The Pseudo-Hippocratic Tract Peri hebdomadōn Ch. 1-11 and Greek Philosophy

J.

MANSFELD

THE PSEUDOHIPPOCRATIC TRACT TIEPI 'EBL\OMAL\QN

CH. 1-11 AND GREEK PHILOSOPHY

ASSEN, VAN GORCUM

DR. H.

J.

PRAKKE

1971 &

COMP. N. V.

& H. M. G. PRAKKE

© 1970 by Koninklijke Van Gorcum

&

Comp. N. V., Assen, The Netherlands

No parts of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher.

ISBN:

90 232 0701 7

Pr-inted in the Netherlands by Royal VanGorcum Ltd.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Prof. De Vogel and Prof. Kuypers for permitting this book to be published in the Se1ies 'Wijsgerige Tekstcn en Studies'; Curatoren of the Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht for making possible this publication by their generous grant; the staff and p1inters of Royal VanGorcum Ltd. for bestowing more than usual care upon the technical aspects of this production; Mrs. G. De Bocr for painstakingly typing out an almost illegible manuscript; Mrs. l\1. Oort for correcting my Engli.,h; Prof. De Vogel, Mr. A. Hageraats and drs. R. Volkers for invaluable assistance in reading the proofs; and, last but not least, my wife and daughter for help in many ways, and for bearing up with my period of gestation.

CONTENTS

CH.

CH.

I

II

Introduction: The Ancient Evidence and the 'Status Quaestionis' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1. The Problem - p. 1; 2. The Ancient Evidence - p. 6; 3. 'Status Quaestionis' - p. 16; 4. Object of the Present Study- p. 30).

1

The Vocabulary of the Greek Text of Hebd. Ch. 1-5

32

CH.

m

The Presocratic Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

CH.

IV

Later Elements in the Cosmology of Hebd. Ch. 1-11; Posidonius? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

CH.

v

CH.

VI

CH.

vu

Various Questions: (A) Hebd. Ch. 1-11 and the Placita (B) The Seven Heavenly Stars . . (c) The Wind-Rose . . . . . . .

130 138 146

H ebd. and Arithmology; Posidonius again

156

Hebd. Part II (Ch. 12-52) and its Relation to Part I (Ch. 1-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 (1. - p. 205; 2. The 'Theory of Hot and Cold' - p. 206; 3. Indications in Favour of a Late Date for Hebd. Part II - p. 211; 4. Affinity with Pneumatic Medicine - p. 213; 5. The Relation between the Two Parts of Hebd.- p. 217. •

229

INDEX OF NAMES

233

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

241

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

254

CONCLUSION .

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: THE ANCIENT EVIDENCE AND THE 'STATUS QUAESTIONIS'

1. The problem. The pseuclo-Hippocratic treatise Sevens (m:pt E~8o­ fl.liowv, Hebd.) is not among the gems of ancient scientific literature. It is, however, a curious and difficult work, which presents a number of problems to the historians both of philosophy and of medicine. To the historian of philosophy, because the first section of the treatise (Ch. 1-11) is an arithmological dissertation demonstrating the structural unity of the universe and its p
)

IY

)

I

'

)

-

I

See Littre, 1,361: VIII,l23 and 629. On the ancient glns:-c•s pertaining to the variom; books"· voucriJ>V cf. also J. Ilhcrg, nas !lippokrntes-Glossar des Protianos, Abh.Sachs.Ces.Wiss., Phil.-hist. Cl., Bd. 14 (1894), Nr. 2, Leipzig 1893, 1Jf>-9. 16 Undoubtedly a slip for e~llop.&i>'); this may refer to a therapeutic context, cf. e.g. 1\-forb. Ill (VIT,154,10 L) &:Aef.rpV •'ii ~pe:•pdi>L ('enduire la poitrine avec la terre d'Eretrie'); (2) XlX,110 K. XIXUrJC.•>iLIX • T~V 7tUpT4> 7te:pl vr/JcrV TV '1.' 1:!) !J.'.Y.p6•spr>v wi1 h f]untations from the second part of Hebd. 18 A reconstruction of the Greek text based upon this r,loss is printed by Roscher parallel to that of the Latin translations.

15

6

spissum, et paulatim ab ipsis pectoribus st-trsum fcnmtur, sicut pueri plorantes et ad nares trahentes simul spiritwm, and is therefore from the second part of the treatise. The Glossary, s.v. &0-~p (XIX,70 K.), contains also one reference to a m:pt vo{)()C•lV fl' -r(J ruxp6-rzpo'J, which can be identified as our actual M orb. IIL 19 There is also, perhaps, a reference to Hebd. in the earlier Glossary of Erotian, 31,3 Nachmanson 20 (= r Jl; s. also fr. 84): ycfAC<X'rL -reyyc.LV. &v-rt TOU Ame~ (found in Carn. Ch. J 9, VIII,614,6 L) but this attribution is based upon the false assumption that Ch. 19 originally belonged to Hebd. (Littrel.407 assunwcl that llehd. and Carn. arc hy a. common authnr. but took thi~ back late1·, VIII,62il; his earlier guess, however, was defended [Jy M. \Veilmanu, f)ie Fra~mente dcr sikelischen Ante Akrrm, Philistion und dl'" f)io/iles von Karystos, Berlin 1901, 43 and by Roscher 1913, 81 n.132 and 86. However, Carn. Ch. 19 definitely belongs to the treatise in which it has bee•1 transmitted as the final chapter. sec K. Deichgriiber, llippokrates iiber Entstdmng und Aufbcttt des menschlichen Korpers, Berlin 1935, 53). Moreover, attribution of ocvocx.w
20

7

seven references to nepl. voum.r.rSv. Moreover, the general theory mxpo;.Jv~::crOcu tt€v >:mo -r>3 Ch. 3 (Vli,67 5-6 K.) '.krr. zh&, X(l(t &rrf:z-r:twoliratische·n :·ichrift rr. i i'> lh y. :1: ;~ w v, Phi!. 94 (1941), 79 ff. 6 ~ Cf. ahove, p. 4-5 n. 10.

15

the copy used by the Latin translator suffered from a 'Blattversetzung der Form a c b cl': following upon page a, containing the opening words of Ch. 14 R. (which are not in the preserved Greek text of this chapter) at its bottom, it did not have a page b containing the end of Ch. 17 R (17,48 R. aliwius tunc ff.) + Ch. 18 R. + Ch. 19 R. + Ch. 20,1-33 R. (minus the concluding words toto mundo est) upon which page d, containing Ch. 20,33 R. toto mundo est + Ch. 21 ff. followed, but page b, containing Ch. 14,4 al-ias ff.R. + Ch. 15 R. + Ch. 16 R. + Ch. 17 R (minus the end). The hypothesis of the misplacing of one single page both solves the problem of the interpretation of the text which at its wrong junctures is completely unintelligible in Roscher's edition and restores an arrangement \vhich exactly corresponds to the order of ps. Galen. On the basis of this reconstruction, Lommer proposes a new division into chapters. 63 The order of subjects in the improved text is, as Lommer says, a much more rational one, and also makes for a rational connection with both what precedes64 and what follo·ws: Ch. l3 R.-XIV Lo. the four elemental qualities+ bile and phlegm; Ch. XV-XVII Lo. pathology based upon Ch.13 R.XIV Lo.; Ch. XVIII Lo. the qualities and the earth; Ch. XIX-XX Lo. + Ch. 21-22 R the qualities in relation to the seasons and their effects upon animals and plants, and finally Ch. 23 R., the qualities and the seasons and their effects upon the physical condition of man.

3. Status quaestionis. We have already acknowledged the fact that the interpretation of Hebd. part II (Ch. 13-53) is an important element in establishing a t.a.q. for the composition of the treatise as a whole, or at least has been assumed to be so by earlier scholars. The first 65 serious attempt to date the work ·was that of J. Ilberg (1894): because he assumed that he had established the Cnidian character of the medical section, he suggested that Hebd. had been composed in the time of the

XIV Lo. = 14,1-4(R.) + 17,48 -the end(R.) + lS(R.); XV Lo. = 19(R.); XVI Lo. + 20,1-28 factae (R.); XVII Lo. =' 20,28 Initiurn - 33 et in (R.) + 14,4 alias ventrls - the end (R.); XVIII Lo. = 15(R.); XIX Lo. = 16(R.); XX Lo. = 17,1-48 quae in + 20,23 toto rmmdo est (R). See Lommer, o.c. 84-5. u Lommer, o.c. 85 includes Ch. 1-11 ('einleitende Kapitel iiber das Grundprinzip der Siebenzahl im Makrokosmos und Mik:rokosmos'), but tlus does not al>olish the problem of the connection between the two parts of the treatise. 66 Littre 1,407 held that Hebd. is 'beaucoup posterieur a Hippocrate'. 63

16

Peloponnesian war. 66 For, as he said, the· 'in vielen Punkten der Phantasie eines Aristophanes wiirdigen Offenbarungen'67 ~ apparently made no exception. However, when Roscher's pioneering studies on Hebd. part I had been published, he granted that llebd. is a 'der Einheitlichkeit ermangelnder Traktat' .68 The contribution to the interpretation of 1-lebd. of W. H. Roscher is of fumlamcntaJ importance. 69 He was the first scholar to have pointed out the unique character of Ch. l-11 and its apparent lack of connection with the treatise on fevers which foilows.:. The first part of Hebd. is concerned with the number seven in both· macrocosm and microcosm, while the medical work is based upon an entirely different theory, viz. that of the 'hot' and the 'cold'. 7 Consequently, Roscher

°

1894, 39. This was accepted by C. Fredrieh, Hippokratische Thtlersuchungen, Berlin 1899, 226 ff., who also pointed out a number of whrJ.t he tennecl 'extraordinary resemblances' bctW
17

assumed that the two parts of Hebd. thus distinguished are by different hands.n He accepted Ilberg's date for part II,' 2 and concentrated upon part I, thereby setting an example \Vhich was to be followed by the great majority of scholars. According to H.oscher, Ch. 1-11 are 'das bei weitem umfassendste Brucksti.'!ck der ti.ltestcn Ionischen Philosophie' 73 ; it could have been ·written by a younger contemporary of Anaximenes. In all essentials, he stuck i.o this theory till the end of his life, though he conceded later that the physician who 'WTote Hebd. had copied 'ziemlich w6rtlich' the much older work of a Ionian philosopher. 74 In favour of this evaluation of Ch. 1-ll he put forth several arguments concerning the contents of this part of the treatise. He argued that the cosnwlogical theory of Ch. 1-2, \Vith its unmoved earth at the centre of a system of heavenly spheres, is no other than that of Anaximander,75 with admixtures from the world-picture of Anaximenes (correct order of moon- sun- stars, earth supported by air) and other early philosophers. 76 He further argued that the author of Hebd. part I does not distinguish between planets and fixed stars77 which, also in this respect, agrees with the cosmology of the early Ionians. These observations were quite stimulating: although few scholars at present would be prepared to defend Kapiteln Jiegt iiberall der dualistische Gegensatz der \Varme und Kalte (lkpf1.6v-calidum und •Jnzp6v-frigidum) zugrunde'. However, to the hot and the cold (which are certainly primary) the wet and the dry should be added (cf. above p. 13; p. 15-16, Lommer's reconstruction; and below, Ch. VII, p. 213 ff.) 71 1911, 108. 12 Cf. above, p. 17 n. 66. 73 1906, 53. 74 1911, 14; cf. 1913, 127 'Bearbeiter zwischen 450-400'. 75 1906, 52; 1911, 54 ff. The study of 1919 sets out to prove the independence of Hebd. from Pythagoreanism (which Roscher had also upheld in his earlier studies), and does so in great detail. 76 Especially in his earlier publications, Roscher resolutely brushed aside analogies to later Presocratic thought and refused to consider their implications for the date of Hebd. \·Vhenever this question of priority arose, his solution was to make the follower of the earlier Ionians an original philosopher in his own right, who to a surprising extent anticipated later thinkers. E.g. Hebd. 1,52 R. attributes 'reflected light' to the stars. The earliest-known thinker who held such a theory is Democritus' 'pupil' Metrodorus of Chios (VS 70A9; see also below, p. 27 n. 129). Roscher comments, 1911, 61: 'er steht also in dieser Beziehung auf dem selben Standpunkt wie spater (sic) lVfetrodor'. 77 1911, 67 (but ibd. 60 he writes that Anaximander already made this distinction, which is of course wrong).

18

a date as early as that of Roscher or to brush aside the points of resemblance between Hebd. and the ideas of younger Presocratics which can be pointed out, 78 there appears to be universal agreement tllat the first part of the treatise indeed reflects Presocratic thought. 79 Roscher's other argument for a very early elate was concerned with the quaint anthropomorphical map of the world of Ch. 11, which features the Peloponne,;us, the Isthmus, lonia, the Hellespont, both the Thracian and the Cimmerian Bosp(n·us, Egypt and the Egyptian Sea, and the Black Sea with the Sea of Azov. Roscher pointed out that this 'world' is that of the early Ionian sailor. 80 Indeed, the extreme old age of tlus map gradually became Roscher's principal argument81 for attributing r's and Goctze's estimation of the macrocosm .. microcosm-passage (above, p. 22, 11. 101). JLG lt is impo~sihle to enter into the complicated problem of the date of Vid. here. H. Joly, in his excellent recent monograph Rechcrc!tes sur le traite pseudoHippocratique Du Rf:gime, Li(~ge 1960, esp. p. 203-9 (cf. also the introduction to his edition of Vict. in lhe Bud6-series) dates Vict. around 400 B.C. Kranz, o.c. 176 has tlw last decade of the fifth Cent. B.C. in mind. W. Jaeger, Paideia 11, Berlin 2 1959, 43, 45 ff. argued that it should be dated ea. 350 B. C. H. Diller, Der innere Zusammenhanfi der hippokratischen Schrijt de victu, Hermes 87 (1959), 38 ff., esp. p. 55, is inclined to follow Jaeger_ Now A. 1\ehm in his Jeamed Parapegmastudien, Ahh. Bay. Ak., Phil.-hist. KL, N.F. Heft.19, Miinchen 1941, 38 ff. argued that the divisi011 of the year in Vict. Il1.68 is tlJat of Eudoxus' parapegma: "Die angestrcbtc Symmetric der Hauptabsdmittc des Jahres, insbcsondere die Zcrlegung des J ahres durch die zwei Frijhphascn der Pleiaden in gleiche Halften, weist a.uf Eudoxos" (Helun p. 38). Already Fredrich, T-I-ipp. Unters. 225 ha.d noticed this similarity, but (following Maass) did not believe the attribution of the Eudoxus-parapegma to be trustworthy. But even if we should follow Eratosthcnes in not attributing the Octaifteris to Eudoxus (and it is not certain that the OctaiJteris and the parapegrna arc identical; see for the evidence F. Lasserre, Die Fragmente des Eurloxos von Knidos, Textc u. Kommentare Bd. 4, Berlin 1966, 214), we still have to assume that at least part of its subject-matter is derived frnm Eudoxus (so also Lasserre, ibd.). Rehm, o.c. 30 ff. did not douht the authentkity of the Eudoxus-pampegrna. Joly, who o.c. 132-3 gives a table of the division of the year as in Vie!., apparently ignored Rehm's arguments. Lasscrre, o.c. 225, rejects Hehm's proposal on the insufficient grounds tbat for some periods the nmnbtor of days is not exactly the same; but surely such a discrepancy is less important than the resemblance in general outline. If Rehm is right, 370 U.C. (his approximate elate for the Eudoxus-parapegma) is the t.p.q. of Vict._ I think Rehm is right

25

he shares a detailed microcosm-macrocosm·-thcory.l 17 Kranz poshtlates a common ancestorus for the theories of both Hebd. and Vict. and attempts to date this archetype even earlier than the cosmology of llebd. by referring to Bund. Ch. 28, in which the microcosm-macrocosm-theory must be considered as an 'older relative' of this archetype.119 Wocratiwm. - To these arguments Gehr added another and indeed crucial thesis: he argued that Roscher did wrong in separating the two parts of the treatise, for the contradictions which he pointed out are only seeming ones. Conscqnently, Hcbd. as a whole would not l)l: mrlier than its secon. Galen does not give the full text of Hebd. a.s A~p.p.omr.. but in some ca'!es a translation of parts of the text has been fused with the commentary. 17

35

the latter constituting about 20% of the about 120 different nouns found in the Greek text of Ch. l-5, which is a fairly high percentagc. 21 I have tried to trace the history of the words in the list by making use of general and special lexica, indexes in text-editions of various authors and :;o on. I have deeply felt the lack of a Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, and accordingly have no pretensions of completeness. The old Thesaurus, for whatever it is worth, was used for a final checking; the conclusions I had reached turned out to be in agreement with what it had to offer. I have neglected to make a special study of the style, but I think Littre's characterisation quite apposite: 'le style ... a de la recherche et de l'obscurite, sans manquer cependant d'une certaine c.legance'. This obscurity and artificiality are in themselves a sign that the language of the old physicians was difficult for our author; the style of the late Praec. shows the same kind of pompous awkwardness.

1. &. y wy-i] (1,87 R.; &.ywy~ ... 't'~ -r61t

e:poJLtvoc.; txe!·1ot.; are the cause of eclipse;; (13.A7 = Hipp., Ref. I,7. VS I, p. 92,15-6), and because an eclipse would he caused by the Ohtitruction of our vision of moon and sun by the interposition of such a body. Probably. however. these licrTpCL include sun and moon {this is also suggested by auy.rre:p!.q>epofLevo>:o; !:xdvr.>to;). In Aetiu!;' report (13Al4), which Iike·wise mentions the 'dark bodies' (U,l3,10), the &o"t#e; which do not turn below the earth (II.16,6) must include at least the sun, as is clear from Arist. Mete. 354a28 ff. (also quoted at 13A14). This is confirmed by Hippolytus: although &aT. f.LTJ llEtcr6ctt Toc oupckv~ct -:porf>'i;~ · o•) yocp '?flocpTtf, &:!..!.' cH/Jtx. On the &:Ullx in ll ehd. cf. below, p. 77, n. 62. 2 6 Explicitly Cael. 11,1,284a27 ff. (cf. below, p. 74). 27 Solmsen, A rist. Syst. 222. 28 Cf. Solmsen, o.c. 92 ff. Cf. also E. Crnmach, Physis rmd Agrrtlwn in dcr alten Stoa, Problemata H. 6, 1932 (2 1966), 47. 29 Cf. also Cael. III,2,30lbl7 ff. rp•)m~ f.Ltv eGTtv -IJ kv oc•hct.rpoc means the sphere of the sun, because in Theophrastus' physics the sun is all-important. Though I do not wish to deny this, I cannot see how the astronomical sphere of the sun can be called 'first'. It is, moreover, clear from the wording of 'the sphere around the earth, which i;; the realm of xp'it11~ and y~ve:crLc;', that Theophrastus is not speaking of astronomical spheres at all, but roughly subdivides the univer;;e into two regions. The interpretation o:£ Zeller, Ph. d. Gr . .fl, 1,833 is un-reet in this respeet, though wrong of course in not bringing out clearly the fundamental differences between Theophrastus and Aristotle. The sphere of pure heat is called 'first', because the heat is 'first' in the sense of being &:pz·~. cf. D,J igne p. 351,42 ft.W. This interpretation of the 'two spheres' agrees with the interpretation of Theophrastus' information on Anaximander's x6af!.o~. for which see above, Ch. II, p. 44-5. Cf. also the distinction between ..,x xux>..ud and d: m:p! -ro fLEcrov, Theophr., Met. 5bll-12. 81 .As it is for Aristotle, d. above, p. 76. On the sun see also Theophr., 111et. 7b2 ff. Note that Theophrastus did not abandon the theory of the 'proper place' of an element, above p. 82, n. 79. 82 De igne p. 351,34 ff.W. Cf. also p. 358,21 ff.W.: ~ ... TO~~ e(J.

86

84

Theophrastus, is a moving and life-giving power. But he never speaks of air, water and earth as being, even to a very slight degree, themselves alive. 91 On the contrary the heat which elemental bodies take from the sun is only temporarily borrowed. Aristotle was still willing to grant the cosmic mass of the earth an o~xd1J 6zp[L6TIJ~92 which is responsible for the dry exhalation even during the night. But according to Theophrastus, earth is cold; the dry exhalation is nothing but reflected heat from the sun. 93 In what remains of Theophrastus' statements about the xp&m~ of fire with other elements, vve shall look in vain for terms as strong as the adunatum and congrcgatmn which we have found in Hcbd. As in Aristotle, 94 the cycle of change in Theophrastus is caused by the sun, but in a definitely mechanistic way. 95 The heat from the sun penetrates the lower sphere and causes the cycles of air and water. While the sun moves, its rays also push away the air on both sides of its path, indirectly causing it to flow back afterwards. 96 On the other hand, the sun not only gives heat to the lower sphere, but also extracts fiery particles from below which are added to its own mass. 97 In this way, a cosmic equilibrium is eternally maintained. 98 The hot and the cold interact in a purely mechanistic way. 99 Our conclusion has to be that the cosmology of Hebd. is impossible without the example of Theophrastus' physical theory. But again, we cannot say that we have reached our goal. The vitalism of Hebd. does not come from Theophrastus. Cf. also M et. 11 a.16-7 oA[yov yap Tt To ~IJ.<j;uzov, &1Tetpov 8~ To &<j;uyov. and the distinction between animals and plants on the one hand and lifeless thing!:\ on the other, M et. 9a 14-15 !LezpL ~~~>v x~t cpuTv x~i. E:crz&-rwv -rc7>v &y:t.WI ('right clown to animals and plants and finally to inanimate tl1ings', tr. Ip6c;, '1'0 !J.~V &'t'tXVOIJ xocl fJ.E:'t'oc[:l
88

than the whole.H 9 In 32, thcrt~ follows a short summary of Plato's theory of the World-Soul and of his theory of motion in general.l 20 Then the argument is concluded by the resumption of the calor-theme, which culminates in the equation ardor-anintus, with S. Boya•lcd within the mixture (d. SVF 11,473, p. 154,1.5 ff., from Alexander of Aphrodisias' De mi-rtiont'). 'l'his also holds true for S(:•conclary cflmpounds. An interesting illustration is given by A lex. /)e.mixt. p. 218,1 Bruns (S VF U, p. 155,30 H.): TO r.up OAOV lh' OAO•J xc.updv TOU mll~pou, a<J>~oV'>;f), 129; h~E s.v. Poseidonios 700. The relevant texts can b(• Pxcellently studied in C. J. I >e Vogel, Greek Ph-ilosophy Ill, 251 ff. (1\r. 117(> ff.), cf. abo, and especially, the notes, ibd. p. 256. For l'osiuonius' influence upon han(lbook--literature cf. vV. H. Stahl, Human Science, Origi-ns, /}f1•clopment and lnflunw· tu lite Lafn' il1iddlt' Agl's, Madison (U.S.A.) 1%2. -IS ff. 139 Die Stoa 11,137. 140 ND 1 1,2·+ the end. Tlti:; i~ not externus et aduenticius (NlJ ll,2(>); according to Reinhanlt I<E s.v. l'us. 700, f>47-K, this is typical of the demental theory of Posidonius (d. Sen., .Vat. V,.'i, I: the air has naturalem vim mounuh se, nee aliunde concipere, sed incssi illi etc.) On l'osidonian vitalism see also\\". Theiler, l>ie Voruereitung des Neuplatouis~~tus, Problemata .1, Berlin 1930 (repr. 1964 ), 70 H. 141 Cf. De Vogel, u.c. 25!). For a general statement reflecting probably the ideas of J'osidoilius cf. Varro in Isodorus oi Sevilll\ l:t. Xll1,1,1-2 .~fundus f.r~tine a philosop!tis dictus, quod in sempiterno motu sit, ut caclmn, sol, luna, acr, maria. Nulla enim requies eius elementis concessa est, ideoque sellljier in motu est. Unde et animalia l'arruni 1•idl'ltlur l'lemenla. qu•>uiam j>er semi'/ ipsa inquit ·moventur. w Cf. RE 625, ti-17 ff. 143 I.e. vital force; cf. also Cic., iVD Il, 83. 144 RE 682. Cf. also ND I I,S3 and f{einhardt's commPnts. l\·osm. u. Svmp. 100 If. 145 RE 647: Sen., Nat. Ill,2G,7 ff.; Strabo, f.3.S. 146 Cf. De Vogel, o.c. 251, note on Nr. 117f>a. 147 RE (>48. 148 W. Cr6nert, review of SVF IV, Gnomon 6 (1930), 152 11.l; R Philippson, o.c. 26-7. (Piiilippson, ho\\"ever, p. 29, refuse,; to attribute the vital heat of t!H" 138

94

piece of secondary evidence explicitly connected with the name Posidonius.149 To this Reinhardt replied that the medical authors used the term in a much more restricted sense than 'Posidonius'. This is correct because there is no evidence of its being used in these medical authors to refer to objects other than living beings in the narrower sense of the world. 150 It is, of course, true that the Early Stoa operated with a concept of vital heat, 151 hut this is not the same as a universally valid vis v-italis. F. Solmsen, however, tried to prove that the -whole section on vitalis calor goes back to Cleanthes. His chief arguments are: (1) Cleanthes is not a philosopher who can be assumed to have only been intcrcstetl in the item of trivial physiological information for vvhich he is quoted .ND II,24. It is, therefore. more than likely that the cosmological sequel to the physiological argument also goes back to him. 152 (2) The (admittedly also Cleanthean) concept of vital heat occurs again and again in the whole section: is there such a difference between calor vitalis and vis vitalis? 1" 3 (3) the calor is characterized in the same way both in ND II,23-4 and in II,40-1, where Cleanthes is the author of the whole passage; in both places we find the same relationship between calo·r, sensus and vita. 154 Solmsen's case is not convincing. elements to the Early Stoa and argues that it was probably Posidonius who, in taking over the concept of vital heat, gave it this wider application); Soltnsen, o.c. 7, 11.17: Aristotle calls the 6ept.UJ'J a \;un:v.·~ apz_~ (cf. above, p. 82, n.78, the passage fromGA); Boyancc, Prezttt. stoic. 54, and esp. p. 55, n.2. Cf. also Solmsen, o.c. 13 ff., on the vitalist functions of the f:kp[J.6v in Aristotle. lt should, however, not be forgotten that in Aristotle (as later in Theophrastus) this vita.lism was definitely not conceived to include ihe elements. 149 L. Edelstein, The Philosophical System of Posidonius, AJ Ph 57 (1936 ), p. 324. The importance of v.italism for Posidonius, howe,·er, is apparent from his definition of philosophy, Sextus, Adv. log. 1,19: the parts of philosophy belong together like the parts of the human organism. 1 ~ 0 RE 649. m Philippson, o.c. 26. Cleanthes ap. Cic., ND TI,24 and 40-1. 162 O.c. 5. 1 53 O.c. 5-6, 8, 11, 12. Cf. also Boyanct\ Preuv. stoic. 55 ff. IM O.c. 5-6. _VD II,23 a/ere and crescere are effects of heat. The fire in II,40-1 which is salutaris and vitalis is characterized in the same terms: omnia conservat, alit, mtget, sustinet etc. Already Zeller, 1!1,1,137, n.l and V on Arnim, SVF I, p. 155,7 ff. gave 1VD II,23-24 to C!eanthcs. The two kinds of fire of Il,40-·1 derive from Theophrastus and formed part: of the Stoic theory as professed by Zeno (SVF 1,120, cf. above, p. 88 n. 114). This fire is said by Zeno to be 1"7)fl'IJ't"lY.6v, cf. sustinet; it is (a) proper to plants anJ animals, being their o: and that of the elements, and that, as it stands, it is slightly out of context, for we recall that the universal validity 156 of vis vitalis is made to follow from 157 what has been said about animals and plants! But, in fact, this universal relevance is only proved in the pages whicl1 follow. Although it is possible that Cicero was somewhat careless in transcribing his source, it •vill ncvcrtlwless be clear that the arguments on ~o: (for which Cleanthes is quoted) arc somewhat forced, in order to serve as a preliminary for the argument about the elements. Separate proof is needed for demonstrating the vitalism of the elements. Another argument in favour of the authorship of Posidonius is afforded by one of the physicae rationes in ND ll,25: atque etiam ex puteis iugibus aquam calida1n trah£, et £d maxime lieri temj•oribus hibernis, quod magna vis terrae ca·vernis contineatur caloris eaq·ue hieme sit densior ob eamque causam calorem insitam contineat artius. The heat within the earth is more concentrated during the vvinter; therefore its effect is greater, as can be seen when we dra\v water during that season. Behind this is a theory of Theophrastns, viz. the physical law of &v't"me:p(cr't"o:ma's word~;; arc true, Holwithstanding t11e fact that he defended a Preso·· cratic date for the Hypornn. (except Ch. 25, which is dearly pl)st-Platonic) by the untrustworthy method of quoting incidental Presocratic parallels (cf. W. Tlleiler, rev. Delatte, Cnomon 2 (192()), 155, quoted above, Ch. I, p. 31, n. 151 ). A.- J. Festugiere (see above, Ch, 1, p. 24, n. 109) established a sati~;;­ factory t.p.q. by pointing out that the distinction in Ch. 31 of veins, arteries and Derves presuppose,; the discovery of Herophilus and Erasistratus (s. KEG 1945, 57: cf. also F. Solmscu, Greek Philosophy and the Discovery of the Nerves (reprinted J{leinc Schtijten I, 536 ff.), MH H> (1961), esp. 184 ff.) On the Platonist theory of Ch. 25 see Festugierc, ibd. 10 ff. and Theilcr, I.e. C. J. De Vogel, Greelt Philosophy IIJ, 342, note on Nr. 127Ya shows tltat the derivation of the ci{,p~crTo
\ TO

' (J.O:'!O:j(C:tv

l' L\ u.Vvp(oiCOV

0 ep fl.OU- ( .. . )

'

~ ~'fjXO:tv

> l ~· T 1 11.1t'v 't'OU

·wu

·fit..(ou &.x-rC:v11. ~t.oc 11.tfl£(:>oyoi)m~ und JTl)) ~ipL li)(.EE't'IXL can be paralleled from a Hellenistic author, although it is not certain that our first example goes back to a purely Stoic source 226 : Philo, Vit. Mosis II,122 (IV, p. 228,15-16 Colm-W.) &n:' &€poc; -rp6nov ·nv~ y-Yj xocl. uawp EXXflE[LIX\I't'IXL, 't'O yocp ~X'YJfLIX TCJVTWV EO"'t'LV &~p. But a Stoic origin 7tot)(UfLe:pecrTotTov otuTou (se. of the quenched fire ·~ the moisture) d~Ho crucrn::AAOfLe:vov y'ij ylyve:Tott lCT.A. 221 Also this idea is to be found in llebd., cf. above, Ch. III, p. 62 ff. m P. 173,31 ff., a quotation from the second book of Chrysippm;' rr. :wJ~cre:>c; E7tl Tll !Lecrov crwo6ou1Le:voc (se. the elemental bodies ... ) X.T.A. 225

226

Earth and water together are the 'heavy' and 'central' elements. For Philo's knowledge of the Vetusta Placita. cf. below, Ch. V A, p. 130-1, n. 4.

109

is plausible for some of the expressions in Philo, Aet. mu.nd. 115227 (VI, p.107,20-108,4 Cohn-W.), a chapter which reports the arguments of certain Peripatetics against those who deny the eternity of the cosmcJs, v·iz. the great majority of the Stoics. One of these arguments is about the interchange of place of the elemental masses, which is said to be impossible: ou yocp ino;c~()!i; .. l'/.t 11:01"€ ou·n: uafX·n 7tEiO"tX y1j ouO' {)~cop &tp~ ou•e &·~p 7tupi, for what is heavy (i.e. earth and water) tends to the centre, what is light (i.e. air and fire) goes up. But air and fire do not go Up equa.lly high (ou:x_' rJf.i.O~Wc;J: a~p y.J:p 7tUpoc; ox:flfl-1)( yeyove, -ro 8' ~1!0:;(0U(.Lt::Vov z~ &.vcf:yx'Y}c; urce:pe:ptcr~to~: cf. Hes., Theog. 693. For 7t1X'I't'p6cpoc; cf. above, Ch. ll, word-list s.v. (p. 48-9). Lorimer, Some Notes 110 thought that the epitheton in Mu. was not got from the Stoic source shared with Arius Didymus, but from allegorizing (and also Stoic) comments on Empedocles' "Hp'IJ cpe:pecr~toc; (VS 31B6,2, cf. A33). Against this hypothesis see Maguire, o.c. 123, 11.1 (M~t. does not mention Hera and is not concerned with the allocation of parts of the universe to certain deities). I would like to add that the Stoic allegorizer of Empedocles took "Hp'IJ q;e:pecr[1to~ to mean the 'earth' because he was familiar with the life-giving earth as a philosophical idea. Festugiere, Herm. Trism. Jl,497 counts cpe:ptcr~toc; among the 'fleurs de rhetorique' of Alu. 259 Cf. Strohm, Stud. Schr. 11. d. Welt, 143 ff. Also the description of the area of air and fire is repeated (2,392b7-13 ~ 5,397a19-24 ~ 6,399a24-26; Strohm, o.c. 144). 2eo Elsewhere in Hebd. (cf. above, p. 81) the uyp, viz. sol (102), luna (103), 269, eae stellae quas tJagas dicinms (103), stellant1n t'nerran#um maxima multitudo (104). In ps. Alistotle, where the ether is taken as a fifth element in a rather orthodox 270 Aristotelian sense, the lw x6cr[L

1t~VT(J. The

relativity of 'up' and 'down', 277 though not expressed in the same terms as in Hebd., is also found to be a feature in the account of Arius Didymus. Hebd. 2,14 ff. and 39 ff.R. it is said that the earth is unmoved; cf. SVF II, p. 168,17 urcotJ.zvr:.v M -;-·f)v y-~v. The same idea is found lvfu. 2,391b12 If. "t'et.{mJ move; H cbd. is different: the outer heaven and the earth are at rest, the other parts are in motion). -The central position of the moon (Hcbd. 2,44 ff. 7) creA~VlJ [J.eO'lJ V6[LOCI1-riX~, [xoct] xocToc Tov 7WLYJriJv '&xpoT.XT7j 287 xopupup.svoc; oupocvou. 288 From this it is apparent that the God is said to have his home in the highest place of the universe (cf. also 398b8-9 ... IXU'rOV p.S:v EitL -.Yjc; &vco~-rct'!(t) xhac; m:ptocye:t -~ m:pt<pop& x.T.A. (cf. also De Vries, o.c. 135). ~ote that the souls of the Gods do not have a moving function when they feast upon the sights outside heaven. Hut in general, the 'perfect: (kind of) soul travels on high and administers the universe', 246cl-2 u),toc ... oi'>a:x ... ~u~•e:c,>por:opc: xoct rrcivTov x6afto'.l owtxei: (cf. also above, p. 67 and ibd., n. 5). K6ap.o.; here probably means 'the heaven', cf. above, Ch. 11, p. 42-3. 289 The etymology of "0).U[.t7tflcl> made by l'feiffer, S'tud. =· ant. Sterngl. 36 ff.; this is wholly speculative. His suggestion that fervurcs ut cans 'anger' (o.c. 37) was adopted by Kram: (o.c. 169); 'passions' is just as good a guess, but we cannot be certain. Ps. Galen, at any rate, translates '1 )ie beitlen 1\:albssterne gleichen der IViirme, die im :\lcnschen ist' (Xr. -il Bergstr.). f can find no support in the text for the supposition of Pfeiffer and 1\:ranz (which, as l believe, ultimately goes back to a guess of Harder) that .\rcturus direclly influences anger; indeed, Kranz himself has to admit thatCh. 6 as a whole only compares bodily anine those readings of the translations which they can understand. This method, on the whole, amounts to putting the first half as in A before the second half as in P. Xow P's que e sole nutrita cannot refer to man, as Pfeiffer thought, for que is not = qui, but = quae. Kranz (o.c. 170) helJ that the bodily heat is the antecedent of qu(a)e, and that this heat is, in the last analysis, derived from the sun. \Ve cannot, however, be sure about the antecedent, and not ultimate derivation, but only maintenance is implied by nutrita. My own guess is, that it may be Arcturus (or the Bear) which is 'sustained' by the sun, just as the fervores (outbursts of passion?) within the human body are sustained by the subeutaneal heat. This would at least agree with the earlier theory of the derived light (heat?) of the stars (cf. above, Ch. 11, p. 38, s.v. &\ITIX•Yylrx) and, perhaps, makes it easier to understand why the stars in general are said to be hottest (cf. above, p. 80, n. 73). I do know that in the prologue of Plautus' Rudens one should take the role of Arcturus (splendens stella candida) as a special ,;ervant of Iuppiter (cL Iovem aegiocurn !) seriously.

125

observe the bodily phenomena from the outside and the celestial ones from the inside. This identification of Zeus is not the only possible one. If one completely despairs of getting anything worth-while out of the corrupt sentence Arcturius ff., Zeus has to be i{lentified with all of the calidum within the upper regions of the nuiverse, i.e. wilh both steUae and sot. 301 This amounts to the identification of Zeus and ether in the Stoic302 sense. For this itlt~Jltifica.tiou our evideJJC{~ is quite sufficient: SVF II,1077 (= Cic., ND I,40) idemque (se. Chrysippus) disputat aethera esse eum qztem homines Iovem appellarent; SVF II,l176 (= Philocl. De piet. p. 79 Gompcrz; Diels, JJox. 546) ~(oc oe -rov orWepoc. 303 An interesting parallel is afforded by Achilh.:s, I nlr. (p. 82,8 ff. l\laass:JM) ~(oc oe ot f!EV 'TOV oupocv6v' o·~ OE 'TO V cxWipoc, (jt OE 'TO V ·~t.LOV ... e~eoi~IXV't"O. Cf. also joannes Diaconus, AUeg. in Thcugoniam p. 381, 305 Z'~voc -rov cxWipcx ot"Yj-teov, "!OU"te fL IX a Lv, tcriX oz -ro ~c; iJ.zyEOe:crt, xoc!. XIX"t'OC -r67toucrwc;7 1't;US . IS .J1: lte

~~

~rn-poc

~

text as proposed by J3oll,8 except for the first part (Ch. 2,66-71 R.), where he suggested ... 't'oc~w 'Lxz~ ...-;~ -ri::N ~;p!(llV b:~oxfl !'-Ef!.S(nofdv'Tlv, <W0'7tZp XCX't'~ wprt.t; (~fl~O'fLevli'.c; OCXOAOU0er::t cr !Lb ~AtOt;, -~AL(p ~e crr::A.-r,vfl, which is supposed to mean ''Die Gestirne ... habcn ihn~ Ordnung durch (lie Aufeinanderfolge dcr Zeiten im Jahre eingeteilt, (wie in gemessenen Zeiten folgt) dem Monde die Son ne nnd der Sonne der l\fond". This reconstruction is, I think, unacceptable: (1) also in this place, we have to follow the guidance of the Latin transla.tio11s and of ps. Galen. They translate ordinem ... tentporum lrade-~tdomm and 'sie sind die Ursache der Jahreszeiten'. 8 That is to say, not the order of the seasons determines that of the appearance of the stars, but the other way round: the snccession of the stars determines that of the seasons. (2) Boll's interpolation of wcmfi'.p ... wpLcrfLboc": is un1 'The seven _planets' is the unl y ra ti•.md transla t.io.n of ?i.mp~ -rtt oi)p{v,.1( i:lr-rd: l6v-r<X. The heavenly bodies mentiowod in the text cannot be meant, for sun + moon + 3 pairs of fixed stars give a total of eight (fur this simple sum, cf. BrJll, o.c.. 220). It is irrelevant to argue in favour of the deletion of one or the otl1er of these eight from the list (c:f., howeveT, the attempts of H.oscher, 1919, 67 ff.). l:hukert, o.c. 291, n.78 suggests that by 'seven' the stan; composing the r;onstcllations arc meant; indeed, "A.px•o.; ;~.nd the Pleiafts consist of ~:even stars each; but wimt about Siriu,; and Areturns? 5 Ms. iv~ozi'j[Wt with the sun) an' of equal length a:> the sun-year. The month cons.ists of lhirty t.lays. The 'Creat Year' is finished whenever all of the seveu piauds return tC> lhe same places (this I:J.si. piece of information is only in Stoba.eus). In 32,2 we suddenly ht,ar that some people identified the Great Year with one or 1he other oi the wdl--knovm year-cycles: that of 8 years, that of 19 yeam o.r that of 59 year:; (d. also Censorinus, De die natal-i Ch. lR). This is a. ut suddenly (n.b. only in Stubaeus) t!H: Jormer type of Great Year (a:; in 32,1) is again spoken of, aml we are told that some pcople said that a new Great Year starts whenever 'the seven planets retun1 to the "Apwt'ot:;

142

For it is altogether possible that influences of the planets upon the weather were something he believed in quite innocently. This part of astrometeorology has been studied by J. H6hr 211 and R. Boker. 30 Rohr31 established that no traces of this doctrine are to be found in the Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle or Theophrastus. 32 His earliest paralleP3 is a passage from Philo, Op. mund. 113, I, p. 39,22-40,6 CohnW. on the influence of the seven planets3": -rov p.zv ·rO:p (se. the air) d~; Tlic; &TI)GLOll~

bctx.o),(JtJ(-LS\10:ci.i'.i,o•Jm

(-LU!JL<Xc:; G!JIXii.; with these para.pegmati.sts may imply a differentiation between N. and N.-E.

148

with him is N.-E. 16 This rose is the one described by Vitruvius, 1,6,4-5 17 and recommended by the Roman architect for the purposes of practical town-planning (1,6,6-8 and 12-1.3). It is described by Pliny, Nat. V1,33l ff. and recommended by him for practical agricultural purposes. The general surveys of Gcllins, II,22,3 ff. and Pliny, Nat. II,l19 ff. describe it, giving both the Latin and the Greek windnames. Agathemerus, GGlVI IJ, p. 472 describes it before describing the rose of Tirnosthenes. In the first Cent. B. C., i\ndrmiicus of Cyrrhus, mentioned by Vitruvius 1,6,4, built his fanwus T(rwei' of the Winds at Athens, of which eHough survives to be certain that hi~; win(b were ~OflEIXc; (N.), xomdou; (N.-E.), ~qri)AtC:l'!'l)c;, dipoc;, VOToc;, A(~, sz~oupoc; and mdf>WV (N.-W.). We also have a late H.oman wind-rost~, which has the singularity of calling N.-E. Borcas and N.-W. ( !) Aquilo.l8 As to the wind-names of this rose of 8 winds, there are some divergences. 19 The N.-\V. wind is always called &f>yea-djc,fcortts, except on Andronicus' Tower, where it is called eocc,. Koctx(occ, is not used by either the 'Egyptian' parap(~gmatists or Hipparchus, while our Homan sources invariably have aquilo21 Jboreas for N.-E. A possible explanation is that also Xes although there is some information about wind-names and wind-S)'Stems. Aristotle's rose counted 10 winds. In Hellenistic times two wind-roses \Vere in use, one of 12 and one of 8 winds, of which that of 8 apparently was the most practical. The ·wind-rose of Hebd. is no other than this practical wind-rose of 8 winds, minns 1 wind. Ch. 3,14 ff. lists these winrls as follows, starting at the East and proceeding counter-clockwise: q:p6)'t'oc;> 33 ~ cxpx-.o.:; S1-C , <E:L>'t"Ot c,E:'fWpoc;, (.l.E:'L' OC1hov 8' (; t..£·~, ilm:~-r:Ct. v6't'oc;, iz6!J.e:'IO an addition of the translator, ·who thereby indicates he is transliterating andfor using an unusual ·word (n.h.: no q11i appellatur with either africtts or eurus). The only motive for not translating A.£tj! by africtts has to be that africus had been nsed up already. Therefore Rchm's hypothesis of a transliterated and later corrupted arctus is rdutcrl. This still leaves us with the difficult africus (instead of aquilo 38 ) as the equivalent of ~op:£-rlc;. This admits of an explanation: the translator misinterpreted ixor.Levot;; ~op~'t)c; as meaning: 'the wind connecterl with Boreas'. Now the wi1;.d connected with Borea~~ on the diameter of the wind-rose is no other than c~fricus. This mistranslation had the automatic consequence that africus could not be used again, this time for translating A.t~. Consequently, the translator had to transliterate later on in the text. R•~hm's sub:>idiary hypothesis that the order of wind-names in the Latin translation is at one point wrong is un-

that

~ope't)c;,

84 Boil, Kl. Schr. 218, n.l. This proposal was uns11t:cessful. l{oscher (1911, p. 81-2) assumed that &pytcr-r1y; had been left oat, which hos been llllivcr-

sally accepted. His .reasons for making Boreas N.-E. and Arktias N. arc, however, not convincing. 36 Windr. 31. 36 Cf. tl1e material collected by Nielsen, o.c., 82 ff. and Sen., Nat. V,16,4 ab oriente hiberno eur,us exit, quem nostri 11ocauert< vulturnum ... sed et curus iam ciuitate donatus est p.t nostra sermoni non tarnqua:m alienus intt•r7•enit, 37 Cf. Nielsen, o.c., 92. 38 See above, p. 149, n. 21.

152

necessary. It even complicates matters furtlwr, for on this hypothesis scptcntrio would tram;late not t &px-cot suppn::.e, howz'Ycr, that t :Xp•r:roc; i~' the cotTuption of a windtumze. I<ehnr11 corn~ctatetil1ers Diokles von J{arystos, (Abh. Preuss. Ak. Wiss. 1938, phil.-hist. Kl. 3, p. 1 ff. = Scripta minora II, Roma 1960, 185 ff.; the texts ibd. p. 209 ff.). P. Wendland's suggestion (Berl. Phil. \Vochenschr. 1889, 987 and 1892, 872) that Nicomachus was Macrobius' source has been recently reaffirmed by \V. H. Stab!, Nlacrobius Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, transl. with intr. and notes, N. Y.-London 1952, 2 1966, p. 28, n.13 (here he says that l\lacrobius translated part of the Theol. ar.; at p. 38, where he tells us that he accepts the arguments of Robbins' Tradition, he suggests that l\Iacrobius either directly or indirectly followed Nicomachus, or else followed a Ncoplatonic source which in its turn would be drawing upon Nicomachus' Theol.). However, Jaeger o.c. 216 ff. appositely refuted this hypothesis, which does not explain why ~\lacrobim; left out the arithmological interpolations ma.de by Nicomachus. The problem of 1\Iacrobius' immediate source for his arithmological chapters appears to be still unsolved. P. Courcelle, Les lettres g1'ecques en accident de JVlaC1'obe a Cassiodore, Paris, 1942, 2 1948, who wanted to derive most of Macrobius' commentary from the works of especially Porphyry and Plotinus, made a single exception (p. 25): In somn. Se. 1,5 and 6 would be derived, through an anonymous 'commentateur latin', from Varro, i.e. ultimately from Posidonius; K. l\frass, J.11acrobius' Kommentar zu Cicero's Somn-ium, Sb. Preuss. Ak. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 1933 (232 if.), 238 ff. assumed that Porphyry's Commentary on the Timaeus was Macrobius' source for these subjects. 4° Cf. above, Ch. II, p. 33 and ibd., n. 8; Ch. V A, p. 130, n. 4; Ch. \TI, p. 213 ff. 41 Jaeger, V erg. Fragm. 207. Cf., however, below, p. 165, n. 50. 42 Cf. below, p. 167, n. 59.

164

oTijc; xe:rpoc/..~c; (it should be kept in mind that 3 X 9 about equals 4 X 7). The second passage is fr. 176 Wellmann (Galen, XVIIA p. 1006 K.): according to almost all physicians, the male fetus not only d7t-r.Xc;, hilo. About the date of this psendo-Pythagorean wot·k nothing is known with any certainty (Nicom. provides tbe t.a.q.), so it may have been earlier than Philo. It should be noted that the etymology z7tdc;- am-.o':r, also occurs Macr. 1,6,45. The correspondence between Philo and Prorus is more in favonr of a common source than of the assumption that Prorus was Philo's source. The reference to septemma.y have been added, however, by Philo himself, who presumably was ahle to connt to ten i11 Latin. But one may also be permitted to think 0f an ultimate sonrce, e.g. a well-known philosopher of the first Cent. B. C. who received many Homan visitors a.nd appears to have been fond of etymologies. 69

169

With fourteen years, the child ~~iaxzt (pubescit) and moveri incipit 'Uis ge·nerationis in masculis70 et purgatio feminarum. In the third hebdomad the beard appears, 71 and the child grows in length; in the fourth hebdomad the increase in breadth is finished, while in the fifth hebdomad the increase of all forces is finally completed: at 35 years, the physical optimum is reached. This perfection of man with 35 years is clearly parallel to that of the embryo with 35 days. The doctrine of the ages of man in 1\Iacrobius and N icomaclms must be that of Diocles and Strato. 72 Up to 42 years, the ph~rsical forces remain intact, but an imJwrceptible decline sets in towards the 49th year. At 49 (only in .Macrobius 1,6, 75) th< 7): a man of 49 et consilio aj1tus sit nee ab excrcitio virium aho1u.s ltabeatur.n At 10 >~ 7 years, the span of human years has been completed. From now on, people may retire from work and liw~ the life of the mind. If we now return to the passage of Moderatus ap. Theo which has been paraphrased above, we immediately percieve that, with one exception, it contains nothing which is not found in Diodes and Strato74 : ()';~ -re w)~-~tjzt~ Y..o:fl' zB3ovoci'lo;. -r>J youv Bpeq;ollow) is different from that in Leg. all. I, 10 (which is closer to Nicomachus-i\Iacrobius). Cf. below, p. 180-1, n. 140, where these two passages are compared, and p. 181-2, n. 145, where reasons are given for the assumption that Leg. all. I, Ch. 4 is in some respects closer to the orginal source. Op. mumi. also contains other traces ·which point at the use of a revised source: the announcement in 103 mentions the development of the embryo, but this subject is only treated as far away as Op.1mmd. 124 (cf. below, p. 181-2, n. 145). There, we find a quotation from llebd. Ch. 1 (cf. below, p. 203, n. 263) concerning the development of the embryo, upon which (as in llebd. Ch. 1, cf. again below, p. 203. n. 263) a remark concerning the role of the number 7 in diseases follows (125; cf. also 1/ebd. Ch. 26-7), to which, in Philo, the name of Hippocrates has not been attached, presumably because a statement on menstruation has been put between the dictum on embryology and that on 7 in diseases. Compared to the account of Nicomachus-Macrobius. that of Op. mund. is certainly secondary. Because the reference to Hippocrates and liebd. in Calcidius quoted above is parallel to the account in Op. mund. 125, I submit that Adrastus adduced the same (secondary) source as Philo. For other e\·idence that Philo used a secondary source cf. below, p. 199, p. 202. 99 For Theo, cf. above, p. 170--1. 100 Cf. above, p. 163.

173

Varro ap. Censorinum 101 belongs to the first. To the problem ofthese different strains in Varro I shall return below. 102 The disparity between the two families of a.rithmologists should be formulated, I think, as follows. The second family (Varro ap. Gellinm; Moderatus ap. Theo; Nicomachns ap. [Iambl.] Theol. ar.; Macrobius; Calddhts; J\Ia.-tianus Capella) has the Diocles-Strato passage (or an abstract of this passage) as its distinguishing mark. The first family (Varro ap. Censorinum; Philo; Anatolius) is charactedzed by the quotations of Solon fr. 19 Diehl and Hebd. Ch. 5. The features shared by the expositions in both families can he accounted for on the assumption that Solon fr. 19 Diehl is one of the sources of Diocles-Strato103 and, as I \vould like to add now, of lJef,d. Ch. 5104 as well. In addition to Solon, other predecessors of Diodes and Strato can be pointed out, such as Hippo (last part of the fifth Cent. B. C.), the author of Ca.rn., that of Oct. and that o( [Arist.] HA VII. Hippo (ap. Censor. 7,2 ;:,=o VS 38A16) said that the baby in the womb is viable with seven months, tl1at the first teeth of the infant grow with seven months, that they fall out with seven years and that puberty begins with fourteen.l05 Consequently, in Hippo we have a theory about the embryo which is combined with an account of the first two hebdomads Cf. above, p. 1G2. P. 185 ff. 103 Cf. above, p. 171 and Jaeger, o.c. 224. Aristotle approvingly refers to Solon's elegy in Poiit. VIT, 1.6, 1335b33 ff_ (,;&v ·r;ot'IJ'l:rial would have been borrowed from a post-Posidonian secondary source. De Falco explains the Stoic ideas in Nicomachus' version of this material by assumi!Jg that Nicomachus occasionally did use Posi'Y. (p. 40,10-11). In /,eg.all. I, Ch. 4,8 (l, p. 63,9 ff. Cohn-W) which in somf.' respects appears to be closer (cf. above, p. 180-.1, n. 140) to the original Pm;idonius-version than Op.mund. which, a.s I believe, is dependant on the anonymous arithmologist (according to L. Cohn, Einteilung und Clzronologie d.er Sthriften Philos, PhiJ., Supp.-Bd. VU, 1899, 431 ff., Leg. all. is earlier than Op. mund. ), the periods of the moon are mentioned before and in connection with the embryology and the account of the ages of man (for which cf. above, p. 180-1, n. 140): here we read that 'the changes of the moon, O'>fL7tet6e:ical treatises as well, 20 2 and that arithmologists may have continued to make excerpts frmn comments or commentaries on the Timaeus.2os It is, however, permissible to try to answer a few questions. First, it is, I think, indef~d unlikely that Posiclonins wrote something

The closeness of the Tuhero to the Hebdom.ail,•s (i.e. to the Theo-family of aritbmologists) is in f;,vour of ea. 40 B. C. as a da.te for this treatise, i.e. in favour of considering L. Aelins Tu hero as the protagonist of this logistoricus. 199 Cf. the quotation frorn Diels, above p. 159. 200 Cf. above, Ch. II, p. 48 n. 44. 201 .For Philo, see above, p. 173 n. 98, p. 180-1, n. 140, p. 182-3, IL 148. 202 Cf. above, p. 172-3, n. 98, on the possibility that Adrastus used an adthmologieal trP.atise. 203 Though all the vestiges of a commentary on the Timaeus in the arithmological literature may have been derived from Posidonins' Cwmnents by the fin>t wholly arithmological writer. The remark in Theo quoted above (p. 179), that. Plato construcied the \Vorld-Soul in the Tima T~!J.::C(q>; in Lyd., Mens. II.12, p. 35,16-17 Wuensch this becomes xcd y.Xp 1-ljv tyux_~v o Tt!iiXlO[-- .. rrp6crwn-Q'I b:-r.xx.7i xoc't'oc't' quiddam ex so lis splendoribus congregatum terrae, hoc quod ... cal-idum est. 11 For the liquid element within the earth cf. Ch. 6,§1,20-29 R. 12 The presence of the cold element (air) within the earth is not mentioned

8 1913, p. 24 (cf. above, Ch. I, p. 17, n. 70). In Ch. 15,9 H.. the ms.-reading aqtta.e should be retained, cf. 15,7 sulis; 15,11 aeris; 15,13 terrae (below, n. 9). 1 On the .four elements in Ch. 6, cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 78-81. 9 The opening sentence of Ch. 15 is opaque; perhaps Quae autem mundus tradet( ?) corporibus, ea tam se (eatenus A, actetms P) habent quam (qu1'm P) atdmalia et quae nascuntur ( = tp\l-rck) omnia. It is clear that the composition of the bodies of living beings is compared to that of the universe, as al the beginning of Ch. 6 (cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 106). The A~[.l!J.a: of ps.··Galen, Nr. 94-5 Bergstr. is not very helpful, as it is more like a paraphrasis than a translation. 8 Terra habet calidam quidem solis pat"lem; licorem autem onmern aquae; quod autem frigidum flatwm aeris; quod ossosum et carnosmn terrae. •o Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 79, p. 81, p. 90, esp. for the presence of heat and water within the earth. 11 Ibd., p. 79, p. 90-l. 12 Ibd., p. 81.

206

in Ch. 6, but the identification of earth in the proper sense of the word with bones and flesh (Ch. 15,12-13 R. quod ossosum et carnosum terrae) is exactly parallel to Ch. 6,§1,14 R. ossa 13 and 18 caro. ·-The next sentence, 14 again, is not wholly clear; however, that the earth is mundi nutrix... ex licore reminds one of Ch. 1,94-5 R. 7tOCV't'p6qJoc; ~~ \J~o:'t'oc; ioucro:, while ad statum animal£um et quae nascunter may be compared to Ch. 1,91 ff. R er.p' fJ "6. 't'::: ~ij)o: xo:L 't'. The sentence following upon this onc 1 " can a] so be paralleled from part 1: \Vith aqua ... nutrime·ntum cf. 7to:v..-pf!rpoc; i~ \J~O('t'oc; ioucro:, with aqua as vas calitlum cf. Ch. 1, 78 ff. R., 011 the Ele:pf1.6v blended with the liquid dt~ment.1 6 Next we read (Ch. 15,19 ff.R.) quod autem solis calor17 est, <est> crementum et motus omnib·us. 18 This goe,; much further than Ch. 1,85 ff.R, where it is only said that heat is the cause of the ·mot·ion of the liquid elementl9 ; however, d. Ch. 2,51 ff. R., where it is said that the elements are self-moved. 20 It will be remembered, moreover, that we had occasion to argue that in part I heat must be assumed to be the cause of motion not only of water, but of the other elements as well.21 Last but not least, we hear that the 'cold irrigation of the air' coagulates the water, making it into an earth-like substance. 22 This recalls the solidifying effect of cold responsible for the constitution of both ;;kin and the outermost heavenly spher(;:, Ch. 6,§2,21 ff. R. Consequently, the theory of the elements of Ch. 15 corresponds to that of part I: both the xp~crL Cf. also Ch. 23,18 ff. R. 76 The Pneumatic physicians gave elaborate prescriptions on how to live and what to eat during the various seasons (Wellmann, p. 205 ff.; on precautions against the heat of summer ibd., p. 209). 77 Cf. Wellmann, o.c. 228-9. 78 For corresponding Pneumatic theories cf. Wellmann, o.c. 166-7.

217

various ways, ante accessio1tem 79 (Ch. 30,21 R.): cf. Ch. 30,3 ff.R, the patient's legs and arms should be anointed multo calido aliquo and then be rubbed80 until the heat returns; his arms, legs and especially the head. should be warmed as much as possible, and his body should be anoi11ted with an oil containing various hot ingretlients81 ; aqu.am calidant should be 'giv·en' to the tibia, the body de. by means of \Vuol or from mugs which have been heated beforehand. 82 On the other hand, in case of diutumac and A:.Mpu-.ov and 7tve€if.LOt: 9ux~x6v

221

the hot of the soul has withdrawn towards the place above the diaphragm and burns up all the moisture 99 ·which is there; hczLMv b 1tAEUfJ.WV Y.IZL -~ xccpOLIX T·~v bqL&occ &7to~tXArrov (·:Hj7r:Zp xaJ. -rol3 cr-rQ!L'XTQ~ Tt'AfQv [L!X). 11 ° For the lungs cf. above, p. 222, n. 102 and n, 103. 111 If he does not respond, this is a very bad sign (Ch. 51, l09 ff. R) For respiration in the semiological section cL also Ch. 40,0 ff. R. et ex uenhsitate qne~n­ admodum anhelant (because ventosus is a Latin equivalent of 7t'le:'J:tct-rt:-tl,~. the probable Greek word translated by ventositas is 7t'le:u!L!X'Wl'!Lo;, 'use of the breathing'); Ch. 46,.B fL R. To 11VZU[LIX [Mtvo't'e:po'l z~Xl ),e:7t-r6't'e:p!l'l is a good sign; Ch. 51,142 ff.R., on the respiration of a dving patient. 112 Cf. \Vellmann, o,c. 138: 'Die Atmung (ivoc1tvrn)) client. .. in crster Linie der inneren \Varme zur Abkiihlung'; cf. also Verbeke, o.c. 196. The theory of Ch. R,3 ff. H. (on the first two ways in which the head helps to sustain life) i,, similar: frigidi introitus per quem ubique patet; ... secunda fervoris r:xalatio ex omni corpore. That the function of breath is to cool the inner heat was alre;vly held by Philistion and Diocles (Diodes fr. 15 Wellmann), Plato (e,;~- Tim. 70e), Aristotle (e.g. PA 1IT,6,66Rb34 ff., De itw. 23 ff. = 487b22 fL) 113 •.• simul equidenz aerium spiritum quod abstracto quae aninwc habet et rcspirans naribus trahentcs A, simul quidem etherio spiritztm quod ad statu que anime habent et respirant naribus trahentes P. I propose to read simul rquidem ai!rio spirito abstracto quem animae habent et respirant naribus trahentes or something similar, for (1) the pneuma of the soul is distinguished from the pneuma which is breathed 3L.X Tc7>V

223

certain cases, the patient ought to be bled because the blood extra naturam has entered the entrails and the veins (venae) and causes disease there by pushing out both the airy 'breath' (aerium spiritum 7tVe:u[.toc) of the soul (quem animae habent) and the 'breath' which enters through the nose (respirant naribus trahentes). The distinction between the (if I may say so) 7tve:u(J.oc ~ux~x.ov and the 7tve:u[J.oc &voc7tve:6[.te:vov recalls the details of Pneumatic doctrine, the more so, because the two kinds of pneuma distinguished in Ch. 29,11 ff.R are in some way related.ll 4 That a disturbing of the pneuma causes diseases is also a Pneumatic doctrine. 115 The reference to the blocking of the pneuma in the veins is a little puzzling, for according to the Pneumatics both veins and art!~ries contain blood as well as pneuma, though it is the arteries which contain more pneuma than blood. 116 Perhaps the Latin translations are inaccurate, or perhaps venae comprizes both arteries and veins, which is, as I believe, the most likely hypothesis117 ; or, perhaps again, the author of Hebd. has pretensions to originality. In Ch. 6,§1,24-25 R. we find that there is blood in the veins. 118 Furthermore, in the semiological section the pulse is mentioned (Ch. 40,1 and 11 R. iudicare ... ex venis): in Ch. 46,26 ff. R. it is a good sign if oct in through the nose and (2) this pneuma can no longer enter the veins and reach the entrails, because the veins have become filled, extra naturam, with blood only. 114 For the 1tve:u1.Lot of the Pneumatics, d. \Vellmann, o.c. 137 ff., 141; cf. esp. 137 'das Pneuma ist das Eingeatmete, dass sich dem cr'Ji.tcpu-rov 7tVe:UiJ.ot assimiliert' (his theory that the 'inner pneuma' is the source of the inner heat is based upon a wrong interpretation of the two passages quoted o.c. 137 n.7). The 'breath' of the soul has the function of the 7tVe:UtLot ~(•>TLxov. 115 Wellmann, o.c. 141. 116 Wellmann, o.c. 70, 139-40; Vcrbeke, o.c. 195. 117 If he really means the veins in contrast to the arteries, this theory could be an inversion of that of Erasistratus, who held that disease is caused by a blocking of the pneuma when blood from the veins unnaturally enters into the arteries (cf. e.g. P. Diepgen, Geschichte der 1Vfedizin I, Berlin 1949, 97-8). However, the word venae, (not a1'teriae), occurs in Celsus' description of Erasistratus' theory, De med., proem 15 si sanguis in eas venas, quae spiritui accommodatae sunt, transfunditur et inflammationem, quem Graeci cp:f.e:y:.toV'I)V nominant, excitat eaque inflammatio talem mot-um efficit, qualio in febre (!)est, ut Erasistrato placuit. So venae could be used in a larger sense and include both veins and arteries, as is probably also the case in the other passages in Ilebd. concerning the venae which I am about to quote (a distinction being only made in Ch. 14,1 ff.R.) 118 aqua autem fluminum imitatio est venae et qui in venis est sanguinis (cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 79, p. 103).

224

e

··'

... 'o (t rans1a t e d venae) otL• tv · -men - xepr:n' xoct' ev ' 't'OLO'L - x.ocv OLt:n ~ tp"epe.; xoct E7tt "t"f)11w ocrtppu~IJO'LV ·i-JO'UX£1)\1 f-xwm, 7tpo-repov !J.~ YJ(t)v as a unity is extremely strong. The only arguments in favour of a distinction of two mutually independent parts are: (1) the fact that in part I, the '\Varmelehre' is perhaps more important than in part II, with its theory of the hot and the cold etc. However, the hot is, also in part II, the most important entity. 139 (2) The fact that the arithmology of part I is not applied in part II. This is a serious argument, which undoubtedly will not be easily refuted. I, for one, can offer no other explanation for this discrepancy than that the arithmology of Ch. 1-11 was only needed to establish the general premiss of the structural unity of and connection between microcosm and macrocosm, while in the medical part of the treatise only the qualitative aspect of this parallel had to be considered. When vie·wed in this light, the opposition between the two parts of the treatise is another example of the clash between a quantitative and a qualitative interpretation of nature which is typical of much, and even of much of the finest, of ancient thought. What's more, this disparity is in our case certainly mitigated by the fact that, in the first part of Hebd., number itself is concieved in a purely qualitative way.

Cf. Ch. 15,19 ff.R. (quoted above, p. 207), Ch. 24,1 ff.R. (quoted above, p. 215), and the role of the calidum of the soul in pathology etc.

139

228

CONCLUSION

The results of our investigation may be summed up as follows: the ps. Hivpocratic tract 1t. €~oo[J.&owv has to be counted among those works in the Corpus Hippocraticum which have been added a number of centuries after the oldest works of the collection had been composed. The treatise consists of an arithmological introduction (Ch. l-11), which is strongly influenced by the theories of Posidonius. This influence is visible in many details, the most important of which are the typically Posidonian idea of the 'vitalism of the elements', the parallel between the microcosm and the macrocosm and the arithmology proper. A transitional chapter (Ch. 12) connects the theory of the elemental powers and the microcosm-macrocosm-theory of Ch. l-11 with those of Ch. 13-52, which form a treatise on the etiology, therapy and semiology of fevers and other acute diseases. This treatise on fevers explains the phenomena of disease by referring to a theory of elemental qualities and to the parallel between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Both its general theory and many details of its therapy are related to the doctrines of the Pneumatic School of Medicine (which was influenced by the Stoicism of Posidonins). The last chapter (Ch. 53). which announces a second volume, is probably spurious. II. €~8o[.L<X8wv admits of a consistent interpretation when ea. 60-30 B. C. is accepted as its date of composition (it is influenced by Posidonius and Pneumatic Medicine and was known to Varro). If it is put in the first Cent. B.C., the treatise strongly reflects a feature typical of this century, viz. the return to the Classics. 1 Plato and the An excellent impression of the classicistic trend in the philosophy of the first Cent. B. C. is conveyed by 0. Gigon, Die Erneuerung der Pkilosophie in der Zeit Ciceros, in: Recherches sur la tradition Platonicienm, Entret. Hardt Ill, Vandoeuvres-Geneve 1955, 25 ff. 1

229

Early Academy arc rediscovered by Antiochus of Ascalon and Posidonius, Theophrastus by Posidonius 2 ; the works of the founding fathers of the Peripatetic School are re-edited by Amlronicus; the Pneumatic School of Medicine, starting with Posiclouius' contemporary Athenaeus of Attalia, turns again to the Classics of medical literature, while some of its early adherents (the authors of Atim. aml Cord.) even revive the literary dialect of 'Hippocrates'. Hebd. partakes of this general orientation both iu its literary, its v1tilosophical and its more strictly medical aspects, though it can be proved that iL is a child of its time. If this proof is rejcctetl in favour of assuming an early date of composition for this treatise, li1e following auacltrunisms slwuhl be capable of being defelllled: l. Tlw author of Jlebd. part I, thougl! writing, say, ea. ·100 B.C. or e\'Cll earlier, expressed himsdf occasionally in the idiom of Hellenistic aml Graeco-I~oman times. 2. He anticipated Plato's theory of a self-moYed entity, Aristotle's theory of an entity which is both self-moved and moved by something else, the Stoic theory of xpicnc;, and Posidonius' theory of the elements as livi11g beings. 3. He anticipated the structural arrangement of the doxographicalliteratnre and of the general philosophical exposition of tht• first Cent. B.C. 4. He anticipated a wind-ruse of the Hellenistic period. 5. He anticipated the Graeco-Roman astrometeorological conception that the planets influence the seasons of the year. 6. He anticipatecl a number of arithmological ideas (including some minute points of detail) \Vl1ich were much later exponnded in Posidonius' Comments on the Tinzaeus. 7. The author of llebd. part II, writing ea. 400 or, say, even ea. 350 B. C., anticipated the Stoic-Posidonian theory of the xpiimc; of elemental qualities. 8. He anticipated the etiological and therapeutical doctrine,; of the Pnenmatic School of !VIedicinP. 9. Just as the author of part I, he occasionally· expressed himself in the idiom of Hellenistic and Graeco-ltoman times. 10. Notwithstanding these remarkable achievements, the author of H ebd. part II did not distinguish himself from other Hippocratics, whik the author of Jlebd. part I had a poor mind. To the mind of the present writer, these assumptions are unacceptable, and certainly so when taken together. Consequently, it would appear that llebd. has to be \vritten off as an (independent) sourn' for Presocratic thougltt. Howcn·r, this loss for Presocratic 2

P. Steinmetz. J>ie Physi/i rlrs Theop!mcst, 331 ff.

230

studies is compensated by gains in other fields, viz. that of the philosophic ko£ne of the first Cent. B.C. and that of Posidonian studies, while some extra light is shed upon the early years of the Pneumatic School of Medicine as well. In some cases, the information to be gained from Hebd. confim1s what we already knew or thought we had suJficient reason to belie\·e. Confirmation of views concerning the elusive Posidonius, however, is most welcome, and it is hoped that the present study will have achieved, among other things, a small contribution to the discussion of such vexing and well-worn problems as Posidonius' vitalism and his 'Comments' upon the Timaeus.

231

INDEX OF NAMES (modern names italicized)

Abet, K., 33 n. 7, 34 and notes, 35. Achilles of Alexandria(?), 11.1 and n. 244. Adra.stus of Aphrodisias, 163 n. 34, 172-3 n. 98, 182 n. 145, 192 n. 202. Aenesidemus of Cnossus, 186. Aetius of Antioch, 130 and n. 4, 131, Ch. V A (passim), 141 ff. Aetius of Amida, 4, 8 n. 27, 135 n. 27, 213 n. 50. Agathemerus (geographer), 148, 149, 150 and n. 23. Alcmeon of Croton, 38, 39, 59. Alexander of Aphrodisias, 65 n. 55, 90 n. 121, 98 n. 163, 100 n. 171. Alexander Philalethes, 135 n. 27. Alexander Polyhistor, 24 and n. 109, 64, 81 n. 75, 98 ff., 131. Allei'S, R., 105 11. 195. Altmann, G., 157 n. 5,18211.147. Anatolius of Alexandria, 157 n. 4, 158 n. 8, 160, 174, 181, 185, 192, 197 and n. 233, 11. 234, 198 and n. 242, 200, 201, 202. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, 27 n. 129, 29 n. 145, 38, 59 n. 25, 60 n. 31. Anaximander of Miletus, 18 and n. 76, n. 77,25 n. 115,44, 45, 47,56 and n. 11, n. 12, 57, 58 n. 22, 60 n. 31, 62 and n. 41, 83 n. 80, 86. Anaximenes of Miletus, 18, 46, 56 and n. 11, 57, 58 and n. 19, n. 22, 60, 107, 108 n. 212, n. 213, 141 n. 23. Androcydes the Pythagorean, 49. Andronicus of Cyrrhus, 149. Andronicus of Rhodes, 230.

Antiochus of Ascalon, 230. Antcm,]. P., 90 n. 121. Aratus of Soli, 142 and n. 25, n. 27. Archelaus of Athens, 29 n. 145, 46. Archigenes of Apameia, 212, 215 n. 66, 216 and n. 71, 225. Aretaeus of Cappadocia, 33 n. 4, 35, 213 n. 53, 215 n. 65, 225, 226. Aristophanes, 17 and n. 67, 151. Aristotle, 40, 41, 43,44 n. 37,46 n. 42, 61 and n. 39, 62, 68 n. 17, 69 ff., 78, 80 and n. 74, 82 and n. 78, n. 79, 83 n. 80, 84, 85 and n. 95, 86, 89 n. 121, 95 n. 148, 97 n. 162, 101 n. 181, 107, 121, 122 n. 291, 124 n. 296, 135 n. 27, 137 n. 36, 143, 146, 149, 151, 154, 166 n. 53, 168 n. 60, 174 n. 1.03, 176 n. 119, 177 and n. 127, 178 and n. 129, 211 n. 40, 212, 223 n. 112, 230. Arius Didymus of Alexandria, 111, 113, 115, 116 n. 258, n. 260, 118 n. 271, n. 272, 119 n. 272, 120. Arnim, II. t•on, 95 n. 154. Arrighetti, G., 45 n. 41. Asclepiades of Bithynia, 130 n. 4, 135 n. 27, 219 and 11. 86, n. 88. Athenaeus of Attalia, 33 and n. 8, 34, 97 n. 162, 130 n. 4, 164 n. 39, 165, 167 11. 59, 170 11. 77, 214 and n. 59, 215 and 11. 66, 216, 219 n. 88, 222 n. 105, 225 and n. 122, 226, 227, 230. Atticus, T. Pomponius, 187 n. 175, 188-90. Aubert, H., 176 n. 119.

233

Aujac, G., 146 n. 1. Autolycus of Pitane, 37, 52. Baccheius of Tanagra, 9 n. 29. Bailey, H. l·V., 23 n. 104. Basilides of Alexandria, 123 n. 296. Bayer, K., 181 n. 141. Bergstriisser, G., 4 n. 9, 5 n. 10, 35. Berti, E., 73-4 n. 47. al-Bitrik, 4 n. 9. le Blond, ]. 1"11., 71 n. 35. Bollack, ]., 131 n. 8. Baker, R., 143 and n. 32, 145 and n. 43, n. 46, H6 n. 1, 147 n. 5, n. 6, 148 n. 9, n. 10, n. 15, 149 n. 16, n. 18, 150 n. 24, 151 n. 27, n. 28, 153, 154 and n. 44, n. 46. Boethus of Sidon, 99n. 169, 123 n. 295, 128. Bolt, F., 5 n. 11, 20-1, 22 n. lOO, 25 Il. 114, 11. 115, 39, 41, 58 Il. 24, 62, 121 n. 285, 125 n. 300, 138, 139 and n. 4, n. 6, n. 8, 140 n. 11, n. 12, 152 and n. 34. Bonitz, H., 61 n. 39. Borghorst, G., 157 n. 5, 163 n. 34, 172 n. 98. Bourgey, L., 12 n. 41, n. 42, 13 n. 44, 1+ n. 54. Boyance, P., 43 n. 34, 87 n. 104, 88 n. 118, 89 n. 120, 95 n. 148, n. 153, 96 n. 157, 112 n. 242, 121 n. 285, 123 n. 296, 204 n. 264. Brehier, E., 194 n. 212. Burkert, W., 24n.109, 29-30, 31 n. 151, 42 n. 27, 43 n. 34, 49 n. 46, 57 n. 16, 59 n. 28, 62 and n. 44, 63, 89 n. 120, 105 n. 198, 126 n. 301, 130 n. 4, 138, 139 n. 4, 156 n. 2, 158 n. 11, 159 n. 15, 191 n. 198. Caesar, C. Iulius, 152, 186. Calciclius, 157 n. 4, 163 and n. 37, 1703, 174, 197. Callippus of Cyzicns, 145 and n. 45. Capelle, W., 114 n. 252, 125 n. 300. Celsus, A. Comelius, 219 n. 86, 224 n. 117.

Censorinus, 157 n. 4, 158 n. 9, 159 n. 12, 162 n. 31, 185 ff., 191 n. 198. Cherniss, H., 67 n. 2, 68 11. 16, 204 n. 264. Choerilus of Athens, 26 n. 117, 107 n. 209. Chrysippus of Soli, 38, 47, 89 n. 121, 91 n. 127, 99 11. 168, 108 and n. 219, 109 and n. 222, 111 ff., 119 n. 272, 126, 167 n. 57, 194-5. Cicero, M. Tullius, 67 n. 3, 77 n. 62, 86, 87 and n. 103, 88 and n. 118, 89 n. 120,90 ff., 100, 101, 103 ff., 113, 115 and n. 253, 143 n. 28, 152, 153, 162 n. 33, 181 n. 141, 183 and n. 152, 186 and n. 169. Claudius (Tib.Cland.Caes.Aug.Germ.), 33. Cleanthes of Assus, 44 n. 35, 87 and n. 104, 88, 91 and n. 127, 93, 95, 96, 100 and n. 171, 101, 102 and notes, 103 ff., 112 and n. 244, 194 n. 219, 212. Cleidemus (in Arist.), 46. Clement of Alexandria, 60, 157 n. 4, 182 n. 146. Calm, L., 182 n. 148. Cornjord, F. NI., 43 n. 29, 45 n. 40, 56 n. 13, 67 n. 9, n. 10, 68 n. 14, n. 15, 141 n. 21, 179 n. 136. Comificius Longus, 127. Courcelle, P., 164 n. 39. Crates of Malles, 56 n. 11. Critolaus of Phaselis, 128 and n. 313. Cranert, JV., 94 n. 148. Cumont, F., 126 n. 301.

Dahlmann, H., 149 n. 17, 185 and n. 165, n. 168, n. 169, 186 and n. 172, n. 174, 187 n. 175, 188, 189 and n. 188. Darem.berg, C., 3 n. 3, 219 n. 86. Deichgriiber, K., 7 n. 21, 20 n. 86, 32, 33 and n. 3, n. 5, 34. Delatte, A., 31 n. 151, 156 n. 1, 158 n. 8. Democedes of Croton, 22 n. 99. Democritus of Abdera, 18 n. 76, 26

234

n. 124, 30 n. 148, 38, 136 n. 32, 151. Dercyllides (platonicus), 58 n. 22. Diets, H., 3 n. 3, n. 4, 17 n. 69, 19-20, 59, 122 n. 289, 130 and n. 4, 131 and n. 4, 135 n. 27, 141 n. 25. 150 n. 24, 158 11. 9, 159 and n. 12, 166 11. 53, 185, 192 11. 199. Diepgen, P., 224 u. 117. Dieterte, R., 66 u. 2. Diller, El., 25 n. lH>, 33 and notes, 34· and n. 9, 35, 213 11. 53, 226 n. 126. Diocles of Carystus, 10 and n. 35, ll, 164 ff., 174 and. n. 105, 1 n and n. 127, 178 and n. 129, n. 133, 181, 183, 203 and n. 263, 223 n. ll2. Diogenes Lacrtius, 114 u. 250, 169 11. 69. Diogenes of Apollonia, 27 n. l30, 29 11. 145, 60, 61, 108 n. 213. Diotimus of Tyrns. 137. Dirlmeier, F., 176 n. 119. Dittmayer, L., 176 n. 119. Dodds, E.R., 42n. 26. D'Ooge, M.L., 157 n. 4. Duchesne-Guillcmin, ]., 22n. 99, n. 101, 23 n. 103, n. 105, 24 n. 108, 107. Ditring, I., 69 n. 23, 74 n. 48, 75 n. 52, 82 n. 77, 176 n. 119. Edelstein, L., 12 n. 41, 14 n. 54, 32, 95 n. 149, 97 n. 162, 128 n. 317, 156 n. 2, 178 n. 129, 194 n. 217. Elders, L., 74 n. 50. Empedocles o.f Agrigentum, 26 n. 124, 27 n. 129, 29 11. 145, 38, 59 n. 24, 60, 116n. 258, 126 n. 302, 131 n. R, 136, 166 n. 53, 170 and n. 75. Epicurus, 31 n. 151, 45 and n. 41. Epigenes of Byzantium, 166 n. 53. Erasistratus of lulis (Ceos), 34, 98 n. 163, 135 n. 27, 224 n. 1.17. Eratosthenes o.f Cyrene, 24, 25 n. 116, 150 n. 24. Ermerins, F., 5 n. 11. Erotia11 (lexicographer), 4 n. 7, 7, 8 and n.26,33,34,35,49. Euclid, 195 n. 221.

Eud