1964) 224 translates συνίστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν as ‘qui prennent de la consistance sur la surface du miroir par l’ effet du flux opposé qui vient à leur rencontre et les enveloppe’, which supplies too much. Torraca’s ‘da cui sono rimandati indietro’ is better. Faced with a multiplicity of textual variants (ὑποστάσεις, ἐπιστάσεις, ἐμφάσεις) and proposed emendations (ἐνστάσεις, ἀποστάσεις) we have opted for the παραστάσεις of ch. 5.2.1, where τῶν εἰδώλων παραστάσεις provides a good parallel and an uncontested idiom. But note that Koenen (1995) 49–52 argues in favour of ὑποστάσεις qua ‘material eidola’. §3 Pythagoras and his followers are mentioned honoris causa (cf. ch. 4.13.6, where the theory of the mathematikos i.e. astronomer Hipparchus is anticipated ‘according to some’ by Pythagoras and Parmenides): the theory involved is that of ‘the mathematicians’. This connection with the preceding chapter has been missed by Webster (2018) 483, who seems to believe that a genuine early Pythagorean view is cited. For Hipparchus and mathematics see above, ch. 4.13 Commentary D(d)§5. The metaphor of bending the outstretched hand back to the shoulder recalls that of touching with the hands according to Hipparchus (and so of his purported predecessors) at Α 4.13.5–6, and may be compared with the contact of the base of the visual cone with the object seen and that through the sense of touch by means of a stick according SVF 2.864–865 (cited below ch. 4.15 section E(b)§2). See above, ch. 4.13 Commentary D(d)§4. The standard tenet of ‘the mathematicians’ concerned with the reflection of the optical rays does not play a part in Aristotle’s De anima, but is frequently used in the Meteorology, as Alexander points out at in Mete. 141.3–142.20 (cf. ch. 3.5 ‘On the rainbow’ above, Commentary D(d)§§4–6). The doxa may also be read as a much-reduced version of Plato’s doctrine. §4 This authorial remark is a sort of meta-lemma, specifying the use to which the various lemmata of this chapter may be put; cf. M–R 2.1.183–184. Thus it confirms and echoes the traditional relation between the treatment of vision and of mirror images, see above, ch. 4.13, Commentary B. Unfortunately Wachsmuth athetized it, perhaps because of the use of the same term in the title Kephalaia gnostica of the Byzantine authors Euagrius of Pontus and Maximus Confessor and in other similar titles. But the fact that the lemma occurs in both P and S is against this. The formula κεφαλαίοις χρήσασθαι (as

liber 4 caput 14

1659

in S) is used in handbooks of rhetoric for the proper use of topics or issues or specific arguments, Aphthonius Progymnasmata 5.2.3 Patillon. Also κεφαλαίοις χρῆσθαι (as in P), ps.Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ars rhetorica 10.6.9–11 Radermacher–Usener, Sopater Scholia ad Hermogenis status seu artem rhetoricam 5.49.20 Walz, and in Hermias’ comments on Plato’s discussion of rhetoric, in Phaedrum 237.17–18. Philo uses the term κεφάλαια to refer to the Ten Commandments. Porphyry added κεφάλαια τῶν πάντων πλὴν τοῦ Περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ to his edition of the Enneads, thus elucidating the main points of the exposition (see D’Ancona 2012, 50–69). We have cited another Philo passage at section E(b)§4 for the meaning ‘philosophical tenet’. A wonderfully apposite parallel is found in Geminus’ abstract from Posidonius’ Meteorology cited by Alexander who in his turn is cited by Simplicius (cited section E(b)§4). For such parallels see Méhat (1966) 121; cf. also Goulet-Cazé (1982) 315–321, where further literature is cited p. 319 n. 1. Four examples in Ethical Doxography B in S (attributed to AD) and two in the Didascalicus are listed at DG 76; see now Ecl. 2.7.5, p. 57.16; 5b5, p. 63.11, 63.12, 63.16; 7.12, p. 116.16; also Ethical Doxography C, Ecl. 2.7.26, pp. 148.1, 149.18, 150.1, 152.24. e Other Evidence Among the texts cited in the ‘Materialien zur Geschichte der Farbenlehre, Historischer Teil, Erste Abteilung: Griechen’, Goethe translated several lemmata of chs. 4.13–15, namely ch. 4.14.3 ‘Pythagoreer nach Plutarch’ (adding 1.14.2 + 1.14.7), 4.14.1 ‘Empedokles—nach Plutarch’ (preceded by A 1.14.3 ‘Empedokles nach Stobäus’), 4.13.1 + 4.14.1 ‘Democritus und Epicurus nach Plutarch’, and 4.15.3 ‘Chrysippus nach Plutarch’. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. the Stoics) … (133) τοῦ δ᾽ ἑτέρου (sc. μέρους) καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων ἀντιποιεῖσθαι, οἷον πῶς ὁρῶμεν, τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς κατοπτρικῆς φαντασίας, excerpted in Suda s.v. Φ 862, pp. 4.775.27–776.3 Adler φυσικὸς λόγος παρὰ φιλοσόφοις … πῶς ὁρῶμεν· τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς κατοπτρικῆς φαντασίας. Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.269 ultra speculum cur videatur. Calcidius in Tim. c. 7, p. 60.17 Waszink De imaginibus. §§1–2 Empedocles Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: POxy 1609 col. ii & PPrinc inv. AM 11224C, Comm. in Alc. col. ii at Adorno & alii eds. CPF III p. 57 + fr. A Democritus 4T + Empedocles 3T at Adorno& alii eds. CPF I.1** δοκῇ δὲ ἐκεῖ φα[ίν]εσθαι· οὐ | γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνου τοῦ κατόπτρου | ὁρᾶται, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἀνάκλασις ἐπὶ | τὸν ὁρῶντα. περὶ μὲν οὖν | τούτων ἐν τοῖς εἰς Τί|μαιον (sc. on Tim. 46a–c) εἴ[ρ]ηται· οὐ δεῖ δὲ ‘εἴ|δωλον’ τοιοῦτον ἀκούειν οἷ|ον τὸ κατὰ Δημόκριτον (—) ἢ Ἐπί|κουρον

1660

liber 4 caput 14

(—) ἢ ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B109a DK, cf. below §3) | ‘ἀπορροὰς’ φαίη ἂν ἀπιέναι | ἀπὸ ἑκάστου τῶν κ[ατ]οπτρι|ζομένων καὶ τ[+ 9] | περιεούσας. Seneca Nat. 1.5.1 de speculis duae opiniones sunt. alii enim in illis simulacra cerni putant, id est corporum nostrorum figuras a nostris corporibus emissas ac separatas; alii non imagines in speculo sed ipsa aspici corpora retorta oculorum acie et in se rursus reflexa. Apuleius Apol. 15 num, ut ait Epicurus (cf. fr. 320 Usener), profectae a nobis imagines velut quaedam exuviae iugi fluore a corporibus manantes, cum leve aliquid et solidum offenderunt, illisae reflectantur et retro expressae contraversim respondeant, an, ut alii philosophi disputant, radii nostri seu mediis oculis proliquati et lumini extrario mixti atque ita uniti, ut Plato arbitratur, seu tantum oculis profecti sine ullo foris amminiculo, ut Archytas (47A25 DK) putat, seu intentu aëris { f }acti, ut Stoici (—) rentur, cum alicui corpori inciderunt spisso et splendido et levi, paribus angulis quibus inciderant resultent ad faciem suam reduces atque ita, quod extra tangant ac visant, id intra speculum imaginentur. Calcidius in Tim. c. 239 idem (sc. the geometers) aiunt videre nos vel tuitione, quam phasin vocant, vel intuitione, quam emphasin appellant, vel detuitione, quam paraphasin nominant. … intuitione vero ut quae fragmento radii recurrente ad oculorum aciem videntur, qualia sunt quae in speculis et aqua considerantur, ceteris item quorum tersa est quidem superficies, sed ob nimiam densitatem idoneus vigor ad repellendum quod offenderit. ps.Ptolemy Spec. 3.1–2 + 5.2, p. 154 Jones dubitatum est itaque fere ab omnibus qui de dioptrico et optico scripserunt negotio propter quam causam in speculis radii a nobis incidentes refringuntur et refractiones in angulis aequalibus faciunt. quod autem secundum effusiones rectarum a visu videamus, sic consideretur. … quod autem radii incidentes speculis, adhuc autem et aquis et omnibus planis corporibus refringuntur, nunc ostendemus. §4 kephalaia: Scholia Platonica POxy 1609 & PPrinc inv. AM 11224C, Comm. in Alc. col. ii at CPF III p. 57 (Empedocles 31B109a DK) δοκῇ δὲ ἐκεῖ φα[ίν]εσθαι· οὐ | γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνου τοῦ κατόπτρου | ὁρᾶται, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἀνακλάσις ἐπὶ | τὸν ὁρῶντα. περὶ μὲν οὖν | τούτων ἐν τοῖς εἰς Τί|μαιον (Tim. 46a–c) εἴ[ρ]ηται.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle APo. 2.15 98a24–29 τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ προβλήματά ἐστι τὰ μὲν τῷ τὸ αὐτὸ μέσον ἔχειν, οἷον ὅτι πάντα ἀντιπερίστασις. τούτων δ᾽ ἔνια τῷ γένει ταὐτά, ὅσα ἔχει διαφορὰς τῷ ἄλλων ἢ ἄλλως εἶναι, οἷον διὰ τί ἠχεῖ, ἢ διὰ τί ἐμφαίνεται, καὶ διὰ τί ἶρις· ἅπαντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὸ αὐτὸ πρόβλημά ἐστι γένει (πάντα γὰρ ἀνάκλασις), ἀλλ᾽ εἴδει ἕτερα. Vitruvius 7 proœm. 11 primum Agatharchus Athenis Aeschylo docente tragoediam scaenam fecit et de ea commentarium reliquit. ex eo moniti Democritus (cf. 68B15b DK) et Anaxagoras (59A39 DK) de eadem re scripserunt, quemadmodum oporteat ad aciem oculorum radiorumque extentionem certo loco centro constituto lineas ratione naturali respondere, uti de certa re certae imagines aedificiorum in scaenarum picturis redderent speciem et, quae in directis planisque frontibus sint figurata, alia abscedentia, alia prominentia esse videantur. Geminus(?) Fr.Opt. p. 28.10–30.11 Schöne at

liber 4 caput 14 Her.Math. Def. 135.13 τί τὸ σκηνογραφικόν. τὸ σκηνογραφικὸν τῆς ὀπτικῆς μέρος ζητεῖ πῶς προσήκει γράφειν τὰς εἰκόνας τῶν οἰκοδομημάτων. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐχ οἷα {τε} ἔστι τὰ ὄντα, τοιαῦτα καὶ φαίνεται, σκοποῦσιν πῶς μὴ τοὺς ὑποκειμένους ῥυθμοὺς ἐπιδείξονται, ἀλλ᾽ ὁποῖοι φανήσονται ἐξεργάσονται κτλ. Plutarch Fac. Lun. 921D–E ‘τουτὶ μὲν οὖν’, ἔφην, ‘σὸν ἔργον ἐπισκοπεῖν, τὴν δὲ πρὸς τὴν σελήνην ἢ ⟨καθόλου⟩ τῆς ὄψεως κλάσιν οὐκέτι σὸν οὐδ᾽ Ἱππάρχου (—)· καίτοι γ᾽ ἐφιλέργει ἁν⟨ήρ⟩ ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς οὐκ ἀρέσκει φυσιολογῶν περὶ τῆς ὄψεως αὐτῆς, ⟨ἣν⟩ (E) ὁμοιοπαθῆ κρᾶσιν ἴσχειν καὶ σύμπηξιν εἰκός ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ πληγάς τινας καὶ ἀποπηδήσεις, οἵας ἔπλαττε τῶν ἀτόμων Ἐπίκουρος (—)’. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.56.1 καὶ μὴν ὡς ἡ γεωμετρία περὶ μέτρα καὶ μεγέθη καὶ σχήματα πραγματευομένη διὰ τῆς ἐν τοῖς ἐπιπέδοις καταγραφῆς ἥ τε ζωγραφία τὸν ὀπτικὸν ὅλον τόπον ἐπὶ τῶν σκηνογραφουμένων φαίνεται παραλαμβάνουσα, ταύτῃ δὲ ψευδογραφεῖ τὴν ὄψιν, τοῖς κατὰ προσβολὴν τῶν ὀπτικῶν γραμμῶν σημείοις χρωμένη κατὰ τὸ τεχνικόν (ἐντεῦθεν ἐπιφάσεις καὶ ὑποφάσεις καὶ φάσεις σῴζονται, καὶ τὰ μὲν δοκεῖ προὔχειν, τὰ δὲ εἰσέχειν, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλως πως φαντάζεσθαι ἐν τῷ ὁμαλῷ καὶ λείῳ), οὕτω δὲ καὶ οἱ φιλόσοφοι ζωγραφίας δίκην ἀπομιμοῦνται τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ps.Alexander Probl. 2.53.10–13 Ideler οἱ πολλοὶ καθαριευόμενοι παραφυλάττονται καὶ παραιτοῦνται βλέπειν νεκρούς· αἱ γὰρ ὀπτικαὶ ἀκτῖνες, ἀπιοῦσαι πρὸς τὰ νεκρὰ σώματα κατ᾽ ἀντανάκλασιν ἀναφέρουσι μολυσμόν τινα διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τῇ ψυχῇ. Tertullian de An. 17.6 teneritas autem substantiae illius, qua speculum ex lumine efficitur, prout icta seu mota est, ita et imaginem vibrans evertit lineam recti. Olympiodorus in Mete. 211.23–212.4 ζητήσωμεν δὲ καὶ τὴν διαφορὰν ἀνακλάσεώς τε καὶ διακλάσεως. διαφέρουσι πρῶτον μέν, ὅτι ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς ἀνακλάσεως τὸ ὁρῶν καὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον ἐν ἑνὶ ὑπάρχουσιν ἐπιπέδῳ, τὸ δὲ κάτοπτρον κατὰ τὸν ἀντικείμενον τόπον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς διακλάσεως μεταξὺ τοῦ τε ὁρῶντος καὶ τοῦ ὁρωμένου κεῖται τὸ κάτοπτρον. αὕτη μὲν φέρε πρώτη φυσικὴ διαφορά. φέρε δὲ καὶ μαθηματικὴν αὐτῶν ἐπιστήμην παραδώσομεν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀνάκλασις κατὰ ἴσας γίνεται γωνίας, ἡ διάκλασις δὲ κατὰ ἀμβλείας. καὶ ὅτι ἡ ἀνάκλασις κατὰ ἴσας γωνίας, δῆλον, ὅτι ἐπειδὴ τριῶν σημείων ὄντων, ἑνὸς μὲν ἔνθα ἐστὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον, ἑτέρου δὲ ἔνθα τὸ ὁρῶν, καὶ ἄλλου πάλιν ἔνθα τὸ κάτοπτρον, εἰ ἀμείψουσι τὸ ὁρώμενον ἐκεῖσε ἔνθα ἦν τὸ ὁρῶν, ἡ αὐτὴ πάλιν γενήσεται γωνία ἥτις καὶ πρότερον ἦν, ὅτε ἦσαν ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις τόποις, καὶ οὔτε μείζων οὔτε ἐλάττων, δῆλον δ᾽ ὅτι τοῦ κατόπτρου κατὰ τὸν ἀντικείμενον τόπον φυλαττομένου {δέ}. φέρε δὲ καὶ διὰ γραμμικῆς ἀποδείξεως τοῦτο δείξωμεν, ὅτι πρὸς ἴσας γωνίας γίνεται ἡ ἀνάκλασις. Chapter heading: Suda s.v. Φ 418, p. 4.733.32 Adler (Philip of Opus fr. i Tarán, F 31, F 32–33 Lasserre) Ὀπτικῶν βʹ, Ἐνοπτ⟨ρ⟩ικῶν βʹ. §2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Lucretius DRN 4.98–107 postremo speculis in aqua splendoreque in omni / quaecumque apparent nobis simulacra, necessest, / quandoquidem simili specie sunt praedita rerum, / ex⟨in⟩ imaginibus missis consistere eorum. {102–103, damn. edd.} / sunt igitur tenues forma⟨e re⟩rum similesque / effigiae, singillatim quas cernere nemo / cum possit, tamen adsiduo crebroque repulsu / reiectae reddunt speculorum ex aequore visum. DRN 4.269–323. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 9.i.4–iii.6 Smith καὶ] | πολ[λ]άκις, ὅ[τι εἰκόνες] | καὶ φάσματα [φύσεις ἀλη]|θεῖς ὑπάρχουσιν, καὶ τὰ |

1661

1662

liber 4 caput 14

κάτοπτρα μαρτυρήσει | μοι· οὐ δὴ γὰρ ἀπερεῖ τι | ἅ φημι τ[ὸ] εἴδωλον ὃ προσ|ομεῖται ἐν τοῖς κατό|πτροις. οὐκ ἂν ἐν ἐκεί|νοις ἑαυτοὺ[ς ἑ]ω[ρ]ῶμεν | καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐγείνετό | [τι, εἰ μὴ ἦν ῥεῦμα συνε|χὲς ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν πρὸς ἐκεῖ]|[να φερόμενον καὶ] ἡμεῖν | [εἴδωλον ἀναφ]ερον. ἀπε|λέν[χ]ει γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τὴν | ἀπόροιαν διὰ τὸ ἕκασ|τον τῶν μορίων εἰς τὴν | κατ᾽ εὐθὺ χώραν φέρεσ|θαι. v τὰ οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν πρα|γμάτων ῥέοντα εἴδω|λα, ἐνπείπτοντα ἡμῶν | ταῖς ὄψεσιν, τοῦ τε ὁρᾶν | ἡμᾶς τὰ ὑποκείμενα | αἴτια γείνεται καὶ, εἰς [τὴν ψυχὴν εἰσιόντα,]| [τοῦ ἐννοεῖν αὐτά. κατ᾽] | ἐνπτ[ώσεις μὲ]ν ο[ὖν] τὰ | ὑπὸ τῶν ὄψεων βλεπό|μενα ἡ ψυχὴ παραλαμ|βάνει. §3 Successors of Pythagoras: Tim. 46a–b τὸ δὲ περὶ τὴν τῶν κατόπτρων εἰδωλοποιίαν, καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἐμφανῆ καὶ λεῖα, κατιδεῖν οὐδὲν ἔτι χαλεπόν. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἐντὸς ἐκτός τε τοῦ πυρὸς ἑκατέρου κοινωνίας ἀλλήλοις, ἑνός τε αὖ περὶ τὴν λειότητα ἑκάστοτε γενομένου καὶ πολλαχῇ μεταρρυθμισθέντος, πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐμφαίνεται, τοῦ περὶ τὸ πρόσωπον πυρὸς τῷ περὶ τὴν ὄψιν πυρὶ περὶ τὸ λεῖον καὶ λαμπρὸν συμπαγοῦς γιγνομένου. δεξιὰ δὲ φαντάζεται τὰ ἀριστερά, ὅτι τοῖς ἐναντίοις μέρεσιν τῆς ὄψεως περὶ τἀναντία μέρη γίγνεται ἐπαφὴ παρὰ τὸ καθεστὸς ἔθος τῆς προσβολῆς. Aristotle Mete. 3.2 372a29–b1 ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ ὄψις ἀνακλᾶται, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὕδατος, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ ἀέρος καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν λείαν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν δεικνυμένων δεῖ λαμβάνειν τὴν πίστιν. de An. 3.12 435a5–8 διὸ καὶ περὶ ἀνακλάσεως βέλτιον ἢ τὴν ὄψιν ἐξιοῦσαν ἀνακλᾶσθαι τὸν ἀέρα πάσχειν ὑπὸ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ χρώματος, μέχρι πὲρ οὗ ἂν ᾖ εἷς. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ λείου ἐστὶν εἷς. ps.Alexander Probl. 2.53, pp. 67.35–68.1 Ideler οἱ πολλοὶ καθαριευόμενοι παραφυλάττονται καὶ παραιτοῦνται βλέπειν νεκρούς· αἱ γὰρ ὀπτικαὶ ἀκτῖνες, ἀπιοῦσαι πρὸς τὰ νεκρὰ σώματα κατ᾽ ἀντανάκλασιν ἀναφέρουσι μολυσμόν τινα διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τῇ ψυχῇ. Calcidius in Tim. c. 257 namque ille (sc. Aristotle) censet radii visualis impacti in solidam speculi superficiem proptereaque infracti mucronem ad os reverti obviumque vultui factum vultum suum cernere et in speculo putare sibi vultus apparere simulacrum. §4 kephalaia: Philo of Alexandria Her. 214 ἓν γὰρ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τῶν ἐναντίων, οὗ τμηθέντος γνώριμα τὰ ἐναντία. οὐ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, ὅ φασιν Ἕλληνες τὸν μέγαν καὶ ἀοίδιμον παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς Ἡράκλειτον (fr. 35 (d) Marcovich) κεφάλαιον τῆς αὑτοῦ προστησάμενον φιλοσοφίας αὐχεῖν ὡς ἐφ᾽ εὑρέσει καινῇ; Posidonius (F 18 E.K., 255 Theiler) at Geminus’ Epitome at Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Phys. 292.3–5 πολλαχοῦ τοίνυν ταὐτὸν κεφάλαιον ἀποδεῖξαι προθήσεται ὅ τε ἀστρολόγος καὶ ὁ φυσικός, οἷον ὅτι μέγας ὁ ἥλιος (cf. ch. 2.21), ὅτι σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ (cf. ch. 3.10.1), οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὰς αὐτὰς ὁδοὺς βαδιοῦνται.

Liber 4 Caput 15 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 901D–E; pp. 405a26–406a14 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 96; DG p. 637.5–11 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 204–205 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.52.17–18, p. 486.4–17 Wachsmuth

Titulus ιεʹ. Εἰ ὁρατὸν τὸ σκότος (P) §1 Σφαῖρος ὁ Στωικὸς ὁρατὸν εἶναι τὸ σκότος, ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ὁράσεως προχεῖσθαί τινα εἰς αὐτὸ αὐγήν· καὶ οὐ ψεύδεται ἡ ὅρασις, βλέπεται γὰρ ταῖς ἀληθείαις, ὅτι ἔστι σκότος. προέρχονται δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνες ὁμιχλώδεις· τὸ μὲν σκότος συνάγει πως καὶ συγκρίνει τὴν ὅρασιν καὶ ἀμβλύνει, τὸ δὲ φῶς διακρίνει καὶ ποδηγεῖ τὴν ὅρασιν ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ὁρατὰ διὰ τοῦ μεταξὺ ἀέρος. διὰ τοῦτο μὴ ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ σκότει ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ μόνον τὸ σκότος. (P1,S1+G2) §2 Χρύσιππος κατὰ τὴν συνέντασιν τοῦ μεταξὺ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς, νυγέντος μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρατικοῦ πνεύματος, ὅπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῆς κόρης διήκει, κατὰ δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὸν περικείμενον ἀέρα ἐπιβολὴν ἐντείνοντος αὐτὸν κωνοειδῶς, ὅταν ᾖ ὁμογενὴς ὁ ἀήρ. προχέονται δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνες πύριναι, οὐχὶ μέλαιναι καὶ ὁμιχλώδεις· διόπερ ὁρατὸν εἶναι τὸ σκότος. (PBQ2,S3) §1 Sphaerus SVF 1.627 (Stoici SVF 2.869); §2 Chrysippus SVF 2.866 titulum non hab. S §1 lemma οἱ Στωικοὶ … σκότος ut duplicationem sententiae prioris seclusimus apud SL2 ut interpolatum ab PB, §1 secl. Diels (1881) 350 prob. Wachsmuth, apud P autem serv. Diels DG quod prob. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [2] Σφαῖρος … Στωικὸς SL1 : oἱ Στωικοὶ PBGQ et SL2 ‖ ὁράσεως PBSL : ὄψεως PG : aus dem Gesichtssinn Q ‖ [2–3] προχεῖσθαί SL, cf. es fließt Q : περικεῖσθαι PB : ἐξικνεῖσθαι PG ‖ [3] αὐγήν PBGQ, prob. edd. : αὐτήν SL1 et SL2, corr. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ [3–4] καὶ … σκότος] om. SL1, hab. SL2 ‖ ταῖς … ἔστι PBSL : ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς PG ‖ [4] post σκότος add. ὑπολαμβάνουσιν PG ‖ [4–8] προέρχονται … τὸ σκότος PG, om. PBQSL : falso P2 adaequavit Diels DG 637, ut add. Galeni damn. ibid. 16, 38 ‖ [5] συνάγει PG(AB) : συνάπτει coni. Corr. Voss. ‖ συγκρίνει corr. Voss. prob. Diels : συγκινεῖ PG(AB) ‖ [6] τοῦ corr. Voss. : τὸ PG(AB) §2 [9] post συνέντασιν add. τὰ ὄντα SL, secl. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ post μεταξὺ add. dem Sehenden und dem Gesehenen Q ‖ νυγέντος PBSL : (durch) die Aussendung Q ‖ [10] ὁρατικοῦ PBSL : om. PQ ‖ ἀπὸ … ἡγεμονικοῦ PBSL : als Leiter bezeichnet wird Q ‖ μέχρι SLPQ : μετὰ PB ‖ [11] περικείμενον SL : παρακείμενον PB : auf welche sie stößt Q ‖ [12] αὐτὸν] αὑτὸν ab Arnim prob. Lachenaud ‖ [13] πύριναι, οὐχὶ PBSL : om. PQ ‖ καὶ ὁμιχλώδεις PBSL : und nicht lichtartige Q

Testes primi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 96 (~ tit.) εἰ ὁρατὸν τὸ σκότος (text Diels) 96.a (~ P1) οἱ Στωικοὶ ὁρατὸν εἶναι τὸ σκότος ὑπολαμβάνουσιν· ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ὄψεως ἐξικνεῖσθαι εἰς ⟨αὐτὸ⟩ αὐγήν. καὶ οὐ ψεύδεται ἡ ὅρασις· βλέπεται γὰρ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τὸ σκότος, © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_115

5

10

1664

liber 4 caput 15

96.b (—) προέρχονται δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνες ὁμιχλώδεις· τὸ μὲν σκότος συνάγει πως καὶ συγκρίνει τὴν ὅρασιν καὶ ἀμβλύνει, τὸ δὲ φῶς διακρίνει καὶ ποδηγεῖ τὴν ὅρασιν ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ὁρατὰ διὰ τοῦ μεταξὺ ἀέρος. διὰ τοῦτο μὴ ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ σκότει ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ μόνον τὸ σκότος. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.15.9 Ἐπίκουρος καὶ Ἀρίσταρχος τὰ ἐν τῷ σκότῳ σώματα χροιὰν οὐκ ἔχειν. A 1.15.10 Ἀριστοτέλης … ἐν δὲ τῷ σκότῳ τὰ σώματα χροιὰν δυνάμει μὲν ἔχειν, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ μηδαμῶς· πολὺ δὲ τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ τε μὴ ἔχειν καὶ μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι. §1 A 4.13.10 ⟨αὐ⟩γῶν αὐτὴν σύμφυσιν. A 4.9.4 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ἀληθεῖς. §2 A 4.13.7 τὸν μεταξὺ ἀέρα. A 4.4.4 τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέταται διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων. A 4.8.1 … πάλιν δ᾽ αἰσθητήρια λέγεται πνεύματα νοερὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα τεταμένα. A 4.21.3 ἡ μὲν ὅρασίς ἐστι πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν. A 4.13.7 εἰς τὸν ὁμογενῆ ἀέρα. A 4.13.9 κατά τι⟨νων ἀκ⟩τίνων ἔκχυσιν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses We have two witnesses for this rather brief chapter, viz. P (represented in various ways by PB, PG and PQ) and SL, the Florentine florilegium, cf. above at ch. 4.8 Commentary A(1). Elsewhere the direct tradition of S has sometimes preserved paragraphs concerned with Aristotle and Plato, but ch. 4.15 has no such lemmata. For complications in the transmission of the tradition of P, which affects the text of L, see below, section D(b). We note that (in the context of this chapter) G preserves an illuminating phrase not paralleled elsewhere, see also below, section D(b). For comparable extra evidence in chapters of G see above, ch. 1.1, Commentary A. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are no parallel accounts presenting a comparable duality of detailed doxai. An interesting discussion of the visibility of darkness, but without name-labels, is found in Calcidius when commenting on Tim. 52b (cited below at section E(a), General texts). This passage ends with the statement that the eyes believe (suspicantur) they see colours in the dark, and shares its general theme with the present chapter. Waszink ad loc. speaks of ‘doctrina Peripatetica’, basing this ascription on Aristotle’s view of the potential presence of colour in the dark of ch. 1.15.10, though this potential presence is not

liber 4 caput 15

1665

mentioned by Calcidius. As a parallel for this purported Peripatetic doctrine he refers to the visibility of darkness according to Sphaerus and Chrysippus, and refers to the present chapter. Individual parallels that may be relevant have been collected at section E(b), among which one elsewhere in Calcidius for §2, namely at in Tim. 237, a brief account of the Stoic theory of vision without reference to darkness. (2) Sources. Views on seeing in the dark and/or the visibility of darkness are already formulated by Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and then by Lucretius; see below, section D(e). The views of Sphaerus and Chrysippus will derive from a Stoic handbook, or from a more general one also containing Stoic doctrine. Because only Stoic views are mentioned this chapter belongs with the exclusively Stoic chapters 4.11, 4.21 and 4.21. C Chapter Heading This is a very precise heading, concerned with the category of quality, and formulating a question to which the answer can be not only ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but also ‘in certain respects’. For the dialectical aspect of the question word εἰ see above, ch. 1.1, Commentary C. The heading is extant in P (PB, PG and PQ), but lacking in SL. It is not paralleled elsewhere as a heading or title. For the few headings beginning with εἰ cf. chs. 4.2, 4.9, 4.20, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.15. D Analysis a Context This chapter is the third of the trio dealing with vision and constitutes a sort of appendix discussing a traditional problem. Qua theme it is connected with ch. 1.15.9–10, which treat the visibility (or not) of colour in the dark. b Number–Order of Lemmata PB and PQ have two lemmata each. PG has a single rather long lemma, the first part of which is the same as PB’s first and SL’s second lemma. Its second part, the sentence προέρχονται … τὸ σκότος, rejected as a wilful addition of G by Diels, is not paralleled in the other witnesses, though the words §1[4–5] προέρχονται δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνες ὁμιχλώδεις are mirrored by the words §2[12–13] προχέονται δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνες πύριναι, οὐχὶ μέλαιναι καὶ ὁμιχλώδεις in SL’s third lemma (see also below). SL has three lemmata, of which the first two are identical but for the name-labels, ‘Sphaerus the Stoic’ in SL1, ‘the Stoics’ in SL2. SL2 is moreover identical with P1. PBQ2 and SL3 are identical. In 1997 we accepted the argument of Diels (1881) 250 that S2 has been interpolated in SL from PB (see M– R 1. 267), so should be bracketed in SL (as Wachsmuth has indeed done). We now believe that is perhaps more plausible that the first lemma was equipped with

1666

liber 4 caput 15

variae lectiones at its beginning, viz. with ‘Sphaerus the Stoic’ and ‘the Stoics’ as alternatives. P chose ‘the Stoics’, whereas S wrote the lemma out twice, each time with a different name-label and with a shorter doxa the first time, thus preserving the name label Sphaerus, which in the Placita occurs only here. The second part of G’s lemma is of particular interest. The discovery of the scanty remains of the Antinoopolis papyrus of P has shown that in several cases G, though diverging from PB, preserves the (or an) original tradition of P; see M– R 1.127–130. The relegation by Diels of the words §1[4–9] προέρχονται … τὸ σκότος to a doxographical limbo cannot be right, because the doctrine it promotes is to some extent squarely opposed to that of Chrysippus in the final lemma of P and S (which lemma, again, is lacking in G): a standard example of doxographical diaphonia. This would seem to be beyond G’s powers of invention. The ‘misty rays’ issuing from the eyes when it is dark are explicitly contradicted by the Chrysippean view in the next lemma according to which these rays are ‘fiery, not black and misty’. A connection there must be. Q’s surprising ‘not luminous (or fiery) rays’ at §2 ad finem seems to be a Verschlimmbesserung rather than a reminiscence of the ἀκτῖνες ὁμιχλώδεις preserved in G. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The dominant Stoic doctrine of vision, i.e. that of Chrysippus, is found here instead of in ch. 4.13 ‘On vision’, because in the present chapter it allows for a diaphonia with the second part of §1, extant in PG only. Compare, for instance, the postponed placement for the same reason of the Stoic definition of void (κενόν) not in ch. 1.18 but in ch. 1.20. The two lemmata are agreed that darkness is visible, but disagree as to the modus quo. (§1) According to the doxa attributed to Zeno’s pupil Sphaerus some sort of beam proceeds from the visual organ into the darkness. With an implicit backwards reference to the epistemic theme of ch. 4.9.4 (‘the sensations are true’) it is pointed out that the ensuing perception of darkness is true. The visual organ sends out ‘misty rays’ at night, explaining that the darkness in a physical way exerts a negative but light a positive influence upon our visual rays. Light makes us see objects, darkness only darkness. So this theory, whatever its shortcomings, explains why we cannot see things in the dark. (§2) with name-label Chrysippus provides elements of the standard Stoic theory of vision one would have expected to find in a lemma of ch. 4.13. It includes the mathematical visual cone (also attributed to Chrysippus elsewhere, see below, section E(b)§2) as defined in both recensions of the second proposition of Euclid’s Optics, ‘the figure enclosed by the visual rays is a cone having its apex at the eye and its base at the limits of the things seen’ (on this work see above, ch. 4.13, Commentary C(1)). But ad fin. the lemma adds

liber 4 caput 15

1667

a sentence that states the contrary to §1: the rays are ‘not black or misty, but fiery’—i.e., normal, usual visual rays. Why we (unlike certain animals—but nothing, of course, was known about the tapetum lucidum) then only see darkness, not things, is not explained. We note that the comparison of the contact of the base of the cone and the object seen with contact by touch by means of a stick, found elsewhere in accounts of the Stoic doctrine of vision (see below, section E(b)§3 and above, ch. 4.13 Commentary D(d)§4) is absent. d

Further Comments General Points (1) The present quaestio, which excludes that we see anything but darkness itself when it is dark, is related to the more general and traditional issue concerned with the nocturnal vision of certain animals (and even some humans), explained in various ways by Presocratic thinkers (e.g. Democritus 68A157 attributed night vision to the owl through τὸ πυρῶδες τῶν ὄψεων), and criticized by Theophrastus in the De sensibus. Also note, however, that ‘to see darkness’ (cf. the heading of the chapter) is said of the blind, see Sophocles OT 419, Euripides Phoen. 377, Bacch. 510. The capacity to see in the dark could be explained by the fire in the eyes, or the visual ray or beam: according to the third proposition of Euclid’s Optics (cited below at section E(b)§3) objects are only visible when the visual rays fall upon them, which entails the problematic conclusion (cf. above, ch. 4.13 Commentary D(c), and below, individual points §1) that vision may be possible when darkness reigns. ‘Darkness visible’ (Milton, PL 1.63), as in the present chapter, helps explain Seneca Ep. 57.2 non ut per tenebras videamus, sed ut ipsas, just as the hypothetical ‘black rays’ (denied in §2) help explain Vergil Aen. 7.456–457 atro lumine, a phrase explained by Servius as ‘hellish light’; for fuller quotations see below, section E(b) General texts. Edgeworth (1983) may be right in assuming that Milton remembered Vergil’s expression. (2) The verb προχεῖσθαί at §1[3], cf. §2[12] προχέονται varies the terminus technicus ἐκχεῖσθαί for the issuing of rays (ἀκτῖνες) from the eyes, see (as cited above, ch. 4.13 at section E(b) General texts) Euclid Opt. (rec. Theonis) p. 146.20, 152.1–3 etc., Cicero Att. 2.3.2, Heron Def. 135.11, Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 141.6–7, and Plotinus Enn. 4.5[29]2.8–13; compare ch. 4.13.10 κατά τι⟨νων ἀκ⟩τίνων ἔκχυσιν. We assume that §1[4] προέρχονται, not paralleled elsewhere for the issuing of rays, is a variatio for προχέονται and not an (in itself easily comprehensible) misreading.

1668

liber 4 caput 15

Individual Points §1 The tenet may be seen as someone’s reply to Aristotle’s criticism of Empedocles’ and of Plato’s theory of vision (in the Timaeus). See the pertinent objection of Aristotle Sens. 2 437b11–14 (Greek text at section E(b) General texts): ‘if it (sc. the visual beam) were fire, as Empedocles (31A91) posits and has been written in the Timaeus (45c), and if in fact vision should occur when light issues from the eye as from a lamp, why then should vision not be equally possible in the dark?’ The answer given to this query in §1 is that what issues is not pure light, but light that has been troubled and obstructed by the conditions obtaining at night, so that it fails to reach the objects. Galen speaks of visual pneumata of different quality, e.g. pure as the aether, or opaque in the manner of mist (θολερὸν ὁμίχλης δίκην—cf. the ἀκτῖνες ὁμιχλώδεις); see De symptomaton causis 7.98.7–17 K., somewhat cavalierly printed as SVF 2.870 by Von Arnim. §2 For the difficulties involved with the not always consistent evidence for the standard Stoic theory see Hahm (1978) 65–69. Ingenkamp (1971) argues that the fiery rays issuing from the eyes are a doxographical misunderstanding, but this suggestion is contradicted by the evidence about the misty rays in §2. Even so, both positions may have been adapted the better to suit a discussion. The close parallel of this paragraph with Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.157 (cited below section E(a)§2) was noticed by Von Arnim, who prints §2 as SVF 2.866 and the Diogenes passage as SVF 2.867. e Other Evidence Plato in his discussion of vision Tim. 45d briefly speaks of what happens at night: the visual ray no longer blends with the outside air since this has lost its fire, hence sight is no longer possible. Aristotle argues that darkness is invisible though the visual faculty also distinguishes darkness, but ‘in another way’, de An. 2.10 422a20–21 and 3.2 425b20–22, cited at section E(b) General texts. Compare Alexander de An. 52.14 τοῦ γὰρ σκότους οὐκ ἄλλη τις ἢ ὄψις ἐστὶ κριτική. Theophrastus is less sure, see fr. 278.19–21 FHS&G at Priscianus Lydus Metaphr. in Theophr. 10.3–5 ‘but if darkness is seen without light, light will not be the cause of being seen for all things, or else darkness itself is not visible, as Theophrastus infers’. Epicurus mentions ‘darkness-like air’ as to some extent an obstacle to vision, fr. 29 Usener at Plutarch Adv.Col. 1110C–D. Lucretius DRN 2.746 speaks of caecis … tenebris, and 4.337–352 describes darkness as ‘the black air of darkness’ (the opposite of ‘bright clear air’ and ‘light’) which fills the eye; cf. Giussani ad loc. ‘per Lucrezio … l’oscurità è un qualche cosa di positivo, un fluido’, and Bailey ad loc.; see further below section E(b) General texts.

liber 4 caput 15

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.435.10–13 K. τμγʹ. νυκτάλωψ ἐστὶ πάθος καὶ διάθεσις ὀφθαλμῶν δίχα φανερᾶς αἰτίας. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῖς οὕτω διακειμένοις ἡμέρας μὲν μὴ ὁρᾷν, νυκτὸς δὲ βλέπειν. Calcidius in Tim. c. 345 ergo quia silvestria quidem sentiuntur, silva vero minime sentitur natura propria, sed propter silvestria cum isdem sentiri putatur, fit huius modi sensus incertus, praeclareque dictum silvam sine sensu tangentium tangi, quia puro sensu minime sentiatur, ut si quis dicat tenebras quoque sine sensu videri. non enim perinde sentit visus hominis tenebras intuentis ut cum solet intueri res coloratas dilucidasque, sed contraria passione et amissione atque indigentia eorum omnium quae oculi vident—sunt enim tenebrae decolores et sine claritudinis illustratione—, nec potest visus comprehendere aliquam qualitatem tenebrarum, sed suspicari quod non sit potius quam quid rerum sit, nihilque videns id ipsum sibi videtur videre quod non videt et videre se aliquid putat, cum nihil videat—quis enim visus in tenebris?—, sed quia natura oculi haec est, ut colores discernat, conans, opinor, discernere naturam decolorem, tenebras sentire se suspicatur. §2 Chrysippus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.157 (physical section) ὁρᾶν δὲ τοῦ μεταξὺ τῆς ὁράσεως καὶ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου φωτὸς ἐντεινομένου κωνοειδῶς, καθά φησι Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.867) ἐν βʹ τῶν Φυσικῶν καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος (SVF 3 Apoll. 12). γίνεσθαι μὲν τὸ κωνοειδὲς τοῦ ἀέρος πρὸς τῇ ὄψει, τὴν δὲ βάσιν πρὸς τῷ ὁρωμένῳ· ὡς διὰ βακτηρίας οὖν τοῦ ταθέντος ἀέρος τὸ βλεπόμενον ἀναγγέλλεσθαι.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Tim. 45d ἀπελθόντος δὲ (sc. τοῦ φωτὸς) εἰς νύκτα τοῦ συγγενοῦς πυρὸς ἀποτέτμηται· πρὸς γὰρ ἀνόμοιον ἐξιὸν ἀλλοιοῦταί τε αὐτὸ καὶ κατασβέννυται, συμφυὲς οὐκέτι τῷ πλησίον ἀέρι γιγνόμενον, ἅτε πῦρ οὐκ ἔχοντι. Aristotle de An. 2.10 422a20–22 ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ ἡ ὄψις ἐστὶ τοῦ τε ὁρατοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀοράτου (τὸ γὰρ σκότος ἀόρατον, κρίνει δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἡ ὄψις). de An. 3.2 425b21–22 ὅταν μὴ ὁρῶμεν, τῇ ὄψει κρίνομεν καὶ τὸ σκότος καὶ τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡσαύτως. Sens. 2 437b11–15 ἐπεὶ εἴ γε πῦρ ἦν (sc. ἠ ὄψις), καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A91 DK) φησὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ (45b–46a) γέγραπται, καὶ συνέβαινε τὸ ὁρᾶν ἐξιόντος ὥσπερ ἐκ λαμπτῆρος (cf. 31B84 DK) τοῦ φωτός, διὰ τί οὐ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει ἑώρα ἂν ἡ ὄψις; τὸ δ᾽ ἀποσβέννυσθαι φάναι ἐν τῷ σκότει ἐξιοῦσαν, ὥσπερ ὁ Τίμαιος λέγει, κενόν ἐστι παντελῶς. HA 8.34 619b18–21 γλαῦκες δὲ καὶ νυκτικόρακες, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ὅσα τῆς ἡμέρας ἀδυνατεῖ βλέπειν, τῆς νυκτὸς μὲν θηρεύοντα τὴν τροφὴν αὑτοῖς πορίζεται, οὐ κατὰ πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν νύκτα τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἄκρας ἑσπέρας καὶ περὶ ὄρθρον. GA 5.1 779b15–20 τὸ μὲν οὖν ὑπολαμβάνειν τὰ μὲν γλαυκὰ πυρώδη, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A91 DK) φησι, τὰ δὲ μέλανα πλεῖον ὕδατος ἔχειν ἢ πυρός, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰ μὲν ἡμέρας οὐκ ὀξὺ βλέπειν, τὰ γλαυκά, δι᾽ ἔνδειαν ὕδατος, θάτερα δὲ νύκτωρ δι᾽ ἔνδειαν πυρός, οὐ λέγεται καλῶς, εἴπερ μὴ πυρὸς τὴν ὄψιν θετέον ἀλλ᾽ ὕδατος πᾶσιν. EE 7.2 1235b35–38 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡδέα ἁπλῶς σώματι τὰ τῷ ὑγιαίνοντι καὶ ὁλοκλήρῳ, οἷον τὸ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ οὐ τὸ ἐν τῷ σκότει· καίτοι τῷ ὀφθαλμιῶντι ἐναντίως. Theophrastus Sens. 18 (Empedocles 31A86 DK) ἀτόπως δὲ

1669

1670

liber 4 caput 15

καὶ ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἡμέρας, τὰ δὲ νύκτωρ μᾶλλον ὁρᾷ· … πάντες ἅπαντα μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν μᾶλλον ὁρῶσι πλὴν ὀλίγων ζῴων· τούτοις δ᾽ εὔλογον τοῦτ᾽ ἰσχύειν τὸ οἰκεῖον πῦρ. Sens. 27 (on Anaxagoras, 59A92 DK) καὶ τοῖς μὲν πολλοῖς μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν, ἐνίοις δὲ νύκτωρ εἶναι τὸ ἀλλόχρων· διὸ ὀξυωπεῖν τότε. Sens. 42 (Diogenes 64A19 DK) διὸ τοὺς μελανοφθάλμους μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν καὶ τὰ λαμπρὰ μᾶλλον ὁρᾶν, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐναντίους νύκτωρ. Epicurus Against Theophrastus Book 2 (fr. 29 Usener) ap. Plu. Adv.Col. 1110D πολλάκις ἀέρος ὁμοίως σκοτώδους περικεχυμένου οἱ μὲν αἰσθάνονται χρωμάτων διαφορᾶς οἱ δ᾽ οὐκ αἰσθάνονται δι᾽ ἀμβλύτητα τῆς ὄψεως· ἔτι δ᾽ εἰσελθόντες εἰς σκοτεινὸν οἶκον οὐδεμίαν ὄψιν χρώματος ὁρῶμεν ἀναμείναντες δὲ μικρὸν ὁρῶμεν. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit. HA 2.320 λέγεται δὲ καὶ βλέπειν ὕαιναν ἴσα καὶ φωτὶ κατὰ νύκτα. Lucretius DRN 2.746–747 denique nos ipsi caecis quaecumque tenebris / tangimus, haud ullo sentimus tincta colore. DRN 4.337– 352 e tenebris autem quae sunt in luce tuemur / propterea quia, cum propior caliginis aer / ater init oculos prior et possedit apertos, / insequitur candens confestim lucidus aer, / qui quasi purgat eos ac nigras discutit umbras / aeris illius; nam multis partibus hic est / mobilior multisque minutior et mage pollens. / qui simul atque vias oculorum luce replevit / atque patefecit quas ante obsederat aer / ater, continuo rerum simulacra sequuntur / quae sita sunt in luce, lacessuntque ut videamus. / quod contra facere in tenebris e luce nequimus / propterea quia posterior caliginis aer / crassior insequitur, qui cuncta foramina complet / obsiditque vias oculorum, ne simulacra / possint ullarum rerum coniecta moveri. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.312 ex tenebris in luce quae sint videri et rursum ex luce quae sint in tenebris videri non posse. Vergil Aen. 7.456–457 sic effata facem iuveni coniecit et atro / lumine fumantis fixit sub pectore taedas. cf. Servius auctus in Aen. 7.457, p. 159.22–23 Thilo ‘atro’ autem ‘lumine’ furiali, inferno; alias ratione caret. Seneca Ep. 57.2 nihil illo carcere longius, nihil illis facibus obscurius, quae nobis praestant non ut per tenebras videamus, sed ut ipsas. Alcinous Did. c. 18, p. 173.23–25 H. ὅθεν καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς νύκτωρ ἀπιόντος ἢ σκοτωθέντος οὐκέτι προσφύεται τὸ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ῥεῦμα τῷ πλησίον ἀέρι. Plutarch Quest.Conv. 720D–E ‘ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν’ εἶπεν (sc. ὁ Ἀμμώνιος) ‘οὐ φαύλως ἡ πρόνοια δοκεῖ μεμηχανῆσθαι τῇ ἀκοῇ σαφήνειαν, ὅτε τῆς ὄψεως οὐδὲν ἢ κομιδῇ τι μικρὸν ἔργον ἐστί· σκοτεινὸς γὰρ ὢν ὁ ἀὴρ κατ᾽ Ἐμπεδοκλέα (31B49 DK) ‘νυκτὸς ἐρημαίης ἀλαώπιδος’, ὅσον τῶν ὀμμάτων ἀφαιρεῖται τοῦ προαισθάνεσθαι, διὰ τῶν ὤτων ἀποδίδωσιν’. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.45 ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ τῶν ζῴων τινὰ φύσει λαμπηδόνα ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔχει καὶ φῶς λεπτομερές τε καὶ εὐκίνητον ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀποστέλλει, ὡς καὶ νυκτὸς ὁρᾶν, δεόντως ἂν νομίζοιμεν ὅτι μὴ ὅμοια ἡμῖν τε κἀκείνοις τὰ ἐκτὸς ὑποπίπτει. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 23.2–3 εὐλογώτερον, εἰ τῷ ἐκπέμπειν φῶς τὸ ὁρᾶν, νυκτὸς μᾶλλον ὁρᾶν τὰ ζῷα ἢ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν. Plotinus 2.4.[12]10 καὶ οἷον ὀφθαλμῷ τὸ σκότος ὕλη ὂν παντὸς ἀοράτου χρώματος, οὕτως οὖν καὶ ψυχὴ ἀφελοῦσα ὅσα ἐπὶ τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς οἷον φῶς τὸ λοιπὸν οὐκέτι ἔχουσα ὁρίσαι ὁμοιοῦται τῇ ὄψει τῇ ἐν σκότῳ ταὐτόν πως γινομένη τότε τῷ ὃ οἷον ὁρᾷ. Oribasius 8.48.1 νυκτάλωπα δὲ λέγουσιν, ὅταν συμβῇ τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν βλέπειν, δυομένου δ᾽ ἡλίου ἀμαυρότερον ὁρᾶν, νυκτὸς δὲ γενομένης οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ὁρᾶν. Aëtius of Amida Iatr. 7.48 πρὸς νυκτάλωπα· νυκταλωπίαν δὲ λέγουσιν, ὅταν συμβῇ τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν

liber 4 caput 15 βλέπειν, δύναντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀμαυρότερον ὁρᾶν, εἶτα νυκτὸς γενομένης μηδόλως βλέπειν. γίγνεσθαι δὲ τοῦτο δοκεῖ μάλιστα διά τινα ἀσθένειαν περὶ τὴν κεφαλήν, καὶ μάλιστα διὰ τὴν τοῦ ὀπτικοῦ πνεύματος παχύτητα καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν περὶ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ὑγρῶν καὶ χιτώνων. τισὶ δὲ συμβαίνει νυκτὸς μὲν βέλτιον ὁρᾶν, ἡμέρας δὲ χεῖρον καί, εἰ νυκτὸς σελήνη φαίνοιτο, μὴ ὁρᾶν· σπάνιον δὲ τοῦτο, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον πλεῖστον συμβαίνει. Priscianus Metaphr. in Theophr. 6.20–22 φωτοειδὲς γὰρ ὂν καὶ τὸ ὁρατικὸν ἡμῶν, ὡς περιφανῶς τοῦτο ἔνια τῶν ζῴων ἐπιδείκνυσι προλάμποντα τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ὁρώμενα—διὸ καὶ νυκτὸς ὁρᾶν δύναται. Theophrastus fr. 278.19– 21 FHS&G at Prisc. Metaphr. in Theophr. 10.3–5 ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τὸ σκότος ὁρᾶται ἄνευ φωτός, οὐκ ἔσται πᾶσι τοῦ ὁρᾶσθαι τὸ φῶς αἴτιον, ἢ οὐχ ὁρατόν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς (sc. Theophrastus) ἐπάγει, τὸ σκότος. Damianus Opt. 2.2 ὅτι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ προβαλλόμενον ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν φῶς ἐστιν, αἵ τ᾽ ἀπολάμπουσαι τῶν ὀμμάτων δηλοῦσι μαρμαρυγαὶ καὶ τὸ τινὰς καὶ νύκτωρ ὁρᾶν οὐδὲν τοῦ ἔξωθεν προσδεομένους φωτός, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰ νυκτίνομα τῶν ζῴων· οἷος ἐκεῖνος ὁ Τιβέριος γέγονεν ὁ Ῥωμαίων βασιλεύς. τῶν δέ γε νυκτινόμων ζῴων τὰ ὄμματα καὶ ἐκλάμποντα φαίνεται νύκτωρ δίκην πυρός. §1 Sphaerus: ps.Aristotle Probl. 15.6 911b5–6 ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἀσθενεῖς εἶναι τὰς ἀποσχιζομένας ἀπὸ τῶν ὄψεων πρὸς τὰ ἄκρα τῶν εὐθειῶν, οὐχ ὁρᾶται τὰ ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις· ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον μὲν τῆς εὐθείας ἐνυπάρχει ἐν τῷ κώνῳ, ποιεῖ αὐτήν, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν οὐ ποιεῖ, ἀλλὰ λανθάνουσιν αἱ ὄψεις ἐπιπίπτουσαι. πολλὰ γὰρ οὐχ ὁρῶμεν ἐφ᾽ ἃ διικνεῖται ἡ ὄψις, οἷον τὰ ἐν τῷ σκότει. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 86 (SVF 2.612) αὐγὴ δὲ τὸ ἀποστελλόμενον ἐκ φλογός, συνεργὸν ὀφθαλμοῖς εἰς τὴν τῶν ὁρατῶν ἀντίληψιν. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 131.31–35 (on the Stoics) τὸ γὰρ λέγειν τὸν μὲν πεφωτισμένον ἀέρα τῷ διακεκρίσθαι μᾶλλον ἔχειν ἰσχὺν καὶ δύνασθαι τῇ ἐπερείσει τὴν αἴσθησιν κινεῖν, τὸν δὲ ἀφώτιστον {τῷ} κεχαλᾶσθαι ⟨τῷ⟩ μὴ δύνασθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ὄψεως συνεντείνεσθαι, καίτοι πυκνότερον ὄντα τοῦ πεφωτισμένου, πῶς πιθανόν; §2 Chrysippus: ps.Aristotle Probl. 15.6 9115 ἢ ὅτι ἡ τῶν ὄψεων ἔκπτωσις κῶνός ἐστι. Euclid Opt. (rec. Theonis) Ὅροι p. 154.4–12 αʹ. ὑποκείσθω τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄμματος ὄψεις κατ᾽ εὐθείας γραμμὰς φέρεσθαι διάστημά τι ποιούσας ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων. βʹ. καὶ τὸ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ὄψεων περιεχόμενον σχῆμα εἶναι κῶνον τὴν κορυφὴν μὲν ἔχοντα πρὸς τῷ ὄμματι, τὴν δὲ βάσιν πρὸς τοῖς πέρασι τῶν ὁρωμένων. γʹ. καὶ ὁρᾶσθαι μὲν ταῦτα, πρὸς ἃ ἂν αἱ ὄψεις προσπίπτωσιν, μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι δέ, πρὸς ἃ ἂν μὴ προσπίπτωσιν αἱ ὄψεις. Cicero ND 2.83 ipseque aër nobiscum videt. Galen PHP 7.7.20 μὴ τοίνυν ὡς διὰ βακτηρίας τοῦ πέριξ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς οἱ Στωϊκοὶ (SVF 2.865) λεγέτωσαν. Sextus Empiricus Μ. 7.162 (SVF 2.63) φαντασίαν ῥητέον εἶναι πάθος τι περὶ τὸ ζῷον ἑαυτοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου παραστατικόν. οἷον προσβλέψαντές τινι, φησὶν ὁ Ἀντίοχος (fr. 56 Luck), διατιθέμεθά πως τὴν ὄψιν, καὶ οὐχ οὕτως αὐτὴν διακειμένην ἴσχομεν ὡς πρὶν τοῦ βλέψαι διακειμένην εἴχομεν. P. 3.51 ἡ ὅρασις, ἐάν τε κατὰ ἔντασιν γίνηται κώνου. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) de An.Mant. 130.14–17 εἰσὶν δέ τινες (SVF 2.864), οἳ διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀέρος συνεντάσεως τὸ ὁρᾶν φασι γίνεσθαι. νυττόμενον γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς ὄψεως τὸν συνάπτοντα τῇ κόρῃ ἀέρα σχηματίζεσθαι εἰς κῶνον. τούτου δὲ οἷον τυπουμένου κατὰ τὴν βάσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ὁρατῶν τὴν αἴσθησιν γίνεσθαι, καθάπερ καὶ τῇ ἁφῇ διὰ βακτηρίας. Calcidius in Tim. c. 237 Stoici (SVF 2.863) vero videndi causam in nativi spiritus inten-

1671

1672

liber 4 caput 15

tione constituunt, cuius effigiem coni similem volunt. hoc quippe progresso ex oculorum penetrali, quae appellatur pupula, et ab exordio tenui, quo magis porrigitur, in soliditatem optimato exordio, penes id quod videtur locata fundi omnifariam dilatarique eius illustratione. SVF 2.863–871. Tertullian Adv.Hermog. p. 155.24 Kroymann = c. 28.2, p. 45.22–23 Waszink etiam homini tenebrae visibiles sunt,—hoc enim ipsum, quod sunt tenebrae, vide{n}tur—, nedum deo. Damianus Opt. 6.1 γινώσκειν δὲ δεῖ ὅτι τὸ κωνικὸν τοῦτο καὶ φωτοειδὲς τῆς ὄψεως σχῆμα διὰ τῶν ἀδήλων πόρων τῆς κόρης φερόμενον σχίζεται ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἰς κεχωρισμένας μὲν ἀλλήλων ἀκτῖνας, συναυγαζούσας δὲ πάντα τὸν μεταξὺ αὐτῶν τόπον, τουτέστιν ὅλου τοῦ κώνου τὸ βάθος.

Liber 4 Caput 16 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 901F; p. 406a15–31 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 97; p. 637.11–19 Diels; pp. 306–310 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 204–207 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.4–5, p. 60 Westerink—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 4.75, p. 73.14 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.53.1–4, p. 491.6–19 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b32 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 6, p. 56.8–10; c. 10, p. 67.4, 7–9 Morani

Titulus ιϛʹ. Περὶ ἀκοῆς (P,S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν ἀκοὴν γίνεσθαι κατὰ πρόσπτωσιν πνεύματος τῷ χονδρώδει, ὅπερ φησὶν ἐξηρτῆσθαι ἐντὸς τοῦ ὠτὸς ‘κώδωνος’ δίκην αἰωρούμενον καὶ τυπτόμενον. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀλκμαίων ἀκούειν ἡμᾶς τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἐντὸς τοῦ ὠτός· τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸ διηχοῦν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἐμβολήν· πάντα γὰρ τὰ κενὰ ἠχεῖ. (P2,S2) §3 Διογένης τοῦ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀέρος ὑπὸ τῆς φωνῆς τυπτομένου καὶ κινουμένου. (P3,S3) §4 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πλήττεσθαι τὸν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀέρα, τοῦτον δ᾽ ἀνακλᾶσθαι εἰς τὰ ἡγεμονικὰ καὶ γίγνεσθαι τῆς ἀκοῆς τὴν αἴσθησιν. (P4,S4) §1 Empedocles 31A93 DK cf. B99; §2 Alcmaeon 24A6 DK; §3 Diogenes 64A21 DK, T9 Laks; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 67a–b §1 [2] πρόσπτωσιν PB : ἔμπτωσιν PG : Zusammenstoßen Q : πρόπτωσιν SL corr. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ πνεύματος PΒ(I,III)SL : πνεύματι PΒ(II) : τῶν πνευμάτων PG ‖ [3] χονδρώδει PG (mss. χόνδρῳ δι᾽ corr. Diels) prob. Mau Lachenaud cf. Nem. p. 67.8 χονδρῶδες : χρονιώδει PB(Ι,ΙΙ) : κοχλιώδει PB(ΙΙΙ) : dem knorpelartigen Teil Q : χόνδρῳ SL ‖ ὅπερ i.q. χονδρῶδες PBG prob. Diels Mau : ὅνπερ SL prob. Wachsmuth : jene Luft Q ‖ ἐντὸς PBSL : ἐκ PG ‖ ἐξηρτῆσθαι … δίκην PBGSL : das Ohr in Kegelform betritt Q ‖ δίκην PBSL : τρόπον PG ‖ [4] αἰωρούμενον καὶ PBGSL : om. PQ (ut vid.) §2 [5] post ἡμᾶς add. φησι PG ‖ τῷ ἐντὸς] om. PG ‖ [5–6] τοῦτο … ἐμβολήν] wir hören den Schall, welchen wir manchmal vernehmen, vielmehr aus diesem Grunde Q ‖ [6] διηχοῦν PB : περιηχοῦν PG : διηθοῦν SL ‖ ἐμβολήν PB prob. Laks–Most : εἰσβολήν PGSL prob. Diels ‖ κενὰ P ret. Diels ap. P prob. Mau Laks–Most : κοῖλα SL ret. Diels ap. S prob. Wachsmuth ‖ ἠχεῖ] ἠχεῖν PG §3 [8–9] καὶ κινουμένου] om. PG ‖ Dann geschieht dadurch das Hören add. PQ (ex §4 ?) §4 [10] Πλάτων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PBQ : Πλάτων PG : οἱ ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος S ‖ die aüßere Luft ut subi. verbi πλήττεσθαι add. Q ‖ [11] τὰ ἡγεμονικὰ PBS : τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν PGQ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_116

5

10

1674

liber 4 caput 16

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 97 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀκοῆς (text Jas) 97.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν ἀκοὴν γίγνεσθαι κατὰ ἔμπτωσιν τῶν πνευμάτων τῷ χονδρώδει ὅπερ φησὶν ἐξηρτῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ ὠτὸς κώδωνος τρόπον αἰωρούμενον καὶ τυπτόμενον. 97.2 (~ P2) Ἀλκμαίων ἀκούειν ἡμᾶς φησι τῷ κενῷ τοῦ ὠτός. τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸ περιηχοῦν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος εἰσβολήν· πάντα γὰρ τὰ κενὰ ἠχεῖν. 97.3 (~ P3) Διογένης τοῦ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀέρος ὑπὸ τῆς φωνῆς τυπτομένου. 97.4 (~ P4) Πλάτων πλήττεσθαι τὸν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀέρα, τοῦτον δ᾽ ἀνακλᾶσθαι εἰς τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ γίγνεσθαι τῆς ἀκοῆς τὴν αἴσθησιν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108 4–5 (~ §2) ἀκούομεν δὲ τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἐντὸς τοῦ ὠτός, τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸ διηχοῦν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἐμβολήν. Symeon Seth CRN 4.75 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀκοῆς Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 10, p. 67.4 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀκοῆς NH c. 6, p. 56.8–10 ὡς καὶ τῷ ⟨κατὰ τὴν ἀκοὴν⟩ ἀερώδει τῶν τοῦ ἀέρος παθημάτων, ἀὴρ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φωνῆς οὐσία ἢ ἀέρος πληγή (~ quaestio). NH c. 10, p. 67.7–9 ὄργανα δὲ … ταύτης (sc. τῆς ἀκοῆς) …, μάλιστα δὲ αὐτῶν τὸ χονδρῶδες γένος, πρὸς γὰρ ψόφους καὶ ἤχους ἐπιτήδειός ἐστιν ὁ χόνδρος (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: §4 A 3.16.6 (ap. P) οἱ ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος. A 4.9.11 (de Pythagora et Platone) πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀκοὴν τὸ πνευματικόν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses There are two witnesses, P (represented in various ways by PB, PG and PQ), and S. Both have four lemmata in the same order, so for all we know the chapter may be complete. S’s lemmata except 16.4 (Plato c.s.) are again extant only in SL, the Florentine compendium, cf. above, ch. 4.8 Commentary A(1). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is virtually no proximate tradition. The cousin writing Nem NH c. 10 is very different. There is also an excerpt of §2 in Psellus,

liber 4 caput 16

1675

who in compiling his chapter on the five senses made excerpts from chs. 4.13 and 4.16–19. (2) Sources. Diels DG 222–223 and Ax (1986) 80–81 discuss the parallels in Theophrastus De sensibus. What is important, as Ax points out, is that Theophrastean antecedents (name-label plus a doxa) are extant for all four lemmata; see further below, section D(d) and passages cited in section E(b)§§1–4. Aristotle provides the general information de An. 2.8 420a18–19 that ‘they say we hear by means of something which is void [cf. §2] and resonant, because we hear by that which has the air enclosed in it [cf. §§3–4]’, and further tells us PA 2.10 656b13–16 that ‘what is called empty is filled with air’ (see below, section E(b) General texts). That the lemmata have been modified in the course of transmission, or are somewhat garbled, is not surprising. Although this evidence is insufficient to ground Diels’ grand hypothesis of the ‘Theophrasteum fundamentum’ of the older parts of the Placita, it is clear that in some cases material has been incorporated that was conveniently available in the De sensibus. C Chapter Heading Found in all witnesses, and in Nem. The umbrella formula that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C) here covers the question type of cause (διὰ τί) and the category of place. The heading in S, though missing in the main tradition, is confirmed by Photius and the index of SL. The formula περὶ ἀκοῆς indicating the subject to be treated is paralleled e.g. at ps.Aristotle MM 1.21.2 and Theophrastus Sens. 5. D Analysis a Context Hearing is the second of the senses to be treated, and is (in accordance with the tradition) located after ch. 4.13, sight (plus chs. 4.14 mirror images and 4.15 darkness), and before ch. 4.17, smell, and ch. 4.18, taste: the same order as Aristotle’s in de An. 2.7–10. (Touch, as we noted at ch. 4.13, Commentary D(a) above, is absent.) The chapter on voice or sound (φωνή), a theme that in other sources, e.g. Aristotle de An. 2.8, is often treated together with hearing and could very well have been placed immediately after ch. 4.16, is here located after the cluster of chapters on the senses, viz. at ch. 4.19 (and followed by a chapter on the corporeality of voice, ch. 4.20). b Number–Order of Lemmata All our witnesses have four lemmata, and all in the same order, which there is thus no reason to change.

1676

liber 4 caput 16

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The diaeresis opposes what is outside to what is inside, and what is full to what is empty. It lists in succession: §1 a view according to which hearing is caused by (outside) pneuma striking against a specific little body inside the ear which rings like a bell; §2 one according to which this pneuma enters an empty space inside the ear which then resounds; §3 one according to which the inside ear is (not empty but) filled with air that is struck and moved by the sound; and §4 one which likewise speaks of air that is struck, explicitly inside the head (not the ear), which is reflected to the ‘regent parts’ (note the plural), and thus the sensation of hearing comes about. The opposition between ‘inside the ear’ and ‘inside the head’ is hardly a strong one. That between an inside ear or head filled with air (§§3–4) and an inside ear that is empty (§2) seems stronger, but it should be noted that according to some authorities ‘empty’ is equivalent to ‘filled with air’. There is an appreciable opposition between an inside ear equipped with a specific hearing aid (§1) and one that is empty (§2) or filled with air (§§3–4). Laks (2007) 45–48, discussing the whole chapter, gives a good account of oppositions and commonalities; note esp. his diaeretic scheme at ibid. 50. Though we may have the complete Aëtian chapter (see above, section A), its information about views about hearing is far from complete: we miss, for instance, those of Democritus, Aristotle and the Stoics. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 Diels DG 222 notes the resemblance between §1 and Theophrastus Sens. 9 (‘convenire videntur, sed cum misere haec corrupta sint, ascribere nolo’); Ax rightly argues that (pace Diels) the Empedocles lemma differs from the passages in Theophrastus more as to wording than content. Baltussen (1993) 218 moreover points at the presence of the bell, κώδων, in both texts. §2 Diels also notes the resemblance between §2 and Theophrastus Sens. 25 (‘optime consentiunt’); Ax agrees. Note however that A turns Theophrastus’ description of a particular phenomenon: ‘it reverberates (for it produces sound by being hollow)’, into a general statement: ‘all hollow spaces reverberate’; cf. ps.Aristotle Probl. 21 (Ὅσα περὶ φωνῆς) 7 899b33 καὶ γὰρ τὰ κοῖλα μᾶλλον ἠχεῖ. §3 Diels is optimistic about the resemblance between §3 and Theophrastus Sens. 40–41 (‘bene respondet’), but the Diogenes lemma in Ax’s view is much less close to Theophrastus’ version than Diels believed; similarly Baltussen (1993) 220. Laks (2008) 165 points out that ‘des trois airs qui interviennent dans le processus de l’audition [namely in Theophrastus], le doxographe ne retient

liber 4 caput 16

1677

que les deux extrêmes, le son et l’air cervical’. However, one notes that the doxographer’s addition of ‘sound’ is most helpful. §4 Plato’s definition of hearing—not mentioned by Diels—according to Ax is suggested ‘vage und dazu mit fremder Begrifflichkeit’ (sc. τὰ ἡγεμονικά). Baltussen (2000a) 233 speaks of ‘a muddled simplification’. In Tim. 67b (cf. Alcinous Did. c. 19, p. 174.2 H.) the recipient of the auditory sensation is the liver. The plural τὰ ἡγεμονικά is probably short for τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν (ch. 4.18.2[6]). Also compare Nem NH c. 6, p. 57.7–10 τῶν δὲ ψυχικῶν τὰ μέν ἐστιν ὑπουργικά τε καὶ δορυφορικά, τὰ δὲ ἀρχικὰ καὶ ἡγεμονικά· ἀρχικὰ μὲν τό τε διανοητικὸν καὶ τὸ ἐπιστημονικόν, ὑπουργικὰ δὲ τὰ αἰσθητικὰ καὶ ἡ καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν κίνησις καὶ τὸ φανταστικόν, and the passages of Ptolemy cited at ch. 4.5 section E(b)§14. e Other Evidence The other evidence of interest is found in Theophrastus De sensibus; see above at section B. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.379.15–18 K. ριηʹ. ἀκοή ἐστιν ἡ γινομένη διὰ τοῦ ἐγκεκραμένου τοῖς ὠσὶ πνεύματος ξηροτέρου μᾶλλον ὄντος ἤπερ λεπτομερεστέρου, δι᾽ οὗ αἱ ἀκουστικαὶ ἀντιλήψεις γίνονται. Aquilius Def. 6b Rashed ἀκοὴ δὲ (sc. ἐστιν) αἴσθησις δεκτικὴ φωνῶν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.158 (SVF 2.872) ἀκούειν δὲ τοῦ μεταξὺ τοῦ φωνοῦντος καὶ τοῦ ἀκούοντος ἀέρος πληττομένου σφαιροειδῶς, εἶτα κυματουμένου καὶ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς προσπίπτοντος, ὡς κυματοῦται τὸ ἐν τῇ δεξαμενῇ ὕδωρ κατὰ κύκλους ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐμβληθέντος λίθου. Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.524 de auditis.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Antiphon at POxy 1364, CPF 1.1 fr. A col. iii.3–6 Decleva Caizzi & alii (F44(b)3–6 Pendrick) τῇ ἀ|κοῇ τοὺς φθόγ|γους εἰσδεχόμε|θα. Aristotle de An. 2.8 420a18–19 καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φασιν ἀκούειν τῷ κενῷ καὶ ἠχοῦντι, ὅτι ἀκούομεν τῷ ἔχοντι ὡρισμένον τὸν ἀέρα. PA 2.10 656b13–16 ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν εὐλόγως ἔνια τῶν ζῴων ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῷ περὶ τὴν κεφάλην· τὸ γὰρ κενὸν καλούμενον ἀέρος πλῆρές ἐστι, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἀκοῆς αἰσθητήριον ἀέρος εἶναί φαμεν. Porphyry in Harm. p. 32.5– 16 ἐκ δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων σχεδὸν τὰ πάθη ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἐναντίως πέφυκεν ἐγγίνεσθαι, λέγω δὲ τῇ ὁράσει καὶ τῇ ἀκοῇ. οὐ γὰρ καθάπερ ἡ ὅρασις ἐκπέμπουσα ἐπὶ τὸ ὑποκείμενον τὴν ὄψιν κατὰ διάδοσιν, ὥς φασιν οἱ μαθηματικοί, τὴν ἀντίληψιν ποιεῖται τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, οὕτω που καὶ ἡ ἀκοή. ἀλλ᾽, ὥς φησιν ὁ Δημόικριτος (68A126a DK), ‘ἐκδοχεῖον μύθων’ οὖσα μένει τὴν φωνὴν ἀγγείου δίκην· ἡ δὲ γὰρ εἰσκρίνεται καὶ ἐνρεῖ, παρ᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ θᾶττον ὁρῶμεν ἢ ἀκούομεν. ἀστραπῆς γὰρ καὶ βροντῆς ἅμα γενομένης τὴν μὲν ὁρῶμεν ἅμα τῷ γενέσθαι, τὴν δ᾽ οὐκ ἀκούομεν ἢ

1678

liber 4 caput 16

μετὰ πολὺ ἀκούομεν, οὐ παρ᾽ ἄλλο τι συμβαῖνον ἢ παρὰ τὸ τῇ μὲν ὄψει ἡμῶν ἀπαντᾶν τὸ φῶς, τὴν δὲ βροντὴν παραγίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐκδεχομένης τῆς ἀκοῆς τὴν βροντήν. Chapter heading: Aristotle GA 5.2 781b28–29 καὶ περὶ μὲν … καὶ ἀκοῆς … εἴρηται. Theophrastus Sens. 5 περὶ ἀκοῆς. Origen in Cant. (tr. Rufini) 1.105.28 de auditu. Themistius in de An. 63.1 μετὰ δὲ τὴν ὄψιν περὶ ἀκοῆς ῥητέον. §1 Empedocles: Theophrastus Sens. 9 (on Empedocles, 31A86 DK) τὴν δ᾽ ἀκοὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔσωθεν γίνεσθαι ψόφων, ὅταν γὰρ ὁ ἀὴρ ὑπὸ τῆς φωνῆς κινηθεὶς ἠχῇ ἐντός· ὥσπερ γὰρ εἶναι ‘κώδωνα’ τῶν ἴσων [? Stratton] ἤχων τὴν ἀκοήν, ἣν προσαγορεύει (31Β99 DK) ‘σάρκινον ὄζον’· κινούμενον δὲ παίειν τὸν ἀέρα πρὸς τὰ στερεὰ καὶ ποιεῖν ἦχον. Theophrastus Sens. 21 (on Empedocles, 31A86 DK) ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τὴν ἀκοὴν ὅταν ἀποδῷ τοῖς ἔσωθεν γίνεσθαι ψόφοις, ἄτοπον τὸ οἴεσθαι δῆλον εἶναι πῶς ἀκούουσιν, ἔνδον ποιήσαντα ψόφον ὥσπερ ‘κώδωνος’. τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἔξω δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἀκούομεν, ἐκείνου δὲ ψοφοῦντος διὰ τί; τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτὸ λείπεται ζητεῖν. §2 Alcmaeon: Theophrastus Sens. 25 (Alcmaeon 24A5 DK) ἀκούειν μὲν οὖν φησι τοῖς ὠσίν, διότι κενὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐνυπάρχει· τοῦτο γὰρ ἠχεῖν. φθέγγεσθαι δὲ τῷ κοίλῳ, τὸν ἀέρα δ᾽ ἀντηχεῖν. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 48.21–49.3 ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ ἀὴρ δοκεῖ κενὸς εἶναι, οὗτος δὲ τοῦ ἀκούειν αἴτιος (διὰ γὰρ ἀέρος τὸ ἀκούειν, ὁ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀὴρ ἐγκατῳκοδομημένος ὄργανον τοῦ ἀκούειν), διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν εὐλόγως δοκεῖ λέγεσθαι εὖ ὑπό τινων τὸ ἀκούειν ἡμᾶς τῷ κενῷ. §3 Diogenes: Theophrastus Sens. 40–41 (Diogenes 64A19 DK, T8 Laks) τὴν δ᾽ ἀκοήν, ὅταν ὁ ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀὴρ κινηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔξω διαδῷ ⟨τὴν φωνὴν⟩ πρὸς τὸν ἐγκέφαλον. … (41) κινούμενον γὰρ τὸν ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀέρα κινεῖν τὸν ἐντός. §4 Plato: Plato Tim. 67a–b τρίτον δὲ αἰσθητικὸν ἐν ἡμῖν μέρος ἐπισκοποῦσιν τὸ περὶ τὴν ἀκοήν, δι᾽ ἃς αἰτίας τὰ περὶ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει παθήματα, λεκτέον. ὅλως μὲν οὖν φωνὴν θῶμεν τὴν δι᾽ ὤτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου τε καὶ αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς πληγὴν διαδιδομένην, τὴν δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς κίνησιν, ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς μὲν ἀρχομένην, τελευτῶσαν δὲ περὶ τὴν τοῦ ἥπατος ἕδραν, ἀκοήν. Theophrastus Sens. 6 (on Plato) ἀκοὴν δὲ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁρίζεται· φωνὴν γὰρ εἶναι πληγὴν ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου καὶ αἵματος δι᾽ ὤτων μέχρι ψυχῆς, τὴν δ᾽ ὑπὸ ταύτης κίνησιν ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς μέχρι ἥπατος ἀκοήν. Plutarch De E 390B ἀὴρ δὲ πληγεὶς ἐν ἀκοῇ γίγνεται φωνὴ καὶ ψόφος. Alcinous Did. c. 19, p. 173.42–174.2 H. ἀκοὴ δὲ γέγονε πρὸς φωνῆς γνῶσιν, ἀρχομένη μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν κινήσεως, τελευτῶσα δὲ περὶ ἥπατος ἕδραν.

Liber 4 Caput 17 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 902A; p. 407a1–10 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 98; p. 637.20–24 Diels; pp. 311–313 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 206–207 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.5–7, p. 60 Westerink—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 4.77, p. 74.19 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.54.1–2, p. 492.11–19 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b34 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 11, p. 67.12 Morani (titulus solus)

Titulus ιζʹ. Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως (P,S) §1 Ἀλκμαίων ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· τούτῳ οὖν ὀσφραίνεσθαι ἕλκοντι διὰ τῶν ἀναπνοῶν τὰς ὀσμάς. (P1,S1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ταῖς ἀναπνοαῖς ταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύμονος συνεισκρίνεσθαι τὴν ὀσμήν· ὅταν γοῦν ἡ ἀναπνοὴ βαρεῖα γίνηται, κατὰ τραχύτητα μὴ συναισθάνεσθαι, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ῥευματιζομένων. (P2,S2) §1 Alcmaeon 24A8 DK; §2 Empedocles 31A94 DK titulus Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως PBGSPhot : Περὶ ὀσφρήσεων SL §1 [2] post ἐγκεφάλῳ add. φησὶν PG ‖ τούτῳ P : τούτων SL, corr. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ [3] ἕλκοντι PBQG(Nic)SL : ἕλκοντος PG(mss.) §2 [4] συνεισκρίνεσθαι PBSL : συνεκκρίνεσθαι PG ‖ [5–6] τὴν … συναισθάνεσθαι PBQSL : om. PG ‖ [5] ὀσμήν SL cf. Theophr. Sens. 9 : ὀδμήν PB prob. Diels Mau ‖ post ὀδμήν add. der gesprochenen (sic) Sache Q ‖ γίνηται PB(ΙΙ,ΙΙΙ) : γένηται PB(Ι)SL ‖ συναισθάνεσθαι edd. : συναισθέσθαι PB(I,II,IIIα) : αἰσθάνεσθαι PB(III:E)Q ‖ τραχύτητα] παχύτητα PB(ΙI)SL : Massigkeit (i.e. παχύτητα) Q ‖ [6] ὡς PBSL : ὥσπερ PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 98 (~ tit.) Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως (text Jas) 98.1 (~ P1) Ἀλκμαίων ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ φησὶν εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν· τούτῳ οὖν ὀσφραίνεσθαι ἕλκοντι διὰ τῶν ἀναπνοῶν τὰς ὀσμάς. 98.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ταῖς ἀναπνοαῖς ταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύμονος συνεκκρίνεσθαι ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ῥευματιζομένων. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.5–7 (~ P1) ὀσφραινόμεθα δὲ τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ τῷ ὄντι ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ, ἕλκοντι διὰ τῶν ἀναπνοῶν τὰς ὀσμάς. Symeon Seth CRN 4.77 (~ tit.) Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 11, p. 67.12 (~ tit.) Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_117

5

1680

liber 4 caput 17

Loci Aetiani: §1 A 5.3.3 (Τίς ἡ οὐσία τοῦ σπέρματος) Ἀλκμαίων ἐγκεφάλου μέρος.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses There are two witnesses, P, represented in various ways by PB, PG and PQ, and S, that is, entirely SL. Because there is no lemma on Plato or Aristotle, the other Stobaean manuscripts deleted the entire chapter (cf. above, ch. 4.8 Commentary A(1)). Both P and SL have two lemmata, so the bilemmatic chapter may well be complete, though we cannot be sure. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is virtually no proximate tradition, but the parallel in ps.Galen Definitiones medicae is interesting in view of the importance of this collection of definitions in relation to Book 5. The ‘cousin writing’ Nem NH c. 11 has a (sub-)title which is the same, but the contents are very different. There is also an excerpt of §2 in Psellus Omn.Doctr. 81, who made excerpts from chs. 4.13 and 4.16–19. (2) Sources. As in the case of ch. 4.16, Diels DG 222–223 notes the parallels in Theophrastus De sensibus. We may add that the remark about the effects of a common cold echoes Theophrastus’ criticism (Sens. 21), but turns it into a piece of positive doctrine. What is important is that Theophrastean antecedents (name-label plus doxa) are extant for both lemmata, see below, section D(d). Nothing comparable is found in Aristotle, apart from the general remark Sens. 5 444a17–19 that ‘smell is conveyed by inhalation’ (cited below, section E(b) General texts). That the lemmata have been modified in the course of transmission is not surprising. Although this evidence is insufficient to ground Diels’ grand hypothesis of the ‘Theophrasteum fundamentum’ of the older parts of the Placita, it is clear that here too material is incorporated that was conveniently available in the De sensibus, though the selection for this topic is far from representative: Anaxagoras (Sens. 30) and Diogenes (Sens. 39–41) are absent. And we of course also note the absence of the views of Plato and Aristotle. C Chapter Heading Found in all witnesses and Nem. The standard umbrella formula (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C) covers the question type of cause (διὰ τί) and the cat-

liber 4 caput 17

1681

egory of place. It is paralleled e.g. at Aristotle HA 4.8 533a22, ps.Aristotle ΜΜ 1.21.2, and as part of a book title Galen Libr.Prop. 19.30.2 K. Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως καὶ πόθεν ἄρχεται τὸ αἰσθητήριον αὐτῆς (De instrumento odoratus). D Analysis a Context Smell is the third of the senses to be treated, after ch. 4.13, sight (plus chs. 4.14 mirror images and 4.15 darkness) and ch. 4.16, hearing, and before ch. 4.18, taste. See further above ch. 4.13, at Commentary D(a). b Number–Order of Lemmata All our witnesses have two lemmata, and all in the same order which there is no reason to change. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The two lemmata do not provide a strong contrast. In both cases breathing is needed for smelling. According to §1 it is the brain that smells, while no such organ is mentioned in §2: a weak diaphonia. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The central function of the Alcmaeonic brain is also found in other sources concerning the Crotoniate, esp. Theophrastus De sensibus, and paralleled at ch. 5.3.3 for which no antecedent in Theophrastus is extant. The attribution of a ἡγεμονικόν is of course a matter of later terminology. Diels DG 223, stating in general that ‘Alcmaeonis placita optime consentiunt’, when comparing Sens. 25 and §1 by means of a tabular quotation still calls the use of this term Stoic: ‘sed ne Stoicorum accommodationem desideres haec mihi confer’; cf. below, ch. 4.18, Commentary B. §2 Diels DG 222 is positive about the connection between §2 and Theophrastus Sens. 21–22. We may add that the view expressed in the Empedocles lemma apparently presupposes that the organ of perception of smells is the ἡγεμονικόν in the blood (cf. ch. 4.5.9). e Further Evidence The other evidence of interest is found in Theophrastus De sensibus; see above at section B.

1682 E a

liber 4 caput 17

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 129 19.379.18–380.2 K. ριθʹ. ὄσφρησίς ἐστιν ἡ ἀποτελουμένη διὰ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς ῥισὶ πνεύματος ὄντος ἐνίκμου καὶ ἀτμωδεστέρου, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ τῶν ὀσφραντῶν ἀντιλήψεις γίνονται.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Sens. 5 444a17–19 ἡ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς τῆς καθ᾽ αὑτὴν ἡδείας εὐωδία ὁπωσοῦν ἔχουσιν ὠφέλιμος ὡς εἰπεῖν αἰεί. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γίγνεται διὰ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς. Theophrastus Od. 4 τὸ γὰρ τῆς ὀσμῆς ἐν ἀναπνοῇ. Philo of Alexandria Ebr. 190–191 (paraphrasing tropes of Aenesidemus) τί δ᾽; αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιωμένων ὀσμαὶ μὴ τὰς ἁπλᾶς ⟨καὶ⟩ εἱλικρινεῖς τῶν σωμάτων φύσεις παριστᾶσιν; ἢ τὰς κεκραμένας ἔκ τε αὐτῶν καὶ ἀέρος, ἔστι δ᾽ ὅτε καὶ τοῦ τήκοντος τὰ σώματα πυρὸς καὶ τῆς κατὰ τοὺς μυκτῆρας δυνάμεως; Chapter heading: Aristotle de An. 2.9 421a7 περὶ δὲ ὀσμῆς καὶ ὀσφραντοῦ ἧττον εὐδιόριστόν ἐστι. GA 5.2.781b28–29 καὶ περὶ μὲν … καὶ ὀσφρήσεως εἴρηται. Theophrastus Sens. 59 περὶ ὀσμῆς. ps.Aristotle Probl. 33 tit. Ὅσα περὶ μυκτῆρας. Galen PHP 7.5.46 γέγραπται δὲ τῷ βουλομένῳ καὶ περὶ τοῦδε βιβλίον ἓν ἡμέτερον, ᾧ καὶ τὸ ἐπίγραμμά ἐστι Περὶ τοῦ τῆς ὀσφρήσεως ὀργάνου. Loc.Aff. 8.215.4– 5 K. ὡς ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ τῆς ὀσφρήσεως ὀργάνου δέδεικται γράμματι. Libr.Propr. 19.30.2–3 K. Περὶ ὀσφρήσεως καὶ πόθεν ἄρχεται τὸ αἰσθητήριον αὐτῆς. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.673 de odore. §1 Alcmaeon: Theophrastus Sens. 25 (on Alcmaeon, 24A5 DK) ὀσφραίνεσθαι δὲ ῥισὶν ἅμα τῷ ἀναπνεῖν ἀνάγοντα τὸ πνεῦμα πρὸς τὸν ἐγκέφαλον. §2 Empedocles: Empedocles 31B102 DK ὧδε μὲν οὖν πνοιῆς τε λελόγχασι πάντα καὶ ὀσμῶν. Theophrastus Sens. 9 (on Empedocles, 31A86 DK) ὄσφρησιν δὲ γίνεσθαι τῇ ἀναπνοῇ. διὸ καὶ μάλιστα ὀσφραίνεσθαι τούτους, οἷς σφοδροτάτη τοῦ ἄσθματος ἡ κίνησις· ὀσμὴν δὲ πλείστην ἀπὸ τῶν λεπτῶν καὶ τῶν κούφων ἀπορρεῖν. Sens. 20–22 (on Empedocles, 31A86 DK) εἰ ἡ φθίσις διὰ τὴν ἀπορροήν, ᾧπερ χρῆται κοινοτάτῳ σημείῳ, συμβαίνει δὲ καὶ τὰς ὀσμὰς ἀπορροῇ γίνεσθαι, τὰ πλείστην ἔχοντα ὀσμὴν τάχιστ᾽ ἐχρῆν φθείρεσθαι. νῦν δὲ σχεδὸν ἐναντίως ἔχει. … (21) ἀτόπως δὲ καὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν ὄσφρησιν εἴρηκεν. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐ κοινὴν αἰτίαν ἀπέδωκεν· ἔνια μὲν γὰρ ὅλως οὐδ᾽ ἀναπνέει τῶν ὀσφραινομένων. ἔπειτα τὸ μάλιστα ὀσφραίνεσθαι τοὺς πλεῖστον ἐπισπωμένους εὔηθες· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄφελος μὴ ὑγιαινούσης ἢ μὴ ἀνεῳγμένης πως τῆς αἰσθήσεως. πολλοῖς δὲ συμβαίνει πεπηρῶσθαι καὶ ὅλως μηδὲν αἰσθάνεσθαι. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οἱ δύσπνοοι καὶ οἱ πονοῦντες καὶ οἱ καθεύδοντες μᾶλλον ἂν αἰσθάνοιντο τῶν ὀσμῶν· τὸν πλεῖστον γὰρ ἕλκουσιν ἀέρα. (22) νῦν δὲ συμβαίνει τοὐναντίον. οὐ γὰρ ἴσως καθ᾽ αὑτὸ τὸ ἀναπνεῖν αἴτιον τῆς ὀσφρήσεως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ὡς ἔκ τε τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων μαρτυρεῖται καὶ διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων παθῶν· ὁ δ᾽ ὡς ταύτης οὔσης τῆς αἰτίας καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει πάλιν εἴρηκεν ὥσπερ ἐπισημαινόμενος (31B102 DK)· ‘ὧδε μὲν οὖν πνοιῆς τε λελόγχασι πάντα καὶ ὀσμῶν’. οὐκ ἀληθὲς ⟨δὲ⟩ οὐδὲ τὸ μάλιστα ὀσφραίνεσθαι τῶν κούφων, ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ ὀσμὴν ἐνυπάρχειν. ὁ γὰρ ἀὴρ καὶ τὸ πῦρ κουφότατα μέν, οὐ ποιοῦσι δὲ αἴσθησιν ὀσμῆς.

Liber 4 Caput 18 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 902B; p. 407a11–20 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 99; pp. 637.25–638.3 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 206–207 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.7–8, p. 60 Westerink—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 4.79, p. 76.5 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.55, p. 494.3 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b32–33 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 6, p. 56.10–11; c. 9, p. 66.1, 6–9 Morani

Titulus ιηʹ. Περὶ γεύσεως (P,S) §1 Ἀλκμαίων τῷ ὑγρῷ καὶ τῷ χλιαρῷ τῷ ἐν τῇ γλώττῃ πρὸς τῇ μαλακότητι διακρίνεσθαι τοὺς χυμούς. (P1) §2 Διογένης τῇ ἀραιότητι τῆς γλώττης καὶ τῇ μαλακότητι καὶ διὰ τὸ συνάπτειν τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος εἰς αὐτὴν φλέβας διαχεῖσθαι τοὺς χυμοὺς ἑλκομένους ἐπὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν καθάπερ ἀπὸ σπογγιᾶς. (P2) §1 Alcmaeon 24A9 DK; §2 Diogenes 64A22 DK, T10 Laks lemmata non hab. S §§1[3]–2[14] διακρίνεσθαι … ἀραιότητι PB(II,III)Q : om. PB(I) §1 [2] καὶ τῷ χλιαρῷ PBQ : om. PG ‖ πρὸς PB : durch die Mischung … mit Q ‖ [2–3] πρὸς τῇ μαλακότητι PBQ : om. PG ‖ [3] διακρίνεσθαι PBQ : κρίνεσθαι PG §2 [4] τῆς … μαλακότητι PBQ : om. PG ‖ [5] ἀπὸ PBQ : διὰ PG ‖ σώματος PB : Mund [i.e. στόματος] Q ‖ [6] χυμοὺς PB(I,III)Q : χυλοὺς PB(II) ‖ ἐπὶ PBQ : εἰς PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 99 (~ tit.) Περὶ γεύσεως (text Diels) 99.1 (~ P1) Ἀλκμαίων οἴεται τῷ ὑγρῷ τῷ ἐν τῇ γλώττῃ κρίνεσθαι τοὺς χυμούς. 99.2 (~ P2) Διογένης τῇ ἀραιότητι καὶ διὰ τὸ συνάπτειν τὰς διὰ τοῦ σώματος εἰς αὐτὴν φλέβας διαχεῖσθαι τοὺς χυμοὺς ἑλκομένους εἰς τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καθάπερ ἀπὸ σπογγιᾶς. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.7–8 (~ P2) γευόμεθα δὲ τῇ ἀραιότητι τῆς γλώττης καὶ τῇ μαλακότητι καὶ διὰ τὸ συνάπτειν τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος εἰς αὐτὴν φλέβας τὴν φύσιν. Symeon Seth CRN 4.79 Περὶ γεύσεως καὶ ἁφῆς (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 9, p. 66.1 (~ tit.) Περὶ γεύσεως. NH c. 9, p. 66.6–9 ἔστι δὲ ἡ γεῦσις τῶν χυμῶν ἀντιληπτική, ὄργανα δὲ αὐτῆς ἡ γλῶσσα καὶ ταύτης μᾶλλον τὸ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_118

5

1684

liber 4 caput 18 ἄκρον, ἔτι τε σὺν τούτοις ἡ ὑπερῷα, ἐν οἷς ἔστι τὰ ἐξ ἐγκεφάλου φερόμενα νεῦρα πεπλατυσμένα καὶ ἀπαγγέλλοντα τὴν γενομένην ἀντίληψιν πρὸς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν (~ §§1–2). NH c. 6, p. 56.10–11 τῷ σπογγοειδεῖ δὲ καὶ ὑδατοειδεῖ τῷ κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν τῶν χυμῶν ἀντιλαμβάνεται (~ §2).

Loci Aetiani: §2 A 5.24.3 Διογένης εἰ ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ αἷμα διαχεόμενον πληρώσει μὲν τὰς φλέβας. A 4.23.1 τὰς δ᾽ αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The only witness for the text is P, represented in various ways by PB, PG and PQ. Unfortunately because of the vagaries of transmission SL does not preserve the text of the lemmata and the main mss. for S preserve only a brief extract from AD on Aristotle and an extended quote from Plato’s Timaeus. The heading is also attested in SL and Photius’ index; in the latter it precedes those for touch and smell, but we follow P. Since only P and his tradition are extant, one cannot exclude that there may have been a bit more material. But for the quadrilemmatic ch. 4.16 and the equally bilemmatic ch. 4.17 both P and S are extant, and there is no difference between these two sources as to the number of paragraphs, so for ch. 4.18 there may have been no more in S as well. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is virtually no proximate tradition. There are echoes of the same ideas in cousin writing Nem NH ch. 9, but his chapter as a whole is very different and much more detailed. There is also an excerpt of §2 in Psellus, who as noted before made excerpts from chs. 4.13 and 4.16–19 as he found them in his copy of P. (2) Sources. Diels DG 223 notes the resemblance between §1 and Theophrastus Sens. 25 (‘concordant’). He also notes the resemblance between §2 and Sens. 43 (‘apta sunt Theophrasteis’), though he dislikes τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, which (just as in ch. 4.17.1, where see Commentary D(d)§1) he believes reveals an unwelcome Stoic influence. But the term simply became part of the philosophical koine. What is of some importance is that Theophrastean antecedents (namely, name-label plus doxa) are extant for both lemmata. §1 is indeed not far from Theophrastus, but §2 is more different. Nothing comparable is found

liber 4 caput 18

1685

in Aristotle, apart from the general remark de An. 2.10 422a17–18 that ‘nothing can produce a perception of a taste without moisture’ (cited below section E(b) General texts). However, if a doxa for Democritus had been included and survived, things could have been different in view of Aristotle’s criticisms of Democritus (and others) at Sens. 4 442a29ff. That the lemmata have been modified in the course of transmission is not surprising. C Chapter Heading Found in all representatives of P and Nem. The standard umbrella formula (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C) περὶ γεύσεως here covers the question type of cause (διὰ τί) and the category of place. It is paralleled Aristotle de An. 2.7 419a30, HA 4.8 534b29, Theophrastus Sens. 6 and 9, and Plutarch Adv.Col. 1121B. D Analysis a Context Taste is the fourth and last of the (five) senses to be treated, after chs. 4.13, sight (plus 4.14 mirror images and 4.15 darkness), 4.16, hearing, and 4.17, smell. Touch, as we have noticed, is absent. Cf. above ch. 4.13, at Commentary D(a). b Number–Order of Lemmata The representatives of our single source P all have two lemmata, and in the same order which it does not make sense to modify. As noted above in section A, it is not impossible that there originally were more lemmata, but we can only base our text on what is preserved in P. Note that the absence—through haplography from -ότητι to -ότητι—of the last words of §1 and of the first of §2 in ms. PB(I) has created a new Alcmaeon lemma in this representative of the tradition through loss of the name-label Diogenes. If we did not have other representatives of PB, we would have to depend on PG and PQ for the correct text. Compare what happened in the entire extant tradition of P, viz. PBQ (PG is here absent), at ch. 4.7.1–2, where we are saved by the text of T. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The two lemmata do not provide a strong contrast. In both paragraphs taste is made possible by the structure and composition of the tongue. In §1 we are not told that it is the regent part (brain) that perceives, but perhaps the Alcmaeonic ἡγεμονικόν … ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ has to be added mentally from the first lemma of the previous chapter. If not, there is a contrast between the two paragraphs in that the first fails to refer to the perceiving regent part, while the second in fact does so: ἐπὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Again, in §2 we are not told where the regent part is to be found, though we need not believe that it is in the brain

1686

liber 4 caput 18

(in Diogenes of Apollonia the air which perceives and thinks is located in the whole body, cf. Laks 2008, 166–167). This amounts to an implicit diaphonia, if we are right in admitting the possibility that the brain of A 4.17.1 is still in some way present. d

Further Comments General Points For the relation with Theophrastus De sensibus see above at section B. e Other Evidence The other evidence of interest is found in Theophrastus De sensibus, see above at section B. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.7, p. 73.5–6 Marchesi utrum sapor in rebus sit an palati contagionibus fiat. Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.615 de sapore. §1 Alcmaeon: ps.Galen Def.Med. 130 19.130 380.3–4 K. ρκʹ γεῦσίς ἐστιν ἡ γιγνομένη ποιότης τῷ ἐν τῇ γλώσσῃ πνεύματι ὄντι ὑγροτέρῳ μᾶλλον.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle de An. 2.10 422a17–18 οὐθὲν δὲ ποιεῖ χυμοῦ αἴσθησιν ἄνευ ὑγρότητος. de An. 2.10 422b10–16 τὰ δ᾽ εἴδη τῶν χυμῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χρωμάτων, ἁπλᾶ μὲν τἀναντία, τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν, ἐχόμενα δὲ τοῦ μὲν τὸ λιπαρόν, τοῦ δὲ τὸ ἁλμυρόν· μεταξὺ δὲ τούτων τό τε δριμὺ καὶ τὸ αὐστηρὸν καὶ στρυφνὸν καὶ ὀξύ· σχεδὸν γὰρ αὗται δοκοῦσιν εἶναι διαφοραὶ χυμῶν. ὥστε τὸ γευστικόν ἐστι τὸ δυνάμει τοιοῦτον, γευστὸν δὲ τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐντελεχείᾳ αὐτοῦ. ps.Aristotle Probl. 34 tit. Ὅσα περὶ τὸ στόμα καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ. Philo of Alexandria Ebr. 190 (paraphrasing tropes of Aenesidemus) γλυκὺ δὲ καὶ πικρὸν τίνα τρόπον δοκιμάζεται; μὴ δίχα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐνστομίων χυλῶν ὅσοι κατὰ φύσιν ἢ παρὰ φύσιν; οὐ δήπου; Chapter heading: Theophrastus Sens. 9 περὶ δὲ γεύσεως. §1 Alcmaeon: Theophrastus Sens. 25 (on Alcmaeon, 24A5 DK) γλώττῃ δὲ τοὺς χυμοὺς κρίνειν· χλιαρὰν γὰρ οὖσαν καὶ μαλακὴν τήκειν τῇ θερμότητι· δέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ διαδιδόναι διὰ τὴν μανότητα καὶ ἁπαλότητα. Galen Temp. c. 4, 1.604.4– 7 K. περὶ δὲ τῶν ἑπομένων ταῖς κράσεσιν ἐφεξῆς χρὴ διελθεῖν. ἕπεται μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ προειρημένα, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀχώριστα τελέως ἐστί, ξηρῷ μὲν σκληρότης, ὑγρῷ δὲ μαλακότης, ὅταν γε μετὰ χλιαρᾶς ᾖ θερμότητος. Plutarch de E 390B τὴν δὲ γεῦσιν ὑγρότητι τῶν γευστῶν τὰς ποιότητας προσιεμένην. §2 Diogenes: Theophrastus Sens. 43 (on Diogenes, 64A19 DK) κριτικώτατον δὲ ἡδονῆς τὴν γλῶτταν· ἁπαλώτατον γὰρ εἶναι καὶ μανὸν καὶ τὰς φλέβας ἁπάσας ἀνήκειν εἰς αὐτήν· διὸ σημεῖά τε πλεῖστα τοῖς κάμνουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς εἶναι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τὰ χρώματα μηνύειν· ὁπόσα γὰρ ἂν ᾖ καὶ ὁποῖα, τοσαῦτα ἐμφαίνεσθαι.

liber 4 caput 18 cf. ps.Aristotle Probl. 34.6 964a4–5 διὰ τί, ὅσας ἂν χρόας ἔχῃ τὸ δέρμα, τοσαύτας ἔχει καὶ ἡ γλῶττα; Probl. 10.19 892b34–36 διὰ τί ἡ γλῶττα οὐδενὸς πιερὰ τῶν ζῴων; ἢ ὅτι τὸ πῖον πυκνόν, ἡ δὲ γλῶττα ἀραιὰ φύσει ἐστίν, ὅπως τοὺς χυμοὺς γνωρίζῃ; Alcinous Did. c. 19, p. 174.21–26 H. τήν γε μὴν γεῦσιν [γλῶτταν coni. Sauppe prob. Whittaker: γεῦσιν mss.] ποικιλωτάτων χυμῶν ἐπιγνώμονα κατεσκεύασαν οἱ θεοί, φλεβία διατείναντες ἀπὸ γλώττης μέχρι καρδίας, δοκίμια ἐσόμενα καὶ κριτήρια τῶν χυμῶν· ταῦτα δὲ συγκρινόμενα καὶ διακρινόμενα κατὰ τὰς προσπτώσεις τῶν χυμῶν διορίζει τὴν ἐν τούτοις παραλλαγήν. Galen UP 4.15, 3.318.4–8 K. τοὺς μελαγχολικοὺς ἕλκειν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ὁ σπλὴν δύναμιν ἔχει χυμούς, ἀραιὸν ἱκανῶς καὶ χαῦνον ὑπάρχον ὥσπερ τις σπογγιὰ πρὸς τὸ ῥᾳδίως ἕλκειν τε καὶ παραδέχεσθαι τὸ πάχος αὐτῶν.

1687

Liber 4 Caput 19 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 902B–F; pp. 407a21–409a22 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 100; p. 638.4–13 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 206–209 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 108.9, p. 60 Westerink—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 4.79, p. 76.5 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.57, p. 497.1–11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b33 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 1, p. 4.16–22; c. 6, p. 56.10 Morani

Titulus ιθʹ. Περὶ φωνῆς (P,S) §1 Πλάτων τὴν φωνὴν ὁρίζεται πνεῦμα διὰ στόματος ἀπὸ διανοίας ἠγμένον· καὶ πληγὴν ὑπὸ ἀέρος δι᾽ ὤτων καὶ ἐγκεφάλου καὶ αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς διαδιδομένην· (P1a,S1a) §2 λέγεται δὲ καὶ καταχρηστικῶς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων φωνὴ καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων, ὡς χρεμετισμοὶ καὶ ψόφοι· (P1b,S1b) §3 κυρίως δὲ φωνὴ ἡ ἔναρθρός ἐστιν ὡς φωτίζουσα τὸ νοούμενον. (P1c,S1c) §4 Ἐπίκουρος τὴν φωνὴν εἶναι ῥεῦμα ἐκπεμπόμενον ἀπὸ τῶν φωνούντων ἢ ἠχούντων ἢ ψοφούντων· τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ῥεῦμα εἰς ὁμοιοσχήμονα θρύπτεσθαι θραύσματα· (ὁμοιοσχήμονα δὲ λέγεται τὰ στρογγύλα τοῖς στρογγύλοις καὶ σκαληνὰ καὶ τρίγωνα τοῖς ὁμοιογενέσι)· τούτων δ᾽ ἐμπιπτόντων ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἀποτελεῖσθαι τὴν αἴσθησιν τῆς φωνῆς· φανερὸν δὲ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀσκῶν ἐκρεόντων καὶ τῶν ἐμφυσώντων κναφέων τοῖς ἱματίοις. (P2) §2 Plato cf. Tht. 206d; §2 cf. Sph. 263e; Tim. 67a–c; §3—; §4 Epicurus fr. 321 Usener titulus Περὶ φωνῆς P : Περὶ φωνῆς καὶ εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ (~ tit. c. 4.20) καὶ ⟨πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ⟩ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγενονικόν (~ tit. c. 4.21) SFPPhot §1 [2] τὴν PBQS : om. PG ‖ πνεῦμα PS : an ῥεῦμα legendum ut apud §4[8] ? ‖ [3] ἠγμένον P : om. S : προηγμένον coni. Reiske ‖ ὑπὸ ἀέρος PBS : an die Luft Q : ὑπὸ om. PG ‖ δι᾽ ὤτων PBS : διὰ τῶν ὤτων PG : zu den beiden Ohren Q ‖ καὶ ἐγκεφάλου PBQS : ἐγκεφάλῳ PG ‖ καὶ αἱματος om. PQ ‖ αἵματος PBS : στόματι PG §2 ‘non iam ad Platonem pertinet’ Diels prob. Wachsmuth ‖ [5] καὶ1 PB(III) : καὶ ἡ PB(I,II) ‖ καταχρηστικῶς PBS : metaphorisch Q ‖ [6] post χρεμετισμοὶ add. dem Eselsgeschrei Q §3 [7] ἡ PB : om. PQS ‖ ἔναρθρός PBS : verständliche Q ‖ ὡς PB : γὰρ S ‖ post νοούμενον add. Denn der Laut wird in der Sprache der Griechen von der Erleuchtung abgeleitet Q fort. ἡ φωνὴ παρὰ τὸ φῶς, τὸ φαίνω vel sim. vertens (vid. comm. E(b)§3, et cf. Q ad 4.11[17]) §§4– 7 non hab. S §4 [8–9] ἐκπεμπόμενον … ῥεῦμα PB : om. Q per haplographiam ‖ [13] ἀπὸ … ἐκρεόντων PB : im Blasen der Schläuche Q ‖ [14] ἐμφυσώντων PB(I,II) : ἐκφυσώντων P(III:E) : Blasen von Wasser Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_119

5

10

liber 4 caput 19

§5

§6

§7

Δημόκριτος καὶ τὸν ἀέρα φησὶν εἰς ὁμοιοσχήμονα θρύπτεσθαι σώματα καὶ συγκαλινδεῖσθαι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς θραύσμασι· ‘κολοιὸς’ γὰρ ‘παρὰ κολοιὸν ἱζάνει’, καί ‘ὡς αἰεὶ τὸν ὁμοῖον ἄγει θεὸς ὡς τὸν ὁμοῖον’. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς αἰγιαλοῖς αἱ ὅμοιαι ψῆφοι κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς τόπους ὁρῶνται, κατ᾽ ἄλλο μὲν αἱ σφαιροειδεῖς, κατ᾽ ἄλλο δ᾽ αἱ ἐπιμήκεις· καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κοσκινευόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναλίζεται τὰ ὁμοιοσχήμονα, ὥστε χωρὶς εἶναι τοὺς κυάμους καὶ ἐρεβίνθους. ἔχοι δ᾽ ἄν τις πρὸς τούτους εἰπεῖν· πῶς ὀλίγα θραύσματα πνεύματος μυρίανδρον ἐκπληροῖ θέατρον; (P3) οἱ δὲ Στωικοί φασι τὸν ἀέρα μὴ συγκεῖσθαι ἐκ θραυσμάτων, ἀλλὰ συνεχῆ δι᾽ ὅλου μηδὲν κενὸν ἔχοντα· ἐπειδὰν δὲ πληγῇ πνεύματι, κυματοῦται κατὰ κύκλους ὀρθοὺς εἰς ἄπειρον, ἕως πληρώσῃ τὸν περικείμενον ἀέρα, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς κολυμβήθρας τῆς πληγείσης λίθῳ· καὶ αὕτη μὲν κυκλικῶς κινεῖται, ὁ δ᾽ ἀὴρ σφαιρικῶς. (P4) Ἀναξαγόρας τὴν φωνὴν γίνεσθαι πνεύματος ἀντιπεσόντος μὲν στερεμνίῳ ἀέρι, τῇ δ᾽ ὑποστροφῇ τῆς πλήξεως μέχρι τῶν ἀκοῶν προσενεχθέντος· καθὸ καὶ τὴν λεγομένην ἠχὼ γίνεσθαι. (P5)

§5 Democritus 68A128 DK; Homerus Od. 17.218; Plato Lys. 214a–b; Aristoteles EE 7.1 1235a6–9; Rhet. 1.11 1371b16–17; ps.Aristoteles MM 2.11.2; §6 Stoici SVF 2.425; §7 Anaxagoras 59A106 DK §5 [15–16] εἰς … θραύσμασι PB : durch die Formen der Teile, welche durch den Laut bewegt werden, bis sie davon wie sie (die Formen der Teile) wird Q ‖ [17] ὡς1 … ὁμοῖον PB : und jeder setzt sich zu seinesgleichen Q ‖ ὡς1 PB(I,II) : om. PB(III) ‖ [18] τοὺς … τόπους PB : einem einzigen Ort Q ‖ [19] κατ᾽ ἄλλο … ἐπιμήκεις om. PQ ‖ αἱ ἐπιμήκεις PB(III:E), scr. marg. PB(III:A-alter.man.) : om. PB(III:αA) : lac. praebent PB(I,II) ‖ [20] κοσκινευόντων PB : κοσκινευομένων Burchard ap. DG conl. S.E. M. 7.117 cf. wenn sie gesiebt werden Q (aut ὑπὸ τῶν scribendum pro ἐπὶ τ.) ‖ [21] τούτους PB(III)Q : τούτοις PB(I,II) ‖ [22] ὀλίγα PB : ὀλίγ᾽ ἂν DK ‖ θέατρον PB : den Zwischenraum Q §6 [23] ἐκ PB : ἀπὸ PG ‖ θραυσμάτων PB(I,II)G : θραυμάτων PB(III) : Teilen Q ‖ [24] post συνεχῆ add. ⟨εἶναι⟩ edd. sed non prob. Diels ‖ ἔχοντα PBQ : om. PG ‖ [25] κυματοῦται] κυκλοῦται PB(II) ‖ ὀρθοὺς] om. PG ‖ πληρώσῃ] πληρώσει PB(II) ‖ [26] περικείμενον] ἐπικείμενον PB(II) ‖ ἐπὶ] om. PG ‖ [26–27] καὶ … σφαιρικῶς] κινουμένης καὶ κυκλοειδῶς καὶ σφαιροειδῶς PG §7 [28] Ἀναξαγόρας PBQ : Ἀναξίμανδρος PG ‖ ἀντιπεσόντος PB : ἐμπεσόντος PG : anstößt Q ‖ [30] καὶ PBG : om. PQ ‖ λεγομένην PBG : om. PQ

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 100 (~ tit.) Περὶ φωνῆς (text Diels) 100.1 (~ P1a) Πλάτων φωνὴν ὁρίζεται πνεῦμα διὰ στόματος ἀπὸ διανοίας ἠγμένον καὶ πληγὴν ἀέρος διὰ τῶν ὤτων ἐγκεφάλῳ καὶ στόματι μέχρι ψυχῆς διαδιδομένην. 100.2 (~ P4) οἱ δὲ Στωικοί φασι τὸν ἀέρα μὴ συγκεῖσθαι ἀπὸ θραυσμάτων, ἀλλὰ συνεχῆ δι᾽ ὅλου μηδὲ κενόν· ἐπειδὰν πληγῇ τῷ πνεύματι, κυματοῦται κατὰ κύκλους εἰς ἄπειρον, ἕως πληρώσῃ τὸν περικείμενον ἀέρα, ὡς τῆς κολυμβήθρας τῆς πληγείσης λίθῳ κινουμένης καὶ κυκλοειδῶς καὶ σφαιροειδῶς.

1689 15

20

25

30

1690

liber 4 caput 19

100.3 (~ P5) Ἀναξίμανδρος [sic] τὴν φωνὴν γίνεσθαι πνεύματος ἐμπεσόντος μὲν στερεμνίῳ ἀέρι, τῇ δ᾽ ὑποστροφῇ τῆς πλήξεως μέχρι τῶν ἀκοῶν προσενεχθόντος· καθὸ καὶ τὴν λεγομένην ἠχὼ γίγνεσθαι. Psellus Omn.Doctr. 108.9 ἡ δὲ φωνὴ πνεῦμα ἐστὶ διὰ τοῦ στόματος ἀπὸ διανοίας ἠγμένον (~ P1). Symeon Seth CRN 4.79 Περὶ γεύσεως καὶ ἁφῆς (~ tit.) Testes secundi: §1 Nemesius NH c. 1, p. 4.16–22 τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς φωνῆς ζητῶν εὑρήσεις ἐξ ἁπλῆς καὶ μονοειδοῦς τῆς ἵππων καὶ βοῶν ἐκφωνήσεως κατὰ μέρος εἰς ποικίλην καὶ διάφορον προαχθεῖσαν τὴν τῶν κοράκων καὶ μιμηλῶν ὄρνεων φωνήν, ἕως εἰς τὴν ἔναρθρον καὶ τελείαν τὴν ἀνθρώπου κατέληξε, πάλιν δὲ τὴν ἔναρθρον διάλεκτον ἐξῆψε τῆς διανοίας καὶ τοῦ λογισμοῦ ἐξάγγελον ποιήσας αὐτὴν τῶν κατὰ νοῦν κινημάτων (~ §§1–3). NH c. 6, p. 56.10 ἀὴρ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φωνῆς οὐσία ἢ ἀέρος πληγή (~ §4). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 4.16.3 Διογένης τοῦ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀέρος ὑπὸ τῆς φωνῆς τυπτομένου καὶ κινουμένου (sc. τὴν ἀκοὴν γίνεσθαι). §2 A 4.16.4 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πλήττεσθαι τὸν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ἀέρα, τοῦτον δ᾽ ἀνακλᾶσθαι εἰς τὰ ἡγεμονικὰ καὶ γίγνεσθαι τῆς ἀκοῆς τὴν αἴσθησιν. al. A 4.20.1 Πλάτων … ἀσώματον· οὐ γὰρ τὸν ἀέρα, ἀλλὰ τὸ σχῆμα τὸ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν κατὰ ποιὰν πλῆξιν γίνεσθαι φωνήν. §3 A 5.20.4 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων λογικὰς μὲν εἶναι καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων καλουμένων τὰς ψυχάς, οὐ μὴν λογικῶς ἐνεργούσας παρὰ τὴν δυσκρασίαν τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τῷ μὴ ἔχειν τὸ φραστικόν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πιθήκων καὶ τῶν κυνῶν· λαλοῦσι μὲν γὰρ οὗτοι οὐ φράζουσι δέ. A 5.20.3 Ἀναξαγόρας πάντα τὰ ζῷα λόγον ἔχειν τὸν ἐνεργητικόν, τὸν δ᾽ οἱονεὶ νοῦν, μὴ ἔχειν τὸν παθητικόν, τὸν λεγόμενον τοῦ νοῦ ἑρμηνέα. §§4–5 A 1.13.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἔφη πρὸ τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων θραύσματα ἐλάχιστα οἱονεὶ στοιχεῖα πρὸ τῶν στοιχείων ὁμοιομερῆ. A 1.13.4 Ἡρακλείδης θραύσματα. §5 A 1.5.3[9–10] πρὸς δὴ τὸν Πλάτωνα ῥητέον … A 1.14.4 οἱ ἀπὸ Λευκίππου τὰ ἄτομα πολυσχήμονα. A 1.16.2 οἱ τὰς ἀτόμους ⟨εἰσάγοντες⟩ … μὴ εἰς ἄπειρον εἶναι τὴν τομήν. §6 A 1.16.1 οἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω καὶ Πυθαγόρου παθητὰ ⟨τὰ⟩ σώματα καὶ τμητὰ εἰς ἄπειρον, καὶ πάντα τὰ συνεχῆ. A 1.18.5 Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν. §7 A 4.20 tit. πῶς ἠχὼ γίνεται.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

liber 4 caput 19

1691

Commentary A Witnesses There are two witnesses, P, represented in various ways by PB, PG, PQ; and S, for the heading and the Plato lemma together with the definitions at §§1–3. Even in the Florentine florilegium the larger part of the text is absent. There are five lemmata in PB, of which three remain in PG. S Ecl. 1.57 has combined the headings of the three chapters 4.19–4.21, cf. below ch. 4.20 Commentary A, and ch. 4.21 Commentary C. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Ps.Galen’s Definitiones medicae (cf. above, ch. 4.17, Commentary B) is rather early, but for the most part the proximate tradition is late. As to its wider ramifications, it is noteworthy that Lactantius Op.D. 15.1 explicitly ascribes the definition of voice as air that has been struck (§1) to both philosophers and grammarians. See further the important passages from the Commentaria on Dionysius Thrax, deriving from late Neoplatonist school practice, quoted at section E(a)§1 (cf. also below, ch. 4.20 at Commentary B). The surprising tenacity of the tradition here is similar to that pertaining to the proem of the work; see above, Book 1.titulus et index, Commentary D(c). The Democritus lemma (§5) so closely corresponds to a passage in Sextus Empiricus that they must go back to a common tradition. (2) Sources. The chapter appears to have been derived from very good source material. The Platonic material (§1) goes back to passages in the dialogues or further developments spun out of these, and §§2–3 contain parallels to influential views of the grammarians Seleucus and Philoxenus, both first cent. ce, so more or less contemporary with A. The Epicurean doxa (§4) is in part based upon a passage in the Letter to Herodotus (close verbal parallels). The Stoa lemma (§5), again, is closely parallel to the authoritative treatment of the subject in the physical section of the doxography of Diogenes Laertius V.P. Book 7 (not noticed by Von Arnim, who prints A 4.19.4 as SVF 2.425 and the Diogenes passage as SVF 2.872). Apparently special care was lavished on the present chapter, or it was shielded from further abridgement in P. The subject continued to be important, as is clear from the reverberations in the late Commentaria on Dionysius Thrax. C Chapter Heading Of the standard umbrella type περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα, see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C. It is paralleled as e.g. a formula referring to a subject or question in Aristotle, in the Aristotelian Problemata, in Stoic dialectic, in grammarians, and as head-

1692

liber 4 caput 19

ing of a chapter in Oribasius Coll.Med. 62. As a book title it is known as that of Galen’s lost treatise Περὶ φωνῆς, numerous references to which are found in his œuvre. The question types concerned are those of cause and substance, while the categories of place and action and passion also play a part. D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on after chs. 4.13–18 dealing with the senses (touch omitted) and particular phenomena related to some among them. A position that is perhaps equally appropriate would have been immediately after ch. 4.16, ‘On hearing’. Plato Tim. 47cd and 67bc (followed by Theophrastus Sens. 6) deals with voice and hearing simultaneously, as does Aristotle in his chapter on the sense of hearing, de An. 2.8 419b4–421b6. Lucretius too discusses hearing and voice together, DRN 4.524–579. But according to the standard Stoic theory voice (like hearing) is a separate part of the soul (see ch. 4.4.2 etc.), which presumably is why it gets a separate chapter here, cf. M–R 2.1.146–147. Ch. 4.19 is continued by ch. 4.20, which deals with the issue of the corporeality of voice and the origin of its echo. The former a bit surprisingly is not an explicit issue in the present chapter, where voice is corporeal in all the doxai. The postponement of an exposition of the diaphonia is a sign that A (somewhat atypically) does not give equal weight to the two opposite sides. Note that the origin of the echo (apparently prepared by ἠχούντων in §2) is already mentioned in the final lemma of ch. 4.19, which makes for a smooth connection with the long title and second lemma of ch. 4.20. b Number–Order of Lemmata Of the five lemmata in PB and PQ only three are found in PG, in the same relative order. In S and his tradition only the heading and §§1–3 are extant. There is no reason for interfering with the order as transmitted in P. The difference between Epicurus (§4) and Democritus (§5) is that Democritus includes air, just as the Stoics (§6) and Anaxagoras (§7), so Democritus is closer to the latter two. This explains the unchronological lemmata order, §5 following after §4. The Plato lemma (§1) is first because it contains a definition; see below. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Voice is presented not only as produced by a speaker or some other sort of source, but also as received, heard (φωνή also means ‘sound’). A consequence of this is that what in the original sources was formulated primarily as pertaining to spoken or thought logos (Plato Tht. 206d, Sph. 263e), or to hearing (Tim. 67b), has been rephrased and rearranged to suit a focus on, or heading per-

liber 4 caput 19

1693

taining to, voice. For a drastic example of this reorganization see Alcinous Did. c. 19, p. 173.42–174.4 H., cited section E(b)§1. See Ingenkamp (1966) 80, and Ax (1986) 78–79, who aptly speaks of Umlemmatisierung, or ‘placing under a different heading’, but whose claim that in ch. 4.19 φωνή denotes ‘voice’ alone, and not (καταχρηστικῶς) also ‘sound’ in general, we cannot follow. But the Stoic doctrine of hearing is indeed found in the present chapter and not in ch. 4.16, see below, section D(d)§4. The distribution of voice/sound and hearing over two separate chapters in the Placita (namely chs. 4.16 and 4.19) is in tune with a scholastic practice we have encountered more often. Ch. 4.20 provides a diaphonia of doxai pertaining to the incorporeality versus the corporeality of voice. According to the doxai of the present chapter, however, voice is corporeal: pneuma in §1 Plato and (apparently) in the two clarifying remarks that follow; a stream of various small particles of the same shape in §4 Epicurus; air corpuscles plus small particles in §5 Democritus; continuous air struck by pneuma in Stoicism §6; pneuma returned by the air it has struck in §7 Anaxagoras. It is not always easy to establish the structure of a chapter that is mainly extant in P. Here the main diaeresis/diaphonia is between the discrete substrate of the Atomists (§§4–5) and the continuous substrate of the Stoics (§6). We note the identical formulas εἰς ὁμοιοσχήμονα θρύπτεσθαι θραύσματα (both §4 and §5), which are opposed to μὴ συγκεῖσθαι ἐκ θραυσμάτων (§6). The similar wording plus the negation strongly highlight the contrast. The tenets of Plato (§1) and Anaxagoras (§7) at beginning and end, both of which speak of pneuma, lie outside this diaeresis. This explains the final position of the Anaxagoras lemma, since exceptional lemmata, or those that fail to fit the diaeresis of a chapter, are as a rule found ad finem, see e.g. A at P 2.2, 2.14, 3.9, and M–R 2.1.9, 2.1.12, 3.228– 229, etc. But it does not explain the position of the Plato lemma ad initium. The most probable explanation is that this lemma provides an explicit definition of the essence. Also elsewhere in the Placita definitions (both nominal and essential ones) are found at the beginning of chapters, though as a rule without name-label; see chs. 1.6,1, 1.9.1, 1.10.1, 1.11,1, 1.12,1, 1.14.1, 1.15.1, 2.1.1, 2.32.1, 3.1.1, 4.8.1, and 5.29.1, and esp. ch. 1.9 at Commentary D(d). A weaker diaphonia is that between Epicurus (§4), who does not mention air, and the others, who do. d

Further Comments General Points Though ‘breath’ (pneuma) functions in the Plato’s first definition in §1, we are not informed about the production of voice and the role of respiration and the function of the trachea, and have to wait for ch. 4.21 1.[15–19].

1694

liber 4 caput 19

Individual Points §§1–3 (1) While §1 is derived from passages in Plato (as we have seen §2 is ascribed to grammarians, too), §§2–3 are different, as Diels already pointed out ad loc. They are widely paralleled in grammatical literature. Wachsmuth appropriately gave them their own separate lemma. The antithesis between καταχρηστικῶς (‘by analogy’, ‘metaphorically’, ‘by extension’) and κυρίως (‘in the proper sense’) is not paralleled before the first cent. bce, in the grammarian Trypho, e.g. Περὶ τρόπων 192.21–24, and Philo of Alexandria, e.g. Leg. 2.10. For these definitions see also Mansfeld (2005b). (2) Note that at §1[2] the Stoic πνεῦμα replaces the ῥεῦμα of Plato Sph. 263e (echoed ps.Plato Def. 414d); cf. Tht. 206d ῥοή, Tim. 75e λόγων νᾶμα ἔξω ῥέον. One is tempted to conjecture ῥεῦμα, because then both Plato (§1) and Epicurus (§4) would speak of ῥεῦμα. This would make the structure of the chapter clearer, while from the point of view of the original source nihil obstat. Against this change, of course, is the unanimous textual tradition. But that in the course of transmission a Platonic ῥεῦμα was supplanted by a Stoicizing πνεῦμα is virtually certain. (3) Ax (1986) 81 argues that there is no reference to ἀκοή in the present lemma, but misses the implication of the phrase §1[3] δι᾽ ὤτων. Ibid. p. 78 he argues that these words were added by the doxographer, although they are already found in both Theophrastus and Plato. (4) In spite of the shared term ὁρίζεται the definition in §1 is quite different from Theophrastus’ introductory words at Sens. 6, cited section E(b)§2. But πληγὴν … ψυχῆς in §1[3–4] is very close to Theophrastus, who himself excerpted Plato very carefully, although he seems to give ‘the erroneous impression that Plato takes hearing … to be itself a sound’ (Long 1996c, 352, his emphasis). What in the original sources was formulated primarily as pertaining to logos or hearing, has been rephrased to suit a focus, or heading, pertaining to voice/sound; see at section D(c) above. This already happened in Theophrastus. §3 For ‘voice’ as ‘illuminating what is thought’ see Mansfeld (2005b). This idea helps explain the Stoic view that also the first case of the noun, i.e. the spoken or even written word in a particular shape, is a ‘fall’ or ptosis, since it has ‘fallen from the concept in the soul’ (SVF 2.164, cited section E(b)§3). Sprache der Griechen: cf. chs. 1.8 (heading), 2.1.1[2], 3.7.2[6], 4.11.1[17], and 4.12.1[9]. The etymology of φω-νή ‘sound’ from φῶ-ς ‘light’ has to be explained to his public, since no connection is present in Arabic between the words for ‘sound’ and ‘light’. §4 The Epicurus doxa includes both animals and things. §5 The quotation of the Homeric line is paralleled in Plato and Aristotle, that of the proverb in Aristotle, but they are not found in the parallel passage

liber 4 caput 19

1695

in Sextus Empiricus; see section E(b)§5. This is not the place to inquire into the ultimate origin of this combination (further illustrative quotes are found in both Aristotle and Plato). Either Sextus Empiricus (or the tradition on which he depends) eliminated these proof texts, or A or the tradition on which he depends added them. If the latter, the Democritean view was contaminated with what is in Aristotle (and Plato). If the former, one might hypothesize that all three philosophers depend on an earlier anthology of parallel ideas, which Democritus further developed by the empirical examples of similar stones and grains that aptly illustrate atomic motions. The dialectical objection at the end of the lemma is an important reminder of one of the aims and uses of placita. Explicit examples in the Placita itself are rare: see chs. 1.2.2, 1.3.2–4, 1.5.3, and 1.7.7; M–R 2.1.32, 2.1.71, and 2.72 n. 149. Note the plural ‘to those’, while the lemma has only one name-label: a shift to Democritus’ purported followers in the didactic context. Perhaps it is also generalised to those who hold this view. §6 This doxa about hearing is not found in its proper chapter (4.16) but in the chapter ‘On voice’ (Umlemmatisierung). On rearrangement as a characteristic of epitomatization see Opelt (1962) 961. The passage in the physics section at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.158 is exactly, and virtually verbatim, parallel. §7 The theme of the concluding phrase anticipates the second lemma of the next chapter, itself announced in the second part of the heading of that chapter. The difference in name-labels between PBQ (Anaximander) and PG (Anaxagoras) is almost certainly due to the use of abbreviations, as at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.70, where Ἀναξαγόρου has been restored (by Gigante) for mss. ἀναξίμανδρου on the basis of V.P. 8.56. Tiziano Dorandi informs us (per litt., we translate from the Italian) why in his edition of Diogenes Laertius he has preserved the ‘ἀναξίμανδρου of the manuscripts (with Diels PPF and Vors. and with the Nachlass of v. d. Muehll). This decision depends on my editorial criteria: the mistake may go back to Diogenes Laertius himself, who may have erred in transcribing his source (or the error may already have been in the source). In an edition of one of the philosophers in question I would write (at least in the apparatus) something like ἀναξίμανδρου codd. D.L., lege Ἀναξαγόρου.’ In Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.17 the same doxa in a simplified form, i.e. ‘that the impact of air is the origin of voice’, is said to have been stated first by Archelaus, another Presocratic whose name begins with the letter A (and who is also Anaxagoras’ pupil). We for our part have made the appropriate choice in favour of G, since we are trying to reconstruct A.

1696

liber 4 caput 19

e Other Evidence Aristotle de An. 2.8 and ps.Aristotle Probl. Book 11 deal with the topic of φωνή. Xenocrates as reported by Porphyry and the majority of the (later) Stoics as reported in Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.55 began their exposition of dialectic with a discussion of φωνή. These authorities were followed by the grammarians, who introduce their account of grammar with one of φωνή. The collection of definitions by a certain Aquilius (second cent. ce?) edited by Rashed begins with one, or rather two, definitions of φωνή, see Rashed (2012) 136. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.380.12–381.4 K. ρκγʹ. φωνὴ ψόφος τίς ἐστιν ἔμψυχος. ἄλλως· φωνή ἐστιν ἡ γινομένη καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐκτεινομένου καὶ συνεκτείνοντος τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ διὰ φάρυγγος μέχρι τοῦ πνεύμονός τε καὶ τοῦ στόματος καὶ τῆς γλώττης, τούτων διατυπτόντων τὸν πλησιάζοντα ἀέρα. ἄλλως. φωνή ἐστιν ἀποτέλεσμα τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν τεθησαυρισμένου πνεύματος διασειόμενον διὰ τραχείας ἀρτηρίας καὶ εἰδοποιούμενον διὰ γλώττης καὶ ἐπιγλωττίδος. ἄλλως· φωνή ἐστιν ἀπήχησις πνεύματος κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἡμῶν γινομένη συστελλομένων τῶν μεσοπλευρίων μυῶν καὶ προσκρουόντων τῇ τραχείᾳ ἀρτηρίᾳ, λάρυγγι, φάρυγγι, ἐπιγλωττίδι καὶ ἀπαγγέλλουσα τὰς ψυχικὰς διαθέσεις. Galen De voce excerpted at Oribasius Coll.Med. 62.1 δύο ἐστὶ τὰ πρῶτα καὶ γενικώτατα κεφάλαια τῶν εἰς γένεσιν φωνῆς ἀναγκαίων, τὸ μὲν ἕτερον αὐτῶν ἐκφύσησις, τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον ἡ ἐν τῇ γλωττίδι πληγὴ τῆς ἐκφυσήσεως· ἄνευ γὰρ τοῦ πληγῆναι τὸν ἀέρα γενέσθαι φωνὴν ἀδύνατον· κτλ. AA 2.675.7–8 ἐκφύσησιν, ἧς χωρὶς οὐχ οἷόν τε γενέσθαι φωνήν. Inst.Log. 13.9 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὖν ἐ(κ) τίνος αἰτίας γίγνονται φωνὴ κτλ. Chapter heading: Divisiones Aristoteleae 30, p. 37.22 Mutschmann ἡ φωνή. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 1.298 de … voce. §1 Plato: Aquilius Def. 1 Rashed φωνὴ ζῴου ἐστὶ ψόφος διὰ τραχείας ἀρτηρίας, ἀνθρώπου δὲ ψόφος ἔναρθρος διὰ τραχείας ἀρτηρίας. §2 Plato: Porphyry (ad Gedal.?) 70F Smith at Simp. in Cat. 213.12–17 (verbatim) ἔστιν δὲ ἐννοηματικὸς (sc. λόγος i.e. ὁρισμός) ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων τοῖς πᾶσιν εἰλημμένος καὶ κοινῇ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενος [cf. below S.E. M. 6.39, ἀναμφισβητήτως], οἷον … ‘φωνή ἐστιν τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς’ (cf. e.g. SVF 3 Diog. 17). οὐσιώδεις δέ εἰσιν ὅροι οἱ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν τῶν ὁριζομένων διδάσκοντες, οἷον … ‘φωνή ἐστιν ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος’ (cf. e.g. SVF 1.74, 2.138, 3 Diog. 17). cf. Priscian Inst.Gramm. at Gr.Lat. 1.1, p. 5.2–4 Hertz–Keil (FDS 479) philosophi definiunt, vocem esse aërem tenuissimum ictum vel suum sensibile aurium, id est quod proprie auribus accidit. et est prior definitio a substantia sumpta, altera vero a notione, quam Graeci ἔννοιαν dicunt, hoc est ab accidentibus. accidit enim voci auditus, quantum in ipsa est. Marius Victorinus ArsGramm. c. 2, p. 66.9 Mariotti vox est aër ictus auditu percipibilis, quantum in ipso est. Dositheus of Alexandria ArsGramm. §6.2 Tolkiehn (FDS fr. 500) φωνή ἐστιν ἀὴρ πεπληγὼς

liber 4 caput 19 αἰσθητὸς ἀκοῇ τὸ ὅσον ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ἐστιν. Commentaria in Dionysium Thracem, Scholia Vaticana (i.e. of Stephanus) p. 181.6–8 Uhlig (FDS fr. 483) οἱ δὲ λέγοντες ἀσώματον οὔ φασι τὴν φωνὴν ⟨ὅτι⟩ ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος, ἀλλὰ πληγὴ ἀέρος ἤτοι ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς. Scholia Londinensia (i.e. of Heliodorus) p. 482.7–9 Uhlig (FDS fr. 481) ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ ἀὴρ σῶμά ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τὴν φωνὴν οὐ δοξάζει σῶμα, δεῖ λέγειν τὸν ὅρον οὕτως· πληγὴ ἀέρος ἢ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς. ps.Theodosius de Gramm. p. 15.2–6 Göttling τί ἐστι φωνή; φωνή ἐστιν ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος ἢ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ ἀὴρ σῶμά ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων οὐ δοξάζει τὴν φωνὴν σῶμα, λέγει τὸν ὅρον τῆς φωνῆς οὕτως· φωνή ἐστι πληγὴ ἀέρος ἢ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς. Divisiones Aristoteleae 30, p. 37a23–38a9 Mutschmann = at D.L. 3.107 ἡ φωνὴ διαιρεῖται εἰς δύο· ἓν μὲν αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἔμψυχον, ἓν δὲ ἄψυχον. ἔμψυχον μὲν ἡ τῶν ζῴων φωνή, ἄψυχον δὲ φθόγγοι καὶ ἦχοι. τῆς τοῦ ἐμψύχου φωνῆς ἡ μέν ἐστιν ἐγγράμματος, ἡ δὲ ἀγράμματος. ἐγγράμματος μὲν ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀγράμματος δὲ ἡ τῶν ζῴων. τῆς ἄρα φωνῆς ἡ μὲν ἔμψυχος, ἡ δὲ ἄψυχος. cf. pp. 37b23–38b12 Mutschmann (cod. Marc.) διαιρεῖται ἡ φωνὴ εἰς τέσσαρα· ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῆς ἡ μὲν ἔμψυχος, ἡ δὲ ἄψυχος, καὶ ἡ μὲν καὶ ἐγγράμματος, ἡ δὲ ἀγράμματος. ἔστι δὲ ἡ μὲν ἔμψυχος, ἡ τῶν ζῴων, ἡ δὲ ἄψυχος, οἷον ἦχοι καὶ ψόφοι καὶ ἡ τῆς λύρας καὶ τῶν αὐλῶν φωνή· καὶ ἐγγράμματος μὲν ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φωνὴ καὶ ζῴων τινῶν, οἷον ἀηδόνων χελιδόνων στρουθίων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων, ἀγράμματος δὲ ἡ ἀδιάθετος, ὡς οἱ ποππυσμοὶ καὶ ἦχοι καὶ ψόφοι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Commentaria in Dionysium Thracem, Scholia Vaticana (i.e. of Stephanus) p. 181.28–31 Uhlig (FDS 503A) ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἡ φωνὴ κυρίως ⟨μὲν⟩ λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων …· καταχρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρων λέγεται φωνή. cf. Scholia Vaticana (i.e. of Stephanus). p. 175.13–17 Uhlig ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ἐστὶ ζῷα τὴν ἐναρμόνιον φωνὴν ἀπομιμούμενα, καὶ φθέγγεται ὡς δοκεῖν ἀνθρώπου ἀκούειν, ἆρα κἀκείνων εἴποιμεν ἐναρμόνιον εἶναι τὴν φωνήν; φαμὲν οὔ· μιμεῖται γὰρ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φωνήν, οὐκ ἀπὸ διανοίας δὲ ἐκπέμπεται. §3 Definition/etymology of voice: Commentaria in Dionysium Thracem, Scholia Vaticana (i.e. of Stephanus) p. 181.32–36 Uhlig (Philoxenus fr. *195 Theodoridis) σχηματίζεται δὲ ἡ φωνὴ παρὰ τὸ φῶ, τὸ φαίνω, κατὰ πρόσληψιν συλλαβῆς τῆς ⟨νη⟩ γινομένη {φῶ} φωνή· φαίνει γὰρ καὶ λαμπρῶς δηλοῖ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα· ἢ ὅτι φωτονόη τίς ἐστιν· αὕτη γὰρ τὰ τοῦ νοὸς ἐνθυμήματα εἰς φῶς ἐξάγει. Orion of Thebes Etym. 160.12–14 Sturz φωνή· ἡ φωτίζουσα τῷ λόγῳ τὰ τοῦ νοῦ.—φώς· ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ μόνος τὰ τῆς διανοίας φωτίζων τῷ λόγῳ, ἢ παρὰ τὸ φῶ τὸ λέγω. Etym. 162.12–14 φθέγγεσθαι· πλεονασμῷ τοῦ θ, φέγγεσθαι γὰρ ἐστὶ παρὰ τὸ φέγγος, ὅ ἐστι τὸ φῶς. εἴρηται οὖν παρὰ τὸ εἰς φῶς ἄγειν τὰ τοῦ νοῦ κινήματα. Commentaria in Dionysium Thracem, Scholia Vaticana (i.e. of Stephanus) p. 175.7–9 Uhlig μόνη γὰρ ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φωνὴ ἔναρθρος· ὅθεν καὶ φώς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς εἶναι αὐτὴν φωτεινοειδῆ τινα, τὴν φωτίζουσαν καὶ σαφηνίζουσαν τὰ ἐντὸς τοῦ νοῦ. Scholia Londinensia (i.e. of Heliodorus) p. 483.5–6 Uhlig φωνὴ δὲ λέγεται οἱονεὶ φαονή τις οὖσα, τουτέστι λαμπρῶς δηλοῦσα τὰ νοήματα· ἢ φωτονόη τις οὖσα, παρὰ τὸ φωτίζειν τὸν νοῦν. ps.Theodosius de Gramm. p. 10.11–13 Göttling εἴρηται δὲ φωνὴ διὰ τὸ εἶναι φῶς νοῦ, ἤγουν ἡ τὰ ἐν τῷ νῷ φωτίζουσα §5 Democritus: Sextus Empiricus M. 7.116–119 παλαιὰ γάρ τις, ὡς προεῖπον, ἄνωθεν παρὰ τοῖς φυσικοῖς κυλίεται δόξα περὶ τοῦ τὰ ὅμοια τῶν ὁμοίων εἶναι

1697

1698

liber 4 caput 19

γνωριστικά· καὶ ταύτης ἔδοξε μὲν καὶ Δημόκριτος (68B164 DK) κεκομικέναι τὴν παραμυθίαν …. (117) ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν Δημόκριτος ἐπί τε τῶν ἐμψύχων καὶ ἀψύχων ἵστησι τὸν λόγον. ‘καὶ γὰρ ζῷα’, φησίν, ‘ὁμογενέσι ζῴοις συναγελάζεται, ὡς περιστεραὶ περιστεραῖς καὶ γέρανοι γεράνοις, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀλόγων· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀψύχων, καθάπερ ὁρᾶν πάρεστιν ἐπί τε τῶν κοσκινευομένων σπερμάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν παρὰ ταῖς κυματωγαῖς ψηφίδων· ὅπου μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τὸν τοῦ κοσκίνου δῖνον διακριτικῶς φακοὶ μετὰ φακῶν τάσσονται καὶ κριθαὶ μετὰ κριθῶν καὶ πυροὶ μετὰ πυρῶν, (118) ὅπου δὲ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κύματος κίνησιν αἱ μὲν ἐπιμήκεις ψηφῖδες εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον ταῖς ἐπιμήκεσιν ὠθοῦνται, αἱ δὲ περιφερεῖς ταῖς περιφερέσιν, ὡς ἂν συναγωγόν τι ἐχούσης τῶν πραγμάτων τῆς ἐν τούτοις ὁμοιότητος.’ ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν Δημόκριτος οὕτως. Hippolytus Ref. 1.12.2 (on Leucippus, 67A10 DK) ὅταν εἰς μέγα κενὸν ἐκ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἀθροισθῇ πολλὰ σώματα καὶ συρρυῇ, προσκρούοντα ἀλλήλοις συμπλέκεσθαι τὰ ὁμοιοσχήμονα καὶ παραπλήσια τὰς μορφάς. §6 Anaxagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.158 (physical section) (SVF 2.872) ἀκούειν δὲ τοῦ μεταξὺ τοῦ φωνοῦντος καὶ τοῦ ἀκούοντος ἀέρος πληττομένου σφαιροειδῶς, εἶτα κυματουμένου καὶ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς προσπίπτοντος, ὡς κυματοῦται τὸ ἐν τῇ δεξαμενῇ ὕδωρ κατὰ κύκλους ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐμβληθέντος λίθου.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Galen Inst.Log. 13.9–10 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὖν ἐ(κ) τίνος αἰτίας γίγνονται φωνὴ κτλ. Lactantius Op.D. 15.1 Perrin de voce autem quam rationem reddere possumus? (contin. below). Origen CC 6.62, p. 439.16–17 Marcovich (cf. SVF 2.138) εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἡ φωνὴ ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος ἢ πληγὴ ἀέρος ἢ εἶδος ἀέρος ἢ ὅ τι δήποτε ὁρίζονται εἶναι τὴν φωνὴν οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοί. Chapter heading: ps.Aristotle Probl. 11 tit. Ὅσα περὶ φωνῆς. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.55 (SVF 2.136) τῆς δὲ διαλεκτικῆς θεωρίας συμφώνως δοκεῖ τοῖς πλείστοις ἀπὸ τοῦ περὶ φωνῆς ἐνάρχεσθαι τόπου. V.P. 7.55 ὥς φησι Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος (SVF 3 Diog. 17) ἐν τῇ Περὶ φωνῆς τέχνῃ. … ὥς φησιν Ἀρχέδημός (SVF 3 Arch. 6) τε ἐν τῇ Περὶ φωνῆς. Galen Ord.Lib.Prop. c. 2.7, 19.55.10–11 K. Lib.Propr. c. 1.6, 19.13.5 K. καὶ τὰ Περὶ φωνῆς τέτταρα =c. 5.1, p. 154.21 BoudonMillot. Simplicius in Phys. 425.33–426.8 (FDS fr. 480) ὁμοίως δὲ ἁμαρτάνουσι καὶ οἱ τὴν φωνὴν τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς ὁριζόμενοι· ἀκουστοῦ γὰρ οὗτος ὁρισμός, ὃ συμβέβηκε τῇ φωνῇ· οὐδὲ γὰρ αὕτη μόνη ἀκουστή, εἴγε καὶ ὁ ψόφος ἄλλος ὢν παρὰ τὴν φωνὴν ἀκουστός ἐστι. καὶ οἱ ἀέρα δὲ πεπληγμένον τὴν φωνὴν ἀποδιδόντες, ὥσπερ Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος (SVF 3 Diog. 19), ἁμαρτάνουσι· σῶμα γὰρ οὕτως ἔσται ἡ φωνή, εἴπερ ἐν γένει τῷ ἀέρι ἐστί, καὶ τὸ πεπονθός, τουτέστι τὸν πεπληγμένον ἀέρα, ἀντὶ τοῦ πάθους, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ πληγή, ἀποδιδόασι. καίτοι εἴπερ ἄρα κατὰ τὴν πληγὴν ἡ φωνή ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὸ πεπληγμένον. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ φωνή, ὡς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρός φησι, ‘πληγὴ προαιρετικὴ τοῦ ἐκπνεομένου ἀέρος διὰ τῶν φωνητικῶν ὀργάνων’. μήποτε δὲ οὐχ ἡ πληγή, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς πληγῆς ἦχος. §§1–2 Plato: Diogenes of Babylon at D.L. 7.55 ἔστι δὲ φωνὴ ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος ἢ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς, ὥς φησι Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος (SVF 3 Diog. 17) ἐν τῇ Περὶ φωνῆς τέχνῃ (cf. Commentaria in Dionysium Thracem, Scholia

liber 4 caput 19 Londinensia (i.e. of Heliodorus) p. 482.5–6 Uhlig) ζῴου μέν ἐστι φωνὴ ἀὴρ ὑπὸ ὁρμῆς πεπληγμένος, ἀνθρώπου δ᾽ ἔστιν ἔναρθρος καὶ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐκπεμπομένη, ὡς ὁ Διογένης φησίν, ἥτις ἀπὸ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν τελειοῦται. Porphyry in Ptol. Harm. 8.22–28 διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἐπιτιμᾶν τινας εὐλόγως Ξενοκράτει (fr. 10 Heinze, F 7 Isnardi Parente2), ὅτι ἐγχειρήσας ὑπὲρ τῶν διαλεκτικῶν πραγματεύσασθαι ἀπὸ φωνῆς ἄρχεται, οὐδὲν οἰομένους εἶναι πρὸς τὰ διαλεκτικὰ τὸν τῆς φωνῆς ἀφορισμόν, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀέρος κίνησις, οὐδὲ τὴν μετὰ ταῦτα διαίρεσιν, ὅτι ἐστὶ τῆς φωνῆς τὸ μὲν τοιοῦτον, οἷον ἐκ γραμμάτων συγκεῖσθαι, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον, οἷον ἐκ διαστημάτων τε καὶ φθόγγων· πάντα γὰρ εἶναι ταῦτα ἀλλότρια τῆς διαλεκτικῆς. in Ptol. Harm. 30.1– 33.4 (Xenocrates fr. 9 Heinze, F 6 Isnardi Parente2). §1 Plato: Archytas Περὶ μαθηματικῆς (47B1 DK, fr. 1 Huffman) at Porph. in Harm. p. 56.10–12 Düring (verbatim) … πρᾶτον μὲν οὖν ἐσκέψαντο, ὅτι οὐ δυνατόν ἐστιν ἦμεν ψόφον μὴ γενηθείσας πληγᾶς τινων ποτ᾽ ἄλλαλα. πλαγὰν δ᾽ ἔφαν γίνεσθαι, ὅκκα τὰ φερόμενα ἀπαντιάξαντα ἀλλάλοις συμπέτῃ (κτλ.). cf. Porphyry in Harm. p. 104.12–13 Düring ἔλεγον δ᾽ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀρχύταν (47Α18 DK, fr. A18 Huffman) ‘ἑνὸς φθόγγου γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας τὴν ἀντίληψιν τῇ ἀκοῇ’. Plato Tim. 67b ὅλως μὲν οὖν φωνὴν θῶμεν τὴν δι᾽ ὤτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου τε καὶ αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς πληγὴν διαδιδομένην (cited Porph. in Ptol. Harm. 46.6–8). ps.Aristotle Probl. 7.5 886b14–15 ἢ διότι φωνὴ μὲν πᾶσα καὶ ψόφος πνεῦμα ἐστίν. Theophrastus Sens. 6 & 85 (on Plato) ἀκοὴν δὲ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁρίζεται· φωνὴν γὰρ εἶναι πληγὴν ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου καὶ αἵματος δι᾽ ὤτων μέχρι ψυχῆς. Timaeus Locrus 58, p. 220.4–5 Thesleff φωνὰ δ᾽ ἐστὶ μὲν πλᾶξις ἐν ἀέρι διικνουμένα ποτὶ τὰν ψυχὰν δι᾽ ὤτων, ὧν τοὶ πόροι διήκοντι ἄχρις ἥπατος χωρέοντες. Seneca Nat. 2.6.3 quid enim est vox nisi intentio aëris, ut audiatur, linguae formata percussu? Plutarch de E 390B ἀὴρ δὲ πληγεὶς ἐν ἀκοῇ γίγνεται φωνὴ καὶ ψόφος. Gen.Socr. 588E πληγῇ γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ προσέοικε, τῆς ψυχῆς δι᾽ ὤτων βίᾳ τὸν λόγον εἰσδεχομένης ὅταν ἀλλήλοις ἐντυγχάνωμεν. Plat.Quaest. 1006B ἔστι γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ πληγὴ τοῦ αἰσθανομένου δι᾽ ὤτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος· πλήττει γὰρ πληγεὶς ὁ ἀὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ κινήσαντος. ps.Plutarch Mus. 1131D ὁρίζονται τὴν φωνὴν οἱ ἄριστοι γραμματικοὶ ἀέρα πεπληγμένον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῇ. Galen UP 8.6, 3.644.11–16 K. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ψόφος καὶ φωνὴ τοῦτ᾽ ἦν, εἴτ᾽ οὖν ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος εἴτε καὶ πλῆξίς τις ἀέρος ὑπάρχουσα, διαφέρει γὰρ οὐδέν, εἰ μόνον τοῦθ᾽ ἓν ὁμολογοῖτο, τὴν ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς κίνησιν οἷον κῦμα προϊοῦσαν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἀνιέναι δεῖν. Lactantius Op.D. 15.1 Perrin grammatici quidem ac philosophi vocem esse definiunt aerem spiriti verberatum, unde verba sint nuncupata; quod perspicue falsum est (cf. Isidore of Seville Etym. 3.20.2 vox est aer spiritu verberatus, unde et verba sunt nuncupata). Alcinous Did. 19, pp. 173.42–174.4 H. ἀκοὴ δὲ γέγονε πρὸς φωνῆς γνῶσιν, ἀρχομένη μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν κινήσεως, τελευτῶσα δὲ περὶ ἥπατος ἕδραν· ἡ δὲ φωνή ἐστιν ἡ δι᾽ ὤτων ἐρχομένη ἐγκεφάλου τε καὶ αἵματος, διαδιδομένη δὲ μέχρι ψυχῆς πληγή. ps.Alexander Probl. 2.61.6–9 Ideler ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ ψόφων καὶ ἤχων γνωστική, ἅπερ περὶ πληγὴν ἀέρος πάρεστιν. Sextus Empiricus M. 6.39 φωνὴ τοίνυν ἐστίν, ὡς ἄν τις ἀναμφισβητήτως ἀποδοίη, τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς. §2 Plato: Theophrastus Sens. 91 ἐνδεεστέρως ⟨δὲ⟩ καὶ ὁ τῆς φωνῆς εἴρηται λόγος· οὔτε γὰρ κοινὸς ἅπασι τοῖς ζῴοις ἐστιν. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 2.29

1699

1700

liber 4 caput 19

καὶ μὲν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐνάρθρου φωνῆς, ἣν μόνος ἐκ πάντων ζῴων ἔλαχεν ἄνθρωπος. Sextus Empiricus M. 8.275 (SVF 2.223) οἱ δὲ δογματικοὶ … φασιν, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐχὶ τῷ προφορικῷ λόγῳ διαφέρει τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων (καὶ γὰρ κόρακες καὶ ψιττακοὶ καὶ κίτται ἐνάρθρους προφέρονται φωνάς), ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐνδιαθέτῳ. §3 Definition of voice: Tht. 206d τὴν … διάνοιαν ἐμφανῆ ποιεῖν διὰ φωνῆς … εἰς τὴν διὰ τοῦ στόματος ῥοήν. Sph. 263e τὸ δέ γ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνης (sc. τῆς ψυχῆς) ῥεῦμα διὰ τοῦ στόματος ἰὸν μετὰ φθόγγου κέκληται λόγος; ps.Plato Def. 414d φωνὴ ῥεῦμα διὰ στόματος ἀπὸ διανοίας. Euripides Supp. 203–204 πρῶτον μὲν ἐνθεὶς σύνεσιν, εἶτα δ᾽ ἄγγελον / γλῶσσαν λόγων δούς, ὥστε γιγνώσκειν ὄπα. Aristotle Int. 1 16a3–4 ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθημάτων σύμβολα. Lucretius DRN 6.1149 animi interpres … lingua. Horace A.P. 111 post effert animi motus interprete lingua. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 2.29 καὶ μὲν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐνάρθρου φωνῆς … ἔστιν ἃ γνωρίζομεν· οἷον ὅτι ἀπὸ διανοίας ἀναπέμπεται, … ὅτι ἡ γλῶσσα πλήττουσα τῇ τῆς φωνῆς τάσει τὸ ἔναρθρον ἐνσφραγίζεται καὶ λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ ψιλὴν αὐτὸ μόνον φωνὴν ἀργὴν καὶ ἀδιατύπωτον ἦχον ἀπεργάζεται, ὅτι κήρυκος ἢ ἑρμηνέως ἔχει τάξιν πρὸς τὸν ὑποβάλλοντα νοῦν. Det. 125– 129. Plutarch fr. 89 Sandbach (Schol. vet. in Hes. Op. 719–721 Pertusi) ‘γλώσσης τοι θησαυρός’: ὁ μὲν θησαυρὸς τῆς γλώττης ἐστὶν ἡ κρύψις τῶν νοημάτων ἡ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ τῶν φαντασιῶν τῶν μὴ γενομένων ἐκφόρων ὑπὸ τῆς γλώττης προπετῶς κινουμένης. (cf. Talleyrand l’homme a reçu la parole pour pouvoir cacher sa pensée.) Ptolemy Iudic. c. 2 p. 6.5–9 διάλεκτος (sc. ἔστιν) δὲ τὰ τῆς φωνῆς σύμβολα, δι᾽ ὧν προφέρεται τοῖς πλησίον τὰ διανοηθέντα· καὶ ἔστιν εἰκών τις ὁ μὲν φθόγγος αὐτοῦ τοῦ νοῦ, τῆς δ᾽ ἐννοίας ἡ φωνή, τῆς δὲ διανοίας ἡ διάλεκτος, καὶ ὅλως ὁ προφορικὸς λόγος τοῦ ἐνδιαθέτου. Epimerismi Homerici p. 376.83–85 Dyck ⟨ἐπὶ⟩ τοῦ ἴφθιμος ὁ δὲ Σέλευκος (fr. 1. Müller) λέγει πλεονασμὸν εἶναι τοῦ θ ὥσπερ παρὰ τὸ φέγγος φέγγεσθαι καὶ φθέγγεσθαι παρὰ τὸ εἰς φῶς προάγειν τὸν λόγον. Lactantius Op.D. Perrin 10.13 lingua intus inclusa, quae vocem motibus suis in verba discernit, et est interpres animi nec tamen sola per se potest loquendi munus implere etc. Plotinus Enn. 1.2[19]3.27–28 ὡς γὰρ ὁ ἐν φωνῇ λόγος μίμημα τοῦ ἐν ψυχῇ κτλ. Calcidius in Tim. c. 220 (SVF 2.879) vocem quoque dicunt e penetrali pectoris, id est corde, mitti, gremio cordis nitente spiritu, qua nervis obsitus limes interiectus cor a pulmone secernit utroque et vitalibus ceteris, quo (sc. spiritu) faucium angustias arietante formanteque lingua et ceteris vocalibus organis articulatos edit sonos, sermonis elementa, quo quidem interpretem mentis arcani motus aperiantur. Ammonius Hermeiou in Interpr. 43.9–15 ἀποκρίνονται οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.164) ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοήματος τοῦ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ αὕτη (sc. εὐθεῖα or ὀρθὴ πτῶσις) πέπτωκεν· ὃ γὰρ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἔχομεν τὸ Σωκράτους νόημα δηλῶσαι βουλόμενοι, τὸ Σωκράτης ὄνομα προφερόμεθα· καθάπερ οὖν τὸ ἄνωθεν ἀφεθὲν γραφεῖον καὶ ὀρθὸν παγὲν πεπτωκέναι τε λέγεται καὶ τὴν πτῶσιν ὀρθὴν ἐσχηκέναι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ τὴν εὐθεῖαν πεπτωκέναι μὲν ἀξιοῦμεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐννοίας, ὀρθὴν δὲ εἶναι διὰ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐκφώνησιν προφορᾶς. §4 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.52–53 ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ ἀκούειν γίνεται πνεύματός (codd. Dorandi, ῥεύματός alii fors. recte) τινος φερομένου ἀπὸ τοῦ

liber 4 caput 19 φωνοῦντος ἢ ἠχοῦντος ἢ ψοφοῦντος ἢ ὅπως δήποτε ἀκουστικὸν πάθος παρασκευάζοντος. τὸ δὲ ῥεῦμα τοῦτο εἰς ὁμοιομερεῖς ὄγκους διασπείρεται, ἅμα τινὰ διασῴζοντας συμπάθειαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ ἑνότητα ἰδιότροπον, διατείνουσαν πρὸς τὸ ἀποστεῖλαν καὶ τὴν ἐπαίσθησιν τὴν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνου ὡς τὰ πολλὰ ποιοῦσαν …. (53) … οὐκ αὐτὸν οὖν δεῖ νομίζειν τὸν ἀέρα ὑπὸ τῆς προιεμένης φωνῆς ἢ καὶ τῶν ὁμογενῶν σχηματίζεσθαι (πολλὴν γὰρ ἔνδειαν ἕξει τοῦτο πάσχων ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης), ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς τὴν γινομένην πληγὴν ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅταν φωνὴν ἀφίωμεν, τοιαύτην ἔκθλιψιν ὄγκων τινῶν ῥεύματος πνευματώδους ἀποτελεστικῶν ποιεῖσθαι, ἣ τὸ πάθος τὸ ἀκουστικὸν ἡμῖν παρασκευάζει. Lucretius DRN 4.531 … primordia vocum. 4.542–548 asperitas autem vocis fit ab asperitate / principiorum et item levor levore creatur; / nec simili penetrant auris primordia forma, / cum tuba depresso graviter sub murmure mugit / et reboat raucum retro cita barbita bombum, / et † validis necti tortis † ex Heliconis / cum liquidam tollunt lugubri voce querellam. Aulus Gellius 5.15.8 Democritus (fr. 492 Luria) ac deinde Epicurus (note on fr. 321, p. 353 Usener) ex individuis corporibus vocem constare dicunt eamque, ut ipsis eorum verbis utar, ῥεῦμα ἀτόμων. §5 Democritus: Theophrastus Sens. 55 (on Democritus, 68A135 DK) τὴν γὰρ φωνὴν εἶναι πυκνουμένου τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ μετὰ βίας εἰσιόντος. Homer Od. 17.284 ὡς αἰεὶ τὸν ὁμοῖον ἄγει θεὸς ὡς τὸν ὁμοῖον. Plato Lys. 214a–b ‘αἰεί’ τοι ‘τὸν ὁμοῖον ἄγει θεὸς ὡς τὸν ὁμοῖον’ καὶ ποιεῖ γνώριμον. Aristotle EE 7.1 1235a6–9 δοκεῖ γὰρ τοῖς μὲν τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ εἶναι φίλον, ὅθεν εἴρηται (Od. 17.284) ‘ὡς αἰεὶ τὸν ὅμοιον ἄγει θεὸς ὡς τὸν ὅμοιον·’ ‘καὶ γὰρ κολοιὸς παρὰ κολοιόν·’. Rhet. 1.11 1371b16–17 καὶ ‘ὡς αἰεὶ τὸν ὁμοῖον’, καὶ ‘καὶ γὰρ κολοιὸς παρὰ κολοιόν’. ps.Aristotle MM 2.11.2 καὶ γὰρ ‘κολοιός’ φασι ‘παρὰ κολοιὸν ἱζάνει,’ καὶ ‘αἰεί τοι τὸν ὅμοιον ἄγει θεὸς ὡς τὸν ὅμοιον’. ps.Plutarch Prov.Alex. cent. 1.66 Crusius ἀεὶ ‘κολοιός παρ κολοιὸν ἱζάνει’· διὰ τὸ φιλάλληλον τοῦ ζώου. Diogenianus at Schneidewin–Von Leutsch, Paroem. cent. 1.61. Zenobius Sophista at Schneidewin–Von Leutsch, Epit. cent. 2.47. §6 Stoics: Seneca Nat. 1.2.1 (on the halo) cum in piscinam lapis missus est, videmus in multos orbes aquam discedere et fieri primum angustissimum orbem, deinde laxiorem ac deinde alios maiores, donec evanescat impetus et in planitiem immotarum aquarum solvatur. tale quiddam cogitemus fieri etiam in aëre. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.231 (SVF 2.56) ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἀήρ, ὅταν ἅμα πολλοὶ φωνῶσιν, ἀμυθήτους ὑπὸ ἓν καὶ διαφερούσας ἀναδεχόμενος πληγὰς εὐθὺς πολλὰς ἴσχει καὶ τὰς ἑτεροιώσεις, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ποικίλως φαντασιούμενον ἀνάλογόν τι τούτῳ πείσεται. Chrysippus de An. I at Gal. PHP 3.1.9–11 (SVF 2.885, verbatim) ὁ Χρύσιππος … οὑτωσὶ λέγει· ἡ ψυχὴ πνεῦμά ἐστι … ταύτης οὖν τῶν μερῶν ἑκάστῳ διατεταγμένων μορίῳ τὸ διῆκον αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν φωνὴν εἶναι. Calcidius in Tim. c. 267 modulatus siquidem aër articulatae voci factusque vox et intellegibilis oratio pergit ad intimos sensus audientis intellectui nuntians tam praesentia quam absentia. §7 Anaxagoras: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.29 qua ratione echo reddatur. Theophrastus Sens. 28 (on Anaxagoras, 59A92 DK) ἀκούειν … τῷ διικνεῖσθαι τὸν ψόφον ἄχρι τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου· τὸ γὰρ περιέχον ὀστοῦν εἶναι κοῖλον, εἰς ὃ ἐμπίπτειν τὸν

1701

1702

liber 4 caput 19

ψόφον. Sens. 59 (Anaxagoras 59A92 DK) Ἀναξαγόρας … πρὸς τούτοις περί τε φωνῆς ὅτι κίνησις τοῦ ἀέρος. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.17 (Archelaus 60A1 DK) πρῶτος δὲ εἶπε φωνῆς γένεσιν τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος πλῆξιν. Theophrastus Sens. 53 (on Democritus, 68135 DK) … ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῆς ἠχοῦς. ἀνακλᾶσθαι γάρ φησι καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν φθεγξάμενον τὴν φωνήν.

Liber 4 Caput 20 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 902F–903A; pp. 409a23–410a21 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 101; p. 638.15–20 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 208–211 Daiber S: Stobaeus 1.57 p. 497.1 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b34 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus κʹ. Εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ καὶ πῶς ἠχὼ γίνεται (P,S) §1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης ἀσώματον· οὐ γὰρ τὸν ἀέρα, ἀλλὰ τὸ σχῆμα τὸ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν κατὰ ποιὰν πλῆξιν γίνεσθαι φωνήν· πᾶσα δ᾽ ἐπιφάνεια ἀσώματος. συγκινεῖται μὲν γὰρ τοῖς σώμασιν, αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἀσώματος πάντως καθέστηκεν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῆς καμπτομένης ῥάβδου ἡ μὲν ἐπιφάνεια οὐδὲν πάσχει ἡ δ᾽ ὕλη ἐστὶν ἡ καμπτομένη. (P1) §2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ σῶμα τὴν φωνήν· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δρῶν ἢ καὶ ποιοῦν σῶμα, ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ποιεῖ καὶ δρᾷ· ἀκούομεν γὰρ αὐτῆς καὶ αἰσθανόμεθα προσπιπτούσης τῇ ἀκοῇ καὶ ἐκτυπούσης καθάπερ δακτυλίου εἰς κηρόν. ἔτι πᾶν τὸ κινοῦν καὶ ἐνοχλοῦν σῶμά ἐστι, κινεῖ δ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἡ εὐμουσία ἐνοχλεῖ δ᾽ ἡ ἀμουσία. ἔτι πᾶν τὸ κινούμενον σῶμά ἐστι· κινεῖται δ᾽ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ προσπίπτει εἰς τοὺς λείους τόπους καὶ ἀντανακλᾶται, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς σφαίρας τῆς βαλλομένης εἰς τοῖχον· ἐν γοῦν ταῖς κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον πυραμίσιν ἔνδον μία φωνὴ ῥηγνυμένη τέτταρας ἢ καὶ πέντε ἠχοὺς ἀπεργάζεται. (P2) §1 Pythagoras—; Plato cf. Tim. 67b–c; Aristoteles cf. de An. 2.8 419b4–420a2; §2 Stoici SVF 2.387 lemmata non hab. S titulus Εἰ … γίνεται P : Περὶ φωνῆς (~ tit. c. 4.19) καὶ εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ (~ tit. c. 4.20) καὶ ⟨πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ⟩ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγενονικόν (~ tit. 4.21) SFPPhot ‖ ἠχὼ] ἦχος PG §1 [2] Πυθαγόρας … Ἀριστοτέλης PB : post Πυθαγόρας et Πλάτων add. καὶ PG ‖ post ἀσώματον PBQ add. εἶναι τὴν φωνὴν ὑπολαμβάνουσιν PG ‖ οὐ … ἀέρα PBG : und zeigt sich in der Luft Q ‖ [2–3] ἀλλὰ … τὸ2 PB : τὸ δὲ PG ‖ [3] καὶ … ἐπιφάνειαν PB : om. PQ(ut vid.) ‖ [3] πλῆξιν PB : πληγὴν PG ‖ [4–6] πᾶσα … καμπτομένη PB : om. PG ‖ [4–5] ἀσώματος … αὐτὴ δ᾽ PB : om. PQ (haplographia) ‖ [5] αὐτὴ] αὕτη PB(I) §2 [7] post σῶμα1 PB add. εἶναι PG ‖ δρῶν … ποιοῦν : jedes Wirkende und jedes Bewirkte Q (δρῶν ἢ καὶ δρώμενον PQ) ‖ δρῶν PG prob. Diels Mau : δρώμενον PB ‖ καὶ PB : om. PG ‖ iterum post σῶμα2 add. εἶναι PG ‖ [7–8] ἡ … δρᾷ PB : καὶ γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ δρᾷ καὶ ποιεῖ PG ‖ [9] τῇ … ἔτι] om. PG ‖ ἐκτυπούσης PB(II,III) : ἐκτυπτούσης PB(I) : daran schlägt Q ‖ δακτυλίου PB(I) : δακτύλιον PB(IΙ) : δακτύλου PB(IΙΙ) : Stab Q ‖ post κηρόν add. geschlagen wird Q ‖ [10] κινεῖ … εὐμουσία PB : al. PG κηλεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς εὔμουσος φωνή ‖ [10–15] ἐνοχλεῖ … ἀπεργάζεται PB : om. PG ‖ [12] προσπίπτει] ἐκπίπτει PB(IΙΙ) ‖ [14] πυραμίσιν PB : feurigen Gestalten (sic) Q ‖ ἠχοὺς scripsimus, dub. Diels : ἤχους PB : Melodien Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_120

5

10

15

1704

liber 4 caput 20

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus c. 101 (~ tit.) Εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ καὶ πῶς ἦχος γίνεται (text Diels) 101.1 (~ §1) Πυθαγόρας καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἀσώματον εἶναι τὴν φωνὴν ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. οὐ γὰρ τὸν ἀέρα, τὸ δὲ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν κατὰ ποιὰν πληγὴν γίνεσθαι φωνήν. 101.2 (~ §2) οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ σῶμα εἶναι τὴν φωνήν. πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δρῶν ἢ ποιοῦν σῶμα εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ δρᾷ καὶ ποιεῖ, ἀκούομεν γὰρ αὐτῆς καὶ αἰσθανόμεθα προσπιπτούσης· πᾶν τὸ κινοῦν καὶ ἐνοχλοῦν σῶμά ἐστιν· κηλεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς εὔμουσος φωνή. Loci Aetiani: §1 A 1.14.1 σχῆμά ἐστιν ἐπιφάνεια καὶ περιγραφὴ καὶ πέρας σώματος. A 4.6.2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἀκίνητον τὴν ψυχὴν πάσης κινήσεως προηγουμένην, τῆς δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μετέχειν, καθάπερ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰ πέρατα καὶ καθάπαξ τὰ περὶ τοῖς σώμασιν εἴδη. A 4.8.9 οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων *** τῶν περὶ τὰ σώματα ἀσωμάτων λόγων, ἅπερ ἤδη σχήματα προσαγορεύουσι. A 4.8.11 οἱ ἄλλοι εἰδῶν ἢ σχημάτων ἑτεροιώσει ⟨ἢ⟩ ἐν ψυχῇ τυπώσει, ἀπορροίαις πάντως μᾶλλον ἢ εἰδώλοις. A 4.13.4 Ἀρίσταρχος σχήματα συνδιατυποῦντά πως αὑτοῖς τὸν ἀέρα. Al. A 3.5.3 καμπύλας δὲ γραμμὰς καθ᾽ ὕδατος βλέπομεν γινομένας· κάμπτεται γὰρ ἡ ὄψις βίᾳ διὰ τὴν πυκνοτέραν τοῦ ὕδατος ὕλην· διὸ καὶ τὴν κώπην ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ μακρόθεν καμπτομένην ὁρῶμεν. §2 A 4.19.5 τῇ δ᾽ ὑποστροφῇ τῆς πλήξεως μέχρι τῶν ἀκοῶν προσενεχθέντος· καθὸ καὶ τὴν λεγομένην ἠχὼ γίνεσθαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, variously represented by PB, PG and PG, as well as S, the latter for the second part of the heading only. In S, contrary to what happened elsewhere, the lemma Plato/Aristotle was excised by the epitomators, perhaps because its name-labels started with Pythagoras. S Ecl. 1.57 has combined the headings of the three chapters 4.19–4.21, cf. above ch. 4.20 Commentary A, and below ch. 4.21 Commentary C. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. A more detailed doxographical overview is found in Aulus Gellius, who cites the Stoics and uses proper Stoic terminology. Another extension of the proximate tradition is late, just as is the case with the previous

liber 4 caput 20

1705

chapter, cf. ch. 4.19 at Commentary B; see the passages from the Commentaria on Dionysius Thrax and other grammatical literature, quoted at section E(a) General texts below. (2) Sources. The sources for §1 appear to be works of early Peripatetics represented by Theophrastus, ps.Aristotle De audiendo, and Strato, see the passages cited at section E(b)§1. The Stoic sources are not clear, but do not seem to be inferior to those for chs. 4.11–12 and 4.21. C Chapter Heading The long and specific heading, including the reference to the echo, is found in all representatives of P. Whether S had a somewhat shorter version, namely Εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνή, or whether something disappeared in the lacuna which included the second part of the heading is unclear. Since we strive to maximize the evidence we have opted for the longer version. For headings beginning with εἰ cf. chs. 4.2, 4.9, 4.15, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.15, and cf. above, ch. 1.1 Commentary C on the dialectical aspect of the interrogative particle. D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on after ch. 4.19, ‘On voice/sound’, which deals with voice/ sound as corporeal only, so qua theme the present chapter, in rendering the diaphonia explicit and thus to some extent redressing the balance, is an appropriate and much needed sequel. In Aristotle de An. 2.8 the echo is explained in the chapter on voice/sound, in Alexander de An. 47.25–49.3 the account of echo follows after that of hearing and is in its turn followed by that of voice. Our chapter is followed by ch. 4.21, ‘How does the soul perceive and what is its regent part?’, which seems to be an illustrative duplication and complement of chs. 4.11 ‘How the sensation comes to be …’ plus ch. 4.5, ‘On the regent part …’; see above, Introduction to Book 4, section 6. Ch. 4.22 ‘On respiration’ is a more appropriate sequel to ch. 4.20, as it takes up the theme of one of Aristotle’s Parva naturalia, the collection of appendixes to the De anima. b Number–Order of Lemmata The chapter is bi-lemmatic. There are no grounds to change the order of P, although we may assume that P’s epitome omitted several other lemmata relating to views cited in richer parallel accounts. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The rationale of this (abridged) chapter is very clear: a diaphonia between those who hold that voice/sound is incorporeal and those who hold that it

1706

liber 4 caput 20

is corporeal. For this type of opposition cf. chs. 1.11, 4.2–3, 5.4; cf. M–R 2.1.14, 2.1.58–59, 2.1.147. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 P may have coalesced two lemmata, one with the name-labels Pythagoras Plato (voice/sound corporeal, see ch. 4.19.1), the other with the name-label Aristotle: voice/sound incorporeal. But Gellius attributes incorporeality of voice to Plato. The explanation referring to incorporeal ‘shape’ and ‘surface’ is consistent with the view attributed to Aristotle at ch. 4.6.2, cited above at loci Aetiani. The bent stick is not that of the optical illusion. §2 The Stoic image of the bouncing ball is anticipated in Aristotle’s illustration of the echo’s movement, but need not necessarily derive therefrom. Q surprisingly did not know what pyramids are. e Other Evidence See at section B above. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Aulus Gellius 5.15.1–9 corpusne sit vox an ἀσώματον, varias esse philosophorum sententias. vetus atque perpetua quaestio inter nobilissimos philosophorum agitata est, corpusne sit vox an incorporeum. hoc enim vocabulum quidam finxerunt proinde quod Graece dicitur ἀσώματον. corpus autem est, quod aut efficiens est aut patiens; id Graece definitur: τὸ ἤτοι ποιοῦν ἢ πάσχον. quam definitionem significare volens Lucretius poeta ita scripsit (DRN 1.304, cf. Sen. Ep. 106.8): ‘tangere enim aut tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res’. alio quoque modo corpus esse Graeci dicunt τὸ τριχῆ διαστατόν (cf. ch. 1.12.1), sed vocem Stoici corpus esse contendunt eamque esse dicunt ictum aëra; Plato autem non esse vocem corpus putat: ‘non enim percussus’ inquit ‘aer, sed plaga ipsa atque percussio, id vox est’. Democritus (fr. 492 Luria) ac deinde Epicurus (note at fr. 321, p. 353 Usener) ex individuis corporibus vocem constare dicunt eamque, ut ipsis eorum verbis utar, ῥεῦμα ἀτόμων appellant. Sextus Empiricus M. 6.53–55 οἵ γέ τοι περὶ τὸν Δημόκριτον (—) καὶ Πλάτωνα πᾶν αἰσθητὸν ἀναιροῦντες συναναιροῦσι καὶ τὴν φωνήν, αἰσθητόν τι δοκοῦσαν πρᾶγμα ὑπάρχειν. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλως, εἰ ἔστι φωνή, ἤτοι σῶμά ἐστιν ἢ ἀσώματον· οὔτε δὲ σῶμά ἐστιν, ὡς οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ διὰ πολλῶν διδάσκουσιν, οὔτε ἀσώματος, ὡς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—)· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι φωνή. Commentaria in Dionysium Thracem, Scholia Vaticana (i.e. of Stephanus) p. 181.4–17 Uhlig (FDS 483) καὶ οἱ μὲν τῶν παλαιῶν λέγουσι τὴν φωνὴν σῶμα, οἱ δὲ ἀσώματον· οἱ γὰρ λέγοντες ⟨ὅτι⟩ ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος, σῶμα αὐτὴν νοοῦσι· σῶμα γὰρ ⟨ὁ⟩ ἀήρ, ἓν ὑπάρχων τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων· οἱ δὲ λέγοντες ἀσώματον οὔ φασι τὴν φωνὴν ⟨ὅτι⟩ ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος, ἀλλὰ πληγὴ ἀέρος ἤτοι ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς· ὅπερ

liber 4 caput 20 ἐστὶ καὶ μᾶλλον ἀληθές. καὶ δῆλον ἐκ μεθόδου τοιαύτης· τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, καθάπερ ἡ αὐλητικὴ καὶ ⟨ἡ⟩ ὀρχηστική· ταῦτα γὰρ ἐνεργούμενα μὲν εἰσί, γεγονότα δὲ οὐκ εἰσίν, ἅμα γὰρ τῷ παύσασθαι τὴν ἐνέργειαν φθείρεται καὶ τὸ γινόμενον· τὰ δὲ ἐν τῷ γεγονέναι ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, ὥσπερ ἡ ἀνδριαντοποιητικὴ καὶ ⟨ἡ⟩ τεκτονική· ταῦτα ⟨γὰρ⟩ ἐν μὲν τῷ γίνεσθαι οὐκ ἔχουσι τὴν ὕπαρξιν, καθὸ οὔπω ἀποτέλεσμα ἔχουσι, μετὰ δὲ τὸ γενέσθαι ἔχουσι καὶ τὸ εἶναι, τότε τοῦ ἀποτελέσματος ὄντος. ἄρ᾽ οὖν ἡ φωνὴ ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι ἔχει τὴν ὕπαρξιν, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὐχ ὑφίσταται· καὶ δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι σῶμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀσώματον. Chapter heading: Aulus Gellius 5.15.pr.1 corpusne sit vox an ἀσώματον, varias esse philosophorum sententias. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 4.526 corpoream esse vocem. §1 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle: Aulus Gellius 5.15.7 Plato autem non esse vocem corpus putat: non enim percussus inquit aër, sed plaga ipsa atque percussio, id vox est. Commentaria in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, Scholia Londinensia (i.e. of Heliodorus) p. 482.7–12 Uhlig (FDS 481) ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ ἀὴρ σῶμά ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τὴν φωνὴν οὐ δοξάζει σῶμα, δεῖ λέγειν τὸν ὅρον οὕτως· ‘πληγὴ ἀέρος ἢ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς’. εἰσὶ δέ τινες λόγοι δεικνύντες τὴν φωνὴν ἀσώματον· καὶ ἔχουσιν οὕτως· τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, τὰ δὲ ἐν τῷ γεγονέναι· ⟨εἰ⟩ ἄρα οὖν ἡ φωνὴ ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι ἔχει τὴν ὕπαρξιν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα οὐχ ὑφίσταται, δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι σῶμα. ps.Theodosius de Gramm. p. 15.7–11 Göttling εἰσὶ δέ τινες λόγοι δεικνῦντες τὴν φωνὴν ἀσώματον καὶ ἔχουσιν οὕτως· τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ γίγνεσθαι ἔχουσι τὸ εἶναι, τὰ δὲ ἐν τὸ γεγονέναι· ἄρα οὖν ἡ φωνὴ ἐν τῷ γίνεσθαι ἔχει τὸ εἶναι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα οὐχ ὑφίσταται· δηλονότι οὐκ ἔστι σῶμα. §2 Stoics: Servius auctus in Aen. 2.488, p. 294.6–8 Thilo ‘ferit … clamor’: secundum philosophos ⟦physicos⟧ (SVF 2.142) qui dicunt, vocem corpus esse: bene ergo ‘ferit’; ⟦nam et fluvius habet mugitum, res incorporalis⟧. Aulus Gellius 5.15.6 sed vocem Stoici (SVF 2.141) corpus esse contendunt eamque esse dicunt ictum aëra. Sextus Empiricus M. 8.12 (SVF 2.166) τούτων δὲ δύο μὲν εἶναι σώματα, καθάπερ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὸ τυγχάνον. P. 3.115 ἠπόρησάν τινες λέγοντες, ὅτι τὸ κινούμενον οὐ μένει, πᾶν δὲ σῶμα διαρκῶς κινεῖται κατὰ τὰς τῶν δογματικῶν ὑπολήψεις. Simplicius in Phys. 426.1–6 καὶ οἱ ἀέρα δὲ πεπληγμένον τὴν φωνὴν ἀποδιδόντες, ὥσπερ Διογένης ὁ Βαβυλώνιος (SVF 3 Diog. 19), ἁμαρτάνουσι· σῶμα γὰρ οὕτως ἔσται ἡ φωνή, εἴπερ ἐν γένει τῷ ἀέρι ἐστί, καὶ τὸ πεπονθός, τουτέστι τὸν πεπληγμένον ἀέρα, ἀντὶ τοῦ πάθους, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ πληγή, ἀποδιδόασι. καίτοι εἴπερ ἄρα κατὰ τὴν πληγὴν ἡ φωνή ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὸ πεπληγμένον. Commentaria in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, Scholia Londinensia (i.e. of Heliodorus p. 482.13–31 Uhlig) ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ ὁΔημόκριτος (68A127 DK) καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ (FDS 481) σῶμά φασι τὴν φωνήν. πᾶν ⟨γὰρ⟩ ὃ δύναται δρᾶσαι καὶ παθεῖν σῶμά ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ὁ σίδηρος· πάσχει μὲν γὰρ οὗτος ὑπὸ πυρός, δρᾷ δὲ εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἢ εἰς ξύλα· εἰ ἄρα καὶ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ δρᾷ καὶ πάσχει, σῶμά ἐστι· καὶ δρᾷ μέν, ἡνίκα ἀκούοντες ἡμεῖς ἢ φωνῆς ἢ κιθάρας πρὸς τέρψιν ἐρχόμεθα, πάσχει δέ, ὡς ὅταν φωνούντων ἡμῶν ἄνεμος πνεύσῃ καὶ ποιήσῃ ἧττον ἀκούεσθαι τὴν φωνήν. ἔτι καὶ οὕτως ἀποδείκνυται σῶμα· πᾶν αἰσθητὸν σῶμά ἐστιν, οἷον τὸ ξύλον, ὁ λίθος·

1707

1708

liber 4 caput 20

ταῦτα γὰρ αἰσθητά εἰσιν, ὑποπίπτουσι γὰρ τῇ ὁράσει· εἰ ἄρα οὖν καὶ ἡ φωνὴ αἰσθητόν, ὑποπίπτει γὰρ τῇ ἀκοῇ, δῆλον ὅτι σῶμά ἐστιν. ἔτι ἴδιόν ἐστι σώματος τὸ ποτὲ μὲν αὐξάνεσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ λήγειν, οἷον ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ δένδρου· εἰ ἄρα οὖν καὶ ἡ φωνὴ καὶ αὔξεται καὶ λήγει, δῆλον ὅτι σῶμά ἐστι· καὶ αὔξεται μέν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν παίδων, ὧν ἡ φωνὴ βραχεῖά ἐστι μικρῶν ὄντων, αὐξηθέντων δὲ μεγάλη· λήγει δέ, ὅταν ἀσθενήσαντός τινος ἀσθενοῦσα καὶ αὕτη μειωθῇ. ἔτι πᾶν τὸ ἀντιτυποῦν σῶμά ἐστιν, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ λίθου· καὶ γὰρ ἁπτομένων ἡμῶν τούτου ἀντιτυπία γίνεται—ἀντιτυπία δὲ λέγεται ὅταν εὑρεθῇ τι προσκροῦον—εἰ ἄρα καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἀντιτυπεῖ προσκρούουσα ταῖς ἀκοαῖς—καὶ γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ προσκρούουσα ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἐξάκουστος γίνεται—, δῆλον ὅτι σῶμά ἐστιν. ps.Theodosius de Gramm. p. 15.12–16.4 Göttling γνῶμαι παλαιαὶ περὶ φωνῆς· ὁ δὲ Δημόκριτος (—) καὶ ὁ Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ (—) σῶμα λέγουσι τὴν φωνήν, ὅτι πᾶν, ὃ ἔχει ἐνέργειαν καὶ πάθος, ἤγουν δύναται δρᾶσαι καὶ παθεῖν, σῶμά ἐστιν. ὥσπερ ὁ σίδηρος· πάσχει γὰρ οὗτος ὑπὸ πυρός, δρᾷ δὲ εἰς ἀνθρώπους καὶ εἰς τὰ ξύλα καὶ πέτρας· εἰ τοίνυν ἡ φωνὴ καὶ δρᾷ καὶ πάσχει, σῶμά ἐστιν. καὶ δρᾷ μέν, ἡνίκα ἀκούοντες ἡμεῖς ἢ φωνῆς ἢ κιθάρας πρὸς τέρψιν ἐρχόμεθα· πάσχει δέ, ὡς ὅταν φωνούντων ἡμῶν πνεύσῃ ἄνεμος, καὶ ποιήσῃ ἧττον ἀκούεσθαι τὴν φωνήν. καὶ ἔτι πᾶν αἰσθητὸν σῶμά ἐστιν, οἷον τὸ ξύλον καὶ ὁ σίδηρος, ὁ λίθος καὶ τὰ ὅμοια. ταῦτα γὰρ αἰσθητά εἰσι καὶ τῇ ὁράσει ὑποπίπτουσιν. αἰσθητὸν τοίνυν καὶ ἡ φωνή ἐστι καὶ τῇ ἀκοῇ ὑποπίπτει· ἄρα ἡ φωνὴ σῶμά ἐστιν. καὶ ἔτι ἴδιον τοῦ σώματός ἐστι τὸ ποτὲ μὲν αὐξάνεσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ λήγειν. ἡ οὖν φωνὴ ποτὲ μὲν αὔξεται, ποτὲ δὲ λήγει· ἄρα σῶμά ἐστιν. ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν παιδίων βραχεῖά ἐστιν ἡ φωνή, μικρῶν ὄντων· αὐξηθέντων δὲ μεγάλη· λήγει δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων. καὶ ἔτι πᾶν τὸ ἀντιτυποῦν σωμά ἐστιν, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ λίθου· καὶ γὰρ ἁπτομένων ἡμῶν τοῦτο, ἀντιτυπία γίνεται. τότε οὖν γίνεται ἡ ἀντιτυπία, ὅταν εὑρεθῇ τι προσκροῦον· εἰ οὖν ἡ φωνὴ ἀντιτυπεῖ προσκρούουσα ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, ἄρα σῶμά ἐστιν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle APo. 2.15 98a24–29 τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ προβλήματά ἐστι τὰ μὲν τῷ τὸ αὐτὸ μέσον ἔχειν, οἷον ὅτι πάντα ἀντιπερίστασις. τούτων δ᾽ ἔνια τῷ γένει ταὐτά, ὅσα ἔχει διαφορὰς τῷ ἄλλων ἢ ἄλλως εἶναι, οἷον διὰ τί ἠχεῖ, ἢ διὰ τί ἐμφαίνεται, καὶ διὰ τί ἶρις· ἅπαντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὸ αὐτὸ πρόβλημά ἐστι γένει (πάντα γὰρ ἀνάκλασις), ἀλλ᾽ εἴδει ἕτερα. Aristides Quintilianus de Mus. 1.4.30–32 τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οἱ μὲν ἀέρα πεπληγμένον, οἱ δὲ ἀέρος πληγὴν ἔφασαν, οἱ μὲν αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα τὸ πεπονθὸς ἦχον, οἱ δ᾽, ὅπερ ἄμεινον, τὸ τούτου πάθος ὁρισάμενοι. Porphyry (ad Gedal.?) F70 Smith at Simp. in Cat. 213.15–21 (verbatim) οὐσιώδεις δέ εἰσιν ὅροι οἱ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν τῶν ὁριζομένων διδάσκοντες, οἷον ‘φωνή ἐστιν ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος’. καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐννοηματικοὶ ὅροι ἅτε κοινῇ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενοι οἱ αὐτοί εἰσιν, οἱ δὲ οὐσιώδεις κατὰ αἱρέσεις ἰδίας προαγόμενοι ἀντιλέγονται ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτεροδόξων· τοῖς γοῦν λέγουσιν ἀέρα τὴν φωνὴν καὶ σῶμα οὐχ ὁμογνωμονοῦσιν οἱ ἀρχαῖοι κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν αὐτὴν ἀσώματον ἀφοριζόμενοι καὶ πληγήν. §1 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle: ps.Aristotle Probl. 11.23 901b16–19 διὰ τί, εἴπερ ἡ φωνή ἐστιν ἀήρ τις ἐσχηματισμένος καὶ φερόμενος, διαλύεται πολλάκις τὸ σχῆμα, ἡ δὲ ἠχώ, ἣ γίνεται πληγέντος τοῦ τοιούτου πρός τι στερεόν, οὐ διαλύεται αὕτη, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς ἀκούομεν αὐτῆς; differently ps.Aristotle Aud. 1 800a1–4 τὰς

liber 4 caput 20 δὲ φωνὰς ἁπάσας συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ψόφους ἢ τῶν σωμάτων ἢ τοῦ ἀέρος πρὸς τὰ σώματα προσπίπτοντος, οὐ τῷ τὸν ἀέρα σχηματίζεσθαι, καθάπερ οἴονταί τινες κτλ. differently Priscian of Lydia Metaphr. 14.10–12 (Theophrastus fr. 277A FHS&G) ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ (sc. τοῦ ἀέρος πως ἔοικε) σχηματιζομένου· εἴρηται δὲ ὡς οὐ κατὰ τὸ πάθος ἡ αἴσθησις, οὐδὲ σχῆμα ἡ φωνή, ἀλλά τι τέλειον τῆς ἐνεργείας εἶδος. against Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 126.17–22 μὴ τοιούτους ἀφικνεῖσθαι τοὺς ψόφους πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, ὁποίους αὐτοὺς οἱ λέγοντες ἐσχημάτισαν. εἴτε δὴ τῷ τὸ σχῆμα ὑπαλλάττεσθαι αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ φορᾶ εἴτε τῷ ἐκλύεσθαι τὸν τόνον τῆς πληγῆς, ὡς Στράτων (fr. 114 Wehrli, 65 Sharples) λέγει (οὐ γάρ φησιν ἐν τῷ σχηματίζεσθαί πως τὸν ἀέρα τοὺς διαφόρους ψόφους γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῇ τῆς πληγῆς ἀνισότητι). Themistius in Phys. 40.19–21 ὅταν (sc. ὁ φυσικὸς) τὰ σχήματα θεωρῇ, ὡς πέρατα φυσικοῦ σώματος αὐτὰ θεωρεῖ, ὁ δὲ μαθηματικὸς οὐχ ὡς πέρατα, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς εἴδη τινὰ ὄντα καθ᾽ αὑτὰ ἁπάσης ἔξω κινήσεως. §2 Stoics: Plato Tht. 206d τὸ μὲν πρῶτον εἴη ἂν τὸ τὴν αὑτοῦ διάνοιαν ἐμφανῆ ποιεῖν διὰ φωνῆς μετὰ ῥημάτων τε καὶ ὀνομάτων, ὥσπερ εἰς κάτοπτρον ἢ ὕδωρ τὴν δόξαν ἐκτυπούμενον εἰς τὴν διὰ τοῦ στόματος ῥοήν. ps.Aristotle Probl. 11.45 904a37–39 τοιοῦτο δὲ καὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν ἠχὼ συμβαῖνον ἐστίν, ἀνάκλασις τῆς φωνῆς ἐπὶ τοὐναντίον. Lucretius DRN 4.524–527 principio auditur sonus et vox omnis, in auris / insinuata suo pepulere ubi corpore sensum. / corpoream quoque enim ⟨vocem⟩ constare fatendumst / et sonitum, quoniam possunt inpellere sensus. / … / (533) haud igitur dubiumst quin voces verbaque constent / corporeis e principiis. Plutarch Gen.Socr. 589C ὁ γὰρ ἀὴρ φθόγγοις ἐνάρθροις τυπωθείς, καὶ γενόμενος δι᾽ ὅλου λόγος καὶ φωνή, πρὸς τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἀκροωμένου περαίνει τὴν νόησιν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.55–56 καὶ σῶμα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ φωνὴ κατὰ τοὺς Στωικούς (SVF 2.140), ὥς φησιν Ἀρχέδημός (SVF 3 Arch. 6) τε ἐν τῇ Περὶ φωνῆς καὶ Διογένης (SVF 3 Diog. 18) καὶ Ἀντίπατρος (SVF 3 Antip. 16) καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν Φυσικῶν. (56) πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ποιοῦν σῶμά ἐστι· ποιεῖ δὲ ἡ φωνὴ προσιοῦσα τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν φωνούντων. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1.17.82.3 (SVF 2.353) τὸ αἴτιον ἐν τῷ ποιεῖν καὶ ἐνεργεῖν καὶ δρᾶν νοεῖσθαι. Aristotle de An. 2.8 419b25–27 ἠχὼ δὲ γίνεται ὅταν, ἀέρος ἑνὸς γενομένου διὰ τὸ ἀγγεῖον τὸ διορίσαν καὶ κωλῦσαν θρυφθῆναι, πάλιν ὁ ἀὴρ ἀπωσθῇ, ὥσπερ σφαῖρα (cited Porphyry in Ptol. 52.15–17). ps.Aristotle Probl. 11.23 901b16–19 διὰ τί, εἴπερ ἡ φωνή ἐστιν ἀήρ τις ἐσχηματισμένος καὶ φερόμενος, διαλύεται πολλάκις τὸ σχῆμα, ἡ δὲ ἠχώ, ἣ γίνεται πληγέντος τοῦ τοιούτου πρός τι στερεόν, οὐ διαλύεται αὕτη, ἀλλὰ σαφῶς ἀκούομεν αὐτῆς; Lucretius DRN 4.572–580 quae bene cum videas, rationem reddere possis / tute tibi atque aliis, quo pacto per loca sola / saxa paris formas verborum ex ordine reddant. / palantis comites cum montis inter opacos / quaerimus et magna dispersos voce ciemus. / sex etiam aut septem loca vidi reddere voces, / unam cum iaceres: ita colles collibus ipsi / verba repulsantes iterabant dicta referri. §2[10] Stoics: Plato Tht. 193b–c τῷ κηρίνῳ ὥσπερ δακτυλίων σφῷν ἀμφοῖν τὰ σημεῖα. Aristotle de An. 2.12 424a17–20 καθόλου δὲ περὶ πάσης αἰσθήσεως δεῖ λαβεῖν ὅτι ἡ μὲν αἴσθησίς ἐστι τὸ δεκτικὸν τῶν αἰσθητῶν εἰδῶν ἄνευ τῆς ὕλης, οἷον ὁ κηρὸς τοῦ δακτυλίου ἄνευ τοῦ σιδήρου καὶ τοῦ χρυσοῦ δέχεται τὸ σημεῖον.

1709

1710

liber 4 caput 20

Sextus Empiricus M. 7.228 Κλεάνθης (SVF 1.484) μὲν γὰρ ἤκουσε τὴν τύπωσιν κατὰ εἰσοχήν τε καὶ ἐξοχήν, ὥσπερ καὶ ⟨τὴν⟩ διὰ τῶν δακτυλίων γιγνομένην τοῦ κηροῦ τύπωσιν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.45–46 (SVF 2.53) τὴν δὲ φαντασίαν εἶναι τύπωσιν ἐν ψυχῇ, τοῦ ὀνόματος οἰκείως μετενηνεγμένου ἀπὸ τῶν τύπων τῶν ἐν τῷ κηρῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ δακτυλίου γινομένων.

Liber 4 Caput 21 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 903A–C; pp. 410a22–411a24 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 102; pp. 638.21–639.2 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 210–213 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.57 p. 497.3 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b34 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 12, p. 68.6–9; c. 15, p. 72.7–9; c. 19, p. 81.10–11 Morani

Titulus καʹ. Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοί φασιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνώτατον μέρος τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τὸ ποιοῦν τὰς φαντασίας καὶ συγκαταθέσεις καὶ αἰσθήσεις καὶ ὁρμάς· καὶ τοῦτο λογισμὸν καλοῦσιν. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἑπτὰ μέρη ἐστὶ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ ἐκτεινόμενα εἰς τὸ σῶμα, καθάπερ αἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ πολύποδος πλεκτάναι· τῶν δ᾽ ἑπτὰ μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς πέντε μέν εἰσι τὰ αἰσθητήρια, ὅρασις ἀκοὴ ὄσφρησις γεῦσις καὶ ἁφή· ὧν ἡ μὲν ὅρασίς ἐστι πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ὀφθαλμῶν, ἀκοὴ δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ὤτων, ὄσφρησις δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι μυκτήρων, {λεπτῦνον} γεῦσις δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι γλώττης, ἁφὴ δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρις ἐπιφανείας εἰς θίξιν εὐαίσθητον τῶν προσπιπτόντων. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν τὸ μὲν λέγεται σπερματικόν, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῶν παραστατῶν· τὸ δέ §1[1–23] SVF 2.836 lemmata non hab. S titulus Πόθεν … ἡγεμονικόν PBQ : Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχή PG : Περὶ φωνῆς (~ tit. c. 4.19) καὶ εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ (~ tit. c. 4.20) καὶ ⟨πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ⟩ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγενονικόν (~ tit. 4.21) SFPPhot §1 [3] ἀνώτατον μέρος] inv. PG ‖ [3–4] τὸ2 … καλοῦσιν PBQ : om. PG ‖ [4] post καὶ2 add. τὰς PB(I,II) ‖ καὶ αἰσθήσεις PB : om. PQ ‖ [5–8] ἑπτὰ … ἁφή] al. PG ἐστί τινα τείνοντα ἐπὶ τὰ ἄλλα μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς, ἃ ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐνεργεῖν ‖ [5] ἑπτὰ PBQ : τινα PG ‖ ἐστὶ] εἰσὶ PB(ΙΙΙ) ‖ [6] ἐκτεινόμενα … σῶμα PBQ : ἐπὶ τὰ ἄλλα PG ‖ [6– 8] al. PG qui pro ἐκτεινόμενα … ἁφή scrib. ἃ ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐνεργεῖν ‖ [8] ἀκοὴ ὄσφρησις scripsimus, cf. Gehörsinn, Geruchssinn Q : ὄσφρησις ἀκοὴ PB edd. ‖ [9] ὧν … ἐστι PB : διόπερ ὅρασιν λέγουσι PG ‖ τοῦ PB : om. PG ‖ [10] ἀκοὴ PB : ἀκοὴν PG ‖ [11–14] ὄσφρησις … προσπιπτόντων PBQ : om. PG ‖ [12] λεπτῦνον post μυκτήρων PB, non hab. PQ, iam secl. Reiske prob. edd. ‖ μυκτήρων … ἡγεμονικοῦ PB(I,III)Q : om. PB(II) ‖ [12–13] πνεῦμα … δὲ PB : om. PQ per haplographiam ‖ [12] τοῦ] om. PB(I) ‖ [14] εἰς … προσπιπτόντων om. PQ ‖ τῶν] om. PB(III) ‖ [15] τὸ PG prob. Diels Mau : ὃ PB ‖ σπερματικόν PG : σπέρμα PBQ antiquitus corruptum sed prob. Diels Mau alii ‖ ὅπερ PB(I,III) : ὃ PB(II)Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_121

5

10

15

1712

liber 4 caput 21

‘φωνᾶεν’ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος εἰρημένον, ὃ καὶ φωνητικὸν καλοῦσιν, ἐστὶ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι φάρυγγος καὶ γλώττης καὶ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων. αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὥσπερ ἐν κόσμῳ κατοικεῖ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σφαιροειδεῖ κεφαλῇ. (P1) §1[18–21] SVF 1.150 [17] φωνητικὸν PG : φωνὴν PBQ antiquitus corruptum sed prob. Diels Mau alii ‖ [18] μέχρι PB(III)G : ἕως PB(I,ΙI) ‖ [20] post κόσμῳ fort. ⟨σφαιροειδεῖ ὁ θεὸς⟩ addendum cf. c. 1.6.1, wie dieser Teil in der Welt eine kugelformige Gestalt hat Q : ὁ ἥλιος add. Diels in app., ⟨il sole⟩ Torraca : ἐν ἡλίῳ Hirzel (1882) 2.153 n.: ἥλιος add. Arnim in text. : οὐρανὸς Lammert WS 39 (1917) 255 n. 2 cf. Ptol. Iudic. §15 ‖ ἡμετέρᾳ] om. PG ‖ [21] κεφαλῇ PBG : in unserem Anfang …, und das ist das Haupt Q i.q. ‘Doppelübersetzung’ vid. Daiber pp. 13–14

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 102 (~ tit.) Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχή (text Diels) 102.1 (~ P1[3]) οἱ Στωικοί φασιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος ἀνώτατον τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, 102.2 (~ P1[5–8]) ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐστί τινα τείνοντα ἐπὶ τὰ ἄλλα μέρη τῆς ψυχῆς, ἃ ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐνεργεῖν· 102.3 (~ P1[9–11]) διόπερ ὅρασιν λέγουσι πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι ὀφθαλμῶν, ἀκοὴν δὲ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῶν ὤτων· 102.4 (~ P1[15–18]) τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν τὸ μὲν σπερματικόν, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι, διατεῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ * * * * * φωνητικόν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ πνεῦμα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι φάρυγγος καὶ γλώττης. 102.5 (~ P1[20–21]) αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι ἐν τῇ σφαιροειδεῖ κεφαλῇ. Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 15, p. 72.7–9 (~ §1[2–7]) Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Στωικὸς (SVF 1.143) ὀκταμερῆ φησιν εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν, διαιρῶν αὐτὴν εἴς τε τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ εἰς τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ εἰς τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ τὸ σπερματικόν. NH c. 19, p. 81.10–11 (SVF 3.416) ἔστι δὲ ὁ θυμὸς τὸ δορυφορικὸν τοῦ λογισμοῦ. NH c. 12, p. 68.6– 9 τοῦ δὲ διανοητικοῦ εἰσι γενικῶς μὲν αἵ τε κρίσεις καὶ αἱ συγκαταθέσεις καὶ ἀποφυγαὶ καὶ ὁρμαί, εἰδικῶς δὲ αἵ τε νοήσεις τῶν ὄντων καὶ αἱ ἀρεταὶ καὶ αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι καὶ τῶν τεχνῶν οἱ λόγοι καὶ τὸ βουλευτικὸν καὶ προαιρετικόν (~ §1[2– 4]). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 4.5 tit. Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν. A 4.8.12 οἱ Στωικοὶ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν εἶναι συγκατάθεσιν καὶ κατάληψιν. A 4.11 tit. Πῶς γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις. A 4.23.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, τὰς δ᾽ αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ. §1[3–8] A 4.8.1 αἴσθησίς ἐστιν ἀντίληψις ⟨δι᾽⟩ αἰσθητηρίου ἢ κατάληψις · πολλαχῶς δὲ λέγεται ἡ αἴσθησις, ἥ τε γὰρ ἕξις καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια· καὶ ἡ φαντασία

20

liber 4 caput 21

1713

ἡ καταληπτικὴ δι᾽ αἰσθητηρίου γίνεται κατὰ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Α 4.9.4 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ἀληθεῖς, τῶν δὲ φαντασιῶν τὰς μὲν ἀληθεῖς τὰς δὲ ψευδεῖς. A 4.23.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, τὰς δ᾽ αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ. §1[9–14] A 4.8.1 πάλιν δ᾽ αἰσθητήρια λέγεται πνεύματα νοερὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ⟨ἀφ᾽ οὗ συνίσταται⟩ ἐπὶ τὰ ὄργανα τεταμένα Α 4.4.4 oἱ Στωικοὶ ἐξ ὀκτὼ μερῶν φασι συνεστάναι, πέντε μὲν τῶν αἰσθητικῶν, ὁρατικοῦ ἀκουστικοῦ ὀσφρητικοῦ γευστικοῦ ἁπτικοῦ, … ὀγδόου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέταται διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων, προσφερῶς ταῖς τοῦ πολύποδος πλεκτάναις. A 4.10.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ πέντε τὰς εἰδικὰς αἰσθήσεις, ὅρασιν ἀκοὴν ὄσφρησιν γεῦσιν ἁφήν. A 4.15.3 Χρύσιππος κατὰ τὴν συνέντασιν τοῦ μεταξὺ ἀέρος ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς, νυγέντος μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρατικοῦ πνεύματος, ὅπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ μέχρι τῆς κόρης διήκει. §1[15–19] A 4.4.4 ἕκτου δὲ φωνητικοῦ, ἑβδόμου δὲ σπερματικοῦ. §1[20–21] A 1.6[9–12] σφαιροειδὴς γὰρ ὁ κόσμος, ὃ πάντων τῶν σχημάτων πρωτεύει· μόνον γὰρ τοῦτο τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσιν ὁμοιοῦται· περιφερὴς δ᾽ ὢν ἔχει τὰ μέρη περιφερῆ· (διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ κατὰ τὸν Πλάτωνα ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τὸ ἱερώτατον συνέστηκε νοῦς). A 2.5a.1–4 Πλάτων τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου ἐν οὐρανῷ τίθεται. Κλεάνθης ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν ἡλίῳ. Ἀρχεδήμος ἐν γῇ. Φιλολάος ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ πυρί, ὅπερ τρόπεως δίκην προϋπεβάλλετο τῇ τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρᾳ⟩ ὁ δημιουργὸς θεός. A 4.5.1 Πλάτων Δημόκριτος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ κεφαλῇ (sc. τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικόν).

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses for P are PB and PQ, partly confirmed by PG. PG has not only abridged further, as is the rule, but also replaced part of a lemma with an improvised remark. In PQ parts of the text have been omitted or lost, perhaps also through saut du même au même, just as in one ms. of PB. S is lost apart from part of the chapter heading (confirmed by Photius’ index), which is important in that it proves (again) that he did excerpt the chapter, thereby confirming its attribution to A, but the text was subsequently squeezed out. T did not excerpt the chapter. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is virtually non-existent for this chapter. The cousin source Nem NH c. 12 contains a parallel to ch. 4.21.1 and begins with a backward glance at NH c. 6, which is parallel to ch. 4.12.

1714

liber 4 caput 21

(2) Sources. The sources belong with the mainstream Stoic tradition, except the minority view concerned with the position of the regent part in the head (see below, section D(e)§1[20–21]). As intermediary source we may think of a Stoic handbook (Diels’ ‘liber Stoicorum’, see below, section D(a)), or one providing Stoic doctrine, just as was the case for chs. 4.11, 4.12 and 4.15. C Chapter Heading A detailed and specific one. PG has omitted the second part of the heading of PBQ. S 1.57 has combined the headings of the three chapters 4.19–4.21. Wachsmuth Prolegomena p. x is almost certainly right that the words πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ had already fallen by the wayside before Photius made up his table of contents (saut du même au même, presumably). The second part of the present heading recalls the first part of that of ch. 4.5: Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικόν, and its first part recalls the first part of that of ch. 4.11: Πῶς γίνεται ἡ αἴσθησις. The sub-question πόθεν (unde) belongs with the question type of cause, see ch. 1.6 above, Commentary C; the question τί to the question type and category of essence/substance. On the dialectical aspect of these interrogatives πόθεν and τί see further above, ch. 1.1, Commentary C. D Analysis a Context This is the last chapter of the series of chapters on the soul in the proper sense of the word which began at ch. 4.2. It is followed by an appendix, ch. 4.22 ‘On respiration’, treating a theme to which Aristotle devoted a little treatise in the Parva Naturalia appended to the De anima, and by ch. 4.23, which deals with the issue of the impact of bodily pains on the soul, a topic not separately treated by Aristotle but of some importance in Hellenistic philosophy. Just as chs. 4.11, 4.12, and 4.15, chapter 4.21 is devoted to Stoic doctrine only, and just as these three chapters it appears to have been added to further illustrate and to some extent correct or at least update what comes before. Diels DG 61 briefly refers to what he believes to be the common origin of these ‘supplementa Stoica’ in a ‘liber Stoicorum’. But note that in the present case, too, this additional material is worth having. The updating and correcting are relevant to the various tenets (including Stoic ones) concerning the parts of soul in ch. 4.4 and those concerning sensation in ch. 4.8, as well as to the series of doxai concerned with the location of the regent part in ch. 4.5. It may have been easier to add a new chapter than to rewrite several others. The chapter also further supplements the information on Stoic doctrine in ch. 4.11, but unfortunately fails to help identify the material left out there by P. See also above, Introduction to Book 4, section 5.

liber 4 caput 21

1715

b Number–Order of Lemmata Just as with chs. 4.11 and 4.12 there is no need to divide the chapter into lemmata, as we are dealing with a single name-label and a single doctrine. Dividing up the single doxa (as Diels did), but distinguishing five instead of four sections, helps to follow the exposition. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In the absence of a plurality of views there is no diaeretic and/or diaphonic structure, though the point about the location of the regent part provides a strong opposition to ch. 4.5.7. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1[5] For λογισμός meaning ‘reason’ in a Stoic context see Whittaker (1998). §1[8–13] Consistently with the metaphor of the tentacles of the octopus (§1[6–7])—also in ch. 4.4.4, where the direction of motion is also from regent part to sense organs—this account emphasises the active side of the perceptive process, not the receptive side as in ch. 4.11. §1[15–16] We have of course preferred G’s readings σπερματικόν and φωνητικόν to the σπέρμα and φωνήν found in PB. These are paralleled in several other testimonia. See ch. 4.4.4[10–11], Chrysippus at Galen PHP 3.1.11 p. 170.15, Porphyry de An. at Stob. 1.49.25a, p. 350.15, Nem NH c. 15, p. 72.9 for σπερματικόν, and again A 4.4.4.[11], Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.110, 157, again Porphyry de An. at Stob. 1.49.25a, p. 350.15, and again Nem NH c. 15, p. 72.9 for φωνητικόν. It is true that Chrysippus at Gal. PHP 3.1.11 (assuming the text is good, which probably it is not) speaks of φωνήν not φωνητικόν, but even he uses σπερματικόν not σπέρμα. §1[15–18] It is only here and not in ch. 4.19 that we hear something about the production of voice in the physical sense and the role of the trachea. §1[20–21] That the regent part is located in the head is a minority view among the Stoics, see ch. 4.5.7, where according to ‘all [sic] the Stoics’ it is placed in the heart or the pneuma near the heart. For the minority view see also Philodemus Piet. col. ix.9–27 Henrichs, Cornutus ND 2, p. 2.13–15 and 20, p. 29.15– 30.2 Torres, and Chrysippus at Galen PHP 3.8.3–4 (SVF 2.908), who argued against it (passage quoted section E(b)§1[19–20]). Relevant in this connection are the various Stoic views on the regent part of the cosmos. These are listed at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.139: the aether (Antipater, not in SVF 3), the heaven (Chrysippus, not in SVF 2, and Posidonius F 23 E.-K.), the sun (Cleanthes SVF 1.499), or the purest aether (Chrysippus SVF 2.644). In ch. 2.5a above, on the location of the regent part of the cosmos, we have, one after the other: Plato: in the heaven, Cleanthes: in the sun, Archedemus: in the earth, and Philolaus:

1716

liber 4 caput 21

in the innermost fire. The view rejected by Chrysippus is based on an analogy between Cosmic Soul and human soul. Note that in §1[3] the regent part is said to be the ‘highest part of the soul’, clearly not only in a metaphorical sense. The comparison between head and cosmos, both round, and the location of the higher soul in the head are of course originally Platonic; for the Placita see ch. 1.6[9–12], quoted among the Loci Aetiani. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that what we have here is the reception of a Platonic view in later Stoicism. It is paralleled in Ptolemy’s On the Criterion and the Hegemonikon. This final sentence can be understood without an explicit subject for ὥσπερ ἐν κόσμῳ (sc. κατοικεῖ), but then is rather harsh. We believe that just as in ch. 1.6[7–25] and 1.7.22[114], see ch. 1.6 Commentary D(d)§1[7–25], κόσμος should be translated ‘heaven’ and not ‘cosmo’/‘monde’ as by Torraca and Lachenaud. Also, that (Diels’) ὁ θεός should be added before and σφαιροειδεῖ after ἐν κόσμῳ, for we need this to balance ἐν σφαιροειδεῖ κεφαλῇ, the spherical head being the highest part of the human body, just as the ‘spherical heaven’ is the highest part of the world. We have refrained from adding these words to the text, only putting them in the apparatus and adding them to the translation exempli gratia. e Other Evidence The Stoic doctrine of our chapter, with and without name-label, is paralleled in a multiplicity of sources; see below at section E(b)§1 passim. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Arius Didymus fr. 39.5 Diels at Eus. PE 15.20.5 (SVF 2.821) ἔχειν δὲ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικόν τι ἐν αὑτῇ, ὃ δὴ ζωὴ καὶ αἴσθησίς ἐστι καὶ ὁρμή. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.159 (SVF 2.837) ἡγεμονικὸν δ᾽ εἶναι τὸ κυριώτατον τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ αἱ φαντασίαι καὶ αἱ ὁρμαὶ γίνονται καὶ ὅθεν ὁ λόγος ἀναπέμπεται· ὅπερ εἶναι ἐν καρδίᾳ. Chapter heading: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.159 (SVF 2.744) τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αἰσθητικήν. §1[3–8] Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.110 (ethical section) (SVF 2.828) φασὶ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι ὀκταμερῆ· μέρη γὰρ αὐτῆς τά τε πέντε αἰσθητήρια καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν μόριον καὶ τὸ διανοητικόν, ὅπερ ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἡ διάνοια, καὶ τὸ γεννητικόν. V.P. 7.157 (physical section) μέρη δὲ ψυχῆς λέγουσιν (SVF 2.828) ὀκτώ, τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις καὶ τοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν σπερματικοὺς λόγους καὶ τὸ φωνητικὸν καὶ τὸ λογιστικόν. §1[9–19] Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Fug. 182 (SVF 2.861) ποτίζεται οὖν, ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς τοῦ κατὰ ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικοῦ τὸ σώματος ἡγεμονικὸν πρόσωπον, τὸ μὲν ὁρατικὸν πνεῦμα τείνοντος εἰς ὄμματα, τὸ δ᾽ ἀκουστικὸν εἰς οὖς, εἰς δὲ μυκτῆρας τὸ ὀσφρήσεως, τὸ δ᾽ αὖ γεύσεως εἰς στόμα, καὶ τὸ ἁφῆς εἰς σύμπασαν τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν.

liber 4 caput 21 Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.52 αἴσθησις δὲ λέγεται κατὰ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς (SVF 2.71) τό τε ἀφ᾽ ἡγεμονικοῦ πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις διῆκον καὶ ἡ δι᾽ αὐτῶν κατάληψις καὶ ἡ περὶ τὰ αἰσθητήρια κατασκευή. §1[20–21] Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.139 τὸν ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν, ἔχειν ἡγεμονικὸν μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, καθά φησιν Ἀντίπατρος ὁ Τύριος ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ Περὶ κόσμου (—). Χρύσιππος δ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ προνοίας (—) καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ Περὶ θεῶν τὸν οὐρανόν φασι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου (F 23 E.-K.), Κλεάνθης δὲ τὸν ἥλιον (SVF 1.499).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Arius Didymus fr. 39 at Eus. PE 15.20.3 ἀναθυμίασιν μὲν οὖν ὁμοίως τῷ Ἡρακλείτῳ (22B12 DK) τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποφαίνει Ζήνων (SVF 1.141, 1.519), αἰσθητικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο λέγει, ὅτι τυποῦσθαί τε δύναται {τὸ μέγεθος} τὸ μέρος τὸ ἡγούμενον αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ὄντων καὶ ὑπαρχόντων διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ παραδέχεσθαι τὰς τυπώσεις· ταῦτα γὰρ ἴδια ψυχῆς ἐστιν. Galen PHP 5.3.7 (SVF 2.841) μὴ τοίνυν μηδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς σύγχει (sc. you, Chrysippus) τὰ μόρια ταῖς ἐνεργείαις. αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἔννοιαι καὶ αἱ προ{σ}λήψεις ἐνέργειαι, ⟨μόρια δὲ⟩ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς αὐτὸς σὺ δι᾽ ἑτέρων ἐκδιδάσκεις, τό τε ἀκουστικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὀπτικὸν ἔτι τε πρὸς τούτοις φωνητικόν τε καὶ γεννητικὸν καὶ πρὸ πάντων αὐτῶν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὸν λόγον ἔφης συνίστασθαι. §1[3–8] Stoics: SVF 2.834–849. §1[3–5] Stoics: Philodemus de Mus. 4 col. 25.11–13 Delattre (SVF 3 Diog. 58) [καὶ] | γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ λογισμὸν ἔ[χειν] | καὶ σύνεσιν ἅπτεσθα[ι ἡμῶν. Pollux Onom. 2.226–227 (Soranus de An. fr. 13[b] Podolak) καὶ ὁ μὲν νοῦς καὶ λογισμὸς καὶ ἡγεμονικόν, εἴτε … περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ὡς ἡ Στοά (—). Galen PHP 5.6.34–35 τὴν μὲν οὖν τοῦ Κλεάνθους (SVF 1.570) γνώμην ὑπὲρ τοῦ παθητικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκ τῶνδε φαίνεσθαί φησι τῶν ἐπῶν·—‘τί ποτ᾽ ἔσθ᾽ ὃ βούλει, θυμέ; τοῦτό μοι φράσον. — ἐγώ, λογισμέ; πᾶν ὃ βούλομαι ποιεῖν’ κτλ. PHP 3.3.2–3 ὁ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.906, p. 254.35–40) σπουδάζει κατασκευάζειν ἐπιχειροῦντι πρὸς ἐναντιώματος ἂν εἴη, καὶ μάλισθ᾽ ὅσα φανερῶς ἐπιτιμῶντα{ι} ποιεῖ τὸν λογισμὸν τῷ θυμῷ, καθάπερ καὶ τάδε· ‘στῆθος δὲ πλήξας κραδίην ἠνίπαπε μύθῳ· / τέτλαθι δὴ κραδίη· καὶ κύντερον ἄλλο ποτ᾽ ἔτλης.’ (3) ταυτὶ γὰρ Ὅμηρος (Od. 20.17–18) ἐποίησε τὸν Ὀδυσσέα λέγοντα πρὸς ἑαυτόν. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.65–66 ἴδωμεν οὖν πρότερον περὶ τοῦ ἐνδιαθέτου (sc. λόγου). οὗτος τοίνυν κατὰ τοὺς μάλιστα ἡμῖν ἀντιδοξοῦντας νῦν δογματικούς, τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—), ἐν τούτοις ἔοικε σαλεύειν, τῇ αἱρέσει τῶν οἰκείων καὶ φυγῇ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, τῇ γνώσει τῶν εἰς τοῦτο συντεινουσῶν τεχνῶν, τῇ ἀντιλήψει τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν ἀρετῶν ⟨καὶ⟩ τῶν περὶ τὰ πάθη. Sextus Empiricus P. 3.188 (SVF 2.96) πῶς οὖν ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ, πνεύματι κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχοντι, ἐναπόθεσις γίγνεται καταλήψεων. Iamblichus de An. fr. 10 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.33, p. 368.16–20 κατὰ μὲν τοὺς Στωικοὺς (SVF 2.826) … · πνεύματα γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ φασιν οὗτοι διατείνειν ἄλλα κατ᾽ ἄλλα, τὰ μὲν εἰς ὀφθαλμούς, τὰ δὲ εἰς ὦτα, τὰ δὲ εἰς ἄλλα αἰσθητήρια· ἔνιαι δὲ ἰδιότητι ποιότητος περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑποκείμενον· ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ μῆλον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ σώματι τὴν γλυκύτητα ἔχει καὶ τὴν εὐωδίαν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἐν ταὐτῷ φαντασίαν συγκατάθεσιν ὁρμήν λόγον

1717

1718

liber 4 caput 21

συνείληφε. de An. fr. 12 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.34, p. 369.6–9 οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος (SVF 2.831) ὀκταμερῆ τὴν ψυχὴν {δια}δοξάζουσι, περὶ ⟨ἣν⟩ τὰς δυνάμεις εἶναι πλείονας, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ ἐνυπαρχουσῶν φαντασίας συγκαταθέσεως ὁρμῆς λόγου. §1[5–19] Stoics: Calcidius in Tim. 220 ‘haec igitur’, inquit (sc. Chrysippus, SVF 2.879), ‘octo in partes divisa invenitur; constat enim e principali et quinque sensibus, etiam vocali substantia et serendi procreandique potentia. porro partes animae velut ex capite fontis cordis sede manantes per universum corpus porriguntur omniaque membra usque quaque vitali spiritu complent reguntque et moderantur innumerabilibus diversisque virtutibus nutriendo adolendo movendo motibus localibus instruendo sensibus compellendo ad operandum totaque anima sensus, qui sunt eius officia, velut ramos ex principali parte illa tamquam trabe pandit futuros eorum quae sentiunt nuntios, ipsa de his quae nuntiaverint iudicat ut rex.’ … ut ait idem Chrysippu: ‘sicut aranea in medietate cassis omnia filorum tenet pedibus exordia, ut, cum quid ex bestiolis plagas incurrerit ex quacumque parte, de proximo sentiat, sic animae principale positum in media sede cordis sensuum exordia retinere, ut, cum quid nuntiabunt, de proximo recognoscat’. §1[9–14] Stoics: Iamblichus de An. fr. 10 Finamore–Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.49.33, p. 369.13–16 πνεύματα γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ φασιν οὗτοι (SVF 2.826) διατείνειν ἄλλα κατ᾽ ἄλλα, τὰ μὲν εἰς ὀφθαλμούς, τὰ δὲ εἰς ὦτα, τὰ δὲ εἰς ἄλλα αἰσθητήρια. §1[16–19] Stoics: Aristotle PA 3.3 664a35–b1 ἡ δὲ καλουμένη φάρυγξ καὶ ἀρτηρία συνέστηκεν ἐκ χονδρώδους σώματος· οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἀναπνοῆς ἕνεκέν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ καὶ φωνῆς. Galen UP 3.411.8–16 K. ὅσα δ᾽ ἐξ ἀέρος εἰσπνεῖ ζῷα καὶ αὖθις εἰς τοῦτον ἐκπνεῖ διὰ στόματος, ἅπασι τούτοις ὁ πλεύμων ἐκπεπλήρωκε τὴν τοῦ θώρακος εὐρύτητα, φωνητικὸν ἅμα καὶ ἀναπνευστικὸν ὄργανον γενόμενος. ἡ δ᾽ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῦ θώρακός ἐστιν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς λογισμοῖς ἀποδέδεικται· καὶ μέν γε καὶ ὅσον εἰς φωνῆς γένεσιν συντελεῖ, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ φωνῆς εἴρηται. etc. §1[20–21] Stoics: Chrysippus de An. at Gal. PHP 3.8.3–4 (SVF 2.908, verbatim) ἀκούω δέ τινας λέγειν παραμυθουμένους πρὸς τὸ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος. … πιθανοῦ μέν τινος ἐχόμενοι, διαμαρτάνοντες δ᾽ ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνεται κτλ. Philodemus Piet. col. ix.9–18 Henrichs τινὰς δὲ τῶν Στωικῶν (SVF 3 Diog. 33) | φάσκειν ὅτι τὸ ἡγε|μονικὸν ἐν τῇ κε|φαλῇ· φρόνησιν γὰ[ρ] | εἶναι, διὸ καὶ Μῆτιν | καλεῖσθαι· Χρύσιπ|πον (—) δ᾽ ἐν τῶι στή|[θ]ει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν | εἶναι κτλ. Cornutus Comp. c. 2, p. 2.6–16 Torres ὥσπερ δὲ ἡμεῖς ὑπὸ ψυχῆς διοικούμεθα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ κόσμος ψυχὴν ἔχει τὴν συνέχουσαν αὐτόν, καὶ αὕτη καλεῖται Ζεύς. … οἰκεῖν δὲ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγεται, ἐπεὶ ἐκεῖ ἐστι τὸ κυριώτατον μέρος τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ψυχῆς· καὶ γὰρ αἱ ἡμέτεραι ψυχαὶ πῦρ εἰσιν. Comp. c. 20, p. 29.15–30.2 Torres ἡ δὲ Ἀθηνᾶ ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ Διὸς σύνεσις, ἡ αὐτὴ οὖσα τῇ ἐν αὐτῷ προνοίᾳ …. γενέσθαι δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Διὸς κεφαλῆς λέγεται, τάχα μὲν τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑπολαβόντων τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν ἐνταῦθ᾽ εἶναι, καθάπερ καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα ἐδόξασαν, τάχα δ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦ μὲν ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἀνωτάτω μέρος τοῦ σώματος ἡ κεφαλή ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ κόσμου

liber 4 caput 21 ὁ αἰθήρ, ὅπου τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν αὐτοῦ ἐστι καὶ ἡ τῆς φρονήσεως οὐσία. Ptolemy Iudic. c. 15.1–2 pp. 21.23–22.6 τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐφωδευμένων, ὅτι μὲν ἡγεμονικὸν γίνεται τοῦ σώματος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς, οὐδὲ εἷς ἂν ἀπορήσειεν· εἰ δ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν οὕτως ἁπλῶς ληπτέον καὶ οὐχ ὡς τῶν πρός τι ὄν, ὡδί πως κατὰ τὸ κεφαλαιῶδες διοριστέον· ἐὰν μὲν γὰρ τὸ βέλτιστον ἁπλῶς καὶ τιμιώτατον καλῶμεν ἡγεμονικόν, ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ τοῦτο ἔσται. δέδεικται γὰρ ἡμῖν ἱκανῶς, ὅτι τὸ διανοητικὸν καὶ δυνάμει καὶ οὐσίᾳ τιμιώτερον καὶ θειότερόν ἐστιν ἔν τε τῷ παντὶ καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν· καὶ ὅτι τόπος αὐτοῦ τὰ ἀνωτάτω, τοῦ κόσμου μὲν ὁ οὐρανός, ἀνθρώπου δὲ ἡ κορυφή. Lactantius Op.D. 16.4 Perrin alii sedem eius (sc. mentis) in cerebro esse dixerunt, … oportuisse scilicet quod totius corporis regimen haberet, potius in summo tamquam in arce corporis habitare nec quicquam esse sublimius quam id quod universum ratione moderetur, sicut ipse mundi dominus et rector in summo est. cf. Plato Tim. 44.d τὰς μὲν δὴ θείας περιόδους δύο οὔσας, τὸ τοῦ παντὸς σχῆμα ἀπομιμησάμενοι περιφερὲς ὄν, εἰς σφαιροειδὲς σῶμα ἐνέδησαν, τοῦτο ὃ νῦν κεφαλὴν ἐπονομάζομεν, ὃ θειότατόν τέ ἐστιν καὶ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν πάντων δεσποτοῦν.

1719

Liber 4 Caput 22 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 5 verso p. 78 Barns-Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 903D–904B; pp. 411a25–414a21 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 103 Diels; DG p. 639.3–16; pp. 313–324 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 212–215 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.60 p. 499.17 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b36 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius c. 28, p. 89.18 Morani (titulus solus)

Titulus κβʹ. Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς (P,S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν πρώτην ἀναπνοὴν τοῦ πρώτου ζῴου γενέσθαι τῆς ⟨μὲν⟩ ἐν τοῖς βρέφεσιν ὑγρασίας ἀποχώρησιν λαμβανούσης, πρὸς δὲ τὸ παρακενωθὲν ἐπεισόδου {τῆς ἔξωθεν} τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀερώδους γινομένης εἰς τὰ παρανοιχθέντα τῶν ἀγγείων· τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο ἤδη τοῦ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἐκτὸς ὁρμῇ τὸ ἀερῶδες ὑπαναθλίβοντος, τὴν ἐκπνοήν, τῇ δ᾽ εἰς τὸ ἐντὸς ἀνθυποχωρήσει τῷ ἀερώδει τὴν ἀντεπείσοδον παρεχομένου, τὴν εἰσπνοήν. τὴν δὲ νῦν κατέχουσαν φερομένου τοῦ αἵματος ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες διὰ τῶν ῥινῶν ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ ἐπιρροίαις ἀναθλίβοντος κατὰ τὴν ἐκχώρησιν αὐτοῦ γίνεσθαι τὴν ἐκπνοήν, παλινδρομοῦντος δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀντεπεισιόντος εἰς τὰ διὰ τοῦ αἵματος ἀραιώματα τὴν εἰσπνοήν. ὑπομιμνήσκει δ᾽ αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τῆς κλεψύδρας. (P1) §1 Empedocles 31A74 DK lemmata non hab. S. titulus Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς P : Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς καὶ παθῶν SL-indPhot §1 [2] πρώτου PB : om. PQ secl. olim Karsten Diels conl. c. 5.15.3 ‖ τοῦ ἀρτιγενοῦς add. schol. PB(II) ad τοῦ πρώτου damn. Karsten Diels Mau ‖ γενέσθαι PB Mau : γινέσθαι Diels conl. c. 5.15.3 ‖ [2–3] τῆς … βρέφεσιν PB : wird dem Embryo zuteil Q ‖ ⟨μὲν⟩ add. Diels ex c. 5.15.3 prob. Mau Primavesi Laks–Most ‖ [3] ἀποχώρησιν PB(I,III)Q : ἀναχώρησιν PB(II) ‖ post ἀποχώρησιν add. von den Atemorganen Q ‖ [3–4] πρὸς … παρακενωθὲν PB : om. PQ ‖ [4] τῆς ἔξωθεν PB : om. PQ(ut vid). secl. Diels conl. c. 5.15.3 prob. Mau ‖ ἀερώδους PB : Luft Q ‖ [4–5] εἰς … ἀγγείων PB : in das von den Gefäßen Geöffnete Q ‖ [5] τὸ PBQ Mau : τὴν coni. Diels DG add. p. 853 ‖ [6] post ὁρμῇ punctum pos. PQ ‖ τῇ πρὸς … ὁρμῇ PB : das Austreten … nach außen Q ‖ [7–8] τῇ δ᾽ εἰς … εἰσπνοήν PB : Dabei ist ein Teil der luftartigen Substanz für das Austreten und ein Teil zur Herbeiziehung und zum Eintreten bestimmt Q ‖ [7] τὸ] om. PB(I) ‖ [8] τὴν … κατέχουσαν PB : Gleichzeitig damit geschieht Q ‖ [9] αἵματος] ὕδατος P(II) ‖ [9–11] καὶ τὸ … ἐκπνοήν PB : seine [sc. des Blutes] Auspressung dessen, was eintritt, sein Ausstoßen des Überrestes nach außen und sein Einbiegen in die Lücken, welche im Blut sind Q ‖ [10] κατὰ emend. corr. Voss. prob. Diels Mau : καὶ P ‖ ἐκχώρησιν] ἐγχώρησιν P(II) ‖ [11] ἀντεπεισιόντος] ἀντεπεισαχθέντος PB(III) ‖ [12] αὐτὸ PB(II,III) : {αὐ}τὸ Diels DK : post αὐτὸ τὸ add. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [12–13] αὐτὸ … κλεψύδρας PB : was wir in den Tropfenzählern sehen, von welchen das Wasser tropft Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_122

5

10

liber 4 caput 22

§2

§3

Ἀσκληπιάδης τὸν μὲν πνεύμονα χώνης δίκην συνίστησιν, αἰτίαν δὲ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς τὴν ἐν τῷ θώρακι λεπτομέρειαν ὑποτίθεται, πρὸς ἣν τὸν ἔξωθεν ἀέρα ῥεῖν τε καὶ καθαίρεσθαι παχυμερῆ ὄντα, πάλιν δ᾽ ἀπωθεῖσθαι μηκέτι τοῦ θώρακος οἵου τ᾽ ὄντος μήτ᾽ ἐπεισδέχεσθαι μήθ᾽ ὑποστέγειν· ὑπολειπομένου δέ τινος ἐν τῷ θώρακι λεπτομεροῦς ἀεὶ βραχέος (οὐ γὰρ ἅπαν ἐκκρίνεται), πρὸς τοῦτο πάλιν τὸ εἴσω ὑπομένον ⟨τὴν⟩ βαρύτητα τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀντεπεισφέρεσθαι. ταῦτα δὴ ταῖς σικύαις παρεικάζει· τὴν δὲ κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἀναπνοὴν γίνεσθαί φησι συναγομένων τῶν ἐν τῷ πνεύμονι λεπτοτάτων πόρων καὶ τῶν βραγχίων στενουμένων· τῇ γὰρ ἡμετέρᾳ ταῦθ᾽ ὑπακούει προαιρέσει. (P2) Ἡρόφιλος δυνάμεις ἀπολείπει περὶ τὰ σώματα τὰς κινητικὰς ἐν νεύροις ἐν ἀρτηρίαις ἐν μυσί· τὸν οὖν πνεύμονα νομίζει πρῶτον ὀρέγεσθαι διαστολῆς τε καὶ συστολῆς φυσικῶς· εἶτα δὲ καὶ τἆλλα. ἐνέργειαν μὲν οὖν εἶναι τοῦ πνεύμονος τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ πνεύματος ὁλκήν· ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς

§2 Asclepiades cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 724; §3 Herophilus fr. 143b Von Staden §2 [14] τὸν … συνίστησιν PBQ : om. PG ‖ πνεύμονα PB : pneuma Q ‖ δὲ] om. PG ‖ [15] ὑποτίθεται PB : εἶναι φησι ante τὴν PG : glaubte Q ‖ [16] καθαίρεσθαι PG, cf. schlecht wird Q compositum verbi αἱρεῖν supputans (φθείρεσθαι cred. Daiber) : φέρεσθαι PB Diels Mau Vallance ‖ [17] οἵου … ὑποστέγειν PBQ : τοιοῦτόν τι ὑποστέγοντος PG ‖ ἐπεισδέχεσθαι] ἐπιδέχεσθαι PB(I) ‖ [18] ὑποστέγειν Diels edd., cf. PG ὑποστέγοντος : ergreifen Q : ὑστερεῖν PB ‖ θώρακι PBQ : σώματι PG ‖ [19–20] πρὸς … ἀντεπεισφέρεσθαι PB : gelangt zu ihr von außen etwas, was sie (die Brust) ausdehnt Q ‖ [19] ἐκκρίνεται PBQ : ἐκκρίνεσθαι PG ‖ καὶ ante πρὸς add. PG ‖ ὑπομένον PB : ὑποκείμενον PG ‖ [20] ⟨τὴν⟩ add. Diels prob. edd. ‖ βαρύτητα τοῦ PB(I,III) : βαρύτητας τὰς PB(II) : ἡ βαρύτης PG : om. PQ ‖ [20] ἀντεπεισφέρεσθαι PB(I,ΙΙ-a.c.,III) : ἀντεπεισφέρεται PB(IIp.c.) : ἀντεπισφέρεται PG ‖ δὴ PB(I,II) Mau Lachenaud : δὲ PB(III) Diels ‖ [21] παρεικάζει PB Mau Lachenaud: ἀπεικάζει PG Diels : ist dem ähnlich Q ‖ φησι PBQ : om. PG ‖ [22] τῷ … πόρων PB : Organe der Brust Q ‖ λεπτοτάτων PB : om. PGQ ‖ [22–23] καὶ … στενουμένων PB : om PG ‖ [22] βραγχίων PB(I) : βραγχέων PB(III) : βραχέων PB(II) : βρογχίων coni. corr. Voss. : Ringe der Luftröhre Q ‖ [23] τῇ γὰρ PB : ταῦτα γὰρ τῇ PG ‖ [23] ὑπακούει PB : ὑπακούειν PG ‖ προαιρέσει PBG : Willen Q §3 [24] post nomen hab. PG δέ ‖ δυνάμεις PBQ : δύναμιν PG ‖ τὰς PB : om. PG ‖ κινητικὰς] κινητικὴν PG ‖ ἐν PB : καὶ PG ‖ [25] πρῶτον ὀρέγεσθαι corr. Diels (cf. infra [l. 29] δευτέραν) : μόνον ὀρέγεσθαι PB Mau Von Staden Lachenaud Jas (in PB) : προορέγεσθαι sive προσορέγεσθαι PG, emend. πρῶτον ὀρέγεσθαι Jas : begehrt und verlangt Q (‘Doppelübersezung’) : om. πρῶτον sive μόνον pQ ‖ [26–27] δὲ … πνεύμονος om. PB(I) (sed δὲ … πνεύματος non recte Diels) ‖ [26] εἶτα … τἆλλα PB(III)Q(ut vid.) prob. Mau Lachenaud : εἶτα δὴ τὰ ἄλλα PB(II) : non hab. PG : del. Diels Von Staden de quo dub. Mau (‘fort. recte’) : post τἆλλα verbum ἐνεργεῖν olim add. Beck ‖ οὖν PG add. Diels prob. Mau Von Staden : om. PB ‖ [27] πνεύμονος PB(II,III) : om. P(I) ‖ πνεύματος] πνεύμονος PB(II)

1721

15

20

25

1722

liber 4 caput 22

πληρώσεως τῆς θύραθεν γινομένης ἐφέλκεται· παρακειμένως δὲ διὰ τὴν δευτέραν ὄρεξιν ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν ὁ θώραξ τὸ πνεῦμα μετοχετεύει, πληρωθεὶς δὲ καὶ μηκέτι ἐφέλκεσθαι δυνάμενος πάλιν εἰς τὸν πνεύμονα τὸ περιττὸν ἀντιμεταρρεῖ, δι᾽ οὗ πρὸς τὰ ἐκτὸς τὰ τῆς ἀποκρίσεως γίνεται, τῶν σωματικῶν μερῶν ἀντιπασχόντων ἀλλήλοις. ὅτε μὲν γὰρ διαστολὴ ⟨ὅτε δὲ συστολὴ⟩ γίνεται πνεύμονος, ταῖς ἀλλήλων ἀντιμεταλήψεσι πληρώσεώς τε καὶ κενώσεως γινομένης, ὡς τέσσαρας μὲν γίνεσθαι κινήσεις περὶ τὸν πνεύμονα, τὴν μὲν πρώτην καθ᾽ ἣν ἔξωθεν ἀέρα δέχεται, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν καθ᾽ ἣν τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ ἐδέξατο θύραθεν ἐντὸς αὑτοῦ πρὸς τὸν θώρακα μεταρρεῖ, τὴν δὲ τρίτην καθ᾽ ἣν τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ θώρακος συστελλόμενον αὖθις εἰς αὑτὸν ἐκδέχεται, τὴν δὲ τετάρτην καθ᾽ ἣν τὸ ἐξ ὑποστροφῆς ἐν αὐτῷ γινόμενον θύραζε ἐξερᾷ. τούτων δὲ τῶν κινήσεων δύο μὲν εἶναι διαστολάς, τήν τ᾽ ἔξωθεν τήν τ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ θώρακος· δύο δὲ συστολάς, τὴν μὲν ὅταν ὁ θώραξ ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν τὸ πνευματικὸν ἑλκύσῃ, τὴν δ᾽ ὅταν αὐτὸς εἰς τὸν ἐκτὸς ἀέρα ἀποκρίνῃ· δύο γὰρ μόναι γίνονται περὶ τὸν θώρακα, διαστολὴ μὲν ὅταν ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύμονος ἐφέλκηται, συστολὴ δ᾽ ὅταν τούτῳ πάλιν ἀνταποδιδῷ. (P3) [28] θύραθεν PB : ἔξωθεν PG : durch die Pforten Q ‖ ἐφέλκεται PB prob. Diels Von Staden : ἐφέλκεσθαι PG : ἐφέλκεται crucif. Mau qui coni. sive ⟨ἐπειδὰν μηκέτι⟩ ἐφέλκηται sive παύεται quod ‘fort. recte’ sec. Von Staden : ⟨μηκέτι⟩ ἐφέλκεσθαι coni. Lachenaud ‖ ἐφέλκεται· παρακειμένως PB : wird all das herbeigezogen, was auf sie stößt Q ‖ [28–30] παρακειμένως … πάλιν] μὴ δυνάμενον PG ‖ [28–29] παρακειμένως … ὄρεξιν PB prob. Diels Von Staden Lachenaud : secl. Mau quia glossema et ‘absque dubio spuria’ ‖ [28] περικείμενος coni. Mau in app. ‖ [29] ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν Diels prob. Mau : ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν PB(II) : ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν PB(I,III) ‖ ἐφ᾽ … μετοχετεύει PB : bringt dicht aneinander, ein Teil zum anderen, sodaß das Pneuma ausgepreßt wird Q ‖ μετοχετεύει PB(II) : μετοχετεύων PB(I,III) ‖ [29–31] πληρωθεὶς … γίνεται PBQ : al. PG εἰς τὸν θώρακα τὸ περιττὸν ἀναπέμπειν, τὸν δὲ εἰς τὸν ἔξωθεν ἀέρα ἀπωθεῖν ‖ [30–31] πάλιν … ἀντιμεταρρεῖ PB : om. PQ ‖ [30] ἀντιμεταρρεῖ PB prob. Diels Mau Von Staden : ἀντιμετερᾷ coni. Bernardakis prob. Lachenaud conl. infra [l. 39] ἐξερᾷ ‖ [31] τὰ … ἀποκρίσεως PB : was in ihr zurückgeblieben war Q ‖ [32] ἀντιπασχόντων ἀλλήλοις PB : sind einander gleich, wenn eins von ihnen ein Reiz empfängt Q ‖ ὅτε … διαστολὴ PB : wenn sich die Brust ausdehnt Q ‖ [33] ⟨ὅτε δὲ συστολὴ⟩ add. Diels prob. Mau Von Staden, cf. zieht sich die Brust zusammen Q ‖ πνεύμονος] πνεύματος PB(II) ‖ ταῖς … ἀντιμεταλήψεσι PB : dabei sind sie einander in der Funktion gleich; jedes einzelne (kann) die Stelle des anderen einnehmen Q ‖ [36] θύραθεν PB : durch die Eingänge Q ‖ [37] αὑτοῦ edd. : αὐτοῦ PB ‖ μεταρρεῖ] μεταρρεῖν PB(I) ‖ [38] αὑτὸν corr. Reiske Diels prob. Mau Von Staden : αὐτὸν PB(I,III) : τὸν αὐτὸν PB(II) ‖ post τετάρτην add. καὶ PB(III) ‖ [39] γινόμενον PB(III) prob. Diels Von Staden : γενόμενον PB(I,II) ‖ [41] ὁ] om. PB(I) ‖ ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν corr. Diels conl. ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν supra [l. 29] prob. Mau Von Staden : ὑπ᾽ αὐτον PB(II,III) : ὑπ᾽ αὐτο PB(I) ‖ [41– 42] ἐφ᾽ … πνευματικὸν PB : die Brust aus der Lunge Q ‖ [42] ἐκτὸς] κόλπον PB(III) ‖ [44] τούτῳ corr. Diels prob. Mau Von Staden : ταὐτὸ PB(I,II), αὐτὸ PB(III)

30

35

40

liber 4 caput 22 Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus fr. 5 verso (~ P §3[42–44]) τη]ν̣ δε̣ [οταν αὐτ]ος εις τον εκτος αερα αποκριν]η δυ[ο γὰρ μον]αι γινονται περι τον θωρακα] διαστολη̣ μ̣ εν οταν απο του πνευμονος ε]φελκηται συσ 5 τολη δε οταν τουτω παλιν αν]ταποδι ̣δ̣ω̣ continuat caput 23 ps.Galenus HPh c. 103 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς (text Jas) 103.1 (~ P2) Ἀσκληπιάδης αἰτίαν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς εἶναί φησι τὴν ἐν τῷ θώρακι λεπτομέρειαν, πρὸς ἣν τὸν ἔξωθεν ἀέρα ῥεῖν τε καὶ καθαίρεσθαι παχυμερῆ ὄντα, πάλιν δὲ ἀπωθεῖσθαι μηκέτι τοῦ θώρακος τοιοῦτόν τι ὑποστέγοντος. ὑπολειπομένου δέ τινος ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑπὸ λεπτομεροῦς ἀεὶ βραχέος (οὐ γὰρ ἅπαν ἐκκρίνεσθαι) καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο πάλιν τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἡ βαρύτης τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀντεπιφέρεται· ταῦτα δὲ σικύαις ἀπεικάζει. τὴν δὲ κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἀναπνοὴν γίνεσθαί φησι συναγομένων τῶν ἐν τῷ πνεύμονι πόρων· ταῦτα γὰρ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ προαιρέσει ὑπακούειν. 103.2 (~ P3) Ἡρόφιλος δὲ δύναμιν ἀπολείπει περὶ τὰ σώματα κινητικὴν ἐν νεύροις καὶ ἐν ἀρτηρίαις καὶ μυσί· τὸν οὖν πνεύμονα νομίζει πρῶτον ὀρέγεσθαι διαστολῆς τε καὶ συστολῆς φυσικῶς. ἐνέργειαν μὲν οὖν εἶναι τοῦ πνεύμονος τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ πνεύματος ὁλκήν, ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς πληρώσεως τῆς ἔξωθεν γιγνομένης ἐφέλκεσθαι μὴ δυνάμενον εἰς τὸν θώρακα τὸ περιττὸν ἀναπέμπειν, τὸν δὲ εἰς τὸν ἔξωθεν ἀέρα ἀπωθεῖν. Testes secundi: Nemesius c. 28, p. 89.18 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς Loci Aetiani: §1 A 5.15.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ εἶναι μὲν ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον ἀλλ᾽ ἄπνουν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῇ γαστρί· πρώτην δ᾽ ἀναπνοὴν τοῦ ζῴου γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀποκύησιν, τῆς μὲν ἐν τοῖς βρέφεσιν ὑγρασίας ἀποχώρησιν λαμβανούσης, πρὸς δὲ τὸ παρακενωθὲν ἐπεισόδου τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀερώδους γινομένης εἰς τὰ παρανοιχθέντα τῶν ἀγγείων. §3 A 5.15.5 Ἡρόφιλος κίνησιν ἀπολείπει φυσικὴν τοῖς ἐμβρύοις, οὐ πνευματικήν· τῆς δὲ κινήσεως αἴτια νεῦρα· τότε δὲ ζῷα γίνεσθαι, ὅταν προχυθέντα προσλάβῃ τι τοῦ ἀέρος.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

1723

1724

liber 4 caput 22

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses for P are PB, PG, PQ, and the five mutilated last lines of the chapter in PP. Apart from the chapter heading listed in the index of SL and the quotation of the heading in Photius’ index S is again lost. This text clearly was too difficult for PQ, whose translation is not good, while PG is again incomplete and much abridged. Yet several readings that differ from those of PB are worth accepting, see below, section D(d). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is virtually limited to the passage from Galen’s De utilitate respirationis cited below section E(a)§2. In the traditio proxima represented by Nem we are informed about the discussion concerning the causes of respiration as being either physical or psychic (or both). See Nem NH c. 28, p. 90.9–15 (in the chapter titled ‘On Respiration’): ‘so on account of this necessity the soul is active in this part no less when we are asleep, since it knows that if it should slacken even for a very short time the living being would perish. So here again the natural is implicated with the domain of the soul: for it is through an artery [i.e. the windpipe], a natural organ that is in continual motion, that (the soul) creates the activity of breathing, so that its task should never fail, nor that of the other arteries. For this reason some who did not understand have thought breathing to be a purely natural function’ (tr. Sharples–Van der Eijk). Among those ‘some’ we may presumably count Empedocles and Herophilus. Nem, who is here much influenced by Galen, begins the chapter at p. 89.19 by stating the Galenic view that ‘respiration belongs with the activities of the soul’ (ἡ ἀναπνοὴ δὲ τῶν ψυχικῶν ἐστιν ἔργων). (2) Sources. Perhaps Aristotle is more important here than Theophrastus, see Baltussen (1993) 219. In the De respiratione Aristotle states (1 470b6–7) that only a few of his predecessors have discussed respiration (περὶ γὰρ ἀναπνοῆς ὀλίγοι μέν τινες τῶν πρότερον φυσικῶν εἰρήκασιν). He discusses Empedocles at length (ch. 7). P’s account of breathing differs from Aristotle’s in that the Stagirite does not deal with the respiration of the first living being (born from the earth). But his brief account of respiration as it happens now describes the same process as Aristotle, and like Aristotle he refers to the clepsydra, though he does not quote the famous fr. 31B100DK (quoted below section E(b)§1). Aristotle also discusses Democritus, Anaxagoras, Diogenes and the Timaeus (2 470b28–471a5, 3 471b15– 17, 4 471b30–472a16, 5 472b6–473a2), though more briefly than Empedocles. All these others are absent from P, who instead has the Hellenistic doctors Hero-

liber 4 caput 22

1725

philus and Asclepiades, who of course are not in Aristotle. Cf. Althoff (1999) 78–85. It is clear that compared with Aristotle and Galen the collection of doxai in P (we do not know about A) is quite limited. Even Aristotle’s own view is lacking. C Chapter Heading Of the standard umbrella type περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα (cf. ch. 1.1 Commentary C), and found in both P and S. It is paralleled as the title of one of Aristotle’s opera minora, the De respiratione—see also his cross-reference at PA 4.13 669a4–5 καθάπερ εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς—and of a work of Asclepiades. See further e.g. the Galenic variations Περὶ χρείας ἀναπνοῆς (De utilitate respirationis) and Περὶ τῶν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς αἰτίων δύο (De causis respirationis). The main question type is that of cause, while the categories of place and action and passion, and (in §1) that of time also play a part. D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on as a sort of appendix after the chapters on the perceptions and the senses and sense data, and comes directly after ch. 4.21, which, as we have noted, provides a supplementary and to some extent alternative detailed account of perception and the regent part. At the end of this chapter, 4.21[16–19], the ‘vocal part’ (φωνητικόν) of the soul is described as ‘a pneuma stretching from the ruling part to the trachea and tongue and its appropriate organs’. That speech and respiration are connected is clearly presupposed here. See e.g. Galen ΑΑ 2.675.7–8 K, ‘exhalation, without which voice cannot be generated’ (quoted section E(b) General texts); useful overview in Baumgarten (1962) 173–195. A pseudo-Galenic treatise ‘On Voice and Respiration’ is extant in a Latin translation, presumably from the Arabic (De voce et anhelitu, ed. Baumgarten 1962). Respiration, as we noticed above at section B(2), is the theme of one of Aristotle’s Parva naturalia, which constitute an appendix to the De anima. The present chapter is followed by ch. 4.23 on the issue of the impact, or not, of bodily discomfort on the soul. Respiration concerns both body and soul: it is quasi-automatic but can be influenced by the will (see §2 and below, section D(c)). b Number–Order of Lemmata PBQ have three lemmata, of which PG omits the first. P may have left out other tenets (e.g. one for Diocles, a name-label relatively often found in A), see the dialectical passage from the first chapter of Galen’s De utilitate respirationis quoted below at section E(a)§2; and above section B as well as

1726

liber 4 caput 22

below section E(b) General texts for the names mentioned in Aristotle’s De respiratione. The order of A’s lemmata is not chronological: Herophilus, not Asclepiades, comes last. This may be explained by the fact that from one lemma to the next the mechanics of respiration, though similar, become more complicated and detailed. Yet from a systematic point of view the sequence is not entirely satisfactory, because §2 Asclepiades (also voluntary respiration) is in part opposed to §1 Empedocles and §3 Herophilus (only mechanical respiration), so would have been in an equally defensible position at the end; see below at section D(c). Diaeresis here apparently prevails over diaphonia. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In P’s text of the present chapter of A we have physico-mechanical explanations of respiration in §1 and §3, and also for the most part in §2. The not very strong diaphonia is between §§1 and 3 on the one hand and §2 on the other. §1 Empedocles and §3 Herophilus hold that respiration is caused by internal and external physical and mechanical factors. §2 Asclepiades agrees that respiration is caused by internal and external physical and mechanical factors, but adds that it can also be voluntary, that is, obviously, that it can also be caused by the soul (which, as we may recall, is the ‘common exercising of the senses’ according to the Asclepiades lemma ch. 4.2.8). For the distinction between physical and psychic, i.e. voluntary movements see Galen Mot.Musc. 4.372.13– 17 K., τῶν κινήσεων αἱ μὲν ἀρτηρίας τε καὶ φλεβὸς φυσικαί τε καὶ χωρὶς ὁρμῆς, αἱ δὲ τῶν μυῶν ψυχικαί τε καὶ μεθ᾽ ὁρμῆς· … εἴτε δὲ μετὰ προαιρέσεως λέγοις τὰς τῶν μυῶν γίνεσθαι κινήσεις, ἢ ἑκουσίως, ἢ μετὰ βουλήσεως, οὐδὲν διοίσει. For an argument that respiration is (also) voluntary see ibid. 442.2–443.4 K. Yet the overall emphasis on the mechanical aspect of respiration in the present chapter is to some extent out of tune with the general scope of Book 4.2–21, with its detailed account of the soul and of its predominant role in natural processes. We should take P’s interest in specifically physiological and medical tenets into account, which becomes very clear in the next book, ubi vide (see also Runia 1999a, repr. M–R 3.515–575). d

Further Comments General Points This is one of the longest chapters in the Placita, presumably because the processes that are described are very complicated and so very hard to abridge (as can be seen in G’s efforts).

liber 4 caput 22

1727

Individual Points §1 A’s interpretation of the Empedoclean mechanics (primary role of the blood) is very similar to that advocated by Rashed (2008). The (first) respiration of the primeval living being born from the earth is described in literally the same terms as that of today’s new-born infant at ch. 5.15.3, a striking repetition which we seldom find in (P at) A. See below, ch. 5.15.3, Commentary D(c)(3)). Diels should not have followed Karsten in bracketing πρώτου. For a similar contrast and comparison between what happens at cosmogony with what happens now, see below, ch. 5.7.1–2 as different from the paragraphs that follow, and ch. 5.18.1 as different from the paragraphs that follow. §2 This passage is lacking in Furley–Wilkie (1984). We should accept PG’s καθαίρεσθαι instead of PB’s φέρεσθαι in §2[16]. It is hard to believe that φέρεσθαι could be corrupted into or misread as καθαίρεσθαι, while φέρεσθαι instead of καθαίρεσθαι is easily explained as a case of perseveratio. καθαίρεσθαι makes sense: the heavy-particled outside air is ‘cleansed’ before joining the fineparticled air that is inside. PG’s καθαίρεσθαι is moreover supported by PQ’s formula schlecht wird, a failed translation not of φέρεσθαι but of καθαίρεσθαι (misread as καθαιρεῖσθαι), so here we have both PG and PQ against PB. A juncture of two virtually synonymous verbs of course also fails to satisfy the doxographical standard of brevity. §3 Diels’ correction of πρῶτον for μόνον, inspired by the odd compositum προορέγεσθαι in a ms. of PG, is worth accepting. e Other Evidence Respiration is dealt with inter alia in Plato Tim. 77e–79a, in Aristotle’s De respiratione, in Probl. 34.7–8 and 34.11–12, in ps.Aristotle De spiritu, and in no less than three works of Galen: De utilitate respirationis (Περὶ χρείας ἀναπνοῆς), De causis respirationis (Περὶ τῶν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς αἰτιῶν) and De difficultate respirationis (Περὶ δυσπνοίας). According to Aristotle respiration is not voluntary, while according to Galen it is voluntary, and without even mentioning Aristotle in this context he calls those who favour the mechanical explanation ‘sophists’. In his medical Encyclopedia Kulliyat (lat. Colliget) Averroes discussed various views, and argues for the most part in favour of Aristotle against Galen, see Bürgel (1967). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 19.375.5–15 K. ρηʹ. ἀναπνοή ἐστι κίνησις θώρακος καὶ πνεύμονος. μέρη δὲ αὐτῆς εἰσι δύο, εἰσπνοὴ καὶ ἐκπνοή. ἢ οὕτως. ἀναπνοή ἐστιν ὁλκὴ ἀέρος διὰ στόματος καὶ μυκτήρων εἰς ἐγκέφαλον καὶ διὰ φάρυγγος καὶ

1728

liber 4 caput 22

πνεύμονος εἰς καρδίαν· πάρεισι δέ τοι καὶ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν. καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ληφθέντος πάλιν ὀλίγη τις ἀνταπόδοσις εἰς τὸ περιέχον γίνεται. ρθʹ. διαπνοή ἐστιν ὁλκὴ ἀέρος ἀπροαίρετος ὑπὸ τοῦ φυσικοῦ θερμοῦ διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας ἅμα τοῖς συναπερχομένοις αὐτοῦ σώματος γινομένη. ἑτέρως. διαπνοή ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ὁλκὴ ἀέρος μετ᾽ ὀρέξεως φυσικῆς δι᾽ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος καὶ πάλιν δι᾽ ἐξόδων ἀπόκρισις. Galen Inst.Log. 13.9 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὖν ἐ(κ) τίνος αἰτίας γίγνονται φωνὴ καὶ ἀναπνοὴ κτλ. §2 Asclepiades: Galen Ut.Resp. c. 2, 4.471.2–8 K. τί ποτ᾽ οὖν τηλικοῦτόν ἐστι τὸ παρὰ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς ἡμῖν χρηστόν; ἆρά γε τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς γένεσις, ὡς Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 721) φησίν; ἢ γένεσις μὲν οὐχί, θρέψις δέ τις, ὡς ὁ τοῦ Νικάρχου Πραξαγόρας (fr. 32 Steckerl); ἢ τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμότητος ἀνάψυξίς τις, ὡς Φιλιστίων (fr. 6 Wellmann) τε καὶ Διοκλῆς (fr. 31 Van der Eijk) ἔλεγον; ἢ καὶ θρέψις καὶ ἔμψυξις, ὡς Ἱπποκράτης; ἢ τούτων μὲν οὐδέν, ἐπιπληρώσεως δ᾽ ἕνεκεν ἀρτηριῶν ἀναπνέομεν, ὡς Ἐρασίστρατος (fr. 99 Garofalo) οἴεται; Calcidius in Tim. c. 214 spiritus quippe, ut ipsi (sc. qui dividuam fore silvae substantiam censuerunt interponentes immense inani modo expertia modo partes quidem, sed indifferentes, sui similes, tum atomos vel solidas moles) asseverant, per fauces ad pulmonem commeans in respiratione attenuatus ad cordis sedem facit transitum etc.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Resp. 1 470b6–9 περὶ γὰρ ἀναπνοῆς ὀλίγοι μέν τινες τῶν πρότερον φυσικῶν εἰρήκασιν· τίνος μέντοι χάριν ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζῴοις, οἱ μὲν οὐδὲν ἀπεφήναντο, οἱ δὲ εἰρήκασι μέν, οὐ καλῶς δ᾽ εἰρήκασιν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπειροτέρως τῶν συμβαινόντων. Resp. 2 470b28–471a5 Δημόκριτος μὲν οὖν ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης (fr. 464 Luria) καί τινες ἄλλοι τῶν περὶ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς εἰρηκότων οὐδὲν περὶ τῶν ἄλλων διωρίκασι ζῴων, ἐοίκασι μέντοι λέγειν ὡς πάντων ἀναπνεόντων· Ἀναξαγόρας (59A115) δὲ καὶ Διογένης, πάντα φάσκοντες ἀναπνεῖν, περὶ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τῶν ὀστρέων λέγουσι τίνα τρόπον ἀναπνέουσιν, καί φησιν Ἀναξαγόρας μέν, ὅταν ἀφῶσι τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ τῶν βραγχίων, τὸν ἐν τῷ στόματι γινόμενον ἀέρα ἕλκοντας ἀναπνεῖν τοὺς ἰχθῦς· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι κενὸν οὐδέν· Διογένης (64A31 DK) δ᾽ ὅταν ἀφῶσι τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ τῶν βραγχίων, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τὸ στόμα περιεστῶτος ὕδατος ἕλκειν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἐν τῷ στόματι τὸν ἀέρα, ὡς ἐνόντος ἐν τῷ ὕδατι ἀέρος. Resp. 4 471b30–472a2 Δημόκριτος (68A106 DK) δ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἐκ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς συμβαίνει τι τοῖς ἀναπνέουσι λέγει, φάσκων κωλύειν ἐκθλίβεσθαι τὴν ψυχήν· οὐ μέντοι ὡς τούτου γ᾽ ἕνεκα ποιήσασαν τοῦτο τὴν φύσιν οὐθὲν εἴρηκεν· ὅλως γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι φυσικοί, καὶ οὗτος οὐθὲν ἅπτεται τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας. MA 11 703b5–11 λέγω δ᾽ ἀκουσίους (sc. κινήσεις) μὲν οἷον τὴν τῆς καρδίας τε καὶ τὴν τοῦ αἰδοίου (πολλάκις γὰρ φανέντος τινός, οὐ μέντοι κελεύσαντος τοῦ νοῦ κινοῦνται), οὐχ ἑκουσίους δ᾽ οἷον ὕπνον καὶ ἐγρήγορσιν καὶ ἀναπνοήν, καὶ ὅσαι ἄλλαι τοιαῦταί εἰσιν. οὐθενὸς γὰρ τούτων κυρία ἁπλῶς ἐστιν οὔθ᾽ ἡ φαντασία οὔθ᾽ ἡ ὄρεξις. ps.Aristotle Spir. 3 482a28–32 περὶ δὲ ἀναπνοῆς οἱ μὲν οὐ λέγουσι τίνος χάριν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ὃν τρόπον γίνεται, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 463 Luria). οἱ δ᾽ οὐδὲ τὸν τρόπον ὅλως λέγουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς φανερῷ χρῶνται. δεῖ δὲ καὶ εἰ καταψύξεως χάριν, αὐτὸ τοῦτο διασαφῆσαι. Galen AA 2.675.7–8 (De voc. test. 32 Baumgarten)

liber 4 caput 22 ἐκφύσησιν, ἧς χωρὶς οὐχ οἷόν τε γενέσθαι φωνήν. Caus.Resp. c. 1, 4.465.7–466.9 K. ὄντων δὲ τριῶν κατὰ γένος, ὡς τύπῳ φάναι, τῶν αἰτίων τῆς ἀναπνοῆς, δυνάμεως προαιρετικῆς, ὀργάνων τῶν ὑπηρετουμένων τῇ προαιρέσει, κᾀπὶ τούτοις τῆς χρείας, δι᾽ ἣν καὶ τῶν προκειμένων αἰτίων δεόμεθα, ἡ μὲν χρεία τὸ κυριώτατόν ἐστι τῶν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς αἰτίων, τηροῦσα μὲν τὴν συμμετρίαν τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας, τρέφουσα δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ ψυχικοῦ πνεύματος· ἡ προαίρεσις δὲ διατάττει καὶ οἷον ῥυθμίζει τὰς ἀναπνευστικὰς ἐνεργείας· τό γε μὴν τῶν ὀργάνων εἶδος πολυσχιδὲς καὶ πολύτροπόν τι καθέστηκε. τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῇ παρακομιδῇ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀνάκειται· τὰ δ᾽ ὑποδέχεται τὸν ἀέρα· τὰ δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ κινητικὰ τῶν κινούντων. κτλ. Diff.Resp. 7.827.4–7 ὅσοι δ᾽ οὐ δύνανται τῶν σοφιστῶν εἰπεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν, οὗτοι δ᾽ εἰσὶν, ὡς ἔμπροσθεν ἐδείξαμεν, οἱ τὴν ἀναπνοὴν ἀπροαίρετόν τε καὶ φυσικὸν ἔργον ὑπειληφότες. Inst.Log. 13.9–10 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὖν ἐ(κ) τίνος αἰτίας γίγνονται φωνὴ καὶ ἀναπνοὴ καὶ θρέψις (καὶ) πέψις. Mot.Dub. c. 2.5–6 + c. 2.11–13, pp. 128.13–21 + 130.3–12 Nutton–Bos utrum autem musculis sicut in aliis particulisque secundum impetum moventur fiant motus hii, vel secundum alium modum sit decens fieri, in dissonantiam constitutum est, quibusdam quidem naturale opus esse sicut pulsu{u}m arteriarum et cordi; quibusdam autem electivum sicut et mixtam esse respirationem enuntiantibus. (6) sed hec quidem scrutatio logicae artis est magis. … (11) et nervos quidem qui movent predictos musculos assumens hamo absque quod perforarem thoracem, immobilem eum effici multitotiens ostendi et docui amicos ut similiter sicut ego ostendant. (12) et hiis ⟨qui⟩ actum electivum putant esse respirationem, maxime apparuit hoc esse indicium oppinionis eorum: inmobilis enim fit thorax confestim et animal mox moritur curvatum quidem quia desiderans inspirare, nec potens autem movere thoracem. (13) horum igitur singulum illi qui ante me post antiquos invenerunt, ego autem ultra eos superadinveni. Chapter heading: Aristotle Resp. Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς. ps.Aristotle Spir. 3 482a28 περὶ δὲ ἀναπνοῆς. Galen Ord.Lib.Prop. c. 2.7, 19.55.11 K. δύο δὲ Περὶ τῶν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς αἰτίων. Libr.Propr. c. 5.1, p. 154.20–21 Boudon-Millot ἄλλα δὲ δύο Περὶ τῶν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς αἰτίων. Marcellinus I Puls. l. 78 Schöne Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 723) δὲ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς αὐτοῦ συντάγματι κτλ. §1 Empedocles: Empedocles 31B100 DK at Arist. Resp. 7 473b9–474a6 ὧδε δ᾽ ἀναπνεῖ πάντα καὶ ἐκπνεῖ· πᾶσι λίφαιμοι / σαρκῶν σύριγγες πύματον κατὰ σῶμα τέτανται, / καί σφιν ἐπὶ στομίοις πυκιναῖς τέτρηνται ἄλοξιν / ῥινῶν ἔσχατα τέρθρα διαμπερές, ὥστε φόνον μέν / κεύθειν, αἰθέρι δ᾽ εὐπορίην διόδοισι τετμῆσθαι. / ἔνθεν ἔπειθ᾽ ὁπόταν μὲν ἀπαΐξῃ τέρεν αἷμα, / αἰθὴρ παφλάζων καταΐσσεται οἴδματι μάργωι, / εὖτε δ᾽ ἀναθρώισκῃ, πάλιν ἐκπνέει, ὥσπερ ὅταν παῖς / κλεψύδρηι παίζουσα διειπετέος χαλκοῖο—/ εὖτε μὲν αὐλοῦ πορθμὸν ἐπ᾽ εὐειδεῖ χερὶ θεῖσα / εἰς ὕδατος βάπτῃσι τέρεν δέμας ἀργυφέοιο, / οὐδεὶς ἄγγοσδ᾽ ὄμβρος ἐσέρχεται, ἀλλά μιν εἴργει / ἀέρος ὄγκος ἔσωθε πεσὼν ἐπὶ τρήματα πυκνά, / εἰσόκ᾽ ἀποστεγάσῃ πυκινὸν ῥόον· αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα / πνεύματος ἐλλείποντος ἐσέρχεται αἴσιμον ὕδωρ. / ὣς δ᾽ αὔτως, ὅθ᾽ ὕδωρ μὲν ἔχῃ κατὰ βένθεα χαλκοῦ / πορθμοῦ χωσθέντος βροτέῳ χροῒ ἠδὲ πόροιο,— αἰθὴρ δ᾽ ἐκτὸς ἔσω λελιημένος ὄμβρον ἐρύκει, / ἀμφὶ πύλας ἠθμοῖο δυσηχέος ἄκρα κρατύνων, / εἰσόκε χειρὶ μεθῇ, τότε δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν, ἔμπαλιν ἢ πρίν, / πνεύματος ἐμπί-

1729

1730

liber 4 caput 22

πτοντος ὑπεκθέει αἴσιμον ὕδωρ. / ὣς δ᾽ αὔτως τέρεν αἷμα κλαδασσόμενον διὰ γυίων / ὁππότε μὲν παλίνορσον ἀπαΐξειε μυχόνδε, / αἰθέρος εὐθὺς ῥεῦμα κατέρχεται οἴδματι θῦον, / εὖτε δ᾽ ἀναθρώισκηι, πάλιν ἐκπνέει ἶσον ὀπίσσω. Aristotle Resp. 7 473a15– b8 λέγει δὲ περὶ ἀναπνοῆς καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (on 31B100 DK), οὐ μέντοι τίνος γ᾽ ἕνεκα, οὐδὲ περὶ πάντων τῶν ζῴων οὐδὲν ποιεῖ δῆλον, εἴτε ἀναπνέουσιν εἴτε μή. καὶ περὶ τῆς διὰ τῶν μυκτήρων ἀναπνοῆς λέγων οἴεται καὶ περὶ τῆς κυρίας λέγειν ἀναπνοῆς. … γίγνεσθαι δέ φησι τὴν ἀναπνοὴν καὶ ἐκπνοὴν διὰ τὸ φλέβας εἶναί τινας ἐν αἷς ἔνεστι μὲν αἷμα, οὐ μέντοι πλήρεις εἰσὶν αἵματος, ἔχουσι δὲ πόρους εἰς τὸν ἔξω ἀέρα, τῶν μὲν τοῦ σώματος μορίων ἐλάττους, τῶν δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος μείζους· διὸ τοῦ αἵματος πεφυκότος κινεῖσθαι ἄνω καὶ κάτω, κάτω μὲν φερομένου εἰσρεῖν τὸν ἀέρα καὶ γίγνεσθαι ἀναπνοήν, ἄνω δ᾽ ἰόντος ἐκπίπτειν θύραζε καὶ γίνεσθαι τὴν ἐκπνοήν, παρεικάζων τὸ συμβαῖνον ταῖς κλεψύδραις. Theophrastus Sens. 9 (on Empedocles, 31A86 DK) ὄσφρησιν δὲ γίνεσθαι τῇ ἀναπνοῇ· διὸ καὶ μάλιστα ὀσφραίνεσθαι τούτους, οἷς σφοδροτάτη τοῦ ἄσθματος ἡ κίνησις. Sens. 22 (Empedocles 31A86 DK) οὐ γὰρ ἴσως καθ᾽ αὑτὸ τὸ ἀναπνεῖν αἴτιον τῆς ὀσφρήσεως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ὡς ἔκ τε τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων μαρτυρεῖται καὶ διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων παθῶν· ὁ δ᾽ ὡς ταύτης οὔσης τῆς αἰτίας καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει πάλιν εἴρηκεν ὥσπερ ἐπισημαινόμενος (31B102 DK) ‘ὧδε μὲν οὖν πνοιῆς τε λελόγχασι πάντα καὶ ὀσμῶν’. Demetrius Laco Apor.Test. (PHerc. 1012) col. lxv.1–14 Puglia λέγει γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—), τὴν] | ἀναπνοὴν αἰτιολογῶν τὴν | ἀνθρώπων τῶν καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν· | ‘ὧδε δ᾽ ἀναπνήουσι καὶ ἐκ|πνήουσι λίφαιμοι / σαρκῶν | σήρινγες πύματον κατὰ σῶ|μα τέτανται’. καὶ τἀκόλου|θα δὲ συνάπτει, δῆλον ὡς, | ἀναπνοὴν λαμβάνων οὔτε | τὸ ὅλον—ἐπεὶ [π]ῶς ἂν ἀντι|διή⟨ι⟩ρει ταύτηι τὴν [ἐ]κπνο|ήν, μέρος [τῆ]ς ἀναπ[νοῆς;—οὔ|[τ᾽] αὐτὴν [τὴν ἐ]κπνοήν, κα|[τ᾽] ἰδίαν α[ὐτῆι συ]νκαταρι|θμεῖται [καὶ τὴν εἰσπνοήν. §2 Asclepiades: Galen in Epid. iii 17a.506.3–4 K. εἴ τις Ἀσκληπιάδειον (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 719) ἐξηγοῖτο, πόρους καὶ ὄγκους ἄναρμά τε στοιχεῖα καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸ λεπτομερὲς φοράν ἐστιν αὐτῷ ῥητέον. in Epid. vi p. 327.12–13 Wenkebach–Pfaff τινῶν μὲν ἕνεκα γενέσεως πνεύματος ψυχικοῦ (sc. τὰς εἰσπνοὰς γίνεσθαι λεγόντων), καθάπερ Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 719). cf. Plato Tim. 78b (image of fish trap with pair of funnels). §3 Herophilus: Galen Us.Puls. c. 4.2, 5.163.14–164.6 K. οἷον γοῦν τι ἡ εἰσπνοὴ τοῖς ἀναπνευστικοῖς ὀργάνοις, τοιοῦτον ἡ διαστολὴ ταῖς ἀρτηρίαις, καὶ οἷον γοῦν τι ἐκείνοις ἡ ἐκπνοὴ, τοιοῦτον ταῖς ἀρτηρίαις ἡ συστολή. (Heroph. fr. 154 Von Staden follows:) ταύτης δὲ τῆς διπλῆς καὶ συνθέτου τῶν ἀρτηριῶν κινήσεως, ἣν δὴ καὶ σφυγμὸν ὀνομάζομεν, ἐξηγεῖται μὲν ἡ καρδία, καθάπερ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐν ἑτέροις καὶ μυρίοις ἄλλοις πρὸ ἡμῶν ἀποδέδεικται, οὐ μὴν καθ᾽ ὃν Ἐρασίστρατος (cf. fr. 110 Garofalo) ὑπελάμβανεν τρόπον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Ἡρόφιλός τε καὶ Ἱπποκράτης, καὶ σχεδὸν οἱ δοκιμώτατοι πάντες τῶν παλαιῶν ἰατρῶν τε καὶ φιλοσόφων.

Liber 4 Caput 23 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 5 verso p. 78 Barns-Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 904C; pp. 414a22–415a7 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh. c. 104; p. 639.17–21 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 214–215 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.60, p. 499.17 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. cod. 167, p. 112b36 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Nem: Nemesius NH c. 2, p. 21.6–9, 21.20–22 Morani

Titulus κγʹ. Περὶ παθῶν σωματικῶν καὶ εἰ συναλγεῖ τούτοις ἡ ψυχή (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, τὰς δὲ αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ. (P1) §2 Ἐπίκουρος καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις· τὸ γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν ἀπαθές. (P2) §3 Στράτων καὶ τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις συνίστασθαι. ἐν γὰρ ταύτῃ κεῖσθαι τὴν ὑπομονήν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν δεινῶν καὶ ἀλγεινῶν καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνδρείων καὶ δειλῶν. (P3) §1 Stoici SVF 2.854; §2 Epicurus fr. 317 Usener; §3 Strato fr. 110 Wehrli, 63A Sharples lemmata non hab. S titulus Περὶ … ψυχή PBQ : περὶ παθῶν σω]ματικῶν PP : σωματικῶν … ψυχή om. PG prob. Diels DG in app. : Περὶ ἀναπνοῆς (~ tit. c. 4.22) καὶ παθῶν SL-indPhot ‖ τούτοις PB : αὐτοῖς PB(I ind.)Q(ut vid.) : τουτῷ PB(III:E) §1[2]–§2[4] τὰς δὲ … τόποις om. PB(II) §2[4]–§3[6] Ἐπίκουρος … ἡγεμονικῷ : om. PP per haplographiam §3 [7] συνίστασθαι PBPG : zusammen … sind Q ‖ [7–8] ἐν2 … ὥσπερ lac. hab. PG ‖ [7] ταύτῃ PBQ : τούτῳ coni. Zeller ‖ κεῖσθαι PB(I,II) : κινεῖσθαι PB(III) : ist Q ‖ [7–8] ὑπομονήν PPB : die Geduld und das Ertragen Q ‖ [7] ταύτῃ] τούτῳ coni. Zeller, reiec. Diels Sharples ‖ [8–9] καὶ2 … δειλῶν PBQ: τὴν ἐνέργειαν PG : om. PP, secl. Diels prob. Sharples

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis fr. 5 verso (Barns-Zilliacus 1960, 77, 1967, 182) (P titulus et §§1–3) [ περι παθων σω]μ̣ ατικω̅ ν̅ [οι Στωικοι τα μεν παθ]η̣ εν τοις πεπονθοσῑ [τοποις τας δε αισθησεις] εν τω ηγεμονικω ου [κ εν τοις ποπονθοσι το]π̣ οις συνιστασθαι εν 10 [γαρ ταυτη κεισθαι την υπο]μ̣ ονην ω̣σπερ ε̣ [πι των δεινων και αλγεινων] ) )—— ps.Galenus HPh c. 104 Περὶ παθῶν (~ tit.) (text Diels) 104.1 (~ P2) Ἐπίκουρος τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν ἀπαθὲς εἶναι νομίζει. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_123

5

1732

liber 4 caput 23

104.2 (~ §3) Στράτων δὲ καὶ τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις, συνίστασθαι * τῶν δεινῶν καὶ τῶν ἀλγεινῶν τὴν ἐνέργειαν. Testes secundi: Nemesius NH c. 2, p. 21.20–22 ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ, εἴτε τὸ σῶμα μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ ἀλγοῦν λαβὸν παρὰ τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν αἴσθησιν, αὐτὴ δὲ μένει ἀπαθής, εἴτε καὶ συναλγεῖ τῷ σώματι· καὶ κρατεῖ μᾶλλον παρὰ τοῖς ἐνδοξοτέροις τὸ πρότερον (~ quaestio). NH c. 2, p. 21.6–9 (Cleanthes SVF 1.518) ἔτι φησίν· οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα, συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι νοσοῦντι καὶ τεμνομένῳ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῇ· αἰσχυνομένης γοῦν ἐρυθρὸν γίνεται καὶ φοβουμένης ὠχρόν· σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 5.25 tit. et §2 Ὁποτέρου ἐστὶν ὕπνος καὶ θάνατος, ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος. Ἀναξαγόρας κατὰ κόπον τῆς σωματικῆς ἐνεργείας γίνεσθαι τὸν ὕπνον· σωματικὸν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ πάθος, οὐ ψυχικόν. §1 A 4.21.1 οἱ Στωικοί φασιν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς ἀνώτατον μέρος τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τὸ ποιοῦν τὰς φαντασίας καὶ συγκαταθέσεις καὶ αἰσθήσεις καὶ ὁρμάς. §2 A 4.4.7 Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος διμερῆ τὴν ψυχήν, τὸ μὲν λογικὸν ἔχουσαν ἐν τῷ θώρακι καθιδρυμένον, τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν σύγκρισιν τοῦ σώματος διεσπαρμένον. §3 A 4.5.2 Στράτων ἐν μεσοφρύῳ (sc. τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι).

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses Our only witness for the text of the chapter is P, represented by PP, PB, PQ, and PG (who again omits the first lemma). The heading is in part attested by S, but again the text is lost for the Eclogae. On the papyrus snippet see further below Commentary D(d) General points. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The parallel doxographical overview in Plutarch(?) De libidine et aegritudine, cited below section E(a) General texts and §4, is particularly rich. The cousin writing Nem c. 2 provides a parallel for the bare bones of the issue. (2) Sources. The sources are not clear, apart from the Strato lemma, for which we have a satisfactory parallel that at least indicates a shared tradition.

liber 4 caput 23

1733

C Chapter Heading Diels preferred the short umbrella heading (type περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα, see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C) of PG to the long heading of PB (and PQ). PP is in favour of a somewhat longer short heading. But we probably need the long heading, as the chapter is not about affections in general (let alone about emotions), but about such occurrences as pains in the body and their reverberations in the soul: the καί is explicative. The shorter part of the chapter heading in S is identical to the heading of PG, but it must be taken into account that it is part of a composite heading that is likely to have been abridged compared with the original. The book title Περὶ παθῶν, On Affections in a general sense is attested for ps. Hippocrates, Xenocrates, Theophrastus, Zeno, Chrysippus, Sphaerus, Herillus, Posidonius, and ps.Andronicus. A subdivision of Stoic ethics entitled περὶ παθῶν is listed at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.84 (SVF 1.178, 3.1). D Analysis a Context This is the concluding chapter of the book on psychology. Although the demarcation between Books 4 and 5 is to some extent arbitrary since the soul is still involved in the first chapters of Book 5 (see M–R 2.1.149–150 and below, ch. 5.1, Commentary D(a)), the problematical commonality of body and soul constitutes an acceptable finale. This topic, much discussed in ancient philosophical literature, is in Book 4, the Book on the soul, appropriately approached from the side of the soul as influenced by the body, not from that of the body as influenced by the soul. That the first chapters of Book 5 could also have been be the last of Book 4 demonstrates that in a certain sense these two Books, dealing not with nature in general like the first three but with human nature (for the most part), belong together. For further details see the Introductions to these Books and above, General introduction section 2.7. b Number–Order of Lemmata P has three lemmata, of which PG omits the first and (as far as his text goes) parallels the second and third. The order P1–P2–P3 is systematic not chronological and should not be interfered with. P may have abridged A’s chapter considerably, as the views of e.g. Plato and Aristotle are lacking (they perhaps were to be found in S’s lost chapter). The account of a multiplicity of views in Plutarch(?) De libidine et aegritudine at any rate provides an impression of what has been lost because of P’s abridgement. We cannot know what may have been the order and number of A’s lemmata. P’s residue is structured to his own doxographical satisfaction. Yet this is a very tight construction, which may also have been the main structure in A.

1734

liber 4 caput 23

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The three quite brief lemmata of P’s chapter are firmly linked by the presence of several identical formulas: ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις and τὰ πάθη and τὰς αἰσθήσεις in all three, ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ in both §1 and §3 (paralleled by τὸ ἡγεμονικόν in §2). Each lemma has been formulated in such a way that it relates in the first place diaeretically and even diaphonically to the other two (see at section D(d)). The Epicurean lemma aptly occupies a middle ground, as the strongest opposition is between the Stoic view and that of Strato, who is here plus stoïcien que les Stoïciens. Stoics: affections in the affected bodily places, perceptions thereof in the regent part; Epicurus: both affections and perceptions thereof in the bodily places, regent part unaffected [so there no perceptions of these affections]; Strato: the (according to others ‘bodily’) affections are of the soul, and the perceptions thereof are in the regent part. All three tenets intimate that the soul is, or can be, independent of what happens to the body, see at D(d). The individual points listed immediately below at Commentary D(d) largely explain the diaeresis too. d

Further Comments General Points The papyrus fragment of this chapter is of some interest. It is reproduced on Plate IV of Barnes-Zilliacus (1960–1967). Its last six (partially preserved) lines cover the entire chapter. This is only possible because of the massive saut du même au même from the ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις in line 4 to exactly the same phrase in line 7. The snippet also allows us to observe some interesting paratextual markings. The lines above the final two letters of the first line indicate that it is the chapter heading. This line is also shorter, because the first lemma starts a new line. The last line contains a long stripe preceded by two upright semicircles. The stripe, called a παράγραφος, must have the function of indicating the end of Book 4. Such markings are very common in literary papyri of this period, including some well-known New Testament examples (private communication from James Royse). Individual Points §§1–2 The haplography in PB(II) created a new (and bizarre) lemma for the Stoics in a part of the tradition, viz. οἱ Στωικοὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ἐν τοῖς πεπονθόσι

liber 4 caput 23

1735

τόποις· τὸ γὰρ ἡγεμονικὸν ἀπαθές. This may be compared with what happened in the entire tradition of P (including PQ, so at an earlier stage of the transmission) at ch. 4.7.1–2, and elsewhere. In the present chapter the residual lemmata in PB(II) still provide a conflict that is satisfactory from a purely doxographical point of view. This was not the case for the haplography in PP, which resulted in only one name-label being preserved and must have made the text quite unintelligible. §1 The contents of the doxa can be defended from the point of view of Stoic physiological psychology. That the perceptions are in the soul entails that one is in principle free to make up one’s mind about what is going on (e.g. be convinced that pain is an indifferent). §2 As Zeller (1909) 433 n. 2 (followed by Diels DG ad loc.) already pointed out, the doxa attributed to Epicurus is not consistent with the evidence on this topic found elsewhere; see section E(b)§2. It must have been formulated the better to provide a diaphonia with the doxa of the Stoics. A charitable interpretation of the result will refer to the Epicurean doctrine of the regent part of the soul of the wise man as independent of what happens to the body, which of course is not the same as being unaware of what is going on there. §3 That according to the Strato doxa the regent part is capable of enduring bodily pains in the same way, as it is capable of deciding in connection with good or bad actions, also establishes the priority of the mind over the body. e Other Evidence Of special interest are the parallels in ps.Aristotle Physiognomonica, for which we have used the edition of Foerster (1893) and the translation and commentary of Vogt (1999). Aristotle himself accepted physiognomony as a scientific discipline. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Plutarch(?) Lib.Aegr. 4–7 ἔδει μὲν τοὺς δογματικοὺς καὶ καταληπτικοὺς εἶναι φιλοσόφους φάσκοντας εἰ μὴ περὶ ἄλλο τι τήν γε τῶν παθῶν ἐνάργειαν ὁμολογεῖν ἀλλήλοις καὶ συμφέρεσθαι· πολὺς δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ παράλογός ἐστιν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἅπαντα συλλήβδην ταῦτα τῇ ψυχῇ φέροντες ἀνέθεσαν, ὥσπερ Στράτων ὁ φυσικός (Strato fr. 111 Wehrli, 63B Sharples), οὐ μόνον τὰς ἐπιθυμίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς λύπας, οὐδὲ τοὺς φόβους καὶ τοὺς φθόνους καὶ τὰς ἐπιχαιρεκακίας ἀλλὰ καὶ πόνους καὶ ἡδονὰς καὶ ἀλγηδόνας καὶ ὅλως πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ συνίστασθαι φάμενος …. (5) ἔνιοι (Heraclides of Pontus fr. 72 Wehrli, 80 Schütrumpf) δ᾽ ἄντικρυς καὶ δόξαν καὶ διαλογισμὸν εἰς τὸ σῶμα κατατείνουσιν, οὐδ᾽ εἶναι οὐσίαν τὸ παράπαν ψυχῆς λέγοντες ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ σώματος διαφορᾷ καὶ ποιότητι καὶ δυνάμει συντελεῖσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ Περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἅιδου βιβλίον ἐπιγραφόμενον, ἐν ᾧ τὴν ψυχὴν τῇ

1736

liber 4 caput 23

οὐσίᾳ παρυπάρχειν ἀποφαίνεται ὁ λόγος, οἱ μὲν οὐδ᾽ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν Ἡρακλείδου νομίζουσιν οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἀντιπαρεξαγωγὴν συντετάχθαι τῶν εἰρημένων ἑτέροις περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς … οἳ δ᾽ ὥσπερ διὰ μέσου τῶν λόγων ἐπεχείρησαν ἀφορίζειν τῆς ψυχῆς ἴδια πάθη καὶ τοῦ σώματος, ἐν κοινῷ καὶ πλάτος οὐκ ἔχοντι φερόμενοι τόπῳ συνεχύθησαν. (6) ὅ γέ τοι Ποσειδώνιος (F 154 E.-K, 436 Theiler) τὰ μὲν εἶναι ψυχικά, τὰ δὲ σωματικά, καὶ τὰ μὲν οὐ ψυχῆς περὶ ψυχὴν δὲ σωματικά, τὰ δ᾽ οὐ σώματος, περὶ σῶμα δὲ ψυχικά φησι, ψυχικὰ μὲν ἁπλῶς λέγων τὰ ἐν κρίσεσι καὶ ὑπολήψεσιν, οἷον ἐπιθυμίας φόβους ὀργάς, σωματικὰ δ᾽ ἁπλῶς πυρετοὺς περιψύξεις πυκνώσεις ἀραιώσεις, περὶ ψυχὴν δὲ σωματικὰ ληθάργους μελαγχολίας δηγμοὺς φαντασίας διαχύσεις, ἀνάπαλιν δὲ περὶ σῶμα ψυχικὰ τρόμους καὶ ὠχριάσεις καὶ μεταβολὰς τοῦ εἴδους κατὰ φόβον ἢ λύπην. Διόδοτος πάλιν ἴδια μέν τινα τοῦ λογικοῦ φησι τῆς ψυχῆς πάθη, ἴδια δὲ τοῦ συμφυοῦς καὶ ἀλόγου εἶναι. … ἡμεῖς σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς εὐθὺς ἐν πρώτῃ κατα τρόπον καταβολῇ συγχυθέντων πάθη διαλαβεῖν καὶ χωρίσαι ζητοῦντες ἀκριβοῦς σφόδρα λόγου καθάπερ ὀργάνου λεπτοῦ πρὸς τὴν διαίρεσιν δεόμεθα. (7) οἱ δὲ ταύτην ἀπογνόντες φιλόσοφοί φασι μήτε σώματος εἶναί τι μήτε ψυχῆς ἴδιον πάθος ἀλλὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ· τὸν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον ἥδεσθαι καὶ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ φοβεῖσθαι, τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐχὶ τὴν ψυχήν κτλ. Doxography B at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.10, p. 88.10 (SVF 3.378) εἶναι δὲ πάθη πάντα τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς. Suda s.v. Ψ 164, p. 4.53.4– 5 Adler ὅτι τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἅπαντα παθήματα τοῦ συναμφοτέρου ἐστί, καὶ οὐκ ἴδια τῆς ψυχῆς. §1 Stoics: Arius Didymus fr. 39 Diels at Eus. PE 15.20.5 (SVF 2.821) ἔχειν δὲ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἡγεμονικόν τι ἐν αὑτῇ, ὃ δὴ ζωὴ καὶ αἴσθησίς ἐστι καὶ ὁρμή.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle APr. 2.27 70b7–16 τὸ δὲ φυσιογνωμονεῖν δυνατόν ἐστιν, εἴ τις δίδωσιν ἅμα μεταβάλλειν τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὅσα φυσικά ἐστι παθήματα … συμπάσχειν γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ὑπόκειται. de An. 1.1 403a16–28 ἔοικε δὲ καὶ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς πάθη πάντα εἶναι μετὰ σώματος, θυμός, πραότης, φόβος, ἔλεος, θάρσος, ἔτι χαρὰ καὶ τὸ φιλεῖν τε καὶ μισεῖν· ἅμα γὰρ τούτοις πάσχει τι τὸ σῶμα. … καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἤδη φυσικοῦ τὸ θεωρῆσαι περὶ ψυχῆς, ἢ πάσης ἢ τῆς τοιαύτης. Met. E.1 1026a4–6 δῆλον πῶς δεῖ ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς τὸ τί ἐστι ζητεῖν καὶ ὁρίζεσθαι, καὶ διότι καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς ἐνίας θεωρῆσαι τοῦ φυσικοῦ, ὅση μὴ ἄνευ τῆς ὕλης ἐστίν. ps.Aristotle Phgn. 1.1 805a1–15 ὅτι αἱ διάνοιαι ἕπονται τοῖς σώμασι καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν αὐταὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὰς ἀπαθεῖς οὖσαι τῶν τοῦ σώματος κινήσεων, τοῦτο {δὲ} δῆλον πάνυ γίνεται ἔν τε ταῖς μέθαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀρρωστίαις· πολὺ γὰρ ἐξαλλάττουσαι φαίνονται αἱ διάνοιαι ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ σώματος παθημάτων. καὶ τοὐναντίον δὴ τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς παθήμασι τὸ σῶμα συμπάσχον φανερὸν γίνεται περί τε τοὺς ἔρωτας καὶ τοὺς φόβους τε καὶ τὰς λύπας καὶ τὰς ἡδονάς. ἔτι δὲ ἐν τοῖς φύσει γινομένοις μᾶλλον ἄν τις συνίδοι ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα σῶμά τε καὶ ψυχὴ συμφυῶς ὥστε τῶν πλείστων ἀλλήλοις αἴτια γίνεσθαι παθημάτων. οὐδὲν γὰρ πώποτε ζῷον γεγένηται τοιοῦτον, ὃ τὸ μὲν εἶδος ἔσχεν ἑτέρου ζῴου, τὴν δὲ διάνοιαν ἄλλου, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τό τε σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχήν, ὥστε ἀναγκαῖον ἕπεσθαι τῷ τοιῷδε σώματι τοιάνδε διάνοιαν. Phgn. 2.35 808b11–30 δοκεῖ δέ μοι ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ σῶμα συμπαθεῖν ἀλλήλοις· καὶ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἕξις ἀλλοιουμένη συναλλοιοῖ τὴν τοῦ σώματος μορφήν, πάλιν τε ἡ τοῦ σώμα-

liber 4 caput 23 τος μορφὴ ἀλλοιουμένη συναλλοιοῖ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἕξιν. ἐπειδὴ γάρ ἐστι ψυχῆς τὸ ἀνιᾶσθαί τε καὶ εὐφραίνεσθαι, καταφανές, ὅτι οἱ ἀνιώμενοι σκυθρωπότεροί εἰσι καὶ οἱ εὐφραινόμενοι ἱλαροί. εἰ μὲν οὖν † ἔτι τῆς ψυχῆς λελυμένης τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος μορφὴν μένειν, ἦν μὲν ἂν καὶ οὕτως ἡ ψυχή τε καὶ τὸ σῶμα συμπαθῆ, οὐ μέντοι συνδιατελοῦντα ἀλλήλοις. νῦν δὲ καταφανές, ὅτι ἑκάτερον ἑκατέρῳ ἕπεται. μάλιστα μέντοι ἐκ τοῦδε δῆλον ⟨ἂν⟩ γένοιτο. μανία γὰρ δοκεῖ εἶναι περὶ ψυχήν, καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ φαρμάκοις καθαίροντες τὸ σῶμα καὶ διαίταις τισὶ πρὸς αὐτοῖς χρησάμενοι ἀπαλλάττουσι τὴν ψυχὴν τῆς μανίας. ταῖς δὴ τοῦ σώματος θεραπείαις {καὶ} ἅμα ἥ τε τοῦ σώματος μορφὴ λέλυται καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μανίας ἀπήλλακται. ἐπειδὴ οὖν ἅμα ἀμφότερα λύονται, δῆλον ὅτι συνδιατελοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις. συμφανὲς δὲ καὶ ὅτι ταῖς δυνάμεσι τῆς ψυχῆς ὅμοιαι αἱ μορφαὶ τοῖς σώμασιν ἐπιγίνονται, ὥστ᾽ ἐστὶν ἅπαντα ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις τοῦ αὐτοῦ τινὸς δηλωτικά. Anon. Londiniensis Iatr. col. i.15–21 Manetti δεῖ γινώσκειν ὡς τῶν παθῶν | τὰ [μέν ψυ]χικά, τὰ δὲ σωματικά, σω|[ματικ]ὰ λαμβάνοντες τὰ περὶ τὴν | [ζωτικ]ὴν δύναμιν λαμβανόμενα | [π(ρὸς) δὲ] τάς ἄλ̣ λας δυνάμεις ἀντιδιαστέ⟨λ⟩|[λο]μενοι τὴν ζωτικὴν δύναμιν | [τῆι] ψυχῆι. Ptolemy Iudic. cc. 14– 16 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν σωμάτων τὰς διαφορὰς πρὸς τὰς τῶν οὐσιῶν τῆς ψυχῆς κατὰ μέρος δυνάμεις συμβάλλεσθαί τι κτλ. (too long to quote). Chapter heading: Ptolemy Tetr. 3.13.1 Περὶ σινῶν καὶ παθῶν σωματικῶν. §§1–3 Stoics Epicurus Strato: Galen tit. Περὶ τῶν πεπονθότων τόπων cf. e.g. in Hipp.Epid. iii 17a.534.12–13 K. καθότι κἀν τοῖς Περὶ τῶν πεπονθότων τόπων ὑπομνήμασιν ἐδείκνυον. §1 Stoics: Hierocles Eth.El. col. 4.11–13 Bastianini–Long θάτερον γὰρ ἐστι τῷ ἑ[τ]έρωι συμπαθὲς καὶ οὔτε τῶν | σωματικῶν παθῶν ἀνήκοος ἡ ψυχὴ οὔτε αὖ τέλεον ἐκ|κεκώφητ[αι πρὸς τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς δεινὰ τὸ σῶ[μα κτλ. Galen PHP 2.3.4–5 ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ (—) βούλονται, τὸ κατάρχον αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ ὁρμῆς. (5) οὔκουν ἄλλοθεν χρὴ δεικνύναι τὴν καρδίαν ἐν αὑτῇ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἔχουσαν ἢ ἐκ τοῦ πάσης μὲν τῆς καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν κινήσεως ἐξηγεῖσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῦ ζῴου μορίοις, ἅπασαν δὲ αἴσθησιν εἰς αὐτὴν ἀναφέρεσθαι. §2 Epicurus: differently Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.63 ἔστι δὲ τὸ μέρος (sc. ἡ ψυχή as part of the compound) πολλὴν παραλλαγὴν εἰληφὸς τῇ λεπτομερείᾳ καὶ αὐτῶν τούτων, συμπαθὲς διὰ τοῦτο μᾶλλον καὶ τῷ λοιπῷ ἀθροίσματι. differently Lucretius DRN 3.168–174 praeterea pariter fungi cum corpore et una / consentire animum nobis in corpore cernis. / si minus offendit vitam vis horrida teli / ossibus ac nervis disclusis intus adacta, / at tamen insequitur languor terraeque petitus / suavis et in terra mentis qui gignitur aestus / interdumque quasi exsurgendi incerta voluntas. DRN 3.250–255 … postremis datur ossibus atque medullis / sive voluptas est sive est contrarius ardor. / nec temere huc dolor usque potest penetrare neque acre / permanare malum, quin omnia perturbentur / usque adeo ut vitae desit locus atque animai / diffugiant partes per caulas corporis omnis. DRN 3.463–473 quin etiam morbis in corporis avius errat / saepe animus; dementit enim deliraque fatur, / interdumque gravi lethargo fertur in altum / aeternumque soporem oculis nutuque cadenti; / unde neque exaudit voces nec noscere voltus / illorum potis est, ad vitam qui revocantes / circumstant lacrimis rorantes ora genasque. / quare animum quoque dissolvi fateare

1737

1738

liber 4 caput 23

necessest, / quandoquidem penetrant in eum contagia morbi; / nam dolor ac morbus leti fabricator uterquest, / multorum exitio perdocti quod sumus ante. also differently Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 44 col. 1.7–2.7 Smith [δυσε]πιλόγιστος δέ ἐσ-|[τι το]ῖς πολλοῖς ἡ τῶν | [ψυχι]κῶν τούτων ὑπερ|[οχὴ] παθῶν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ | [οὐκ] ἔστιν ἐξ ἀντιπα|[ραθ]έσεως ὑφ᾽ ἕνα και|[ρὸν] ἀμφοτέρας παθεῖν | τὰς ἀκρότητας (τῶν | ψυχικῶν λέγω παθῶν | τῶν τε σωματικῶν) δι|ὰ τὸ σπανίως ποτὲ τοῦ-|το συνβαίνειν καί, ὅ|ταν δὲ συνβῇ, τὸ ζῆν ἀ|ναιρεῖσθαι κτλ. Aristotle de An. 1.2 405b19–21 Ἀναξαγόρας (59A100 DK) δὲ μόνος ἀπαθῆ φησιν εἶναι τὸν νοῦν, καὶ κοινὸν οὐθὲν οὐθενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἔχειν. de An. 3.4 430a18–19 καὶ οὗτος ὁ νοῦς (sc. τὸ αἴτιον καὶ ποιητικόν) χωριστὸς καὶ ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἀμιγής. Plutarch Gen.Socr. 588D– E Σωκράτει δ᾽ ὁ νοῦς καθαρὸς ὢν καὶ ἀπαθής, τῷ σώματι μικρὰ τῶν ἀναγκαίων χάριν καταμιγνὺς αὑτόν. §3 Strato: Plutarch(?) Lib.Aegr. 4 cf. above section E(a) General texts.

Aetius Placita Book 5 Physiology: Text and Commentary

∵

Introduction to Book 5 1

Transmission

Of the five books that make up A’s compendium, Book 5 is the most poorly attested. This is because we are almost wholly dependent on P and its tradition for our textual material. We know from the evidence of the chapter headings of the Laurentian ms. and Photius’ index that S made extensive use of the contents of this book for his chapters Ecl. 1.42–46, but most regrettably the Byzantine copyists excised almost all of these excerpts, preserving only 10 doxai in all: 1 in ch. 5.18, 1 in 5.20, 2 in 5.26, 1 in 5.28 and 5 in 5.30 (but care must be exercised with the titles in the Laurentianus, because some have been interpolated from P). In fact there are only two lemmata in S for which the equivalent is not found in P: 5.28.2 and 5.30.5, both of which appear to duplicate other doxai (and the latter of which is derived, quite exceptionally, together with three other lemmata from the Florilegium and not the Eclogae part of S’s great Anthology). As for T, he leaves aside this book entirely, only recording three doxai from ch. 5.26 at second hand via a parallel text in Clement of Alexandria. For this chapter he may thus be regarded as a secondary witness, and as such he is the only witness in this category for the entire book. Nolens volens, therefore, we must be almost wholly reliant on P and his tradition for this book. Since authors such as Eusebius, Lydus (except a brief mention of two doxai from ch. 5.2 on dreams), Cyril and Symeon Seth with their dominant focus on cosmology are not interested in its subject matter, there remain only five witnesses in all, the Antinoopolis papyrus, the Byzantine mss., Qusṭā, ps.Galen and Psellus. There are more papyrus fragments for Book 5 than any of the other books (11 with text from 13 chapters), but they yield very little, except on two points: (a) they show that early in the textual history the text could differ quite markedly from later witnesses (e.g. the curious chapter number for ch. 5.4 which might even be a trace of an edition in two books); and (b) through fr. 6v we obtain a richer text for 5.1.1 which was evidently simplified in the later course of transmission. The Byzantine mss. record the pinax and all 30 chapters for a total of 112 lemmata. The archetype must have been damaged, because their quality trails off badly towards the end of the book. However, their text can be supplemented by G and Q. G includes all chapters in his epitome except chs. 5.27–28. He splits the final chapter 5.30 into two, for a total of 29 chapters in all. 78 of P’s 114 lemmata are retained, but in many cases their contents are further abridged. Importantly, G preserves doxai at A 5.19.5, 5.23.3 and 5.29.3 that are no longer present in PB, showing that he is using a more com-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_124

1742

introduction to book 5

plete text. This is also the case for Q, who translates the whole text in PB, but also has the additional material in G (except A 5.23.3) and significantly adds more text for A 5.27.2 and 5.29.2. He also includes the precious mention of the namelabel of Herophilus in A 5.30.2 which had fallen out in PB and also, it seems, in the texts used by G and S. Ps makes use of only 13 chapters, but he does paraphrase passages from Book 5 more than is his practice in the case of the other books. In addition, ch. 5.30 is copied in full in a little-known Psellan text entitled Ἐπιλύσεις ποικίλων ἐρωτημάτων (but lacking the additional name-labels in GQ). All in all, the witnesses allow the editor to attain a reasonably secure text. But, of course, since this text is almost wholly reliant on the tradition of P, it must be far from complete. Together with chs. 3.9–16 it is the most seriously incomplete section of A’s surviving compendium. On average the book has 3.8 lemmata per chapter, by far the lowest of the 5 books (Book 1: 5.9; Book 2: 6.4; Book 3: 5.7; Book 4: 5.8). In order to gauge the degree of incompleteness we can draw on the statistical analysis of Jeremiah (M–R 4.297–373; see furthe General Introduction, section 2.7). He divides the whole work into two groups: (1) where P and S are both well represented, 87 chapters in all; (2) where P is preserved, but S is not extant or severely truncated, the remaining 48 chapters (M–R 4.286). By means of statistical analysis he determines that for the first group 42 lemmata are most likely missing, for the second group 81 lemmata (M–R 4.295). If we take the 30 chapters pro rata in the group of 48, there would be 45 missing. Another approach would be to take the average number of lemmata for chapters in Books 1 to 4, which is 6.0, and apply it to the 30 chapters of Book 5. In this scenario there would be 66 missing (180 minus 114). Jeremiah’s result is lower, because the average number of doxai per chapter for the book is slightly lower than for the others, even when allowance is made for the absence of S and T. The actual number may be somewhere in between, so perhaps 55– 60 missing doxai, about two per chapter. In our commentary, under section D(b), we will from time to time attempt to estimate the relative completeness of the chapter as transmitted, in light of comparisons with other books and the available evidence in the proximate tradition.

2

Subject Matter and Macro-structure

Unlike the other four books, Book 5 does not have an introductory remark indicating its subject. It thus continues on from Book 4, which according to its proem had the task of treating ‘the particular phenomena’ (τὰ κατὰ μέρος). The division between the two books can be fairly cleanly described as that between psychology, treating the activities of the soul with a strong emphasis on thought

introduction to book 5

1743

and perception, and physiology, in which the role of the body and its processes comes more strongly to the fore. But this is not an absolute divide in ancient terms, since for example perception needs the bodily instrumentaria that make it possible and bodily processes cannot occur for the most part without psychic direction. So it is understandable that the division between the books is a bit untidy. The last two chapters of Book 4 on respiration and bodily affections have been placed there as a kind of appendix to the section on the voice at the end of ch. 4.21 (following on from chs. 4.19–20); see ch. 4.21 Commentary, D(a). However, given the bevy of medical details, they might have been better placed in Book 5, while the reverse could have been beneficial for the first two chapters on divination and dreams in Book 5, which clearly deal primarily with psychic processes. The macro-structure of the book’s subject matter is also not as neatly organised as one might wish. The main body of the book gives an overview of the development of the human being from conception to maturity. It amounts to a mini-treatise on the subjects of spermatology (chs. 5.3–5), conception (5.6– 10), heredity (5.11–13) and embryology (5.15–18, 21–22). As last in the sequence ch. 5.23 deals with the question of when the human being (ἄνθρωπος) attains maturity. This chapter heading makes explicit the anthropocentric focus throughout these chapters, as seen for example in the questions whether females produce semen, how males and females are engendered, how similarities to parents and ancestors occur, on the length of viable pregnancies and so on. Such emphasis is consistent with two models in the background of the Placita’s overall structure, Plato’s Timaeus and the psychological and biological treatises of Aristotle. But the sequence is broken twice, first with a chapter on the sterility of mules (ch. 5.14) and then with two chapters on living beings, how they are born (ch. 5.19) and how many different kinds there are (ch. 5.20). The final seven chapters can be regarded as a kind of appendix, as suggested by Mansfeld (1990) 3189. The comparable processes of sleep and death are treated (chs. 5.24–25) and there is a chapter on plants (ch. 5.26) which is linked up as in Plato’s Timaeus with questions of nourishment and growth (chs. 5.27–28). There is a single chapter on the aetiology of disease (ch. 5.29 on fever) and then the more general chapter on health, disease and old age (ch. 5.30) rounds off the book, and with it the compendium. The chapters in the appendix also focus for the most part on human beings, but chs. 5.27–28 treat nourishment more generally for all animals. We shall return to this vacillation in focus below in section 6.

1744 3

introduction to book 5

Name-Labels

The final book of the Placita shares many common elements with the namelabels in the previous four books, but also shows some differences. In all there are 35 different name-labels, making it the least diverse of all the books, even when allowance is made for its small number of doxai (114); see the table furnished by Jeremiah in M–R 4.307. In terms of chronology they can be grouped as follows: Presocratics 14 (60 doxai); Classical period 4 (19); Hellenistic period 5 (26); doctors 8 (19); others 4 (Euripides the poet, Timaeus the astrologer, scientists, anonymi, 7 doxai in all). So even in the domain of physiology and biology the Presocratics predominate. But it should be noted that there is very limited inclusion of the early sixth century figures: Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Xenophanes all just have one doxa each and the first thinkers to make an impact are Parmenides (5) and Alcmaeon (6), together with Pythagoras (5) who often stands in for his later followers. Most striking of all is the large number of doxai (some quite lengthy) attributed to Empedocles, no less than 17, all included within the sequence chs. 5.7–28. As Jeremiah has noted (M–R 4.324), the Placita are historically conservative, its citations peaking in the fifth century and declining thereafter. His graph (ibid.) shows that for Book 5 the period from the fifth to the third century is completely dominant, more so than in other Books, though not dissimilar from Book 4. When we move past the fifth century there is less spread of names, with the philosophers associated with the Hellenistic schools well represented: Stoics (13), Aristotle and his school (11), Plato (7), Epicurus and his school (7). The figure for Plato is unexpectedly low, given the amount of physiological subjectmatter in the Timaeus. For a list of the top 15 cited thinkers see M–R 4.328. The most distinctive feature of Book 5 is the large group of doctors, who scarcely appear in the earlier books. This is of course determined by the subjectmatter (even though there is little discussion of specifically medical topics). The great fourth and third century doctors Diocles, Herophilus and Erasistratus are well represented (14 doxai) and there are 5 anonymous references to doctors. Quite surprisingly there is no reference to the father of medicine, Hippocrates, and only one to his followers (5.18.4). Another surprising absentee is Praxagoras. Another feature of Book 5 is the relative prominence of multiple namelabels, which as Jeremiah’s table at M–R 4.329 shows, record a higher incidence than elsewhere in the book, even though there are no long lists (triplets at A 5.4.2, 5.5.1, 5.18.3; 20 doublets). Most of the combinations are what we might expect, e.g. Pythagoras–Plato–Aristotle (5.4.2), Democritus–Epicurus (5.16.1, 5.19.5, 5.20.2), Parmenides–Empedocles (5.28.2), Anaxagoras–Euripides (5.19.),

introduction to book 5

1745

Heraclitus–Stoics (5.23.1). But there are also some strange bedfellows, Xenophanes–Epicurus (5.1.2), Leucippus–Zeno (5.4.1), Stoics–Epicureans (5.26.3). The effect is to concentrate the number of views and give them more emphasis relative to the philosophers who hold them. What explanations can be given for the relative lack of diversity of names in this book? Its incomplete preservation will have contributed. In his process of abridgement, P shows a bias towards the big names (M–R 1.189, 4.298), so having only his version without help from S will mean that we miss out on more uncommon names. It might also be argued that the subject-matter is more peripheral to the φυσικὸς λόγος. To be sure, as we shall see below in section 5, physiological and medical subjects had been incorporated into the doxographical tradition early, but it seems that many philosophers did not pronounce on them. There are almost no individual Stoics and Epicureans named (if Diogenes in 5.15.4 is the Stoic, he is not identified as such). One might have also expected a larger diversity of doctors to be included.

4

Method and Micro-structure

Book 5 has, as was already noted, by far the lowest average number of lemmata per chapter (3.80). Its longest chapter has only eight doxai (ch. 5.7), much less than is the case in other books. There are two monolemmatic chapters (chs. 5.6, 5.22) and three with only two doxai (chs. 5.21, 5.27–28), all of which are most likely incomplete. Most chapters, however, have at least three doxai (11 examples), which as we shall see has important consequences for their structure. There are also few doxai of any great length. Two chapters have series of long doxai: ch. 5.18 on the complex matter of viable pregnancies, and ch. 5.29 on the aetiology of fever. For the rest there are only a handful of Empedoclean doxai which extend beyond seven lines, A 5.19.6 on the birth of living beings, 5.22.1 on the composition of our generic parts, and 5.26.4 on origin of plants. In each case protological details lengthen the account. Book 5 also deviates from the rest of the compendium in that it has very few chapters whose headings use the common ‘umbrella’ Περί x formula (only ch. 5.1 on divination, 5.27 on growth and increase, 5.30 on health and disease and old age; 5.19 on the birth of living beings is a special case since there the περί formula is used to introduce two other questions). There is also only one chapter which ask the τίς or τί question, commencing with a definition and asking the question of substance (ch. 5.3 on the οὐσία of semen, cf. 5.26 using εἰ). By far the greatest number of chapters inquire after the cause, using either the formula with πῶς (11 examples with two more in second position in the head-

1746

introduction to book 5

ing) or with διὰ τί (three examples) or with πόθεν (two examples). This usage is in sharp contrast to the other books, where πῶς is only used four times (chs. 1.4, 2.19, 3.17, 4.11) and διὰ τί only subordinately in ch. 2.30. The other formula that is common in the book is asking questions with εἰ, e.g. ch. 5.5 whether females too release semen (see also 5.4, 5.15, and in second or third position in the heading 5.19, 5.20, 5.26, 5.29). Such questions readily invite a positive or negative answer which will structure the chapter in terms of a diaphonia. The remaining chapter headings mostly ask questions in the usual way of the Placita, involving the categories of quality (ch. 5.22), quantity (5.20, 5.22) and time (5.21, 5.23). Book 5 is therefore overwhelmingly focused on seeking the cause of physiological and biological processes. The most common formula for this quest is πῶς plus the verb γίγνομαι (or sometimes γεννάω in a reproductive context). Not only does it occur frequently in chapter headings, as we have just seen, but the verb occurs repeatedly in the doxai of the chapter itself, together with numerous examples of phrases involving the prepositions διά, κατά and παρά and nouns in the dative case indicating agency. In the expression of the causes themselves there is a good deal of variation. Sometimes they are piled up in long lists of alternative explanations, most notably in the chapters on conception (chs. 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, 5.13). As our author claims in A 5.8.1 when speaking of Empedocles, the alternatives given appear to virtually exhaust the listing of all the causes that can be given. Much of the information is very brief and schematic, as is consistent with the general method of the Placita. Rarely are detailed explanations furnished. The most extensive are found—perhaps not surprisingly—in the only chapter to deal with a specific disease (as the ancients thought), ch. 5.29 on fever. As elsewhere in the work, the stream of information is enlivened by images and illustrations, such as sexual fantasies in sleep (5.2.3), women falling in love with statues (5.12.2), and a remarkable description of viticultural terroir (5.26.4). The virtually universal method of organising the micro-structure of the individual chapter is by means of the dialectical techniques of the diaeresis and the diaphonia, which lend themselves as well for the delineation of causes as they do for other kinds of questions. Sometimes opposed views are emphasised, e.g. on whether the embryo is living being or not (ch. 5.15), at other times the diaeresis takes the form of an ordered list (ch. 5.17, though not as well organised as we might wish). Our doxographer loves schematic grids, in which he can fill out the various possibilities, for example on whether semen is bodily (ch. 5.4) or whether plants are living beings or ensouled or neither (ch. 5.26). For each chapter, where relevant, we have outlined the diaeretical structure, often including an evaluative comment. It is evident that our author wishes to

introduction to book 5

1747

attain informative and didactically useful structures, but it also seems that he has not always mastered his material sufficiently well. Sometimes, of course, factors relating to the poor transmission of his work may be to blame. In previous books we have observed a creative tension between systematic and historical aspects of doxography. Book 5 stands out in its lack of historiographical material. Very little information is given regarding name-labels. Diocles is introduces as a doctor in 5.9.1, but nothing is said about little-known names such as Hippo (chs. 5.5, 5.8), Polybus and Timaeus (both in 5.18). Only in the case of Leophanes (5.7.5) are we told that Aristotle mentions him. There are no topics for which the ‘first discoverer’ is cited. The role of Hippocrates as initiator of medical research is ignored (but he is mentioned at A 5.18.4 as having initiated a series of followers). Alcmaeon is prominent with five doxai; as in Book 4 he is usually placed at or close to the beginning of the chapter. If this implies an early date, this is not made explicit. It is not surprising that in Jeremiah’s analysis of the relative importance of systematic and historical factors in the ordering of lemmata, Book 5 is second to Book 2 in its prioritising of systematic concerns (M–R 4.315). In the light of Book 5’s dominant emphasis on physiological and biological causation, it is worth noting what is absent. In ch. 5.1 on divination, which as we saw is clearly out of place, the role of the divine can hardly be avoided, and the same can be said for the next ch. 5.2 on dreams. But already there it is limited to a single comment in the doxa of Herophilus (5.2.3). In the rest of the book, there is no reference to theological themes or to the divine, with the exception of a single reference to the cosmic god in ch. 5.20 on the genera of living beings (if our text based on Q is correct). It is hardly surprising, therefore, that in this chapter there is no reference to the theory of reincarnation. There is also very little mention of epistemology, except in the same chapter on ζῷα and a couple of remarks attributed to Diocles in A 5.14.3 and 5.29.2. The chapter on dreams (5.2) concentrates on how they come about, and not on their truth value. In a few chapters A also touches on the role of numbers, particularly the length of pregnancy (ch. 5.18) and the development of the fetus (ch. 5.21). Here it is quite striking how he refrains from using arithmological material, in marked contrast to parallel accounts elsewhere. He does make reference to astrological doctrines in a long and complex doxa explaining the in viability of eight-month old fetuses (5.18.6), but not with reference to the birth of twins (ch. 5.10). But there is an unexpected presence. Two chapter headings diverge from the norm and contain an aorist verb rather than one in the present tense: ch. 5.19 on how the ζῷα came into being, and ch. 5.26 how plants grew. In addition there are a number of doxai—mostly attributed to Empedocles (5.7.1, 5.18.1, 5.19.4, 5.26.4, 5.27.1), but also one to Anaximander (5.19.3)—, which in their explana-

1748

introduction to book 5

tions refer to cosmogonic and protological factors, including some quite bizarre doctrines. These doxai, which have parallels in Book 2, appear to be fossils from an early period of Greek scientific explanation which the doxographical tradition has preserved. We shall return to them at the end of the following section.

5

Sources: Proximate Tradition

By far the most important documents for studying doxographical traditions relevant to Book 5 are two quite different works. Censorinus in writing a birthday book for his patron in the year 238 ce (also used in the last chapter of Book 2) includes lengthy and detailed doxographies on a large number of topics relating to human life, starting with conception (ch. 4) and ending with the ‘climactic age’ of 81, the year of the death of ‘the most holy figure of ancient philosophy’, Plato (ch. 14.2). For eleven chapters in the sequence chs. 5.3–23 he offers significant and sometimes quite detailed parallels, including namelabels and doxai. Among these are chapters in which he reveals substantially more material than is found in what remains of Book 5, e.g. chs. 5.3, 5.5, 5.18 etc. In contrast the medical compilation falsely attributed to Galen, the Definitiones medicae, is not where one would usually look for doxography. But it has a section towards the end of the work, §§439–452, which offers brief outlines on key subjects of spermatology, embryology and gynaecology, including many doxai, though mostly anonymously presented (name-labels are only found in §§439– 441 and 445). Parallel material to A is found in every chapter of this text for chs. 5.3 to 5.18 excepting 5.4, 5.12 and 5.14, and there are also four further chapters for which relevant material is found in other definitions (chs. 5.4, 5.24, 5.27, 5.29). Other later authors which provide useful parallels are Aulus Gellius (for Plato chs. 5.18 and 5.21), Tertullian who in the De anima ranges beyond psychology proper (see esp. chs. 5.24–25, 28), and Lactantius in the anthropological passages in his De opificio Dei. It is not likely that the Latin authors just mentioned took their material directly from A or similar doxographical works. Aulus Gellius, Censorinus and Lactantius all mention Varro as an important source and it is indeed as good as certain that the parallel doxographical material was drawn from his Logistorici, and especially the treatise Tubero de origine humana (Cens. 9.1). Diels DG 186–198 studied the text of Censorinus in detail and argued that his source Varro drew on the Vetusta placita, a postulated earlier and richer version of the Placita as we find them in A. But this reduction to a single source is simplistic, inspired by 19th century fondness for the Einquellentheorie. Another vital author whom Diels cites is Cicero, but in his writings we find no material parallel to chs. 5.3–23

introduction to book 5

1749

at all, only to chapters preceding (5.1–2) and following (5.24–25) the main body of the book. Diels also missed two further important witnesses. Philo, in the passage that yielded so much valuable evidence for Book 2 and 4 (see Introduction to Book 2, section 5, Introduction to Book 4, section 8), also unmistakeably makes reference to a doxa in ch. 5.15, and elsewhere he also refers to a doxa in ch. 5.17, both on the subject of embryology. In addition, Diels makes only a ‘cavalier remark’ (M–R 3.149) on ps.Galen Def.Med. at DG 258 and did not exploit its rich store of parallels. Both these witnesses writing in Greek will of course not have derived their material via the Latin author Varro. However, in the summaries of the opinions of prominent Greek philosophers compiled by Hippolytus, on three occasions topics from Book 5 are referred to (A 5.7.4 Anaxagoras on male and female conception, Hippo on semen cf. ch. 5.3, Archelaus on animal intelligence cf. 5.20). Only in the first case is the doxa also found in A. Nevertheless a shared relationship to a common tradition may be assumed. Noteworthy too is that Clement of Alexandria, in a series of excerpts on logic appended as Book 8 of the Stromata, uses two parallel topics from this Book (ch. 5.15 on whether the embryo is a living being, 5.26 on whether the plant is a living being) as illustrations of how to treat quaestiones or προβλήματα. In the former case only positions are indicated, in the latter name-labels are added. There is also a short work preserved under the name of Galen which resembles a rhetorical exercise on the first topic arguing a particular position (θέσις) as indicated by its title Εἰ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός. The Δικτυακά of Dionysius of Aegae as recorded by Photius contains fifty such θέσεις on medical subjects, of which the first two pairs are exactly parallel to chs. 5.3 and 5.5 (though differently formulated). These two works show that the topics in this book were traditional and could provide material for dialectical exercises. Another key feature of Book 5, as we have already seen, is the presence of doxai attributed to doctors, whether by name or generically (οἱ ἰατροί). These number 26 in all (listed at M–R 3.533, 537–538), almost a quarter of the total. Aristotle had already affirmed that natural scientists and doctors had the topics of the first principles of health and disease in common (see on ch. 5.30). Diels DG 232 argued that originally the medical material in the Placita had been derived from a parallel doxographical tradition initiated by Aristotle’s pupil Meno which was later updated. However, the medical compendia available to us do not show a great overlap with the contents of Book 5. Prime among these is the Iatrika attributed to an unknown author who has received the name Anonymus Londiniensis. Many of the name-labels of both early Greek and Hellenistic doctors are held in common with the Aëtian Placita, but more specifically in ch. 5.22 on the elements of the bodily parts, 5.29 on fever and 5.30 on disease there are no exact parallels in content (similarly for the Anonymus

1750

introduction to book 5

Parisinus, see on ch. 5.29). Another document, attributed to the Anonymus Bruxellensis, is more interesting because its subject is spermatology and there is much similarity in terms of the subjects treated. But name-labels are scarce and in the key passage on the nature of semen the author refers to doctors (as does Def.Med.), whereas A only cites philosophers (ch. 5.3). Other works that give access to material on doctors drawn from the proximate tradition are Celsus De medicina (on ch. 5.27), ps.Galen Introductio sive medicus (5.29), Soranus Gynaecia (on 5.3, 5.5 etc.), and ps.Soranus Quaestiones medicinales (5.27, 5.29). How far back can this proximate tradition on topics of physiology and biology be traced? There are faint indications that Epicurus, like in the case of Books 2 and 3, may have drawn on doxographical material, at least in the organisation of his remarks on physiology (see the scholion cited on ch. 5.3 on the nature of semen). His later follower Lucretius too appears to follow well-worn paths in his statements on the subjects of heredity (cf. ch. 5.11) and sterility (cf. ch. 5.9, 5.13). Stoic doctrine, as witnessed by the summary of the φυσικὸς λόγος at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133, also appears to be indebted to such organisational schemata (M–R 2.1.107–108). Earlier some fairly tenuous links with the writings of Theophrastus can be identified (5.19 on the eternity of animal species, 5.20 on Diogenes and 5.28 on Empedocles, both as summarised in the De sensibus). But there is also indirect evidence that points to early collections of material. Firstly, as noted above in section 3, there is the sheer preponderance of names and doxai from the Presocratic period (14 out of 35 names, 60 out of 114 doxai), with a particular predilection for Empedocles, whose presence in this book, as we have already noted in section 3, is quite dominant. Secondly and more specifically, there is the already noted curious series of ‘fossilised’ doxai which include cosmogonic and protological factors in their explanations. These would seem to indicate that at some stage, on a number of topics included in this book, distillations were made of material originally drawn at greater length from early poems and treatises which gave ‘scientific’ explanations in terms of the origins of the cosmos and the living beings that populated it. The Peripatos is the most logical place for this to have happened. But we also have to take into account other less specifically doxographical sources.

6

Other Source Material

Traditional themes such as the connection between sleep and death (ch. 5.24) and the ages of man (ch. 5.23) go back to the archaic period and poets such as Homer and Solon. But the first writers to express what we might call sci-

introduction to book 5

1751

entific views on physiological and biological themes were the early Greek philosophers, with a pioneering role played, it seems, by Alcmaeon. Their poems and prose writings are for the most part lost, but with the assistance of later authors such as Aristotle, Plutarch and Galen we gain occasional glimpses into the original formulation of their views. This is particularly the case for Empedocles (chs. 5.7, 5.14, 5.18–19, 5.21–22, 5.26–28), but also for Parmenides (5.7), Anaxagoras (5.29) and Diogenes of Apollonia (5.21). The first relevant collection of writings which are fully preserved is the Hippocratic corpus. On many of the topics in Book 5 it provides interesting parallel information, e.g. on female semen (ch. 5.5), heredity (chs. 5.9–10, 5.12), the embryo (5.15), nutrition (5.27) and so on. In the case of two chapters the connections are more direct. In ch. 5.18 Hippocrates’ followers and his son-in-law Polybus are referred to, and pronouncements of the latter on the viability of seven- and eight-month olds are drawn from the treatise De octimestri partu which in antiquity was attributed to him. In ch. 5.21 on the formation of embryos in the womb we can see that the author of De natura pueri was influenced by Empedocles’ views and may himself in turn have exercised influence on the doctor Asclepiades in his differentiation of male and female embryos. But the Hippocratic view is not included in the chapter as it has come down to us. About a generation later than these two Hippocratic works Plato in the Timaeus gives a detailed account of many features of the male human being, to which are appended briefer remarks on women and other living beings. In the main body of the book only views on semen (chs. 5.4–5) and the embryo (5.15) are included, but in the peripheral chapters we also find views on divination (5.1), the genera of ζῷα (5.20) and the relationship between plants and animals. The source for all these views is exclusively the Timaeus. Of much greater significance are the biological writings of Aristotle. Above all in the De generatione animalium, but also in the De partibus animalium and Historia animalium, we find discussions of almost all the Book’s topics. But in determining the extent of his influence it is necessary to be more precise. Aristotle’s biological works are wide-ranging, covering broad areas of the animal world. Book 5 focuses primarily, as we have seen, on human beings. It is above all in the organisation and general outline of biological and physiological topics that Aristotle’s influence on the book’s contents is most marked. For the majority of the chapter headings there are parallels in his works, as can be seen in the relevant listings in the Further Related Texts, section E(a)&(b). A noteworthy example is the actual title of De generatione animalium, Περὶ ζῷων γενέσεως, which is identical to the first part of the chapter heading of ch. 5.20. But for the actual content of the reported doxai the number of specific parallels is quite limited. This is the case for the views of philosophers earlier than Aristotle, but also for the doxai attributed

1752

introduction to book 5

to the Stagirite himself. Of the ten doxai with Aristotle as name-label only in two cases is it at all likely that they may be traced directly to his own words, in A 5.18.4 to a text in Historia animalium 10 (if this book is authentic, see on ch. 5.9), and in 5.17.2 to a text in Metaphysica Δ. The Placita are thus proof of the continuing influence of Aristotle’s biological works in the Hellenistic period, but do not necessarily show that they were being read. An intermediate stage in the process of reception has taken place. As we have seen in the previous books, the Placita underwent substantial development during the Hellenistic period under the influence of new streams of philosophical and scientific thought. A is aware that on some issues Epicurus and his school take a distinct position, e.g. on the validity of divination (5.1.2) and the status of the heavenly beings (5.20.2), but mostly the founder is portrayed as following in the wake of the earlier atomists (in fact the doxa in divination is the only case where he is independent). Apart from Diogenes Laertius and Lucretius (already mentioned above in the previous section) we do not have the sources to trace further Epicurean influence in detail, but there is an unusual case at 5.12.3 where it seems that Epicurean terminology is used to formulate a Stoic doxa on mental συμπάθεια which might explain how children can resemble other people rather than their parents. The Stoa is more solidly represented in the book, but here too, in the absence of extant sources beyond doxographical accounts, we can only estimate the influence of Stoic ideas on the formulation of doxai. Certainly the quaestio of the corporeality of semen (ch. 5.4, note the key role of Zeno together with the atomist Leucippus starting off the chapter) and the emphasis on the role of pneuma in various physiological processes (chs. 5.15, 5.24) suggest such influence. The latter role is also credited to the Peripatetic Strato (chs. 5.4, 5.8, 5.24) and the doctors (chs. 5.8, 5.15, 5.29) and it is difficult to determine the extent to which these views have been reformulated in terms of Stoic doctrine. Very little is noticeable of the influence of Middle Platonist views which was on the rise in the period just before A put together his compendium, but mention may be made of the listing of the kinds of living beings in ch. 5.20 and the concomitant theology, which is consistent with the heavily Middle Platonist theology at 1.7.22, and also of the inclusion of Pythagoras combined with Plato in that same chapter (A 5.20.4), to which Aristotle is added in 5.4.2. In the case of the doctors of the post-Aristotelian period too, beginning with Diocles and ending with Asclepiades, all their works have been lost and it is impossible to determine the provenance of the doctrines in the Placita or their authenticity. A striking case is on the infertility of women, treated in both chs. 5.9 and 5.13. The same view is credited to both Diocles and the Stoa, and we cannot be certain of the validity of the respective attributions (though Dio-

introduction to book 5

1753

cles’ credentials are superior). At A 5.14.3 on the sterility of mules a passage appears to be cited from Diocles verbatim, presumably a remnant of an earlier stage of the tradition when there had been direct access to his works. Later doctors can also shine light on certain topics. This is particularly the case for the great Galen, most notably in his De semine and De foetuum formatione. Galen is well acquainted with the dialectical method of the Placita (see the overview of Tieleman in M–R 4.453–472 and above, General Introduction section 5.2.1), but he appears to betray no direct knowledge of the doxai as compiled in A’s Book. Other medical authors who can shed light on its contents are Soranus (esp. the Gynaecia, see on chs. 5.3–6, 5.9, 5.12, 5.16, 5.18), Aëtius medicus and Oribasius. Finally we should point out that two chapters in Book 5 are of particular interest and value for understanding the tradition of the Placita. In ch. 5.7 on the conception of males and females we can see the layered nature of the sources that have come together in A’s compendium: first the original works of the philosophers and doctors that provide the reports of original research (or speculation), next the organising talent of Aristotle and his school, and finally the specific conversion of the material into the schematism of the Placita, with its combination of name-labels and doctrines, which will have been produced in various iterations before reaching A and the works dependent on him. In ch. 5.18 on the viability of fetuses for differing terms of pregnancy we encounter six longer than usual doxai on a much discussed subject in antiquity, not only giving views of seldom cited thinkers, but perhaps also yielding some insight into earlier and fuller forms of exposition found in the Placita prior to the version of A, which in the case of Book 5 in its surviving form has unfortunately been even further reduced than elsewhere.

Liber 5 Titulus et index Τ: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 Raeder, cf. 2.95, 5.16 (titulus)—PB: ps.Plutarchus 904C–D; p. 269 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā p. 216 Daiber (titulus), pinax in ms. Damascenus fol. 7v (ineditus)

Titulus ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΕΣΚΟΝΤΩΝ ΤΟ Εʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε· Index αʹ. Περὶ μαντικῆς βʹ. Πῶς ὄνειροι γίνονται γʹ. Τίς ἡ οὐσία τοῦ σπέρματος δʹ. Εἰ σῶμα τὸ σπέρμα εʹ. Εἰ καὶ αἱ θήλειαι προΐενται σπέρμα ςʹ. Πῶς αἱ συλλήψεις γίνονται ζʹ. Πῶς ἄρρενα γεννᾶται καὶ θήλεα ηʹ. Πῶς τέρατα γίνεται θʹ. Διὰ τί γυνὴ πολλάκις συνουσιάζουσα οὐ συλλαμβάνει ιʹ. Πῶς δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεται ιαʹ. Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων ἡ ὁμοίωσις καὶ τῶν προγόνων ιβʹ. Πῶς ἄλλοις ὅμοιοι γίνονται οἱ γεννώμενοι καὶ οὐ τοῖς γονεῦσιν ιγʹ. Πῶς στεῖραι γίνονται αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ ἄγονοι οἱ ἄνδρες ιδʹ. Διὰ τί αἱ ἡμίονοι στεῖραι ιεʹ. Εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῷον ιςʹ. Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα ιζʹ. Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν τῇ γαστρί ιηʹ. Διὰ τί τὰ ἑπταμηνιαῖα γόνιμα titulus [1] scripsimus, cf. T 4.31 et M–R 1.326 : Πλουτάρχου φιλοσόφου τῶν ἀρεσκόντων φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν δογμάτων ἐν ἐπιτομῇ τὸ εʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(I) : βιβλίον πέμπτον ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(II) : περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις βιβλίον εʹ PB(III:E) : om. PB(III:α) : Die fünfte Abhandlung aus dem Buch des Plutarchos Q index totum indicem om. PB(III:α)G : exstat in PQ ms. Ẓ sed hactenus ineditus, vid. comm. infra ‖ [4] ὄνειροι PB(I,III) : οἱ ὄνειροι PB(II), der Traum Q ‖ [7] καὶ PB(II–III) : om. PB(I)Q ‖ [9] γεννᾶται καὶ θήλεα PB(I) : καὶ θήλεα γεννᾶται PB(II) : γεννῶνται καὶ θήλεα PB(III) ‖ [10] τέρατα PB(II,III)Q : ἄρρενα PB(I) ‖ [12] γίνεται PB(I–III:A) : γίνονται PB(III:E) ‖ [13] Πόθεν … προγόνων, cf. tit. c. 5.11 : ἡ ὁμοίωσις, cf. die Ähnlichkeit Q : αἱ ὁμοιώσεις PB(I,II) : om. αἱ PB(III) ‖ καὶ PB(III:AE), cf. und Q : ἢ PB(I,II) ‖ προγόνων] προτέρων PB(III:E) ‖ [14] ὅμοιοι γίνονται PB(I) : inv. PB(II,III) ‖ οἱ γεννώμενοι PB(I)Q : om. PB(II,III) ‖ τοῖς γονεῦσιν PB : ihren Vätern Q ‖ [15] αἱ PB(I,II) : om. PB(III) ‖ οἱ PB(I,II) : om. PB(III) ‖ [19] τῇ PB(II,III) : om. PB(I) ‖ [20] τὰ PB(II,III) : om. PB(I) ‖ add. Q aber die in acht Monaten (Geborenen) nicht aufgezogen werden?

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_125

5

10

15

20

liber 5 titulus et index

ιθʹ. κʹ. καʹ. κβʹ. κγʹ. κδʹ. κεʹ. κςʹ. κζʹ. κηʹ. κθʹ. λʹ.

Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, πῶς ἐγένοντο ζῷα, καὶ εἰ φθαρτά Πόσα γένη ζῴων καὶ εἰ πάντα αἰσθητικὰ καὶ λογικά Ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ μορφοῦται τὰ ζῷα ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὄντα Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων Πότε ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος Πῶς ὕπνος γίνεται καὶ θάνατος Ὁποτέρου ἐστὶν ὕπνος καὶ θάνατος, ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως Πόθεν αἱ ὀρέξεις γίνονται τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ αἱ ἡδοναί Πῶς γίνεται πυρετὸς καὶ εἰ ἐπιγέννημά ἐστιν Περὶ ὑγείας καὶ νόσου καὶ γήρως

1755

25

30

[21] Περὶ … φθαρτά PB : Über Werden und Vergehen der Lebewesen Q ‖ [22] αἰσθητικὰ PB(I) : αἰσθητὰ PB(II,III) ‖ [23] πόσῳ PB(II, III): ποίῳ PB(I)Q ‖ [25–26] titulos κγʹ et κδʹ transp. PB(III) numeris permutatis ‖ [25] πότε … τελειότητος, cf. tit. c. 5.23 : πότε καὶ πῶς PB : wie Q ‖ [26] post θάνατος hab. PB(I,III:AE) τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος, cf. und bedeutet er einen Tod für die Seele und den Körper Q‖ [27] om. PB(I) numeros κεʹ–κθʹ titulis κςʹ–λʹ attribuens ‖ [30] αἱ] om. PB(III:E) [31] πυρετὸς PB(I–III:A) : ὁ πυρετὸς PB(III:E)Q ‖ [32] νόσου καὶ γήρως PB(I,III:E)Q : inv. PB(II,III:A)

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses As discussed in the equivalent chapter of Book 1, for the title of the entire work and its individual books we must rely on the evidence of T, the only witness to cite the title of the original work and give the name of its author. The titles in P and those witnesses dependent on its tradition are expanded versions of the original title. The title at the head of this Book in PB is similar to that of Book 4 in that it omits the preposition Περί at the beginning, but it does make a reference to the epitome character of the work. In Q’s translation, as was the case for Book 2, the title is not translated, but only the number of the book and its author are indicated. There are no other witnesses to the title of this book. The index is found in most mss. of PB. In addition, one of the mss. of Q, Ẓāhirīya (Damascus) 4871, contains a translation of the list and thus provides valu-

1756

liber 5 titulus et index

able additional evidence on the manuscript tradition. Daiber did not include it in his edition, but he has kindly provided the editors with a translation (see Appendix in vol. 4). On this translation and its source see further the Commentary on Book 1 titulus et index. Both Eusebius and Symeon Seth did not make use of this book, so unlike for the previous four books, they do not provide any additional evidence. For the question whether A’s text contained the index see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D. On the practice of prefacing texts with tables of content and chapter headings see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(e). C Book Title See above, section A. On how this title relates to the title of the original work see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary C. D Analysis of the Index (1) For a discussion giving the reasons why we are convinced that A’s original compendium contained these indices at the beginning of each book, see M– R 2.196–204 and Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(6) and D(e). (2) For the methodology of the reconstruction of the index see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(3). We argue that priority must be given to the chapter headings in the text of the chapters themselves, since A will have based his index on these when he compiled the work. It is thus to be assumed that the list of chapter headings in the index accurately reflects the chapter headings in the text of the Book. (3) In the present book the chapter headings in the list of PB correspond closely to those found in the body of the book, as is to be expected. The only case where the intra-textual heading has a reading not found in at least one ms. of the index is at ch. 5.11 where the singular ἡ ὁμοίωσις in the chapter heading corresponds to a plural αἱ ὁμοιώσεις in the pinax as recorded in the mss. (4) Three of the headings in Q’s list differ from their equivalent in PB (and in the text of the book in Q himself), namely chs. 18, 19 and 24. Each case is different. For ch. 18 Q appears to have lengthened the heading based on the contents of the chapter. This may be another indication that he drew up his list based on the Book’s contents rather than translating a list in his original (cf. our Commentary on the Index of Book 2, section D). For ch. 19 it looks like the heading in the index is an abridged version of the title of the chapter in the book itself. For ch. 24 he shares the longer heading with two of the manuscript families, but grammatically the resultant heading is awkward and it is likely that the words τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος have been copied across from the heading of the next chapter.

liber 5 titulus et index

1757

D(e) Other Evidence For further discussion on the use of pinakes (tables of contents) in ancient works see Book 1 titulus et index Commentary D(e). See also the same chapter Commentary E for an extensive list of parallel texts relating to the compilation and use of pinakes (tables of contents) or indices of chapter headings. In the section E Further related texts below, parallel to our presentation in Book 4 titulus et index, we present a limited number of texts in which subjects relating to the physiology of the body are described in terms more or less reminiscent of the list of headings in A’s Book 5. In the case of Celsus, because he is introducing the different theories of medicine, the focus is wholly on questions of health and disease formulated in terms of causation. This concurs well with A’s presentation in Book 5, in which—as noted in the Introduction, section 4—the majority of topics are formulated in terms of seeking after the cause. Pliny’s list of topics is broader but much less organised (and in his treatment he includes almost no doxography as such). His index is formulated as a list of topics, usually in the nominative, but also using the preposition de, i.e. equivalent to the ‘umbrella’ formulation with Περί in the Placita. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

Philo Cher. 114 ποῦ γάρ μου τὸ σῶμα πρὸ γενέσεως ἦν; ποῖ δὲ καὶ χωρήσει μεταστάντος ⟨μου⟩; ποῦ δὲ καὶ τοῦ δοκοῦντος ὑφεστάναι τῶν ἡλικιῶν αἱ διαφοραί; ποῦ τὸ βρέφος, ποῦ ὁ παῖς, ποῦ ⟨ὁ⟩ ἀντίπαις, ποῦ ὁ ἄρτι ἡβῶν, ποῦ τὸ μειράκιον, ὁ πρωτογένειος, ὁ νεανίας, ὁ τέλειος ἀνήρ (cf. ch. 5.23) κτλ. (for the rest of the text see Book 4 titulus et index Commentary E(a)). Celsus Med. 1 proœm. 13–20, 45–46 igitur ii, qui rationalem medicinam profitentur, haec necessaria esse proponunt: abditarum et morbos continentium causarum notitiam, deinde evidentium; post haec etiam naturalium actionum; novissime partium interiorum. (14) abditas causas vocant, in quibus requiritur, ex quibus principiis nostra corpora sint, quid secundam, quid adversam valetudinem (cf. ch. 5.29) faciat. neque enim credunt, posse eum scire, quomodo morbos curare conveniat, qui, unde hi sint, ignoret; neque esse dubium, quin alia curatione opus sit, si ex quatuor principiis vel superans aliquid, vel deficiens adversam valetudinem (ch. 5.30) creat; ut quidam ex sapientiae professoribus dixerunt … (18) evidentes vero eas [sc. causas] appellant, in quibus quaerunt, initium morbi calor attulerit, an frigus; fames, an satietas; et quae similia sunt; occursurum enim vitio dicunt eum, qui originem non ignorarit. (19) naturales vero corporis actiones appellant, per quas spiritum trahimus et emittimus (ch. 4.22); cibum potionemque et assumimus et concoquimus (ch. 5.27): itemque per quas eadem haec in omnes membrorum partes digeruntur. tum requirunt etiam, quare venae nostrae modo submittant se, modo attollant; quae ratio somni, quae vigiliae sit (ch. 5.24); sine quorum notitia neminem putant vel occurrere, vel mederi morbis inter haec nascenti-

1758

liber 5 titulus et index

bus posse. (20) ex quibus quia maxime pertinere ad rem concoctio videtur, huic potissimum insistunt (ch. 5.27) … (45) quum haec per multa volumina, perque magnae contentionis disputationes a medicis saepe tractata sint atque tractentur: subjiciendum est, quae proxima vero videri possint. ea neque addicta alterutri opinioni sunt, neque ab utraque nimium abhorrentia; media quodammodo inter diversas sententias: quod in plurimis contentionibus deprehendere licet, sine ambitione verum scrutantibus, ut in hac ipsa re; (46) nam quae demum causae, vel secundam valetudinem praestent (ch. 5.30), vel morbos excitent (cf. ch. 5.29); quomodo spiritus (ch. 4.22), aut cibus (ch. 5.27), vel trahatur, vel digeratur, ne sapientiae quidem professores scientia comprehendunt, sed conjectura persequuntur.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

Pliny Nat. Libro VII. continentur: … de homine generando (ch. 5.3–10): pariendi tempora per inlustria exempla a mensibus VII ad XIII (cf. ch. 5.18), … monstruosi partus (ch. 5.8), … de conceptu hominum (ch. 5.6), de generatione hominum (ch. 5.7), similitudinum exempla (cf. 5.11–12), numerosissimae subolis exempla (cf. ch. 5.10) … quae ratio generandi (cf. ch. 5.9), … de divinatione (ch. 5.1), … de spatiis vitae longissimis (cf. ch. 5.23), … in morbis exempla varia (cf. ch. 5.29), de morte (cf. ch. 5.30), de anima (cf. ch. 4.2–7a). Libri VIII–XI de animalibus (cf. ch. 5.19–20). Liber XII. continentur arborum naturae (cf. ch. 5.26).

Liber 5 Caput 1 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 6 verso p. 78 (et adn. p. 82) Barns–Zilliacus— PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 904E; pp. 415a10–416a5 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 105; p. 639.22–29 Diels; pp. 324–325–331 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 216– 217 Daiber

Titulus αʹ. Περὶ μαντικῆς (P) §1 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τὴν μαντικὴν εἰσάγουσι κατὰ τὸ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐνθεαστικόν, καὶ κατὰ θειότητα τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐνθουσιαστικόν· καὶ τὸ ὀνειροπολικὸν καὶ τὸ ἀστρομαντικὸν καὶ τὸ ὀρνεοσκοπικόν καὶ τὸ ἱεροσκοπικόν. οὗτοι τὰ πλεῖστα μέρη τῆς μαντικῆς ἐγκρίνουσι. (P1) §2 Ξενοφάνης καὶ Ἐπίκουρος ἀναιροῦσι τὴν μαντικήν. (P2) §3 Πυθαγόρας δὲ μόνον τὸ θυτικὸν οὐκ ἐγκρίνει. (P3) §4 Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Δικαίαρχος τὸ κατ᾽ ἐνθουσιασμὸν μόνον παρεισάγουσι καὶ τοὺς ὀνείρους, ἀθάνατον μὲν εἶναι οὐ νομίζοντες τὴν ψυχὴν, θείου δέ τινος μετέχειν αὐτήν. (P4) §1 Plato cf. Tim. 71e, Phdr. 244b–c; Stoici SVF 2.1190; §2 Xenophanes 21A52 DK; Epicurus fr. 395 Usener; §3 Pythagoras —; §4 Aristoteles cf. Div.Somn. 1 463b12–14; Dicaearchus fr. 13b Wehrli, 30B Mirhardy §1 [2] εἰσάγουσι PB(I,III)G, cf. bekannten sich zu der Wahrsagekunst Q : εἶναι λέγουσι PB(II) ‖ [2–3] κατὰ τὸ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι scripsimus : καὶ γὰρ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι PG Primavesi : κατὰ τὸ ἔνθεον PB Diels Mau Lachenaud : cf. Q gemäß der göttlichen fünften Substanz = κατὰ τὸ θεῖον πεμπτόν ? ‖ [3] ἐνθεαστικόν PG Diels Mau Lachenaud : sehend Q qui ἐνθεαστικόν legisse et a verbo ἐνθεάομαι derivasse videtur : ἐνθουσιαστικόν PB ‖ [3–4] καὶ … ἐνθουσιαστικόν Primavesi : κατὰ τὸ θειότατον τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐνθουσιαστικόν PG : κατα θιο[τητα | εν]θουσιαστι[κον PP : und entsprechend der Göttlichkeit der Seele. Dies ist, was “Eingebung” genannt wird Q : κατὰ θειότητα τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅπερ εἶπεν ἐνθουσιαστικόν PB : ut glossema del. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ [3] ἐστὶν] εἶπεν PG1(Nic) Jas (PG2 ἐστὶν) ‖ [4–5] καὶ τὸ ἀστρομαντικὸν … ἱεροσκοπικόν Primavesi (sc. εἰσάγουσι ex l. 1) : καιτ]οαστρομαν[τικονκαιτοορνεοσκοπι | κονκαιτ]οιεροσκοπι[κον PP sec. reconstr. Primavesi (vid. comm.) : καὶ τὸ ἀστρονομικὸν καὶ τὸ ὀρνεοσκοπικόν PG : was … in der astrologischen Wahrsagerei und im Wegjagen der Vögel (zur Gewinnung von Omen) geschieht Q : om. PB Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ [5–6] οὗτοι … ἐγκρίνουσι PB, cf. Q dieses sind alle Teile der Wahrsagerei : ] μέρη τῆς μ[αντικῆς PP : non hab. PG ‖ [5] πλεῖστα] alle Q ‖ [6] ἐγκρίνουσι PB : superscr. εἰσάγουσι PB(II) : om. PQ ut vid. §2 [7] Ξενοφάνης … μαντικήν PBGQ : lemma non hab. PP §3 [8] θυτικὸν] πυθικὸν PG ‖ οὐκ] om. PB(III:E) §4 [9] Δικαίαρχος PB : Δίαρχος PG : Δήμαρχος PQ (?) ‖ [9–10] τὸ … ὀνείρους] al. PG τοὺς ὀνείρους εἰσάγουσιν ‖ [10] εἶναι] om. PG ‖ τὴν ψυχὴν post μὲν ponit PG ‖ [11] αὐτήν] om. PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_126

5

10

1760

liber 5 caput 1

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 6 verso = P §§1–3 ] …. [ ] κ̣ α̣τα̣ θι ̣ο̣[τητα εν]θ̣ουσιαστικ[κον τ]ο̣ αστρομαν̣[τικον 5 τ]ο̣ ϊεροσκοπικ̣ [ον ] μερη της μ[αντικης Πυθαγο]ρ̣ας δε μον̣[ον Αριστ]ο̣τε̣ [̣ λ]η̣ [ς (?) ps.Galenus HPh c. 105 (~ tit.) Περὶ μαντικῆς (text Jas) 105.1 (~ P1) Πλάτων καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ καὶ τὴν μαντικὴν εἰσάγουσι· καὶ γὰρ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐνθεαστικὸν καὶ κατὰ τὸ θειότατον τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅπερ εἶπεν ἐνθουσιαστικόν, καὶ τὸ ὀνειροπολικὸν καὶ τὸ ἀστρονομικὸν καὶ τὸ ὀρνεοσκοπικόν. 105.2 (~ P2) Ξενοφάνης καὶ Ἐπίκουρος ἀναιροῦσι τὴν μαντικήν. 105.3 (~ P3) Πυθαγόρας δὲ μόνον τὸ πυθικὸν οὐκ ἐγκρίνει. 105.4 (~ P4) Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Δικαίαρχος (mss. Δίαρχος) τοὺς ὀνείρους εἰσάγουσιν, ἀθάνατον μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν οὐ νομίζοντες, θείου δέ τινος μετέχειν. Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 5.2 Πῶς ὄνειροι γίνονται §1 cf. A 5.2.3. Ἡρόφιλος τῶν ὀνείρων τοὺς μὲν θεοπνεύστους κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην γίνεσθαι. §4 A 4.7.4 Ἀριστοτέλης φθαρτὴν (sc. τὴν ψυχὴν) τῷ σώματι συνδιαφθειρομένην.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses For this chapter, in addition to PBQ, we have additional evidence in PG and the papyrus. The chapter is remarkable and perhaps even unique, in that in the case of the first lemma all three witnesses other than PB have more material than the Byzantine mss. tradition. On the text of this lemma see further below under section D(b). There are four lemmata in PBQ. G preserves all four, but most surprisingly the papyrus deletes the second with the name-labels Xenophanes and Epicurus. This is in all likelihood the result of a scribal oversight. In his edition Diels includes the chapter heading in the right-hand column on the basis that S had a chapter Περὶ μαντικῆς in Ecl. 2.13, as indicated by the

liber 5 caput 1

1761

indices of Photius and the Laurentianus ms. Because the chapter is lost, we do not know whether it may have contained material from the Placita. The addition of the words καὶ ὡς εἴη ἀναγκαία τῷ βίῳ καὶ ἡ τῶν μελλόντων πρόγνωσις (only in L, not in Photius) indicates that the contents of this chapter will most likely have had an ethical rather than a physical emphasis (compare Ecl. 2.27 Περὶ ἀνάγκης τῆς κατὰ τὸν βίον (also lost) with the chapters on necessity in A 1.25– 26). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The only treatise on the subject that has survived is Cicero’s De divinatione, written hurriedly as part of the sequence of his philosophical treatises. Its introduction is most valuable, not only because it contains a doxography showing important similarities to our chapter (esp. in §5), but also on account of its overview of literary treatments of the subject by the Stoa and other Hellenistic schools (§6). We give an analysis of the contents of Cicero’s introductory section in relation to the present chapter below in section D(e). There can be no doubt that its analysis of philosophical views is indebted to the tradition proximate to the Placita, as is the case for his treatment of principles in Luc. 117 (cf. A 1.3), of theology in ND 1.25–41 (cf. A 1.7), of psychology in Tusc. Book 1 (cf. A 4.2–7 and esp. 4.9) etc; see further above at the relevant chapters, all at Commentary B. Other material on this subject that reveals a link with the wider doxographical tradition is scarce. The Stoic definition given by Arius Didymus in his ethical doxography (text below section E(a)§1), like §1 in our chapter, emphasises the connection with the divine but only mentions the kinds (εἴδη) of divination without specifying them further. Sextus Empiricus at M. 9.132 links the subject directly to the question of the existence of the gods (cf. ch. 1.7) and specifies four kinds of divination (though not called as such), which closely resemble the list in §1 (but bird-watching not included). On this text see also Section D(d) below. (2) Sources. The art and practice of divination in its various forms occupied a central place in Greek culture from the archaic period onwards, declining in influence after the fourth century but retaining a presence until in late antiquity it finally wilted under the assault of Christianity. Already in the fifth century its practices were subjected to philosophical critiques, leading to mixed responses as is witnessed by the contents of the present chapter. We know nothing about the content of Xenophanes’ critique. Plato’s nuanced pronouncements on the subject at Tim. 71e–72b, which focuses on the role of dreams and visions, were highly influential. The Stoic contribution to discussions was particularly fecund and influential; see the still always useful

1762

liber 5 caput 1

overview of Wachsmuth (1860). On philosophical critiques of divination in general see Burkert (2005) 48–51; broader surveys in Pfeffer (1976), Struck (2009), but without reference to this text. C Chapter Heading The umbrella formula Περί x is found in all witnesses. It frequently occurs as a book title, e.g. in Cicero’s work Div. and in the treatises cited at D.L. 9.147. Here it covers the question types of existence and substance. D Analysis a Context There is no introductory statement regarding the contents of the book, unlike at the beginning of Books 1–4. So we must presume that it continues the treatment of the τὰ κατὰ μέρος introduced at the beginning of Book 4. The basic division in terms of contents between the two books is not clear-cut, but it can be roughly formulated as comprising psychology (predominantly human) in Book 4 and physiology (human and animal) in Book 5, or in ancient formulation between περὶ ψυχῆς and περὶ ζῷου. From that perspective both 5.1 on divination and 5.2 on dreams might have been better placed in Book 4 (but see the comments at ch. 4.23 Commentary D(a)). We can compare the beginning of Book 4, where the first chapter clearly belongs with the previous book; see ch. 3.16 Commentary D(a), ch. 3.17 Commentary D(a), ch. 4.1 Commentary D(a), and the Introduction to Book 5 section 2. b Number–Order of Lemmata The first lemma is of particular interest because of the major divergence of the witnesses at no less than three places. (1) In the case of the first reason attributed to Plato and the Stoics for accepting divination we read κατὰ τὸ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι based on PG, in preference to the briefer reading of PB κατὰ τὸ ἔνθεον. As noted by O. Primavesi (unpublished paper), the strange rendering of Q, gemäß der göttlichen fünften Substanz, can be explained through a misconstrual of the Greek by the translator who read κατὰ τὸ θε[ῖ]ο[ν]πεμπτὸν εἶναι instead of κατὰ τὸ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι. (2) The phrase κατὰ θειότητα τῆς ψυχῆς ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐνθουσιαστικόν was regarded by Diels, followed by Mau and Lachenaud, as a gloss (or doublet) of the previous phrase. But this is certainly incorrect, for these words are attested by the papyrus and are also present in G and Q. All three witnesses add it as a second reason for acceptance of divination, making a distinction between ἐνθεαστικὸν and ἐνθουσιαστικόν, the former emphasizing the visionary aspect, the latter the aspect of divine possession. On ἐνθεαστικόν see further below sec-

liber 5 caput 1

1763

tion D(e). These two reasons for accepting divination recur by implication in the fourth lemma. (3) In PB only the further aspect of the interpretation of dreams (τὸ ὀνειροπολικὸν) is added. Here too PG and Q supply additional material, both including divination of the stars (τὸ ἀστρομαντικὸν) and the inspection of birds (τὸ ὀρνεοσκοπικόν). These should both be included in the text. But the small papyrus snippet points to even more material. In an unpublished paper O. Primavesi has suggested the following text for the papyrus, incorporating the material identified by Barns and Zilliacus (letters in bold type present in the papyrus; see text above under testes primi):

5

10

ΠλάτωνκαὶοἱΣτωικοὶτὴνμαντικὴνεἰσάγου σικαὶγὰρθεόπεμπτονεἶναιὅπερἐστὶνἐνθεα στικόνκαὶκατὰθιότητατῆςψυχῆςὅ περἐστὶνἐνθουσιαστικόνκαὶτὸὀνειροπο λικὸνκαὶτὸἀστρομαντικὸνκαὶτὸὀρνεοσκοπι κόνκαὶτὸἱεροσκοπικόν. οὗτοιτὰ πλεῖσταμέρητῆςμαντικῆςἐγκρίνουσι Πυθαγόραςδὲμόνοντὸθυτικὸνοὐκἐγκρί νειἈριστοτέληςκαὶΔικαίαρχοςτὸκατ᾽ἐν θουσιασμὸνμόνονπαρεισάγουσικαὶτοὺς ὀνείρουςἀθάνατονμὲνεἶναιοὐνομίζοντες τὴνψυχὴνθείουδέτινοςμετέχειναὐτήν.

This reconstruction demonstrates that, contrary to our view in M–R 1.129, the papyrus does not have the term τὸ ἱεροσκοπικόν instead of, but rather in addition to τὸ ὀρνεοσκοπικόν, thus revealing four further aspects of divination compared to just the one in PB and three in PG and PQ. Admittedly line 5 with this term is the longest (38 letters), but only marginally so (compare line 1 (37), line 2 (36), line 11 (35) etc.). Primavesi’s reconstruction is fully convincing and we have included it in our text above. The reason for the omissions will in both cases have been haplography. Jas (2018a) 322 raises the possibility that in the papyrus τὸ ἱεροσκοπικόν replaces the original τὸ ὀρνεοσκοπικόν and concludes that this is a question the future editor of P will have to decide. A further reason for accepting the majority readings of PG, PQ and PP against PB in this lemma is that their evidence coheres well with further doxographical material found in Cicero and other authors. In the case of the fourth lemma on Aristotle and Dicaearchus, however, PG omits one of two aspects of divination mentioned in PBQ, so here he has followed his frequent practice of reducing the material in P that he had in front of him.

1764

liber 5 caput 1

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The structure of the chapter as preserved in P is not difficult to divine. The first lemma introduces the subject and outlines a maximum view of what divination covers. As the final words of the lemma indicate, the emphasis comes to lie on the parts of μαντική. As emphasized in the Stoic doxography at D.L. 7.149, it is a τέχνη (already affirmed at Eur. Phoen. 772, Pl. Plt. 260e, Arist. Pol. 1274a28), and so can be divided into parts. To start with, two kinds of divination are privileged, through divine messaging (κατὰ τὸ θεόπεμπτον) and through divine possession. Implicit in the former is perhaps the special role of dreams, although this is not made explicit (cf. the doxography in Cicero to be discussed below in section D(e)). The recognition of divination in the case of these two elements is attributed to Plato and the Stoics. In the remainder of the lemma the scope is then widened to four kinds of divination, of which the kind through dreams is mentioned first. The second lemma goes to the opposite extreme, with every kind of divination rejected. In the third only one of the kinds introduced at the outset is not included, if we take τὸ θυτικόν to refer to τὸ ἱεροσκοπικόν in §1. This is further evidence in favour of the reading of the papyrus. The final lemma only admits two of the five (or six) kinds, the same two with which the first lemma commenced. As often in P, the contours of a diaeresis are thus fairly clear, but we may wonder whether his process of epitomization has obscured a clearer original. The combination of labels in the first lemma—Plato and the Stoics—is awkward. The first part up to ἐνθουσιαστικόν is clearly based on the well-known text at Tim. 71e, though with some embellishment (and wholly deleting the aspect of Platonic irony). The next part is purely Stoic, as parallels in Cicero and Diogenes Laertius show (see below, section E(a)§1). In the final sentence, as Diels ad loc. noted, οὗτοι must refer to the Stoics. It is possible that P combined two separate lemmata in A (the combination of these two name-labels on their own occurs only here in P—in both P 2.17.4 and 5.24.4 one of the two has to be emended away—and never in S or T). Unlike in the parallel text in Cicero, P does not start with the view denying the validity of divination. This is what we might have expected, since the quaestio addressed in the chapter is that of existence and substance, and so it is logical to commence with a view in which the existence of the phenomenon is denied; cf. the chapters 1.7 on the gods, 1.18 on the void, 1.24 on coming to be and passing away etc. The contrasting view of Pythagoras (note the adversative δέ) would follow the first lemma better than the second. It is difficult to determine how exactly the final lemma differs from the view ascribed to Plato and the Stoics in the first. In a text that may have been a source for the doxa, Div.Somn. 2 463b12–14, Aristotle claims that, since liv-

liber 5 caput 1

1765

ing beings other than humans also dream, dreams are not be sent by a god, but are daemonic since nature is daemonic. The implication is that this happens at a sub-rational psychic level, and not at the rational or supra-rational level of νοῦς (cf. A 4.7a.1). The final part of the lemma similarly qualifies the soul as not fully divine (in contrast to the θειότης of the soul in §1). So it seems that divination is introduced at a lower level than Plato and the Stoics are said to affirm, with correspondingly a lower truth value. Could this be implied by the difference in the two verbs εἰσάγουσι and παρεισάγουσι? The latter verb might be paraphrased as ‘they concede the existence of’. See further the discussion by Sharples (2001a) 163–167 on the interpretation of Dicaearchus’ doxa. He focuses mainly on the difficulties of interpreting the texts on him in Cicero. The diaeresis can thus be summarized as follows: §1 affirmation of existence of divination in many forms; §2 total rejection; §§3–4 affirmation of certain parts, which implies rejection of others. It should be noted that the diaeresis would have allowed for more possibilities if all the different types of divination introduced in the first lemma were discussed. In the absence of S we do not know whether the chapter originally had more lemmata. But it may be suspected that it did. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 For the text in this lemma, see our discussion above in section D(b). It may be noted that ἐνθεαστικός is a vox Platonica, used by Plato of the poets at Leg. 3.682a in describing how Homer and other poets can hit on the truth. The usual translation is ‘inspired’, but given the context of divine messages presumably sent through dreams, it is worth noting that the root verb θεάομαι means ‘to see’, so we translate ‘visionary’. θεόπεμπτος, however, is not found in Plato. In extant sources it is first used by Aristotle in the text cited above when he denies that dreams can have a divine origin (Div.Somn. 2 463b13). The reading τὸ ἀστρομαντικόν in the papyrus (not found in PB) is supported by Q’s translation astrologische Wahrsagerei. G’s reading τὸ ἀστρονομικόν can be regarded as a normalisation or vulgarisation, since the other term is exceedingly rare in extant Greek literature, there being only two independently recorded examples, one in a report at Diodorus Siculus 36.5.1 on the Sicilian revolutionary Athenion (the term very likely to have been drawn from Posidonius), the other in a text at Sextus Empiricus M. 9.132 on divination linking its existence to that of the gods. The latter text refers to four aspects of divination: θεοληπτικὴ, ἀστρομαντική, λογική and ἡ δι᾽ ὀνείρων πρόρρησις. The parallelism with A’s text is strong and a Stoic source is likely, as Von Arnim saw (SVF 2.1018).

1766

liber 5 caput 1

Given this parallelism it is tempting to follow Fabricius (followed by Bury in the LCL, but not by Von Arnim or Mutschmann) and read θυτική instead of λογική (τὸ θυτικόν in §3 picks up τὸ ὀρνεοσκοπικόν καὶ τὸ ἱεροσκοπικόν in §1). e Other Evidence The doxography at the beginning of Book 1 of Cicero’s De divinatione, the only work specifically dedicated to the subject that has survived, reveals important correspondences with A’s chapter. Its contents can be summarized as follows: §1

subject and terminology introduced—etymologies of divinatio and μαντική §§2–3 its existence shown by evidence of the nations §4 Romans are convinced the mind is divinely inspired in two ways, through furor and through dreams §5a the ancients put forward arguments to prove the truth of divination §5b only Xenophanes and Epicurus dismissed it §5c list of philosophers who accepted it—Socrates and his school; Zeno and his school; Pythagoras (who wished to be an augur himself); Democritus; Dicaearchus (who accepted only divination through dreams and furor) §6 Stoics defend nearly every kind of divination, but Panaetius remained sceptical §7 Cicero himself, esp. in the light of the many arguments against the Stoics by Carneades, will follow Academic practice and compare the arguments on both sides. We note the following. (1) The view denying divination is attributed to the same two philosophers Xenophanes and Epicurus in both doxographies, but as we already noted above Cicero, following the practice also found in the Placita, places it first, not second as in P. (2) The main representative of the positive view are the Stoics, linked to the Old Academy and the Peripatetics, but Plato is not mentioned except for the etymology of μαντική in 1.1 (Resp. 571c–572b is cited later at 1.60). Various members of the school and their writings are mentioned, including a deviant view (Panaetius). As noted by Diels DG 225, this listing deviates from the method of the Placita (it is closer to what we find in Diogenes Laertius). (3) Cicero observes the two main sources of divine inspiration, but does not give a clear outline of the various kinds of divination. (4) Cicero’s mention of Pythagoras contradicts what we find in P. (5) Dicaearchus is mentioned and the two kinds of divination he accepts agree with P (they are

liber 5 caput 1

1767

further explained at 2.100). Aristotle is not named here but the mention later in 1.81 is consistent with P. (6) The explicit mention of the New Academy for the method that Cicero will apply finds no parallel in P. As already noted by Diels DG 224 and Pease (1920–1923) 1.19–20, the two doxographies show sufficient correspondences, both in name-labels and doxai, to justify the conclusion that they are indebted to the same tradition. Importantly, the same method of diaphonia and diaeresis can be discerned in both texts. Though older, the tradition will have been significantly developed in the period following Carneades and Panaetius. A more recent philosopher mentioned by Cicero is Posidonius, but he might have added this name himself (Cicero calls him noster). A does not contain any names later than Epicurus, but the parallel texts in Diodorus and Sextus that were noted above in section D(d) suggest his sources may have contained such material. It must again be emphasized that P’s text may well have been abridged from a fuller original, but of course this was most likely the case for A himself as well. Pease loc. cit. downplays the similarity. It is true that the listing of Stoics §6 ‘differs from the custom of the Placita,’ showing a greater resemblance to the clustering of references that we find in Diogenes and AD (cf. the Περὶ αἱρέσεων genre) or Philodemus (Successions literature). But this all can be regarded as belonging to the proximate tradition, and there is no need to assume that Cicero simply took over a single source for most of this section, as Pease does. The most recent commentary on Book 1, Schultz (2014), does not analyse the passage in any detail and makes no reference to our text. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Div. 1.4–7 et cum duobus modis animi sine ratione et scientia motu ipsi suo soluto et libero incitarentur, uno furente, altero somniante … (5) atque haec … veteres rerum magis eventis moniti quam ratione docti probaverunt. philosophorum vero exquisita quaedam argumenta, cur esset vera divinatio, conlecta sunt. e quibus, ut de antiquissimis loquar, Colophonius Xenophanes unus (21A52 DK), qui deos esse diceret, divinationem funditus sustulit; reliqui vero omnes praeter Epicurum (Usener fr. 395) balbutientem de natura deorum divinationem probaverunt, sed non uno modo. nam cum Socrates omnesque Socratici Zenoque (FDS 462) et ei qui ab eo essent profecti, manerent in antiquorum philosophorum sententia vetere Academia et Peripateticis consentientibus; cumque huic reo magnam auctoritatum Pythagoras iam ante tribuisset, qui etiam ipse augur vellet esse, plurimisque locis gravis auctor Democritus (68A138 DK) praesensionem rerum futurarum comprobaret, Dicaearchus Peripateticus (fr. 14 Wehrli, 31A Mirhardy) cetera divinationis genera sustulit, somniorum et furoris reliquit. Cratippusque, familiaris noster, quem ego parem

1768

liber 5 caput 1

summis Peripateticis iudico, isdem rebus fidem tribuit, reliqua divinationis genera reiecit. (6) sed cum Stoici omnia fere illa defenderent, quod et Zeno (SVF 1.172) in suis commentariis quasi semina quaedam sparsisset et ea Cleanthes (SVF 1.550) paulo uberiora fecisset, accessit acerrimo vir ingenio, Chrysippus (SVF 2.1187), qui totam de divinatione duobus libris explicavit sententiam, uno praeterea de oraculis (cf. SVF 3 p. 205 lxv), uno de somniis (cf. SVF 3 p. 196 xi); quem subsequens unum librum Babylonius Diogenes edidit (SVF 3.Diog.Bab. 35), eius aditor, duo Antipater (SVF 3.Antip. 37), quinque noster Posidonius (F 26 E.-K., F371b Theiler). sed a Stoicis vel princeps eius disciplinae, Posidonii doctor, discipulus Antipatri, degeneravit Panaetius (test. 137 Alesse); nec tamen ausus est negare vim esse divinandi, sed dubitare se dixit. quod illi in aliqua re invitissumis Stoicis Stoico facere licuit, nos ut in reliquis rebus faciamus, a Stoicis non concedetur? praesertim cum id, de quo Panaetio non liquet, reliquis eiusdem disciplinae solis luce videatur clarius. (7) sed haec quidem laus Academiae praestantissimi philosophi iudicio et testimonio comprobata est. etenim nobismet ipsis quaerentibus quid sit de divinatione iudicandum, quod a Carneade (F9 Mette) multa acute et copiose contra Stoicos disputata sint, verentibusque, ne temere vel falsae rei vel non satis cognitae adsentiamur, faciendum videtur, ut diligenter etiam atque etiam argumenta cum argumentis comparemus, ut fecimus in iis tribus libris, quos De natura deorum scripsimus. nam cum omnibus in rebus temeritas in adsentiendo errorque turpis est, tum in eo loco maxime, in quo iudicandum est, quantum auspiciis rebusque divinis religionique tribuamus; est enim periculum, ne aut neglectis iis inpia fraude aut susceptis anili superstitione obligemur. Sextus Empiricus M. 9.132 (SVF 2.1018) εἰ μὴ εἰσὶ θεοί, οὐδὲ μαντικὴ ὑπάρχει, ἐπιστήμη οὖσα θεωρητικὴ καὶ ἐξηγητικὴ τῶν ὑπὸ θεῶν ἀνθρώποις διδομένων σημείων, οὐδὲ μὴν θεοληπτικὴ καὶ ἀστρομαντική, οὐ λογική [θυτική conj. Fabricius and others], οὐχ ἡ δι᾽ ὀνείρων πρόρρησις. Nemesius NH 12 68.9–11 Morani τοῦτο (sc. τὸ διανοητικόν) δέ ἐστι τὸ καὶ διὰ τῶν ὀνείρων θεσπίζον ἡμῖν τὸ μέλλον, ἥνπερ μόνην ἀληθῆ μαντείαν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι λέγουσιν εἶναι τοῖς Ἑβραίοις ἀκολουθήσαντες. Chapter heading: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.149 (Chrysippus, Posidonius) cited below under §1. V.P. 7.178 (writings of Sphaerus, SVF 1.620) Περὶ μαντικῆς. Cicero Div. 1.6 (Chrysippus) cited above under General texts. Philodemus Περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς (SVF 2.1183) καθάπερ ὁ (μὲν) Χρύσιππυς ἐν τοῖς περὶ μαντικῆς λέγει. Plutarch Περὶ μαντικῆς fr. 147 Sandbach, cf. Lamprias catalogue no. 71 Περὶ μαντικῆς ὅτι σῴζεται κατὰ τοὺς Ἀκαδημαϊκούς. Lactantius Inst. 1.6.8 Heck–Wlosok tertiam Delphida, de qua Chrysippus (SVF 2.1216) loquitur in eo libro, quem De divinatione composuit. §1 Plato Stoics: Cicero Div. 1.4–6 above under General texts; Luc. 107 at id quidem perspicuum est, cum Panaetius (test. 136 Alesse), princeps prope meo quidem iudicio Stoicorum, ea de re dubitare se dicat quam omnes praeter eum Stoici certissimam putant, vera esse ⟨responsa⟩ haruspicum auspicia oracula somnia vaticinationes, seque ab adsensu sustineat—quod is potest facere vel de iis rebus quas illi a quibus ipse didicit certas habuerint, cur id sapiens de reliquis

liber 5 caput 1 rebus facere non possit? Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.149 καὶ μὴν καὶ μαντικὴν ὑφεστάναι φασὶ πᾶσαν, ᾗ καὶ πρόνοιαν εἶναι· καὶ αὐτὴν καὶ τέχνην ἀποφαίνουσι διά τινας ἐκβάσεις, ὥς φησι Ζήνων (SVF 1.174) τε καὶ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.1191) ἐν τοῖς δύο Περὶ μαντικῆς (cf. SVF 3 p. 201 xxxvi fr. 3) καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 7, 27 E.K.; 258, 371a Theiler) ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου καὶ ἐν τοῖς εʹ Περὶ μαντικῆς. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Παναίτιος (test. 139 Alesse) ἀνυπόστατον αὐτήν φησιν. Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.5b12, p. 67.16–19 (Stoic doxography) εἶναι δὲ τὴν μαντικήν φασιν ἐπιστήμην θεωρητικὴν σημείων τῶν ἀπὸ θεῶν ἢ δαιμόνων πρὸς ἀνθρώπινον βίον συντεινόντων. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη τῆς μαντικῆς. §2 Xenophanes Epicurus: Cicero Div. 1.5 cited above under General texts. ND 2.162 illud vero, quod uterque vestrum arripiet fortasse ad reprendendum, Cotta quia Carneades lubenter in Stoicos invehebatur, Velleius quia nihil tam inridet Epicurus (fr. 395 Usener) quam praedictionem rerum futurarum, mihi videtur vel maxume confirmare deorum prudentia consuli rebus humanis. est enim profecto divinatio … Div. 2.40 ergo hic (sc. Epicurus, ibid.) circumitione quadam deos tollens recte non dubitat divinationem tollere; sed non, ut hic sibi constat, item Stoici. illius enim deus nihil habens nec sui nec alieni negotii non potest hominibus divinationem impertire; vester autem deus potest non impertire, ut nihilo minus mundum regat et hominibus consulat. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.135 μαντικὴν δ᾽ ἅπασαν ἐν ἄλλοις ἀναιρεῖ (sc. Ἐπίκουρος, frs. 27 & 395 Usener), ὡς καὶ ἐν τῇ Μικρᾷ ἐπιτομῇ· καί φησι· ‘μαντικὴ οὖσα ἀνύπαρκτος, εἰ καὶ ὑπαρκτή, οὐδὲν παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἡγη⟨τέα⟩ τὰ γινόμενα.’ §3 Pythagoras: Cicero Div. 1.5 cited above under General texts. Nemesius NH 12 cited above under general texts. §4 Aristotle Dicaearchus: Cicero Div. 1.5 cited above under General texts. Div. 1.113, nec vero umquam animus hominis naturaliter divinat, nisi cum ita solutus est et vacuus, ut ei plane nihil sit cum corpore, quod aut vatibus contingit aut dormientibus. itaque ea duo genera a Dicaearcho (fr. 31C Mirhardy) probantur et ut dixi a Cratippo nostro. haec me Peripateticorum ratio magis movebat et veteris Dicaearchi et eius, qui nunc floret, Cratippi, qui censent esse in mentibus hominum tamquam oraclum aliquod, ex quo futura praesentiant, si aut furore divino incitatus animus aut somno relaxatus solute moveatur ac libere.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Origen CC 4.88, p. 304.12–19 Marcovich (SVF 2.1212) πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐζήτηται, πότερον ἔστι τις τέχνη οἰωνιστικὴ καὶ ἀπαξαπλῶς ἡ διὰ ζῴων μαντικὴ ἢ οὐκ ἔστι· δεύτερον δὲ παρὰ τοῖς παραδεξαμένοις εἶναι τὴν δι᾽ ὀρνίθων μαντικὴν οὐ συμπεφώνηται ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τρόπου τῆς μαντείας· ἐπειδήπερ οἱ μὲν ἀπό τινων δαιμόνων ἢ θεῶν μαντικῶν φασι γίνεσθαι τὰς κινήσεις τοῖς ζῴοις, ὄρνισι μὲν εἰς διαφόρους πτήσεις καὶ εἰς διαφόρους φωνὰς τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς εἰς τὰς τοιασδὶ κινήσεις ἢ τοιασδί, ἄλλοι δὲ θειοτέρας αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιτηδείους εἶναι τὰς ψυχάς, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀπιθανώτατον. Quintilian Inst. 5.7.35, his adicere siquis volet ea quae divina testimonia vocant, ex responsis, oraculis, ominibus, duplicem sciat esse

1769

1770

liber 5 caput 1

eorum tractatum: generalem alterum in quo inter Stoicos (SVF 2.1195) et Epicuri (cf. p. 248.18 Usener) sectam secutos pugna perpetua est, regaturne providentia mundus (cf. ch. 2.3), specialem alterum circa partes divinationis, ut quaeque in quaestionem cadet. (36) aliter enim oraculorum, aliter haruspicum, augurum, coniectorum, mathematicorum fides confirmari aut refelli potest, cum sit rerum ipsarum ratio diversa. See also Tertullian on dreams, de An. 46.11 Waszink, cited on ch. 5.2 E(a) under General texts. Chapter heading: Plato Ion 531b οἷον περὶ μαντικῆς λέγει τι Ὅμηρός τε καὶ Ἡσίοδος. Aristotle Div.Somn. 1 462b12–14 περὶ δὲ τῆς μαντικῆς τῆς ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις γινομένης καὶ λεγομένης συμβαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνυπνίων, οὔτε καταφρονῆσαι ῥᾴδιον οὔτε πεισθῆναι. Pliny Nat. 1 Index liber VII. De divinatione. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1.134.4 ἤδη δὲ καὶ Ὀρφέα (1014T Bernabé) Φιλόχορος (FGrH 328F76) μάντιν ἱστορεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ μαντικῆς. Boethius Cons.Phil. 5 prosa 4 §1 tum illa: vetus, inquit, haec est de providentia querela M.que Tullio cum divinationem †distribuit† vehementer agitata tibique ipsi res diu prorsus multumque quesita, sed haudquaquam ab ullo vestrum hactenus satis diligenter ac firmiter expedita. Planudes Greek translation of Boethius Cons.Phil. 5.74.1 Megas παλαιὰ μέν, εἶπεν, αὕτη περὶ προνοίας ἡ ζήτησις, καὶ Μάρκῳ Τουλλίῳ, ἡνίκα τὰς περὶ μαντικῆς διαιρέσεις ἐποιεῖτο. §1 Plato: Plato Tim. 71e ἱκανὸν δὲ σημεῖον ὡς μαντικὴν ἀφροσύνῃ θεὸς ἀνθρωπίνῃ δέδωκεν· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἔννους ἐφάπτεται μαντικῆς ἐνθέου καὶ ἀληθοῦς, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ καθ᾽ ὕπνον τὴν τῆς φρονήσεως πεδηθεὶς δύναμιν ἢ διὰ νόσον, ἢ διά τινα ἐνθουσιασμὸν παραλλάξας. Phdr. 244b–d τόδε μὴν ἄξιον ἐπιμαρτύρασθαι, ὅτι καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν οἱ τὰ ὀνόματα τιθέμενοι οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγοῦντο οὐδὲ ὄνειδος μανίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν τῇ καλλίστῃ τέχνῃ, ᾗ τὸ μέλλον κρίνεται, αὐτὸ (c) τοῦτο τοὔνομα ἐμπλέκοντες μανικὴν ἐκάλεσαν. ἀλλ᾽ ὡς καλοῦ ὄντος, ὅταν θείᾳ μοίρᾳ γίγνηται, οὕτω νομίσαντες ἔθεντο, οἱ δὲ νῦν ἀπειροκάλως τὸ ταῦ ἐπεμβάλλοντες μαντικὴν ἐκάλεσαν. ἐπεὶ καὶ τήν γε τῶν ἐμφρόνων, ζήτησιν τοῦ μέλλοντος διά τε ὀρνίθων ποιουμένων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σημείων, ἅτ᾽ ἐκ διανοίας ποριζομένων ἀνθρωπίνῃ οἰήσει νοῦν τε καὶ ἱστορίαν, οἰονοϊστικὴν ἐπωνόμασαν, ἣν νῦν οἰωνιστικὴν τῷ ω σεμνύνοντες οἱ νέοι καλοῦσιν· (d) ὅσῳ δὴ οὖν τελεώτερον καὶ ἐντιμότερον μαντικὴ οἰωνιστικῆς, τό τε ὄνομα τοῦ ὀνόματος ἔργον τ᾽ ἔργου, τόσῳ κάλλιον μαρτυροῦσιν οἱ παλαιοὶ μανίαν σωφροσύνης τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ τῆς παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπων γιγνομένης. ps.Plato Def. 414b μαντικὴ ἐπιστήμη θεωρητικὴ τοῦ ὄντος καὶ μέλλοντος ζῴῳ θνητῷ. Stoics: Cicero Div. 2.130 Chrysippus (SVF 2.1189) quidem divinationem definit his verbis: vim cognoscentem et videntem et explicantem signa, quae a dis hominibus portendantur; officium autem esse eius praenoscere, dei erga homines mente qua sint quidque significent, quem ad modumque ea procurentur atque expientur. idemque somniorum coniectionem definit hoc modo: esse vim cernentem et explanantem, quae a dis hominibus significentur in somnis. Diodorus Siculus 36.5.1 (attributed to Posidonius by Theiler, fr. 194b) γίνεται δὲ τούτων ἀρχηγὸς Ἀθηνίων ὄνομα, ἀνὴρ ἀνδρείᾳ διαφέρων, Κίλιξ τὸ γένος. οὗτος οἰκονόμος ὢν δυοῖν ἀδελφῶν μεγαλοπλούτων, καὶ τῆς ἀστρομαντικῆς πολλὴν ἔχων ἐμπειρίαν.

liber 5 caput 1 §2 Xenophanes Epicurus: Scholion in Aeschylum on Prom. 624 Herrington Ἐπικούρειόν ἐστι δόγμα, ἀναιροῦν τὴν μαντικήν. Origen CC 7.3, p. 460.13– 20 Marcovich λέγωμεν οὖν περὶ τῶν κατειλεγμένων χρηστηρίων ὅτι δυνατὸν μὲν ἡμῖν συνάγουσιν ἀπὸ Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ τῶν τὰ τοῦ Περιπάτου φιλοσοφησάντων οὐκ ὀλίγα εἰπεῖν εἰς ἀνατροπὴν τοῦ περὶ τῆς Πυθίας καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν χρηστηρίων λόγου· δυνατὸν δὲ καὶ τὰ λελεγμένα τῷ Ἐπικούρῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀσπαζομένοις αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν παραθέμενον δεῖξαι ὅτι καὶ Ἑλλήνων τινὲς ἀνατρέπουσι τὰς νομιζομένας καὶ τεθαυμασμένας ἐν πάσῃ Ἑλλάδι θεοπροπίας. §4 Aristotle Dicaearchus: Aristotle Div.Somn. 2 463b12–22 ὅλως δὲ ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ὀνειρώττει τινά, θεόπεμπτα μὲν οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὰ ἐνύπνια, οὐδὲ γέγονε τούτου χάριν (δαιμόνια μέντοι· ἡ γὰρ φύσις δαιμονία, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ θεία). Cicero Div. 1.81 Aristoteles (cf. ps.Arist. Probl. 30.1 954a34–38) quidem eos etiam, qui valetudinis vitio furerent et melancholici dicerentur, censebat habere aliquid in animis praesagiens atque divinum. Sextus Empiricus M. 9.20–22 Ἀριστοτέλης (de Phil. 12a Ross) δὲ ἀπὸ δυεῖν ἀρχῶν ἔννοιαν θεῶν ἔλεγε γεγονέναι ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἀπό τε τῶν περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν συμβαινόντων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μετεώρων. ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν συμβαινόντων διὰ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις γινομένους ταύτης ἐνθουσιασμοὺς καὶ τὰς μαντείας. ὅταν γάρ, φησίν, ἐν τῷ ὑπνοῦν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν γένηται ἡ ψυχή, τότε τὴν ἴδιον ἀπολαβοῦσα φύσιν προμαντεύεταί τε καὶ προαγορεύει τὰ μέλλοντα.

1771

Liber 5 Caput 2 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 904E–F; p. 416a6–22 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 106; p. 640.1–8 Diels—PL: Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.135, p. 162.3–7 Wuensch—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 216–217 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 116.1–6, p. 63 Westerink

Titulus βʹ. Πῶς ὄνειροι γίνονται (P) §1 Δημόκριτος τοὺς ὀνείρους γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὰς τῶν εἰδώλων παραστάσεις. (P1) §2 Στράτων ἀλόγῳ φύσει τῆς διανοίας ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις αἰσθητικωτέρας μὲν πως γινομένης, παρ᾽ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο τῷ γνωστικῷ κινουμένης. (P2) §3 Ἡρόφιλος τῶν ὀνείρων τοὺς μὲν θεοπνεύστους κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην γίνεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ φυσικοὺς ἀνειδωλοποιουμένης τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ συμφέρον αὑτῇ καὶ τὸ πρὸς τούτοις ἐσόμενον, τοὺς δὲ συγκραματικοὺς ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου κατ᾽ εἰδώλων πρόσπτωσιν, ὅταν ἃ βουλόμεθα βλέπωμεν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν τὰς ἐρωμένας ὁρώντων ἐν ὕπνῳ γίνεται. (P3) §1 Democritus 68A136 DK; §2 Strato fr. 130 Wehrli, 68 Sharples; §3 Herophilus T226 von Staden titulus ὄνειροι PBPs : οἱ ὄνειροι PG : der Traum Q ‖ γίνονται] entsteht Q §1 [2] τοὺς PB : om. PG ‖ παραστάσεις PBL : παρατηρήσεις PG : Gegenwart Q §2 [4] ἀλόγῳ φύσει PB : infolge der Natur Q : ἄλλη τις φύσις PG prob. Primavesi ‖ [5] πως PB prob. Sharples : τῆς ψυχῆς PG prob. Primavesi : non vert. Q ‖ παρ᾽ PBQ : δι᾽ PG Primavesi ‖ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο PG Diels Mau Primavesi (αὐτὸ δὲ Lachenaud) : αὐτῷ δὲ τούτῳ PB (παρ᾽ … τοῦτο non vert. Q) ‖ τῷ γνωστικῷ κινουμένης PB Diels Mau prob. Sharples : τὸ γνωστικὸν κινουμένης coni. Lachenaud : γνωστικῆς γινομένης PG : in einer Erkenntnisbewegung bewegt Q : γνωστικῶς κινουμένης coni. Primavesi ex PGQ (οὐ γνωστικῶς susp. Diels) §3 [6] τῶν ὀνείρων PB(I,II)G : τοὺς ὀνείρους PB(III) ‖ μὲν PB(I,II)G : om. PB(III) ‖ θεοπνεύστους PB Mau Lachenaud Von Staden (cf. PPs), cf. auf dem Wege der Eingebung der Gottheit Q : θεοπέμπτους PGL Diels conl. Arist. Div.Somn. 1 463a13 ‖ [7] ἀνειδωλοποιουμένης τῆς ψυχῆς PB : εἰδωλοποιουμένης τῆς ψυχῆς PG, wenn die Seele sich vorstellt Q ‖ [8] πρὸς … ἐσόμενον PB, was dem folgen wird Q : πάντως ἐσόμενον PG Diels ‖ συγκραματικοὺς (< συγκεράννυμι) PB, quod PB(IIsch) ita explicat ἀπὸ τε λογικοῦ καὶ παθητικοῦ τῆς διανοίας : συγκριματικοὺς (< συγκρίνω) PG : non vert. Q : πνευματικοὺς susp. Diels (ex 5.15), συγκρουματικοὺς Reiske, συγκυρματικοὺς Wyttenbach ‖ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου PBQ (von selbst Q) : αὐτομάτως PG : del. Diels ‖ [9] πρόσπτωσιν] πρόπτωσιν PB(I) ‖ ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν PB, cf. gleich denen Q : non hab. PG ‖ ante τὰς ἐρωμένας inserit φιλοῦντων γίγνεται PG ‖ [10] ὁρώντων Diels Primavesi, cf. welche im Schlaf ihre Geliebte sehen Q : ἐχόντων PB(II) Von Staden, cf. βλεπόντων coni. Reiske : ἔχειν PB(I,III), cf. ἔχειν δοκούντων coni. Mau : ἐρώντων PG (cf. PPs ἔρωτας) ‖ ἐν ὕπνῳ PBQ : ἐν ὕπνοις PG ‖ γίνεται PB : non hab. PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_127

5

10

liber 5 caput 2 Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 106 (~ tit.) Πῶς οἱ ὄνειροι γίνονται (text Diels) 106.1 (~ P1) Δημόκριτος ὀνείρους γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὰς τῶν εἰδώλων παρατηρήσεις. 106.2 (~ P2) Στράτων· ἄλλη τις φύσις τῆς διανοίας ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις αἰσθητικωτέρας μὲν τῆς ψυχῆς γινομένης, δι᾽ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο γνωστικῆς γινομένης. 106.3 (~ P3) Ἡρόφιλος τῶν ὀνείρων τοὺς μὲν θεοπέμπτους κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην γίγνεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ φυσικοὺς εἰδωλοποιουμένης τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ συμφέρον αὐτῇ καὶ τὸ πάντως ἐσόμενον· τοὺς δὲ συγκριματικοὺς αὐτομάτως κατ᾽ εἰδώλων πρόσπτωσιν, ὅταν ἃ βουλόμεθα βλέπωμεν· * φιλούντων γίγνεται τὰς ἐρωμένας ἐρώντων ἐν ὕπνοις. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.135 ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν Αὐξιφωτίων ἤγουν τοῦ Ἰανουαρίου ὡς μάλιστα προσέχειν κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν Ἡροφίλῳ, ὃς καὶ θεοπέμπτους ἐνέκρινε τοὺς ὀνείρους (~ P3), ὁ δὲ Δημόκριτος κατὰ τὰς παραστάσεις τῶν εἰδώλων (~ P1). Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 116 Πῶς ὄνειροι γίνονται (~ tit.) Πολλαὶ τῶν ὀνείρων εἰσὶν αἱ αἰτίαι. οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν εἰσὶ θεόπνευστοι ἄνωθεν διὰ μέσου τοῦ νοῦ τῇ λογικῇ ψυχῇ ἡμῶν ἐγγινόμενοι· οἱ δὲ οἷον ἀπηχήματα εἰσὶ τῶν ἡμερινῶν πράξεων· οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς φανταστικῆς ἐντυποῦνται δυνάμεως, φανταζούσης ἡμῖν τοὺς ἡμερινοὺς ἔρωτας ἢ ἄλλό τι πάθος ψυχῆς (cf. P3). ἕτεροι δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν χυμῶν ἀνεγείρονται … Loci Aetiani: §§1, 3 A 4.13.1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος κατὰ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν ᾤοντο τὸ ὁρατικὸν συμβαίνειν. A 4.8.10 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν νόησιν γίνεσθαι εἰδώλων ἔξωθεν προσιόντων· μηδενὶ γὰρ ἐπιβάλλειν μηδετέραν χωρὶς τοῦ προσπίπτοντος εἰδώλου. A 4.13.12 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς … καὶ πρὸς τὸ διὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ἐκδοχὰς. A 4.14.2 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὰς κατοπτρικὰς ἐμφάσεις γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ εἰδώλων παραστάσεις, ἅτινα φέρεσθαι μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν, συνίστασθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀντιπεριστροφήν. §2 A 5.24.4, Στράτων οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν μὲν ὕπνον γίνεσθαι ἀνέσει τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος οὐ κατ᾽ ἀναχαλασμόν, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς ⟨μέθῆς⟩, φερομένου δ᾽ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μεσόφρυον. §3 A 5.1.1, Πλάτων καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τὴν μαντικὴν εἰσάγουσι κατὰ τὸ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐνθεαστικὸν; 5.1.3 Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Δικαίαρχος τὸ κατ᾽ ἐνθουσιασμὸν μόνον παρεισάγουσι καὶ τοὺς ὀνείρους.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

1773

1774

liber 5 caput 2

Commentary A Witnesses In addition to the three usual witnesses for Book 5, PB, Q and G, the chapter was also partially utilized by L and Ps, giving us some helpful readings. Previous editors, with the exception of Von Staden, seem ignorant of this additional evidence. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The most interesting text that can shed light on the doxographical treatment of the subject is found in an unusual place, in the Scholia to Lucan’s Bellum civile edited by Usener in 1869 and included by Diels in his Prolegomena at DG 198; see text below in section E(a) General texts. The passage records three views on the origin of dreams attributed to Varro, Epicurus (cf. §1) and Plato. The name of the Roman polymath seems odd in this list. Usener ad loc. rightly points out that one of his works may have been the source of the doxography and that his name may have replaced that of a Greek philosopher (he suggests Empedocles). The parallel to A is so apposite because it focuses completely on the physical causes of dreams. The Epicurean doxa recalls that of Democritus in A’s chapter. It does not appear that the views are organised by means of a diaeresis. If a diaeresis between internal and external causes is intended, it is not made at all clearly. Other texts to focus on the sources of dreams are found in Cicero Div. 2.120, 139, which give a clear diaeresis between internal and external sources for dreams, with Democritus again representing the latter. At 2.126 he allows for ‘another cause’, with the implication that God might be the source. This approach is taken up by Tertullian, who in de An. 47 states that dreams emanate from demons, from God, from nature acting on the soul, or from a peculiar ecstatic state. In the previous chapter he is more concerned with the truth value of dreams and refers to a large number of ancient authorities, including Strato. But the details of A’s doxai are not included. (2) Sources. There are brief references to the subject of dreams in Plato Tim. 45e–46a, 71e–72a, Resp. 571c–572b, but the first extant treatise on the subject is Aristotle’s Περὶ ἐνυπτίων (Parv.Nat. 458a–462b). It contains no references to the views of other thinkers. In the next brief treatise De divinatione per somnum (Parv.Nat. 462b–464b) there is a discussion of the atomist explanation of Democritus (464a5–12, puzzlingly absent in DK) in terms of εἴδωλα and ἀπόρροιαι, cf. §1. A further much discussed subject is the classification of the various kinds of dreams. The classification attributed to Herophilus in §3 is the earliest example.

liber 5 caput 2

1775

Von Staden claims (1989, 308) that ‘with his tripartite classification of dreams Herophilus seems to have launched a remarkably rich Hellenistic and patristic tradition of dream theory’ and that his ‘attempt to provide a systematic classification of dreams by origin seems to represent something novel and unusually influential.’ This may in general terms be correct, but does not mention that in later traditions the various classifications have differing points of emphasis. Posidonius (cited by Cicero) and Philo (who adapts for exegetical purposes) both offer a typology of the various kinds of dreams, but differ from Herophilus in focusing on divine-sent dreams only (his first category). The tradition of dream classification continues through to late antiquity (Calcidius, Macrobius). On the whole it dwells on the truth-value of dreams rather than their physical and physiological causes. For this reason we have not included the relevant texts in the Proximate tradition below but among other parallel texts; see section E(b) General texts. See further the discussion in D(e) below. C Chapter Heading All the witnesses are in agreement. This chapter is the first in the book to have a heading starting with πῶς, dealing with the sub-question unde and the question type of cause διὰ τί, which is the dominant type in Book 5 with 11 examples (also chs. 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 24, 26, 29; also in second part of heading chs. 19, 23). See further Introduction to Book 5, section 4. Here we have the combination with the verb γίγνομαι, which occurs no less than 7 times, at chs. 8, 10, 12, 13, 24, 29 (and in 5.7 with γεννᾶται). Elsewhere it occurs only at chs. 1.4, 2.19, 3.17 and 4.11; see further above, ch. 1.4, Commentary C. Aristotle uses the formula for the subject of the dream at Insomn. 2 459a23. D Analysis a Context The subject of the chapter follows on quite naturally from ch. 1, where dreams are mentioned by implication in §1 and explicitly in §3, there being in Greek thought a close connection between the interpretation of dreams and the art of divination. Like ch. 1, this chapter too might have better been placed among the psychological subjects of Book 4. See further our comments at ch. 4.23 Commentary D(a). It is intriguing that the scholion on Epicurus Ep.Hdt. preserved at D.L. 10.66 gives a kind of summary of psychological and physiological subjects (text below under section E(a) General texts). The occurrence of sleep is mentioned after the discussion of the soul and preceding the mention of semen. The sequence is reminiscent of the Placita, something like an early version of which Epicurus may have utilised; cf. Runia (2018), on this text 411–412. In A, however, the subject of sleep is not taken up until ch. 5.24.

1776

liber 5 caput 2

b Number–Order of Lemmata There are just three lemmata, each with a single name-label. In the absence of further evidence the order in P must be retained. As we shall it the next subsection, it is likely that A’s original chapter would have included further doxai. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The diaeresis with which the chapter as it has come down to us begins is between external and internal causes of dreams, as indicated in the first two lemmata. It can be paralleled in an introductory passage in Artemidorus Onirocrit. 1.6 on the cause of dreams (πότερον ἔξωθεν ἡμῖν ἐστι τοῦ ὀνειρώσσειν ἡ αἰτία ὑπὸ θεοῦ γινομένη ἢ ἔνδον αἴτιόν τι, ὃ ἡμῖν διατίθησι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ποιεῖ φύσει συμβεβηκὸς αὐτῇ), which he sets aside as not relevant to his concerns. The first lemma attributed to Democritus explains dreams through the manifestations of eidola, presumably from an external source (see also the reports in Cicero and Plutarch cited below in section E(a) & (b)). The difficult second lemma attributed to Strato focuses on an internal source, i.e. the altered activity of the mind during sleep. The third lemma recording the view of the Alexandrian physician Herophilus takes a different approach and gives a classification of three different kinds of dreams. This doxa may have at least partly the notion of dream interpretation as a τέχνη in mind, thus linking up with the previous ch. 5.1 on divination. Certainly the ‘divinely inspired’ (θεόπνευστοι) kind recalls §1 and §4 in ch. 5.1. These dreams occur ‘by necessity’, i.e. without a human contribution, and are distinguished from the ‘natural’ kind (φυσικοί) which are formed in the soul (cf. the doxa attributed to Strato). As Kessels notes (1969, 416), the usual sense of φυσικός as ‘arising from natural (or physical) causes’ suits the context well. The third kind is called ‘mixed’ (συγκραματικοί) and they occur spontaneously through the impact of eidola, but not necessarily external ones as in the Democritus lemma. What is mixed is presumably the activity of the soul, which subconsciously determines what it wishes to see, and the presence of available eidola from past experiences. There is also an implicit division in the Herophilean doxa between external, internal/natural, and mixed internal/semi-external (eidola), but this introduces the further complication of two different kinds of external sources for the dreams. It is surely surprising that, in contrast to the previous chapter, no doxai are included which refer to the views of Plato and Aristotle included in various doxographical accounts. We may contrast Artemidorus in the passage cited above, who says he does not inquire into whether the cause of dreams is external or internal, ‘as Aristotle does’, referring to his view that dreams are not directly God-sent (texts below section E(a) General texts). Such lemmata may

liber 5 caput 2

1777

well have been epitomized away by P, though he usually shows a preference for such important names, as noted at M–R 1.190. It is important to note that A, to judge by P’s evidence, focuses on the physical aspects of dream theory and shows only a very limited interest in the epistemological aspect, i.e. the truth value of dreams, which is the chief concern of writers such as Cicero and Tertullian (see further section D(e) below). The contrasts between ‘by necessity’, by psychic activity and ‘spontaneously’ in §3 may have epistemological consequences, but these are not spelled out. This is consistent with the approach taken in the psychology of Book 4, where the emphasis also falls on the physical and mechanistic aspects of cognition (with some exceptions e.g. chs. 4.9, 4.12). It must constantly be borne in mind that A’s treatise is a physikos logos, which determines its basic approach. This means that the specifically epistemological aspects of its subjects will be underplayed. We note too that there is only a single reference to divine inspiration in A (§3 dreams that are θεόπνευστοι), in contrast to other texts in which the theological aspect is dominant; see further below section D(e). It is also basic to the physikos logos, as A understands it, that theology is part of physics, but approached in what we might call a secularizing spirit; see above, ch. 1.6 Commentary D(d)§1[38–54], 2.6 Commentary D(e) and further Mansfeld (2013a). d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 In the absence of further information relating to Strato’s views, it is impossible to determine the exact text of his doxa with any certainty. We note the following: (1) One might expect ἀλογῳ κινήσει rather than ἀλογῳ φύσει in the light of quotations from Strato’s Περὶ κινήσεως preserved in fr. 41 Sharples (= Simp. in Phys. 964.29–965.19). It is possible, however, that A wished to emphasize the ‘natural’ origin in contrast to a higher noetic or divine source (admitted by Strato in the same fragment). (2) In PBQ τῆς διανοίας is the subject of the two participles that follow, whereas G adds τῆς ψυχῆς as their subject. Fr. 41 Sharples demonstrates that the mind’s activity is regarded as psychic activity, so G’s reading is best seen as a paraphrasing clarification of the text in P. (3) Primavesi in his unpublished edition of the text of this chapter largely followed the version of G, which differs at various points from the other witnesses. He thus follows G in placing the doxa in oratio recta, placing a colon after the name-label, i.e. Στράτων· ἄλλη τις φύσις … Such a practice occurs comparatively rarely elsewhere, e.g. for definitions at A 1.23.1–3, 1.25.1, 5.3.1, but not also for an argument at 2.5.1. However, the meaning differs little compared to the text in P

1778

liber 5 caput 2

and Q which we have retained. For the final phrase he modified G’s transmitted text and offers the conjecture γνωστικῶς for τῷ γνωστικῷ (perhaps supported by Q and cf. G γνωστικῆς). This is attractive, since it is difficult to see what τὸ γνωστικόν can be in this context and the adverb indicates how the mind can have seemingly rational thoughts which in fact are not rational. Sharples’ rendering ‘is affected by the cognitive [power]’ is not convincing. Wehrli adduces a reference to the judging faculty (τὸ ἐπικρῖνον), which is restrained or has its own movement at Arist. Insomn. 3 461b5–7, but that leads the soul to be deceived in thinking that the image it sees is real, which differs from what Strato appears to affirm. We have incorporated Primavesi’s conjecture in our text. §3 This doxa too gives rise to a number of textual problems. (1) The witnesses are sharply divided on whether we should read θεοπνεύστους or θεοπέμπτους in the first line. Lydus’ evidence shows that the latter was already present at an early date. The former is the lectio difficilior because the latter reading could easily have been introduced under the influence of 5.1.1 (where we have preferred G’s reading κατὰ τὸ θεόπεμπτον εἶναι to PB κατὰ τὸ ἔνθεον). The term is admittedly rare in non-Christian texts, but is found e.g. at Herodian at Gramm. Graec. 3.2 655.2. (2) The two readings συγκραματικούς in PB and συγκριματικούς in G are both hapax legomena. Both Kessels (1969) 422 and Schrijvers (1977) 17 prefer G’s reading, the former interpreting it as ‘physiological’ or ‘somatic’, the latter as ‘composite’. But in the latter case it is hardly different to the reading of PB, which can be retained. (3) Diels’ conjecture ὁρώντων in the final phrase is perhaps a little weak compared with PB ἐχόντων (taken over by Von Staden), but it is supported by Q and by G’s reading ἐρώντων. e Other Evidence As discussed above in section B, there is a substantial body of texts setting out classifications of dreams, thus continuing the early attempt of Herophilus recorded in §1. Posidonius (in Cicero) and Philo discuss the kinds of divine-sent dreams only, both mentioning the role of the soul or the mind in some of the alternatives (texts below section E(a) General texts). Both might be thought to be adapting the basic division between dreams that come from outside (i.e. God or demons) and those that appear internally via the soul (whether or not it is inspired). But their approach differs from that of A (and also Tertullian) because their starting-point is divine-sent dreams only, not dreams in general. Von Staden’s discussion (1989, 307–310) on the Herophilean doxa is flawed because he does not allow for the differences between Herophilus’ and Posidonius’ classification, namely that the latter focuses on dreams involving

liber 5 caput 2

1779

divine impulse only. The double diaeresis in Artemidorus Oneir. 1.1 (between premonitory ὄνειροι and non-premonitory ἐνύπνια, the latter being divided into psychic, somatic and psychosomatic kinds) also differs, in spite of superficial resemblances (and a very similar erotic example). As the examples show, the tripartition is simply based on the subjects dreamt about, and not the source of the dreams. Extended later texts are found in Calcidius and Macrobius. The former presents a veritable mini-treatise on dreams and starts with a doxography giving the views of Aristotle and Heraclitus/Stoics, before moving on to his main subject Plato. Here too the emphasis is primarily on divinely sent dreams, and much less on the physiological and psychological processes outlined however briefly by our author. Calcidius postulates a connection between Plato’s views and the philosophia Hebraica (which may be a reference to Philo). Waszink (1941) and (1975) lxviii argues that the intermediary source of this particular reference may have been Numenius. The section chs. 250–256 as a whole he (1975, 260) derives from Porphyry. A text in Augustine Ep. 162 also distinguishes between dreams that are sent by God or by angels and those that arise in the soul. There has been much scholarly discussion on ancient dream classification. In addition to the studies of Waszink and Von Staden mentioned above, see also Kessels (1969); Schrijvers (1977); Dodson (2003); Torallas Tovar (2014). In these studies the main focus of interest is the source and truth-value of dreams rather than their physical and psychological mechanism as analysed in Aëtius. For this reason the Herophilean doxa receives considerable attention, but not Aëtius’ chapter as a whole. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Scholia in Epicurum on D.L. Ep.Hdt. 66 λέγει (fr. 311 Usener) ἐν ἄλλοις καὶ ἐξ ἀτόμων αὐτὴν (the soul) συγκεῖσθαι λειοτάτων καὶ στρογγυλωτάτων, πολλῷ τινι διαφερουσῶν τῶν τοῦ πυρός (cf. ch. 4.3)· καὶ τὸ μέν τι ἄλογον αὐτῆς, ὃ τῷ λοιπῷ παρεσπάρθαι σώματι· τὸ δὲ λογικὸν ἐν τῷ θώρακι, ὡς δῆλον ἔκ τε τῶν φόβων καὶ τῆς χαρᾶς (cf. A 4.4.7, 4.5.6). ὕπνον τε γίνεσθαι τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν τῶν παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν σύγκρισιν παρεσπαρμένων ἐγκατεχομένων ἢ διαφορουμένων, εἶτα συμπιπτόντων τοῖς πορίμοις [as emended by Schneider, Dorandi; Lapini suggests ἐγειρομένοις or ἐγηγερμένοις, mss. ἐπερεισμοῖς]. τό τε σπέρμα ἀφ᾽ ὅλων τῶν σωμάτων φέρεσθαι. Doxography in Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 220.19–222.8 Usener (cf. Diels DG 198) Varro (fr. 30 Salvadore) dixit somnia nasci aut ex abun⟨dan⟩tia principiorum aut deminutione, cum aut plus nobis caloris est aut minus aut plus humoris aut minus aut plus ⟨a⟩eris aut minus aut plus terreni aut minus. nam cum plus ignis est, in somnis potiones et omne genus refrigerationis desideramus, cum aeris abundantia, volare nos et sub-

1780

liber 5 caput 2

limia petere et in ceteris sui similia colligi. Epicurus (fr. 327 Usener) dicit atomos influere animis nostris in imaginibus corporum et ea quae gessimus aut quae gesturi sumus, per quietum videri. Plato (Tim. 71b–e) item dixit iecur nostrum levior suco praestare splendorem velut speculum:{in} quo dum inciderint imagines illae quas Epicurus tradit animum eas videre et quae habeat somnia conici. quaecumque igitur videamus aut per recordationem rerum quas gessimus aut per metum, dum timemus qualia eventura sint, prospicimus. Cicero Div. 2.120 utrum igitur censemus dormientium animos per sene ipsos in somniando moveri, an, ut Democritus (68A137 DK) censet, externa et adventicia visione pulsari? Div. 2.126, sive enim externus et adventicius pulsus animos dormientium commovet, sive per se ipsi animi moventur, sive quae causa alia est cur secundum quietem aliquid videre, audire, agere videamus, eadem causa vigilantibus esse poterat. Luc. 48 deinde cum mens moveatur ipsa per sese, ut et ea declarant … quae dormientibus vel furiosis videntium non numquam … Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.1–2 ἡ μὲν πρὸ ταύτης γραφὴ περιεῖχε τῶν θεοπέμπτων ὀνείρων τοὺς κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον εἶδος ταττομένους, ἐφ᾽ οὗ τὸ θεῖον ἐλέγομεν κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπιβολὴν τὰς ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις ἐπιπέμπειν φαντασίας. ἐν ταύτῃ δ᾽, ὡς ἂν οἷόν τε ᾖ, δηλώσομεν τοὺς ἐφαρμόττοντας τῷ δευτέρῳ. (2) δεύτερον δ᾽ εἶδος, ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἡμέτερος νοῦς τῷ τῶν ὅλων συγκινούμενος ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κατέχεσθαί τε καὶ θεοφορεῖσθαι δοκεῖ, ὡς ἱκανὸς εἶναι προλαμβάνειν καὶ προγινώσκειν τι τῶν μελλόντων. Somn. 2.1 τὸ τρίτον εἶδος, ὁπόταν ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἡ ψυχὴ κινουμένη καὶ ἀναδονοῦσα ἑαυτὴν κορυβαντιᾷ καὶ ἐνθουσιῶσα δυνάμει προγνωστικῇ τὰ μέλλοντα θεσπίζῃ. Tertullian de An. 46.1–47.4 Waszink ecce rursus urgemur de ipsorum somniorum retractatu quibus anima iactatur exprimere … (2) vana in totum somnia Epicurus (—) iudicavit liberans a negotiis divinitatem et dissolvens ordinem rerum et in passivitate omnia spargens, ut eventui exposita et fortuita … (3) Aristoteles (Div.Somn. 1 462b12–24) maiorem partem mendacio reputans agnoscit et verum … (10) quanti autem commentatores et affirmatores in hanc rem (i.e. somnia revelatoria)? Artemon (5 F2 Del Corno) Antiphon (Antiphon 15 F4 Del Corno, T12 Pendrick) Strato (fr. 131.1 Wehrli, 69 Sharples) Philochorus (FrGH 328 T7, 31 F2 Del Corno) Epicharmus (19 F2 Del Corno) Serapion (12 F1 Del Corno) Cratippus (28 F5 Del Corno) Dionysius Rhodius (7 F2 Del Corno) Hermippus (20 F2 Del Corno), tota saeculi litteratura … (11) … sed et Stoici (—) deum malunt providentissimum humanae institutioni inter cetera praesidia diviniatricum artium et disciplinarum somnia quoque magis indidisse, peculiare solacium naturalis oraculi. (47.1) definimus enim a daemoniis plurimum incuti somnia, etsi interdum vera et gratiosa, … (2) a deo autem, … ea deputabuntur quae ipsi gratiae comparabuntur, si qua honesta sancta prophetica revelatoria aedificatoria vocatoria, … (3) tertia species erunt somnia quae sibimet ipsa anima videtur inducere ex intentione circumstantiarum. porro quam non est ex arbitrio somniare (nam et Epicharmus (19 F3 Del Corno) ita sentit), quomodo ipsa erit sibi causa alicuius visionis? num ergo haec species naturali formae relinquenda est servans animae etiam in ecstasi res suas perpeti? (4) ea autem, quae neque a deo neque a daemonio neque ab anima

liber 5 caput 2 videbuntur accidere, et praeter opinionem et praeter interpretationem et praeter enarrationem facultatis, ipsi proprie ecstasi et rationi eius separabuntur. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.158 (Stoic doxography) αἰτίας δὲ τῶν παθῶν (i.e. during sleep, cf. A 5.24) ἀπολείουσι τὰς περὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τροπάς. Chapter heading: cf. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.7, p. 72.20 Marchesi potest … scire … quibus causis mergamur in somnos, quibus evigilemus, quibus modis fiant insomnia, quibus visa. §1 Democritus: cf. Cicero Div. 2.120 cited above. Div. 2.139 nullae ergo imagines obrepunt in animos dormientium extrinsecus, nec omnino fluunt ullae, nec cognovi quemquam (sc. Democritum), qui maiore auctoritate nihil diceret. cf. Epicurus in Commenta Bernensia cited above, General texts. §2 Strato: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.59 (catalogue of Strato’s writings) Περὶ ἐνυπτίων (fr. 18 Wehrli, 1 Sharples). Tertullian de An. 46.10 cited above, General texts.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Tim. 45e–46a γενομένης δὲ πολλῆς μὲν ἡσυχίας βραχυόνειρος ὕπνος ἐμπίπτει, καταλειφθεισῶν δέ τινων κινήσεων μειζόνων, οἷαι καὶ ἐν οἵοις ἂν τόποις λείπωνται, τοιαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα παρέσχοντο ἀφομοιωθέντα ἐντὸς ἔξω τε ἐγερθεῖσιν ἀπομνημονευόμενα φαντάσματα. Tim. 71e–72a ἀλλὰ συννοῆσαι μὲν ἔμφρονος τά τε ῥηθέντα ἀναμνησθέντα ὄναρ ἢ ὕπαρ ὑπὸ τῆς μαντικῆς τε καὶ ἐνθουσιαστικῆς φύσεως, καὶ ὅσα ἂν φαντάσματα ὀφθῇ, πάντα λογισμῷ διελέσθαι ὅπῃ τι σημαίνει καὶ ὅτῳ μέλλοντος ἢ παρελθόντος ἢ παρόντος κακοῦ ἢ ἀγαθοῦ. Aristotle Insomn. 1 458a34–b3 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα περὶ ἐνυπνίου ἐπιζητητέον, καὶ πρῶτον τίνι τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς φαίνεται, καὶ πότερον τοῦ νοητικοῦ τὸ πάθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο ἢ τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ· τούτοις γὰρ μόνοις τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γνωρίζομέν τι. Div.Somn. 1 462.12–22 περὶ δὲ τῆς μαντικῆς τῆς ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις γινομένης καὶ λεγομένης συμβαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνυπνίων, οὔτε καταφρονῆσαι ῥᾴδιον οὔτε πεισθῆναι. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πάντας ἢ πολλοὺς ὑπολαμβάνειν ἔχειν τι σημειῶδες τὰ ἐνύπνια παρέχεται πίστιν ὡς ἐξ ἐμπειρίας λεγόμενον, καὶ τὸ περὶ ἐνίων εἶναι τὴν μαντικὴν ἐν τοῖς ἐνυπνίοις οὐκ ἄπιστον· ἔχει γάρ τινα λόγον· διὸ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐνυπνίων ὁμοίως ἄν τις οἰηθείη. τὸ δὲ μηδεμίαν αἰτίαν εὔλογον ὁρᾶν καθ᾽ ἣν ἂν γίνοιτο, τοῦτο δὴ ἀπιστεῖν ποιεῖ· τό τε γὰρ θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πέμποντα, πρὸς τῇ ἄλλῃ ἀλογίᾳ, καὶ τὸ μὴ τοῖς βελτίστοις καὶ φρονιμωτάτοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς τυχοῦσι πέμπειν ἄτοπον. Div.Somn. 2 463b12–15 ὅλως δὲ ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ὀνειρώττει τινά, θεόπεμπτα μὲν οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὰ ἐνύπνια, οὐδὲ γέγονε τούτου χάριν δαιμόνια μέντοι· ἡ γὰρ φύσις δαιμονία, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ θεία. Div.Somn. 2 464a19–22 καὶ διὰ ταῦτα συμβαίνει τὸ πάθος τοῦτο τοῖς τυχοῦσι καὶ οὐ τοῖς φρονιμωτάτοις. μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν τε γὰρ ἐγίνετ᾽ ἂν καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς, εἰ θεὸς ἦν ὁ πέμπων· οὕτω δ᾽ εἰκὸς τοὺς τυχόντας προορᾶν· ἡ γὰρ διάνοια τῶν τοιούτων οὐ φροντιστική, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἔρημος καὶ κενὴ πάντων, καὶ κινηθεῖσα κατὰ τὸ κινοῦν ἄγεται. Cicero Div. 1.64, sed tribus modis censet (Posidonius F 108 E.-K., 373a Theiler) deorum appulsu homines somniare: uno, quod praevideat animus ipse per sese, quippe qui deorum cognatione teneatur; altero, quod plenus aër sit immortalium animorum, in quibus tamquam insignitate notae veritatis appareant; tertio, quod ipsi di cum dormi-

1781

1782

liber 5 caput 2

entibus colloquantur. Artemidorus Onirocr. 1.6 Pack οὐχ ὁμοίως δὲ νῦν ἐγὼ ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης (Div.Somn. 1 462b18–22, 2 463b12–15, 464a19–22) διαπορῶ πότερον ἔξωθεν ἡμῖν ἐστι τοῦ ὀνειρώσσειν ἡ αἰτία ὑπὸ θεοῦ γινομένη ἢ ἔνδον αἴτιόν τι, ὃ ἡμῖν διατίθησι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ποιεῖ φύσει συμβεβηκὸς αὐτῇ, ἀλλὰ θεόπεμπτα {ὡς} ἤδη καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ πάντα τὰ ἀπροσδόκητα καλοῦμεν. Calcidius in Tim. cc. 250–256 et quoniam tractatum incurrimus somniorum, de quo varie senserunt veteres, fiat earum quae in honore sunt opinionum commemoratio. Aristoteles (—), ut qui dei providentiam usque ad lunae regionem progredi censeat, infra vero neque providentiae scitis regi nec angelorum ope consultisque sustentari nec vero daemonum prospicientiam putet intervenire proptereaque tollat omnem divinationem negetque praenosci futura, unum genus somniorum admittit atque approbat, quod ex his quae vigilantes agimus aut cogitamus residens in memoria movet interpellatque per quietem gestarum deliberatarumque rerum conscias animas. nec errat; est enim etiam haec progenies somniorum, sed non sola, ut Aristoteles (Insomn. 3 462a29–31) putat; multa quippe incognita inopinataque neque umquam temptata animis somniamus, … (251) Heraclitus (fr. 116(c) Marcovich) vero consentientibus Stoicis (SVF 2.1198) rationem nostram cum divina ratione conectit regente ac moderante mundana: propter inseparabilem comitatum consciam decreti rationabilis factam quiescentibus animis opere sensuum futura denuntiare; ex quo fieri, ut appareant imagines ignotorum locorum simulacraque hominum tam viventium quam mortuorum. idemque asserit divinationis usum et praemoneri meritos instruentibus divinis potestatibus. hi quoque parte abutentes sententiae pro solida perfectaque scientia. (252) sunt qui nostrum intellectum et pervolitare convexa mundi putent miscereque se divinae intellegentiae, quam Graeci noyn vocant, et velut ex maiore disciplina minusculas scientias mutuatum, quae summa et eminens imaginetur mens, nuntiare mentibus nostris invitante ad coetum animae nocturnae solitudinis opportunitate. (253) sed Plato (Resp. 571b–c) magna diligentia summaque cura discussis penitus latibulis quaestionis vidit atque assecutus est non unam somniorum esse genituram … (256) multiformis ergo est ratio somniorum, siquidem sunt quae velut percussa gravius verberataque mente vestigiis doloris penitus insignitis per quietem refovent imagines praeteritae consternationis, sunt item quae iuxta cogitationes rationabilis animae partis vel purae atque immunis a perturbatione vel in passionibus positae oboriuntur, nihiloque minus quae divinis potestatibus consulentibus praemonstrantur vel etiam poenae loco ob delictum aliquod formata in atrocem et horridam faciem. consentit huic Platonico dogmati Hebraica philosophia …. de somniis satis dictum. Macrobius in Somn. 1.3.1–3 his praelibatis antequam ipsa somnii verba tractemus, prius quot somniandi modos observatio deprehenderit, cum licentiam figurarum, quae passim quiescentibus ingeruntur, sub definitionem ac regulam vetustas mitteret, edisseramus, ut cui eorum generi somnium quo de agimus adplicandum sit innotescat. (2) omnium quae videre sibi dormientes videntur quinque sunt principales et diversitates et nomina. aut enim est ὄνειρος secundum Graecos quod Latini somnium vocant, aut est ὅραμα quod visio recte appellatur, aut est χρηματισμός quod oraculum nuncupatur, aut est ἐνύπνιον quod insomnium dicitur,

liber 5 caput 2 aut est φάντασμα quod Cicero, quotiens opus hoc nomine fuit, visum vocavit. (3) ultima ex his duo cum videntur, cura interpretationis indigna sunt, quia nihil divinationis adportant, ἐνύπνιον dico et φάντασμα … Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle Insomn. 2 459a23–24 τί δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ ἐνύπνιον, καὶ πῶς γίνεται, ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὸν ὕπνον συμβαινόντων μάλιστ᾽ ἂν θεωρήσαιμεν. also Somn.Vig. 1 453b17–19 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τί ἐστι τὸ ἐνύπνιον, καὶ διὰ τίνα αἰτίαν οἱ καθεύδοντες ὁτὲ μὲν ὀνειρώττουσιν ὁτὲ δὲ οὔ. cf. also Philo of Alexandria Somn. Περὶ τοῦ θεοπέμπτους εἶναι τοὺς ὀνείρους. §1 Democritus: Aristotle Div.somn. 2 4643b31–464a6 περὶ δὲ τῶν μὴ τοιαύτας ἐχόντων ἀρχὰς ἐνυπνίων οἵας εἴπομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερορίας ἢ τοῖς χρόνοις ἢ τοῖς τόποις ἢ τοῖς μεγέθεσιν, ἢ τούτων μὲν μηδέν, μὴ μέντοι γε ἐν αὑτοῖς ἐχόντων τὰς ἄρχας τῶν ἰδόντων τὸ ἐνύπνιον, εἰ μὴ γίνεται τὸ προορᾶν ἀπὸ συμπτώματος, τοιόνδ᾽ ἂν εἴη μᾶλλον ἢ ὥσπερ λέγει Δημόκριτος (fr. 472 Luria) εἴδωλα καὶ ἀπορροίας αἰτιώμενος. Epicurus Gnom. Vat. 24 ἐνύπνια οὐκ ἔλαχε φύσιν θείαν οὐδὲ μαντικὴν δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ γίνεται κατὰ ἔμπτωσιν εἰδώλων. Plutarch Quaest.Conv. 735A ὑποθέμενος τοῦτο δὴ τοὐπιδήμιον ὅ φησιν Δημόκριτος (68A77 DK) ‘ἐγκαταβυσσοῦσθαι’ τὰ εἴδωλα διὰ τῶν πόρων εἰς τὰ σώματα καὶ ποιεῖν τὰς κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον ὄψεις ἐπαναφερόμενα. §3 Herophilus: cf. Aristotle Div.Somn. 2 463b12–15 ὅλως δὲ ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ὀνειρώττει τινά, θεόπεμπτα μὲν οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὰ ἐνύπνια, οὐδὲ γέγονε τούτου χάριν (δαιμόνια μέντοι· ἡ γὰρ φύσις δαιμονία, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ θεία). also Artemidorus Oneir. 1.1 Pack ταύτῃ γὰρ ὄνειρος ἐνύπνιον διαφέρει, ᾗ συμβέβηκε τῷ μὲν εἶναι σημαντικῷ τῶν μελλόντων, τῷ δὲ τῶν ὄντων. σαφέστερον δ᾽ ἂν μάθοις οὕτω. τὰ ποιὰ τῶν παθῶν προσανατρέχειν πέφυκε καὶ προσανατάσσειν ἑαυτὰ τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ τοὺς ὀνειρωγμοὺς ἀποτελεῖν. οἷον ἀνάγκη τὸν ἐρῶντα ὄναρ ἅμα τοῖς παιδικοῖς εἶναι δοκεῖν … τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων ἴδοις ἂν ἃ μὲν ἴδια σώματος μόνου ἃ δὲ ἴδια ψυχῆς ⟨ἃ δὲ κοινὰ σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ⟩, οἷον ἐρῶντα δοκεῖν ἅμα τοῖς παιδικοῖς εἶναι καὶ νοσοῦντα θεραπεύεσθαι καὶ συμμίσγειν ἰατροῖς· κοινὰ γὰρ ταῦτα σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ. ἐμεῖν δὲ καὶ καθεύδειν καὶ πάλιν αὖ πίνειν τε καὶ ἐσθίειν ἴδια σώματος ἡγητέον, ὥσπερ ἴδια ψυχῆς χαίρειν τε καὶ λυπεῖσθαι. σαφὲς δὲ ἀπὸ τούτων ὅτι τῶν σωματικῶν ἃ μὲν δι᾽ ἔνδειαν ἃ δὲ διὰ περισσότητα ὁρᾶται, τῶν δ᾽ αὖ ψυχικῶν ἃ μὲν διὰ φόβον ἃ δὲ δι᾽ ἐλπίδα. also Augustine Ep. 162.5, pp. 515.21–516.19 Goldbacher quando non divinitus admonemur, nisi quod haec volentes agimus, illa praeter arbitrium patimur; non solum haec movent, quae in animo de ipso animo fieri non absurde forte quis putat quamvis et hoc causis occultioribus, quibus agitur, ut istud potius quam illud in conspectu animi veniat, sed etiam quod ait propheta: et dixit mihi angelus, qui loquebatur in me—neque enim forinsecus voces ad aures corporeas prophetae venisse credendum est, cum dicit qui loquebatur in me, non ad me—, utrum voces erant de spiritu factae corporalibus similes, quales agimus, cum apud nos taciti multa memoriter plerumque etiam cantando transcurrimus, sed tamen editae ab angelo, ⟨quas miris modis⟩ cernebat ab alio, quam ipse fuerat, sibi suggeri, et quod in evangelio scriptum est: ecce angelus domini apparuit illi in somnis dicens, quo modo enim apparuerit vel corpus angelicum oculis clausis … vel spiritus spiritui dormientis specie aliqua simili corporis, sicut nos ipsi nobis videmur tali figura etiam per loca moveri somniantes longe aliter quam membra in stratis iacentia.

1783

Liber 5 Caput 3 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 5a recto p. 78 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 905A; p. 416a6–22 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 107.9–15; p. 640.16–20 Diels; pp. 331–338 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 218–219 Daiber

Titulus γʹ. Τίς ἡ οὐσία τοῦ σπέρματος (P) §1 Ἀριστοτέλης· σπέρμα ἐστὶ τὸ δυνάμενον κινεῖν ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς τὸ ἀποτελέσαι τι τοιοῦτον, οἷόν ἐστι τὸ ἐξ οὗ συνεκρίθη. (P1) §2 Πυθαγόρας ἀφρὸν τοῦ χρηστοτάτου αἵματος τὸ σπέρμα, περίττωμα τῆς τροφῆς, ὥσπερ τὸ αἷμα καὶ μυελόν. (P2) §3 Ἀλκμαίων ἐγκεφάλου μέρος. (P3) §4 Πλάτων μυελοῦ τοῦ νωτιαίου ἀπόρροιαν. (P4) §5 Ἐπίκουρος ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀπόσπασμα. (P5) §6 Δημόκριτος ἀφ᾽ ὅλων τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων μερῶν, οἷον ὀστῶν σαρκῶν ἰνῶν. (P6) §1 Aristoteles cf. GA 4.1 766b12; §2 Pythagoras —; §3 Alcmaeon 24A13 DK; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 74a; §5 Epicurus fr. 329 Usener; §6 Democritus 68A141 DK titulus Τίς ἡ τοῦ (τοῦ del. Diels, cf. PG) οὐσία σπέρματος PBQ(ut vid.) : Περὶ οὐσίας σπέρματος PG §1 [2] ἐστὶ PB : εἶναί φησι PG ‖ ἐν ἑαυτῷ PB : αὑτὸν PG : ἑαυτὸ PQ(ut vid.) ‖ εἰς] πρὸς PG ‖ [3] τι] τὸ PG ‖ τὸ] om. PG ‖ συνεκρίθη PBG : ἀπεκρίθη dub. Diels et leg. ut vid. PQ §2 [4] τὸ σπέρμα] ἢ PG ‖ περίττωμα PB(III)G : περίττευμα PB(I,II) cf. Überschuß Q ‖ [5] ὥσπερ … μυελόν] non hab. PG ‖ μυελόν PB(II,III)Q : μυελῶν PB(I) §6 [9–10] οἷον ὀστῶν σαρκῶν (mss. σαρκικῶν aut σαρκινῶν, emend. Jas, καὶ add. PG2) ἰνῶν PG prob. Primavesi, cf. οἷον ὀστῶν σαρκῶν καὶ ἰνῶν Diels Mau Lachenaud : ὁ γόνος τῶν σαρκικῶν ἰνῶν PB(I,III), ubi ογονοσ των ex οιον οστων corruptum est, cf. Diels DG 15; similiter ὁ γόνος τῶν σαρκῶν καὶ ἰνῶν PB(II) et PQ (der Same …, aus dem Fleisch und aus den Fasern Q)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 5a recto = P §§5–6 α̣[ ] ̣ ̣[ ] ψ[υχης κ]αι σ̣ [ωματος αποσπασμα Δημοκρι] το̣[ς α]φ ολων̣ [των σωματων και των κυρι] ωτατων με̣[ρων οιον οστων σαρκων και ινων] continuat caput 4 ps.Galenus c. 107 (~ tit.) Περὶ οὐσίας σπέρματος (text Jas) 107.1 (~ P1) Ἀριστοτέλης σπέρμα εἶναί φησι ⟨τὸ δυνμαμενον⟩ κινεῖν αὑτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀποτελέσαι τὸ τοιοῦτον, οἷόν ἐστιν τὸ ἐξ οὗ συνεκρίθη. 107.2 (~ P2) Πυθαγόρας ἀφρὸν τοῦ χρηστοτάτου αἵματος ἢ περίττωμα τῆς τροφῆς.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_128

5

10

liber 5 caput 3

1785

107.3 (~ P3) Ἀλκμαίων ἐγκεφάλου μέρος. 107.4 (~ P4) Πλάτων τοῦ νωτιαίου μυελοῦ ἀπόρροιαν. 107.5 (~ P5) Ἐπίκουρος ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀπόσπασμα. 107.6 (~ P6) Δημόκριτος ἀφ᾽ ὅλων τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων μερῶν οἷον σαρκῶν ὀστῶν ἰνῶν. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 1.3.1 Θαλῆς … στοχάζεται δ᾽ ἐκ τούτου πρῶτον, ὅτι πάντων τῶν ζῴων ἡ γονὴ ἀρχή ἐστιν ὑγρὰ οὖσα. A 4.4.4 oἱ Στωικοὶ ἐξ ὀκτὼ μερῶν φασι συνεστάναι (τὴν ψυχήν), … ἑβδόμου δὲ σπερματικοῦ. A 4.21.4 (de Stoicis) τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν (μέρων τῆς ψυχής) τὸ μὲν λέγεται σπερματικόν. A 5.4 Εἰ σῶμα τὸ σπέρμα. §3 A 4.17.1 Ἀλκμαίων ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. §5 A 5.4.1 Λεύκιππος καὶ Ζήνων σῶμα· ψυχῆς γὰρ εἶναι ἀπόσπασμα. cf. A 5.11.3 oἱ Στωικοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς φέρεσθαι τὰ σπέρματα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses PB and Q transmit six doxai, which perhaps because of their relative brevity are all quite faithfully retained in G. A papyrus fragment contains snippets of the last two doxai joined with the first lines of the next chapter. The remaining letters are of no value for determining the text of the final phrase of §6. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are three doxographical passages in the proximate tradition which show resemblances to A’s chapter. Censorinus, in moving from the question of human origins (ch. 4), to that of human birth (ch. 5), first notes that the ‘professors of wisdom’ disagree on where semen comes from and gives three views: (a) from both left and right parts of the body (Parmenides); (b) from the marrow (Hippo); (c) from the whole body (Anaxagoras Democritus Alcmaeon). We note that the question of ‘where it comes from’ is basic to A’s approach, although only explicitly expressed in §6. The second, a very brief doxography in ps.Galen’s Definitiones medicae, is valuable because it gives a clear diaeresis of two (or rather three) of the positions taken in A’s chapter and also replicates two name-labels, one for each position (Plato, Democritus). A similar diaeresis is found in Lactantius, with the views attributed anonymously.

1786

liber 5 caput 3

As already noted in our Introduction to Book 5, these three documents are key witnesses to the tradition of the Placita on the subjects of spermatology, embryology, heredity and related issues. For Censorinus, who dated his little treatise to 238 ce, it may be considered virtually certain that his chief source for the passages with material similar to A was Varro. The evidence was set out in considerable detail by Diels at DG 186–198, who argued that the likely source was his book Tubero de origine humana cited at §9.1. The other work that Censorinus refers to is Atticus de numeris at §2.2. These works both derive from the so-called Logistorici, treatises of a philosophical character which honour a recently departed person and treat a subject with which that person was connected (Rocca-Serra 1980, xi n. 24). In a brief examination of Censorinus’ sources Rocca-Serra (1980) viii–ix agrees with Diels that chs. 4–8 ultimately represent extracts from the Vetusta placita, and that much is owed to Varro. Whether or not one accepts Diels’ hypothesis, there can be no doubt the material in these chapters goes back to a late Hellenistic doxographical tradition which has been transmitted through to A. See further the Introduction to Book 5, section 5 above. We note too a quaestio related to the subject of this chapter in the Δικτυακά of Dionysius of Aegae preserved by Photius. It is dialectically formulated in terms of a diaphonia between two θέσεις, does the semen derive from the whole body or from the testicles only. On this work see Von Staden (1999) 177–187; Runia (1999a) 242–243; and the Introduction to Book 5, section 5 above. The important parallel text in ps.Galen Def.Med. §439 is the first in a long series of sections on spermatology, embryology and gynaecology (§§439–461) which depart from this work’s usual method of presenting brief definitions. The first 14 sections (§§439–452) contain much material relevant to Book 5 of the Placita. On this work see Kollesch (1973), who dates it (pp. 60–66) to the last decades of the first cent. ce, i.e. very close in time to A; Runia (1999a) 230, 242– 243; and the Introduction to Book 5 above. This passage is excerpted in a set of notes in Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r, first published by Diels at DG 233. It is not an independent witness but is wholly derived from the ps.Galenic text §§439– 452, including the list of what appear to be headings but are in fact drawn from the beginnings of the various sub-sections of this text. Diels later realised (1893, 102 n. 2 = Burkert ed. 1969, 240 n. 2) that it was derived from ps.Galen. This textual fragment is valuable because it proves the authenticity of this section of ps.Galen’s compendium. Mention should also be made of the valuable treatise on spermatology of the so-called Anonymus Bruxellensis (previously attributed by its early editors to Vindicianus, but this is no longer accepted; see Debru 1999, 453–454). It gives as its subject in the opening sentence both the nature of semen (quid sit) and

liber 5 caput 3

1787

where it comes from (unde), i.e. deals with two question types. It outlines the positions of various philosophers and physicians and gives much more detail on their arguments than we find in A. There is, however, as Van der Eijk rightly notes (2000–2001, 2.80), little correspondence with the contents of A’s presentation. (2) Sources. Aristotle devotes a long section of GA to the examination of semen, introduced at 1.16 721a28 as one of the ὁμοιομερῆ (uniform parts). At 1.18 724a14 he commences his investigation into what semen is (i.e. the same quaestio as in our chapter) with a dialectical passage in which he takes issue with the pan-genesis theory found at A §6. But no name-labels are mentioned. The content of his treatment had only a limited influence on the later doxographical tradition. Epicurus does not mention the subject of the nature of semen in his Letters, but it is briefly listed in the doxography contained in a scholion inserted at Ep.Pyth. 66; on this text see above on ch. 5.2 Commentary D(a). The subject is included in the summary of the Stoic φυσικὸς λόγος at D.L. 7.133, being part of the study of causes (τὸ αἰτιολογικόν) in which common ground is sought with ‘the doctors’. An all too brief summary follows at D.L. 7.158–159. Galen’s work Περὶ σπέρματος takes as its starting-point the χρεία and δύναμις of semen and betrays no interest in a doxographical tradition such as that of A. The pre-Aristotelian sources for the doxographical tradition on the nature of semen will have been rich, since the question was much discussed from about 500 bce onwards. Most of these original documents are lost, but in addition to Plato’s discussion in the Timaeus (see below on §4), there is preserved a treatise Περὶ γονῆς in the Hippocratic corpus (no. 21 in the listing of Jouanna and Magdelaine in DPhA 3.776). The title is usually translated ‘On generation’, but as the opening words of the work indicate, γονή is also the word for semen. On the early tradition of spermatology in Greek medicine see Lesky (1951), (1952); Lonie (1981); Longrigg (1985); (1993) passim; Althoff (1999) 85–89 (on Aristotle). Lesky’s monograph (presented to the Mainz academy in 1950, but not published until the following year) is the classic work on the entire subject of reproduction and heredity in the ancient world and has not been superseded. Her work is systematically organised in terms of physiological theories, so discussion of sources must be sought via the index locorum. Useful overviews of individual philosophers and doctors in Longrigg (1993). C Chapter Heading This is the only chapter in Book 5 with a heading that indicates that its subject is the οὐσία (substance, nature, essence) of something. It is the last in a long line of chapters inquiring after the substance of the major components of the physical world (2.11, 13, 20, 25, 3.9 in PB, 4.3). The usage in the present chapter clearly goes

1788

liber 5 caput 3

back to Aristotle and is also found in the Anon. Bruxellensis (see texts below section E(a) Chapter heading, (b) General texts). It differs from the approach used by Galen noted above in section B. For the distinction and connection between Περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα and Περὶ οὐσίας τοῦ δεῖνα see above, ch. 1.3, Commentary C ad init., and for similar problems at chs. 1.21–22, 1.25–26 and 1.27–28 see the Commentary on those chapters, all at Commentary C. D Analysis a Context After the first two psychological chapters 5.1 and 5.2, which might better have been placed in Book 4 (see on chs. 5.1 and 5.2. Commentary D(a)), this chapter is the first to focus on physiology proper, i.e. those phenomena in which the role of the body is predominant. It commences the long section chs. 5.3–23, which amounts to a doxographical treatment of subjects belonging to spermatology, embryology and what we would now call genetics. See our remarks in the Introduction to Book 5, section 5. A starts with the subject of semen, since it is the starting-point of animal and human life. b Number–Order of Lemmata We cannot go beyond the evidence of the tradition of P and the six doxai it records. As we shall see in the following sub-section, these cover the main positions on the subject. Nevertheless the wealth of material in the wider doxographical tradition not used by P suggests that the coverage in A may have been fuller. The name-labels recorded in the three documents in the proximate tradition which are missing here are: Parmenides, Hippo, Anaxagoras (Censorinus); Diocles, Praxagoras, Hippocrates (Def.Med.); and Alexander and Diogenes of Apollonia (Anon. Bruxellensis). So it is highly likely that A’s chapter originally contained more name-labels and also quite possibly more doxai. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The opening doxa unusually eschews indirect speech and gives what looks like a verbatim quote; cf. the similar practice at A 2.5.1. But it is not likely to be an actual quotation from an Aristotelian work. Although the language and the contents are basically Aristotelian, nothing resembling this sentence is found in GA, where Aristotle deals with the subject of semen at great length, or elsewhere in the extant works (it is not impossible that it derives from a lost exoteric work, but not very likely). But we should note that the practice of commencing a chapter with its subject as first word followed by ἐστί occurs frequently elsewhere in order to introduce a preliminary definition (chs. 1.9–12, 14–15, 23, 2.30, 3.1, cf. 1.25.1, 4.8.1–2, 5.29). Of these passages only 1.23 follows the same

liber 5 caput 3

1789

practice as here, i.e. first giving the name-label of the purported source of the definition followed by the definition itself, in that case Pythagoras Plato (in two cases we find an explicit indication that it is a definition, A 4.8.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ ὁρίζονται οὕτως τὴν αἴσθησιν· αἴσθησίς ἐστιν …; 5.29.1 Ἐρασίστρατος ὁρίζεται τὸν πυρετὸν οὕτως· πυρετός ἐστι …). The rest are all without name-label. G and Q give a text that is more in line with P’s usual practice (φησί/‘glaubte’ + infinitive). It is far from impossible that this was P’s original text, but we retain the text of PB as the lectio difficilior. The doxa is intended as an introductory definition and as such stands apart from the rest of the chapter. Its metaphysical content differs from the remaining five doxai which all report various physical substances. It is best regarded as a nominal definition which sets the scene as it were for the descriptions that follow in the remainder of the chapter. See the discussion of such definitions and their role in the Placita above ch. 1.9 Commentary D(d) under General points. Unusually the definition is not anonymous, as in 1.9–15, but is attributed to Aristotle. It should also be noted that, through its metaphysical content, it forms an implicit diaeresis with the remainder of the doxai in the chapter. The remaining doxai all indicate the physical nature of semen and/or its source in a highly compact fashion. The first, §2, presents the view that semen is ‘foam from the most useful (kind of) blood’, which is equated with ‘residue from food’. This doxa represents what Lesky has called the ‘hematogenic’ theory of the nature of semen (1951, 120ff.). The doxa combines two views, that of Diogenes of Apollonia (attributed to him by the Anon. Brux. 1, 3, but to Hippo by Censorinus), and of Aristotle. For the latter he uses the exact Aristotelian formula περίττωμα τῆς τροφῆς but without the additional qualifications χρησίμου and ἐσχάτης (GA 1.18 725a11, 1.19 726a26; see texts below section E(b) General texts). The whole is then puzzlingly attributed to Pythagoras (elsewhere a quite different view linked to that of Alcmaeon is attributed to anonymous Pythagoreans by Alexander Polyhistor as recorded at D.L. 8.28). Pythagoras is perhaps invoked as a distinguished auctor of an established view (as often elsewhere in A). The two parts of the doxa, foam and residue, are most likely drawn from Aristotle (where they are separate) and conflated. The indication for this is the qualification that in Aristotle applies to the residue, i.e. that it is ‘useful’, is transferred to the other view of semen as foam (in Aristotle blood is the ἐσχάτη τροφή (GA 1.19 726b2), but it is not connected with foam as explanation of semen’s whiteness). The question may be asked whether this combination is the result of A having conflated the two parts or whether it is due to P’s epitomization. The former is perhaps more likely. In the next two lemmata A presents what Lesky has called the ‘encephalomyelogenic’ theory of semen (1951, 9ff., cf. Lonie 1981, 101–102). It is divided

1790

liber 5 caput 3

into two separate views: Alcmaeon, the originator of the theory (Lesky ibid.), regards semen as a ‘part of the brain’, Plato as ‘an effluence from the marrow in the backbone’ (clearly derived from the Timaeus). A thus not unintelligently divides what ps.Galen nevertheless keeps together. Censorinus, on the other hand, appears to contradict this view by lumping Alcmaeon together with the atomist view—which A presents last (§6)—in opposing the view that semen comes from the bone marrow. The contradiction can be rescued, as suggested by Lesky (1952), by interpreting Alcmaeon’s opposition as regarding only the view that it is from the marrow and not the brain. But this is perhaps being too kind to Censorinus. It is worth noting that Galen describes this theory, taken over by Plato, as the παλαιὰ δόξα, and also attributes it to Hippocrates (text below under section E(b)§4). The great doctor, however, is almost entirely absent in the Placita (only at A 4.5.2, 5.18.4). The final two lemmata are perhaps best taken together as representing the pan-genesis view. The second of these, §6, attributes the view to Democritus, who according to Lesky (1951, 72) must be seen as the originator of the doctrine, though it may have been inspired by Anaxagoras (as implicitly suggested by the doxography in Censorinus). Ps.Galen also attributes this view to Democritus (accompanied by Hippocrates, in opposition to Galen above; in fact both theories are found in the Hippocratic corpus). We are left with §5, which attributes a reduced version of this view—semen as a fragment of soul and body—to Epicurus. This must be a mistake, for elsewhere Epicurus is recorded as faithfully following the atomist view and this is taken over by his disciple Lucretius. His view is clearly summarised in the scholion to Ep.Hdt. 66 which we discussed in ch. 5.2 Commentary D(a). (See the texts cited below under section E(a)§5.) As will emerge in two following chapters (A 5.4.1, 5.11.3) the doxa in fact represents the Stoic position, but does so clumsily: semen is a part of soul (cf. A 4.4.4, 4.21.4) but as such is also corporeal (see the text from AD cited below under section E(a)§5). It also takes σπέρματα or σπερματικοὶ λόγοι from all the body’s parts (implicit in A 5.11.3). The lemma may in fact be a doublet of the lemma in the next chapter, from which it is separated only by the final Democritean doxa and which repeats the atomist connection by coupling Zeno with Leucippus. But its reappearance at 5.11.3 militates against this possibility. It is more likely that A, or even more likely P, has garbled an original Stoic doxa and given it a wrong name-label (compare what has happened with P in A 1.20.1). Despite the mishap towards the end, however, this chapter is one of A’s better efforts. After the initial definition he manages to set out the main views on the subject in a compact fashion, using a clear diaeresis, which in fact anticipates the tripartition of ancient theories delineated by Lesky in her monograph. This is in contrast to the other three doxographies in the proximate tradition, which

liber 5 caput 3

1791

all relate only two of the main positions (the Parmenidean doxa in Censorinus is not relevant; see below on chs. 5.7 and 5.11). The sequence of the doxai also follows a logical order, beginning at the micro-level with an explanation in terms of the blood, moving from there to the larger bodily parts brain and spine, and ending with the view that semen is taken from all the parts of the body. The name-labels are not all accurate, as we have seen, but four of the main theorists are identified. Following the usual doxographical method the order is systematic rather than chronological. Comparison with the other doxographies in the proximate tradition reveals that the three texts in the proximate tradition all adopt the same approach as A, setting out distinct positions in a diaeresis. A’s list with its five doxai (excluding the opening definition) is in fact the most extensive, though lacking some of the colourful detail of Censorinus. This convergence of method shows that A’s basic method, of which the diaeresis is a key technique, goes back to anterior traditions. A difference, however, is that his name-labels are all drawn from the philosophical tradition (including Alcmaeon as a φυσικός) with Epicurus as the youngest representative. The Hellenistic physicians, who will be very prominent in Book 5, are not included. This is in contrast to Diocles, Praxagoras, Hippocrates and Asclepiades in ps.Galen, Diocles and Alexander the pupil of Asclepiades in the Anon. Bruxellensis. d

Further Comments Individual Points §3 Alcmaeon is prominent in the remains of Book 5, with five doxai (also at 5.14.1, 5.17.3, 5.24.1, 5.30.1). This is in addition to his contribution to psychology in Book 4 (see 4.16.2, 4.17.1, 4.18.1). The fact that he is so often placed at or close to the beginning of the chapter might imply that he is an early contributor to the discussions (cf. the role of the Milesians in Book 2). But this is not made explicit. The πρῶτος εὑρετής motif is in fact absent in what we have of Book 5, occurring for the last time at A 4.2.1. The claim that Alcmaeon was a pioneer in human psychology and physiology is a modern invention, encouraged by Diels’ early placement of his fragments in VS ahead of Parmenides. The role of pioneer in these areas of enquiry should be credited to the Eleatic; see further Mansfeld (2015e). §6 For the final phrase οἷον ὀστῶν σαρκῶν ἰνῶν the textual corruption in PBQ is exposed by PG, as already seen by Diels; cf. DG 15. Other difficulties are whether to read σαρκῶν or σαρκικῶν and whether the final two nouns are connected by καί. See the detailed discussion at Jas (2018a) 331–322. They do not of course affect the sense. The three examples given in fact go back to Aristotle who in the context of questions about the inheritance by children of traits from

1792

liber 5 caput 3

their parents (cf. ch. 5.11) at GA 1.18 722a17 asks whether the semen is drawn only from the ὁμοιομερή, such as flesh and bone and nerve, or from the ἀνομοιομερή such as face and hand (text below section E(b)§6). The same distinction with the same triad is found in a statement attributed to Hippocrates on male semen at the Anon. Bruxellensis 25. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus DN 5.2–3 igitur semen unde exeat, inter sapientiae professores non constat. Parmenides (28A53 DK) enim tum ex dextris tum e laevis partibus † id ire † putavit. Hipponi vero {et} Metapontino (38A1, A12 DK), sive, ut Aristoxenus (fr. 21 Wehrli, iii 3 130 Kaiser) auctor est, Samio ex medullis profluere semen videtur, idque eo probari, quod post admissionem pecudum si quis mares interimat, medullas utpote exhaustas non reperiat. (3) sed hanc opinionem nonnulli refellunt, ut Anaxagoras (59A107 DK) Democritus (68A141 DK) et Alcmaeon Crotoniates (24A13 DK); hi enim post gregum contentionem non medullis modo verum et adipe multaque carne mares exhauriri respondent. ps.Galen Def.Med. 439, pp. 19.449.14–450.5 K. υλθʹ. ἐκκρίνεται τὸ σπέρμα, ὥσπερ Πλάτων (cf. below E(b)§4) φησὶ καὶ Διοκλῆς (fr. 41 Van der Eijk), ἀπὸ ἐγκεφάλου καὶ νωτιαίου.· Πραξαγόρας (fr. 34 Steckerl) δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος (68B124 DK) ἔτι τε Ἱπποκράτης (Genit. 3 cited below E(b)§6) ἐξ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος. ὁ μὲν Δημόκριτος λέγων (68B124 DK) ‘ἄνθρωποι εἷς ἔσται καὶ ἄνθρωπος πάντες’. ὁ δὲ Ἱπποκράτης φησί (Corpus Hippocraticum Aër. 14, p. 2.60.1–2 Littré, Morb.Sacr. 2, p. 2.264.19–20 Littré, cf. Genit. 1 cited below B§1)· ἡ γὰρ ἡδονὴ πανταχόθεν ἔρχεται τοῦ σώματος· ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν ὑγιῶν ὑγιής, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν νοσερῶν νοσερά. τὸ σπέρμα ἐστὶν κατὰ μὲν τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς (SVF 2.742) ὃ μεθίησι τὸ ζῶον ὑγρὸν μετὰ πνεύματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ὡς δὲ οὐ μέρος. κατὰ δὲ Ἀσκληπιάδην (Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 721) τὸ ἐν ταῖς ἀφροδισίοις συνουσίαις ἐκκρινόμενον γεννητικὸν ὑγρόν (excerpted by Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r, see Diels DG 233). Hippolytus Ref. 1.16.2 (on Hippo, 38A3 DK) καὶ γὰρ τὸ σπέρμα εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον ἡμῖν ἐξ ὑγροῦ, ἐξ οὗ φησι ψυχὴν γίνεσθαι. Lactantius Op.D. 12.4 Perrin ipsum semen quidam putant ex medullis tantum, quidam ex omni corpore ad venam genitalem confluere ibique concrescere. Chapter heading: Anonymus Bruxellensis 1 Wellmann hic de semine quid sit vel unde nascatur. cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (DG 233) δόξα Δημόκριτου (—) περὶ σπέρματος … δόξα τῶν Στωικῶν περὶ σπέρματος. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 1.38, p. 33.10 Marchesi rationes quas habent semina. Dionysius of Aegae at Photius Bibl. 185 (cf. 211) 129b17–19 τρίτον ὅτι ἀφ᾽ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος ἡ τοῦ σπέρματος ἔκκρισις γίνεται, τέταρτον ὅτι οὐκ ἀφ᾽ὅλου ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν διδύμων (quaestio). §1 Aristotle: ps.Galen Def.Med. 94, p. 19.370.14–16 K. Ϟδʹ. σπέρμα ἐστὶ πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον ἐν ὑγρῷ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον καὶ δυνάμενον τοιοῦτον γεννᾷν οἷον ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ ἀφέθη. Stoics at D.L. 7.158 (SVF 2.741) σπέρμα δὲ λέγουσι εἶναι τὸ οἷόν τε γεννᾶν τοιαῦτα ἀφ᾽ οἵου καὶ αὐτὸ ἀπεκρίθη.

liber 5 caput 3 §2 Pythagoras: cf. Anonymus Bruxellensis 1 Alexander amator veri appellatus, discipulus Asclepiadis, libro primo de semine spumam sanguinis eius essentiam dixit Diogenis placitis consentiens. §3 Alcmaeon: ps.Galen Def.Med. 439, p. 19.449.14–16 K. cited above. Censorinus 5.3 cited above. §4 Plato: ps.Galen Def.Med. 439, p. 19.449.14–16 K. cited above; also Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (DG 233). §5 Epicurus: Arius Didymus at Eus. PE 15.20.1 (fr. 39 Diels) τὸ δὲ σπέρμα φησὶν ὁ Ζήνων (SVF 1.128) εἶναι ὃ μεθίησιν ἄνθρωπος πνεῦμα μεθ᾽ ὑγροῦ, ψυχῆς μέρος ⟨καὶ⟩ ἀπόσπασμα καὶ τοῦ σπέρματος τοῦ τῶν προγόνων κέρασμα καὶ μίγμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν συνεληλυθός (cf. also Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r, DG 233). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.159 (SVF 1.626) καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὅλων δὲ τῶν σωμάτων αὐτό φασι καταφέρεσθαι οἱ περὶ τὸν Σφαῖρον· πάντων γοῦν γεννητικὸν εἶναι τῶν τοῦ σώματος μερῶν. Scholia in Epicurum at Ep.Hdt. 66 τὸ δὲ σπέρμα ἀφ᾽ ὅλων τῶν σωμάτων φέρεσθαι; also Lucretius DRN 4.1041–1044 quod (sc. semen) simul atque suis eiectum sedibus exit, / per membra atque artus decedit corpore toto / in loca conveniens nervorum certa, cietque / continuo partis genitalis corporis ipsas. §6 Democritus: ps.Galen Def.Med. 439, p. 449.14–16 K. cited above. also Censorinus 5.3 cited above. see also Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.159 on the Stoics cited above on §5.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 1.16 721a26–29 τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὴν γένεσιν ὄργανα τοῖς ζῴοις περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἐλέχθη πρότερον, τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον· τῶν δ᾽ὁμοιομερῶν ἀπελείφθη περὶ γονῆς καὶ γάλακτος, περὶ ὧν καιρός ἐστιν εἰπεῖν, περὶ μὲν γονῆς ἤδη … GA 1.18 724a14–17 ἀρχὴ δὲ καὶ ταύτης τῆς σκέψεως καὶ τῶν ἑπομένων πρῶτον λαβεῖν περὶ σπέρματος τί ἐστιν· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ συμβαινόντων ἔσται μᾶλλον εὐθεώρητον. GA 2.2 735a30 περὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ σπέρματος φύσεως ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. the Stoics, Posidonius fr. 254 Theiler, not in SVF or E.-K.) εἴς τε τὸν περὶ σωμάτων τόπον καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν … καὶ οὕτω μὲν εἰδικῶς, γενικῶς δ᾽ εἰς τρεῖς τόπους, τόν τε περὶ κόσμου καὶ τὸν περὶ τῶν στοιχείων καὶ τρίτον τὸν αἰτιολογικόν. … (133) … τόν τ᾽ αἰτιολογικὸν εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸν διμερῆ· μιᾷ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπισκέψει ἐπικοινωνεῖν τὴν τῶν ἰατρῶν ζήτησιν, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητοῦσι περί τε τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τῶν ἐν ψυχῇ γινομένων καὶ περὶ σπερμάτων καὶ τῶν τούτοις ὁμοίων. V.P. 7.158–159 cited below ch. 5.4 E(b)§1. Soranus Gyn. 1.2.2–3 ἐξ ὧν τὸν μὲν περὶ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν εἴς τε τὸν φυσικόν (ἐν ᾧ σκεπτόμεθα περὶ σπέρματος καὶ ζῳογονίας) (sc. λόγον) … τὸν μὲν οὖν φυσικὸν ἄχρηστον ὄντα πρὸς τὸ τέλος, φερέκοσμον δὲ πρὸς χρηστομάθειαν, κεχωρίκαμεν ἐντεῦθεν, μόνον πρὸς τὸ παρὸν ἐχόμενοι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. Chapter heading: Democritus at D.L. 9.47 (catalogue of writings, 68A33 DK) Αἰτίαι περὶ σπερμάτων καὶ φυτῶν καὶ καρπῶν. Αἰτίαι περὶ ζῴων αʹ βʹ γʹ. Aristotle GA 1.18 724a14–15 text above under General texts. Megasthenes FGrH 715 fr. 33 at Strabo 15.1.59 (on the Brahmans) καὶ περὶ σπέρματος δὲ καὶ ψυχῆς

1793

1794

liber 5 caput 3

ὅμοια λέγεται. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.54 Lambros ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀρχὴ πάσης γενέσεως ἐναίμου τὸ σπέρμα, τί δέ ἐστι καὶ ποῖον κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ πόθεν ζητεῖται, ἀκόλουθον ἂν εἴη τοῖς προειρημένοις καὶ περὶ τούτου εἰπεῖν. ἐναπορεῖ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης κατὰ μὲν πρῶτον περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ … cf. also Epit.HA 2.36 42.14 περὶ … τῆς τοῦ σπέρματος οὐσίας (full text cited on ch. 5.8). Sphaerus at D.L. 7.178 (SVF 2.626, catalogue of his writings) ⟨Περὶ⟩ σπέρματος. cf. also V.P. 7.133 cited above. Athenaeus of Attalia Περὶ σπέρματος cited by Galen Sem. 2.1.44, p. 156.1 De Lacy. Galen Περὶ σπέρματος. Soranus Gyn. 1.12.3 περὶ οὗ διελάβομεν ἐν τῷ Περὶ σπέρματος λόγῷ (and see text cited above under General texts). §1 Aristotle: Aristotle GA 4.1 766b12–15 διαφέρει δὲ τὸ τοῦ ἄρρενος σπέρμα ὅτι ἔχει ἀρχὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τοιαύτην οἵαν κινεῖν {καὶ ἐν τῷ ζῴῳ} καὶ διαπέττειν τὴν ἐσχάτην τροφήν, τὸ δὲ τοῦ θήλεος ὕλην μόνον. cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.158 cited above E(a)§1. Plutarch QPlat. 4 1003B ὥσπερ οὖν, εἰ φαίη τις ἀεὶ τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος δύναμιν εἶναι μετὰ σώματος, γεγονέναι μέντοι τὸ σῶμα τῆς συκῆς ἢ τῆς ἐλαίας ὑπὸ σπέρματος, οὐδὲν ἐρεῖ διάφωνον (αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα, κινήσεως αὐτῷ καὶ μεταβολῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος ἐγγενομένης, ἔφυ τοιοῦτο καὶ διεβλάστησεν) … §2 Pythagoras: Corpus Hippocraticum Genit. 1, p. 7.470.8–12 Littré τριβομένου δὲ τοῦ αἰδοίου καὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κινευμένου, τὸ ὑγρὸν θερμαίνεται ἐν τῷ σώματι καὶ διαχέεται καὶ κλονέεται ὑπὸ τῆς κινήσιος καὶ ἀφρέει, καθάπερ καὶ τἄλλα ὑγρὰ ξύμπαντα κλονεύμενα ἀφρέει· οὕτω δὲ κἀν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀποκρίνεται ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑγροῦ ἀφρέοντος τὸ ἰσχυρότατον καὶ πιότατον, καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν νωτιαῖον μυελόν. Aristotle GA 1.18 725a11–13 χρησίμου ἄρα περιττώματος μέρος τί ἐστι τὸ σπέρμα. χρησιμώτατον δὲ τὸ ἔσχατον καὶ ἐξ οὗ ἤδη γίγνεται ἕκαστον τῶν μορίων. GA 1.19 726a26–28 ὅτι μὲν οὖν περίττωμά ἐστι τὸ σπέρμα χρησίμου τροφῆς καὶ τῆς ἐσχάτης … ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις φανερόν. GA 2.3 736a13–21, αἴτιον δὲ τῆς λευκότητος τοῦ σπέρματος ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡ γονὴ ἀφρός … ἔοικε δὲ οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀρχαίους λανθάνειν ἀφρώδης ἡ τοῦ σπέρματος οὖσα φύσις· τὴν γοῦν κυρίαν θεὸν τῆς μίξεως ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης προσηγόρευσαν. Philo Opif. 67 τὸ σπέρμα τῶν ζῴων γενέσεως ἀρχὴν εἶναι συμβέβηκε· τοῦθ᾽ ὡς ἔστι φαυλότατον ἐοικὸς ἀφρῷ, θεωρεῖται. Clement of Alexandria Paed. 1.48.3 τινὲς δὲ καὶ τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ ζώου ἀφρὸν εἶναι τοῦ αἵματος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὑποτίθενται ὃ δὴ τῇ ἐμφύτῳ τοῦ ἄρρενος θέρμῃ παρὰ τὰς συμπλοκὰς ἐκταραχθὲν ἐκριπιζόμενον ἐξαφροῦται κἀν ταῖς σπερματίτισιν παρατίθεται φλεψίν· ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης Διογένης (64A24, cf. B6 DK, T15a Laks) τὰ ἀφροδίσια κεκλῆσθαι βούλεται. But note Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex.Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.28 τὸ δὲ σπέρμα εἶναι σταγόνα ἐγκεφάλου περιέχουσαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ ἀτμὸν θερμόν. §4 Plato: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Genit. 1 cited above on §1. Plato Tim. 74a καὶ περὶ τὸν διαυχένιον ἅμα καὶ νωτιαῖον μυελὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ σφονδύλους πλάσας ὑπέτεινεν οἷον στρόφιγγας, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς, διὰ παντὸς τοῦ κύτους. καὶ τὸ πᾶν δὴ σπέρμα διασῴζων οὕτως λιθοειδεῖ περιβόλῳ συνέφραξεν. also Tim. 77d, 86c, 91b. Galen in Tim. 77d3–6, p. 14.10–13 Schröder γόνιμον μυελὸν εἶπε τὸν νωτιαῖον οὔσης καὶ ταύτης παλαιᾶς δόξης, ὡς καὶ τὸν Ἱπποκράτην δοκεῖν αὐτῆς

liber 5 caput 3 μετεσχηκέναι καὶ νομίζειν ἐκ τοῦ νωτιαίου μυελοῦ τὸ σπέρμα κατέρχεσθαι πρὸς τὸ τοῦ ἄρρενος αἰδοῖον. §6 Democritus: Corpus Hippocraticum Aër. 14, p. 2.60.1–2 Littré ὁ γὰρ γόνος πανταχόθεν ἔρχεται τοῦ σώματος, ἀπό τε τῶν ὑγιηρῶν ὑγιηρὸς, ἀπό τε τῶν νοσερῶν νοσερός. Morb.Sacr. 2, p. 2.264.19–20 Littré ὡς ὁ γόνος ἔρχεται πάντοθεν τοῦ σώματος, ἀπό τε τῶν ὑγιηρῶν ὑγιηρὸς, ἀπό τε τῶν νοσερῶν νοσερός. Genit. 3, p. 7.474.5–11 Littré τὴν δὲ γονήν φημι ἀποκρίνεσθαι ἀπὸ παντὸς τοῦ σώματος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν στερεῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μαλθακῶν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑγροῦ παντὸς τοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι. εἰσὶ δὲ τέσσαρες ἰδέαι τοῦ ὑγροῦ, αἷμα, χολὴ, ὕδωρ καὶ φλέγμα. τοσαύτας γὰρ ἰδέας ἔχει ξυμφυέας ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἑωυτῷ, καὶ ἀπὸ τουτέων αἱ νοῦσοι γίνονται (cf. also Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r, DG 233). Aristotle GA 1.17 721b8–10 καὶ πότερον ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀπέρχεται (sc. τὸ σπέρμα) τοῦ σώματος ἢ οὐκ ἀπὸ παντός. GA 1.18 722a15–17 ἔτι πότερον ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοιομερῶν μόνον ἀπέρχεται ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστου οἷον ἀπὸ σαρκὸς καὶ ὀστοῦ καὶ νεύρου, ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομοιομερῶν οἷον προσώπου καὶ χειρός.

1795

Liber 5 Caput 4 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 5b recto pp. 78–79 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 905B; p. 417a18–418a2 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 108; p. 640.9–15 Diels—PQ : Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 218–219 Daiber SL: Index capitum Γ 10; sed verisim. interpolatus ex P, cf. Elter (1880) 73–74, adn. p. 294 ed. Wachsmuth

Titulus δʹ. Εἰ σῶμα τὸ σπέρμα (P) §1 Λεύκιππος καὶ Ζήνων σῶμα· ψυχῆς γὰρ εἶναι ἀπόσπασμα. (P1) §2 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης ἀσώματον μὲν εἶναι τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ σπέρματος ὥσπερ νοῦν τὸν κινοῦντα, σωματικὴν δὲ τὴν ὕλην τὴν προχεομένην. (P2) §3 Στράτων καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ τὴν δύναμιν σῶμα· πνευματικὴ γάρ. (P3) §1 Leucippus 67A35 DK; Zeno Stoicus SVF 1.128; §2 Pythagoras —; Plato —; Aristoteles cf. GA 2.3 737a7–12; §3 Strato fr. 94 Wehrli, fr. 70 Sharples; Democritus 68A142 DK titulus Εἰ … σπέρμα] Περὶ τοῦ εἰ σῶμα τὸ σπέρμα SL-ind ‖ ante titulum (quem non hab. ut vid.) exhib. PP numerum μβʹ, i.e. 42 §1 [2] post σῶμα add. εἶναι PG ‖ εἶναι ⟨καὶ σώματος⟩ coni. Reiske, non prob. Diels et non confirm. PP §2 [3] nomina coniungit cum καὶ bis PG ‖ [4] ὥσπερ νοῦν τὸν κινοῦντα PBQ : om. PG §3 [6] Στράτων καὶ Δημόκριτος] add. καὶ Ἐπίκουρος PG2 (abest in PP) ‖ καὶ2 … γάρ PBQ(ut vid.) : κατὰ δύναμιν εἶναι σωματικήν PG1 Diels : καὶ τὴν δύναμιν εἶναι σωματικήν PG2 per litt. Jas : καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν σῶμα· πνευματικὸν δέ coni. Reiske, prob. dubitanter Mau (πνευματικὴν γάρ coni. Wyttenbach) ‖ πνευματικὴ γάρ] om. PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 5b recto = tit. et P §§1–3 5 μ̅ β̅ [ Λευκιππος κα̣ι ̣ [Ζηνων σωμα είναι ψυχης] γαρ ειναι αποσπα̣[σμα Πυθαγορας Πλατων] Αριστοτελης ασω̣[ματον μεν την δυναμιν] ειναι του σπερμ[ατος ωσπερ νουν τον κι] 10 [ν]ουντα σ̣ ω[ματικην δε την υλην την πε] ριεχο̣μ̣[ενην] Στρατων και Δημοκριτος και] τ̣ην δυ̣ναμ̣ [ιν ps.Galenus HPh c. 108 (~ tit.) Εἰ σῶμα τὸ σπέρμα (text Diels) 108.1 (~ P1) Λεύκιππος καὶ Ζήνων σῶμα εἶναι· ψυχῆς γὰρ εἶναι ἀπόσπασμα. 108.2 (~ P2) Πυθαγόρας καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἀσώματον μὲν εἶναι τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ σπέρματος, σωματικὴν δὲ ὕλην τὴν προχεομένην. 108.3 (~ P3) Στράτων καὶ Δημόκριτος κατὰ δύναμιν εἶναι σωματικήν.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_129

5

liber 5 caput 4

1797

Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 4.3 Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς. A 4.20 Εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνὴ καὶ πῶς ἠχὼ γίνεται. A 5.3 Τίς ἡ οὐσία τοῦ σπέρματος. §1 A 4.4.4 oἱ Στωικοὶ ἐξ ὀκτὼ μερῶν φασι συνεστάναι (τὴν ψυχήν), … ἑβδόμου δὲ σπερματικοῦ. A 4.21.4 (de Stoicis) τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν (μέρων τῆς ψυχής) τὸ μὲν λέγεται σπερματικόν. A 5.3.5 Ἐπίκουρος (sic) ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀπόσπασμα. §3 A 5.8.2 (de monstris) Στράτων παρὰ πρόσθεσιν ἢ ἀφαίρεσιν ἢ μετάθεσιν ἢ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The usual witnesses for this book, PB, PQ and PG, are complemented by a small snippet of the papyrus, which contains remnants of the last four lines of ch. 5.3 and the first seven lines of ch. 5.4. G retains all three lemmata. On the heading in SL see below, section C. On the apparent presence of §1 in T see below, section D(e). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are no exact parallels for this chapter in the proximate tradition. It is, of course, closely related to the more general topic of the substance of semen already discussed in ch. 5.3, where we saw that the nominal definition was cast in Aristotelian terms and emphasised the potential nature of the seed, but the remaining five focused on its material component. This implied diaeresis is further developed in the present chapter. The origin of the problem posed in the chapter can clearly be seen in Aristotle’s discussion of the nature and working of semen in GA 1.18–22, where he concludes that its δύναμις is derived from the male and its ὕλη from the female. The distinction between the two kinds of semen is not present in this chapter, but will be introduced in the chapter that follows, ch. 5.5. The question is reformulated in the materialistic philosophy of the Stoa, since semen is corporeal but also has psychic powers (τὸ σπερματικόν being a part of the soul). There are some good parallel texts for the Zenonian doctrine in AD and in ps.Galen Definitiones medicae, as well as in the Stoic doxography in Diogenes Laertius (texts below at section E(a)§1 & (b)§1). Most likely these texts ultimately reflect a similar doxographical tradition to that used by A. On the parallel text in T see below, section D(e).

1798

liber 5 caput 4

It is worth noting that the explicit distinction and antithesis between the incorporeal and the corporeal belongs to the conceptual apparatus of the Placita: see M–R 2.1.14, 57–58, 147 and also in the next sub-section on the chapter heading. It derives from the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and the early Academy, via the Stoa to the later phase when it is influenced by the rise of Middle Platonism. (2) Sources. There is no extant evidence for the approach taken to this question in pre-Aristotelian texts. Of discussions in the atomists our text is the only surviving trace. Similarly we have no further evidence relating to Strato or other Peripatetic treatment. C Chapter Heading There is no variation in the formulation of the chapter heading in the main witnesses. In the list contained in the Laurentianus ms. of S, however, we find the heading in P prefaced with the phrase Περὶ τοῦ, i.e. Περὶ τοῦ εἰ σῶμα τὸ σπέρμα. Since this phrase in combination with an interrogative heading is found elsewhere only at 2.8 (Περὶ τοῦ τίς ἡ αἰτία τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι) and there is no parallel with a heading involving a topic introduced with εἰ, it is probable that the addition does not go back to A. For the complicated situation regarding the index of chapter headings from S’s Eclogae see the General Introduction section 4.3.2, and below on ch. 5.19 Commentary C. In the pinax for the entire Anthology partly preserved in SL at Γ 10 under the heading Περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τῶν ζῷων (i.e. ch. 5.19) we find a list of no less than 18 further headings introduced by the words ἐν ᾧ καὶ ταῦτα. See the text printed in Wachsmuth (1882) 17 (originally published in 1871). The list was analysed by Elter (1880) 73–74, who demonstrated that at least four of these headings were demonstrably interpolated from P, namely the headings of 5.4, 5.5, 5.17 and the second mention of 5.19. This interpretation was taken over by Wachsmuth in his edition; see the note at (1884) 1.294. The remaining headings most likely refer to sub-headings taken from A and used by S in a manner similar to his practice in Ecl. 1.26 on the moon. This hypothesis is at least partly confirmed by Photius’ list of chapters, in which he summarizes the contents of Ecl. 1.42 as Περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τῶν ζῷων καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. For the most part we follow Elter’s analysis in our edition, although it contains speculative elements and cannot be considered wholly certain. In the case of the present chapter, given the unparalleled form of the heading in the pinax of SL as noted above, interpolation from P seems probable. It should be noted that, if Elter and Wachsmuth are correct, S will not have included the text of this chapter—together with the previous two and the next one—in his anthology. He must have thus regarded the subject of spermatology (narrowly conceived) as not relevant to his aims in the Anthology.

liber 5 caput 4

1799

Chapter headings beginning with εἰ are uncommon in the first three books (only at chs. 1.5, 2.3–4), but occur with increasing frequency the last two books (chs. 4.3, 4.9, 4.15, 4.20, 5.4–5, 5.15, in the latter part of the heading in 5.19, 5.20, 5.26, 5.29; on this kind of heading see ch. 1.1, Commentary C). They include the three chapters in which the topic under discussion focuses on whether something is a body or not: 4.3 εἰ σῶμα; 4.20 εἰ ἀσώματος; 5.4 εἰ σῶμα. The distinction between corporeal and incorporeal is made further explicit in the body of each chapter. It should be noted that the εἰ x formula encourages a yes or no answer, so is highly suitable for dialectical discussion. Most lines of the chapter are partially preserved in the papyrus except the heading. Most puzzlingly, instead of the chapter heading, it is headed by what seems to be a chapter number 42. For a possible explanation see M–R 1.127–128, where it is suggested that it could be the result of a numbering in which Books 3–5 were taken together (but it should then be 45, not 44 as we stated there). This may imply an earlier version of the Aëtian Placita in two books, but there is not a scrap of further evidence to support this hypothesis. Another possibility is that through inadvertence a sheet or column number has found its way into the text and has supplanted the chapter heading. D Analysis a Context The chapter continues the treatment of the subject of semen. Formally there might seem an analogy between the two chapters 4.2–3, entitled Περὶ ψυχῆς and Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς respectively. But the approach differs substantially, since there in the first chapter all the incorporeal views on the soul are listed and in the second all the corporeal views, whereas here the two views are contrasted within the single chapter. A closer parallel is 4.20 Εἰ ἀσώματος ἡ φωνή (on whether sound is incorporeal), to be further discussed below. b Number–Order of Lemmata The tradition of P only yields 3 doxai. As we shall see, the neatness of the diaeresis suggests that these were the main views which A listed, but this can be no more than a supposition. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Although the chapter heading highlights the question whether semen is a body, the doxai in the chapter itself examine its metaphysical aspects and so link up not only with chs. 4.2–3 and 4.20 mentioned above (as well as the definition at the beginning of ch. 5.3), but also to a limited degree with Book 1 and esp. 1.9–12 (note the diaeresis between incorporeal and corporeal causes at 1.11.3–4).

1800

liber 5 caput 4

The first view is primarily Stoic: semen as a fragment of soul (τὸ σπερματικόν is one of the soul’s seven irrational parts, cf. ch. 4.4.4) is itself wholly corporeal (since according to the Stoa soul is corporeal). In opposition to this view is the Aristotelian position that it is incorporeal as far as its δύναμις (functionality or capacity to act) is concerned, but corporeal with regard to its material composition. On the triple-barrel name-label in §2 see section D(d) below. The third doxa responds directly to the second in arguing that its δύναμις too is a body, i.e. corporeal, since that functionality is identical to the πνεῦμα of which it consists. The chapter thus exhibits a fairly straightforward diaeresis. It cannot be the same as the simple diaphonia between incorporeal and corporeal in 4.2–3 and 4.20, since it is inconceivable that semen can be wholly incorporeal. The basic diaeresis is between the view that there is no distinction between its functionality and its material basis (doxa 1) and that the view that there is such a distinction (doxai 2–3). But for the second half of the opposition there is the further distinction between the view that its functionality is incorporeal (doxa 2) or corporeal (doxa 3). Because of the neatness and completeness of the diaeresis, it is eminently likely that we have the chapter in its original form. But it always remains possible that P omitted doxai with further systematic distinctions or cut short some of the detail of the explanations. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 In our commentary on ch. 5.3 we argued that the similar doxa at 5.3.5 is wrongly attributed to Epicurus and that A (or P) may have garbled an originally Stoic name-label. But since there are similarities between the pan-genesis view held by Democritus (5.3.6) and the view of the Stoa (cf. the view of Sphaerus at D.L. 7.158 cited at ch. 5.3 section E(b) General texts), it is not entirely unreasonable to associate Leucippus with this view. His name reappears at A 5.7.6, where it is noted that he pronounced on an issue related to procreation. §2 The doxa is basically Aristotelian in tenor. It may well ultimately (but not directly) be based on his statement about the σῶμα of seed at GA 2.3 737a7–12, where he also speaks about the νοῦς (but uses his own terminology of ἀρχή, χωριστόν and ἀχώριστον). The triple-barrel name-label group Pythagoras– Plato–Aristotle occurs elsewhere three times in A, at 2.10.1, 2.23.8, and—interestingly—4.20.1 (on the incorporeality of sound). Plato in fact does not dwell on the metaphysical aspects of semen in his discussions in the Timaeus, but the association is warranted because as Aristotle’s teacher he introduced him to the distinction between the incorporeal and the corporeal. In true first cent. ce fashion Pythagoras is promoted as the great progenitor of non-physicalism;

liber 5 caput 4

1801

cf. A 1.3.7 (going back ultimately to Aristotle and the Old Academy; see ch. 1.3 Commentary D(d)§7). Also see A 1.9.2 with Commentary D(d)(2), and A 1.16.1. §3 Pneuma does not play an extensive role in Strato’s fragments (though he did write a work Περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος, D.L. 5.59). But at A 5.8.2 the ἐμπνευμάτωσις of the womb is one of the causes of the birth of monstrosities and at 5.24.4 he (with the Stoics) is credited with the view that sleep is caused by the relaxation of the αἰσθητικὸν πνεῦμα. Aristotle mentions that semen contains pneuma at GA 2.3 736b37 just before the passage cited above on §2. Wehrli in his commentary on Strato’s fragments (1969, 70) suspects that the combination with Democritus is erroneous and that the doxa has suffered from abridgement. Diels’ text for the final lemma as recorded in G reads Στράτων καὶ Δημόκριτος κατὰ δύναμιν εἶναι σωματικήν (DG 641). This seems to makes little sense if the adjective is taken to qualify the noun, and if not, then the noun understood with σωματικήν is unclear. In an unpublished communication to the authors Jas argues that the correct reading is καὶ τὴν (instead of κατὰ) δύναμιν εἶναι σωματικήν, which restores the credibility of the text at the expense of somewhat simplifying the doxa. Jas also points out that the ms. Baroccianus 131 not utilised by Diels also adds the name-label of Epicurus to that of Democritus. It is not translated by Nicolaus and she believes that it should not be included in G’s text. It is not confirmed by the papyrus of P, and can safely be ignored for the text of A. e Other Evidence As was noted in the Introduction to Book 5, section 1 above, T does not make any use of A’s Book 5 in his work. This may seem to be contradicted by the fact that at CAG 5.25 he reports the same doctrine attributed to Zeno that we find in §1 of this chapter (text below in section E(a)§1). The explanation is that, as we noted earlier in section B, there is a common tradition between A and AD on this point and that T has cited the latter (which gives more detail than A) via its citation in Eusebius PE. On a further parallel between Book 5 and T, this time via Clement, see A 5.26.1–3 and our Commentary at D(e). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: — Chapter heading: — §1 Leucippus Zeno: ps.Galen Def.Med. 94, pp. 19.371.18–372.3 Κ. ϟδʹ. ὁ δὲ Κιτιεὺς Ζήνων (SVF 1.128, 2.742) οὕτως ὡρίσατο. σπέρμα ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπου ὃ μεθίησιν ἄνθρωπος μεθ᾽ ὑγροῦ, ψυχῆς μέρους ἅρπαγμα καὶ σύμμιγμα τοῦ τῶν προγόνων γένους …; cf. §439, p. 19.450.3–5 Κ. υλθʹτὸ σπέρμα ἐστὶν κατὰ μὲν τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς

1802

liber 5 caput 4

(SVF 2.742) ὃ μεθίησι τὸ ζῶον ὑγρὸν μετὰ πνεύματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ὡς δὲ οὐ μέρος. Arius Didymus fr. 39 Diels at Eus. PE 15.20.1 τὸ δὲ σπέρμα φησὶν ὁ Ζήνων (SVF 1.128) εἶναι, ὃ μεθίησιν ἄνθρωπος, πνεῦμα μεθ᾽ ὑγροῦ, ψυχῆς μέρος καὶ ἀπόσπασμα καὶ τοῦ σπέρματος τοῦ τῶν προγόνων κέρασμα καὶ μῖγμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν συνεληλυθός. Plutarch Cohib. 462F καίτοι, καθάπερ ὁ Ζήνων (SVF 1.128) ἔλεγε τὸ σπέρμα σύμμιγμα καὶ κέρασμα τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεων ὑπάρχειν ἀπεσπασμένον, οὕτως ἔοικε τῶν παθῶν πανσπερμία τις ὁ θυμὸς εἶναι. Theodoret CAG 5.25 (from Arius Didymus via Eusebius) Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Κιτιεύς (SVF 1.128) ὁ τῆσδε τῆς αἱρέσεως ἡγησάμενος, τοιάδε περὶ ψυχῆς δοξάζειν τοὺς οἰκείους ἐδίδαξε φοιτητάς· τὸν γάρ τοι ἀνθρώπινον θορόν, ὑγρὸν ὄντα καὶ μετέχοντα πνεύματος, τῆς ψυχῆς ἔφησεν εἶναι μέρος τε καὶ ἀπόσπασμα καὶ τοῦ τῶν προγόνων σπέρματος κέρασμά τε καὶ μῖγμα, ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μορίων ξυναθροισθέν. οὗ δὴ χάριν αὐτὴν καὶ φθαρτὴν προσηγόρευσεν. §2 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle: Plutarch QPlat. 4 1003B cited at ch. 5.3 section E(b)§1.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: — Chapter heading: — §1 Leucippus Zeno: Stoics at D.L. V.P. 7.158–159 (SVF 2.741) σπέρμα δὲ λέγουσι εἶναι τὸ οἷόν τε γεννᾶν τοιαῦτα ἀφ᾽ οἵου καὶ αὐτὸ ἀπεκρίθη. ἀνθρώπου δὲ σπέρμα, ὃ μεθίησιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος μεθ᾽ ὑγροῦ, συγκιρνᾶσθαι τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς μέρεσι κατὰ μιγμὸν τοῦ τῶν προγόνων λόγου. (159) εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτὸ Χρύσιππός φησιν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν Φυσικῶν πνεῦμα κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῶν εἰς τὴν γῆν καταβαλλομένων σπερμάτων, ἃ παλαιωθέντα οὐκέτι φύεται, ὡς δῆλον διαπεπνευκυίας αὐτοῖς τῆς δυνάμεως. καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὅλων δὲ τῶν σωμάτων αὐτό φασι καταφέρεσθαι οἱ περὶ τὸν Σφαῖρον (SVF 1.626)· πάντων γοῦν γεννητικὸν εἶναι τῶν τοῦ σώματος μερῶν. §2 Aristotle: Aristotle GA 1.19 726b15–21 ὥστε τὸ σπέρμα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς χειρὸς ἢ τὸ τοῦ προσώπου ἢ ὅλου τοῦ ζῴου ἀδιορίστως χεὶρ ἢ πρόσωπον ἢ ὅλον ζῷον· καὶ οἷον ἐκείνων ἕκαστον ἐνεργείᾳ τοιοῦτον τὸ σπέρμα δυνάμει, ἢ κατὰ τὸν ὄγκον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ, ἢ ἔχει τινὰ δύναμιν ἐν ἑαυτῷ (τοῦτο γὰρ οὔπω δῆλον ἡμῖν ἐκ τῶν διωρισμένων πότερον τὸ σῶμα τοῦ σπέρματός ἐστι τὸ αἴτιον τῆς γενέσεως ἢ ἔχει τινὰ ἕξιν καὶ ἀρχὴν κινήσεως γεννητικήν). GA 1.21 730a24–28 ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτ᾽ ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀπέρχεται τὸ σπέρμα τοῖς προϊεμένοις σπέρμα τῶν ζῴων, οὔτε τὸ θῆλυ πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν οὕτω συμβάλλεται τοῖς συνισταμένοις ὡς τὸ ἄρρεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἄρρεν ἀρχὴν κινήσεως τὸ δὲ θῆλυ τὴν ὕλην, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων. GA 2.3 737a7–12 Drossaart Lulofs (quoted virtually verbatim at Galen Sem. 1.3, p. 70.4–10 De Lacy) τὸ δὲ τῆς γονῆς σῶμα, ἐν ᾧ συναπέρχεται †τὸ σπέρμα† τὸ τῆς ψυχικῆς ἀρχῆς, τὸ μὲν χωριστὸν ὂν σώματος, ὅσοις ἐμπεριλαμβάνεταί τι θεῖον (τοιοῦτος δέ ἐστιν ὁ καλούμενος νοῦς) τὸ δὲ ἀχώριστον,—τοῦτο τὸ σῶμα τῆς γονῆς διαλύεται καὶ πνευματοῦται, φύσιν ἔχον ὑγρὰν καὶ ὑδατώδη.

Liber 5 Caput 5 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 6 recto p. 79 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 905B–C; p. 418a3–22 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 109; p. 640.21–25 Diels—PQ Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 218–221 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 110.5–11, p. 61 Westerink SL: Index capitum Γ 10; sed verisim. interpolatus ex P, cf. Elter (1880) 73–74, adn.p. 294 ed. Wachsmuth

Titulus εʹ. Εἰ καὶ αἱ θήλειαι προΐενται σπέρμα (P) §1 Πυθαγόρας καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ τὸ θῆλυ προΐεσθαι σπέρμα· ἔχει γὰρ παραστάτας ἀπεστραμμένους· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὄρεξιν ἔχει περὶ τὰς χρήσεις. (P1) §2 Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ζήνων ὕλην μὲν ὑγρὰν προΐεσθαι οἱονεὶ ἀπὸ τῆς συγγυμνασίας ἱδρῶτας, οὐ μὴν σπέρμα πεπτικόν. (P2) §3 Ἵππων προΐεσθαι μὲν σπέρμα τὰς θηλείας οὐχ ἥκιστα τῶν ἀρρένων, μὴ μέντοι εἰς ζῳογονίαν τοῦτο συμβάλλεσθαι διὰ τὸ ἐκτὸς πίπτειν τῆς ὑστέρας· ὅθεν ἐνίας προΐεσθαι πολλάκις δίχα τῶν ἀνδρῶν σπέρμα, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς χηρευούσας. (P3a) §4 ⟨* * *⟩ καὶ εἶναι τὰ μὲν ὀστᾶ παρὰ τοῦ ἄρρενος τὰς δὲ σάρκας παρὰ τῆς θηλείας. (P3b) §1 Pythagoras —; Epicurus fr. 330 Usener; Democritus 68A142 DK; §2 Aristoteles cf. GA 1.19 727a27–30, 2.4 738a34–b4; Zeno SVF 1.129; §3 Hippo 38A13 DK; §4 — titulus Εἰ καὶ αἱ θήλειαι προΐενται σπέρμα SL-ind ‖ καὶ PBGSL : non hab. PQ(ut vid.), cf. index libri V ubi om. PB(I)Q ‖ αἱ θήλειαι PBG, aus den Weibchen Q : θήλεια SL ‖ σπέρμα] τὰ σπέρματα SL §1 [2] καὶ1 & καὶ2 PPG : om. PB ‖ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ Δημόκριτος PPBQ : inv. PG ‖ [3] ἀπεστραμμένους] ἀπεστραμμένως PB(III) ‖ [3–4] καὶ ὄρεξιν ἔχει PB (cf. PQ sed om. καὶ ut vid.) : ὀρεκτικῶς ἔχει PG ‖ [4] περὶ PB(I)GQ(ut vid.) : παρὰ PB(II,III) §2 [5] καὶ om. PP ut vid. ‖ ὕλην PB : καὶ add. ante ὕλην PG ‖ οἱονεὶ PBQ(ut vid.) : καὶ PG ‖ [5–6] συγγυμνασίας PB : γυμνασίας PG ‖ [6] σπέρμα πεπτικόν PB(I)GQ : σπέρμα παππικόν PB(II) : σπερμαντικήν PB(III:AE) : σπερμαντικόν PB(III:α) §§3–4 non hab. PG §3 [7] Ἵππων PPB : PQ nomen incertum, fort. Ἵππαρχος ‖ [8] μέντοι PB(I,II) : μέντοι γε PB(III) ‖ [9] ἐνίας Diels DG conl. 5.9.1, einigen Leuten, daß heißt Frauen Q : ὀλίγας PB : ⟨οὐκ⟩ ὀλίγας coni. Wyttenbach ‖ ἀνδρῶν PB(II)Q : ἀρρένων PB(I,III) ‖ [10] μάλιστα τὰς coni. Wyttenbach, prob. edd. : τὰς μάλιστα PB §4 [11–12] καὶ … θηλείας P, secl. Kranz VS; lac. ponimus, ubi nomen intercidisse videtur, vid. comm. infra

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 6 recto = P §§1–3 Πυθαγορας και Επικο]υ̣ρ[̣ ος και Δημοκριτος] και το θηλυ προιεσθα]ι σπερμα̣ [εχει γαρ]

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_130

5

10

1804

5

liber 5 caput 5 παραστατας απεστρ]αμμενου[ς δια του] το και ορεξιν εχει] περι τας χηρσε̣[ις Αρις] τοτελης Ζηνων υλην μ]εν ϋγραν προ̣[ιεσθαι] οιονει από της συγγυμ]νασιας ϊδρ̣[ωτας ου] [μην σπερμα πεπτικον Ιππ]ων προ[ιεσθαι]

ps.Galenus HPh c. 109 (~ tit.) Εἰ καὶ αἱ θήλειαι προΐενται σπέρμα (text Diels) 109.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ τὸ θῆλυ προΐεσθαι σπέρμα. ἔχει γὰρ παραστάτας ἀπεστραμμένους. διὰ τοῦτο ὀρεκτικῶς ἔχει περὶ τὰς χρήσεις. 109.2 (~ P2) Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ζήνων καὶ ὕλην μὲν ὑγρὰν προΐεσθαι καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γυμνασίας ἱδρῶτας, οὐ μὴν σπέρμα πεπτικόν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 110.5–13 συμβάλλεται δὲ καὶ τὸ θῆλυ πρὸς τὴν κύησιν ἐξυγραινομένη τὴν μήτραν ἐν ταῖς μίξεσιν· ἡ δὲ ὑγρασία αὕτη σπέρματος μὲν οὐκ ἔχει λόγον, οἶον δὲ ὕλη γίνεται τῇ καταβολῇ τῆς ἀνδρῴας γονῆς (cf. P2). καὶ τὸ μὲν τοῦ ἄρρενος σπέρμα εἰς τὰ στερεώτερα μέρη τοῦ σώματος ἐξαρκεῖ, οἶον ὀστᾶ καὶ νεῦρα καὶ φλέβας καὶ ἀρτηρίας καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα· τὸ δὲ τοῦ θήλεος εἰς τὰ ὑγρότερα μέρη τοῦ σώματος, αἶμα φημὶ καὶ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς χολάς. ἢ μᾶλλον πάντα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν τοῦ ἄρρενος πλέον ἔχει, τὰ δὲ τοῦ θήλεος (cf. P3). Loci Aetiani: §§1, 3 A 5.11.2 Παρμενίδης, ὅταν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους τῆς μήτρας ὁ γόνος ἀποκριθῇ, τοῖς πατράσιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ, ταῖς μητράσιν. A 5.11.3 (de Stoicis) προΐεσθαι δὲ καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα σπέρμα· κἂν μὲν ἐπικρατήσῃ τὸ τῆς γυναικός, ὅμοιον εἶναι τὸ γεννώμενον τῇ μητρί, ἐὰν δὲ τὸ τοῦ ἀνδρός, τῷ ἀνδρί.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses P appears to transmit three doxai, of which G regrettably preserves only the first two (but see below, Commentary D(a–c) on a possible fourth doxa). Psellus uses some material from this chapter in his chapter Πῶς αἱ συλλήψεις γίνονται, the heading of which is taken from A 5.6. On the heading in SL see below, section C. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Important comparative material is furnished by the proximate tradition as represented by Censorinus and Nemesius. Both authors

liber 5 caput 5

1805

give a clear diaphonia, but the question they pose is not wholly the same as that which A addresses in our chapter (although he touches on it in the final doxa). A asks whether females release semen just as males do (even if in a different way). Censorinus and Nemesius ask whether only males have seed and contribute to the birth of offspring or whether females contribute too, i.e. with the semen that they possess. It can easily be seen that the former question is more limited than the latter, but that the second and broader approach relates better to the origin of the problem, namely how to explain that, if the male semen appears to be the instigator of conception, it nevertheless often happens that children resemble their mothers, and so the female must also contribute to the process not only from a material but also from a formal or (to use modern parlance) genetic point of view. The treatment of the topic at ps.Galen Def.Med. 440 is also of interest. It asks the same question as A, i.e. whether females have seed, but uses different terminology (εἰ σπερμαίνει). It gives two of the same reasons for a positive answer as in A (female desire, same organs), but adds others, including the resemblance of children to mothers (cf. ch. 5.11). Hippocrates is then cited in favour of this view. The resemblance question returns in 5.11 and is clearly the dominant topic in relation to which the issue of female semen is raised. See for example the texts of Lucretius and Lactantius cited below (on the latter text with its conjoined name-labels Varro and Aristotle see below, section D(e)). (2) Sources. The various questions are well formulated by Aristotle in GA 1.17 721a35 and 1.19 726a31–b1, and also discussed at some length (texts below section E(b) General texts). From there the topic was picked up by the Hellenistic schools. But, as the name-labels indicate, reflection on them goes back to the Presocratic period. It was also discussed in the Hippocratic school, as witnessed by the treatise Περὶ γονῆς which is dated to the end of the fifth cent. bce or a little later (Jouanna 1999, 392). For further discussions on this subject see Gerlach (1937–1938); Lesky (1951) 24ff. and passim; Van der Horst (1990a), (2012), who in both articles gives a useful overview of Greek and Latin texts and copious references to secondary literature (for Jewish knowledge based on Greek medicine see also 2018, 111–112). See also the references given at ch. 5.3 Commentary B. C Chapter Heading This is another of the limited number of chapter headings commencing with εἰ, on which see our comments at ch. 5.4 Commentary C. The chapter heading in the index of SL is probably interpolated from the list in P. On both these topics see our remarks on ch. 5.4, Commentary C. Elter’s reason for concluding that it is interpolated is based on the absence of the name Ἵππων in Photius’ name-

1806

liber 5 caput 5

lists. As noted above in ch. 5.4 Commentary C, S appears not to have included the subject of spermatology in his collection of excerpts. The καὶ preceding αἱ θήλειαι in the heading is clearly necessary, since the topic of the chapter is whether females also have semen that contributes to the conception and genetic make-up of the offspring. The apparent heading in Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (Diels DG 233) is in fact excerpted from ps.Galen Def.Med. §440 with the words ἐζήτηται εἰ abbreviated to ὅτι. The chapter heading itself has excellent antecedents in Aristotle GA, esp. at 1.19 726a30 where we find the same phrase προΐεται σπέρμα (singular because the subject is τὸ θῆλυ). D Analysis a Context The chapter is the third and last dedicated to questions related to semen. In the previous two the question of which sex produces semen has not yet been broached. The subject returns in ch. 5.11 when the question of the similarity of children to their parents and grandparents is discussed. b Number–Order of Lemmata The witnesses record three lemmata. But see the next sub-section on whether P may have originally contained at least four doxai. The fact that the parallel text in Censorinus has five name-labels that do not occur in P’s version of the chapter suggests that he will have epitomised away some of the material originally present in A. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The three doxai form a quite straightforward diaeresis. The first, affirming the females also release semen, is opposed to the second, where it is denied that they do this: they emit moisture that resembles perspiration, but it is not to be regarded as productive semen (it was the view of Aristotle, followed by the Stoics, that only concocted semen is fertile). The third view, predictably, represents a compromise position: the female does release semen, but it does not contribute to the process of birth because it falls outside the womb (i.e. it is not linked to the act of sexual intercourse). The final sentence of the lemma attributed to Hippo is problematic. First it is said that females do emit semen but that it does not contribute to the process of birth since it falls outside the womb. But in the final sentence we read that bones come from the male, flesh from the female, the second part of which contradicts the earlier part of the doxa. It should also be noted that in ch. 5.7 on how males and females are conceived there are two doxai attributed to ‘Hipponax’ which also appear to refer to the same philosopher (on the name-label

liber 5 caput 5

1807

see ch. 5.7 Commentary D(d)§3). In A 5.7.3 it is unclear whether the two kinds of semen (thick/strong, fluid/weaker) refer to male semen only or also female. In 5.7.8 males result if the semen prevails, females if the nourishment prevails. Lesky (1951, 28) interprets this statement as being consistent with the view that the female does not contribute to the birth, but disregards the final sentence of 5.5.3. The decision of Kranz to bracket the final sentence is in our view commendable. However, a different mode of treatment should be considered. It is possible that the final sentence is a remnant of a fourth doxa, which follows on from the first lemma. If the position in the first doxa is accepted, i.e. that both male and female emit semen and (by implication) that both contribute to conception, then the question can be asked, what does the male contribute and what the female. This is a different question from that which will be asked in ch. 5.7. The answer is not that the male contributes the form, the female the matter or the food, but rather that each contribute different bodily elements (cf. 5.7.7 and the solution of Galen, De semine 2.4, noted by Nemesius ch. 25 cited below). We have not found any direct parallels for this position in the sources (it is expanded by Psellus §110, presumably on the basis of what he found in P). We consider this possibility very likely and have adjusted the text accordingly. It would mean that there is a lacuna in the text. Because of the contradiction noted above, it is unlikely that the final view should be attributed to Hippo and thus there must be a missing name-label. For this reason we postulate a fourth doxa for the chapter. If this is accepted, then the words καὶ εἶναι will also be suspect, since they link the final part of the doxa to what precedes. It is the kind of doxa that could easily have been attributed to Parmenides or Empedocles. Both name-labels are present in Censorinus 5.4 but are conspiciously absent in A. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 As noted in the Introduction to Book 5, multiple name-labels are prominent in this Book. It should noted that there is considerable variation throughout A (and P) in whether groups of name-labels are juxtaposed or connected with καί, with the former predominating. Here the three names are linked in PG and this reading is supported by the papyrus. We have retained the reading in our text, despite the absence of the connectives in PB. It suggests that instances of καί may have been stripped out in the course of transmission and adaptation. But it must be noted that the order of the name-labels Democritus and Epicurus differs between the four witnesses. G is the only one which retains the chronological order. In all other 13 instances of the two names in the Placita

1808

liber 5 caput 5

the chronological order is adhered to, so there is a case for following G. Nevertheless the evidence of three witnesses, including one that is very early, weighs heavily and we have retained this reading. It should also be noted that in the Placita chronological order is often not adhered to in multiple name-labels; see for example A 2.23.8 Plato–Pythagoras–Aristotle. ‘Concealed testicles’ refers to the female ovaries. The role of the female ovum in mammalian conception was wholly unknown to the ancients and was discovered by K.A. von Baer as late as 1827. §2 A uses the technical term πεπτικός, which in fact Aristotle only uses in the summary of his view on male and female semen at GA 4.1 766a32. This relatively rare term has caused confusion in the mss. of PB. For some interesting notes on the (primitive theory) that the female is merely as it were a nurse who temporarily houses the child see Groeneboom (1952) 191 on Aeschylus Eum. 657–666. §3 Diels’ conjecture ἐνίας instead of the ὀλίγους of the mss. of PB is justified, not only because it is supported by PQ, but also because ὀλίγοι referring to persons does not appear to belong to A’s vocabulary, whereas there are parallels for ἐνίας close by, at 5.9.1, 5.13.2. e Other Evidence In addition to the slightly different formulation of the topic at issue (noted above in section B), there is also only a limited correspondence between the labels in A and in the proximate tradition. Epicurus represents the positive view in both A and Censorinus, but Democritus is (erroneously, cf. 5.7.7) associated with the opposite point of view in Nemesius (unlike in A). Aristotle (in Nemesius) and the Stoics (in Censorinus) represent the negative view, as they do in A, but Hippo is associated with this view as well (Censorinus), instead of the more subtle position recorded by A. For Pythagoras and Alcmaeon, see the note on §1 above in section D(d). It is likely that a doxa of Empedocles (who is recorded on the subject by Aristotle, GA 4.1 764a2) was epitomized away by P (he occurs 17 times in Book 5, far ahead of the next most popular, the Stoics who occur 13 times). All in all, the proximate tradition and A are less close to each other than one might have expected. As we see so often, the doxographical traditions are fluid and subject to modification at different stages of transmission. Of special interest is the report in Lactantius Op.D. 12.6, where a doxa on conception is introduced by the name labels Varro et Aristoteles followed by a report in which it is first stated that females do have semen and that this is the reason that progeny can look like their mothers. This of course differs from the view attributed to the Stagirite in A’s chapter (cf. 5.11.3 where it is attributed

liber 5 caput 5

1809

to the Stoics). In a learned note Perrin (1974) 358–362 argues persuasively that it is unlikely that Lactantius will have had direct access to Aristotle and that Varro will have been his source, most likely via his treatise Tubero de origine humana (also cited by Censorinus 9.1; see our remarks at ch. 5.3 Commentary B). The differing view on Aristotle can be explained if the report is based on a (most likely ps.Aristotelian) text such as GA 4.1 766b11–26 which can be read as speaking of female semen as a material residue. Another possibility is the influence of a text such as HA 10.2 634b29–39 which also assumes female semen. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Galen Sem. 2.1.12–14, p. 146.14–20 De Lacy (cf. 2.1.31–32, p. 152.1– 2) ὥσπερ οὖν ἄξιον μέμψασθαι ⟨τοῖς add. De Lacy⟩ πολλοῖς τῶν ἰατρῶν, οὕτως ἐπαινέσαι δίκαιον Ἱπποκράτην τὸν πρῶτον ἁπάντων ταῦτα εὑρόντα. φησὶ γοῦν ἀρχόμενος τοῦ Περὶ φύσεως παιδίου (Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 1, p. 7.486.1–3 Littré)· ‘ἢν ἡ γονὴ μέινῃ ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι τῆς γυναικὸς, πρῶτον μὲν μίσγεται ὁμοῦ ἅτε τῆς γυναικὸς οὐκ ἀτρεμούσης, καὶ ἀθροίζεται καὶ παχύνεται θερμαινομένη.’ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐφεξῆς διδάσκει κατὰ λόγον, ὅπως ἐκ συναμφοτέρας τῆς γονῆς μιχθείσης ἡ γένεσις ἀποτελεῖται τῷ ἐμβρύῳ. ps.Galen Def.Med. 440, p. 19.450.6–16 K. υμʹ. ἐζήτηται εἰ σπερμαίνει τὸ θῆλυ ὥσπερ τὸ ἄρῥεν σπερμαίνει· καὶ γὰρ τὸ θῆλυ τὴν αὐτὴν ὄρεξιν ἔχει καὶ κοινωνεῖ τῶν αὐτῶν νοσημάτων· καὶ φανερῶς διὰ τῆς ἀνατομῆς δείκνυται τοὺς σπερματικοὺς ἔχον πόρους καὶ τὸ μέγιστον τοῦ σπερμαίνειν μαρτύριον αἱ ὁμοιότητες τῶν γενομένων πρὸς τὰς τεκούσας· ὅτι δὲ συμβάλλεται μαρτυρεῖ Ἱπποκράτης λέγων ἐν τῷ Περὶ παίδων φύσεως (Nat.Puer. 1 7.486.1–3 Littré)· ‘ἢν ἡ [ἡ om. ps.Gal.] γονὴ μείνῃ ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι τῆς γυναικὸς, πρῶτον [πρότερον ps.Gal.] μὲν μίσγεται ὁμοῦ, ἅτε τῆς γυναικὸς οὐκ ἀτρεμεούσης, ἀθροίζεται δὲ καὶ παχύνεται θερμαινόμενη [-ον ps.Gal.], ἔπειτα πνεῦμα ἴσχει’. Censorinus DN 5.4 illud quoque ambiguam facit inter auctores opinionem, utrumne ex patris tantum modo semine partus nascatur, ut Diogenes (64A27 DK) et Hippon (cf. 38A13 DK) Stoicique (SVF 1.128 etc.) scripserunt, an etiam ex matris, quod Anaxagorae (cf. 59A107 DK) et Alcmaeoni (24A13 DK) nec non Parmenidi (T50 Coxon) Empedoclique (31A81 DK) et Epicuro (fr. 330 Usener) visum est. Nemesius NH 25, pp. 86.19–87.4 Ἀριστοτέλης (see below (b)§2) μὲν οὖν καὶ Δημόκριτος (—) οὐδὲν βούλονται συντελεῖν τὸ τῆς γυναικὸς σπέρμα πρὸς γένεσιν τέκνων· τὸ γὰρ προϊέμενον ἐκ τῶν γυναικῶν ἱδρῶτα τοῦ μορίου μᾶλλον ἢ γονὴν εἶναι βούλονται. Γαληνὸς (Sem. 2.2) δὲ καταγινώσκων Ἀριστοτέλους λέγει σπερμαίνειν μὲν τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὴν μῖξιν ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σπερμάτων ποιεῖν τὸ κύημα· διὸ καὶ τὴν συνουσίαν μῖξιν λέγεσθαι· οὐ μὴν τελείαν γονὴν ὡς τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι ἄπεπτον καὶ ὑγροτέραν· τοιαύτη δὲ οὖσα τῆς γυναικὸς ἡ γονὴ τροφὴ γίνεται τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρός. Chapter heading: cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (Diels DG 233) ὁτι σπερμαίνει τὸ θῆλυ. also Dionysius of Aigai at Photius Bibl. 185 (cf. 211) 129b15–17

1810

liber 5 caput 5

πρῶτον ὅτι ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἡ τοῦ σπέρματος καταβολὴ καὶ ζωογονία, δεύτερον ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων (quaestio). §2 Aristotle Zeno: cf. Lactantius Op.D. 12.6 Perrin conceptum igitur Varro et Aristoteles sic fieri arbitrantur. aiunt non tantum maribus inesse semen verum etiam feminis et inde plerumque matribus similes procreari, sed earum semen sanguinem esse purgatum: quod si recte cum virili mixtum sit, utraque concreta et simul coagulata informari. Perhaps based on Aristotle GA 4.1 766b11–26 cited below under section E(b)§3; cf. also HA 10.2 634b26–30 also cited below ibid. §3 Hippo: cf. Censorinus DN 5.4 cited above. also Hippolytus Ref. 1.16.2 (on Hippo, 38A3 DK) καὶ γὰρ τὸ σπέρμα εἶναι τὸ φαίνομενον ἡμῖν, ἐξ ὑγροῦ, ἐξ οὗ φησι ψυχὴν γίνεσθαι.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Corpus Hippocraticum Genit. 4, p. 7.474.16–18 Littré μεθίει δὲ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ὁτὲ μὲν ἐς τὰς μήτρας, αἱ δὲ μῆτραι ἰκμαλέαι γίνονται, ὁτὲ δὲ καὶ ἔξω, ἢν χάσκωσιν αἱ μῆτραι μᾶλλον τοῦ καιροῦ κτλ. Aristotle GA 1.17 721a35–721b2 καὶ τὰ θήλεα δὲ πότερον συμβάλλεται σπέρμα τι ἢ οὔ, καὶ εἰ μὴ σπέρμα, πότερον οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο οὐθέν, ἢ συμβάλλεται μέν τι, οὐ σπέρμα δέ. GA 1.19 726a30–b1 διὰ τούτων γὰρ φανερὸν ἔσται καὶ περὶ τοῦ θήλεος, πότερον προΐεται σπέρμα ὥσπερ τὸ ἄρρεν καὶ ἔστιν ἓν μίγμα τὸ γιγνόμενον ἐκ δυοῖν σπερμάτοιν, ἢ οὐθὲν σπέρμα ἀποκρίνεται ἀπὸ τοῦ θήλεος· καὶ εἰ μηθέν, πότερον οὐδὲ ἄλλο οὐθὲν συμβάλλεται εἰς τὴν γένεσιν ἀλλὰ μόνον παρέχει τόπον, ἢ συμβάλλεταί τι, καὶ τοῦτο πῶς καὶ τίνα τρόπον. Corpus Hippocraticum Genit. 7, p. 7.478.22–24 Littré oὗτος ὁ λόγος ἐρέει καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα ἔχειν καὶ θῆλυν γόνον καὶ ἄρσενα κτλ. Galen Sem. 2.1.33, p. 152.9 De Lacy πολλῷ γε ἦν ἄμεινον, ὅτι μὲν ὑπάρχει τὸ τῶν θηλειῶν σπέρμα, τοῖς φαινομένοις πιστεύειν, ἥντινα δὲ δύναμιν ἔχει, τῷ λόγῳ σκοπεῖσθαι. Sem. 2.1.66, p. 160.1 ὥστε ψευδῶς λέγεται τὸ μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι τὸ σπέρμα. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 1.17 721a35, 1.19 726a30–31 cited above. §1 Pythagoras Epicurus Democritus: cf. Lucretius 4.1208–1211 et commiscendo quom semine forte virilem / femina vim vicit subita vi corripuitque, / tum similes matrum materno semine fiunt / ut patribus patrio etc. §2 Aristotle Zeno: Aeschylus Eum. 657–661 (Apollo speaking) καὶ τοῦτο λέξω, καὶ μάθ᾽ ὡς ὀρθῶς ἐρῶ. / οὐκ ἔστι μήτηρ ἡ κεκλημένη τέκνου / τοκεύς, τροφὸς δὲ κύματος νεοσπόρου· / τίκτει δ᾽ ὁ θρῴσκων, ἡ δ’ ἅπερ ξένῳ ξένη / ἔσωσεν ἔρνος, οἷσι μὴ βλάψῃ θεός. Aristotle GA 1.19 727a27–30 ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὃ γίγνεται τοῖς θήλεσιν ὡς ἡ γονὴ τοῖς ἄρρεσιν, δύο δ᾽ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται σπερματικὰς ἅμα γίγνεσθαι ἀποκρίσεις, φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ θῆλυ οὐ συμβάλλεται σπέρμα εἰς τὴν γένεσιν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ σπέρμα ἦν, {τὰ} καταμήνια οὐκ ἂν ἦν· νῦν δὲ διὰ τὸ ταῦτα γίγνεσθαι ἐκεῖνο οὐκ ἔστιν. cf. GA 2.4 738a33–35 ἐξ ἀνάγκης μὲν οὖν ἡ περίττωσις αὕτη γίγνεται τοῖς θήλεσι διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας· μὴ δυναμένης τε γὰρ πέττειν τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκη περίττωμα γίγνεσθαι … GA 2.4 738a34–b4 ἐξ ἀνάγκης μὲν οὖν ἡ περίττωσις αὕτη γίγνεται τοῖς θήλεσι διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας· μὴ δυναμένης τε γὰρ πέττειν τῆς

liber 5 caput 5 φύσεως ἀνάγκη περίττωμα γίγνεσθαι μὴ μόνον τῆς ἀχρήστου τροφῆς ἀλλὰ καὶ ⟨τοῦ αἵματος⟩ ἐν ταῖς φλεψίν, ὑπερβάλλειν τε πληθύοντα κατὰ τὰς λεπτοτάτας φλέβας. ἕνεκα δὲ τοῦ βελτίονος καὶ τοῦ τέλους ἡ φύσις καταχρῆται πρὸς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῆς γενέσεως χάριν ὅπως οἷον ἔμελλε τοιοῦτον γένηται ἕτερον· ἤδη γὰρ ὑπάρχει δυνάμει γε ὂν τοιοῦτον οἵουπέρ ἐστι σώματος ἀπόκρισις. GA 4.1 763b30–33 φασὶ γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἐν τοῖς σπέρμασιν εἶναι ταύτην τὴν ἐναντίωσιν εὐθύς, οἷον Ἀναξαγόρας (59A107 DK) καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν φυσιολόγων· γίνεσθαί τε γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρρενος τὸ σπέρμα, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ παρέχειν τὸν τόπον. summarised at GA 4.1 766b8–26 ἀναλαβόντες δὲ πάλιν λέγομεν ὅτι τὸ μὲν σπέρμα ὑπόκειται περίττωμα τροφῆς ὂν τὸ ἔσχατον (ἔσχατον δὲ λέγω τὸ πρὸς ἕκαστον φερόμενον, διὸ καὶ ἔοικε τὸ γεννώμενον τῷ γεννήσαντι· οὐθὲν γὰρ διαφέρει ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῶν μορίων ἀπελθεῖν ἢ πρὸς ἕκαστον προσελθεῖν—ὀρθότερον δ᾽ οὕτως). διαφέρει δὲ τὸ τοῦ ἄρρενος σπέρμα ὅτι ἔχει ἀρχὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τοιαύτην οἵαν κινεῖν †καὶ ἐν τῷ ζῴῳ† καὶ διαπέττειν τὴν ἐσχάτην τροφήν, τὸ δὲ τοῦ θήλεος ὕλην μόνον. κρατῆσαν μὲν οὖν εἰς αὑτὸ ἄγει, κρατηθὲν δ᾽ εἰς τοὐναντίον μεταβάλλει ἢ εἰς φθοράν. ἐναντίον δὲ τῷ ἄρρενι τὸ θῆλυ, θῆλυ δὲ τῇ ἀπεψίᾳ καὶ τῇ ψυχρότητι τῆς αἱματικῆς τροφῆς. ἡ δὲ φύσις ἑκάστῳ τῶν περιττωμάτων ἀποδίδωσι τὸ δεκτικὸν μόριον. τὸ δὲ σπέρμα περίττωμα, τοῦτο δὲ τοῖς μὲν θερμοτέροις καὶ ἄρρεσι τῶν ἐναίμων εὔογκον τῷ πλήθει, διὸ τὰ δεκτικὰ μόρια πόροι ταύτης τῆς περιττώσεώς εἰσι τοῖς ἄρρεσιν· τοῖς δὲ θήλεσι δι᾽ ἀπεψίαν πλῆθος αἱματικόν (ἀκατέργαστον γάρ), ὥστε καὶ μόριον δεκτικὸν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναί τι, καὶ εἶναι τοῦτο ἀνόμοιον καὶ μέγεθος ἔχειν. διὸ τῆς ὑστέρας τοιαύτη ἡ φύσις ἐστίν. τούτῳ δὲ τὸ θῆλυ διαφέρει τῷ μορίῳ τοῦ ἄρρενος. differently Aristotle HA 10.2 634b26–39 καὶ πρῶτον ταῦτα σκεπτέον, εἰ καλῶς ἔχει, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πῶς ἔχει τὸ στόμα τῶν ὑστερῶν. δεῖ γὰρ εἰς ὀρθὸν ἔχειν· εἰ δὲ μή, οὐχ ἕλξουσιν εἰς αὑτὰς τὸ σπέρμα. εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν γὰρ αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν ὑστερῶν) καὶ ἡ γυνὴ προΐεται, ὡς δῆλον, ὅταν ἐξονειρώττωσιν αὗται τελέως· τότε γὰρ οὗτος ὁ τόπος θεραπείας δεῖται αὐταῖς ὑγρανθείς ὥσπερ εἰ ἀνδρὶ συνεγένοντο, ὡς προϊέμενον ἐνταῦθα καὶ τὸ παρὰ τοῦ ἀνδρός, εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον καὶ οὐχὶ εἰς τὰς ὑστέρας εἴσω. ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἐνταῦθα προϊῶνται, ἐντεῦθεν σπῶσι τῷ πνεύματι, οἷον αἱ ῥῖνες, καὶ αἱ ὑστέραι τὸ σπέρμα. διὸ καὶ παντὶ σχήματι συνοῦσαι κυΐσκονται, ὅτι εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν παντελῶς ἐχούσης γίνεται καὶ αὐταῖς καὶ τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἡ πρόεσις τοῦ σπέρματος· εἰ δ᾽ εἰς αὐτήν, οὐκ ἂν πάντως συγγινόμεναι συνελάμβανον. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.159 (on the Stoics, SVF 1.626) τὸ δὲ τῆς θηλείας (sc. σπέρμα) ἄγονον ἀποφαίνονται· ἄτονόν τε γὰρ εἶναι καὶ ὀλίγον καὶ ὑδατῶδες, ὡς ὁ Σφαῖρός φησιν. §3 Hippo: Soranus Gyn. 1.12 ἔνθεν δὲ δοκεῖ τὸ τοῦ θήλεος σπέρμα πρὸς ζῳογονίαν μὴ συλλαμβάνεσθαι τῷ εἰς τὸ ἐκτὸς ἐκχεῖσθαι, περὶ οὗ διελάβομεν ἐν τῷ Περὶ σπέρματος λόγῳ.

1811

Liber 5 Caput 6 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 905C–D; pp. 418a23–419a9 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 110; p. 641.1–7 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 220–221 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 110.1–5, pp. 60–61 Westerink SL-ind: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.2, p. 1. 295.3 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ϛʹ. Πῶς αἱ συλλήψεις γίνονται (P,cf.S) §1 Ἀριστοτέλης τὰς μὲν συλλήψεις γίνεσθαι προανελκομένης μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς καθάρσεως τῆς μήτρας, τῶν δὲ καταμηνίων συνεπισπωμένων ἀπὸ τοῦ παντὸς ὄγκου μέρος τι τοῦ καθαροῦ αἵματος, ᾧ συμβαίνειν τὸν τοῦ ἄρρενος γόνον· μὴ γίνεσθαι δὲ τὰς κυήσεις παρ᾽ ἀκαθαρσίαν τῆς μήτρας ἢ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν ἢ φόβον ἢ λύπην ἢ δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν τῶν γυναικῶν ἢ δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν. (P1) §1 Aristoteles cf. ΗΑ 9.2 582b11, GΑ 2.4 739a26 titulus Πῶς … γίνονται PBGQPs : Περὶ συλλήψεως SL-ind §1 [2] post Ἀριστοτέλης add. PG ὑπολαμβάνει ‖ μὲν1 PB : om. PG ‖ προανελκομένης PB : προελκομένης PG ‖ μὲν2 PB : om. PG ‖ [3] συνεπισπωμένων PBPs : ἐπισπωμένων PG, cf. hervorgezogen Q ‖ [4] ὄγκου PBPs, cf. Menge Q : σώματος PG ‖ ᾧ corr. Reiske : ὡς PBGQ ‖ [5] δὲ PBQ : om. PG ‖ [6] δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν PB(II,III) Mau Lachenaud : ἀσθένειαν PB(I)G Diels (om. δι᾽ bis PQ ut vid.)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 110 (~ tit.) Πῶς αἱ συλλήψεις γίνονται (text Diels) 110.1 (~ P1) Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπολαμβάνει τὰς συλλήψεις γίγνεσθαι προελκομένης ὑπὸ τῆς καθάρσεως τῆς μήτρας, τῶν δὲ καταμηνίων ἐπισπωμένων ἀπὸ παντὸς τοῦ σώματος μέρος τι τοῦ καθαροῦ αἵματος, ὡς συμβαίνειν τὸν τοῦ ἄρρενος γόνον. μὴ γίγνεσθαι τὰς κυήσεις παρ᾽ ἀκαθαρσίαν μήτρας ἢ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν ἢ φόβον ἢ λύπην ἢ ἀσθένειαν τῶν γυναικῶν ἢ δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 110 (~ tit.) Πῶς αἱ συλλήψεις γίνονται ἡ σύλληψις τῶν ζώων γίνεται, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅταν ἐπιτήδειος καὶ ξηροτέρα συμμέτρως ἡ μήτρα γένηται πρὸς τὴν παραδοχὴν τοῦ σπέρματος, τῶν καταμηνίων συνεπισπωμένων ἀπὸ τοῦ παντὸς ὄγκου μέρος τὶ τοῦ καθαροῦ αἵματος (cf. P1). Loci Aetiani: §1 A 5.9 Διὰ τί γυνὴ πολλάκις συνουσιάζουσα οὐ συλλαμβάνει. A 5.10.3 Ἐρασίστρατος διὰ τὰς ⟨ἐπι⟩συλλήψεις, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων· ὅταν γὰρ ἡ μήτρα ᾖ κεκαθαρμένη, τότε ἐπισύλληψιν δέχεσθαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4 © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_131

5

liber 5 caput 6

1813

Commentary A Witnesses The chapter with its heading and single lemma is preserved in PB, G and Q. Ps takes over the chapter heading and partly utilizes the contents. SL records an abridged ‘umbrella’ type chapter heading with Περί, but without any doxai. In Wachsmuth’s judgment the heading was introduced by S as a sub-heading in the chapter Περὶ τῆς τῶν ζῴων γενέσεως, presumably because it falls under καὶ τά ἑξῆς included in the heading in Photius’ index. It remains possible that the heading was interpolated from P, as was probably the case for the heading of chs. 5.4 and 5.5; see further on 5.4 Commentary C. But see further under section C. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The only quasi-doxographical text that has a separate section on the subject of conception is ps.Galen Def.Med. 451 (text cited below, section E(a) General texts), which like A, focuses on the cause but gives a wholly different explanation. There is also a section on the subject in Lactantius’ work on God’s work in creation which is dependent on earlier sources (as noted in Commentary D(e) on ch. 5.5, the combination of the name-labels Varro and Aristotle almost certainly indicates the former as the source). (2) Sources. In general it can be said that the topic of conception and the impediments thereto do not appear to have aroused much specific discussion or controversy in ancient medical literature. We record below in section E(b) passages in the Corpus Hippocraticum, Aristotle and some later authors, but none make reference to earlier thinkers with specific views which A could have used for his purpose. C Chapter Heading As noted above on ch. 5.2, chapter headings beginning with πῶς are common in Book 5, but rare elsewhere in the Placita. The question type involved is that of cause (διὰ τί). For headings beginning with, or containing, words that signalize questions see above, ch. 1.1 Commentary C. The present chapter is the first of a whole sequence of chapters using this formula, which testifies to Book 5’s focus on causation; see 5.7–8, 10, 12–13, 16. The aspect of cause is made explicit in the text on the subject ps.Galen Def.Med. On the presence of the heading in the pinax in SL see above, chs. 5.4 and ch. 5.5 Commentary C. The divergence of the text of the heading in S, Περὶ συλλήψεως, supports the view that this heading is not interpolated from P, unlike

1814

liber 5 caput 6

the next two in the list, but is derived from A. We prefer, however, to retain the wording of the heading as it is found in the tradition of P. D Analysis a Context The topic of conception follows on quite naturally from the two chapters on semen. b Number–Order of Lemmata Monolemmatic chapters are extremely infrequent in A, as is hardly surprising, since a single lemma rules out a diaeresis or a diaphonia, which is the most common structuring and didactic technique in the Placita. Most of the chapters that only have a single lemma are either exceptional (e.g. 1.4, 3.6, 18— all without name-labels; 4.11, 21—single very long doxai) or very likely incomplete (because S is silent, e.g. 3.14, 5.22–23, 28). In this chapter it is very likely that further lemmata have been lost because P has epitomised them away. It is possible, however, given (as noted above) that there seems to have been little controversy on the subject, that a single lemma was thought sufficient to give a summary of the subject. Apart from this, one could say that there is an internal diaeresis or diaphonia in this lemma, because it first shows how conception comes about and then tells us how it is prevented or impeded. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The single lemma with the name-label Aristotle gives a description which is compatible with Aristotelian doctrine, e.g. as presented in De generatione animalium, but is not based on any extant passage in his works, as noted by Rose (1863) 382. For ἀπὸ τοῦ παντὸς ὄγκου μέρος τι τοῦ καθαροῦ αἵματος compare τὸ ὑπολειφθέν at GA 1.19 727b17. The explanation is couched in physiological terms with an emphasis on the role of the female. But neither is the role of heat mentioned (cf. GA 2.4 739b4, Galen Def.Med. 451) nor the pneumatic composition of the semen (GA 2.3 736b30–737a1). On the hematogenic theory of conception see further Lesky (1951) 134–145. The second half of the lemma, which gives reasons why conception does not occur, anticipates and partly doubles up on ch. 5.9, where the subject is mentioned in the heading (οὐ συλλάμβανει). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1[1] προανελκομένης. In antiquity the womb is regarded as an independent organ which can move of its own accord and cover quite a distance within the female body.

liber 5 caput 6

1815

§1[6] We follow Mau and Lachenaud against Diels in preferring δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν (τῶν γυναικῶν) as recorded in the majority of the mss. of PB against ἀσθένειαν as found in the oldest ms. M. It felicitously preserves the symmetry with the final phrase δι᾽ ἀτονίαν (τῶν ἀνδρῶν). §1[7] The unusual phrase δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν, here in both PBQ and G, is paralleled in G’s version of the Diocles lemma 5.13.2 (fr. 43c Van der Eijk), where it is not found in P. The word ἀτονία meaning ‘poor condition’ does not occur in the Aristotelian corpus. For use of the term for the womb cf. the chapter heading of Soranus Gyn. 3.47 Περὶ ἀτονούσης μήτρας. It is possible that the Aristotelian doxa has been contaminated with Diocles’ views on the subject, or that two original doxai have been coalesced. See further at ch. 5.13 Commentary D(d)§2. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 451, p. 19.454.11–13 K. υναʹ. αἰτία συλλήψεως ἡ τῆς μήτρας σύμμετρος θερμασία καὶ ἡ πρόσφατος τῶν ἐμμηνίων κάθαρσις καὶ ὄρεξις· ταῦτα γὰρ ὁμοῦ συνελθόντα κατέσχε τὸ σπέρμα. cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (Diels DG 233) τίς αἰτία συλλήψεως (from ps.Galen). Lactantius Op.D. 12.6 cited on ch. 5.5 section E(a)§2. Chapter heading: cf. Lactantius Op.D. 12.1 Perrin de utero quoque et conceptione.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Corpus Hippocraticum Prorrh. 2.24, p. 9.54.6–16 Littré τῶν δὲ γυναικῶν ὅσαι μᾶλλον καὶ ἧσσον ἐν γαστρὶ λαμβάνειν πεφύκασιν, ὧδε ὑποσκέπτεσθαι· … πυνθάνεσθαι ⟨δὲ⟩ χρὴ καὶ περὶ τῶν καταμηνίων … τὸ δὲ χωρίον ἐν ᾧ ἡ ξύλληψίς ἐστιν, ὃ δὴ μήτρην ὀνομάζομεν, ὑγιές τε χρὴ εἶναι καὶ ξηρὸν καὶ μαλθακὸν, καὶ μήτ᾽ ἀνεσπασμένον ἔστω μήτε προπετὲς, μήτε τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἀπεστράφθω μήτε ξυμμεμυκέτω μήτ᾽ ἐκπεπλίχθω· ἀμήχανον γὰρ, ὅ τι ἂν ᾖ τῶν τοιούτων κωλυμάτων, σύλληψιν γενέσθαι. Aristotle ΗΑ 9.2 582b7–12 ταῖς μὲν (sc. women) γὰρ ἀθρόα ἡ κάθαρσις γίνεται ταῖς δὲ κατ᾽ ὀλίγον, τὸ δὲ σῶμα βαρύνεται πάσαις, ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθῃ. πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ὅταν ὁρμᾷ τὰ καταμήνια καὶ μέλλῃ ῥήγνυσθαι, πνιγμοὶ γίνονται καὶ ψόφος ἐν ταῖς ὑστέραις, ἕως ἂν ῥαγῇ. φύσει μὲν οὖν ἡ σύλληψις γίνεται μετὰ τὴν τούτων ἀπαλλαγὴν ταῖς γυναιξίν. GA 2.4 739a26–28 ἄνευ μὲν οὖν τῆς τοῦ ἄρρενος προέσεως ἐν τῇ συνουσίᾳ ἀδύνατον συλλαβεῖν καὶ ἄνευ τῆς τῶν γυναικείων περιττώσεως ἢ θύραζε προελθούσης ἢ ἐντὸς ἱκανῆς οὔσης. Soranus Gyn. 1.18.5 Ilberg ὑποδεδειγμένης δὲ τῆς φύσεως τῶν γυναικείων μερῶν, ἐπεὶ τὰ τῆς μήτρας ἔργα καθάρσεις, συλλήψεις, κυοφορίαι καὶ μετὰ τελείωσιν ἀποτέξεις, τῇ φυσικῇ χρώμενοι τάξει πρῶτον ἐροῦμεν περὶ ἐμμήνων. Gyn 1.29.6 χωρὶς γὰρ τῆς καθάρσεως σύλληψις οὐ γίνεται. κατ᾽ ἔννοιαν δὲ σύλληψίς ἐστιν κράτησις ἐπίμονος σπέρματος ἢ ἐμβρύου ἢ ἐμβρύων ἡ ἐν ὑστέρᾳ διὰ φυσικὴν αἰτίαν. Oribasius Coll.Med. Lib.inc. 14, p. 4.102.4–22 Raeder (Aristotle fr. 259–260 Rose2, deleted

1816

liber 5 caput 6

in Rose3) Περὶ συλλήψεως καὶ ἐπικυήσεως. αἱ δὲ συλλήψεις γίνονται μὲν οὐ πολὺ μετὰ τὰς καθάρσεις, ὀλιγάκις δὲ καὶ πρὸ τῆς καθάρσεως αὐταῖς τοσοῦτον ἐχούσαις τὸ περίσσευμα, ὅσον ἐστὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις πρὸς τῷ λήγειν ἤδη γινομένης τῆς καθάρσεως· οὔτε δὲ μὴ γινομένων ὅλως τῶν καταμηνίων, οὔτε πεπαυμένων πρὸ πολλοῦ, δυνατὸν γενέσθαι σύλληψιν, οὐδὲ μὴν ἀκμαζούσης τῆς καθάρσεως (ἔμπροσθεν μὲν γὰρ τῶν καθάρσεων τετυλωμένης τῆς μήτρας, οὐχ οἷόν τε προσφυῆναι τὸ σπέρμα), οὐδὲ μὴν ἀκμαζουσῶν (ἐκκλύζεται γὰρ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ γόνος), οὐδὲ πάλιν κατὰ πᾶν πεπαυμένων, καὶ τῆς μήτρας ἀνεξηραμμένης ἤδη καὶ κατεψυγμένης. ληγούσης δὲ τῆς καθάρσεως, καὶ τῆς μήτρας ἀκμὴν ἐναίμου τε οὔσης καὶ διαθέρμου καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ὀργώσης πρὸς τὴν παραδοχὴν τοῦ σπέρματος, καιρὸς εὐφυὴς πρὸς σύλληψιν. γίνεται δέ τισιν ἐπισύλληψις καὶ ἐπικύησις, αἷς ἐστιν ἕλκωσίς τε περὶ τὴν μήτραν καὶ τροφὴ ἱκανή. τισὶ μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης συλλήψεως ἔτι μενούσης ἐπί τινας χρόνους τῆς ἑλκώσεως, ὕστερον ἐπισυλλαμβάνουσι, τισὶ δὲ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, καταμηνίων ἐπιφανέντων, κατ᾽ ἄλλα μέρη τῆς ὑστέρας· διὸ καί τινες μετ᾽ ὀλίγον, τινὲς δὲ μετὰ πλείονα χρόνον, τῷ πρώτῳ ἕτερον ἐπιτίκτουσιν. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 Index Liber VII de conceptu hominum. cf. Oribasius Coll.Med. 14 Raeder cited above.

Liber 5 Caput 7 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 7 recto p. 79 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 905D–F; pp. 419a10–420a18 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 111; p. 641.8– 15 Diels; pp. 338–346 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 220–223 Daiber—PPs: Omn.Doctr. 111.5–7, p. 67 Westerink SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.5, p. 1.295.10 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ζʹ. Πῶς ἄρρενα γεννᾶται καὶ θήλεα (P,cf.S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίνεσθαι παρὰ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα· ὅθεν ἱστορεῖται τοὺς μὲν πρώτους ἄρρενας πρὸς ἀνατολῇ καὶ μεσημβρίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι μᾶλλον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, τὰς δὲ θηλείας πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις. (P1) §2 Παρμενίδης ἀντιστρόφως· τὰ μὲν πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις ἄρρενα βλαστῆσαι, τοῦ γὰρ πυκνοῦ μετέχειν πλείονος· τὰ δὲ πρὸς ταῖς μεσημβρίαις θήλεα παρὰ τὴν ἀραιότητα. (P2) §3 Ἵππων παρὰ τὸ συνεστός τε καὶ ἰσχυρὸν ⟨ἢ⟩ παρὰ τὸ ῥευστικόν τε καὶ ἀσθενέστερον σπέρμα. (P3) §4 Ἀναξαγόρας Παρμενίδης τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν καταβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τῆς μήτρας, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά· εἰ δ᾽ ἐναλλαγείη τὰ τῆς καταβολῆς, γίνεσθαι θήλεα. (P4) §5 Λεωφάνης, οὗ μέμνηται Ἀριστοτέλης, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ δεξιοῦ διδύμου τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ. (P5) §1 Empedocles 31A81 DK; §2 Parmenides 28A53 DK; §3 Hippo 38A14 DK; §4 Anaxagoras 59A111 DK; Parmenides 28A53 DK; §5 Leophanes cf. Arist. GA 4.1 765a21–25 titulus γεννᾶται PB(I,II)SL-ind cf. geschieht die Erzeugung Q : γεννῶνται PB(III) : γίνονται mss. PG corr. Jas ex Nic, sed cf. PPs Πῶς ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίνεται §1 [2] post Ἐμπεδοκλῆς add. PG οἴεται καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. 5.10, 5.21), sed verba καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ut glossema secl. Jas (non leg. PP) ‖ [3–4] πρὸς ἀνατολῇ καὶ μεσημβρίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι PBQ : ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ μεσεμβρίας γίγνεσθαι PG ‖ [4] ἐκ τῆς γῆς PBG : om. PQ §2 [6] Παρμενίδης … ἄρκτοις om. PP per haplographiam ‖ post Παρμενίδης ins. δ᾽ PG ‖ βλαστῆσαι PBQ : γίγνεσθαι PG ‖ [7] μετέχειν PG : μετέχει PB, corr. Xylander Diels ‖ ταῖς μεσημβρίαις PB : τὴν μεσημβρίαν PG §§3–7 non hab. PG §3 [9] Ἵππων scripsimus, cf. Ἱππώνου SPhot, Cens. 6.4 Hippon : Ἱππῶναξ PBQ, cf. PG §8, prob. Diels DG VS edd.; vid. §8 et comm. infra ‖ τε1 coni. Diels, cf. und Q : ἢ PB ‖ ⟨ἢ⟩ add. Diels (sowie PQ) ‖ ῥευστικόν PB(I,III) : ῥευστόν PB(II) §4 [11–12] εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τῆς μήτρας PB(I,III) : εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς μήτρας τὰ δεξιὰ PB(II) ‖ [13] γίνεσθαι PB(II) : γένεσθαι PB(I,III) : γίνεσθαι ⟨τὰ μὲν⟩ θήλεα ⟨ἀρρενικώτερα, τὰ δὲ ἄρρενα θηλύτερα⟩ prop. Tarán Diels DG 194 secutus; vid. comm. infra §5 [14] Λεωφάνης PB(III)QSPhot : Λεοφανίας PB(I,II) ‖ τοῦ] om. PB(II)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_132

5

10

15

1818 §6 §7 §8

liber 5 caput 7

Λεύκιππος διὰ τὴν παραλλαγὴν τῶν μορίων, καθ᾽ ἣν ὁ μὲν καυλὸν ἡ δὲ μήτραν ἔχει· τοσοῦτον γὰρ μόνον λέγει. (P6) Δημόκριτος τὰ μὲν κοινὰ μέρη ἐξ ὁποτέρου ἂν τύχῃ, τὰ δ᾽ ἰδιάζοντα κατ᾽ ἐπικράτειαν. (P7) Ἵππων, εἰ μὲν ἡ γονὴ κρατήσειεν, ἄρρεν· εἰ δ᾽ ἡ τροφή, θῆλυ. (P8)

§6 Leucippus 67A36 DK; §7 Democritus 68A143 DK; §8 Hippo 38A14 DK §6 [17] γὰρ PB(I–III) : om. PB(III:AE) ‖ τοσοῦτον … λέγει om. PQ §7 [18] post ἰδιάζοντα hab. PB καὶ, del. Reiske Diels (non hab. PQ ut vid.) §8 [20] Ἵππων iterum scripsimus, vid. ad §3 supra ‖ κρατήσειεν PB(I,II)G : κρατήσει PB(III) ‖ τροφή PBQ : ὕλη PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 7 recto = P §§1–2 Ε[μπεδοκλης αρρενα και θηλεα γινεσθαι] [π]α̣ρα̣ ̣ [θερμοτητα και ψυχροτητα οθεν] ϊστορει ̣[ται τους μεν πρωτους αρρενας προς] ανατολη̣ [και μεσημβρια γεγενησθαι] 5 μαλλον̣ [εκ της γης τας δε θηλειας προς ταις] α[ρκτοις αρρενα βλαστησαι του γαρ πυ] κνου̣ [μετεχειν πλειονος τα δε προς ταις με] ση[μβριαις ps.Galenus HPh c. 111 (~ tit.) Πῶς ἄρρενα γεννᾶται καὶ θήλεα (text Jas) 111.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οἴεται {καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης} ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίγνεσθαι παρὰ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα· ὅθεν ἱστορεῖται τοὺς μὲν πρώτους ἄρρενας ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ μεσεμβρίας γίγνεσθαι μᾶλλον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, τὰς δὲ θηλείας πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις. 111.2 (~ P2) Παρμενίδης δ᾽ ἀντιστρόφως, τὰ μὲν πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις ἄρρενα γίγνεσθαι, τοῦ γὰρ πυκνοῦ μετέχειν πλείονος, τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὴν μεσημβρίαν δι᾽ ἀραιότητα. 111.3 (~ P8) Ἱππῶναξ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἡ γονὴ κρατήσειεν, ἄρρεν, εἰ δὲ ἡ ὕλη, θῆλυ. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 111 (~ tit.) Πῶς ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίνεται c. 111.5–7 ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ ἄρρεν θερμότερόν ἐστι τοῦ θήλεος, τὸ μὲν ἐμπεσὸν σπέρμα εἰς τὸν δεξιὸν κόλπον ἄρρεν γίνεται διὰ τὴν θερμότητα, τὸ δὲ εἰς τὸν ἀριστερὸν θῆλυ διὰ τὴν ψυχρότητα (cf. P1, P4) Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. 5.11 Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων αἱ ὁμοιώσεις καὶ τῶν προγόνων §1 A 5.11.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁμοιότητας γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ ἐπικράτειαν τῶν σπερματικῶν γόνων, ἀνομοιότητας δὲ τῆς ἐν τῷ σπέρματι θερμασίας ἐξατμισθείσης. §2 A 2.7.1 Παρμενίδης στεφάνας εἶναι περιπεπλεγμένας ἐπαλλήλους, τὴν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ τὴν δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ πυκνοῦ … A 3.1.6 Παρμενίδης τὸ τοῦ πυκνοῦ καὶ ἀραιοῦ

20

liber 5 caput 7

1819

μῖγμα γαλακτοειδὲς ἀποτελέσαι χρῶμα. A 5.11.2 Παρμενίδης, ὅταν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους τῆς μήτρας ὁ γόνος ἀποκριθῇ, τοῖς πατράσιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ, ταῖς μητράσιν

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses P records eight mainly brief lemmata, the most in number (though not in length) of any chapter in Book 5. G epitomises radically, taking over only the first two and the last. Ps takes over the chapter heading and makes light use of §4, but the remainder of his chapter contains material that does not appear to derive from the Placita. The rare name-label Leophanes, found only here in what remains of A, occurs in Photius’ index of Stobaeus (Bibl. 167, 156.8 Henry). Diels rightly deduced that the Anthology in all likelihood originally included this doxa, DG 420b1; see also Elter (1880) 46. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The most important parallel text in the proximate tradition is found in Censorinus, who clearly states the quaestio involved at §6.4, ut mares feminaeve nascantur, quid causae esset, indicating very explicitly that the question is one of cause (cf. πῶς in A’s chapter heading). There is a good but not complete overlap with A and, as we shall below in sub-section (2), with Aristotle. Five of the seven separate name-labels in A are found in Censorinus (excluding Leophanes and Leucippus), but his Alcmaeon does not appear in A. Two other documents, ps.Galen Definitiones medicae and Lactantius contain anonymised parallels for A’s doxai (texts below section E(a) General texts). Lactantius’ source is likely to have been Varro (see our discussion on Lactantius’ evidence in chs. 5.5–6). Most intriguingly mention is made of the doxa of Anaxagoras in Hippolytus’ summary of his doctrine (1.18.12, text below), another example of the links between A and the traditio proxima that are so frequent in the earlier books of A’s compendium. It remains puzzling that he does not refer to Alcmaeon despite his appearance six times in this book, so we may have a case of P’s abridgement here. (2) Sources. Going further back, it is clear that the general inspiration for this and some following chapters in A is Aristotle’s treatment of these questions in Book 4 of De generatione animalium. The questions posed in chs. 5.7–8 and 5.11 are discussed in GA 4.1–4; see for example the summary at 4.3 769b3–

1820

liber 5 caput 7

10 which emphasises the aspect of cause (αἰτία) and outlines the subjects of all three chapters (text below section E(b) General texts). The specific subject of sex differentiation is discussed in GA 4.1. Of A’s seven name-labels no less than four (Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Leophanes) occur in this passage. Indeed A explicitly draws attention to this source when he says that Leophanes ‘was mentioned by Aristotle’ (765a25), adding this comment because perhaps the man was known from no other source; see below section E(b)§5. It is to be noted that three of the name-labels in A are not found in Aristotle (Parmenides, Hippo and Leucippus, and also not Alcmaeon who only appears in Censorinus), and that only philosophers are cited, without any reference to physicians. Another striking feature of our chapter—in contrast to those that follow— that all the doxai in the chapter give views of the Presocratics. Thanks to Galen (text below E(b)§1) we actually have brief quotations from the poems of Parmenides and Empedocles which give a glimpse of the original material on which the doxai are based (and which will have been known to Aristotle). Moreover, the latter’s discussion of Democritus’ view at GA 4.1 764a6–11 (text below section E(b)§7) in which the causality of heat and cold is rejected, may indicate that the atomist responded to these earlier views (but it could also be an editorial comment by Aristotle himself). All in all, this chapter provides a fascinating insight into the layered nature of the sources that underlie A’s treatment of a question in biology. For further analysis see further below at section D(e). For literature on conception and birth in ancient sources see above, ch. 5.3 Commentary B. C Chapter Heading Another chapter heading with πῶς indicating ‘cause’ (see on 5.6 Commentary C). The verb γεννᾶται, which deviates from the usual γίνεται (cf. chs. 5.2, 6, 8, 10 etc.), is well enough attested (PBQ SL) to be retained (G and Ps revert to the more common verb). On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. The heading for this chapter is identical to that found in the tradition of P, but there are no grounds for concluding that it must be interpolated from there. D Analysis a Context As the chapter’s contents reveal, sex determination could be related to semen (i.e. prior to conception) or factors relating to reproduction (i.e. after conception). A has chosen to place it after his treatment of both subjects, i.e. semen in ch. 5.3–5, conception in ch. 5.6. The result is an admirably logical sequence of topics.

liber 5 caput 7

1821

b Number–Order of Lemmata As noted above, this chapter as preserved by P is the one with the most doxai in Book 5. It may well have been one of those chapters in which he chose to retain most or all of the doxai in his source, as he did for example in chs. 3.1– 2, but we cannot be sure (and see below on the absence of Alcmaeon). Since P seldom interferes with the order of the doxai, the sequence of lemmata is also most likely to derive from A, but here too certainty is not attainable. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Analysis of the doxai’s contents and comparison with the proximate tradition reveal that the eight lemmata of chapter are organised in a number of different ways. A first diaeresis separates the first two doxai from the remaining six. In §§1– 2 the generation of males and females is explained through the factors of heat and cold, but these are immediately related to their origin from the earth. The remaining doxai §§3–8 describe their occurrence through the normal process of intercourse between the sexes. The difference can be explained in terms of two kinds of explanation: the first is protological, i.e. the present-day situation results from what happened during the original cosmogony; the second is actual or contemporary, i.e. describing what happens now without reference to origins. Protological explanations are invoked in Empedoclean doxai earlier at A 4.22.1[2], where πρώτου should not be excised, see our Commentary ad loc. and also later at A 5.18.1 and explicitly at 5.19.4. A parallel can be drawn in the connection between cosmogony and cosmology in ch. 2.8 on the tilting of the cosmos. In the present chapter the distinction helps to explain the fact that there is a double reference to doxai of Parmenides in the same chapter. It is apparent that the first two doxai form an antithetical pair. This is very deliberately emphasised through the term ἀντιστρόφως, used only here in the surviving Placita. The explanation of sex differentiation through the factors of heat and cold is confirmed by evidence in Aristotle’s biological works De partibus animalium and De generatione animalium; see the texts cited below section E(b)§§1–2. Both philosophers are named in the former work, only Empedocles in the latter. Indeed, the antithetical pair of doxai surely has its origin in the text at PA 2.2 648a25–31 in which it is stated that according to Parmenides women are hotter than men (also anonymously stated at GA 4.1 765b19–22), whereas Empedocles holds the opposite view. Here the chronological order has been preserved, whereas in our chapter it has been reversed, with Parmenides presented as unhistorically responding in opposition to Empedocles. Remarkably Aristotle himself presents as factual (or endoxic) an association between

1822

liber 5 caput 7

male births and the (cold) north winds and female births and the (hot) warm winds; see HA 6.19 574a1–2, GA 4.2 766b34–35, 767a8–13. A text in Galen also opposes the two philosophers and cites a line of poetry for each point of view (text below section E(b)§§1, 4). There is no trace of this opposition in Censorinus, but heat and cold form the third of the positions in ps.Galen Def.Med. This latter text differs, however, in attributing the sex differentiation to the semen rather than to the womb (this is not clear in A either). On Empedocles’ theory see further Lesky (1951) 33–36. On the coupling of Parmenides and Empedocles in §§1–2 (also Parmenides in §4) see further Mansfeld (2015e) = (2018d) 192–193. At §3 there is a silent transition to the remaining doxai, which explain the generation of males and females with reference to the normal processes of sexual intercourse alone. The first doxa ascribed to Hippo (on the name-label see below, section D(d)) stands on its own in giving an explanation of sex differentiation in terms of the nature of the semen involved in the conception (it must be male if the doxa is to be consistent with ch. 5.5.3). Comparison with Censorinus is instructive. He mentions Hippo together with Alcmaeon, the latter explaining the difference with reference to quantity, the former quality of seed. An Alcmaeon doxa may well have been originally present in A. On his prominence in Book 5 see Commentary on 5.3, D(d)§3. On this explanation see further Lesky (1951) 23–29. The next two doxai ascribed to Anaxagoras–Parmenides and Leophanes (§§4–5) should be taken together. The explanation for this group is given in terms of differentiation between right and left, both with regard to the testicles and locations in the womb. For Anaxagoras the source is Aristotle GA 4.1 763b30–764a1, for Parmenides (ultimately) the line of his poem cited by Galen (fr. 28B17 DK). The theory allows for four possibilities: semen from right testicle in right part of womb = males, semen from left testicle in left part of womb = females, semen from right testicle in left part of womb = effeminate males, semen from right testicle in left part of womb = manly females. The doxa in A, which only allows for two possibilities, is not consistent with this more refined scheme. Tarán (1965) 264, building on Diels DG 194, proposes that the final two words be emended to γίνεσθαι ⟨τὰ μὲν⟩ θήλεα ⟨ἀρρενικώτερα, τὰ δὲ ἄρρενα θηλύτερα⟩. Another possibility is Diels’ simpler suggestion γίνεσθαι ἀρρενοθήλεα. But the mistake may well have lain with A and it would be unwise to introduce the emendation into the text. Both Censorinus and ps.Galen Def.Med. cite the view correctly as one of the possible explanations (but the former differs in attributing it also to Empedocles). The full four possibilities are given by Lactantius Op.D. 12.12–13, but without a name-label. On this explanation see further Lesky (1951) 39–56.

liber 5 caput 7

1823

The name-label Leophanes is unique in the Placita. We may surmise that A (or his tradition) mentions the reference to him in Aristotle, i.e. at GA 4.1 765a25 because that is his only source of information about him. In this passage he is mentioned only for the specific detail of trying to determine the sex by tying up the left or the right testicle during intercourse. In A his doxa is generalized to a simple system where semen from the right testicle produces males, from the left females. Since this differs from the previous doxa if that is interpreted as a binary scheme (right right and left left as males, right left and left right as females), it is possible that A intended a diaphonia between these views, as in the case of §§1–2. But if so, it is not formulated at all clearly. The final three doxai §§6–8 can be taken together. The doxai of the two atomists take as their starting-point the pan-genesis doctrine (see A 5.3.6). As A’s slightly disparaging comment makes clear, Leucippus’ explanation amounts to no more than a statement of the difference. The details in the original treatise (not transmitted via Aristotle) must have been scanty. At 1.25.4 A gives a rare quotation from Leucippus’ Περὶ νοῦ. The present information may allude to the same work, which may have contained not only epistemology and psychology, but also physiological theories. It is rather unusual for the doxographer to include a critical remark; it may well have been taken over from his source. For example there are complaints about lack of precision and appropriate information at Theophrastus Sens. 4, 9, 33, 49, 92. Similarly Diogenes Laertius (or his source) will from time to time include criticism in his doxographical accounts, e.g. at 2.1 (on Anaximander), 9.9 on Heraclitus. On rare occasions A himself records critical remarks (ἔνστασεις) of Peripatetic descent, notably at ch. 1.3.2 & 1.3.3. Democritus, as Leucippus’ pupil, is placed after him and by implication gives a more satisfactory explanation. The distinction is made between parts held in common by the two sexes and parts that they have individually as males or as females, i.e. the sexual parts. Their nature is determined by ‘dominance’, presumably of the male or the female semen (the existence of the latter is acknowledged for Democritus in A 5.5.1). This report could have its origin in Aristotle’s mention of Democritus’ theory in GA 4.1 765b6–11, where dominance is explicitly attributed to the role of the semen. Censorinus, however, appears to add further details involving the speed of semen, i.e. sex is determined by whichever semen gets to the vital place in the womb first. The anonymous reference to the ἰδιοσυγκρασία of the semen in ps.Galen would appear to be a reference to Democritus’ theory. On this theory and the role of ‘dominance’ see Lesky (1951) 73–74. The final doxa again has the name-label Hippo. It appears to have been added because it too involves the notion of ‘dominance’. The two factors

1824

liber 5 caput 7

involved are the male semen and the nutrition in the womb offered by the woman. On this view see further Lesky (1951) 27–28. All in all, this chapter is another excellent example of the diaeretic method that A uses so frequently in his compendium. The chapter divides firstly, as noted above, into two separate temporal dimensions, (protologically) at the beginning of zoological life (§§1–2) and now (§§3–8). There are also four kinds of explanation in terms of (1) temperature of the womb, (2) nature of the semen, (3) right and left location (of testicles and womb), and (4) dominance. Within the four explanations there are further diaereses, certainly in (1), less clearly in (3) and (4). In (2) there is only one doxa, but here an Alcmaeon doxa may have been epitomised away by P. As we shall see below in section D(e), these diaereses correspond at least in part to what we find in the proximate witnesses. In this chapter two name-labels are repeated. In the case of Parmenides there are explanations in terms of heat and cold (§1) and right and left (§4). These could be reconciled (parallelism of geographical and physiological characteristics), but this is no concern of A. Similarly the two doxai attributed to Hippo are compatible but have different roles to play within the chapter. As often doxai and the doctrinal positions they represent are more important for A than name-labels. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The mss. of G add to Empedocles the name-label Asclepiades. Diels ad loc. suggested it might have been imported from ch. 5.10 where the two name-labels follow each other (5.10.1–2). But he did not notice that in A 5.21.2 Asclepiades is also associated with a doxa that differentiates between male and female embryos in terms of heat (cf. also heat and cold in 5.30.7). This doxa is retained by G in his §125. Jas (2018a) 334 argues the name-label is likely to result from a marginal note referring to this other doxa that found its way into the text. This argument is not conclusive. The additional name-label might have referred only to the first part of the doxa. A can be quite careless in such matters. It should be noted, however, that G’s reading is not supported by the papyrus snippet. Since G is opposed by all three other witnesses PPBQ, it is perhaps safer to follow Jas’ lead and not include the additional name in P, and so not in A as well. §§1–2 We have cited below in section E(b)§§1, 4 the text of Galen’s comment on Parmenides and Empedocles, which includes brief quotes from their poems, as it is found in the manuscripts. In determining the best text a distinction needs to be made between what the reading in Galen should be and what

liber 5 caput 7

1825

the original text in the poems might have been. The doxographical contents of Galen’s remark may have involved alteration of the original text at some stage in the tradition. It is certainly suggestive that the Empedoclean text as transmitted contains a reference to the earth (γαίης). This line could thus have been among the sources for A’s doxa. We might translate ‘for in the warmer part of the earth the male was found’. There is thus a link between physiological and geographical location (but this is not found in Aristotle’s reference to Empedocles’ view). See also the comment by Deichgräber (1930a) 375–376 in his review of Wenkebach’s studies on Galen’s text. §3 The name-label Hipponax, here and in §8, is confirmed for the tradition of P by both Q and in G (§8 only). As Censorinus proves, it must refer to the philosopher Hippo, already cited in A 5.5.3 (and elsewhere only at A 4.3.9 on the nature of the soul). The alternative form of the name is only found with certainty here. Does the name go back to A, or is it a mistake introduced in the tradition of P? It would be most helpful to know what stood in S, but the name preserved by Photius in his listing of names (114b3) is the solecism Ἱππώνου, which might be the result of a misunderstood abbreviation on the part of a scribe (cf. Diels 1881, 346, note at DK 1.386). It should be noted that this name would be based on A 5.5.3, the first occurrence of the name in the work (ch. 4.3 was copied out later in Ecl. 1.49). It is difficult to believe that A would have not realised that the name-label in ch. 5.7 was the same as that in ch. 5.5. The reference to the philosopher at Anon.Lond. 11.23 unfortunately cannot help, since pace Jas it appears that both versions of the name can be read there; cf. Diels VS 233, Manetti (2011) 21. We apply the principle of charity and opt for the reading consistent with ch. 5.5. §§6–7 μόρια in §6 must mean the constituent or vital parts, i.e. the sexual organs, whereas μέρη in §7 is used more generally and refers to all the parts of the body. It is difficult to be precise in what noun is understood with ἐξ ὁποτέρου, but the phrase refers to either parent or their semen. Remarkably the same word ὁποτέρου occurs at Aristotle GA 4.1 764a10, in the passage which is surely the ultimate source of the doxa. §7 The theory of sex determination through ‘dominance’ is also attributed to the Peripatetic Strato at Galen Sem. 2.5.12, whose view as noted by De Lacy (1992) 242 resembles that of Democritus. Strato is cited together with the atomist in A 5.4.2 and on his own at A 5.8.2. It is not unlikely that his name-label was originally present in this chapter and excised by P. e Other Evidence As noted above in section B, the commonalities between A and the proximate witnesses are such that all documents must belong to a shared tradition. Cen-

1826

liber 5 caput 7

sorinus has three of A’s four main kinds of explanation: (1) nature of semen (Alcmaeon, Hippo); (2) dominance (Democritus, Parmenides); (3) right and left location (Anaxagoras, Empedocles). Surprisingly the explanation involving heat and cold is missing (and his linking of Empedocles with the right/left view must be wrong). Ps.Galen also has three of the main kinds of explanation, all without name-labels: (1) right and left location; (2) dominance (see above, section D(c) on how κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος ἰδιοσυγκρασίαν should be interpreted); (3) heat and cold. Galen’s comment on Parmenides and Empedocles may also have some kind of link to a doxographical tradition. This chapter thus gives us a valuable glimpse of how the doxographical tradition derived its material. Five of the eight doxai can be traced back to works of Aristotle (esp. GA, but also PA), with even the occasional verbal reminiscence (see above, section D(d) on §7). As noted above, A himself refers to Aristotle for the mention of the rare name-label Leophanes (but in this doxa he uses the term δίδυμος and not ὄρχις as in Aristotle). However, the diaeresis that structures A’s chapter cannot be clearly discerned in Aristotle’s treatment. The diaphonia between the first two views is briefly noted in PA 2.2, but not in GA 4.1. Three of A’s doxai cannot be paralleled in Aristotle (Hippo twice and Leucippus) and, as we saw, A does not mention the key figure Alcmaeon, to whom Censorinus does refer in his report. The doxographical tradition must therefore at some stage not only have absorbed additional views of Presocratic philosophers but also structured the collected material in ways that built upon but (as usual) went beyond the Stagirite’s presentation in his biological works. Diels saw in this convergence evidence for the existence of the Vetusta placita; see DG 188–201, but we prefer to speak of ‘intermediate doxographical traditions’. For an intriguing Jewish rabbinic solution to the problem based on whether the seed of the woman or the man is emitted first, see Van der Horst (2018) 111– 112. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus DN 6.4–6 ceterum ut mares feminaeve nascantur, quid causae esset varie ab isdem philosophis proditum est. nam ex quo parente seminis amplius fuit, eius sexum repraesentari dixit Alcmaeon (24A14 DK); ex seminibus autem tenuioribus feminas, ex densioribus mares fieri Hippon (38A14 DK) adfirmat (~ §3); (5) utrius vero parentis principium sedem prius occupaverit, eius reddi naturam Democritus (68A143 DK) rettulit (cf. §7); at inter se certare feminae et maris, et penes utrum victoria sit, eius habitum referri auctor est Parmenides (28A54 DK). (6) ex dextris partibus profuso semine mares gigni, at e laevis feminas, Anaxagoras (59A111 DK ~ §4) Empedoclesque (31A81 DK)

liber 5 caput 7 consentiunt, quorum opiniones, ut de hac specie congruae, ita de similitudine liberorum dispariles … (for continuation see on ch. 5.11). ps.Galen Def.Med. 446, p. 19.453.1–6 K. υμστʹ. γίνεται δὲ τὸ ἄρρεν κατὰ μέν τινας ἐπειδὰν τὸ ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν ἀποσπασθὲν σπέρμα καταβληθῇ εἰς τὴν μήτραν· θῆλυ δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν (cf. §4). ἄλλοι δὲ ἔφασαν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος ἰδιοσυγκρασίαν (~ §7) ἤτοι παρὰ τὴν θερμότητα ἢ τὴν ψυχρότητα γίνεσθαι· τὸ μὲν γὰρ θερμότερον σπέρμα ποιεῖ τὸ ἄρρεν, τὸ δὲ ψυχρότερον τὸ θῆλυ (~ §1). Lactantius Op.D. 12.12–14 Perrin (Parmenides 28A54; from Varro = Suppl. fr. 51 Salvadore) dispares quoque naturae hoc modo fieri putantur: cum forte in laevam uteri partem masculinae stirpis semen inciderit, marem quidem gigni opinatio est, sed quia sit in feminina parte conceptus, aliquid in se habere femineum supra quam decus virile patiatur, vel formam insignem vel nimium candorem vel corporis levitatem vel artus delicatos vel staturam brevem vel vocem gracilem vel animum inbecillum vel ex his plura. (13) item si partem in dexteram semen feminini generis influxerit, feminam quidem procreari, sed quoniam in masculina parte concepta sit, habere in se aliquid virilitatis ultra quam sexus ratio permittat, aut valida membra aut inmoderatam longitudinem aut fuscum colorem aut hispidam faciem aut vultum indecorum aut vocem robustam aut animum audacem aut ex his plura. Chapter heading: cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (DG p. 233 Diels, from Def.Med. 446) πότε ἄρρεν γίγνεται πότε θῆλυ. §3 Hippo: See Censorinus 6.4 quoted above (Hippo).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 4.1 763b20–26 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς γενέσεως τῆς τῶν ζῴων εἴρηται καὶ κοινῇ καὶ χωρὶς περὶ πάντων. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς τελειοτάτοις αὐτῶν ἐστι τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν κεχωρισμένον, καὶ ταύτας τὰς δυνάμεις ἀρχάς φαμεν εἶναι πάντων καὶ ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν αὐτὰς ἀχωρίστους ἔχει τὰ δὲ κεχωρισμένας, λεκτέον περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τῆς τούτων πρῶτον … GA 4.3 769a1–6 διὰ τίνα μὲν οὖν αἰτίαν θήλεα καὶ ἄρρενα γίγνεται … διώρισται περὶ πάντων. GA 769b3–10 οὐ ῥᾴδιον δὲ οὐδὲ τρόπον ἕνα τῆς αἰτίας ἀποδιδόντας τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν περὶ πάντων, τοῦ τε γίγνεσθαι θῆλυ καὶ ἄρρεν καί διὰ τί τὸ μὲν θῆλυ τῷ πατρὶ πολλάκις ὅμοιον τὸ δ᾽ ἄρρεν τῇ μητρί (cf. ch. 5.11), καὶ πάλιν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς προγόνους ὁμοιότητος (cf. ch. 5.11), ἔτι δὲ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ὁτὲ μὲν ἄνθρωπος μὲν τούτων δ᾽ οὐθενὶ προσόμοιος, ὁτὲ δὲ προϊὸν οὕτω τέλος οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλὰ ζῷόν τι μόνον φαίνεται τὸ γιγνόμενον, ἃ δὴ καὶ λέγεται τέρατα (cf. ch. 5.9). Chapter heading: cf. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.84 ἄρσενα δέ φησιν ἢ θήλεα γίνεσθαι παρὰ τὸ πεπέφθαι ὑπὸ θερμοῦ ἢ ἄπεπτον εἶναι τὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς σπέρμα. cf. Epit.HA 2.36 cited on ch. 5.8. Pliny Nat. 1 Index Liber VII de homine … de generatione hominum. §§1–2 Empedocles Parmenides: Aristotle PA 2.2 648a25–31 ἔνιοι γὰρ τὰ ἔνυδρα τῶν πεζῶν θερμότερά φασιν εἶναι, καὶ τὰ ἄναιμα τῶν ἐναίμων καὶ τὰ θήλεα τῶν ἀρρένων, οἷον Παρμενίδης (28A52 DK) τὰς γυναῖκας τῶν ἀνδρῶν θερμοτέρας εἶναί φησι καὶ ἕτεροί τινες, ὡς διὰ τὴν θερμότητα καὶ πολυαιμούσαις γινομένων τῶν γυναικείων, Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) δὲ τοὐναντίον. cf. GA 4.1 765b19–22 καὶ ἔστιν αὐτὸ

1827

1828

liber 5 caput 7

τοὐναντίον σημεῖον ἢ δι᾽ ἥνπερ αἰτίαν οἴονταί τινες τὸ θῆλυ θερμότερον εἶναι τοῦ ἄρρενος, διὰ τὴν τῶν καταμηνίων πρόεσιν. §1 Empedocles: Empedocles 31B67 DK, see verses cited in text of Galen below. Aristotle GA 4.1 764a1–15 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A81 DK)· τὰ μὲν γὰρ εἰς θερμὴν ἐλθόντα τὴν ὑστέραν ἄρρενα γίγνεσθαί φησι τὰ δ᾽ εἰς ψυχρὰν θήλεα, τῆς δὲ θερμότητος καὶ τῆς ψυχρότητος τὴν τῶν καταμηνίων αἰτίαν εἶναι ῥύσιν, ἢ ψυχροτέραν οὖσαν ἢ θερμοτέραν καὶ ἢ παλαιοτέραν ἢ προσφατωτέραν. … τοῦτο γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ῥᾳθυμότερον ὑπείληφεν οἰόμενος ψυχρότητι καὶ θερμότητι διαφέρειν μόνον ἀλλήλων, ὁρῶν ὅλα τὰ μόρια μεγάλην ἔχοντα διαφορὰν τήν τε τῶν αἰδοίων καὶ τὴν τῆς ὑστέρας. GA 4.1 765a9–11, ὁμοίως ἀναγκαῖον ἀπαντᾶν καὶ πρὸς τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέους λόγον ὃς διορίζει τὸ θῆλυ πρὸς τὸ ἄρρεν θερμότητι καὶ ψυχρότητι τῆς ὑστέρας. see also GA 1.18 722b7–30, 4.1 764b4–765a3 (on semen and offspring). Galen Hipp.Epid. 6.48, p. 119.12–120.2 Wenkebach τὸ μέντοι ἄρρεν ἐν τῷ δεξιῷ μέρει τῆς μήτρας κυΐσκεσθαι καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν παλαιοτάτων ἀνδρῶν εἰρήκασιν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Παρμενίδης (28B17 DK) οὕτως ἔφη· ‘δεξιτεροῖσιν μὲν κούρους, λαιοῖσιν δ᾽ αὖ κούρας,’ ὁ δ᾽ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οὕτως (31B67 DK)· ‘ἐν γὰρ θερμοτέρῳ τὸ κατ᾽ ἄρρενα ἔπλετο γυίῳ [earlier editors γαίης; Diels emends to τοκὰς ἄρρενος ἔπλετο γαστήρ(?)], / καὶ μέλανες διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἁδρομελέστεροι ἄνδρες / καὶ λαχνήεντες μᾶλλον.’ §2 Parmenides: cf. Aristotle GA 4.2 766b34–35 καὶ τὸ βορείοις ἀρρενοτοκεῖν μᾶλλον ἢ νοτίοις ⟨διὰ ταὐτο συμβαίνει· ὑγρότερα γὰρ τὰ σώματα νοτίοις suppl. Peck⟩ ὥστε καὶ περιττωματικώτερα. GA 4.2 767a9–13 φασὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ νομεῖς διαφέρειν πρὸς θηλυγονίαν καὶ ἀρρενογονίαν οὐ μόνον ἐὰν συμβαίνῃ τὴν ὀχείαν γίγνεσθαι βορείοις ἢ νοτίοις ἀλλὰ κἂν ὀχευόμενα βλέπῃ πρὸς νότον ἢ βορέαν· οὕτω μικρὰν ἐνίοτε ῥοπὴν αἰτίαν γίγνεσθαι τῆς ψυχρότητος καὶ θερμότητος, ταῦτα δὲ τῆς γενέσεως. §4 Anaxagoras Parmenides: Parmenides 28B17 DK, see verses quoted in text Galen cited above. Corpus Hippocraticum Aph. 5.48, p. 4.550.1–2 Littré ἔμβρυα τὰ μὲν ἄρσενα ἐν τοῖσι δεξιοῖσι, τὰ δὲ θήλεα ἐν τοῖσιν ἀριστεροῖσι μᾶλλον. Aristotle GA 4.1 763b27–764a1 πότερον δὲ καὶ πρὶν δήλην τὴν διαφορὰν εἶναι πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν ἡμῶν τὸ μὲν θῆλυ τὸ δ᾽ ἄρρεν ἐστίν, ἐν τῇ μητρὶ λαβόντα τὴν διαφορὰν ἢ πρότερον, ἀμφισβητεῖται. φασὶ γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἐν τοῖς σπέρμασιν εἶναι ταύτην τὴν ἐναντίωσιν εὐθύς, οἷον Ἀναξαγόρας (59A107 DK) καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν φυσιολόγων· γίγνεσθαί τε γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρρενος τὸ σπέρμα, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ παρέχειν τὸν τόπον, καὶ εἶναι τὸ μὲν ἄρρεν ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν τὸ δὲ θῆλυ ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν [καὶ τῆς ὑστέρας τὰ μὲν ἄρρενα ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς εἶναι τὰ δὲ θήλεα ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς secl Peck ‘nam argumento aliena; cf. 765a22’]. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.12 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK), καὶ ἄρρενας μὲν γίνεσθαι, ὅταν ἀπὸ τῶν δεξιῶν μερῶν ἀποκριθὲν τὸ σπέρμα τοῖς δεξιοῖς μέρεσι τῆς μήτρας κολληθῇ, τὰ δὲ θήλεα κατὰ τοὐναντίον. Galen Hipp.Epid. 6.48, p. 119.12–120.2 cited above on §1. See also Censorinus DN 5.2 igitur semen unde exeat inter sapientiae professores non constat. Parmenides (28A53 DK) enim tum ex dextris tum e laevis partibus oriri putavit. §5 Leophanes: Aristotle GA 4.1 765a21–25 παραπλησίως δέ τινες πεπεισμένοι τούτοις εἰσὶ καὶ λέγουσιν ὡς τὸν δεξιὸν ὄρχιν ἀποδουμένοις ἢ τὸν ἀριστερὸν συμβαίνει τοῖς ὀχεύουσιν ἀρρενοτοκεῖν ἢ θηλυτοκεῖν· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ Λεωφάνης ἔλεγεν.

liber 5 caput 7 §7 Democritus: Aristotle GA 4.1 764a6–11 Δημόκριτος δὲ ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης (68a143 DK) ἐν μὲν τῇ μητρὶ γίγνεσθαί φησι τὴν διαφορὰν τοῦ θήλεος καὶ τοῦ ἄρρενος, οὐ μέντοι διὰ θερμότητά γε ἢ ψυχρότητα τὸ μὲν γίγνεσθαι θῆλυ τὸ δ᾽ ἄρρεν ἀλλ᾽ ὁποτέρου ἂν κρατήσῃ τὸ σπέρμα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ μορίου ἐλθὸν ᾧ διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν. Nemesius NH 25, pp. 86.19–87.4 cited on ch. 5.5 (but the doxa is mistaken). cf. Galen Sem. 2.5.12, p. 182.8–10 De Lacy ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἄπο τρόπου δόξειενὁ φυσικὸς Στράτων ὑπειληφέναι, τὸ μὲν ἄῤῥεν γίνεσθαι ζῶον ἐπικρατείᾳ γονῆς ἄῤῥενος, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ θηλείας.

1829

Liber 5 Caput 8 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 905F–906A; pp. 420a19–421a5 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 112; p. 641.16–20 Diels; pp. 346–351 Jas—PL: Mens. 4.84, pp. 134.21– 135.2 Wuensch—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 222–223 Daiber—PPs: cf. Psellus Phil.Min. 1 op. 16 p. 53 Duffy (titulus solus) SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1. 42.6, p. 1. 295.12 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ηʹ. Πῶς τέρατα γίνεται (P,cf.S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τέρατα γίνεσθαι παρὰ πλεονασμὸν σπέρματος ἢ παρ᾽ ἔλλειψιν ἢ παρὰ τὴν τῆς κινήσεως ταραχὴν ἢ παρὰ τὴν εἰς πλείω διαίρεσιν ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀπονεύειν· οὕτω προειληφὼς φαίνεται σχεδόν τι πάσας τὰς αἰτιολογίας. (P1) §2 Στράτων παρὰ πρόσθεσιν ἢ ἀφαίρεσιν ἢ μετάθεσιν ἢ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν. (P2) §3 τῶν ἰατρῶν τινες παρὰ τὸ διαστρέφεσθαι τότε τὴν μήτραν ἐμπνευματουμένην. (P3) §1 Empedocles 31A81; §2 Strato fr. 99 Wehrli, 74 Sharples; §3 — titulus γίνεται PBG1 SL-ind: γίνονται PG2, cf. PPs §1 [2] post nomen hab. νομίζει PG ‖ σπέρματος] πνεύματος PL ‖ [3] ἔλλειψιν PBL : ἔλλειμα PG ‖ ταραχὴν PGQ Diels Mau Lachenaud : ἀρχὴν PB prob. Vítek : al. PL ὑπερβολὴν ‖ [4] παρὰ τὸ ἀπονεύειν PB, cf. infolge seine Neigung zu irgendem Teil Q : παρὰ ἀπόνευσιν PG emend. Jas (ἀπόπνευσιν mss. Diels) ‖ post ἀπόνευσιν add. PG τέρατα γίγνεσθαι ‖ [4–5] οὕτω … αἰτιολογίας om. PG ‖ [5] αἰτιολογίας corr. Reiske : ἀπολογίας PB, gibt er … die Antwort auf den ganzen Fragenkomplex über die Geschädigten Q (fort. interpretatio sec. Daiber) §2 [6] Στράτων] Πλάτων PL ‖ πρόσθεσιν PB(II,III)GL1Q : πρόθεσιν PB(I)L2 ‖ ἢ ἀφαίρεσιν ἢ μετάθεσιν PBLQ : om. PG ‖ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν PG Diels : πνευμάτωσιν PBL Mau Lachenaud §3 [8] post τινες add. δὲ PG ‖ τότε PB : om. PGQ(ut vid.)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 112 (~ tit.) Πῶς τέρατα γίνονται (text Jas) 112.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς νομίζει σπέρματος παρ᾽ ἔλλειμα ἢ παρὰ τὴν τῆς κινήσεως ταραχὴν ἢ παρὰ τὴν εἰς πλείω διαίρεσιν ἢ παρὰ ἀπόνευσιν τέρατα γίγνεσθαι. 112.2 (~ P2) Στράτων παρὰ πρόσθεσιν ἢ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν. 112.3 (~ P3) τῶν ἰατρῶν τινες δέ παρὰ τὸ διεστράφθαι τὴν μήτραν ἐμπνευματουμένην. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.84 ὅτι ὁ Στράτων (mss. Πλάτων) κατὰ πρόσθεσιν ἢ ἀφαίρεσιν ἢ μετάθεσιν ἢ πνευμάτωσιν συμβαίνειν λέγει τοὺς τερατώδεις τοκετούς (~ P2), ὁ δὲ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς αὐτὴν τοῦ πνεύματος τὴν ἔλλειψιν ἢ ὑπερβολὴν αἰτιᾶται (~ P1).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_133

5

liber 5 caput 8

1831

Cf. Psellus Phil.Min. 1 c. 16 p. 53 Duffy Διὰ τίνα αἰτίαν τῶν γεννωμένων τινὰ τερατοειδῆ γίνονται. Loci Aetiani: §1 5.10.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεσθαι κατὰ πλεονασμὸν καὶ περισχισμὸν τοῦ σπέρματος. A 5.19.6 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς πρώτας γενέσεις τῶν ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν μηδαμῶς ὁλοκλήρους γενέσθαι, ἀσυμφυέσι δὲ τοῖς μορίοις διεζευγμένας κτλ. §2 A 5.6.1 Ἀριστοτέλης … μὴ γίνεσθαι δὲ τὰς κυήσεις παρ᾽ ἀκαθαρσίαν τῆς μήτρας ἢ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν. §3 A 5.9.3 (cur conceptus non occurrit) Ἐρασίστρατος παρὰ τὴν μήτραν, ὅταν τύλους ἔχῃ καὶ σαρκώσεις ἢ ἀραιοτέρα ᾖ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἢ μικροτέρα. A 5.13.1 οἱ ἰατροὶ στείρας γίνεσθαι παρὰ τὴν μήτραν …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses There are four witnesses to this chapter, PB, Q and G, three of whom record the three same lemmata (with some abbreviation in G), and L who offers a paraphrase, first a full one of the second lemma, followed by a partial one of the first. Ps does not refer to the chapter in his Omn.Doctr., but there may be a reminiscence of the heading in Opusc. 16.7 (a possible reference to the first doxa in one of his minor works, Συλλογαὶ διάφοροι καὶ ποικίλαι, is taken from Philoponus; see text below section E(b)§1). On the inclusion of the heading in SL see the Commentary on chs. 5.5 and 5.6. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The only closely related text is found in ps.Galen Def.Med. 449, which gives significant parallels to the material in all three doxai, though without name-labels. (2) Sources. Aristotle raises the quaestio of the occurrence of monstra in GA 4.3–4. It is introduced at 4.3 767b7, where the term τέρας is used, as part of the subject of resemblance to parents. It is treated at considerable length, but there are no direct links with A’s chapter. This is illustrated by the fact that his doxographical report on Democritus (4.3 769b30–34 = 68A146 DK, cited below—the text is partly corrupt) appears to correspond to the first explanation in the list that A attributes to Empedocles.

1832

liber 5 caput 8

C Chapter Heading There is agreement on the heading in all the witnesses that we have (the heading in Ps is an expansion). Its formulation follows on from that of the previous two chapters, with πῶς indicating that the chapter deals with the cause of the phenomena (note the term αἰτιολογία in the first doxa and Ps’ interpretation διὰ τίνα αἰτίαν). It is thus yet another example of the question type of διὰ τί. On this question type see ch. 1.4 Commentary C. On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. The heading for this chapter is identical to that found in the tradition of P, but as in the case of the previous chapter 5.7, there are no grounds for concluding that it must be interpolated from there. D Analysis a Context The subject follows on logically from the previous chapters: from chs. 5.3–5 because of the crucial role of male and female semen; from 5.6 because the causes relate primarily to the process of conception; from 5.7 because of the aspect of differentiation; and from both 5.6–7 through the role of the womb. All these factors here result in defective births. b Number–Order of Lemmata It can be considered almost certain that the chapter is incomplete as transmitted by P. For example, as noted above, Aristotle has a section on Democritus’ treatment of the question which gives a different cause (mixing of semen leading to disorder of parts, cf. also the text in ps.Arist. Probl. 10.61) that has not been included. One might have expected some illustrations of the kind of deformation involved (as in the Def.Med. text). Also lacking is any reference to theories involving damage at the moment of birth, e.g. Parmenides fr. 28B18 DK (on which see Bien 1997, 85–95). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The three doxai are so compactly formulated as to be quite cryptic. There are ten causes listed, all using the παρά plus noun or infinitive construction: five in the first doxa (Empedocles), four in the second (Strato), and one in the third (doctors). Taking our cue from the parallel at Def.Med. 449 (on which see below, section D(e)), we can discern two main clusters of causes, the one involving the nature or interaction of both male and female semen, the other movements of or occurrences in the womb. Thus in the case of the second doxa attributed to Strato, the first two relate to semen, the last two to the womb, but in the absence of the relevant possessive genetives, the doxai are unclear. We note

liber 5 caput 8

1833

that there is also overlap between the various causes presented. Thus Strato’s first and second cause are parallel to Empedocles’ first and second, his third to Empedocles’ third, while the fourth is no doubt linked to that of the doctors in the final lemma. The focus on the womb that we find in all three doxai recurs in A 5.9.3 with the name-label of the doctor Erasistratus, which suggests that the name of the Alexandrian may lie behind the anonymised τῶν ἰατρῶν τινες here. The same may be the case in A 5.13.1, where the name-label is simply οἱ ἰατροί. A thorough analysis of the doxographical material in A, supplemented by ps.Galen and Aristotle, has been given by Bien in his monograph on defective births (1997). He argues (67–84) for the following categories of causes: (a) excess or deficiency of semen (Empedocles, Strato, ps.Galen Def.Med. without name-label, Democritus in Aristotle); (b) disturbed movement of semen (Empedocles, Strato); (c) pneumatic causes (Strato, cf. doctors); (d) anomalies of formation in the womb (Empedocles, doctors, anonymi in ps.Galen Def.Med). Because of the cryptic nature of the text, this taxonomy of causes cannot be considered certain. The category (b) is more likely to refer to the womb. In addition pneuma plays some kind of role in both (c) and (d). What all these texts have in common, as well noted by Bien (1997) 77, is that they focus on physical causes of misformation, most involving the role of semen. There is no use made of the concept of ‘powers’, as in Parmenides fr. 28B18 DK, or of the concepts of form and matter, as in Aristotle’s treatment (cf. GA 4.3–4). Because of the various overlaps noted above, A’s three doxai do not form as clear a diaeresis as we find in ps.Galen. At most it can be said that the second doxa attributed to Strato seems to have a bridging role, since its first three causes link up with the first doxa, whereas its fourth involving pneuma makes a link to the third doxa of the doctors. But our doxographer does little more than list the causes and gives no clear guidance on how they can be systematically analysed. In particular it is noteworthy that no correlations are made with the chapters on semen presented earlier in ch. 5.3–5. The role of semen is stated in the case of the first cause (παρὰ πλεονασμὸν σπέρματος) and after that is not referred to or explained in any way. This is quite disappointing. In this context A’s unparalleled remark that Empedocles ‘plainly anticipates almost all the causes that can be given’ is of interest because it expresses his conviction that he is presenting a reasonably exhaustive list. The claim is rather overblown, however, because in fact other causes can be given. For example, the questions of flawed development during pregnancy and physical or mental impairment resulting from occurrences during the process of birth are not

1834

liber 5 caput 8

mentioned. In addition A does not mention the special case of hermaphroditism, which attracts a great deal of comment and attempted explanation in ancient texts (and has its own section in the doxography at ps.Galen Def.Med. 448 just preceding that on monstra). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The phrases παρὰ πλεονασμὸν and παρ᾽ ἔλλειψιν are exactly paralleled in ps.Galen Def.Med. (although the order is reversed, as in Lydus who uses the different term ὑπερβολή) and are illuminated by the examples he gives, e.g. excessively large or small heads, or an excessive (or, we might add, deficient) number of fingers or toes. For παρὰ τὴν εἰς πλείω διαίρεσιν one might think of multiple heads (cf. Arist. GA 4.3 769b27). But for twins see the next chapter, 5.10. It is unclear, however, what kind of cause ‘inclining away’ (παρὰ τὸ ἀπονεύειν) might be. It could refer to the semen which ‘inclines’ away from realizing all its contents (Empedocles is following the pan-genesis doctrine of conception) and so results in a lack of vital parts, such as a limb or even a head. But the verb is used of the womb elsewhere, e.g. in the Corpus Hippocraticum at Mul. 47 ἢν αἱ μῆτραι κατὰ τὰ ἀριστερὰ νεύωσι, so it may refer to the wrong position of the womb, which can interfere with the proper reception of the semen; cf. the emphasis on the role of the womb in ch. 5.6. Empedocles famously described the birth of strange creatures with double faces etc. in his cosmological poem (cf. fr. 31B57–61 and A 5.19.6 DK). Unlike in A 5.7.1 and elsewhere, the cosmogonic aspect of the topic does not occur here, but may have been excised by P in the process of epitomisation. Lucretius DRN 5.837–855 describes the birth of various kinds of monsters, including hermaphrodites, when the earth was young. §2 Lydus’ mistake in reading Πλάτων instead of Στράτων also occurs in P and his tradition at 5.24.4 if Corsinus’ emendation is accepted (as we do). It is a commonly occurring error. In this case (unlike in ch. 5.24), it has had the consequence that the collections of Strato’s fragments by Wehrli (fr. 99) and Sharples (fr. 74) overlook Lydus’ text. It is cited at M–R 1.169. The reading in G ἐμπνευμάτωσιν is to be preferred above πνευμάτωσιν in PB and L because it is a much more common physiological and medical term and is also used, in a different context, in ch. 5.6.1. When discussing the pathology of the womb, Soranus Gyn. 3.47 mentions the ἔκκρισις πνεύματων, but not that these lead to the womb’s twisting. For μετάθεσις one might note Aristotle’s listing of kinds of deformations observed in animals at GA 4.3 770b37–771a2 (text below section E(b)§2). He gives the example of animals having organs switched around, e.g. the liver on

liber 5 caput 8

1835

the right and the spleen on the left. This supports the interpretation that the phenomenon relates to the womb. §3 Soranus Gyn. 3.47 devotes a chapter to the inflation of the womb, but does not describe the phenomenon of ‘twisting’ or relate it to the occurrence of monstra. e Other Evidence As noted above in D(c), the brief report in ps.Galen Def.Med. 449 has a clearer structure with its diaeresis between (a) the twisting of the womb (cf. A §3) and (b) deficiency or excess of semen (cf. A §1), which reverses the order given to the causes in §§1–2. However, the parallelism of the two texts is sufficient to indicate a common tradition (cf. ch. 5.7), in which Empedocles will have played a prominent role. It is very likely that A based his material, and no doubt also his additional comment, on what he found there. This tradition will have taken its lead from Aristotle’s treatment of the subject in De generatione animalium, but as we observed in section B above, does not appear to have been strongly dependent on it. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 449, pp. 19.453.15–454.5 K. υμθʹ. τέρατα γίνεται, ὡς μέν τινες λέγουσι, κατὰ παρέγκλισιν τῆς μήτρας· τὸ γὰρ σπέρμα παρεγχεόμενον ἀνωμάλως ποιεῖ τὰ τέρατα, ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸν μόλιβδον θερμὸν ὄντα, ἐπειδὰν καταχυθῇ ἀνωμάλως, ἀνώμαλον ποιεῖ τὸ δημιούργημα. ἢ τὰ τέρατα ἤτοι κατ᾽ ἔλλειψιν ἢ κατὰ πλεονασμὸν γίνεται· καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ μέγεθος ὡς τὰ μεγαλοκέφαλα, τὰ δὲ κατὰ σμικρότητα ὡς τὰ στρουθοκέφαλα, τὰ δὲ κατὰ πλεονασμὸν ὥσπερ τὰ ἑξαδάκτυλα, ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε δὲ καὶ πλεοναδάκτυλα. Chapter heading: see ps.Galen Def.Med. 449 cited above. also Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (DG p. 233 Diels, from Def.Med. 449) πῶς γίγνεται ⟨τέρατα⟩ [coni. Diels].

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 4.3 767a36–b7 αἱ δ᾽ αὐταὶ αἰτίαι καὶ τοῦ τὰ μὲν ἐοικότα γίγνεσθαι τοῖς τεκνώσασι τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐοικότα, … τὰ δ᾽ οὐθενὶ τῶν συγγενῶν ὅμως δ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ γέ τινι, τὰ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ τὴν ἰδέαν ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη τέρατι. καὶ γὰρ ὁ μὴ ἐοικὼς τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἤδη τρόπον τινὰ τέρας ἐστίν· παρεκβέβηκε γὰρ ἡ φύσις ἐν τούτοις ἐκ τοῦ γένους τρόπον τινά … GA 4.3 769b3–11 οὐ ῥᾴδιον δὲ οὐδὲ τρόπον ἕνα τῆς αἰτίας ἀποδιδόντας τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν περὶ πάντων· … ἔτι δὲ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ὁτὲ μὲν ἄνθρωπος μὲν τούτων δ᾽ οὐθενὶ προσόμοιος, ὁτὲ δὲ προϊὸν οὕτω τέλος οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλὰ ζῷόν τι μόνον φαίνεται τὸ γιγνόμενον, ἃ δὴ καὶ λέγεται τέρατα. καὶ γὰρ ἐχόμενον τῶν εἰρημένων ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν περὶ τῶν τοιούτων (i.e. τέρατα) τὰς αἰτίας. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.90 τὰ δὲ τερατώδη καὶ πλεονάσαντα ἢ

1836

liber 5 caput 8

ἐλλείποντα τοῖς μορίοις οἷον δακτύλοις ἢ ποσὶν ἢ ἄλλοις παρὰ τὴν τῆς ὕλης γίνεται ἢ ἔλλειψιν ἢ πλεονασμόν. Soranus Gyn. 3.47 Περὶ ἀτονούσης μήτρας. ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μόρια τοῦ σώματος, οὕτως καὶ ἡ μήτρα ἐνίοτε ἀτονεῖ. παρέπεται δὲ ταῖς τοιαῦτα πασχούσαις συνουσίας ἀποστροφή, ἔκκρισις πνευμάτων, πλεονασμὸς καταμηνίων δὶς ἢ τρὶς ἐπιφαινομένων τοῦ μηνὸς ἀτάκτως, μελάνων, ὑδατωδῶν, ἀκρατησία τοῦ σπέρματος. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 4.3 769b31 cited below §1. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 2.36 καὶ περὶ μὲν κυήσεως καὶ χρόνου οὐκ ἀεὶ οὕτως, περὶ δὲ ἐκτέξεως καὶ διδύμων καὶ τερατωδῶν καὶ πῶς ἄρρεν ἢ θῆλυ καὶ περὶ τροφῆς βρέφους καὶ ἀπογαλακτίσεως καὶ καταμηνίων ἐπισχέσεως καὶ τὸ ὅλον τῆς τοῦ σπέρματος οὐσίας καὶ πόθεν φέρεται κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐν τῷ πρὸ τούτου συντάγματι καταριθμήσας ἐξεθέμην. cf. Pliny Nat. 1 Index Liber VII monstruosi partus. §1 Empedocles: cf. Aristotle GA 4.3 769b30–34 Δημόκριτος (68A146 DK) μὲν οὖν ἔφησε γίγνεσθαι τὰ τέρατα διὰ τὸ δύο γονὰς πίπτειν, τὴν μὲν πρότερον ὁρμήσασαν καὶ μὴ ἐξελθοῦσαν τὴν δ᾽ ὕστερον †καὶ ταύτην ἐξελθοῦσαν [ἐπελθοῦσαν Diels] ἐλθεῖν εἰς τὴν ὑστέραν†, ὥστε συμφύεσθαι καὶ ἐπαλλάττειν τὰ μόρια. also ps.Aristotle Probl. 10.61 898a14–16 τὰ δὲ τέρατα γίνεται ἐπαλλαττόντων τῶν σπερμάτων ἀλλήλοις καὶ συγχεομένων ἐν τῇ ἐξόδῳ τῆς γονῆς ἢ ἐν τῇ μίξει τῇ ἐν τῇ ὑστέρᾳ τῆς θηλείας. cf. Lucretius DRN 837–855 multaque tum tellus etiam portenta creare / conatast mira facie membrisque coorta, / androgynem, interutras necutrumque utrimque remotum, / orba pedum partim, manuum viduata vicissim, / muta sine ore etiam, sine voltu caeca reperta, / vinctaque membrorum per totum corpus adhaesu, / nec facere ut possent quicquam nec cedere quoquam / nec vitare malum nec sumere quod volet usus. / cetera de genere hoc monstra ac portenta creabat, / ne quiquam, quoniam natura absterruit auctum / nec potuere cupitum aetatis tangere florem / nec reperire cibum nec iungi per Veneris res. / multa videmus enim rebus concurrere debere, / ut propagando possint procudere saecla; / pabula primum ut sint, genitalia deinde per artus / semina qua possint membris manare remissis, / feminaque ut maribus coniungi possit, habere, / mutua qui mutent inter se gaudia uterque. John Philoponus in de An. 14.1–8 ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως ἀπορήσειέ τις, πόθεν οὖν τὰ τέρατα; οὐ παρὰ τὸ ἐνδεῖν ἢ πλεονάζειν τὸ σπέρμα; διὰ τί δὲ πάλιν εἰ ἀποτμηθείη τοῦ σίτου μόριον, οὐκέτι βλαστάνει τὸ λοιπόν; διὰ τί δὲ ἢ φλοιὸς οὐ βλαστάνει ἢ φύλλον ἤ τι τοιοῦτον; καίτοι καὶ ταῦτα μόρια τοῦ δένδρου εἰσί. λέγω οὖν περὶ μὲν τῶν τεράτων ὅτι ἡ ὕλη ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία, ἐπειδὴ δεῖ καὶ ἐπιτηδειότητος τῆς ὕλης κατά τε τὸ ποσὸν καὶ τὸ ποιόν· ὕλη δὲ τῶν ζῴων τὸ καταμήνιον· αὕτη οὖν πλεονάζουσα ἢ ἐνδέουσα ἢ παρὰ φύσιν πεποιωμένη, τῶν τεράτων ἐστὶν αἰτία. cf. Psellus Phil.Min. 2.13, p. 33.20 O’Meara (based on Philoponus). §2 Strato: Aristotle GA 4.4 770b37–771a2 γίγνονται δὲ μεταβολαὶ καὶ πηρώσεις καὶ περὶ τὰ ἐντὸς μόρια τῷ ἢ μὴ ἔχειν ἔνια ἢ κεκολοβωμένα ἔχειν καὶ πλείω καὶ μεθεστῶτα τοὺς τόπους. see also texts cited on §1. §3 Other doctors: Soranus Gyn. 3.31 Περὶ ἐμπνευματώσεως μήτρας. ἐμπνευματοῦσθαι πέφυκεν ὑστέρα μετὰ τοὺς τοκετοὺς ἐκ ψύξεως ἢ φθορᾶς ἢ δυστοκίας μύσαντος τοῦ στομίου ἢ θρόμβου παρασφηνωθέντος αὐτῷ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοίως κτλ.

Liber 5 Caput 9 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 7 recto pp. 79–80 Barns–Zilliacus; PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 906A–B; p. 421a6–22 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 113; p. 641.21–642.2 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 222–225 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 112.1–8, p. 61 Westerink SL: ms. Stobaei (titulus solus), deest in ed. Wachsmuth, sed cf. pinacem ap. Wachsmuth (1882) 17 et vid. Diels DG 271, Elter (1880) 73

Titulus θʹ. Διὰ τί γυνὴ πολλάκις συνουσιάζουσα οὐ συλλαμβάνει (P,cf.S) §1 Διοκλῆς ὁ ἰατρὸς ἢ παρὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ ὅλως ἐνίας σπέρμα προΐεσθαι ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔλαττον τοῦ δέοντος ἢ διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ζῳοποιητικὸν οὐκ ἔστιν· ἢ διὰ θερμασίας ἢ ψύξεως ἢ ὑγρασίας ἢ ξηρότητος ἔνδειαν ἢ κατὰ παράλυσιν τῶν μορίων. (P1) §2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ κατὰ λοξότητα τοῦ καυλοῦ, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς μήτρας. (P2) §3 Ἐρασίστρατος παρὰ τὴν μήτραν, ὅταν τύλους ἔχῃ καὶ σαρκώσεις ἢ ἀραιοτέρα τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἢ μικροτέρα τυγχάνῃ οὖσα. (P3) §1 Diocles fr. 42 Van der Eijk; §2 Stoici SVF 2.751; §3 Erasistratus fr. 57 Garofalo titulus γυνὴ πολλάκις PBQPs : inv. PGSL-ind Diels §1 [2] ἐνίας] om. PB(II) ‖ σπέρμα] σπέρματα PB(III:E) ‖ [2–4] ἢ παρὰ … ἔστιν· ἢ om. PG ‖ [3] τὸ ζῳοποιητικὸν PB(III)Q : τὸ ζῳοποιητὸν PB(I,II) (τὸ om. PB(II)) ‖ [4] ἢ1 … ἢ κατὰ al. PG παρὰ θερμασίαν ἢ παρὰ ψῦξιν ἢ ὑγρασίαν ἢ ξηρότητα ἢ πλεονασμὸν ἢ ‖ θερμασίαν ἢ ψύξιν ἢ ὑγρασίαν PB(III:Laur.87,17), cf. PG §2 [6] κατὰ PB : παρὰ PG ‖ καυλοῦ PBQ(ut vid.) : μορίου PG ‖ [6–7] τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν PBPs : inv. PG ‖ [7] παρὰ PB : διὰ PG ‖ [7–8] ὡς … μήτρας PB : und (infolge) des Abstandes des einen vom anderen Q : om. PG §3 [9] καὶ PBQ : ἢ PG ‖ σαρκώσεις PB(I,II)Q(ut vid.)Ps : σαρκώδεις vel -δης PB(III) : σάρκας PG ‖ [10] ἀραιοτέρα PBQPs : εὐρυτέρα PG ‖ ᾖ add. PB(III) ante τοῦ ‖ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν PB : om. PG ‖ τυγχάνῃ οὖσα PPG : om. PB, cf. als das, was benötigt wird Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 7a verso = P §3 (?) [ ]η̣ ̅ [ ]η̣ ̅ [ ]α̅ τυγ]χ̣α̣ν̣η̣ ο̣υ̣σ̣α̣ continuat caput 10 ps.Galenus HPh c. 113 (~ tit.) Διὰ τί πολλάκις γυνὴ συνουσιάζουσα οὐ συλλαμβάνει (text Diels)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_134

5

10

1838

liber 5 caput 9

113.1 (~ §1) Διοκλῆς ὁ ἰατρὸς παρὰ θερμασίαν ἢ παρὰ ψῦξιν ἢ ὑγρασίαν ἢ ξηρότητα ἢ πλεονασμὸν ἢ ἔνδειαν ἢ παράλυσιν τῶν μορίων. 113.2 (~ §2) οἱ Στωικοὶ παρὰ λοξότητα τοῦ μορίου μὴ δυναμένου εὐθυβολεῖν τὸν γόνον, ἢ διὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων. 113.3 (~ §3) Ἐρασίστρατος παρὰ τὴν μήτραν, ὅταν τύλους ἔχῃ ἢ σάρκας ἢ εὐρυτέρα ἢ μικροτέρα τυγχάνῃ οὖσα. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 112 (~ tit.) Διατί γυνὴ πολλάκις συνουσιάζουσα οὐ συλλαμβάνει διὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας οὐ συλλαμβάνει γυνὴ συνουσιάζουσα· ὅταν ἢ θερμοτέρα ᾖ τοῦ δέοντος ἢ ψυχροτέρα ἢ ξηροτέρα ἢ ὑγροτέρα· ἢ ὅταν παραλελυμένα ἔχῃ τὰ μόρια (~ §1)· ἢ ὅταν τύλους ἔχῃ καὶ σαρκώσεις· ἢ ὅταν ἀραιοτέρα ᾖ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ μικροτέρα (~ §3). καὶ παρὰ τὴν τοιάνδε κράσιν τοῦ ἀρρενικοῦ σπέρματος οὐ δύναται συλλαβεῖν· καὶ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀρρενικοῦ αἰδοίου ἀσυμμετρίαν, οἶον ἢ λόξωσιν, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν, ἢ ἀπόστασιν, ἢ παρέγκλισιν (~ §2) … Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 5.6 Πῶς αἱ συλλήψεις γίνονται. A 5.6.1 … μὴ γίνεσθαι δὲ τὰς κυήσεις παρ᾽ ἀκαθαρσίαν τῆς μήτρας ἢ ἐμπνευμάτωσιν ἢ φόβον ἢ λύπην ἢ ἀσθένειαν τῶν γυναικῶν ἢ δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν. A 5.13 Πῶς στεῖραι γίνονται γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες ἄγονοι. A 5.14 Διὰ τί αἱ ἡμίονοι στεῖραι. A 5.14.3 καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι διὰ τὰς τοιαύτας αἰτίας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας εἶναι στείρας. §1 A 5.5 Εἰ καὶ αἱ θήλειαι προΐενται σπέρμα. §3 A 5.14.1 Ἀλκμαίων τῶν ἡμιόνων … τὰς δὲ θηλείας παρὰ τὸ μὴ ἀναχάσκειν τὰς μήτρας … A 5.14.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς διὰ τὴν σμικρότητα καὶ ταπεινότητα καὶ στενότητα τῆς μήτρας, κατεστραμμένως προσπεφυκυίας τῇ γαστρί, μήτε τοῦ σπέρματος εὐθυβολοῦντος εἰς αὐτὴν (cf. §2) μήτε, εἰ καὶ φθάσειεν, αὐτῆς ἐκδεχομένης.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The three chief witnesses for Book 5 all furnish three doxai. Ps retains the heading and completely rephrases much of the contents. In S only the chapter heading remains; see below, section C. The papyrus fragment only shows a few letters but does appear to confirm a reading of G (see below, section D(d) on §3). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The main relevant text is a brief section on the multiple causes of infertility in both men and women in ps.Galen Def.Med. 442,

liber 5 caput 9

1839

i.e. strictly speaking parallel to ch. 5.13 rather than this chapter. The two causes mentioned for women are only vaguely similar to what is found in A here. Censorinus, because he is celebrating a birthday, is not interested in why births do not take place. At Lucretius DRN 4.1233–1262 there is also a passage on female infertility, but the main causes it puts forward is the unsuitability of the male semen, unlike in the present chapter which highlights factors relating to the womb and female semen. On this passage see further on ch. 5.13. (2) Sources. The question of infertility or sterility (ἀγονία, ἀτεκνία) is raised and briefly discussed by Aristotle in GA 2.7 and in more detail in HA 10.1–5 (if indeed this book is genuine—recently its authenticity has found defenders in Balme and Van der Eijk, the latter arguing that it is a medical rather than a physiological work; see Van der Eijk 1999). The aetiologies found in these texts (and the Epitome of Aristophanes of Byzantium), which do not mention any predecessors, do not appear to have exercised a strong influence on the current chapter, although they may have encouraged the doxographical tradition to include the topic. Hippocratic texts discuss the subject, e.g. Mul. 213, Aph. 5.62, but it is plain that their terminology bears little resemblance to A. Nevertheless such material could well have been a distant source. It is striking that, in contrast to all the chapters in Book 5 so far (except the monolemmatic 5.6), the chapter does not refer to any pre-Aristotelian thinkers. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading uses the formula διὰ τί with a verb to inquire after the question type of the cause. This way of signalling and starting a question is well known as a feature of the Problemata literature, cf. M–R 2.1.169, and above ch. 1.1 Commentary C. In A it has so far been used only as the second part of the heading of 2.30 (Περὶ ἐμφάσεως αὐτῆς [sc. σελήνης] καὶ διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται). In Book 5 we note use of the same formula in chs. 5.14 and 5.18, but the parallel chapter 5.13 has Πῶς στεῖραι γίνονται αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ ἄγονοι οἱ ἄνδρες. The formulation of the chapter’s topic recalls some phrases in Aristophanes of Byzantium (ταῖς πυκνὰ συνουσιαζομέναις, οὐ συλλήψεται; see texts below), but is otherwise difficult to parallel. The chapter heading is included in the list in Laurentianus ms. of S. There is no particular reason to suggest that it is interpolated from P. Wachsmuth did not include it in his edition as a sub-heading following Ecl. 1.42.8, but this was most likely due to an oversight. On the chapter headings in SL see further above ch. 5.4 Commentary C.

1840

liber 5 caput 9

D Analysis a Context This chapter on female infertility would appear to be misplaced, since it interrupts the sequence on types of conception (chs. 5.7 males and females, 5.8 monstrous births, 5.10 twins and triplets). It would have been better been placed after ch. 5.6 on conception (note the same terminology in the chapter headings). Another difficulty is that its theme is treated again in ch. 5.13, with the difference that the latter chapter deals with the infertility of both women and men. If it had been placed closer to that chapter, the reduplication would have been more apparent. b Number–Order of Lemmata The lack of parallel material makes it quite impossible to gauge whether the original chapter in A had more than the three lemmata preserved in P. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first doxa is introduced with the name-label ‘Diocles the doctor’. The addition of the epithet can be explained by the fact that this is his first occurrence in the work (as far as we know). He is also the first doctor to be named in the chapters on the physiology of conception and birth which commence at ch. 5.3 (Herophilus was mentioned on dreams in 5.2). The doxa follows the same method that we saw in the previous chapter, a piling up of causes without any further explanation, all of which are introduced by causal prepositions (παρά … παρά … διά … διά … κατά). The first three reasons invoke deficiencies of female semen. The fourth involves four kinds of lack, but it is not made clear who or what suffers such lacks. One would expect for the first three at least that it is the womb. There is no mention of the organ in this doxa but the parallel doxa at A 5.13.1, which lists only conditions of the womb, confirms this interpretation. The last cause to be mentioned involves paralysis to the bodily parts in the plural, and given the context it is most likely that these too belong to the female, i.e. both semen and womb. The next doxa attributed to the Stoics focuses on problems associated with the male member and its relation to the female womb. It is highly problematic, not for its contents, which are comprehensible enough, but because it is word for word identical to the second half of a doxa attributed to Diocles in the parallel chapter 5.13. Indeed the first two doxai in 5.9, taken together, show a strong parallelism with the Diocles doxa 5.13.2, except that the latter refers to male, and not female sterility. The parallelism emerges clearly when the texts are placed side by side:

liber 5 caput 9 5.9.1–2: Διοκλῆς ὁ ἰατρὸς ἢ παρὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ ὅλως ἐνίας σπέρμα προΐεσθαι ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔλαττον τοῦ δέοντος ἢ διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ζῳοποιητικὸν οὐκ ἔστιν· ἢ διὰ θερμασίας ἢ ψύξεως ἢ ὑγρασίας ἢ ξηρότητος ἔνδειαν ἢ κατὰ παραλυσιν τῶν μορίων. οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ κατὰ λοξότητα τοῦ καυλοῦ, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς μήτρας.

1841 5.13.2: Διοκλῆς ἀγόνους τοὺς ἄνδρας ἢ παρὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ ὅλως ἐνίους σπέρμα προΐεσθαι ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔλαττον τοῦ δέοντος· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἄγονον εἶναι τὸ σπέρμα ἢ κατὰ παράλυσιν τῶν μορίων ἢ κατὰ λοξότητα τοῦ καυλοῦ, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν, ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς μήτρας.

There is no comparative evidence among the fragments of both Diocles and the Stoics enabling us to judge the validity of the attributions. For example, it cannot be confirmed that Diocles agreed with the existence of female semen (cf. ch. 5.5, where he is not mentioned). In A 5.13.3 a quite different reason is attributed to the Stoa for the failure of couples to conceive. Van der Eijk in his discussion of this passage (2000–2001, 2.93–96) rightly notes that ‘it is not unusual in Aëtius (and in doxographical literature in general) for certain doctrines or elements of explanations to be sometimes attributed to one authority, sometimes to another’ (p. 95). He concludes (ibid.): ‘Whether these attributions are correct and have any basis in the writings of the authorities or are just fabricated by the doxographer is difficult to ascertain.’ Given the discrepancies with ch. 5.13 noted above and the surprisingly detailed medical knowledge ascribed to the Stoics in this chapter, Diels DG was quite right to be suspicious of this lemma; see his note ad loc. It seems most likely that 5.9.2 involves a misattribution that occurred by splitting up a single doxa recording Diocles’ views. We agree with Diels, however, that there should be no intervention in the received text. This decision is reinforced by another feature of the chapter that must be taken into account. The final doxa attributed to Erasistratus,—who appears here for the first time in Book 5 but was already cited on the ruling part of the soul at A 4.5.3—ascribes to the female womb the cause of the failure to conceive. This means that the three doxai in this chapter form the kind of neat diaeresis so much loved by A (and also by P): §1 explanation with reference to female semen; §2 male member; §3 female womb. When we take into account that a diaeresis, though of a different kind, is also present in ch. 5.13 (see discussion there), it must make us suspect that the present text has been manipulated in order to provide an easily understood (and remembered) spectrum of aetiologies. The name-label of the Stoics may have been misplaced in the process. In chapters such as this one the setting out of the causes is patently more important than the identification of the philosophers or doctors who may have put forward these views.

1842

liber 5 caput 9

On the relationship between this chapter and ch. 5.13 on the same topic and for a comparison of the doxai in them see further the discussion (with parallel columns) at Runia (1999a) 222–224. d

Further Comments Individual Points §3 For the final words G’s reading τυγχανῇ οὖσα is supported by the papyrus, and so should be preferred. PB(I,II) are lacking a verb for the final clause, which suggests it may have fallen away. The placement of ᾖ in PB(III) is awkward, which also points to a later addition. According to the comment on the papyrus fragment (Barns-Zilliacus 1960, 83), ‘the superlineations [in lines 1–3] presumably represent final ν, but it seems impossible to restore from the texts of [Plut.] or G as they stand.’ In HA 10.4 Aristotle notes that growths or sores on the mouth of the womb can be an obstacle to conception (text below section E(b)§3). As Garofalo (1997) 79 in his discussion of the lemma notes, the expected reference to distension of the womb (cf. A 5.8.3, 5.13.1, Arist. HA 10.4 636a28) is not given here. e Other Evidence The very brief treatment in ps.Galen Def.Med. 442 focuses on the role of the womb with only two alternatives, that infertility is caused by the womb being chilled or that it is excessively ‘fat’ or fleshy (for the meaning of καταπίμελος cf. Soranus Gyn. 4.5.1). Even though there are only two reasons, this is more a listing than a diaeresis, similar to the piling up of causes in A. For chilling cf. §1, but as noted above A does not make explicit whether the lack is related to semen or to the womb. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 442, p. 19.451.4–9 K. υμβʹ. αἰτίαι ἀγονίας διτταὶ, ἡ περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα ἡ περὶ τὸ θῆλυ καὶ ἑκάτεραι πλεοναχῶς· περὶ μὲν οὖν τὸ θῆλυ ἤτοι κατάψυχρον ἐχούσης ἢ καταπίμελον τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν μήτραν. περὶ δὲ τὸ ἄρρεν ἤτοι ὅταν ὑποσπαδίας ᾖ, ἤτοι ἐστερημένος διδύμων ἢ ἄλλον τινὰ τρόπον ἔχων νοσήματος. cf. Lucretius DRN 4.1240–1259 cited below on ch. 5.13. Chapter heading: cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (DG p. 233 Diels, from Def.Med. 442) ὅτι αἰτίαι ἀγονίας.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 2.7 746b16–21 ἔστι δὲ τὸ πρόβλημα καθόλου μὲν διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἄγονον ἢ ἄρρεν ἢ θῆλύ ἐστιν· εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες ἄγονοι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἐν τοῖς γένεσιν ἑκάστοις … τὰ δ᾽ αἴτια τῆς ἀγονίας ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν

liber 5 caput 9 ἄλλων πλείω συμβαίνει. HA 10.1 633b12–16 ἀνδρὶ καὶ γυναικί, τοῦ μὴ γεννᾶν ἀλλήλοις συνόντας τὸ αἴτιον ὁτὲ μὲν ἐν ἀμφοῖν ἐστίν, ὁτὲ δ᾽ ἐν θατέρῳ μόνον. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ θήλεος δεῖ θεωρεῖν τὰ περὶ τὰς ὑστέρας ὅπως ἔχει … cf. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.65 ἐνίαις μὲν οὖν καὶ γινομένων τῶν καταμηνίων ἀτεκνία παρακολουθεῖ. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας γίνεσθαι. καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ εὐνουχώδης καὶ μικρὸν τὸν τράχηλον ἔχουσα οὐ συλλήψεται, καὶ ἐὰν ἐγκεκλεισμένας καὶ ἐὰν κωφὰς καὶ μὴ ἐστομωμένας τὰς ὑστέρας ἔχῃ, κἂν λίαν κάθυγρος ᾖ· συνεξυγραίνει ⟨γὰρ⟩ τὸ τοῦ ἄρρενος σπέρμα· κἂν λίαν πάλιν κατάξηρος· ἀναληφθήσεται γὰρ καὶ ἀναξηρανθήσεται, ἐὰν μὴ καταβαίνῃ τὸ ἴδιον μέτρον. καὶ ἄλλαι δὲ πολλαὶ πηρώσεις ἀγονίας αἰτίαι καὶ τοῖς ἄρρεσι καὶ ταῖς θηλείαις ὑπάρχουσιν. cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Mul. 213, p. 8.408.2–5 Littré νυνὶ δὲ ἀποφανέω, δι᾽ ἃς αἰτίας ἄφοροι γυναῖκες τὸ πάμπαν, καὶ διότι οὐ τίκτουσι πρὶν ἰηθέωσιν. φημὶ δὲ τοῦτο αἴτιον εἶναι· ἢν στραφῇ τὸ στόμα τῶν μητρέων πάμπαν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰδοίου, οὐ κυΐσκεται· οὐ γὰρ δέχονται αἱ μῆτραι τὴν γονὴν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω αὐτίκα ἔρχεται. Soranus Gyn. 1.35 (Diocles fr. 172 Van der Eijk, who cites Ilberg’s edition) βεβαιοτέρα δὲ πρώτη σημείωσίς ἐστιν Διοκλεῖ δύνασθαι συλλαμβάνειν τὰς κατ᾽ ὀσφὺν καὶ λαγόνας εὐσάρκους, πλατυτέρας, φακώδεις, πυρράς, ἀρρενωπούς, ἀγόνους τὰς ἐναντίας δὲ πάλιν· ἀτρόφους, ἰσχνὰς ἢ καταπιμέλους, πρεσβυτέρας λίαν ἢ νέας. Aëtius of Amida Iatr. 16.26 Αἰτίαι ἀνδρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν δι᾽ ἃς οἰ παιδοποιοῦσι, καὶ θεραπεία καὶ σημεῖα συλλήψεως (see further below on A 5.13). Chapter heading: — §3 Erasistratus: cf. Aristotle HA 10.4 636a35–b1 ἔτι δ᾽ ἐὰν φῦμα ἐπὶ τοῦ στόματος ᾖ, πολλὰ ἑλκωθέντος, ἐμποδίζει πρὸς τὰς συλλήψεις. σημεῖον δὲ καὶ τοῦ ταῦτα μὴ ἔχειν, ἐὰν φαίνηται ἀνοιγομένη καλῶς ἡ ὑστέρα καὶ συμμύουσα, ὅταν γένηται αὐταῖς τὰ γυναικεῖα καὶ αἱ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα χρήσεις.

1843

Liber 5 Caput 10 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 7b verso p. 80 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 906B–C; p. 421a23–b12 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 114; p. 642.3–9 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 224–225 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 113.1–12, p. 62 Westerink SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.10, p. 1.296.11 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ιʹ. Πῶς δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεται (P,S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οἴεται δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεσθαι κατὰ πλεονασμὸν καὶ περισχισμὸν τοῦ σπέρματος. (P1) §2 Ἀσκληπιάδης παρὰ τὴν τῶν σπερμάτων διαφοράν, ὥσπερ τὰς κριθὰς τὰς διστίχους καὶ τριστίχους· εἶναι γὰρ σπέρματα γονιμώτατα. (P2) §3 Ἐρασίστρατος διὰ τὰς ἐπισυλλήψεις, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων· ὅταν γὰρ ἡ μήτρα ᾖ κεκαθαρμένη, τότε ἐπισύλληψιν δέχεσθαι. (P3) §4 οἱ Στωικοὶ παρὰ τοὺς ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ τόπους· ὅταν γὰρ εἰς πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον ἐμπέσῃ τὸ σπέρμα, τότε γίνεσθαι τὰς ἐπισυλλήψεις καὶ τὰ δίδυμα καὶ τὰ τρίδυμα. (P4) §1 Empedocles 31A81; §2 Asclepiades cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, pp. 721, 725; §3 Erasistratus fr. 58 Garofalo; §4 Stoici SVF 2.750 titulus Πῶς] Διατί PPs ‖ δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεται PB : δίδυμα γίνεται καὶ τρίδυμα PPSL-ind : καὶ τρίδυμα om. PG §1 [2] οἴεται PPG, cf. glaubte Q : om. PB ‖ δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα] inv. PP ‖ [2–3] καὶ et aut πλεονασμὸν aut περισχισμὸν om. PP §2 [4] σπερμάτων PPG Diels : σωμάτων PBQ ‖ [5] τὰς PG Diels edd. : non hab. PB ‖ εἶναι … γονιμώτατα PBQ : om. PG §3 [6] ἐπισυλλήψεις PGPs Diels (add. γίνεσθαι PG) : συλλήψεις PBQ(ut vid.) ‖ ὥσπερ om. PQ ‖ [6–7] ὥσπερ … δέχεσθαι om. PG ‖ [7] ἐπισύλληψιν PQ (ut. vid., eine Empfängnis nach der anderen Q), coni. Diels Mau Lachenaud : ἐπὶ σύλληψιν PB ‖ δέχεσθαι coni. Diels Mau Lachenaud sec. corr. ms. Voss. : ἔρχεται PB : tritt ein Q (fort. leg. ἔρχεσθαι) §4 [8] τῇ] om. PB(III) ‖ γὰρ] om. PB(III) ‖ τόπους] κόλπους PPs ‖ εἰς] deest in PG ‖ [9] ἐμπέσῃ] wenn sich der Same in jene Stelle verteilt und die erste und die zweite von ihnen gelangt Q ‖ τὸ PGQPs : om. PB ‖ [9–10] καὶ τὰ δίδυμα καὶ τὰ τρίδυμα coni. corr. Voss. edd., cf. erfolgt daraus eine Empfängnis von Zwillingen oder Drillingen : καὶ διδύμους καὶ τριδύμους PG : καὶ τὰ τρίδυμα PB Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 7b verso = P tit. et §§1–2 5 πως γινεται διδυμα και τρ]ιδυμα̅ Εμπεδοκλης οιεται τριδυμ]α̣ και ̣ δ̣[ι]δ̣υ̣μα γινεσθαι κατα το]υ σπερ ματος Ασκληπιαδης παρα την των σ]περμα των ] ̣̣̣

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_135

5

10

liber 5 caput 10

1845

ps.Galenus HPh c. 114 (~ tit.) Πῶς δίδυμα γίνεται (text Diels) 114.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οἴεται δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίγνεσθαι κατὰ πλεονασμὸν καὶ περισχισμὸν τοῦ σπέρματος. 114.2 (~ P2) Ἀσκληπιάδης παρὰ τὴν τῶν σπερμάτων διαφορὰν ὥσπερ τὰς κριθὰς τὰς διστίχους καὶ τριστίχους. 114.3 (~ P3) Ἐρασίστρατος διὰ τὰς ἐπισυλλήψεις γίνεσθαι. 114.4 (~ P4) οἱ Στωικοὶ παρὰ τοὺς ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ τόπους· ὅταν γὰρ πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον ἐμπέσῃ τὸ σπέρμα, τότε γίνεσθαι τὰς ἐπισυλλήψεις καὶ διδύμους καὶ τριδύμους. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 113 (~ tit.) Διατί δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεται καὶ τοῦ δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεσθαι πολλὰς ἄν τις αἰτίας διαριθμήσηται· τὴν σχίσιν τοῦ σπέρματος (~ P1), τὴν γονιμότητα τῆς γονῆς, τοὺς ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ κόλπους (~ P4). διάφοροι γὰρ κοιλότητες τὴν μήτραν περιειλήφασιν· ὅταν γοῦν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τούτων τὸ σπέρμα διασχισθῇ, δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεται. καὶ τὸ πλῆθος δὲ τοῦ ἀπορρέοντος σπέρματος αἴτιον πολλάκις τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἐγκυμονουμένων καθίσταται (~ P2). ἡ μέντοιγε μήτρα πολλοὺς μὲν ἔχει κόλπους, δύο δὲ ἀξιολόγους κοιλότητας ὑμένι μέσῳ διειργομένας, ἐν αἷς ὅταν ἐμπέσῃ τὸ σπέρμα δίδυμα καρπογονεῖ ἔμβρυα. ὁ μέντοιγε Ἐρασίστρατος καὶ τὰς ἐπισυλλήψεις αἰτιᾶται ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων (~ P3). καὶ ἄλλας δ᾽ ἂν εἴποι τὶς αἰτίας, ἢ αὐτὸς ἐφευρίσκων ἢ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἑπόμενος. Loci Aetiani: §1 A 5.8.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τέρατα γίνεσθαι παρὰ πλεονασμὸν σπέρματος … §4 A 5.7.4 Ἀναξαγόρας Παρμενίδης τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν καταβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τῆς μήτρας, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The three witnesses to A in the P tradition, PB, Q and G, all record four lemmata. Ps also makes use of all four doxai, and contrary to his usual practice, includes a name-label, i.e. Erasistratus. In the remains of S’s ch. 1.42, however, only the heading is preserved. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Both Censorinus and ps.Galen Def.Med. record discussions on the topic of twins as part of their treatment of the topics relating to birth. Censorinus’ two name-labels are both Presocratics, Hippo (cf. 5.5, 5.8)

1846

liber 5 caput 10

and Empedocles. For the latter he records the cause as division, the same as in A. The connection of the sex of the twins to the heat of the womb would appear to be the theory criticized by Aristotle in GA 4.1, but it has been revised to accommodate different sexes (cf. Lesky 1951, 36 f.). The first of the views put forward by ps.Galen may also refer to the Empedoclean doxa. His second, the theory of superfetation, is the same as A’s third view. The third view, introduced by ἡμεῖς δέ φαμεν, is the writer’s own. But what does he mean by εἰς ἄμφω ταῦτα? Rathmayr’s view that it refers to places in the womb is persuasive. It would then be the same view as found in the final doxa in A. The text may be defective. (2) Sources. Although Aristotle mentions the topic of multiple births several times, he does not present a systematic discussion of the phenomenon and its causes in either De generatione animalium or Historia animalium. In Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Epitome the Stagirite is attributed with two views, division and superfetation. The material in the passage (including two quotes) cannot be found in the Aristotelian corpus and is so included in the fragment collections of Rose and Gigon. Aristotle’s views exerted much influence on later writers, e.g. Pliny at Nat. 7.48–49. The theory of multiple locations in the womb is also found in the Hippocratic corpus (Nat.Puer. 31) and Anon. Bruxellensis 26 (texts below section E(b)§4). On the subject of the views on twins in antiquity see the book-length study by Rathmayr (2000), with examination of texts at 53–69. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading again asks the cause, using πῶς as in the parallel chapters 5.7–8. G abbreviates his heading to twins only, but refers to the phenomenon of triplets in §§2 and 4. The combination of twins and triplets in the heading or quaestio is also found in ps.Galen Def.Med. and Erotianus (texts below). On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. As in previous chapters, there are no grounds for concluding that it must be interpolated from P. The word order in SL differs slightly from that in the Byzantine mss. of P, but interestingly it is the same as is found in the papyrus snippet. D Analysis a Context After the interruption of the misplaced ch. 5.9 on female infertility, the present chapter completes the sequence of various kinds of conceptions: male–female, monstrous births, twins–triplets. A slightly different and more logical sequence is found in ps.Galen Def.Med. 446–449: male–female, twins–triplets, hermaphrodite, monstrous births.

liber 5 caput 10

1847

b Number–Order of Lemmata The mention of Hippo in Censorinus and the reference to Democritus’ view in Aelian suggest that A may have originally had more doxai. However, as we shall see, the four preserved in P do well in covering the various positions. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In marked contrast to the previous chapters the doxography presents a streamlined array of causes. Each doxa basically has a single cause introduced by a prepositional phrase (κατά … παρά … διά … παρά), with only the first undergoing a further division (πλεονασμὸν καὶ περισχισμόν). (1) Multiple births are caused by an excess or a division of semen. Attributed to Empedocles, this is also basically the Aristotelian view (and see above, section B on Aristophanes of Byzantium). (2) The cause attributed to the late Hellenistic doctor Asclepiades (cf. A 4.2.8, 4.22.2) is variation in the semen. Particularly prolific semen, like barley with double and triple stalks, produce multiple births. Perhaps there is a link to his corpuscular theory, but if there is, it is not made clear (the Placita never refer to it). (3) The Hellenistic doctor Erasistratus represents the cause through superfetation, i.e. resulting from multiple acts of sexual intercourse. Aristotle too draws attention to this phenomenon for the biological world, including humans (cf. GA 4.4 773a34ff.). The doctor insists that a purification of the womb, i.e. a menstrual period, must intervene, which corresponds to modern theories (and in fact makes the phenomenon very rare indeed). (4) The Stoic doxa makes use of the view that the womb has multiple locations, so that when the semen enters them, multiple births can result. The theory is attributed to Democritus and is also found in the Hippocratic corpus (see texts below). No other text confirms this view for the Stoics. The term ἐπισύλληψις is used here is a less strict sense than in §3 and means no more than ‘additional conceptions’. The diaeresis of the four doxai thus covers three main theories, with the unusual (and unparalleled) view of Asclepiades perhaps meant as a variation on the first view of seminal excess and division. The same three main views are found without name-labels in the parallel text in ps.Galen Def.Med. Of considerable interest is a text in Seneca, citing his friend Demetrius the Cynic, who problematizes the subject of twins as an example of the kind of theoretical knowledge which is not necessary for practical purposes. Two main options are very compactly given for the cause, division or superfetation. He also adds the problem of the different fates of twins born almost at

1848

liber 5 caput 10

the same time. But this key problem in astrological theory, discussed in depth by Augustine in C.D. 5.1–6, our doxographer sets aside (in contrast to what he will do at ch. 5.18.6). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 It is most intriguing to observe that the reconstructed papyrus supports G’s reading that the verb of thinking οἴεται follows the name-label. This formulation is much more common in G (16 times, 4 in the plural) than in P (3 times) or S (only once in an excerpt from A). It suggests that these slightly otiose verbs may have been omitted as the tradition developed. Because of the agreement of G and the papyrus (Q cannot help us) we should include the verb here. We note too that the papyrus inverts the order of twins and triplets in this doxa (but not in the chapter heading). This must be a scribal error. §2 Rathmayr (2000) 61 goes astray in claiming that Asclepiades presents exactly the same theory as Empedocles. διαφορά cannot mean ‘Aufspaltung’ (division). The difference is that Asclepiades attributes twins to inherent differences in semen, not what happens to the semen in the womb. §3 The Arabic translation perhaps supports PB’s reading ἔρχεται (or ἔρχεσθαι), but Diels is right to conjecture δέχεσθαι, following the suggestion of the corrector of the Vossianus ms. δέχεται, because the phrase can then have the womb as subject. §4 As also occurs elsewhere in the Placita (cf. for example chs. 4.3.13, 4.18.2), the καὶ in the final phrase καὶ τὰ δίδυμα καὶ τὰ τρίδυμα is very likely epexegetic, i.e. explaining the result of the conceptions. We indicate this as an alternative in our translation. e Other Evidence A’s method corresponds grosso modo with what we find in the two proximate sources Censorinus and ps.Galen, and less clearly in Seneca. A diaeresis of main explanations is given. If the third view in ps.Galen is taken to refer to multiple places in the womb, then there is a close correspondence between his three and what we find in A, with the doxa of Asclepiades added as an additional view closely related to that of twins caused by the division of semen. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus DN 6.9–10 sequitur de geminis, qui ut aliquando nascantur, modo seminis fieri Hippon (38A18 DK) ratus est: id enim cum amplius est, quam uni satis fuit, bifariam deduci. (10) id ipsum ferme Empedocles

liber 5 caput 10 (31A81 DK) videtur sensisse: nam causas quidem, cur divideretur, non posuit, partiri tantum modo ait, et si utrumque sedes aeque calidas occupaverit, utrumque marem nasci, si frigidas aeque, utramque feminam; si vero alterum calidiorem, alterum frigidiorem, dispari sexu partum futurum. ps.Galen Def.Med. 447, p. 19.453.7–11 K. υμηʹ. τὰ δὲ δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεται κατὰ μέν τινας διὰ τὸ εἰς θερμὴν τὴν μήτραν καθελκόμενον σπέρμα θραύεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν οὕτως τὰ δίδυμα καὶ τρίδυμα. ἄλλοι δὲ τὰς ἐπισυλλήψεις ᾐτιάσαντο, ἡμεῖς δέ φαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν εὑρεθῇ τὸ σπέρμα εἰς ἄμφω ταῦτα, γίνεσθαι τὰ δίδυμα. Chapter heading: see the two texts above. cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (DG p. 233 Diels, from Def.Med. 449) πῶς γίγνεται δίδυμα.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.88 (~ Arist. fr. 285.14 Rose, 269 Gigon) δίδυμά τε καὶ τρίδυμα γίνεται ἃ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐπισύλληψιν, ἔστι δ᾽ ὅτε, φησί, καὶ κατὰ σχίσιν. ὅταν μὲν ἅμα ἐκτεχθῇ ἄρρεν καὶ θῆλυ, ἀνάγκη ταῦτα κατ᾽ ἐπισύλληψιν γεγονέναι, ἅτε τοῦ ἄρρενος μὲν ἐκ πεπεμμένου γεγονότος, τοῦ δὲ θήλεος ἐξ ἀπέπτου, ὥστε ὑπὸ δύο ταῦτα καταβολὰς γεγενῆσθαι. τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ μίαν καταβολὴν τοιαῦτα γινόμενα τὸ μὲν ἐκ κατεψυγμένου γίνεται σπέρματος ὑπομεμενηκότος περὶ τὸν περίνεον, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ κατενηνεγμένου καὶ οὕτως ὁμοῦ ἀμφοτέρων ἐμπεπτωκότων. ὅταν δὲ ὑπὸ μίαν καταβολὴν δύο ἄρρενα ἢ δύο θήλεα γένηται, ταῦτα σχισθέντος ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ τοῦ σπέρματος γίνεται, τοῦ μὲν πεπεμμένου εἰς δύο ἄρρενα, τοῦ δὲ ἀπέπτου εἰς δύο θήλεα. ὅτι δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπισύλληψιν ἀρέσκει αὐτῷ γίνεσθαι ⟨δῆλον⟩· αὐτὸς γὰρ οὕτω φησί· ‘συνέβη γάρ τινα δούλην περὶ Τρίκκην ἐκ τοῦ δεσπότου καὶ τοῦ ἐπιτρόπου τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ πλησιάσασαν τεκνῶσαι δύο, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἦν τῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ ὅμοιον, τὸ δὲ τῷ δεσπότῃ’. καὶ μὴν ὅτι κατὰ σχίσιν τοῦ σπέρματός τινα γίνεται, οὕτως φησί· ‘τὰ δὲ διδυμοτοκοῦντα ἀπὸ μιᾶς καταβολῆς δοκεῖ ἀρρενοτοκεῖν ἢ θηλυτοκεῖν, ὅτι τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ ἄρρενος ἰσχυρόν ἐστιν, ὥστε μεριζομένου εἰς δύο ἢ εἰς πλείονα τρόφιμα γίνεσθαι’. Anonymus Bruxellensis 26, p. 224.17 Wellmann γένος διδύμων geminos {nos} dicimus eo quod in orificium vulvae duo aditus abire noscuntur exvicissim. atque si divisum in duas vel tres partes semen in vascullorum capita ceciderit, gemini vel trigemini nascuntur. cf. Aristotle HA 7.4 584b26 τὸ δὲ δὴ πλῆθος τῶν τόκων. Seneca Ben. 7.1.5 (citing Demetrius the Cynic) licet nescias … quid sit, quod geminorum conceptum separet, partum iungat, utrum unus concubitus spargatur in duos an totiens concepti sint, … : non multum tibi nocebit transisse, quae nec licet scire nec prodest. Chapter heading: Erotianus Voc.Hipp. 43, p. 16.1 Nachmanson πῶς γὰρ ἦν δίδυμα ἢ τρίδυμα γεννᾶν τὴν γυναῖκα. cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Vict. 1.30 6.504.14 περὶ δὲ τῶν διδύμων γινομένων ὁ λόγος ὧδε δηλώσει … Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 2.36 περὶ δὲ … διδύμων (full text cited on ch. 5.8). §1 Empedocles: Aristotle GA 4.1 764a33–b4 ἔτι δὲ γίγνεται δίδυμα θῆλυ καὶ ἄρρεν ἅμα ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ μορίῳ πολλάκις τῆς ὑστέρας—καὶ τοῦθ᾽ ἱκανῶς τεθεωρήκαμεν ἐκ τῶν ἀνατομῶν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ζῳοτοκοῦσι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς πεζοῖς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσιν· περὶ ὧν εἰ μὲν μὴ συνεωράκει (sc. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, not in DK) εὐλόγως ἡμάρτανε ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπών, εἰ δ᾽ ἑωρακώς, ἄτοπον τὸ ἔτι νομίζειν αἰτίαν εἶναι τὴν τῆς

1849

1850

liber 5 caput 10

ὑστέρας θερμότητα ἢ ψυχρότητα· ἄμφω γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο ἢ θήλεα ἢ ἄρρενα, νῦν δὲ τοῦτ᾽ οὐχ ὁρῶμεν συμβαῖνον. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.88 see above. cf. also Aristotle GA 4.4 772b1–b6 ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐπαμφοτερίζει πᾶσι τοῖς γένεσιν· καὶ γὰρ μονοτοκεῖ καὶ ὀλιγοτοκεῖ καὶ πολυτοκεῖ ποτε, μάλιστα δὲ μονοτόκον τὴν φύσιν ἐστί—διὰ μὲν τὴν ὑγρότητα τοῦ σώματος καὶ θερμότητα πολυτόκον …, διὰ δὲ τὸ μέγεθος ὀλιγοτόκον καὶ μονοτόκον. §3 Erasistratus: Aristotle HA 7.4 585a3–14 δέχεται δ᾽ ὀχείαν κύοντα μάλιστα τῶν ζῴων γυνὴ καὶ ἵππος· τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα ὅταν πληρωθῇ, φεύγει τοὺς ἄρρενας, ὅσα μὴ πέφυκεν ἐπικυΐσκεσθαι, καθάπερ δασύπους. ἀλλ᾽ ἵππος μὲν ἂν συλλάβῃ τὸ πρῶτον, οὐκ ἐπικυΐσκεται πάλιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἓν τίκτει μόνον ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ· ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ δ᾽ ὀλίγα μέν, γέγονε δέ ποτε. … ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐγγὺς ἡ σύλληψις ἐγένετο, τὸ ἐπικυηθὲν ἐξήνεγκαν, καὶ τίκτουσιν ὥσπερ δίδυμα γόνῳ, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν Ἰφικλέα καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα μυθολογοῦσιν. Pliny Nat. 7.48–49 (excerpted from Aristotle). §4 Stoics: Aelian NA 12.16 λέγει Δημόκριτος (68A151 DK) πολύγονα εἶναι ὗν καὶ κύνα, καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν προστίθησι λέγων, ὅτι πολλὰς ἔχει τὰς μήτρας καὶ τοὺς τόπους τοὺς δεκτικοὺς τοῦ σπέρματος. Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 20, p. 7.540.1–4 Littré δίδυμα δὲ γίνεται ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς λαγνεύματος οὕτως· ἔχουσιν αἱ μῆτραι κόλπους συχνοὺς καὶ γαμψοὺς, τοὺς μὲν τηλοτέρω, τοὺς δὲ πλησιαιτέρω τοῦ αἰδοίου· καὶ τὰ πουλύγονα τῶν ζώων πλείους ἔχει κόλπους τῶν ὀλίγα κυεόντων … Anonymus medicus De generatione et semine 20–21 Ideler καὶ εἰ μὲν ἡ γονὴ εἰς δύο κόλπους τῆς μήτρας ἐμπέσῃ, δίδυμα ἔσονται τὰ παιδία, καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς τῆς ὑστέρας ἐμπέσῃ ἄρρενα τὰ δύο. εἰ δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς θηλέα τὰ δύο. ὡσαύτως καὶ τρία καὶ τέσσαρα παιδία γίνονται, ὅταν ἡ γονὴ ἐμπέσῃ εἰς τεσσάρους κόλπους τῆς μήτρας. (21) ἱστορεῖται ἐν ταῖς ἀνατομαῖς τῶν ὑστέρων, ὅτι καὶ πέντε γίνονται παιδία, τοῦ σπέρματος εἰς τοὺς εʹ κόλπους τῆς ὑστέρας ἐμπεσούσης.

Liber 5 Caput 11 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 906C–E; pp. 422a13–423a8 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 115; p. 642.10–19 Diels; pp. 351–361 Jas—PQ : Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 224–225 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 114.1–10, p. 62 Westerink SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.7, p. 1.295.14–15 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ιαʹ. Πόθεν γίνεται τῶν γονέων ὁμοίωσις καὶ τῶν προγόνων (P,cf.S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁμοιότητα γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ ἐπικράτειαν τῶν σπερματικῶν γόνων, ἀνομοιότητα δὲ τῆς ἐν τῷ σπέρματι θερμασίας ἐξατμισθείσης. (P1) §2 Παρμενίδης, ὅταν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους τῆς μήτρας ὁ γόνος ἀποκριθῇ, τοῖς πατράσιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ, ταῖς μητράσιν. (P2) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς φέρεσθαι τὸ σπέρμα, καὶ τὰς ὁμοιομερείας ἀναπλάττεσθαι ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν γενῶν τοὺς τύπους καὶ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ ζῳγράφον ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων χρωμάτων εἰκόνα τοῦ βλεπομένου. προίεσθαι δὲ καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα σπέρμα· κἂν μὲν ἐπικρατήσῃ τὸ τῆς γυναικός, ὅμοιον εἶναι τὸ γεννώμενον τῇ μητρί, ἐὰν δὲ τὸ τοῦ ἀνδρός, τῷ πατρί. (P3) §1 Empedocles 31A81 DK; §2 Parmenides 28A54 DK; §3 Stoici SVF 2.749 titulus γίνεται PGQ(ut vid.) : γίνονται PBPs ‖ ὁμοίωσις PGQ (ut. vid. nisi ἡ add.) : αἱ ὁμοιώσεις PBPs (αἱ om. PB(III)) ‖ καὶ τῶν προγόνων] καὶ αἱ πρὸς τούτους ἀνομοιότητες PPs (conflat cc. 11 et 12) : al. SL Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων αἱ ὁμοιώσεις ἢ τῶν προγόνων (cf. Wachsmuth 1882, 17) §1 [2] ὁμοιότητα PGQ ὁμοιότητας PB ‖ [2–3] τῶν σπερματικῶν γόνων PB : τῶν σπερμάτων PG : des Samens der Eltern (= γονέων ?) Q ‖ [3] ἀνομοιότητα PGQ : ἀνομοιότητας PB ‖ [3–§2[5]] τῆς … Παρμενίδης : lac. hab. PG ‖ [3] τῷ σπέρματι] τοῖς σπέρμασι PB(II) ‖ θερμασίας] θεραπείας PB(I) §2 [5] nomen non hab. PG ‖ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους] τῶν δεξιῶν μερῶν PG, prob. Mansfeld (2018) 194 ‖ ὁ γόνος] τὸ σπέρμα PG, prob. Mansfeld (2018) 194 §3 [7] καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς om. PQ ‖ [7–8] τὸ σπέρμα καὶ τὰς ὁμοιομερείας PG, cf der in der Teilchen ähnliche Same Q : τὰ σπέρματα καὶ τὰς ὁμοιότητας PB (τὰς ὁμοιότητας del. Beck Diels, τῆς ὁμοιότητος coni. Von Arnim) ‖ [8] ἐκ PB(I,III) (ἐξ PG) : καὶ PB(II) : κατὰ PQ dub. Daiber (nach Q) ‖ τῶν αὐτῶν γενῶν PB (γόνων aut μέρων dub. Diels) : αὐτῶν PG : nach den Bildern und Mustern der Väter Q ‖ [9] ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ PB : ὡς PG ‖ τῶν PB(I,II)G : om. PB(III)Q ‖ [10] εἰκόνα τοῦ βλεπομένου PB, cf. ein Bild ähnlich den Bildern malt, welche man sieht Q : ὁμοιότητα τοῦ τικτομένου PG ‖ καὶ] om. PQ ‖ [11] μὲν ἐπικρατήσῃ PB : ἐπικρατῇ PG ‖ [12] ἐὰν … πατρί non hab. PG ‖ πατρί PB(II)Q Diels : ἀνδρί PB(I,III) Mau Lachenaud

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_136

5

10

1852

liber 5 caput 11

Testes primi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 115 (~ tit.) Πόθεν γίνεται τῶν γονέων ὁμοίωσις καὶ τῶν προγόνων (text Jas) 115.1 (~ P1–2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁμοιότητα οἴεται γίγνεσθαι κατ᾽ ἐπικράτειαν τῶν σπερμάτων, ἀνομοιότητα δέ, […] ὅταν μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν δεξιῶν μερῶν τῆς μήτρας τὸ σπέρμα ἀποκριθῇ τοῖς πατράσιν, ὅταν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ ταῖς μητράσιν. 115.2 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς φέρεσθαι τὸ σπέρμα καὶ τὰς ὁμοιομερείας ἀναπλάττεσθαι ἐξ αὐτῶν τοὺς τύπους καὶ χαρακτῆρας, ὡς ζῳγράφον ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμοίων χρωμάτων, ὁμοιότητα τοῦ τικτομένου. προίεσθαι δὲ καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα σπέρμα, κἂν ἐπικρατῇ τὸ τῆς γυναικός, ὅμοιόν ἐστι τῇ μητρί. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 114 Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων αἱ ὁμοιώσεις καὶ αἱ πρὸς τούτους ἀνομοιότητες (~ tit.) τὸ ἀποκρινόμενον σπέρμα ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς γυναικός· τὸ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λόγους ἔχει τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἠθῶν καὶ τρόπων καὶ τῆς μορφῆς, καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς μητρὸς δὲ ὡσαύτως (~ P3). ὅταν οὖν ἄμφω τὰ σπέρματα συγκραθῇ, εἰ μὲν ἐπίσης, ἔχει τὸ γεννώμενον ἴσην καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄρρεν καὶ πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ τὴν ὁμοιότητα· ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἄρρεν κατακρατήσῃ τοῦ θήλεος, πατρόμοια τὰ τικτόμενα ἀποτελεῖται· ὅταν δὲ τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος, ἀπεικασμένα πρὸς τὴν μητέρα (~ P3). ὅταν δὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ σπέρματι θερμασία ἐξατμισθῇ, οὐδενὶ τῶν τοκέων τὸ πλαττόμενον ὁμοιοῦται (~ P1). Loci Aetiani: cf. A 5.12 Πῶς ἄλλοις γίνονται ὅμοιοι οἱ γεννώμενοι καὶ οὐ τοῖς γονεῦσιν. §1 A 5.7.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίνεσθαι παρὰ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα· ὅθεν ἱστορεῖται τοὺς μὲν πρώτους ἄρρενας πρὸς ἀνατολῇ καὶ μεσημβρίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι μᾶλλον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, τὰς δὲ θηλείας πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις. §2 A 5.7.4 Ἀναξαγόρας Παρμενίδης τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν καταβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τῆς μήτρας, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶνἀριστερῶν εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά· εἰ δ᾽ ἐναλλαγείη τὰ τῆς καταβολῆς, γίνεσθαι θήλεα. §3 cf. A 5.5 Εἰ καὶ αἱ θήλειαι προΐενται σπέρμα. A 5.4.6 Δημόκριτος ἀφ᾽ ὅλων τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων μερῶν, οἷον ὀστῶν σαρκῶν ἰνῶν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses As is the case in many other chapters in Book 5 (ten cases out of thirty) our direct witnesses in the tradition of P furnish three doxai. In G the first two are conflated, no doubt through a scribal mistake, so that he appears to have only two. Ps takes over material from this chapter which he reshapes (see below, sec-

liber 5 caput 11

1853

tion D(e)§3). For both the heading and in the final lines of his chapter he combines material from the next chapter 5.12. S preserves only the heading in the Laurentianus ms. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The most important parallel in the proximate tradition is again found in Censorinus, who records doxai of Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Parmenides, i.e. including two of A’s three. The view of Parmenides is the same as in A, but the Empedoclean theory based on heat and cold differs. In ps.Galen Def.Med. there is only a brief reference to the subject in §440 as the most important evidence for the existence of female semen. The long account in Lactantius taken over from Varro may also come from this tradition. It has no name-labels and most resembles A’s final doxa, though various details differ. The discussion in Lucretius DRN 4.1209–1232 is also similar to the doxographical texts with its use of the theory of dominance and explicit mention of the question of resemblance to grandparents and more distant ancestors. Bailey (1947) 3.1313 suggests that his source will have been Democritus as passed on by Epicurus (cf. Arist. GA 4.1 764a6–11 cited on ch. 5.7). (2) Sources. Aristotle clearly defines the problem in GA 4.3, distinguishing its various sub-topics, and devotes quite a long discussion to it. He first gives his own view involving the ‘mastery’ (κρατεῖν) or not of the male form on the female material, but this theory has not found its way into the extant doxographical tradition. Thereafter he criticizes earlier theories which are divided into two kinds of causes, the one based on the amount or dominance of male or female semen, the other through the concept of a semen aggregate. These thinkers are called τινες τῶν φυσιολόγων and he clearly has various Presocratics in mind (Empedocles and Democritus are subsequently cited by name). As we shall see below, there are connections between Aristotle’s two kinds of theory and A’s presentation, but his text is certainly not a direct source. The author of the treatise Περὶ γονῆς (Genit.) in the Corpus Hippocraticum gives a full discussion of similiarity to both parents as a subject that follows on from the fact that both men and women have semen. Similarly (but much later) Galen discusses similarity and dissimilarity to parents and ancestors in Sem. 2.1 as part of an argument in favour of both male and female semen, arguing that Aristotle’s form-matter approach cannot solve the problem. He does not refer to any doxographical material. For further analysis and discussion of the subject of heredity in ancient sources see Lesky (1951) 36–38, 44–45, 171–173.

1854

liber 5 caput 11

C Chapter Heading The formulation with the preposition πόθεν and the abstract noun ὁμοίωσις differs from what we find in Aristotle (the noun is not part of his vocabulary). For chapter headings with πόθεν cf. chs. 1.6, 2.3, 2.17, 4.21, 5.28. It does not ask directly for the cause (contrast Aristotle GA 4.3 769a1 διὰ τίνα … αἰτίαν, also a7), but rather asks what is the determining causal factor. The mention of the πρόγονοι (ancestors) in the heading can be traced back to Aristotle, who mentions them in relation to this question at GA 4.3 767b2, 4.3 769a5. This is a notable Leitfossil in respect of the origin of the material taken up in the Placita tradition. As noted above, the subject is specifically treated in Lucretius DRN 4.1218–1226. These ancestors play no further role in A’s chapter, which could be due to the process of P’s abridgement. On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. The heading for this chapter differs somewhat in wording from what is found in the tradition of P. D Analysis a Context The question follows on from ch. 5.7 on the division of conceived fetuses into male and female. But it is not posed until the other special kinds of conception (chs. 5.8 monstrous births, 5.10 multiple births) have been treated (including the misplaced ch. 5.9). The present chapter is the first part of a diptych on similarity and dissimilarity, chs. 5.11–12. b Number–Order of Lemmata Given the significant parallels in Censorinus, it is quite likely that there were originally more doxai in the chapter, e.g. with the name-labels Democritus and Anaxagoras. We may have also expected the views of Aristotle and some physicians (cf. 5.12) to have been included. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The three doxai each present significant positions on the chapter’s subject. (1) Empedocles invokes predominance of semen and its (internal) heat, the former to explain similarities, the latter to explain dissimilarities. The doxa seems poorly formulated, even if we take heat also to be the determining factor for the similarities. See the discussion at Lesky (1951) 37–38. The doxa is not inconsistent with A 5.7.1, but that doxa too was very loosely formulated, not indicating whether it was the heat of the semen or of the womb that was the determinative factor (according to Aristotle it is the latter; see on A 5.7.1). Empedocles is one of the theorists criticized by Aristotle in GA 4.3, who argues

liber 5 caput 11

1855

that his theory on sex-differentiation, involving heat and cold, cannot solve the problem of how daughters resemble their fathers and sons their mothers (text below section E(b) General texts). (2) Parmenides’ explanation is based on his well-known right–left (parts of the womb) theory (see A 5.7.4) and is supported by the similar formulation in Censorinus (note that both he in 6.8 and A use a pair of temporal clauses: ὅταν … ὅταν, cum … cum). On the possibly lacunose text see further below section D(d)§2. (3) The third doxa, attributed to the Stoics, returns to the pan-genesis theory already introduced in ch. 5.3. If both male and female semen take characteristics from all the various parts of the body, then it is not hard to explain how through the prevalence of a mother’s seed a son can resemble her. Diels divides the doxa into two parts, unusually numbering the second half separately. This is misleading, since the doxa as a whole forms a single argument: first the general theory of inheritance is set out, then it is observed that females also produce semen; on that basis the theory can explain the similarities to parents. The latter question on female semen had already been treated at ch. 5.5 (its repetition here shows that the pedantic A generally divides up what was originally kept together). The problem pointed out by Diels is that there is no evidence that the Stoa supported the view that females produce semen and that is contradicted not only at A 5.5.2, but also by other texts (D.L. 7.159, Cens. 5.4, cf. Diels DG 423; see also Lesky 1951, 171). The name-label must have been incorrectly attached (unless there was a minority viewpoint of which we are ignorant). Given the mention of homoiomereiai (on which see below, section D(d)§3), it is possible that the theory was intended to represent that of Anaxagoras. This is consistent with Censorinus’ report, but not with A 5.7.4 and Aristotle in GA 4.1. However, it should also be noted that the theory bears some resemblance to the second of theories that Aristotle criticizes, at 4.3 769a28. Admittedly, the key term πανσπερμία is not found in A. But the general thrust of the theory is similar and the image of the artist in A seems like a developed version of Aristotle’s ‘juice-mixer’. The Stoic name-label may have been attached because someone recognized an affinity with the theory of spermatikoi logoi (see below, section D(d)§3 on Psellus’ adaptation). The three doxai thus represent a diaeresis of three distinctive views: predominance of seminal heat, right and left parts of the womb, predominance of pan-genetic spermatic characteristics. But there is little attempt, it would seem, to achieve consistency with the earlier question of the origin of sex differentiation treated in ch. 5.7. In addition, the composition of the chapter is rather uneven. The first doxa explains both similarity and dissimilarity (thus anticipating the next chap-

1856

liber 5 caput 11

ter 5.12), but in general terms. The next doxa and the second half of the final doxa explain resemblance to the father and the mother as distinct from the parents in general. This aspect of the topic is not announced in the chapter’s heading. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 Mansfeld (2015e) = (2018a) 193–194 argues that the text on Parmenides may be lacunose. The description of the role played by the womb requires further explanation (194): ‘I take it that, analogous to what is at issue in 5.7.4, what is produced by the right parts must be deposited in the right side of the womb to result in resemblance to male ancestors, and what is produced by the left parts must be deposited in the left side of the womb to result in resemblance to female ancestors.’ He also rightly points out that G’s term σπέρμα is more accurate than γόνος in PB, and G’s plural τῶν δεξιῶν μερῶν coheres better with A 5.7.4 and indeed with Parmenides’ own words in fr. 28B17 DK (cited in A 5.7 section E(b)§1). But G retains the singular for the left part and we hesitate to emend the text so drastically. §3 The reading τὰς ὁμοιομερείας in G is supported by Q. As a quite unexpected reading, not directly provoked by the context, it is almost certainly genuine. The term is also used in an Empedoclean doxa on the flavours of fruits in 5.26.4. In contrast the reading of PB, τὰς ὁμοιότητας, is problematic. Mau and Lachenaud take over Von Arnim’s emendation τῆς ὁμοιότητας, but it is clear that a subject is needed for the verb ἀναπλάττεσθαι. Lesky (1951) 173 in her comment on Psellus is unaware that he is directly dependent on P for his information. She suspects that the Stoicizing tenor of the opening words of his chapter, and particularly the phrase λόγους … τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἠθῶν καὶ τρόπων καὶ τῆς μορφῆς referring to the inherited characteristics of the offspring, come from A or his source. In fact they are more likely due to the intervention of Psellus himself, who, taking his cue from the namelabel, introduces the terminology from his own knowledge of Greek philosophy. Of considerable interest is the passage in a Viennese papyrus that most likely goes back to Origen’s Commentary on Genesis. The text is best accessible at Metzler (2010) 184–186; see below, section E(b)§3. The theory of ἐπικράτεια, utilised in both §1 and §3 is here applied without any further details and no name-label. Pace Metzler (2010) 184 n. 255 it cannot be regarded as Stoic for the reasons stated above. Its use in this context suggests that this simplified view had become generally accepted by the third century ce.

liber 5 caput 11

1857

e Other Evidence It is clear that the diaeresis of three views in A resembles the parallel passage in Censorinus, although the Latin author is more fluent in linking up the doxai. The two texts share two out of three views. The doxa of Empedocles in Censorinus is the same as in P’s §1, but he develops the various permutations much more elaborately and specifies that the resemblance relates to the face. The Parmenidean doxa is the same in both sources. Censorinus also includes a doxa of Anaxagoras which is missing in P, while the Stoic view is absent in the Latin author. The Anaxagorean doxa does show some resemblance to the second part of the Stoic view, but here too the important detail of the face is lacking in P. It is likely that both authors are likely to be incomplete in relation to their source. If we leave Aristotle aside, no other ancient texts give multiple views on this subject. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Lucretius DRN 4.1208–1232 et commiscendo quom semine forte virilem / femina vim vicit subita vi corripuitque, / tum similes matrum materno semine fiunt, / ut patribus patrio. sed quos utriusque figurae / esse vides, iuxtim miscentes vulta parentum, / corpore de patrio et materno sanguine crescunt, / semina cum Veneris stimulis excita per artus / obvia conflixit conspirans mutuus ardor, / et neque utrum superavit eorum nec superatumst. / fit quoque ut interdum similes existere avorum / possint et referant proavorum saepe figuras, / propterea quia multa modis primordia multis / mixta suo celant in corpore saepe parentes, / quae patribus patres tradunt a stirpe profecta; / inde Venus varia producit sorte figuras / maiorumque refert voltus vocesque comasque, / quandoquidem nilo minus haec de semine certo / fiunt quam facies et corpora membraque nobis. / et muliebre oritur patrio de semine saeclum, / maternoque mares existunt corpore creti; / semper enim partus duplici de semine constat, / atque utri similest magis id quodcumque creatur, / eius habet plus parte aequa; quod cernere possis, / sive virum suboles sivest muliebris origo. Censorinus DN 6.6– 8 ex dextris partibus profuso semine mares gigni, at e laevis feminas Anaxagoras Empedoclesque consentiunt (cf. A 5.7.4), quorum opiniones, ut de hac specie congruae, ita de similitudine liberorum dispariles; super qua re Empedoclis disputata ratione talia profert (31A81 DK): (7) si par calor in parentum seminibus fuit, patri similem marem procreari; si frigus, feminam matri similem. quodsi semen patris calidius erit et frigidius matris, puerum fore, qui matris vultus repraesentet; at si calidius matris, patris autem fuerit frigidius, puellam futuram, quae patris reddat similitudinem (~§1). (8) Anaxagoras (59A111 DK) autem eius parentis faciem referre liberos iudicavit, qui seminis amplius contulisset. ceterum Parmenidis (28A54 DK) sententia est, cum dexterae partes semina dederint, tunc filios esse patri consimiles, cum laevae, tunc matri (~ §3). Lactantius Op.D. 12.8–10 Perrin (from Varro, fr. 51 Salvadore; not in DK) similitud-

1858

liber 5 caput 11

ines autem in corporibus filiorum sic fieri putant: cum semina inter se permixta coalescunt, si virile superaverit, patri similem provenire seu marem seu feminam, si muliebre praevaluerit, progeniem cuiusque sexus ad imaginem respondere maternam. (9) id autem praevalet e duobus, quod fuerit uberius; alterum enim quodammodo amplectitur et includit: hinc plerumque fieri ut unius tantum liniamenta praetendat. (10) si vero aequa fuerit ex pari semente permixtio, figuras quoque misceri, ut suboles illa communis aut neutrum referre videatur, quia totum ex altero non habet, aut utrumque quia partem de singulis mutuata est. cf. ps.Galen Def.Med. 440 cited on ch. 5.5. also Galen Sem. 2.1.76, p. 196.19–21 De Lacy καὶ γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς προγόνοις ὁμοιοῦταί τινα κατὰ τοὺς σπερματι κοὺς λόγους, οὐ μόνον τοὺς τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τῆς μητρὸς, εὔδηλον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐστί. cf. also Ther. 11, p. 14.253.15–17 K. cited on ch. 5.12. Chapter heading: cf. Galen Sem. 2.1.56, p. 158.11 κατὰ τοῦτο δὲ ὅμοιον ἢ ἀνόμοιον τοῖς γονεῦσιν. §1 Empedocles: cf. Lucretius DRN 4.1208–1232 and Censorinus DN 6.5 on Parmenides, both cited above.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 4.3 767a36–b5 αἱ δ᾽ αὐταὶ αἰτίαι καὶ τοῦ τὰ μὲν ἐοικότα γίγνεσθαι τοῖς τεκνώσασι τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐοικότα, καὶ τὰ μὲν πατρὶ τὰ δὲ μητρί, κατά τε ὅλον τὸ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ μόριον ἕκαστον, καὶ μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς ἢ τοῖς προγόνοις, καὶ τούτοις ἢ τοῖς τυχοῦσι καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄρρενα μᾶλλον τῷ πατρὶ τὰ δὲ θήλεα τῇ μητρί, τὰ δ᾽ οὐθενὶ τῶν συγγενῶν … (see further on ch. 5.12). GA 4.3 769a1–b7 διὰ τίνα μὲν οὖν αἰτίαν θήλεα καὶ ἄρρενα γίγνεται, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐοικότα τοῖς γονεῦσι, θήλεά τε θήλεσι καὶ ἄρρενα ἄρρεσι, τὰ δ᾽ ἀνάπαλιν θήλεά τε τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἄρρενα τῇ μητρί, καὶ ὅλως τὰ μὲν τοῖς προγόνοις ἔοικότα τὰ δ᾽ οὐθενί, καὶ ταῦτα καὶ καθ᾽ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα καὶ τῶν μορίων ἕκαστον, διώρισται περὶ πάντων. εἰρήκασι δέ τινες τῶν φυσιολόγων καὶ ἕτεροι περὶ τούτων διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ὅμοια καὶ ἀνόμοια γίγνεται τοῖς γονεῦσιν· δύο δὴ τρόπους λέγουσι τῆς αἰτίας. ἔνιοι μὲν γάρ φασιν ἀφ᾽ ὁποτέρου ἂν ἔλθῃ σπέρμα πλέον τούτῳ γίγνεσθαι μᾶλλον ἐοικός, ὁμοίως παντί τε πᾶν καὶ μέρει μέρος, ὡς ἀπιόντος ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῶν μορίων σπέρματος· ἂν δ᾽ ἴσον ἔλθῃ ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρου τούτων οὐδετέρῳ γίγνεσθαι ὅμοιον. εἰ δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι ψεῦδος καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀπέρχεται δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς ὁμοιότητος καὶ ἀνομοιότητος αἴτιον ἂν εἴη τὸ λεχθέν. ἔτι δὲ πῶς ἅμα θῆλυ μὲν πατρὶ ἐοικὸς ἄρρεν δὲ μητρὶ ἐοικὸς οὐκ εὐπόρως δύνανται διορίζειν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) λέγοντες ἢ Δημόκριτος (fr. 533 Luria) περὶ τοῦ θήλεος καὶ ἄρρενος τὴν αἰτίαν ἄλλον τρόπον ἀδύνατα λέγουσιν … ἔτι δὲ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἐοικὸς γίγνεται τοῖς προγόνοις ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ καὶ τοῖς ἄποθεν; οὐ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνων γ᾽ ἀπελήλυθεν οὐθὲν τοῦ σπέρματος. ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον οἱ τὸν λειπόμενον τρόπον λέγοντες περὶ τῆς ὁμοιότητος καὶ τἆλλα βέλτιον καὶ τοῦτο λέγουσιν. εἰσὶ γάρ τινες οἵ φασι τὴν γονὴν μίαν οὖσαν οἷον πανσπερμίαν εἶναί τινα πολλῶν· ὥσπερ οὖν εἴ τις κεράσειε πολλοὺς χυμοὺς εἰς ἓν ὑγρόν, κἄπειτ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν λαμβάνοι, {καὶ} δύναιτ᾽ ἂν λαμβάνειν μὴ ἴσον ἀεὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστου, ἀλλ᾽ ὁτὲ μὲν τοῦ τοιοῦδε πλεῖον ὁτὲ δὲ τοῦ τοιοῦδε, ὁτὲ δὲ τοῦ μὲν λαβεῖν τοῦ δὲ μηθὲν λαβεῖν—τοῦτο συμβαίνειν καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γονῆς πολυμιγοῦς οὔσης· ἀφ᾽ οὗ γὰρ ἂν τῶν γεννώντων πλεῖστον ἐγγένηται, τούτῳ

liber 5 caput 11 γίγνεσθαι τὴν μορφὴν ἐοικός. οὗτος δὲ ὁ λόγος οὐ σαφὴς μὲν καὶ πλασματίας ἐστὶ πολλαχῇ, (b1) … οὐ ῥᾴδιον δὲ οὐδὲ τρόπον ἕνα τῆς αἰτίας ἀποδιδόντας τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν περὶ πάντων· τοῦ τε γίγνεσθαι θῆλυ καὶ ἄρρεν, καὶ διὰ τί τὸ μὲν θῆλυ τῷ πατρὶ πολλάκις ὅμοιον τὸ δ᾽ ἄρρεν τῇ μητρί, καὶ πάλιν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς προγόνους ὁμοιότητος … Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.89 τὰς δὲ ὁμοιότητας οἴεται συμβαίνειν παρὰ τὰς ἀπεψίας καὶ εὐπεψίας τῶν σπερμάτων (view of Aristotle himself, no doxography). cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Genit. 8, p. 7.480.4–16 Littré καὶ ὁκόθεν ἂν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς πλέον ἔλθῃ ἐς τὴν γονὴν ἢ τῆς γυναικὸς, κεῖνο κάλλιον ἔοικε τῷ πατρί· ὁκόθεν ἂν δὲ πλέον ἔλθῃ ἀπὸ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ σώματος, κεῖνο κάλλιον ἔοικε τῇ μητρί. ἔστι δὲ οὐκ ἀνυστὸν πάντα τῇ μητρὶ ἐοικέναι, τῷ δὲ πατρὶ μηδὲν, ἢ τὸ ἐναντίον τούτου, οὐδὲ μηδετέρῳ ἐοικέναι μηδέν· ἀλλ᾽ ἀμφοτέροισιν ἀνάγκη τίς ἐστιν ἐοικέναι τινὶ, εἴπερ ἄρα ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σωμάτων τὸ σπέρμα χωρέει ἐς τὸ τέκνον. ὁκότερος δ᾽ ἂν πλέον ξυμβάληται ἐς τὸ ἐοικέναι καὶ ἀπὸ πλεόνων χωρίων τοῦ σώματος, κείνῳ τὰ πλείονα ἔοικε· καὶ ἔστιν ὅτε θυγάτηρ γενομένη τὰ πλείονα ἔοικε κάλλιον τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρὶ, καὶ κοῦρος γενόμενος ἔστιν ὅτε κάλλιον ἔοικε τῇ μητρὶ ἢ τῷ πατρί. Καὶ ταῦτά μοι καὶ τοσαῦτα ἐστὶν ἱστόρια τῷ προτέρῳ λόγῳ, ὅτι ἔνεστι καὶ ἐν τῇ γυναικὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ κουρογονίη καὶ θηλυγονίη. Galen Sem. 2.2.1 162.1–6 De Lacy αὐτοὶ δ᾽ αὖθις ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἴδωμεν, εἴ τίς ποτέ ἐστιν αἰτία, δι᾽ ἣν τὸ εἶδος τοῦ ζώου κατὰ τὴν μητέρα γίνεται μᾶλλον, ἡ δ᾽ ὁμοιότης ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλῳ τῶν γονέων. εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὅτι μάλιστα σπερμαίνει τὸ θῆλυ καὶ γόνιμον σπερμαίνει, ἀλλ᾽ οὔπω γε πλέον ἢ γονιμώτερον τοῦ ἄῤῥενος. ἐχρῆν οὖν ἀεὶ κρατεῖσθαι μὲν τὸ θηλυκὸν σπέρμα, κρατεῖν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἄῤῥεν, ὥστε καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ καὶ τὴν τοῦ εἴδους ἐργάζεσθαι καὶ τὴν τῆς ὁμοιότητος ἐπικράτησιν. see also Sem. 2.1.39–40 154.7–11 cited on ch. 5.12. Anonymus medicus De generatione et semine 17–18 Ideler καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων τὸ σπέρμα ἰσχυρὸν ἔλθοι, ἄρρεν γίνεται τὸ παιδίον, καὶ εἰ μὲν ἡ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς γονὴ πλέον ἔλθοι, τῷ πατρὶ ὅμοιον ἔοικε τὸ παιδίον. (18) ἢν δὲ γονὴ τῆς γυναικὸς πλεονάσῃ, τῇ μητρὶ ἔοικεν ὅμοιον, καὶ εἰ μὲν πάλιν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφότερον ἡ γονὴ ἰσχυρὰ ὑπέλθοι, ἀμφοτέρων ἔοικεν ὅμοιον. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 4.3 769a1–5 διὰ τίνα μὲν οὖν αἰτίαν … καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐοικότα τοῖς γονεῦσι, θήλεά τε θήλεσι καὶ ἄρρενα ἄρρεσι, τὰ δ᾽ ἀνάπαλιν θήλεά τε τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἄρρενα τῇ μητρί, καὶ ὅλως τὰ μὲν τοῖς προγόνοις ἔοικότα τὰ δ᾽ οὐθενί, καὶ ταῦτα καὶ καθ᾽ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα καὶ τῶν μορίων ἕκαστον, διώρισται περὶ πάντων. GA 769a7–8 διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ὅμοια καὶ ἀνόμοια γίγνεται τοῖς γονεῦσιν. 769a24 διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἐοικὸς γίγνεται τοῖς προγόνοις. GA 4.3 769a27 περὶ τῆς ὁμοιότητος. cf. GA 4.3 769b6–7 τῆς πρὸς τοὺς προγόνους ὁμοιότητος. cf. Pliny Nat. 1 Index Liber VII similitudinum exempla. Galen Sem. 2.5.1, p. 178.16–17 De Lacy ἀπορία δ᾽ οὐ μικρὰ διαδέχεται αὐτὸν τὸν λόγον ὑπὲρ τῆς κατὰ τὰ μόρια τῶν ἐκγόνων πρὸς τοὺς γεννήσαντας ὁμοιότητος. §1 Empedocles: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Genit. 8 (cited above). Aristotle GA 4.3 769a17 (cited above). §2 Parmenides: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Vict. 1.28–29 (but characteristics rather than sex; similarly Parmenides fr. 28B18 DK). §3 Stoics: Papyrus Vindobonensis 29447, 29464, 29829, 29883 fr. VI recto p. 94 Sanz (text at Metzler 2010, 184) καὶ αἰτιολ[ογοῦσιν τὴν τοῦ ἐμβρύου

1859

1860

liber 5 caput 11

ὁ]μοιότη[τα] ὄν[τως] πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ἢ [τινὰ πρὸς γένους τοῦ πατρὸ]ς ἢ πρὸς γένους τῆς μητρός· φασὶ[ν δὲ, ὅτι κ]ρα[τοῦντο]ς τοῦ γυναικείου σπέρματος ἡ ὁ[μοιότ]ης τῆς γυναικὸς ἤ τινος τῶν πρὸς αἵματος [αὐτῆς] ἐγγίνεται τῶι ἐμβρύωι, εἰ δὲ τὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς σ[πέρμα κρα]τήσειεν, ἡ ὁμοιότης ἐπὶ τὸν πατέρα ἤ τινα [τῶν πρ]ὸς γένους αὐτῶι παραγίνεται. cf. anonymi at Arist. GA 4.3 769a27–36 (cited above). But note Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.159 (Stoic doxography) τὸ δὲ τῆς θηλείας (sc. σπέρμα) ἄγονον ἀποφαίνονται. also Censorinus 5.4 utrumne ex patris tantum modo semine partus nascatur, ut Diogenes (64A27 DK) et Hippon (38A13 DK) Stoicique (—) scripserunt. see further texts cited on ch. 5.5, and also texts of Soranus and Galen pertaining to A 5.12.2.

Liber 5 Caput 12 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 906E; DG p. 423a9–25 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 116; p. 642.20–26 Diels; pp. 361–368 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 226–227 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 114.1–2, 11–13, p. 62 Westerink SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.8, p. 1.296.6–7 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ιβʹ. Πῶς ἄλλοις γίνονται ὅμοιοι οἱ γεννώμενοι καὶ οὐ τοῖς γονεῦσιν (P,cf.S) §1 οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι τῶν ἰατρῶν τυχικῶς καὶ αὐτομάτως, ὅταν διαψυγῇ τὸ σπέρμα καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τὸ τῆς γυναικός, ἀνόμοια γίνεσθαι τὰ παιδία. (P1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τῇ κατὰ τὴν σύλληψιν φαντασίᾳ τῆς γυναικὸς μορφοῦσθαι τὰ βρέφη· πολλάκις γὰρ ἀνδριάντων καὶ εἰκόνων ἠράσθησαν γυναῖκες, καὶ ὅμοια τούτοις ἀπέτεκον. (P2) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ συμπαθείᾳ τῆς διανοίας κατὰ ῥευμάτων εἰσκρίσεις καὶ ἀκτίνων ⟨ἢ καὶ⟩ εἰδώλων γίνεσθαι τὰς ἄλλων ὁμοιότητας. (P3) §1 medici —; §2 Empedocles 31A81 DK; §3 Stoici SVF 2.753 titulus ὅμοιοι] ὅμοια PG ‖ γίνονται ὅμοιοι] inv. SL-ind ‖ οἱ γεννώμενοι PB(I-index), cf. τὰ γεννώμενα PG, viele von den Geborenen Q : non hab. PB(I–III:AE) ‖ καὶ οὐ τοῖς γονεῦσιν PBQ : deest in PG ‖ al. PPs Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων αἱ ὁμοιώσεις … §1 [3] αὐτομάτως PB : ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου PG ‖ ὅταν PGQ(ut vid.) : ἐκ τοῦ ὅταν PB, ἐκ τοῦ del. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ διαψυγῇ PB(II)G : διαψυχῇ PB(I,III:α) : διαψυχθῇ PB(III:AE) : ausgetrocknet und abkühlt Q §2 [6] τὴν] om. PB(II) ‖ φαντασίᾳ PBQG(Nic) : ὄψει τε καὶ φαντασίᾳ PG(mss.) ‖ [7] ἀνδριάντων καὶ εἰκόνων PB(I,II)G : εἰκόνων καὶ ἀνδριάντων PB(III)Q ‖ γυναῖκες] om. PG §3 [9] οἱ Στωικοὶ PBGQ : immo Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος, vid. comm. infra ‖ συμπαθείᾳ PB : κατὰ συμπάθειαν PG ‖ post διανοίας lac. susp. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ κατὰ PB : καὶ PGQ ‖ ῥευμάτων PBG : al. Q ausgegossenen Materie (= καὶ ῥευμάτου ?) ‖ εἰσκρίσεις PB : εἴσκρισιν PG : κατὰ ἔκκρισιν PQ ut vid. (entsprechend der Aussendung Q) ‖ [10] ⟨ἢ καὶ⟩ scripsimus coni. Diels : οὐκ PBQ ‖ ἄλλων corr. Diels Mau Lachenaud : ἀλλήλων PBQ, om. PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 116 (~ tit.) Πῶς ἄλλοις ὅμοια γίνεται τὰ γεννώμενα (text Jas) 116.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι τῶν ἰατρῶν τυχικῶς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου, ὅταν διαψυγῇ τὸ σπέρμα καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τὸ τῆς γυναικός, ἀνόμοια γίνεσθαι τὰ παιδία. 116.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τῇ κατὰ τὴν σύλληψιν φαντασίᾳ τῆς γυναικὸς μορφοῦσθαι τὰ βρέφη· πολλάκις γὰρ ἀνδριάντων καὶ εἰκόνων ἠράσθησαν καὶ ὅμοια τούτοις τετόκασιν. 116.3 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ κατὰ συμπάθειαν τῆς διανοίας καὶ ῥευμάτων καὶ ἀκτίνων εἴσκρισιν γίγνεσθαι τὰς ὁμοιότητας.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_137

5

10

1862

liber 5 caput 12

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 114.1–2, 11–13 Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων αἱ ὁμοιώσεις καὶ αἱ πρὸς τούτους ἀνομοιότητες (~ tit.) πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς φαντασίαν ἐν τῷ τίκτειν λαβούσης τοῦδε ἢ τῆσδε, πρὸς τὸ φαντασθὲν ἀπεικάζεται τὸ γεννώμενον (~ P2). Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 5.11 Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων ὁμοιώσεις καὶ τῶν προγόνων. §1 A 5.7.1–2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίνεσθαι παρὰ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα· … Παρμενίδης ἀντιστρόφως … A 5.11.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁμοιότητα γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ ἐπικράτειαν τῶν σπερματικῶν γόνων, ἀνομοιότητα δὲ τῆς ἐν τῷ σπέρματι θερμασίας ἐξατμισθείσης. §3 A 4.13.1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος κατὰ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν οἴονται τὸ ὁρατικὸν συμβαίνειν πάθος. A 4.13.11 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ πρὸς τὸ διὰ τῶν ἀκτίνων καὶ πρὸς τὸ διὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ἐκδοχὰς παρέχεται. A 4.14.2 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὰς κατοπτρικὰς ἐμφάσεις γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ἐνστάσεις.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses All three main witnesses record three doxai. Despite the doubts of scholars, to be discussed below, the three lemmata should be retained and the third doxa should not be broken into two. See further the discussion below at D(c). Ps appends a brief reference to the second lemma to his chapter combining the questions of chs. 5.11 and 5.12. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The chapter’s subject, which continues from the previous chapter, is not separately treated in any of the witnesses to the proximate tradition, including Censorinus and Lucretius. (2) Sources. The subject of the dissimilarity of children in relation to their parents and other ancestors is separately noted by Aristotle as part of his discussion in GA 4.3. He mentions it three times as part of a continuum of similarity/dissimilarity, first to father and mother, then to other progenitors, then to human beings in general, and ending with the case of monstrous births that involve non-human features (texts below section E(b) General texts). In the doxographical section at 769a7–b3 the question of dissimilarity is also briefly mentioned in the report on the first kind of explanation (attributed to ‘some of the physiologoi’) with the additional comment that the reason given is uncon-

liber 5 caput 12

1863

vincing (769a13 οὐδετέρῳ γίγνεσθαι ὅμοιον). However, none of the doxai found in A can be linked back to Aristotle’s discussion. The author of the Hippocratic treatise Genit. in the passage cited on ch. 5.11 on similarities to parents argues that it is not possible for a child not to look like either of its parents in all its features. C Chapter Heading In contrast to the chapter heading of the twin chapter 5.11, A reverts to the formulation with πῶς + the verb γίγνομαι, which he also used in chs. 5.6–8 & 10. For the sake of brevity the heading also omits the reference to ‘the ancestors’. On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. The heading for this chapter is almost identical to that found in the tradition of P, but there are no positive grounds for thinking it is interpolated from there. D Analysis a Context The chapter forms a pair with ch. 5.11, with the present chapter focusing on dissimilarity from rather than similarity to parents. As noted above, Aristotle studies both aspects within the single chapter (as does Psellus). In the opening doxa of ch. 5.11 (Empedocles) too, both similarities and dissimilarities are explained. But A has decided to split the subject up into two twin chapters, which at least as far as their chapter headings are concerned, form a neat contrasting pair. b Number–Order of Lemmata Given the lack of parallels in the doxographical literature, it is perhaps unlikely that the chapter had more than the three doxai preserved in the tradition of P. On the other hand, Aristotle’s doxographical section at GA 4.3 769a7–b3 hints at earlier discussions which might have provided additional material that has gone lost. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter falls into two sections, which form a kind of diaeresis. (1) The first doxa, attributed to ‘the majority of the doctors’, gives a general physiological explanation involving the cooling of both the male and female semen, so that (we presume) the offspring resemble neither of the parents. The theory of the causality of heat and cold in sex determination is attributed to Empedocles and Parmenides in A 5.7.1–2, but this is in a protological context (cf. Aristotle GA 4.1 764a1–7). In addition heat is invoked to explain Empedocles’ views on similarity and dissimilarity to forebears in 5.11.1. The attribution here most likely refers to the Hellenistic doctors, starting with Diocles (who is labelled ὁ ἰατρός in 5.9.1).

1864

liber 5 caput 12

The introduction of the name-label with the particle μέν would appear to introduce a contrast with other views. But no δέ follows (none of the witnesses record it). The remaining doxai adopt a quite different approach. (2) The remaining two doxai give as explanation various psychological factors involving thought processes. The view attributed to Empedocles (§2) differs tout court from the explanation given in A 5.11.1. It invokes the role of the φαντασία on the part of the woman when she conceived, as illustrated by popular tales such as the story of the Cyprian king mentioned by Soranus in his Gynaecia; see Gourevich (1987) and other references in the learned note at Lachenaud ad loc. (texts cited below section E(b)§2). The final part of the chapter is difficult. Diels determined that the third lemma as found in the witnesses could not be accepted as it stands. For the Stoics an explanation in terms of a ‘fellow-feeling of the mind’ is not totally implausible, though it cannot be confirmed by any other texts (and the term συμπάθεια is usually used in a cosmological context). But the remainder of the lemma uses a wholly different atomistic terminology, which can hardly be attributed to the Stoics. He suggested ad loc. that this last section is better attributed to ‘Empedocles or the Democriteans’ and pointed out terminological resemblances with A 4.13.1 and 4.14.1. Von Arnim includes only the doxa up to the word διανοίας in his collection of Stoic fragments (SVF 2.753). What Diels and his followers failed to observe is that the terminology of the entire passage so closely resembles what we find in Epicurus’ account of the process of vision in the Epistula ad Herodotum that it must be suspected that this is what the doxa is at least partly based upon (for further use of material from his letters see chs. 1.20.2, 2.7.3, Commentary ad loc. and the discussion at Runia 2018, 395). In the following extract, D.L. 10.48–50, the parallel terms are printed in bold (for reasons that will become clear we have added a term from the previous doxa as well): πρός τε τούτοις ὅτι ἡ γένεσις τῶν εἰδώλων ἅμα νοήματι συμβαίνει· καὶ γὰρ ῥεῦσις ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων τοῦ ἐπιπολῆς συνεχής … οὐθὲν γὰρ τούτων ἀντιμαρτυρεῖται ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν, ἂν βλέπῃ τις τίνα τρόπον τὰς ἐναργείας, τίνα καὶ τὰς συμπαθείας ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀνοίσει. (49) δεῖ δὲ καὶ νομίζειν ἐπεισιόντος τινὸς ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν τὰς μορφὰς ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς καὶ διανοεῖσθαι· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐναποσφραγίσαιτο τὰ ἔξω τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν τοῦ τε χρώματος καὶ τῆς μορφῆς διὰ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ μεταξὺ ἡμῶν τε κἀκείνων, οὐδὲ διὰ τῶν ἀκτίνων ἢ ὧν δήποτε ῥευμάτων ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα παραγινομένων, οὕτως ὡς τύπων τινῶν ἐπεισιόντων ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων ὁμοχρόων τε καὶ ὁμοιομόρφων κατὰ τὸ ἐναρμόττον μέγεθος εἰς τὴν ὄψιν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν, ὠκέως ταῖς φοραῖς χρωμένων, (50) εἶτα διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ συνεχοῦς τὴν φαντασίαν ἀποδι-

liber 5 caput 12

1865

δόντων καὶ τὴν συμπάθειαν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου σῳζόντων κατὰ τὸν ἐκεῖθεν σύμμετρον ἐπερεισμὸν ἐκ τῆς κατὰ βάθος ἐν τῷ στερεμνίῳ τῶν ἀτόμων πάλσεως. καὶ ἣν ἂν λάβωμεν φαντασίαν ἐπιβλητικῶς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἢ τοῖς αἰσθητηρίοις εἴτε μορφῆς εἴτε συμβεβηκότων, μορφή ἐστιν αὕτη τοῦ στερεμνίου, γινομένη κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς πύκνωμα ἢ ἐγκατάλειμμα τοῦ εἰδώλου … The only term that is not found is εἴσκρισις, a terminological innovation first recorded in Philo and also found in the doxa on vision at A 4.13.1. Admittedly two of the terms—ἀκτῖνες and ῥεύματα—are used negatively to refer to other theories, but that will not have stopped the doxographer from amplifying the epistemological breadth of his account (there was nothing to gain from limiting the kinds of particle stream; for ῥεῦμα see D.L. 10.53 on hearing). Especially interesting is the use of συμπάθεια in this context, indicating the co-affection between the object and the perceiving mind. The epistemology, with its ‘physical’ connection between the object of contemplation and the perceiver suits the context perfectly (note that in the example in Soranus the woman is actually compelled to look at the beautiful images). Note also that the concept of the ‘impression’ (φαντασία), which is the only philosophical term in the Empedoclean doxa, also occurs in the Epicurean passage above. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the terminology of all but the first doxa has atomist antecedents. Moreover there is no need to divide the final doxa into two parts. The name-label οἱ Στωικοί is likely to be a mistake, perhaps because it was thought that the term συμπαθεία was specifically Stoic (it occurs elsewhere in A only ch. 1.18 in a problematic text from Aristotle on the Pythagoreans that most likely derives from AD). The mistake is more likely to have been made by A than P. This means that we should preserve the namelabel in the text. There is also no need to postulate a lacuna, as done by all the editors since Diels. As for the original name-label(s), with the parallels at A 4.13.1, 5.5.1, 5.16.2 and 5.20.2 in mind, we consider Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος the most likely candidates. The final two doxai thus form a pair, with the second introducing a philosophical doctrine which explains as it were the possibility envisaged in the Empedocles doctrine. The diaeresis thus covers the two views of a chance result with a physiological basis and one that has an epistemological background. The parallels with the doxa at A 4.13.1 are instructive (but see the Commentary ad loc. on the difficulties of the text), revealing a interesting alignment between the account of vision in Book 4 and a instance in Book 5 where an account of vision must be presumed.

1866

liber 5 caput 12

d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The formula οἱ πλεῖστοι plus genitive for a name-label is found elsewhere only at A 2.25.4 (Posidonius and the majority of the Stoics). §3 There seems no reason why A should distinguish between streams and rays on the one hand and eidola on the other, especially when the latter term is the key one for atomist epistemology. We therefore follow Diels in emending the passage. His conjecture ἢ καί is very suitable, because it implies that the second alternative is climactic (cf. Denniston 1954, 306). e Other Evidence As noted above in section B, there seem to be no parallels for a separate treatment of the dissimilarity of progeny to their parents, in contrast to the way that Aristotle and also the author of the Hippocratic Genit. (followed by Galen) integrate this possibility into the full discussion of the topic. Given the general interest of the theme, it is not so surprising that the doxographer includes a more ‘folksy’ element. E b

Further Related Texts Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 4.3 767a36–b7 αἱ δ᾽ αὐταὶ αἰτίαι καὶ τοῦ τὰ μὲν ἐοικότα γίγνεσθαι τοῖς τεκνώσασι τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐοικότα, … τὰ δ᾽ οὐθενὶ τῶν συγγενῶν ὅμως δ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ γέ τινι, τὰ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ τὴν ἰδέαν ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη τέρατι. καὶ γὰρ ὁ μὴ ἐοικὼς τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἤδη τρόπον τινὰ τέρας ἐστίν· παρεκβέβηκε γὰρ ἡ φύσις ἐν τούτοις ἐκ τοῦ γένους τρόπον τινά (also 768b5–13). GA 4.3 768b25–33 ἐξίσταται δὲ τὸ πάσχον καὶ οὐ κρατεῖται ἢ δι᾽ ἔλλειψιν δυνάμεως τοῦ πέττοντος καὶ κινοῦντος ἢ διὰ πλῆθος καὶ ψυχρότητα τοῦ πεττομένου καὶ διοριζομένου· τῇ μὲν γὰρ κρατοῦν τῇ δὲ οὐ κρατοῦν ποιεῖ πολύμορφον τὸ συνιστάμενον, οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀθλητῶν συμβαίνει διὰ τὴν πολυφαγίαν· διὰ πλῆθος γὰρ τροφῆς οὐ δυναμένης τῆς φύσεως κρατεῖν ὥστ᾽ ἀνάλογον αὔξειν καὶ διαμένειν ὁμοίαν τὴν μορφήν, ἀλλοῖα γίγνεται τὰ μέρη καὶ σχεδὸν ἐνίοθ᾽ οὕτως ὥστε μηθὲν ἐοικέναι τῷ πρότερον. GA 4.3 769a4–5 καὶ ὅλως τὰ μὲν τοῖς προγόνοις ἔοικε τὰ δ᾽ οὐθενί. GA 4.3 769a7–19 (cited on ch. 5.11). GA 4.3 769b3–10 οὐ ῥᾴδιον δὲ οὐδὲ τρόπον ἕνα τῆς αἰτίας ἀποδιδόντας τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν περὶ πάντων· … ἔτι δὲ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ὁτὲ μὲν ἄνθρωπος μὲν τούτων (sc. γονέων καὶ προγόνων) δ᾽ οὐθενὶ προσόμοιος, ὁτὲ δὲ προϊὸν οὕτω τέλος οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλὰ ζῷόν τι μόνον φαίνεται τὸ γιγνόμενον, ἃ δὴ καὶ λέγεται τέρατα. cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Genit. 8 (cited on ch. 5.11). also Galen Sem. 2.1.39–40, p. 154.7–11 De Lacy ὅτι μὲν γὰρ τοῦ διαπλάττοντος ἔργον ἐστὶν, ὅμοιον ἢ ἀνόμιον ἐργάσασθαι τὸ ἔγγονον ὁποτέρῳ τῶν γεννησάντων, οὐδεὶς ἀγνοεῖ. τὰ δ᾽ ὁμοιούμενα παιδία τῇ μητρὶ διὰ τὴν τροφὴν ὁμοιοῦσθαί φασι, κᾄπειτα ἐντεῦθεν ἀποτείνουσι δολιχὸν τοῦ λόγου, δεικνύντες, ὅσαι διὰ τροφῆς ἀλλοιώσεις ἐγίγνοντο καὶ ζώοις καὶ φυτοῖς. εἶτ᾽ οὐκ αἰσθάνονται μηδεμίαν ὧν λέγουσιν ἀλλοιώσεων ἐπιδεῖξαι δυνάμενοι τὸ εἶδος ἐξαλλάττουσαν.

liber 5 caput 12 Chapter heading: — §2 Empedocles: cf. Porphyry ad Gaur. 5, p. 41.22 Kalbfleisch ὡμολόγηται γὰρ ὡς πολλά τε τῶν ζῴων, ἀτὰρ δὴ καὶ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ὀχείαις ὧν ἂν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους τὰ εἴδη ταῖς φαντασίαις ἐγκολπίσωνται, ἐκείνοις ὁμοιότατα τίκτειν. Soranus Gyn. 1.39, p. 27.28–33 Ilberg τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ποιὸν τῆς ψυχῆς κατάστημα φέρει τινὰς περὶ τοὺς τύπους τῶν συλλαμβανομένων μεταβολάς; οὕτως ἐν τῷ συνουσιάζειν πιθήκους ἰδοῦσαί τινες πιθηκομόρφους ἐκύησαν· ὁ δὲ τῶν Κυπρίων τύραννος κακόμορφος ὢν εἰς ἀγάλματα περικαλλῆ κατὰ τοὺς πλησιασμοὺς τὴν γυναῖκα βλέπειν ἀναγκάζων {ὁ} πατὴρ εὐμόρφων ἐγένετο παίδων. cf. also Galen Ther. 11, p. 14.253.15–254.7 K. οὐ γὰρ μόνοις τοῖς γεννῶσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ προγόνοις τισὶ τὰ τικτόμενα ὅμοια γίνεται. ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ λόγος τὶς ἀρχαῖος ἐμήνυσεν ὅτι τῶν ἀμόρφων τὶς δυνατὸς εὔμορφον θέλων γεννῆσαι παῖδα, ἐποίησε γράψαι ἐν πλατεῖ ξύλῳ εὐειδὲς ἄλλο παιδίον, καὶ ἔλεγε τῇ γυναικὶ συμπλεκόμενος ἐκείνῳ τῷ τύπῳ τῆς γραφῆς ἐμβλέπειν. ἡ δὲ ἀτενὲς βλέπουσα καὶ ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅλον τὸν νοῦν ἔχουσα οὐχὶ τῷ γεννήσαντι, ἀλλὰ τῷ γεγραμμένῳ ὁμοίως ἀπέτεκε τὸ παιδίον, τῆς ὄψεως, οἶμαι, διαπεμπούσης τῇ φύσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὄγκοις τισὶ τοῦ γεγραμμένου τοὺς τύπους. §3 Stoics: cf. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 48–50 text cited above Commentary D(c).

1867

Liber 5 Caput 13 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 8 verso p. 80 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 906F–907A; p. 424a1–27 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 117; p. 643.1–7 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 226–229 Daiber SL: ms. Stobaei (titulus solus), deest in editione Wachsmuth, sed cf. pinacem ap. Wachsmuth (1882) 17 et vid. Diels DG 271, Elter (1880) 73

Titulus ιγʹ. Πῶς στεῖραι γίνονται αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ ἄγονοι οἱ ἄνδρες (P,cf.S) §1 οἱ ἰατροὶ στείρας γίνεσθαι παρὰ τὴν μήτραν ἢ παρὰ τὸ πυκνοτέραν εἶναι ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀραιοτέραν ἢ παρὰ τὸ σκληροτέραν ἢ παρά τινας ἐπιπωρώσεις ἢ σαρκώσεις ἢ παρὰ μικροφυΐαν ἢ παρ᾽ ἀτροφίαν ἢ παρὰ καχεξίαν ἢ παρὰ τὸ διαστρέφεσθαι τὸν σχηματισμὸν ἢ διὰ παρασπασμόν. (P1) §2 Διοκλῆς ἀγόνους τοὺς ἄνδρας ἢ παρὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ ὅλως ἐνίους σπέρμα προΐεσθαι ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔλαττον τοῦ δέοντος· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἄγονον εἶναι τὸ σπέρμα ἢ κατὰ παράλυσιν τῶν μορίων ἢ κατὰ λοξότητα τοῦ καυλοῦ, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν, ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς μήτρας. (P2) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ αἰτιῶνται τὰς ἀσυμφύλους εἰς ἑκάτερον τῶν πλησιαζόντων δυνάμεις τε καὶ ποιότητας· αἷς ὅταν συμβῇ χωρισθῆναι μὲν ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων συνελθεῖν δ᾽ ἑτέροις ὁμοφύλοις, συνεκρατήθη τὸ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ βρέφος τελεσιουργεῖται. (P3) §1 medici —; §2 Diocles fr. 43 Van der Eijk; §3 Stoici SVF 2.752 titulus αἱ PB(I,II)Q : om. PB(III)G ‖ ἄγονοι οἱ ἄνδρες (οἱ om. PB(III))] ἄνδρες ἄγονοι PG : al. SL Περὶ στειρῶν γυναικῶν καὶ ἀνδρῶν §1 [2] post στείρας add. φασὶ PG ‖ [3] παρὰ1 … σκληροτέραν PBQ (sed πυκνοτέραν et ἀραιοτέραν inv. PQ) : παρὰ τὸ τὴν μήτραν στενωτέραν εἶναι ἢ ἀραιοτέραν PG ‖ [3–4] ἢ παρά3 … καχεξίαν ἢ om. PG ‖ [4] μικροφυΐαν coni. Kronenberg, cf. Kleinheit ihres Umfang Q (= PQ σμικρότητα susp. Daiber cf. 5.14.2) : μικροθυμίαν PB ‖ ἀτροφίαν PB : Verderbtheid ihrer Nährung Q (= PQ κακοτροφίαν susp. Daiber) ‖ [5] παρὰ τὸ διαστρέφεσθαι PBQ : διάστροφον ἔχειν PG ‖ διὰ παρασπασμόν PBQ : παρὰ τὸ παρέπεσθαι δυσκρασίαν μοχθηράν PG §2 [6] ἀγόνους τοὺς ἄνδρας PBQ : δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν PG ‖ ἐνίους σπέρμα] γονὴν, sed post προΐεσθαι hab. PG ‖ [7] post ἔλαττον add. PG εἶναι ‖ [8] ἢ κατὰ παράλυσιν] καὶ καθάπερ ἔκλυσιν PG ‖ [8–10] ἢ κατὰ2 … μήτρας desunt in PG §3 [11] τὰς ἀσυμφύλους PBQ : συμφύτους PG ‖ [12–14] αἷς … τελεσιουργεῖται desunt in PG ‖ [12] αἷς PB Mau : οἷς Wilamowitz Lachenaud, cf. einer von ihnen Q ‖ [13] συνεκρατήθη PB(I,II,III:α) Mau : συνεκράθη PB(III:AE), συνκραθῆναι coni. Diels ‖ [14] τελεσιουργεῖται PB : τελεσιουργεῖσθαι coni. Diels

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_138

5

10

liber 5 caput 13

1869

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 8 verso = P §1 [ οι ϊατ[ροι στειρας γινεσθαι παρα την μη] τραν η̣ [παρα το πυκνοτεραν ειναι η πα] ρ̣α̣ [ ps.Galenus HPh c. 117 (~ tit.) Πῶς στεῖραι γίνονται γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες ἄγονοι (text Diels) 117.1 (~ P1) οἱ ἰατροὶ στείρας φασὶ γίγνεσθαι παρὰ τὸ τὴν μήτραν στενωτέραν εἶναι ἢ ἀραιοτέραν ἢ διάστροφον ἔχειν τὸν σχηματισμὸν ἢ παρὰ τὸ παρέπεσθαι δυσκρασίαν μοχθηράν. 117.2 (~ P2) Διοκλῆς δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἢ διὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ ὅλως προΐεσθαι γονὴν ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔλαττον εἶναι τοῦ δέοντος ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἄγονον εἶναι καὶ καθάπερ ἔκλυσιν τῶν μορίων. 117.3 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ αἰτιῶνται τὰς συμφύτους εἰς ἑκάτερον τῶν πλησιαζόντων δυνάμεις τε καὶ ποιότητας. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 5.9 Διὰ τί γυνὴ πολλάκις συνουσιάζουσα οὐ συλλαμβάνει. A 5.14 Διὰ τί αἱ ἡμίονοι στεῖραι. §1 A 5.9.3 Ἐρασίστρατος παρὰ τὴν μήτραν, ὅταν τύλους ἔχῃ καὶ σαρκώσεις ἢ ἀραιοτέρα ᾖ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἢ μικροτέρα. §2 A 5.9.1 Διοκλῆς ὁ ἰατρὸς ἢ παρὰ τὸ μηδ᾽ ὅλως ἐνίας σπέρμα προΐεσθαι ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔλαττον τοῦ δέοντος ἢ διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ζῳοποιητικὸν οὐκ ἔστιν· ἢ διὰ θερμασίας ἢ ψύξεως ἢ ὑγρασίας ἢ ξηρότητος ἔνδειαν ἢ κατὰ παράλυσιν τῶν μορίων. sed cf. etiam A 5.9.2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ κατὰ λοξότητα τοῦ καυλοῦ, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς μήτρας. A 5.14.3 Διοκλῆς … καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι διὰ τὰς τοιαύτας αἰτίας (cf. 5.14.2) καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας εἶναι στείρας. §3 A 5.9.2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ κατὰ λοξότητα τοῦ καυλοῦ, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς μήτρας.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The tradition of P preserves three quite substantial doxai, which are considerably altered and reduced by G. The papyrus has only a snippet, which does

1870

liber 5 caput 13

include the name-label of the first doxa. S preserves only the chapter heading, on which see section C below. Ps utilized the parallel chapter 5.9 and passes this chapter by. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. In contrast to the parallel chapter 5.9 this chapter specifically addresses the infertility of both women and men. As noted at Commentary B on that chapter, various sources, both proximate and more distant, address this topic. The main one belonging to the proximate tradition, ps.Galen Def.Med. 442, divides the subject into two, dealing (unusually) first with the causes of women’s sterility, followed by those in the case of the men. Lucretius in a poetically rich passage at DRN 4.1233–1262 selects only a single reason, namely that the man’s semen is either too thin or too thick (cf. Hippo’s theory on semen at 5.7.3, Cens. 6.4). (2) Sources. In two cases, Aristotle in HA 10 and the late sixth cent. author Aëtius of Amida, the topic is divided into three, with also the interaction between male and female being proffered as a cause. As we shall see below, this is relevant for the structure of the present chapter. For the various texts see section E(a)&(b) below. Ch. 26 of Aëtius of Amida’s Book 16 on gynaecology gives a long account of the causes of ἀσυλληψία (for the term cf. the heading of ch. 5.6). The method of presentation shows some similarities with A, esp. in the lengthy listing of causes using either infinitival or prepositional phrases. But the passage does not possess any doxographical aspects at all, as is also the case for the text in ps.Galen Def.Med. Indeed, remarkably, the text in A is the only doxography with named proponents on the subject that we have been able to locate. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading beginning with πῶς continues the sequence of chapters seeking the cause. See our Commentary above on chs. 5.2 and 5.6. In the index of the Laurentianus ms. of S, however, we find the alternative heading Περὶ στειρῶν γυναικῶν καὶ ἀνδρῶν, i.e. using the umbrella type Περὶ x which is the most common in A. The change of the heading is certainly the work of S, who uses chapter headings with Περί almost exclusively in Book 1 of the Eclogae. It is thus not interpolated from P and it was a mistake on the part of Wachsmuth to leave this chapter heading out in ch. 1.42 of his edition of that book (as he also did in the case of ch. 5.9).

liber 5 caput 13

1871

D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on from chs. 6–8, 10–12, which have discussed various themes related to conception. It and the following chapter on the sterility of mules now discuss the problem of when conception does not take place. The exception in this logical sequence is ch. 9, which virtually doubles up on the present chapter and seems misplaced. See the discussion further below under section D(c). b Number–Order of Lemmata The three lemmata with their ordered sequence give an impression of completeness. But in the absence of doxographical parallels, and taking into account that many other causes are given in other sources (e.g. Aëtius of Amida), we cannot be certain that there were not further doxai. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The three doxai are presented in an ordered sequence. (1) First the causes of female sterility are given. These concentrate on the role of the womb. As in Α 5.9.1 a long sequence of possible causes are given, nine in total, but all related one way or another to the condition of the womb. (On the conjecture μικροφυΐαν, to be preferred to the mss. μικροθυμίαν see section D(d)§1.) The doxa is thus parallel to A 5.9.3, but there only four causes are given (tumors, fleshy growths, being lighter or smaller than usual). All of these four more or less recur in this chapter (tumors are not wholly the same as calluses). The fact that A 5.9.3 is attributed to Erasistratus makes it likely that the name-label here, οἱ ἰατροὶ, at the very least includes the eminent Alexandrian doctor. The same must also be concluded for A 5.8.3, where the aetiology of a twisted womb recalls the final two causes in the present doxa. See further Runia (1999a) 223 = M–R 3.548. It is surprising that among the plethora of causes the heat or cold of the womb is not listed. This is one of the chief causes in other texts (ps.Galen, Corpus Hippocraticum, Aëtius of Amida), though not in Aristotle. It is, however, mentioned in the parallel doxa at A 5.9.1 if our interpretation of that passage is correct; see Commentary D(c). (2) Next a list of six causes of male infertility is linked to the name-label of Diocles. These focus on the role of seed and the male member, but also on a mismatch of the male parts in relation to the womb. As discussed in our Commentary on ch. 5.9, the parallelism of this doxa with 5.9.1 & 2 taken together is unmistakeable; see the parallel columns with the two texts presented there. The key difference is that in ch. 5.9 the report is split in two and assigned two

1872

liber 5 caput 13

name-labels (Diocles, the Stoics). The first half enumerates female factors causing conception to be impeded, the second half male factors doing the same. In A 5.13.2 these are brought together and assigned to Diocles. Because this doxa assumes that females also have semen (cf. ch. 5.5), it is possible to convert the female factors in A 5.9.2 into male factors in 5.13.2 with very little change. Either A (or more likely his source) made the two reports deliberately parallel, or he (or the source) adapted the report for one sex so that it would work for the other. (3) The third doxa, assigned to the Stoics, now brings the female and male factors together and denotes their incompatibility as the cause. The factors themselves are described in vague terms (‘powers and qualities’). A look at parallel texts tells us why. Both Aristotle and Aëtius of Amida in the opening lines of their discussion mention that the cause can be due to both the partners (HA 633b12, Iatr. 16.29: texts below section E(b) General texts). One does not have to investigate the causes in detail: if there is a lack of συμμετρία or συμφωνία, the men should take a different partner and if a child is conceived, the problem is solved! The thought is the same in A, although the terminology is a little different (on ἀσυμφύλους see further below section D(d) on §3). The chapter thus exhibits the simplest of diaereses: sterility through female causes, through male causes, and through the incompatibility of male and female together. The scheme is an obvious one. It goes back to Aristotle, and it is also found as late at Aëtius of Amida in the sixth century. Because there is such a widely recognized multiplicity of causes (noted already by Aristotle at 746b21), it makes little sense to attribute their discovery or outline to a particular philosopher or physician. This is no doubt why no parallel doxographies with name-labels (even anonymi) can be found. But A does assign name-labels. The comparison with ch. 5.9, and particularly the different doxai attributed to the Stoics in A 5.9.2 and 5.13.3, demonstrates that these are quite likely arbitrary and certainly cannot be regarded as trustworthy. See further our discussion above on ch. 5.13 and Runia (1999a) 222–224 = M–R 3.547–549. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 In the long list of causes the one named παρὰ μικροθυμίαν in the mss. rouses suspicion. It appears to introduce a psychological component, which in itself is perfectly reasonable for the subject of the chapter but does not unlike the others relate well to the womb. Amazingly, the term μικροθυμία is a hapax legomenon in the whole of Greek literature. In light of Q’s translation infolge der Kleinheit ihres Umfang Daiber ad loc. plausibly suggested σμικροτήτα, adducing the use of the same term for the womb of mules in A 5.14.2. However, paleo-

liber 5 caput 13

1873

graphically this is not so likely. The brilliant conjecture of Kronenberg (1941) 41, μικροφυΐαν, appears to solve the problem. This word is also rare, but at least it occurs elsewhere, e.g. at Strabo 17.2.1 on pygmies, and is paleographically much more convincing. We have accordingly introduced it in into our text. §2 For G’s δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν we might compare exactly the same phrase in the final words of A 5.6.1, on which see the note ad loc. at Commentary D(d) §1[6]. It should be noted that P’s ἀγόνους τοὺς ἄνδρας, which occupies the same place as G’s δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν, echoes the ἄγονοι οἱ ἄνδρες of the chapter heading. It is possible that in G is these words have been epitomized away and that his δι᾽ ἀτονίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν may have reflect a richer version of P, and so go back to A (and to the Diocles fragment, pace Van der Eijk 2000–2001, 2.97, who suggests that G may have originally read δι᾽ ἀγονίαν). As noted by Van der Eijk (2000–2001) 2.97, the concept of ἀσυμμετρία (disproportion) as a cause of infertility is already found in Aristotle HA 10.4 636b9, GA 1.18 723a30, 4.2 767a23, 4.4 772a17. §3 The infinitives postulated by Diels for the final sentence are unnecessary. A quite often changes from oratio obliqua to oratio recta for no apparent reason. The term ἀσύμφυλος is quite uncommon and in the light of the parallel at Aëtius of Amida 16.29.38 (ἀσυμφώνως … διακείμενοι) one might consider changing ἀσυμφύλους to ἀσυμφώνους. But the term is picked up by ὁμοφύλοις a few lines later, and so must be retained. e Other Evidence Ps.Galen’s treatment in Def.Med. 442 is very brief. But we should note the recognition of multiple causes (πλεοναχῶς), which is such an obvious feature of A’s treatment (and also in Aëtius of Amida’s lengthy and detailed account). Similarly the parallelism which he sees between women and men (περὶ μέν … περὶ δέ) recalls to mind the parallelism which occurs in A in ch. 5.9 (even though the chapter is ostensibly about failure to conceive in women only) and ch. 5.13. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 442 cited above on ch. 5.9. Lucretius DRN 4.1240–1259 nam steriles nimium crasso sunt semine partim, / et liquido praeter iustum tenuique vicissim. / tenue locis quia non potis est adfigere adhaesum, / liquitur extemplo et revocatum cedit abortu. / crassius hinc porro quoniam concretius aequo / mittitur, aut non tam prolixo provolat ictu / aut penetrare locos aeque nequit aut penetratum / aegre admiscetur muliebri semine semen. / nam multum harmoniae Veneris differre videntur. / atque alias alii complent

1874

liber 5 caput 13

magis ex aliisque / succipiunt aliae pondus magis inque gravescunt. / et multae steriles Hymenaeis ante fuerunt / pluribus et nactae post sunt tamen unde puellos / suscipere et partu possent ditescere dulci. / et quibus ante domi fecundae saepe nequissent / uxoris parere, inventast illis quoque compar / natura, ut possent gnatis munire senectam. / usque adeo magni refert, ut semina possint / seminibus commisceri genitaliter apta / crassaque conveniant liquidis et liquida crassis. Chapter heading: cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r 9 (DG p. 233 Diels, from Def.Med. 442) ὅτι αἰτίαι ἀγονίας.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 2.7 746b16–24 ἔστι δὲ τὸ πρόβλημα καθόλου μὲν διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἄγονον ἢ ἄρρεν ἢ θῆλύ ἐστιν· εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες ἄγονοι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἐν τοῖς γένεσιν ἑκάστοις … τὰ δ᾽ αἴτια τῆς ἀγονίας ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων πλείω συμβαίνει. καὶ γὰρ ἐκ γενετῆς ὅταν πηρωθῶσι τοὺς τόπους τοὺς πρὸς τὴν μίξιν χρησίμους ἄγονοι γίγνονται καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες ὥστε τὰς μὲν μὴ ἡβᾶν τοὺς δὲ μὴ γενειᾶν ἀλλ᾽ εὐνουχίας διατελεῖν ὄντας … HA 10.1 633b12– 15 προϊούσης δὲ τῆς ἡλικίας ἀνδρὶ καὶ γυναικί, τοῦ μὴ γεννᾶν ἀλλήλοις συνόντας τὸ αἴτιον ὁτὲ μὲν ἐν ἀμφοῖν ἐστίν, ὁτὲ δ᾽ ἐν θατέρῳ μόνον. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ θήλεος δεῖ θεωρεῖν τὰ περὶ τὰς ὑστέρας ὅπως ἔχει … HA 10.4–5 636b6–13 ὅσαις δὲ τούτων μηδὲν ἐμπόδιον ᾖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχουσιν ὃν τρόπον δεῖν εἴρηται ἔχειν, ἂν μὴ ὁ ἀνὴρ αἴτιος ᾖ τῆς ἀτεκνίας, ἀμφότεροι μὲν δύνανται τεκνοῦσθαι, πρὸς ἀλλήλους δ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ ὦσι σύμμετροι τῷ ἅμα προΐεσθαι ἀλλὰ πολὺ διαφωνῶσιν, οὐκ ἔσονται τέκνα τούτοις. τοῦ μὲν οὖν εἰδέναι τὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αἴτια ἔστι μὲν καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα λαβεῖν· ἃ δὲ ῥᾴω μάλιστ᾽ ἂν φαίνοιτο, πρὸς ἄλλας πλησιάζων καὶ γεννῶν. cf. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit. 1.65 and Corpus Hippocraticum Mul. 213 both cited on ch. 5.9. also Aph. 5.62–63 ὁκόσαι (sc. women) ψυχρὰς καὶ πυκνὰς τὰς μήτρας ἔχουσιν, οὐ κυΐσκουσιν … (63) παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀῤῥένων· ἢ γὰρ διὰ τὴν ἀραιότητα τοῦ σώματος τὸ πνεῦμα ἔξω φέρεται πρὸς τὸ μὴ παραπέμπειν τὸ σπέρμα· ἢ διὰ τὴν πυκνότητα τὸ ὑγρὸν οὐ διαχωρέει ἔξω· ἢ διὰ τὴν ψυχρότητα οὐκ ἐκπυροῦται, ὥστε ἀθροίζεσθαι πρὸς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον· ἢ διὰ τὴν θερμασίην τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο γίνεται. see also Galen’s commentary on this text, Hipp.Aph. 17B.860–872 K. Aëtius of Amida Iatr. 16.29.1–44 Zervos Αἰτίαι ἀνδρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν δι᾽ ἃς οὐ οἰ παιδοποιοῦσι, καὶ θεραπεία καὶ σημεῖα συλλήψεως. ἀσυλληψία γίνεται ἢ περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα ἢ περὶ τὴν γυναῖκα ἢ καὶ περὶ ἀμφοτέρους. περὶ μὲν τὸν ἄνδρα ἢ τῷ διένθερμον σφόδρα καὶ οἱονεὶ πεφρυγμένον τὸ σπέρμα προΐεσθαι ἢ παρὰ τὸ κατάψυχρον ἢ παρὰ τὸ λεπτὸν καὶ ὑδατῶδες καὶ ἄτονον καὶ ἀσθενὲς τῇ δυνάμει εἶναι, ὁποῖον καὶ οἱ ὑπεργεγηρακότες ἐκκρίνουσιν, ἢ παρὰ τὸ παχὺ εἶναι ὑπὲρ τὸ δέον ἢ παρὰ τὸ ὑποσπαδιαίους εἶναι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἢ σμικρότατα ἔχειν τὰ αἰδοῖα καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύειν εἰς τὸ ἐντὸς τῆς μήτρας τὸ σπέρμα ἐξακοντίζειν, συμβαίνει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα καταπιμέλων εὔογκον τὴν κοιλίαν ἐχόντων, ἐμποδίζεσθαι τὸν τοῦ σπέρματος ἀκοντισμὸν ἐσωτάτω εἰς τὴν μήτραν γίνεσθαι. … περὶ δὲ τὴν γυναῖκα ἐμποδίζεσθαι τὴν κύησιν ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἔνθερμον καὶ πυρώδη εἶναι τὴν μήτραν ἢ κατάψυχρον καὶ κάθυγρον ἢ κατάξηρον καὶ αὐχμηρὰν ἢ καταπίμελον καὶ σαρκώδη ἢ ἄσαρκον καὶ λεπτὴν καὶ

liber 5 caput 13 ἀσθενῆ ἢ στενὴν καὶ σμικράν, ἢ παρὰ τὸ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἀγγεῖα μεμυκέναι ἢ ἐμπεφράχθαι ἢ ἀποτετυφλῶσθαι οὐλῆς γενομένης, ἢ παρὰ τὸ ὑμένας ἐπιπεφυκέναι τῷ στόματι τῆς ὑστέρας καὶ ἀτρήτους εἶναι καὶ τὸν τράχηλον σκολιὸν ἔχειν τὴν μήτραν, ἢ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς μεμυκέναι ἢ σφόδρα ἀνεῳγμένον εἶναι διὰ παντός, ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἕτερόν τι πάθος τὸ ἐφεξῆς ῥηθησόμενον εἶναι περὶ τὴν ὑστέραν. … μάλιστα δὲ γίγνεται ἀσυλληψία καὶ περὶ τὴν ἄθετον διάπλασιν τῆς γυναικός. … τάχα δέ τις καὶ ἄρρητος παρὰ τὰς προειρημένας αἰτίας ἐστὶ πρόφασις τοῦ μὴ κυΐσκεσθαι, αἱ δὲ ἐπίκαιροι αἰτίαι τοιαῦταί εἰσι· τῶν μὲν οὖν ἀνδρῶν ὅσοι διά τινα δίαιταν ἢ διαγωγὴν μοχθηρὰν τὸ σπέρμα φθείρουσι, τῇ μεταθέσει τῆς διαίτης ὑγιεινοτέρᾳ καὶ τεταγμένῃ ἀρωγῇ χρησάμενοι, γόνιμον ἕξουσι τὸ σπέρμα, καὶ οἱ ἀσυμφώνως πρὸς τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας διακείμενοι μεταλαβόντες ἄλλας, παιδοποιήσονται· ὑποσπαδιαῖοι χειρουργηθέντες καὶ οἱ γονορροϊκοὶ θεραπευθέντες παιδοποιήσουσιν·. οἱ δὲ τυφλωθέντες τοὺς σπερματικοὺς πόρους, οἷον συμβαίνει τισὶ τῶν λιθοτομουμένων, ἀνιάτως ἔχουσιν· ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ εὐνουχώδεις οὐκ ἀποκρίνουσι σπέρμα οὐδὲ οἱ στενόποροι ἐξακοντίζουσιν. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 2.7 746b16–18 cited above. Aëtius of Amida 16.29 cited above. §3 Stoics: cf. Galen Hipp.Epid. 2.30, p. 17.443 K. πρὸς τὸ τὴν γόνιμον γένεσιν ἀποτελεσθῆναι δεῖ ὁμόφυλα εἶναι τὰ συνίοντα καὶ ζευγνύναι τοὺς ὁμόλογον κρᾶσιν ἔχοντας εἰς γένεσιν ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας.

1875

Liber 5 Caput 14 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 907B; pp. 424a28–425a13 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 118; p. 643.8–14 Diels; pp. 368–377 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 228–229 Daiber SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.9, p. 1.296.9 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ιδʹ. Διὰ τί αἱ ἡμίονοι στεῖραι (P,cf.S) §1 Ἀλκμαίων τῶν ἡμιόνων τοὺς μὲν ἄρρενας ἀγόνους παρὰ τὴν λεπτότητα τῆς ‘θορῆς’, ὅ ἐστι σπέρματος, καὶ ψυχρότητα· τὰς δὲ θηλείας παρὰ τὸ μὴ ‘ἀναχάσκειν’ τὰς μήτρας, ὅ ἐστι ἀναστομοῦσθαι. οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὸς εἴρηκεν. (P1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς διὰ τὴν σμικρότητα καὶ ταπεινότητα καὶ στενότητα τῆς μήτρας, κατεστραμμένως προσπεφυκυίας τῇ γαστρί, μήτε τοῦ σπέρματος εὐθυβολοῦντος εἰς αὐτὴν μήτε, εἰ καὶ φθάσειεν, αὐτῆς ἐκδεχομένης. (P2) §3 Διοκλῆς δὲ μαρτυρεῖ αὐτῷ λέγων· ‘ἐν ταῖς ἀνατομαῖς πολλάκις ἑωράκαμεν τοιαύτην μήτραν τῶν ἡμιόνων’· καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι διὰ τὰς τοιαύτας αἰτίας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας εἶναι στείρας. (P3) §1 Alcmaeon 24B3 DK; §2 Empedocles 31A82 DK; §3 Diocles fr. 24 Van der Eijk §1 [2] μὲν PB : om. PG ‖ [3] θορῆς PB(I,III)G(Nic)Q : θοροῦ PB(II) : σαρκὸς PG(mss.) ‖ ὅ … σπέρματος PB : desunt in PGQ, ut glossema del. maluit Diels ‖ καὶ PGQ Diels VS : ἢ coni. Diels DG Mau Lachenaud : om. PB ‖ [3–5] παρὰ … εἴρηκεν] al. PG παρὰ τὸ ἄνω μὴ ἀνακύπτειν τὰς μήτρας ‖ [4] ὅ … ἀναστομοῦσθαι PB : desunt in PGQ, ut glossema del. maluit Diels §2 [6] καὶ ταπεινότητα PBQ : deest in PG ‖ στενότητα PBG : Enge und Gekrümmtheit Q ‖ [7] κατεστραμμένως PB : ἀπεστραμμένως PG ‖ γαστρί PBQ : σαρκί PG ‖ [8] μήτε … ἐκδεχομένης om. PG ‖ αὐτῆς ἐκδεχομένης PB(II,III) (inv. PB(III:E)) : αὐτῆς ἐνδεχομένης PB(I) §3 [10] μαρτυρεῖ αὐτῷ PB(I,III) : αὐτῷ μαρτυρεῖ PB(II) : αὐτῷ non hab. PGQ ‖ πολλάκις] om. PQ ‖ [10–11] ἑωράκαμεν PB : ἑωρακέναι PGQ ‖ [12] αἰτίας PBG : Grund Q ‖ τοιαύτας αἰτίας] αἰτίας ταύτας PG ‖ εἶναι στείρας PB : inv. PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 118 (~ tit.) Διὰ τί αἱ ἡμίονοι στεῖραι (text Jas) 118.1 (~ P1) Ἀλκμαίων τῶν ἡμιόνων τοὺς ἄρρενας ἀγόνους παρὰ τὴν λεπτότητα τῆς θορῆς καὶ ψυχρότητα, τὰς δὲ θηλείας παρὰ τὸ ἄνω μὴ ἀνακύπτειν τὰς μήτρας. 118.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ διὰ τὴν σμικρότητα καὶ στενότητα τῆς μήτρας ἀπεστραμμένως προσπεφυκυίας τῇ σαρκί. 118.3 (~ P3) Διοκλῆς δὲ μαρτυρεῖ λέγων πολλάκις ἑωρακέναι τοιαύτην μήτραν ἐν ταῖς ἀνατομαῖς τῶν ἡμιόνων καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι διὰ τὰς αἰτίας ταύτας καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας στείρας εἶναι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_139

5

10

liber 5 caput 14

1877

Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 5.9 Διὰ τί γυνὴ πολλάκις συνουσιάζουσα οὐ συλλαμβάνει. A 5.13 Πῶς στεῖραι γίνονται γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες ἄγονοι. §1 A 5.3.3 Ἀλκμαίων (sc. τὸ σπέρμα εἶναι) ἐγκεφάλου μέρος. §2 A 5.9.2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ κατὰ λοξότητα τοῦ καυλοῦ, μὴ δυναμένου τὸν γόνον εὐθυβολεῖν· ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἀσύμμετρον τῶν μορίων ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς μήτρας. A 5.9.3 Ἐρασίστρατος παρὰ τὴν μήτραν, ὅταν τύλους ἔχῃ καὶ σαρκώσεις ἢ ἀραιοτέρα ᾖ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἢ μικροτέρα. §3 Cf. A 3.15.11 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν ὑπὸ πάχους ἀέρος τοῦ ὑποκειμένου ὑδατώδους ὄντος ἀνακρουομένην αὐτὴν καὶ οἷον ὑποτυπτομένην κινεῖσθαι· ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ σηραγγώδη τοῖς κατωτέρω μέρεσι καθεστῶσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ διασπειρομένου πνεύματος εἰς τὰς ἀντροειδεῖς κοιλότητας ἐμπίπτοντος σαλεύεσθαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses Three doxai are preserved in all the witnesses to the P tradition. S only preserves the heading, so he must have included it as a (now lost) sub-section of Ecl. 1.42. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are no texts in the proximate tradition that shed light on this chapter. On the dialectical account in Aristotle GA 2.8 see below. (2) Sources. The lack of evidence leaves us guessing at to whence the Placita derived the views recorded in this chapter. But it is worth noting that the name-labels represented in the chapter are also common elsewhere in Book 5 (Alcmaeon 6 doxai, Empedocles 17, Diocles 6). It is likely, as we shall see, that the discussion on the infertility of mules was included as a kind of appendix to or illustration of the discussion on human fertility and its problems. In this instance, too, it would appear that Aristotle led the way, even though his discussion has not left any direct trace in this chapter. Of course the coverage of his treatment in the two works HA and GA is much broader and they contain detailed discussions of a wide range of examples from the animal world. However, it can be seen in the way he introduces his discussion of mules at GA 2.7–8 747a22–26 (text below section E(b) General texts), that the relevance to the study of human beings is at the forefront. This account at GA 2.8 747a26–b27 has a quite a long dialectical passage critizing the views of Empedocles and Democritus. The details of this account do not reappear in the passage in A.

1878

liber 5 caput 14

The emphasis on human physiology has been strengthened in the Placita so that it becomes completely dominant, although some traces of an originally broader approach remain. See further our comments at section D(a) and in the Introduction to Book 5, section 4. The problem is also raised in ps.Alexander Probl.Iatr. 1.137, but as is usual in that work, there is no doxography. C Chapter Heading As in ch. 5.9, but unlike in 5.13, the chapter heading seeks the cause by using the prepositional formula διὰ τί, which is comparatively infrequent in A (see comment at 5.9 Commentary C). The same formula is used by ps.Alexander and by Philoponus when commenting on Aristotle’s account (texts below). The preposition διά also recurs in §2 and §3. The adjective is taken over from the chapter heading of ch. 5.13. It should be noted that the heading speaks of αἱ ἡμίονοι, i.e. female mules. This continues the prioritising of female infertility that is found in both 5.9 and 5.13. But in the first doxa (Alcmaeon) separate answers are given first for males, then for females. The second doxa follows the formulation of chapter heading by giving an answer which only discusses the infertility of female mules and by using a prepositional phrase with διά. The heading in SL is identical to that found in the tradition of P (cf. Wachsmuth 1882, 17). On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on from the (misplaced) ch. 5.9 and more directly from ch. 5.13, to which it is appended (and to the subject of which it refers back in its final words). In Book 5 A almost exclusively discusses physiological subjects as they relate to human beings. This chapter is an exception, as are the chapters on living beings in general (chs. 5.19–20). In the rest of the book there are very limited references to living beings other than humans (mention of ἄλογα ζῷα at A 5.10.3, 5.21.2; ζῷα in general at A 5.21 (heading), 5.27.1; plants at A 5.26). See further our comments below at section D(d). b Number–Order of Lemmata The three lemmata amount to only two separate answers to the question, since the third lemma attributed to Diocles is merely a further comment on the second view of Empedocles. Given the irregular structure of the present chapter (on which see the following sub-section) and the absence of the views of Democritus, Empedocles (!) and Aristotle recorded elsewhere (and also the cause given by ps.Alexander), the odds are that it originally contained rather more material than what now remains.

liber 5 caput 14

1879

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter As already noted above, Alcmaeon’s doxa does not follow on very well from the chapter heading because it commences with the cause of male mule sterility, whereas the heading mentions only female mules. Just as in ch. 5.13 but in reverse order, the cause for the males focuses on the role of semen (on which Alcmaeon has a recorded view in A 5.3.3), while for the females the state of the womb is the key to their sterility. It is clear from other doxai in A (cf. also chs. 5.17.3, 5.24.1, 5.30.1) and reports elsewhere that Alcmaeon showed an interest in biological and embryological questions (which does not necessarily make him a ‘doctor’ (ἰατρός); in the tradition he is primarily presented as a φυσικός, cf. D.L. 8.83, Lloyd 1975, Mansfeld 1975). The report includes two archaic terms and the explicit attestation of the authenticity of the second gives it an authentic ring (the doxa is promoted to a B fragment in DK); see the comment at M–R 2.1.214. The verb ἀναχάσκειν is used three times of the womb in the Corpus Hippocraticum (Vict. 1.30 on twins, Superfet. 32.1, 8 for turning it, cf. §2). For another text in which A points out the authenticity of unusual terminology see 3.3.11 (Democritus on thunder). As Diels-Kranz point out in a note on 24B3, the lightness and coolness of semen is mentioned by Aristotle GA 2.7 747a2 as the cause of infertility in ‘effeminate men’. The second doxa attributed to Empedocles reverts to an exclusive focus on female mules in line with the chapter heading. The cause relating to the size and shape and position of the womb is clear enough, with some overlapping with the causes given for female infertility in A 5.9.1. But because the doxa differs wholly from the (rather obscure) report on Empedocles’ view given at GA 2.7 747a34 involving the mixture of semen, most scholars have concluded that the name-label is wrong (e.g. Diels VS 176; DK 1.301; Guthrie 1962–1981, 1.217), although Bollack (1965–1969) 3.570 sees no problem and Van der Eijk (2000– 2001) 2.43–44 cautiously notes that Empedocles may well have offered several alternative views which have been separately recorded in the two authors. The third doxa is meant primarily to reinforce the previous view by giving what appears to be a verbatim quote from a work by Diocles (note that it is the only text in A where the formula of μαρτυρεῖν (‘attest’, ‘quote’) is used; see further the discussion at M–R 2.1.215). It is perhaps not impossible that ἐν ταῖς ἀνατομαῖς refers to the title of a work on dissection, as Wellmann (1901) 127–130 thought, but it is much more likely to indicate the dissections that Diocles himself carried out; see the discussion by Van der Eijk (2000–2001) 45. He himself proposes that Diocles’ Γυναικεῖα could also have been the source, as suggested by the final section of the doxa. For this remark A reverts to indirect speech, thereby effectuating the return to normal doxographical language used to summarize views (ἐνδέχεσθαι is the usual term for multiple possible causes; see esp.

1880

liber 5 caput 14

A 3.15.11 on the view of multiple explanations of earthquakes attributed to Epicurus). The remark offers a connection to the earlier discussion of female sterility in chs. 5.9 and 5.13. It may hint at the fact that the main interest of the subject of mules’ sterility is the light that it might shine on human female infertility (as in Aristotle and Galen). It reinforces the emphasis on human physiology which is a main feature of Book 5. In the medical author Rufus of Ephesus (a contemporary of A) we find the following statement which explains that there are three synonyms for semen: Onom. 225 Daremberg–Ruelle σπέρμα δὲ καὶ θορὴ καὶ γόνος τὸ αὐτὸ, ἡ ἐν παραστάταις γεννητικὴ πέψις ὁμοῦ πνεύματος καὶ τροφῆς. From the formal point of view the chapter differs from its predecessors chs. 5.9 and 5.13 in two ways. It does not pile up alternative causes connected with ἤ (or), which is such a pronounced feature of the previous chapters. Possible separate causes are presented as working together (thinness and coolness of the semen, smallness and lowliness and narrowness of the womb). It might be thought that this would make it easier to present clear diaereses. But this does not happen. There is no clear contrast between the first and the second doxa. As we have seen, the former is divided into separate views for males and females, the latter gives a cause for females only. The two views on the role of the womb are not very different, but are also not linked. One cannot escape the impression that this chapter was most likely mutilated at some point in its transmission. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 A key feature of the Alcmaeon doxa, as noted above in section D(c), is that it contains two archaic terms that presumably go back to his original treatise. For both terms PB (but not G and Q) has included explanatory phrases beginning with ὅ ἐστι, i.e. ὅ ἐστι σπέρματος for θορῆς and ὅ ἐστι ἀναστομοῦσθαι for ἀναχάσκειν. Diels regarding these parenthetic remarks as glosses, but this is by no means a necessary conclusion. Explanatory comments belong to A’s method; see for example ch. 3.5a(olim 18)[6], where the mss. are divided between ὅτι and ὅ. Other places where the formula ὅ ἐστι is used for explanatory additions occur at A 1.11.2 (τὸ ποιοῦν, ὅ ἐστι νοῦς), A 1.13.1 (ὁμοιομερῆ, ὅ ἐστι στρογγύλα). The phrase here does not occur in S, so could be an addition by P, but given the erudition required, this is not so likely. The phrases should thus be retained in the text; see further ch. 1.11 Commentary D(d) on §2. §3 Diocles’ words preserved in oratio recta are rendered in oratio obliqua in both G and Q. This might suggest that a converstion to direct speech has occurred at some time in the transmission of P. Van der Eijk (2000–2001) 2.44

liber 5 caput 14

1881

entertains this possibility but argues against it, noting the infrequency of direct speech in A. It is indeed the lectio difficilior and should be retained. E b

Further Related Texts Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 2.7 746b12–16 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα τῶν ἐκ τοιαύτης μίξεως γιγνομένων συνδυαζόμενα φαίνεται πάλιν ἀλλήλοις καὶ μιγνύμενα καὶ δυνάμενα τό τε θῆλυ καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν γεννᾶν, οἱ δ᾽ ὀρεῖς ἄγονοι μόνοι τῶν τοιούτων· οὔτε γὰρ ἐξ ἀλλήλων οὔτ᾽ ἄλλοις μιγνύμενοι γεννῶσιν. GA 2.8 747a22–b30 ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις γένεσιν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, κατὰ μέρος ἡ τοιαύτη συμβαίνει πήρωσις, τὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμιόνων γένος ὅλον ἄγονόν ἐστιν. περὶ δὲ τῆς αἰτίας, ὡς μὲν λέγουσιν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A82 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτος—λέγων ὁ μὲν οὐ σαφῶς Δημόκριτος (fr. 519 Luria) δὲ γνωρίμως μᾶλλον—οὐ καλῶς εἰρήκασιν. λέγουσι γὰρ ἐπὶ πάντων ὁμοίως τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν παρὰ τὴν συγγένειαν συνδυαζομένων. Δημόκριτος (68A149, 151 DK) μὲν γάρ φησι διεφθάρθαι τοὺς πόρους τῶν ἡμιόνων ἐν ταῖς ὑστέραις διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐκ συγγενῶν γενέσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν ζῴων. συμβαίνει δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρων ζῴων τοῦτο μὲν ὑπάρχειν, γεννᾶν δὲ μηδὲν ἧττον—καίτοι χρῆν, εἴπερ αἴτιον τοῦτ᾽ ἦν τῆς ἀγονίας, ἄγονα καὶ τἆλλ᾽ εἶναι τὰ μιγνύμενα τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B92 DK) δ᾽ αἰτιᾶται τὸ μίγμα τὸ τῶν σπερμάτων γίγνεσθαι πυκνὸν ἐκ μαλα(b1)κῆς τῆς γονῆς οὔσης ἑκατέρας· συναρμόττειν γὰρ τὰ κοῖλα τοῖς πυκνοῖς ἀλλήλων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων γίγνεσθαι ἐκ μαλακῶν σκληρὸν ὥσπερ τῷ καττιτέρῳ μιχθέντα τὸν χαλκόν … ἴσως δὲ μᾶλλον ἂν δόξειεν ἀπόδειξις εἶναι πιθανὴ τῶν εἰρημένων λογική—λέγω δὲ λογικὴν διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι ὅσῳ καθόλου μᾶλλον πορρωτέρω τῶν οἰκείων ἐστὶν ἀρχῶν. Pliny Nat. 8.173 observatum ex duobus diversis generibus nata tertii generis fieri et neutri parentium esse similia, eaque ipsa quae sunt ita nata non gignere in omni animalium genere; idcirco mulas non parere. ps.Alexander Probl. 1.137 Ideler Διὰ τί αἱ ἡμίονοι οὐ τίκτουσι; ὅτι ἐκ διαφόρων εἰδῶν ζῴων συνεστήκασι καὶ ἡ τῶν διαφερόντων κατὰ κρᾶσιν καὶ φύσιν σπερμάτων μῖξις, ἕτερόν τι γενῶν παρὰ τὸ πρότερον, καὶ τὴν τῶν γεννησάντων ἀφανίζει φύσιν· καθάπερ καὶ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος μῖξις ἀφανίζουσα τῶν ἄκρων τὸ χρῶμα τίκτει χροιὰν ἑτέραν τὴν τοῦ φαιοῦ, μηδὲν τῶν ἄκρων ὑπερέχουσαν. ἡ γεννητικὴ τοίνυν κρᾶσις, ἠφάνισται καὶ τῶν εἰδῶν ἡ ἐπιτηδειότης. Aelian NA 12.16 ἡμιόνους δὲ λέγει (sc. Δημόκριτος 68A151 DK) μὴ τίκτειν· μὴ γὰρ ἔχειν ὁμοίας μήτρας τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις, ἑτερομόρφους δέ, ἥκιστα δυναμένας γονὴν δέξασθαι μὴ γὰρ εἶναι φύσεως ποίημα τὴν ἡμίονον, ἀλλὰ ἐπινοίας ἀνθρωπίνης καὶ τόλμης ὡς ἂν εἴποις μοιχιδίου ἐπιτέχνημα τοῦτο καὶ κλέμμα. δοκεῖ δέ μοι, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς, ὄνος ἵππον βιάσασθαι κατὰ τύχην, μαθητὰς δὲ ἀνθρώπους τῆς βίας ταύτης γεγενημένους εἶτα μέντοι προελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὴντῆς γονῆς αὐτῶν συνήθειαν. Galen Sem. 2.1.44–45, pp. 154.26–156.3 De Lacy καὶ μέν γε καὶ μεῖζον ἔτι τοῦ γε κατὰ τὸ ἕβδομον βιβλίον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ σπέρματος, αὐτῷ προσομολογεῖ ὁ Ἀθήναιος (sc. of Attaleia), οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως οὐκ αἰσθάνεται. πλέον γὰρ ἔχειν φησὶ παρὰ τῆς μητρὸς ἢ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ γεννώμενον, οἷον ἀφ᾽ ἵππου μὲν τὸν ἡμίονον, ὄνου δὲ τὸν †ὄνον†. John Philoponus in GA 122.31– 33, p. 123.7–8 Hayduck ὁ μὲν οὖν Δημόκριτος (fr. 519 Luria), φησί, τῆς τῶν ἡμιόνων ἀτεκνίας τὰς αἰτίας πειρώμενος λέγειν, τοιαῦτα ἐξετραγῴδησεν … ἐνίσταται (sc.

1882

liber 5 caput 14

Aristotle) οὖν πρὸς ταύτην τὴν δόξαν καί φησιν … in GA 126.6–9 τῆς Δημοκρίτου (—) καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους (—) ἀποδείξεως πιθανωτέρα ἂν εἶναι δόξειεν ἡ ῥηθησομένη ἀπόδειξις. εἴη δ᾽ ἂν ὁ ῥηθησόμενος λόγος καὶ πειρώμενος κατασκευάζειν, διὰ τί οἱ ἡμίονοι οὐ γεννῶσι, τοιοῦτος. in GA 127.7–10 μέλλων δὲ τὴν οἰκείαν καὶ ἀληθῆ λέγειν δόξαν τῆς τῶν ἡμιόνων ἀτεκνίας πρῶτον ἐκτίθεται τὰ ὑπάρχοντα τοῖς ἵπποις καὶ ὄνοις, ἐξ ὧν εἰσιν ἡμίονοι, καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τούτων συνάγει πάνυ ἐντρεχῶς τὸ αἴτιον τῆς τῶν ἡμιόνων ἀτεκνίας. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 3.1 749a10 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τῶν ἡμιόνων ἀτεκνίας εἴρηται. ps.Alexander Probl. 1.137 Ideler Διὰ τί αἱ ἡμίονοι οὐ τίκτουσι. John Philoponus in GA 126.9 διὰ τί οἱ ἡμίονοι οὐ γεννῶσι. §1 Alcmaeon: Rufus of Ephesus Onom. 225 Daremberg–Ruelle cited above section D(c). §2 Empedocles: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Mul. 213 cited on ch. 5.9.

Liber 5 Caput 15 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 8 recto p. 80 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 907C–D; p. 425a14–b14 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 119; p. 643.15–25 Diels; pp. 377–389 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 228–231 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 115, p. 62 Westerink (titulus solus) SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.11, p. 1.296.13 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ιεʹ. Εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῷον (P,S) §1 Πλάτων ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον· καὶ γὰρ κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ τρέφεσθαι καὶ αὔξεσθαι. (P1) §2 οἱ Στωικοὶ μέρος εἶναι αὐτὸ τῆς γαστρός, οὐ ζῷον· ὥσπερ γὰρ τοὺς καρποὺς μέρη τῶν φυτῶν ὄντας πεπαινομένους ἀπορρεῖν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἔμβρυον. (P2) §3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ εἶναι μὲν ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον ἀλλ᾽ ἄπνουν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῇ γαστρί· πρώτην δ᾽ ἀναπνοὴν τοῦ ζῴου γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀποκύησιν, τῆς μὲν ἐν τοῖς βρέφεσιν ὑγρασίας ἀποχώρησιν λαμβανούσης, πρὸς δὲ τὸ παρακενωθὲν ἐπεισόδου τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀερώδους γινομένης εἰς τὰ παρανοιχθέντα τῶν ἀγγείων. (P3) §4 Διογένης γεννᾶσθαι μὲν τὰ βρέφη ἄψυχα, ἔνθερμα δέ· ὅθεν τὸ ἔμφυτον θερμὸν εὐθέως προχυθέντος τοῦ βρέφους τὸ ψυχρὸν εἰς τὸν πνεύμονα ἐφέλκεται. (P4) §1 Plato cf. Tim. 91d2–5; §2 Stoici SVF 2.756; §3 Empedocles cf. 31A74 DK; §4 Diogenes Apolloniates 64A28 DK, sed verisimiliter Diogenes Babylonius §1 [2] post ζῷον hab. εἶναι PG ‖ post ἔμβρυον add. ὑπείληφε PG ‖ post γὰρ hab. καὶ PG ‖ [3] καὶ αὔξεσθαι PG Diels : om. PBQ Mau Lachenaud §2 [4] τῆς om. PG ‖ verba οὐ ζῷον usque ad ζῷον §3[7] om. PG per haplographiam ‖ [5] ἀπορρεῖν PB(I,III) : ἀπορρεῖ PB(II) §3 [7] μὴ PBQ : secl. Diels quod prob. Vítek ‖ ἄπνουν PG edd. : ἔμπνουν PBQ ‖ [8] πρώτην PB(I)GQ : πρῶτα PB(II) : πρώτως PB(III) ‖ [9] ἀποχώρησιν λαμβανούσης] ἀποχωρούσης PG ‖ [9–10] πρὸς … παρακενωθὲν PB : om. PGQ ‖ [10] ἐπεισόδου PB : τῇ δ᾽ ἐπεισόδῳ PG; cf. und wenn sich die Luft von außen … gemischt hat Q ‖ γινομένης Diels Mau Lachenaud, cf. 4.22.1, γινομένου PG : γενομένης PB, cf. gemischt hat Q §4 [12] Διογένης] διὸ PG emend. Jas ‖ γεννᾶσθαι] τίκτεσθαι PG ‖ ἄψυχα] om. PG ‖ ἔνθερμα scripsimus coniecturam Diels DG 853 secuti, cf. aber in ihnen ein Wärme ist Q : ἐν θερμασίᾳ PB prob. Laks ‖ ὅθεν] om. PG ‖ [12–13] al. PG ἐνθερμανθέντος τοῦ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ ‖ [13] τὸ ψυχρὸν PG (sed cf. aerem PB(Nic), die Luft Q, vid. comm.) : om. PB ‖ [14] ἐφέλκεται PB, cf. daher wird … herbeigezogen Q : ἐφέλκεσθαι PG Diels Mau Lachenaud

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_140

5

10

1884 §5

liber 5 caput 15

Ἡρόφιλος κίνησιν ἀπολείπει φυσικὴν τοῖς ἐμβρύοις, οὐ πνευματικήν· τῆς δὲ κινήσεως αἴτια νεῦρα· τότε δὲ ζῷα γίνεσθαι, ὅταν προχυθέντα προσλάβῃ τι τοῦ ἀέρος. (P5)

§5 Herophilus fr. 202 Von Staden §5 [15] κίνησιν ἀπολείπει (ἀπολείπειν PB(II)) φυσικὴν PBQG(Nic) edd. Jas : κίνησις ἀπολείπει φυσικὴ ἐν PG(mss.) (i.e. oratio recta) ‖ οὐ πνευματικήν PBG(Nic), cf. nicht pneumatische Q : τοῦ πνευματικοῦ PG(mss.) ‖ [16] αἴτια νεῦρα PB : αἴτια τὰ νεῦρα PG : al. fand eine Ursache (= αἴτιαν εὗρε) Q ‖ [16–17] τότε … ἀέρος] al. PG τοῦ ζῴου γίνεσθαι, ὅταν προχυθέντα προσβῇ τοῦ ἀέρος, crucif. Jas

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 8 recto = P§3 [ υπαρχ]ε̣ι ̣ν̣ ε̣ν τ̣[η] [γαστρι πρωτην δε αναπνοην του] ζωου γι [νεσθαι κατα την αποκυησιν τη]ς μεν εν [τοις βρεφεσιν υγρασιας αποχωρ]ησιν λαμ 5 [βανουσης ] ps.Galenus HPh c. 119 (~ tit.) Εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῷον (text Jas). 119.1 (~ P1) Πλάτων ζῷον εἶναι τὸ ἔμβρυον ὑπείληφε· καὶ γὰρ καὶ κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ τρέφεσθαι καὶ αὔξεσθαι. 119.2 (~ P2–3) οἱ Στωικοὶ μέρος εἶναι γαστρὸς […] τὸ ἔμβρυον καὶ ἄπνουν εἶναι ἐν τῇ γαστρί. πρώτην δὲ ἀναπνοὴν τοῦ ζῴου γίγνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀποκύησιν τῆς μὲν ἐν τοῖς βρέφεσιν ὑγρασίας ἀποχωρούσης, τῇ δ᾽ ἐπεισόδῳ τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀέρος γινομένου εἰς τὰ παροιχθέντα τῶν ἀγγείων. 119.3 (~ P4) Διογένης τίκτεσθαι μὲν τὰ βρέφη ἐνθερμανθέντος τοῦ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ, εὐθέως προχυθέντος τοῦ βρέφους τὸ ψυχρὸν εἰς τὸν πνεύμονα ἐφέλκεσθαι. 119.3 (~ P5) Ἡρόφιλος κίνησιν ἀπολείπει φυσικὴν ἐν τοῖς ἐμβρύοις, οὐ πνευματικήν, τῆς δὲ κινήσεως αἴτια τὰ νεῦρα †τοῦ ζῴου γίνεσθαι, ὅταν προχυθέντα προβῆ τοῦ ἀέρος†. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 115 (tit.) Εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῶον καὶ πῶς τρέφεται τοῦτο (et vid. infra Comm. E(a) text. gen. et (b)§2). Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. 5.16 Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα. 5.18 Διὰ τί ἑπταμηνιαῖα γόνιμα. 5.21 Ἐν ποίῳ χρόνῳ μορφοῦται τὰ ζῷα ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὄντα. 5.26 Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα. §1 A 5.26.1 Πλάτων Θαλῆς καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ἔμψυχα ζῷα … §3 A 4.22.1 (de respiratione) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν πρώτην ἀναπνοὴν τοῦ πρώτου ζῴου γενέσθαι τῆς μὲν ἐν τοῖς βρέφεσιν ὑγρασίας ἀποχώρησιν λαμβανούσης πρὸς δὲ τὸ παρακενωθὲν ἐπεισόδου {τῆς ἔξωθεν} τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀερώδους γινομένης εἰς τὰ

15

liber 5 caput 15

1885

παρανοιχθέντα τῶν ἀγγείων· τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο ἤδη τοῦ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἐκτὸς ὁρμῇ τὸ ἀερῶδες ὑπαναθλίβοντος, τὴν ἐκπνοήν, τῇ δ᾽ εἰς τὸ ἐντὸς ἀνθυποχωρήσει τῷ ἀερώδει τὴν ἀντεπείσοδον παρεχομένου, τὴν εἰσπνοήν. A 5.26.4 (Empedocles de plantis) ὥστε γῆς εἶναι μέρη, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔμβρυα τὰ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τῆς μήτρας μέρη. §5 A 4.22.3 (de respiratione) Ἡρόφιλος δυνάμεις ἀπολείπει περὶ τὰ σώματα τὰς κινητικὰς ἐν νεύροις ἐν ἀρτηρίαις ἐν μυσί.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses PB and Q record five doxai, each with a separate name-label. In G all five doxai can be discerned, but there are only four name-labels because the second and third doxai in P have been coalesced into a single lemma as the result of a saut du même au même. Ps joins up the chapter heading with that of 5.16. He does not utilize the contents of this chapter, though making interesting comments on its subject matter. S unfortunately records only the chapter heading. Not even the Platonic lemma was preserved by his Byzantine epitomators. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Two interesting texts in Clement (Strom. 5.1.5 and 8.9.6– 9, 13.2–8, cited below) and a further text in the Scholia to a rhetorical work of Hermogenes (476.2–7 Waltz, cited below) show that the nature of the embryo was a standard quaestio for both natural scientists and doctors giving rise to interesting dialectical and philosophical topics. See the discussion at Mansfeld (1990a) 3186–3187 which focuses on the text in Clement Strom. Book 8, and Havrda’s commentary (2016) ad loc. The latter scholar argues that this book is a series of excerpts on logic that Clement took from a contemporary work, perhaps Galen’s treatise Περὶ ἀποδείξεως (now lost). The topic was linked to the parallel question regarding the status of plants (cf. ch. 5.26) and illustrated interesting divergences between the Stoa and other schools. The work preserved under the name of Galen, Εἰ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός, resembles a rhetorical exercise arguing a particular thesis, namely that the fetus is a living being. In addition the treatise Ad Gaurum, which though ascribed to Galen in the single surviving manuscript is now universally agreed to have been written by Porphyry, also indicates familiarity with the quaestio and expatiates on it in his status quaestionis in §§1–2. This work, however, has as its subject ‘On how

1886

liber 5 caput 15

embryos are ensouled’, which indicates a different approach to the question compared with the chapter in A (this approach is also found in Tertullian de An. 25 and in Psellus Omn.Doctr. 59, Phil.Min. 1 op. 16); texts below section E(a) General texts. By far the most interesting parallel for our purposes is found at ps.Galen Def.Med. 445. After first treating the question of the embryo’s nourishment in §444 (the subject of the next chapter in A), it then gives a diaeresis of three opinions, the first two of which are presented anonymously. Firstly there is a diaphonia between those who say it is a ζῷον and those who say it is not. Arguments follow: in favour of the first view is that it moves and perceives; in favour of the second is that it is comparable to a tree or plant. Finally a third compromise view is ascribed to Asclepiades: it is neither a ζῷον nor not a ζῷον, but is to be compared to living beings who are asleep. The method and the content of this section are very similar to what we find in A and are clearly derived from the proximate doxographical tradition. Regrettably Censorinus does not touch on this question in his account of human reproduction. It is to be noted that Philo furnishes a parallel for §4 at Somn. 1.31, part of the section with questions on the heaven and the soul/mind that goes back to a version of the Placita earlier than A (see ch. 2.11 Commentary B).] (2) Sources. There is little information about early Greek investigations on the subject of embryology apart from the evidence in the Placita. Earliest thinkers of whom we know that they developed theories on the subject are Parmenides (cf. A 5.7.2 and the discussion in Mansfeld 2015a, at Mansfeld 2018d, 192) and Alcmaeon (cf. Longrigg 1993, 55–56, 61). For the latter, apart from the references to him at A 5.16.3, 5.17.4, there is a comment at Aristotle GA 3.2 752b22–28 (= 24A15 DK) on the formation of the embryo in the eggs of birds. The Hippocratic treatise De natura pueri (which is a continuation of the treatise De semine and together with De morbis IV most likely formed a single work) discusses the early formation of the embryo and famously describes the incident of the singing girl whose induced miscarriage allowed the author to examine a very early fetus (ch. 2). When Aristotle mentions the subject at GA 2.3–4 (texts below section E(b) General texts) he makes no reference to previous thinkers. Importantly he links the question of the embryo being a ζῷον to the question of whether the embryo has a soul and concludes, with reference to his own treatment in de An., that it only has the nutritive power of the soul and not yet the others, so that it is in fact only a ζῷον potentially. Additional questions can be discerned here, which will play an important role in the later philosophical tradition. If the embryo is not a ζῷον, when does it actually become so? The obvious answer will be: when it is born and first breathes. This answer plays an important role in A’s chapter. But another question that can be asked is: when

liber 5 caput 15

1887

does the soul descend into the body? The theme is especially important for Platonists and, as already noted above, gave rise to the treatise ad Gaur. But, as its presence in Tertullian indicates, it was also an important question for Christians. Psellus interestingly refers to three books on the subject, of Hippocrates (i.e. Nat.puer.), of Galen (i.e. An.Ut.) and of Porphyry (i.e. ad Gaur.). It is significant that A does not include a chapter Πῶς ἐμψυχοῦται τὰ ἔμβρυα. The chapters on spermatology and embryology (5.3–18) scarcely contain any references to the soul (only at chs. 5.3.5, 5.4.1, 5.11.3—all on the source of semen). His approach is markedly physiological. Nevertheless the final three doxai might be seen to respond to a similar question, if ψυχή is replaced by πνεῦμα, i.e. Πῶς ἐμπνευματοῦται τὰ ζῷα vel sim. For a brief history of the topic see Congourdeau (2007) and more general treatment in the collected essays of Brisson & alii (2008). C Chapter Heading The formula εἰ τὸ δεῖνα ζῷον is parallel to the similar εἰ τὸ δεῖνα σῶμα/ἀσώματος used at 4.3 (soul), 4.20 (voice) and 5.4 (semen). It invites a positive and a negative response, with a compromise view as a third possibility. The same formula is used of plants at ch. 5.26 in the second half of the heading, Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα; see further our Commentary ad loc., C. The question at the macro-level is implicit in a chapter on the cosmos, 2.3 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος, but with the proviso regarding ensoulment that we noted in our remarks above under section B. Ps.Galen’s treatise An animal sit quod est in utero, whose title uses the same formula, Εἰ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός, starts off by drawing an analogy between the question whether the embryo is a ζῷον and the celebrated question of whether the same can be said of the cosmos. The chapter heading recorded in Marc. 521 is derived from ps.Galen Def.Med. and is not based on A; see further ch. 5.3 Commentary B. The heading in SL is identical to that found in the tradition of P (cf. Wachsmuth 1882, 17). On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. D Analysis a Context After having treated questions relating to conception, namely the various kinds of living beings produced (chs. 5.7–8, 10), resemblances between parents and progeny (chs. 5.11–12), and why conception sometimes cannot take place (chs. 5.9, 5.13–14), A now turns to the immediate product of conception, the fetus, and devotes the next four chapters to it, chs. 5.15–18, followed—after two chapters which interrupt the sequence—by ch. 5.21.

1888

liber 5 caput 15

b Number–Order of Lemmata With its five lemmata the chapter as preserved in P is reasonably extensive and, as we shall see, has a clear structure Nevertheless, because as we shall see it does not contain a compromise viewpoint, which ps.Galen Def.Med. 445 in the proximate tradition does have, it is quite well possible that it has undergone a process of abridgement by P. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter opens with a direct opposition (diaphonia) between positive and negative responses to the question posed in the chapter heading. As noted above, this is invited by the formulation of the chapter heading in terms of a question starting with εἰ. (1) Plato is credited with a positive response based on the fact that the embryo moves in the womb and is nourished and grows. The basis for the doxa is found in Tim. 91c–d (not 91a as in Mau’s and Lachenaud’s apparatus), where Plato speaks of ἀδιάπλαστα ζῷα in the womb which are nurtured (ἐκθρέψωνται) until birth. Plato thus explicitly mentions the aspect of nourishment, but not that of movement and growth. It is, however, a reasonable deduction (cf. also the discussion on plants at Tim. 77a–c, utilized by A at 5.26.1; see further below section D(d)§1). (2) The opposite viewpoint is attributed to the Stoics, the only argument being the analogy with plants. The same position and analogy is found in ps.Galen Def.med. 445, but is much better argued (τρέφεσθαι and αὔξεσθαι, but no ὁρμή or προαίρεσις). The analogy with plants is standard for this viewpoint and found in many texts (see texts below). For the Stoa ψυχή is what makes something a ζῷον, whereas for a plant it is φύσις; cf. Galen Hipp.Epid. VI 5.5 273.2–3 Wenkebach (= SVF 2.715) cited by Gourinat (2008) 61. We should note that the Stoa is not cited as saying the embryo is a plant, but rather that it is part of the womb, i.e. part of a ζῷον; cf. ibid. 68. The remaining three doxai, as Laks (2008) 186 has pointed out, follow on from the Stoic viewpoint (as is made clear at the beginning of the Empedocles doxa), but deepen it, going further than the plant analogy and attempting to answer how the transition from non-ζῷον to ζῷον takes place. All three focus on the aspect of respiration which has so far not been mentioned. (3) For Empedocles the embryo does not possess this faculty. In the first part of the doxa the phrase ἄπνουν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῇ γαστρί can be seen as nuancing the unsubtle μέρος τῆς γαστρὸς of the Stoic view. There can be little doubt that Diels was right in reading ἄπνουν with G rather than the ἔπνουν of PBQ, which leads to an unacceptable contradiction with the words immediately following, πρώτην δ᾽ ἀναπνοὴν κτλ. More interesting is his bracketing of μή in the earlier μὴ εἶναι μὲν

liber 5 caput 15

1889

ζῷον. This would make the doxa a compromise view, as we find in ps.Galen but with a different content. But this view would necessitate making a distinction between Empedocles’ doxa and that of Herophilus, who says that embryos do not become ζῷα until they take their first breath. Such a distinction is difficult to see. Subsequent editors have rightly rejected Diels’ emendation. The remainder of the doxa is almost word for word identical with the first part of A 4.22.1 on respiration, with the difference that the protological viewpoint of the earlier doxa is adapted to the physiological context in Book 5, as noted by Bollack (1965– 1969) 3.438. It is difficult to understand why Diels VS 174 (repeated in at 31A74 DK) describes the text as ‘schlechter’ (compared with 4.22.1). It is in fact fuller in relation to the specific subject of the embryo. (4) The next doxa attributed to Diogenes develops the progression by saying that the embryo is ἄψυχον, i.e. it does not possess ψυχή, but it does possess heat (on the reading see further comment below, section D(d)). This heat is no doubt instrumental for its growth and development. It has long been assumed that the Diogenes in question was Diogenes of Apollonia and the text is discussed at some length by Laks in his monograph on that thinker, (2008, first edn. 1983) 186–188. But Tieleman (1991) demonstated that there are good grounds for supposing that the name-label refers to Diogenes of Babylonia, a Stoic who is cited as such in A 2.32.9 (this paper was unfortunately overlooked by Laks in the revision of his earlier work). Certainly there are no aspects of the doxa that are specifically reminiscent of Diogenes of Apollonia (e.g. a reference to air). It should be noted, however, that, although his name-label is not otherwise found in Book 5 until ch. 5.20.5, there is a clear reference to him on an embryological subject at Censorinus 9.2. An important part of Tieleman’s argument is the collection of parallels on the emergence of ψυχή through the cooling (ψῦξις) of air; cf. Philo Somn. 1.31, Plutarch SR 1052F and other texts at SVF 2.804–808 (some cited below section E(a)&(b)); see (1991) 112–114. This aspect of Stoic doctrine is passed over in both §2 and §5. Tieleman did not, however, take into account the passage in the Anonymus Londiniensis 18.15–23 which attributes a very similar doctrine to the Pythagorean Philolaus; on this text see Huffman (1993) 289– 292, who regards it as authentic and among ‘our most reliable evidence for this thought (292)’ (but does not refer to the similar views of Diogenes). This parallel involving a thinker contemporary with Diogenes of Apollonia militates against Tieleman’s thesis. Lonie (1981) 152 cites the same parallel in Philolaus, but also argues that ‘Aetius might be wrong about Diogenes,’ since the purposive and articulatory function of air is what one might expect in (the earlier) Diogenes. (5) The last doxa attributed to the physician Herophilus returns to the aspect of movement introduced in the first lemma. It deepens the analysis by distinguishing between physical movement, which the fetus clearly possesses (and is

1890

liber 5 caput 15

caused by the νεῦρα, tendons), and the movement of an independent ζῷον, for which respiration of the external air is required. It thus amounts to a subtle correction and reformulation of the Platonic position in the first doxa. The opening words of the lemma, Ἡρόφιλος κίνησιν ἀπολείπει φυσικὴν τοῖς ἐμβρύοις, οὐ πνευματικήν, are rather similar to the beginning of the doxa on respiration attributed to the doctor in A 4.22.3, Ἡρόφιλος δυνάμεις ἀπολείπει περὶ τὰ σώματα τὰς κινητικὰς ἐν νεύροις ἐν ἀρτηρίαις ἐν μυσί. We recall that there is also a case of reduplication between the two chapters in the case of Empedocles (see above on §3). It is not unlikely that in these two cases A or a predecessor chopped up longer accounts of the psychology and embryology of the two thinkers, adapting the material to the exigencies of the doxographical method. It may concluded, therefore, that the chapter has a clear structure, consisting of a diaphonia between the first two doxai, with the remaining three doxai deepening the understanding of the negative answer, but also implicitly answering the question of how the embryo, if it is not a ζῷον, becomes such at the time of birth. As noted, this structure is introduced by the chapter heading εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῷον, which invites a positive and a negative answer. But comparison with two similar chapters, 2.3 on whether the cosmos is ensouled and 5.26 on whether plants are ζῷα is revealing, because in both cases A makes very clear that there are compromise answers possible. Such a view is missing in the chapter as we have it, even though it would not be hard to devise and also appears in the proximate tradition (ps.Galen). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This viewpoint is not the one defended by the Platonist Porphyry in the treatise Ad Gaurum, who argues that for Plato the embryo is not (yet) a ζῷον. He cites the texts Tim. 77a–c at §4.4 and 91d at §8.3, but draws different conclusions from them. The argument turns on the meaning of the term ζῷον (4.5): ‘For if, on the one hand, someone wishes to call it a ζῷον by reason of its being alive (ζῆν), we shall agree; but we are positive that there is no way that Plato himself agrees that it has the self-moving soul that it has when it is born, rather he thinks it is a ζῷον in the sense that plants are.’ (trans. Wilberding) G adds the words καὶ αὔξεσθαι to the end of the doxa as it appears in PB and Q. The addition makes perfect sense and may be regarded as one of those cases where G’s evidence reveals material originally present in P and thus A. It is confirmed by A 5.27.1 (Empedocles) and esp. ps.Galen Def.Med. 445; further support from Arist. EN 1.13 1102a.32–b1, Aspasius in EN 35.8–9, ps.Gal. ad Gaur. 16.3.

liber 5 caput 15

1891

§4 In his article on this lemma Tieleman does not consider Diels’ emendation ἔνθερμα δέ (probably supported by Q) for ἐν θερμασίᾳ δέ in PB, which we have taken over in our text. But it in fact strengthens his argument on pp. 119– 120, where he argues that to say that children are born ‘in heat’ is an awkward way of indicating the embryo’s characteristic faculty. On p. 109 he does agree with the addition of τὸ ψυχρόν to P’s text based on the reading in G. He cites the evidence of Q to confirm this reading, suggesting that the translation ‘air’ might be based on the presence of references to air in §3 and §5. However, he is unaware of Nicolaus’ translation of G with its reading aerem. The reference to cold is important for establishing the Stoic tenor of the doxa, so there is a danger of circularity here. For the verb in the second half of the doxa PB has the indicative, PG the infinitive. Diels and more recent editors opt for the latter. Laks (2008) 188 is right to say that the change is not mandatory. Not only is there much variation between infinitives and indicatives in doxographical texts, as he observes, but more specifically in sentences that follow the conjunction ὅθεν in A about half have the indicative in oratio recta and about half the infinitive in oratio obliqua (see further on A 5.16.1) Since Q cannot help decide, it is a situation of non liquet and we simply have to choose one or the other. §5 In G’s text of this lemma the name-label is followed by a colon and a text in oratio recta, a practice which is comparatively rare in A: examples at A 2.5.1 and 5.3.1; see our comments on the latter text at Commentary D(c). However, Nicolaus’ translation gives the text in oratio obliqua and Jas is justified in emending the text. e Other Evidence As we saw above, in the fine parallel text at ps.Galen Def.Med. 445 the positive and negative views are presented anonymously. The former goes beyond the Platonic doxa in A in attributing pleasure to the embryo and thus also internal sense-perception. The negative position elaborates on the comparison with plants. The emphasis on ὁρμή and προαίρεσις may indicate a Stoic origin. Von Arnim oddly only includes the first part at SVF 2.756 and not the reference to the embryo’s lack of προαίρεσις. The compromise view is attributed to Asclepiades, namely that the embryo is neither a ζῷον nor not a ζῷον, but like people who are asleep, i.e. having organs of sense-perception but not using them. This doctor, the latest chronologically to be included in the Placita, features on five occasions in Books 4 and 5 (including in the related chapter 4.22), but not here. His name is mentioned in relation to the similar question of the origin of soul in Tertullian, and is also cited on the difference between σπέρμα and γόνον at Def.Med. 441 and on the therapeutic powers of music in Censorinus 12.4.

1892

liber 5 caput 15

Interestingly this third possibility involving sleep (without name-label) is also mentioned by Clement in his long discussion at Strom. 8.11–13 on how the definition of ζῷον must determine the arguments on whether plants and fetuses are ζῷα or not (see 8.13.4, 7). The possibility of sleep is also mentioned by Porphyry in the diaeresis at the beginning of ad Gaur., but he introduces the philosophically more sophisticated notion of potentiality, i.e. that the embryo is a living being δυνάμει μόνον, οὐκ ἐνεργείᾳ (1.2). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 445, p. 19.451.18–452.17 K. υμεʹ. τινὲς μὲν εἶπον ζῶον, τινὲς δὲ οὔ· ὅσοι μὲν οὖν εἶπον ζῶον ὑπάρχειν αὐτὸ τῇ κινήσει ἐτεκμήραντο ζῶον ὑπάρχειν αὐτό. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ κινεῖται καὶ τὸ ἔμβρυον καὶ ὅτι ἥδεται μὲν ἡδομένης τῆς μητρὸς καὶ εὐφραίνεται, ἀνιωμένης δὲ συστέλλεται καὶ συνάγεται αἰσθανόμενον ὡς ζῶον· ἡ γὰρ αἴσθησις οὐκ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἢ ζώῳ προσφυής· οἱ δὲ μὴ εἶναι ζῶον λέγοντες (i.e. Stoics, SVF 2.757) τρέφεσθαι μὲν αὐτὸ καὶ αὔξεσθαι ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ δένδρα, ὁρμὴν δὲ καὶ ἀφορμὴν οὐκ ἔχειν ὥσπερ τὰ ζῶα. οὐ γὰρ αὐτὸ προαιρέτως οὐ μόνον κινεῖται, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε μετὰ προαιρέσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὰ δένδρα καὶ φυτά· τοῖς μὲν γὰρ αἴτιος κινήσεως ἄνεμος, ἐμβρύοις δὲ ἡ περὶ αὐτὰ ὑγρότης καὶ ὄλισθος καὶ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς μήτρας, πληρουμένη γὰρ σφαιροποιεῖται, σχῆμα δὲ ἡ σφαῖρα εἰς πᾶσαν κίνησιν εὐφυὴς ἅτε βάσεως ἁπάσης ἄμοιρος. Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 721) δὲ οὔτε ζῶον, οὔτε μὴ ζῶον εἶπεν τὸ ἔμβρυον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμοιον ἔφησεν αὐτὸ τοῖς κοιμωμένοις· ὅνπερ γὰρ τρόπον ἐκεῖνοι μὲν ἔχουσιν τὰς αἰσθήσεις, οὐ χρῶνται δὲ αὐταῖς, οὑτωσὶ καὶ τὸ κατὰ γαστρός. ps.Galen An.Ut. 1.3–10 Wagner ὅπερ φυσικοῖς καὶ πᾶσι φιλοσόφοις παρέχει μέχρι τῆς τήμερον περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσεως ζήτησιν, τοῦτο τοῖς Ἀσκληπιάδαις καὶ τοῖς τούτων ἐκγόνοις ἡ τοῦ γιγνομένου καὶ συνισταμένου βρέφους ἐν μήτρᾳ ἀμφίβολος ἔννοια. ὡς γὰρ οἱ τοῦ ὅλου τὴν ἔρευναν ποιούμενοι οὐδὲν σαφῶς ὡρίσαντο πότερον ζῷον ἢ μή, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ οἱ τῆς τέχνης τῆς ἰατρικῆς προϊστάμενοι ἀόριστον τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ φυομένου παιδίου παρέδοσαν λόγον. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.1.5 ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὰ ἀντιστρέφοντα (ἀντιστρέφει δὲ ἃ καὶ τοῖς τὸν ἐναντίον χειρίζουσι λόγον ἐπ᾽ ἴσης ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ὡς τὸ εἰ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρὸς ἢ οὐ ζῷον). Strom. 8.9.6–13.8, esp. 9.6–9 ἐστιν οὖν ἡ μέθοδος τῆς εὑρέσεως τοιαύτη· ἀρκτέον γὰρ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γνωρίζειν τὰ προβλήματα. (7) πολλάκις γοῦν ἐξαπατᾷ τὸ τῆς λέξεως σχῆμα καὶ συγχεῖ καὶ ταράττει τὴν διάνοιαν, ὥστε μὴ ῥᾳδίως εὑρίσκειν ἐκ ποίας ἐστὶ διαφορᾶς, οἷον εἰ ⟨ζῷον ἢ⟩ [suppl. Schwartz] μὴ ζῷον τὸ κυούμενον· (8) ἔχοντες γὰρ καὶ ζῴου τι νόημα καὶ κυουμένου ζητοῦμεν εἰ τῷ κυουμένῳ ζῴῳ εἶναι ὑπάρχει, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστίν, εἰ τῇ κυουμένῃ οὐσίᾳ τό τε κινεῖσθαι δύνασθαι καὶ ἔτι τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι ὑπάρχει. (9) ὥστε ἐνεργειῶν ἐστι καὶ παθῶν ἡ ζήτησις ἐπὶ προγινωσκομένης οὐσίας. … and 8.13.2–8 ἐναργῶς γὰρ ἐδείκνυτο τοῦ πράγματος αὐτοῦ τοῦ ζητουμένου, λέγω δὲ τοῦ ἐμβρύου τῆς φύσεως ὁποία τίς ἐστιν. ἕτερον ὑπάρχον πρόβλημα τὸ περὶ τῶν σημαινομένων ἐκ τοῦ ⟨ζῷον⟩ ὀνόματος. (3) λέγω τοίνυν, εἰ τοῦτο λέγεις ζῷον τὸ δυνάμενον αἰσθέσθαι τε καὶ κινηθῆναι καθ᾽ ὁρμήν, ζῷόν ἐστιν οὐχ ἁπλῶς τὸ κινούμενον καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν καὶ αἰσθανόμενον·

liber 5 caput 15 (4) δύναται γὰρ καὶ κοιμᾶσθαι ἢ μὴ παρόντων τῶν αἰσθητῶν μὴ αἰσθάνεσθαι … (6) ἐζήτητο δὲ πότερον ζῷόν ἐστιν ἤδη τὸ ἔμβρυον ἢ φυτὸν ἔτι, κἄπειτα μετελήφθη τοῦ ζῴου τοὔνομα εἰς λόγον, ἵν᾽ ᾖ σαφές. (7) αἰσθήσει δὴ καὶ κινήσει τῇ καθ᾽ ὁρμὴν εὑρόντες αὐτὸ διαφέρον τοῦ μὴ ζῴου, πάλιν τοῦτο διωρισάμεθα τῶν παρακειμένων αὐτῷ πραγμάτων ἕτερον μὲν εἶναι φάμενοι τὸ δυνάμει τοιοῦτον, ὃ μήπω μέν ἐστιν αἰσθανόμενόν τε καὶ κινούμενον, ἔσται δέ ποτε τοιοῦτον, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ὑπάρχον ἤδη τοιοῦτον, τούτου δὲ τὸ μὲν ἤδη ἐνεργοῦν, τὸ δὲ ἐνεργεῖν μὲν δυνάμενον, ἡσυχάζον δὲ ἢ κοιμώμενον. (8) τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ ζητούμενον. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ τρέφεσθαι τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῷον εἶναι λεκτέον, ὃ τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ἀποχωρούντων τοῦ ζητουμένου, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλως συμβεβηκόσιν προσεχόντων τὸν νοῦν. cf. also Ecl. proph. 50 ἔλεγεν πρεσβύτης ζῷον εἶναι τὸ κατὰ γαστρός. εἰσιοῦσαν γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς τὴν μήτραν ἀπὸ τῆς καθάρσεως ηὐτρεπισμένην εἰς σύλληψιν. Tertullian de An. 25.1–2, 5 iam nunc regrediar ad causam huius excessus, uti reddam, quomodo animae ex una redundet, quando et ubi et qua ratione sumantur; de qua specie nihil refert, a philosopho an ab haeretico an a vulgo quaestio occurrat. (2) nulla interest professoribus veritatis de adversariis eius, maxime tam audacibus quam sunt primo isti, qui praesumunt non in utero concipi animam nec cum carnis figulatione compingi atque produci, sed et effuso iam partu nondum vivo infanti extrinsecus inprimi; ceterum semen ex concubitu muliebribus locis sequestratum motuque naturali vegetatum compinguescere in solam substantiam carnis; eam editam et de uteri fornace fumantem et calore solutam, ut ferrum ignitum et ibidem frigidae immersum, ita aeris rigore percussam et vim animalem rapere et vocalem sonum reddere. hoc Stoici (SVF 2.805) cum Aenesidemo (fr. B27 Polito) et ipse interdum Plato (cf. Phd. 70c), cum dicit perinde animam extraneam alias et extorrem uteri prima adspiratione nascentis infantis adduci, sicut exspiratione novissima educi. videbimus an ex sententia finxerit. ne ex medicis quidem defuit Hicesius, et naturae et artis suae praevaricator. … (5) hoc (sc. instrument for abortion) et Hippocrates (cf. Mul.Aff. 70) habuit et Ascelepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 727) et Erasistratus (—) et maiorum quoque prosector Herophilus (T247 Von Staden) et mitior ipse Soranus (T18 Podolak), certi animal esse conceptum atque ita miserti infelicissimae huiusmodi infantiae, ut prius occidatur, ne viva lanietur. Porphyry ad Gaur. 1.1, p. 33.3–15 Kalbfleisch … κοινῶς μὲν τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ σχεδὸν τῶν ἰατρῶν πάντων ἀπορησάντων, πότερον χρὴ ζῷα ἡγεῖσθαι τὰ ἔμβρυα ἢ φυτικῶς ζῆν αὐτὰ μόνον, τῆς μὲν ἰδιότητος τοῦ ζῴου ἐν αἰσθήσει καὶ ὁρμῇ συνισταμένης, τῆς δὲ τῶν φυτῶν ἐν θρεπτικῇ τε καὶ αὐξητικῇ χωρὶς αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ ὁρμῆς θεωρουμένης· ὅθεν τῶν ἐμβρύων φαντασίας μὲν χωρὶς καὶ ὁρμῆς διεξαγόντων, αὐξητικῶς δὲ καὶ θρεπτικῶς μόνον διοικουμένων—μαρτυρεῖ γὰρ ἄμφω τὰ γιγνόμενα—φυτὰ μὲν ἢ φυτοῖς ὅμοια συγχωρεῖν, ζῷα δ᾽ ἡγεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ μέλλειν ἐκ γαστρὸς προελθόντα ζωοῦσθαι μὴ προπετὲς ᾖ καὶ ἀνδρῶν ἀβασανίστως μεμελετηκότων ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν δόξαις συνήκειν· ἰδίᾳ δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τῶν καὶ ζωικῆς ψυχῆς αὐτὰ μετέχειν ὑπειληφότων ἀμφισβητησάντων, πότερον καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ ζῷα χρὴ λογίζεσθαι τὰ ἔμβρυα ἢ δυνάμει μόνον, οὐκ ἐνεργείᾳ. Sopater Scholia ad Hermogenis Status 476.3 Waltz ἔτι δὲ οὐ μόνον τοῦ ῥητορικοῦ ὅρου οἰκεῖός ἐστιν ὁ ὅρος ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς φυσικοῖς ἁρμόσει·καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἰατρὸς ζητῶν πότερον τὸ ἔμβρυον

1893

1894

liber 5 caput 15

ζῶόν ἐστιν ἢ οὔ. Psellus Omn.Doctr. 115 τρισὶν ἐνέτυχον μονοβίβλοις περὶ τούτου τοῦ ζητήματος, Ἱπποκράτους (i.e. Nat.Puer.), Πορφυρίου (i.e. ad Gaur.) καὶ Γαληνοῦ (i.e. An.Ut.). ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἱπποκράτης καὶ Γαληνὸς ζῶον αὐτό φασιν ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ εἶναι, καὶ κινεῖσθαι ὑπὸ ψυχῆς τὸ μὲν ἄλογον τῆς ἀλόγου, τὸ δὲ λογικὸν τῆς λογικῆς· τρέφεσθαί τε ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ διὰ τοῦ στόματος, εἶναι γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ θηλὰς τινὰς καὶ στόματα δι᾽ ὧν τρέφεται. ὁ δέ γε Πορφύριος πολλοῖς λογισμοῖς καὶ ἀποδείξεσι διατείνεται μὴ εἶναι τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῶον μηδὲ ἐμψυχωμένον, ἀλλὰ δίκην φυτοῦ καταπεφυτεῦσθαι ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ, καὶ κινεῖσθαι οὐχ᾽ ὑπὸ ψυχῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ φύσεως, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ τὰ δένδρα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ κινεῖσθαι εἴωθε (see also on ch. 5.16). cf. Omn.Doctr. 59 Πότε ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ κυουμένῳ ἑνοῦται σώματι. … τῶν δὲ Ἑλλήνων οἱ πρόκριτοι μετὰ τὴν τελείωσιν τοῦ φυσικοῦ ὀργάνου καὶ τὴν ἀποκύησιν τούτου ἐνσπείρουσι ταύτην τῷ σώματι· πλὴν ὅτε μὲν ἔσωθεν ᾗ κατερριζωμένον τὸ ἔμβρυον τὴν φυσικὴν ψυχὴν τούτῳ διδόασιν, ἐξελθόντι δὲ τὴν λογικήν, καὶ προϊόντι τὴν νοεράν. also Phil.Min. 1 op. 16, p. 48.10–19 Duffy Πότε ψυχοῦνται τὰ ἔμβρυα. … τῶν δέ γε παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι σοφῶν οἱ μὲν μορφωθέντα ψυχοῦσι τὰ ἔμβρυα, οἱ δὲ αὐτίκα μέλλοντα κινηθῆναι κατὰ γαστρός, οἱ δὲ τῆς μήτρας ἀποσπασθέντα καὶ διατυπωθέντα πρὸς ὄλισθον. οἱ δέ γε τελεώτεροι τούτων μετὰ τὸν τοκετὸν τὴν λογικὴν ψυχὴν μεταλαμβάνειν φασί, καὶ μεταβάλλειν ἀθρόως ὥσπερ ὑπὸ φωτὸς θείου ἀναπτόμενα ἢ ζωπυρούμενα· ἔνδοθεν δὲ τῆς μήτρας ζῆν μέν, ἀλλὰ τὴν φυτικὴν ζωὴν καὶ παντάπασιν ἄλογον, ὥσπερ ἐκ ῥίζης τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ κατερριζωμένα τῇ μήτρᾳ, τὴν τροφὴν χορηγούμενα, ζῷα δὲ μήτε εἶναι μήτε ὀνομάζεσθαι, ἀτελῆ ὄντα πρὸς μετουσίαν τῆς θειοτέρας ψυχῆς. Chapter heading: ps.Galen An.Ut. (title) Εἰ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός. cf. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.10.1 ἔστιν οὖν ἡ μέθοδος τῆς εὑρέσεως τοιαύτη· ἀρκτέον γὰρ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γνωρίζειν τὰ προβλήματα. πολλάκις γοῦν ἐξαπατᾷ τὸ τῆς λέξεως σχῆμα καὶ συγχεῖ καὶ ταράττει τὴν διάνοιαν, ὥστε μὴ ῥᾳδίως εὑρίσκειν ἐκ ποίας ἐστὶ διαφορᾶς, οἷον εἰ ζῷον ἢ ζῷον τὸ κυούμενον. Sopater Scholia ad Hermogenis Περὶ στάσεων p. 476.2–7 Waltz ἔτι δὲ οὐ μόνον τοῦ ῥητορικοῦ ὅρου οἰκεῖός ἐστιν ὁ ὅρος ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς φυσικοῖς ἁρμόσει· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἰατρὸς ζητῶν πότερον τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῶόν ἐστιν ἢ οὔ· ἐκλείποντος καὶ τοῦ ὄντος ἐπιχειρεῖ· ὁ μὲν γὰρ λέγων ζῶον αὐτὸ εἶναι, ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος καὶ οἱονεὶ πεπραγμένου ἐπιχειρεῖ· ὁ δὲ λέγων μήπω εἶναι αὐτὸ ζῶον, ἐκ τοῦ λείποντος. cf. Codex Marcianus 521 f. 100r (DG p. 233 Diels, from Def.Med. 445) εἰ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός. §2 Stoics: see ps.Galen Def.Med. 445 cited above, General texts. §4 Diogenes: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.31 (on the νοῦς) γεννώμενον δ᾽ εὐθὺς ἢ ἔξωθεν εἰσκρίνεται ἢ ὑπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἀέρος ἡ ἔνθερμος ἐν ἡμῖν φύσις οἷα σίδηρος ἐν χαλκέως πεπυρωμένος ὕδατι ψυχρῷ πρὸς τὸ κραταιότατον στομοῦται; διότι καὶ παρὰ τὴν ψῦξιν ὠνομάσθαι ψυχὴ δοκεῖ. cf. Hippolytus Ref. 1.21.3 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.806) τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν λέγουσι μὲν ἀθάνατον, εἶναι δὲ σῶμα καὶ γενέσθαι ἐκ τῆς περιψύξεως τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ περιέχοντος· διὸ καὶ καλεῖσθαι ψυχήν. §5 Herophilus: see Tertullian de An. 25.5 cited above under General texts.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 1, p. 7.486.1–8 Littré ἢν ἡ γονὴ μείνῃ ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι τῆς γυναικὸς, πρῶτον μὲν μίσγεται ὁμοῦ, ἅτε

liber 5 caput 15 τῆς γυναικὸς οὐκ ἀτρεμεούσης, καὶ ἀθροίζεται καὶ παχύνεται θερμαινομένη. ἔπειτα πνεῦμα ἴσχει, ἅτε ἐν θερμῷ ἐοῦσα, ἔπειτα τῆς μητρὸς πνεούσης, {ἔπειτα} δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος ὅταν πλησθῇ, ὁδόν οἱ αὐτὸ ἑωυτῷ ἔξω ποιέει καὶ κατὰ μέσον τῆς γονῆς τὸ πνεῦμα ἔξεισιν· ὅταν δὲ ὁδὸς γένηται τῷ πνεύματι ἔξω θερμῷ ἐόντι, αὖθις ἕτερον ψυχρὸν εἰσπνέει ἀπὸ τῆς μητρός· καὶ τοῦτο ποιέει διὰ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου. Aristotle GA 2.3 736a27–b1 διορίσαι δὲ δεῖ πότερον μεταλαμβάνει τὸ συνιστάμενον ἐν τῷ θήλει ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰσελθόντος τι ἢ οὐθέν, καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς καθ᾽ ἣν λέγεται ζῷον (ζῷον δ᾽ ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸ μόριον τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αἰσθητικόν) πότερον ἐνυπάρχει τῷ σπέρματι καὶ τῷ κυήματι ἢ οὔ, καὶ πόθεν. οὔτε γὰρ ὡς ἄψυχον ἂν θείη τις τὸ κύημα κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἐστερημένον ζωῆς· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἧττον τά τε σπέρματα καὶ τὰ κυήματα τῶν ζῴων ζῇ τῶν φυτῶν, καὶ γόνιμα μέχρι τινός ἐστιν. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὴν θρεπτικὴν ἔχουσι ψυχὴν φανερόν (δι᾽ ὅτι δὲ ταύτην πρῶτον ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι λαβεῖν ἐκ τῶν περὶ ψυχῆς διωρισμένων ἐν ἄλλοις φανερόν) … GA 2.4 740a24–27 ἐπεὶ δὲ δυνάμει μὲν ἤδη ζῷον ἀτελὲς δέ, ἄλλοθεν ἀναγκαῖον λαμβάνειν τὴν τροφήν· διὸ χρῆται τῇ ὑστέρᾳ καὶ τῇ ἐχούσῃ ὥσπερ γῇ φυτόν, τοῦ λαμβάνειν τροφὴν ἕως ἂν τελεωθῇ πρὸς τὸ εἶναι ἤδη ζῷον δυνάμει πορευτικόν. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 2.3 736a29–32 περὶ ψυχῆς καθ᾽ ἣν λέγεται ζῷον … πότερον ἐνυπάρχει τῷ σπέρματι καὶ τῷ κυήματι ἢ οὔ. §1 Plato: Plato Tim. 91c7–d5 μέχριπερ ἂν ἑκατέρων ἡ ἐπιθυμία καὶ ὁ ἔρως συναγαγόντες, οἷον ἀπὸ δένδρων καρπὸν καταδρέψαντες, ὡς εἰς ἄρουραν τὴν μήτραν ἀόρατα ὑπὸ σμικρότητος καὶ ἀδιάπλαστα ζῷα κατασπείραντες καὶ πάλιν διακρίναντες μεγάλα ἐντὸς ἐκθρέψωνται καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο εἰς φῶς ἀγαγόντες ζῴων ἀποτελέσωσι γένεσι. ps.Galen Libellus Εἰ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός passim. cf. Aristotle EN 1.13 1102a32–b1 τοῦ ἀλόγου δὲ τὸ μὲν ἔοικε κοινῷ καὶ φυτικῷ, λέγω δὲ τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ τρέφεσθαι καὶ αὔξεσθαι· τὴν τοιαύτην γὰρ δύναμιν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς τρεφομένοις θείη τις ἂν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐμβρύοις, τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ ταύτην καὶ ἐν τοῖς τελείοις. cf. Aspasius in NE 35.8. but for the contrary view see Alcinous Did. c. 25, p. 178.33–38 H. also Tertullian An. 25.2 cited above, and Porphyry ad Gaur. 2.1, p. 34.11–20 etc. §2 Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Virt. 138 (= SVF 2.759) εἰ γὰρ τὰ φυτῶν τρόπον ἔτι παραυξανόμενα καὶ μέρη νομιζόμενα τῶν κυόντων … Porphyry ad Gaur. 3.1, p. 36.11–16 πρῶτον μὲν οὖν αὐτὴν μαρτυρόμενοι τὴν ἐνάργειαν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν θέσθαι ἀξιοῦμεν τὰς εἰδοποιοὺς διαφορὰς τῶν φυτῶν τε καὶ τῶν ζῴων, εἶθ᾽ οὕτως σκέψασθαι, τίσι μᾶλλον προσχωρεῖ τὰ γιγνόμενα περὶ τὰ ἔμβρυα· εἰ μὲν γὰρ φαίνοιτο τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων ὄντα παραπλήσια, ζῷον ἀποφαίνειν τὸ κυούμενον, εἰ δὲ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν φυτῶν, μὴ θαυμάζειν εἰ τῆς γαστρὸς προελθὸν ζωοῦται κτλ. Themistius in PN 5.6.23.22 τρέφεται γὰρ καὶ ἔμβρυον ὄν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ᾗ ζῶον, ἀλλ᾽ ᾗ φυτόν· ἐπειδὰν δὲ αἴσθησιν λάβῃ, τότε πρῶτον τρέφεται ᾗ ζῶον. John Philoponus in de An. 213.7–11 ἐκ τούτου δὲ συνάγουσιν ὅτι οὐ ζῷον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός· εἰ γὰρ ζωή ἐστιν ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τροφή τε καὶ αὔξησις καὶ φθίσις, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων, τὸ δὲ ἔμβρυον οὐ διὰ τῶν οἰκείων τρέφεται ὀργάνων, λέγω δὴ τοῦ στόματος, οὐκ ἄρα ζῷον οὐδὲ ζῶν. Opif. 6.23 277.21–25 ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τὸ παρὰ τοῖς φυσικοῖς ὁμολογούμενον διδασκόμεθα, ὅτι μήπω ζῷόν ἐστι πρὶν διαπλασθῆναι τὸ κατὰ γαστρός·ἅμα δὲ τῇ διαπλάσει ψυχοῦται ζῷον γενόμενον· πρὸ τούτου δὲ φυτοῦ ζωὴν ἔχει. Psellus 1 op. 16,

1895

1896

liber 5 caput 15

pp. 47–48 Duffy αʹ πότε ψυχοῦνται τὰ ἔμβρυα. τῶν δέ γε παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι σοφῶν οἱ μὲν μορφωθέντα ψυχοῦσι τὰ ἔμβρυα, οἱ δὲ αὐτίκα μέλλοντα κινηθῆναι κατὰ γαστρός, οἱ δὲ τῆς μήτρας ἀποσπασθέντα καὶ διατυπωθέντα πρὸς ὄλισθον. οἱ δέ γε τελεώτεροι τούτων μετὰ τὸν τοκετὸν τὴν λογικὴν ψυχὴν μεταλαμβάνειν φασί, καὶ μεταβάλλειν ἀθρόως ὥσπερ ὑπὸ φωτὸς θείου ἀναπτόμενα ἢ ζωπυρούμενα. §3 Empedocles: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 16, p. 7.528.18–20 Littré φημὶ γὰρ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ φυόμενα πάντα ζῇν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τῆς ἰκμάδος, καὶ ὅκως ἂν ἡ γῆ ἔχῃ ἰκμάδος ἐν ἑωυτῇ, οὕτω καὶ τὰ φυόμενα ἔχειν· οὕτω καὶ τὸ παιδίον ζῇ ἀπὸ τῆς μητρὸς ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι, καὶ ὅκως ἂν ἡ μήτηρ ὑγιείης ἔχῃ, οὕτω καὶ τὸ παιδίον ἔχει. see further on A 5.26.4. §4 Diogenes: Anonymus Londiniensis 18.15–23 (Philolaus 44A27 DK) ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ κατασκευάζ[ον ἀμέ]τοχόν ἐστιν ψυχροῦ καὶ ὁ τόπος (sc. the womb) δέ, ἐν ὧ[ι ἡ καταβολ]ή, ἀμέτοχός ἐστιν ψυχροῦ, δῆλον [ὅτι καὶ τὸ] κατασκευαζόμενον ζῶιον τοιοῦτο[ν γίνε]ται. εἰς δὲ τούτου τὴν κατασκ[ευὴν ὑ]πομνήσει προσχρῆται τοιαύτῃ· με[τὰ γὰρ] τὴν ἔκτεξιν εὐθέως {τὸ} τὸ ζῶιον ἐπισπᾶται τὸ ἐκτὸς πνεῦμα ψυχρὸν ὄν· εἶτα πάλιν καθαπερεὶ χρέος ἐκπέμπει αὐτό. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ ὄρεξις τοῦ ἐκτὸς πνεύματος, ἵνα τῆ[ι] ἐπ⟨ε⟩ισάκτωι τοῦ πνεύματος ὁλκῇ θερμ[ό]τερα ὑπάρχοντα τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα πρὸς αὐτοῦ καταψύχηται. Plutarch SR 1052F (SVF 2.806) τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ φύσει τρέφεσθαι νομίζει καθάπερ φυτόν· ὅταν δὲ τεχθῇ, ψυχόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ στομούμενον τὸ πνεῦμα μεταβάλλειν καὶ γίνεσθαι ζῷον· ὅθεν οὐκ ἀπὸ τρόπου τὴν ψυχὴν ὠνομάσθαι παρὰ τὴν ψῦξιν. αὐτὸς δὲ πάλιν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀραιότερον πνεῦμα τῆς φύσεως καὶ λεπτομερέστερον ἡγεῖται μαχόμενος αὑτῷ (cf. also 1053C–D). CN 1084E (SVF 2.806) ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς βιάζονται προλήψεις· ἐκεῖνα δ᾽ ἤδη καὶ παρὰ τὰς ἰδίας, τὸ θερμότατον περιψύξει καὶ πυκνώσει τὸ λεπτομερέστατον γεννῶντες. ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ θερμότατόν ἐστι δήπου καὶ λεπτομερέστατον· ποιοῦσι δ᾽ αὐτὴν τῇ περιψύξει καὶ πυκνώσει τοῦ σώματος (coni. σπέρματος Pohlenz) οἷον στομώσει τὸ πνεῦμα μεταβάλλοντος, ἐκ φυτικοῦ ψυχικὸν γενόμενον.

Liber 5 Caput 16 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 907D–E; pp. 426a15–427a2 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 120; pp. 643.26–644.3 Diels; pp. 389–394 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 230– 231 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 115.1–13, pp. 62–63 Westerink SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.12, p. 1.296.15 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)

Titulus ιϛʹ. Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα (P,cf.S) §1 Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὸ ἔμβρυον ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ διὰ τοῦ στόματος τρέφεσθαι· ὅθεν εὐθέως γεννηθὲν ἐπὶ τὸν μαστὸν φέρεσθαι τῷ στόματι· εἶναι γὰρ καὶ ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ θηλάς τινας καὶ στόματα, δι᾽ ὧν τρέφεσθαι. (P1) §2 οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τοῦ χορίου καὶ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ· ὅθεν τοῦτον εὐθέως ἀποδεῖν τὰς μαιουμένας καὶ ἀνευρύνειν τὸ στόμα, ἵνα ἑτέρα γένηται ἡ μελέτη τῆς τροφῆς. (P2) §3 Ἀλκμαίων δι᾽ ὅλου τοῦ σώματος τρέφεσθαι· ἀναλαμβάνειν γὰρ αὐτό, ὥσπερ σπογγιά, τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς τροφῆς θρεπτικά. (P3) §1 Democritus 68A144 DK; Epicurus fr. 332 Usener; §2 Stoici SVF 2.754; §3 Alcmaeon 24A17 DK titulus Πῶς] πόθεν PB(III:αΕ) ‖ τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα] τὰ ἔμβρυα τρέφεται PB(II) ‖ τὰ ἔμβρυα] τὸ ἔμβρυον PB(III:α) (τοῦτο PPs) §1 [2] post Δημόκριτος hab. καὶ PG ‖ τὸ ἔμβρυον ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ] om. PG ‖ [3] μαστὸν PB: μαζὸν PG ‖ φέρεσθαι PG Diels : φέρεται PB Mau Lachenaud ‖ [4] γὰρ καὶ PB(II)G : γάρ τινα καὶ PB(I) : γάρ τινας καὶ PB(III) : γὰρ PPs ‖ ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ PBQ : ἐν τῷ σώματι PG ‖ τινας] ἐπινενοημένας PG, secl. Jas ‖ στόματα PBQPs : στόμα PG ‖ τρέφεσθαι PG Diels : τρέφονται PB (τρέφεται corr. PB(II)Ps Mau Lachenaud) §2 [6] τοῦ1] om. PB(III) ‖ τοῦ2] om. PG ‖ εὐθέως] om. PQ ‖ [6–7] ἀποδεῖν … στόμα PB : ἀποδεῖν PG : binden die Geburtshelfer ihn (den Nabel) mit einer festen Binde fest Q (om. καὶ ἀνευρύνειν τὸ στόμα), cf. PPs ἀποδεσμοῦσιν αἱ μαῖαι ‖ [7–8] ἵνα … τροφῆς PB (ἑτέρα post τροφῆς PB(III)), cf. sodaß der Nahrungsweg durch einen anderen Ort verläuft Q : al. PG ἵνα διὰ τοῦ στόματος αἰσθητῶς τρέφηται, cf. PPs ἵνα διὰ τοῦ στόματος τὸ γεννηθὲν τρέφηται §3 non hab. PG ‖ [9] αὐτό PBQ(ut vid.) : αὐτῷ Diels ‖ [10] σπογγιά PB(I,II) : σπογγιάν PB(III)Q(ut vid.) : σπογγιᾷ Diels

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 120 (~ tit.) Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα (text Jas). 120.1 (~ P1) Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος διὰ τοῦ στόματος τρέφεσθαι· ὅθεν εὐθὺς γεννηθὲν ἐπὶ τὸν μαζὸν φέρεσθαι τῷ στόματι· εἶναι γὰρ καὶ ἐν τῷ σώματι θηλὰς {ἐπινενοημένας} καὶ στόμα, δι᾽ ὧν τρέφεσθαι. 120.2 (~ P2) οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τοῦ χορίου καὶ ὀμφαλοῦ· ὅθεν τοῦτον εὐθὺς ἀποδεῖν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ στόματος αἰσθητῶς τρέφηται.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_141

5

10

1898

liber 5 caput 16

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 115 Εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῶον (~ tit. A 5.15) καὶ πῶς τρέφεται τοῦτο (~ tit. A 5.16) τρισὶν ἐνέτυχον μονοβίβλοις περὶ τούτου τοῦ ζητήματος, Ἱπποκράτους, Πορφυρίου καὶ Γαληνοῦ. ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἱπποκράτης καὶ Γαληνὸς ζῶον αὐτό φασιν ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ εἶναι, καὶ κινεῖσθαι ὑπὸ ψυχῆς τὸ μὲν ἄλογον τῆς ἀλόγου, τὸ δὲ λογικὸν τῆς λογικῆς· τρέφεσθαί τε ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ διὰ τοῦ στόματος, εἶναι γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ θηλὰς τινὰς καὶ στόματα δι᾽ ὧν τρέφεται (~ P1)· ὁ δέ γε Πορφύριος πολλοῖς λογισμοῖς καὶ ἀποδείξεσι διατείνεται μὴ εἶναι τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῶον μηδὲ ἐμψυχωμένον, ἀλλὰ δίκην φυτοῦ καταπεφυτεῦσθαι ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ, καὶ κινεῖσθαι οὐχ᾽ ὑπὸ ψυχῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ φύσεως, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ τὰ δένδρα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ κινεῖσθαι εἴωθε τρέφεσθαί τε οὐ διὰ τοῦ στόματος, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ χορίου καὶ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ· ὅθεν τοῦτον εὐθέως ἀποδεσμοῦσιν αἱ μαῖαι, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ στόματος τὸ γεννηθὲν τρέφηται (~ P2). Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio cf. A 2.5 Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος. A 2.17 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες. A 5.18 Διὰ τί ἑπταμηνιαῖα γόνιμα. A 5.27 Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως §1 A 5.15.1 Πλάτων ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον· καὶ γὰρ κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ τρέφεσθαι. A 5.18.4 (de infantibus in septimo mense natis) ἐὰν δὲ προκύψῃ μὲν μὴ τρέφηται δέ, ἀσθενησάντος τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ διὰ τὸ ἐπίπονον αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὸ ἔκκριμα, τότε ἔμβρυον ἄτροφον εἶναι. 5.18.5 (de infantibus in octavo mense natis) ὅταν προκύψῃ μὲν τῆς μήτρας τὸ βρέφος, ἐπὶ πλεῖον δ᾽ ὁ ὀμφαλὸς βασανισθῇ· ἄτροφον γὰρ γίνεσθαι ὡς τούτου τρέφοντος αὐτό. §3 A 4.18.2 (de gustu) Διογένης τῇ ἀραιότητι τῆς γλώττης καὶ τῇ μαλακότητι καὶ διὰ τὸ συνάπτειν τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος εἰς αὐτὴν φλέβας διαχεῖσθαι τοὺς χυμοὺς ἑλκομένους ἐπὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν καθάπερ ἀπὸ σπογγιᾶς. A 5.3.6 (de substantia seminis) Δημόκριτος ἀφ᾽ ὅλων τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων μερῶν, οἷον ὀστῶν σαρκῶν ἰνῶν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The Byzantine mss. and Q preserve three doxai. Both G and Psellus abridge the first two and ignore the third, the latter in a chapter which combines the heading of 5.15 and 5.16. S retains only the heading in the ms. SL. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The two chief proximate texts, Censorinus and ps.Galen Def.Med., both contain recognizable versions of the first two doxai with the order reversed (we note the former’s use of the term opinio, i.e. doxa). But there

liber 5 caput 16

1899

is no correspondence in name-labels. Censorinus has three: Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Hippo, while ps.Galen presents anonymous views only. The two treatises by ps.Galen (An.Ut.) and Porphyry on whether the embryo is a living being (see on ch. 5.15) treat the question differently. Ps.Galen follows the Hippocratic view that the embryo receives food from the mother through its mouth (i.e. cf. §1), but does not record the other opinion. Porphyry is only interested in the subject in relation to the interaction of soul and body (see ad Gaur. 16.3). (2) Sources. The sources still available to us indicate that the topic was often discussed, with the two main opposed positions prominent, but often supplemented with mention of breast-like pieces of flesh which the embryo can suck on. Aristotle supports the view that the umbilical cord is the conduit of food to the embryo and at GA 2.7 746a19–26 attacks the view that it is fed via its mouth by sucking on a σαρκίδιον, citing the evidence of animal dissections (ps.Galen An.Ut. at §5 14.13–16 may be arguing against this statement when he says that the existence of a membrane around the womb will not stop the supply of food to the embryo). He appears to have Diogenes of Apollonia in mind, rather than the Hippocratic writers, if we are to believe Censorinus and Aristophanes of Byzantium (texts below section E(a)&(b) General texts). The opposition of the first two doxai thus goes back at least to the Peripatos. The view recorded for Alcmaeon (24A17 DK) by the second cent. CE medical author Rufus as recorded by Oribasius differs from what is found in §3. Our author makes no mention of the role of milk produced by the mother prior to birth and conveyed to the womb through the vessels connected to the breasts. The role of milk is prominent in accounts of Aristotle HA 4.8 776a15–b3 and Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 10; see Lonie (1981) 204. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is one of 13 in this book introduced by with πῶς and the indicative, thus seeking the cause. It occurs in this form elsewhere only in a very late text in Ioannes the physician (seventh cent.) which relates it primarily to the question of whether the fetus is a plant or an animal (cf. ch. 5.15). The text of heading in SL is identical to the majority reading in the tradition of P (cf. Wachsmuth 1882, 17). On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. D Analysis a Context The topic follows on logically from that of the previous chapter. Whether an embryo is a ζῷον or a plant, it grows and for that process it needs nourishment. As noted above, Ps combines the two topics in a single chapter.

1900

liber 5 caput 16

b Number–Order of Lemmata There are three doxai. Given the parallels elsewhere and the fact that the usual diaeresis is well covered, the chapter may be complete, though not including all the names found in the proximate tradition. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first two doxai are formulated in clear opposition to each other. The cause is indicated through the two prepositional formulas διὰ τοῦ στόματος and διὰ τοῦ χορίου καὶ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ. There then follow clauses in each doxa commencing with ὅθεν referring to the time immediately after the birth (both with the adverb εὐθέως) which give evidence for the position taken. The name-labels in both cases are unsupported by other evidence. Censorinus reverses the order of the two views; for the ‘umbilical’ view he cites Anaxagoras and ‘quite a few others’ (both the placement and the formulation of the name-labels may indicate the majority view), for the ‘oral’ view he gives the names of Diogenes and Hippo. As noted above in section B, the mention of Diogenes is reinforced by Aristophanes’ identification with the anonymous thinkers criticized by Aristotle at GA 2.7 746a19–20. Psellus identifies the ‘oral’ view with both Hippocrates (probably from De carnibus) and Galen (from An.Ut.), based on his own wider reading. The third doxa attributed to Alcmaeon is clearly formulated in opposition to both previous views. Rather than from a particular part, the process of nourishment occurs through the whole body, the embryo taking up the nourishing elements like a sponge. There are no parallels for this third view, which as a theory does seem rather strange. It may have arisen from a misunderstanding of the view that the blood conveys nourishment from the mother’s entire body by means of the umbilical cord, which is attached to the womb through bloodvessels. See the description by Aristotle at GA 2.7 745b23–35. Galen often uses the metaphor of the sponge, e.g. UP 3.318.4–8 K. on the spleen, but not for the embryo (in A also used at 4.18.2 on taste). As we have already seen, a text going back to the physician Rufus associates Alcmaeon with the ‘oral’ view. Lloyd (1991) 178 notes the suggestion by Olivieri that στόματι be emended to σώματι in order to bring the two texts into line, but there is no evidence to support this move in Oribasius’ text. This thus may well be a case in the Placita where ‘the tail wags the dog’. The desire for a diaeresis of views has led to the unclear formulation of a third view, and it also appears to have received an inappropriate name-label.

liber 5 caput 16

1901

d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The two further pieces of information that we have regarding atomist views on this subject focus on different roles for the umbilical cord, Aristotle GA 2.4 740a33–37 and Plutarch Am.Prol. 495E neither confirm nor contradict this view (texts below section E(b)§1). As Morel (1996) 163 notes, Aristotle’s report that Democritus believed that the fetus stays in the womb so that it can be moulded after its mother’s features does not cohere well with the views that the female has her own semen (A 5.5.1) and that the mother helps to determine the sex of the infant (A 5.7.7). As in the previous chapter there is variation in our witnesses between indirect speech with verbs in the infinitive and direct speech with verbs in the nominative. Following ὅθεν there are, setting aside this text, three instances with the former (A 2.30.2, 5.5.5, 5.15.4) and three with the latter (A 1.6.1, 3.12.2, 5.7.1). In the present case we have followed Diels in choosing for the infinitives in G as opposed to the indicatives in P. The move to the plural in the final word τρέφονται as recorded in the mss. of PB seems particularly dubious. §2 The final phrase of this doxa is difficult, because all four witnesses record a different text: PB Q G Ps

ἵνα ἑτέρα γένηται ἡ μελέτη τῆς τροφῆς sodaß der Nahrungsweg durch einen anderen Ort verläuft ἵνα διὰ τοῦ στόματος αἰσθητῶς τρέφηται ἵνα διὰ τοῦ στόματος τὸ γεννηθὲν τρέφηται.

It is evident that these four texts divide into two groups: PB and Q are similar, while G and Ps closely resemble each other. It has to be said that the reading in G and Ps makes excellent sense in continuing the theme of the mouth (στόμα) from §1. However, the use of the adverb αἰσθητῶς is a little suspect, finding no parallel elsewhere in A. On the other hand the expression ἡ μελέτη τῆς τροφῆς in PB is also distinctly unusual, with only a distant parallel in the words τῆς φύσεως τοῦ κόσμου οὕτω μεμελετηκυίας in the next chapter, 5.17.1. It should also be noted that the correspondence between G and Ps indicates that the Byzantine scholar must have had a copy of P (as far as we know he had access neither to A nor to G) which stood closer to G’s text on this point. This agreement must be placed against the agreement of PB and Q. There are no decisive grounds for determining which of these versions originally stood in A. We have decided to retain the text of PB with its extra detail on the widening of the mouth, which none of the other witnesses have.

1902

liber 5 caput 16

e Other Evidence As noted above in section D(c), Censorinus reverses the two views and seems to indicate with the phrase ‘with several others’ that the ‘umbilical’ view is dominant. Ps.Galen only records the ‘oral’ view as a false alternative. A places his three views side by side and in his usual manner appears happy to have a diversity of opinions. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus DN 6.3 utcumque tamen formatus infans quem ad modum in matris utero alatur, duplex opinio est. Anaxagorae (59A110 DK) enim ceterisque conpluribus per umbilicum cibus administrari videtur; at Diogenes (64A25 DK) et Hippon (38A17 DK) existimarunt esse in alvo prominens quiddam, quod infans ore adprehendat et ex eo alimentum ita trahat, ut, cum editus est, ex matris uberibus. ps.Galen Def.Med. 444, p. 19.451.15–17 K. υμδʹ. τρέφεται τὸ ἔμβρυον διὰ τοῦ χορίου λαμβάνον καὶ ἐπισπώμενον. τρέφεται δὲ οὐ διὰ στόματος, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ὀμφαλοῦ. Chapter heading: cf. texts above.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 2.4 740a24–27 cited on ch. 5.15. GA 2.7 745b22– 26 ἔχει δὲ τὴν αὔξησιν τὰ ζῳοτοκούμενα τῶν ἐμβρύων ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ προσφύσεως. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἔνεστιν ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ ἡ θρεπτικὴ δύναμις τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀφίησιν εὐθὺς οἷον ῥίζαν τὸν ὀμφαλὸν εἰς τὴν ὑστέραν … GA 2.7 746a19–27 οἱ δὲ λέγοντες τρέφεσθαι τὰ παιδία ἐν ταῖς ὑστέραις διὰ τοῦ σαρκίδιόν τι βδάλλειν οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν· ἐπί τε γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ταὐτὸν συνέβαινεν ἄν, νῦν δ᾽ οὐ φαίνεται (θεωρῆσαι γὰρ τοῦτο ῥᾴδιον διὰ τῶν ἀνατομῶν), καὶ περὶ ἅπαντα τὰ ἔμβρυα καὶ τὰ πτηνὰ καὶ τὰ πλωτὰ καὶ τὰ τῶν πεζῶν ὁμοίως λεπτοὶ περιέχουσιν ὑμένες χωρίζοντες ἀπό τε τῆς ὑστέρας καὶ τῶν ἐγγιγνομένων ὑγρῶν ἐν οἷς οὔτ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἔνεστι τοιοῦτον οὐθέν, οὔτε διὰ τούτων οὐθενὸς ἐνδέχεται ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.78 διαπίπτειν δέ ⟨φησι⟩ Διογένην τὸν Ἀπολλωνιάτην (64A25 DK) εἰρηκότα ταῖς κοτυληδόσι ταῖς ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ τρέφεσθαι τὰ ἔμβρυα· οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν ἀμφοδόντων κοτυληδόνας ἔχει ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ, ἔστι δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀμφόδους. Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 10, p. 7.512.18–20 Littré (on mother’s milk) καὶ ἐς τὰς μήτρας δὲ ὀλίγον ἔρχεται διὰ τῶν αὐτέων φλεβῶν· τείνουσι γὰρ ἐς τοὺς μαζοὺς καὶ ἐς τὰς μήτρας φλέβια ταὐτά τε καὶ παραπλήσια ἄλλα. Καὶ ὁκόταν ἀφίκηται ἐς τὰς μήτρας, ἰδέην ἴσχει τοῦ γάλακτος, καὶ τὸ παιδίον ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπαυρίσκεται ὀλίγον … Ioannes medicus Comm. in Nat. pueri 2.219.22–33 Dietz ζητοῦσι δὲ οἱ ἐξηγηταὶ ἐνταῦθα, πῶς τρέφεται τὸ ἔμβρυον καί φασιν, ὅτι πᾶν τρεφόμενον ἢ ὡς φυτὸν ἢ ὡς ζῶον ἢ ὡς ζωόφυτον τρέφεται. οὔτε δὲ ὡς ζῶον τρέφεται, διότι τὸ ζῶον δι᾽ ὀργανώσεως λαμβάνει τροφήν, οὔτε ὡς φυτὸν, ἐπειδὴ οὐδέποτε ἀπὸ φυτοῦ ζῶον γίνεται· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ὡς ζωόφυτον. δῆλον, ὥστε ἄρα τρέφεται ἡ γονὴ ἢ οὔ. φαμὲν ἡμεῖς ὅτι κακῶς ἔλαβον πᾶν τρεφόμενον τρέφεσθαι ἢ ὡς

liber 5 caput 16 φυτὸν ἢ ὡς ζωόφυτον ἢ ὡς ζῶον μόνον. ἐγὼ δέ φημι ὅτι τὸ τρεφόμενον ἤγουν ἡ γονὴ τρέφεται, καθὼς λόγῳ τρέφονται οἱ κόκκοι τοῦ σίτου. εἰ δὲ φὴς ὡς δυνάμει φυτὸν, ὡσαύτως φημὶ ὅτι ὡς δυνάμει ζῶον τρέφεται ἡ γονή. Chapter heading: Ioannes medicus cited above πῶς τρέφεται τὸ ἔμβρυον. cf. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA. 2.36 περὶ τροφῆς βρέφους (full text cited on ch. 5.8 section E(b)). §1 Democritus Epicurus: cf. Aristotle GA 2.4 740a33–37 αἱ δὲ φλέβες οἷον ῥίζαι πρὸς τὴν ὑστέραν συνάπτουσι, δι᾽ ὧν λαμβάνει τὸ κύημα τὴν τροφήν. τούτου γὰρ χάριν ἐν ταῖς ὑστέραις μένει τὸ ζῷον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς Δημόκριτός φησιν (fr. 535 Luria) ἵνα διαπλάττηται τὰ μόρια κατὰ τὰ μόρια τῆς ἐχούσης. Plutarch Am.Prol. 495E ὅταν δὲ τὴν γονὴν ἀναλάβῃ προσπεσοῦσαν ἡ ὑστέρα καὶ περιστείλῃ ῥιζώσεως γενομένης (‘ὁ γὰρ ὀμφαλὸς πρῶτον ἐν μήτρῃσιν’ ὥς φησι Δημόκριτος (68B148 DK) ‘ἀγκυρηβόλιον σάλου καὶ πλάνης ἐμφύεται, πεῖσμα καὶ κλῆμα’ τῷ γεννωμένῳ καρπῷ καὶ μέλλοντι) … for the doxa itself cf. Alcmaeon in Rufus at Orib. Coll.med. 38.9, p. 4.136.30 Raeder οὐχ ὥσπερ Ἀλκμαίων (24A17 DK) οἴεται, ὅτι ἐν ταῖς μήτραις ὂν τὸ παιδίον ἤσθιε στόματι. also Diogenes of Apollonia in Arist.Byz. Epit. 1.78 cited above under General texts. Corpus Hippocraticum Carn. 6, p. 8.592.11–13 Littré τὸ δὲ παιδίον ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ συνέχον τὰ χείλεα μύζει ἐκ τῶν μητρέων τῆς μητρὸς καὶ ἕλκει τήν τε τροφὴν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῇ καρδίῃ εἴσω. 6 p. 594.3–4 οὐδ᾽ ἂν θηλάζειν τὸν μασθὸν ἠπίστατο γεννώμενον αὐτίκα, εἰ μὴ καὶ ἐν τῇ μήτρῃ ἔμυζε. Soranus Gyn. 1.14.2 = Oribasius Coll.Med. 24.31.24 Διοκλῆς (fr. 23c–d Van der Eijk) δὲ καὶ κοτυληδόνας ἢ πλεκταίνας καὶ κεραίας λεγομένας εἶναί φησιν ἐν τῇ εὐρυχωρίᾳ τῆς ὑστέρας, αἵτινες μαστοειδεῖς ἐκφύσεις ὑπάρχουσι, πλατεῖαι μὲν κατὰ βάσιν, μείουροι δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον, ἑκατέρωθεν κείμεναι τῶν πλευρῶν, προνοητικῶς ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως γεγενημέναι χάριν τοῦ τὸ ἔμβρυον προμελετᾶν τὰς θηλὰς τῶν μαστῶν ἐπισπᾶσθαι. ps.Galen An.Ut. 3 7.1–6 Wagner καταπίνει τε γὰρ καὶ ⟨πνεῖ⟩, ὡς Ἱπποκράτει δοκεῖ· τῷ τε γὰρ στόματι καὶ τῇ ῥινὶ τὴν πνοὴν ἄνωθεν ποιεῖσθαί φησι. τινὲς δὲ τῶν Ἀσκληπιαδῶν (—) καὶ θηλάζειν αὐτὸ τὰς ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ κοτυληδόνας λέγουσι καὶ πέττειν, ἕπεσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκῃ τοῖς καταποθεῖσι καὶ πέψιν, κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα κατειργασμένην ἤδη παρὰ τῆς μητρὸς λαμβάνῃ τὴν τροφήν. An.Ut. 5 14.13–16 καὶ μηδεὶς ἡμᾶς παραγέτω ⟨τῷ⟩ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀμνίου ὑμένος περίθεσιν μὴ δύνασθαι διὰ στόματος τρέφεσθαι τὰ ἔμβρυα, ἱκανὴ γὰρ ἡ φύσις διὰ τῶν πόρων εὐπορίαν παρασχεῖν καὶ ὁδὸν εἰς εὐτροφίαν οὖσαν αὐτάρκη. §2 Stoics: Antiphon at Poll. Onom. 2.223 (87B36 DK) καὶ Ἀντιφῶν δ᾽ εἴρηκεν ‘ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἔμβρυον αὐξάνεταί τε καὶ τρέφεται, καλεῖται χόριον’. cf. Aristotle GA 2.4 740b9–11 ἡ μὲν οὖν αὔξησις τῷ κυήματι γίγνεται διὰ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ διὰ τῶν ῥιζῶν τοῖς φυτοῖς. Stephanus MMG 165, p. 204.11–15 Dickson χρὴ γινώσκειν ὅτι περὶ τὸ ἔμβρυόν εἰσι τρεῖς ὑμένες, ὁ μὲν καλούμενος ἀμνειὸς, ὁ δὲ ἀλλαντοειδής. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τρίτος ἄλλος, ὃν καλοῦσι χόριον· ὠνόμασται δὲ οὕτως, ἐπειδὴ πολλαὶ φλέβες καὶ ἀρτηρίαι κατ᾽ αὐτόν εἰσιν ὥσπερ ἐν χορῷ τινι συνεληλυθυῖαι, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τρέφεται τὸ ἔμβρυον. §3 Alcmaeon: see the reference to Alcmaeon by Rufus cited under §1 above.

1903

Liber 5 Caput 17 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 907E–F; p. 427a3–14 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 121; p. 644.4–8 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 230–231 Daiber SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.4, 1.295.7–8 Wachsmuth (tituli soli)

Titulus ιζʹ. Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν τῇ γαστρί (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ ἅμα ὅλον γίνεσθαι. (P1) §2 Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον τὴν ὀσφὺν ὡς τρόπιν νεώς. (P2) §3 Ἀλκμαίων τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐν ᾗ ἔστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. (P3) §4 οἱ ἰατροὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ἐν ᾗ αἱ φλέβες καὶ αἱ ἀρτηρίαι. (P4) §5 οἱ δὲ τὸν μέγαν δάκτυλον τοῦ ποδός. (P5) §6 ἄλλοι δὲ τὸν ὀμφαλόν. (P6) §1 Stoici SVF 2.755; §2 Aristoteles cf. GA 2.1 735a14–15, Met. Δ.1 1013a4; §3 Alcmaeon 24A13 DK: §4 medici —; §§5–6 anonymi — titulus τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν τῇ γαστρί PBQSL-ind2 (verisim. ex P) : τελειοῦται τοῦ βρέφους PG : ἀπὸ ποίου ἄρχεται μορίου μορφοῦσθαι το ἔμβρυον SL-ind1 §1 [2] ἅμα ὅλον PGQ : τοῖς πολλοῖς PB ‖ post γίνεσθαι add. νομίζουσιν PG §4 [5] αἱ1 PB(II)Q : om. PB(I,III) : καὶ PG ‖ αἱ2 PB(I,II)Q : om. PB(III)G §5 [6] μέγαν PBG : om. PQ §6 [7] ἄλλοι δὲ PB, wieder anderen Q : οἱ δὲ PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 121 (~ tit.) Τί πρῶτον τελειοῦται τοῦ βρέφους (text Diels) 121.1 (~ P1) οἱ Στωικοὶ ἅμα ὅλον γίνεσθαι νομίζουσιν. 121.2 (~ P2) Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον τὴν ὀσφὺν ὥσπερ τρόπιν νεώς. 121.3 (~ P3) Ἀλκμαίων τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐν ᾗ ἐστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. 121.4 (~ P4) οἱ ἰατροὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ἐν ᾗ καὶ φλέβες καὶ ἀρτηρίαι· 121.5 (~ P5) οἱ δὲ τὸν μέγαν δάκτυλον τοῦ ποδός· 121.6 (~ P6) οἱ δὲ τὸν ὀμφαλόν. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 2.6 Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός. A 5.23 Πότε καὶ πῶς ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. §1 cf. A 5.13.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ … συνεκρατήθη τὸ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ βρέφος τελεσιουργεῖται. A 5.21.2 Ἀσκληπιάδης … τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ὁλοτελῆ (μορφοῦται) παρὰ τὰς συγκράσεις τῶν στοιχείων. §2 cf. A 2.5a.4 Φιλόλαος ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ πυρί, ὅπερ τρόπεως δίκην προϋπεβάλλετο τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρας⟩ ὁ δημιουργὸς θεός. §3 cf. A 4.5 Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν, praesertim §§1–3 (sed Alcmaeon abest). §4 cf. A 4.5.8 (de principali) Διογένης ἐν τῇ ἀρτηριακῇ κοιλίᾳ τῆς καρδίας. A 4.22.3

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_142

5

liber 5 caput 17

1905

(de respiratione) Ἡρόφιλος δυνάμεις ἀπολείπει περὶ τὰ σώματα τὰς κινητικὰς ἐν νεύροις ἐν ἀρτηρίαις ἐν μυσί. §6 cf. A 5.16.2 (de alimento infantium) οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τοῦ χορίου καὶ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses In answer to the question posed by the chapter heading PB preserves a list of six briefly formulated doxai, all of which G retains without any substantial modification. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. By far the most significant doxographical parallel is found in Censorinus. Unlike A he begins with a sceptical position attributed to Alcmaeon: no one can determine quid primum in infante formetur (‘what is first formed in the baby’). This view is followed by a list of five doxai citing various candidates—heart (cf. A §4), head (cf. A §3), belly and head, brain, flesh–bones–tendons etc. (cf. A §5). Censorinus then continues with the view of the Stoics with which A begins, i.e. that the development of the fetus occurs as a whole. This is the only exact parallel for the name-labels found in this chapter. A attaches different views to the names Aristotle and Alcmaeon compared with Censorinus, and the latter does not have any reference to doctors. The remainder of Censorinus’ passage discusses views on how the development of the fetus takes place, whether by nature or pneuma or etherial heat, for which there is no equivalent treatment in A. The other main proximate parallel for the topic of this chapter is ps.Galen, who at Def.Med. 452 poses the question but does not record any diversity of opinion, presenting only the dominant medical viewpoint that the first part to form is the umbilical cord. (2) Sources. Aristotle already gives a variety of opinions on this subject in a surprising location, i.e. when in Book Δ of the Metaphysics (text below, section E(b) General texts) he discusses the various meanings of the term ἀρχή as used in ordinary language. One of its meanings can be ‘internal point of commencement,’ i.e. ‘that part of a thing from which genesis begins’, as paraphrased by Ross (1924) 1.290. The illustrations given are the keel of a boat (cf. A §2), the threshold of a house, while in the case of living beings some people think it is the heart (cf. A §4), others the brain (cf. Anaxagoras in Cen-

1906

liber 5 caput 17

sorinus 6.1) or whatever other alternative they come up with. The final two views constitute an early reference to the discussion which is already mentioned in the Corpus Hippocraticum at Morb.Sacr. 17 (cited on ch. 4.5 section E(b) General texts: do we think with the heart or the brain). In his biological writings, however, he considers only the view that the heart is the first part to be formed (see the various texts collected below in section E(b) General texts). Aristotle thus provides evidence of earlier discussions, but almost no names of earlier thinkers are supplied (only Democritus at GA 2.4 740a13). Centuries later Galen also refers to previous research at the beginning of his treatise on the formation of the fetus. Characteristically (and ignoring Aristotle’s statement at Juv. 3 468b29) he states that philosophers have posed questions on this subject and come to erroneous and conflicting views (note the term διαφωνῆσαι), but this is no wonder, because they did not make use of the available empirical evidence. They should follow the example of Hippocrates, who did not follow ‘logical suppositions’ (λογικαὶ ὑπόνοιαι), but observed what could be seen in the case of an induced abortion (the famous text in Nat.Puer. 2). Even though A cites the view of ‘the doctors’ (§4), he largely follows the theoretical method of the philosophers. Lactantius attributes to Varro (no doubt his source) and Aristotle the view attributed to the doctors in A; text below E(a)§4. C Chapter Heading The witnesses furnish two quite different versions of the chapter heading. In PBQ and G we find Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν τῇ γαστρί. This heading is also found in the pinax recording the contents of the mainly lost ch. 42 of Stobaeus Ecl. Book 1; see the text at Wachsmuth (1882) 17, Diels DG 271. However, earlier in the same list an alternative heading is found: Ἀπὸ ποίου ἄρχεται μορίου μορφοῦσθαι το ἔμβρυον; see Wachsmuth ibid. This heading is very similar to that on the cosmos at A 2.6, Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός. Elter (1880) 73–74 argued that the earlier heading on the list was based on the heading of ch. 5.22, but this is not so likely given the divergence of the subject matter (the latter chapter does not have a temporal aspect). He concluded on this basis that the second heading Τί πρῶτον κτλ. was interpolated from P. It might be argued that the first heading Ἀπὸ ποίου ἄρχεται μορίου κτλ. suits the contents of the chapter as preserved by P better, which focuses on the part which is the first to be formed (i.e. before the whole embryo is formed). But the second heading, which can be taken to focus on ‘initial completions’ could also be taken in this sense. Comparison with the contents of ch. 5.21 (and esp. the terminology in 5.21.1) suggests a distinction between ‘commencement’ (ἄρχεσθαι) and ‘completion’ (τελειοῦσθαι), so this distinction

liber 5 caput 17

1907

would explain what was listed in ch. 5.17. If this is correct, then both headings would suit the chapter’s contents. Thus the question of which heading stood in the original text of S must be regarded as a conundrum, which cannot be definitively solved on the basis of the present evidence. It is safest, therefore, to retain the heading in P, even if its presence in SL may be the result of interpolation. On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. The parallel between ch. 2.6 and the current chapter highlights the macrocosm–microcosm relation between the cosmos and, among living beings, the human being in particular. The doxographical tradition takes this over from the tradition of Plato’s Timaeus, although (despite the heading in ch. 2.6, on which see our Commentary ad loc.) the theological and teleological emphases are much reduced. For the focus on commencement (τί πρῶτον) and completion (τελεσιουργεῖται) compare the related ch. 5.21, Ἐν ποίῳ χρόνῳ μορφοῦται τὰ ζῷα ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὄντα, where the heading only speaks of ‘shaping’, but the doxai themselves mention ἄρχεσθαι once and τελειοῦσθαι three times. We should note too that the Damastes excerpt, on which see ch. 5.18 Commentary D(e), uses the terminology of shaping (μόρφωσις) by implication for the completion of the initial stage of the embryo. The same theme of beginning and completion returns in ch. 5.23, Πότε καὶ πῶς ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. D Analysis a Context The third of the five chapters on embryology (chs. 15–18, 21) follows on logically from the previous two on the nature and nourishment of the fetus. On receiving nourishment it starts to grow and take shape. One may then ask what is completed first. b Number–Order of Lemmata With its six doxai, this is one of the better populated chapters in Book 5, though of course the individual doxai are very brief indeed (compare ch. 5.7 with 5.8 and 5.16 and 5.20, which also have 6). The slightly longer and differing list in Censorinus suggests that P may have abridged. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The formulation of the question with ‘what first’ invites the presentation of a list, which A readily provides. One might compare the identification of the ἡγεμονικόν in ch. 4.5, where we get a long list of 13 locations organized in two main groups a capite ad calcem (see Commentary D(c)). But the list in the present

1908

liber 5 caput 17

chapter is decidedly less well organized, as the comparison with the parallel chapter in Censorinus shows. A commences with the Stoic view that Censorinus places last, that no first part can be identified because all parts are formed simultaneously. This view also appears to be defended by the Hippocratic author of Regimen (text below). Galen, however, attributes the Aristotelian view (on which see below under (c)) to ‘Chrysippus and many other Stoics’ (Foet. Form. 4.4). The remaining five doxai all single out a part which is completed first. (a) For the view that it is the loins we have found no parallels. The attribution to Aristotle is certainly mistaken, since he repeatedly states that the ἀρχή for development of the living being is the heart or its equivalent. The only further detail given is the non-transparent image of the keel of a boat, on which see below, section D(d). (b) The view that it is the head, which contains the ἡγεμονικόν (cf. ch. 4.5) is attributed to Alcmaeon (cf. to Hippo in Censorinus). The reason is implicit in the reference to the ‘directive part’, which is thought needed to ‘direct’ the process of development. (c) The view, vigorously defended by Aristotle in his biological works, that the heart is the first part formed is attributed to the ‘doctors’ (cf. to Empedocles and Aristotle in Censorinus). The attribution is curious, since it is the typically ‘philosophical’ and not ‘medical’ view. The mention of ‘veins’ and ‘arteries’ also points to the source in Aristotle’s biological works, where their connection to the heart is mentioned (strictly speaking ‘veins’ only; veins and arteries together in the paraphrase in Aristophanes of Byzantium; texts below). Censorinus gives as reason for this view that the heart ‘most of all contains the life of the human being’. The deliberate parallelism in formulation between §3 and §4, both with clauses commencing with ἐν ᾗ, should be noted. They are meant to be compared, the one view emphasizing the directive element, the other the physical transmission of life (and blood). (d) The anonymous view that the ‘large toe of the foot’ is first formed is a curiosity, exactly the kind of view that A, the collector of unusual views, likes to include. It perhaps originates from the misunderstanding of a text, e.g. the view of Diogenes of Apollonia in Censorinus that the flesh is first formed, from which then the bones and other parts develop, or the view in a brief treatise in the Hippocratic tradition edited by Jouanna (2008) 35 that the baby first moves when the fingers/toes (the term δάκτυλος covers both) and nails have taken root (text below section E(b); cf. also Nat.Puer. 10, on which see ch. 5.21 Commentary D(d) on §2). Another possibility is that it is based on a parody of Chrysippus’ argument that walking is not the pneuma transmitted from the hegemonikon to the feet (Cleanthes) but the hegemonikon itself (Seneca Ep. 113.23 = SVF 2.836, text below E(b)§5).

liber 5 caput 17

1909

(e) Finally A mentions another anonymous view that the umbilical cord is the part formed first. This is in fact the view that Galen, appealing to the Hippocratic tradition, strongly favours. He claims that it is based on anatomical observation rather than philosophical logic. The contents, structure and organization of this chapter are disappointing, as we can easily see when they are compared with what is found in Censorinus. It would seem to be illogical to begin with the holistic view, which does not privilege any of the bodily parts (but perhaps it is placed first on an analogy with chapters in which the existence of the phenomenon is first discussed, e.g. chs. 1.7, 1.24, i.e. there is no ‘first thing’, or that it cannot be known, cf. the doxa of Alcmaeon in Censorinus). The doxa would have been better placed at the end, as in Censorinus. If there is any reasoning behind the ordering of the remaining views, it is difficult to determine what it is (except the opposition between §3 and §4). The first doxa (§2) is quite obscure, while the final one, in spite of its importance, is tacked on at the end (but admittedly is missing entirely in Censorinus, unless it is implied by the Democritean view). The Latin writer also indicates much more clearly what the reasoning is behind the selection of the various options. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The reading in PB, οἱ Στωικοὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς γίνεσθαι, is rather strange. All editors since Diels rightly prefer the reading in G and Q, which is reinforced by the parallel in Censorinus. Diels suggests it is the remnant of a scholion, but it could also be the result of corruption. It is yet another indication that errors crept into the Byzantine tradition quite late. The Stoic position seems to be rejected by Aristotle when stating at the beginning of his discussion in GA 2.1 735a14–15 that a first thing must come into being, but it is not clear whether he has any thinker in mind for this position, or whether it is just a theoretical alternative. §2 The image used here for the loins ‘like the keel of a ship’ is quite striking. Mansfeld (1990a) 3213 agrees with Diels that it cannot be a coincidence that the same image is used by Aristotle at Met. Δ.1 1013a4–7 when giving an example of ‘a thing as the result of whose presence something first comes into being’ and argues that it has been ‘garbled’ somehow or other in the tradition. Remarkably the same image is used in ch. 2.5a.4 in a doxa of Philolaus on the ἡγεμονικόν of the cosmos. As noted by Sharples–Van der Eijk (2008) 167, the image is frequently used by Galen for the backbone or spine, e.g. at Ars Med. 10.5 Boudon, UP 3.3, p. 12.10 Helmreich, and is also found at Lactantius Op.D. 5.4 and Nemesius NH 28, p. 93.3 Morani. A similar image is found at Porphyry ad Gaur. 10.4, but in relation to the entry of the soul as pilot.

1910

liber 5 caput 17

§3 For further observations on the links between this chapter and ch. 4.5 on the ἡγεμονικόν see Mansfeld (1990a) 3013, 3212–3216. e Other Evidence There can be little doubt that connections exist between the only three lists that we have in answer to this quaestio. Those of A and Censorinus are parallel, though curiously divergent, esp. in their name-labels. That there is also a link with Aristotle’s use of the image of the keel at Met. Δ 1 1013a4–7 can hardly be doubted. As so often A appears to stand in a rich tradition. This time he might have made better use of it. There remains to be discussed an intriguing text in Philo, Leg. 2.6 (cited below, section E(a)§§2&4). It states that the heart is formed before the rest of the body, i.e. the view of §4 in our chapter. Philo uses two images for this role, the foundation of a house and the keel of a ship, the latter being the same image used in §2 of the loins and by Aristotle of the heart in the text in Met. Δ. Philo attributes this view to ‘the best of the doctors and natural philosophers’, which again recalls §4 and the doctors holding the view on the heart. This last-mentioned name-label would come naturally to someone using Placita, as we know that Philo did for his texts on the heavens and the mind; see ch. 2.11 Commentary B, and Wendland (1897). The inference that for this text Philo here recalls material from the Placita tradition and that it may have contained the image drawn from Aristotle’s works for this very question is very tempting to make. For this reason we have placed this Philonic text among those derived from the proximate tradition. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus DN 5.5–6.3 de conformatione autem partus nihilo minus definite se scire Alcmaeon (24A13 DK) confessus est, ratus neminem posse perspicere, quid primum in infante formetur. (6.1) Empedocles (31A84 DK), quem in hoc Aristoteles secutus est, ante omnia cor iudicavit increscere, quod hominis vitam maxime contineat; Hippon (38A15 DK) vero caput, in quo est animi principale; Democritus alvum cum capite, quae plurimum habent ex inani; Anaxagoras (59A108 DK) cerebrum, unde omnes sunt sensus. Diogenes Apolloniates (64A27 DK) ex umore primum carnem fieri existimavit, tum ex carne ossa nervosque et ceteras partes enasci. (2) at Stoici (—) una totum infantem figurari dixerunt, ut una nascitur aliturque. sunt qui id opinentur ipsa fieri natura, ut Aristoteles adque Epicurus; sunt qui potentia spiritus semen comitantis, ut Stoici ferme universi; sunt qui aetherium calorem inesse arbitrentur, qui membra disponat, Anaxagoran secuti. (3) utcumque tamen formatus infans … (for what follows see texts on ch. 5.16). ps.Galen Def.Med. 452, p. 19.451.14–

liber 5 caput 17 18 K. υνβʹ. Πρῶτον συνίσταται τοῦ ἐμβρύου τὸ χόριον εἶτα τὰ λοιπά· τὸ χόριον μὲν συνέστηκεν ἐκ δύο φλεβῶν καὶ δύο ἀρτηριῶν καὶ πέμπτου τοῦ καλουμένου οὐραχοῦ, ἤτοι ἐπειδὴ χώρημά ἐστι τοῦ ἐμβρύου οἱονεὶ χωρίον ἢ ἐπειδὴ χορηγεῖται τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῷ. Chapter heading: cf. Censorinus 5.5 de conformatione … partus. also ps.Galen Def.Med. 452 Πρῶτον συνίσταται τοῦ ἐμβρύου. §§2 & 4 Aristotle and doctors: Philo of Alexandria Leg. 2.6 ὥσπερ κατὰ τοὺς ἀρίστους τῶν ἰατρῶν καὶ φυσικῶν δοκεῖ τοῦ ὅλου σώματος προπλάττεσθαι ἡ καρδία, θεμελίου τρόπον ἢ ὡς ἐν νηὶ τρόπις, ἐφ᾽ ᾗ οἰκοδομεῖται τὸ ἄλλο σῶμα. §4 doctors: Lactantius Op.D. 12.6 Perrin (follows on from text citing views of Aristotle and Varro quoted on ch. 5.5) et primum quidem cor hominis effingi, quod in eo sit et vita omnis et sapientia …

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Met. Δ 1 1013a4–7 ἡ δὲ (sc. ἀρχή) ὅθεν πρῶτον γίγνεται ἐνυπάρχοντος, οἷον ὡς πλοίου τρόπις καὶ οἰκίας θεμέλιος, καὶ τῶν ζῴων οἱ μὲν καρδίαν οἱ δὲ ἐγκέφαλον οἱ δ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι τοιοῦτον ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. GA 2.4 740a13–31 διόπερ ὅσοι λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος (68A145 DK), τὰ ἔξω πρῶτον διακρίνεσθαι τῶν ζῴων, ὕστερον δὲ τὰ ἐντός, οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ ξυλίνων ἢ λιθίνων ζῴων· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τοιαῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἔχει ἀρχὴν ὅλως, τὰ δὲ ζῷα πάντ᾽ ἔχει καὶ ἐντὸς ἔχει. διὸ πρῶτον ἡ καρδία φαίνεται διωρισμένη πᾶσι τοῖς ἐναίμοις· ἀρχὴ γὰρ αὕτη καὶ τῶν ὁμοιομερῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομοιομερῶν. ἤδη γὰρ ἀρχὴν ταύτην ἄξιον ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ ζῴου καὶ τοῦ συστήματος ὅταν δέηται τροφῆς· τὸ γὰρ δὴ ὂν αὐξάνεται. τροφὴ δὲ ζῴου ἡ ἐσχάτη αἷμα καὶ τὸ ἀνάλογον, τούτων δ᾽ ἀγγεῖον αἱ φλέβες· διὸ ἡ καρδία καὶ τούτων ἀρχή. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο ἐκ τῶν ἱστοριῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνατομῶν. … διὸ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τὰς δύο φλέβας πρώτας ἡ φύσις ὑπέγραψεν· ἀπὸ δὲ τούτων φλέβια ἀπήρτηται πρὸς τὴν ὑστέραν ὁ καλούμενος ὀμφαλός. ἔστι γὰρ ὁ ὀμφαλὸς φλέψ, τοῖς μὲν μία τοῖς δὲ πλείους τῶν ζῴων. GA 2.5 741b15–18 γίγνεται δὲ πρῶτον ἡ ἀρχή. αὕτη δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ καρδία τοῖς ἐναίμοις, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις τὸ ἀνάλογον, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πολλάκις. καὶ τοῦτο φανερὸν οὐ μόνον κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ὅτι γίγνεται πρῶτον … Damastes Περὶ τῶν γονίμων καὶ τελειουμένων (fragment from his Περὶ κυουσῶν καὶ βρεφῶν θεραπείας), Laur. 74.2, fol. 381v, ll. 3–26 (cited below in ch. 5.18 section E(b) General texts). Galen Foet.Form. 1, p. 4.652 K. περὶ τῆς τῶν κυουμένων διαπλάσεως ἐπεχείρησαν μέν τι καὶ φιλόσοφοι γράφειν, μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν ὧν λέγουσιν ἐξ ἀνατομῆς περιεχόμενοι. καὶ θαυμαστόν γε οὐδέν ἐστιν ἁμαρτεῖν τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτοὺς, διαφωνῆσαί τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους. ὅπου γὰρ τοῖς ἀνατεμοῦσιν ἐπιμελῶς ἠγνοήθη τινὰ, πολὺ δήπου μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ἦν ἁμαρτεῖν, ὅσοι ταῖς ἑαυτῶν ὑπονοίας ἐπίστευσαν ἄνευ τῶν ἐξ ἀνατομῆς φαινομένων. Ἱπποκράτης δὲ (cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 13, p. 7.488.22–500.12 Littré) πρῶτος ὧν ἴσμεν ἔγραψέ τι περὶ διαπλάσεως ἐμβρύων ἀληθῶς, οὐ λογικαῖς ὑπονοίαις τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς ζητήσεως ἐπιτρέψας, ἀλλ᾽ αἰσθηταῖς διαγνώσεσιν … κατὰ δὲ τὸ μέσον ἐπεῖχε λεπτὸν, ὅ τί μοι ἐδόκει εἶναι ὀμφαλὸς, καὶ ἐκείνῳ τὴν πνοὴν καὶ ἔξω καὶ ἔσω ποιεῖσθαι τὸ πρῶτον, καὶ ὁ ὑμὴν ἐξ ἐκείνου ἐτέτατο πᾶς ὁ περιέχων τὴν γονήν. Foet.Form. 4, p. 4.674 K. τί ποτ᾽ οὖν ἔδοξε Χρυσίππῳ καὶ ἄλλοις πολλοῖς φιλοσόφοις Στωϊκοῖς τε

1911

1912

liber 5 caput 17

καὶ Περιπατητικοῖς ἀποφήνασθαι περὶ καρδίας, ὡς πρώτη τε φύεται τῶν τοῦ ζώου μορίων, ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τε τἄλλα γίγνοιτο, καὶ ὡς τῷ πρώτως διαπλασθέντι καὶ φλεβῶν καὶ νεύρων ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν ἀρχήν; οὔτε γὰρ πρώτη σαφῶς φαίνεται γινομένη … Propr.Plac. 11, p. 182.16–183.4 Boudon-Millet–Pietrobelli ὅσοι γὰρ οἴονται τὴν αὐτὴν (sc. δύναμιν) εἷναι τῇ τὰ φυτά τε γεννώσῃ καὶ διαπλαττούσῃ δοκοῦσι μοι {μὴ} παρακολουθεῖν τῇ τε {τῇ} τέχνῃ τῆς κατασκευῆς τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν ἣν ἐν τοῖς Περὶ χρείας μορίων ἐξηγησάμην. (οὐ) μὴν οὐδὲ τί πρῶτον ἁπάντων μορίων ἐν τῇ κυήσει διαπλάττεται βεβαίως εἰδέναι φημί. νέος μὲν γὰρ ὢν εἰπόμην ἀνδράσιν ἀξιολόγοις ἡγουμένοις τὴν καρδίαν ἁπάντων διαπλάττεσθαι, προΐων δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν ὑπώπτευσα τὸν λόγον ὡς πιθανὸν μέν, οὐ μὴν ἀληθές γε, χωρὶς μὲν γὰρ αἵματος ἀδύνατόν ἐστι γεννηθῆναι τὸ σπλάγχνον τοῦτο, παραγίνεται δὲ αἷμα διὰ τῶν κατὰ τὴν μήτραν ἀγγείων ἐξ οὗ τὴν γένεσιν ἔχει τὸ κυούμενον ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα φαίνεται διὰ φλεβὸς ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν ἀφικνούμενον εἰς ἧπαρ πρότερον ἐμφυομένης. … Porphyry ad Gaur. 3.4, p. 37.2–17 εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ ἔμβρυα διὰ τοῦ στόματος ἐτρέφετο, οὐχὶ δὲ διὰ τῆς ἐνούσης δυνάμεως ἐν τῷ σπέρματι, ἣ τὸ φερόμενον αἷμα καὶ περικεχυμένον τῷ σπέρματι ἐντὸς ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ σπῶσα καθάπερ τὰ φυτὰ ἐκ τῆς γῆς τὴν ἰκμάδα τὸ μὲν κατατάττει εἰς αὔξησίν τε καὶ θρέψιν τοῦ ἐμβρύου, … ἢ εἴπερ ὁμοίως ὡς μετὰ τὴν ἐκ γαστρὸς πρόοδον διὰ τῶν ῥινῶν ἀνέπνει τὰ ἔμβρυα ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ διὰ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ δὴ καὶ τὰ μέσα ἠρτημένα ῥίζης τρόπον ἢ μίσχου χορίου ἐξῆπται, … εἰ μὲν οὖν ὥσπερ ἔφην ἡ κατὰ γαστρὸς τῶν ἐ(μ)βρύων διοίκησις ταῖς τῶν ζῴων ὑπῆρχε (π)αραπλησία ἀλλὰ μὴ ἄντικρυς τῇ τῶν φυτῶν, ἐνεχώρει ἂν ἐκ τῶν γιγνομένων τὰς πίστεις λαμβάνοντα συγχωρεῖν τοῖς (ἡ)γουμένοις ζῷα εἶναι τὰ ἔμβρυα. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 2.1 735a15 διόπερ πρῶτόν τι γίγνεται. Galen Propr.Plac. 11 182.19 Boudon-Millet–Petrobelli τί πρῶτον ἁπάντων μορίων ἐν τῇ κυήσει διαπλάττεται. §1 Stoics: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Vict. 1.26, p. 6.498.14–17 Littré διακρίνεται δὲ τὰ μέλεα ἅμα πάντα καὶ αὔξεται, καὶ οὔτε πρότερον οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἑτέρου οὔθ᾽ ὕστερον· τὰ δὲ μέζω φύσει πρότερα φαίνεται τῶν ἐλασσόνων, οὐδὲν πρότερα γινόμενα. note also the view opposed by Aristotle at GA 2.1 735a15 οὐχ ἅμα πάντα. §2 Aristotle: in addition to the Aristotelian texts cited above under General texts see Aristotle GA 2.1 735a12–16, 23–26 ταύτης (i.e. process of formation) μὲν οὖν οὐθὲν μόριον αἴτιον τῆς γενέσεως ἀλλὰ τὸ πρῶτον κινῆσαν ἔξωθεν. οὐθὲν γὰρ αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ γεννᾷ· ὅταν δὲ γένηται αὔξει ἤδη αὐτὸ ἑαυτό. διόπερ πρῶτόν τι γίγνεται καὶ οὐχ ἅμα πάντα. τοῦτο δὲ γίγνεσθαι ἀνάγκη πρῶτον ὃ αὐξήσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχει … ὥστ᾽ εἰ ἡ καρδία πρῶτον ἔν τισι ζῴοις γίγνεται, ἐν δὲ τοῖς μὴ ἔχουσι καρδίαν τὸ ταύτῃ ἀνάλογον, ἐκ ταύτης ἂν εἴη ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῖς ἔχουσι, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις ἐκ τοῦ ἀνάλογον. see also further below on §4 and §6. §4 The doctors: In addition to the Aristotelian texts cited above under General texts see also Juv. 3 468b28–469a1 καὶ τῶν ζῴων τῶν ἐναίμων ἡ καρδία γίνεται πρῶτον· τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον ἐξ ὧν ἐν τοῖς ἐνδεχομένοις ἔτι γινομένοις ἰδεῖν τεθεωρήκαμεν. ὥστε καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀναίμοις ἀναγκαῖον τὸ ἀνάλογον τῇ καρδίᾳ γίνεσθαι πρῶτον. ἡ δὲ καρδία ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀρχή, τῶν φλεβῶν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὰ Πέρη τῶν ζῴων εἴρηται πρότερον (PA 3.4 665b16) … further texts in Somn.Vig. 2 456a4–7; Resp. 17 478b33–479a1. Pliny Nat. 11.181 (on humans and other animals) hoc (sc.

liber 5 caput 17 the heart) primum nascentibus formari in utero tradunt, deinde cerebrum, sicut tardissime oculos, sed hos primum emori, cor novissime. Aristophanes of Byzantium Epit.HA 1.77 εἶτα ἐχομένως πρῶτον διατυποῦσθαι πᾶσι τοῖς ἐναίμοις ζῴοις καρδίαν κατὰ λόγον φησίν. ὕστατον δὲ φθείρεται καρδία, πρῶτον ἄρα, φησί, γίνεται· τοῖς δ᾽ ἀναίμοις ζῴοις τὸ ἀνάλογον. … ἐκ δὲ τῆς καρδίας δύο ἀγγεῖα, ἀρτηρία τε καὶ φλέψ, πρῶται γίνονται, καὶ ἡ μὲν φλὲψ τροφῆς χάριν, ἡ δὲ ἀρτηρία φυλακῆς τοῦ συμφύτου πνεύματος. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ ἀγγεῖα πρόσφυσιν ἔχει πρὸς τῇ ὑστέρᾳ, καὶ περὶ ταῦτα γίνεται κέλυφός τι δερματικὸν τηρήσεως αὐτῶν καὶ φυλακῆς χάριν. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ ἀγγεῖα τὰ ἀπὸ καρδίας ἐκπεφυκότα καλεῖται ὀμφαλός· ἔστι γὰρ ὁ λεγόμενος ὀμφαλὸς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἀλλ᾽ ἢ φλὲψ καὶ ἀρτηρία μία ἢ πλείονες ἐν ἐλύτρῳ δερματικῷ. Alexander the Sophist Gen.hom. 1.2–3 Jouanna πρὸ δὲ πάντων ἡ καρδία πλάττεται καὶ τυποῦται. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.26 οἱ τῶν Ῥωμαίων τὴν φυσικὴν ἱστορίαν συγγράφοντές φασι, σπέρμα τῇ μήτρᾳ καταβαλλόμενον ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας ἀλλοιοῦσθαι εἰς αἷμα, καὶ πρώτην διαζωγραφεῖν τὴν καρδίαν, ἥτις πρώτη μὲν διαπλάττεσθαι, τελευταία δὲ ἀποθνήσκειν λέγεται. §5 Others: cf. Diogenes at Cens. 6.1 (text above). also Corpus Hippocraticum Gen.hom.sem. 5.1, p. 35 Jouanna ὅταν δὲ τὸ παιδίον τελείως διοζωθῇ καὶ οἱ δάκτυλοι καὶ οἱ ὄνυχες ῥιζωθῶσιν, τότε δὴ καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ποιεῖται. Seneca Ep. 113.23 (SVF 2.836) inter Cleanthen et discipulum eius Chrysippum non convenit, quid sit ambulatio. Cleanthes ait spiritum esse a principali usque in pedes permissum, Chrysippus ipsum principale. §6 Yet others: See the texts of ps.Galen, Aristotle and Galen cited above. Democritus at Plut. Mor. 495E (68B148 DK) ‘ὁ γὰρ ὀμφαλὸς πρῶτον ἐν μήτρῃσιν’ ὥς φησι Δημόκριτος ‘ἀγκυρηβόλιον σάλου καὶ πλάνης ἐμφύεται, πεῖσμα καὶ κλῆμα’ τῷ γεννωμένῳ καρπῷ καὶ μέλλοντι (but a different view recorded by Aristotle at GA 2.4 740a13–16 cited above under General texts).

1913

Liber 5 Caput 18 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 907F–908C; pp. 427a15–429a29 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 122; p. 644.9–27 Diels; pp. 394–414 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 230– 235 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42.13, p. 296.17–25 Wachsmuth (titulus ex SL)

Titulus ιηʹ. Διὰ τί τὰ ἑπταμηνιαῖα γόνιμα (P,S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, ὅτε ἐγεννᾶτο τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ἐκ τῆς γῆς, τοσαύτην γενέσθαι τῷ μήκει τοῦ χρόνου διὰ τὸ βραδυπορεῖν τὸν ἥλιον τὴν ἡμέραν, ὁπόση νῦν ἐστιν ἡ δεκάμηνος· προιόντος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου τοσαύτην γενέσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν, ὁπόση νῦν ἐστιν ἡ ἑπτάμηνος· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ δεκάμηνα γόνιμα καὶ τὰ ἑπτάμηνα, τῆς φύσεως τοῦ κόσμου οὕτω μεμελετηκυίας αὔξεσθαι ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τότε καὶ νυκτὶ τὸ βρέφος. (P1) §2 Τίμαιος καὶ δωδεκάμηνά φησί τινα κύεσθαι παρὰ τὰς ἐπισχέσεις τῶν μηνιαίων τὰς πρὸ τῆς συλλήψεως· οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἑπτάμηνα νομίζεσθαι, οὐκ ὄντα ἑπτάμηνα· γίνονται γὰρ καὶ μετὰ τὴν σύλληψιν ποσαὶ καθάρσεις. (P2) §3 Πόλυβος Διοκλῆς οἱ Ἐμπειρικοὶ καὶ τὸν ὄγδοον μῆνά φασι γόνιμον, ἀγονώτερον δέ πως τῷ πολλάκις διὰ τὴν ἀτονίαν πολλοὺς φθείρεσθαι· §1 Empedocles 31A75 DK: §2 Timaeus —; §3 Polybus —; Diocles fr. 48 Van der Eijk; Empirici fr. 133 Deichgräber titulus ἑπταμηνιαῖα PB(II,III)SL-ind : ἑπταμηναῖα PB(I) : ἑπτάμηα PG §1 non hab. PG ‖ [2] τὸ PB(I,III)Q : om. PB(II) ‖ [4] τὴν ἡμέραν PB : om. PQ ‖ ὁπόση PB(I,III)Q : ὅση PB(II) ‖ [6] γόνιμα PBQ : del. Diels quod prob. Vítek ‖ [7] post ἡμέρᾳ lac. ind. Diels DG ‖ τῇ τότε καὶ νυκτὶ coni. Reiske prob. Torraca Lachenaud : καὶ νυκτὶ PQ cf. an einem Tag und in einer Nacht Q, Primavesi R2 (cf. τε καὶ νυκτὶ Wyttenbach) : ᾗ τίθεται νυκτὶ PB Mau Vítek, cruxif. Diels DG sed leg. VS et DK ᾗ τίκτεται {νυκτὶ} (cf. ᾗ τίκτεται νῦν Xylander) §2 [8] καὶ … κύεσθαι PG, eine Geburt geschieht nach 12 Monaten Q : δ᾽ οὐ δώδεκα μῆνάς φησιν, ἐννέα δὲ νομίζεσθαι PB Mau (δέκα PB(III) Lachenaud), post οὐ lac. ind. Diels, οὐ del. Corsinus ‖ τὰς ἐπισχέσεις] τὴν (corr. Diels Jas, τε mss.) ἐπίσχεσιν PG ‖ [9] τὰς πρὸ τῆς συλλήψεως Wyttenbach Lachenaud : τῆς πρώτης συλλήψεως PB (τὰ PG, welche (monatliche Regel) vor der Empfängnis war Q), τῶν πρὸ τῆς συλλήψεως corr. cod. Voss. ‖ [9–11] τὰ ἑπτάμηνα … καθάρσεις] al. PG ἑπτάμηνα νομίζεσθαι οὐκ ὄντα προγεγενημένης τῆς συλλήψεως, δυναμένης δὲ τῆς μήτρας εἰς καταμήνια καὶ μετὰ σύλληψιν ‖ [10] γίνονται dub. Diels, in textu pos. Lachenaud, es geschieht Q : ἔγνω τε PB Mau ‖ [11] καθάρσεις Wyttenbach edd., cf. eine Menstruation Q : καθάρσεως PB §3 [12] Πόλυβος … Ἐμπειρικοὶ PB, Polybos und Diokles, die beiden Ärtzte under den Empirikern Q : Διοκλῆς καὶ Ἐπίκουρος PG ‖ post μῆνα add. εἶναι PG ‖ φασι Diels, cf PQ (behaupteten Q) : ἴσασι PB Mau Lachenaud, deest in PG ‖ [13] ἀγονώτερον coni. Grensemann, mavult Mau sed non in textu ponit : ἀτονώτερον PBG Diels Lachenaud, oft schwach Q ‖ [13–15] πως … ἄνδρας] desunt in PG ‖ [13] τῷ] om. PQ ‖ πολλοὺς PB : πολλὸν PQ(ut vid.)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_143

5

10

liber 5 caput 18

§4

§5

§6

καθολικώτερον δὲ μηδένα βούλεσθαι τὰ ὀκτάμηνα τρέφειν, γεγενῆσθαι δὲ πολλοὺς ὀκταμηνιαίους ἄνδρας. (P3) οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτελῆ καὶ Ἱπποκράτην φασίν, ἐὰν ἐκπληρωθῇ ἡ μήτρα ἐν τοῖς ἑπτὰ μησί, τότε προκύπτειν καὶ γεννᾶσθαι γόνιμα· ἐὰν δὲ προκύψῃ μὲν μὴ τρέφηται δέ, ἀσθενησάντος τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ διὰ τὸ ἐπίπονον αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὸ ἔκκριμα, τότε ἔμβρυον ἄτροφον εἶναι· ἐὰν δὲ μείνῃ τοὺς ἐννέα μῆνας ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ, προκῦψαν τότε ὁλόκληρόν ἐστι. (P4,S1) Πόλυβος ἐν ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα δύο καὶ ἡμίσει ἡμέραις γίνεσθαι γόνιμα τὰ ἔμβρυα· εἶναι γὰρ ἑξάμηνα, ὅτι καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἀπὸ τροπῶν ἐν τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ παραγίνεσθαι· λέγεσθαι δ᾽ ἑπταμηνιαίους διὰ τὸ τὰς ἐλλειπούσας ἡμέρας τούτου τοῦ μηνὸς ἐν τῷ ἑπτὰ προσλαμβάνεσθαι· τὰ δ᾽ ὀκταμηνιαῖα μὴ ζῆν, ὅταν προκύψῃ μὲν τῆς μήτρας τὸ βρέφος, ἐπὶ πλεῖον δ᾽ ὁ ὀμφαλὸς βασανισθῇ· ἄτροφον γὰρ γίνεται, ὡς τοῦ τρέφοντος αἴτιος ὁ ὀμφαλός. (P5) οἱ δὲ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς ὀκτὼ μῆνας ἀσυνδέτους φασὶν εἶναι πάσης γενέσεως, τοὺς δ᾽ ἑπτὰ συνδετικούς· τὰ δ᾽ ἀσύνδετα ζῴδια ἐστιν, ἐὰν τῶν οἰκοδεσποτούντων ἀστέρων τυγχάνῃ· ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων τὴν ζωὴν

§4 Aristoteles HA 7.4 584b2; Hippocrates Oct., cf. Carn. 19; §5 Polybus, cf. Oct. 1–2, 10; §6 mathematici — [14] μηδένα … τρέφειν PB : denn die in acht Monaten Geborenen bleiben nicht am Leben Q §4 [16] οἱ περὶ … Ἱπποκράτην S, Aristoteles, seine Anhänger und Hippokrates Q : ὁ δ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ἱπποκράτης PBG (sed om. ὁ δ᾽ PG, add. ὁ ante Ἱπποκράτης PB(I)) ‖ φασίν PB(I,III:Aα)S : φησίν PB(II,III:E) : οἴονται PG ‖ ἐκπληρωθῇ PB(I,III)S : πληρωθῇ PB(II)G ‖ [17] προκύπτειν PGS : προκύπτει PB, corr. edd. ‖ γεννᾶσθαι Diels : γεγεννῆσθαι PB (καὶ γεννᾶσθαι om. PQ) : al. PG τότε γόνιμα γίνεσθαι ‖ [17–19] ἐὰν δὲ … ἔκκριμα] al. ut vid. PQ (Und dann, wenn er sich nach unten neigt und nicht herauskommen (kann) Q) ‖ [18] τρέφηται PBSF : στρέφεται SP ‖ ἀσθενησάντος PGS : ἀσθενοῦντος PB ‖ [19] αὐτῷ Diels : αὐτὸν PB(I,II), αὐτὴν PB(III), αὐτὸ S, αὐτὰ PG ‖ γεγενῆσθαι τὸ ἔκκριμα PB(II) (κρίμα PB(II,III), κύημα Xylander Diels) : γένεσθαι τὸ ἔμβρυον S : γίγνεσθαι et lac. propos. Jas PG ‖ τότε ἔμβρυον ἄτροφον εἶναι PB (ἄστροφον PB(I)) : ἄτροφον εἶναι S, bleibt er schwach ernährt Q ‖ [20] τοὺς] ποιεῖ PG, secl. Diels Jas §5 [21] Πόλυβος PBQ : Πολύβιος PG ‖ [21–22] ἐν … ἔμβρυα PGQ(ut vid.) (καὶ ἡμίσει scripsimus, deest in PG) : ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα δύο καὶ ἥμισυ ἡμέρας γίνεσθαι εἰς τὰ γόνιμα PB (καὶ om. PB(II)) ‖ [22–24] εἷναι … προσλαμβάνεσθαι om. PG ‖ [22] ἑξάμηνα Diels : ἑξάμηνον PB ‖ [23] διὰ τὸ corr. cod. Voss. prob. Lachenaud : ὅταν PB Mau, ὅτι Diels ‖ [25] ὀκταμηνιαῖα] ὀκτάμηνα PG ‖ τῆς μήτρας τὸ βρέφος] inv. PG ‖ [26] βασανισθῇ PB : ἐβασανίσθη διατεινόμενος PG : und bleibt hängen Q ‖ ἄτροφον PG : ἄτροφος PB : al. PQ (denn ermangelt er der Nahrung Q) ‖ γίνεται] γίνεσθαι coni. Diels ‖ [26– 27] ὡς … ὀμφαλός PG : ὡς τοῦ τρέφοντος αἴτιος PB, crucif. Diels, ut glossema dub. et ὡς τούτου τρέφοντος αὐτό propos. Diels : al. Q weil das, was ihn ernährte, sich in seiner Natur bereits verändert hat §6 [28] ἀσυνδέτους φασὶν (verba inv. PB(I)) εἶναι PB, nicht in irgendeiner Weise ein Band haben Q : φασὶν ἐστερῆσθαι PG ‖ [29] ἀσύνδετα] ἀσύνθετα PB(I) ‖ post ζῴδια susp. lac. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [29–30] ἐστιν … τυγχάνῃ PB : ἔχειν τοὺς οἰκοδεσποτοῦντας φαύλους τῶν ἀστέρων PG (verba per haplographiam om. Q)

1915

15

20

25

30

1916

liber 5 caput 18

καὶ τὸν βίον κληρώσηται, δυστυχεῖς καὶ ἀχρόνους σημαίνει· ἀσύνδετα δ᾽ ἐστὶ ζῴδια ⟨κατ᾽⟩ ὀκτὼ ἀριθμούμενα, οἷον Κριὸς πρὸς Σκορπίον ἀσύνδετος, Ταῦρος πρὸς Τοξότην ἀσύνδετος, Δίδυμοι πρὸς Αἰγόκερων, Καρκίνος πρὸς Ὑδροχόον, Λέων πρὸς Ἰχθύας, Παρθένος πρὸς Κριόν· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ ἑπτάμηνα ὄντα καὶ δεκάμηνα γόνιμα εἶναι· τὰ δ᾽ ὀκτάμηνα διὰ τὸ ἀσύνδετον τοῦ κόσμου φθείρεσθαι. (P6) [31] κληρώσηται PB : πληρώσῃ PG Jas (κληρώσῃ coni. Diels qui in textu P pos.) ‖ καὶ ἀχρόνους PB : ἔσεσθαι PG ‖ [32] ⟨κατ᾽⟩ ὀκτὼ scripsimus : ὀκτὼ PBG ‖ [32–36] post ἀριθμούμενα al. PG κρίος παρθένος, ἀσύνδετοι δὲ δίδυμοι πρὸς σκορπίον καὶ καρκίνος πρὸς ὑδροχόον, ζυγὸς πρὸς ἰχθύας (et quod restat om.) ‖ [34] post κριὸν rest. ζυγὸς πρὸς ταῦρον Diels Mau Lachenaud ex PG ‖ [34–35] παρθένος … εἶναι om. PQ ‖ [36] τοῦ κόσμου PB : τοῦ κύκλου dub. Diels (τοῦ κόσμου φθείρεσθαι om. PQ)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 122 (~ tit.) Διὰ τί τὰ ἑπτάμηα γόνιμα (text Jas) 122.1 (~ P4) Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ἱπποκράτης οἴονται, ἐὰν πληρωθῇ ἡ μήτρα ἐν τοῖς ἑπτὰ μησί, τότε προκύπτειν καὶ τότε γόνιμα γίνεσθαι, ἐὰν δὲ προκύψῃ μὲν μὴ τρέφηται δὲ ἀσθενήσαντος τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ διὰ τὸ ἐπίπονον αὐτῷ γίγνεσθαι […] τότε ἄτροφον εἶναι, ἐὰν δὲ μείνῃ {ποιεῖ} ἐννέα μῆνας ἐν τῇ μήτρᾳ, προκῦψαν τότε ὁλόκληρόν ἐστιν. 122.2 (~ P5) Πολύβιος ἐν ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα δύο ἡμέραις γίγνεσθαι γόνιμα τὰ ἔμβρυα. τὰ δὲ ὀκτάμηνα μὴ ζῆν, οἷον προκύψῃ μὲν τὸ βρέφος τῆς μήτρας, ἐπὶ πλέον δὲ ὁ ὀμφαλὸς ἐβασανίσθῃ διατεινόμενος· ἄτροφον γὰρ γίνεται τὸ ἔμβρυον· ὡς τοῦ τρέφοντος αἴτιος ὁ ὀμφαλός. 122.3 (~ P6) οἱ δὲ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς ὀκτὼ μῆνάς φασιν ἐστερῆσθαι πάσης γενέσεως, τοὺς δὲ ἑπτὰ συνδετικούς. τὰ δὲ ἀσύνδετα ζῴδια ἔχειν τοὺς οἰκοδεσποτοῦντας φαύλους τῶν ἀστέρων· ἂν γάρ τις τούτων τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὸν βίον πληρώσῃ, δυστυχεῖς ἔσεσθαι σημαίνει. ἀσύνδετα δέ ἐστι ζῴδια ὀκτὼ ἀριθμούμενα· κριὸς παρθένος, ἀσύνδετοι δὲ δίδυμοι πρὸς σκορπίον καὶ καρκίνος πρὸς ὑδροχόον, ζυγὸς πρὸς ἰχθύας. 122.4 (~ P3) Διοκλῆς καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ τὸν ὄγδοον μῆνα εἶναι γόνιμον, ἀτονώτερον δέ. 122.5 (~ P2) Τίμαιος καὶ δωδεκάμηνά φησί τινα κύεσθαι παρὰ τὴν ἐπίσχεσιν τῶν καταμηνίων τὰ πρὸ τῆς συλλήψεως, οὕτω καὶ ἑπτάμηνα νομίζεσθαι οὐκ ὄντα προγεγενημένης τῆς συλλήψεως, δυναμένης δὲ τῆς μήτρας εἰς καταμήνια καὶ μετὰ σύλληψιν. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 5.21 Ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ μορφοῦται τὰ ζῷα ἐν γαστρὶ ὄντα §1 cf. A 2.24.2 (de diebus longissimis) Ξενοφάνης κατὰ σβέσιν· ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν πρὸς ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς γίνεσθαι· παριστόρηκε δὲ καὶ ἔκλειψιν ἡλίου ἐφ᾽ ὅλον μῆνα καὶ πάλιν ἔκλειψιν ἐντελῆ, ὥστε τὴν ἡμέραν νύκτα φανῆναι.

35

liber 5 caput 18

1917

§§2, 5 cf. A 5.6 Πῶς αἱ συλλήψεις γίνονται §6 cf. A 2.19.3 (de signis stellarum) Εὔδοξος Ἄρατος κοινῶς διὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας, ἐν οἷς φησιν: ‘αὐτὸς γὰρ τά γε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξεν, / ἄστρα διακρίνας· ἐσκέψατο δ᾽ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν / ἀστέρας, οἵ κε μάλιστα τετυγμένα σημαίνοιεν’.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses PB preserves six doxai, all of considerable length, making this chapter by far the longest in the book. Unusually G, though retaining all but the first lemma, alters the order, starting with §§4–6 and ending with §§2–3. It is to be noted that the new edition of Jas deviates in a number of places from the earlier text in Diels DG. Taking the translation of Nicolaus into account, she shows that some cases his text is closer to PB than appears from the text as edited by Diels. This is the first chapter in Book 5 for which S contributes material apart from the chapter headings. In the mutilated state of his transmission he records §4 on Aristotle and Hippocrates. The chapter heading, however, is found only in the Laurentianus manuscript. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. As was the case for the previous chapter, by far the most important parallel is found in Censorinus. All in all he devotes no less than five chapters (7–11) to the theme of the length of human gestation. In ch. 7 a compact overview is given of the various views, which can be summarized as follows: 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th month—all possible according to Hippo 7th month—affirmed by Theano the Pythagorean, Aristotle, Diocles, Euenor, Strato, Empedocles, Epigenes and many others, denied by Euryphon of Cnidos 8th month—denied by Epicharmus and by almost all, except Diocles and Aristotle (and Hippo) 9th and 10th month—affirmed by most Chaldeans and Aristotle 9th month—denied by Epigenes of Byzantium 10th month—denied by Hippocrates 11th month—denied by all except Aristotle

1918

liber 5 caput 18

A long explanation is then given in ch. 8 of the astrological basis of the Chaldean opinion. The remaining chapters focus on the Pythagoreans. They are said to relate physiological phenomena to their views on music and numbers which are set out at some length. Varro’s work Tubero de origine humana is cited as the source (ch. 9.1). Because Censorinus is treating the birthday theme, he scarcely draws on any physiological doctrines in his account, focusing almost exclusively on arithmological and astrological explanations. The same arithmological considerations are found in brief treatments in ps.Galen Def.Med. and Tertullian. (2) Sources. The topic of whether seven- and eight-month-old fetuses are viable is the most frequently discussed of all physiological subjects in not specifically medical Greco-Roman literature. It is quite fitting, therefore, that the late 11th cent. Byzantine commentator Ioannes Doxapatres cites it as his example of a medical quaestio in the form ‘why do seven-month-olds live but eight-month-olds not’ (text below section E(b) General texts). Censorinus and Aulus Gellius also note it as a much discussed question. Its scope could vary. Aulus Gellius extends it to ten-month-olds, which for him is the limit. In other texts it is extended further to eleven- and even twelve-month-olds. Greek views on the viability of babies also exercised influence on Jewish and early Christian tradition, as statements by the rabbis Huna and Abbahu recorded in Genesis Rabbah testify; see Van der Horst (1978) 352, (2018) 113; text below section B(b) General texts. As the same scholar notes, the doctrine was applied to important babies in the biblical tradition, including Moses, Mary and Jesus, emulating similar statements on mythical heroes in Greek tradition; see further Van der Horst (1978). Investigation goes back to the Hippocratic school. The treatise De octimestri partu gives a comprehensive discussion of the subject and other treatises refer to it also. We follow the reconstruction of Joly (1970) for the treatise, in opposition to Grensemann (1968b). It is to be agreed with the latter (1968c), however, that there are good grounds for attributing it to Hippocrates’ son-in-law Polybus. The doxographical tradition, including the present chapter (§§3–5), the parallel report in Clement Strom. 6.138–139 and the text in the Anon. Brux. 12 (texts below E(b)§4), provide crucial evidence for the attribution; see the detailed analyses in Grensemann (1968b) and our comments below. The attribution is contested, however, by Jouanna (1969), (1999) 387. On ancient references to Oct. see further Anastassiou–Irmer (2006) 374–379. The topic is also extensively discussed in various Aristotelian texts, though the discussion promised at GA 4.4 772b11 has not survived; see further on the Aristotelian doxa in section D(c) below. Unfortunately texts in other authors such as Diocles and Strato mentioned in doxographical reports have also been lost. In 1999

liber 5 caput 18

1919

H.N. Parker published a fragment attributed to a certain Damnastes entitled Περὶ τῶν γονίμων καὶ τελειουμένων (On those who conceive and complete, i.e. carry to term), from a work Περὶ κυουσῶν καὶ βρεφῶν θεραπείας (On the care of pregnant women and of infants); see Parker (1999), text and translation on pp. 515–516. In his excellent discussion of this text Parker persuasively argues that it can safely be ascribed to the second century bce doctor Damastes mentioned by Soranus; see the discussion on pp. 517–518. This text is discussed in more detail in section D(e) below. We note, finally, that the majority of later non-medical texts refer to the subject in an arithmological context. The challenge is to compare the distinctive material found in A with the remainder of this extensive tradition. Because of the diversity of sub-topics and approaches, it is a complex task to determine to which traditions the copious available parallel texts belong. See further section D(e) below. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading once again uses the formula διὰ τί to inquire after the cause; see our comments on chs. 5.9 and 5.14. The question posed, relating to seven-month-olds only, has a narrower focus than the contents of the chapter itself, which discusses the entire range from seven-month- to twelve-montholds. Ps.Galen Def.Med., ps.Alexander and Ioannes Doxapatres all include a reference in their formulation of the quaestio to the non-viability of eightmonth-olds. But even this would be too narrow. A has thus retained the traditional compact formulation of the subject, even though the chapter’s treatment is much wider. This occurs more often in the doxographical tradition. We might compare ch. 2.4, where the heading asks whether the cosmos is indestructible but the chapter itself treats the themes of both genesis and destruction. The heading in SL is identical to that found in the tradition of P (cf. Wachsmuth 1882, 17). On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. D Analysis a Context The subject follows on well enough from the previous chapter on what is completed first in the womb. However, since it assumes the completion of the development of the fetus preceding birth, it would have been more logical to place ch. 5.21 on the articulation of parts of the body in the developing fetus between chs. 5.17 and 5.18. b Number–Order of Lemmata The order of the six lemmata in P must be accepted. The alternative order in G was perhaps motivated by dissatisfaction with P’s order, but is hardly an

1920

liber 5 caput 18

improvement (and he deletes the first doxa). The more detailed treatment of the various periods in Censorinus suggests that A’s chapter may have originally included more doxai, even though the chapter as preserved is already rather long. Because only a single doxa remains in S, he cannot help us with the original order of the lemmata. At the end of the right (i.e. Stobaean) column at DG 429 Diels added the name-label Εὐρυφῶν ὁ ἰατρός, based on its mention in Photius’ list at Bibl. 115b and its occurrence in Censorinus’ report at ch. 7.5. But it must be agreed with Elter (1880) 65 that this is mistaken. As Diels himself notes ad loc., a saying of the doctor is already recorded at Ecl. 1.8.40a, p. 102.14–15 Wachsmuth. But this should have meant that the name was included in Photius’ first alphabetical list at 113b (discussed by Elter p. 43), where as Elter suggests it may have dropped out. Its occurrence in the fifth alphabetical list implies that there must have been an excerpt or saying in Book 4 of the Anthology, probably at 4.35–37 (Elter p. 65). Diels does not refer to the question in his review of Elter’s study (1881). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In order to understand what A has tried to do in this chapter, we must first examine the various doxai individually. The relevant parallel texts are cited below at section E(a) and (b). (1) Empedocles is cited as having given a cosmological, or more accurately, a protological reason for the viability of ten-month- and seven-month-olds. It is explained by the slower movement of the sun at the beginning of the cosmos’ development: fetuses spent but a single very long day in the womb, equivalent now to ten or seven months. The report is confirmed by a text in the Byzantine commentator Tzetzes (the part mentioning the seven-month-olds is missing in 31A66 DK; see further O’Brien 1969, 46–48). (This text is noted by Diels in his Handexemplar of DG; cf. Oniga Farra 1985.) Proclus also refers to the two favourable lengths of time, and addes that eight-month-olds are not viable according to Empedocles, citing arithmological reasons. Like Tzetzes Censorinus only associates the poet with the viability of seven-month olds. On this doxa see also Parker (1999) 522 n. 31. (2) In the next doxa A cites the first cent. bce astrologer Timaeus (called mathematicus by Pliny Nat. 5.55) on the viability of twelve-month olds (if the identification is correct, he is one of the most recent authors cited in the Placita). Timaeus does not raise the possibility of mis-counting in relation to these, but only to the seven-month-olds, which may in fact have been in the womb longer. The possibility of mis-counting is also raised by Aristotle HA 7.4 584b20–25 for eleven-month-olds and by Pliny Nat. 7.40 in a story about the

liber 5 caput 18

1921

purposed birth of a thirteen-month-old fetus. The author of the work in the Corpus Hippocraticum entitled De septimestri partu (not to be confused with the treatise attributed to Polybus) appears to admit the viability of eleven-monthand twelve-month-olds, but gives no details. It should be noted that Timaeus is not credited with any astrological reasons for his view (in contrast to §6), but mentions only the biological evidence of the female menses. (On the textual difficulties at the beginning of the lemma see below, section D(d) detailed comments. Although the alternative reading in PB is attractive from a systematic point of view, it does not cohere as well with the remainder of the doxa.) (3) The third doxa adds the viability of eight-month olds to those of seven, ten and twelve already mentioned. The mention of Diocles is consistent with the report of Censorinus 7.6. But the name-label Polybus sits uneasily with the contents of §5, where the doxa is assigned to him alone. If he is to be identified as the author of De octimestri partu, then the use of the name-label in this doxa must be erroneous, since its author emphatically denies the viability of eightmonth-olds. This is the view of Grensemann (1968b) 58–59. It is possible that the name-label was later added per errorem to this doxa, since to have two contradictory doxai starting with the same name-label in the Placita is certainly unusual, if not impossible. G has only Diocles and Epicurus (sic!), but Q supports the Byzantine mss., so the name should be retained. We note that this doxa too gives only physiological and empirical grounds for the assertion. For a useful overview of Greek and particularly Latin texts on the viability of eightmonth-old fetuses see Waszink 1947, 428. (4) The next doxa is attributed to ‘Aristotle and Hippocrates and their followers’, the only mention of the father of medicine in Book 5 (and elsewhere only at 4.5.3 on the ἡγεμονικόν). Its contents—that seven-month-olds are viable, eight-month-olds give difficulty, and nine-month-olds undergo the complete process—is consistent with, and perhaps partly based on, Aristotle’s account in HA Book 7, but not with the statements that are found in the Hippocratic corpus, and in particular in Oct. Grensemann (1968b) 60 nevertheless suggests that the name-label may be based on the attribution of that work to Hippocrates. In a number of texts Galen records that its authorship was disputed between Hippocrates and Polybus (e.g. at Hipp.Epid. 2.3.17; other texts cited in Grensemann 1968b, 47–55). In this text too only biological reasons are given. Mention should also be made of a parallel text in the Anon. Bruxellensis 12. Not only does its information clearly derive from Oct., but there are also interesting parallels to the present doxa in A, including details on the perils that eight-month-olds face in obtaining sufficient nourishment. Grensemann (1968b) 64 postulates that both texts derive from a single source. On Hippocratic speculations on the length of pregnancy see further the discussion in Parker (1999) 524–528.

1922

liber 5 caput 18

(5) The fifth doxa, attributed this time to Polybus alone, very clearly takes as its starting point the opening words of Oct. (if the reconstructions of Littré and Joly are accepted). Seven-month-olds are viable at 182½ days, which is in fact the period from the one solstice to the other (note that the sun here makes a reappearance after §1). This last detail is an interpretative addition, probably by the original formulator of the doxa, since it does not appear in Oct., as is also the case for the statement that it is a six-month period (the term ἑξάμηνον is also not found there), but immediately indicates that babies of this length of time should be reckoned as seven-month-olds. The statement then follows that eight-month-olds are not viable. The following clause starting with ὅταν gives the reason, namely that the umbilical cord is excessively strained. If the conjunction is translated as ‘whenever’ or ‘on condition that’, the doctrine differs hardly at all from §3 and contradicts the tenor of Oct. Grensemann (1968b) 57 proposes the solution that it be translated ‘since’ or ‘because’ and we have taken this suggestion over in our translation. The second half of the doxa on the eightmonth-olds is most likely based on the statement in Oct. 3, although it requires some extrapolation to do so. The famous statement on eight-month-olds at Oct. 12 may also have contributed. On the curious doctrine that eight-month-old fetuses are not viable see further Hanson (1987), who gives a rather unconvincing psychological explanation, i.e. that it is invoked as ‘an automatic and perhaps even comforting response to misfortune’ (p. 601). Significantly there is a close parallel to this doxa (not utilized by Diels) in Clement of Alexandria. As Grensemann (1968a) 58 notes, in three respects the two reports are strikingly similar: (a) in stating the number of days, both A and Clement replace the words προσεόντος μορίου by the more exact ἥμισυ; (b) both sources emphasize the period of six months; (c) both sources mention the role of the solstices, which is absent in Oct. It can hardly be doubted that there must be a common source. We cannot be wholly certain that this was a doxographical text. But it is noteworthy that Clement also refers to an Aristotelian discussion in a lost work entitled Περὶ φύσεως. Given the presence of Aristotle in the current chapter, this may be an indication that the common source belonged to the doxographical tradition. As in the previous doxa, the considerations put forward belong to the realm of physiology, with the exception of the reference to the movement of the sun. (6) The final doxa attributed to the μαθηματικοί (i.e. in this context ‘astrologers’) adopts a wholly different approach, as befits that professional group. Eight-month olds are not viable, in contrast to seven-month- and ten-montholds because of astrological considerations. The argument appears to be that pairs of zodiacal signs, relating—one presumes—to conception and birth, can be either compatible (συνδετικός) or incompatible (ἀσύνδετος). In the latter case

liber 5 caput 18

1923

they obtain dominant planets which have a malevolent influence on the lives of the newly born infants. For eight-month-olds, we are told, the pair of signs are incompatible. As can be seen from the examples given, these pairs involve two signs separated by six others, e.g. Aries and Scorpio separated by Taurus Gemini Cancer Leo Virgo Libra. A does not explain why these pairs should be ‘ill-starred’, i.e. obtain malevolent planets. To understand the negativity associated with the conjoined pairs, we are aided by Censorinus’ didactic account of the principles of astrology. He adopts a slightly different approach which does not involve any connections to the planets (though they are briefly mentioned in general terms in ch. 8.2). To understand his explanations, it must first be noted that the calculations in relation to the twelve zodiacal signs work by inclusive reckoning, i.e. the number seven links, for example, the 1st and 7th sign, eight the 1st and 8th, nine the 1st and 9th, ten the 1st and 10th. These various relations are regarded as ‘productive’ or ‘unproductive’ depending on the connections formed, as illustrated when traced as straight connecting lines on the zodiacal circle (useful diagrams at Parker 2007, 14–16). According to Censorinus 8.10 the aspect (conspectus) from the seventh sign, connecting with the sign directly opposite, is the fullest and most powerful and brings forth seven-month-old children who are already mature, i.e. viable. Though not noted by Censorinus or A, this connection also includes the two solstices of the sun, i.e. the 4th (Cancer) and the 10th (Capricorn). However, the next aspect from the eighth, just like that from the sixth, is unproductive. In both cases, as Censorinus notes, their lines do not form the sides of a polygon inside the zodiacal circle, as does occur for the aspects from the ninth and tenth (triangle and square respectively). This means that eight-month-olds are not viable, but nine-month and ten-month olds are. Returning to A, we note that he does not include any of the above astrological details in his doxa, but only gives a list of six pairs of signs that are incompatible, each in the eighth aspect (Aries–Scorpio, Taurus–Sagittarius etc. until he reaches Aries again). He then concludes that seven-month-olds and ten-month-olds—but curiously he does not mention nine-month-olds—are viable, but eight-month-olds are not. It must be assumed that they obtain a planet that is malevolent and for this reason do not survive (on this see further our detailed comments below). The astrological doctrines that he assumes are scarcely intelligible as they stand, unless the reader has been initiated into the subject (or has the assistance of a didactic account similar to that found in Censorinus). The astrological doctrines that Proclus cites in relation to the survival of seven-month-olds in his commentary on the famously obscure Platonic text Resp. 546a–c (text below on §1 and §6) are even more obscure and do not help us understand A’s text. Although A often uses the name-label μαθηματικοί vel

1924

liber 5 caput 18

sim., this is the only occasion that it is associated with astrological doctrines; see further our note to the translation of ch. 2.15. The succession of six lemmata in A’s chapter thus yield the following list of views: 7- and 10-month-olds—both viable according to Empedocles 12- and 7-month-olds—also viable according to Timaeus (though not in fact 7 month olds) 8-month-olds—can be viable according to Polybus Diocles Empiricists 7- and 9-month-olds—viable according to Aristotle Hippocrates 6- (i.e. 7-) month-olds viable according to Polybus, 8-month-olds not 8-month-olds not viable, 7- and 10-month-olds viable—according to the astrologers The overview shows that—contrary to what we would expect—there is little system to be discovered in the sequence of views. It would be improved if we read 9 instead of 12 in §2, but, as we shall see below in our detailed comment, that reading is unlikely to be correct. It would seem that either A or P have not been able to master the diversity of material available to them. This is also shown by the triple reference to the Hippocratean tradition in §§3–5. It is also of interest, however, to look at the reasons which A gives for the viability and non-viability of the infants. As we noted in section C above, the formulation of the chapter’s heading invites the presentation of aetiologies. These can be summarized as following: cosmological/protological reasons—§1, §5, §6 (implicit in astrology) biological/physiological reasons—§2, §3, §4, §5 astrological reasons—§6. It emerges that, as befits the context in Book 5, priority is given to the empirical facts of biology and physiology, with some cosmological and astrological material added. It is most striking, however, that in none of the doxai are arithmological reasons given. This is also the case, as we shall see, in the related ch. 5.21. It would seem that A regards arithmology as inappropriate for the φυσικὸς λόγος he wishes to present. An exception is made when introducing the Pythagorean number doctrine in A 1.3.7, no doubt because they belong to the ἀρχαί and not to the φύσις proper. A does have a predilection for numbered lists, e.g. at chs. 2.32 and 4.2–3, but this does not extend to arithmological doctrines. It remains surprising that he did not attempt to order the present set of numbers better. Possibly they have been upset by the incomplete transmission of his chapter.

liber 5 caput 18

d

1925

Further Comments Individual Points §1[6–7] It is strange that Diels both in DG and VS persisted in thinking that γόνιμα is a later addition from the heading. In fact the reading should be retained particularly because of the heading. The infinitive αὔξεσθαι should be taken as depending on the genetive absolute, so it is best to delete the comma after μεμελετηκυίας. §2 It is not possible to be wholly certain of the text of the beginning of the lemma. G and Q (12 months) are largely in agreement against PB (not twelve or ten months) and should be followed, also because their reading makes much better sense in the context of the lemma as a whole (see our analysis above). G may have introduced elements of paraphrase, but nevertheless his text should be adopted. §3 Q reads the words as standing in apposition to the two names and so converts the two physicians into empiricists! The word ἀτονώτερον in all three witnesses raises suspicion on account of the repetitive phrase διὰ τὴν ἀτονίαν that follows. Grensemann (1968a) 58 confidently states that the emendation ἀγονώτερον must be correct. As a qualification of γόνιμον it certainly makes excellent sense. Grensemann rightly observes that the mistake could have entered the tradition early. The combined weight of the three witnesses generally makes one reluctant to introduce the emendation into our text, but in this clear case preference should be given to the reading with the better meaning. §4 We have chosen S’s reading for the name-labels as the lectio difficilior. P has retained the οἱ περί formula in A 1.17.2 and 5.19.2. It is more likely that an author would move to the plain name-labels than the other way around. Moreover, it appears to receive support from Q, though he reads Hippocrates in the nominative. The verb προκύπτω should be translated ‘emerge’, ‘be delivered’; cf. the usage at Porphyry ad Gaur. 12.1, 16.5 (3 times), S.E. M. 5.66, and Torraca ad loc. ‘vengano alla luce’. Lachenaud, perhaps led astray by the parallel text at the Anon.Brux. 12 (ad inferiora loca descendit) translates ‘prend une position basse’. The verb can mean this (κύπτω = ‘bend forward’). It may be the origin of the more technical meaning which developed in the present context of giving birth. It seems that both S and Q have simplified the text and do not explain why the embryo is malnourished. PB states that this occurs because the ἔκκριμα has become difficult. In G the noun in the phrase is not transmitted in the text. The reading of the text in PB would appear to make sense if ἔκκριμα means the secretion of nourishment that is transmitted to the embryo through the umbil-

1926

liber 5 caput 18

ical cord. The difficulty is that there is no evidence for the use of this rare term in a similar medical context. §5 The text of the final part of the lemma in PB is difficult. The editors have resorted to a crux and suggested that the phrase ὡς τούτου τρέφοντος αἴτιος is a gloss. However, in PG, with the addition of the final words ὁ ὀμφαλός, it is perfectly comprehensible and we have preferred that text. The passage would be even clearer is we follow G in including the participle διατείνομενος after βασανισθῇ as giving the cause of the failure of the umbilical cord. But it is absent in Q and may be an addition on the part of G. §6 The second sentence explaining the occurrence of incompatible zodiacal signs is difficult and its text may be corrupt. Mau proposes a lacuna after ζῴδια in l. [29]. But it may be possible to rescue the sentence as translated. It would seem that ἀστέρων must refer to heavenly bodies, i.e. planets, that are connected with the incompatible signs. This would deviate from Censorinus’ account, which does not mention any planets. The sentence is, it would seem, paraphrased in G, who takes the ἀστέρες that are dominant to be malevolent, as indeed can be deduced from the following sentence. But it is also possible that G’s negative term φαύλους indicates that something has fallen out of P’s text. The verb οἰκοδεσποτέω is a technical term in both astronomy and astrology for ‘exercising predominant influence’ and is used of planets; see LSJ and BAGD s.v. In l. [32] we have emended the text to read the expression ⟨κατ᾽⟩ ὀκτὼ, to be taken with the participle ἀριθμούμενα and meaning ‘numbered by eight’ (by inclusive reckoning). Previous editors have taken the meaning to be that there are eight incompatible zodiacal sign combinations, but only six are mentioned in the text. Even if the combination Libra with Taurus is introduced, as Diels, Mau and Lachenaud do based on the mention of Libra in G (but there stated as incompatible with Pisces), this still only amounts to seven combinations. Censorinus in his astrological explanations does not give these details—he in fact does not mention individual zodiacal signs at all—, so he cannot help us with this text. In the final sentence it is tempting to take over Diels’ suggestion τοῦ κύκλου, i.e. referring to the zodiacal circle, instead of τοῦ κόσμου. But we should recall that A has already introduced a cosmological perspective in §1, and it is also implicit in §4. He returns to this perspective at the end. The expression at the beginning of the doxa, ἀσυνδέτους πάσης γενέσεως, is also very general. e Other Evidence Our analysis has shown two significant differences with the more copious account of the subject in Censorinus. The Latin author orders his sequence

liber 5 caput 18

1927

of doxai much more systematically than A (i.e. as found in P). In addition, he focuses less on the question of the seven-month and eight-month olds and gives different reasons for the question of their viability. In his initial presentation in ch. 7 he omits any biological or physiological considerations, and only commences with these when presenting the doctrine of Pythagoras in ch. 9– 11. Most of the emphasis, however, is placed on arithmological and astrological details (with some musical aspects added as well). Both other close parallel sources, ps.Galen Def.Med. and Clement, also include arithmological considerations (which Clement also links with cosmology). These parallel discussions are a further indication that it must have been a deliberate decision on the part of A to avoid this material, despite its great popularity in philosophical circles at the time (for an overview for the use of arithmological doctrines in relation to human life see Mansfeld (1971) 165–178 and see further on ch. 5.21). Another difference is the inclusion of so much material from the Hippocratic tradition, which diverges from what we find in Censorinus and ps.Galen (though not in Clement). This forms a (welcome) exception to what we find in the remainder of Book 5. It may be hypothesized that A or his source was attracted by a dossier on this subject that had become available to him because the subject was so frequently discussed in the biological and medical literature of his time. A quite different text, yet one that has a number of points of contact with this chapter (and also chs. 5.17 & 5.21) is the excerpt from Damastes introduced above in section B(2). We cite the text in full in E(b) General texts below. It is a purely medical piece, written in the most sparing prose. Its editor Parker fittingly calls it a calendar. Appended to it is a remarkable table, explicitly called a διάγραμμα, which summarises its contents. Four possible lengths of pregnancy are listed, from seven to ten months (the eleven- and twelve-month possibilities are simply ignored), and for each the number of days corresponding to six different stages are given: becoming foam, blood, flesh, taking shape, movement and birth. As already noted in our Commentary on ch. 5.17 section C, the stage of giving shape is associated with a (provisional) completion, which by implication is the completion of the formation of the embryo (cf. ch. 5.21). See further ch. 5.21 Commentary D(e). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

Chapter heading: Censorinus DN 7.1–11.2 superest dicere de temporibus, quibus partus soleant esse ad nascendum maturi; qui locus eo mihi cura maiore tractandus est, quod quaedam necesse est de astrologia musicaque et arithmetica attingere. (2) iam primum quoto post conceptionem mense infantes edi soleant, frequenter agitatum inter veteres nondum convenit. Hippon Metapon-

1928

liber 5 caput 18

tinus (38A16 DK) a septimo ad decimum mensem nasci posse aestimavit: nam septimo partum iam esse maturum eo, quod in omnibus numerus septenarius plurimum possit, siquidem septem formemur mensibus, additisque alteris recti consistere incipiamus, et post septimum mensem dentes nobis innascantur, idemque post septimum cadant annum, quarto decimo autem pubescere soleamus. (3) sed hanc a septem mensibus incipientem maturitatem usque ad decem perductam, ideo quod in aliis omnibus haec eadem natura est, ut septem mensibus annisve tres aut menses aut anni ad consummationem accedant: (4) nam dentes septem mensum infanti nasci et maxime decimo perfici mense, septimo anno primos eorum excidere, decimo ultimos, post quartum decimum annum nonnullos, sed omnes intra septimum decimum annum pubescere. (5) huic opinioni in parte aliqua repugnant alii, in parte consentiunt. nam septimo mense parere mulierem posse plurimi adfirmant, ut Theano Pythagorica (—), Aristoteles Peripateticus (HA 7.4 584b3–7), Diocles (fr. 48d Van der Eijk), Euenor (—), Straton (fr. 96 Wehrli, 72 Sharples), Empedocles (31A83 DK), Epigenes (—) multique praeterea, quorum omnium consensus Euryphonem Cnidium (—) non deterret id ipsum intrepide pernegantem. (6) contra eum ferme omnes Epicharmum (23B59 DK) secuti octavo mense nasci negaverunt; Diocles tamen Carystius (fr. 48d Van der Eijk) et Aristoteles Stagirites (HA 7.4 584b7–14) aliter senserunt. nono autem et decimo mense cum Chaldaei plurimi et idem supra mihi nominatus Aristoteles (HA 7.4 584a36–37) edi posse partum putaverint, neque Epigenes Byzantius (—) non fieri posse contendit, nec Hippocrates Cous decimo. (7) ceterum undecimum mensem Aristoteles (HA 7.4 584b1) solus recipit, ceteri universi inprobarunt. (8.1) sed nunc Chaldaeorum ratio breviter tractanda est, explicandumque, cur septimo mense et nono et decimo tantum modo posse homines nasci arbitrentur. (2) ante omnia igitur dicunt actum vitamque nostram stellis tam vagis quam statis esse subiectam, … (3) itaque eum (sc. solem), qui stellas ipsas, quibus movemur, permovet, animam nobis dare, qua regamur, potentissimumque in nos esse moderarique, quando post conceptionem veniamus in lucem … (many astrological details now follow). (9.1) hac Chaldaeorum sententia explicata transeo ad opinionem Pythagoricam Varroni tractatam in libro, qui vocatur Tubero (fr. 3 Riese) et intus subscribitur de origine humana; quae quidem ratio praecipue recipienda ad veritatem proxime videtur accedere. alii enim plerique, cum omnes partus non uno tempore fiant maturi, una tamen eademque tempora omnibus conformandis dederunt … (see further on A 5.21). (3) Pythagoras autem, quod erat credibilius, dixit partus esse genera duo: alterum septem mensum, alterum decem, sed priorem aliis dierum numeris conformari, aliis posteriorem … (much material on numbers and music then follows). (11.1) his expositis forsitan quidem obscure, sed quam potui lucidissime, redeo ad propositum, ut doceam, quid Pythagoras (—) de numero dierum ad partus pertinentium senserit. (2) primum, ut supra memoravi generaliter, duos esse partus omnino dixit, alterum minorem, quem vocant septemmestrem, qui decimetducentesimo die post conceptionem exeat ab utero, alterum maiorem decemmestrem, qui edatur die ducentesimo septua-

liber 5 caput 18 gensimo quarto. quorum prior ac minor senario maxime continetur numero … (see further on ch. 5.21) ps.Galen Def.Med. 450, 19.454.6–10 Κ. υνʹ. διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν τῶν ἑπταμήνων γονίμων ὄντων τὰ ὀκτάμηνα ἄγονά ἐστιν; λέγεται οὕτως· ὅτι ὁ ὀκτὼ ἀριθμὸς ἄρτιός ἐστι καὶ συνεζευγμένος μὴ κρίσιμος ὤν· ὁ δὲ ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸς περιττὸς καὶ οὐδὲ συνεζευγμένος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κρίσιμος. Aulus Gellius NA 3.16.1 et medici et philosophi inlustres de tempore humani partus quaesiverunt. multa opinio est, eaque iam pro vero recepta, postquam mulieris uterum semen conceperit, gigni hominem septimo rarenter, numquam octavo, saepe nono, saepius numero decimo mense, eumque esse hominum gignendi summum finem … Tertullian de An. 37.4 sed et cum septimo mense nativitas plena est facilius quam octavo, honorem sabbati agnoscam. … ideo ogdoas nos non creat. Chapter heading: cf. ps.Galen Def.Med. 450 cited above. §4 Aristotle Hippocrates: Varro at Aul. Gell. 3.16.6–8 etiam undecimo mense aliquando nasci posse hominem dicit, eiusque sententiae tam de octavo quam de undecimo mense Aristotelem auctorum laudat. sed huius de mense octavo dissensionis causa cognisci potest in libro Hippocratis qui inscriptus est Περὶ τροφῆς (ch. 42 cited below on §5) … Ioannes Lydus Mens. 2.12, p. 35.11– 16 ἔνθεν καὶ τὰ ἑπτάμηνα βρέφη τελειογονεῖσθαι πέφυκεν, ὡς Ἱπποκράτης λέγει· ἡ γὰρ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ ψυχογονικὴ δύναμις τὰ ἑπτάμηνα τέλεια ἀποφαίνει, διότι τελείας περίοδος σφαιρικῆς ἀριθμῷ τελείῳ καὶ κοσμικῷ, τῷ ψυχοκρατητικῷ καὶ ψυχογονικῷ περιέχεται. §5 Polybus: for arithmological texts see below, section E(b)§5.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle GA 4.4 772b7–12 τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοις εἷς ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, τοῖς δ᾽ ἀνθρώποις πλείους· καὶ γὰρ ἑπτάμηνα καὶ δεκάμηνα γεννῶνται καὶ κατὰ τοὺς μεταξὺ χρόνους· καὶ γὰρ τὰ ὀκτάμηνα ζῇ μέν, ἧττον δέ. τὸ δ᾽ αἴτιον ἐκ τῶν νῦν λεχθέντων συνίδοι τις ἄν, εἴρηται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς Προβλήμασιν. GA 4.6 774b36–775a4 δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑπταμήνων· διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἀτελῆ εἶναι πολλάκις ἔνια αὐτῶν γίγνεται οὐδὲ τοὺς πόρους ἔχοντά πω διηρθρωμένους, οἷον ὤτων καὶ μυκτήρων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπαυξανομένοις διαρθροῦται, καὶ βιοῦσι πολλὰ τῶν τοιούτων. Damastes Περὶ τῶν γονίμων καὶ τελειουμένων (fragment from Δαμ{ν}άστου Περὶ κυουσῶν καὶ βρεφῶν θεραπείας), Laur. 74.2, fol. 381v, ll. 3–26, ed. Parker (1999): 1. τὸ ἑπταμηνιαῖον· ἀφροῦται μὲν ἐν ἡμέραις ἕξ, αἱματοῦται δὲ ἐν ⟨ἄλλαις⟩ ηʹ, σαρκοῦται δὲ ἄλλαις θʹ, μορφοῦται δὲ ἐν ἄλλαις ιβʹ. αἵ τινες συντελεσθεῖσαι ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμὸν λεʹ. κινεῖται δὲ ἐν διπλασίοσιν οʹ· τῶν τεθέντων ἀποκυΐσκεται δὲ ἐν τριπλασίοσιν σιʹ. 2. τὸ ὀκταμηνιαῖον· ἀφροῦται μὲν ἐν ἡμέραις ϛʹ, αἱματοῦται δὲ ἐν ἄλλαις δέκα, σαρκοῦται δὲ ἄλλαις θʹ, μορφοῦται δὲ ἐν ἄλλαις ιεʹ. αἵ τινες συντελεσθεῖσαι ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμὸν μʹ. κινεῖται δὲ ἐν διπλασίαις πʹ· ἀποκυΐσκεται δὲ ἐν τριπλασίαις σμʹ. 3. τὸ ἐνναμηνιαῖον· ἀφροῦται μὲν ἐν ἡμέραις ϛʹ, αἱματοῦται δὲ ἐν ἄλλαις δέκα, σαρκοῦται δὲ ἄλλαις ιβʹ, μορφοῦται δὲ ἐν ἄλλαις ιηʹ. αἵ τινες συντελεσθεῖσαι

1929

1930

liber 5 caput 18

ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμὸν μεʹ. κινεῖται δὲ ἐν διπλασίαις τούτων ϙʹ· ἀποκυΐσκεται δὲ ἐν τριπλασίοσιν σοʹ. 4. τὸ δεκαμηνιαῖον· ἀφροῦται μὲν ἐν ἡμέραις ϛʹ, αἱματοῦται δὲ ἐν ἄλλαις ηʹ, σαρκοῦται δὲ ἄλλαις ιβʹ, μορφοῦται δὲ ἐν ἄλλαις κδʹ. αἵ τινες συντελεσθεῖσαι ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμὸν νʹ. κινεῖται δὲ ἐν διπλασίαις ρʹ· ἀποκυΐσκεται δὲ ἐν τριπλασίοσιν τʹ. διάγραμμα ἀφρόν ϛʹ ϛʹ ϛʹ ϛʹ αἷμα ηʹ ιʹ θʹ ηʹ σάρξ θʹ θʹ ιβʹ ιβʹ μόρφωσις ιβʹ ιεʹ ιηʹ κδʹ κίνησις οʹ πʹ ϙʹ ρʹ ἀποκύησις σιʹ σμʹ σοʹ τʹ ps.Alexander Probl. 2.47 Ideler Διὰ τί τὰ ἑπταμηνιαῖα βρέφη ζώσιμα, τὰ δ᾽ ὀκτωμηνιαῖα οὐκέτι; ὅτι ὁ ἑπτὰ ἀριθμός, τέλειός ἐστι τῇ φύσει, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ Πυθαγόρας (—) καὶ οἱ ἀριθμητικοὶ καὶ οἱ μουσικοί· ὁ δὲ ὀκτὼ ἀτελής (cf. Psellus Phil.Min. 1 op. 55, p. 271.6 Duffy). Genesis Rabbah 14.2 (trans. Freedman) There is a viable birth at nine [months] and a viable birth at seven [months]. R. Huna said: When the foetus is so formed as to be born at seven months, and it is born either at seven or at nine months, it is viable; if born at eight months, it cannot live. When it is formed so as to be born at nine but yet it is born at seven months, it cannot live, and all the more so if it is born at eight months. R. Abbahu was asked: ‘How do we know that when the foetus is fully developed at seven months it is viable?’ ‘From your own [language] I will prove it to you’, replied he: ‘Live, seven; go [away], eight’. Ioannes Doxapatres Proleg. in Aphth. progymn. p. 125.14–16 Rabe ἔστι γάρ τινα καὶ ἰατρικὰ ζητήματα, ὡς ὅτε ζητεῖται, διὰ τί τὰ μὲν ἑπτάμηνα βρέφη ζῶσι, τὰ δὲ ὀκτάμηνα οὔ. Chapter heading: see texts of ps.Alexander and Iohannes Doxapatres cited under General texts above. cf. also Oribasius Coll.lib.inc. 10 CMG 4.95.9 Raeder Περὶ κυήσεως ἑπταμήνων. Coll.lib.inc. 12 CMG 4.99.15 Raeder Ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους τοῦ φιλοσόφου Περὶ ὀκταμήνων. cf. Aristotle GA 4.10 777a 33 οἱ δὲ χρόνοι τῆς κυήσεως ἑκάστῳ τῶν ζῳῶν … §1 Empedocles: Ioannes Tzetzes Exeg. in Iliad. 42.17–26 Hermann (partly cited at 31A66 DK) κατὰ γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλέα τὸν φυσικὸν καὶ μετὰ τὸ γῆν φανῆναι καὶ θάλασσαν ἀτάκτως καὶ ἔτι τὰ στοιχεῖα κεκίνητο, ποτὲ μὲν τοῦ πυρὸς ὑπερνικῶντος καὶ καταφλέγοντος, ὁτὲ δὲ τῆς ὑδατώδους ὑπερβλυζούσης καὶ κατακλυζούσης ἐπιρροῆς. καὶ τὸν ἥλιον δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ ἄτακτόν φησι τῆς φορᾶς καὶ ἀστήρικτον τοσοῦτόν τε τῇ ἡμερησίῳ βραδύνειν πορείᾳ ὅσος νῦν καιρός ἐστιν ὁ ἑπτάμηνος. διὰ δὴ τοῦτό φησιν ζῳογονεῖσθαι καὶ τῶν βρεφῶν τὰ ἑπτάμηνα. Proclus in Resp. 2.34.25– 28 Kroll ὅτι καὶ ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B69 DK) οἶδεν τὸν διπλοῦν τῶν γεννήσεων χρόνον· διὸ καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας καλεῖ διγόνους, καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἡμερῶν αὐτὸς εἶπεν, καὶ ὅτι τὰ ὀκτάμηνα ἄγονα· καὶ εἰκότως … (see further on A 5.21.1).

liber 5 caput 18 §2 Timaeus: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Septim. 124.12 Grensemann οὐδὲ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἑνδεκάμηνον καὶ δωδεκάμηνον κατὰ τὸν τούτων λόγον ἔστ᾽ ὃ ἂν ζῇ παιδίον. also Pliny Nat. 7.40 cum matrem partum se tredecim mensibus diceret tulisse. §3 Polybus: on Polybus, see below §5. cf. Pliny Nat. 7.38–39 ceteris animantibus statum et pariendi et partus gerendi tempus est; homo toto anno et incerto gignitur spatio, alius septimo mense, alius octavo et usque ad initia undecimi. ante septimum mensem haut umquam vitalis est. septimo non nisi pridie posterove pleniluni die aut interlunio concepti nascuntur. tralaticium in Aegypto est et octavo gigni, iam quidem et in Italia tales partus esse vitales, contra priscorum opiniones. §4 Aristotle Hippocrates: Corpus Hippocraticum (= Polybus?) Octr.Part. Joly passim; see below on §5. Vict. 1.26.2, p. 6.498.21–22 Littré ὡσαύτως καὶ γόνιμα γίνεται τὰ μὲν θᾶσσον ἑπτάμηνα τελείως, τὰ δὲ βραδύτερον ἐννέα μησὶ τελείως. Aristotle HA 7.4 584a34–b25 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα ζῷα μοναχῶς ποιεῖται τὴν τοῦ τόκου τελείωσιν· εἷς γὰρ ὥρισται τοῦ τόκου χρόνος πᾶσιν· ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ πολλοὶ μόνῳ τῶν ζῴων· καὶ γὰρ ἑπτάμηνα καὶ ὀκτάμηνα καὶ ἐννεάμηνα γίνεται, καὶ δεκάμηνα τὸ πλεῖστον· ἔνιαι δ᾽ ἐπιλαμβάνουσι καὶ τοῦ ἑνδεκάτου μηνός. ὅσα μὲν οὖν γίνεται πρότερα τῶν ἑπτὰ μηνῶν, οὐδὲν οὐδαμῇ δύναται ζῆν· τὰ δ᾽ ἑπτάμηνα γόνιμα γίνεται πρῶτον, ἀσθενῆ δὲ τὰ πολλά (διὸ καὶ σπαργανοῦσιν ἐρίοις αὐτά), πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν πόρων ἐνίους ἔχοντα ἀσχίστους, οἷον ὤτων καὶ μυκτήρων· ἀλλ᾽ ἐπαυξανομένοις διαρθροῦται, καὶ βιοῦσι πολλὰ καὶ τῶν τοιούτων. τὰ δ᾽ ὀκτάμηνα περὶ μὲν Αἴγυπτον καὶ ἐν ἐνίοις τόποις, ὅπου εὐέκφοροι αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ φέρουσί τε πολλὰ ῥᾳδίως καὶ τίκτουσι, καὶ γενόμενα δύναται ζῆν, κἂν τερατώδη γένηται, ἐνταῦθα μὲν ζῇ τὰ ὀκτάμηνα καὶ ἐκτρέφεται, ἐν δὲ τοῖς περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τόποις ὀλίγα πάμπαν σώζεται, τὰ δὲ πολλὰ ἀπόλλυται· καὶ διὰ τὴν ὑπόληψιν, κἂν σωθῇ τι, νομίζουσιν οὐκ ὀκτάμηνον εἶναι τὸ γεγενημένον, ἀλλὰ λαθεῖν ἑαυτὰς αἱ γυναῖκες συλλαβοῦσαι πρότερον. πονοῦσι δ᾽ αἱ γυναῖκες μάλιστα τὸν μῆνα τὸν τέταρτον καὶ τὸν ὄγδοον, καὶ ἐὰν διαφθείρωσι τετάρτῳ ἢ ὀγδόῳ μηνί, διαφθείρονται καὶ αὐταὶ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, ὥστ᾽ οὐ μόνον τὰ ὀκτάμηνα οὐ ζῇ, ἀλλὰ καὶ διαφθειρομένων αἱ τίκτουσαι κινδυνεύουσιν. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον δοκεῖ λανθάνειν καὶ ὅσα φαίνεται τίκτεσθαι πολυχρονιώτερα τῶν ἕνδεκα μηνῶν· καὶ γὰρ τούτων ἡ τῆς συλλήψεως ἀρχὴ λανθάνει τὰς γυναῖκας· πολλάκις γὰρ πνευματικῶν γενομένων ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ὑστερῶν, μετὰ ταῦτα πλησιάσασαι καὶ συλλαβοῦσαι ἐκείνην οἴονται τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τῆς συλλήψεως, δι᾽ ἣν ἐχρήσαντο τοῖς σημείοις ὁμοίοις. Similar views at Oribasius Coll. lib.inc. 12 (= fr. 283 Rose3) Περὶ τῶν ὀκταμήνων εἰσί τινες οἵ φασιν οὐθὲν ζῆν· τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ ψεῦδος· ζῇ γάρ, καὶ τοῦτο μάλιστα μὲν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ δῆλον διὰ τὸ τρέφειν τε πάντα τὰ γινόμενα τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους … οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι τηροῦσιν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν οὕτως ἔχειν, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἅπαντα τὰ ὀκτάμηνα μὴ ζῆν οὐκ ἀληθές ἐστιν, ὅτι μέντοι ὀλίγα καὶ ἧττον τῶν ἑπταμήνων τε καὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ πλείονος ἀριθμοῦ γενομένων ἀληθές· καὶ γὰρ ἑνδεκάμηνον δοκεῖ γεννᾶσθαι καὶ δεκάμηνον. ὅσα μὲν οὖν γίνεται πρότερον τῶν ἑπταμήνων, οὐθὲν οὐδαμοῦ δύναται ζῆν· τὰ δ᾽ ἑπτάμηνα γόνιμα γίνεται πρῶτον, ἀσθενῆ δὲ τὰ πολλά … briefer statements at GA 4.4 772b6–12 et Probl. 10.41 895a24–26. Anonymus Bruxellensis 12, p. 215.20–216.15 Wellmann hic de septemmensium causa nas-

1931

1932

liber 5 caput 18

cendi conicit compendiosam foetus perfectionem fieri, quotiens summo temperamento primordiorum confectum semen in matricem venerit. ipsa quoque similiter temperat aut etiam nutrimenta minime insidiosa. etenim nono mense magis partum fieri perfectionis est causa. quae cum forte septimo fuerit mense commota, raro quidem, sed rationabiliter fiet. octavo tamen mense non facile nutribiles sunt, non est ⟨enim⟩ umbilicatus foetus pro ratione ponderis. septimo mense ad inferiora loca descendit ex superioribus spatiis. dehinc, si fuerit perfectus, erumpens membranas nutribiliter excluditur. hinc quassat membranas et totam matricem, qua ex quassatione generatur tumor. rumpere autem cum non potuerit supradictas membranas ac matricem, siquidem nondum conveniens habet pondus ac perfectam fortitudinem, necessario permanens venit in octavum mensem et laborem facit praegnaci, donec tumor quassatione genitus resolvatur. qua desinente nonus mensis rursum veniet levior. §5 Polybus: Corpus Hippocraticum (= Polybus?) Octr.Part. 1.1–2.1, p. 164.1– 165.8 Joly οἱ δὲ ἑπτάμηνοι γίνονται ἐκ τῶν ἑκατὸν ἡμερέων καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ δύο καὶ προσεόντος μορίου· ἢν γὰρ τοῦ πρώτου λογίσῃ μηνὸς πεντεκαίδεκα ἡμέρας, τῶν δὲ πέντε μηνῶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ἑπτὰ καὶ ἥμισυ ἡμέρης, ἐν γὰρ ἑξήκοντα μιῆς δεούσῃσιν ἡμέρῃσιν ἐγγύτατα δύο μῆνες ἐκτελεῦνται, οὕτως οὖν τουτέων ἐόντων ἐς τὸν ἕβδομον μῆνα περιγίνονται ἡμέραι πλεῖον ἢ εἴκοσιν, ἐς ἥμισυ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς ἡμέρης μέρεος τῷ μέρει ποσοῦ γινομένου. … καὶ τὰ μὲν πλεῖστα τουτέων ἀπώλλοντο· … ἔστι δὲ ἃ τούτων τῶν ἑπταμήνων καὶ περιγίνονται, ἐκ πολλῶν ὀλίγα … Oct. 3.1–2, p. 165.17–166.12 τὰ δὲ πολλὰ τῶν ἐμβρύων τῶν ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡλικίῃ τῇ ἑπταμήνῳ, ὅταν οἱ ὑμένες χαλάσωσι, μετεχώρησαν ἐς τὸ ὑπεῖξαν, καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν τροφὴν ποιέεται· τὰς μὲν τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας τὰς πρώτας πονεῦντα τὰ μὲν μᾶλλον, τὰ δὲ ἧσσον, διὰ τὴν μεταβολὴν ἣν ἐκ τῶν χωρίων τῶν θρεψάντων μετεβάλετο, καὶ ὅτι τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ἔσπασε καὶ μετεχώρησε, καὶ διὰ τῆς μητρὸς τοὺς πόνους. … χρῶνται δὲ πᾶσαι (sc. αἱ γυναῖκες) ἑνὶ λόγῳ περὶ τουτέου· φασὶ γὰρ τοὺς ὀγδόους τῶν μηνῶν καὶ χαλεπώτατα φέρειν τὰς γαστέρας, ὀρθῶς λέγουσαι. ἔστι δὲ ὄγδοος μὴν οὐ μόνον ὁ χρόνος οὗτος, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ ἡμέρας λάβοι ἀπό τε τοῦ ἑβδόμου μηνὸς καὶ τοῦ ἐννάτου. Oct. 10.1, p. 174.4–6 περὶ δὲ ὀκταμήνου γενέσιος φημὶ δισσὰς ἐφεξῆς κακοπαθείας γενομένας ἀδυνάτους εἶναι ποιέειν φέρειν τὰ παιδία, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐ περιγίνεσθαι τὰ ὀκτάμηνα. Carn. 19, p. 8.612.23–32 Littré ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῷδε τεκμήρασθαι· τὸ παιδίον ἑπτάμηνος γόνος γενόμενον, λόγῳ γεγένηται, καὶ ζῇ, καὶ λόγον ἔχει τοιοῦτον καὶ ἀριθμὸν ἀτρεκέα ἐς τὰς ἑβδομάδας· ὀκτάμηνον δὲ γενόμενον, οὐδὲν βιοῖ πώποτε· ἐννέα δὲ μηνῶν καὶ δέκα ἡμερέων γόνος γίγνεται, καὶ ζῇ, καὶ ἔχει τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἀτρεκέα ἐς τὰς ἑβδομάδας· τέσσαρες δεκάδες ἑβδομάδων ἡμέραι εἰσὶ διηκόσιαι ὀγδοήκοντα· ἐς δὲ τὴν δεκάδα τῶν ἑβδομάδων ἑβδομήκοντα ἡμέραι. ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὸ ἑπτάμηνον γενόμενον τρεῖς δεκάδας ἑβδομάδων, ἐς δὲ τὴν δεκάδα ἑκάστην ἑβδομήκοντα ἡμέραι, τρεῖς δεκάδες δὲ ἑβδομάδων αἱ σύμπασαι δέκα καὶ διηκόσιαι. Alim. 42, p. 8.114.1–4 Littré ἐς τύπωσιν λεʹ (55) ἠέλιοι, ἐς κίνησιν οʹ (70), ἐς τελειότητα σιʹ (210)· ἄλλοι, ἐς ἰδέην μεʹ (45), ἐς κίνησιν ϟʹ (90), ἐς ἔξοδον σοʹ (270)· ἄλλοι, νʹ (50) ἐς ἰδέην, ἐς πρῶτον ἅλμα ρʹ (100), ἐς τελειότητα τʹ (300)· ἐς διάκρισιν μʹ (40), ἐς μετάβασιν πʹ (80), ἐς ἔκπτωσιν σμʹ (240) … Soranus Gyn. 1.55 δέδειχεν γὰρ ἡ ἐνάργεια δὴ καὶ τὰ ἑπτάμηνα γόνιμα τυγχάνειν.

liber 5 caput 18 Arithmological texts: Varro at Aulus Gellius NA 3.10.8 (citing the Hebdomades fr. 106 Salvadore; see also on A 5.21.1) illam quoque vim numeri huius observatam refert, quod ante mensem septimum neque mas neque femina salubriter ac secundum naturam nasci potest et quod hi, qui iustissime in utero sunt, post ducentos septuaginta tres dies, postquam sunt concepti, quadragesima denique hebdomade inita nascuntur. Philo of Alexandria Opif. 124 καὶ τὰ κατὰ γαστρὸς βρέφη μησὶν ἑπτὰ τελειογονεῖσθαι πέφυκεν, ὡς παραδοξότατόν τι συμβαίνειν· γίνεται γὰρ τὰ ἑπτάμηνα γόνιμα, τῶν ὀκτωμηνιαίων ὡς ἐπίπαν ζῳογονεῖσθαι μὴ δυναμένων. Leg. 1.9 τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδεν, ὅτι τῶν βρεφῶν τὰ μὲν ἑπτάμηνα γόνιμα, τὰ δὲ πλείω χρόνον προσλαβόντα, ὡς ὀκτὼ μῆνας ἐνδιαιτηθῆναι γαστρί, κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἄγονα; Nicomachus at ps.Iambl. Theol.Ar. pp. 46–47, p. 62.8–63.6 De Falco Στράτων δὲ ὁ Περιπατητικὸς (fr. 98 Wehrli, 73A Sharples) καὶ Διοκλῆς ὁ Καρύστιος (fr. 45a Van der Eijk) καὶ πολλοὶ ἕτεροι τῶν ἰατρῶν … καὶ τοῦτό φασι ζʹ μησὶ γόνιμον εἶναι, εἰ δ᾽ ἐννέα μέλλει γενήσεσθαι, τῇ ἕκτῃ πάσχει τοῦτο ἑβδομάδι, ἂν θῆλυ ᾖ, ἂν δὲ ἄρσεν, τῇ ἑβδόμῃ. τῆς δὲ γονιμότητος αἰτίαν μάλιστα τὴν ἑβδομάδα ὑπάρχειν, δηλοῖ τὸ καὶ τὰ ἑπταμηνιαῖα. δι᾽ αὐτὴν ζώσιμα οὐκ ἔλαττον τῶν ἐννεαμηνιαίων γίνεσθαι. διαφθείρεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς φυσικῆς ἀνάγκης τὰ ἀμφοῖν μέσα τεταγμένα ὀκταμηνιαῖα, ὃ διὰ τοιούτου τινὸς ἐπιλογισμοῦ συνεβίβαζον οἱ Πυθαγορικοί, δι᾽ ἀριθμητικῶν λόγων καὶ διαγραμμάτων τὴν ἔφοδον ποιούμενοι … Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.138.6– 139.1 Stählin ἥ τε ἀπὸ τροπῶν ἐπὶ τροπὰς κίνησις τοῦ ἡλίου ἐν ἓξ συντελεῖται μησί, καθ᾽ ἣν πῇ μὲν φυλλορροεῖ, πῇ δὲ βλαστάνει τὰ φυτὰ καὶ αἱ τῶν σπερμάτων γίνονται τελειώσεις. φασὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ ἔμβρυον ἀπαρτίζεσθαι πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ, τουτέστιν ἑκατὸν ἡμέραις καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα πρὸς ταῖς δύο καὶ ἡμίσει, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Πόλυβος μὲν ὁ ἰατρὸς ἐν τῷ Περὶ ὀκταμήνων, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ὁ φιλόσοφος ἐν τῷ Περὶ φύσεως (= fr. 282 Rose3). Theon of Smyrna Exp. 104.4– 5 Hiller ἔνιοι δέ φασι τὰ ἄρρενα ἐν πέντε ἑβδομάσι τελειοῦσθαι, γόνιμα δὲ γίνεσθαι ἐν ἑπτὰ μησί, γενόμενα δὲ ἐν ἑπτὰ μησὶν (see also on A 5.21.1). Ioannes Lydus Mens. 2.12, p. 35.11–16 cited above at E(a)§4. Mens. 4.162 177.21 ὅτι ὁ τῆς ὀγδοάδος ἀριθμὸς θῆλυς καὶ ἄπειρος καὶ ἀτελής· … ὅθεν οὐ τελεσφορεῖται τὰ ὀκταμηνιαῖα. §6 mathematici: cf. Censorinus c. 8 cited above E(a) General texts. Proclus in Resp. 2.34.25–28 cited above on §1. note also Zoroaster at Procl. in Resp. 2.34.18–24 χρὴ τοῦτο τηρεῖν, πότε ἡ σελήνη δύο ποιεῖται σχηματισμούς, οἷον δύο συνόδους ἐν ἑνὶ μηνὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ζῳδίῳ· τότε γὰρ ἑπτάμηνον τὸ γιγνόμενον. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πρώτως ἐφάνη τελειοῖ τὸ βρέφος· ὃ δὲ προσελάμβανεν τῷ δρόμῳ τοῦ ἡλίου, τοῦτο ὑπετέμνετο τοῦ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ χρόνου.

1933

Liber 5 Caput 19 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 908D–F; pp. 430a1–431a13 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 123; p. 645.1–7 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 234–237 Daiber SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.42, p. 294.2 Wachsmuth (titulus solus; sed titulus alter verisim. interpolatus ex P; vid. Elter (1880) 73–74, Wachsmuth (1882) 17); cf. Photius Bibl. 167, p. 112b25 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus ιθʹ. Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, πῶς ἐγένοντο ζῷα, καὶ εἰ φθαρτά (P,cf.S) §1 καθ᾽ οὓς μὲν γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος, γενητὰ τὰ ζῷα καὶ φθαρτά εἰσιν. (P1) §2 {οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον} καθ᾽ οὓς ⟨δὲ⟩ ἀγένητος, ἐκ μεταβολῆς τῆς ἀλλήλων γεννᾶσθαι τὰ ζῷα· μέρη γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου ταῦτα. (P2) §3 ὡς καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Εὐριπίδης· ‘θνῄσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων, διακρινόμενον δ᾽ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο μορφὰς ἑτέρας ἀπέδειξεν.’ (P3) §4 Ἀναξίμανδρος ἐν ὑγρῷ γεννηθῆναι τὰ πρῶτα ζῷα, φλοιοῖς περιεχόμενα ἀκανθώδεσι· προβαινούσης δὲ τῆς ἡλικίας ἀποβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὸ ξηρότερον καὶ περιρρηγνυμένου τοῦ φλοιοῦ ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον χρόνον μεταβιῶναι. (P4) §5 Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος γεγενημένα εἶναι τὰ ζῷα συστάσει εἴδει ἐνδεεστέρων πρῶτον τοῦ ὑγροῦ ζῳογονοῦντος. (PGQ5) §§1–2 anonymi —; §3 Anaxagoras 59A112; Euripides fr. 839 Kannicht; §4 Anaximander 12A30 DK: §5 Democritus 68A139, fr. 514 Luria; Epicurus — titulus Πῶς … ζῷα PBQSL2 : Πῶς ἐγένετο τὰ ζῷα PG : Περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τῶν ζῴων SL1 (γενέσεως post ζῴων Phot. 112b25, Wachsmuth) ‖ καὶ εἰ φθαρτά PBQ : καὶ φθαρτά SL2 : καὶ εἰ φθορά PGmss., emend. Diels : desunt in SL1 §1 [2] καθ᾽ οὓς … εἰσιν PBQ : contraxit §§1 et 2 PG, qui pro καθ᾽ οὓς μὲν γενητὸς hab. Ἐπίκουρος· εἰ ἐγένετο et ante τὰ add. καὶ ‖ post καὶ hab. PG εἰ, secl. Diels ‖ εἰσιν om. PG §2 [3] verba οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον inter εἰσιν (§1) et καθ᾽ οὓς, quae hab. PBQ (cf. Ἐπίκουρος PG §1), ut glossam ad §1 pertinentem delevimus ‖ ⟨δὲ⟩ coniecimus ‖ ἀγένητος PQ (welche glaubten, daß die Welt kein Werden hat Q) Diels Mau : ἀγένητα PB Lachenaud ‖ τῆς PB(I,III)G : τῶν PB(II) ‖ [4] γεννᾶσθαι τὰ ζῷα PB, cf. das Werden der Lebewesen Q : γίγνεσθαι PG ‖ ταῦτα PG : τούτου PB §3 [6] θνῄσκει P(I,III)GQ : διδάσκει PB(II) ‖ δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων PGQ : om. PB ‖ [7] διακρινόμενον PG2Q : διακρινόμενα PG1 : μεταμισγόμενα PB(I,II) : μεταμειβόμενα PB(III) ‖ [8] μορφὰς … ἀπέδειξεν Diels sec. PG (sed leg. ἐπέδειξεν) : μορφὰς ἔδειξεν PB, cf. sodaß sich seine Form ändert Q §4 [10] ἀποβαίνειν PB(II,III) : ἀποβαίνει PB(I) §5 non hab. PB, om. edd. (in app. crit. pos. Diels) ‖ [12] Δημόκριτος … Ἐπίκουρος PQ : Δημόκριτος PG ‖ [12– 13] συστάσει … ζῳογονοῦντα PG1 (ζῳογονοῦντος emend. Diels) : om. PG2 : al. Q Sie entstanden aus einer warmen Substanz, und das erste, was ihnen Leben verlieh, war das Warme ‖ [12–13] εἴδει ἐνδεεστέρων Luria : ειδεεναστρον PG : εἰδέων ἀνάθρων propos. Diels VS

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_144

5

10

liber 5 caput 19

§6

Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς πρώτας γενέσεις τῶν ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν μηδαμῶς ὁλοκλήρους γενέσθαι, ἀσυμφυέσι δὲ τοῖς μορίοις διεζευγμένας, τὰς δὲ δευτέρας συμφυομένων τῶν μερῶν εἰδωλοφανεῖς, τὰς δὲ τρίτας τῶν ὁλοφυῶν· τὰς δὲ τετάρτας οὐκέτι ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων, οἷον ἐκ γῆς καὶ ὕδατος, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀλλήλων ἤδη, τοῖς μὲν πυκνωθείσης ⟨τῆς⟩ τροφῆς, τοῖς δὲ καὶ τῆς εὐμορφίας τῶν γυναικῶν ἐπερεθισμὸν τοῦ σπερματικοῦ κινήματος ἐμποιησάσης. τῶν δὲ ζῴων πάντων τὰ γένη διακριθῆναι διὰ τὰς ποιὰς κράσεις· τὰ μὲν ὑγρότερα εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ τὴν ὁρμὴν ἔχειν, τὰ δ᾽ εἰς ἀέρα ἀναπτῆναι, ὅσ᾽ ἂν πυρῶδες ἔχῃ τὸ πλέον, τὰ δὲ βαρύτερα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, τὰ δ᾽ ἰσόμοιρα τῇ κράσει πᾶσι τοῖς χωρίοις σύμφωνα εἶναι. (P6)

§6 Empedocles 31A72 DK §6 non hab. PG ‖ [15] τοῖς] om. PB(II) ‖ [17] ὁλοφυῶν Karsten Diels Mansfeld R1 ex Emp. B62.4 (οὐλοφυεῖς Censor. 4.8 cf. solidi hominis coni. Primavesi R2) : ἀλληλοφυῶν PBQ (ihr einem Teil aus dem andern Q) Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most ‖ στοιχείων PQ (aus den Elementen Q) dub. iam Diels DG, prob. Primavesi R2, cf. Cens. 4.8 igni simul et umori permixtam : ὁμοίων PB Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most (coni. οἰκείων Reiske), ὁμοιομερῶν dub. Diels VS DK ‖ [17–18] καὶ ὕδατος PB(I,III) : ὕδατος PB(II) : καὶ ἀέρος PQ (und Luft Q) ‖ [18] ἤδη PB(I,III) : εἴδη PB(II) ‖ τοῖς μὲν πυκνωθείσης PB(II) : τῆς μὲν πυκνωθείσης PB(III): τῆς μὲν πυρωθείσης PB(I) ‖ ⟨τῆς⟩ τροφῆς Mansfeld R1 ex PQ, prob. Primavesi R2 Lachenaud : τοῖς δὲ καὶ τοῖς ζώοις τροφῆς PB (verisim. schol. in marg. ad τοῖς δὲ, sed cf. sondern durch die Zusammenballung, die Verdichtung und die Nahrungsmenge Q), crucif. Mau ‖ [21] ὑγρότερα PQ (was von ihnen feuchter ist Q) Primavesi R2 (coni. iam Reiske, dub. Diels VS) : οἰκειότερα PB, ⟨ὑγρὰ⟩ οἰκειότερον Diels DG edd. (sine ὑγρὰ Laks–Most), οἰκειοτέραν Diels DK Vítek ‖ ἔχειν corr. Diels : ἔχει PB ‖ [22] ἀναπτῆναι PQ (zu ihnen gehört, was in der Luft fliegt Q), coni. iam Diels DG, Mansfeld R1 ex PQ, prob. Primavesi R2 : ἀναπνεῖν PB, crucif. Mau Lachenaud ‖ ὅσ᾽ ἂν PQ (nämlich das, worin Q), dub. iam Diels DG, Mansfeld R1 ex PQ, prob. Primavesi R2 : ἕως ἂν PB(I,III) Laks–Most : ὣς ἂν PB(II), crucif. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [23] χωρίοις σύμφωνα εἶναι PQ (ist ebenmäßig an allen Orten Q), coni. iam Diels DG, prob. Primavesi R2 : τοῖς θώραξι πεφωνηκέναι PB, συμπεφύκεναι coni. Wyttenbach prob. Vítek, crucif. Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 123 (~ tit.) Πῶς ἐγένετο τὰ ζῷα καὶ εἰ φθαρτά (text Diels) 123.1 (~ P1–2) Ἐπίκουρος· εἰ ἐγένετο ὁ κόσμος, γενητὰ καὶ τὰ ζῷα καὶ {εἰ} φθαρτὰ, ⟨εἰ δὲ ἀ⟩γενητός, ἐκ μεταβολῆς τῆς ἀλλήλων γίγνεσθαι. μέρη γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου ταῦτα, 123.2 (~ P3) ὡς Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Εὐριπίδης· ‘θνῄσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων, διακρινόμενον δὲ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο μορφὰς ἑτέρας ἐπέδειξεν’. 123.3 (~ P5) Δημόκριτος γεγενημένα εἶναι τὰ ζῷα συστάσει † εἰ δὲ ἓν ἄστρον πρῶτον τοῦ ὑγροῦ ζῳογονοῦντα.

1935

15

20

1936

liber 5 caput 19

Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 2.4 Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος. A 5.26 Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα. A 1.1.2[2–6] πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα … φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· οἷον γῆ πῦρ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ φυτὰ ζῷα … καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι, οἷον ζῷα φυτά, ἀρχὴν γενέσεως ἔχει. A 2.8.1 Διογένης Ἀναξαγόρας μετὰ τὸ συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐγκλιθῆναί πως τὸν κόσμον … A 2.30.9 Ξενοφάνης τὸν μὲν ἥλιον χρήσιμον εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ζῴων γένεσίν τε καὶ διοίκησιν, τὴν δὲ σελήνην παρέλκειν. §1 A 2.4.1 Πυθαγόρας Ἡράκλειτος γενητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν κόσμον, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον. §§2–3 A 1.24.2–3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος καὶ πάντες, ὅσοι κατὰ συναθροισμὸν τῶν λεπτομερῶν σωμάτων κοσμοποιοῦσι, συγκρίσεις μὲν καὶ διακρίσεις εἰσάγουσι, γενέσεις δὲ καὶ φθορὰς οὐ κυρίως· οὐ γὰρ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν ἐξ ἀλλοιώσεως, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποσὸν ἐκ συναθροισμοῦ ταύτας γίνεσθαι. Πυθαγόρας καὶ πάντες, ὅσοι παθητὴν τὴν ὕλην ὑποτίθενται, κυρίως γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν γίνεσθαι· ἐκ γὰρ ἀλλοιώσεως τῶν στοιχείων καὶ τροπῆς καὶ ἀναλύσεως γένεσ⟨ιν⟩ καὶ φθορ⟨άν⟩, παράθεσιν καὶ μῖξιν, κρᾶσίν τε καὶ σύγχυσιν γίνεσθαι. §4 cf. A 1.3.1 ὃς ἐξ ὕδατος φησι πάντα εἶναι καὶ εἰς ὕδωρ πάντα ἀναλύεσθαι· στοχάζεται δ᾽ ἐκ τούτου πρῶτον, ὅτι πάντων τῶν ζῴων ἡ γονὴ ἀρχή ἐστιν, ὑγρὰ οὖσα. A 1.3.3 Ἀναξιμένης … ἁμαρτάνει δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἐξ ἁπλοῦ καὶ μονοειδοῦς ἀέρος καὶ πνεύματος δοκῶν συνεστάναι τὰ ζῷα. §6 cf. A 4.22.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν πρώτην ἀναπνοὴν τοῦ πρώτου ζῴου γενέσθαι τῆς μὲν ἐν τοῖς βρέφεσιν ὑγρασίας ἀποχώρησιν λαμβανούσης, πρὸς δὲ τὸ παρακενωθὲν ἐπεισόδου {τῆς ἔξωθεν} τοῦ ἐκτὸς ἀερώδους γινομένης εἰς τὰ παρανοιχθέντα τῶν ἀγγείων· τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο ἤδη τοῦ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἐκτὸς ὁρμῇ τὸ ἀερῶδες ὑπαναθλίβοντος, τὴν ἐκπνοήν, τῇ δ᾽ εἰς τὸ ἐντὸς ἀνθυποχωρήσει τῷ ἀερώδει τὴν ἀντεπείσοδον παρεχομένου, τὴν εἰσπνοήν. A 5.18.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, ὅτε ἐγεννᾶτο τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ἐκ τῆς γῆς, τοσαύτην γενέσθαι τῷ μήκει τοῦ χρόνου διὰ τὸ βραδυπορεῖν τὸν ἥλιον τὴν ἡμέραν, ὁπόση νῦν ἐστιν ἡ δεκάμηνος … A 5.22.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς μὲν σάρκας γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἰσοκρατείας τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων· τὰ δὲ νεῦρα ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ γῆς ὕδατος διπλασίονι μιχθέντων· τοὺς δ᾽ ὄνυχας τοῖς ζῴοις γεννᾶσθαι τῶν νεύρων καθὸ τῷ ἀέρι συνέτυχε περιψυχθέντων· ὀστᾶ δὲ ἐκ δυεῖν μὲν ὕδατος καὶ τῶν ἵσων γῆς, τεττάρων δὲ πυρὸς, ἔσω γῆς τούτων συγκραθέντων μερῶν· ἱδρῶτα δὲ καὶ δάκρυον γίνεσθαι τοῦ αἵματος τηκομένου καὶ παρὰ τὸ λεπτύνεσθαι διαχεομένου. A 5.27.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τρέφεσθαι μὲν τὰ ζῷα διὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ οἰκείου ὑγροῦ, αὔξεσθαι δὲ διὰ τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ θερμοῦ, μειοῦσθαι δὲ καὶ φθίνειν διὰ τὴν ἔκλειψιν ἑκατέρων· τοὺς δὲ νῦν ἀνθρώπους τοῖς πρώτοις συμβαλλομένους βρεφῶν ἐπέχειν τάξιν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

liber 5 caput 19

1937

Commentary A Witnesses The complete chapter with six doxai as epitomised by P is found only in the translation of Q. The fifth lemma in Q is missing in PB, but is also preserved by G, who also includes the first three doxai (with considerable textual problems). S has a chapter Περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τῶν ζῴων, but in its highly abridged form it contains only two extracts, from Plato’s Timaeus and Hermes Trismegistus. It is likely that it contained many excerpts from book 5, as indicated in the chapter listing in SL. However, a second heading at the end of the list is in all likelihood interpolated from PB (cf. Elter 1880, 73–74). See further below section C. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. As so often in Book 5, by far the best parallel in the proximate tradition is to be found in Censorinus, even though there is an essential difference between the subject matter of the two texts. At the outset of his discussion on human life (ch. 4), the Latin author wishes to present the opiniones (i.e. δόξαι) that the old thinkers (veteres) had on human origins (4.1). He thus does not treat living beings in general, but only the human ζῷον. There is first a generalis quaestio whether human beings have always existed, or whether there was a time that humans did not exist. He then goes on to give a long list of supporters of the first view in the Pythagorean, Platonic and Peripatetic tradition. In the remainder of the chapter he gives the views of the other side. Four of the name-labels here correspond with those in A: Anaximander, Empedocles, Democritus, Epicurus. The remaining two, Parmenides and Zeno of Citium, are missing in A. It would seem that Censorinus has adapted a more general doxography on the origin of ζῷα to the specific case of human beings. A clue to this might be a doxa of Archelaus in Hippolytus, in which ‘other animals and humans’ are placed side by side; see text below section E(a)§3. We note too that in his account of the Empedoclean doctrine Censorinus emphasises the stages of the process (4.8 primo … deinde) just as we find in A, listing the first three but omitting the fourth. Remnants of the same doxography are found elsewhere, for example in Lucretius and Lactantius. The question of the eternity of animal species will also have been part of the discussion between Theophrastus and opponents famously recorded by Philo in his De aeternitate mundi. This report also includes the lines on permanent generation from Euripides’ Chrysippus. Philo repeats these lines twice more in Aet., including in the opening doxography on whether the cosmos is generated and destructible or not (Aet. 4). Even though he supports the opposite view that living beings had a first origin, Lucretius

1938

liber 5 caput 19

paraphrases the same lines to show how they adopt various shapes (text below section E(a)§3). He may well have taken the lines from a doxographical source as it is highly unlikely that they were drawn from Epicurus. (2) Sources. Plato’s account of the origin of living beings in Timaeus differs entirely from the material in A’s chapter (and A does not refer to it). Aristotle’s treatise De generatione animalium has the same title as the first part of our chapter’s heading. Convinced of the view that the species are eternal, however, he does not deign to argue in detail against the Presocratic view that they had an origin in the evolution of the earth. There is only a brief reference to the theory of earth-born living beings at 3.11 762b29 (and note also the polemic at 1.18 722b19 and in Phys. 2.8 against any kind of ‘evolutionary’ thinking, with pointed reference to terms from Empedocles’ account). Our chapter as we have it thus contains essentially a Presocratic discussion, with Epicurus following his atomist predecessors. For scholarly treatment of early ideas on the origins of life on earth see Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.200–216, 472; Furley (1987) 76–78; Campbell (2003) 330–335 (list of texts on the theme); Naddaf (2005; highly speculative, see the review of the earlier French language edition (1992) by Mansfeld 1997); Wright (2008), esp. 420–427; Betegh (2016). C Chapter Heading A long tripartite chapter heading is found in PB, supported by PQ. It is not found in the chief mss. of S, but the first part only is listed in SL. (A second heading in its fuller form is found at the very end of the list, to which we return below.) In contrast, G only preserves the second and third parts. It is thus virtually certain that the long heading is original. The second and third parts are clearly meant to elucidate the first. The second part might be interpreted as follows: everyone agrees that ζῷα have an origin, but what kind of origin is this, a birth in absolute terms or only from members of the same species? This would then correspond to the main diaeresis of the chapter. The final part seems somewhat clumsily attached, but is presumably mean to remind the reader that the topics of generation and destruction are intrinsically linked. We note that in Book 2 A never describes the heavenly bodies as ζῷα, so they are not taken into account in the present chapter; cf. A 2.8.1 where τὰ ζῶα emerge from the earth. The chapter heading starts off—unusually for Book 5—as the ‘umbrella’ type with Περί and the genetive, but then moves to asking the cause and to the category of quality. We note also that this chapter forms a trio with two others: 1.24 on γένεσις and φθορά in general, 2.4 for the case of the cosmos, and the present chapter for the case of some parts of the cosmos which are seen to be born and perish, i.e. living beings (the question is not asked of plants or minerals, but the development of plants is discussed in ch. 5.26). We have here

liber 5 caput 19

1939

the relation between macrocosm and microcosm, so prominent in Plato’s Timaeus, which plays an important role in the structure of the Placita as a whole; see further M–R 2.1.27, 40. From the formal point of view it can also be noted that the chapter headings of two other chapters in Book 5 contain secondary parts asking a further question introduced by εἰ: ch. 5.20 Πόσα γένη ζῴων καὶ εἰ πάντα αἰσθητὰ καὶ λογικά; 5.26 Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα. Other chapters have headings in which the main question is introduced by εἰ, i.e. chs. 5.4, 5.5, 5.15. Headings of this type readily welcome a structure in terms of a diaphonia; see further Introduction to Book 5, section 4. As noted above, in the pinax of SL at Γ 10 the heading of this chapter is cited twice. The first, Περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τῶν ζῴων, is the main heading of Ecl. 1.42, hence its appearance under Γ in the pinax. A similar heading is found in Photius’ index. The other heading appears at the very end of the list and is identical to the formulation in PB. Elter (1880) 74 concluded that, given this redundancy, the second of these headings must have been interpolated from PB. It is the strongest evidence that such a process of interpolation did indeed take place. On the chapter headings in SL see further above ch. 5.4 Commentary C. D Analysis a Context The two chapters on living beings in general, 5.19 on their origin and 5.20 on their genera, interrupt the sequence of chapters on fetuses and their development. They would have been better placed at the beginning of the Book, e.g. after 5.2 (compare the general structure of Censorinus’ account of the origin of human beings, as noted above in section B). b Number–Order of Lemmata Given the more extensive parallel material in Censorinus, it is unlikely that we have the chapter in a complete form. For example, one would expect A to have had an equivalent of the Stoic doxa in Censorinus (4.10). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter begins with two antithetically formulated doxai. Together they present a diaeresis outlining the two main positions held on the chapter’s main subject. In both cases a correlation is made with the view held on whether the cosmos in its totality is generated or not. For those who hold that the cosmos is generated, i.e. had a beginning in or of time, it is obvious that living beings will also have had a temporal origin and will at some time in the future perish. This was the view held (in different ways) by various Presocratics, including the

1940

liber 5 caput 19

atomists, and by the Stoics (cf. A 2.4.7–8, 11–13) and Epicureans. The terms γενητός and γενητά need not necessarily have this meaning (Platonists for example could give them another meaning, cf. also A 2.4.1), but this is the obvious interpretation. The text of the second doxa is problematic on two grounds. PB reads ἀγένητα, i.e. following on from the mention of ζῷα in the previous doxa. This reading, however, completely destroys the symmetry with the first doxa. The reading which must have been present in PQ, ἀγένητος (sc. ὁ κόσμος), is to be preferred: it is not contradicted by G, who—no doubt distracted by the name-label— completely recasts the doxa, not unintelligently combining the first two doxai. The name-label οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον is also certainly wrong, even though it is recorded by PB and Q and altered to the simple name by G. Epicurus cannot be associated with this view, as is demonstrated by §5 later in the chapter (cf. also A 2.4.13). It is not entirely impossible that A made an egregious error. It is also quite possible that a scribe changed another name-label, e.g. οἱ περὶ Ἀριστοτελῆ. In our view, however, the most likely explanation is that the name-label was originally a gloss on the first doxa, and that it somehow became part of the text of the second. On the text see further below section D(d). The living beings in this view are thus ἀγένητα, not because they do not die, but because the species is preserved through the process of reproduction. The third doxa, a well-known quote from Euripides here also associated with his teacher Anaxagoras, illustrates the second of the two options. Excellent parallels for the use of a brief poetic quote are found in A 1.30.1 (Empedocles) and 2.19.3. As noted above, Philo cites these lines three times in Aet., twice in arguments supporting the view that the cosmos is ἄφθαρτος. In Aet. 5, however, it is cited in conjunction with a quote from Empedocles (31B12 DK) to illustrate that absolute destruction into nothingness cannot occur. In fact the three lines from Euripides could also illustrate the initial doxa (as in Lucretius), but here they more naturally support the second view. The three remaining doxai in three different ways illustrate the first view in the diaeresis that there was a beginning of γένεσις for living beings on earth (the location is implied in both §4 and §6). There seems little systematic difference between the views of Anaximander in §4 and those of the atomists in §5. Both stress the role of moisture, probably on an analogy of creatures arising out of mud (the theory of spontaneous generation, cf. Aristotle GA 3.11 762b12). The Empedoclean doxa in §6, with its four generations of living beings, is much more complex and for this reason comes last. Here too a special role is accorded to the mixture of earth and water, but by the fourth generation they are being born from each other, i.e. the process described in the poetic quote.

liber 5 caput 19

1941

In relation to these three doxai the following should be noted: (1) A at no stage indicates that the primary focus in this chapter is on human beings (as we find in Censorinus, Diodorus Siculus and other parallels). This is in contrast to the anthropological emphasis that is prevalent in most of Book 5. A text in Plutarch Symp. 730E (12A30 DK) indicates that for Anaximander it was human beings who were born out of the bark-enclothed fish, but this detail is not included in the Placita as it has come down to us. (2) Also absent is any mention of the role of ‘mother earth’, which is so prominent in Lucretius, Censorinus and many other texts. In fact A avoids any reference to mythical or theological aspects of the theme. (3) As so often, A shows his predilection for exotic Presocratic material, differing from the dominant views on the subject held in his own time which he apparently does not include (but may be missing). (4) The reader is left to infer that the final three doxai illustrate the first position in the initial diaeresis. The connections are much more clearly set out in the more discursive account in Censorinus. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 Although there are some cases of unanswered μέν in A (see above on A 5.12.1–2), in this case it is justified to introduce the usual corresponding δέ, if we are correct that the name-label is an inserted gloss. It would have been dropped because it is not good Greek style to have μέν after five initial words. §3 An editor must always exercise extreme caution in emending a quote in a text of which the original is still extant or which is known from other sources. The aim is to reproduce the text as included by A (or P), not whatever the original text might have been. However, the text is so damaged in PB that we cannot use his evidence, whereas the text in G and Q’s translation support a version close to what we find elsewhere. But we cannot be certain of the final verb. We follow Diels in restituting ἀπέδειξεν, which is the reading in the four citations in Philo. It is to be noted, however, G has ἐπέδειξεν and this reading is also found in Clement Strom. 6.24.4. Unfortunately Q cannot help us here. On the other hand, Valckenaer’s metrically correct emendation πρὸς ἄλλου should not be accepted for our text (we also find πρὸς ἄλλο in all of Philo’s quotations). On the various versions of the quotation elsewhere see Kannicht (2004) 881. §5 This doxa has not been included by any previous editors (Diels adds it in the apparatus criticus at the end of the chapter), even though there is incontrovertible evidence in PQ and G that it was originally present in P. The evidence in PQ indicates that originally there were two name-labels, of which one was dropped by G (it is unlikely that it was added by Q). The exact text, however,

1942

liber 5 caput 19

cannot be determined. It is corrupt in G and quite different in Q. We have printed the text as reconstructed by Luria with little confidence. The two datives in succession are particularly awkward. §6 It is plain that A has taken over a systematizing account of Empedocles’ complex conception of the origin and development of living beings (including humans). How it relates to the two cycles of cosmic change has given rise to much discussion; see Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.200–211, O’Brien (1969) 189–200, 230–233. The extant fragments related to this doxa are 31B60–64. A striking Empedoclean term that A has taken over is ὁλοφυεῖς (31B62.4 DK, also selected for emphasis by Aristotle Phys. 2.8 199b9). In fact, however, this is an emendation by Karsten and Diels of the ἀλληλοφυῶν in PBQ. The emendation is justified in our view because the original reading clearly belongs to the fourth generation (δι᾽ ἀλλήλων), not the third. Another contentious emendation is Diels’ suggestion στοιχεῖων for ὁμοίων in line 5, which has been rejected by most scholars. But it is now supported by the reading of PQ and has been accepted by Primavesi. It not only makes excellent sense, but is also supported by the references to earth and water in A and to fire and moisture at Cens. 4.8. This lemma is a classic illustration of the value of using Q as supported by Censorinus for the constitution of the text (G alas does not retain the doxa). Various emendations were impressively anticipated by Diels and earlier editors, and have also been accepted by Primavesi (following Mansfeld’s earlier edition) in his recent edition of the testimonia and fragments; see Mansfeld–Primavesi (2011) 456, 536. The text recently published in Laks-Most 5.494–496 is rather conservative, refusing most suggested emendations and neglecting the evidence of Q. For details see the apparatus criticus above and the comments of Mansfeld (2018f) 529–531. e Other Evidence The chapter is an excellent example of how a theme, which was the object of considerable discussion in the early period of Greek philosophy but received less attention in A’s own day, has filtered down—via the Peripatos and the Hellenistic schools—to the collection of the Placita. Items are missing which we might have expected to be present, e.g. lists of name-labels for the main diaeresis (such as are found in Censorinus) and doxai presenting the views of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoa (and a full account of Epicurean views, such as in Lucretius Book 5). The incomplete state of transmission may be responsible for this. Despite the poor state of the text, the systematics of the main diaeresis and the relation to it of the remaining doxai are easy enough to reconstruct. As noted above, the chapter reveals some interesting features, in particular the lack of attention to human origins (and a fortiori questions relating to the

liber 5 caput 19

1943

development of human culture, which is regarded as falling outside the φυσικὸς λόγος) and the usual interest in exotic material dating back to early Presocratic authors. The exceptionally long doxa of Empedocles gives us some idea of the extent of the material collected at some stage of the doxographical tradition. The long doxai attributed to the same thinker which follow at A 5.22.1, 5.26.4 and 5.27.1 are clearly derived from the same kind of summary; see further Introduction to Book 5, section 5. A particularly interesting feature of A’s summary is that it so clearly outlines the stages of the zoogony. This is paralleled in Censorinus 4.8 as noted above in section B(a), but not as clearly as in A. Note also the comment on A 1.15.7 Commentary D(d)§7 on the differentiation of the living beings according to the four primary colours. This is attributed to the Pythagoreans, but we argue that it must go back to Empedocles. Finally, we might note that A does not take into account the possibility of spontaneous generation, as articulated in a diaphonia at ps.Aristotle Probl. 10.13 892a23–30 and 10.65 898b4–11 (cf. already Aristotle GA. 1.1 715a18–25). In the former text the analogy is drawn with the process of generation that occurred at the beginning through the great changes of the cosmos and universe, as described by ‘those who write about nature’, i.e. the kind of material included in A’s chapter. See further Flashar (1991) 512–513, who rightly observes that this analogy from the earliest times is not found in Aristotle. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus 4.1–11 (on the origin of the human race) quoniam aetas a die natali initium sumit suntque ante hunc diem multa, quae ad hominum pertinent originem non alienum videtur de iis prius dicere, quae sunt natura priora. igitur quae veteribus de origine humana fuerint opiniones, ex his quaedam breviter exponam. (2) prima et generalis quaestio inter antiquos sapientiae studiosos versata est, quod, cum constet homines singulos ex parentium seminibus procreatos successione prolis multa saecula propagare, alii semper homines fuisse nec umquam nisi ex hominibus natos adque eorum generi caput exordiumque nullum extitisse arbitrati sunt, alii vero fuisse tempus, cum homines non essent, et his ortum aliquem principiumque natura tributum. (3) sed prior illa sententia, qua semper humanum genus fuisse creditur, auctores habet Pythagoran Samium (—) et Ocellum Lucanum (48.2 DK) et Archytan Tarentinum (—) omnesque adeo Pythagoricos (—); sed et Plato Atheniensis et Xenocrates (F 164 Isnardi Parente2) et Dicaearchus Messenius (fr. 47 Wehrli, 53 Mirhardy) itemque antiquae Academiae philosophi non aliud videntur opinati; Aristoteles quoque Stagirites et Theophrastus (fr. 185 FHS&G) multique praeterea non ignobiles Peripatetici idem scripserunt, eiusque rei exemplo dicunt, quod negant omnino posse reperiri, avesne ante an ova generata sint, cum et ovum sine ave et avis sine ovo gigni non possi. (4) itaque et omnium, quae in

1944

liber 5 caput 19

sempiterno isto mundo semper fuerunt futuraque sunt, aiunt principium fuisse nullum, sed orbem esse quendam generantium nascentiumque, in quo unius cuiusque geniti initium simul et finis esse videatur. (5) qui autem homines aliquos primigenios divinitus naturave factos crederent, multi fuerunt, sed aliter adque aliter haec existimatione versarunt. (6) nam ut mittam, quod fabulares poetarum historiae ferunt, homines primos aut Promethei molli luto esse formatos aut Deucalionis Pyrrhaeque duris lapidibus enatos, quidam ex ipsis sapientiae professoribus nescio an magis monstruosas, certe non minus incredibiles rationum suarum proferunt opiniones. (7) Anaximander Milesius (12A30 DK) videri sibi ex aqua terraque calefactis exortos esse sive pisces seu piscibus simillima animalia; in his homines concrevisse fetusque ad pubertatem intus retentos, tunc demum ruptis illis viros mulieresque, qui iam se alere possent, processisse. Empedocles (31A72 DK) autem egregio suo carmine, quod eiusmodi esse praedicat Lucretius (1.733), ‘ut vix humana videatur stirpe creatus’, tale quiddam confirmat: (8) primo membra singula ex terra quasi praegnate passim edita, deinde coisse et effecisse solidi hominis materiam igni simul et umori permixtam. cetera quid necesse est persequi, quae non capiant similitudinem veritatis? haec eadem opinio etiam in Parmenide Veliensi (28A51 DK) fuit pauculis exceptis ab Empedocle dissensis. (9) Democrito vero Abderitae (68A139 DK) ex aqua limoque primum visum esse homines procreatos. nec longe secus Epicurus (fr. 333 Usener). is enim credidit limo calefacto uteros nescio quos radicibus terrae cohaerentes primum increvisse et infantibus ex se editis ingenitum lactis umorem natura ministrante praebuisse; quos ita educatos et adultos genus hominum propagasse. (10) Zenon Citieus (SVF 1.124), Stoicae sectae conditor, principium humano generi ex novo mundo constitutum putavit primosque homines ex solo adminiculo divini ignis, id est dei providentia, genitos. (11) denique etiam vulgo creditum est, ut plerique genealogoe auctores sunt, quarundam gentium, quae ex adventicia stirpe non sint, principes terrigenas esse, ut in Attica et Arcadia Thessaliaque, eosque autochthonas vocitari … Apuleius Apol. 36 ceterum quam ob rem plurimos iam piscis cognoverim … discat Aemilianus …; legat veterum philosophorum monumenta, tandem ut intellegat non me primum haec requisisse, sed iam pridem maiores meos, Aristotelen (fr. 295 Gigon) dico et Theophrastum (fr. 351 FHS&G) et Eudemum (fr. 125 Wehrli) et Lyconem (fr. 15 Stork) ceterosque Platonis minores, qui plurimos libros de genitu animalium deque victu deque particulis deque omni differentia reliquerunt. cf. ps.Aristotle Probl. 10.13 892a23–30 Διὰ τί τῶν ζῴων τὰ μὲν ἐξ ἀλλήλων γίνεται, τὰ δ᾽ ἔκ τινων συγκρινομένων ὁμοίως τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῖς ὑπαρξάσης; καθάπερ οἱ περὶ φύσεως λέγοντες λέγουσι καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γένεσιν τῶν ζῴων γενέσθαι, διὰ τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ μετακινήσεις τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ παντὸς οὕτω μεγάλας· καὶ νῦν εἴπερ μέλλει πάλιν ἔσεσθαι, τοιαύτας τινὰς ὑπάρξαι δεῖ κινήσεις; ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὴ παντὸς ἔργου μέγιστον· ἥμισυ γάρ· τὸ δὲ σπέρμα ἀρχή … Probl. 10.65 898a4–11 διὰ τί τὰ μὲν γίνεται τῶν ζῴων οὐ μόνον ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτόματα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀλλήλων μόνον, οἷον ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἵππος; ἢ κἂν εἰ καὶ μὴ δι᾽ ἑτέρας αἰτίας, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τοῖς μὲν ὀλίγος ὁ χρόνος τῆς γενέσεως, ὥστε ἡ γεννητικὴ

liber 5 caput 19 ὥρα ὑπερτείνει καὶ ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι ἐν τῇ μεταβολῇ τῶν ὡρῶν, τῶν δὲ πολὺ ἡ γένεσις ὑπερτείνει. ἐνιαύσιοι γὰρ ἢ δεκάμηνοί εἰσιν· ὥστε ἀνάγκη ⟨ἣ μὴ⟩ γίνεσθαι ἢ ἐξ ἀλλήλων γίνεσθαι [coni. Bussemaker; Flashar 1991, 532 proposes ⟨μὴ ἄλλως⟩]. Chapter heading: see Apuleius Apol. 36 cited above. cf. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 1.38, p. 33.10 Marchesi animalium origo quae sit. §§1–2 Αnonymi: Lactantius Inst. 2.10.17–18 Heck–Wlosok Aristoteles (fr. 22 Rose3, cf. Cael. 1.10) autem labore se ac molestia liberavit dicens ‘semper fuisse mundum; itaque et humanum genus et cetera quae in eo sunt initium non habere, sed fuisse semper ac semper fore’. (18) sed cum videamus singula quaeque animalia quae ante non fuerint esse incipere et esse desinere, necesse est totum genus aliquando esse coepisse et aliquando desiturum esse, quia coepit. see also texts cited on ch. 2.4. §3 Anaxagoras Euripides: Anaxagoras at D.L. 2.9 (59A1 DK) ζῷα γίνεσθαι ἐξ ὑγροῦ καὶ θερμοῦ καὶ γεώδους, ὕστερον δὲ ἐξ ἀλλήλων. cf. Archelaus at Hipp. Ref. 1.9.5 (60A4 DK) περὶ δὲ ζῴων φησὶν ὅτι θερμαινομένης τῆς γῆς τὸ πρῶτον ἐν τῷ κάτω μέρει, ὅπου τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐμίσγετο, ἀνεφαίνετο τά τε ἄλλα ζῷα πολλὰ καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἅπαντα τὴν αὐτὴν δίαιταν ἔχοντα, ἐκ τῆς ἰλύος τρεφόμενα— ἦν δὲ ὀλιγοχρόνια—ὕστερον δὲ αὐτοῖς ἡ ἐξ ἀλλήλων γένεσις συνέστη. Verses from Euripides Chrysippus (fr. 839 Kannicht): Philo Aet. 5 (on perishing) ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος οὐδὲν γίνεται, οὐδ᾽ εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν φθείρεται· ‘ἔκ τε γὰρ οὐδάμ᾽ ἐόντος ἀμήχανόν ἐστι γενέσθαι {τι} καί τ᾽ ἐὸν ἐξαπολέσθαι ἀνήνυστον καὶ ἄπυστον.’ καὶ ὁ τραγικός· ‘θνῄσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων, / διακρινόμενον δ᾽ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο / μορφὴν ἑτέραν ἀπέδειξεν.’ cf. also Aet. 30, 144 (cited below section E(b)§§1–2), Leg. 1.7 (on γένεσις and φθορά). Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.24.3–4 (on Greeks plagiarising each other) κἀκεῖνο τὸ Ἐμπεδοκλέους· ‘ἤδη γάρ ποτ᾽ ἐγὼ γενόμην κοῦρός τε κόρη τε / θάμνος τ᾽ οἰωνός τε καὶ εἰν ἁλὶ ἔλλοπος ἰχθύς,’ Εὐριπίδης ἐν Χρυσίππῳ μεταγράφει· ‘θνῄσκει δὲ οὐδὲν τῶν γινομένων, / διακρινόμενον δ᾽ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο / μορφὴν ἑτέραν ἐπέδειξεν’. also alluded to by Lucretius DRN 2.1002–1012, esp. 1002–1006 nec sic interemit mors res ut materiai / corporal conficiat, sed coetum dissupat ollis; / inde aliis aliud coniungit, et efficit omnes / res ita convertant formas mutentque colores / et capiant sensus et puncto tempore reddant. §4 Anaximander: see Censorinus 4.7 above. Anaximander at Hipp. Ref. 1.6.6 (12A10 DK) τὰ δὲ ζῷα γίνεσθαι ⟨ἐξ ὑγροῦ⟩ ἐξατμιζομένου ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. τὸν δὲ ἄνθρωπον ἑτέρῳ ζῴῳ γεγονέναι—τουτέστιν ἰχθύι—παραπλήσιον κατ᾽ ἀρχάς. also at ps.Plutarch Strom. 2 (fr. 179 Sandbach) ἔτι φησὶν ὅτι κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἐξ ἀλλοειδῶν ζῴων ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεννήθη, ἐκ τοῦ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν ταχὺ νέμεσθαι, μόνον δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πολυχρονίου δεῖσθαι τιθηνήσεως· διὸ καὶ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς οὐκ ἄν ποτε τοιοῦτον ὄντα διασωθῆναι. §5 Democritus Epicurus: see Censorinus 4.9 above. Lactantius Inst. 7.7.9 Heck–Wlosok erravit ergo Democritus (68A139 DK), qui vermiculorum modo putavit effusos esse de terra nullo auctore nullaque ratione. §6 Empedocles: see Censorinus 4.7–8 above.

1945

1946 b

liber 5 caput 19

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Tim. 39e7–40a2 ᾗπερ οὖν νοῦς ἐνούσας ἰδέας τῷ ὃ ἔστιν ζῷον, οἷαί τε ἔνεισι καὶ ὅσαι, καθορᾷ, τοιαύτας καὶ τοσαύτας διενοήθη δεῖν καὶ τόδε σχεῖν. εἰσὶν δὴ τέτταρες, μία μὲν οὐράνιον θεῶν γένος, ἄλλη δὲ πτηνὸν καὶ ἀεροπόρον, τρίτη δὲ ἔνυδρον εἶδος, πεζὸν δὲ καὶ χερσαῖον τέταρτον. cf. Tim. 41b–d, 91e–92c. Aristotle GA 3.11 762b28–763a4 διὸ καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τετραπόδων γενέσεως ὑπολάβοι τις ἄν, εἴπερ ἐγίγνοντό ποτε γηγενεῖς ὥσπερ φασί τινες, δύο τρόπων τούτων γίγνεσθαι τὸν ἕτερον· ἢ γὰρ ὡς σκώληκος συνισταμένου τὸ πρῶτον ἢ ἐξ ᾠῶν … ὅτι μὲν οὖν, εἴπερ ἦν τις ἀρχὴ τῆς γενέσεως πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις, εὔλογον τοῖν δυοῖν τούτοιν εἶναι τὴν ἑτέραν φανερόν. Probl. 10.13 892a22–29 διὰ τί τῶν ζῴων τὰ μὲν ἐξ ἀλλήλων γίνεται, τὰ δ᾽ ἔκ τινων συγκρινομένων ὁμοίως τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῖς ὑπαρξάσης; καθάπερ οἱ περὶ φύσεως λέγοντες λέγουσι καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γένεσιν τῶν ζῴων γενέσθαι, διὰ τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ μετακινήσεις τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ παντὸς ⟨οὔσας⟩ οὕτω μεγάλας· καὶ νῦν εἴπερ μέλλει πάλιν ἔσεσθαι, τοιαύτας τινὰς ὑπάρξαι δεῖ κινήσεις. Chapter heading: Aristotle Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως (title of work). cf. GA 3.8 758a26 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τῆς γενέσεως εἴρηται; 4.1 763b20 περὶ μὲν οὖν γενέσεως τῆς τῶν ζῴων εἴρηται. §§1–2 Anonymi: Theophrastus at Philo Aet. 130 (fr. 184 FHS&G) on those who defend the genesis and destruction of the cosmos τὸν δὲ τέταρτον καὶ λοιπὸν λόγον ἀκριβωτέον ὧδε, φασίν· εἰ ὁ κόσμος ἀίδιος ἦν, ἦν ἂν καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἀίδια καὶ πολύ γε μᾶλλον τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος, ὅσῳ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄμεινον. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὀψίγονον φανῆναι τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐρευνᾶν τὰ φύσεως … Aet. 144 εἰ μὲν συλλήβδην ἁπαξάπαντα τὰ στοιχεῖα ὑφ᾽ ἕνα καιρὸν ἠφανίζετο, φάσκειν ἐνδέχεσθαι τὸν κόσμον φθορὰν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον· εἰ δ᾽ ἕκαστον ἰδίᾳ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ γείτονος μεταβάλλει φύσιν, ἀθανατίζεται μᾶλλον ἢ φθείρεται κατὰ τὸ φιλοσοφηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ τραγικοῦ ‘θνῄσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων, / διακρινόμενον δ᾽ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο / μορφὴν ἑτέραν ἀπέδειξεν.’ Cf. also Lucretius DRN 2.1150–1156, 5.783–856. Diodorus Siculus (Democritus 68B5 DK) περὶ τῆς πρώτης τοίνυν γενέσεως τῶν ἀνθρώπων διτταὶ γεγόνασιν ἀποφάσεις παρὰ τοῖς νομιμωτάτοις τῶν τε φυσιολόγων καὶ τῶν ἱστορικῶν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον ὑποστησάμενοι τὸν κόσμον, ἀπεφήναντο καὶ τὸ γένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξ αἰῶνος ὑπάρχειν, μηδέποτε τῆς αὐτῶν τεκνώσεως ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκυίας· οἱ δὲ γεννητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν εἶναι νομίσαντες ἔφησαν ὁμοίως ἐκείνῳ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τυχεῖν τῆς πρώτης γενέσεως ὡρισμένοις χρόνοις. §§4–6 Anaximander Atomists Empedocles: cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.7 on the origin of the cosmos, partly cited in ch. 1.4 section B(b)§1. §4 Anaximander: Anaximander at Plut. Symp. 730E (12A30 DK) on the Syrians διὸ καὶ σέβονται τὸν ἰχθῦν, ὡς ὁμογενῆ καὶ σύντροφον, ἐπιεικέστερον Ἀναξιμάνδρου φιλοσοφοῦντες· οὐ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖνος ἰχθῦς καὶ ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἰχθύσιν ἐγγενέσθαι τὸ πρῶτον ἀνθρώπους ἀποφαίνεται καὶ τραφέντας ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοὶ καὶ γενομένους ἱκανοὺς ἑαυτοῖς βοηθεῖν ἐκβῆναι τηνικαῦτα καὶ γῆς λαβέσθαι. καθάπερ οὖν τὸ πῦρ τὴν ὕλην, ἐξ ἧς ἀνήφθη, μητέρα καὶ πατέρ᾽ οὖσαν, ἤσθιεν, … οὕτως ὁ Ἀναξίμανδρος τῶν ἀνθρώπων πατέρα καὶ μητέρα κοινὸν ἀποφήνας τὸν ἰχθῦν διέβαλεν πρὸς τὴν βρῶσιν.

liber 5 caput 19 §5 Democritus Epicurus: see Diodorus Siculus cited above on §§1–2. §6 Empedocles: cf. Aristotle Phys. 2.8 199b7–12 (citing Empedocles, 31B62 DK) ἔτι ἀνάγκη σπέρμα γενέσθαι πρῶτον, ἀλλὰ μὴ εὐθὺς τὰ ζῷα· καὶ τὸ ‘οὐλοφυὲς μὲν πρῶτα’ σπέρμα ἦν. ἔτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἔνεστι τὸ ἕνεκά του, ἧττον δὲ διήρθρωται· πότερον οὖν καὶ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἐγίγνετο, ὥσπερ τὰ ‘βουγενῆ ἀνδρόπρῳρα’, οὕτω καὶ ‘ἀμπελογενῆ ἐλαιόπρῳρα’, ἢ οὔ; ἄτοπον γάρ· ἀλλὰ μὴν ἔδει γε, εἴπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις. see also GA 1.18 722b8–22 (partly cited at 31B63 DK).

1947

Liber 5 Caput 20 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9 verso p. 80 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 908F–909A; pp. 432a1–433a4 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 124; p. 645.8–15 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 236–237 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.43, p. 297.2–8 Wachsmuth; cf. Photius Bibl. 167, p. 112b25 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus κʹ. Πόσα γένη ζῴων καὶ εἰ πάντα αἰσθητὰ καὶ λογικά (P,S) §1 Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης τέσσαρα γένη ζῴων· χερσαῖα ἔνυδρα πτηνὰ οὐράνια· καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἄστρα ζῷα λέγεσθαι καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὸν θεὸν ζῷον λογικὸν ἀθάνατον. (P1,S1) §2 Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος τὰ οὐράνια ⟨οὐκ ἐγκρίνουσι⟩. (P2) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας πάντα τὰ ζῷα λόγον ἔχειν τὸν ἐνεργητικόν, τὸν δ᾽ οἱονεὶ νοῦν μὴ ἔχειν τὸν προφορικόν, τὸν λεγόμενον τοῦ νοῦ ἑρμηνέα. (P3) §4 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων λογικὰς μὲν εἶναι καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων καλουμένων τὰς ψυχάς, οὐ μὴν λογικῶς ἐνεργούσας παρὰ τὴν δυσκρασίαν τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τῷ μὴ ἔχειν τὸ φραστικόν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πιθήκων καὶ τῶν κυνῶν· νοοῦσι μὲν γὰρ οὗτοι οὐ φράζουσι δέ. (P4) §1 Plato Tim. 40a; Aristoteles cf. De philosophia fr. 22 Ross; §2 Democritus fr. 547 Luria; Epicurus fr. 342 Usener; §3 Anaxagoras 59A101 DK; §4 Pythagoras —; Plato —; titulus Πόσα … αἰσθητὰ καὶ λογικά PBQ : Πόσα … λογικὰ καὶ αἰσθητὰ S : καὶ … λογικά om. PG §1 [2] Πλάτων καὶ (om. καὶ SF) Ἀριστοτέλης … ζῴων PGQS (γένη ζῴων S : εἶναι ζῴων γένη λέγουσι PG, cf. PQ glaubten daß … Q) : al. PB ἔστι πραγματεία Ἀριστοτέλους, ἐν ᾗ τέσσαρα γένη ζῴων φησί ‖ [3] ἄστρα PGQS : om. PB, suppl. ex S edd. ‖ λέγεσθαι PBS, cf. behaupteten Q : εἶναι PG ‖ καὶ τὸν κόσμον PQ(ut vid.)S : καὶ κόσμον PB : καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος PG ‖ καὶ τὸν θεὸν PQ (und die Gottheit Q) Wyttenbach : καὶ τὸν ἔνθεον S (fort. leg. τὸν ἕνα θεὸν) : καὶ τῶν γηίνων PB(I,III), καὶ τὴν γηίνην PB(II), cruxif. Diels Mau : τὸν κόσμον καὐτὸν ἔνθεον dub. Diels, τὸν αὐτὸν τὸν θεον coni. Lachenaud §§2–5 non hab. S §2 non hab. PG ‖ [5] οὐκ ἐγκρίνουσι scripsimus, οὐκ ἐγκρίνει dub. Diels, οὐκ ἀποδέχονται ζῷα εἶναι coni. Usener, cf. daß jenes hinsichtlich der himmlischen Dinge ausgeschlossen ist Q : lac. hab. PB §3 non hab. PG ‖ [7] προφορικόν in text. pon. Lachenaud, dub. Diels Mau : παθητικόν PBQ §4 [8] post Πυθαγόρας add. PG καὶ ‖ post καὶ add. PG τὰς, secl. Diels ‖ τῶν … ζῴων] τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τῶν ἀλόγων PG ‖ [8–9] καλουμένων τὰς ψυχάς] τὰς λεγομένας ψυχάς PG (καλουμένων om. PQ) ‖ λογικῶς ἐνεργούσας] λόγῳ ἐνεργεῖν PG ‖ [9] παρὰ] διὰ PG ‖ [10] τῷ μὴ ἔχειν PB(I,II) : τὸ μὴ ἔχειν PB(III), cf. PG διὰ τὸ μὴ μετέχειν ‖ [11] νοοῦσι PG Diels, cf. PQ(ut vid.) (sie reden Q) : λαλοῦσι PB(I,III) Mau Lachenaud : λογοῦσι PB(II-a.c.) ‖ νοοῦσι … δέ : al. PG νοοῦσι μέν, οὐ δύνανται δὲ φράζειν ἃ νοοῦσιν

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_145

5

10

liber 5 caput 20

§5

Διογένης μετέχειν μὲν αὐτὰ τοῦ νοητοῦ καὶ ἀέρος, διὰ δὲ τὸ τὰ μὲν πυκνότητι τὰ δὲ πλεονασμῷ τῆς ὑγρασίας, μήτε διανοεῖσθαι μήτ᾽ αἰσθάνεσθαι, προσφερῶς δὲ αὐτὰ διακεῖσθαι τοῖς μεμηνόσι, παρεπταικότος τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ. (P5)

§5 Diogenes 64A30 DK §5 non hab. PG ‖ [12] τοῦ … ἀέρος P(BI,III)Q, prob. Laks–Most : καὶ ἀέρος om. PB(II) : τοῦ νοητικοῦ ἀέρος dub. Wyttenbach Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ [13] post ὑγρασίας lac. pos. edd., qui ἐμποδίζεσθαι vel χρῆσθαι propos., sed sc. μετέχειν ex [12] ‖ [14–15] παρεπταικότος PB(II,III) : παρεπεπαικότος PB(I), παραπεπαικότος Bernadakis

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9 verso = P §§4–5 [ενε]ρ̣[γουσας [παρα την δυσκρασιαν των σωμα]τ̣ων και ̣ [το μη εχειν το φραστικον ωσπερ επι] τ̣ων πι ̣ [θηκων και των κυνων νοουσι μεν γαρ] ο̣υτοι ̣ 5 [οὐ φραζουσι δε Διογενης μετεχει]ν̣ μεν [αυτα του νοητου και αερος διο δε] το τα ps.Galenus HPh c. 124 (~ tit.) Πόσα γένη ζῴων (text Diels) 124.1 (~ P1) Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης τέσσαρα εἶναι ζῴων γένη λέγουσι χερσαῖα ἔνυδρα πτηνὰ οὐράνια· καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἄστρα ζῷα εἶναι· καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος ζῷον λογικὸν ἀθάνατον. 124.2 (~ P4) Πυθαγόρας καὶ Πλάτων λογικὰς μὲν εἶναι καὶ {τὰς} τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τῶν ἀλόγων τὰς λεγομένας ψυχάς, οὐ μὴν λόγῳ ἐνεργεῖν διὰ τὴν δυσκρασίαν τῶν σωμάτων καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ μετέχειν τοῦ φραστικοῦ λόγου, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πιθήκων καὶ κυνῶν· νοοῦσι μέν, οὐ δύνανται δὲ φράζειν ἃ νοοῦσιν. Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 1.proœm. 3[15] ζητεῖ τις εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος. A 2.3 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος. A 5.15 Εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῷον. A 5.26 Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα. §1 A 1.7.22 (de Platone) τούτου (sc. τοῦ θεοῦ) δὲ πατρὸς καὶ ποιητοῦ τὰ ἄλλα θεῖα ἔκγονα νοητὰ μέν …, αἰσθητὰ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου θεοῦ ἔκγονα ἥλιος, σελήνη, ἀστέρες, γῆ καὶ ὁ περιέχων πάντα κόσμος. 1.7.23 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν μὲν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν εἶδος χωριστὸν ἐπιβεβηκότα τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰθέριον σῶμα, τὸ πέμπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καλούμενον· διῃρημένου δὲ τούτου κατὰ σφαίρας, τῇ μὲν φύσει συναφεῖς τῷ λόγῳ δὲ κεχωρισμένας, ἑκάστην οἴεται τῶν σφαιρῶν ζῷον εἶναι σύνθετον ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν σῶμά ἐστιν αἰθέριον κινούμενον κυκλοφορικῶς, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ λόγος ἀκίνητος αἴτιος τῆς κινήσεως κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν. A 5.19.6[9–13] τῶν δὲ ζῴων πάντων τὰ γένη διακριθῆναι διὰ τὰς ποιὰς κράσεις·

1949

15

1950

liber 5 caput 20

τὰ μὲν ὑγρότερα εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ τὴν ὁρμὴν ἔχειν, τὰ δ᾽ εἰς ἀέρα ἀναπτῆναι, ὅσ᾽ ἂν πυρῶδες ἔχῃ τὸ πλέον, τὰ δὲ βαρύτερα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, τὰ δ᾽ ἰσόμοιρα τῇ κράσει πᾶσι τοῖς χωρίοις σύμφωνα εἶναι. A 5.26.2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἔμψυχα μέν, οὐ μὴν καὶ ζῷα· τὰ γὰρ ζῷα ὁρμητικὰ εἶναι καὶ αἰσθητικά, ἔνια δὲ καὶ λογικά. §2 A 2.3.2 Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὅσοι τὰ ἄτομα εἰσηγοῦνται καὶ τὸ κενὸν οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον (sc. τὸν κόσμον) οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικεῖσθαι, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ. A 2.4.13 Ἐπίκουρος πλείστοις τρόποις τὸν κόσμον φθείρεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ ὡς ζῷον καὶ ὡς φυτὸν καὶ πολλαχῶς. A 2.13.5 Δημόκριτος πέτρους (sc. τὰ ἄστρα). A 4.5a.2 Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Δημόκριτος ταὐτὸν νοῦν καὶ ψυχήν, καθ᾽ οὓς οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη ζῷον ἄλογον κυρίως. §3 cf. A 4.11.1[14–18] (de Stoicis) ὁ δὲ λόγος, καθ᾽ ὃν προσαγορευόμεθα λογικοί, ἐκ τῶν προλήψεων συμπληροῦσθαι λέγεται κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα. ἔστι δ᾽ ἐννόημα φάντασμα διανοίας λογικοῦ ζῴου· τὸ γὰρ φάντασμα, ἐπειδὰν λογικῇ προσπίπτῃ ψυχῇ, τότε ἐννόημα καλεῖται, εἰληφὸς τοὔνομα παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ. A 4.19.3 κυρίως δὲ φωνὴ ἡ ἔναρθρός ἐστιν ὡς φωτίζουσα τὸ νοούμενον. §4 cf. A 4.19[2–6] Πλάτων τὴν φωνὴν ὁρίζεται πνεῦμα διὰ στόματος ἀπὸ διανοίας ἠγμένον· … (2) λέγεται δὲ καὶ καταχρηστικῶς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων φωνὴ καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων, ὡς χρεμετισμοὶ καὶ ψόφοι. §5 Α 4.4.8 ὁ δὲ Δημόκριτος πάντα μετέχειν φησὶ ψυχῆς ποιᾶς. A 4.5a.2 cit. supra ad §2

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses PB and Q record five doxai, of which only two are retained by G. A tiny papyrus snippet confirms the readings of the P tradition for some lines in §§4–5. The remains of S contain the text of §1, preserved because of the name-labels Plato and Aristotle. Differently from the previous chapter Ecl. 1.42, the mss. FP also preserve the chapter heading, on which see further below Commentary C. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. We have found no relevant texts in this tradition on the number of genera of living beings. An exception might be made for a possible relation of the final doxa to Theophrastus’ De sensibus; see below, section D(e). (2) Sources. It is remarkably difficult to find any discussion of the number of genera of living beings outside the extant texts of Plato and Aristotle and the literature that is dependent on them. This is in contrast to the numerous discussions on the correlation between the elements (four or five), on the genera of living beings and on their location in the regions of the cosmos (see

liber 5 caput 20

1951

texts below section E(b) General texts). Many discussions are found on whether living beings other than humans possess sense-perception (rarely denied) or reason (highly controversial, particularly between Stoics and Academics). The material recorded in the Placita is unusual and there are few parallels. The first part of the chapter appears to take Plato’s Timaeus as its starting-point and is a fine example of the influence of early Middle Platonism on the redaction of the Placita. It is well paralleled in the long doxa on Plato’s theology at A 1.7.22 (on which see Commentary ad loc.). C Chapter Heading The chapter heading has two components and may combine two separate chapters in the anterior tradition (other possible examples of this development at chs. 2.3, 2.19, 4.20, 4.23). The use of πόσος indicates the category of quantity, though no numbers are found in the body of the chapter. It is found in a number of chapters elsewhere in the Placita: cf. chs. 3.9 Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι; 3.14 Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς καὶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αὐτῆς ζῶναι; 4.10 Πόσαι εἰσὶν αἰσθήσεις; also G ch. 6 πόσα μέρη τῆς φιλοσοφίας. The second part of the heading links up with themes in Book 4, esp. chs. 8–11. On headings with εἰ see ch. 1.1 Commentary C and 5.4 Commentary C. As noted above in section A, the heading of this chapter is preserved in the chief manuscripts of the Eclogae. It is also preserved in the pinax of SL, this time under the number Γ 11, and here too it is followed by the words ἐν ᾧ καὶ ταῦτα, after which the headings of chs. 5.21–23 are cited. Elter (1880) 74–75 argued that these were interpolated from P (their formulation is almost identical to what is found there), and in this he was followed by Wachsmuth in his edition. See further our discussion on the headings in SL at ch. 5.4 Commentary C, and also section C in the Commentary on chs. 5.21–23. D Analysis a Context The chapter belongs together with the previous chapter, 5.19 on the generation of animals. As noted in our comments on that chapter, they interrupt the sequence of chapters on fetuses and their development and would have been better placed at the beginning of the book, before the chapters on spermatology. b Number–Order of Lemmata The number and order of the five doxai must be accepted. It is perhaps surprising that no Stoic views have been preserved, particularly in the second group of doxai, §§3–5. This part of the chapter is very likely to be incomplete.

1952

liber 5 caput 20

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter is divided into two parts, corresponding to the two subjects combined in the chapter heading. (1) The first part consists of two doxai presented in a diaphonic opposition. The first doxa, based on the doctrine of Plato’s Timaeus, lists four genera of living beings. The terminology for these is precisely that which is set out in the key text Tim. 39e10–40a2. The doxa adds that the stars are stated to be ζῷα, as are the cosmos and God himself. The inclusion of God (on the text see detailed comments below) is perhaps surprising. Nowhere in the Timaeus is the Demiurge called a ζῷον. The same can be said for the World Soul. Only the intelligible world is described as such in Tim. 31b1 and 37d1. But we may adduce a similar view in the presentation of Plato’s theology in A 1.7.22, where the heavenly bodies, earth and entire cosmos are called τοῦ πρώτου θεοῦ ἔκγονα. The equation of the demiurge with the first god is common at the turn of the millennium when the movement of Middle Platonism commences; cf. Opsomer (2005) 53, citing Plac. 1.7.31 Diels (i.e. 1.7.22 M–R). The highest god is generally identified as a νοῦς, but sometimes as a ψυχή, i.e. equivalent to the World Soul; cf. Opsomer ibid. 63. But identification with a ζῷον is not part of Middle Platonist theology. Perhaps we have here the influence of Aristotelianism and esp. the famous statement at Met. Λ.7 1072b28. However, there is quite a difference between the Aristotelian description ζῶον ἀίδιον ἄριστον and the phrase ζῷον λογικὸν ἀθάνατον in our text here. The latter in fact suits the World Soul better than the Demiurge, who is intellectual rather than rational and eternal rather than immortal (but he can hardly not be a ζῷον). The subject of whether the heavenly bodies are alive is not treated in Book 2, but it is mentioned in the proœmium of the work; see further our comment at ch. 1.proœm. A(3). Despite the name-label at the beginning, the tenor of the doxa as a whole is not Aristotelian. The division of animal genera that underlies Aristotle’s biological works is quite different, as emerges in GA. 2.1 and HA 1.1. But in the Aristotelian corpus as we now have it we are missing a more general philosophical account of the kinds of living beings. The present text has been included by Walzer (1934, fr. 22) and Ross (1955, fr. 22) in collections of the fragments of the lost De philosophia, presumably because of resemblances to Cicero ND 2.42–44 which they both include as well (none of these texts were included by Rose in his collections; Mansfeld 2016a, 300 argues against Walzer’s inclusion). One would expect, given the Platonic precedent, that Aristotle with his doctrine of five elements would have five genera of animals rather than Plato’s four. Cf. Baltes (1978), who treats a similar problem in the Stoa, namely five senses divided over four elements.

liber 5 caput 20

1953

The second doxa attributed to the atomists Democritus and Epicurus introduces an opposition to the last part of the previous doxa on the heavenly bodies. It is denied that they are animate, a doctrine consistent with the atomist view that they are hot rocks; cf. ch. 2.13.5 and the explicit denial that the heavenly bodies have mind, feeling and life in Lucretius DRN 5.110–145. (2) The second part of the chapter is more difficult. It treats the question whether all living beings possess sense-perception and reason (logos). But the three doxai cover the subject only very partially and it is hard to see clear lines of argument in the positions disclosed. Diels and later Kranz despaired of finding sense in the text of §3, followed by Curd (2007) 122. If we accept the emendation to προφορικόν (on which see the further comment below), this would mean that all living beings have a logos which enables them to act, but they lack articulate expression to indicate the motivation of the action. But this interpretation makes it rather similar to the following doxa, §4. The subject is now confined to irrational living beings, i.e. animals, and the view is attributed to Pythagoras and Plato that living beings (apart from human beings, one presumes) are rational, but cannot offer articulate speech because of their bodily composition. Burkert (1972) 75 argues that this view cannot go back to early Pythagoreanism, perhaps rightly. But the two philosophers are connected by their views on reincarnation and one wonders whether this doxa might not be a fanciful extrapolation from Plato’s myth at Laws 620a–d, where the soul of Thersites takes on the body of a monkey (on the absence of the doctrine of reincarnation in A see further ch. 5.25 Commentary B). One would expect a Stoic doxa to be opposed to this view, because the Stoics took the view that animals did not possess logos, as opposed to human beings; cf. SVF 2.725 ff. Because of the lack of clear oppostion between §3 and §4, it is likely in our view that the text of the former has been corrupted at some stage. The final doxa, §5, implicitly attributes virtually the same doctrine to Diogenes of Apollonia. Animals share in the substance of air which enables thought, but because of bodily interference (through density, i.e. earthiness, or moisture, i.e. water) their faculty of thought cannot function properly. The statement that they do not think or perceive seems extreme, since senseperception is one of the main characteristics that distinguishes animals from plants (cf. for example 5.26.2). Laks (2008) 169, citing Ritter, attempts to rescue the meaning by regarding the statement as qualified by what follows, i.e. they are like madmen, and so cannot think or perceive properly, i.e. as humans do: ‘… on doit en conclure que si les animaux et les personnes prises de folie peuvent être considérés comme dépourvus des facultés cognitives, c’ est par rapport à l’ exercice normal de ces fonctions chez l’homme. Ne pas bien percevoir, c’ est ne pas percevoir du tout.’ Laks goes on to suggest the absolute ‘negation’ of

1954

liber 5 caput 20

thought and perception can be explained in the context of the entire chapter as representing a position that is diametrically opposed to that of Plato and Aristotle (namely in §1) who posit the existence of eminently rational living beings, i.e. the stars and the cosmos. However, the subject αὐτά follows on from the καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων in the previous lemma (§4), so a direct contrast with the more general treatment of living beings in the first lemma cannot be intended. The three doxai thus do not give clear positions on the question at issue and certainly do not yield an illuminating diaeresis. They are most definitely unsuitable for giving an overview of the rich philosophical debates on whether animals possess reason or articulate communication, such as we find in Philo De animalibus, Plutarch and Sextus Empiricus (some illustratory texts cited below section E(b)§§3–4); on these debates see Boys-Stones (2018) 298; on Plutarch against the Stoics, Newmyer (2015) 226–231. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The agreement of PGQ with S makes the reading Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης quite certain. It is an indication of a mistaken fixation on PB that Mau and Lachenaud (but not Diels, even in his left column) retain the corrupted reading ἔστι πραγματεία Ἀριστοτέλους ἐν ᾗ. The final part of the doxa has also been corrupted. A reference to ‘God’ is missing in PBG, but it is preserved in PQ. The mss. of S only speak of the ‘divine’ (ἔνθεον). The question is whether there are two entities described as a ζῷον here, i.e. the cosmos and God, or that originally only one was meant, i.e. the cosmos. Diels thought the latter and conjectured καὐτὸν ἔνθεον. However, in all four texts καὶ occurs after τὸν κόσμον, so the balance of probability is that the text refers to two entities. One wonders too whether a text influenced by Middle Platonism would call the cosmos a ζῷον λογικὸν ἀθάνατον. We therefore follow the text in PQ and already conjectured by Wyttenbach. Lachenaud proposes to read καὶ αὐτόν τὸν θεὸν, but αὐτόν is unnecessary and not supported by the mss. §2 Diels’ proposed conjecture, which he did not place in his text, was inspired; cf. A 5.1.1, 5.1.3; also 1.3.7, 1.8.3. But the verb should be in the plural, as at A 5.1.1. §3 The text in PBQ suggests an antithesis between the λόγος ἐνεργητικός and the λόγος παθητικός, but it is difficult to see what it denotes. It is surely no coincidence that this is the usual terminology for ‘active’ and ‘passive’ verbs in Greek grammar. We have found no references to the former term in a philosophical context. The emendation to προφορικόν is justified by the final phrase τὸν λεγόμενον τοῦ νοῦ ἑρμηνέα. But to change the former term to ἐνδιάθετον (based on the usual Stoic antithesis, cf. SVF 2.135, 223 etc.) is altogether too bold. We take

liber 5 caput 20

1955

οἱονεὶ νοῦν to be the subject of μὴ ἔχειν rather than its object, as understood by Lachenaud. Torraca (1961) 460 n. 175 proposes the more drastic emendation τὸν δὲ λόγον μὴ ἔχειν τὸν παθητικόν. §4 Diels’ decision to follow the text in PG νοοῦσι makes better sense of the text (pace our view in M–R 1.148) than the reading λαλοῦσι in PB’s text and also fits the spacing in PP slightly better. Daiber translates sie reden, which also seems closer to νοοῦσι, but in his apparatus he states that PQ’s text reads λαλοῦσι. §5 We follow the text as defended and interpreted by Laks (2008) 168–170. It has a sound basis in the manuscripts. See his comments ad loc. e Other Evidence The dependence of the final doxa on Theophrastus’ treatise De sensibus, whether direct or indirect, is important evidence of the connection of the Placita with the Peripatetic school. The view on thinking would seem to derive, perhaps not directly, from the report on Diogenes’ doctrine in Sens. 44 (text below section E(a)§5). But the negative comment with regard to sense-perception, for example, is not found in Theophrastus’ work, where Diogenes is recorded as noting that some animals have senses that are better than those of humans (§41). We note too that there are no direct linguistic correspondences (ἰκμάς, for example, becomes ὑγρασία). This example of Placita material derived, however indirectly, from the Theophrastean work was one of the very few missed by Baltussen (1993) 264–265. E b

Further Related Texts Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: on the correspondence between living beings, elements and locations in the cosmos see Aristotle (De phil. 21 Walzer/Ross) cited at Cicero ND 2.42 cum igitur aliorum animantium ortus in terra sit, aliorum in aqua, in aere aliorum, absurdum esse Aristoteli videtur in ea parte quae sit ad gignenda animantia aptissima animal gigni nullum putare. sidera autem aetherium locum obtinent … cf. Philo Gig. 7–8 ἀνάγκη γὰρ ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλων τὸν κόσμον ἐψυχῶσθαι, τῶν πρώτων καὶ στοιχειωδῶν μερῶν ἑκάστου τὰ οἰκεῖα καὶ πρόσφορα ζῷα περιέχοντος, γῆς μὲν τὰ χερσαῖα, θαλάττης δὲ καὶ ποταμῶν τὰ ἔνυδρα, πυρὸς δὲ τὰ πυρίγονα—λόγος δὲ ἔχει ταῦτα κατὰ Μακεδονίαν μάλιστα γίνεσθαι—, οὐρανοῦ δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας. (8) καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι ψυχαὶ ὅλαι δι᾽ ὅλων ἀκήρατοί τε καὶ θεῖαι, παρὸ καὶ κύκλῳ κινοῦνται τὴν συγγενεστάτην νῷ κίνησιν· νοῦς γὰρ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἀκραιφνέστατος. ἔστιν οὖν ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὸν ἀέρα ζῴων πεπληρῶσθαι. also Plant. 12; Somn. 1.135; Sextus Empiricus M. 9.86–87; Apuleius Soc. 8. Nemesius NH 2, p. 34.5–9 καὶ ζῆν μὲν πάντα, μὴ πάντα δὲ εἶναι ζῷα· διακρίνουσι γὰρ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν ἀψύχων τὰ φυτὰ τῷ αὔξεσθαι καὶ τρέφεσθαι, τουτέστι τῇ θρεπτικῇ καὶ φυτικῇ δυνάμει, τὰ δὲ ἄλογα ζῷα ἀπὸ τῶν φυτῶν τῇ αἰσθήσει, τὰ δὲ λογικὰ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλό-

1956

liber 5 caput 20

γων τῷ λογικῷ· καὶ οὕτω πάντα ζῆν λέγοντες διαστέλλουσι τὴν ἑκάστου φύσιν. On sense-perception as characteristic of living beings see Aristotle Sens. 1 436a7– 11 φαίνεται δὲ τὰ μέγιστα, καὶ τὰ κοινὰ καὶ τὰ ἴδια τῶν ζῴων, κοινὰ τῆς τε ψυχῆς ὄντα καὶ τοῦ σώματος, οἷον αἴσθησις καὶ μνήμη καὶ θυμὸς καὶ ἐπιθυμία καὶ ὅλως ὄρεξις, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἡδονὴ καὶ λύπη· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα σχεδὸν ὑπάρχει πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις. Cicero ND 2.34 (the Stoic Balbus as spokesperson) bestiis autem sensum et motum dedit (sc. natura) et cum quodam adpetitu accessum ad res salutares a pestiferis recessum; hoc homini amplius quod addidit rationem, qua regerentur animi adpetitus, qui tum remitterentur tum continerentur. also ND 2.122. Chapter heading: — §1 Plato Aristotle: Plato Tim. 39e7–40a2 cited on A 5.19 section E(b) General texts. cf. also Tim. 30b7–8 οὕτως οὖν δὴ κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα δεῖ λέγειν τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσθαι πρόνοιαν. Tim. 38e5 (of the heavenly bodies) δεσμοῖς τε ἐμψύχοις σώματα δεθέντα ζῷα ἐγεννήθη. 92c6 θνητὰ γὰρ καὶ ἀθάνατα ζῷα λαβὼν καὶ συμπληρωθεὶς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος οὕτω, ζῷον ὁρατὸν τὰ ὁρατὰπεριέχον etc. Aristotle (on the typology of animals) GA 2.1 732a25–29 τῶν δὲ ζῴων τὰ μὲν τελεσιουργεῖ καὶ ἐκπέμπει θύραζε ὅμοιον ἑαυτῷ, οἷον ὅσα ζῳοτοκεῖ εἰς τοὐμφανές, τὰ δὲ ἀδιάρθρωτον ἐκτίκτει καὶ οὐκ ἀπειληφὸς τὴν αὑτοῦ μορφήν. τῶν δὲ τοιούτων τὰ μὲν ἔναιμα ᾠοτοκεῖ, τὰ δ᾽ ἄναιμα σκωληκοτοκεῖ. HA 1.1 487a11–14 αἱ δὲ διαφοραὶ τῶν ζῴων εἰσὶ κατά τε τοὺς βίους καὶ τὰς πράξεις καὶ τὰ ἤθη καὶ τὰ μόρια, περὶ ὧν τύπῳ μὲν εἴπωμεν πρῶτον, ὕστερον δὲ περὶ ἕκαστον γένος ἐπιστήσαντες ἐροῦμεν … Met. Λ.7 1072b26–30 (on God as first mover), esp. 28 φαμὲν δὴ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι ζῶον ἀίδιον ἄριστον. §2 Democritus Epicurus: cf. Epicureans at Plut. Col. (fr. 342 Usener) 1123A οἱ … φάσκοντες μηδὲ τὸν ἥλιον ἔμψυχον εἶναι μηδὲ τὴν σελήνην … Lucretius DRN 5.122–125 (on the heavenly beings) quae procul usque adeo divino a numine distent, / inque deum numero quae sint indigna videri, / notitiam potius praebere ut posse putentur / quod sit vitali motu sensuque remotum. DRN 144–145 haud igitur constant divino praedita sensu, / quandoquidem nequeunt vitaliter esse animata. §§3–4 Anaxagoras Pythagoras Plato: Philo Anim. 44 (on animals, Alexander using academic arguments) ‘Although they are unable to express their mental conceptions because of their inarticulate tongues, they conduct themselves with such abundant wisdom that they exhibit many characteristics of speech’ (trans. Terian); cf. 98 (Philo’s refutation using Stoic arguments) ‘We must next consider the uttered. Although blackbirds, crows, parrots, and all the like can produce different kinds of utterances, they cannot produce an articulated voice in any manner whatever (trans. Terian).’ Plutarch Brut.Anim. 991F–992A ἂν γὰρ εἴπῃς, ὅπερ ἀληθές ἐστι, τούτων διδάσκαλον εἶναι τὴν φύσιν, εἰς τὴν κυριωτάτην καὶ σοφωτάτην ἀρχὴν ἀναφέρεις τὴν τῶν θηρίων φρόνησιν· ἣν εἰ μὴ λόγον οἴεσθε δεῖν μηδὲ φρόνησιν καλεῖν, ὥρα σκοπεῖν ὄνομα κάλλιον αὐτῇ καὶ τιμιώτερον, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ δι᾽ ἔργων ἀμείνονα καὶ θαυμασιωτέραν παρέχεται τὴν δύναμιν·οὐκ ἀμαθὴς οὐδ᾽ ἀπαίδευτος, αὐτομαθὴς δέ τις μᾶλλον οὖσα καὶ ἀπροσδεής … ὅσα γοῦν ἄνθρωποι τρυφῶντες ἢ παίζοντες εἰς τὸ μανθάνειν καὶ

liber 5 caput 20 μελετᾶν ἄγουσι, τούτων ἡ διάνοια καὶ παρὰ φύσιν τοῦ σώματος περιουσίᾳ συνέσεως ἀναλαμβάνει τὰς μαθήσεις. ἐῶ γὰρ ἰχνεύειν σκύλακας καὶ βαδίζειν ἐν ῥυθμῷ πώλους μελετῶντας, ἀλλὰ κόρακας διαλέγεσθαι καὶ κύνας ἅλλεσθαι διὰ τροχῶν περιφερομένων. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.62–63 καὶ συγκρίνομεν τὰ ἄλογα καλούμενα ζῷα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κατὰ φαντασίαν· καὶ γὰρ καταπαίζειν τῶν δογματικῶν τετυφωμένων καὶ περιαυτολογούντων οὐκ ἀποδοκιμάζομεν μετὰ τοὺς πρακτικοὺς τῶν λόγων. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἡμέτεροι τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ἁπλῶς εἰώθασι συγκρίνειν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ· ἐπεὶ δὲ εὑρεσιλογοῦντες οἱ δογματικοὶ ἄνισον εἶναί φασι τὴν σύγκρισιν, ἡμεῖς ἐκ πολλοῦ τοῦ περιόντος ἐπὶ πλέον παίζοντες ἐπὶ ἑνὸς ζῴου στήσομεν τὸν λόγον, οἷον ἐπὶ κυνός, εἰ δοκεῖ, τοῦ εὐτελεστάτου δοκοῦντος εἶναι. εὑρήσομεν γὰρ καὶ οὕτω μὴ λειπόμενα ἡμῶν τὰ ζῷα, περὶ ὧν ὁ λόγος, ὡς πρὸς τὴν πίστιν τῶν φαινομένων. cf. also P. 1.74–76. M. 8.270 καίτοι τί περὶ ἀνθρώπων λέγομεν, ὅτε καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις τινὲς (Stoics SVF 2.727) αὐτῶν μεταδεδώκασι τῆς τοῦ σημείου νοήσεως; καὶ γὰρ ὁ κύων ὅτε ἐκ τοῦ ἴχνους στιβεύει τὸ θηρίον σημειοῦται· ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ἀξιώματος ἕλκει φαντασίαν τοῦ ‘εἴπερ ἴχνος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, θηρίον ἔστιν ἐνθάδε’. in terms of the opposition of the λόγος προφορικός and the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος see e.g. M. 8.275 (SVF 2.135, 223) φασὶν (sc. οἱ δογματικοὶ) ὅτι ἄνθρωπος οὐχὶ τῷ προφορικῷ λόγῳ διαφέρει τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων (καὶ γὰρ κόρακες καὶ ψιττακοὶ καὶ κίτται ἐνάρθρους προφέρονται φωνάς) ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐνδιαθέτῳ … §5 Diogenes: Theophrastus Sens. 44 (on Diogenes, 64A19 DK) φρονεῖν δ᾽, ὥσπερ ἐλέχθη, τῷ ἀέρι καθαρῷ καὶ ξηρῷ· κωλύειν γὰρ τὴν ἰκμάδα τὸν νοῦν· διὸ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς μέθαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλησμοναῖς ἧττον φρονεῖν. ὅτι δὲ ἡ ὑγρότης ἀφαιρεῖται τὸν νοῦν, σημεῖον, διότι τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα χείρω τὴν διάνοιαν· ἀναπνεῖν τε γὰρ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀέρα καὶ τροφὴν ὑγροτέραν προσφέρεσθαι.

1957

Liber 5 Caput 21 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9a recto, p. 182 Barns–Zilliacus (1967)—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 909A–B; p. 433a5–22 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 125; p. 645.16–22 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 236–239 Daiber—PPs: Omn.Doctr. 117.7–11, p. 63 Westerink SL: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.43, p. 1.295.5 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); iteratur titulus SL Index capitum Γ 11, sed verisim. interpolatus ex P, cf. Elter (1880) 74–75, adn. p. 295 ed. Wachsmuth

Titulus καʹ. Ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ μορφοῦται τὰ ζῷα ἐν γαστρὶ ὄντα (P,cf.S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄρχεσθαι τῆς διαρθρώσεως ἀπὸ ἕκτης καὶ τριακοστῆς, τελειοῦσθαι δὲ τοῖς μορίοις ἀπὸ πεντηκοστῆς μιᾶς δεούσης. (P1) §2 Ἀσκληπιάδης ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων διὰ τὸ θερμότερα εἶναι τὴν διάρθρωσιν γίνεσθαι ἀπὸ ἕκτης καὶ εἰκοστῆς, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ ἐνδοτέρω· πληροῦσθαι δ᾽ ἐντὸς τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ⟨τοῖς⟩ μορίοις· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν θηλυκῶν ἐν διμήνῳ διαρθροῦσθαι, ἐν τετραμήνῳ δὲ τελειοῦσθαι διὰ τὸ ἐνδεῖν τοῦ θερμοῦ· τὰ δὲ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ὁλοτελῆ παρὰ τὰς συγκράσεις τῶν στοιχείων. (P2) §1 Empedocles 31A83 DK; §2 Asclepiades cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, pp. 721, 725 titulus μορφοῦται … ὄντα PBQ, cf. PPs et SL-ind2 : μορφοῦνται τὰ βρέφη PG(A) : ζωογοῦνται τὰ βρέφη καὶ μορφοῦνται PG(BCNic) : διαρθροῦται τὸ ἔμβρυον SL-ind1 §1 [2] μὲν] τῆς PG, emend. Diels ‖ ἀνθρώπων] ἀρρένων PB(II) ‖ ἀπὸ PB(I,III)Ps : ἀπὸ τῆς PB(II)GQ(ut vid.) ‖ [3] ἀπὸ] ἐπὶ leg. fort. PQ, coni. Usener ‖ [3–4] πεντηκοστῆς μιᾶς δεούσης PBQ : om. δεούσης PG : τῆς νʹ PPs §2 [5] Ἀσκληπιάδης PBQ : Ἀσκληπιάδης δὲ PG : Ἱπποκράτης δὲ PPs ‖ ἐπὶ] επει PP ‖ θερμότερα PG Diels Mau Lachenaud : θερμότατα εἶναι PBPs : cf. was in ihnen an Wärme ist Q ‖ post εἶναι add. τὴν κρᾶσιν PG (cf. [10]) ‖ [6] πολλάκις PB(II)Q : πολλὰς PB(I,III) ‖ πολλάκις … ἐνδοτέρω] om. PGPs ‖ [7] πληροῦσθαι PBG : τελειοῦσθαι coni. Diels conl. §1[3] et §2[8] Mau Lachenaud, cf. vollendet Q ‖ ἐντὸς Reiske edd., vor Ablauf von Q : ἐν τοῖς PB : ἀπὸ PG ‖ τοῖς add. Reiske Diels conl. §1 ‖ [7–8] ἐπὶ … θηλυκῶν PB : τῶν δὲ θηλείων PG ‖ [8] διμήνῳ PBPs : δίμηνα PG(A), corr. Diels : τετάρτῳ μηνὶ PG(BCNic) ‖ post διμήνῳ hab. PPs μὲν ‖ διαρθροῦσθαι PBPs : τὴν διάρθρωσιν γίνεσθαι PG ‖ ἐνδεῖν PB : ἐνδεὲς PG ‖ [9–10] τὰ δὲ … στοιχείων om. PG ‖ [9] ὁλοτελῆ PB : unterschiedlich Q ‖ παρὰ PB(I,III) : πρὸς PB(II)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_146

5

10

liber 5 caput 21

1959

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9a recto = P §§1–2 πε]ν̣τη̣ ̣ [κ]ο̣σ̣τη̣ ̣ [ς Ασκληπιαδη]ς επει με[ν θερμοτερ]α̣ ειν̣α̣ι ̣ τ[ην ] ̣ ̣[ ps.Galenus HPh c. 125 (~ tit.) Ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ μορφοῦνται τὰ βρέφη (text Diels) 125.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄρχεσθαι τῆς διαρθρώσεως ἀπὸ τῆς ἕκτης τριακοστῆς ἡμέρας, τελειοῦσθαι δὲ τοῖς μορίοις ἀπὸ πεντηκοστῆς μιᾶς. 125.2 (~ P2) Ἀσκληπιάδης δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων διὰ τὸ θερμοτέραν εἶναι τὴν κρᾶσιν, τὴν διάρθρωσιν γίγνεσθαι ἀπὸ ἕκτης καὶ εἰκοστῆς, πληροῦσθαι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς. τῶν δὲ θηλείων ἐν διμήνῳ γίνεσθαι τὴν διάρθρωσιν διὰ τὸ ἐνδεὲς τοῦ θερμοῦ. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 117.7–11 (Περὶ ὑγείας καὶ νόσου καὶ γήρως = tit. c. 5.30) … μορφοῦται δὲ τὰ ζῶα ἐν γαστρὶ ὄντα ἀπὸ ϛʹ καὶ λʹ ἡμέρας, τελειοῦται δὲ τοῖς μορίοις ἀπὸ τῆς νʹ (~ P1). Ἱπποκράτης δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων διὰ τὸ θερμότατα εἶναι τὴν διάρθρωσιν γίνεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ϛʹ καὶ κʹ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν θηλυκῶν ἐν διμήνῳ μὲν διαρθροῦσθαι, ἐν τετραμήνῳ δὲ τελειοῦσθαι (~ P2). Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί. A 5.18 Διὰ τί ἑπταμηνιαῖα γόνιμα. A 5.23 Πότε καὶ πῶς ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. §§1–2 A 5.15.1 Πλάτων ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον· καὶ γὰρ κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ τρέφεσθαι. A 5.15.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ εἶναι μὲν ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον ἀλλ᾽ ἄπνουν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῇ γαστρί. §2 A 5.7.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίνεσθαι παρὰ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα. A 5.26.4 (Empedocles de plantis) αὔξεσθαι δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ θερμοῦ διαιρουμένου, ὥστε γῆς εἶναι μέρη, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔμβρυα τὰ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τῆς μήτρας μέρη.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses Two lemmata only are found in PB, G and Q. Oddly Ps cites the part of the Asclepiadean doxa on human males and females at the end of his chapter 117 on health and disease and old age (= A 5.30), attributing the view to Hippocrates instead of Asclepiades. Most likely there is a lacuna in his text. The lines would

1960

liber 5 caput 21

have been better placed after §115. S supplies us with no more than a quite different heading, but it is an indication that he did excerpt the chapter. The papyrus snippet published by Barns in part III of the Antinoopolis Papyri (1967) contains the last letter of Asclepiades’ name-label and also a misspelling (επει for επι). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. For the subject of this chapter there are interesting but limited correspondences with the doxography in Censorinus. Having in ch. 7 discussed the various lengths of completed pregnancies (cf. A 5.18) he briefly turns at §9.1 to the subject of the time of the embryo’s complete formation, i.e. possessing all the features that it will have when it is born. Many philosophers, he writes, have just one set of numbers, as illustrated by the doxai of Diogenes of Apollonia and Hippo. But Pythagoras does it better by having two sets of numbers, one for seven-month olds, the other for ten-month olds (274 days, so really nine-month olds). Articulation occurs in 35 days for the former (very close to the number 36 in A’s first doxa), 40 days for the latter. Censorinus explicitly states his source, Varro’s book Tubero de origine humana; on this work see above, Introduction to Book 5, section 5, and ch. 5.3 Commentary B. Some pages later at §11.7 he explains these figures as part of an elaborate arithmological account. The phrase infans membratur is used to describe the process of articulation (cf. διάρθρωσις and διαρθροῦσθαι in the present chapter). No further doxai are given, but it is reasonable to deduce that the theme had been treated in the doxographical tradition before the time of his source Varro. A text in Aulus Gellius in an arithmological context also refers to the subject and mentions Varro (but this time his work the Hebdomades), but without reference to any particular philosophers or doctors. The appearance in various reports in Galen and elsewhere of the names Empedocles, Strato and Diocles, all of whom are prominent in Book 5, also suggests that a doxographical treatment of the subject was part of the tradition. (2) Sources. The most important early text on this specific subject which is still extant is found in the work De natura pueri under the name of Hippocrates. It is part of the section (ch. 6–10) which Lonie (1981) 176 describes as ‘the first coherent theory in Western science of the articulation and development of the embryo’. See further his commentary at 176–186, 190–194, which points out the author’s debt to Empedocles and Democritus. In ch. 7 this text gives figures for the articulation of the female and male fetus (42 and 30 days respectively). This would appear to be the figure for the beginning of the process, and is based on observation of miscarriages and aborted pregnancies. The cause of the differentiation between male and female is given at the end of the chapter (7.504.24

liber 5 caput 21

1961

Littré), namely that the female congeals and becomes articulated later because its seed is weaker and moister. Lonie p. 190 interprets this to imply a theory of the role of heat in the process which goes back to Empedocles (cf. A 5.7.1 and our comments ad loc.). We note that both these features, differentiation of male and female and the role of heat return in the second doxa attributed to Asclepiades, though the numbers mostly differ (see further below Commentary D(c)). This Hippocratean passage remained influential and its figures are cited by a number of later authors such as Galen and Porphyry (texts below section E(b) General texts). Aristotle in his discussion of the development of the embryo at GA 2.4 does not touch on the specific subject of this chapter, but he does mention it when discussing deformed embryos in GA 4.6 775a9–14. He too privileges the role of heat, stating that the difference is caused by the fact (as he thinks) that females have less heat. In HA 7.3 583b10–24 he makes some brief observations in his account of human pregnancy. He notes that male embryos aborted before the fortieth day show differentiation, but for females this is not found in embryos up to three months and differentiation does not occur until the fourth month. This is the same figure that is attributed to Asclepiades in §2 in the present chapter. Difference of heat is not mentioned in this second account. These Aristotelian texts are cited below in section E(b)§2. The view attributed to ‘Aristotle and Varro’ in Lactantius is divergent, giving only the number 40 without distinguishing between the sexes; text at section E(a)§1. This report is likely to be derived from Varro himself. Additional material is found in divergent reports on the views of Empedocles (cf. §1), which are found in a text derived from the first cent. bce or ce medical writer Athenaeus of Attalia (with exactly the same number 36 expressed as four enneads) and in another arithmological passage in Theon of Smyrna (seven weeks, but according to others five weeks for males). These parallels are not very close to what we find in A, but again indicate a broader range of treatment of the subject than what has come down to us in A’s doxography. On the similarities and differences with the embryological calendar of Damastes see further below section D(e). C Chapter Heading The formulation of this chapter heading, asking for a time span within which, i.e. relating to the category of time, is unique in A. The closest parallel is on the year and the times of the revolutions of the planets at ch. 2.32, esp. its phrase πόσος ἑκάστου τῶν πλανητῶν χρόνος. The key verb μορφοῦται recalls the chapter heading of Athenaeus of Attalia recorded in Oribasius (text below section E(b) §1), Περὶ διαμορφώσεως. From the contents of the doxai, however, it is clear that

1962

liber 5 caput 21

the question asked is the length of time from the first visible articulation (διάρθρωσις) to the complete articulation of the parts of the fetus. The heading is found in two different formulations in the pinax of SL, the former under Ecl. 1.42, the latter under 1.43. We follow the view of Elter that the former goes back to S, whereas the latter is interpolated from the tradition of P. See further chs. 5.4 Commentary C and 5.20 Commentary C. D Analysis a Context The chapter is the final one devoted to questions of embryology. It might have been better placed if it had followed ch. 18 because the main focus is on human embryos. However, the second doxa does mention the formation of the embryos of irrational living beings, so this may be the reason that it was placed after to the two chapters on living beings in general, chs. 5.19 and 5.20. As noted above, Censorinus sees a link between the subjects of chs. 18 and 21, but this link is not exploited by our author. A connection can also be made with ch. 5.17, since the distinction between articulation and completion amounts to the difference between the two questions that the chapters pose, the former asking what part of the embryo is formed first, the latter when is the embryo’s formation completed; see also our comments at ch. 5.17 Commentary C. b Number–Order of Lemmata There are only two doxai. Given the incompleteness of the presentation and the amount of parallel material elsewhere, as noted above in section B, it is likely that what we find in P has been considerably truncated. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The two doxai differ considerably in scope and detail. (1) The doxa attributed to Empedocles specifies that the answer given to the question relates to human beings (the chapter heading merely speaks about ‘living beings’, i.e. fetuses), making no distinction between males and females. Articulation begins at 36 days and is completed at 49 days. No comments are made about the numbers and no causes are given. If we consult three parallel texts referring to Empedoclean doctrine we see that none confirm both numbers exactly, though some come quite close. In the excerpt from Athenaeus we read that the whole body is articulated first in 36 days and then complete articulation follows at 40. In Theon of Smyrna the fetus becomes complete in seven hebdomads, i.e. 49 days, though others say five weeks, i.e. 35 days. In Proclus 35 is the figure for seven-month olds. The number 35 for the formation of the embryo is also found in an arithmological text of ps.Iamblichus in which Strato,

liber 5 caput 21

1963

Diocles and ‘many other doctors’ are cited. In a text in Aulus Gellius based on Varro the numbers are 28 and 49, the latter figure thus agreeing with A’s doxa (3.10.7, but there is no mention of Empedocles). With these numbers there is much room for arithmological speculation (28 = 4 × 7, 35 = 5 × 7, 36 = 6 × 6, 49 = 7 ×7), as is often noted in our sources (esp. Censorinus and Theon; see Mansfeld 1971, 167–168; Lonie 1981, 194 also notes a musical theory in Aristoxenus in which the numbers 30 and 42 are significant). In our text, however, just as in ch. 5.18, A completely avoids any reference to numerical speculation. Athenaeus also reports that Empedocles discriminated between males and females, males being faster because of their greater heat (and their place on the right side of the womb was also hotter). This view is consistent with his theory on the differentiation of males and females through heat and lack of heat in ch. 5.7.1 and the view on the formation of the embryo in 5.21.1, but is not stated in the present doxa. As was noted above in section B, the same view is held by the author of the Hippocratic De natura pueri, who may have been influenced by the Empedoclean theory. This aspect too is not mentioned by our doxographer. (2) The second doxa attributed to Asclepiades (on this doctor in the Placita see M–R 1.320, 3.208) is much fuller, differing from the first in three respects: (i) it does distinguish between males and females; (ii) it gives a cause for the difference; (iii) it also reports a view on the subject for living beings other than humans. The numbers for the process of articulation—26 and 50 days for males, two and four months for females—is not exactly paralleled elsewhere. The doxa does not define what completion means in this context. The same four months is the time span that the author of the De natura pueri reckons for the onset of movement in the womb in the case of females (text below). In specifying heat as the cause of the difference between males and females Asclepiades continues the tradition initiated (it seems) by Empedocles and the Hippocratic author. See the remarks on the first doxa above. In this chapter there is thus implicitly a double contrast between the two doxai which it preserves: (1) between human beings (§1) and males and females (§2); and (2) between human beings (§1) and other living beings (§2). It is quite unsatisfactory that the second doxa utilises a theory that goes back to the thinker whose name-label is associated with the first doxa. There is a high likelihood that the information is at the very least incomplete, but probably also inaccurate. We may be fairly certain that the chapter is incomplete compared with its original in A, and quite certain that it is incomplete compared with the fuller tradition. However, because of a lack of evidence (the paucity of parallel material in Censorinus is a handicap) we are unable to estimate what further contrasts it might have had in a fuller form. It is to be suspected that the numbers themselves were not of great importance for our doxographer. He

1964

liber 5 caput 21

just wanted to emphasize that there were differing views in differing respects. See further our comment in the next section. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 In the phrase ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων the particle μέν appears to introduce a contrast between human beings and something else (e.g. the ἄλογα ζῷα in §2), but this does not happen. It could be a case of μέν solitarium, when ‘the antithetical clause is to be supplied in thought’ (Smyth 1956, §2896). As the lemma stands, however, it would be better placed after ἄρχεσθαι, where it would introduce a contrast with τελειοῦσθαι δέ later on. Perhaps this was the intention, but it has somehow been clumsily moved forward. Emendation, however, would not be justified. §2 Diels (followed by Mau and Lachenaud) was surely not correct in changing the unanimous reading in the witnesses πληροῦσθαι to τελειοῦσθαι in order to conform with the infinitive used twice elsewhere in the doxa. It is natural for the author to strive for some variatio. Thus for the beginning of the process of articulation he uses three different phrases—ἄρχεσθαι τῆς διαρθρώσεως, τὴν διάρθρωσιν γίνεσθαι, διαρθροῦσθαι—though admittedly each one uses the same verbal root. For the final verb G again reads τὴν διάρθρωσιν γίνεσθαι, but Ps supports the reading διαρθροῦσθαι in PB. The author of Nat.Puer. at the beginning of §10 appears to conflate the time that articulation is complete (nails and hair have taken root) and the first movement of the fetus, giving the times at which this occurs as three months for the male and four months for the female. The latter number is the same as given for the completion of articulation for females in the doxa ascribed to Asclepiades. Similar figures, without discrimination between males and females are found in Vict. 1.26 (texts below section E(b)§2). As we saw above in section B(2), in the text at HA 7.3 583b2–24 Aristotle gives the figures of 40 days for males and ninety days for females in relation to both first movement and articulation of the fetus, but he does not coalesce the two topics. The term he uses for first articulation is σχίζεσθαι (b10), for completion τελείωσις (b24). e Other Evidence As noted above in ch. 5.18 Commentary D(e), the recently edited excerpt from the second cent. bce medical author Damastes gives an extended schema of numbers of days for the development of pregnancy. The question asked about commencement and completion of the embryo’s formation in the present chapter appears to correlate with two of the stages in Damastes’ calendar. But the numbers given in the two doxai, 36 & 49 days, and 26 & 50 and 2 & 4 months

liber 5 caput 21

1965

do not cohere well with his numbers: only the number 50 is found in Damastes for the formation of the ten-month old baby. As already noted in ch. 5.18 D(d), Damastes does not mention authorities, and he also does make any distinction between male and female embryos as Asclepiades is reported as doing. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus 9.1–2 hac Chaldaeorum sententia explicata transeo ad opinionem Pythagoricam Varroni tractatam in libro, qui vocatur ‘Tubero’ et intus subscribitur ‘de origine humana’. quae quidem ratio praecipue recipienda ad veritatem proxime videtur accedere. alii enim plerique, cum omnes partus non uno tempore fiant maturi, una tamen eademque tempora omnibus conformandis dederunt; ut Diogenes Apolloniates (64A26 DK, but contrast Galen Hipp.Epid. VI 2.47 cited below), qui masculis corpus ait quattuor mensibus formari et feminis quinque, vel Hippon (38A16a DK), qui diebus LX infantem scribit formari, et quarto mense carnem fieri concretam, quinto ungues capillumve nasci, septimo iam hominem esse perfectum. Pythagoras autem … 11.7 itaque ut alterius partus origo in sex est diebus, post quos semen in sanguinem vertitur, ita huius in septem; et ut ibi quinque et triginta diebus infans membratur, ita hic pro portione diebus fere quadraginta; quare in Graecia dies habent quadragensimos insignes. namque praegnans ante diem quadragensimum non prodit in fanum, et post partum quadraginta diebus pleraeque fetae graviores sunt nec sanguinem interdum continent, et parvoli ferme per hos et morbidi sine risu nec sine periculo sunt. ob quam causam, cum is dies praeteriit, diem festum solent agitare, quod tempus appellant τεσσερακοστήν. Chapter heading: — §1 Empedocles: Varro at Aulus Gellius NA 3.10.7 (citing the Hebdomades fr. 106 Salvadore, for continuation see on A 5.18.5) ad homines quoque nascendos vim numeri istius (i.e. seven) porrigi pertinereque ait: ‘nam cum in uterum,’ inquit, ‘mulieris genitale semen datum est, primis septem diebus conglobatur coagulaturque fitque ad capiendam figuram idoneum. post deinde quarta hebdomade, quod eius virile secus futurum est, caput et spina, quae est in dorso, informatur. septima autem fere hebdomade, id est nono et quadragesimo die, totus’ inquit ‘homo in utero absolvitur.’ Lactantius Op.D. 12.6 (from Varro, continuing text cited at ch. 5.17 E(a)§4) denique totum opus quadragesimo die consummari.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 7 7, p. 498.27–500.4 Littré καὶ γέγονεν ἤδη παιδίον καὶ ἐς τοῦτο ἀφικνέεται, τὸ μὲν θῆλυ ἐν τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρῃσι καὶ δύο τὸ μακρότατον, τὸ δὲ ἄρσεν ἐν τριήκοντα ἡμέρῃσι τὸ μακρότατον· ὡς γὰρ ἐπιπολὺ συμβαίνει ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ ἢ ὀλίγῳ μείονι ἢ ὀλίγῳ πλείονι ταῦτα διαρθροῦσθαι. cited by Porphyry ad Gaur. 2 τοῦ δ᾽ ὅταν πλασθῇ πρῶτον τὴν εἴσκρισιν τιθέντος τοῦ μὲν ἄρρενος ἐν λʹ ἡμέραις, τῆς δὲ θηλείας ἐν δύο καὶ μʹ διαρθρουμένης,

1966

liber 5 caput 21

καθάπερ ἱστορεῖ ὁ Ἱπποκράτης. also referred to by Galen Hipp.Epid. VI 2.47 καὶ μέντοι καὶ ὡμολόγηται σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς ἰατροῖς οὐ μόνον διαπλάττεσθαι θᾶττον, ἀλλὰ καὶ κινεῖσθαι τὸ ἄρρεν τοῦ θήλεος. εἴρηται δὲ περὶ τούτων σαφῶς κἀν τῷ Περὶ φύσεως παιδίου, ὥσπερ γε καὶ παρὰ Διοκλεῖ κατὰ τὰ Περὶ γυναικείων συγγράμματα (fr. 47 Van der Eijk). Ῥοῦφος δέ φησι Διογένη τὸν Ἀπολλωνιάτην (64B9 DK) μόνον ἐναντίως ἀποφήνασθαι κατὰ τὸ Περὶ φύσεως δεύτερον· ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἐνέτυχον τῷ βιβλίῳ. ps.Iamblichus Theol.Ar. 46–47 Στράτων δὲ ὁ Περιπατητικὸς (fr. 98 Wehrli, Sharples 73A) καὶ Διοκλῆς ὁ Καρύστιος (fr. 45a Van der Eijk) καὶ πολλοὶ ἕτεροι τῶν ἰατρῶν … ἐν δὲ τῇ εʹ κατὰ τὴν λʹ μάλιστα καὶ πέμπτην ἡμέραν διαπλάττεσθαι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτοῦ μελίττης μὲν μεγέθει ἐοικὸς τὸ βρέφος, διατετρανωμένον δὲ ὅμως, ὥστε κεφαλὴν καὶ αὐχένα καὶ θώρακα καὶ κῶλα ὁλοσχερέστερον φαντάζεσθαι ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦτό φασι ζʹ μησὶ γόνιμον εἶναι, εἰ δ᾽ ἐννέα μέλλει γενήσεσθαι, τῇ ἕκτῃ πάσχει τοῦτο ἑβδομάδι, ἂν θῆλυ ᾖ, ἂν δὲ ἄρσεν, τῇ ἑβδόμῃ (this text is adapted by Macrobius in Scip. 1.6.65). Alexander Sophistes Gen.Hom. 1.3–4 Jouanna καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄρρην ποιεῖται τὴν πλάσιν διὰ ἡμερῶν τριάκοντα, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ διὰ τεσσαράκοντα δύο. Aristotle GA 4.6 775a4–15 γίγνεται δὲ ἀνάπηρα μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ ἄρρενα τῶν θηλέων, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις οὐθὲν μᾶλλον. αἴτιον δ᾽ ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πολὺ διαφέρει τὸ ἄρρεν τοῦ θήλεος τῇ θερμότητι τῆς φύσεως, διὸ κινητικώτερά ἐστι κυούμενα τὰ ἄρρενα τῶν θηλέων· … διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ ταύτην αἰτίαν καὶ τελειοῦται τὰ θήλεα τοῖς ἄρρεσιν οὐχ ὁμοίως· ⟨αἱ γὰρ ὑστέραι αὐτῶν οὐχ ὁμοίως ἕχουσιν· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις ὁμοίως τελειοῦται· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὑστερεῖ τὰ θήλεα τῶν ἄρρενων ὥσπερ suppl. Peck⟩ ἐν δὲ ταῖς γυναιξίν· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῇ μητρὶ ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ διακρίνεται τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος, ἐξελθοῦσι (prop. Peck) δὲ πάντα πρότερον ἐπιτελεῖται οἷον ἥβη καὶ ἀκμὴ καὶ γῆρας τοῖς θήλεσιν ἢ τοῖς ἄρρεσιν· ἀσθενέστερα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ψυχρότερα τὰ θήλεα τὴν φύσιν … HA 7.3 583b2–23 Balme ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἀρρένων ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ἐν τῷ δεξιῷ μᾶλλον περὶ τὰς τετταράκοντα γίνεται ἡ κίνησις, τῶν δὲ θηλειῶν ἐν τῷ ἀριστερῷ περὶ ἐνενήκονθ᾽ ἡμέρας. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἀκρίβειάν γε τούτων οὐδεμίαν ὑποληπτέον· πολλαῖς γὰρ θηλυτοκούσαις ἡ κίνησις ἐν τῷ δεξιῷ γίνεται, καὶ ταῖς ἐν τῷ ἀριστερῷ ἄρρεν· ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα διαφέρει ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ καὶ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. … τὸ μὲν οὖν ἄρρεν ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τετταρακοσταῖον … τά τε μέρη δῆλα τά τε ἄλλα πάντα καὶ τὸ αἰδοῖον καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων μέγιστοι. τὸ δὲ θῆλυ, ὅ τι μὲν ἂν διαφθαρῇ ἐντὸς τῶν τριῶν μηνῶν, ἀδιάρθρωτον ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ φαίνεται· ὅ τι δ᾽ ἂν ἐπιλάβῃ τοῦ τετάρτου μηνός, γίνεται ἐσχισμένον καὶ διὰ ταχέων λαμβάνει τὴν ἄλλην διάρθρωσιν. ἕως μὲν οὖν πᾶσαν τὴν τελείωσιν τῶν μορίων βραδύτερον ἀπολαμβάνει τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος, καὶ δεκάμηνα γίνεται μᾶλλον τῶν ἀρρένων (cf. ch. 5.18) … Damastes Περὶ τῶν γονίμων καὶ τελειουμένων see above, ch. 5.18 E(b) General texts. Pliny Nat. 7.6.41 melior color marem ferenti et facilior partus, motus in utero quadragensimo die. contraria omnia in altero sexu, ingestabile onus, crurum et inguinis levis tumor, primus autem XC die motus. Chapter heading: cf. Athenaeus of Attaleia Περὶ διαμορφώσεως cited below. §1 Empedocles: Athenaeus of Attaleia at Orib. Coll.med. libr.inc. 16, CMG 6.2.2, p. 105.25–106.7 Raeder Ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηναίου. Περὶ διαμορφώσεως. ἡ δὲ πρώτη

liber 5 caput 21 διαμόρφωσις τῶν ἐμβρύων διασημαίνει περὶ τὰς τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας· ἕως μὲν γὰρ θʹ ἡμερῶν οἷον γραμμαί τινες αἱματώδεις ὑποφέρονται· περὶ δὲ τὰς ὀκτωκαίδεκα θρόμβοι σαρκώδεις καὶ ἰνώδη τινὰ διασημαίνεται, καὶ σφυγμὸς ἐν αὐτοῖς εὑρίσκεται ὁ τῆς καρδίας. περὶ δὲ τὰς τρεῖς ἐννεάδας, ὥς φησιν ὁ Διοκλῆς (fr. 44 Van der Eijk), ἐν ὑμένι μυξώδει γίνεται φανερῶς ἀμυδρὸς ὁ τύπος τῆς ῥάχεως καὶ ὁ τῆς κεφαλῆς. περὶ δὲ τὰς τέσσαρας ἐννεάδας ὁρᾶται πρῶτον διακεκριμένον ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ἢ τὸ τελευταῖον, μιᾶς προστεθείσης τετράδος, περὶ τὴν τεσσαρακοντάδα. συμφωνεῖ δὲ τοῖς χρόνοις τῆς παντελοῦς τῶν ἐμβρύων διακρίσεως καὶ ὁ φυσικὸς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31Α83 DK), καί φησιν ὅτι θᾶσσον διαμορφοῦται τὸ ἄρρεν τοῦ θήλεος, καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς τῶν ἐν τοῖς εὐωνύμοις. Theon of Smyrna Exp. p. 104.1–5 Hiller αἵ τε αὐξήσεις καθ᾽ ἑβδομάδα. τὸ γοῦν βρέφος δοκεῖ τελειοῦσθαι ἐν ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάσιν, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B153a DK) αἰνίττεται ἐν τοῖς Καθαρμοῖς. ἔνιοι δέ φασι τὰ ἄρρενα ἐν πέντε ἑβδομάσι τελειοῦσθαι, γόνιμα δὲ γίνεσθαι ἐν ἑπτὰ μησί, γενόμενα δὲ ἐν ἑπτὰ μησὶν … cf. Proclus in Resp. 2.34.28–35.4 (31B69 DK, continuation of text cited on A 5.18.1) τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἑπταμήνων ὁ πρῶτος ἀριθμὸς ὁ λεʹ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ἐστιν ϛʹ ηʹ θʹ ιβʹ, ὧν οἱ ἄκροι τὸν διπλάσιον ἔχουσιν λόγον καὶ τὴν διὰ πασῶν· τῶν δὲ ἐννεαμήνων ὁ πρῶτος ἀριθμὸς ἐν ἀριθμοῖς συμφώνοις ϛʹ θʹ ιβʹ ιηʹ, ὧν οἱ ἄκροι τριπλάσιον ἔχουσιν λόγον. μεταξὺ δὲ τούτων σύμφωνος ἄλλος οὐκ ἔστι λόγος, ὥστ᾽ εἰκότως συμφωνίας οὐκ οὔσης ἄγονα τὰ ὀκτάμηνα. §2 Asclepiades: see General texts above. cf. also Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 10 7, p. 510.19–22 Littré (cited by Porphyry ad Gaur. 2.2) ὅταν δὲ δὴ τὰ ἄκρα τοῦ σώματος τοῦ παιδίου ὀζωθῇ ἔξω, καὶ οἱ ὄνυχες καὶ αἱ τρίχες ῥιζώθέωσαν, τότε δὴ καὶ κινέεται, καὶ ὁ χρόνος ἐς τοῦτο γίνεται τῷ μὲν ἄρσενι τρεῖς μῆνες, τῇ δὲ θηλείῃ τέσσαρες· ὧδε γὰρ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον συμβαίνει· ἔστι δ᾽ ἃ καὶ πρόσθεν τῶν παιδίων τούτου τοῦ χρόνου κινέεται. similarly Vict. 1.26.2, p. 6.498.16–20 Littré οὐκ ἐν ἴσῳ δὲ χρόνῳ πάντα (sc. in the development of the fetus) διακοσμέεται, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν θᾶσσον, τὰ δὲ βραδύτερον, ὅκως ἂν καὶ τοῦ πυρὸς ἕκαστα τύχῃ καὶ τῆς τροφῆς· τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐν τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρῃσιν ἴσχει πάντα φανερὰ, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν δύο μησὶ, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τρισὶ, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τετραμήνῳ.

1967

Liber 5 Caput 22 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 909B–C; p. 434a1–15 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 126; p. 645.23–646.3 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 238–239 Daiber SL: ms. Stobaei, titulus solus verisim. ex P interpolatus; cf. Elter (1880) 75, Wachsmuth (1882) 77.

Titulus κβʹ. Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων (P) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς μὲν σάρκας γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ τῶν ἴσων τῇ κράσει τεττάρων στοιχείων· τὰ δὲ νεῦρα ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ γῆς ὕδατι διπλασίονι μιχθέντων· τοὺς δ᾽ ὄνυχας τοῖς ζῴοις γεννᾶσθαι τῶν νεύρων καθ᾽ ὃ τῷ ἀέρι συνέτυχε περιψυχθέντων· ὀστᾶ δὲ ἐκ δυεῖν μὲν ὕδατος καὶ τῶν ἴσων γῆς, τεττάρων δὲ πυρὸς, ⟨ἔσω γῆς⟩ τούτων συγκραθέντων μερῶν· ἱδρῶτα δὲ καὶ δάκρυον γίνεσθαι τοῦ αἵματος τηκομένου καὶ παρὰ τὸ λεπτύνεσθαι διαχεομένου. (P1) §1 Empedocles 31A78 DK titulus συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον PB : στοιχείων ante συνίσταται PG : συνίσταται post ἕκαστον SL-ind ‖ γενικῶν PBQSL : om. PG ‖ [2] μορίων] μερῶν SL §1 [3] γεννᾶσθαι PB, cf. erzeugt wird Q : γίγνεσθαι PG ‖ τῶν ἴσων coni. Wyttenbach edd., gleichmässig Q, τῆς ἰσοκρατείας PG (emend. Diels) : τῶν ἔσω PB(I,III) prob. Vítek : τῶν αἱμάτων PB(II) ‖ [4] ante τεττάρων add. PG τῶν ‖ ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ γῆς PGQ Diels : πυρὸς γῆς PB ‖ [4–5] ὕδατι διπλασίονι μιχθέντων Bernadakis Diels VS Primavesi R2 Laks–Most, cf. ὕδατος διπλασίονι μιχθέντων PG (emend. Diels) : τὰ διπλασίονα (coni. ⟨κα⟩τὰ διπλάσιον Mau Lachenaud) ἐμμιχθέντα PB : in welcher (sc. Mischung) von der Erde das Doppelte dessen vorhanden ist, was in ihr vom Feuer da ist Q ‖ [5] γεννᾶσθαι PB, cf. werden … erzeugt Q : γίγνεσθαι PG (qui post ὄνυχας pon.) ‖ ante τῶν νεύρων hab. PG ἐκ, cf. aus den Nerven erzeugt Q ‖ [6] περιψυχθέντων PB(I,III) : περιψυγέντων PB(II) : ψυχθέντων PG ‖ [6–7] ὀστᾶ … μερῶν om. PG ‖ [6] ἐκ δυεῖν PQ (aus zwei Teilen Wasser Q), iam coni. Wyttenbach (sine ἐκ), etiam Diels Vítek Primavesi R2 : δοκεῖ PB, crucif. Mau ‖ [6–7] τῶν ἴσων γῆς PQ (ebenso [viel] an Erde Q) Diels DG (καὶ γῆς Diels VS, DK Primavesi R2) : τῆς ἔσω γῆς PB Vítek ‖ [7] ἔσω γῆς (cf. PB l.[7 Mau]) ante τούτων coni. Diels VS prob. Primavesi R2 non prob. Laks–Most : γῆς PB Vítek, crucif. Diels DG Lachenaud, ⟨καὶ⟩ γῆς coni. Mau ‖ τούτων PB Diels Primavesi R2 : τοσούτων coni. Wyttenbach Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most ‖ [8] δὲ PG Diels : om. PB Laks–Most ‖ [8–9] τοῦ αἵματος τηκομένου … διαχεομένου rest. Diels conl. PG Laks–Most (sed τηκομένου τοῦ αἵματος … mavult Primavesi ex PG, cf. PQ (werden aus der Auflösung des Blutes erzeugt und infolge seines Fließens wegen der Dünnheit, welche sich bei ihm durch die Auflösung einstellt Q) : τοῦ σωματικοῦ οὕτως et lac. PB Vítek, crucif. Mau Lachenaud

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 126 (~ tit.) Ἐκ ποίων στοιχείων συνίσταται ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν μορίων (text Diels) © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_147

5

liber 5 caput 22

1969

126.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς μὲν σάρκας γίγνεσθαι τῇ ἰσοκρατείᾳ τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων. τὰ δὲ νεῦρα ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ γῆς ὕδατος διπλασίων μιχθέντων. τοὺς δὲ ὄνυχας γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ζῴοις ἐκ τῶν νεύρων, καθ᾽ ὃ τῷ ἀέρι συνέτυχε ψυχθέντων τῶν λοιπῶν στοιχείων. ἱδρῶτα δὲ καὶ δάκρυον γίνεσθαι τηκομένου τοῦ αἵματος καὶ παρὰ τὸ λεπτύνεσθαι διαχεομένου. Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. 2.6 Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός, et in marg. PB(III:α) πόθεν ἄρχεται ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐκ ποίων στοιχείων. titulus 5.17 in SL ἀπὸ ποίου ἄρχεται μορίου μορφοῦσθαι το ἔμβρυον. §1 Α 1.3.19 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Μέτωνος Ἀκραγαντῖνος τέσσαρα μὲν λέγει στοιχεῖα, πῦρ ἀέρα ὕδωρ γῆν, δύο δ᾽ ἀρχικὰς δυνάμεις, φιλίαν τε καὶ νεῖκος· ὧν ἡ μέν ἐστιν ἑνωτικὴ τὸ δὲ διαιρετικόν. A 5.19.6 … τὰς δὲ τετάρτας (sc. γενέσεις τῶν ζῴων) οὐκέτι ἐκ τῶν στοιχεῖων, οἷον ἐκ γῆς καὶ ὕδατος, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀλλήλων ἤδη …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The single doxa is preserved in the three witnesses to the P tradition, PB, Q and G (slightly abridged). For the evidence in S see section C below. The text as found in PB is in terrible shape, but can be reconstructed with a fair degree of probability with the assistance of Q and G. See the further comments below in section D(d). The archetype from which the Byzantine mss. of P derived must have suffered considerable corruption towards its end. The chapters from now onwards give rise to many textual problems and, in the almost total absence of S, the means of correcting them through the assistance of other witnesses is limited. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are no treatments of this subject in the authors of the proximate tradition whose writings we have regularly cited for Book 5 (including Censorinus and ps.Galen Def.Med). On the medical doxography of the Anonymus Londiniensis see our discussion below under section B(b). (2) Sources. The formulation and treatment of the subject appear to derive from the Peripatetic tradition. The composition of the parts of the bodies of living beings, including humans, is discussed in both Aristotle’s De partibus animalium and his De generatione animalium (but in the latter only in relation to embryonic development). In both works the Stagirite is very conscious

1970

liber 5 caput 22

of his Presocratic predecessors, and in particular Empedocles and Democritus. In a passage at PA 1.1 640b4–29 (text below section E(b)§1) he states that the ἀρχαῖοι καὶ πρῶτοι who philosophised about nature were occupied with discovering the material principle and how the universe was formed out of it, and also what set the process in motion in the assumption that the underlying material by necessity had a definite nature, e.g. fire was hot and earth was cold. The bodies of humans and other animals are said to be composed of such substances (note how implicitly Aristotle moves from the macrocosm to the microcosm here). However, he goes on to say, it is necessary to take into account parts such as flesh and bone and blood, and in order to describe them one must include discussion of the shape and form (ἰδέα). A few pages later in the same chapter (PA 1.1 642a18–22, text also below) he pays Empedocles a back-handed compliment by saying that when discussing the composition of bone, even he had to talk of its structure (λόγος) and not only of the elements out of which it was composed. He himself recognizes that the four prime elements play a role in the composition of bodily parts, but prefers to speak of δυνάμεις such as the moist and dry etc. rather than στοιχεῖα. In the De anima too Aristotle criticizes Empedocles’ theory of elemental mixture in relation to the nature of the soul, using the examples of flesh and bone (1.4 408a13–20, 1.5 409b30–410a6, texts below section E(b)§1). Some of the original passages on which these descriptions of Empedocles’ doctrine—and also the report found in A’s lemma—are based are preserved by Simplicius (31B96, 98 DK; texts below ibid.). But we need to take into account an earlier highly influential account of the origin and composition of the human body and its parts. When Plato in the Timaeus describes the origin of bone, flesh and sinews in 73b–74e, he gives the elements a prominent role, starting with the composition of the marrow which is mixed from the finest examples of the four different kinds. It is generally recognized that Plato’s account must be read against the background of fifth cent. scientific and medical ideas, and that he was at least partly indebted to Empedoclean ideas in describing the structure of the human frame and its fleshly covering; cf. already Taylor (1928) 523–526. Plato’s account of the human body and its diseases plays a dominant role in the earliest medical doxography that we possess, the Iatrika of the text of an unknown author dubbed the Anonymus Londiniensis. This quite long papyrus text of 39 columns was first edited by Diels (1893a) and has been recently brilliantly re-edited by Daniela Manetti (2011; see also her analysis of the work, 1999). The central part of the text is taken up by a long doxography on the causes of diseases with twenty name-labels, the first part of which is devoted to theories based on the residues (περιττώματα) of digestion, and the second part to theories focusing on the constitutive elements (στοιχεῖα) of the body. The lat-

liber 5 caput 22

1971

ter section commences with a very long analysis of Plato’s doctrine, followed by shorter accounts on the views of five other theorists, including Philolaus and Polybus (cf. ch. 5.18) but not Empedocles and Democritus. In each case the author briefly outlines their views on the role of the elements and the accompanying powers (δυνάμεις) before turning to their explanations of diseases. As can be readily seen in the selection of passages cited below at section E(a) General texts, there is a frequent use of the two main opening formulas found in A (συνιστάναι ἐκ and γεννᾶσθαι). In the explanation of the role of the elements the reports do not focus on their direct relation to the formation of bodily parts to the extent that we find it in our chapter, but they feature frequently in the aetiology of disease. On the basis of her research Manetti argues that the papyrus is an ‘autographous text’, in which the author makes use of material from a medical work entitled Ἰατρικὴ συναγωγή circulating in the time of Galen under the name of Aristotle, though it was assumed at that time that it had been written by his pupil Meno. We cannot be certain that this work was written by him or by a later editor of Peripatetic material (see Manetti 1999, 97–99). The possibility that the original author of the doxography was working in tandem with Theophrastus and others in the early Peripatetic period cannot be excluded and that there may thus be a link with what remains of the doxography on this topic in A. Manetti has demonstrated in the above-cited article that the methodology of the work is dialectical, just as is the case for the Placita. An echo of Aristotle’s critique is found in ch. 7 of Galen’s treatise De constitutione artis medicae. For the student, after having learnt from anatomy what all the parts of the body are, the task is then to learn of these what the primary and simplest parts are by nature. Taking flesh as an example, it is impossible for its primary part of be of a single kind, such as the atomists posit, or to consist of the four unchangeable elements as Empedocles wished. Galen uses hypothetical syllogisms to demonstrate his case. If flesh consists of impassible elements, then it cannot feel pain; but it does feel pain, so its constituent elements cannot be impassible, i.e. the elementary bodies as postulated by the atomists or Empedocles. See text cited below section E(b)§1. C Chapter Heading The formulation of the chapter heading with ἐκ is unique in the Placita (unless we take into account the alternative heading noted in the margin of 2.6 in ms. PB(IΙΙ:α) (Ambr. 859), πόθεν ἄρχεται ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐκ ποίων στοιχείων). The elements are mentioned in a chapter heading elsewhere only in ch. 2.6 on the generation of the universe (not including ch. 1.2 which relates to first principles). There are, however, three chapters which speak of how something is ‘composed’ (συνέ-

1972

liber 5 caput 22

στηκε vel sim.), namely 1.4 (cosmos), 2.13 (heavenly bodies), 3.16 (sea). Certainly the relation of macrocosm and microcosm plays a role in the background here. The term ποίων in the heading points to a quaestio in the category of quality, but the subject of elements means that quantity also comes into the picture, as we see in l. 4. The same heading (but with μερῶν instead of μορίων) is found in the listing in the Laurentian ms. of S, but Elter (1880) 74 is no doubt correct in postulating that it has been interpolated from P. This means there is no certainty that S included material from this chapter in his ch. 43 on the generation of living beings. On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. A possible very slight clue to the direct influence of the Aristotelian texts discussed above in section B is the use of the word ἕκαστον in the chapter heading. It occurs but rarely in the Placita (an example at A 2.13.14 on ‘each of the heavenly bodies’) and never elsewhere in a chapter heading. Aristotle’s formulation at GA 2.6 745b21 which speaks about how ‘each of the parts are composed’ (ἕκαστον συνίσταται τῶν μορίων) is highly reminiscent of the expression used in the heading of this chapter. This may well not be a coincidence. D Analysis a Context Although the chapter heading speaks of ‘in us’ and not ‘in the womb’, as in the previous chapter, its subject can be seen as continuing the subjects discussed in the embryological chapters 14–18 and 21, since both the developed embryo and the mature human being have for the most part the same bodily parts. It is worth noting that the final doxa in the previous chapter 5.21 speaks both of μόρια (in relation to human males) and στοιχεῖα (in relation to the irrational animals). b Number–Order of Lemmata The single lemma would appear to point to a considerably abridged chapter. But see also the comments in the following sub-section. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The single Empedoclean doxa gives the elemental composition of six parts of the human body—flesh, sinews, nails, bones, sweat and tears. The first four consist of the four primary elements only; the last two are derived from blood (for its composition, an even mixture of the four elements see Theophr. Sens. 10 = 31A86 DK). The details have clearly been derived from Empedocles’ poem, though in a somewhat literal and mechanical way. The two verbatim quotes from this part of the poem (31B96 and B98 DK) speak of bones, blood and flesh

liber 5 caput 22

1973

with reference to the elements (which are given theophoric names), but the texts do not form the immediate basis of the doxographical report. The incomplete evidence gives rise to a conundrum. On the one hand it seems almost as if the chapter with its heading has been tailor-made to accommodate the doxa of Empedocles, since, as we saw, later philosophers such as Aristotle scarcely speak in such ‘elemental’ terms about the bodily parts. On the other hand, the method of the Placita scarcely admits a single doxa which is not contrasted with other views. A possible inclusion in this chapter may have been a Platonic doxa based on the Timaeus. It remains likely, however, that the doxai would have for the most part presented Presocratic views, such as is the case for preceding chapters 5.19–21. The relation between macrocosm and microcosm that we observed in the background of this chapter above in sections B and C deserves further consideration. It is implicit in the treatment of the elements in both Plato’s Timaeus and in Aristotle’s biological works. It is also present in the macro-structure of the Placita (already noted at M–R 2.40). When the author moves to the ἀποτελέσματα in the preface to Book 2, he sees various parallels in the questions that can be asked of the heavenly bodies (and also some features of the earth) and of τὰ κατὰ μέρος (introduced in the proem of Book 4), mainly the living beings and plants present on the earth. We noted above the language of ‘composition’ in various chapter headings: the introductory ch. 1.4, then 2.13 (cf. also 2.6), 3.16, now 5.22. This language is undeniably used by Aristotle. Aside from the terminology of ‘composition’ noted above, he speaks at PA 1.1 640b11 of the philosophers ‘generating’ the cosmos, the same verb (γεννάω) used in ch. 5.22 of Empedocles ‘generating’ flesh from the elements. As noted above in section B, this language is also found in the Anonymus Londiniensis. The intriguing question is whether we have to do with Aristotelian influence exerted on the early Placita tradition, perhaps via Theophrastus, as we think likely, or whether it is the result of later developments resulting from the revival of interest in Platonism and the Timaeus in the first cent. bce. A similar question can be asked of the use of the term κοσμοποιεῖν in the chapter heading of 2.6; see our Commentary D(e) ad loc. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 As noted above in section A, the text of the Empedocles doxa as it is found in PB is highly corrupt but can be reconstructed with a fair degree of probability with the assistance of Q and G. Our text is in general agreement with that of Primavesi in his text in the Reclam edition, which takes over various suggestions by previous editors but goes further in making use of the evidence of

1974

liber 5 caput 22

G and Q. It would be possible to go even further in taking over readings from G, e.g. for the fleshy parts in l. 1–2 ⟨ἐκ⟩ τῆς ἰσοκρατείας τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων and for the tendons in l. 2–3 ὕδατος διπλασίονι μιχθέντων, but in the absence of clear support from Q we have not done this. Other recent editors such as Mau, Lachenaud, Vítek, and Laks–Most have been far too conservative in not emending the hopeless text in PB when the assistance of Q and G is available. e Other Evidence It is quite remarkable that a doxa attributed to Empedocles appears in every chapter of 5.18–28 except 5.21 and 5.24, a total of nine doxai in all (six of them stand first in the chapter or are the only doxa that remains). The only parallel for all these doxai in Censorinus is his view on seven-month-olds cited in ch. 7.2. The doxai are based on a ‘doctrinal’ reading of his poem, as is clear from the doxa in the present chapter. How can we explain this extraordinary predilection for the Presocratic poet? To start with, P must have favoured his doxai as shown by the fact that they survived the process of epitomization so remarkably well. Going back a step further, it is likely that A introduced much Empedoclean material. He may have been attracted to doing so because the poet was thought to be a Pythagorean; see for example Theophrastus Phys.Op. fr. 3 Diels, FHS&G 227A; Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.54; Hippolytus Ref. 6.26.2–3. But from where did he obtain it? There are at least three possibilities: (i) from a direct reading of the poems; (ii) from a summary of Empedoclean doctrine which he divided into doxai and inserted in the various chapters; (iii) from an anterior source which had already included much Empedoclean material that he himself rearranged to suit his own purposes. We know far too little about how A compiled his work, but the third alternative seems to us the most likely. It is worth recalling that Empedocles was already an important source for Lucretius, but in his case he will certainly have read the original, as well as drawing on secondary treatments. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. xiv.6–16 Manetti ἴ[δ]ωμεν δὲ καὶ | τ[οὺς ἀπὸ τῆς φύσε]ως τ[ῶν σω]μάτων καὶ | δια[θέσεως αἰ]τιολ[ο]γοῦντας τὰς | νόσ[ους καὶ τοὺ]ς ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν στοιχείων | συσ[τάσε]ως οἰομένους συνεστ⟨άν⟩αι τὰ | ἡμέ[τερ]α σώματα. καὶ πρῶτον ἀπὸ | Πλά[τω]νος. [ο]ὗτος γάρ φησιν τὰ ἡμέ- | τερα [σώματα συ]νεστάναι ἐκ τῶν | τεσσά[ρω]ν στοιχείων [κα]τὰ [σ]ύ[μφθ]αρσιν ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἐν κόσ- | μωι γ̣ίνεται […]α. διαφέρειν δὲ ταῦτα· | σύμφθ[αρσιν], μῖξιν, κρᾶσιν. … Iatr. col. xviii.7–15 καὶ ἡ μὲν τοῦ Πλάτωνος | δόξα πε[ρὶ νόσω]ν ἐν τούτοις. Φιλόλαος | δὲ ὁ Κροτ[ωνιά]της συνεστάναι φησὶν τὰ ἡμέ- | τερα σώμ[ατα ἐκ] θερμοῦ. ἀμέτοχα γὰρ αὐτὰ εἶναι | ψυχροῦ, [ὑπομι]μνήσκων ἀπό τινων τοιούτων· |

liber 5 caput 22 τὸ σπέρμ[α εἶναι θερ]μόν, κατασκευαστικὸν δὲ | τοῦτο τ[οῦ ζῴο]υ· καὶ ὁ τόπος δέ, εἰς ὃν | ἡ καταβολ[ή—μήτρ]α δὲ αὕτη—ἐστὶν θερμοτέρα | καὶ ἐοικ[υῖα ἐκ]είνωι· … Iatr. col. xix.1–11 [… ὁ δὲ] | Πόλυβος ἐξ ἑνὸς μ[ὲν στοιχείου οὐ λέγει] | τὰ ἡμέτερα σώμ[ατα συνεστάναι ἀλλὰ πολλῶν τὴν] | αὐτὴν φύσιν ἐχόν[των—ἐξ ὑγροῦ τε καὶ ξηροῦ,] | ψυχροῦ τε καὶ θερμ[οῦ—, οὐ χωρὶς ὄντων τ]ούτων | ἀλλὰ κεκραμένων αὐ[τῶν μετρίως, ὑπερ-] | βαλὸν δὲ θάτερον θατ[έρου, νόσοους ἀπο-] | τελεῖν. δευτέρ[ον δὲ λέγει τὴν | τῶν σωμάτων μί[ξιν ἀπὸ αἵματός τε] καὶ φλέγματος καὶ χ[ολῆς ξανθῆς τε] | καὶ μελαίνης. … Iatr. col. xix.18–26 Μενεκράτ[η]ς δὲ ὁ Ζε[ὺ]ς ἐπι- | κληθεὶς ἐν Ἰατρικῆι δ[ε]ῖξίν τι[ν]α τῶν | σωμάτων ἐκτιθέμενος οὕτως αἰτιολογεῖ | τὰ πάθη, πρότερον περὶ τῶν πο[ιοτ]ή[τ]ων | πολυπραγμονῶν τῶν σωμάτων, συνεστάναι γ[ὰρ] | λέγει τὰ σώματα ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων | στοιχείων, βʹ μὲν θερμῶν, βʹ δὲ ψυχρῶν· | θερμῶν μὲν αἵματος χολῆς, ψυχρῶν | δὲ πνεύματος [κ]αὶ φλέγματος. … Iatr. col. xx.1 ὁ δὲ Αἰ[γινήτης] | Πέτρων συνεστάναι φησὶν τὰ ἡ[μέτερα] | σώματα ἐκ δισσ[ῶ]ν στοιχείων, ψυ[χροῦ] | τε καὶ θερμοῦ, ἑκατέρωι δὲ τούτ[ων] | ἀπολείπει τι ἀντίστοιχον, τῶι μ[ὲν] | θερμῶι τὸ ξηρόν, τῶι δὲ ψυχρῶι [τὸ ὑγρόν.] | καὶ ἐκ μὲν δὴ τούτων συνεστάναι τὰ σώ[ματα.] … Iatr. col. xx.25–30 Φιλιστίων δ᾽ οἴεται ἐκ δʹ ἰδεῶν συνεστά- | ναι ἡμᾶς, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐκ δʹ στοιχείων· πυρός, | ἀέρος, ὕδατος, γῆς. εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἑκάστου δυνάμεις | τοῦ μὲν πυρὸς τὸ θερμόν, τοῦ δὲ ἀέρος | τὸ ψυχρόν, τοῦ δὲ ὕδατος τὸ ὑγρόν, | τῆς δὲ γῆς τὸ ξηρόν. Chapter heading: —

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: cf. Aristotle PA 1.1 640a10–12 δεῖ δὲ μὴ λεληθέναι καὶ πότερον προσήκει λέγειν, ὥσπερ οἱ πρότερον ἐποιοῦντο τὴν θεωρίαν, πῶς ἕκαστον γίγνεσθαι πέφυκε μᾶλλον ἢ πῶς ἔστιν. οὐ γάρ τι μικρὸν διαφέρει τοῦτο ἐκείνου. 2.1 646a12–15 τριῶν δ᾽ οὐσῶν τῶν συνθέσεων πρώτην μὲν ἄν τις θείη τὴν ἐκ τῶν καλουμένων ὑπό τινων στοιχείων, οἷον γῆς ἀέρος ὕδατος πυρός. ἔτι δὲ βέλτιον ἴσως ἐκ τῶν δυνάμεων λέγειν … (similar remarks at GA 1.1 715a9–11). see also GA 2.6 745b21–22 πῶς μὲν οὖν ἕκαστον συνίσταται τῶν μορίων εἴρηται, καὶ τί τῆς γενέσεως αἴτιον. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle PA 1.1 640a11 πῶς ἕκαστον γίγνεσθαι πέφυκε. GA 2.6 745b21 πῶς μὲν οὖν ἕκαστον συνίσταται τῶν μορίων εἴρηται. §1 Empedocles: Empedocles fr. 31B96 at Simp. in Phys. 300.19–26 καὶ γὰρ λόγῳ τινὶ ποιεῖ σάρκας καὶ ὀστοῦν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον. λέγει γοῦν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν· ‘ἡ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος ἐν εὐστέρνοις χοάνοισι / τὼ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων λάχε Νήστιδος αἴγλης, / τέσσαρα δ᾽ Ἡφαίστοιο· τὰ δ᾽ ὀστέα λευκὰ γένοντο / Ἁρμονίης κόλληισιν ἀρηρότα θεσπεσίηθεν.’ τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τῶν θείων αἰτίων καὶ μάλιστα τῆς Φιλίας ἤτοι Ἁρμονίας· ταῖς γὰρ ταύτης κόλλαις ἁρμόζεται. fr. 31B98 at Simp. in Phys. 331.3–9 (lines also quoted at 32.6–10) καὶ τὰ μόρια τῶν ζῴων ἀπὸ τύχης γενέσθαι τὰ πλεῖστά φησιν ὡς ὅταν λέγῃ ‘ἡ δὲ χθὼν τούτοισιν ἴση συνέκυρσε μάλιστα, / Ἡφαίστωι τ᾽ ὄμβρωι τε καὶ αἰθέρι παμφανόωντι, / Κύπριδος ὁρμισθεῖσα τελείοις ἐν λιμένεσσιν, / εἴτ᾽ ὀλίγον μείζων εἴτε πλεόνεσσιν ἐλάσσων·/ ἐκ τῶν αἷμά τε γέντο καὶ ἄλλης εἴδεα σαρκός.’ Plato Tim. 73b–c τὸ δὲ ὀστῶν καὶ σαρκῶν καὶ τῆς τοιαύτης φύσεως πέρι πάσης ὧδε ἔσχεν. τούτοις σύμπασιν ἀρχὴ μὲν ἡ τοῦ μυελοῦ γένεσις· οἱ γὰρ τοῦ βίου δεσμοί, τῆς ψυχῆς τῷ σώματι συνδουμένης, ἐν τούτῳ διαδούμενοι κατερρίζουν τὸ θνητὸν γένος· αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ μυελὸς γέγονεν ἐξ ἄλλων. τῶν γὰρ τριγώνων

1975

1976

liber 5 caput 22

ὅσα πρῶτα ἀστραβῆ καὶ λεῖα ὄντα πῦρ τε καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀέρα καὶ γῆν δι᾽ ἀκριβείας μάλιστα ἦν παρασχεῖν δυνατά, ταῦτα ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τῶν ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστα γενῶν χωρὶς (c) ἀποκρίνων, μειγνὺς δὲ ἀλλήλοις σύμμετρα, πανσπερμίαν παντὶ θνητῷ γένει μηχανώμενος, τὸν μυελὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπηργάσατο … Tim. 73e τὸ δὲ ὀστοῦν συνίστησιν ὧδε. γῆν διαττήσας καθαρὰν καὶ λείαν ἐφύρασε καὶ ἔδευσεν μυελῷ, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο εἰς πῦρ αὐτὸ ἐντίθησιν, μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο δὲ εἰς ὕδωρ βάπτει, πάλιν δὲ εἰς πῦρ, αὖθίς τε εἰς ὕδωρ· μεταφέρων δ᾽ οὕτω πολλάκις εἰς ἑκάτερον ὑπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν ἄτηκτον ἀπηργάσατο. … Tim. 74d–e τὴν δὲ τῶν νεύρων φύσιν ἐξ ὀστοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀζύμου κράσεως μίαν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν μέσην δυνάμει συνεκεράσατο, ξανθῷ χρώματι προσχρώμενος. ὅθεν συντονωτέραν μὲν καὶ γλισχροτέραν σαρκῶν, μαλακωτέραν δὲ ὀστῶν ὑγροτέραν τε ἐκτήσατο δύναμιν νεῦρα· οἷς συμπεριλαβὼν ὁ θεὸς ὀστᾶ καὶ μυελόν, δήσας πρὸς ἄλληλα νεύροις, μετὰ ταῦτα σαρξὶν πάντα αὐτὰ κατεσκίασεν ἄνωθεν. Aristotle PA 1.1 640b4–29 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀρχαῖοι καὶ πρῶτοι φιλοσοφήσαντες περὶ φύσεως περὶ τῆς ὑλικῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας ἐσκόπουν … ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν φυτῶν γένεσιν λέγουσιν, οἷον ὅτι ἐν τῷ σώματι ῥέοντος μὲν τοῦ ὕδατος κοιλίαν γενέσθαι καὶ πᾶσαν ὑποδοχὴν τῆς τε τροφῆς καὶ τοῦ περιττώματος, τοῦ δὲ πνεύματος διαπορευθέντος τοὺς μυκτῆρας ἀναρραγῆναι. ὁ δ᾽ ἀὴρ καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ὕλη τῶν σωμάτων ἐστίν· ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων γὰρ σωμάτων συνιστᾶσι τὴν φύσιν πάντες. εἰ δ᾽ ἔστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὰ ζῷα φύσει καὶ τὰ μόρια αὐτῶν, λεκτέον ἂν περὶ σαρκὸς εἴη καὶ ὀστοῦ καὶ αἵματος καὶ τῶν ὁμοιομερῶν ἁπάντων. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀνομοιομερῶν, οἷον προσώπου, χειρός, ποδός, ᾗ τε τοιοῦτον ἕκαστόν ἐστιν αὐτῶν καὶ κατὰ ποίαν δύναμιν. οὐ γὰρ ἱκανὸν τὸ ἐκ τίνων ἐστίν, οἷον πυρὸς ἢ γῆς, ὥσπερ κἂν εἰ περὶ κλίνης ἐλέγομεν ἤ τινος ἄλλου τῶν τοιούτων, ἐπειρώμεθα μᾶλλον ἂν διορίζειν τὸ εἶδος αὐτῆς ἢ τὴν ὕλην, οἷον τὸν χαλκὸν ἢ τὸ ξύλον· εἰ δὲ μή, τήν γε τοῦ συνόλου· κλίνη γὰρ τόδε ἐν τῷδε ἢ τόδε τοιόνδε, ὥστε κἂν περὶ τοῦ σχήματος εἴη λεκτέον, καὶ ποῖον τὴν ἰδέαν. ἡ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν μορφὴν φύσις κυριωτέρα τῆς ὑλικῆς φύσεως. also PA 1.1 642a16–24 ὅτι πάντες οἱ τοῦτο μὴ λέγοντες (sc. about the two modes of causation) οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν περὶ φύσεως λέγουσιν· ἀρχὴ γὰρ ἡ φύσις μᾶλλον τῆς ὕλης ἐνιαχοῦ δέ που αὐτῇ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A78 DK) περιπίπτει, ἀγόμενος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἀναγκάζεται φάναι τὸν λόγον εἶναι, οἷον ὀστοῦν ἀποδιδοὺς τί ἐστιν· οὔτε γὰρ ἕν τι τῶν στοιχείων λέγει αὐτὸ οὔτε δύο ἢ τρία οὔτε πάντα, ἀλλὰ λόγον τῆς μίξεως αὐτῶν. δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι καὶ ἡ σὰρξ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐστί, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων μορίων ἕκαστον. de An. 1.5 409b30–410a6 ἐξ ὧν μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἕκαστον τούτων, ἔστω γινώσκειν τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι· ἀλλὰ τὸ σύνολον τίνι γνωριεῖ ἢ αἰσθήσεται, οἷον τί θεὸς ἢ ἄνθρωπος ἢ σὰρξ ἢ ὀστοῦν; ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὁτιοῦν τῶν συνθέτων· οὐ γὰρ ὁπωσοῦν ἔχοντα τὰ στοιχεῖα τούτων ἕκαστον, ἀλλὰ λόγῳ τινὶ καὶ συνθέσει, καθάπερ φησὶ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B96 DK) τὸ ὀστοῦν·ἡ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος ἐν εὐστέρνοις χοάνοισιν / τὼ δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ μερέων λάχε νήστιδος αἴγλης, / τέσσαρα δ᾽ Ἡφαίστοιο· τὰ δ᾽ ὀστέα λευκὰ γένοντο. cf. also de An. 1.4 408a13–20 (31A78 DK) ὁμοίως δὲ ἄτοπον καὶ τὸ τὸν λόγον τῆς μίξεως εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν· οὐ γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει λόγον ἡ μίξις τῶν στοιχείων καθ᾽ ἣν σὰρξ καὶ καθ᾽ ἣν ὀστοῦν. συμβήσεται οὖν πολλάς τε ψυχὰς ἔχειν καὶ κατὰ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα, εἴπερ πάντα μὲν ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων μεμιγμένων, ὁ δὲ τῆς μίξεως λόγος ἁρμονία καὶ ψυχή. ἀπαιτήσειε δ᾽ ἄν τις τοῦτό γε καὶ παρ᾽ Ἐμπεδοκλέους· ἕκαστον γὰρ αὐτῶν

liber 5 caput 22 λόγῳ τινί φησιν εἶναι. Plutarch Aet.Phys. 917A ἔνιοι δέ φασιν, ὥσπερ γάλακτος ὀρρὸν τοῦ αἵματος ταραχθέντος ἐκκρούεσθαι τὸ δάκρυον, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A78 DK). Galen CAM 7, p. 1.247.17–248.15 K. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ὑπέκειτο περὶ σαρκὸς ποιεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον, ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνης ἐξεταζέσθω. εἰ ἓν ἦν τῷ εἴδει τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς στοιχεῖον, οὐδέποτε ἡ σὰρξ ὀδυνήσεται· ἀλλὰ μὴν ὀδυνᾶται· οὐκ ἄρα ἕν ἐστι τῷ εἴδει τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς στοιχεῖον. ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ καθ᾽ ἕτερον ἐρωτηθήσεται τρόπον. εἰ ἀπαθές ἐστι τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς στοιχεῖον, οὐκ ὀδυνηθήσεται· ἀλλὰ μὴν ὀδυνᾶται· οὐκ ἄρα ἐστὶν ἀπαθές. εἰ δὲ καὶ πλείω λέγοι τις εἶναι τὰ στοιχεῖα, μὴ μέντοι γε ἀλλοιούμενα, καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος ἐρωτηθήσεται κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον. εἰ ἀπαθῆ τῆς σαρκός ἐστι τὰ στοιχεῖα, οὐκ ἀλγήσει· ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀλγεῖ· οὐκ ἄρα ἐστὶν ἀπαθῆ τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς στοιχεῖα. ὁ μὲν οὖν πρότερος λόγος ἀνατρέπει τήν τε τῶν ἀτόμων, καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνόρμων, καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐλαχίστων ὑπόθεσιν. κατὰ δὲ τὸν δεύτερον ἥ τε τῶν ὁμοιομερειῶν ἀναιρεῖται δόξα, καὶ ἡ Ἐμπεδοκλέους (—). καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων βούλεται συνίστασθαι τὰ σώματα, μὴ μεταβαλλόντων εἰς ἄλληλα. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 829.21–28 (on N.6 1092b26–28) ὡς οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ μελικράτου, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν φυσικῶν σωμάτων ῥητέον ψεῦδος εἶναι τὸ λέγειν τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν εἶναι ὡς ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, κἂν ἄλλος τις Πυθαγόρειος οὕτω λέγῃ, βούλεται. ὁ γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φησι τὰ ὀστᾶ καὶ τὸ εὖ αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι, ὅταν ἡ μῖξις τῶν στοιχείων οὑτωσὶ γένηται ὥστε ἔχειν τὸ πῦρ πρὸς τὴν γῆν λόγον ὃν ἄρτιος ἀριθμὸς πρὸς ἄρτιον, τουτέστιν ὃν ὁ δʹ πρὸς τὸν βʹ, καὶ τὸ εὖ τῶν ὀστῶν ἐστι τὸ ἔχειν τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πῦρ καὶ τὴν γῆν, ὃν ἄρτιος ἀριθμὸς πρὸς ἄρτιον. ὅπερ ψεῦδος …

1977

Liber 5 Caput 23 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9 recto, p. 80 Barns–Zilliacus; PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 909C–D; pp. 434a16–435a9 Diels—PG : ps.Galenus HPh c. 127; p. 646.4–10 Diels; pp. 415–423 Jas—PQ : Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 238–239 Daiber SL: ms. Stobaei, titulus solus verisim. ex P interpolatus; cf. Elter (1880) 74–75, Wachsmuth (1882) 77.

Titulus κγʹ. Πότε ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος (P) §1 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ ἄρχεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῆς τελειότητος περὶ τὴν δευτέραν ἑβδομάδα, περὶ ἣν ὁ σπερματικὸς κινεῖται ὀρρός· τὰ γὰρ δένδρα τότε τελειοῦται, ὅταν ἄρχηται γεννᾶν τὰ σπέρματα, ἀτελῆ δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ ἄωρα καὶ ἄκαρπα ὄντα. (P1) §2 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα, καθ᾽ ἣν ἔννοια γίνεται καλῶν τε καὶ αἰσχρῶν καὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἀρχή. (P2) §3 ⟨ἄλλοι⟩ δὲ τελειοῦσθαι ἡμᾶς τῇ τρίτῃ ἑβδομάδι, ὅταν καὶ γένεια σχῶμεν καὶ τῇ ἰσχύι χρώμεθα. (PG3) §1 Heraclitus 22A18 DK; Stoici SVF 2.764; §2 Aristoteles, cf. Pol. 7.17; §3 anonymi, cf. Solon fr. 27.5–6 West, Arist. HA 7.1 582a33–34 titulus Πότε PGSL Diels : Πότε καὶ πῶς PB : Πῶς PQ (wie Q) ‖ ὁ] om. SL-ind ‖ τῆς τελειότητος ante ὁ ἄνθρωπος PG §1 [2] τοὺς ἀνθρώπους PB, cf. der Mensch Q : ἡμᾶς PG ‖ τῆς PB(I)G : om. PB(II,III) ‖ post τελειότητος exhib. PG1Nic φασι, om. PG2 ‖ [3] κινεῖται PG Diels Mau Lachenaud : κρίνεται PB : entsteht Q ‖ ὀρρός PB : ὀρός PB(I-a.c.) : πόρος PG (et ed. Diels, corr. Jas) ‖ [3–4] τὰ γὰρ PBQ(ut vid.) : καὶ τὰ γὰρ PG Diels ‖ [4] τότε τελειοῦται scripsimus, cf. werden dan vollendet Q : τελειοῦται PG : ἄρχεται τότε τελειότητος PB ‖ [4–5] ὅταν … ὄντα PB, cf. wenn sie mit der Erzeugung beginnen. Vorher werden sie nicht vollendet, nicht reif und sind unfruchtbar Q, secl. Diels sed exhib. PP : brevius PG ὅταν ἄρχηται καρπὸν φέρειν ‖ [5] καὶ ἄωρα PB(I,III)Q : ἄγονα PB(II) ‖ ὄντα PB : om. PQ ut vid. ‖ post ὄντα continuat §2 sine nomine Aristotelis PBQ Diels Mau Lachenaud §2 [6] Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ PG : τέλειος οὖν τότε ἄνθρωπος PB, cf. Der Mensch wird … vollendet Q, τελιο̣[ς PP ‖ κατὰ τὴν … καθ᾽ ἣν PG : περὶ τὴν δευτέραν ἑβδομάδα PB, cf. in der zweite Woche seines Lebensalter Q, | ραν [ PP : περὶ … ⟨περὶ ἥν⟩ Marcovich (1966) 121 ‖ [7] καλῶν … αἰσχρῶν PG : καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ PB Marcovich, cf. zum Verständnis des Guten und Bösen Q ‖ καὶ … ἀρχή PG Marcovich : καὶ διδασκαλίας αὐτῶν PB, cf. zu Scharfsinn und Bildung gelangt Q : post αὐτῶν suppl. ex PG ἀρχή Lachenaud §3 lemma deest in PBQ, non hab. Diels DG edd. ‖ [8] ἄλλοι scripsimus : ἕτεροι PG ‖ σχῶμεν PGNic Diels Jas : ἀσκοῦμεν PG2

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_148

5

liber 5 caput 23

1979

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9 recto = P §1 τ̣ελε[ιοτητος οταν αρχηται γενναν τα σπερμα] τα ατ[ελη δε εστι αωρα και ακαρπα οντα] τελιο̣[ς ουν τοτε ανθρωπος περι δε την δευτε] ραν [ 5 ναν̣[ ps.Galenus c. 127 (~ tit.) Πότε ἄρχεται τῆς τελειότητος ὁ ἄνθρωπος (text Jas) 127.1 (~ P1) Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ ἄρχεσθαι ἡμᾶς τῆς τελειότητος φασι περὶ τὴν δευτέραν ἑβδομάδα, περὶ ἣν ὁ σπερματικὸς κινεῖται ὀρός· καὶ γὰρ τὰ δένδρα τελειοῦται, ὅταν ἄρχηται καρπὸν φέρειν. 127.2 (cf. P1) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα, καθ᾽ ἣν ἔννοια γίνεται καλῶν τε καὶ αἰσχρῶν καὶ διδασκαλίας ἀρχή. 127.3 (deest in PBQ) ἕτεροι δὲ νομίζουσι τελειοῦσθαι ἡμᾶς τῇ τρίτῃ ἑβδομάδι, ὅταν καὶ γένεια σχῶμεν καὶ τῇ ἰσχύι χρώμεθα. Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 2.6 Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός (v.l. in marg. πόθεν ἄρχεται ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐκ ποίων στοιχείων); titulus 5.17 in SL ἀπὸ ποίου ἄρχεται μορίου μορφοῦσθαι το ἔμβρυον. Α 1.5.3 (contra Platonem de mundo) οὐδὲ γὰρ ⟨εἰ⟩ πάντα περιέχει· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι τέλειος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα περιέχει. §2 A 4.11[10–15] τῶν δ᾽ ἐννοιῶν αἱ μὲν φυσικῶς γίνονται κατὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους τρόπους καὶ ἀνεπιτεχνήτως, αἱ δ᾽ ἤδη δι᾽ ἡμετέρας διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐπιμελείας· αὗται μὲν οὖν ἔννοιαι καλοῦνται μόνον, ἐκεῖναι δὲ καὶ προλήψεις. ὁ δὲ λόγος, καθ᾽ ὃν προσαγορευόμεθα λογικοί, ἐκ τῶν προλήψεων συμπληροῦσθαι λέγεται κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The only evidence is found in the tradition of P (the heading in SL is most likely interpolated from that tradition, see below, section C). PB and Q record but a single doxa. Most interestingly, however, PG breaks this doxa into two and supplies a name-label for the second part. He then adds an anonymous third doxa to the previous two. Given the poor state of preservation of the P tradition for the final part of Book 5, it is not unlikely that G’s text is superior. But this will have to be confirmed by the analysis below.

1980

liber 5 caput 23

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. For this chapter too the most significant parallel is found in the treatise of Censorinus. The link between hebdomads and the development of human beings is treated, first briefly in ch. 7, then at considerable length in ch. 14 (the latter text not noted by Diels). He gives a doxography of the various schemes, attributing them to Varro (his source), then Hippocrates, Solon and Staseas the Peripatetic. It may be surmised, therefore, that A found his material in the doxographical tradition, though there is little specific evidence in the proximate tradition elsewhere. Tertullian’s reference to the view of the doctor Asclepiades will have been derived from Soranus’ book on the soul, as assumed by Waszink (1947) 433. There is also a strong link to the copious material found on the hebdomad in arithmological literature, which has its own tradition; on this see further Mansfeld (1971) 156–184 and Runia (2001) 278– 281, 301–304. It is significant that an arithmological text in Philo Leg. 1.10 uses the same terminology of ‘completion’ as is found in the heading of A’s chapter and moreover just like A proceeds only to the third hebdomad. See further the discussions in sections C and D(c) below. See also ch. 5.25 Commentary B on Philo’s use of the theme of the ages of life in Cher. 114. (2) Sources. In the anterior sources we have found no exact equivalents for the formulation of the question posed in this chapter. However, a number of parallels in the works of Aristotle indicate that it was raised in the earlier tradition. In HA at the beginning of 7.1 he introduces the subject of the human being’s γένεσις from the womb to old age and emphasizes a little later on the importance of periods of seven years (texts below section E(b)§2). At 582a29 he notes that women are fully ripe for child-bearing at ‘three times seven years’, but men’s reproductive powers still increase after that. In Politics 7.17 1336b38– 1337a3 he mentions the two hebdomadic periods of human life in which education needs to occur, from seven to twenty-one and adds in characteristic fashion that ‘those who divide the ages (sc. of human beings) speak for the most part not badly, but it is necessary to follow the division supplied by nature, for every skill and educative process wishes to supply what nature leaves to be done’. This is a general reference to earlier traditions going back at least to Solon’s famous poem (fr. 27 West) and very likely including Heraclitus. No direct quotation on this topic is extant, but it can hardly be doubted that the Ephesian discussed it, together with his views on human generation (fr. 22A19 DK). C Chapter Heading The witnesses are divided on the first part of the chapter heading. PB records the composite phrase Πότε καὶ πῶς, which is unique in the Placita. The latter interrogative particle asking for the cause is of course common, but surpris-

liber 5 caput 23

1981

ingly the former occurs only here, although there is nothing remarkable about a heading addressing the category of time (cf. 5.21 ἐν πόσῳ χρόνῳ). The other witnesses have only one of the two, PG the former and PQ the latter. However, the text in SL supports reading only Πότε. Since this chapter heading is in all likelihood interpolated from P, it tips the scale in favour of that reading. Moreover it is supported by the contents of the chapter, which do not address the aspect of the cause. As for the remainder of the heading, a text in an arithmological passage in Philo (Leg. 1.10, text below section E(a) General texts) speaks of how a human being (ἄνθρωπος) reaches full maturity (ἄκρως τελειοῦσθαι) at the second hebdomad and then explains this τελείωσις in the following sentence. The phrase in the heading ‘commence maturity’ is perhaps a little unusual. Its meaning becomes clear in the first doxa, where it refers to the time that maturity commences as indicated by the beginning of the production of semen. This is illustrated by the case of plants when they start to bear fruit and so produce seeds. (There are a number of texts in Aristotle’s biological works which use the verb ἄρχεται in relation to the process of human development; see references below in section E(b) Chapter heading.) The only other chapter heading which speaks of the beginning of a process is 2.6, Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός, where one of the manuscripts of P records the alternative πόθεν ἄρχεται ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐκ ποίων στοιχείων. See further our comments ad loc. Finally we note that it is the only chapter heading that explicitly refers to the ‘human being’. The focus of Book 5 on human physiology has already often been noted (see for example our comments on 5.14), but here it is made explicit. As was the case for ch. 5.22, it is very probably that the heading preserved in the pinax located in SL is interpolated from P. There is no further evidence that S included the material from this chapter in his Anthology. On the chapter headings in SL see above, ch. 5.4 Commentary C. D Analysis a Context The subject follows on well from the chapters on embryology and birth in chs. 5.15–19, 21–22 and is the final chapter on the whole process of human reproduction and development. Both ch. 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί and ch. 5.21 Ἐν ποίῳ χρόνῳ μορφοῦται τὰ ζῷα ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὄντα can be considered parallel chapters in the embryological context (note the verb τελειοῦσθαι twice in A 5.21.1–2). The subject is approached primarily from this reproductive context and does not touch on the theme of the ‘ages of humankind’ in general. The next chapter 5.24, however, does move on to the subject of death.

1982

liber 5 caput 23

b Number–Order of Lemmata PB and Q record only a single extended lemma. G divides it into two with two separate name-labels and adds a third. As our analysis below will show, there is a chance that the chapter is complete. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter According to PB and Q the question posed by the chapter heading is given a double answer. The view attributed to Heraclitus and the Stoics is firstly that maturity commences when human beings begin to produce semen at the age of fourteen. The connection between the beginning of human semen production and the double hebdomad is standard in various biological and arithmological texts; see the detailed analysis in Mansfeld (1971) 168–178. Aristotle emphasizes it at the beginning of Book 7 of his Historia animalium, where the comparison with plants is also found (cf. also the Stoic comparison of the embryo’s growth with plants in A 5.15.2). It is also attributed to Hippocrates by the pseudonymous De hebdomadibus and Philo (texts below, section E(a) General texts). On the attribution of the doxa to Heraclitus see section B above. The Stoics pronounced on the question, but they place the emphasis on the development of speech and intellectual skills as couched in the characteristic phrases λόγος προφορικός and λόγος ἐνδιάθετος (cf. 4.11.5, D.L. 7.55, where the verb τελειοῦται is particularly to be noted; cf. our detailed comment on §1 below); see further Mansfeld loc. cit. The arithmological text in Nicomachus seeks to combine various strands in a somewhat confused way and should not be regarded as presenting purely Stoic doctrine. The text in PB and Q next rather pointlessly summarizes the doxa so far with the words τέλειος οὖν τότε ἄνθρωπος, the word τότε being repeated from two lines previously. The final part of the doxa then gives an additional development that takes place at (or in) the second hebdomad, awareness of morality. We have found no parallel for this view in the biological and arithmological literature. The text in G makes much better sense, although no editor (not even Diels) has preferred to take over his version for P (it is included by Marcovich and Mouraviev in their editions of Heraclitus’ fragments). Instead of the brief summarizing sentence cited above he just gives the name-label Ἀριστοτέλης. It is likely in our view that a defective ms. tradition caused the sentence to be substituted for the name, i.e. -τέλης → τέλειος. This is at least as likely as that it occurred the other way around. There are two other arguments in favour of G’s text. The second view focusing on the first hebdomad forms an attractive diaeresis with the earlier view on the second hebdomad, whereas to have two differing doxai on the second hebdomad is somewhat otiose and one might

liber 5 caput 23

1983

expect more than the connecting (or adversative) particle δέ, e.g. ἔτι δέ as at A 1.1.2, 3.5.3. In addition, the doxa aligns well with Aristotle’s discussion in Pol. 7.17 which argues that the process of physical and moral education commences at seven years of age when the child ventures outside the home (see 1336b1). The reading διδασκαλίας ἀρχή is particularly apposite in the light of this text. As was noted above in section B, at 1336b37 he agrees that division into hebdomads corresponds well to the development of young people and that it goes in two stages, from 7 to 14 and from 14 to 21. Education outside the home begins at 7 and includes moral education from the outset; for this interpretation of the passage see Kraut (1997) 166–168. It might seem implausible that maturity should commence at such an early age, but the view is not impossible if the emphasis is placed on the time of commencement, as additionally indicated by the last word in the doxa, ἀρχή. Tertullian’s report, which links maturity with the knowledge of good and evil, as happened to Adam and Eve in paradise, supports the connection with moral education, but it is ascribed to the doctor Asclepiades. On the text of this lemma and the fact that the papyrus does not support G, see below, section D(d)§2. An objection to the above reconstruction of §2 might be the passage at ch. 4.11.1[14–15] in which the view is attributed to the Stoics that the development of the ἡγεμονικόν resulting in the acquisition of logos is completed at the first hebdomad. As we note in our Commentary on that passage (Commentary D(d) General points (3) and on §1[15]), this does not contradict the view here that maturity occurs with the seminal fluid at the second hebdomad, since that concerns logos in the productive sense. The acquisition of logos, of course, enables the instillation of moral education. The fact that this view is here attributed to Aristotle should not concern us too much, given the looseness of A’s application of name-labels, esp. on a more general topic such as this one. G then adds a third doxa, of which no trace remains in PB and Q. But it too makes excellent sense. The identification of maturity with the growth of the beard is taken directly from the already mentioned celebrated poem on the ages of humankind by Solon and is referred to by numerous authors. Aristotle at HA 7.1 582a32–33 mentions it in a biological context, but only for a discussion on human development, not maturity. Philo in an arithmological context defines the attainment of the third hebdomad as the ἀκμή of human development (Leg. 1.10). However, the reference to strength in the final phrase of the doxa is probably taken from Solon’s couplet on the fourth hebdomad and so may involve a conflation on the part of the doxographer or his source. Aristotle in the above-mentioned text indicates that male strength develops further after the third hebdomad.

1984

liber 5 caput 23

If, therefore, the text is based on the version in G with three doxai, the chapter as a whole makes excellent sense, presenting a diaeresis of three views, one for each of the first three periods of seven years in a human life. The first doxa gives the mainstream view, the other two supplementary and divergent positions. Because of this neat composition, it is tempting to think it complete, but this can only be regarded as a surmisal. Censorinus speaks of the views of doctors and philosophers on hebdomads but doctors are missing in our chapter. Tertullian notes the view (no doubt via Soranus) of Asclepiades which is similar to what we read in §2 (text below section E(a)§2). Finally, it should be emphasised that, although this chapter contains numbers in the form of the three hebdomads, its emphasis is firmly biological. The periods of seven years are taken as facts of natural development, as witnessed by the production of semen and the comparison with trees. No explanations in terms of the properties of the number seven, which are prominent in arithmological literature are given and also no comparison with other examples of hebdomads. The comparison with the doxography in Censorinus is instructive. The Latin author affirms that of all the thinkers he has cited, those who measure our human life in hebdomads appear to have come closest to nature (§14.7). But he also, as we just noted, adds a long section on ‘the many facts about these hebdomads which doctors and philosophers have entrusted to their books’ (§14.9). None of this is found in the Placita. Our doxographer is a good pupil of Aristotle, as he indicates at the outset in ch. 1.1; see there our Commentary D(c), esp. (3). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The reading ὀρρός or ὀρός is clearly the lectio difficilior, because it appears to be only used of milk or blood, not semen. For the latter meaning this text is the single instance given by LSJ. It is retained, however, by all editors. G’s πόρος provides an alternative, but may well have arisen from a desire to regularize the text (there is an intriguing parallel at Ptolemy Tetr. 4.10.8, but it relates to a different arithmological schema of decads which aligns the ages of humankind to the seven planets). It is worth noting that the combination οὖν τότε appears nowhere else in PB, which should make us all the more suspicious regarding the short sentence in which it occurs (see above, Analysis D.(c)). The notion of perfection or completeness (τελειότης) which is central to this chapter is often present in arithmological discussions of the hebdomad. It occurs twice in Solon’s poem (lines 3 and 17). Philo uses the poetic epithet τελέσφορος (literally ‘completion-bringer’) of the hebdomad at Opif. 102; note

liber 5 caput 23

1985

too the verb τελειογονεῖσθαι of infants viable in the seventh and ninth month in §124, also used in Plac. 5.17. These terms hints at connections between doxographical and arithmological traditions that are present below the surface, though we cannot be sure of their origin and extent. §2 The discrepancies between PB and G are tricky and it is not possible to establish a text that is in any way certain. Because of our conviction that G supplies the better text, we have taken it over integrally in this lemma. Q is not a support for the primacy of PB, because it clearly depends on the same defective text. But it must be noted that the suggested text is not supported by the papyrus, which clearly reads τέλειος and δευτέραν as in the transmitted by PB and witnessed by Q. So his text would not have contained the name-label Aristotle. But a further complication occurs because the letters ναν̣ that survive of the following line cannot be linked up to PB’s text (Barns 1960, 83 in his notes ingeniously suggests δευτε]|ραν [εννοια γινεται του καλου και του ε]|ναν̣[τιου, but this is only a guess). If G represents P’s (and thus A’s) text, the divergence from the mainstream of P’s transmission must have occurred quite early. Marcovich (1966) in a brief note agrees that we should follow G in including the name-label of Aristotle and emending to πρώτην, but prefers to adhere to P for the preposition περί (twice) and the phrase καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ. §3 If G’s additional doxa is accepted, then we have to remove any tell-tale signs of his modifications. ἔτεροι is not certainly found as an anonymous namelabel in A. At 1.18.3 it is a Stobaean addition, and this may also be the case at 4.3.10. It is safer to emend to ἄλλοι, which is the usual label (cf. 2.32.10, 5.17.6, both with δέ as the final lemma). The reading ἡμὰς also gives rise to doubt because of the substitution that G made in the first lemma (replacing τοὺς ἀνθρώπους). But it must be noted that the inclusion of the first person is common elsewhere (4.17.2, 4.20.2 etc.). It should be retained here because of the first person plurals in the following line. e Other Evidence It has emerged that the themes of this chapter can be traced, to a greater or lesser extent, in other texts, both biological and arithmological. The connections with Solon’s poem and the ps.Hippocratean De hebdomadibus are particularly noteworthy. But two aspects set the treatment in A apart. His specific emphasis on the reaching of maturity is scarcely paralleled (only weakly in Aristotle HA 7.1). In addition, as we previously saw in ch. 5.18, he places no particular emphasis on the special role of the number seven, which is so prominent in the arithmological literature. For him it is merely a useful way of ordering the material and corresponds to common practice in the biological literature.

1986 E a

liber 5 caput 23

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Censorinus 14.1–9 igitur expositis iis, quae ante diem natalem sunt, nunc ut κλιμακτηρικοί anni noscantur, quid de gradibus aetatis humanae sensum sit, dicam. (2) Varro (cf. fr. 107 Salvadore) quinque gradus aetatis aequabiliter putat esse divisos … (3) Hippocrates medicus (Hebd. 5) in septem gradus aetates distribuit. finem primae putavit esse septimum annum, secundae quartum decimum, tertiae duodetricensimum … (4) Solon (fr. 27 West) autem decem partes fecit … (5) Staseas Peripateticus (—) ad has Solonis decem hebdomadas addidit duas … (7) sed ex eis omnibus proxime videntur adcessisse naturam, qui hebdomadibus humanam vitam emensi sunt. fere enim post septimum quemque annum articulos quosdam et in his aliquid novi natura ostendit, ut et in elegia Solonis cognoscere datur. ait enim in prima hebdomade dentes homini cadere, in secunda pubem apparere, in tertia barbam nasci, in quarta vires, in quinta maturitatem ad stirpem reliquendam, in sexta cupiditatibus temperari, in septima prudentiam linguamque consummari, in octava eadem manere—in qua alii dixerunt oculos albescere—in nona omnia fieri languidiora, in decima hominem morti fieri maturum. [lacuna on the first hebdomad] tamen in secunda hebdomade vel incipiente tertia vocem crassiorem et inaequabilem fieri, quod Aristoteles appellat τραγίζειν (HA 7.1 581.19–21, GA 5.7 787b33– 788a1), … (9) praeterea multa sunt de his hebdomadibus, quae medici ac philosophi libris mandaverunt … cf. also 7.1 superest dicere de temporibus, quibus partus soleant esse ad nascendum maturi; qui locus eo mihi cura maiore tractandus est, quod quaedam necesse est de astrologia musicaque et arithmetica attingere … (for the remainder of this chapter that expatiates on the role of seven in pregnancy see on ch. A 5.18). On the ages of man see Corpus Hippocraticum Hebd. 5 West ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπου φύσιος ἑπτά εἰσιν ὧραι, ἃς ἡλικίας καλέομεν, παιδίον, παῖς, μειράκιον, νεηνίσκος, ἀνήρ, πρεσβύτης, γέρων. καὶ παιδίον μέν ἐστιν ἄχρις ἑπτὰ ἐτέων ⟨καὶ⟩ ὀδόντων ἐκβολῆς· παῖς δ᾽ ἄχρι γονῆς ἐκφύσιος ἐς τὰ δὶς ἑπτά· μειράκιον δ᾽ ἄχρι γενείου λαχνώσιος ἐς τὰ τρὶς ἑπτά … (cf. Philo Opif. 105; Anatolius Περὶ δέκαδος 37.23– 38.5 Heiberg). Philo of Alexandria Opif. 103 δίχα δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐναργέστατα παριστᾶσι τὴν τελεσφόρον δύναμιν ἑβδομάδος καὶ αἱ ἐκ βρέφους ἄχρι γήρως ἀνθρώπων ἡλικίαι μετρούμεναι ταύτῃ· κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν πρώτην ἑπταετίαν ἔκφυσις ὀδόντων ἐστί· κατὰ δὲ τὴν δευτέραν καιρὸς τοῦ δύνασθαι προΐεσθαι σπέρμα γόνιμον· τρίτῃ δὲ γενείων αὔξησις … Leg. 1.10 λογικόν τέ φασιν ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἑπταετίαν γίνεσθαι, ὅτε ἤδη ἱκανός ἐστιν ἑρμηνεὺς εἶναι τῶν συνήθων ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων τὴν λογικὴν ἕξιν περιπεποιημένος, κατὰ δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἑπταετίαν ἄκρως τελειοῦσθαι· τελείωσις δέ ἐστι δύναμις τῆς τοῦ ὁμοίου σπορᾶς· περὶ γὰρ τὴν τετταρεσκαιδεκαετῆ ἡλικίαν τὸ ὅμοιον γεννᾶν δυνάμεθα· τρίτη πάλιν ἑπταετία πέρας ἐστὶν αὐξήσεως· ἄχρι γὰρ ἑνὸς καὶ εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν ἐπιδίδωσιν εἰς μέγεθος ἄνθρωπος, καὶ καλεῖται παρὰ πολλοῖς ὁ χρόνος οὗτος ἀκμή. Also at Cher. 114, cited on ch. 5.25 section E(a) General texts. Censorinus 14.3 cited above.

liber 5 caput 23 Chapter heading: cf. Philo of Alexandria Leg. 1.10 φασιν ἄνθρωπον … ἄκρως τελειοῦσθαι. §1 Heraclitus Stoics: Philo of Alexandria QG 2.5, pp. 160.7–162.4 Paramelle (cf. 22A19 DK, T 343 Mouraviev) ὅθεν οὐκ ἀπὸ σκοποῦ Ἡράκλειτος τὸν τριακοστὸν γενεὰν καλεῖ, φάσκων ἐν τῇ τριακονταετίᾳ τὸν ἄνθρωπον δύνασθαι πάππον γενέσθαι, ἡβᾶν μὲν ⟨γὰρ⟩ περὶ τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην, ἡλικίαν ἐν ᾗ σπείρειν δυνατὸν, τὸ δὲ σπαρέν ἐντὸς ἐνιαυτοῦ γενόμενον πάλιν πεντεκαιδεκαετίαν τὸ ὅμοιον ἑαυτῷ γεννᾶν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.55 (on the Stoics) ζῴου μέν ἐστι φωνὴ ἀὴρ ὑπὸ ὁρμῆς πεπληγμένος, ἀνθρώπου δ᾽ ἔστιν ἔναρθρος καὶ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐκπεμπομένη, ὡς ὁ Διογένης (of Babylon SVF 3 Diog. 17) φησίν, ἥτις ἀπὸ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν τελειοῦται. Nicomachus at ps.Iambl. Theol.Ar. 65.8–15 De Falco ἑπτὰ δὲ ἔτεσιν ἀποβάλλει τοὺς φυσικοὺς ὀδόντας καὶ ἀναφύει τοὺς πρὸς τὴν σκληρὰν τροφὴν ἐπιτηδείους, δὶς δὲ ἑπτὰ ἡβάσκει καὶ ὥσπερ διηρθρωμένως ἔτυχε τοῦ παντὸς προφορικοῦ λόγου ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ τῶν ἐτῶν ἑβδομάδι, … οὕτως ἄρχεται ταῖς τοῦ ἐνδιαθέτου ἐπιβάλλειν διαρθρώσεσιν, καθὸ λογικὸν ἤδη ὑπάρχει ζῶον (sic). Ptolemy Tetr. 4.10.8 ὁ δὲ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης τὴν μειρακιώδη καὶ τρίτην ἡλικίαν παραλαβὼν ἐπὶ τὴν ἑξῆς ὀκταετίαν κατὰ τὸν ἴσον ἀριθμὸν τῆς ἰδίας περιόδου, κίνησιν εἰκότως τῶν σπερματικῶν πόρων ἐμποιεῖν ἄρχεται κατὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν αὐτῶν καὶ ὁρμὴν ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ἀφροδισίων συνέλευσιν … Calcidius c. 37 item quoque secunda hebdomade pubertatem affert utrique sexui gignendique et pariendi maturitatem. Macrobius in Somn 1.6.71 post annos autem bis septem ipsa aetatis necessitate pubescit. tunc enim moveri incipit vis generationis in masculis et purgatio feminarum. §2 Aristotle: Tertullian de An. 38.1–2 (from Soranus, T23 Podolak) … omnia naturalia animae ipsi substantiae inesse pertinentia ad sensum et intellectum ex ingenito animae censu, sed paulatim per aetatis spatia procedere et varie per accidentia evadere pro artibus, pro institutis, pro locis, pro dominatricibus potestatibus, quod tamen faciat ad carnis animaeque propositam nunc societatem, pubertatem quoque animalem cum carnali dicimus convenire pariterque et illam suggestu sensuum et istam processu membrorum exsurgere a quarto decimo fere anno, non quia Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 727) inde sapientiam supputat, nec quia iura civilia abhinc agendis rebus attemperant, sed quoniam et haec a primordio ratio est. (2) si enim Adam et Eva ex agnitione boni et mali pudenda tegere senserunt, ex quo id ipsum sentimus, agnitionem boni et mali profitemur. ab his autem annis et suffusior et vestitior sexus est, et concupiscentia oculis arbitris utitur et communicat placitum et intellegit quae sint et fines suos ad instar ficulneae contagionis prurigine accingit et hominem de paradiso integritatis educit … §3 Anonymi see Corpus Hippocraticum, Philo, Anatolius cited above under General texts.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Pol. 7.17 1336b35–1337b3 διελθόντων δὲ τῶν πέντε ἐτῶν τὰ δύο μέχρι τῶν ἑπτὰ δεῖ θεωροὺς ἤδη γίγνεσθαι τῶν μαθήσεων ἃς δεήσει μανθάνειν αὐτούς. δύο δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἡλικίαι πρὸς ἃς ἀναγκαῖον διῃρῆσθαι τὴν παιδείαν, πρὸς

1987

1988

liber 5 caput 23

τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ μέχρι ἥβης καὶ πάλιν πρὸς τὴν ἀφ᾽ ἥβης μέχρι τῶν ἑνὸς καὶ εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν. οἱ γὰρ ταῖς ἑβδομάσι διαιροῦντες τὰς ἡλικίας ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λέγουσιν οὐ κακῶς, δεῖ δὲ τῇ διαιρέσει τῆς φύσεως ἐπακολουθεῖν· πᾶσα γὰρ τέχνη καὶ παιδεία τὸ προσλεῖπον βούλεται τῆς φύσεως ἀναπληροῦν. Scholia in Platonem Alc. 121e, p. 99 Greene = pp. 152–153 Cufalo δὶς ἑπτα· τότε γὰρ ὁ τέλειος ἐν ἡμῖν ἀποφαίνεται λόγος, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης (cf. Pol. 7.17 above) καὶ Ζήνων (SVF 1.149) καὶ Ἀλκμαίων ὁ Πυθαγόριος (sic—cf. Arist. HA 9.1 581a16 cited below §2, who does not call him a Pythagorean) φασίν. Chapter heading: for ἄρχεται cf. Aristotle HA 5.14 544b13, 25; 7.1 589a13, 15; GA 1.19 727a6. cf. also Pliny Nat. 1 Index Liber VII de spatiis vitae longissimis. §1 Heraclitus Stoics: Heraclitus see in addition to Philo QG 2.5 cited above Plutarch Def. 415E, Censorinus 17.2 (on a generation of thirty years; both texts at 22A19 DK). Zeno see above, General texts. cf. Iamblichus de An. at Stob. Ecl. 1.48.8 (SVF 1.149) πάλιν τοίνυν περὶ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ πασῶν τῶν κρειττόνων δυνάμεων τῆς ψυχῆς οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ λέγουσι μὴ εὐθὺς ἐμφύεσθαι τὸν λόγον, ὕστερον δὲ συναθροίζεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ φαντασιῶν περὶ δεκατέσσαρα ἔτη. Diogenes of Babylon at D.L. 7.55 (SVF 3 Diog. 17) ζῴου μέν ἐστι φωνὴ ἀὴρ ὑπὸ ὁρμῆς πεπληγμένος, ἀνθρώπου δ᾽ ἔστιν ἔναρθρος καὶ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐκπεμπομένη, ὡς ὁ Διογένης φησίν, ἥτις ἀπὸ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν τελειοῦται. §2 Aristotle: Aristotle HA 7.1 581a9–18 περὶ δ᾽ ἀνθρώπου γενέσεως τῆς τε πρώτης τῆς ἐν τῷ θήλει καὶ τῆς ὕστερον μέχρι γήρως, ὅσα συμβαίνει διὰ τὴν φύσιν τὴν οἰκείαν, τόνδ᾽ ἔχει τὸν τρόπον. … φέρειν δὲ σπέρμα πρῶτον ἄρχεται τὸ ἄρρεν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ἐν τοῖς ἔτεσι τοῖς δὶς ἑπτὰ τετελεσμένοις· ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἡ τρίχωσις τῆς ἥβης ἄρχεται, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ μέλλοντα σπέρμα φέρειν ἀνθεῖν πρῶτον Ἀλκμαίων φησὶν ὁ Κροτωνιάτης (24A15 DK). cf. HA 5.14 544b25–27 (on human beings) ἄρχεται δὲ φέρειν τὸ σπέρμα περὶ τὰ δὶς ἑπτὰ ἔτη, γεννητικὸς δὲ περὶ τὰ τρὶς ἑπτά. §3 Anonymi: Solon fr. 27.5–8 West τῇ τριτάτῇ δὲ γένειον ἀεξομένων ἔτι γυίων / λαχνοῦται, χροιῆς ἄνθος ἀμειβομένης. / τῇ δὲ τετάρτῃ πᾶς τις ἐν ἑβδομάδι μέγ᾽ ἄριστος / ἰσχύν, ᾗ τ᾽ ἄνδρες πείρατ᾽ ἔχουσ᾽ ἀρετῆς (verses cited at Philo of Alexandria Opif. 104–105, Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.145 etc.). Aristotle HA 7.1 582a27–33 μετὰ δὲ τὰ τρὶς ἑπτὰ ἔτη αἱ μὲν γυναῖκες πρὸς τὰς τεκνοποιΐας ἤδη εὐκαίρως ἔχουσιν, οἱ δ᾽ ἄνδρες ἔτι ἔχουσιν ἐπίδοσιν. … καὶ γενείου δὲ τρίχωσις συμβαίνει τοῖς ἄρρεσι περὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν ταύτην (also at HA 7.1 581a13–15 cited above under General texts).

Liber 5 Caput 24 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9b verso, p. 182 Barns–Zilliacus (1967)—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 909D–F; pp. 435a10–436a16 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 128; p. 646.11–17 Diels; pp. 423–432 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 238–241 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.44, p. 1.297.10 Wachsmuth, titulus solus ex Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b27 Henry

Titulus κδʹ. Πῶς ὕπνος γίνεται καὶ θάνατος (P,S) §1 Ἀλκμαίων ἀναχωρήσει τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰς αἱμόρρους φλέβας ὕπνον γίνεσθαί φησι, τὴν δ᾽ ἐξέγερσιν διάχυσιν, τὴν δὲ παντελῆ ἀναχώρησιν θάνατον. (P1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν ὕπνον κατὰ ψύξιν τοῦ ἐν τῷ αἵματι θερμοῦ σύμμετρον γίνεσθαι, κατὰ δὲ ἀσύμμετρον καὶ παντελῆ ἐπαγγέλλειν θάνατον. (P2) §3 Διογένης, εἰ ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ αἷμα διαχεόμενον πληρώσει μὲν τὰς φλέβας τὸν δ᾽ ἐν αὐταῖς περιεχόμενον ἀέρα ὤσει εἰς τὰ στέρνα καὶ τὴν ὑποκειμένην γαστέρα, ὕπνον γεγενῆσθαι καὶ θερμότερον ὑπάρχειν τὸν θώρακα· ἐὰν δ᾽ ἅπαν τὸ ἀερῶδες ἐκ τῶν φλεβῶν ἐκλίπῃ, θάνατον συντυγχάνειν. (P3) §4 Στράτων οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν μὲν ὕπνον γίνεσθαι ἀνέσει τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος οὐ κατ᾽ ἀναχαλασμόν, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς ⟨μέθ⟩ης, φερομένου §1 Alcmaeon 24A18 DK; §2 Empedocles 31A85 DK; §3 Diogenes 64A29 DK; §4 Strato fr. 128 Wehrli, 66 Sharples; Stoici SVF 2.767 titulus Πῶς … καὶ θάνατος PB(II)G : Πῶς … ἢ θάνατος τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ (καὶ PQ(ut vid.)) σώματος PB(I,III) (dittographia e 5.25) ‖ Περὶ ὕπνου καὶ θανάτου SPhot §1 [2] αἱμόρρους PQ (die es (das Blut) transportierende Q) Reiske Diels, cf. PG αἱμορροούσας : ὁμόρρους PB(III), ὁμόρους PB(I,II) ‖ [3] φησι … διάχυσιν] om. PG ‖ [3–4] ἀναχώρησιν θάνατον PBQ : al. PG ἀναχώρησιν διὰ τῆς ψύξεως θάνατον φέρειν §2 [5] κατὰ ψύξιν PB(I)GQ(ut vid.) Mau Lachenaud : κατάψυξιν PB(III) Diels DG : καταψύξει PB(II)Q(?) Xylander Diels VS Vítek ‖ [6] σύμμετρον PGQ Diels DG Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most : συμμέτρῳ PB(II) Xylander Diels VS Vítek : τὸν ὕπνον συμμέτρῳ PB(I,III) ‖ [6] κατὰ … ἐπαγγέλλειν scripsimus, cf. τὴν δὲ ἀσύμμετρον ἐπαγγέλλειν PG : τῇ δὲ ἀσυμμέτρῳ καὶ παντελεῖ PB(II) : τὴν δὲ παντελῆ PQ(ut vid.) Diels DG (κατὰ δὲ παντελῆ Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most) : ἢ παντελεῖ PB(I,III) (τῇ δὲ παντελεῖ Diels VS Vítek) §3 non hab. PG ‖ [8] ἐπὶ πᾶν PB : om. PQ ‖ [9] αὐταῖς Beck edd. : αὐτοῖς PB ‖ ὑποκειμένην PB : om. PQ ‖ [10– 11] ἐὰν … ἐκλίπῃ PB(III)Q : ἐὰν … ἐκλείπῃ PB(I) : εἰ … ἐκλείπει PB(II) ‖ [11] συντυγχάνειν PB(I,II) : τυγχάνειν PB(III) §4 [12] Στράτων Corsinus Elter Wehrli Sharples, cf. 4.5.2, 5.2.2 et Tertullianus : Πλάτων P, ret. edd. ab Arnim Laks (2015) 31, 35 ‖ [13–14] οὐ … μεσόφρυον om. PG ‖ [13] ἐπὶ τῆς ⟨μέθης⟩ scripsimus, dub. Diels : ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς PB, cf. wie es beim Lehm geschieht Q (et interp. addidit), crucif. edd., ἐπὶ τῆς γη⟨ράνσεω⟩ς dub. Mau, prob. Sharples, Ἐπιγένης coni. Usener conl. 3.2.6 ‖ φερομένου PB(II)Q : φερόμενος PB(I,III)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_149

5

10

1990

liber 5 caput 24

δ᾽ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ⟨ἢ⟩ μεσόφρυον· ὅταν δὲ παντελὴς γένηται ἡ ἄνεσις τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος, τότε γεγενῆσθαι θάνατον. (P4) [14] ὡς PB(I,III) : om. PB(II)Q(ut vid.) ‖ ⟨ἢ⟩ coni. Corsinus, sed verbum μεσόφρυον fort. glossa, cf. opinio Stratonis supra 4.5.3 ἐν μεσοφρύῳ : μεσόφρυον PB, cf. dessen Stelle zwischen den beiden Augenbrauen ist Q : ret. Sharples, dub. ab Arnim qui prop. ἐσωτέρω ὄν ‖ παντελὴς PGQ(ut vid.) : παντελῶς PB ‖ [15] τότε PB : om. PGQ(ut vid.) ‖ γεγενῆσθαι PB Mau Lachenaud : γίγνεσθαι Diels ab Arnim : συμβαίνειν PG (post θάνατον)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 9b verso = P §§2–3 γινεσθ]αι ̣ [ Δι]ογενης ει ̣ [ πλη]ρ̣ω̣σει μ̣ [εν περ]ι ̣ε[χομενον ps.Galenus HPh c. 128 (~ tit.) Πῶς ὕπνος γίνεται καὶ θάνατος (text Jas) 128.1 (~ P1) Ἀλκμαίων ἀναχωρήσει τοῦ αἵματος εἰς τὰς αἱμορροούσας φλέβας ὕπνον γίγνεσθαι, τὴν δὲ παντελῆ ἀναχώρησιν διὰ τῆς ψύξεως θάνατον φέρειν. 128.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν ὕπνον κατά ψυξιν τοῦ ἐν τῷ αἵματι θερμοῦ σύμμετρον, τὴν δὲ ἀσύμμετρον ἐπαγγέλλειν θάνατον. 128.3 (~ P4) Πλάτων καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν μὲν ὕπνον γίγνεσθαι ἀνέσει τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος, ὅταν δὲ παντελὴς γίγνηται ἡ ἄνεσις τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος, θάνατον συμβαίνειν. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 5.25 Ὁποτέρου ἐστὶν ὕπνος καὶ θάνατος, ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος. A 5.2 Πῶς ὄνειροι γίνονται. cf. A 1.7.1[52–54] αἰώνιος γὰρ ὕπνος ὁ θάνατός ἐστιν· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ δεκτικὸς ὕπνου θεός, τὸ γὰρ ἀθάνατον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ ἐγγὺς θανάτου πολὺ κεχώρισται. §1 cf. A 5.30.2 Ἡρόφιλος τὰς νόσους συμπίπτειν ὡς μὲν ὑφ᾽ οὗ ὑπερβολὴ θερμότητος ἢ ψυχρότητος· ὡς δ᾽ ἐξ οὗ διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς ἢ ἔνδειαν· ὡς δ᾽ ἐν οἷς, ἢ αἷμα ἢ μυελὸν ἢ ἐγκέφαλον· γίνεσθαι δέ ποτε καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν αἰτιῶν, ὑδάτων ποιῶν ἢ χώρας ἢ κόπων ἢ ἀνάγκης ἢ τῶν τούτοις παραπλησίων· τὴν δὲ ὑγείαν τὴν σύμμετρον τῶν ποιῶν κρᾶσιν. §4 A 4.5.3 (de loco τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ) Στράτων ἐν μεσοφρύῳ. A 5.2.2 Στράτων ἀλόγῳ φύσει τῆς διανοίας ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις αἰσθητικωτέρας μέν τῆς ψυχῆς γινομένης, παρ᾽ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο τῷ γνωστικῷ κινουμένης.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

15

liber 5 caput 24

1991

Commentary A Witnesses PB and Q preserve four doxai of moderate length, of which G takes over all but the third. That S had a chapter on this subject can only be deduced from Photius’ index (this is not indicated by Wachsmuth in his edition). Not even its chapter heading survives in the manuscripts. The heading given by Photius, Περὶ ὕπνου καὶ θανάτου, strongly suggests that S combined material from this and the following ch. 5.25 in his Anthology. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Now that the long section on conception, birth and human development has come to an end, the doxographical parallels in Censorinus dry up completely. A compact doxography is still found in Def.Med., albeit in a different location in that collection. In contrast to our chapter, the soul plays a prominent role in the first two definitions and is implicit in the third (which speaks of ‘ruling parts’ in the plural). The explanation of the cause, however, is given in purely physiological and material terms. By far the most illuminating parallel text, however, is the doxography on sleep found in Tertullian de An. 43. This text shares the emphasis on physiological factors—as opposed to psychological—which is the chief feature of A’s presentation in this chapter (the soul makes its appearance in the next chapter 5.25). The church father’s text contains the names of eight philosophers, three of whom are found in A (Stoics, Empedocles, Strato). His doxai are more compact than those of A, but the common elements (e.g. for Empedocles κατὰ ψύξιν ~ refrigerationem; for the Stoics ἀνέσει τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ πνεύματος ~ resolutionem sensualis vigoris) indicate a shared tradition, the other representative of which has been identified as Soranus De anima (fr. 25 Podolak). We note, however, that Tertullian does not make the connection with the subject of death, which is dealt with quite differently at de An. 52. In the Stoic doxography in Diogenes Laertius, sleep is described as occurring when the ‘sensitive tension around the ruling part’ is loosened (text below section E(a)§4). This resembles §4, but A gives more emphasis to physiological factors. In the scholion interspersed at Epicurus Ep.Hdt. 66 sleep is attributed to the collision of soul atoms scattered through the body. This differs from the explanation in Tertullian, deminutio spiritus animalis (cf. indigentia spiritus for Democritus). The atomist explanation is missing in our chapter. (2) Sources. Earlier parallel material that can illuminate A’s doxai and the features of his approach (physiological factors, connection between sleep and

1992

liber 5 caput 24

death) is available in Aristotle’s Parva naturalia, where sleep is associated with sensitive part of the soul (later developed by the Stoa) and particularly the role of blood in nutrition (cf. A 5.27). There is no dialectical discussion. The connection between sleep and death was traditional in Greek thought, going back to Homer and Hesiod, as Laks (2015) has noted in his valuable article on ‘sommeils présocratiques’. Galen in his treatise on the causes of pulses alludes to the Homeric theme of sleep as the brother of death (Hom. Il. 16.682, text below section E(b) General texts). Laks notes the remark attributed to Anaxagoras, ‘there are two teachings for (understanding) death, the time before birth and sleep’. S cites the proverbial saying at Flor. 4.52b39 Hense (= 59A34 DK). But it is not the kind of material generally used by A. For a wideranging survey on the subject of sleep in Greek literature see Wöhrle (1995) 63–77 (but without any reference to our text). C Chapter Heading The chapter heading again uses the formula πῶς + the verb γίγνομαι which is so very common in Book 5; see above on ch. 5.2. The chapter thus investigates the cause, rather than giving a definition of sleep (i.e. the question type τί ἐστι) as we find in Tertullian and Def.Med. For the combination of two (or more) separate but closely related topics cf. chs. 5.27 Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως and 5.30 Περὶ ὑγείας καὶ νόσου καὶ γήρως. D Analysis a Context A now turns to the subject of sleep, which through the subject of dreams forms a link with ch. 5.2, the last chapter before he begins the long section on conception, birth and human development (chs. 5.3–23). We argued there that the chapter might better have been placed in Book 4 on psychology. Sleep is now discussed in a physiological context, with no reference to the soul (this does occur in the next chapter 5.25). The theme of death is brought in because the process of dying is seen as similar to that of sleeping. It does follow on to a limited degree from ch. 5.23 on the human being’s attaining of maturity, since death is the final completion of a life. But such a context is not alluded to in the present chapter and it might be argued that a better place for a treatment of the subject of death would have been after ch. 5.30 on health and disease and old age. As we saw above in section B, however, the conjunction of sleep and death was traditional. This and the related next chapter are the first in the series of chapters that round off the work. On the macro-structural aspect see the Introduction to Book 5, section 3, where we suggest that these chapters can be regarded

liber 5 caput 24

1993

as a kind of appendix to the book, as was already suggested in Mansfeld (1990a) 3189 and n. 638. b Number–Order of Lemmata The four doxai as preserved in the tradition of P form a tight diaeretically organized structure, as will become clear below. It is not possible to determine whether this is the work of A or of P, both of whom favour the diaeresis. The evidence of Tertullian suggests that the earlier doxographical tradition preserved a broader range of views on sleep (and perhaps on death). These may have been present in A, but given the tight structure, it is perhaps more likely that he selected from them. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In his commentary of the fragments of Diogenes of Apollonia (20082, 174– 175), and also in a separate article (2015), Laks gives a valuable analysis of this chapter, which brings to light the key factors for understanding the chapter as a whole. We disagree, however, with his reluctance to accept Corsinus’ emendation to Στράτων for the final doxa (see n. 24). The doxography commences with Alcmaeon, who has already been prominent in Book 5 (see A 5.3.3, 5.14.1, 5.17.3). He is an φυσικός, i.e. natural philosopher, but one with interests in the physiological sphere (see ch. 5.3 Commentary D(d) on §3, and Introduction to Book 5, section 6). His doxa, together with the following one attributed to Empedocles, form an opposed pair. In both cases the key factor is the blood in the body. For Alcmaeon it is the withdrawal of the blood to the veins that causes sleep. Opposed to this doxa is the Empedoclean view that sleep is caused by the cooling off of the heat conveyed in the blood. Both views can find some echoes in Aristotle’s theories on the subject. For the former we recall that for Aristotle it is the role of the blood to convey food, and it is certainly an empirical observation that living beings feel sleepy after having food (see Somn.Vig. 3 456a30–b2). For the latter view we recall that Aristotle explains sleep through the evaporation of food, which causes heat to rise in the body (cf. Somn.Vig. 3 456b22–29). This appears to be the opposite of Empedocles’ theory which attributed sleep to cooling off (cf. also the ultra-brief doxa attributed to Empedocles and Parmenides in Tertullian: sleep is refrigeratio). In another brief Aristotelian treatise death is linked, quite predictably, with extinction of the vital heat ( Juv. 4 469b17–20), but the context there is life and death, not sleep and death as in A. Another contrast, pointed out by Laks, is that for Alcmaeon sleep is caused by the diffusion of blood as a principle of life, whereas for Empedocles it is its condition, i.e. whether it is heated or cooled.

1994

liber 5 caput 24

The second pair of doxai focus on the role of air/pneuma. As Laks has pointed out, the third doxa stands in a double dialectical relationship to the previous two. On the one hand, whereas in the first pair blood is the principle of life and its flow allows the living being to wake from sleep, for Diogenes it acts as an impediment to the distribution of the vital air/pneuma, causing it to concentrate in the midriff and so inducing sleep. On the other hand, for Diogenes, as in the case of the Empedoclean doxa, there are two contrary forces at work, air and blood (as compared with the hot and the cold in Empedocles). In contrast to the second doxa, however, these two agents have to work together rather than be simply opposed to each other. The final doxa must be attributed to Strato and the Stoics (on the first name-label see next section D(d) below). Its focus on the role of the ‘sensory spirit’ follows on from the previous doxa. Unlike in that doxa, but similar to the first Alcmaeon view, there is only a single explanatory factor, i.e. the pneuma which is concentrated between the brows in the head (and so causes dreams, cf. the view of Strato in 5.2.2). Another reason for placing this view at the end is that it is the only doxa that does not involve the movement of blood. Following Laks, therefore, we can determine the chapter’s structure in terms of two separate binary oppositions: (1) blood (§§1–2) versus air/pneuma (§§3– 4); (2) single principle (§1, §4) versus twin principles (§2, §3). In addition, the differing role of blood in §3 forms a connection between the first and the second opposition. Laks further argues persuasively that there is a movement in the chapter towards the final doxa—what he calls a ‘construction «vectorialisée»’ (2015, 35; cf. also ch. 2.1 Commentary D(c))—, in which the reference to a sensory factor seems to anticipate the view of Aristotle involving the common sense (Somn.Vig. 2 455a26). Aristotle’s absence is certainly striking. His view commences the following chapter, but from a different perspective. In the case of all four doxai the process of death is explained as an intensification of the same process that causes sleep. In §§1, 2 and 4 the same term παντελής (complete) is used with three nouns (ἀναχώρησις, ψύξις, ἄνεσις) to explain how death is caused (cf. also A 5.25.1). In §3 it is when all (ἅπαν) the airy substance leaves the veins that death occurs. One might compare the definition of death in ps.Plutarch Aquane an ignis utilior (Mor. 757E): θάνατος δ᾽ οὐκ ἄλλο τι πλὴν ἔκλειψις θερμοῦ παντελής. Finally we should again emphasise that the approach of the chapter is purely physiological, without any mention of psychological factors. Hence the role of blood and air/pneuma, and the locations in the veins, the midriff and the brow. Only in the final doxa is there mention of psychic functions when it speaks of

liber 5 caput 24

1995

the ‘sensory spirit’ and the ‘regent part’, but the term ψυχή is no doubt deliberately avoided. This is in contrast to the following chapter, 5.25, where the discrimination between soul and body is at the heart of the question posed by the chapter. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 For the second half of the doxa we follow Jas’ fine analysis. She argues persuasively that G’s text shows that the original text in P must have been fuller than what previous editors had assumed. This concerns two elements of the second half. (1) The text in PB(II) proves that the adjective ἀσύμμετρος as found in G must have been present, in apposition to σύμμετρος in the first half. (2) It is likely that it contained a verb, as represented by ἐπαγγέλλειν in G’s text (cf. the ending of §3 and §4). This also solves the problem in Mau’s emendation to κατὰ δὲ παντελῆ θάνατον, where the juxtaposition of the two accusatives, with the former qualifying ψύξιν and not the noun following, is very awkward. Jas is also right to argue that it is not so likely that ἐπαγγέλλειν is derived from δὲ παντελῆ. §3 The double use of the future tense in the long conditional clause is unusual (the usual construction is with the optative) and it is difficult to determine what the motivation for it is here. We follow Laks in ignoring it in our translation. §4 Although all the witnesses record the first name-label as Πλάτων, there can be little doubt that the correct reading is Στράτων. As already noted by Diels in his apparatus, the parallel doxa in Tertullian’s doxography and the reference to the μεσόφρυον (space between the eyebrows) in 4.5.2, to which can be added parallels in 4.23.3 and 5.2.2, make the emendation first suggested by Corsinus in our view quite certain. It is a fine example of wrong-headed conservatism that Diels and the two recent editors Mau and Lachenaud retain the reading in P. Wehrli and Sharples rightly include the text in their collection of Strato’s fragments, although the latter still qualifies it as a dubium. See also ch. 5.8 Commentary D(d)§2 on the same mistake in L (but not in P). The emendation of the obviously wrong ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is more problematic. Mau’s suggestion in his apparatus ἐπὶ τῆς γη⟨ράνσεω⟩ς is paleographically attractive, but it is not supported by any parallel passages. For Diels’ ἐπὶ τῆς μέθης, on the other hand, references to an abnormal state can be paralleled in A 5.20.5 and Theophrastus Sens. 44 (ἐν ταῖς μέθαις; both doxai attributed to Diogenes). Nevertheless the emendation must be considered far from certain (Laks prefers to retain the crucifix without comment). Another possibility might be ἐπὶ τῆς συγκοπῆς (loss of strength), with Π taken as Γ and the letters συγκο deleted because not understood.

1996

liber 5 caput 24

Another puzzling phrase in the mss. is ἐπὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν μεσόφρυον, since τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν is common as an adjectival substantive and μεσόφρυον is also always a noun, so that the two appear to be in apposition. Lachenaud translates ‘vers la partie gouvernante, l’espace compris entre les sourcils’, Sharples ‘towards the ruling [principle in] the space between the eyebrows’. We have adopted the solution of Corsinus, to introduce ἤ between the two components of the phrase, since τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν is Stoic and μεσόφρυον is Strato’s view as indicated in the doxa at A 4.5.3 ἐν μεσοφρύῳ. Von Arnim states in his app. crit. that μεσόφρυον is corrupt and implausibly suggests ἐσωτέρω ὄν. Another possibility is that the word is a gloss imported from the earlier chapter. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Tertullian de An. 43.1–2 (Soranus de An. fr. 25 Podolak) de somno prius disputemus, post, mortem qualiter anima decurrat. non utique extranaturale est somnus, ut quibusdam philosophis placet, cum ex his eum deputant causis quae praeter naturam haberi videntur. (2) Stoici (SVF 2.768) somnum resolutionem sensualis vigoris affirmant, Epicurei (fr. 325 Usener) deminutionem spiritus animalis, Anaxagoras cum Xenophane (21A51 DK) defetiscentiam, Empedocles (T567 Bollack) et Parmenides (28A46b DK) refrigerationem, Strato (fr. 129 Wehrli, 67 Sharples) segregationem consati spiritus, Democritus (fr. 512 Luria) indigentiam spiritus, Aristoteles marcorem circumcordialis caloris. see further on ch. 5.25. ps.Galen Def.Med. 127, p. 19.381.14–382.3 K. ρκζʹ. ὕπνος ἐστὶν ἄνεσις ψυχῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. οἱ δὲ οὕτως. ὕπνος ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχῆς καταφορὰ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν. ἄλλως. ὕπνος ἐστὶν ἡσυχία καὶ παῦλα τῶν ἡγεμονικῶν. τίς ποιητικὴ αἰτία τοῦ ὕπνου; ἡ ἐν ἐγκεφάλῳ χρηστὴ ὕλη. ἢ ὑπνόποιός ἐστιν ἡ χρηστὴ ὕλη ἀπὸ τοῦ στομάχου εἰς τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἀναφερομένη καὶ ἡ μᾶλλον ὑγροτέρα καὶ μετρίως θερμοτέρα ἐστί. Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. xxiii.42–24.9 Manetti τούς γε ὕπνους, ὥς φησιν ὁ Ἀρισ⟨το⟩τέλης, | ἀποτελεῖσθαι τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· τῆς | γὰρ καρδίας φύσει θερμῆς ὑπαρχούσης | καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀνηρτημένου τοῦ θερμοῦ, | τοῦ δ᾽ ἐνκεφάλου ψυχροῦ, συμβέβηκεν | περὶ τῶι ἐνκεφάλωι συνίστασθαι | ὑγρότητα τὴν ἀναφερομένην ὑπὸ | [τ]ῆς θερμότητος ἀπὸ καρδίας, | [ἣ]ν δὴ συνισταμένην κ(ατα)ψύχεσθαι | [κ]αὶ ἐκ τοῦ κα[τάρρου] πάλιν καταφέρεσθαι, | [μὴ] δυναμένην διὰ τὸ βάρος ἐπιμέ| [νειν] ἐν τοῖς τόποις, εἰς [δὲ] τὴν καρδίαν (xxiv) [lines missing] καὶ τῇ μίξει τὸ θερμόν. [ὧ]δε τὸ[ν] ὕπν[ον γίνεσθαι],| τὴν δὲ ἐγρήγορσιν ἀποτελεῖσθαι ἀν[α]λουμέν[ης] |τῆς ὑγρότητος ἁπάσης τῆς περὶ τῶι ἐγκεφ[άλῳ], |ἔπειτα τοῦ θερμοῦ πάνυ πλεονάζοντ[ος]. |τοι γε ἑαυτὸν ἐπ[αι]νεῖ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης, ὅτι π[α]ρὰ [τοὺς] |ἄλλους καὶ τὸν ὕ[π]νον καὶ τὴν ἐγρήγορσιν α[ἰ]τι[ο]- | λογεῖ, ἐκείνων αὐτὸν [μό]νον τὸν ὕπνον α[ἰτιο]λογούντων, μηκέτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐγρήγορσιν. Scholia in Epicurum at Ep.Hdt. 66 text cited on ch. 5.2 under section E(a) General texts. Chapter heading: cf. Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr.col. xxiv.7–9 Manetti (on Aristotle and his predecessors) καὶ τὸν ὕ[π]νον καὶ τὴν ἐγρήγορσιν α[ἰ]τι[ο]- |

liber 5 caput 24 λογεῖ, ἐκείνων αὐτὸν [μό]νον τὸν ὕπνον α[ἰτιο]λογούντων also cited above under General texts. §2 Empedocles: see Tertullian de An. 43.2 cited above. §4 Strato Stoics: see Tertullian de An. 43.2 cited above. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.158 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.766) τὸν δὲ ὕπνον γίνεσθαι ἐκλυομένου τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ τόνου περὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Cicero Div. 2.119 similis est error in somniis … contrahi autem animum Zeno (SVF 1.130) et quas labi putat atque concidere, et id ipsum esse dormire. see further texts on ch. 5.25.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Somn.Vig. 1 453b11 περὶ δὲ ὕπνου καὶ ἐγρηγόρσεως ἐπισκεπτέον τίνα τε τυγχάνει ὄντα, καὶ πότερον ἴδια τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ τοῦ σώματος ἢ κοινά, καὶ εἰ κοινά, τίνος μορίου τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζῴοις κτλ. Somn.Vig. 3 456a30–35 ἐχόμενον δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐστὶν ἐπελθεῖν τίνων γιγνομένων καὶ πόθεν ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ πάθους γίγνεται, τοῦ τ᾽ ἐγρηγορέναι καὶ τοῦ καθεύδειν. φανερὸν δὴ ὅτι ἐπεὶ ἀναγκαῖον τῷ ζῴῳ, ὅταν αἴσθησιν ἔχῃ, τότε πρῶτον τροφήν τε λαμβάνειν καὶ αὔξησιν· τροφὴ δ᾽ ἐστὶ πᾶσιν ἡ ἐσχάτη τοῖς μὲν ἐναίμοις ἡ τοῦ αἵματος φύσις … 456b17–29 οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ὕπνος ἀδυναμία πᾶσα τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἀναθυμιάσεως γίγνεται τὸ πάθος τοῦτο· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὸ ἀναθυμιώμενον μέχρι του ὠθεῖσθαι, εἶτ᾽ ἀντιστρέφειν καὶ μεταβάλλειν καθάπερ εὔριπον. τὸ δὲ θερμὸν ἑκάστου τῶν ζῴων πρὸς τὸ ἄνω πέφυκε φέρεσθαι· ὅταν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἄνω τόποις γένηται, ἀθρόον πάλιν ἀντιστρέφει καὶ καταφέρεται. διὸ μάλιστα γίγνονται ὕπνοι ἀπὸ τῆς τροφῆς· ἀθρόον γὰρ πολὺ τό τε ὑγρὸν καὶ τὸ σωματῶδες ἀναφέρεται. ἱστάμενον μὲν οὖν βαρύνει καὶ ποιεῖ νυστάζειν· ὅταν δὲ ῥέψῃ κάτω καὶ ἀντιστρέψαν ἀπώσῃ τὸ θερμόν, τότε γίγνεται ὁ ὕπνος καὶ τὸ ζῷον καθεύδει. Juv. 1 467b10 Περὶ δὲ νεότητος καὶ γήρως καὶ περὶ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου λεκτέον νῦν. see also PA 2.2 648a36–b11 cited on ch. 5.25. Lucretius DRN 4.916–920 principio somnus fit ubi est distracta per artus / vis animae partimque foras eiecta recessit / et partim contrusa magis concessit in altum; / dissolvuntur enim tum demum membra fluuntque. Galen Caus.Puls. 3.9, p. 9.137.17 K. ὕπνος γὰρ, ὡς καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν ἔστιν ἀκοῦσαι λεγόντων (cf. Hom. Il. 16.682), ἀδελφός ἐστι θανάτου. Clement of Alexandria Protr. 102.3 οὔκουν ἔτ᾽ ἂν εἰκότως ὕπνος καὶ θάνατος θεὼ διδυμάονε παρ᾽ ὑμῖν νομίζοιντο, πάθη ταῦτα περὶ τὰ ζῷα συμβαίνοντα φυσικῶς. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle περὶ ὕπνου καὶ ἐγρηγόρσεως Somn.Vig. 1 453b11. Theophrastus in catalogue of writings at D.L. 5.45 Περὶ ὕπνου καὶ ἐνυπνίων αʹ (fr. 328.11a FHS&G); cf. De somno et somniis at Priscianus Lydus Solutiones ad Chosroem, proœm., Suppl.Arist. 1.2, p. 42.6. Strato in catalogue of writings at D.L. 5.59 Περὶ ὕπνου (fr. 18 Wehrli, 1 Sharples). §2 Empedocles: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Flat. 14 ὅταν γὰρ ἐπέλθῃ τῷ σώματι ὁ ὕπνος, τότε τὸ αἷμα ψύχεται, φύσει γὰρ πέφυκεν ὁ ὕπνος ψύχειν· ψυχθέντι δὲ τῷ αἵματι νωθρότεραι γίνονται αἱ διέξοδοι. also Aristotle Somn.Vig. 3 456b22– 29 see above under General texts. Juv. 4 469b17–20 ἀνάγκη τοίνυν ἅμα τό τε ζῆν ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ τούτου σωτηρίαν, καὶ τὸν καλούμενον θάνατον εἶναι τὴν τούτου φθοράν. §3 Diogenes: Theophrastus Sens. 44 (Diogenes 64A19 DK) see text cited at A 5.20.5.

1997

Liber 5 Caput 25 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 909E–910B; pp. 436a17–438a3 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 129; p. 646.18–24 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 240–243 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.44, p. 1.297.10 Wachsmuth, titulus solus ex Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b27 Henry

Titulus κεʹ. Ὁποτέρου ἐστὶν ὕπνος καὶ θάνατος, ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος (P,S) §1 Ἀριστοτέλης κοινὸν μὲν τὸν ὕπνον σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς· αἴτιον δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀναθυμιαθὲν ὑγρὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ θώρακος εἰς τοὺς περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τόπους ἐκ τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς ἢ τὸ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ περιψυχθὲν θερμόν· τὸν δὲ θάνατον εἶναι παντελῆ κατάψυξιν· θάνατον δ᾽ εἶναι μόνου τοῦ σώματος οὐ ψυχῆς· ταύτης γὰρ οὐχ ὑπάρχει θάνατος. (P1) §2 Ἀναξαγόρας κατὰ κόπον τῆς σωματικῆς ἐνεργείας γίνεσθαι τὸν ὕπνον· σωματικὸν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ πάθος οὐ ψυχικόν· εἶναι δὲ καὶ ψυχῆς θάνατον τὸν διαχωρισμόν. (P2) §3 Λεύκιππος οὐ μόνον κόπῳ σώματος γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ ἐκκρίσει τοῦ λεπτομεροῦς πλείονι τῆς εἰσκρίσεως τοῦ ψυχικοῦ θερμοῦ, καὶ τὸν πλεονασμὸν αἴτιον θανάτου· ταῦτα δ᾽ εἶναι πάθη σώματος οὐ ψυχῆς. (P3) §1 Aristoteles cf. Somn.Vig. 1 454a8–11, 3 456b17–29; Juv. 4 469b13–20; §2 Anaxagoras 59A103 DK; §3 Leucippus 67A34 DK titulus Ὁποτέρου PB(I,III) Mau Lachenaud : Ποτέρου PB(II) Diels : Πότερον PGQ ‖ ἐστὶν] om. PG ‖ ὕπνος PB : ὁ ὕπνος PGQ(ut vid.) ‖ καὶ θάνατος PQ(ut vid.) (und der Tod Q) et coni. Diels : ἢ θάνατος PB : om. PG ‖ ψυχῆς ἢ σώματος PBQ, cf. der Seele oder dem Körper Q : τοῦ σώματος ἢ τῆς ψυχῆς PG ‖ cf. Περὶ ὕπνου καὶ θανάτου SPhot §1 [2] σώματος εἶναι καὶ ψυχῆς] inv. PQ ‖ post σώματος add. εἶναι PG ‖ αἴτιον δὲ PGQ (δ᾽ Diels) : ἔστι δὲ αἴτιον PB(II) : ἔστι δὲ PB(I,III) ‖ αὐτοῦ PBGQ Diels : αὐτῷ edd. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [3] εἰς PB(II)GQ : καὶ PB(I,III) ‖ περὶ] παρὰ PB(II) ‖ [4] ἐκ PB(II)GQ : καὶ PB(I,III) ‖ ὑποκειμένης PBG : συγκειμένης PQ (zusammengesetzt Q) ‖ περιψυχθὲν PB(II) : παραψυχθὲν PB(I,III) (καταψυχθὲν Diels) : al. Q daß durch die Abbiegung dieses Dampfes die natürliche Wärme des Herzens ein wenig abkühlt ‖ [4–6] ἤ … θάνατος al. PG θάνατον δὲ γίγνεσθαι διὰ τῆς παντελοῦς καταψύξεως et om. reliqua ‖ [6] τοῦ secl. Diels ‖ ταύτης … θάνατος secl. Diels non recte §2 [7] post Ἀναξαγόρας hab. PB(I) δὲ ‖ κατὰ κόπον PG Diels Mau Lachenaud : om. PB : PQ κατὰ κοινὸν (etwas Gemeinsames Q) ‖ [8] τὸ] om. PB(II) ‖ [9] τὸν διαχωρισμόν PBQ(ut vid.) : κατὰ χωρισμόν PG §§3–4 non hab. PG §3 [10] οὐ μόνον κόπῳ scripsimus, cf. daß es jenen [Schlaf ] nicht gibt (i.e. leg. οὐ·); vielmehr entsteht er nur durch die Ermüdung des Körpers Q, οὐ κόπῳ Reiske : οὐ μόνον PB prob. Laks (2015) 47, crucif. Diels (dub. τὸν ὕπνον) Mau Lachenaud ‖ ἐκκρίσει Diels DG (dub. ἀποκρίσει VS) Lachenaud : κράσει PBQ, Mau Laks ‖ εἰσκρίσεως Diels prob. Laks (ἐκκρίσεως Laks-Most) : ἐκκράσεως PB(I,III), τῆς κράσεως PB(II) : om. Q ‖ [11] καὶ PQ(ut vid.) : non hab. PB, δὲ post πλεονασμὸν add. Diels ‖ πλεονασμὸν, sc. τῆς εἰσκρίσεως sec. Diels DG (sed ⟨ἧς⟩ sc. ἀποκρίσεως VS), cf. davon Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_150

5

10

liber 5 caput 25

§4

Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν θάνατον γεγενῆσθαι διαχωρισμὸν τοῦ ⟨γεώδους καὶ ὑδατώδους καὶ ἀερώδους καὶ⟩ πυρώδους, ἐξ ὧν ἡ σύγκρισις τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ συνεστάθη· ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο κοινὸν εἶναι τὸν θάνατον σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς· ὕπνον δὲ γίνεσθαι διαχωρισμὸν τοῦ πυρώδους. (P4)

§4 Empedocles 31A85 DK §4 [13] γεγενῆσθαι] γίγνεσθαι emend. Diels Vítek ‖ διαχωρισμὸν PB Diels DG Mau Lachenaud : leg. PQ aut διὰ χωρισμὸν (mavult Bollack) aut διαχωρισμῷ (malunt Bernadakis Diels VS Vítek) ‖ [13–14] γεώδους … καὶ3 addidimus, cf. Diels VS qui post πυρώδους prop. καὶ ἀερώδους καὶ ὑδατώδους καὶ γεώδους, prob. O’Brien (1969) 166 (καὶ γεώδους solum Reiske) et cf. 4.3.12 : verba desunt in PBQ (διὰ χωρισμὸν τοῦ πυρώδους prop. Bollack prob. Laks, ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων add. Guthrie Vítek) ‖ [14] ὧν PB(I,III) : οὗ PB(II)Q(ut vid.) Bollack ‖ [14–15] τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ PB(III) : τῶν ἄνω PB(I) : om. PB(II) : sed PQ fort. τῶν ζῴων (die Lebewesen Q) ‖ [15] τοῦτο PBQ : τοῦτον dub. Diels ‖ τὸν] om. PB(II) ‖ [16] σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς] inv. Q ‖ ὕπνον … πυρώδους PB : al. PQ (Der Schlaf aber tritt ein, wenn die Trennung (noch) nicht eingetreten ist. Indessen stellt sich der Schlaf bei der Abbiegung der feurigen Substanz ein Q) ‖ διαχωρισμὸν PB Diels DG Mau Lachenaud (διὰ χωρισμὸν PB(III:α)) : διαχωρισμῷ Bernadakis Diels VS Vítek, cf. bei der Abbiegung Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 129 (~ tit.) Πότερον ὁ ὕπνος τοῦ σώματος ἢ τῆς ψυχῆς (text Diels) 129.1 (~ P1) Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν ὕπνον σώματος εἶναι καὶ ψυχῆς· αἴτιον δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀναθυμιαθὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ θώρακος ὑγρὸν εἰς τοὺς περὶ κεφαλὴν τόπους ἐκ τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς. θάνατον δὲ γίγνεσθαι διὰ τῆς παντελοῦς καταψύξεως. 129.2 (~ P2) Ἀναξαγόρας κατὰ κόπον τῆς σωματικῆς ἐνεργείας γίγνεσθαι τὸν ὕπνον· σωματικὸν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ πάθος· εἶναι δὲ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς θάνατον κατὰ χωρισμόν. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 5.24 Πῶς ὕπνος γίνεται καὶ θάνατος. cf. A 4.3 Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς; A 4.7 Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς; A 4.23 Περὶ παθῶν σωματικῶν καὶ εἰ συναλγεῖ αὐτοῖς ἡ ψυχή. §1 A 4.7.4 (de anima) Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος Ἀριστοτέλης φθαρτὴν τῷ σώματι συνδιαφθειρομένην. A 5.1.4 (de divinatione) Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Δικαίαρχος τὸ κατ᾽ ἐνθουσιασμὸν μόνον παρεισάγουσι καὶ τοὺς ὀνείρους, ἀθάνατον μὲν εἶναι οὐ νομίζοντες τὴν ψυχὴν, θείου δέ τινος μετέχειν αὐτήν. §2 A 4.7.1 Πυθαγόρας Ἀναξαγόρας Διογένης Πλάτων Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ξενοκράτης ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. A 4.23 Περὶ παθῶν σωματικῶν καὶ εἰ συναλγεῖ αὐτοῖς ἡ ψυχή. §3 A 4.3.7 Λεύκιππος ἐκ πυρὸς εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν. A 4.7.4 cit. supra ad §1 de Democrito. cf. A 4.13.1 Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος Ἐπίκουρος κατὰ εἰδώλων εἴσκρισιν οἴονται τὸ ὁρατικὸν συμβαίνειν πάθος. {καὶ κατά τινων ἀκτίνων εἴσκρισιν μετὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἔνστασιν πάλιν ὑποστρεφουσῶν πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν}.

1999

15

2000

liber 5 caput 25

§4 cf. A 1.24.2 Εμπεδοκλῆς … καὶ πάντες, ὅσοι κατὰ συναθροισμὸν τῶν λεπτομερῶν σωμάτων κοσμοποιοῦσι, συγκρίσεις μὲν καὶ διακρίσεις εἰσάγουσι, γενέσεις δὲ καὶ φθορὰς οὐ κυρίως. A 4.3.12 (de anima) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μῖγμα ἐξ αἰθερώδους καὶ ἀερώδους ⟨καὶ ὑδατώδους καὶ γεώδους⟩ οὐσίας. A 4.7.1 cit. supra ad §2.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses PB and Q preserve four doxai of medium length. Only the first two are retained in PG, of which the former is abridged by leaving out the final part on death pertaining to the body only. No material or even reference to this chapter is preserved in the mss. of S, but the heading preserved by Photius, Περὶ ὕπνου καὶ θανάτου, suggests that he combined it with doxai from the previous chapter 5.24 on sleep. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. On doxographical material relating to the subject of sleep see our Commentary on the twin chapter 5.24. On the subject of death in relation to the human composite of soul and body, the standard view is that death constitutes the separation of the two components (see §2, the doxa of Anaxagoras). This formulation goes back at least to Plato’s Phd. 67d. It forms the starting point of discussions on death in a number of authors (texts below section E(a)§2). Cicero in Tusc. 1.18 gives a brief doxography of views relating to death without name-labels as follows: A

B

Death as separation of soul from body a. soul disperses immediately b. soul survives for a considerable time c. soul survives forever, i.e. is immortal Death as extinction of both soul and body.

He then immediately connects this diaeresis with views on the nature of the soul; see chs. 4.2–3 and our Commentary ad loc., and for the views relating to death esp. ch. 4.7, the Ciceronian texts cited there, and Commentary B. The same scheme is partially preserved by Philo at Somn. 1.31 from the viewpoint of the soul only (i.e. a–b–c only, not A&B). This is part of the set of excerpts

liber 5 caput 25

2001

which go back to a version of the Placita earlier than A (see ch. 2.11 Commentary B, 5.15 Commentary B; also Mansfeld 1990a, 3124). As Mansfeld ibid. 3146 notes, comparable schemata underlie Lucretius’ repeated views on the nature of death in DRN Book 3. A similar dialectical schema, but less clearly set out, underlies Tertullian’s treatment of death in de An. 51. Such schemes play no role in A’s chapter, however, since A in the physiological context of Book 5 is not interested in the fate of the soul (except his surprising final remark on Aristotle’s view). He has in fact dealt with the subject in ch. 4.7, where the contents of doxai attributed to Aristotle, Empedocles and Anaxagoras do not cohere well with those in this chapter. A’s approach in the present chapter, with its schematic analysis of death in terms of the characteristics of both body and soul (whether corporeal or incorporeal), would appear to be without precise parallel in ancient sources. Another intriguing Philonic text Cher. 114 deserves our attention. It is part of a religiously coloured text in which God as sovereign is said to give us human beings the use and enjoyment of ourselves. It presents in the first person a compact description of who we are, where we come from and where we are heading towards. Central to the passage is the distinction between soul and body, followed in §116 by the intellect (νοῦς). Various themes are reminiscent of the above-mentioned passage Somn. 1.30–32, which uses material from the Placita tradition to show how little we know about the intellect and the soul. When describing the body, emphasis is placed on the process of development from baby to full-grown man involving the various stages of life, reminiscent of the topic of ch. 5.23. What is striking in comparison with what we find in A is the presence of distinctively Platonic themes, not just the strong soul-body dualism, but also references to life after death in the incorporeal realm followed by rebirth (παλιγγενεσία, i.e. reincarnation). These are the kind of themes that are missing in our doxography, with its emphasis on physiological aspects and processes. It is striking, in fact, how infrequently Platonic doxai are to be found in Book 5, with after ch. 5.4 only three examples (A 5.15.1, 5.20.4 and 5.26.1, not including 5.24.4 where the name-label must be emended to Strato). On this Philonic text and its likely reference to the doctrine of reincarnation see further Yli-Karjanmaa (2015) 150–167. (2) Sources. On the question of whether sleep and waking belong to the soul or the body or are κοινά, Aristotle in his brief treatise on the subject (Somn.Vig. 1 454a8–11, text below section E(b)§1) gives the answer recorded here; see the discussion below section D(c). His treatise contains no dialectical discussions. Given this Aristotelian background, however, it may be surmised that the material in this chapter on sleep derives from the Peripatetic tradition, which surveyed views developed by earlier authors.

2002

liber 5 caput 25

On the subject of death in relation to the human composite of soul and body and the key role played by Plato’s statement at Phd. 67d, see above (a) on the Proximate tradition. C Chapter Heading The formulation with ὁποτέρου (literally ‘of whichever of the two’, simplified to πότερον in G and Q) is unique among the chapter headings in A. But effectively it asks an εἰ question, i.e. whether a phenomenon belongs to the soul or the body, and so is reminiscent of a number of other chapters which focus on corporeality or incorporeality (4.3 on whether soul is corporeal; 4.17 on whether voice is incorporeal; 4.23 on bodily affections and whether the soul is also affected; 5.4 on whether semen is corporeal). The question is well-suited to the schematic and diaeretic method of the Placita; see further M–R 2.1.57–58, 147. Following on from the previous ch. 5.24, it again invites investigation of the cause. D Analysis a Context The chapter forms a twin with the previous one. As in ch. 5.24 sleep and death are regarded as closely related phenomena, for which parallel explanatory factors are utilized. However, whereas ch. 5.24 makes no reference to the soul per se (there is only a mention of the αἰσθητικὸν πνεῦμα and the ἡγεμονικόν in §4), in ch. 5.25 the focus is squarely on how the explanations given relate to the two components of the living being, soul and body. Although the reader will probably assume that it is the human soul and body that is being referred to, this is not made explicit until the final doxa which speaks of the elemental components of the ἄνθρωπος (but note Q speaks of Lebewesen, i.e. ‘living beings’, in his translation). b Number–Order of Lemmata The chapter has four lemmata, the same number as its twin 5.24. Given the lack of exact parallels, it is not possible to gauge whether the chapter has been abridged. One might have expected a doxa of Plato to be included, but see our remarks above in section B. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Each of the four doxai addresses the subject of the chapter in a reasonably comprehensive manner, outlining how sleep and death occur in relation to both soul and body. The chapter continues the main insight of its twin 5.24, namely that death is the intensification of the process that leads to sleep. This is explicit

liber 5 caput 25

2003

in the first and third doxa, less clear in the other two. However, in the absence of comparative material it is difficult to determine the exact meaning of the doxai and the intended structure of the chapter. As was already noted above, the views on the soul do not cohere very well with what we read in Book 4, and particularly with ch. 4.7 on the soul’s immortality. (1) The first doxa setting out Aristotelian doctrine immediately answers that sleep is a joint activity of both body and soul. The doxa is taken directly from his treatise De somno et vigilia, where both the question and the answer are given in ch. 1, with further details (including the role of food) in ch. 3. The explanation of death follows the same pattern as in 5.24, including the use of the adjective παντελής to indicate intensification of the process of cooling resulting in death (cf. §1 Alcmaeon, §3 Empedocles). For this doctrine the doxographical tradition appears to have made a link between the above text and De juventute 4, where death is explained as the destruction of the heat in the heart (but there is no mention of this organ here). It is difficult to determine the source of the final part of the doxa in which it is denied that there is death of the soul. It is perhaps a deduction from the above-mentioned text in De juventute. It does not agree with the conventional way of reading the De anima, where only the νοῦς does not perish (de An. 1.4 408b19; we recall that at A 4.7.4 Aristotle is conjoined with the atomists in saying that the soul perishes together with the body). There is a strong tradition that Aristotle defended the immortality of the soul in his exoteric treatises (esp. the Eudemus), but it is highly unlikely that this background is relevant to the present doxa. Another way to rescue the doxa, advocated by Laks (2015) 36–37, is to postulate that the doxographer has the νοῦς in mind here. (2) The second doxa attributed to Anaxagoras is diametrically opposed to that of Aristotle, i.e. the two views form a diaphonia. (a) Sleep is not a joint phenomenon but pertains to the body only, i.e. as the result of weariness caused by bodily activity. In contrast to the other doxai in the chapter, no precise physiological explanation is given. (b) Death is described as occurring through ‘the separation of the soul (sc. from the body)’, using a widespread definition best known from Plato’s Phaedo. It is not indicated what this means for the soul. At A 4.3.2 Anaxagoras is among those who hold that the soul is ‘air-like’ and is a body. This would imply here that the death involves the destruction of the soul. In A 4.7.1, however, Anaxagoras is credited with the doctrine of the soul’s immortality. It is generally agreed that this tenet is difficult to reconcile with what we know about his views on generation and destruction (see for example Guthrie 1962–1981, 2.317) and is likely to be a mistake. (3) The next doxa of Leucippus follows on from the previous one but adds a physiological explanation, the details of which are rather obscure (there may

2004

liber 5 caput 25

be a connection with Aristotle’s report on Democritus’ views in Resp. 4 471b3– 16, where life and death are caused by the influx and efflux of ‘shapes’). With regard to sleep the view is the opposite of that of Anaxagoras, and so returns to the Aristotelian position. However, the reader is probably meant to recall that for the atomists soul is corporeal. This would explain the final phrase, that these are ‘affections of the body and not of the soul’. As in ch. 5.24 and §1, death is the intensification of the process of sleep. (4) The final Empedoclean doxa differs from the previous three in that death is explained first. Here too textual problems bedevil an understanding of the doxa. The explanations of death and sleep appear to be given in terms of the elemental components of the human body (and not blood as in 5.24.2). Our text follows Diels in restoring all four elements, of which the separation of the ‘fiery’ is death. But one would also expect a reference to cooling, as found in 5.24.2. Guthrie has proposed emending to διαχωρισμὸν τοῦ πυρώδους ⟨ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων⟩ ἐξ ὧν … (1962–1981, 2.226 n. 1). But this does not explain how death and sleep differ. Death is ‘common’ to body and soul just as sleep was for Aristotle at the chapter’s beginning. If this means that both body and soul dissolve, then it contradicts Empedocles’ widely recognised doctrine of the immortality of the soul, as stated in A 4.7.1. But such a conclusion is perhaps not necessary. Despite a reasonable amount of detail, this chapter remains one of the more obscure in the collection. One suspects that originally behind the various formulations a complex diaeresis may lie hidden, which would be clearer if we could be sure what was exactly meant by the genitives ψυχῆς and σώματος. As an approximate schema we might suggest the following (where B = of body, S = of soul): Aristotle Anaxagoras Leucippus Empedocles

sleep B and S (non-corporeal) sleep B not S sleep B and S (corporeal) death B and S (complete)

death B not S death B and S death B and S sleep B and S (partial)

This is somewhat reminiscent of the kind of schemata found in the early chapters of Book 2 on the cosmos (cf. M–R 2.313, 340, 355, also above ch. 2.1 Commentary B). But the exact details of the schematism are far from clear, particularly in the case of the final Empedoclean doxa. Laks (2015) 37 has usefully pointed out that the placement of Aristotle at the beginning of the chapter reflects the fact that ‘il formule la problématique qui guide rétrospectivement la lecture des trois notices (présocratiques) qui suivent, mais aussi parce qu’il livre d’emblée la position attendue, conforme aux exigences d’un vague horizon platonicien’. This means that the movement

liber 5 caput 25

2005

of the chapter is the reverse of the previous one, not moving towards a dominant view as in 5.24, but starting with such a view and then moving through a number of more idiosyncratic earlier theories. This is again similar to some of the cosmological chapters in Book 2, e.g. 2.14, 2.24, 2.27. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 In the second explanation of sleep it is tempting to read with Diels καταψυχθέν instead of the mss. περιψυχθέν or παραψυχθέν. But the lectio difficilior should be retained. A may have wished to have some variation with the noun κατάψυξις in the next line. Q paraphrases (natürliche may translate κατὰ φύσιν). Diels definitely errs in bracketing the final clause because of the change to oratio recta. Such changes are common in A; for examples in this Book see chs. 5.4.3, 5.4.1, 5.8.1, 5.20.4 etc. §3 The addition of κόπῳ is perhaps not necessary. But it appears to have been in Q’s text, as acutely seen by Daiber, who explains the wayward translation by suggesting that Q read a colon after οὐ following the name-label. It should be noted that the nouns ἐκκρίσει and εἰσκρίσεως are both suggestions by Diels based on terminology used in A 4.13.1 and 4.17.2. §4 The conjecture of the three additional elements in the second line must of course remain somewhat speculative (for ἀερώδης in Empedoclean doxai see A 4.3.12 (where we take over Diels’ conjecture), 4.22.1, 5.15.3). All three adjectives are commonly found in A. We have rearranged the three adjectives before ἀερώδους to make the scribal error (saut du même au même) more plausible. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Tusc. 1.18 mors igitur ipsa, quae videtur notissima res esse, quid sit primum est videndum. sunt enim qui discessum animi a corpore putent esse mortem: sunt qui nullum censeant fieri discessum, sed una animum et corpus occidere animumque in corpore exstingui. qui discedere animum censent, alii statim dissipari, alii diu permanere, alii semper. 1.24 nam si cor aut sanguis aut cerebrum est animus, certe, quoniam est corpus, interibit cum reliquo corpore; si anima est, fortasse dissipabitur; si ignis, exstinguetur … (cf. ch. 4.3). 1.92 quam qui leviorem faciunt, somni simillimam volunt esse … habes somnum imaginem mortis eamque cotidie induis … 1.117 magna tamen eloquentia est utendum … ut homines mortem vel optare incipiant vel certe timere desistant. nam si supremus ille dies non exstinctionem, sed commutationem adfert loci, quid optabilius? sin autem perimit ac delet omnino, quid melius quam in mediis vitae laboribus obdormiscere et ita coniventum somno consopiri sempiterno? Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.31 τί δέ; τελευτώντων σβέννυται καὶ συμφθείρεται

2006

liber 5 caput 25

τοῖς σώμασιν ἢ πλεῖστον ἐπιχρόνον ἢ κατὰ τὸ παντελὲς ἄφθαρτόν ἐστι; cf. Cher. 113–114 ἐγὼ γοῦν ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος συνεστώς, νοῦν λόγον αἴσθησιν ἔχειν δοκῶν, οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἴδιον εὑρίσκω· (114) ποῦ γάρ μου τὸ σῶμα πρὸ γενέσεως ἦν; ποῖ δὲ καὶ χωρήσει μεταστάντος ⟨μου⟩; ποῦ δὲ καὶ τοῦ δοκοῦντος ὑφεστάναι τῶν ἡλικιῶν αἱ διαφοραί; ποῦ τὸ βρέφος, ποῦ ὁ παῖς, ποῦ ⟨ὁ⟩ ἀντίπαις, ποῦ ὁ ἄρτι ἡβῶν, ποῦ τὸ μειράκιον, ὁ πρωτογένειος, ὁ νεανίας, ὁ τέλειος ἀνήρ; πόθεν δὲ ἦλθεν ἡ ψυχή, ποῖ δὲ χωρήσει, πόσον δὲ χρόνον ἡμῖν ὁμοδίαιτος ἔσται; τίς δέ ἐστι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν; πότε δὲ καὶ ἐκτησάμεθα αὐτήν; πρὸ γενέσεως; ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑπήρχομεν· μετὰ τὸν θάνατον; ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐσόμεθα οἱ μετὰ σωμάτων σύγκριτοι ποιοί, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς παλιγγενεσίαν ὁρμήσομεν οἱ μετὰ ἀσωμάτων σύγκριτοι ποιοί. Tertullian de An. 50.1 satis de speculo mortis, id est de somno, cum etiam de negotiis somni, id est de somniis; nunc ad originem huius excessus, id est ad ordinem mortis, quia nec ipsam sine quaestionibus, licet finem omnium quaestionum. 51.1 opus autem mortis in medio est, descretio corporis animaeque. sed quidam ad immortalitatem animae … ita argumentationes emendicant, ut velint credi etiam post mortem quasdam animas adherere corporibus. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 4.141.1 ὅσα δ᾽ αὖ περὶ ὕπνου λέγουσι, τὰ αὐτὰ χρὴ καὶ περὶ θανάτου ἐξακούειν. ἑκάτερος γὰρ δηλοῖ τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς, ὃ μὲν μᾶλλον, ὃ δὲ ἧττον … Chapter heading: cf. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 4.141.1 cited above. §2 Anaxagoras: cf. Chrysippus (SVF 2.790) at Nemesius NH 2, p. 22.3 Χρύσιππος δέ φησιν· ὁ θάνατός ἐστι χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος· οὐδὲν δὲ ἀσώματον ἀπὸ σώματος χωρίζεται· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐφάπτεται σώματος ἀσώματον· ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ καὶ ἐφάπτεται καὶ χωρίζεται τοῦ σώματος· οὐκ ἄρα ἀσώματος ἡ ψυχή. cf. at Plutarch SR 1052C (SVF 2.604). Philo of Alexandria Leg. 1.104 ὅτι διττός ἐστι θάνατος, ὁ μὲν ἀνθρώπου, ὁ δὲ ψυχῆς ἴδιος· ὁ μὲν οὖν ἀνθρώπου χωρισμός ἐστι ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος, ὁ δὲ ψυχῆς θάνατος ἀρετῆς μὲν φθορά ἐστι, κακίας δὲ ἀνάληψις. Abr. 258 (Abraham on the death of his wife Sarah) τὸ πενθεῖν ἐπὶ πλέον, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀλλότριον ἡγησάμενος σοφίας, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἀνεδιδάχθη τὸν θάνατον νομίζειν μὴ σβέσιν ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ χωρισμὸν καὶ διάζευξιν ἀπὸ σώματος, ὅθεν ἦλθεν ἀπιούσης … Sextus Empiricus M. 7.234 ὅταν γὰρ εἴπωμεν συνεστάναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, ἢ τὸν θάνατον εἶναι χωρισμὸν ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος, ἰδίως καλοῦμεν τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. Epiphanius Haer. 2, p. 448.6 Holl οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ὁ θάνατος ἢ διάκρισις καὶ διαχωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle Somn.Vig. 1 453b11–14 Περὶ δὲ ὕπνου καὶ ἐγρηγόρσεως ἐπισκεπτέον τίνα τε τυγχάνει ὄντα, καὶ πότερον ἴδια τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ τοῦ σώματος ἢ κοινά, καὶ εἰ κοινά, τίνος μορίου τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζῴοις. Juv. 1 467b10 Περὶ δὲ νεότητος καὶ γήρως καὶ περὶ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου λεκτέον νῦν. Philodemus Περὶ θανάτου. Writings Περὶ θανάτου listed for Xenocrates (D.L. 4.12); Diogenes the Cynic (D.L. 6.80); Sphaerus the Stoic (D.L. 7.178). Iamblichus de An. fr. 36 Finamore-Dillon at Stob. Ecl. 1.383.15. also Pliny Nat. 1 Index Liber VII de morte.

liber 5 caput 25 §1 Aristotle: Aristotle Somn.Vig. 1 454a8–11 ἐπεὶ δὲ οὔτε τῆς ψυχῆς ἴδιον τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι οὔτε τοῦ σώματος (οὗ γὰρ ἡ δύναμις, τούτου καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια· ἡ δὲ λεγομένη αἴσθησις ὡς ἐνέργεια κίνησίς τις διὰ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστι), φανερὸν ὡς οὔτε τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ πάθος ἴδιον, οὔτ᾽ ἄψυχον σῶμα δυνατὸν αἰσθάνεσθαι. also Somn.Vig. 3 456b17–29 cited on ch. 5.24 section E(b) General texts. Juv. 4 469b13–20 διὸ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων μορίων ψυχομένων ὑπομένει τὸ ζῆν, τοῦ δ᾽ ἐν ταύτῃ (sc. καρδίᾳ) φθείρεται πάμπαν, διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐντεῦθεν τῆς θερμότητος ἠρτῆσθαι πᾶσι, καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ὥσπερ ἐμπεπυρευμένης ἐν τοῖς μορίοις τούτοις, τῶν μὲν ἀναίμων ἐν τῷ ἀνάλογον, ἐν δὲ τῇ καρδίᾳ τῶν ἐναίμων. ἀνάγκη τοίνυν ἅμα τό τε ζῆν ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ τούτου σωτηρίαν, καὶ τὸν καλούμενον θάνατον εἶναι τὴν τούτου φθοράν. cf. PA 2.2 648b2–10 διὸ δεῖ μὴ λανθάνειν πῶς δεῖ τῶν φύσει συνεστώτων τὰ μὲν θερμὰ λέγειν τὰ δὲ ψυχρὰ καὶ τὰ μὲν ξηρὰ τὰ δ᾽ ὑγρά, ἐπεὶ ὅτι γ᾽ αἴτια ταῦτα σχεδὸν καὶ θανάτου καὶ ζωῆς ἔοικεν εἶναι φανερόν, ἔτι δ᾽ ὕπνου καὶ ἐγρηγόρσεως καὶ ἀκμῆς καὶ γήρως καὶ νόσου καὶ ὑγιείας, … καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εὐλόγως συμβέβηκεν· καθάπερ γὰρ ἐν ἑτέροις εἴρηται πρότερον, ἀρχαὶ τῶν φυσικῶν στοιχείων αὗταί εἰσι, θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν καὶ ξηρὸν καὶ ὑγρόν. de An. 1.1 403a15–16 (on the relationship between soul and body) ἀχώριστον γάρ, εἴπερ ἀεὶ μετὰ σώματος τινος ἐστιν. cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias de An. 21.21–24 οὖσα δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ εἶδος τοῦ σώματος … τῷ ἀχώριστον εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος καὶ συμφθείροιτο ἂν τῷ σώματι, ὅση γε αὐτῆς φθαρτοῦ σώματος εἶδός ἐστιν. Proclus in Tim. 3.323.31 Diehl (citing Arist. Eud. fr. 4 Ross) ὃ δὴ (sc. Plato’s discussion on the relation between the soul and the body in Phd.) καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ζηλώσας ἐν τῇ Περὶ ψυχῆς πραγματείᾳ φυσικῶς αὐτὴν μεταχειριζόμενος οὔτε περὶ καθόδων ψυχῆς οὔτε περὶ λήξεων ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς Διαλόγοις χωρὶς ἐπραγματεύσατο περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν προηγούμενον κατεβάλετο λόγον. §2 Anaxagoras: cf. Plato Phd. 67d οὐκοῦν τοῦτό γε θάνατος ὀνομάζεται, λύσις καὶ χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος. Gorg. 524b ὁ θάνατος τυγχάνει ὤν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ δυοῖν πραγμάτοιν διάλυσις, τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος, ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλοιν. Iamblichus Protr. 115.9 ἀποδημία μὲν γὰρ μετάστασις τόπου, θάνατος δὲ ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χωρισμὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, οὗτος δὲ τὸ φιλοσοφεῖν … David Prol.Phil. 31.15–16 φυσικὸς δὲ θάνατός ἐστιν ὁ διαχωρισμὸς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, καθ᾽ ὃν ἅπαντες τελευτῶμεν etc. §3 Leucippus: cf. Democritus at Arist. Resp. 4 471b3–16, esp. 14–16 (68A106 DK) εἶναι γὰρ τὸν θάνατον τὴν τῶν τοιούτων σχημάτων ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἔξοδον ἐκ τῆς τοῦ περιέχοντος ἐκθλίψεως. differently Scholia in Epicurum at Ep.Hdt. 66 ὕπνον τε γίνεσθαι τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν τῶν παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν σύγκρισιν παρεσπαρμένων ἐγκατεχομένων ἢ διαφορουμένων, εἶτα συμπιπτόντων τοῖς ἐπερεισμοῖς. also at Hippolytus Ref. 1.22.5 (on Epicurus) τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων λύεσθαι ἅμα τοῖς σώμασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ συγγεννᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς τίθεται· αἷμα γὰρ αὐτὰς εἶναι, οὗ ἐξελθόντος ἢ τραπέντος ἀπόλλυσθαι ὅλον τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

2007

Liber 5 Caput 26 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 910B–D; pp. 438a4–440a2 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 130; pp. 646.25–647.14 Diels; pp. 423–450 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 242–245 Daiber—PTz: Ioannes Tzetzes Exeg. in Hes. p. 66.7–8 ed. Aa.Vv. (1542), cf. Gaisford (1823) 2.113.9–10 S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.45.1–2, pp. 297.13–298.2 Wachsmuth (et iteratur supra post c. 41, vid. adn. Wachsmuth ad pp. 293.24, 297.13); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167 p. 112.27 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. T: Theodoretus CAG 5.24–25, p. 129.4–11 Raeder

Titulus κϛʹ. Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα (P,S) §1 Πλάτων Θαλῆς καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ἔμψυχα ζῷα· φανερὸν δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σαλεύεσθαι καὶ ἐντεταμένους ἔχειν τοὺς κλάδους καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐπαναγωγαῖς εἴκειν καὶ πάλιν σφοδρῶς ἀναχαλᾶσθαι, ὥστε καὶ συνέλκειν βάρη. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἔμψυχα μέν, οὐ μὴν ζῷα· τὰ γὰρ ζῷα ὁρμητικὰ εἶναι καὶ αἰσθητικά, ἔνια δὲ καὶ λογικά. (P2,S2) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ δὲ καὶ Ἐπικούρειοι οὐκ ἔμψυχα· τινὰ γὰρ ψυχῆς ὁρμητικῆς εἶναι καὶ ἐπιθυμητικῆς, τινὰ δὲ καὶ λογικῆς· τὰ δὲ φυτὰ αὐτομάτως πως κεκινῆσθαι οὐ διὰ ψυχῆς. (P3) §1 Plato cf. Tim. 77a–c; Thales fr. 359, 405 Wöhrle; §2 Aristoteles cf. de An. 2.2 413a21–b10; §3 Stoici SVF 2.708; Epicurei fr. 309 Usener titulus ηὐξήθη PBQS : αὔξεται PG ‖ post c. 41 hab. SFP tit. Περὶ φυτῶν, quod etiam leg. Phot (vid. Wachsmuth adn. ad 297.13 et comm. infra) §1 [2] Πλάτων Θαλῆς S Diels : Θαλῆς καὶ Πλάτων PG : Πλάτων Ἐμπεδοκλῆς PBQ Mau Lachenaud ‖ καὶ PBS : om. PGQ(ut vid.) ‖ ἔμψυχα ζῷα PGS Diels Lachenaud : ἔμψυχα καὶ ζῷα PB, secl. Mau, cf. ζῷα καὶ ἔμψυχα PQ (daß die Pflanzen Lebewesen und daß diese Lebewesen beseelt sind Q) ‖ δὲ] om. PB(II) ‖ [2–3] ἀπὸ … καὶ1 lac. hab. PG ‖ [3–4] ἐπαναγωγαῖς PB : ἐπαγωγαῖς S : συναγωγαῖς PG ‖ [4] post συναγωγαῖς hab. PG μετὰ βίας, ret. Diels, ut glossema secl. Jas ‖ εἴκειν PB(II)G(Nic)Q(ut vid.)S : ἥκειν PB(I,III)G2 ‖ σφοδρῶς ἀναχαλᾶσθαι PGQS : σπονδιὸς ἀναχαλασθὲν PB, corr. edd. ‖ συνέλκειν PGQ(ut vid.) Diels edd. : συνανέλκειν S : συντελεῖν PB ‖ [5] βάρη] om. PB §2 [6] καὶ ante ζῷα PB(I,III) ret. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [7] ἔνια] om. PB ‖ λογικά] om. PB(II) : ante λογικά hab. PG post lac. ἔμψυχα et continuat πᾶσαν γὰρ ψυχὴν ὁρμητικὴν εἶναι […] αὐτομάτως γεγενῆσθαι δίχα ψυχῆς (cf. §3) §§3–4 non hab. S §3 [8] Ἐπικούρειοι PB (οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι PB(III:E)) : Ἐπίκουρος PQ ‖ [10] κεκινῆσθαι coni. Gassendi prob. Mau Lachenaud (κινεῖσθαι Diels) : γεγενῆσθαι PBGQ ‖ οὐ διὰ] δίχα PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_151

5

10

liber 5 caput 26

§4

Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πρῶτα τὰ δένδρα τῶν ζῴων ἐκ γῆς ἀναφῦναί φησι, πρὶν τὸν ἥλιον περιαπλωθῆναι καὶ πρὶν ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα διακριθῆναι· διὰ δὲ συμμετρίαν τῆς κράσεως τὸν τοῦ ἄρρενος καὶ τοῦ θήλεος περιέχειν λόγον· αὔξεσθαι δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ θερμοῦ διαιρουμένου, ὥστε γῆς εἶναι μέρη, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔμβρυα τὰ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τῆς μήτρας μέρη· τοὺς δὲ καρποὺς περιττεύματα εἶναι τοῦ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ὕδατος καὶ πυρός· καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐλλιπὲς ἔχοντα τὸ ὑγρόν, ἐξικμαζομένου αὐτοῦ τῷ θέρει, φυλλορροεῖν, τὰ δὲ πλεῖον παραμένειν ἀεὶ φύλλοις τεθηλότα, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῆς δάφνης καὶ τῆς ἐλαίας καὶ τοῦ φοίνικος· τὰς δὲ διαφορὰς τῶν χυμῶν παραλλαγὰς τῆς ⟨γῆς⟩ πολυμερείας καὶ τῶν φυτῶν γίνεσθαι, διαφόρους ἑλκόντων τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ τρέφοντος ὁμοιομερείας, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀμπέλων· οὐ γὰρ αἱ διαφοραὶ τούτων χρηστικὸν οἶνον ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλ᾽ αἱ τοῦ τρέφοντος ἐδάφους. (P4)

§4 Empedocles 31A70 DK §4 [11] πρῶτα τὰ δένδρα PB : inv. ord. PG ‖ πρῶτα … ζῴων al. PQ (die Baüme vor den Lebewesen Q) ‖ ἀναφῦναί PGQ Diels Vítek Primavesi Reclam2 : ἀναδῦναί PB Mau Lachenaud ‖ [11–12] πρὶν … διακριθῆναι] paraphr. PG ὀλίγον περιπολεῖν ‖ [12] περιαπλωθῆναι] ἁπλωθῆναι PTz ‖ διὰ δὲ PB(I,III) : καὶ διὰ PB(II) ‖ [13] συμμετρίαν PQ (cf. ἀμετρίαν PG) Diels DG (sed dub. ἀσυμμετρίαν) Mau Lachenaud : συμμετρίας PB Diels VS Vítek Primavesi Reclam2 ‖ [14] ἀπὸ … διαιρουμένου PB (ἀραιουμένου PB(II)), cf. durch die in die Erde befindliche Wärme und durch seine Verteilung Q : ὑπὸ … διαιρούμενα PG Diels ‖ [15] καθάπερ καὶ PBQ : καὶ γὰρ PG ‖ [16] περιττεύματα PB Mau Lachenaud : περιττώματα PG Diels ‖ τοῦ PG Diels Mau Lachenaud : om. PBQ(ut vid.) ‖ [18] φυλλορροεῖν] φυλλορροεῖ PG ‖ πλεῖον Wyttenbach edd. (PG(mss.) τέλειον, emend. Jas), reichlich vorhanden ist Q : πλείονα PB ‖ παραμένειν] παραμένει PG ‖ ἀεὶ φύλλοις τεθηλότα PG, cf. immer frisch erscheinen Q : om. PB ‖ [19] καὶ τοῦ φοίνικος om. PG, postea add. und was dem gleicht Q ‖ [20] παραλλαγὰς τῆς ⟨γῆς⟩ coni. Mau Lachenaud sec. Diels VS, cf. der Länder und Zeiten Q : παραλλαγὰς τῆς PBG, crucif. Diels DG : ⟨παρὰ⟩ παραλλαγὰς τῆς ⟨γῆς⟩ Diels VS Vítek ‖ post παραλλαγὰς hab. PG γίγνεσθαι ‖ φυτῶν PG Diels : χυμῶν PB(I,III) : αἰτίων PB(II) ‖ [21] διαφόρους Beck Mau Lachenaud : διαφορὰς PB Diels DG : διαφόρως PG Diels VS ‖ ἑλκόντων PG Diels VS Mau Lachenaud : ἐχόντων PB Diels DG ‖ [22] χρηστικὸν PB : χρηστὸν τὸν Diels (der guten Wein Q) : al. PG ποιοῦσι τὸν οἶνον διαλλάττειν ‖ [23] αἱ τοῦ τρέφοντος Wyttenbach Diels et PQ(ut vid.), cf. τοῦ τρέφοντος PG (prob. Bollack) : ἐκ τοῦ τρέφεσθαι PB ‖ [23] αἱ] om. PG ‖ ἐδάφους PG Diels : ἐδάφοις PB(II,III), ἐδάφνοις PB(I)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 130 (~ tit.) Πῶς αὔξεται τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα (text Jas) 130.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς καὶ Πλάτων τὰ φυτὰ ἔμψυχα ζῷα· φανερὸν δὲ ἐκ τοῦ σαλεύεσθαι καὶ […] ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς εἴκειν {μετὰ βίας} καὶ πάλιν σφοδρῶς ἀναχαλᾶσθαι, ὥστε καὶ συνέλκειν βάρη. 130.2 (~ P2–3) Ἀριστοτέλης ἔμψυχα μέν, οὖν ζῷα […] ὁρμητικὰ εἶναι καὶ αἰσθητικά, ἔνια δὲ […] ἔμψυχα. πᾶσαν γὰρ ψυχὴν ὁρμητικὴν εἶναι […] αὐτομάτως γεγενῆσθαι δίχα ψυχῆς.

2009

15

20

2010

liber 5 caput 26

130.3 (~ P4) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰ δένδρα πρῶτα τῶν ζῴων ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀναφῦναι, ὀλίγον περιπολεῖν, διὰ δὲ ἀμετρίαν τῆς κράσεως τὸν τοῦ ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος περιέχειν λόγον. αὔξεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ θερμοῦ διαιρούμενου, ὥστε γῆς εἶναι μέρη· καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἔμβρυα τὰ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τῆς μήτρας εἶναι μέρη. τοὺς δὲ καρποὺς περιττώματα εἶναι τοῦ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ὕδατος καὶ πυρός. καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐλλιπὲς ἔχοντα τὸ ὑγρὸν ἐξικμαζομένου τούτου τῷ θέρει φυλλοροεῖ, τὰ δὲ πλεῖον παραμένει ἀεὶ φύλλοις τεθηλότα ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῆς δάφνης καὶ τῆς ἐλαίας. τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν χυμῶν παραλλαγὰς γίγνεσθαι τῆς πολυμερείας καὶ τῶν φυτῶν διαφόρως ἑλκόντων τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ τρέφοντος ὁμοιομερείας ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀμπέλων· οὐ γὰρ αἱ διαφοραὶ τούτων ποιοῦσι τὸν οἶνον διαλλάττειν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ τρέφοντος ἐδάφους. Ioannes Tzetzes Exeg. in Hes. p. 66.7–8 κἄν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ πρὸ τοῦ ἁπλωθῆναι τὸν ἤλιον φησι φυτὰ γενέσθαι καὶ ζῷα (~ tit., §4) Testes secundi: Theodoretus CAG 5.24–25 καὶ ὁ μὲν Πλάτων καὶ τὰ φυτὰ κέκληκε, τοῦ τρίτου γε τῆς ψυχῆς εἴδους, τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ, μόνου μετέχοντα (~ §1)· ὁ δέ γε Ἀριστοτέλης ζῷα μὲν αὐτὰ εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἠνέσχετο—τὸ γὰρ δὴ τῆς αἰσθητικῆς μετέχον ψυχῆς τοῦτο καλεῖσθαι ζῷον ἠξίωσε—τῆς φυτικῆς μέντοι καὶ θρεπτικῆς ψυχῆς μετέχειν ὑπέλαβε τὰ φυτά (~ §2). (25) ἀλλὰ τοῦτόν γε τὸν λόγον οἱ τῆς Ποικίλης οὐ προσεδέξαντο· τὴν γάρ τοι φυτικὴν δύναμιν καλεῖν ψυχὴν οὐκ ἠνέσχοντο (~ §3) (sequitur AD fr. 39 Diels—a Theodoreto Numenio tributum—ex Eus. PE 15.20.1 & 20.6). Loci Aetiani: quaestio Α 1.1.2 πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα, ὅσα μήτε ὑπὸ τύχης μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης μήτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῖα μήτε τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἔχει, φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· οἷον γῆ πῦρ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ φυτὰ ζῷα· … ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει ἀρχήν τινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἕκαστον τούτων ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς γίνεται· καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι, οἷον ζῷα φυτά, ἀρχὴν γενέσεως ἔχει. A 5.15 Εἰ τὸ ἔμβρυον ζῷον, praesertim §2 infra cit. ad §4. A 5.20 Πόσα γένη ζῴων καὶ εἰ πάντα αἰσθητικὰ καὶ λογικά. §1 A 5.15.1 Πλάτων ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον· καὶ γὰρ κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ τρέφεσθαι. A 5.20.1 Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης τέσσαρα γένη ζῴων· χερσαῖα ἔνυδρα πτηνὰ οὐράνια· καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἄστρα ζῷα λέγεσθαι καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὸν θεὸν ζῷον λογικὸν ἀθάνατον. A 1.3.1 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων ἀπεφήνατο τὸ ὕδωρ … στοχάζεται δ᾽ ἐκ τούτου πρῶτον …. δεύτερον, ὅτι πάντα τὰ φυτὰ ὑγρῷ τρέφεται καὶ καρποφορεῖ, ἀμοιροῦντα δὲ ξηραίνεται. cf. A 1.7.11 τὸ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες. A 4.2.1 Θαλῆς ἀπεφήνατο πρῶτος τὴν ψυχὴν φύσιν ἀεικίνητον ἢ αὐτοκίνητον. §2 A 4.4.3 (de partibus animae) Ἀριστοτέλης πέντε ἐνεργείας, τὴν ὀρεκτικήν, τὴν θρεπτικήν, τὴν αἰσθητικήν, τὴν μεταβατικήν, τὴν διανοητικήν. etiam A 5.20.1 supra cit. ad §1. §3 A 4.4.4 (de partibus animae) οἱ Στωικοὶ ἐξ ὀκτὼ μερῶν φασι συνεστάναι, πέντε μὲν τῶν αἰσθητικῶν, ὁρατικοῦ ἀκουστικοῦ ὀσφρητικοῦ γευστικοῦ ἁπτικοῦ, ἕκτου

liber 5 caput 26

2011

δὲ φωνητικοῦ, ἑβδόμου δὲ σπερματικοῦ, ὀγδόου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα ἐπιτέταται διὰ τῶν οἰκείων ὀργάνων … A 5.15.2 (de fetu) οἱ Στωικοὶ μέρος εἶναι αὐτὸ τῆς γαστρὸς οὐ ζῷον· ὥσπερ γὰρ τοὺς καρποὺς μέρη τῶν φυτῶν ὄντας πεπαινομένους ἀπορρεῖν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἔμβρυον. §4 A 2.20.13 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, ἀεὶ κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον. A 5.7.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἄρρενα καὶ θήλεα γίνεσθαι παρὰ θερμότητα καὶ ψυχρότητα· ὅθεν ἱστορεῖται τοὺς μὲν πρώτους ἄρρενας πρὸς ἀνατολῇ καὶ μεσημβρίᾳ γεγενῆσθαι μᾶλλον ἐκ τῆς γῆς, τὰς δὲ θηλείας πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις. A 5.15.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ εἶναι μὲν ζῷον τὸ ἔμβρυον ἀλλ᾽ ἄπνουν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῇ γαστρί … A 5.17.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, ὅτε ἐγεννᾶτο τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ἐκ τῆς γῆς … A 5.19.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς πρώτας γενέσεις τῶν ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses In PB and Q three doxai of modest length are followed by a very long extract from a summary of Empedoclean cosmogony, similar in length and approach to the long lemmata elsewhere, e.g. at A 2.6.3, 2.20.13, 4.22.2, 5.19.4. G writes out the entire chapter, including almost all of the long lemma, but through a scribal error the second and third doxa have been coalesced (see below, section D(d) on §3). In one of the rare surviving extracts from Book 5 S preserves the first two doxai with the name-labels Plato (together with Thales) and Aristotle (cf. 5.18.4 and 5.20.1). The similar text in T is not taken from A, but based on a passage in Clement of Alexandria; see section D(e) below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is an excellent and precise parallel, as already noted by Mansfeld (1990a) 3184–3190, in Book 8 of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis for the diaeresis presented in the first three doxai. Clement raises the present question as part of the dialectical discussion on whether an embryo is an animal (cf. ch. 5.15). Its presence in that work, with its scholastic dialectical contents (on which see above, ch. 5.15 section B(a), where we note Havrda’s recent suggested attribution to Galen), demonstrates that the quaestio was traditional. On T’s appropriation of this text see further below section D(d). There are no precise parallels in the further proximate tradition. At the beginning of Nemesius’ book on human nature (ch. 2, p. 34.5–9, cited below section E(a) General texts) we find a different kind of diaeresis on the kinds of living beings,

2012

liber 5 caput 26

resembling Porphyry’s tree, which does show some resemblance to our chapter and esp. the second doxa. But it does not present doctrinal alternatives with name-labels as occurs in A. A significant parallel for the quaestio and its doxographical treatment is found in the treatise Περὶ φυτῶν which is part of the Aristotelian corpus. The transmission of this work is uniquely complex. The Greek text is a retroversion of a 12th cent. Latin translation of an Arabic translation based on a Syriac Vorlage, which in turn was based on the original Greek text. The work itself was written by the first cent. bce Greek author Nicolaus of Damascus and may have been based on a work by Aristotle or by someone in his school. On this work see Drossaart Lulofs (1957) and the splendid edition of the five translations in Drossaart Lulofs–Poortman (1989); for a discussion of its transmission and contents see Moraux (1973–1984) 1.487–514, with also a useful overview at Wolfsdorf (2009) 40. As the extracts cited below at section E(b) General texts show, the first chapter discusses the same question as our chapter but only considers the first two positions (but note in 1.5 and 2.1 the allusion to Empedocles’ view on the bisexual nature of plants as also found in the final doxa). The doxographical reports on Plato, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Democritus describe the view in A’s first doxa (with all but Plato in some respects going further, as indicated in 1.10). The views reported by Nicolaus may thus go back to the Peripatos, but are not used by A (the name-label Empedocles is shared with PB in §1, but it was not originally present in A; see further section D(c) below). The Aristotelian view in the second doxa is precisely that taken in Nicolaus’ treatise. It is basically consistent with the views of Aristotle himself, though closer to his psychological than his biological works (see texts cited below section E(b)§2). In denying that plants can be called ζῷα but granting that they are ἔμψυχα Nicolaus is effectively arguing against the third position in A’s diaeresis. But he does not refer to any Hellenistic views. It is surprising that so little dialectial and doxographical material finds its way into the proximate tradition. Consistent with this is the fact that the subject of the nature of plants is not discussed in any of the major doxographies in Diogenes Laertius and similar sources, with the single exception of a brief mention that plants are ζῷα in Alexander Polyhistor’s account of Pythagoras’ doctrines at D.L. 8.28. (2) Sources. On the basis of the above evidence, discussion of the question thus goes back to the Presocratics, with Plato taking over the view of Empedocles and Anaxagoras in his brief reference to plants as ζῷα at Tim. 77b5–c3 (text below section E(a)§1). As so often in Book 5, however, the basic question as treated by the doxographer goes back to Aristotle’s psychological and biological

liber 5 caput 26

2013

works, with at least half a dozen passages discussing whether plants should be regarded as ζῷα on the basis of whether they possess the appropriate characteristics of soul, with a particular emphasis on sense-perception (see texts below section E(b)§2). C Chapter Heading Like the previous chapters on living beings, chs. 5.19 and 5.20, this chapter has a multiple heading, but this time the focus is on plants. Like the heading of ch. 5.19 it has a verb in the aorist, pointing to a past event, i.e. the cosmogony, as emerges in the doxai of Anaxagoras at ch. 5.19.3 and Empedocles at ch. 5.19.4 and §4 in the present chapter (cf. also 5.7.1 and 5.18.1). A similar aorist also occurs in ch. 2.6 Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός, which also has a (shorter) report on Empedocles’ cosmological doctrine. We note too that like 5.19 and 5.20 the heading also contains a question using the formula εἰ x (sc. ἐστί), asking a question in the category of substance and inviting a dialectical response; see also chs. 1.5, 2.3–4, 4.3, 9, 15, 20, 23, and in this book chs. 5.4, 5, 15 and 29. The formula is used by Clement in the text discussed above in section B: εἰ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ νομίζει (sc. ὁ προβαλών, i.e. the dialectician) ζῷα. We now retract an earlier suggestion at Mansfeld (1990a) 3190 that this chapter has combined what were originally two chapters in A. This ignores the evidence of S, whose first two doxa show that both parts were present in the work excerpted by the anthologist. D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on from the two living beings in chs. 5.19–20, with some links to 5.15 because according to some philosophers the embryo was like a plant. It might have seemed that the interposed chapters 5.21–25 on the development of the human being had been rounded off with the theme of death. After this chapter the sequence continues with chapters on nutrition–growth and appetite–pleasure, in which general references are made to ‘living beings’ (ζῷα), before returning to disease and old age which appears to focus on human beings again. A has clearly had difficulty in including more general chapters on animals and plants in a book which is devoted primarily to human physiology. b Number–Order of Lemmata The order of the two doxai in S matches what we find in the tradition of P. Although, as we shall see in the next section, the order of the four doxai in P does not correspond to the chapter heading, there are no grounds for making any changes to it. It is not possible to say whether A’s original chapter contained

2014

liber 5 caput 26

more doxai, but the evidence in Nicolaus suggests there may have been more Presocratic material. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter divides into two sections, corresponding to the two distinct parts of the chapter heading, but with their order reversed. The first section consists of three doxai answering the question whether plants are living beings (ζῷα). In the first doxa the first position is given that plants are living beings with soul (ἔμψυχα ζῷα). The other two doxai then provide two further positions in opposition to the first. The schema can be summarised as follows: (1) plants are ἔμψυχα ζῷα (both Α and Β) (2) plants are ἔμψυχα, but not ζῷα (Α but not B) (3) plants are not ἔμψυχα, and by implication not ζῷα (neither A nor B). The simple dialectical scheme is reminiscent of similar schemes in chs. 2.1 and 2.3–4 on the cosmos where the combinations of two attributes are explored through attachment to single doxai. We note that one of the four theoretical options is not represented, i.e. that plants are ζῷα but not ἔμψυχα, for the good reason that it is a scarcely tenable view. This is parallel to the case of ch. 2.4 that the cosmos is not generated but nevertheless destructible. We find the diaeresis simply and explicity set out in a text in Themistius’ paraphrase of Aristotle’s De anima (text below section E(b)§2), where Aristotle is said to be μέσος Πλάτωνος καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς. In the first doxa there can be little doubt that the name-labels are the unusual combination of Plato and Thales in that order. The evidence of S and G clearly outweighs that of PB, and Q, who both replace Thales with Empedocles. Pace Drossaart Lulofs (1987) 11, the references to Empedocles’ views in Nicolaus (perhaps going back to Aristotle) are not enough to rescue the name-label in PBQ, particularly since its content does not show any similarities (text below). It has to be said, however, that this the only time that Thales appears in Book 5 (and only twice in Book 4). The attribution would appear to be an extrapolation from his well-known view that the lodestone has a soul since it imparts movement to iron. This is first mentioned by Hippias at D.L. 1.24 (86B7 DK), reported by Aristotle in De anima 1.2 and repeated in many other texts. Perhaps the view that the world is full of gods (cf. Arist. de An. 1.5 411a7–8) may have contributed as well. See further on A 1.7.11 and 1.8.2 (where the name-labels Thales and Plato also occur, augmented with those of Pythagoras and the Stoics). We have not found any parallels, however, for the unusual evidence given in support of the

liber 5 caput 26

2015

doxa, which is quite different from the reasoning given by Plato himself at Tim. 77a–c; see the comments at Boys-Stones (2018) 294. The second doxa presents a position consistent with Aristotelian doctrine from which it is derived, though the terminology has been modernized (see below, section D(d) on §2). Plants can be called ensouled because they possess the nutritive part of the soul (not mentioned, however, by A), but they are not ζῷα because they lack the defining characteristics of sense-perception and impulse. The third doxa, attributed to the Stoics and Epicureans, then goes the final step and denies that plants are ensouled, asserting that they move ‘spontaneously somehow’. The difference between the two doxai is not made sufficiently clear. The Stoic view that the structure (logos) of plants is determined by not ψυχή but by φύσις (cf. texts in Galen and ps.Alexander cited below) is not mentioned. There is no evidence elsewhere to determine the correctness of adding the name-label of the Epicurean school to this doxa. The diaeresis of the first three doxai is thus dominated by the name-labels representing the four main Hellenistic schools, with the addition of Thales in the first doxa. It thus shows the influence of what might be called the ‘Hellenistic philosophical agenda’ (cf. M–R 2.1.15, 92, 139–153). But added to this first section is the remaining part of the chapter, the very long Empedoclean doxa §4, which has quite a different background. The link with the chapter’s first part is that Empedocles is recorded as regarding plants as a kind of ‘living being’, indeed the first of the ζῷα to spring from the earth. Their bisexual nature, which continues to this day, means they can be regarded as a kind of ‘living fossil’ (cf. Guthrie 1962–1981, 2.208; O’Brien 1969, 206, 233). As parts of the earth, they share characteristics of an embryo (cf. A 5.15.2–3, where both the Stoics and Empedocles are said to reject the view that the embryo is a ζῷον). The doxa thus reveals the same cosmogonic background found in earlier doxai at A 2.6.3, 2.20.13, 5.7.1, 5.18.1, and especially 5.19.4 where the first generation of plants is explicitly mentioned. Traces of the original verses that inspired this summary may be found at 31B77–78 DK (see further below D(d) on §4). Lucretius’ description of the first emergence of plants ‘in the beginning’ (DRN 5.783–791) is no doubt indebted to Empedocles’ account. The final part of the doxa, with its discussion of kinds of trees and flavours of fruits goes far beyond the requirements of the doxography and is clearly a remnant of much fuller earlier summaries. The final doxa thus has a different origin from the first three, with a link through the theme of plants as ζῷα. Its contents have led to the subject Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτά being first indicated in the chapter heading, even though the doxa describing their growth comes last in the chapter itself. As noted above in section C, the aorist tense is linked to the cosmogonic description.

2016

liber 5 caput 26

d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 The term ὁρμητικός scarcely occurs in the Aristotelian corpus, being used for sexual impulse in the Historia animalium (e.g. 6.18 572a8) and the Problemata. It occurs only rarely before the first cent. ce, but is found in Arius Didymus (e.g. on touch at Stob. Ecl. 1.56, p. 496.20), on the parts of ethics (Eudorus) at S 2.7.2, p. 42.23, in the Stoic doxography on impulse to movement at Stob. Ecl. 2.9, p. 86.18 (= SVF 3.169), and in the Aristotelian doxography on the parts of the soul at S 2.9.13, p. 117.12. By the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ De anima it is extremely common. It is thus indicative of terminological developments in the later Hellenistic period. §3 If the text in G is read as ⟨οἱ Στωικοὶ δὲ καὶ Ἐπικούρειοι οὐκ⟩ ἔμψυχα· πᾶσαν γὰρ ψυχὴν ὁρμητικὴν εἶναι· ⟨τὰ δὲ φυτὰ⟩ αὐτομάτως γεγενῆσθαι δίχα ψυχῆς, it actually makes excellent sense, particularly if ὁρμητικός is used in a sexual sense. But there is too much missing compared with PBQ and so our text should retain the majority reading. Gassendi’s emendation of γεγενῆσθαι to κεκινῆσθαι is accepted by modern editors (Diels preferred κινεῖσθαι followed by Usener), but in the light of G’s evidence it cannot be considered certain. §4[11] There is little to choose between the reading ἀναδῦναι in PB and that of ἀναφῦναι in PGQ. The latter gives a link to the theme of plants (φυτά), the former—as noted by Bollack (1965–1969) 3.2.502—is perhaps suited to the cosmogonic context better than ἀναφῦναι in PGQ. We follow Jas (2018b) 144–145, who argues that the evidence of PQ tips the scales in favour of ἀναφῦναι. See her article further for discussion of how the evidence of G and Q shows up the deficiencies of the Byzantine text for this lemma. §4[17–19] It is noteworthy that the passage on deciduous and nondeciduous trees in Plutarch Quaest.Conv. 3.2 649D (text below section E(b)§4), which names Empedocles and cites a word from his poem, contains two verbs in common with the report in A (φυλλορροεῖν, παραμένειν). But the explanation given for the falling of the leaves differs (A cites heat, Plutarch narrowness of passages and lack of food). e Other Evidence At CAG 5.24–25, p. 129.4–11 T records three doxai on the status of plants which have some of the same name-labels as in A (Plato, Aristotle, Stoics) and show considerable resemblance in terms of contents. This text follows upon the extensive excerpts from A 4.2–7 which T records in CAG 5.17–24. It emerges, however, that he has not derived these three doxai from A, but has paraphrased the text at Clement Strom. 8.10.3–4, as clearly demonstrated by the parallel columns set out at Mansfeld (1990a) 3188. Scholten’s query (2015, 367 n. 37) as

liber 5 caput 26

2017

to whether T might have derived this material directly from A rather than via Clement is misguided. T has in fact not used any material from Book 5 at all. Diels DG 367 was apparently unaware of the Clementine origin and included these doxai as part of his text of A 4.7 on the immortality of the soul, printing them at the bottom of the page under the usual heading of aliorum ex Aetio excerpta; see Mansfeld (1990a) 3189 and our Commentary on A 4.7 at D(b) and on A 4.7a at D(a). Havrda (2016) 184 in his commentary of the Clementine text fails to note the parallel in A. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Nemesius NH 2, p. 34.5–9 καὶ ζῆν μὲν πάντα, μὴ πάντα δὲ εἶναι ζῷα· διακρίνουσι γὰρ ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν ἀψύχων τὰ φυτὰ τῷ αὔξεσθαι καὶ τρέφεσθαι, τουτέστι τῇ θρεπτικῇ καὶ φυτικῇ δυνάμει, τὰ δὲ ἄλογα ζῷα ἀπὸ τῶν φυτῶν τῇ αἰσθήσει, τὰ δὲ λογικὰ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλόγων τῷ λογικῷ· καὶ οὕτω πάντα ζῆν λέγοντες διαστέλλουσι τὴν ἑκάστου φύσιν. Clement of Alexandria Str. 8.10.2–11.1 πάλιν αὖ προσανερωτήσομεν εἰ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ νομίζει ζῷα, κἄπειτα φάντος μὲν οὕτως ἐπιδεικνύειν ἤδη χρὴ {τι} τὸ κυούμενον ⟨αὐξανόμενόν⟩ τε καὶ τρεφόμενον. (3) Πλάτων γὰρ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ζῷα καλεῖ ‘τοῦ τρίτου τῆς ψυχῆς εἴδους’, τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ, μόνου μετέχοντα, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τῆς φυτικῆς τε καὶ θρεπτικῆς ψυχῆς μετέχειν οἴεται τὰ φυτά, ζῷα δ᾽ ἤδη προσαγορεύειν οὐκ ἀξιοῖ· τὸ γὰρ δὴ τῆς ἑτέρας ψυχῆς τῆς αἰσθητικῆς μετέχον τοῦτο μόνον ἀξιοῖ καλεῖσθαι ζῷον. (4) οὐ μὴν οἵ γε Στωϊκοὶ τὴν φυτικὴν δύναμιν ἤδη ψυχὴν ὀνομάζουσιν. (5) ἀποφήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προβαλόντος εἶναι ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτά, δείξομεν ἑαυτῷ μαχόμενα λέγειν. … (7) κατὰ μὲν γὰρ Πλάτωνα τὸ φυτὸν ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ζῷον, κατὰ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλη ζῷον μὲν οὔπω, λείπει γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸ αἰσθητικόν, ἔμψυχον δὲ ἤδη· ἔστι γοῦν αὐτῷ τὸ·ζῷον οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητική· (8) κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς οὔτε ἔμψυχον οὔτε ζῷόν ἐστι τὸ φυτόν· ἔμψυχος γὰρ οὐσία τὸ ζῷον. (11.1) εἰ τοίνυν ἔμψυχον τὸ ζῷον, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ φύσις αἰσθητική, δῆλον ὡς αἰσθητικὸν ἤδη τὸ ζῷον [ms. ἔμψυχον, emend. Havrda]. Theodoret CAG 5.24 see above, testes secundi. Chapter heading: Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.10.2 εἰ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ νομίζει ζῷα. §1 Plato Thales: Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.30 καὶ ζῆν μὲν πάνθ᾽ ὅσα μετέχει τοῦ θερμοῦ· διὸ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ζῷα εἶναι· ψυχὴν μέντοι μὴ ἔχειν πάντα. §2 Aristotle: Tertullian An. 19.2–3 denique arbores vivere nec tamen sapere secundum Aristotelen … §3 Stoics Epicureans: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.86 (Stoic doxography, = SVF 3.178, Posidonius fr. 426 Theiler) οὐδέν τε, φασί, διήλλαξεν ἡ φύσις ἐπὶ τῶν φυτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων, ὅτι χωρὶς ὁρμῆς καὶ αἰσθήσεως κἀκεῖνα οἰκονομεῖ καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τινα φυτοειδῶς γίνεται.

2018 b

liber 5 caput 26

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: cf. Aristotle de An. 2.2 41321–22 λέγομεν οὖν, ἀρχὴν λαβόντες τῆς σκέψεως, διωρίσθαι τὸ ἔμψυχον τοῦ ἀψύχου τῷ ζῆν. πλεοναχῶς δὲ τοῦ ζῆν λεγομένου, κἂν ἕν τι τούτων ἐνυπάρχῃ μόνον, ζῆν αὐτό φαμεν, οἷον νοῦς, αἴσθησις, κίνησις καὶ στάσις ἡ κατὰ τόπον, ἔτι κίνησις ἡ κατὰ τροφὴν καὶ φθίσις τε καὶ αὔξησις. Nicolaus of Damascus De plantis 1.1–27 in the Arabic translation of Isḥāq ibn Ḥunayn, translated by Drossaart Lulofs–Poortman, later retranslation into Greek in the Aristotelian corpus at 815a10–816b6: ‘Life is found in animals and plants; but the life of animals it is manifest and clear, whereas the life of plants is hidden and concealed. An inquiry and an investigation are needed in order to find the way of truth in these matters. (2) I wish I knew whether plants possess a soul and its faculties, such as the desiring faculty and the faculty that distinguishes between pain and pleasure—or whether they have nothing of the kind. (3) Now, Anaxagoras and Empedocles assert that plants have desire and sensation, pain and pleasure, and Anaxagoras naively asserts that they are animals and that they feel joy and sadness and he cites as proof the shedding of their leaves in due season, and Empedocles asserts that their males and females are mingled together. (4) Plato, however, says that plants have the faculty of desire only on account of their need of nutriment. But if plants really had the faculty of desire, they should have pleasure and pain, and sensation as well. (5) Again, I wish I knew whether plants have sleep and awakening, and whether they breathe and have males and females, or something in which male and female are combined, as Empedocles maintains—, or whether they do not possess a soul? (6) Now, the great diversity of opinion existing on the soul of plants asks for a long investigation into all its conditions. The best course is to settle the issue and to remove our doubt about this point, in order that we shall not need a long inquiry into the other things. (7) Some people have said that plants possess a soul, because they had observed their generation, nutrition and growth, and their youth and old age, since none of the inanimate things is found to share any of these things with plants. And if these characteristics are necessary for plants, they should have desire as well. (8) Our first task, then, is to discuss the obvious characteristics; thereupon we will discuss the hidden ones. (9) Now, he says (cf. some people in §7 above) that a thing which is nourished has desire, and will find pleasure in satiety and pain with hunger, and these dispositions are only concomitant with sensation. It is certainly true that the opinion who said that plants have sensation and desire is most remarkable. (10) On the other hand, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Democritus maintained that plants possess reason and understanding. But we must refrain from this abominable nonsense and begin with a sound statement: (11) plants have neither sensation nor desire, for desire can only go with sensation, and the aim of its pursuits depends on the latter. … (13) It is true that with the part of nutrition and growth they possess only one of the parts of the soul. And so, if we find an indication that plants have one of the parts of the soul, but are destitute of sensation, we ought not to contend

liber 5 caput 26 that they have sensation. … Perhaps someone will say: ‘If a plant is endowed with life, it is an animal’—and it certainly would be difficult for us, if a plant was found to have a principle different from the principle of life of an animal. … (26) The plant, then is not deprived of a soul, since it possesses one of its parts—but neither is it an animal, since it has no sensation. It passes gradually from life to its privation, just as in other things. (27) And so we must declare the plant to be animate in a different way, and not to be inanimate, since it possesses a soul {and sensation}. For a thing that is nourished is not without a soul.’ ps.Alexander see below on §3. Porphyry ad Gaur. 3.1 Kalbfleisch πρῶτον μὲν οὖν αὐτὴν μαρτυρόμενοι τὴν ἐνάργειαν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν θέσθαι ἀξιοῦμεν τὰς εἰδοποιοὺς διαφορὰς τῶν φυτῶν τε καὶ τῶν ζῴων. cf. ad Gaur. 1.1 τῆς μὲν ἰδιότητος τοῦ ζῴου ἐν αἰσθήσει καὶ ὁρμῇ συνισταμένης, τῆς δὲ τῶν φυτῶν ἐν θρεπτικῇ τε καὶ αὐξητικῇ χωρὶς αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ ὁρμῆς θεωρουμένης. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle GA 1.23 731a29 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν φύτων ἐν ἑτέροις ἐπέσκεπται. §1 Plato: Plato Tim. 77a5–c5, ὥσθ᾽ ἕτερον ζῷον εἶναι, φυτεύουσιν·ἃ δὴ νῦν ἥμερα δένδρα καὶ φυτὰ καὶ σπέρματα παιδευθέντα ὑπὸ γεωργίας τιθασῶς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἔσχεν, πρὶν δὲ ἦν μόνα τὰ τῶν ἀγρίων γένη, πρεσβύτερα τῶν ἡμέρων ὄντα. πᾶν γὰρ οὖν ὅτιπερ ἂν μετάσχῃ τοῦ ζῆν, ζῷον μὲν ἂν ἐν δίκῃ λέγοιτο ὀρθότατα … διὸ δὴ ζῇ (sc. τὸ φύτον) μὲν ἔστιν τε οὐχ ἕτερον ζῴου, μόνιμον δὲ καὶ κατερριζωμένον πέπηγεν διὰ τὸ τῆς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κινήσεως ἐστερῆσθαι. Plutarch QPhys. 911D ζῷον γὰρ ἔγγαιον τὸ φυτὸν εἶναι οἱ περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀναξαγόραν καὶ Δημόκριτον οἴονται. Themistius see below on §2. Porphyry ad Gaur. 4.2–3 οὐδὲ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ὅπως μέρος τὸ φυτικὸν τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ λέγει ξυνιέντες (sc. other Platonists) οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν ζῷα τὰ φυτὰ λέγειν οὐκ ἀπαξιοῖ γνῶναι σπουδάσαντες. (3) Πλάτων γὰρ οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι τὸ ζῷον τοῦ μὴ ζῴου αἰσθήσει καὶ ὁρμῇ διακρίνουσιν, οὑτωσὶ καὶ αὐτὸς τούτοις τῶν μὴ ζῴων ἀξιοῖ διαφέρειν τὰ ζῷα, ζωῆς δὲ καὶ ἀζωίας τὸ διάφορον ποιούμενος εἰκότως καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ὡς ἂν ἤδη ζῶντα συμπεριλαμβάνει τοῖς ζῴοις, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἄχρι τῆς προσηγορίας τὸ κοινὸν δίδωσι πρὸς τὰ ἰδίως καλούμενα ζῷα καὶ τῆς αὐτοκινήτου ψυχῆς μετεσχηκότα. Thales: Aristotle de An. 1.2.405a19–21 (11A22 DK) ἔοικε δὲ καὶ Θαλῆς ἐξ ὧν ἀπομνημονεύουσι κινητικόν τι τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν, εἴπερ τὴν λίθον ἔφη ψυχὴν ἔχειν. de An. 1.5 411a7–8 (Thales fr. 32 Wöhrle) καὶ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δή τινες αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν ψυχήν) μεμῖχθαί φασιν, ὅθεν ἴσως καὶ Θαλῆς ᾠήθη πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι. John Philoponus in de An. 188.13–17 (Thales fr. 443 Wöhrle) ἑτέραν δόξαν ἐκτίθεται (sc. Aristotle) περὶ ψυχῆς. ὑπενόησαν, φησί, τινὲς ψυχὴν ἐν παντὶ σώματι μεμῖχθαι, ὡς πᾶν εἶναι σῶμα ἔμψυχον· ἐκ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης δόξης καὶ τὸν Θαλῆν νομίσαι πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἶναι … §2 Aristotle: Aristotle De an. 2.2 413a26–b10 (follows on from text cited above under General texts) διὸ καὶ τὰ φυόμενα πάντα δοκεῖ ζῆν· φαίνεται γὰρ ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχοντα δύναμιν καὶ ἀρχὴν τοιαύτην, δι᾽ ἧς αὔξησίν τε καὶ φθίσιν λαμβάνουσι κατὰ τοὺς ἐναντίους τόπους· … οὐδεμία γὰρ αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχει δύναμις ἄλλη (b1) ψυχῆς. τὸ μὲν οὖν ζῆν διὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ταύτην ὑπάρχει τοῖς ζῶσι, τὸ δὲ ζῷον διὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν πρώτως· καὶ γὰρ τὰ μὴ κινούμενα μηδ᾽ ἀλλάττοντα τόπον, ἔχοντα δ᾽ αἴσθη-

2019

2020

liber 5 caput 26

σιν, ζῷα λέγομεν καὶ οὐ ζῆν μόνον. αἰσθήσεως δὲ πρῶτον ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν ἁφή· ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ θρεπτικὸν δύναται χωρίζεσθαι τῆς ἁφῆς καὶ πάσης αἰσθήσεως, οὕτως ἡ ἁφὴ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθήσεων (θρεπτικὸν δὲ λέγομεν τὸ τοιοῦτον μόριον τῆς ψυχῆς οὗ καὶ τὰ φυόμενα μετέχει), τὰ δὲ ζῷα πάντα φαίνεται τὴν ἁπτικὴν αἴσθησιν ἔχοντα … Juv. 1 467b23–26 τὸ μὲν γὰρ ζῷον ᾗ ζῷον ἀδύνατον μὴ ζῆν· ᾗ δὲ ζῇ, ταύτῃ ζῷον ὑπάρχειν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον· τὰ γὰρ φυτὰ ζῇ μέν, οὐκ ἔχει δ᾽ αἴσθησιν, τῷ δ᾽ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον πρὸς τὸ μὴ ζῷον διορίζομεν. GA 2.5 741a9 αἴτιον δ᾽ ὅτι διαφέρει τὸ ζῷον τοῦ φυτοῦ αἰσθήσει. HA 7.1 588b4–10 οὕτω δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἀψύχων εἰς τὰ ζῷα μεταβαίνει κατὰ μικρὸν ἡ φύσις, ὥστε τῇ συνεχείᾳ λανθάνει τὸ μεθόριον αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ μέσον ποτέρων ἐστίν. μετὰ γὰρ τὸ τῶν ἀψύχων γένος τὸ τῶν φυτῶν πρῶτόν ἐστιν· καὶ τούτων ἕτερον πρὸς ἕτερον διαφέρει τῷ μᾶλλον δοκεῖν μετέχειν ζωῆς, ὅλον δὲ τὸ γένος πρὸς μὲν τἆλλα σώματα φαίνεται σχεδὸν ὥσπερ ἔμψυχον, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τῶν ζῴων ἄψυχον (cf. also PA 4.5 681a12–15). GA 1.23 731a24–b8 καὶ ταῦτα πάντα εὐλόγως ἡ φύσις δημιουργεῖ. τῆς μὲν γὰρ τῶν φυτῶν οὐσίας οὐθέν ἐστιν ἄλλο ἔργον οὐδὲ πρᾶξις οὐδεμία πλὴν ἡ τοῦ σπέρματος γένεσις, ὥστ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ θήλεος γίγνεται καὶ τοῦ ἄρρενος συνδεδυασμένων, μίξασα ταῦτα διέθηκε μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων· διὸ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἀχώριστον τὸ θῆλυ καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν φύτων ἐν ἑτέροις ἐπέσκεπται, τοῦ δὲ ζῴου οὐ μόνον τὸ γεννῆσαι ἔργον (τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ κοῖνον τῶν ζώντων πάντων), ἀλλὰ καὶ γνώσεώς τινος πάντα μετέχουσι, τὰ μὲν πλείονος τὰ δ᾽ ἐλάττονος τὰ δὲ πάμπαν μικρᾶς. αἴσθησιν γὰρ ἔχουσιν, ἡ δ᾽ αἴσθησις γνῶσίς τις. ταύτης δὲ τὸ τίμιον καὶ ἄτιμον πολὺ διαφέρει σκοποῦσι πρὸς φρόνησιν καὶ πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀψύχων γένος. πρὸς (b1) μὲν γὰρ τὸ φρονεῖν ὥσπερ οὐδὲν εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ κοινωνεῖν ἁφῆς καὶ γεύσεως μόνον, πρὸς δὲ φυτὸν ἢ λίθον θαυμάσιον· ἀγαπητὸν γὰρ ἂν δόξειε καὶ ταύτης τυχεῖν τῆς γνώσεως ἀλλὰ μὴ κεῖσθαι τεθνεὸς καὶ μὴ ὄν. διαφέρει δ᾽ αἰσθήσει τὰ ζῷα τῶν ζώντων μόνον. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἀνάγκη καὶ ζῆν, ἐὰν ᾖ ζῷον, ὅταν δεήσῃ ἀποτελεῖν τὸ τοῦ ζῶντος ἔργον, τότε συνδυάζεται καὶ μίγνυται καὶ γίγνεται ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ φυτόν, καθάπερ εἴπομεν. Nicolaus Damascenus De plantis 1.1 cited above, General texts. Themistius in de An. 2.2, p. 45.11–18 ῥητέον τοίνυν καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ψυχῆς μόριον ἔχοντα καὶ ζῆν καὶ ἔμψυχα εἶναι, ζῶα δὲ οὐκέτι. καὶ τούτου λόγον οὐκ ἀπαιτητέον διὰ τί ζῶντα οὐ ζῶα λέγεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπικλητέον τὴν κοινὴν συνήθειαν μόνον, ὅτι ζῆν μὲν τὰ φυτὰ λέγομεν, ζῶα δὲ μὴ εἶναι· οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸν τρέχοντα πάντα δρομέα, οὐδὲ τὸν παλαίοντα παλαιστήν, ἀλλὰ τῆς τελειοτέρας τοῦ πράγματος ἕξεως ταῦτα ὀνόματα. μέσος τοίνυν Πλάτωνος καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς Ἀριστοτέλης, ἔμψυχα μὲν τὰ φυτὰ λέγων, ζῶα δὲ μή· ἐκείνων δὲ ὁ μὲν ἄμφω, οἱ δὲ οὐδέτερον. §3 Stoics Epicureans: Themistius see above on §2 (SVF 2.709). Galen PHP 6.3.8 (SVF 2.7110) οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ οὐδὲ ψυχὴν ὅλως ὀνομάζουσι τὴν τὰ φυτὰ διοικοῦσαν, ἀλλὰ φύσιν. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) An.Mant. 118.12–15 (SVF 2.711) ὅτι γὰρ τὸ φυτικὸν ψυχή ἐστι καὶ ψυχῆς μέρος καὶ δύναμις, οὗ μόρια τὸ θρεπτικὸν καὶ τὸ αὐξητικὸν καὶ γεννητικόν, ἀλλὰ οὐχ, ὥς τινές φασιν, φύσις, δείξομεν ἔκ τε τοῦ μὴ πάντα τὰ φύσιν ἔχοντα καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ὄντα ἔχειν τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας. §4 Empedocles: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Nat.Puer. 16, p. 7.528.18–20 Littré cited on A 5.15.3. Aristotle de An. 2.4 415b27–416a2 οὐδὲν γὰρ φθίνει οὐδ᾽ αὔξεται φυσικῶς μὴ τρεφόμενον, τρέφεται δ᾽ οὐθὲν ὃ μὴ κοινωνεῖ ζωῆς. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A70 DK) δ᾽ οὐ καλῶς εἴρηκε τοῦτο προστιθείς, τὴν αὔξησιν συμβαίνειν τοῖς

liber 5 caput 26 φυτοῖς κάτω μὲν συρριζουμένοις διὰ τὸ τὴν γῆν οὕτω φέρεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν, ἄνω δὲ διὰ τὸ τὸ πῦρ ὡσαύτως. Plutarch QConv. 3.2 649C–D (on the ivy plant, citing Empedocles 31B77 DK) τὸ δ᾽ ἀειθαλὲς τοῦτο καὶ ὥς φησιν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ‘ἐμπεδόφυλλον’ οὐκ ἔστι θερμότητος· οὐδὲ γὰρ ψυχρότητος τὸ φυλλορροεῖν· … ἔνιοι μὲν οὖν ὁμαλότητι κράσεως οἴονται παραμένειν τὸ φύλλον· Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ πόρων τινὰ συμμετρίαν αἰτιᾶται, τεταγμένως καὶ ὁμαλῶς τὴν τροφὴν διιέντων, ὥστ᾽ ἀρκούντως ἐπιρρεῖν. τοῖς δὲ φυλλορροοῦσιν οὐκ ἔστι διὰ μανότητα τῶν ἄνω καὶ στενότητα τῶν κάτω πόρων, ὅταν οἱ μὲν μὴ ἐπιπέμπωσιν οἱ δὲ ⟨μὴ⟩ φυλάττωσιν ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγον λαβόντες ἄθρουν ἐκχέωσιν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἀνδήροις τισὶν οὐχ ὁμαλοῖς· τὰ δ᾽ ὑδρευόμεν᾽ ἀεὶ τὴν τροφὴν διαρκῆ καὶ σύμμετρον ἀντέχει καὶ παραμένει ἀγήρω καὶ χλοερά. also Lucretius DRN 5.783–791 principio genus herbarum viridemque nitorem / terra dedit circum collis camposque per omnis … Nicolaus of Damascus De plantis 36–37, 57–58 Drossaart Lulofs–Poortman ‘The most pertinent object of investigation in this branch of science is the question raised by Empedocles, whether plants have males and females, or a kind of combination of male and female, as he asserts. (37) For it is characteristic of the male to engender offspring in another and of the female to engender from another while each of the two is separate from the other. But in plants no such thing is found, ⟨and every kind of plant makes fruit in itself, not in another⟩ … (57) Empedocles was right in saying that plants were generated when the world was incomplete and its perfection had not yet been attained, whereas animals were generated after it had been perfected and completed. (58) Nevertheless, he did not say the right word, for the world as a whole is eternal and everlasting, and has not ceased to produce animals and plants in all the varieties of their species.’ see also Greek text based on the Arabo-Latin translation of Alfred of Sareshel in the corpus Aristotelicum De plantis 2 816b40–817a6, b35– 40.

2021

Liber 5 Caput 27 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 910D; p. 440a3–11 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 244– 245 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.46, p. 298.4 Wachsmuth, titulus solus e Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b27–28 Henry

Titulus κζʹ. Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως (P,S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τρέφεσθαι μὲν τὰ ζῷα διὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ ὑγροῦ, αὔξεσθαι δὲ διὰ τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ θερμοῦ, μειοῦσθαι δὲ καὶ φθίνειν διὰ τὴν ἔκλειψιν ἑκατέρων· τοὺς δὲ νῦν ἀνθρώπους τοῖς πρώτοις συμβαλλομένους βρεφῶν ἐπέχειν τάξιν. (P1) §2 Ἀναξαγόρας glaubte: die Lebewesen μὲν werden durch die Feuchtigkeit τρέφεσθαι, welche jedes ihrer Organe durch das Verzehren und in der Ernährung herbeizieht. Sie wachsen, wenn zu ihnen viel Nahrung gelangt, werden aber schwach und siechen dahin, wenn das, was von ihnen zerfällt, viel ist. (PBQ2) §1 Empedocles 31A77 DK, cf. B62 DK; §2 Anaxagoras fr. 78 Gemelli Marciano cap. non hab. PG titulus Περὶ … αὐξήσεως PBQ (Περὶ τοῦ πῶς τρέφονται τὰ ζῷα in marg. PB(III:α)) : Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ ὀρέξεως τῶν ζῷων SPhot (cf. c. 5.28) §1 [2] ὑγροῦ PQ (der Feuchtigkeit Q) coni. olim Diels VS, prob. Wolfsdorf (2009) 36 n. 34 : οἰκείου PB Diels DG DK Mau Lachenaud Vítek (οἰκείου ὑγροῦ coni. Usener) ‖ [4–5] vid. infra ad §2 §2 [6] Ἀναξαγόρας μὲν τρέφεσθαι hab. solum PB(I,II) et postea lacunam 1¾ lin. : verba et lac. non hab. PB(III) ‖ [6–10] verba reliqua solum in PQ ut initium capituli; post placitum Anaxagorae sequuntur in PQ primum verba τοὺς … τάξιν (= §1[4–5]), tum Ἐμπεδοκλῆς … ἑκατέρων (= §1[2–4])

Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. Α 5.16 Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα. A 5.26 Πῶς ηὐξήθη τὰ φυτὰ καὶ εἰ ζῷα §1 A 5.28.1–2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς μὲν ὀρέξεις γίνεσθαι τοῖς ζῴοις κατὰ τὰς ἐλλείψεις τῶν ἀποτελούντων ἕκαστα στοιχείων … Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐλλείψει τροφῆς τὴν ὄρεξιν. A 5.30.2 Ἡρόφιλος τὰς νόσους συμπίπτειν ὡς μὲν ὑφ᾽ οὗ ὑπερβολῇ θερμότητος ἢ ψυχρότητος· ὡς δ᾽ ἐξ οὗ διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς ἢ ἔνδειαν … A 5.30.4 Ἐρασίστρατος τὰς νόσους διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς καὶ δι᾽ ἀπεψίας καὶ φθορᾶς … §2 A 1.3.4 (de Anaxagora) καὶ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς τροφῆς τρέφεται θρὶξ φλὲψ ἀρτηρία νεῦρα ὀστᾶ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ μόρια. τούτων οὖν γινομένων ὁμολογητέον ἐστὶν ὅτι ἐν τῇ τροφῇ τῇ προσφερομένῃ πάντα ἐστὶ τὰ ὄντα καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὄντων πάντα αὔξεται καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ ἐστὶ τῇ τροφῇ μόρια αἵματος γεννητικὰ καὶ νεύρων καὶ ὀστέων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων· ἃ ἦν λόγῳ θεωρητὰ μόρια. cf. A 5.15.1 (Plato de fetu) καὶ γὰρ κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ τρέφεσθαι (καὶ αὔξεσθαι add. PG).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_152

5

10

liber 5 caput 27

2023

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses PB has only the first lemma and the first three words of the second, after which there is a lacuna of 1¾ lines in the mss. Mosq. 339 and Marc. 501, indicating that the archetype must have become illegible at some stage in the transmission. The chapter is missing altogether in PG. Q deviates considerably from what has been transmitted in PB. He commences with a full lemma devoted to Anaxagoras’ view. Then he follows with the final sentence of the Empedoclean lemma as found in PB, followed by the rest. The only collection of Presocratic fragments to include this new testimonium of Anaxagoras so far is that of Gemelli Marciano (2007–2010, 3.94–95); it is absent in that of Laks and Most. The lemma is also discussed as part of a lengthy analysis of chs. 5.27–28 in Wolfsdorf (2009) 34–39. There is no mention of this chapter in the mss. of S, but a heading is preserved in Photius’ index. Because it refers to the subjects of nutrition and desire relating to living beings, it is likely that S combined the material of ch. 5.27 and 5.28 in a single chapter and coalesced the headings. Given the proximity of the two subjects (desire here means appetite), this was a logical thing to do. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. In the proximate tradition the main witness is ps.Galen Def.Med., who gives a compact doxography stating the views of Hippocrates (digestion of food through innate heat), Erasistratus (mechanical action), Empedocles (putrefaction) and Asclepiades (no cause mentioned). It remains puzzling, however, that there is no place in the extant doxography for the Aristotelian view of nutrition via concoction (πέψις). Two very similar doxographies on digestion are found in Celsus and ps.Soranus (texts below section E(a)), but Empedocles is not mentioned (unless Van der Eijk 2000–2001, 2.72 is correct in thinking that in the latter text Empedocles should be read instead of Diocles). These are all three medical texts, and so differ in emphasis from what we find in A. (2) Sources. As the mutilated contents of the chapter indicate, discussions on these subjects commenced in the Presocratic period, with a particularly important contribution made by Empedocles’ theory of putrefaction leading to absorption in and distribution via the blood (a ‘remarkably economical’ theory, Longrigg 1993, 73). In his famous account of Socrates’ early interest in natural

2024

liber 5 caput 27

philosophy Plato gives as his first example of generation and destruction a reference to hot and cold producing putrefaction, with which living beings are nourished (or sustained, συντρέφεται). There may be a cosmogonical reference here, e.g. to Archelaus as reported by Hippolytus Ref. 1.9.5 (60A4 DK), but this is disputed (cf. Mansfeld 2000a, 7). A work in the Hippocratic corpus has the title Περὶ τροφῆς (Littré 9.98–120), consisting of 55 aphorisms, many of which have an impressive philosophical (and Heraclitean) bent. According to this author it is moisture which carries nutrition and enables its δύναμις to reach the parts of the body. However, this work is likely to be post-Hippocratic and may show the influence of Stoicism (Jouanna 1999, 401). In the Hippocratic writings themselves the process of digestion is understood in vague and metaphorical terms (Jouanna 1999, 314). Works devoted to the subject of nourishment and growth were produced in the Peripatos by Aristotle (see the discussion of his various references to such a work at Wolfsdorf 2009, 22) and Strato (see below), but they have not survived. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading reverts back to the usual umbrella formula Περί x, which is used in only a minority of chapters in Book 5. Apart from the Hippocratic work mentioned above, there is also a work entitled Περὶ τροφῆς recorded for the Hellenistic doctor Phylotimus. Exactly the same title Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως is found in the list of works of the Peripatetic philosopher Strato in Diogenes Laertius. On the heading preserved in Photius’ index of S see above, section A. D Analysis a Context After the chapter partly devoted to the growth of plants (5.26), a connection is made with nutrition and growth in animals (ζῷα are explicitly mentioned at the beginning of the first doxa). It is the first of four final chapters in the book dealing with purely physiological subjects. These is also a clear connection between nutrition/growth and sleep which Aristotle develops at Somn.Vig. 3 456a30–35; see on ch. 5.24 section E(b) General texts. This connection is obscured by the interposition of ch. 5.26. b Number–Order of Lemmata As noted above in section A, the order of the text of the chapter differs in the two witnesses that record it. Q places the Anaxagoras doxa first in the chapter and then writes out the second sentence of the Empedocles doxa separately without a name-label, before presenting the main part of the doxa. Wolfsdorf (2009) 38–39, wishing to defend his thesis that the two doxai present views that

liber 5 caput 27

2025

originally referred to nourishment and growth in plants rather than in animals, argues that Q has the right order. The sentence on human beings is ‘not consistent with any of the testimonies or fragments of Empedocles or Anaxagoras’ and thus ‘it seems likely that it belongs to another philosopher and that it is indeed misplaced in both the Greek and the Arabic traditions’. This claim is misguided, because in fact the view on the different early development of human beings fits in very well with the Empedocles doxa at A 5.18.1, which derives features of present-day human biology from earlier stages of his cosmology (cf. also 5.19.6 which gives various stages of the development of living beings and briefly refers to presumably human ‘women’). So it is very likely that this sentence refers to Empedoclean cosmology (cf. O’Brien 1969, 52 n. 8). There is in fact a good continuity with the cosmological material at the end of the previous chapter, where the Empedocles’ lemma 5.26.4 speaks of both ζῷα and φυτά. We thus retain the order in PB, and have added the extra material found in Q to the second doxa as it appears in the Greek mss. Moreover, the theory of nutrition recorded is not incompatible with what we know about Empedocles’ theory of digestion, although as we shall see, it is not complete. It is probable that the chapter was originally longer, as is suggested by the additional name-labels recorded by ps.Galen Def.Med and Celsus, which belong to both the earlier and the Hellenistic period of Greek medicine. The inclusion of doxai of Plato (cf. Tim. 77c) and Aristotle, which are both not present in ps.Galen, is also quite possible. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Both doxai emphasize the role of moisture in the process of nourishment. They differ in their explanations of growth and wasting away. For Empedocles this involves the role of heat and the wasting away that occurs when both moisture and heat fail. There is no mention, however, of the crucial role that putrefication (σῆψις) plays in the process. For Anaxagoras growth is explained through the amount of nourishment, wasting away through excessive decomposition (or digestion). The chapter thus has the form of a weak diaeresis, with the two views having similar and dissimilar elements. As we have seen, the final sentence of the first doxa continues the cosmogonic themes that occur frequently in Books 2 and 5; see Introduction to Book 5, section 5. It also introduces a shift from ‘living beings’ at the beginning of the doxa to the more specific ‘human beings’. The implication may be that the first humans came out of the earth as whole-natured forms, whereas human beings now go through the whole process of growth from an embryo onwards, including sex differentiation (cf. A 5.15.3, 5,18.1, 5.19.6). We recall the fantastical doctrine explaining the viability of seven and ten month old fetuses

2026

liber 5 caput 27

in ch. 5.18.1. It is possible that the specific doctrine on growth may be a straight deduction from verses cited by Simplicius (31B62.4–5 DK; full text below section E(b)§1): ‘Whole-natured forms first sprang up from the earth, having a part of both water and warmth.’ This may also explain why the doxa only conveys part of Empedocles’ theory. The presence of the Anaxagorean doxa may have been encouraged by the prominence of τροφή in the explanation of his doctrine of first principles (the so-called ὁμοιομερείαι); see the detailed report at A 1.3.4 and our Commentary ad loc. In contrast to the first doxa, however, the explanation given in the text is purely physiological, with no reference to possible cosmogonic aspects. This in turn is in contrast to the doxographical fragments in D.L. 2.9 and Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.12, which do speak of the initial growth of living beings. On the view of Wolfsdorf that the views in this chapter and the next originally referred to the nourishments of plants rather than animals, but were transferred to the latter by A or his source, see our discussion above, section D(b), and on ch. 5.28 at Commentary D(e). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1[2] Wolfsdorf (2009) 34 n. 79 is right in translating the term ὑπόστασις with ‘settling down’, i.e. describing the process of digestion and food distribution in the body. It is also to be agreed that in [2] the reading of PQ τοῦ ὑγροῦ is to be preferred above that of PB τοῦ οἰκείου, since it is more natural to have ἑκατέρων in the next line refer to an elemental component. Usener’s conjecture τοῦ οἰκείου ὑγροῦ preserves both readings, but a reference to ‘its own moisture’ is less likely in the context of nourishment and growth (unless we translate ‘appropriate moisture’, referring to the process of ‘like to like’, in which case it would be more persuasive). §2 ‘… but they become weak and sickly when there is much in them which decomposes.’ This may allude to a process of excessive digestion. The text on digestion in ps.Galen refers to ‘rubbing’ (Erasistratus) or ‘rotting’ (Empedocles), but there is no mention of what happens when this process goes wrong. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 99, p. 19.372.14–373.3 K. Ϟθʹ. πῶς Ἱπποκράτης καὶ Ἐρασίστρατος (fr. 119 Garofalo) καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A77 DK) καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 721) τὰς πέψεις τῆς τροφῆς φασι γίνεσθαι; τὰς πέψεις τῆς τροφῆς Ἱπποκράτης μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ φησι γίνεσθαι, Ἐρασίστρατος δὲ τρίψει καὶ λειώσει καὶ περιστολῇ τῆς γαστρὸς καὶ ἐπικτήτου πνεύ-

liber 5 caput 27 ματος ἰδιότητι. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ σήψει· οἱ δὲ ἐξ ὠμῶν ἔφασαν τὰς ἀναδόσεις γίγνεσθαι, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Βιθυνός. cf. Celsus Med. 1 proœm. 20 ex quibus quia maxime pertinere ad rem concoctio videtur, huic potissimum insistunt; et, duce alii Erasistrato (fr. 121 Garofalo), teri cibum in ventre contendunt; alii, Plistonico Praxagorae discipulo (fr. 1 Steckerl), putrescere; alii credunt Hippocrati (—), per calorem cibos concoqui: acceduntque Asclepiadis aemuli (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 714), qui, omnia ista vana et supervacua esse, proponunt: nihil enim concoqui, sed crudam materiam, sicut assumta est, in corpus omne diduci. ps.Soranus Quaest.Med. 61, p. 225.27–31 Rose quomodo Hippocrates (—) et Erasistratus (fr. 120 Garofalo) et Diocles (fr. 35 Van der Eijk, but he suggests the name may be a corruption of Empedocles) et Genoetas (?) et Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 714) philosophi digestionem cibi et potus fieri dixerunt? Hippocrates ab innato in nobis calore fiere digestionem dixit, Erasistratus vero teri et solvi, Diocles autem putrescere, Genoetas a natura elimari, Asclepiades autem per exercitationem corporis fieri dixit. Chapter heading: cf. Dionysius of Aegae at Phot. Bibl. 185 (cf. 211) 129b19– 27 εʹ ὅτι ἡ πέψις θερμασίᾳ γίνεται, ςʹ ὅτι καὶ ἡ πέψις οὐ γίνεται θερμασίᾳ· ζʹ ὅτι τρίψει ἡ πέψις, ηʹ καὶ ὅτι οὐ τρίψει ἡ πέψις· θʹ ὅτι ἰδιότητι πνεύματος ἡ πέψις, ιʹ καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἰδιότητι πνεύματος ἡ πέψις· ιαʹ ὅτι σήψει ἡ πέψις, ιβʹ καὶ ὅτι οὐ σήψει ἡ πέψις· ιγʹ ὅτι θερμασίας ἰδιότητι ἡ πέψις, ιδʹ καὶ ὅτι οὐ χυμῶν ἰδιότητι ἡ πέψις· ιεʹ ὅτι διαφέρει τὸ θερμὸν ποιότητι, ιςʹ ὅτι οὐ διαφέρει τὸ θερμὸν ποιότητι (quaestiones). §1 Empedocles: see Def.Med. 99 cited above. §2 Anaxagoras: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) ζῷα γίγνεσθαι ἐξ ὑγροῦ καὶ θερμοῦ καὶ γεώδους, ὕστερον δὲ ἐξ ἀλλήλων. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.12 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) ζῷα δὲ τὴν μὲν ἀρχὴν ἐν ὑγροῦ γίνεσθαι, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ ἐξ ἀλλήλων.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle de An. 2.4 415a22–27 ὥστε πρῶτον περὶ τροφῆς καὶ γεννήσεως λεκτέον· ἡ γὰρ θρεπτικὴ ψυχὴ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπάρχει, καὶ πρώτη καὶ κοινοτάτη δύναμίς ἐστι ψυχῆς, καθ᾽ ἣν ὑπάρχει τὸ ζῆν ἅπασιν. ἧς ἐστὶν ἔργα γεννῆσαι καὶ τροφῇ χρῆσθαι· φυσικώτατον γὰρ τῶν ἔργων τοῖς ζῶσιν … de An. 415b25–28 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ αὐξήσεώς τε καὶ φθίσεως ἔχει· οὐδὲν γὰρ φθίνει οὐδ᾽ αὔξεται φυσικῶς μὴ τρεφόμενον, τρέφεται δ᾽ οὐθὲν ὃ μὴ κοινωνεῖ ζωῆς. de An. 416b28–31 πᾶσαν δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον τροφὴν δύνασθαι πέττεσθαι, ἐργάζεται δὲ τὴν πέψιν τὸ θερμόν· διὸ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἔχει θερμότητα. τύπῳ μὲν οὖν ἡ τροφὴ τί ἐστιν εἴρηται· διασαφητέον δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὕστερον περὶ αὐτῆς ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις λόγοις. PA 2.3 650a2–7 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἀνάγκη πᾶν τὸ αὐξανόμενον λαμβάνειν τροφήν, ἡ δὲ τροφὴ πᾶσιν ἐξ ὑγροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ, καὶ τούτων ἡ πέψις γίνεται καὶ ἡ μεταβολὴ διὰ τῆς τοῦ θερμοῦ δυνάμεως, καὶ τὰ ζῷα πάντα καὶ τὰ φυτά, κἂν εἰ μὴ δι᾽ ἄλλην αἰτίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ ταύτην ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν ἀρχὴν θερμοῦ φυσικήν. PA 2.3 650b9–11 ἔτι δὲ περὶ τροφῆς ὅλως, ἐν τοῖς περὶ γενέσεως καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις οἰκειότερόν ἐστι διελθεῖν. Chapter heading: Corpus Hippocraticum Περὶ τροφῆς (extant). Phylotimus Περὶ τροφῆς (no longer extant). cf. Aristotle Somn.Vig. 2 456b5–6 εἴρη-

2027

2028

liber 5 caput 27

ται δὲ περὶ τούτων ἐν τοῖς περὶ τροφῆς. GA 5.4 784a34–b3 δεῖ δὲ νοῆσαι τὴν εἰς ἕκαστον μόριον ἀφικνουμένην τροφὴν ὅτι πέττει μὲν ἡ ἐν ἑκάστῳ οἰκεία θερμότης, ἀδυνατούσης δὲ φθείρεται καὶ πήρωσις γίγνεται ἢ νόσος. ἀκριβέστερον δὲ περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας ὕστερον λεκτέον ἐν τοῖς περὶ αὐξήσεως καὶ τροφῆς. cf. also de An. 2.4 415a23, 415b25–26, 416b30–31, PA 2.3 650b9–10 cited above under General texts. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.59 (list of Strato’s books, fr. 18 Wehrli, 1 Sharples) Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως. §1 Empedocles: cf. Corpus Hippocraticum Alim. passim, esp. 2, p. 9.98.5– 7 Littré αὔξει δὲ καὶ ῥώννυσι καὶ σαρκοῖ καὶ ὁμοιοῖ καὶ ἀνομοιοῖ τὰ ἐν ἑκάστοισι κατὰ φύσιν τὴν ἑκάστου καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς δύναμιν. Alim. 5, p. 9.100.6–8 καὶ τὴν μὲν ἰδίην ἰδέην ἐξεβλάστησε· ⟨μεταβάλλει τε τὴν ἀρχαίαν, καὶ καταφέρεται· τρέφει δὲ πεττομένη·⟩ [added by Littré from Galen] τὴν δὲ προτέρην ἰδέην ἐξαλλάττει ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ τὰς προτέρας ἐξημαύρωσεν. Alim. 54, p. 9.120.2 δύναμις πάντα αὔξει καὶ τρέφει καὶ βλαστάνει. Alim. 55, p. 9.120.3 ὑγρασίη τροφῆς ὄχημα. (= Polybus?) Morb. 4.39, p. 7.558.24–560.5 Littré cited below on ch. 5.28 section E(b) General texts. Plato Phd. 96a–b ἐγὼ γάρ … νέος ὢν θαυμαστῶς ὡς ἐπεθύμησα ταύτης τῆς σοφίας ἣν δὴ καλοῦσι περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίαν· ὑπερήφανος γάρ μοι ἐδόκει εἶναι, εἰδέναι τὰς αἰτίας ἑκάστου, διὰ τί γίγνεται ἕκαστον καὶ διὰ τί ἀπόλλυται καὶ διὰ τί ἔστι. καὶ πολλάκις (b) ἐμαυτὸν ἄνω κάτω μετέβαλλον σκοπῶν πρῶτον τὰ τοιάδε· ‘ἆρ᾽ ἐπειδὰν τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν σηπεδόνα τινὰ λάβῃ, ὥς τινες ἔλεγον, τότε δὴ τὰ ζῷα συντρέφεται; … ’ (for continuation see text cited on ch. 4.5 section E(b) General texts). Aristotle de An. 2.4 416a10–14 δοκεῖ δέ τισιν ἡ τοῦ πυρὸς φύσις ἁπλῶς αἰτία τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τῆς αὐξήσεως εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸ φαίνεται μόνον τῶν σωμάτων ἢ τῶν στοιχείων τρεφόμενον καὶ αὐξόμενον, διὸ καὶ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ὑπολάβοι τις ἂν τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ ἐργαζόμενον. Simplicius in Phys. 381.29–390.5 εἰπόντος δὲ τοῦ Ἐμπεδοκλέους (31B62 DK) ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν πρὸ τῆς τῶν ἀνδρείων καὶ γυναικείων σωμάτων διαρθρώσεως ταυτὶ τὰ ἔπη· ‘νῦν δ᾽ ἄγ᾽, ὅπως ἀνδρῶν τε πολυκλαύτων τε γυναικῶν / ἐννυχίους ὅρπηκας ἀνήγαγε κρινόμενον πῦρ, / τῶνδε κλύ’· οὐ γὰρ μῦθος ἀπόσκοπος οὐδ᾽ ἀδαήμων. / οὐλοφυεῖς μὲν πρῶτα τύποι χθονὸς ἐξανέτελλον / ἀμφοτέρων ὕδατός τε καὶ εἴδεος αἶσαν ἔχοντες, / τοὺς μὲν πῦρ ἀνέπεμπε θέλον πρὸς ὁμοῖον ἱκέσθαι, / οὔτε τί πω μελέων ἐρατὸν δέμας ἐμφαίνοντας, / οὔτ᾽ ἐνοπὴν οἵόν τ᾽ ἐπιχώριον ἀνδράσι γυῖον᾽. ταῦτα οὖν εἰπόντος τοῦ Ἐμπεδοκλέους ἐφίστησιν (sc. Aristotle), ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ὡς ἔοικε σπέρμα πρὸ τῶν ζῴων γεγονέναι φησί. §2 Anaxagoras: cf. Simplicius in Phys. 460.10–19 (on Phys. 3.4 203a19) ἀλλ᾽ εἰς μὲν τὴν τοιαύτην ἔννοιαν ὁ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A45 DK) ἦλθεν ἡγούμενος μηδὲν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γίνεσθαι καὶ πᾶν ὑπὸ ὁμοίου τρέφεσθαι. ὁρῶν οὖν πᾶν ἐκ παντὸς γινόμενον, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἀμέσως ἀλλὰ κατὰ τάξιν (καὶ γὰρ ἐκ πυρὸς ἀὴρ καὶ ἐξ ἀέρος ὕδωρ καὶ ἐξ ὕδατος γῆ καὶ ἐκ γῆς λίθος καὶ ἐκ λίθου πάλιν πῦρ), καὶ τροφῆς δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς προσφερομένης οἷον ἄρτου πολλὰ καὶ ἀνόμοια γίνεται, σάρκες ὀστᾶ φλέβες νεῦρα τρίχες ὄνυχες καὶ πτερὰ δὲ εἰ οὕτω τύχοι καὶ κέρατα, αὔξεται δὲ τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ· διὸ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ τροφῇ ὑπέλαβεν εἶναι καὶ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, εἰ τούτῳ τρέφοιτο τὰ δένδρα, ξύλον καὶ φλοιὸν καὶ φύλλα καὶ καρπόν.

Liber 5 Caput 28 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 910D–E; p. 440a14–22 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 244–245 Daiber S: titulus Ecl. 1.46 p. 298.4 Wachsmuth ex Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b27–28 Henry (titulus solus); etiam 1.50.25 p. 1.476.9–10 Wachsmuth

Titulus κηʹ. Πόθεν αἱ ὀρέξεις γίνονται τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ αἱ ἡδοναί (P,S) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς μὲν ὀρέξεις γίνεσθαι τοῖς ζῴοις κατὰ τὰς ἐλλείψεις τῶν ἀποτελούντων ἕκαστα στοιχείων, τὰς δ᾽ ἡδονὰς ἐξ ὑγροῦ κατὰ τὰς τῆς αὐξήσεως τῶν γένει ὁμοίων κινήσεις, τὰς δ᾽ ὀχλήσεις κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἐναντίων συγκρίσεις καὶ κράσεις. (P1) §2 Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐλλείψει τροφῆς τὴν ὄρεξιν. (S1) §1 Empedocles 31A95 DK; §2 Parmenides 28A50 DK; Empedocles cf. 31A95 DK titulus Πόθεν … ἡδοναί PBQ : Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ ὀρέξεως τῶν ζῷων SPhot (cf. c. 5.27) §1 lemma non hab. PB(I)G ‖ [3] ἕκαστα PB, om. PQ : ἕκαστον Diels ‖ ἐξ ὑγροῦ PBQ : ante ὑγροῦ crucem pos. Diels DG (quem secuti Mau Lachenaud), in notis prop. ἐξ οἰκείου, quod in VS in textu pos. ‖ [3–4] κατὰ … κινήσεις scripsimus, cf. infolge der in der Art sich gleichenden Wachstumsbewegungen Q (aut infolge der Bewegungen des in der Art sich gleichenden Wachstums) et Wolfsdorf (2009) 31 : καὶ τὰς τῶν κινδύνων καὶ ὁμοίων κινήσεις PB prob. Bollack, prop. in notis Diels DG κατὰ τὰς τῶν συγγενῶν καὶ ὁμοίων κινήσεις, quod in VS in textu pos. ‖ [4–5] κατὰ … κράσεις prop. Wolfsdorf (2009) 31, cf. infolge der im Berühren und Zusammentreffen im Widerspruch stehende Dinge Q et 4.9.15 : καὶ τὰς PB (et lac. 1 ⅕ lin. hab. PB(II,III:E)), ἀλγηδόνας ἐξ ἀνοικείου suppl. Diels VS DK §2 [6] de hoc lemmate vid. comm. infra

Loci Aetiani: §1 A 4.9.15 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὰς ἡδονὰς γίνεσθαι τοῖς μὲν ὁμοίοις ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἐλλεῖπον πρὸς τὴν ἀναπλήρωσιν, ὥστε τῷ ἐλλείποντι ἡ ὄρεξις τοῦ ὁμοίου· τὰς δ᾽ ἀλγηδόνας τοῖς ἐναντίοις, ἠλλοτριῶσθαι γὰρ πρὸς ἄλληλα ὅσα διαφέρει κατά τε τὴν σύγκρισιν καὶ τὴν τῶν στοιχείων κρᾶσιν. cf. A 4.9.12 Ἐπίκουρος τῶν αἰσθητῶν ⟨τὰς⟩ ἡδονὰς ἤδη καὶ τὰς λύπας. A 4.9.13 οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ τῶν νοητῶν· οὐ γὰρ πᾶσι φαίνεται τὰ αὐτὰ ἡδέα τε καὶ λυπηρὰ καθάπερ λευκά τε καὶ μέλανα. A 4.9.14 Χρύσιππος τὸ μὲν γενικὸν ἡδὺ νοητόν, τὸ δὲ εἰδικὸν καὶ προσπῖπτον ἤδη αἰσθητόν. A 4.9.16 Ἀναξαγόρας πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν μετὰ πόνου. A 4.9.17 ⟨οἱ⟩ ἄλλοι ἐπιγίγνεσθαι ἤτοι ἡδονὴν ἢ πόνον οὐδὲ συμπεφυκέναι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_153

5

2030

liber 5 caput 28

Commentary A Witnesses For this chapter only a single lemma is preserved in the tradition of P. Like in the previous chapter the name-label is again Empedocles. In PB its final part is mutilated. As also occurs in A 5.27.2 and 5.29.1–3, Q has a fuller text. Clearly the final part of the archetype of the Byzantine mss. of P was defective. A lemma with the name-labels Parmenides and Empedocles which contains an abridged but very similar doxa on the theme of ὄρεξις (in the singular) is found among the doxai of ch. 4.9 on sense-perception in S ch. 50 Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν καὶ εἰ ἀληθεῖς αἱ αἰσθήσεις (preserved only in the ms. L). Diels retained it in ch. 4.9 without comment, adding three asterisks to indicate that it was incomplete. The interpretation of this fragment is fraught with difficulties. See further the analysis below in section D(c). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The only text that we can relate to this tradition is at ps.Galen Def.Med. 99, but its definition of ὄρεξις refers to food (and drink) without any reference to physiological processes (or to doxographical material). (2) Sources. Although Empedocles is cited quite often in Aristotle’s writings on the soul and its phenomena, this does not occur in relation to the themes of desire, pleasure or pain. On the other hand, Theophrastus’ account of his views in the opusculum De sensibus (§§7–24) contains three passages in which pleasure and pain (as well as knowing and not knowing) are explained through the categories of the similar and the dissimilar (texts below section E(b) §1). These recur in the second half of the doxa in explaining pleasures and annoyances. However, the physiological aspect emphasized by A is not found in this text. See further our discussion of the reconstruction of the sources of the chapter by Wolfsdorf (2009) in section D(e) below. A similar account of craving for food and drink involving the deficiency of moisture (so only one of the elements) is found in a treatise in the Hippocratic corpus (by the same author who wrote Genit. and Nat.Puer.), namely Morb. 4.39, text below section E(b) General texts. C Chapter Heading For chapter headings containing πόθεν plus γίγνομαι indicating the psychological, biological or physiological source, i.e. the cause, of a phenomenon see ch. 4.21 Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν and ch. 5.11 Πόθεν γίνονται τῶν γονέων αἱ ὁμοιώσεις ἢ τῶν προγόνων. It should be noted that the heading explicitly refers to τὰ ζῷα, continuing the broader scope of the previous

liber 5 caput 28

2031

chapter. As we have continually noted throughout Book 5, the doxography prevaricates on whether it focuses on living beings in general or more particularly on human beings. D Analysis a Context The subject follows on logically from the previous chapter. The crucial role of nourishment for the growth of living beings entails that they must have a process whereby they feel the impulse to take in such nourishment, and this is provided by desire (or more specifically appetite, the usual term in relation to food), which in turn is linked to feelings of pleasure (i.e. enjoying one’s food, satiety) and annoyance (i.e. hunger). The subject of appetite is not discussed elsewhere in the Placita (incidental references at A 4.22.3[25] on breathing and 5.5.1 on female desire for sex). But the subject of pleasure and pain was briefly dealt with at A 4.9.12–17 as part of the chapter on whether sensations and impressions are true (since pleasure and pain involve αἴσθησις, i.e. internal perception). The doxa on Empedocles at A 4.9.15 differs from the one in this chapter in being quite general, i.e. not focused on nourishment, as is the implication of the context here, and also articulating the principle of like by like more explicitly. The parallel doxa in ps.Galen Def.Med. focuses explicitly on appetite for food and drink. b Number–Order of Lemmata The tradition of P has only the single lemma. But the original version in A, we may safely assume, will have had further views which have been lost in P’s abridged version. The second lemma furnished by S points in this direction. It appears to be a compact summary of the first, but with two essential differences: (a) it has the additional name-label Parmenides; (b) it relates the lack that causes appetite explicitly to nourishment (τροφή). Parmenides’ view must have been coupled with that of Empedocles in the original version of the chapter, or was a very similar doxa which S coalesced. We note that Theophrastus Sens. 1 names Parmenides, Empedocles and Plato together as explaining sensation through similarity (as opposed to dissimilarity). The second doxa can thus best be regarded as for the most part a doublet of the first, doubtless deriving from S’s version of the chapters 5.27 & 28. But because it contains extra information, it must be included in our text. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter There is little further to be said about this truncated chapter with (effectively) its single lemma except to emphasise that, by mentioning the role of the ele-

2032

liber 5 caput 28

ments in appetite and privileging the role of moisture in pleasure, A continues the physiological emphasis of Book 5. The role of the elements is central to Aristotle’s critique of Empedocles’ psychology at de An. 1.5 410a22–b16. In the parallel passage on Empedocles at A 4.9.15 there is no mention of the moist, but the mixture of the elements is mentioned to explain pains. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The text of the second half of the doxa on pleasures and pains is very uncertain. In PB pace Bollack (1965–1969) 3.468 it is clearly corrupt. The reference to ‘dangers’ is inappropriate in the context. Diels and earlier scholars attempted to restore it in the light of the parallel text A 4.9.15, a very understandable step to take; see DG app. to 440a19. However, they did not have access to the evidence in Q. Instead of τὰς τῶν κινδύνων … κινήσεις, Q refers to Wachstumsbewegungen, i.e. τὰς τῆς αὐξήσεως … κινήσεις. The genetive τῶν ὁμοίων would appear to be dependent on τῆς αὐξήσεως. It is qualified by the phrase in der Art which can be rendered γένει (but there are no good parallels in A). In our text we have printed a retranslation from Q, bearing in mind that here his text is better preserved than in the Greek mss. As for the final phrase explaining the occurrence of ‘annoyances’ (ὀχλήσεις as a synonym for ‘pains’ (λῦπαι), cf. ἀλγηδόνας in ch. 4.9.15), we have to determine what Q’s im Berühren und Zusammentreffen will have rendered. In our text we follow the suggestion of Wolfsdorf (2009) 31 to base the reconstruction of the final phrase on the parallel text in A 4.9.15, changing σύγκρισιν and κρᾶσιν to the plural to correlate with the article τάς in the Greek mss. and the plural nouns in Q. e Other Evidence In his detailed analysis of this chapter Wolfsdorf (2009) makes three claims regarding its relation to earlier traditions (see esp. p. 34 and the stemma on p. 43): (1) A has combined separate anterior traditions for the topic of desire and for the topic of pleasure and pain. (2) The latter is clearly derived ultimately from Theophrastus’ Sens. and before him Aristotle’s de An. The former has a different source trajectory via Aristotle’s lost Plant. and Eth.Nic., and prior to these works, Plato’s Lysis. (3) His report on Empedocles’ views on desire and pleasure was derived from doxographical material on plants rather than on animals, even if he himself may have placed them in a chapter that refers to these subjects in animals (or living beings in general).

liber 5 caput 28

2033

These interpretations make too much of the very limited evidence and can by no means be regarded as certain. The role of Theophrastus Sens. is not in dispute. However, for the topic of desire Wolfsdorf himself admits (p. 19) that the doxographical record is defective. Although we have printed the texts he cites below in section E(b) under §1, it is apparent that they are not specific enough to be regarded as sources for A’s doxa on ὄρεξις, leaving aside the problem that the doxa itself (i.e. its first part) makes no reference to what is similar or dissimilar. It is true that Nicolaus of Damascus’ doxography on plants states that they are influenced by desire and also experience pleasure, but it is a mighty leap to conclude that it is this text that inspired A, who consequently transferred this contents to living beings in general. Wolfsdorf p. 45 notes that there may have been intermediate sources involved, but nevertheless maintains that ultimately the view comes from Aristotle’s Plant. He ends his analysis of the doxographical tradition with some valuable remarks on the role of diaeresis, which is clearly present in the passage from Plato’s Lysis which he cites. Of course it must be recognised that the role of the diaeresis is crucial for the method that A uses throughout his work. But for a diaeresis at least two opinions are required, and this is precisely what we do not have in this effectively monolemmatic chapter. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 97, p. 19.372.3–4 K. Ϟζʹ. ὄρεξίς ἐστι πόθος καὶ ἐπιζήτησις τροφῆς καὶ πότου.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Corpus Hippocraticum Morb. 4.39, p. 7.558.24–560.5 Littré εἰ δὲ βρωτῶν καὶ ποτῶν ἐνδεήσεται τῶν πηγέων τις, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἑλκύσει ἀπ᾽ αὐτέων τέως καὶ τὸ ὑγρὸν ἔλασσον τοῦ καιροῦ γένηται· τότε ἱμείρεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἢ φαγέειν ἢ πιέειν τοιοῦτον, ὅτι τὴν μοίρην ἐκείνην ἐπιπλήσει καὶ ἰσώσει τῇσιν ἄλλῃσι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο βεβρωκότες πολλὰ ἢ πεπωκότες, ἔστιν ὅτε ἱμειρόμεθα ἢ βρωτοῦ ἢ ποτοῦ, καὶ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἂν ἡδέως φάγοιμεν, εἰ μὴ ὅ τι ἱμειρόμεθα· ἐπὴν δὲ φάγωμεν καὶ ἰσωθῇ ἡ ἰκμὰς κατὰ τὰ ἀνυστὰ ἐν τῇσι πηγῇσι καὶ ἐν τῷ σώματι, τότε οἱ πέπαυται ὁ ἵμερος. Chapter heading: — §1 Empedocles: On desire: Plato Lys. 214b2–5 οὐκοῦν καὶ τοῖς τῶν σοφωτάτων συγγράμμασιν ἐντετύχηκας ταῦτα αὐτὰ λέγουσιν, ὅτι τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἀνάγκη ἀεὶ φίλον εἶναι; εἰσὶν δέ που οὗτοι οἱ περὶ φύσεώς τε καὶ τοῦ ὅλου διαλεγόμενοι καὶ γράφοντες. … Lys. 215e1–216a1 καὶ δὴ καὶ ἔτι ἐπεξῄει τῷ λόγῳ μεγαλοπρεπέστερον, λέγων ὡς ἄρα παντὸς δέοι τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ φίλον εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐναντίον εἴη τούτου· τὸ γὰρ ἐναντιώτατον τῷ ἐναντιωτάτῳ εἶναι μάλιστα φίλον. ἐπιθυμεῖν γὰρ τοῦ τοιούτου ἕκαστον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοῦ ὁμοίου· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ξηρὸν ὑγροῦ, τὸ δὲ

2034

liber 5 caput 28

ψυχρὸν θερμοῦ, τὸ δὲ πικρὸν γλυκέος, τὸ δὲ ὀξὺ ἀμβλέος, τὸ δὲ κενὸν πληρώσεως, καὶ τὸ πλῆρες δὲ κενώσεως, καὶ τἆλλα οὕτω κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον. τροφὴν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ ἐναντίον τῷ ἐναντίῳ· τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον τοῦ ὁμοίου οὐδὲν ἂν ἀπολαῦσαι. Aristotle EN 8.2 1155a32–b8 διαμφισβητεῖται δὲ περὶ αὐτῆς οὐκ ὀλίγα. οἳ μὲν γὰρ ὁμοιότητά τινα τιθέασιν αὐτὴν καὶ τοὺς ὁμοίους φίλους … Εὐριπίδης (fr. 898 Nauck) μὲν φάσκων ἐρᾶν μὲν ὄμβρου γαῖαν ξηρανθεῖσαν, ἐρᾶν δὲ σεμνὸν οὐρανὸν πληρούμενον ὄμβρου πεσεῖν ἐς γαῖαν, καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (fr. 27d1 Marcovich) τὸ ἀντίξουν συμφέρον καὶ ἐκ τῶν διαφερόντων καλλίστην ἁρμονίαν καὶ πάντα κατ᾽ ἔριν γίνεσθαι· ἐξ ἐναντίας δὲ τούτοις ἄλλοι τε καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (not in DK)· τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον τοῦ ὁμοίου ἐφίεσθαι. On pleasure and pain: Aristotle de An. 1.2 404b8–12 ὅσοι μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τὸ κινεῖσθαι τὸ ἔμψυχον ἀπέβλεψαν, οὗτοι τὸ κινητικώτατον ὑπέλαβον τὴν ψυχήν· ὅσοι δ᾽ἐπὶ τὸ γινώσκειν καὶ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι τῶν ὄντων, οὗτοι δὲ λέγουσι τὴν ψυχὴν τὰς ἀρχάς, οἱ μὲν πλείους ποιοῦντες, ταύτας οἱ δὲ μίαν, ταύτην, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὲν ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων πάντων, εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἕκαστον ψυχὴν τούτων, λέγων οὕτως … (then cites fr. 31B109 DK). Theophrastus Sens. 1–2 Περὶ δ᾽ αἰσθήσεως αἱ μὲν πολλαὶ καὶ καθόλου δόξαι δύ᾽ εἰσίν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ τῷ ὁμοίῳ ποιοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ τῷ ἐναντίῳ. Παρμενίδης μὲν καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A86 DK) καὶ Πλάτων τῷ ὁμοίῳ, οἱ δὲ περὶ Ἀναξαγόραν καὶ Ἡράκλειτον τῷ ἐναντίῳ. Sens. 7 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ περὶ ἁπασῶν ὁμοίως λέγει καί φησι τῷ ἐναρμόττειν εἰς τοὺς πόρους τοὺς ἑκάστης αἰσθάνεσθαι … Sens. 9 ἥδεσθαι δὲ τοῖς ὁμοίοις κατά τε ⟨τὰ⟩ μόρια καὶ τὴν κρᾶσιν, λυπεῖσθαι δὲ τοῖς ἐναντίοις. Sens. 10 ὡσαύτως δὲ λέγει καὶ περὶ φρονήσεως καὶ ἀγνοίας. τὸ μὲν γὰρ φρονεῖν εἶναι τοῖς ὁμοίοις, τὸ δ᾽ ἀγνοεῖν τοῖς ἀνομοίοις, ὡς ἢ ταὐτὸν ἢ παραπλήσιον ὂν τῇ αἰσθήσει τὴν φρόνησιν. διαριθμησάμενος γὰρ ὡς ἕκαστον ἑκάστῳ γνωρίζομεν (cf. 31B109 DK) ἐπὶ τέλει προσέθηκεν ὡς (31B107 DK) ‘ἐκ τούτων ⟨γὰρ⟩ πάντα πεπήγασιν ἁρμοσθέντα / καὶ τούτοις φρονέουσι καὶ ἥδοντ᾽ ἠδ᾽ ἀνιῶνται.’ Sens. 16–17 ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ λύπην ὁμολογουμένως ἀποδίδωσιν ἥδεσθαι μὲν ποιῶν τοῖς ὁμοίοις, λυπεῖσθαι δὲ τοῖς ἐναντίοις. … αἰσθήσεις γάρ τινας ἢ μετ᾽ αἰσθήσεως ποιοῦσι τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὴν λύπην, ὥστε οὐχ ἅπασι γίνεται τοῖς ὁμοίοις. ἔτι εἰ τὰ συγγενῆ μάλιστα ποιεῖ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἐν τῇ ἁφῇ, καθάπερ φησί, τὰ σύμφυτα μάλιστ᾽ ἂν ἥδοιτο καὶ ὅλως αἰσθάνοιτο· διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν γὰρ ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν ἡδονήν. (17) καίτοι πολλάκις αἰσθανόμενοι λυπούμεθα κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν αἴσθησιν, ὡς ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A92 DK) φησίν, ἀεί· πᾶσαν γὰρ αἴσθησιν εἶναι μετὰ λύπης. Sens. 23–24 καὶ συμβαίνει ταὐτὸ εἶναι τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι καὶ ἥδεσθαι καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ {τὸ} ἀγνοεῖν· ἄμφω γὰρ ποιεῖ τοῖς ἀνομοίοις. ὥσθ᾽ ἅμα τῷ μὲν ἀγνοεῖν ἔδει γίνεσθαι λύπην, τῷ δὲ φρονεῖν ἡδονήν. (24) ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ τὰς δυνάμεις ἑκάστοις ἐγγίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις τοῦ αἵματος σύγκρασιν, ὡς ἢ τὴν γλῶτταν αἰτίαν τοῦ εὖ λέγειν ⟨οὖσαν ἢ⟩ τὰς χεῖρας τοῦ δημιουργεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὀργάνου τάξιν ἔχοντα. διὸ καὶ μᾶλλον ἄν τις ἀποδοίη τῇ μορφῇ τὴν αἰτίαν ἢ τῇ κράσει τοῦ αἵματος, ἣ χωρὶς διανοία ἐστίν· οὕτως γὰρ ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὲν οὖν ἔοικεν ἐν πολλοῖς διαμαρτάνειν. Nicolaus Damascenus cf. De plantis 1.2, Arabic translation of Isḥāq ibn Ḥunayn cited above on ch. 5.26 section E(b) General texts.

Liber 5 Caput 29 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 910E–F; p. 441a1–24 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 131; p. 647.15–20 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 244–247 Daiber

Titulus κθʹ. Πῶς γίνεται πυρετὸς καὶ εἰ ἐπιγέννημά ἐστι (P) §1 Ἐρασίστρατος ὁρίζεται τὸν πυρετὸν οὕτως· πυρετός ἐστι κίνημα αἵματος παρεμπεπτωκότος εἰς τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀγγεῖα ἀπροαιρέτως γινόμενον· καθάπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάττης, ὅταν μηδὲν αὐτὴν κινῇ, ἠρεμεῖ, ἀνέμου δ᾽ ἐμπνέοντος βιαίου παρὰ φύσιν, τότε ἐξ ὅλης κυκᾶται, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῷ σώματι ὅταν κινηθῇ τὸ αἷμα, τότε ἐμπίπτει μὲν εἰς τὰ ἀγγεῖα τοῦ πνεύματος, πυρούμενον δὲ θερμαίνει τὸ ὅλον σῶμα. ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ ἐπιγέννημα εἶναι τὸν πυρετόν, denn es entsteht aus einer Geschwulst, welche in den Werkzeugen des Pneumas zusammen mit der Nahrung erscheint, die zu ihnen fließt. (PBQ1) §2 Διοκλῆς δέ φησιν· ὄψις ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα· ἔστι δέ, οἷς φαινομένοις ὁρᾶται ἐπιγενόμενος ὁ πυρετός, τραύματα καὶ φλεγμοναὶ καὶ βουβῶνες. Folglich muß man unbedingt sagen, daß das Fieber aus (irgendwelchen) Dingen entsteht, auch wenn sie verborgen sind, nämlich (aus) einer Geschwulst oder einer Nahrung oder einem anderen heißen Körper. (PBQ2) §3 Herophilus widerlegte das und glaubte, daß die heiße Geschwulst nicht dem Fieber vorangeht, sondern das Fieber geht ihr voran. In dieser (Weise) entsteht das Fieber meistenfalls. Häufig tritt es ein, ohne daß in ihm eine Ursache deutlich ist. Seine Ursache löst die §1 Erasistratus fr. 195 Garofalo; §2 Diocles fr. 56 Van der Eijk; §3 Herophilus fr. 217 Von Staden titulus πυρετὸς PB(I,II)G : ὁ πυρετὸς PB(III)Q(ut vid.) ‖ εἰ ἐπιγέννημά ἐστι PBQ : ἐπιγίνεται PG §1 [2] οὕτως· πυρετός ἐστι] om. PG (et οὕτως om PB(III:E)) ‖ [3] παρεμπεπτωκότος PGQ Diels Lachenaud : παρεμπεπτωκὸς PB Mau ‖ [4] post κινῇ add. PG πνεῦμα ‖ [5–10] ἀνέμου usque ad fin. lemm. om. PG ‖ [5] κυκᾶται Lachenaud, dub. Diels : κυκλεῖται PB Mau ‖ [6] ἐμπίπτει PB(I,III) : πίπτει PB(II) ‖ [7] τοῦ πνεύματος Garofalo : τῶν πνευμάτων PB ‖ [8] τὸν πυρετόν corr. Diels Lachenaud : ὁ πυρετὸς PBQ Mau, tum lac. 1½ lin. hab PB(I), 7 litt. PB(II) ‖ [8–10] denn … fließt Q : desunt in PB §2 [11–12] δέ φησι … ὁρᾶται om. PG et cetera usque ad βουβῶνες paraphr. ‖ [11] ὄψις PB(I,II) : ὄψεις PB(III)Q ‖ ἔστι δέ, οἷς corr. Reiske edd. Diels (ὲστι Mau Lachenaud): ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς PBQ ‖ [12] post βουβῶνες hab. lac. 1 lin. PB(I), 2/3 lin. PB(II) ‖ [13–16] Folglich … Körper Q : desunt in PB §3 [17–22] Herophilus … aus Q : desunt in PB : al. (et fortiter reducta) PG ‖ [17] Herophilus PQ : Ἡρόδοτός PG ‖ [18–20] cf. ἐνίοτε μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας προηγησαμένης πυρέττειν τινάς PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_154

5

10

15

20

2036

liber 5 caput 29

Bewegungen der chronischen (?) Krankheiten und die Erzeugung der heißen Geschwüre aus. (PQ3) [21] chronischen Q : dub. Daiber

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 131 (~ tit.) Πῶς γίνεται πυρετὸς καὶ ἐπιγίνεται (text Diels) 131.1 (~ P1) Ἐρασίστρατος ὁρίζεται τὸν πυρετὸν κίνημα αἵματος παρεμπεπτωκότος εἰς τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀγγεῖα ἀπροαιρέτως γινόμενον καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάττης, ὅταν μηδὲν αὐτὴν κινῇ πνεῦμα, ἠρεμεῖ. 131.2 (~ P2) Διοκλῆς ἐπιγέννημα εἶναι τὸν πυρετόν· ἐπιγίνεται δὲ τραύματι καὶ βουβῶνι. 131.3 (~ P3) Ἡρόδοτός [sic] φησιν ἐνίοτε μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας προηγησαμένης πυρέττειν τινάς.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The evidence for this chapter is confined to the tradition of P. It would appear that S did not include any material from it in his anthology. PB only has two lemmata, of which the first and longer one is truncated at the end. As is apparent from the other chapters at the end of Book 5, the archetype of this Byzantine tradition must have been damaged towards the end of the manuscript. The evidence of Q is particularly important for this chapter. The Arabic translation completes the truncated first lemma, adds a second half to the second lemma, and adds a complete third lemma with the name-label Herophilus (completely missing in PB). Q’s evidence is complemented by that of G. He includes the third doxa attributed to Herophilus (although the name-label that is transmitted in his text is Herodotus), thereby confirming Q’s evidence. However, all three of his doxai are considerably abridged in comparison to what we find in Q. In addition his versions for the second and third lemma differ in terms of content from the longer versions in Q. As in previous chapters (and in ch. 5.30) G and Q supply material at the end of the work that later became missing in the mss. tradition of P. This material is completely missing in the texts of Mau and Lachenaud, who apparently failed to realise that these texts complement the Byzantine mss. of P.

liber 5 caput 29

2037

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The contents of this chapter, with its focus on fourth and third century physicians has some parallels in other doxographical works. The three definitions for fever found in ps.Galen’s compendium of medical definitions are quite different from that of Erasistratus with which the chapter opens. He does, however, use the distinctive term ἐπιγέννημα in his definition of σύμπτωμα (see texts below section E(a) Definitions). In the second or third cent. CE ps.Galenic treatise Introductio sive medicus ch. 13 the view that fever is an affection (πάθος, cf. 4.23) is attributed to ‘the ancients’ and is contrasted in sound doxographical style with the view of ‘Erasistratus and some younger (doctors)’ that fever is an ἐπιγέννημα. But the account and definition of fever attributed to them, which focus on the role of heat, bear no resemblance to A’s explanation. A little-known definition-cum-doxography is found in a small treatise on fevers under the name of ‘the doctor’ Alexander of Aphrodisias, attributing the definition to ‘Empedocles, Zeno and the majority of the Hippocrateans.’ Though not calling fever a πάθος, the content resembles the various definitions in ps.Galen Def.Med., but the mention of the names of philosophers suggests a doxographical origin. Another interesting text is found in ps.Soranus Quaestiones medicinales, in a section only preserved in the ms. Carnotensis 62; see Van der Eijk (2000–2001) 2.128, who notes: ‘It is almost certain that the present report is derived from a tradition of quaestiones or definitiones literature, although the present section is not preserved in Pseudo-Galen’s Definitiones medicae.’ The quaestio asked is ‘what different causes of fevers did the ancients state?’ The views of no less than 10 authors or groups are cited, although not all of them specifically mention fevers; see the text below section E(a) General texts. The view of Erasistratus given there is a more compact version of what we find in A. As the evidence of the Anon. Londiniensis and the Anon. Parisinus shows, there were extensive doxographies on medical subjects; on this background see further Runia (1999a) 237–245. It is probable that A or the tradition he draws on has made use of such material and incorporated a very small amount of it in his treatment of physiological subjects. On ancient medical doxography in general see further the essays collected in Van der Eijk (1999a). (2) Sources. Fever as a widely occurring physiological phenomenon attracted the interest of early Greek physiologoi. A treatise on fever is recorded among the ‘technical’ writings of Democritus (68A33 XIII 7 DK). As noted above, some philosophers—Empedocles, Democritus, Strato, Zeno—are briefly mentioned in medical doxographies in ps.Soranus and ps.Alexander; see texts below section E(a). But there was little, it seems, for later doxographers to make use of. In Plato it is briefly explained in terms of elemental excesses in Tim. 86a, for

2038

liber 5 caput 29

which he is mildly criticized by Galen PHP 8.4.18 because he ignored the true cause, i.e. the role of the humours; see further Taylor (1928) 607–610. In the Aristotelian corpus discussions on aspects of fever are confined to the Problemata. It is doubtless not a coincidence that this is the only chapter in A’s compendium to consist solely of doxai attributed to physicians. On fevers in ancient medicine see Pellegrin (1988), Nutton (2004) 31–32; a wide-ranging overview of the place of fever in ancient culture is given in Horn (1969). C Chapter Heading The chapter heading combines two subjects in relation to the theme of fever, firstly its cause, and secondly whether it is an ‘after-symptom’, i.e. supervenient upon the affection (and thus not its cause). The first part uses the familiar πῶς γίνεται x formula, on which see further ch. 5.2 Commentary C. The second part again turns to the εἰ x (sc. ἐστί) formula, which was also used in chs. 5.4–5, 19, 20 and 26 (see further ch. 5.26 Commentary C). It invites a response in terms of affirmation or negation, as indeed occurs in this chapter. D Analysis a Context As noted above, this is the only chapter in the work that has a specifically medical subject. Its inclusion is perhaps not as surprising as its position, since it precedes the discussion of health and disease in the final chapter 5.30. b Number–Order of Lemmata Only three doxai are preserved. It could be argued that there might have been a fuller list on account of the absence of any Presocratic theories. But see our comments above in section B(b). The second question posed in the heading invites either a positive or a negative answer (or perhaps a compromise), so a limited number of doxai might be expected (cf. for example chs. 5.4 and 5.5 also with three doxai each). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The three doxai are linked together in a tight structure. In the first doxa attributed to Erasistratus we are explicitly told that a definition of fever has been formulated. For similar use of the verbs ὁρίζεται/ὁρίζονται see A 1.6.1, 4.8.1 (both oratio recta as here), 4.19.1 (oratio obliqua), and in general on definition in the Placita ch. 1.9 Commentary D(d) General points. All three parallels occur at the beginning of the chapter (as is also the case for definitions that are not formally introduced, e.g. at chs. 1.9–12, 1.14–15, 1.23). The definition is specific, so does not introduce the subject, but already explains how fever occurs, i.e. the

liber 5 caput 29

2039

first question raised in the chapter. The second part of the doxa then provides an answer to the second topic, i.e. whether fever is an after-symptom, which Erasistratus answers in the affirmative. His view is introduced with the phrase ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτῷ, which occurs in A elsewhere only at 1.7.21[101] (on Xenocrates, also towards the end of a long lemma), but is very common in the fragments of Arius Didymus (see M–R 1.250, 3.323). To judge by the Arabic translation, a swelling caused by the accumulation of pneuma in its vessels (ἄγγεια; this is what Werkzeugen must refer to), exacerbated by what nourishes it, gives rise to the fever. The reason for the opinion thus refers back to the earlier definition. The second doxa attributed to Diocles amounts to an additional affirmation of the view of Erasistratus that fever is an ἐπιγέννημα. Diocles is recorded as quoting the well-known apophthegm ‘the appearances are the sight of what is unclear’. This saying is recorded as having been used by Anaxagoras and (it seems) Democritus; see S.E. M. 7.140 (text below Section E(b)§2), Diller (1932) 16, 37. As Van der Eijk (2000–2001, 2.123) remarks, there is no a priori reason to doubt the assertion that Diocles cited the saying (he is known to have written a book on fevers, cf. fr. 73 Van der Eijk). However, as the same scholar notes, it is not easy to understand the exact purport of the addition in the Arabic translation, since a swelling is surely a visible element (as opposed to nourishment or an invisible hot body). The reduced doxa in G, which does not include the saying, is much more straightforward: fever is after-symptom of the visible symptoms of injuries or sickness in the form of wounds and swellings. It is likely that Q is mistaken here, but we have decided to include his text as evidence of the damaged text. The third lemma has the name-label Herophilus and survives in full (it would seem) only in Q. Fever is not an ἐπιγέννημα but rather precedes the observed phenomena of swellings and boils. Its own cause, however, may not be clear. Herophilus’ doxa thus takes the opposed view in the diaphonia in response to the εἰ question in the chapter heading: fever is not an ἐπιγέννημα but precedes the visible symptoms. Its reponse to the first part of the chapter’s subject is that the cause is not apparent. As Von Staden (1989, 302) notes, in this statement ‘Herophilus’ cautious, sceptical strain breaks through’. It should be observed that here too the version of G differs from Q: sometimes no cause precedes the fever. Again it appears to be a simplification of what originally stood in A. We conclude, therefore, that the chapter thus focuses more on the second part of its double subject than the first. It has a simple dialectical structure pro et contra, with §1 affirming the thesis (supported by §2) and §3 opposing it. As often in Book 5, the doxai have been extended in length in order to include physiological aspects of the subject. Due to the imperfect transmission, however, the exact meaning is not fully clear. Finally it is to be noted that the

2040

liber 5 caput 29

most common aetiology of fever in antiquity, i.e. the mismanagement of the bodily humours (cf. Pellegrin 1988) is absent in our chapter. d

Further Comments General Points Diocles’ doxa in both PB and G shows how the technical term ἐπιγέννημα is developed from the verb ἐπιγίγνομαι. The term itself appears to have been first developed in philosophical contexts. It occurs in the Stoic doxography at D.L. 7.86 to describe pleasure (ἡδονή) as supervenient upon what nature has supplied to a creature for its constitution (cf. also 7.94, 95). In Philo Det. 124 joy is an after-product of wisdom. In medical authors it does not occur in extant texts before Galen, where however it is found only four times (three in De symptomatum differentiis liber; see below, section E(b) General texts for one example). So it is not likely that the physicians cited in this chapter would have used the term. The doxographer, as he often does, is using later terminology in order to clarify (and simplify) earlier doctrine. Individual Points §1 In the analogy between wind at sea and blood in the body, the word order means that the expression παρὰ φύσιν is more naturally taken with the previous phrase than the one that follows (in the latter case it would normally follow τότε). So on the basis of the analogy, it is the action of the blood that is ‘contrary to nature’, not the fever. This is consistent with the statement that it is an aftersymptom. Lachenaud errs, therefore, in placing the comma after βιαίου. §2 Although δέ is often a strong adversative introducing an opposed opinion, it does not do so in this case. The view of Diocles supports that of Erasistratus. So we should translate ‘and’. §3 The erroneous name-label Herodotus in G is strange, because it is correctly transmitted in §§103, 106 and 119 and the context is clearly medical. It is almost certainly a scribal error based on an incorrect interpretation of an abbreviation. The name-label Herodotus occurs in §89 (= A 4.1) where it is obviously correct. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: ps.Soranus Quaest.Med. codex Carnotensis 61 fol. 10r Fischer quas causas febrium diversas veteres adserebant. nam Erasistratus (—) quidem transfusionem sanguinis in arterias et tumorem causam febrium esse dicebat; Asclepiades (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 724) autem, cum inpedimenta quaedam habuerint vel constricti erint qui ratione sola conprehenduntur meatus cor-

liber 5 caput 29 poris, febrem fieri voluit; Diocles vero Carystius (fr. 59 Van der Eijk) corrumpi ait sanguinem qui in concava vena est et ita effici morbos; Praxagoras (—) autem conprehensionem et corruptelam recentium novarum et veterum causabatur et ita dicebat morbos effici; Platon autem philosophus igniti elementi abundantiam causam esse dicebat morborum. verum Democrito (—) placet causam febrium esse cum cibi qui sumuntur transierint ad non proprium locum. Straton (—) autem qui de natura scripsit (i.e. ὁ φυσικός) ⟨ait⟩ cum imus calor ad superficiem venerit; clausis enim meatibus includitur calor en inclusus maior efficitur ⟨et ita morbi generantur⟩. Methodici autem stricturam et fluxum generaliter necnon etiam conplexionem causantur {esse febres}. Empiricis vero consequens est causam febrium non inquirere nec quemadmodum fiant, sed observata natura ad historiam transire et similia quaerere, ut de ipsis aliquid utilitatis capiatur. Hippocrates autem ait febrem fieri, cum aut solida pars ⟨corrumpitur⟩ aut humor aut spiritus convertitur contra naturalem modum. Nam in libro quae de cibis scripit ita ait Hippocrates … (quotes Alim. 23). Chapter heading: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.49 (list of Democritus’ writings, 68a33 DK) Περὶ πυρετοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ νόσου βησσόντων. Definitions: cf. ps.Galen Def.Med. 170, p. 19.395 K. ροʹ. σύμπτωμά ἐστι τοῦ πάθους ἐπιγέννημα. Def.Med. 185, p. 19.398.5–15 K. ρπεʹ. πυρετός ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ εἰς τὸ παρὰ φύσιν ἐκτροπὴ τῶν σφυγμῶν σφοδροτέρων τε καὶ πυκνωτέρων γενομένων. ἢ πυρετός ἐστι θερμότης παρὰ φύσιν καρδίας καὶ ἀρτηριῶν βλάπτουσα τὸν ζωτικὸν γόνον ἀναφερομένη τε ἐκ βάθους προσπίπτουσα τῇ ἁφῇ καὶ μάλιστά τις ἀταξία κατὰ τὸ εἶδος τοῦ πυρετοῦ προγίνεται τοῖς σφυγμοῖς. οἱ δὲ οὕτω. πυρετός ἐστι πλεονασμὸς θερμασίας νοσώδους καὶ μάλιστα τῆς ἐκ βάθους ἀναφερομένης μετὰ παραλλαγῆς σφυγμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ πυκνότερον καὶ σφοδρότερον. οἱ δὲ οὕτως. πυρετός ἐστι δυσκρασία τοῦ φυσικοῦ πνεύματος ἐπὶ τὸ θερμότερον καὶ ξηρότερον. ps.Alexander Febr. 2.1 Ideler πυρετὸν τοίνυν, ἵν᾽ ἐντεῦθεν τοῦ λόγου ἄρξωμαι, ἄλλοι μὲν ἄλλως ὡρίσαντο, Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) δὲ καὶ Ζήνων (—) καὶ τῶν Ἱπποκρατείων οἱ πλείους (—) θερμασίαν παρὰ φύσιν, ἀπὸ καρδίας μὲν ἀρχομένην, προϊοῦσαν δὲ ἐκ ταύτης δι᾽ ἀρτηριῶν καὶ φλεβῶν ἐφ᾽ ἅπαν τὸ σῶμα, καὶ τὰς φυσικὰς αἰσθητῶς βλάπτουσαν ἐνεργείας, ἔφασαν εἶναι· καὶ εἰκότως. §1 Erasistratus: cf. ps.Soranus Quaest.Med. 61 cited above.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Galen Symp.Diff. 1, p. 7.42.8 K. ἅπασα γὰρ οὖν διάθεσις σώματος ἐξισταμένη τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἤτοι νόσημά ἐστιν, ἢ αἰτία νοσήματος, ἢ σύμπτωμα νοσήματος. ὅπερ ἔνιοι τῶν ἰατρῶν ἐπιγέννημα καλοῦσιν. Chapter heading: cf. Galen Diff.Puls. 4.17, p. 8.760.10 K. (on pulsation) αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος (Garofalo fr. 205) ἐν τοῖς περὶ πυρετῶν ἀπεφήνατο σαφῶς. Caelius Aurelianus on Diocles cited below on §2. Definitions: ps.Galen Caus.Affect. p. 9.4 Helmreich οὐκοῦν πυρετός ἐστι κατὰ τὸν Ἱπποκράτην τροπὴ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν θερμοῦ εἰς τὸ παρὰ φύσιν. Aëtius medicus Iatr. 5.7.1 Τί ἐστι πυρετός. πυρετός ἐστι θερμότης παρὰ φύσιν καρδίας καὶ ἀρτηριῶν βλάπτουσα τὸν ζωτικὸν τόνον … Anonymi medici Περὶ τῆς τῶν

2041

2042

liber 5 caput 29

πυρετῶν διαφορᾶς p. 603.5–15 Daremberg–Ruelle ἐροῦμεν πάλιν ὅτι πυρετός ἐστι θερμασία παρὰ φύσιν ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι γινομένη καὶ βλάπτει τὰς ἐνεργείας. … συμβεβηκὼς πυρετός ἐστιν ὃς γίνεται καὶ ἀπογίνεται χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ ὑποκειμένου φθορᾶς. §1 Erasistratus: ps.Galen Int. 13.5, p. 48.2–15 Petit (chapter heading Περὶ φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν τε καὶ χυμῶν) τὸν μὲν οὖν πυρετὸν οἱ παλαιοὶ πάθος, αὐτὸν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ἡγοῦνται. Ἐρασίστρατος (—) δὲ καὶ τῶν νεωτέρων τινὲς ἐπιγέννημα. πυρετὸς δέ ἐστι τροπὴ ἐμφύτου θερμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ καυσωδέστερον, διὰ τὸ εἰς τὸ ἔνδον ἀποστρέφεσθαι καὶ ἐμποδίζεσθαι διαπνεῖν. σημειούμεθα δὲ τοὺς πυρέττοντας ἐκ τε τῆς θερμῆς τῆς ἐπιτεταμένης καὶ ἀπροΐτου οὔσης καὶ τῶν σφυγμῶν ἐν ἀρχῇ μὲν εἰσβολῆς ἀμυδρᾶς καὶ ἀνωμάλου κινήσεως μετὰ πυκνότητος, ἐν ἀκμῇ δὲ σφοδροτάτης μετὰ ἐπάρσεως καὶ τάχους ὑπερβάλλοντος. κατὰ δὲ τοὺς νεωτέρους ἡ ἐκ βάθους ἀναφερομένη θερμασία πλείων τῆς κατὰ φύσιν, δακνώδης καὶ δριμεῖα καὶ ἐπίμονος, μετὰ τῆς τῶν σφυγμῶν πυκνότητός τε καὶ σκληρότητος οὖσα, τὸν πυρετὸν ἀφορίζει. §2 Diocles: Caelius Aurelianus Cel.Pass. 1.11.99 Diocles (fr. 73 Van der Eijk) vero libro quem de febribus scripsit. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.140 Διότιμος δὲ τρία κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔλεγεν εἶναι κριτήρια, τῆς μὲν τῶν ἀδήλων καταλήψεως τὰ φαινόμενα— ὄψις γὰρ τῶν ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα, ὥς φησιν Ἀναξαγόρας (59B21 DK), ὃν ἐπὶ τούτῳ Δημόκριτος (68A111 DK) ἐπαινεῖ. Anonymus Parisinus Morb.Acut. 18, pp. 112.18–114.2 Garofalo Μανίας αἰτία. Πραξαγόρας (fr. 72 Steckerl) τὴν μανίαν γίνεσθαί φησι κατ᾽ οἴδησιν τῆς καρδίας, οὗπερ καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν εἶναι δεδόξακε· μὴ ἐπιγίνεσθαι δὲ αὐτῇ πυρετοὺς διὰ τὸ μηδὲ τὰ ἐκτὸς οἰδήματα ποιεῖν πυρώσεις. ὁ δὲ Διοκλῆς (fr. 74 Van der Eijk) ζέσιν τοῦ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αἵματός φησιν εἶναι χωρὶς ἐμφράξεως γινομένην, διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ μηδὲ πυρετοὺς ἕπεσθαι· ὅτι δὲ ἐπὶ ζέσει γίνεται τοῦ αἵματος δηλοῖ ἡ συνήθεια, τοὺς γὰρ μανιώδεις τεθερμάνθαι φαμέν. Ἱπποκράτης δὲ …

Liber 5 Caput 30 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 911A–C; pp. 442a1–444a8 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 132–133; pp. 647.21–648.7 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 246–249 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. 117, p. 63 Westerink; Epi. p. 66.18–67.15 Boissonade S : Flor. 4.36.29–31, pp. 874.18–875.12 + 37.2, pp. 877.8–878.2 + 4.50.30, p. 1032.19– 20 Hense

Titulus λʹ. Περὶ ὑγείας καὶ νόσου καὶ γήρως (P,S) §1 Ἀλκμαίων τῆς μὲν ὑγείας εἶναι συνεκτικὴν τὴν ἰσονομίαν τῶν δυνάμεων, ὑγροῦ ξηροῦ ψυχροῦ θερμοῦ πικροῦ γλυκέος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν· τὴν δ᾽ ἐν αὐτοῖς μοναρχίαν νόσου ποιητικήν· φθοροποιὸν γὰρ ἑκατέρου μοναρχία. (P1a,S4) §2 Ἡρόφιλος τὰς νόσους συμπίπτειν ὡς μὲν ὑφ᾽ οὗ ὑπερβολῇ θερμότητος ἢ ψυχρότητος· ὡς δ᾽ ἐξ οὗ διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς ἢ ἔνδειαν· ὡς δ᾽ ἐν οἷς ἢ αἷμα ἢ μυελὸν ἢ ἐγκέφαλον· γίνεσθαι δέ ποτε καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν αἰτιῶν, ὑδάτων ποιῶν ἢ χώρας ἢ κόπων ἢ ἀνάγκης ἢ τῶν τούτοις παραπλησίων· τὴν δὲ ὑγείαν τὴν σύμμετρον τῶν ποιῶν κρᾶσιν. (P1b,S1) §1 Alcmaeon 24B4 DK; §2 Herophilus cf. Leith (2014) 604 titulus Περὶ … γήρως PBQ : in duo capitula dividit PG cum tit. Περὶ νόσων et Περὶ γήρως : tria capitula hab. S cum tit. Περὶ νόσου καὶ τῆς τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὴν ἀνιαρῶν λύσεως, Περὶ ὑγείας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν διαμονὴν αὐτῆς προνοίας, Περὶ γήρως ὅτι οὐ φαῦλον §§1–2 non hab. PG §1 [2] τὴν] om. PB ‖ [3] ὑγροῦ ξηροῦ ψυχροῦ θερμοῦ PQPs(Epi.) Diels : ὑγροῦ θερμοῦ ξηροῦ ψυχροῦ PB Mau Lachenaud : ὑγροῦ ξηροῦ ψυχροῦ S : θερμότητος, ψυχρότητος, ὑγρότητος, ξηρότητος PPs(Omn.) ‖ [4] ποιητικήν] παρασκευαστικὴν εἶναι S ‖ φθοροποιὸν … μοναρχία deest in S ‖ μοναρχία PB : μοναρχίαν PPs(Epi.) Diels §2 [6] Ἡρόφιλος PQ, om. PBS ‖ τὰς νόσους συμπίπτειν scripsimus, cf. S qui λέγει δὲ anteponit, porro PQ(ut vid.) (die Krankheiten werden entweder infolge der Ursache Q) : καὶ νόσων αἰτία PB (continuat §1a) : al. PPs(Epi.) μοναρχίαν (§1a) καὶ νόσον συμπίπτειν PPs(Epi.) Diels ‖ ὑφ᾽ οὗ SPQ Diels Lachenaud : ὑφέξω PB, ὑφ᾽ ἕξεως Mau : ὑφέξιν PPs(Epi.) ‖ ὑπερβολῇ Diels Mau : ὑπερβολὴ PB(I,III:E)Ps(Epi.) : ὑπερβολῆ PB(II) : δι᾽ ὑπερβολὴν S, durch das Übermaß Q ‖ [7] ἢ1] καὶ PPs(Epi.) ‖ ἐξ οὗ S Diels : ἑξῆς PB, ἐξ ἧς Mau : ἕξις PPs(Epi.) ‖ τροφῆς ἢ ἔνδειαν PQS : ἢ ἔνδεια PB (τροφῆς ante ἢ suppl. Mau Lachenaud) : οἷον ἡ ἔνδεια PPs(Epi.) ‖ [8] ἢ αἷμα PBPs(Epi.) : ⟨δι᾽⟩ αἷμα S coni. Kalbfleisch Hense, ἢ ⟨περὶ⟩ αἷμα Diels VS in app. ‖ ἢ μυελὸν S Diels : ἐνδέον PBPs(Epi.) Mau Lachenaud ‖ ἐγκέφαλον PPs(Epi.)S Diels : ἐγκέφαλος PB ‖ [8–9] al. Q das Blut oder im Gehirn, denn in diesen beiden sind die Ausgangspunkte der Krankheiten ‖ [8–10] γίνεσθαι … παραπλησίων SPQ (aber sie entstehen gar oft aus den äußeren Ursachen, das heißt den Flüssigkeiten, dem Eiter, der Eiterflüssigkeit und was dem gleicht Q) : non exhib. PB : al. PPs(Epi.) (in textu P pos. Diels et crucif.) ἐν γὰρ τούτοις ποτε καὶ τῶν ἔσωθεν ἔτι (ἔξωθεν αἰτίων Diels) ὑδάτων φυτῶν ἢ χώρας ἢ τόπων (ἢ Diels) ἀνάγκης ἢ τῶν τούτοις παραπλησίων ‖ [10] τὴν1 … κρᾶσιν] deest in S

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_155

5

10

2044 §3 §4 §5 §6

§7

liber 5 caput 30

Διοκλῆς τὰς πλείστας τῶν νόσων δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν γίνεσθαι τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι στοιχείων καὶ τοῦ καταστήματος ἀέρος. (P2,S2) Ἐρασίστρατος τὰς νόσους διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς καὶ δι᾽ ἀπεψίας καὶ φθορᾶς, τὴν δ᾽ εὐταξίαν καὶ αὐτάρκειαν εἶναι ὑγείαν. (P3,S3) Παρμενίδης γῆρας γίγνεσθαι παρὰ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ ὑπόλειψιν. (S5) οἱ Στωικοὶ καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ συμφώνως τὸ γῆρας γεγενῆσθαι διὰ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ ἔλλειψιν· οἱ γὰρ {αὐτοὶ} πλέον τὸ θερμὸν ἔχοντες ἐπὶ πλεῖον γηρῶσιν. (P4) Ἀσκληπιάδης Αἰθίοπάς φησι ταχέως γηράσκειν ἐτῶν τριάκοντα διὰ τὸ ὑπερθερμαίνεσθαι τὰ σώματα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαφλεχθέντας· ἐν Βρεττανίᾳ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν γηρᾶν διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι μὲν τοὺς τόπους, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς δὲ στέγειν τὸ πυρῶδες· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν Αἰθιόπων σώματά εἰσιν ἀραιότερα διὰ τὸ ἀναχαλᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων πυκνά, διὰ τοῦτο οὖν καὶ πολυχρόνια. (P5)

§3 Diocles fr. 51 Van der Eijk; §4 Erasistratus fr. 168 Garofalo; §5 Parmenides 28A46a DK; §6 Stoici SVF 2.769; medici—; §7 Asclepiades cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 725 §3 [11] post Διοκλῆς add. δέ PB(III) ‖ τὰς S : αἰτίας PG, om. PBPs(Epi.) ‖ γίνεσθαι PGS Van der Eijk : om. PBPs(Epi.) ‖ δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν γίνεσθαι PGS (qui addit ἔφη) : γίνεσθαι δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν PB : δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν PBPs(Epi.) ‖ [11–12] τῶν … καταστήματος PBQPs(Epi.) : non hab. S qui add. ἔφη ‖ [11] τῷ] om. PB(III) ‖ [12] ἀέρος PGQ Van der Eijk : om. PBPs(Epi.) Diels Mau Lachenaud §4 [13] Ἐρασίστρατος] Στράτων PG ‖ δι᾽ PPs(Omn.,Epi.) Bernadakis Mau Lachenaud : om. PB Diels Garofalo (sc. ἀπεψίας acc. plur.) ‖ [13–14] al. S πλῆθος καὶ διαφθορὰ τἀνωτάτω αἴτια ‖ [14] φθορᾶς PBPs(Omn.,Epi.) Mau Lachenaud : φθοράν Usener Diels Garofalo ‖ ὑγείαν PB : ὑγείας περιποιητικά PPs(Omn.) Diels (τὴν … ὑγείαν deest in S) Garofalo : τροφῆς PPs(Epi.) per errorem librarii §5 lemma hab. solus S §6 lemma non hab. S ‖ [16] καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ PGQ : deest in PBPs(Epi.) ‖ γεγενῆσθαι PBPs : γίγνεσθαι Diels ‖ συμφώνως post γεγενῆσθαι hab. PPs(Epi.), deest in PG ‖ [16–17] διὰ … ἔλλειψιν] παρὰ … ὑπονόστησιν PG ‖ [17] αὐτοὶ seclusimus : αὐτὸ PQ(ut vid.), coni. Diels qui τὸ θερμὸν secl. : αὐτοὶ hab. PBPs(Epi.), coni. αὐτῶν ab Arnim, ἄνθρωποι Mau Lachenaud §7 lemma non hab. S ‖ [19] Αἰθίοπάς φησι] δέ φησι τοὺς Αἰθίοπας λέγειν (λʹ ἐτῶν coni. Diels) PG ‖ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα corr. Diels conl. l. 4 : ἔτη τριάκοντα PB(I,II)Ps(Epi.) : ἔτει τριακοστῷ PB(III) ‖ [20] ὑπερθερμαίνεσθαι] ψύχεσθαι PG perperam, corr. Diels ‖ διαφλεχθέντας PBPs(Epi.) : διαφλεγόμενα PGQ ‖ [21–22] ἐν … πυρῶδες PBPs(Epi.) : al. PG διὰ τὸ στέγειν ἐν αὑτοῖς τὸ πυρῶδες ‖ [22–23] τῶν Αἰθιόπων … ἀραιότερα Diels Mau Lachenaud ex PG : εἰσιν ἀραιότερα τῶν Αἰθιόπων σώματα PBPs(Epi.) ‖ [23] ὑπὸ (ἀπὸ PPs(Epi.)) τῶν ἄρκτων PB : ὑπὸ τὴν ἄρκτον PG ‖ [24] post πυκνά add. ἢ ἐστεγανωμένα PPs(Epi.) (verb. Byzant.)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 132 (~ tit.) Περὶ νόσων (text Diels) 132.1 (~ P3) Διοκλῆς αἰτίας πλείστας τῶν νόσων δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν γίνεσθαι τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι στοιχείων καὶ τοῦ καταστήματος ἀέρος. 132.2 (~ P4) Στράτων διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς γίνεσθαι τὰς νόσους.

15

20

liber 5 caput 30 ps.Galenus HPh c. 133 (~ tit.) Περὶ γήρως (text Diels) 133.1 (~ P6) οἱ Στωικοὶ καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ ὑπονόστησιν. 133.2 (~ P7) Ἀσκληπιάδης δέ φησι τοὺς Αἰθίοπας λέγειν γηρᾶναι διὰ τὸ ⟨ὑπερθερμαίνεσθαι⟩ τὰ σώματα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαφλεγόμενα, τοὺς δὲ ἐν τῇ Βρεττανίᾳ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν γηρᾶν διὰ τὸ στέγειν ἐν αὑτοῖς τὸ πυρῶδες. τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν Αἰθιόπων σώματα ἀραιότερα διὰ τὸ κεχαλάσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν ἄρκτον πεπυκνῶσθαι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολυχρόνια. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 117.1–7 Περὶ ὑγείας καὶ νόσου καὶ γήρως (~ tit.). ὑγείας αἴτιον συνεκτικὸν ἡ τῶν δυνάμεων ἰσονομία, θερμότητος, ψυχρότητος, ὑγρότητος, ξηρότητος· ὅταν δὲ τούτων ἓν καταδυναστεύσῃ τῶν ἄλλων, ἡ νόσος γίνεται (~ P1). αἱ δὲ πλεῖσται τῶν νόσων δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι στοιχείων γίνονται (~ P3). ἐπεισάγονται δὲ αἱ νόσοι τῷ σώματι καὶ διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς καὶ διὰ ἀπεψίας καὶ φθορᾶς· ἡ δὲ εὐταξία καὶ ἡ αὐτάρκεια ὑγείας περιποιητικά (~ P4). Epi. pp. 66.18–67.15 Boissonade (sine titulo) Ἀλκμαίων τῆς μὲν ὑγείας εἶναι συνεκτικὴν τὴν ἰσονομίαν τῶν δυνάμεων ὑγροῦ, ξηροῦ, θερμοῦ, ψυχροῦ, πικροῦ, γλυκέος, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν· τὴν δ᾽ ἐν αὐτοῖς μοναρχίαν νόσου ποιητικήν· φθοροποιὸν γὰρ ἑκατέρου (~ P1), μοναρχίαν καὶ νόσον συμπίπτειν· ὡς μὲν ὑφ᾽ ἕξιν ὑπερβολὴ θερμότητος καὶ ψυχρότητος· ὡς δὲ ἕξις διὰ πλῆθος, οἷον ἡ ἔνδεια· ὡς δ᾽ ἐν οἷς, ἢ αἷμα ἐνδέον ἢ ἐγκέφαλον· ἐν γὰρ τούτοις ποτὲ καὶ τῶν ἔσωθεν ἔτι ὑδάτων, φυτῶν, ἢ χώρας ἢ τόπων ἀνάγκης, ἢ τῶν τούτοις παραπλησίων· τὴν δὲ ὑγείαν τὴν σύμμετρον τῶν ποιῶν κρᾶσιν (~ P2). Διοκλῆς πλείστας τῶν νόσων δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι στοιχείων καὶ τοῦ καταστήματος (~ P3). Ἐρασίστρατος τὰς νόσους διὰ πλῆθος τροφῆς καὶ δι᾽ ἀπεψίας καὶ φθορᾶς, τὴν δὲ εὐταξίαν καὶ αὐτάρκειαν εἶναι τροφῆς (~ P4). οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸ γῆρας γεγενῆσθαι συμφώνως διὰ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ ἔλλειψιν· οἱ γὰρ αὐτοὶ πλέον ἔχοντες τὸ θερμὸν ἐπὶ πλεῖον γηρῶσιν (~ P6). Ἀσκληπιάδης Αἰθίοπάς φησι ταχέως γηράσκειν ἔτη τριάκοντα διὰ τὸ ὑπερθερμαίνεσθαι τὰ σώματα, ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαφλεχθέντας· ἐν Βρετανίᾳ δὲ ἐτῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσιν γηρᾷν, διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι μὲν τοὺς τόπους, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς δὲ στέγειν τὸ πυρῶδες· τὰ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν τῶν Αἰθιόπων σώματά εἰσιν ἀραιότερα διὰ τὸ ἀναχαλᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, τὰ δὲ τῶν Βρετανῶν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων πυκνὰ ἢ ἐστεγανωμένα, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ πολυχρόνια (~ P7). Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 5.23 Πότε ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. A 5.24 Πῶς ὕπνος γίνεται καὶ θάνατος. §5 cf. A 5.28.2 Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐλλείψει τροφῆς τὴν ὄρεξιν. §6 cf. A 5.27.1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τρέφεσθαι μὲν τὰ ζῷα διὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ ὑγροῦ, αὔξεσθαι δὲ διὰ τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ θερμοῦ, μειοῦσθαι δὲ καὶ φθίνειν διὰ τὴν ἔκλειψιν ἑκατέρων.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

2045

2046

liber 5 caput 30

Commentary A Witnesses The final chapter of the work is preserved in more witnesses than is usual for the contents of Book 5. (1) PB appears to preserve five lemmata, but Q has an extra name-label for the second part of PB’s first doxa and so has six lemmata. This divergence of attribution will be scutinised in section D(b) below. The final four lemmata are retained by G, but he divides the chapter into two separate chapters—two doxai in a chapter on diseases and the remaining two in a chapter on old age. Ps paraphrases the contents of the first three doxai in De omnifaria doctrina, removing the name-labels. But in a little known text published by Boissonade in 1838 (missing in the TLG) he copies out verbatim the entire chapter as he found it in P. The text resembles PB and does not have the additional name-label in §2 as supplied by Q (Herophilus) and in §6 (καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ συμφώνως). (2) Five lemmata from this chapter are also found scattered in S, one of which has the name-label Parmenides and is missing in P. Remarkably these texts are found not in the Eclogae but in the Florilegium, where they are located in the chapters on disease (4.36), health (4.37) and old age (4.50). PB’s first lemma on Alcmaeon (i.e. §§1–2) is split in two, with the first part at 4.37.2 (i.e. §1), the second part (i.e. §2) in the previous chapter at 4.36.29. The Diocles doxa is recorded at 4.36.30 in an abridged form, while the lemma on Erasistratus does not reproduce the doxa as found in P but seemingly gives a brief statement which provides the gist of his view. The remaining doxa at 4.50.30 has the name-label Parmenides and is suspiciously similar to the doxa of the Stoics and doctors (§5) in P but missing in S. These five lemmata constitute the only material from A found in the second half of S’s mighty anthology (see M–R 1.198). The additional doxa compared with the tradition of P shows, if proof were needed, that this material was not drawn from P. Perhaps the fact that this material is used in a different context in the Anthology explains the cavalier way that S has made use of it. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The material in this chapter bears a generic resemblance to definitions of health, disease and old age in ps.Galen’s Def.Med. (note in his first definition of health the term δυνάμεις and the prominent role of the four bodily ‘elements’ heat cold moisture and dryness). Its contents correspond to generally held doctrines held on these subjects in antiquity, e.g. that health is caused by the balance or symmetry of the elements or qualities of the body,

liber 5 caput 30

2047

whereas disease results from their imbalance, and that old age is caused by the deficit of heat and moisture in favour of cold and dryness. The only significant doxographical parallels citing early thinkers are found in the Anonymus Londiniensis, which has as its main subject the causes of disease (on this text see further above ch. 5.22 Commentary B). At the outset it is stated that there is conflict (στάσις) on the subject of disease, some saying it comes from the ‘residues of food’, others from the elements (of the body) (4.26–28). Thereafter a number of reports of early physicians such as Hippocrates, Petron of Aegina and Philistion record the views on health and disease (text below section E(a) General texts). But there are no direct connections with the doxai in A. It does not refer at all to Alcmaeon or Diocles, and the various references to Erasistratus do not deal with this subject (fr. 58–60, 83, 87 Garofalo, now available with an improved text in the edition of the papyrus by Manetti 2011). (2) Sources. The subjects of this chapter are less specifically medical than that of the previous one. There would have been little difficulty for doxographers to locate material in the writings of the Presocratics, though little has filtered down to A (only §5 in what remains in P). Plato in the Timaeus provides a theory explaining old age (82d) and allots an important section to bodily disease (81e–86b) and to health involving both body and soul (87c–89c). Aristotle gives a medical definition of health at Top. 145b8, but does not devote a specific discussion to it (the promised treatises Περὶ νόσου καὶ ὑγιείας, if written, did not survive, as noted by Alexander, text below section E(b) Chapter heading). In the Parva naturalia, however, there are separate brief treatises on youth and old age. Treatises on old age are recorded for three Peripatetic authors, Theophrastus, Demetrius of Phalerum and Aristo of Ceos, but surprisingly there is no trace of Stoic treatises on the subject (cf. §6). However, a text of Chrysippus quoted verbatim by Galen shows that the Stoa too made use of general ideas on health and disease as outlined above. Another interesting text from the same author (PHP 5.3.18) points out that the definition of health involving συμμετρία is used by various philosophers, even though they have quite different ideas about what it is a symmetry of. The list starts with Asclepiades and his doctrine of masses and pores (cf. §7). Cicero’s celebrated work De senectute, though referring to the treatise of Aristo, does not discuss the physiological aspects of the topic, but rather presents a debate on the advantages and disadvantages of becoming old (the same method adopted by Stobaeus in Flor. 4.50). C Chapter Heading The chapter headings are of the simple umbrella type, corresponding to the titles of works or treatments of the subjects in the earlier tradition as was noted above. PB, Q and Ps (in Omn.Doctr. only) agree on the heading with three terms,

2048

liber 5 caput 30

Περὶ ὑγείας καὶ νόσου καὶ γήρως. G deviates by dividing the chapter into two and giving the former the chapter heading Περὶ νόσων (note the plural), the latter Περὶ γήρως. On this division, which we do not follow, see further below section D(b). S uses the three headings and expands them in each case (listed in the app. crit. above). D Analysis a Context The general treatment of health and disease follows on from the chapters on animal and human physiology, the same sequence that also occurs in Plato’s Timaeus. It might have been more logical to place it before the chapter on fevers, which is clearly a medical subject. However, placement after the chapter on fevers can be understood if that topic is still regarded as part of physiology, whereas health and disease are in a sense meta-subjects that discuss when physiological processes go right or wrong, i.e. κατὰ φύσιν or παρὰ φύσιν. The final topic of old age is linked to that of health and disease, because the process used to explain it, involving the balance of the heat and cold, is similar. It is the final stage of the ages of the human being introduced in ch. 5.23. It brings the work to a fitting close, though an alternative might have been to have a chapter on death (already treated in chs. 5.24–25). Aristotle at the beginning of De sensu, which follows on from De anima in the Parva naturalia, makes the following observation (1 436a17–b1): ‘It is the task of the natural scientist to study the first principles of health and disease, for neither health nor disease can occur in things deprived of life. Hence it can be said of the majority of natural philosophers and of those doctors who adopt a more philosophical approach to their art, that the former end with a discussion on medical subjects, while the latter begin their medical discourse with the principles of natural science.’ The same point is made at greater length in the final paragraph of the Parva naturalia at Resp. 21 480b21–30. As Mansfeld (1990a) 3059 notes, this observation is very pertinent to the structure of Book 5 of the Placita, which ends with a treatment of health and disease and of old age. Old age of course shares some of the characteristics of ill-health and leads inexorably to death. A parallel can be drawn with the poem of Lucretius, which ends with the dramatic occurrence of the plague and the many deaths that accompanied it. b Number–Order of Lemmata The transmission of this chapter by the four witnesses of the P tradition and by S give rise to a number of thorny questions, not all of which can be fully resolved.

liber 5 caput 30

2049

(1) The single chapter in PB and Q has been divided into two chapters in G and spread out over three chapters in S’s Florilegium. It is plain that the subjects of health and disease belong together because they are treated as such in §§1–4. The topic of old age is treated separately in §§5–7, with no specific reference to health or disease. G’s move to separate the doxai on old age is very understandable, since the connection with the first half of the chapter is not strong (but does exist, as we shall see below). Since the textual transmission of the final chapters is poor, it might be argued that G preserves the original chapter division of P (and therefore of A). Elsewhere (e.g. chs. 2.32, 4.20–21), A does sometimes combine related subjects. But since there are no decisive arguments either way, we have retained the single chapter as found in PBQ and Ps. (2) In the Byzantine mss. and Ps the chapter commences with a single long doxa attributed to Alcmaeon only. But as we have seen, it is split in two in Q’s translation, with the name-label Herophilus attached to the second part. S also splits it in two, but in the mss. the name Alcmaeon is attached to both, allowing us to assume that (like PB) he did not have the name of Herophilus in his text of A. A further difficulty arises when we try to determine the original text in A for the beginning of the second half of the doxa. The variants are as follows (G does not have this lemma): PB καὶ νόσων αἰτία Q Herophilos glaubte, die Krankheiten werden entweder (infolge der Ursache) welche ‘dadurch’ genannt wird … Ps καὶ νόσον συμπίπτειν S λέγει δὲ τὰς νόσους συμπίπτειν There is strong convergence between Q and S (the words λέγει δέ will have been added by the latter), so that the reading τὰς νόσους συμπίπτειν can hardly be doubted (and that of PB must be rejected). The additional convergence of Ps and S is remarkable and difficult to explain, unless the learned Ps also had access to S. However, as we have seen, only Q has the name-label Herophilus. Daiber ad loc. suggests the name may have been a ‘Randnotiz’ of a scribe that found its way into the text. From the formal point of view, there are certainly arguments for retaining the single name-label. However, this does not take into account the content of the text, to which we return in section D(c). (3) The extra lemma in S with the name-label Parmenides is very similar to the fifth in P and may well rouse suspicion, i.e. that S and P between them have separated out a single doxa. This depends on how one interprets the adverb συμφώνως. But the grounds for coalescing the two lemmata are insufficient. See

2050

liber 5 caput 30

further below, section D(a) under detailed comments. The lemma can only be located where Diels placed it, i.e. before the first doxa in P on old age attributed to the Stoics (and the physicians in G). (4) It is impossible to determine whether the chapter is complete as it has come down to us. One might have expected a summary of Plato’s distinctive views on all three subjects. If such views were present in A, one would have expected S to include them. But two extracts from such passages are found at Flor. 4.37.26 (on health) and 4.50.21 and these may have displaced material from A. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter As already noted, the chapter divides into two parts, the former treating the subject of health and disease, the latter that of old age. The first part commences with a doxa attributed to Alcmaeon. As a purported Pythagorean philosopher with psychological and physiological interests (but not a doctor) he is prominent in both books 4 and 5 (A 4.2.2, 4.16.2, 4.17.1, 4.18.1, 5.3.3, 5.14.1, 5.17.3, 5.24.1, 5.30.1). The doxa commences with the causes of health first (αἰτία to be understood with συνεκτική), followed by those of disease. The aetiology in terms of equilibrium (ἰσονομία) and predominance (μοναρχία), both overtly political terms, is noteworthy and has been the subject of much scholarly discussion. See now the full discussion in Mansfeld (2013c). He shows that the idea of a balance (or lack thereof) of forces is found in the Hippocratic corpus and that the concept of a good blending or symmetry of elements in the body is common in both philosophical (Aristotle, the Stoa) and medical sources (Anon. Londiniensis, ps.Galen); we give a selection of texts below section E(a)&(b)). But these two terms in the doxa are unusual. Mansfeld argues that they reflect the influence of the celebrated discussion on the best political constitution in Herodotus 3.80–83. He does not rule out that the terms might be based on a quote from Alcmaeon’s original book, but thinks it more likely that they derive from a later period. The prominence given to the four qualities (moist, dry, cold, hot), here called δυνάμεις, should be noted. In many texts they are regarded as the prime explanatory factors of health. The text adds ‘bitter and sweet’, but unlike the first definition in ps.Galen, does not mention the primary humours (χυμοί). The next doxa (assuming as we do that it is separate) treats diseases first at some length and follows at the end with a definition of health. Its formulation is more overtly philosophical and also more wide-ranging, covering not only qualities (heat and cold are mentioned), but also material factors and places where disease may occur. What is particularly striking is the use of prepositional phrases to indicate causal and other factors (ὑφ᾽ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, ἐν οἷς). These

liber 5 caput 30

2051

are reminiscent of ‘prepositional metaphysics’ (on this see A 1.11, where they dominate the discussion on causes; see Commentary C, D(d) on §2). Though the extensive use of these formulas commences from the first cent. ce onwards (see Runia 1986, 171–174), they certainly go back to Aristotle and the Peripatos, e.g. at Met. Z.7 1032a16–20. That Alcmaeon would have used these formulas is of course out of the question. In his monumental edition of the remains of Herophilus’ writings Von Staden (1989) does not make any reference to this text, of which he seems to have been unaware. But recently Leith (2014) in an article on causality in Didorus Cronus and Herophilus argues strongly in favour of the attribution to the Alexandrian doctor (cf. also Leith 2015, 486–487). He offers three arguments: (1) The contents of the second part correspond precisely with a quotation from Herophilus in Galen (T59a Von Staden) which refers to heating, cooling and being filled with food and drink in the context of the causation of disease. This parallelism (already noted at M–R 1.157) supports authenticity. (2) Given that the views on causation in the two parts are very different, it is very unlikely that the Arabic translator would have introduced an obscure name such as Herophilus if it was not already in the Greek text before him. (3) The Peripatetic flavour of the second part is particularly appropriate to Herophilus, since the Peripatos was the dominant philosophical influence on early Alexandria. The distinction between efficient and material cause is Aristotelian. This schema is quite different from that which became dominant from the first cent. bce onwards, which was based on a Stoic inspired distinction between ‘cohesive’ (συνεκτικαί, used in the Alcmaeon doxa), ‘preceding’ (προηγούμεναι) and ‘antecedent’ (προκαταρκτικαί) causes. In addition, the candidates given for the causes (excess of hot and cold) cohere well with Aristotelian views regarding intake and digestion of food as leading factors in the causation of disease. We regard these arguments as persuasive. When added to our comments at M– R 1.157 (but from which Runia 1999, 249–250 = M–R 3.574–575 deviates) and to Mansfeld (2013c) 79 n. 6 = (2018d) 264 n. 6, they tip the scales against the formal considerations discussed above. The name-label should be accepted as authentic. The remaining two lemmata in the first part are attributed to the physicians Diocles and Erasistratus. The Diocles doxa focuses on disease only, but in its content does not differ a great deal from the previous ones. ἀνωμαλία is now given as the opposite to ἰσονομία or συμμετρία, στοιχεῖα replace δυνάμεις and ποιά, and an additional factor of the air (as source of contagion?) is added. The last factor recalls a diaeresis attributed to Philistion in the Anon. Londiniensis,

2052

liber 5 caput 30

where it is stated that diseases can come from the elements, from the disposition of bodies, or from external factors (text below, section E(a) General texts). As Van der Eijk (2000–2001) 2.112 notes, the phrase ‘most diseases’ indicates there could be other causes, but these are not elaborated. The final lemma on disease and health, representing the view of Erasistratus, does not refer to bodily constituents, but privileges the role of excessive food in causing disease and can be linked to the earlier mention of πλῆθος τροφῆς as the ἐξ οὗ factor in Herophilus. The causes given for health, εὐταξία and αὐτάρκεια, are very general, without any reference to elements or other factors. Taken all together the four doxai amount to a list of similar pronouncements, covering a variety of factors, prime among which are qualities, elements and food. Mansfeld (2013c) 83 argues for a diaeresis between natural forces and ways of behaving, as found at Anon.Lond. col. iv.25–28 Manetti, but this is undercut by the combination of both factors in the doxa of Herophilus. The second part also lacks effective contrasts. The doxa attributed to Parmenides (supplied by S) gives the simplest of explanations for the ageing process, i.e. the deficiency of heat, not mentioning the role that could be played by the other qualities, e.g. the prevalence of cold and dryness. The next doxa, §5, attributed to the Stoics and physicians in general, does little more than repeat the previous view, as indicated by the adverb συμφώνως, which we take to refer back to the previous lemma (see detailed comment below). The final lemma gives an interesting comparison between the short life of Ethiopians (30 years) and the longevity of Britons (120 years). The link with the two previous doxai is obvious, with a neat interplay between the role of heat (from an internal source conducive to having a long life, from an external source destructive of it) and of cold (from an external source conducive to a long life, internal cold not mentioned). A does not cite geographical material very often (chs. 3.17 and 4.1 are obvious exceptions). This is in contrast to a work such as ps.Arist. De mundo, which has a lengthy section (ch. 3) devoted to geography (but no detailed discussion of psychology or physiology at all). The connection between the two parts of the chapter is furnished by the theme of deficiency of heat (and by implication the onset of cold) causing old age. Heat is one of the factors cited as the cause of health (if balanced with other elements) or of disease (if it gets the upper hand, cf. also fever in ch. 5.29). Old age thus shares some features that characterise disease, though it is not explicitly identified as being such. We should recall the prominence of heat and cold in the explanations of sleep and death in chs. 5.24–25 (esp. A 5.24.2, 5.25.4 Empedocles, 5.25.1 Aristotle, 5.25.3 Leucippus). However, A makes no connections with the subject of death in this chapter, even though it might have made an even more fitting end to the work as a whole than the subject of old age.

liber 5 caput 30

2053

Our text therefore preserves the six lemmata as found in PBQ and Ps, complemented by the additional lemma in S, which can only be located where Diels placed it, i.e. before the first doxa in P on old age attributed to the Stoics (and the physicians in G). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The term συνεκτικός in the context of causality is orginally Stoic, as noted by Mansfeld (2013c) 79 and Leith (2014) 605. In the light of the definition given by Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.9 (SVF 2.351), συνεκτικὸν δέ ἐστιν αἴτιον, οὗ παρόντος μένει τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα καὶ αἰρομένου αἴρεται, we prefer the translation ‘sustaining’ to ‘cohesive’ (Leith), i.e. if the balance of the powers is not maintained, then health cannot continue. §3 The convergence of G and Q supports the inclusion of the mention of air in the text, despite its absence in PB and S, and is rightly supported by Van der Eijk in his text and commentary. He notes (2000–2001, 2.112) that Diocles is quoted by Galen as emphasizing the role of the climatic and environmental forces in the occurrence of certain diseases (fr. 55ab). §4 In his edition of the fragments of Erasistratus, Garofalo (1988) 123 understandably quotes the text of the doxa in a double column and for S places the words after ἔλεγε in inverted commas, presumably regarding it as a quotation. But it is unlikely that S could have had access to more information beyond what stood in A, so these words must be taken as a loose paraphrase. §6 The adverb συμφώνως is ambiguous in the various forms in which the text has been transmitted. In PB it must refer to the Stoics only. PQ and G agree that the name-label was originally ‘the Stoics and the physicians’, but the adverb is not retained by G. So for PQ it must refer to the two groups of thinkers together. If, however, the additional doxa from S is taken to precede P’s fourth lemma, then the adverb may be taken to refer to agreement between the thinkers mentioned in both lemmata. This is how Von Arnim interprets it at SVF 2.769. But in the only other passage where the adverb occurs, at A 2.29.7 it refers to a large group of philosophers, supporting the interpretation of PQ, and that is how we have rendered the text in our translation. In any case, if we translate ‘are in agreement’, a backward reference to the previous doxa is not ruled out. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

§§1–4 General texts: Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. iv.26–28 Manetti στάσις δὲ περὶ τοῦ ἐκκειμένου (sc. the cause of diseases)· | οἱ μὲν γὰρ εἶπον γίνεσθαι νόσους παρὰ τὰ περισσώ- | ματα τὰ γινόμενα ἀπὸ τῆς τροφῆς, | οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὰ στοι-

2054

liber 5 caput 30

χεῖα. Iatr. col. v.35–vi.18 Ἱπποκράτης δέ φησιν αἰτίας εἶναι τῆς νόσου τὰς |φύσας, καθὼς διείληφεν περὶ αὐτοῦ | Ἀριστοτέλης. ὁ γὰρ Ἱπποκράτης λέγει | τὰς νόσους ἀποτελεῖσθαι κατὰ λόγον | τοιοῦτον· ἢ παρὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν | προσφερομένων ἢ παρὰ τὴν ποικιλίαν | ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἰσχυρὰ καὶ δυσκατέργαστα εἶναι | τὰ προσφερόμενα συμβαίνει περισ- | σώματα ἀπογεννᾶσθαι … (vi.13) ταῦτα δὲ ἔφησεν ἁνὴρ | κι[ν]ηθεὶς δόγματι τοιούτῳ· τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα | ἀναγκαιότατον καὶ κυριώτατον ἀπο- | λείπει τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν, ἐπειδή γε παρὰ τὴν τού- | του εὔροιαν ὑγίεια γίνεται, παρὰ δὲ τὴν δύσροιαν | νόσοι. ps.Galen Def.Med. 129, p. 19.382.6–12 K. ρκθʹ. Ὑγίειά ἐστι τῶν πρώτων κατὰ φύσιν ἡ εὐκρασία τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν χυμῶν ἢ τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων ἀπαραπόδιστος ἐνέργεια. ἢ ὑγίειά ἐστιν εὐκρασία τῶν τεσσάρων πρώτων στοιχείων ἐξ ὧν τὸ σῶμα συνέστηκε, θερμοῦ, ψυχροῦ, ὑγροῦ, ξηροῦ· οἱ δὲ οὕτως. ἁρμονία τῶν συνιστώντων τὸν ἄνθρωπον θερμῶν τε καὶ ψυχρῶν ὑγρῶν τε καὶ ξηρῶν. Def.Med. 133, 19.386.6–12 K. ρλγʹ. Νόσος ἐστὶ δυσκρασία τῶν πρώτων κατὰ φύσιν ἢ δυσκρασία τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν χυμῶν. ἢ τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων παραποδισμός. ἢ ἐκτροπὴ τοῦ σώματος ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν εἰς τὸ παρὰ φύσιν. ἢ νόσος ἑστὶ δυσκρασία τῶν πρώτων καθ᾽ ἣν ἐπικρατεῖ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν ἢ τὸ θερμὸν ἢ τὸ ὑγρόν. αἱ νοσωδέσταται κατασκευαὶ τῶν σωμάτων ἐξ ἐναντίων τῇ κράσει σύγκεινται μορίων, ὥσπερ αἱ ἄρισται κατασκευαὶ τῶν σωμάτων συνεστήκασιν ἐκ συμμέτρων μὲν τῶν ὀργανικῶν, ἐξ εὐκρασίας δὲ τῶν ὁμοιομερῶν. Chapter heading: cf. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.7, p. 72.19 Marchesi ipse denique animus … cur in aegris aeger sit, in infantibus stolidus, in senectute defessus delira effutiat et insana? §2 Alcmaeon: see ps.Galen Def.Med. 129 cited above under General texts. §3 Diocles: Anonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. xx.8–14 Manetti (Petron of Aegina, not in DK) φησὶν δὲ γίνεσθαι τὰς νόσους … (12) ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν | στοιχείων τῶν προειρημένων, ὅταν ἀνώ- | μαλα ἦι, νόσους ἀπεργάζεται. 20.25–50 (Philistion, fr. 4 Wellmann) Φιλιστίων δ᾽ οἴεται ἐκ δʹ ἰδεῶν συνεστά- | ναι ἡμᾶς, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐκ δʹ στοιχείων πυρός, | ἀέρος, ὕδατος, γῆς. εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἑκάστου δυνάμεις, | τοῦ μὲν πυρὸς τὸ θερμόν, τοῦ δὲ ἀέρος | τὸ ψυχρόν, τοῦ δὲ ὕδατος τὸ ὑγρόν, | τῆς δὲ γῆς τὸ ξηρόν. τὰς δὲ νόσους γίνεσθαι | πολυτρόπως κατ᾽ αὐτόν, ὡς δὲ τύπωι | καὶ γενικώτερον εἰπεῖν τριχῶς· ἢ γὰρ παρὰ | τὰ στοιχεῖα ἢ παρὰ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων διά- | θεσιν ἢ παρὰ τὰ ἐκτός. παρὰ μὲν οὖν τὰ | στοιχεῖα, ἐπειδὰν πλεονάσῃ τὸ θερμὸν | καὶ τὸ ὑγρόν, ἢ ἐπειδὰν μεῖον γένηται | καὶ ἀμαυρὸν τὸ θερμόν … §§5–7 General texts: ps.Galen Def.Med. 107 19.375.14 Κ. ρζʹ. γῆράς ἐστιν ἡλικία καθ᾽ ἣν ὑπομειοῦται καὶ ὑπολείπει τὸ ζῶον ἐλαττόνων ἐν αὐτῷ γινομένων τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ τοῦ ὑγροῦ· καὶ πλειόνων δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ γινομένων τοῦ ψυχροῦ καὶ τοῦ ξηροῦ.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

§§1–4 General texts: Aristotle Sens. 1 436a17–b1 φυσικοῦ δὲ καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσου τὰς πρώτας ἰδεῖν ἀρχάς· οὔτε γὰρ ὑγίειαν οὔτε νόσον οἷόν τε γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ἐστερημένοις ζωῆς. διὸ σχεδὸν τῶν περὶ φύσεως οἱ πλεῖστοι καὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν οἱ φιλοσοφωτέρως τὴν τέχνην μετιόντες, οἱ μὲν τελευτῶσιν εἰς τὰ περὶ ἰατρικῆς, οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν περὶ φύσεως ἄρχονται περὶ τῆς ἰατρικῆς. Resp. 21 480b21–30 περὶ μὲν οὖν ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου καὶ τῶν συγγενῶν ταύτης τῆς σκέψεως σχεδὸν εἴρηται περὶ πάντων. περὶ δὲ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσου οὐ μόνον ἐστὶν ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ φυσικοῦ μέχρι

liber 5 caput 30 του τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν. ᾗ δὲ διαφέρουσι καὶ ᾗ διαφέροντα θεωροῦσιν, οὐ δεῖ λανθάνειν, ἐπεὶ ὅτι γε σύνορος ἡ πραγματεία μέχρι τινός ἐστι, μαρτυρεῖ τὸ γινόμενον· τῶν τε γὰρ ἰατρῶν ὅσοι κομψοὶ καὶ περίεργοι λέγουσί τι περὶ φύσεως καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἀξιοῦσι λαμβάνειν, καὶ τῶν περὶ φύσεως πραγματευθέντων οἱ χαριέστατοι σχεδὸν τελευτῶσιν εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς τὰς ἰατρικάς. Αnonymus Londiniensis Iatr. col. iv.25– 28 Manetti cited above section E(a) General texts. Galen PHP 5.3.18 εἴτε γὰρ ἐξ ὄγκων καὶ πόρων ὡς Ἀσκληπιάδης (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 712) ὑπέθετο τὰ τῶν ζῴων σύγκειται σώματα, συμμετρία τούτων ἐστὶν ἡ ὑγίεια· εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ἀτόμων ὡς Ἐπίκουρος εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ὁμοιομερῶν ὡς Ἀναξαγόρας εἴτ᾽ ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ καθάπερ ὅ τε Χρύσιππος δοξάζει καὶ πάντες οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ πρὸ αὐτῶν Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Θεόφραστος καὶ πρὸ τούτων ἔτι Πλάτων καὶ Ἱπποκράτης, ἡ τῶν στοιχείων κατὰ πάντας συμμετρία τὴν ὑγίειαν ἐργάζεται. also Adv. Jul. 4, p. 18A.259 K. (= SVF 2.770) τοσοῦτον μόνον εἰπόντες ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου τε καὶ τῆς Στοᾶς τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀπαλλάξομεν. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἂν εὕροις οὔτ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλους οὔτε Θεοφράστου βιβλίον, ἐν ᾧ περὶ νοσημάτων ἀναγκασθέντες εἰπεῖν τι χωρὶς τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ ξηροῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ μνημονεῦσαι διῆλθον τὸν λόγον … οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ Χρύσιππος ἑτέρως. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 6.9–13 λέγει (sc. Aristotle in passage cited above) δὲ φυσικοῦ εἶναι τὸ ⟨περὶ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσου τὰς πρώτας ἰδεῖν ἀρχάς,⟩ τουτέστιν ἐκ τίνων πρώτων ἀρχῶν τε καὶ ἐν τίσι πρώτοις ἡ ὑγίεια καὶ ἡ νόσος, ὅτι ἐν συμμετρίᾳ τῶν πρώτων δυνάμεων, ξηρῶν ὑγρῶν, θερμῶν ψυχρῶν. Sens. 6.26–30 ὅτι δὲ τὸ περὶ ὑγιείας τε καὶ νόσου τὰς πρώτας ἀρχὰς ἐπισκέψασθαι, τίνες εἰσί, τοῦ φυσικοῦ καὶ φιλοσόφου, συνίστησι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τῶν τε φυσικῶν τοὺς πλείστους περὶ αὐτῶν πεποιῆσθαι λόγον καὶ ἐν τούτοις παύεσθαι τὴν φυσικὴν θεωρίαν καὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν τοὺς χαριεστάτους ἀπὸ τούτων τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς τῶν ἰατρικῶν θεωρίας ποιεῖσθαι ὡς φυσικῶν ὄντων. Chapter heading: Aristotle Sens. 1 436b17–18 φυσικοῦ δὲ καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσου τὰς πρώτας ἰδεῖν ἀρχάς. Long. 1 464b31–33 περὶ δὲ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου λεκτέον ὕστερον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ νόσου καὶ ὑγιείας, ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ. Galen Adv. Jul. 4 περὶ νοσημάτων cited above, General texts. Alexander of Aphrodisias In Sens. 6.16–20 Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν τεττάρων συζυγιῶν ὧν προείρηκε φέρεται ἐν τῇ πραγματείᾳ τῇ Φυσικῇ αὐτοῦ βιβλία, δι᾽ ὧν περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπραγματεύσατο, λέγω δὲ Περὶ ἐγρηγόρσεως καὶ ὕπνου καὶ νεότητος καὶ γήρως καὶ ἀναπνοῆς καὶ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου· τὰ δὲ Περὶ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσου, εἰ ἐγένετο, οὐ σῴζεται. also In Sens. 6.26 cited above, General texts. §1 Alcmaeon: cf. Herodotus 3.80 (Otanes addressing the Persian noblemen) πλῆθος δὲ ἄρχον πρῶτα μὲν οὔνομα πάντων κάλλιστον ἔχει, ἰσονομίην. δεύτερα δὲ τούτων τῶν ὁ μούναρχος ποιέει οὐδέν· πάλῳ μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὰς ἄρχει, ὑπεύθυνον δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχει, βουλεύματα δὲ πάντα ἐς τὸ κοινὸν ἀναφέρει. τίθεμαι ὦν γνώμην μετέντας ἡμέας μουναρχίην τὸ πλῆθος ἀέξειν· ἐν γὰρ τῷ πολλῷ ἔνι τὰ πάντα. Corpus Hippocraticum Aër. 12.3, p. 2.52.18–54.3 Littré τὸ δὲ αἴτιον τουτέων (the beauty of Asia) ἡ κρῆσις τῶν ὡρέων, … ὁκόταν μηδὲν ᾖ ἐπικρατέον βιαίως, ἀλλὰ παντὸς ἰσομοιρίη δυναστεύῃ. Vict. 3.69, p. 6.606.7–9 Littré ἀπὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ κρατέεσθαι ὁκοτερονοῦν νοῦσοι ἐγγίνονται· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἰσάζειν πρὸς ἄλληλα ὑγείη πρόσεστιν. Plato Resp. 444d ἔστι δὲ τὸ μὲν ὑγίειαν ποιεῖν τὰ ἐν τῷ σώματι κατὰ φύσιν καθι-

2055

2056

liber 5 caput 30

στάναι κρατεῖν τε καὶ κρατεῖσθαι ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ νόσον παρὰ φύσιν ἄρχειν τε καὶ ἄρχεσθαι ἄλλο ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου. Smp. 186d–e (Eryximachus the doctor) δεῖ γὰρ δὴ τὰ ἔχθιστα ὄντα ἐν τῷ σώματι φίλα οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι ποιεῖν καὶ ἐρᾶν ἀλλήλων. ἔστι δὲ ἔχθιστα τὰ ἐναντιώτατα, ψυχρὸν θερμῷ, πικρὸν γλυκεῖ, ξηρὸν ὑγρῷ, πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα· τούτοις ἐπιστηθεὶς ἔρωτα ἐμποιῆσαι καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ὁ ἡμέτερος πρόγονος Ἀσκληπιός, ὥς φασιν οἵδε οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ ἐγὼ πείθομαι, συνέστησεν τὴν ἡμετέραν τέχνην. Phlb. 25e. ἆρα οὐκ ἐν μὲν νόσοις ἡ τούτων ὀρθὴ κοινωνία τὴν ὑγιείας φύσιν ἐγέννησεν; Tim. 81e–86b τὸ δὲ τῶν νόσων ὅθεν συνίσταται, δῆλόν που καὶ παντί. τεττάρων γὰρ ὄντων γενῶν ἐξ ὧν συμπέπηγεν τὸ σῶμα, γῆς πυρὸς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος, τούτων ἡ παρὰ φύσιν πλεονεξία καὶ ἔνδεια καὶ τῆς χώρας μετάστασις ἐξ οἰκείας ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίαν γιγνομένη, πυρός τε αὖ καὶ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐπειδὴ γένη πλείονα ἑνὸς ὄντα τυγχάνει, τὸ μὴ προσῆκον ἕκαστον ἑαυτῷ προσλαμβάνειν, καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, στάσεις καὶ νόσους παρέχει. … §2 Herophilus: Aristotle Phys. 7.3 246b4–6 τὰς μὲν γὰρ τοῦ σώματος, οἷον ὑγίειαν καὶ εὐεξίαν, ἐν κράσει καὶ συμμετρίᾳ θερμῶν καὶ ψυχρῶν τίθεμεν. Top. 6.6 145b8 τοιοῦτος δὲ καὶ ὁ τῆς ὑγιείας ὁρισμός, εἴπερ ‘συμμετρία θερμῶν καὶ ψυχρῶν’ ἐστιν (also 6.2 139b20–21). Chrysippus at Gal. PHP 5.2.31 De Lacy (= SVF 3.471, quoting him verbatim) ‘… λέγεται δὲ εἶναι σώματος νόσος ἡ ἀσυμμετρία τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ, θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ, ξηροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ.’ καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγα, ‘ἡ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑγίεια εὐκρασία τις καὶ συμμετρία τῶν διειρημένων.’ also PHP 5.3.14 (= SVF 3.472) ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ἀκριβῶς αὐτὰ διωρίσατο (sc. Chrysippus) τὴν μὲν ὑγίειαν ἐν τῇ τῶν στοιχείων συμμετρίᾳ θέμενος. Galen CP 198 quid igitur ait (sc. Herophilus, T59a Von Staden) ‘causa vero, utrum sit vel non, natura quidem non est inveniblile, existimatione autem puto infrigidari, estuari, cibo et potibus repleri.’ §3 Diocles: cf. Galen Med.Nam. 18.29–19.5 Meyerhof–Schacht (translated from the Arabic) ‘When the fever is very strong, they do not hesitate to call it, for example, ‘fire’, just as Hippocrates calls it ‘fire’ … Similarly Diocles (fr. 58 Van der Eijk), too, says that in cases of fever, what prevails in the body is the fire, and Empedocles (—) and Philistion (—) say the same …’ §§5–7 Chapter heading: Aristotle Juv. 1 467b10 Περὶ δὲ νεότητος καὶ γήρως καὶ περὶ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου λεκτέον νῦν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.43 (list of Theophrastus’ writings, fr. 436.18 FHS&G) Περὶ γήρως αʹ. V.P. 5.81 (list of Demetrius of Phalerum’s writings, fr. 82 Wehrli, fr. 1 Stork–Van Ophuijsen–Dorandi) Περὶ γήρως αʹ. Cicero Cato Maior De senectute 3 omnem autem sermonem tribuimus non Tithono, ut Aristo Ceus (fr. 7, 18 Stork–Dorandi–Fortenbaugh– Van Ophuijsen) … §§5–6 Parmenides Stoics Doctors: cf. Aristotle Long. 5 466a18–22 δεῖ γὰρ λαβεῖν ὅτι τὸ ζῷόν ἐστι φύσει ὑγρὸν καὶ θερμόν, καὶ τὸ ζῆν τοιοῦτον, τὸ δὲ γῆρας ξηρὸν καὶ ψυχρόν, καὶ τὸ τεθνηκός· φαίνεται γὰρ οὕτως. ὕλη δὲ τῶν σωμάτων τοῖς ζῴοις ταῦτα, τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρόν, καὶ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τὸ ὑγρόν. ἀνάγκη τοίνυν γηράσκοντα ξηραίνεσθαι. GA 5.3 783b7–8 καὶ τὸ γῆράς ἐστι κατὰ τοὔνομα γεηρὸν διὰ τὸ ἀπολείπειν τὸ θερμὸν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὑγρόν. Long. 5.4 784a31–34 ἡ δὲ δι᾽ ἡλικίαν τῶν τριχῶν πολιότης γίγνεται δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν καὶ ἔνδειαν θερμότητος. καὶ γὰρ ἡλικία πᾶσα ῥέπει ἀποκλίνοντος τοῦ σώματος ἐν τῷ γήρᾳ ἐπὶ ψύξιν· τὸ γὰρ γῆρας

liber 5 caput 30 ψυχρὸν καὶ ξηρόν ἐστιν. Juv. 4–5 469b18–24 ἀνάγκη τοίνυν ἅμα τό τε ζῆν ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ τούτου σωτηρίαν, καὶ τὸν καλούμενον θάνατον εἶναι τὴν τούτου φθοράν. ἀλλὰ μὴν πυρός γε δύο ὁρῶμεν φθοράς, μάρανσίν τε καὶ σβέσιν. καλοῦμεν δὲ τὴν μὲν ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ μάρανσιν, τὴν δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων σβέσιν, τὴν μὲν γήρᾳ, τὴν δὲ βίαιον, συμβαίνει δ᾽ ἀμφοτέρας διὰ ταὐτὸ γίνεσθαι τὰς φθοράς. Theophrastus CP 6.17.4 τὸ μὲν γὰρ νέον ἅτε πλείω τροφὴν ἐπισπώμενον οὐ πέττει τὸ δὲ γεγηρακὸς ἐξασθενεῖ δι᾽ ἔνδειαν θερμότητος. Galen Temp. 2.2, p. 42.10 Helmreich ὅτι μὲν δὴ ξηρότατον ὡς ἐν ἡλικίαις τὸ γῆρας, ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων εὔδηλον· ὅτι δὲ καὶ ψυχρότατόν ἐστιν, ἔτ᾽ ἐναρέστερον. Marc. 7.676.6 K. ἀληθὲς μέν ἐστι τὸ διὰ τὴν ἔμφυτον θερμότητα γηράσκειν τε τὰ σώματα καὶ τελευτῶντα διαφθείρεσθαι κτλ. §7 Asclepiades: cf. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.323 ἔνιοι μὲν γάρ, ὧν ἐστὶ καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ ἰατρός (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 726), διαρρήδην ἔλεξαν πολλῷ λείπεσθαι τῆς περὶ τοὺς νέους συνέσεως καὶ ἀγχινοίας τοὺς πρεσβύτας, παρὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν καὶ εἰκαιοτέρων ψευδοδοξίαν ἐναντίως ἔχειν ὑπελήφθη τὸ πρᾶγμα. διὰ γὰρ τὸ πολύπειρον τῶν πρεσβυτῶν ἔδοξαν οἱ νεώτεροι λείπεσθαι κατὰ σύνεσιν, τοῦ πράγματος ἐναντίως ἔχοντος· πολυπειρότεροι μὲν γάρ, ὡς ἔφην, εἰσὶν οἱ γεγηρακότες, οὐ συνετώτεροι δὲ παρὰ τοὺς νέους.

2057