The pseudo-Hippocratic tract Peri hebdomadōn. : Ch. 1-11 and Greek philosophy

J. H A M S F E L D

THE PSEUDOHIPPOCRATIC TRACT ΠΕΡΙ ΕΒΔΟΜΑΔΩΝ CH. 1-11 AND G R E E K PHILOSOPHY ctrvy)

ASSEN, VAN GORCUM DR.

Η. J .

PRAKKE

1971 & COMP.

& Η. M. G,

Ν. V. PRAKKE

Distributed in the U.S.A. by

© 1970 by Koninklijke Van Gorcnm & 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. 9 0 2 3 2 0 7 0 1 7

Printed

in the Netherlands

by Royal

VanGorciim Lid.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1 wish to thank Prof. De Vogel and Prof, Kuypers for permitting this book to be published in the Series 'Wijsgerigc Teksteii en Slut lies'; Ciiratoren of the Rijksimiversiteit Utrecht for making possible this publication b y their generous grant; the staff and printers of Royal VanGorcum Ltd. for bestowing more than usual care upon the technical aspects of this production; Mrs. G. De Boer for painstakingly typing out an almost illegible manuscript; Mrs. M. Oort for correcting m y English; Prof, De Vogel, Mr, A. Hageraats and drs. R, Volkers for invaluable assistance in reading the proofs; and, last but not least, m y wife and daughter for help in many ways, and for bearing up with m y period of gestation.

CONTENTS

CH.

ι - Introduction: The Ancient Evidence and the 'Status Quaestionis' (1. The Problem - p. 1; 2. The Ancient Evidence - p. 6; 3, 'Status Quaestionis1 - p. 16; 4. Object of the Present Study - p. 30).

1

The Vocabulary of the Greek Text of Rebel. Ch. 1-5 ,

32

CH. in

The Presocratic Parallels

54

CH. iv

Later Elements in the Cosmology of Η ebd. Ch, 1 - 1 1 ; Posidonius?

bb

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

130 138 146

CH. vi

Hebd. and Arithmology; Posidonius again

156

CH. vii

Hebd. Part II (Ch. 12-52) and its Relation to Part I (Ch. 1-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (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. 2 1 1 ; 4. Affinity with Pneumatic Medicine - p. 213; 5. The Relation between the Two Parts of

CH.

CH.

II

v

Hebd.

205

- p. 217.

CONCLUSION

229

INDEX OF NAMES

233

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

INDEX OF PASSAGES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

241 254

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: [ H E A N C I E N T E V I D E N C E AND THE 'STATUS QUAESTIONIS'

1. The 'problem. The pseudo-Hippocratic treatise Sevens (περί εβδομάδων, Η ebd.) 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 arithmologieal dissertation demonstrating the structural unity of the universe and its parts (among which is man, i.e. the body and the soul of man), a unity which is apparent from the surmised fact that all things are dominated by the number seven. In this section, several scholars have discovered parallels to Presocratic and even Early Presocratic thought. The second part of the work (Ch. 12-53), is, on the other hand, a treatise on fevers and acute diseases in general, discussing their etiology, therapy and semiology. In this section, the parallel between the universe and all living things, including man, is also presented as a scientific theory, but the arithmologieal speculations based upon the number seven, so prominent in the first part, are absent from the second. 1 Furthermore, the strictly medical part of Η ebd. is characterized by a theory of the hot and the cold, which are considered to be principles which are sufficient to explain both the universe and the living being, and which even play the part of unifying and explaining link between the microcosm and the macrocosm which is played by the number seven in Ch. 1-11 of the treatise. Differences such as these are truly remarkable, and the almost general assumption that the arithmologieal and the medical section of Hebd. must be, if not by different hands, then at least based upon different sources and/or be the respective outcome of separate traditions is in itself quite 1 With only Ch. 26-27, whicl\ treat the critical d a y s and periods of diseases, as a possible exception, for here the number 7 plays an important part. However, also the numbers 5, 9 and 11 are mentioned.

1

justified. It seems to be universally agreed that the medical section (Ch. 12-53) is in no way different from the great majority of the tracts which have been collected in the Corpus Ilippocmticum, and hence should be dated, say, somewhere between 430-370 B.C. Now, though there appears to be also a consensus about the time of incorporation of Ch. 1-11 into the treatise, which would have occurred at the time of composition of part II of Η ebd., there is no agreement on the nature of the sources of part I. fs this odd dissertation a revision of a very old treatise by an unknown natural philosopher, otherwise lost? Or is it a compilation made from various archaic sources? Or an imitation of the eclectic work of a late Presocratic thinker? These questions have been answered m various ways, but no wholly satisfactory solution has as yet been reached. It has also been argued that the disparity between the two parts of the treatise is only an apparent one; that the theory of 'hot' and 'cold' of part II is also valid for part I of Η ebd.; and that, consequently, the arithmologieal introduction was composed as an imitation of philosophical systems of contemporaries of the author of the medical section, systems which are either eclectic or betray the influence of a well-established tradition of natural philosophy. To these various points of view 1 shall return below, where they will be stated in greater detail. 2 From this survey of the status quaestionis it will become apparent that the first section of Hebd. (Ch. 1-11) lias received far more attention than the medical part of the treatise. This is only natural: we really know so little about the Presocraties, that prospects of adding a few precious pieces to our shattered and partly destroyed mosaic are quite alluring. The medical p a i l , on the other hand, has been little studied. Once it had been safely put away in the great store-house of Hippocratic medicine, it was almost forgotten. We have to go back relatively far in time if we want to pick up the threads of scholarly discussion. This neglect is to be excused, however, and not only on the grounds of the understandably greater fascination excercized by part 1, but also because of the almost intractable state of transmission in which it has reached us, Hebd. is completely extant onlv in two early mediaeval Latin translations, which are quite literal but also often quite corrupt or

2

p. 16 ff.

2

confused. 3 T h e Greek t e x t h a s b e e n lost e x c e p t for a n u m b e r of f r a g m e n t s . A P a r i s i a n m a n u s c r i p t , in w h i c h t h e b e g i n n i n g of Ch. 1 i s m i s s ing, g o e s a s f a r a s t h e m i d d l e of Ch. 5 1 ; b u t t h i s m e a n s t h a t in a n y c a s e a Greek v e r s i o n of t h e c o s m o l o g y of Ch. 1 - 2 h a s b e e n p r e s e r v e d , a piece of luck w h i c h a f f o r d e d a m p l e o p p o r t u n i t y for solid s c h o l a r l y c o m m e n t . 1 luvvever, tills t e x t is d u b i o u s in m a n y p l a c e s o w i n g to its d i s f i g u r e m e n t b y numerous corruptelae a n d to t h e poor c o n d i t i o n of t h e m a n u s c r i p t . T h e r e m a i n d e r ol the Greek t e x t of Ch. 5 h a s b e e n p r e s e r v e d in Philo's Op. mmid. (which q u o t a t i o n , b y t h e way, c o n s t i t u t e s o u r t . a . q . ) a n d other arilhmological w r i t i n g s . 5 So, on t h e whole, w e a r e n o t b a d off in respect to the Greek t e x t of Hehd. p a r t I - a l m o s t 5 of t h e 11 c h a p t e r s h a v e been (more or less) preserved in t h e o r i g i n a l i d i o m . T h e c o n d i t i o n of part i l is far worse. A l t h o u g h Greek f r a g m e n t s of p a r t I I h a v e s u r v i v e d (some h a v e been q u o t e d in ps. G a l e n π . αιτίας π α θ ώ ν , 6 o t h e r s an 4 to be f o u n d embedded in v a r i o u s w o r k s of t h e H i p p o c r a t i c Col-

Λ (Ambrosia mis C 108» discovered by Dareinberg, ed. princefs in K. Lit Ire's Oeuvres completes d'liip ρ aerate Vol. IX,433 ff.) and Ρ (Parisians hit. 7027, discovered by Li tin.', ed. prince pa ibd. Vol. VII 1,634 ff.). These manuscripts are described by J. Oberg» Die medizinische Schrift "Über die Siehenzahr und die Schule von Knidos, in: Griechische Studien IL Lips ins dargebracht, Leipzig 1894, 2 5 ff. CL also IL Diefs, Die Handschriften der antiken Arzte, I. Teil, Hippokrates bis Galenas, Abh. Lreuss. Ak., Pliil.-Ilist. Abt. III, 1905, p, 32 and ibd., II. Teil, p, 27. The Latin idiom of the translations is discussed by K. .Mr ass, Sprachliche und textkritische Bemerkungen zur spätlateinischen Übersetzung der Ilippokratischen Sehr iß von der Siebenzahl, W.St. 41 (1919), 61 ff., who explains and defends so;n-% manuscript readings wliidi had been emended by earlier editors. 1 Discovered by Li tire and printed for the first tunc Vol. IX,43 3 if. Smaller ffa^iiieiilrs of thv b
goricienne, Paris 1915, p. 182 ff.).

Ch. 14; Ch. 19; the beginning and one other sentence of Ch. 20; two small fragments of Ch. 23; a fragment of Ch. 24; the greater half of Ch. 28. These ftagriieiits were first edited by CL Helmreich, Neue Ptagmente zu Hippokrates 7τ ε ρ ί : [3 δ ο μάδιυν, Hermes 46 (191 1), 437 ff,; they have been incorporated by K<».·;<; her in his edition of" 1913 {see below, p. 5, n. 11). 6

3

lection/ one in Aetius of Amida8), the actual total of lines in Greek belonging to part II is about equal to that of those of part I of Hebd. The study of part I as compared to that of part II is also favoured by the fact that the fourth and last source for the text which we are able to use, the Arabic translation of an anonymous Greek commentary on Hebd.? stops at Ch. 20. 10 This means that for most of part II we have 7 Cf. Roscher 1913, p. 45 (one sentence of Ch, 26 in π. κρισίμων, Dieb. jud.); p. 68-69 (most of Ch. 46, also from Dieb, jud.); p. 72-3 (part of Ch. 50 from A ph. ¥111); p. 74-78 (substantial fragments of Ch. 51 from both Coac. pr. and A ph. VI IL) and p. 79 (Ch. 52 from A ph. VIII). Dieb. Jud, is a compilation of unknown date, consisting entirely of extracts taken from several works within the Corpus Hippocraiicum (cf. Littre, 1,400: Galen did not know it; IX, 296). The eighth section of the A ph. is found only in two manuscripts (already in Galen's time, as this author testifies, most manuscripts stopped at the last aphorism of the seventh section, but some contained a few more) and consists to a large extent of somewhat abridged abstracts taken from the semiological section of Hebd. (Littre 1,401 ff.; IV,608 n.3). Coac. as well is a late compilation (it is not mentioned by Erotian), containing fragments of a number of works within the Corpus (cf. Littre, VIII,628-9). The quotations from Hebd. in these works show that at the time in which the abstracts were made this treatise was accepted as a Tlippocratic' work. 8 The beginning of Ch. 28 (Roscher p. 48). 9 Preserved in Monac. arab. 802. This commentary was used by Chr. Harder, Zur pseudo-hippokratischeη Schrift π ε ρ ί ε β δ ο μ ά δ ω ν sive το π ρ ώ τ ο ν π ε ρ ί ν ο ύ σ ω ν το μ ι κ ρ ό τ ε ρ ο ν, Rh.Μ. 64 (1893), 433 ff. In this article, Harder published a readable German translation of the first 17 chapters of Hebd. which he concocted out of the Greek, the Latin and the Arabic versions. B y a regrettable misunderstanding, Roscher printed this scientifically worthless translation as the Arabic text. This so-called Arabic text, was still accepted as

s u c h b y e . g . E . G o e t z e , Persische

Weisheit in Griechischem Gewände,

St. Ind. Ir. 2

(.1923), p. 74-5, although a complete translation of the whole commentary had been made available by G. Bergsträsser in his edition of this work in the CMG, Pseiidogaleni

in Hippocratis

de Sepiimanis

commentavius ab Hu nain ο Q.f. arabice

versus, CMC XI,2,1, Leipzig 1914 (for Bergstrasser's criticism of Chr. Harder, cf. ibd. p. X X I n. 1; some fragments of this translation were printed by Roscher as Appendix I to his edition of 1913, p. 131 ft',). Bergsträsser convincingly proved that Galen cannot be the author of the commentary, ibd. XV-XXI, and also proved that Hunain ibn Ishaq is not the author of the translation: an excerpt of the commentary in the Universitary Library of Cambridge attributes the work to al-Bitrik, ibd. p. XXI, ml (see also Bergstrasser's Hunain ihn Ishaq und seine

Schule, L e i d e n 1913, 54 ff.).

Because the order of chapters in ps.Galen is different from that in the Latin translations (after the beginning of Ch. 14 (Nr. 74 Bergstr.), the Arabic version suddenly jumps to the beginning of Ch. 18 (Nr. 75-76 Bergstr.), then gives Ch. 18-20 (Nr. 77-90 Bergstr.), continues with again a portion of Ch. 14 (Nr. 91-3 10

4

to rely solely upon the L a t i n translations, which, a s a l r e a d y said, are a t t i m e s a l m o s t unintelligible. 1 1 T h i s c o m m e n t a r y , w h i c h - u n l i k e those of G a l e n - does n o t q u o t e in i t s λ ή μ μ α τ α t h e c o m p l e t e t e x t of t h e t r e a t i s e which is e x p l a i n e d , p r e s e n t s a special p r o b l e m b e c a u s e i t t r e a t s Ch. 1 - 2 0 a s a n a u t o n o m o u s whole12 a n d thus p u t s the caesura at another place t h a n m o d e m s c h o l a r s h a v e u s u a l l y done. Moreover, t h e o r d e r of those c h a p t e r s of p a r t II w h i c h it c o m m e n t s u p o n is d i f f e r e n t from that of the L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n s , 1 3 I s h a l l r e t u r n to t h e s e t w o p r o b l e m s in t h e n e x t section, w h e n d i s c u s s i n g t h e a n c i e n t e v i d e n c e . 1 4 T h i s e v i d e n c e is i m p o r t a n t i n so f a r a s it b e a r s u p o n t h e p r o b l e m of t h e d i s t i n c t i o n of p a r t I a n d p a r t Bergstr.), and then gives Ch. 15-16 (which are Nr. 94-98 Bergstr.)). The second half of Ch, 17 has been lost: Nr. 99 Bergstr., the concluding λήμμα of the commentary» only giving the beginning of this chapter. Chr. Harder believed that the commentary only went as far as the first half of Ch. 17, but Bergstr, p. ¥11 if. demonstrated that this is incorrect. That this order of λήμματα is not due to accident is proved by the backward references (e.g. Mr, 93 ~ Ch. 14 refers to Nr. 83 ^ Ch. 19, see Bergstr. o.e., p. XII) and by the fact that the last sentence of the commentary formally concludes the work. Bergsträsser refrained from committing himself on the question whether the Arabic or the Latin versions have preserved the original order. P. Lommer rearranged the Latin text so as to make it agree with that of ps. Galen, cf. below, p. 15-6. 11 The Greek fragments, the Latin translations and Harder's so -called Arabic version have been printed in parallel columns by W. If. Roscher, Die Hippokratische

Schrift

von

der Siebenzahl

in ihrer vierfachen

Überliefenmg,

S t u d . ζ.

Gesch. ii. Kult. d. Altertums VI,3-4, Paderborn 1913, reprinted New York 1967, This edition is still indispensable, and I shall refer to it throughout the present study. It is also useful because Roscher adds a discussion of the reception of Η ebd. in Antiquity and summarizes Ms own arguments in favour of attributing an early date to part I. The Greek text of Ch. 1-5 (which, like the Latin versions, lacks an apparatus in Roscher's edition) is that as deciphered by Ilberg and Kalbfleisch (first published in W. II. Roscher, Über A Iter, Ursprung und Bedeutung der hi p p akratische η Schrift von der Siebenzahl» Abb. Sachs. Ak., Phil.hist. Kl. X X V I I I Bd. 5, Leipzig 1911, 136-7; facing p. 136 is a photographic reproduction of the manuscript). The earlier edition of Hebd. by P. Ermerins, Η ippoeratis et a Horum medicoriini reliquiae, Tom. Ill,, U t r e c h t 1865» 533 ff. is un-

reliable, because the editor in the name of common sense took great liberties with the transmitted text. A few of Ermerins' conjectures, however, are still valuable, as are also some by Chr. Harder published in. his article of 1893 (cf. above, p. 4 n. 9). Ermerins and Harder anticipated some of Boll's emendations (for which cf. below, p. 21). 12 See above, n. 10. 13 See ibd. 14 Below, p. 15-16.

5

II of the treatise. In the course of this discussion, I shall also refer to modem interpretations of part II, 2. The ancient evidence. The an dent evidence concerning the nature ol our treatise is threefold: (a) quotations in < do aeries; (b) quoLdh'iv; in works of Galen; (c) the form of transmission in the Arabic: ps. Gain). The ancient quotations are especially important in so far ;is the ν quote from our actual HeM, under two different titles, one of which connects the treatise with another book in οιιτ Corpus Ηippocralicum, This connection is also suggested by the con clnding sentence of Ή ebd., which is identical to the opening sentence of thoi n.irf irnlar bnnl\ On 1 bask of this doubly attested connection, the medieal section of Ilehd. has been interpreted by several scholars as representing the ideas of one of the early schools of Greek medicine. Galen's Glossary of Hippocratic Words (printed in Vol. XIX of Kühn's edition) contains five glosses explaining words or expressions which are to be found in Η ebd.15 Two of these refer to the treatise bv its actual title; the quotations have been taken from the first -part of the treatise: 1. XIX, 73 Κ. άκριτο ν πάγοα (... εϊρηται δέ έν τω πζο\ εβδομάδος), 16 which corresponds to Cb. 6,§ 2,21-2 h\ inse paruMUs soliditas; 2, XIX,87 Κ. αύτόδρομον (... ώς εν τω περί έβδομάδον), cf, Ch. 2,6 R. The other three glosses, of which only one can still be identified, 1 7 refer to Hcbd. by a different title, viz. περί νου crow α' το μικρότερον. The one which it is still possible to identify reads (XIX,80 Κ.) άναφέρειν· δήλοι ποτέ Km το ύπολύζειν άναπνέοντα, c-ic έν τω πρώτο) περί νούσων τ ω μικροτέρω, cf. ilehd. Ch. 51,142 ff. Κ.18 et anhelanl 15 See Littre, 1,361 ; VI[1,123 ami 629. On the ancient glosses pertaining to the various books π. νούσων cf, also J. Oberg, Das ilippokrales-Glossar des Erotiavus. Abh.Sachs. Ges. Wiss., Phil.-hist. C1.» IM. 14 (1804), Nr. 2, I .cin/i^ 1S93, 13«-'). 16 Undoubtedly a slip for εβδομάδων, 17 As Littre supposed (VTII.630), this may be due to accident, i.<\ to tlie condition of the Latin translations. These glosses are (1) X f Χ, ί 2 > Κ. μηλιά δ α · έν τ<·> :' πρώτω περί νούσων τω μιχροτέρω τη μηλιάδι λέγει τη ίτλ Μήλου της νήσου; this may refer to a therapeutic context, cf. e.g. AT orb. Π Γ (Vf Γ, 154,10 Γ,.) άλείφων τη έρετριάδι ('enduire la poitrine avec la terre d'firetric'); (2) XIX, 1 10 K. καύσωμα* την πύρωσιν, έν τω πρώτω περί νούσων τ ο μικροτέρω: this is a quite obvious word in the context of a work devoted to fevers. If this is correct, these two glosses as well connect the title περί νούσων Ύ' το μίκοόττρην with quotations from the second pari of flebd. 18 A reconstruction of the Greek text based upon this gloss is printed by Roscher parallel to that of the Latin translations.

6

s piss um, el paulatim ah ipsis pectoribus sursum jcninlur, sicut piieri plor antes et ad naves irahentes simiil spiritum, and is t h e r e f o r e from the second pari of flic treatise. The Glossary, s.v. άΟήρ ( X I X , 7 0 Κ,), contains also one reference to a περί νου σων Β' το μ',κρότερον, w h i c h can he identified as our actual Μ orb. I IL' 0 T h e r e is also, p e r h a p s , a. reference to Hebd. in the earlier (rlossary of Erotian, 3 1 , 3 Naehimuison 2 0 ( = Γ 11 ; s. also fr, 8 4 ) : γάλακτι τέγγειν * άντί του λιπαρως εμβρέ/ε'.ν, ef. Ο ι , 3 1 , 3 3 Ii, lade el aqua lac lis . . . conluereP fn Erotian's list of f l i p pocratic w o r k s t h e title, π. έβδομάδ<ον is a b s e n t ( t h o u g h he m e n t i o n s a treatise π, νούσων in t w o b o o k s ) . 2 2 H o w e v e r , if Naehmanson is t i g h t , E r o t i a n w o u l d q u o t e f r o m t h e second pari of Hebd, f r o m an edition w h i c h did no I f i g u r e t h e title π. εβδομάδων. In G a l e n ' s Glossary, t h e d e s i g n a t i o n το μικρότερον a f t e r the» booktitles s e r v e s to d i s t i n g u i s h Η ebd. a n d Μ orb. I l l f r o m a n o t h e r t r e a t i s e π . νούσων in t w o b o o k s , 2 3 w h i c h is q u o t e d a n u m b e r of t i m e s : t h e r e a r e

Littre 1,361. Erofiani vocum Η ippocvaticarum col lectio emu fra^mentis ree, L. Nndinianson, Göteborg 101 S. 21 This was proposed by K. Naehmanson» Eroiianslndien, Uppsala - Leipzig 1917, 409 ff. It is, however, uncertain» for the text of Erotian reads f γάλα και λίπα τέγγειν κ,τ.Χ. Naehmanson adopted Foesiits' conjecture γάλακτι and argued that f λίπα f is an intrusive anticipation of λιπτρως which has supplanted a word such as op ω. A second gloss in Erotian was attributed by Naehmanson to Hebd., viz, 1 8,18 άνακώς (found in Cam. Ch, J 9, V LIT, 614,6 L.) but this attribution is based upon the false assumption that Oh. 19 originally belonged to Hebd, (Littre 1,407 assumed that Hebd. and Cam, are by a common author, but took this back later, ¥111,628; his earlier guess, however, was defended i>ν Μ. Well mann, Die Fm^wrwte der s>i hellsehen A fete Akrov, Philisfion und de"· lHohler> von Karysios, Berlin 1901, 43 and by Roscher 1913» 81 n.132 and 86. However, Cam. Ch, 19 definitely belongs to the treatise in which it has bee" transmitted as the final chapter, see Κ Deichgräber, HippokraUs über EntsleJiwi^ und Aufbau des menschlichen Körpers, Berlin 1935, 53), Moreover, attribution of άνακώς to Hebd. (i.e. to one of the books περί νούσων mentioned in Erotian's introduction) would disturb the system of arrangement of the glosses of the Glossary; there is only one more example of such an anomaly (Naehmanson, Eroliaml. 411). J. IIberg, Hipp.-Gloss, d. Eroi. 139 had proposed a. localisation in Hebd. for two other words in Erotian, but this was refuted by Nachoianson, Eroiianst. 403 ff., 413 ff. and accepted by Π berg himself (cf, also Naehmanson 's edition, ad 86,4 ( = τ24) τέτραμος and 86,5 (— τ25) f τάφις ), 22 Naehmanson, Eroiianst. 413 tentatively suggests that this περί νούσων % designates both J\T»rb. \. Hebd, and Μorb, I f Γ, and πεοί ν/κιον fT both. Morb, \ 1 and Int. 23 Littre 1,360-1, 363; VI 11, p. X X X V I ff. There are three glosses which appear 19

20

7

seven references to περί νούσων α' το μείζον ( = our actual Μ orb. II) and twelve to π. νούσων β' το μείζον (= our actual π, των εντός παθών, Int.) From this it would appear that in certain ancient editions Hebd. + Morb. I l l and Μ orb. II + Int. figured as respectively the 'minor' and the "major' treatise on diseases. Erotian, however, as we have noticed, does not appear to have known of a distinction between "minor" and 'major" books (or, perhaps, thought it irrelevant). The assumption that Hebd. and Morb, ITT were, for a time, actually united is confirmed by the fact that the concluding sentence of Hebd. (Ch. 53,9 ff.R.) de febribiis quidem omnibus , de ceteris autem iam dicam exactly corresponds to the opening sentence of Morb. I l l (VII, 118 L.) περί μεν ου ν πυρετών απάντων είρηταί μοι* άμφί (Ψε των λοιπών έρέω ήδη24. It was a well-known practice of ancient editors to quote, at the end of a book, the opening sentence of another book which was meant to follow. 25 Now, on the basis of this connecting sentence and the references in Galen's Glossary to the two parts of Hebd. by different titles 26 it would be possible to argue that the first part of II ebd. at one time existed separately under its present title, while the medical part of the treatise was connected with Morb. III. 27 Furthermore, the fact that ps. Galen comments upon a work called Sevens which stops at our present Ch. 20 and which is considered by the anonymous commentator to be an autonomous treatise 28 might be assumed to support this hypothesis in some w a y or another. However, the copy of Hebd. known to ps.Galen only complicates the problem., Those chapters of the medical section of the treatise which are dealt with in the commentary certainly go together well with the sequel which has been preserved in the Latin translations, while the discrepancy between to be somewhat maimed: s.v. άορτρον the book-number is lost, while s.v. άποσπαρθάζουσι, and s.v. κρότωνας the qualification "minor' or 'major' is missing. 24 Littre VIII, 123, 629. 25 Uberg, Med. Schrift (Ober die SiebenzahV 33-4 quotes a number of examples from manuscripts containing books from the Corpus Hipp. More such instances could be given; for an example from a part of the manuscript tradition of a work of Aristotle cf. W. Jaeger, Das Pneuma im Lvkeion, repr. Scripta Minora I, Roma 1960, 66. 26 And, perhaps, the evidence of the gloss in Erotian. 27 Littre VIII,631 pondered this possibility for some time, but rejected it for the not completely satisfactory reason that the quotation of Ch. 28 in Aetius of Amida calls the work περί εβδομάδων. 28 Cf. above, p. 4-5 n. 10 and p. 4.

8

Ch, 1-11 and Ch. 13-20 is as large in the edition used by ps. Galen as in the edition used by the Latin translators. The assumption that Ch. 1-20 were at a certain time separated from a complete version of Hebd. corresponding in extent to the treatise as it is preserved in Latin seems to admit of an easier explanation; the more so because there is, as we shall presently see, an unmistakable reference to the second part of Hcbd. in a genuine commentary of Galen, in which this work is entitled περί εβδομάδων. This quotation, by using this title, deviates from the practice of the Glossary, which refers to Hcbd. part Π as περί νούσων α' το μικρότερον. However, this discrepancy can be explained on the following hypothesis, which has the additional advantage of also providing us with an explanation for the much shorter edition of Heid. known to the anonymous commentator: Galen's Glossary is largely dependent on earlier works of its kind. 29 Consequently, it is entirely possible that the references to περί εβδομάδων and to περί νούσων α' (and β') το μικρότερον go back to earlier sources, which would have quoted from different editions: (a) an edition containing Hcbd. (Ch. 1-53) -j Μ orb. I l l , entitled the ' M i n o r Books on Diseases, and (b) a separate edition of the first part of Η ebd., entitled 'Sevens . We do not know the extent of this supposed separate edition, but it is certainly tempting to identify it with the short treatise (corresponding to Ch. 1-20 of the complete work) commented upon by ps. Galen. However, this is not all. An edition containing the whole of our present Hebd, in which the work was entitled περί εβδομάδων was known to Galen, as can be proved from quotations or references in several of his works. Two are in his Commentary on the lipid.: 1. Galen remarks upon Those who divide the year into seven seasons' and quotes the singular names of two of these, viz. σπορητός and φυταλία (αυτοί γαρ ούτως ονομάζουσι). He adds that this division of the year is to be found in τω περί εβδομάδων 'Ιπποκράτους έπιγραφομένφ βιβλίω.30 The reference is to Hebd. Ch. 4» i.e. to the first part of the treatise. 2. Galen comments upon the word φύεται predicated of the soul; as he tells us, he is unable to offer an interpretation, as the φύσις of the soul is only explained in the treatise περί εβδομάδων, which 29 From Baccheins of Tanagra (ca. 200 B.C.) onwards. Galen mentions this name and others in the introduction to his Glossary. 30 Galeni in Hipp. Epid. I et II Comm. III et V, CMG V.IOJ, p. 13,6 ff. Cf. Littre 1,387-8 and VIII,635V3.

9

is not. genuine.31 This explanation is as follows32: in περί έβδομάδων, we read that the soul not only needs food, but also air in order to keep the inborn warmth in check. Breath is indispensable to life, This certainly refers to the first part of 11 ebd.: cf. On 10,7-8 R. aerium frigns utile and 10,12 ff. R., Hie soul needs food; Ch. 8,1 ff. R., on frigidi inlroitus and fervoris cxhcdatio e\ omni corpore as the first t w o in-

stances of a sefitinariwn , , . auxilium ad vitam, while (8,12 ff. R.) the introduction of food and drink is the. sixth. That the heat which is to be cooled is the inborn heat is (probably 33 ) said at the beginning of Ch. 10; moreover, the definitions of the parts of the soul in Ch. 12 mention the originale calidnm (which plays a major role in the whole of the second part of the treatise; cf. esp. Ch. 37, on the importance of respiration). Consequently, Galen may also have the; second part of 11 ebd. in mind, 3. The third reference is in Galen's Commentary on the Aph.M Galen tells us that Hippocrates is of the opinion that such diseases as agree with the season are less dangerous; το rT εναντίον ύπο Διοκλέους35 εΐρητοα και έν τω περί εβδομάδων, ύπολαβόντων... των γραψάντων ανδρών αυτά παρ ο ξύνε σΟ α ι μεν ύπο των ομοίων τά νοσήματα, λύεσΟαι δέ ύπο των εναντίων, επειδή και προς αύτοΰ του 'Ιπποκράτους εϊρηται "τά εναντία των εναντίων ίάματα". According to Diodes and the author of II ebd. the aphorism contradicts the Hippocratic maxim contraria contrarias.™ Galen disagrees: 'they 1 (i.e., Diodes and ps. Hippocrates) "hold that καύσος is εύιατότερος in winter, but they forget that this disease has to be much more dangerous in winter than in summer, for otherwise it could hardly have succeeded in overcoming the adversity of the season".

31

'rale tu in Hipp

lipid.

VI Cmum

f i l l , > I/O Y . l o . 2 , 2 .

270,

- 271,5.

if.

Littre 1,391. The editors mCMG refer this to l/cbd. Ch. 10-13, which is inexact (why include Ch. 12?). 32 ibd., p. 273,7 ff. 33 Cf. below, Ch. VI1, p. 20X-I0. 34 XVII Β 530 Κ., commenting on Hipp., A ph. 11,34 (IV,·480 {,.): έν τη σι wjwoiσιν ήσσον κινδυνεύουσιν, οίσιν αν οίκείη της φύσιος καΐ της εζίος καI της ήλικίης καΐ της ώρης ( ! ) ή νοΰσος ft μάλλον ή ο Ι σι ν αν μή οικειη κατά τι τουτέων η, 35 Diodes fr. 35 Wellmann (see also Littre 1,389-90), Cf. further Diodes fr. 34 Wellmann, a 'quotation' in S t e p h a n a of Athens' Comm. in Hipp. A ph. II, Dietz II, p. 326 {verbatim according to Weil mann, but this was refuted by W. Jaeger, Dioklcs von Kavyslos, Berlin 21903, 27 n . l ) . Diodes argues here that καύσος is worse in summer than in winter, because its typical symptoms are much worse when the weather is warm. 36 Wellmann, o.e. 56. For the topic of allopathy cf. C. W. Müller, Gleiches zu Gleichem, Wiesbaden 1965, 142 ff.

10

His reference to 1 )iocles agrees with what is known .'bout fins physician from another sourer. 3 7 The reference to Hebd, is also correct, cf, Hebd. ( 11. 46,14 ff. R. ο η δεν γάρ δεινον... εάν μή αυτή ή ώρη τω votirT/j(iaTi, ξυομα/ήσ^,^ and esp, (Ίι. 50,13 if. R., tlic^ situation grows verv dangerous, v. ν r/ύτή ή Αρη in μ μ α /ν) τ7] νοήσω, οίον κψ,ησω θέρος, υδρωπικω yyu/MV * oa.spmxä γαρ το φο^χήν, Moreover, the general theory παροΕήνεσΟΓ-Λ μεν ύπο των ομοίων τά νοσήματα, λύεσΟοα 8έ ύπο των c-vavTuov is indeed fundamental to the pathological anil therapeutical dor tri lies of the; second part of Hebd.™ Consequently, Galen was familiar with the whole of our present περί εβδομάδων and knew if by just this name. He refers both to the first and to the second part of Hebd, by the same title. 10 The reference in the Commentary on tlx4 A ph. is to part II, and gives a go< M! characterization of its doctrines couched in general terms. The4 first referent e in the Commentary on the Ε f i d , applies to Hebd. part ϊ, and shows that Galen, knows the1 idiosyncratical division of the year as given in Ch. 4, The second reference in this Commentary appears to characterize the elementary psychological ideas of the whole treatise, though it might bp argued that it applies to those4 of part I only, Apart from the first book of the mi no r books on diseases and the truncated separate edition used by ps. Galen and twice referred to in Galen's Glossary, also the existence of an edition containing the whole of Hebd. under its present name must be assumed. It may be asked which of these editions is closest to the original work: we have to decide between a πεοί εβδομάδων in one book and the first book περί νούσων το μν/.ρότερον. If it can be shown that Ilebd, and IT. 35 Welhnann, cf. above, u. I Π e, 3S. Adduced by hlitre', I.3SQ 0e, Wellnwnn's parallel (o.e. 132) is les- fortunate. 3:> 'fliese doctrines are studio} ; t t length lvdou\ Ch, VII, p. 213 fL 40 Littre I 392-3 mentions i wo more references to Hebd. iti Galen, where, however, the treatise is not designated by its title: (1) -- reproduced Vϊ 1 1 1 4 n. 1 τ., μαρασμοΰ (1ί. 3 (VI 1,675 -6 Κ.) 'Γτγτ: rlirr, /s/) arceν;τείνε', rjjÄc το θερμών. οπερ Ιφυπε τά κοη.ύτύ. πρώτον μεν δ ή 'ΎΓηη\>ζΊ., τό>ν γνήσιο ν ουκ εττ'.ν '! πποκράτου·'; βίβλων.ν, έν ω τουτο λεγετοα γ.,τ,λ. The work referred <ο is ^aid nof to he genuine ((ialen, as we have seen, '-aid that Hebd, was not genuine); the reference is correct when we adduce I lehrt. 20,1 ff. R. το Οεροον rfA'zi τε τά τώματ? y.y.l φθίνε'.ν ποιεί (and cf. Ch, 1 0 generally), (2) π, τρόμου κα I παλμού CI ι. 0 (VI ϊ C , > 1 Κ Κ., printed by l i t t r e Υ111 647. i».l and by Roscher p. 40. e , 4 5 h "Hippocrates says man is health ν as long as the hot and the cold are ι s i \ed in a just proportion", which corresponds. Littre says, to Ch, 24,2 ff. R.: calidum ef frigid ttm quam diu qui dem equates sunt in coli t wis e^s>i homo 37

11

Morb. I I I a r e i n d e e d t h e t w o v o l u m e s of w h a t w a s i n t e n d e d b y its a u t h o r a s a single t r e a t i s e , t h e s e p a r a t e edition of Hebd. is m e r e l y s e c o n d a r y . If, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n Hebd. a n d Morb. I l l i s o n l y a s u p e r f i c i a l one a n d d u e to t h e e d i t o r i a l a c t i v i t i e s of people w h o w e r e g u i d e d b y c e r t a i n points of r e s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n t w o o r i g i n a l l y u n r e l a t e d w o r k s , t h e conclusion t h a t Hebd. e x i s t e d as a s e p a r a t e t r e a t i s e prior to its b e i n g c o n j o i n e d to Morb. I l l w o u l d seem to follow i n e v i t a b l y . L i t t r e a r g u e d 4 1 that Hebd. a n d Morb. I l l a r e b y one a u t h o r , b e c a u s e t h e s e two w o r k s correspond in c e r t a i n d e t a i l s , a n d t h a t t h i s t r e a t i s e in two b o o k s is of Cnidian origins, or r a t h e r 'une composition intermedial re e n t r e Cos et Guide'. 12 The r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n Morb. I l l , Hebd, a n d C n i d i a n m e d i c i n e w e r e s t u d i e d i n some d e t a i l b y J . I l b e r g . 4 3 I l b e r g a r g u e d t h a t in Morb. I l l i n d i v i d u a l d i s e a s e s a r e d i s c u s s e d a f t e r t h e p a t t e r n of a C n i d i a n t r i p a r t i t e s c h e m e , w h i c h is also a p p l i e d in o t h e r w o r k s in t h e Corpus Hippocraticum.44 S u c h a t r i p a r t i t e s c h e m e ¥111, ρ» X X X V I I If, His arguments include: (1) the remarkably prognostic character of both Hebd. and Morb. I l l ; (2) the importance of the tongue in semiology, common to both treatises, and (3) the long list of refreshing potions to be given to patients suffering of causus (Morb. I l l , Ch. 17), which agrees with what is said about this disease in Hebd. (however, it is not certain whether Ch. 17 really belongs to Morb. III). - The 'major' treat ise on diseases (Morb. II + Int.) which, according to Littre, is likewise of Cnidian descent, has a much less prognostic character; though Morb. II and Morb. I l l are. in some ways, related (Littre VI 1,116; V111, p. XL), this important: difference (i.e. in respect to prognosis) should not be minimized. The same point is made (for Hebd. only) by L. Bourgey, Observation et experience chez les me dec ins de la Collection Hippocratique, Paris 1953, 70, who acknowledges the affinity between Morb. I l l and Morb. II and Int. L. Edelstein, IL α έ ρ ω ν und die Sammlung der hippoh ratisch en Schriften, Problemata II. 4, Berlin 1931, 163 n.l, points out that Morb. III differs from Morb. II in malters of prescription, explanation, and description of symptoms as well. 42 VIII, p. XL. Cf. also Bourgey, I.e. 43 Mediz. Sehr. (Ü, d. Siebenz J 35 ff. and Die Ärzleschule von Knidos, Ber.Verh. Sachs. Ak., Phil.-hist. Kl., Bd. 76 (1924) H. 3, Leipzig 1925, 3 ff. 44 I shall summarize his arguments: a fragment of the lost Κνίδιαι γνώμαι, viz. the description of the symptoms of πελίη, has been preserved by Galen, Comm. I in Hipp. lipid. VI, CMC V,10,2,2, p. 55,10 ff. This same description occurs almost verbatim in Morb. II, Ch. 68, and is likewise quoted by Galen, o.e. p. 55,7; moreover, not only (a) the symptoms, but also (b) the therapy and (c) a prognosis of this disease are given (Galen, I.e., explains the term ττελιοι πυρετοί, and so needed only the description of πελιή νοϋσος). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the tripartite scheme of Morb. II, Ch. 68 is Cnidian; this scheme 41

12

is characteristic of Hebd, as well: etiology (Ch. 13-23), therapy (Ch. 24-39) and semiology (Ch. 40-52). Furthermore, the programme announced a t Hebd. Ch. 53,1 f f . R . super est mihi singiilas acutas egrihtdines die ere, (a) quaeque sit ei (b) quatenns oportet curari et (c) qualia ex

unaquaque veniant (note the tripartite division) is executed in Morb, 111.45 Finally, a few sentences in Hebd. and Morb. I l l are almost literally identical. 46 However, the internal evidence in favour of an original connection between Hebd. and Morb. I l l is insufficient for the differences between these two works are much greater. The parallel between the microcosm and the macrocosm which is all-important both to the general and to the special medical theory of II ebd. is wholly absent from Morb, HI. The explicit theory of the hot and the cold and the wet and the dry, upon which the etiology, the therapy and the semiology of Hebd. are based is absent from Morb. I l l as well. The psycho-physiological idea of Hebd. that fevers and other acute diseases axe caused by the condition of the hot of the soul47 is also missing. If Morb, III really were the continuation of Ηebd. one would expect to find at least a few references to the general etiological theories contained in thai work. It is true that in Morb. I l l occasionally (and certainly if we add its last chapter, on ψυκτήρια prescribed επί καύσοις) it is a d v i s e d to prescribe refreshing or

refrigerating aids and appliances. 48 It is also true that θερμασίη is mentioned as the cause of an ailment of the lungs, 49 (but the author of Hebd. would have spoken of το Οερμόν), and that the number seven

is applied in Morb. II from Ch. 12 onwards (cf. also 1 knirgey, o.e. 50 ff.): Morb. II is Cnidian. Morb, III also adopts this scheme in its analysis of diseases. Int. and Morb. 11,1.-11 omit the therapy, discussing instead the etiology of diseases; etiology is one of the subjects of Hebd. as well. Cf. also I. M. Lonie, Cnidian Treatises of the Corpus Hippocraticuiu, CI. Qu. N.S. XV (1965) 1 ff., esp. p. 2; for his proposed reconstruction of a common Cnidian etiology cf. below, Ch. VII, p. 220-1 n. 96. 45 11 berg 1894, 34-5. 46 ibd. 39, η. 1. Particularly interesting is the comparison of the kettle of boiling water to which cold water is added, Morb. I l l , Ch. 17, ¥111,156,5 ff. L. ~ Hebd. Ch. 34a, 15 ff. R. (but Morb. 111,17 also says ή ψυχρώ αύτό το αγγος πνεύμα τ ι. προσαγάγη, and in Hebd. the simile is worked out in greater detail). 47 This theory will be studied below, Ch. VII. 48 Ch. 1, ¥11,118,13-14,18 L.; Ch. 7, ibd. 126,10,14,15; Ch. 13. ibri. 134,4; Ch. 14, ibd. 134,19. This is consistent with Cnidian Theory*, cf. Louie, o.e. 24 ff. However, cf. below, Ch. VII, p. 220-1 n. 96. 49 Ch. 7, VI 1,124,5 L. With λήθαργοι (Ch. 5, ibd. 122), Οερμαίνειν is prescribed.

13

plays a certain role in determining the course and duration of diseases. 30 But such resemblances are far outweighed by the differences indicated above. It is also curious that Morb. HI, Ch. 6 discusses the καυσώδης (sc. πυρετός), which has been amply treated in Hebd., and does so after having announced in its first sentence that, all fevers having been spoken of, attention will now be turned towards the other diseases!"1 The similarities in medical doctrine between Hebd. and Morb. I l l which have been indicated above explain one thing, viz. why and how these two treatises came to be connected. But the irreconcilable differences prove that they cannot be by the same author. The arguments of Littre ami Ilberg merely explain the motives of an ancient editor, 11 berg's principal argument, based upon the structure of Hebd. which is considered to represent a Cnidian structural pattern, is vitiated by the fact that in Cnidian medicine this pattern L· applied to individual diseases which are discussed one after the other, while in Hebd, it is applied to a whole group of diseases, and not to individual chapters, but to a whole treatise. Furthermore, as is apparent from both the announcement in Ch. 12 (quoted below) and from the cm it hiding words of the first two individual sections'12 the author of Hebd. was full \ conscious of the fact that lie availed himself of a distinction between the parts of medical science. As far as f know, one will look in vain for a comparable awareness in the works belonging to the family of Cnidian treatises in the C. or pus Hippocraticum. We shall see later that the division of subjects as in Hebd. corresponds to the practice of another Greek school of medicine, with which it also shares its general theory. 53 However, even at present it may be said that the evidence for a connection bet ween Hebd, and Morb. ί · merely exterior'4 and Cf. e.g. CI ι. 1, V t U L U L i 2 i .; Ch. ibd, L:OJ. However, i he seventh dav as a critical day is by n o means found in !Irl»i o n l \ it ί b H < m , C h . \ I. p. 172 n . 98). 51 'this shows that the first sentence (which is also the final sentence of Hebd). has been added as a transit filial device in an edit ion in which some oi lier work was placed before Morb. III. When Moth, i l l was placed in its as Ina 1 posit inn (after Morl). 11), the sen Use ν w a> not struck out, as it ruiikl still siave (his same purpose (though also Morb. 1 1, Ch. ON, is on καυσώο/,; πυρετός). 52 Ch. 23,117 ft. KV V'iuie ergo el quale wis f ehr es vascuutuy di ximus; Oh. 39, ·> ff. R. curare aulem sie oportet umnes fehres. Ci. ilberg, 1 <S(M, 2b, 2S. 53 Cf, below, Oh. VII, p. 213 ff. 54 So Bourgey, o.e. 09. (Ί*. also ike s c e p t i c i s m of L. J h b Lleiu, o.e. 163, μ J , which is based upon a discussion of Cnidian medic ine in geneiaf (ibd. 151 ff.) His conclusions differ from those of ilberg (cf. also Bourgey, o.r, 52, n. 1) For

14

superficial. If Η ebd. Ch. 53 is genuine and if this work once really had a sequel in which the individual acute diseases (which are subsumed under the heading 'fevers' in Ch. 24 and 2755) were treated, this must be considered to be lost. 1 wish to add a few words on the copy used by the anonymous commentator translated into Arabic,0(5 winch stops midway Ch, 17, though including Ch. 18-20,57 and which, as we shall see, because of this affords grounds for a reconstruction of the original order of Η ebd. Ch. 14-20. The therapeutical and semiological sections of Η ebd. part II were not contained in this text. Now the announcement at Hebd. Ch. 12,23 ff. iftsas j ehr es el alias c annus et quidem acut as egriludines υnines quomodo fiant doe et (sc. naturalis ratio) et facias quomodo oportet cohiberi ant non fieri et •nascentes quomodo debeanl curari recle puts the emphasis on therapy and etiologyJM Though it is true that also in the etiological section therapeutical ideas occur front time to time, 59 the real discussion of therapy (which agrees fully with the etiological ideas of the preceding chapters) only starts at Ch. 24; and so, we must assume that the announcement in Ch. 12 refers to Ch. 24 ff. The announcement as in Ch. 12,23 ff.R. is not translated in a ps. Galenian λήμμα, but a sentence in the commentary to Nr. 60 Bergstr. exactly corresponds to it, 00 which shows that it stood in the text used by the anonymous commentator. This indicates, I think, that the copy of ps. Galen represents a truncated edition, which, nevertheless, has preserved the original order of Hebd. Ch. 14-20, or at least sufficient indications upon which to base a reconstruction of this original arrangement. F. Lommer 61 by following the lead of ps. Galen112 was able to show that Louie's proposal concerning tracts which should be a·-; aimed to be Cniclian et. below, CI ι. VII, p. 220-L n. 90. 55 This throws suspicion < >n Oh. S3 as a wh« Ls 56 Cf. above, p. 4-5 and n. 9. 57 Cf. above, p. 4-5 n. 10. 58 Lor II berg's incorrect interpretation of this passage cf. below, Ch, V11, p. 225, iL 122. 5y Ch. 19,44 ff., 60 if.; 20,13 ff., 19 U.K. 60 p. 125,39 υ d~e Bergstr.: 'sie 1 (i.e. 'die Kenntnis der Definition der Natur jedes Dinges') "unterrichtet uns nämlich fiber die Modalität des Entstehens der brennenden Fieber und aller übrigen Krankheiten und lehrt uns auch, wie die Behandln!!^ der KnmklieibMi ihrem Wesen noch sein muss" 61 Zur J\<>Hif»r;itiu(i (Li hlppuknüisüicH /// i f i π. ί [jjSo ιΐάό ων, PhtL ο I (19-11), 79

ff.

β-

Cf. above, p. 4-5 η. 10.

15

the copy used by the Latin translator suffered from a "BlattVersetzung der Form a c b d': 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. alicuim kmc ff.) + Ch. 18 R. + Ch. 19 R. + Ch. 20,1-33 R. (minus the concluding words Mo mundo est) upon which page d, containing Ch. 20,33 R. tot ο mundo est Ch. 21 ff. followed, but page b, containing Ch. 14,4 alias ff. R. · Ch. 15 R. +· Ch. 16 R. ~f 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 which 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 precedes 04 and what follows: Ch. 13 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 C nidi an character of the medical section, lie suggested that Hebd. had boon composed in the time of the

XIV Lo. - 14,1-4(R.) + 17,48 - the end(R.) + 1 « ( R . ) ; XV Lo. = 19(R.); XVI Lo. + 20,1-28 factae (R.); XVII Lo. = 20,28 Initium - 33 et in (R.) + 14,4 alias ventris - the end (R.); XVIII Lo. 15(R.); XIX Lo. = 16(R.);

63

X X Lo. = 17,1 -48 quae in + 20,23 tot υ mundo est ( R . ) . See L o m m e r , o.e. 84-5.

Lommer, o.e. 85 inclades Ch. 1 -11 ('einleitende Kapitel über das Grundprinzip der Siebenzahl im Makrokosmos und Mikrokosmos'), but this does not abolish the problem of the connection between the two parts of the treatise. 65 Littre 1,407 held that Hebd. is 'beaucoup posterieur a Hippocrate'. 64

16

Peloponnesian w a r . 0 6 F o r , a s h e s a i d , t h e 'in v i e l e n P u n k t e n d e r P h a n t a s i e eines Aristophanes würdigen Offenbarungen'67 he app a r e n t l y m a d e no e x c e p t i o n . H o w e v e r , w h e n Roscher's p i o n e e r i n g s t u d i e s on. Hebd. p a r t I h a d b e e n p u b l i s h e d , h e g r a n t e d t h a t Hebd. i s a 'der Einheitlichkeit ermangelnder Traktat".68 the c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of" Hebd. of W . H. R o s c h e r is of f u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e . 6 9 H e w a s t h e f i r s t s c h o l a r to h a v e p o i n t e d o u t the unique c h a r a c t e r of Ch. 1-11. a n d i t s a p p a r e n t l a c k of c o n n e c t i o n with the t r e a t i s e on f e v e r s w h i c h follows. T h e f i r s t p a r t of Hebd. is concerned w i t h t h e n u m b e r s e v e n i n b o t h m a c r o c o s m a n d microcosm, while the medical work is based upon an entirely different theory, viz. that of t h e "hot* and the 'cold'. 70 Consequently, Roscher 1894, 39. 'JIiis was accepted by C. hredrich, / l i p p o k r a i i s c h e Untersuchungen, Berlin 1899» 226 ff., who also pointed ont a number of what he termed 'extraordinary resemblances' between Hebd, and VicL, ibd. 134-5, 226, As such he mentions the theory of hot and cold (but that in Hebd. is significantly different from that in Vict., cf. below, Ch. IV, p. 79 n. 71) and the microcosm-macrocos m-pa rail el, cf. below, p. 22 n. 102. 11 berg's views on Hebd. part II were also accepted by Roscher (191 J, 108), cf. below. 67 o.e. 27. The name of Aristophanes serves as a chronological pointer and also shows that 11 berg deemed pari 1 unworthy of serious consideration. 68 1925, 6. 69 Roscher began to study the treatise in connection with Ms works on Greek number-speculation, of which 1 mention * Die enneadischen und hebdomadischeη Fristen und Wochen der ältesten Griechen, Abh. Sachs. Ges. Wiss., Phil.-hist. KL 21 (1903),4; Die Sieben- und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen, ibd. 24 (1904 ; Die Iiebdomadenlehren der griechischen Philosophen and Ärzte, ibd. 24 (19()()),(> (p. 44-53 of this work is on Hebd.). Of his special studies on Hebd. two have already been mentioned (above, p. 5 i i . i l ) . He further wrote Die neuentdeckte Schrift eines milesischen Nalurphilo sop hen und ihre Beurteilung durch Η. Diets, Meimion 5 (1912), Η. 3-4 (also as 'Sonderdruck 1 , Berlin 1912); Das Alter der Weltkarte in 'Tlippohrates' π. ε β δ ο μ ά δ ω ν und die Reichskarte des Darius II y st as pes, Phil. 70 (1912), 529 ff., and Die hippokratische Schrift von der Siebenzahl und ihr Verhältnis zum Altpyihagoreismus, Ber. Verh. Sachs. Ak., Phil.-hist. Kl., 71 (1.919), 5. 70 Cf. especially his note to Ch. 12 (191 3), p. 16 n. 3): "Dabei ist in hohem Masse beachtenswert, dass nun mehr (wenn man von der Lehre von den kritischen. Tagen Kap. 26-27 absieht) die originelle Hebdomadenlehre der vorausgehenden Kosmologie völlig ignoriert wird. Vielmehr tritt an ihre Stelle die d u a l i s t i s c h e Lehre vom Gegensatze der Wärme und Kälte. Daneben, kommen auch Triadenund l'etradenlehren vor: s. Kap. 15 und 16. Zugleich redet der Verfasser nunmehr wiederholt von seiner persönlicher Ansicht ('ego ipse' etc.), im Gegensatz zu Kap. I-XI. Das beweist zu Genüge, dass der Kosmologe mit dem Pathologe nicht identisch ist." Further ibd, p. 18, n. 6 (on Ch. 13): "Auch in den folgenden 60

17

assumed that the two parts of Hebd. thus distinguished are b y different hands. 7 1 He accepted Ilberg's date for part II, 7 2 and concentrated upon part 1, thereby setting an example which was to be followed by the great m a j o r i t y of scholars. According to Roscher, Ch. 1-11 are 'das bei weitem umfassendste Bruckstück der ältesten ionisclieu Philosophie' 73 ; it could have been written b y a younger contemporary of Anaximenes. In all essentials, lie stuck to this theory till the end of his life, though he conceded later t h a t the physician who wrote Hebd. had copied 'ziemlich wörtlich' the much older work of a Ionian philosopher. 74 In favour of this evaluation of Ch. 1-11 he put forth several arguments concerning the contents of this part of the treatise, l i e argued that the cosniulogical theory of Ch. 1-2, with its unmoved earth at the centre of a system of heavenly spheres, is no other than that of Anaximander, 75 with admixtures from the work!-picture of Anaximenes (correct order of moon - sun - stars, earth supported by air) and other early philosopheis. 76 He further argued t h a t the author of Hebd. part I does not distinguish between planets and fixed stars 7 7 which, also in this respect, agrees with the cosmology of the early lonians. These observations were quite stimulating : although few scholars at present would be prepared to defend Kapiteln liegt überall der d u a l i s t i s c h e Gegensatz der W ä r m e und K ä l t e (θερμον-calidum und ψυχρόν-frigid um) zugrunde'. However, to the hot and the cold (which are certain I ν 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. 72 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 Hcbd. from lYthagoreanism (which Roscher had also upheld in his earlier studies), and does so in great detail. 70 Especially in his earlier publications, Roscher resolutely brushed aside analogies to later Fresocratic thought and refused to consider their implications for the date of Hebd. Whenever this question of priority arose, his solution was to make the follower of the earlier lonians an original philosopher in his own right, who tu 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 1 )emocritus' 'pupil' Metrodonis of Chios (FS 70 A9; see also below, p. 27 n. 129). Roscher comments, 1911, 61: 'er steht also in dieser Beziehung auf dem selben Standpunkt wie später (sie) Metrodor'. 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. a n d the ideas of younger Fresocratics which can be pointed out, 7 8 there appears to be universal agreement that the first part of the treatise indeed reflects Presocratic thought. 7 9 Roscheids other argument for a va ry early date was concerned with the quaint anthropomorphical map of the world of Ch. 11, which features the Peloponnesus, the Isthmus, Ionia, the Hellespont, both the Thracian arid the Cimmerian Bosporus, 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. 8 0 Indeed, the extreme old age of this m a p gradually became Roscheids principal argument 8 1 for attributing a very early date to the whole of Ch. 1-11, and became so in spite of his later admission that the old Ionian work had been copied 'more or less verbatim' during tin; second half of the fifth Cent. B.C. 82 Roscher's book of 1911 w a s severely criticized in a review b y 11. Diels. 83 Diels argued that the m a p is not at all archaic 8 4 and that the treatise as a whole (i.e. inclusive of Ch. 1-11) is the eclectic and deliberate!y archaized product of a writer whose mind was but a poor

Kranz, however, to some extent emulated Koscher in this respect (see below, Ch. 1ΙΓ, p. 56 ff.). 79 The Presocratic parallels adduced by Roscher should be used with caution, because he is often inaccurate in detail and wrong in interpretation. Later scholars have corrected him on a number of points. E.g. 1911» 7! and 1919» 72 ff. he assumed (1) that the earth in 11 ebd. is spherical, (2) that this theory is very early, and (3) that the author of Hebd. was the first Greek philosopher to argue from the sphericity of the universe to that of the earth. (1) is not the only possible interpretation, (2) is wrong and (3) is an example of petitio principii. m 1906, 51; 191.1, 10 ff.; 1913, 118; 1919, 1 ff. He defends the age of the map against Diels1 criticism in his article in Mem no η, 23 ff. and 4L 81 1919» 85. He is followed by W, H. S. Jones, Philosophy and Medicine in Ancient Greece, Supplem. Bull. Hist. Med. 8, Baltimore 1946, 9 ff., and C. J. De Vogel, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism, Wijsgerige Teksten en Studies 12, Assen 1966, 171. 82 We shall see (cf. below, p. 20-1 and p. 20 n. 88) that the map is hardly as old as Roscher assumed it to be, and is therefore devoid of eriterial value. 83 Die. vermeintliche Entdeckung einer Incu nabel der griechischen Philosophie, I >LZ. 1911, 1861-6. He was followed by Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker I» Berlin-Leipzig 4 1922, 470-1. m Diels' arguments against this particular pillar of Roscher's structure are not convincing; see the reply by Roscher, referred to above, n. 80 and C. J. De Vogel, Pythagoras 171. 78

19

t h i n g . H e p r o p o s e d a d a t e b e t w e e n 4 5 0 - 3 5 0 B . C . 8 5 A l t h o u g h Roscher v i g o r o u s l y d e f e n d e d h i s position a g a i n s t Diels, his l a t e r concession t h a t the f i r s t p a r t of Hebd. w a s c o p i e d r o u n d - a b o u t 4 0 0 B . C . f r o m a n o l d e r s o u r c e is q u i t e close to Diels' p o s i t i o n 8 6 ; t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e b e i n g t h a t D i e l s t h o u g h t of a p l u r a l i t y of sources, w h i l e R o s c h e r b e l i e v e d in a s i n g l e source. F . Boll 8 7 in all e s s e n t i a l s s i d e d w i t h D i e l s : Hebd, is a n eclectic compilation» but composed, h e t h o u g h t , a b o u t 4 5 0 B . C . F o r t h e map of Ch. 11 h e a d d u c e s a r a t h e r l a t e p a r a l l e l in a H e r m e t i c t r e a t i s e , 8 8 t h u s Diels e.g. argued that the sphericity of the earth as assumed by Koscher (cf. above, p. 10 n. 79) made a much later date than Reseller's me citable. See, however, below p. 30 n. 148. 86 Cf. IIberg's judgment, 1024» 5 ff, Ilberg accepted Diels* arguments and pronounced the question of the date of Hebd. to be a res judicata. See also K. Deichgräber, Hippokraies über Entstehung, 45. 87 J He Lebensalier, first published Neue Jahrb. X X X I , 1913, 89 ff., reprinted in the Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums, Leipzig 1950, 156 ff. (the Anhang zur Schrift π. έ β δ ο μ ά δ ω ν ibd. p. 213-24). 88 Κόρη κόσμου, ap. Stobaeurn .1,49,45 (p. 411,3 ff. Wachsmuth) — Hermes Triswcgiste, IV, Fragments de Stobee, Ed. Bude (1955), Fr. X X I V , I L Κ. Reinhardt, Poseidonios, München 1921» who discusses this passage of the Herrn. at p. 382-3, remarks (p. 380): "Ohne das geographisch-kosmische System des Poseidonios, ohne seine Klimatologie und Rassenpsychologie wäre ί wohl dies Kapitel kaum geschrieben worden". A.-J. Fes tu giere, La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste, 1, L'astrologie et les sciences oceultes, Paris 21950, 93 treats the map of the Κόρη κόσμου-fragment in connection with other microcosm-macrocosmconceptions contemporaneous with this treatise: this whole section (ibd. p. 88 ff.) should be read. - It should be pointed out that the reference to the Spartans (Ch. 11,3 ff.R. Peloponnesum magnanmi animarurn habitationem) is just as possible in Hellenistic times, the idealization of Sparta being (also) a Hellenistic phenomenon, cf. e.g. C. Schneider, Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus I» München 1967, 77, 239, The reference to Ionia (Ch. 11,8-9 R. inter viscera et praecordia Ionia) is perhaps not as significant as it has been made out to be, for the equation Ionia ~ φρένες ^ intelligence is not explicit. At Ch. 6, § 1,31 ff.R. it is the moon which is connected with sensus... indicium; note that in Ch. 6 the moon is fourth in the order of spheres ~ parts of the body, while in Ch. 11 Ionia comes third (but the comparisons of Ch. 6 and Ch. 11 do not exactly fit, cf. below, Ch. VI, p. 252 and n. 219). Too much has been made of the comments of ps. Galen, Nr. 55, p. 117 Bergstr., who interprets ps. Hippocrates as praising the ionians for the following reason: "die... Bewohner dieser Gegend sind stark, verständig, einsichtig und weise 1 . However, ps. Galen also discourses on the character of the inhabitants of the Cimmerian Bosporus and of those of 'die Insel (sic), die λίακντις genannt wird' (the latter are said to be cowardly etc.). Consequently, his pronouncement on the inhabitants of Ionia is also an interpretative addition. 85

abolishing Roscher's argument based upon its character. He further argued (contra Roscher) that Ch. 2,64 ff.R. clearly distinguishes between the (seven) planets and the fixed stars. This is a very problematical question, to which we shall return below, 89 but Boll's hypothetical interpretation which is (in part) based upon a few attractive emendations 90 is certainly very plausible. K. Mrass91 tried to reconstruct the very poorly transmitted text of Hebd. Ch. J ('on winds'). On the basis of this reconstruction he pointed out stylistic influences of Gorgias, and so arrived at a date around 400 B.C. These "gorgianische Spielereien', however, are for the most part due to the emendations. Boll's pupil Pfeiffer 02 tried to reinforce his teacher's conclusions by arguing that in Η ebd. one finds influences of Pythagoras and his school. These arguments are not entirety convincing. Pfeiffer accepts Boll's (in. itself uncertain) thesis that Ii ebd. speaks of the 7 planets, and follows this up by ascribing this astronomical discovery to the early Pythagoreans. 9 3 He wrongly assumes that the Pythagorean theory of a breathing universe is presupposed in the chapter 'on winds'. 94 The theory of reflected light in general, he thinks, is also a Pythagorean invention,95 etc. He is, of course, right in insisting upon the affinity between the arithmology in Hebd. and that of the Pythagoreans. 96 Furthermore, Pfeiffer 97 corrected Roscher on one supremely important point. Roscher had divided Hebd. Ch. 6 into two parts, of which only the first would contain a microcosm-macrocosm-parallel. Pfeiffer pointed out that this parallel is continued in Ch. 6, § 2. Another pupil of Boll, A. Goetze, in a very interesting article 98 Ch. V B, p. 138 ff. Which Roscher hastened to adopt, 1913, Anhang II b, 154 ff. Cf. also 1919, 64 ff. 91 In the article mentioned above (p. 3 n. 3), p. 70 ff. 92 E. Pfeiffer, Studien zum antiken Sternglauben, Στοιχεία 2, Leipzig 1916 (repr. Amsterdam 1967), 30 ff. He was criticized by Roscher, 1919, 84 ff. 93 O.e. 35. For the introduction of the 7 planets in Greek astronomical science see below, p. 29-30 n. 148. 94 O.e. 33, n. 1. 95 Ox. 34. 96 O.cx 37 (see further below, Ch. I l l , p. 65). 97 O.e. 36-7. 89

90

08

Persische

Weisheit

in griechischem

Gewände,

S t . 1 in l o t 1 r a t i . 2 (1 9 2 3 ) , 6 0 ff.

Cf. also R. Reitzenstein-H. Schaeder, Studien zum antiken Synkretismus, Bibh Warburg 7, 1926 (repr. Darmstadt 1965), 9 ff., 121 ff. "

21

Stud.

p r o p o s e d a d a t e a r o u n d 4 8 0 B . C . H e c o m p a r e d t h e uncrocosm» m a c r o c o s m - t h e o r y of Hebd. Ch. 6, § J w i t h t h a t i n Ch. 2 8 of a P e r s i a n w o r k , t h e Greater BundahisnNow t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e Greater Biindahisn is, a c c o r d i n g to Goetze, c l e a r a n d e x p l i c i t , w h i l e t h a t of Hebd. is c o n f u s e d ; t h e P e r s i a n version t h e r e f o r e h a s to b e t h e e a r l i e r one. H o w e v e r , t h e p r e m i s s e s of t h i s a r g u m e n t a r e i n c o r r e c t . Goetze b a s e d his c o m p a r i s o n u p o n § 1 of Ch. 6 o n l y , 1 0 0 w h i l e t h e m i c r o c o s m - m a c r o c o s m t h e o r y b e c o m e s quite c l e a r a n d c o n s i s t e n t w h e n w e take t h e whole tit Ch. 6 i n t o a c c o u n t . 1 0 1 Goetze also w r o n g l y a s s u m e d t h a t t h e t h e o r y of Hebd. Ch. 6, § 1 h a s no p a r a l l e l s i n e a r l y Greek t h o u g h t , 1 0 2 w h i c h , if

99 The Greater (i.e. Iranian) Buiulahtsn has been t ransmittrd to us in the form it had attained in the ninth Cent. A.D. Paris of this werk (among which tlie cosmology of Ch. 28) go back to a lost Λ ν es tan treatise, the Daimtct-Xask, as we learn from the description of the contents of this and other Jost Λ vest an tracts in book VIII and IX of the Denkart (cf. G. Widengren, iranische Geisteswelt, Baden-Baden 1961, p. 12, p. 49), which itself is from the tenth Cent., of. J. P. de Μ en a see O.P., I hie iincvclopcdie Μa ζ deem w he Dpnkavt, Paris 1958, p. 4» p. 10. The microcosm-macrocosm-theory of the Greater J hind α insu therefore could be old. Unfortunately» the Λ ν es tan corpus is composed of works which range in time from the Gathas of Xarathustra (probably sixth Cent, B.C.) to additions worked in in the time of Shahpuhr 1 (r. 241-272; cf. below, p. 23» η. 104) and later, cf. j , Duchesne-Guillemin, Persische Weisheit in Griechischem Gewände?, Harvard Theo!. Rev. 49 (195(>, p. 115-122), 115. Goetze o.e. assumed that Persian influences in Ilehd, were not improbable, given the Cnidian character of the medical section and the relation between the Cnidian school of medicine and Persia. For this connection he refers to Democcdes (but is Democedes a 'Cnidian' in this sense? his father came from Criidos. Cf M. Michler, Das Problem der west griechischen Heilkunde» Sudh. Arch. 4(>, (1962, 137 ff.), es p. 141 and 147). - However, Greek influences upon Persian literature are well-attested, cf. below-, p. 23, n. 104 and P. E. Peters, Aristotle and the Arabs, Ν. V.-London J 968, 41 ff. 100 Goetze ignored Pfeiffer's objection and stuck to Reseller's subdivision of Ch. 6. Boll too, Aus der Offenbarung Johannes, Στοιχεία I, Leipzig/Berlin 1911, 60 ff. only studied Ch. (>,§!. 301 As was proved by Kranz, Kosmos und Mensch (see below, ρ, 25, η. 113), p. 165 ff., who apparently did not realize that this argued against Goetze \s assumption of the priority of the Persian model. See Dudiesiie-Giiilleinin, o.e. 117 ff. 102 He called if 'ein erratischer Block in Hellas', o.e. 79. But C. Predrich, Hipp. Unt. 227 and Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker 1,243, had already referred to the microcosm-macrocosm-theory of Vict., as did W. Theiler, Zur (beschichte der teleologischen Ν aturbeirach tu ng bis auf Aristoteles, Zürich/Leipzig 1 925 (Berlin 2 1965), 55 ff., who says the coincidences are 'hardly accidental'. Cf. further below, Ch. IV, p. 104 ff. and p. 105, n. 195.

22

true, would be another argument for assuming that a cultural borrowing has occurred. But there are Greek parallels. The differences between the theories of Hebd. and Bund. are, moreover, very important, while the actual correspondences are trivial and indeed obvious. 103 Whatever the relation between Hebd. and Bund, may be»104 the analogy between them by no means allows us to draw conclusions regarding the date of the Greek work. As yet no Iranian chronology exists 105 ; Goetze ίο» \v. J. W. Köster, Lc mythe de Piaton, de Zarathnsiva. el 'des C ha Idee us, Leiden 1951, p. 29 ff. n.4, pointed out that "ies identifications se suiveot clans un ordre tout different; one senile identification e s t . . . la ineme (via η de ^ trrre); ,.. pour t o>is a 111 res l'.no n d esl global,.. dan··. lc«·; aiitivs ideutifu at inns il y a cies divergences considerables". The most important difference is that in Hebd. the structure of the tinman body is equated with that of the universe, which is built according to typically Greek eosmological principles; Tien de tout ce systeme grandiose ne se retrouve en Iran' (Diichesne-Giiillemin, o.e. 119). 104 Cf. the translation of a passage of the fourth book of the Denkart in R. C. Zaehncr, Zur ν an, A Zoroastrian Dilemma» Oxford 1955» 8, from which 1 quote: "The King of Kings, Shahpnhr... further collected those writings from the Religion which were dispersed throughout India, the Roman Empire and other lands, which treated of niedecine, astronomy, movement , time, space, substance, creation, becoming, passing away, change in quality, growth (?)» and other processes and organs. These he added to the A vesta and commanded that a fair copy of all of them be deposited in the Royal Treasury" (the text is also translated by Widengren, o.e. 311); see H. W. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth Century Books» Oxford 1943, 81 ff., 87 ff.; Zaehner, o.e. 10 and 33, who both comment upon the Aristotelian terminology of this passage; and Peters, o.e. 4h. Another passage in the same book of the Denkart identifies some of these works: among them was the Μεγίστη of Ptolemy, cf. Bailey, o.e. 86» Zaehner, o.e. 139 ff. and De Menasce, o.e. 27. The foreign works were not literally 'added', but excerpted and adaptated. See further Bailey o.e. p. 80 ff. on the literary contacts between Persian and Oraeeo- Roman culture (p. 80: medicine in general; p. 87; Persian terms corresponding to the Crc^k terms for macrocosm and microcosm; p. 104: the theory of the four humours in ZalspranTs chapter 'On the constitution of man'). - The evidence of the Denkart is confirmed in an Arabic source, Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrisf 241-3, translated by P. Rosenthal, Das Fortlehen der Antike im Islam, BibJ. d. Morgenlandes» Zürich-Stuttgart 1965, p. 68 ff. ('Wie die Araber mit dem griechischen Erbe bekannt wurden'). The rather confused story in the Fihrisi treats in its first part of the role of Persia as a connecting link between classical antiquity and the Arab world; a Persian king, Sabur, is mentioned a number of times, while this part of the account concludes with: "In alter Zeit hatten die Perser einige Werke über Logik und Medizin (my italics) ins Persische übersetzt, und diese sind dann weiterhin von Abdalla b. al-Muqaffa und anderen ins Arabische übersetzt worden". 105 Duchesne-Cuillemin, o.e. 115.

23

himself used the parallels with and the assumed priority to Hebd. in order to fix a date for the Avestan prototype of Bund. Ch. 28, and we cannot reverse this argument. 106 We shall see, however, that this was exactly what Kranz did, but before we turn to Kranz/ interpretation another attempt at dating Hebd. ought to be mentioned. M. Wellmann 107 proposed to date Hebd. between 370-355 B.C. His arguments for doing so, however, are incorrect. Against Roscher he defended the early and Pythagorean character of the cosmology by referring to that of the Pythagorean Η ypomnemata of Alexander Polyhistor ap. Diog. Laert. VIII,25 ff. Wellmann dated this work in the fourth Cent. B.C., 108 but was definitively refuted by Α.-J. Pestugiere, who proved that the Hyp, are, a Hellenistic composition.10ίϊ Iiis second argument is based upon the wind-rose of Ch. 3. He argues that the Hebdomaclist lived in Cyrcne, for Cyrenc was also the native town of Eratosthenes, whose wind-rose, he says, is the same as that of Hebd. The names peculiar to the wind-rose of Hebd, (Ν. άρκτος, Ν.-Ε. βορέης) are explained by him as local Cyrenaean wind-names. In attributing a rose of 8 petals to Eratosthenes Wellmann followed Kaibel, whose theory about the history of the wind-rose had become completely irrelevant by 1933. 110 Nothing is known about άρκτος (which will be corrupt 111 ) or βορέοος as local Cyrenaean windnames. If the rose of Hebd. was a local Cyrenaean one, one would expect it to feature some of the Cyrenaean wind-names which we happen to know. 112 It does not. As was observed by Köster, o.e. 29, n.3. Die pseudohippokratische Schrift Περί έ[Η£ομάδων, One!!, υ. Staid, ζ. Gesch. d. Natur wiss. u. d. Medizin, 4 (1933), 0-i 0. 108 Eine pythagoreische Urkunde des IV. J ahrhuudcrls v. Chr., Hermes 54 (1919), 225 ff, Wellmann (1933) also quotes oiher I "ythagorean sources, but here either his references do not bear him out, or coneern a theory which is not exclusively Pythagorean (the 7 planets), or (loosely) apply to the medical section of II ebd. Unfortunately, Wei lm arm's arguments concerning I lie Pythagorean character of Hebd. were accepted by 1 >uehcsnc-Gin!leinin, o.e. 117. 109 Les 'Memoires Pythagoriques' cites par Alexandre Polyhistor, REG 58 (1945), 1 ff. See also C. j . De Vogel, Greek Philosophy 111, Leiden 1964, p. 341 ff. and W. Burkert, Hellenistische Pseudcpythagorica, Phil. 105 (1961), es p. 23-26. More about this Pythagorean document below, Ch. IV" p. 98 if. (and esp. ibd., n. 163). 110 For details about this and about the wind-rose of If ebd. see below, Ch. V C, p, 146 ff. 111 Ibd., p. 151 ff. 112 The fragment άνεμων θέσεις και προσηγορίαι (fr. 250 Rose, cf. also V. Rose, 106

107

24

W. Kranz 113 argued in favour of a relatively early date for the first part of Hebd. He refutes some of Roscher's arguments, 1 1 4 corrects others, 115 and adds new ones. The Ionian who wrote the whole work was, he thinks, a contemporary of the author of I Vr/./16 with whom Aristoteles ρ semi e p ig raphic us, Leipzig 1863» 247 if.) mentions I wo local Gyreη a can wind-names: t tie άπηλιώτητ in Cvrene was called ' Κλλησττοντίας (p. 200, 5; we also hear that it μάλιστα... ενοχλεί των Κύρη ν?, ίων λιμένα); εύρος bore i he name Κάρβας (p. 200,13-4). 113 Kosmos und Mensch in der Vorstellung frühen (Iriechentams {first publ, 1038, repr. in:) W. Kranz, Studien zur antiken IJieratur und ihrem Fortwirken, hrsg. v. Ii. Yogi, I leideiberg 1 CK>7, 1 05 iL 1,4 He (o.e. 170-80) accepts Lolls parallel (cf. above, p. 19, n. 82). 115 Roscher had argued that the earth in Uehd. is splen ica I, but Kranz proved (o.e. 182-3) that we may legitimately apply the words of the Hebdomad ist: to Anaxinlander's cylindrical earth. Cf. also C, J. I )e Vogel, Pythagoras, 172 and below, Ch. I l l , p. 60 ff. We have already noticed how Kranz corrected Boll's, Koschcr's and Goetxe's estimation of the macrocosm-microcosm-passage (above, p. 22, n . 101). I , 6 It is impossible to enter into the complicated problem of the dale of Vict. here. R. Joly, in his excellent recent monograph Reeherches sur le traite pseud o1 lippocratique Du Regime, Liege I960, es p. p. 203-9 (cf. also the introduction to his edition of Vict, in the 1 hide-series) dates Viel, around 400 B.C. Kranz, o.e. 176 has the last decade of the fifth Cent, B.C. in mind. W. Jaeger, Paideia II, Berlin 21959, 43, 45 ff. argued that it should be dated ca. 350 B.C. It. Oilier, Der innere Zusammenhang der hippokratischen Schrift de vietu, Hermes 87 (1959), 38 ff., esp. p. 55, is inclined to follow Jaeger. Mow A, Rehm in his learned Parapegmasiudtem, Abh. Bav. Ak., Phil.-hist. Kb, Ν. Ε l i e f t 19, München 1941, 38 ff, argued that the division of the year in Viet. 111,68 is that of Eudoxus' parapegma: " 1 )ie angestrebte Symmetrie der Hauptabschnitte des Jahres, insbesondere die Zerlegung des Jahres durch die zwei Erühphaseii der Pleiaden in gleiche Hälften, weist auf Eudoxos" (Rehm p. 38). Already Eredrich, f l i p p . Unters. 225 had noticed this similarity, but (following Μ a ass) did not believe the attribution of the Ε11 d oxus-pa rapeg m a to be trustworthy. But even if we should follow Eratosthenes in not attributing the Octaetcvis to Eudoxus (and it is not certain that the Octaeteris and the parapegma are identical; see for the evidence F. Lasserre, Die Fragmente des Endoxos von Knidos, Texte υ. Kommentare Bd. 4, Berlin 1966, 214), we still have to assume that at least part of its subject-matter is derived from Eudoxus (so also Lasserre, ibd.). Rehm, o.e. 30 ff. did not doubt the authenticity of the Iiu<\oxus-narapegina. Joly, who o.e. 132-3 gives a table of the division of the year as in Vict., apparently ignored Rehni's argumends. Lasserre, o.e. 225, rejects Rehm's proposal on the insufficient grounds that for some periods the number 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 B.C. (his approximate date for the Εudoxus- para pegma) is the t.p.q. of Viet.. Ϊ think Rehm is right

25

lie shares a detailed microcosm-macrocosm-theory, 117

Kranz postu-

l a t e s a common ancestor 1 1 8 for the theories of both Hebd. a n d Vict, a n d

attempts to date this archetype even earlier than the cosmology of Hebd. by referring to Bund. Ch. 28, in which the microcosm-macrocosm-theory must be considered as an 'older relative' of this archetype. 119 We have already seen, however, that the reference to Bund. Ch. 28 is illegitimate. 120 More important is Kranz 1 very careful discussion of Presocratic parallels for Hebd. Ch. 1-11 121 : he concludes thai the cosmology of Hebd. should be dated "not long after 500 B.C.' 122 We shall return to his arguments in one of the following chapters of the present study, 1 2 3 but it may, perhaps, already be remarked that this conclusion was reached only at the cost of some amount of special pleading. 324 Hebd. as a whole, Kranz thinks, was composed by a compiling physician, who conjoined ancient cosmology with contemporary pathology. 125 A most important contribution to the interpretation of Hebd. is

a n y w a y in rejecting Ineclrieh's hypothesis of a "popular' calendar imitated in Vict. A possible consequence of refusing to attribute the above-defined division of the year to Eudoxus would be an even later t.p.q, for Viel. However, for a possible t.a.q. for Viet., cf. below, Ch. IV, p. 105, n. 195. 117 To be more exact, Viet, contains two related but slightly different theories: 1,10 ff. and IV,89 ff.» see Kranz o.e. 173 ff. The so-called macrocosm-microcosm-'theory' of Choerilus of Athens (the tragedian, Kranz o.e. 176» Koster o.e. 31) is not of a theoretical nature, cf. below, Ch. [V, p. 107, n. 209. 118 J()ly» Ree (lev eh es 45, 185 holds that for/. Vinspirait des Sem nines' (Hebd.) 'en ce qui conccrne la doctrine du m i er< >cos η ι c -1 ηacroeosme'. This depends on the relative date one is willing to attribute to these two treatises (for the date of Viet., see above, n. 116). 11 ebd. could just as well be 'inspired' by Vict., as was suggested by Gomperz, Gvieck. Denket 1, 243 and W. Theiler, Gesch. teleol. Naturbetr. 56, who prefers a relatively late date for Hcbd. (cf. above, p. 22, η. 102); cf. also below, Ch. IV, p. 104 ff. and ibd., n. 195. 119 O.e. 188. 120 Kranz assumes that Goetze proved that tins part of the Greater Bumdahisn Ch. 28 is old-Persian. This is wrong, cf. above p. 21 ff. and p. 22» n. 99. Kranz also adduces (ox. 187 ff.) Oriental parallels for other theories in Hebd. (e.g. for the heptadology itself). 321 O.e. 180-3. 122 O.e. 180. 123 Below, Ch. I l l , p. 56 ff. 124 E.g., a theorv of άνταυγία is known to have been held by Kmpedocles, Piniol aus, Demoeritus and others. Kranz says, 182: 'es wäre verwunderlich, wenn nicht auch sie schon in früherer Zeit einmal vertreten wäre*. 125 O.e. 184.

26

thai by IL Gelir,126 who seriously challenged Koscher's position by attempting to prove that the two parts of the treatise are by one hand and that the echoes of early thought in the introduction are not sufficient to attribute an early date to part I as a whole. Gelir, who gave a very useful analysis of the contents of the treatise,127 emphasized the eclectic attitude of the author and correctly insisted that a use of early ideas does not entail an early date of composition.128 Furthermore, he pointed out parallels to younger Presocratic thinkers 129 and argued that ideas of various descent have been combined in an eclectic way. The work of selection ηnri combination may be due, not to the author of Hebd, himself, but to a late and eclectic Presocratic t hinker.l,i0 In this way, the date of composition of Hebd. part 1 need not be earlier than that of other works in the Corpus IIipftocralicum·. -- To these arguments Gelir added another and indeed crucial thesis: he argued that Koscher did wrong in separating the two parts of the treatise, for Hie contradictions which he pointed out are only seeming ones. Consequently, Hebd. as a whole would not be earlier thai) its second part, i.e. would have been written, say, by 370 B.C..131 However, Gchr's arguments in favour of this thesis are not wholly convincing. Indeed, he correct 1 ν pointed out that the theory of the elements in Ch. 15 closely resembles that of Ch. 6, 132 and 126 Entstehung und Entwicklung des wissensrhaftlirhen Wetthildes der Griechen bis auf Piatons Zeit, typewritten thesis München, 1049, p. 209-217 ('I)?r Schrift von der Siebenzahr). 127 ί Lowe vor, he pul far too much emphasis upon its ' Ungereimtheiten' (o.e. 211). hut this is perhaps inevitable as long as only Presoeralic parallels are adduced, 1aH O.e. 212.

O.e. 216. Geht" thinks that, the ολύμπιος /Ar><,v,~ is a rout muution of the ν/.ήν of the Vtomisis (but cf. below, Ch. V V, p. 136, n. 32) and that the idea of a πάγος is impossible before Empedocles (hut cf. below, Oh. OF, p. 56-7). The fact that the stars are not attached to the outer heaven would be evidence of the influence of Anaxagoras 5 vortex-theory (?; cf., however, below, Oh. IV, p. 111, ii. 235 and p. 1 15, n. 256). The theory * hut th" (fixed) stars have derived light is not earlier than Metrodorus of Chios (correct ; cf. below, Ch. 11, p. 38, s.v. άνταυγία). 130 Gehr says (o.e. 212) that Hebd, must be later than eclectics sucli as Diogenes of Apollonia. His only argument in favour of Diogenes is the influence of that thinker upon other Hippocratic works. Cf. below, Ch. I l l , p. 60-1, for a more precise argument in favour of Diogenes. 131 O.e. 217. 212 ff. 132 Contra Koscher, who had said that the 'Tetradenlehre' of Oh. 15 contradicts the theories of part 1 (above, p. 17 ff., n. 70).

27

that the peculiar theory of Ch. 1 concerning the water as the "Aufbewahrungsort der Wärme 1133 is also found in Ch, 6 and Ch. 15. 134 However, his affirmation that the arithmology of part I is also valid for part II because of the theory of critical days in Ch. 26-27 135 is unconvincing, as the number seven and its sway are absent from all the other chapters of part II. Finally, (iehr put forth an argument which is, as I believe4, both right and wrong: both in language and in content, 136 so he says, Hebd. does not differ from the other works in the Corpus Hippocraiiciim. However, this is dubious. If one thinks of the great majority of these works, it is wrong 137 ; if one thinks of a small minority, 138 it may be right. In that case, however, the date proposed by Gohr is not tenable. All the same, Gehr's countering of some of Roschers arguments is invaluable. As we shall see, this points the way towards a better understanding of the medical part of the treatise.139 We shall also see which conclusions may be drawn from a study of the peculiar theory of the water as the 'Aufbewahrungsort der Wärme'. 140 Miss J. Kerschensteincr141 accepted the opinion of Ilberg, Kranz and others that the medical section of Hebd. dates from ca. 400 B.C. The first section, however, makes an old-fashioned, impression.142 Although she admits the differences between part I and II, she points out that at least the theory of hot and cold in part II also plays a

133 c ; e j i r air,ο states (o.e. 213) that the theory that, 'die Wärme sei mit dem Wasser verbunden' is typical of Hebd, 134 O.e. 213. (iehr did not pursue this further; for an interpretation cf. below, Ch. IV, p. 78 ff. He also pointed out (o.e. 21.2) that the psychology of Ch. 13 based on the hot and the cold does not contradict that of Ch. 10 (cf. further below, Ch. VII, p. 205 ff.). For Roscher's views on Ch. 13 cf. above, p. 17-8, ti. 70. 135 O.e. 213 136 Ibd. 137 For the language of part 1, cf. below, Ch. II; for that of part II, below, Ch. VII, p. 212-3/ 138 Of. below, Ch. II, p. 32 ff. For the contents of part I, cf. below, Ch. III-VI; for those of part II, Ch. VI I. 139 Of. below, Oh. VII. 140 Cf. below, Ch. IV, p. 78 ff. 141 Kosmos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den Vorsokratikern, Zetemata 30, München 1962, 54 ff. 142 Not only is the world picture old-fashioned, but the 'primitive schematism' (o.e. 55) as well. For this schematism cf. however below, Ch. V A, p. 130 ff.

28

( m i n o r ) role in p a r t I, 1 4 3 a n d t h a t i n p a r t I I t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n m a n a n d t h e κόσμος, so p r o m i n e n t i n p a r t I, i s c o n s t a n t l y t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . T h e i m p o r t a n t M i l e s i a n e l e m e n t s 1 4 4 in t h e c o s m o l o g y of p a r t I a r e f u s e d w i t h l a t e r P r e s o c r a t i c theories. 1 4 5 T h e a u t h o r also b e t r a y s his f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h e.g. t h e t h e o r y of t h e s p h e r i c i t y of t h e e a r t h a n d w i t h t h e 7 planets. 1 4 0 These d i v e r g e n c e s w i t h i n p a r t 1 c a n b e s t be e x p l a i n e d by a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e a u t h o r of Hebd. u s e d "alte V o r l a g e n ' for t h i s section, which, h o w e v e r , he d i d not p l a c e before p a r t ΓΙ w i t h o u t h a v i n g r e v i s e d them. This, in h e r opinion, m a k e s ca. 4 0 0 B . C . a l i k e l y d a t e of c o m p o s i t i o n for t h e w h o l e t r e a t i s e . I e n d t h i s doxographical s u r v e y of s c h o l a r l y opinions, in w h i c h I h o p e n o c o n t r i b u t i o n of i m p o r t a n c e h a s been o v e r l o o k e d , with t h e e x c e l l e n t mise-a-point b y W . Burkert. 1 4 7 T w o points, so h e a s s u m e s , a r e of c r u c i a l i m p o r t a n c e for t h e d a t e of Hebd, p a r t I : if b o t h (1) t h e s p h e r i c i t y of t h e e a r t h a n d (2) t h e s e v e n p l a n e t s a r e u n k n o w n to t h e Hebdomadist, ca. 4 3 0 B . C . 1 4 8 is our t.a.q.. But whether IJebd. refers 143 'fhis was already pointed out by others, e.g. Fred rieh, Hipp. Unt. 135, 226, and Gehr, ef. above p. 27-8. 144 Most important for Miss Kerschensteiiier is the use in Hebd. of κόσμος in the sense of 'ordered part of the universe', which is, she argues, a (and the only) Presocratic parallel for this sense of κόσμος in Anaximander A9,7 απαντας τους ουρανούς και τους έν «ύτοΐς κόσμους ( = SinipL, inPhys. 24,17, from Theophrastus). However, see on this use of κόσμος below, Ch. II, p. 42 ff. 145 Miss Kerschensteiner, o.e. 55, partly following Gehr (cf. above, p. 27, n. 129) criticizes Kranz for not taking into account the relation to Empedoeles (she means the theory of άνταυγία, for which see above, p. 26, n. 124, and below Ch. II, p. 38), to the Pythagoreans (following Pfeiffer) and to Diogenes of Apollonia. For Diogenes she refers to Theiler, Gesch. ieleol. Natur betr. 55 ff. Theiier (see also above, p. 22, n. 102 and p. 26, n. 118) argues that the correspondences in μίμησις-theory between Vict, and Hebd. can only be explained by assuming the influence of a disciple of Anaxagoras (he mentions Archelaus( !) as the likely candidate in both cases, for the influence of the school of Anaxagoras upon Vict, has been proved by Fred rich, Hipp. Unters. 81 ff.). In Vict., however, other influences besides those of Pleraclitiis, Anaxagoras and Herodicus of Selymbria (so Fredrich) can be pointed out, so that it is not correct to say that philosophical correspondences between Vict, and Hebd. must be Anaxagorean whenever they are not Heraclitean. 146 These crucial points, however, as we have had occasion to notice, cannot as yet be said to have been proved conclusively. 147 Weisheit und Wissenschaft. Studien m Pythagoras, Philolaos und Piaton. Erlanger Beitr. z. Spr. u. Kunstwiss. 10, Nürnberg 1962, 269 n.7b, 273 n.lü3, 291 n.78. Especially his brief survey of earlier opinions is valuable. 140 Burkert plausibly argues (o.e. 293 ff.) that knowledge of the seven planets

29

to a sphericial earth or not is uncertain. 149 On the other hand, Hebd. Ch, 2,64 ff.R. speaks of άστρα... επτα έόντα and of various fixed stars and constellations which are connected with the order of the seasons. Burkert argues that while Sirius, the Pleiads etc. have been connected with seasonal changes from times immemorial, the relation between the seven planets and the seasons remains obscure. 150 He therefore opts for an early date for Hebd. part L

4. From the above survey it will be clear that we are facing a difficult problem. There appears to be a consensus about the discrepancies between the two parts of the treatise, though not always the same conclusions arc drawn from a recognition of these differences. That part I in one way or another reflects Presocratic thought seems to be universally agreed, but the exact identification of these reflections is disputed, and the question is further complicated by the distinction between the age of these reflected ideas and the time of composition of the treatise (c.q. uf its first part). Pur instance, Roscher, Kranz and Miss Kerschensteiner advocate both a rather late date of composition and the extensive use of early sources. However, are we to assume that the first part of Hebd. informs us of an earl}- Presocratic worldpicture only slightly contaminated by later ideas, or are we committed to emphasize the importance of later admixtures and to insist upon the eclectic character of the cosmology? was first introduced into Greece by the astronomer Meto of Athens, active ca. 430 B.C.: he refers to Tzetzes, Chil. 10,534 ff,; 12,219 ff.; 12,283 ff. (according to Meto a Great Vear cauls whenever the seven planets meet in Aquarius). We then find the »even planets with Philolaus (I'S 44 A It)) and liemoeiitus (KS 081356 and A92). I would like to remark, however, that even if άστρα επτα means the seven planets, Hebd, still could have been written well before 400 B.C. I may further be allowed to point out that I see no reason to be sceptical about Theophrastus' attribution of the discovery of the sphericity of the earth to Parmenides (see ICS 28Λ44, together with A 1, p. 218,1 and my Die Offenbarung des Parmenides und die menschliche Welt, Assen 1064, 245). If Theophrastus' information is accepted as trustworthy, Hebd, could be referring to the sphericity of the earth and still be quite early. 149 Pace Kranz, see above, p. 25, n. 115. 150 O.e. 291, n. 78; so also already Gehr. o.e. 210» n.2. Nevertheless, Burkert cautiously admits that it remains an 'open question' whether the seven planets are understood or not. For an attempt to solve the problem of the relation between seasons and planets see below, Ch. V B, p. 138 ff.

10

The road towards a solution of these problems is by means of a thorough examination of the most enigmatic part of Hebd,, viz. Ch. 1-11. Because of the discrepancies between the two parts of the treatise, each part should be tackled separately; part I, though being the most difficult, affords the best opportunities for detailed research. We shall look for criteria which are helpful in establishing a t.p.q. Up till now, scholars have confined their efforts to a questioning of the Presocratic parallels. However, such parallels in themselves are by 110 means productive of a solid t.a.q., 151 and we shall moreover see that we need not stop at ca. 400 B.C. in our search for related ideas. 152 There are also other kinds of evidence which may be used. One type of evidence, i.e. that afforded by the language of the Greek fragments, has been utterly neglected. 153 We may also expect some results to be deriveable from an investigation of the structure of Ch. 1-11. 154 In the pages which follow, these investigations will be undertaken. Only when they have been executed, we shall return (briefly) to the problem of the interpretation of the second part of the treatise. 155

Cf. Burkert's remarks in connection with the Pythagorean flypomnemaia, Philol. 103,1961, 26 11. 5, where he points out that there are Presocratic elements in the Stoa, in Epicurus, etc., as well. Also Theiler's remarks a propos the interpretation of the Π ypomnemata as given by Wellmann and A. Delatte (La Vie de Pythagore de Diogene Laerce, Bruxelles, 1922, 198 ff.) in his review of Delatte's book, Gnomon 2, 1926» 155: "Schon die Tatsache, dass zur Erklärung des Systems ziemlich jeder Vorsokratiker herangezogen werden muss, ohne dass die divergenten Bestandteile in eine neue Synthese eingehen, muss aus methodischen Gründen bedenken erregen". 152 See below, Ch. H i (incidentally) and especially Ch, IV; also Ch. Υ1. 153 See below, Ch. II; Ch. VII, p. 212-3. 154 See below, Ch. V A; for the structure of Ch. 1-2. s. Ch. IV, p. 1 13-20. iss S e e below, Ch. VI I. 151

31

C H A P T E R II

THE V O C A B U L A R Y OF T H E G R E E K T E X T O F

CH.

1-5

No analysis of the remains of the Greek text has as yet been attempted. Two explanations of this neglect are possible: (1) the material for analysis offered by Η ebd. has been thought to be either too corrupt or too slender. 1 I hope, however, to be able to demonstrate that this pessimistic attitude is unfounded. (2) Apparently, in the earlier part of our century (the heyday of interest in Hebd.), no later date than the fourth cent. B.C. was assigned to any work of the Corpus. During the last thirty-five years, however, several Hippocratic treatises have been proved to have been written in late Hellenistic and even GraecoRoman times. Before giving the results of my analysis of the vocabulary of Hebd., 1 will first summarize the results of these researches on late treatises in the Corpus. Such a summary perhaps is not easily found elsewhere, and it gives us the kind of background we require.

In 1935 L. Edelstein, in his article Htppokraies in Pauly-Wissowa, wrote that he considered 300 B.C. to be the t.a.q. for the treatises constituting the Hippocratic Corpus, although some of them possibly might be of a somewhat later date, 2 This caution has since been amply justified. In the same year (1935) K. Deichgräber, in a short article, remarked upon the Hellenistic character of the language of Praec. (παραγγελίας), Medic, (•π. ίητρου) and Decent, (π. εύσ/ημοσύνης).3 Praee. Cf. Koster, Mythe de Zarathustra, 29 n. 1. W, Η. S. Jones, Phil, and Wied. 7 says: "the few fragments in Greek may be, probably are, adaptations or paraphrases of the original; and so, as the rest of the work is known to us only in translation, the linguistic test for date and provenance cannot in this instance be applied". Jones' supposition of adaptation or paraphrase is unwarranted. But he has at least recognized that the Greek is unusual. 2 RE Supp. Bd. VI (1935), 1331. 3 Original und Nachahmung. Zu Ps. Aristoteles Μ.Μ. und Ρ s.Hippo kr at es 1

32

moreover contains u n m i s t a k a b l e E p i c u r e a n reminiscencies (as w a s alr e a d y observed b y Littre), a n d is p a d d e d w i t h ill-disguised quotations f r o m v a r i o u s t r e a t i s e s i n t h e C o r p u s . D e i c h g r ä b e r d a t e d Praec. a n d Decent. in t h e s e c o n d C e n t . A . D . 4 T h e n I L D i l l e r w a s a b l e t o p r o v e t h a t Ali m. (π. τ ρ ο φ ή ς ) , c o n s i d e r e d b y G a l e n t o b e a g e n u i n e w o r k of H i p p o c r a t e s , c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y b e e a r l y 5 : i t u n m i s t a k a b l y b e l o n g s to t h e s p h e r e of i n f l u e n c e of t h e P n e u m a t i c S c h o o l a n d e x h i b i t s a f finities with Stoic (Posidonian) thought. Its l a n g u a g e moreover has a Hellenistic colouring.6 Diller d a t e d this work a r o u n d 50 A.D.7 It is mentioned b y Nero's c o n t e m p o r a r y Erotian, but cannot be earlier t h a n A t h e n a e us of A t tali a, t h e a r c h e g e t e of t h e P n e u m a t i c S c h o o l , w h o m D i l l e r a s s u m e d to be a c o n t e m p o r a r y of t h e e m p e r o r C l a u d i u s . 8 D e i c h g r ä b e r \s v i e w s on t h e t h r e e w o r k s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e r e c e i v e d e x t e n s i v e a n d c o n v i n c i n g s u p p o r t in a t h e s i s b y h i s p u p i l U . F l e i s c h e r . 9 F l e i s c h e r

Π α ρ α γ γ ε λ ί α ι, Hermes 70 (1935), 106 ff. W. H. S. Jones in the Loeb Hippocrates (first inipr. 1923) already had remarked upon the late character of the language of Decent. (Jones Vol. 11,269 ff.) and accordingly had put this work later than 300 Ii.C. For his observations upon Praec. see Vol. 1,310 ff., where he advocates a late date of composition for this work. But Medic., he thinks (Vol. 11,306), dates from about 350-300 B.C.: " P h y s i c i a n is comparatively simple, and the Greek is rarely strange or obscure. There are none of the signs of a late date. Precepts and Decorum, on the other hand, are not only strange, but fantastic". The absence of strange and obscure elements, however, is not a reliable criierium. A. Lesky, Gesch. d. gr. Lit., Bern 21.963, 531, following Deichgräber and Fleischer, puts Praec. and Decent, in the second Cent. A.D. 4 This depends upon his dating of Aretaeus and the revival of Ionic, for which see below, p, 35. 5 Eine stoisch-pneumatische Schrift hu Corpus 11ippocraticum, Sudh. Arch. 29 (1937), 178 ff. Diller 190 n.2 accepts Deichgräber's dating of Praec. and Decent., but not of Medic., which he places in the fourth Cent. B.C. Jones (Loeb Hipp. Vol. I, 339) dates A Urn. in the fifth Cent. B.C. 6 Diller, o.e. 181. 7 K. Abel (o.e. below n.10) p. 203 cautiously argues in favour of the first Cent. B.C. as the most likely date of composition of Α lim. 8 Diller followed M. Well mann (.Pneumatische Schule, 5 ff.). F. Kudlien, Pose idonios und die Ärzteschule der Pneumatik er, Hermes 90 (1962), 419 ff., however, argues t h a t Athenaeus should be put one Cent, earlier. The testimony in Galen, de causis cont. (Latin transl. b y Nicolaus of Rhegiuni) p. 8,1 ff. Kalbfleisch conversatus enim fuit Posidonio is also found in the Arabic transl, ('pupil and disciple of Posid.') and is therewith vindicated for Galen; for these texts, s. CMC., Suppl. Or. II, Berlin 1969, p. 55,4-7 and 134,2-6. See also A. Lesky, Gesch. d. gr. Lit950, and below, Ch. V A, p. 130, n. 4 ; Ch. VII, p. 205 ff. 9 U titer suchungen zu den pseudohippokratischen Schriften π α ρ α γ γ ε λ ί α ς περί

33

also studied the theories contained in these treatises, but based his conclusions m a i n l y upon the linguistic evidence which he collected. The language is not a pure Ionic, but interspersed with Hellenistic words a n d 1 onicising neologisms. Fleischer dated Praec. and Decent. in the first/second Cent. A.D., and Medic, in the third Cent. B.C. In 1958 k . Abel 1 0 proved that ( ord. (π. χοφό'ίης) must have been written in Hellenistic times. In its g r a m m a r as well as in its vocabulary Hellenistic elements are unmistakably present. 11 1 he work fin therm ore presupposes a state of medical knowledge which is only possible after Erasistratus of Alexandria (third Cent. B.C.): it refers to anatomical dissection of the human body 12 and is familiar with the ventricular system of the heart, which according to Oaten was discovered by Erasistratus. 13 The position of Diller and Abel was further strengthened by P. Kudlien. 14 His earlier date for Atlienaeus of Attalia leaves room for the composition of Alim. between the time of Posidonins and that of Erotian, i.e. between ca.. 50 B.C. - 50 A. D.15 On the other hand, he was able to point out Stoic (Posidonian) and Pneumatic influenees in Cord. This would make the* latter work contemporary with or even later than Alim. (it is not mentioned by Erotian). Kudlien also convincingly argued that Medic, should be put later than the fourth Cent. B.C. 16 This treatise belongs to a type of είσαγωγαί which does not occur earlier than the Stoa. Its emphasis upon chirurgy points towards a relatively late date (100 B.C. - 100 A.D.). Its language, as Fleischer had already pointed out, is definitely Hellenistic. The third Cent. B.C. is the t.p.q. of Medic,, but. it is almost certainly much later. Deichgräber had put Praec. etc. in the second Cent. A.D., because he thought that this was the earliest possible time at which medical

ι η τ ρ ο υ und περί εύσχημο σύνης (Neue deutsche Forsch. 240, Abt. Klass. Phil. Bd. 10), Berlin 1939. It was reviewed by Η. Diller, Gnomon 17 (1941), 23 ff., who tliere maintained his earlier dating of Medic, and who is, 1 think, somewhat too sceptical about linguistic criteria for dating purposes. 10 Die Lehre vom Blutkreislauf im Corpus H tppoeratie um, Hermes 86 (1958), 192 ff. 11 Ibd. 194-6. 12 Ibd. 198 ff. Cf. also F. Kudlien, Anatomie, RR Supp. Bd. XI (1968), 41 and 44. 13 Abel, o.e. 201 ff. Cf. above, p. 33, n. 8. 15 Kudlien therefore partly agrees with Abel (above, p. 33 n. 7). 16 Muimassungen fiber die Schrift περί ίητρου, Herrn es 94 (1066), 55 ff.

34

writers started using the Ionic dialect again. A well-known example of this is furnished by the work of Aretaeus of Cappadocia, which we still have; Aretaeus has generally been dated in the second Cent. A.D. However, as we have noticed, Oilier had to assume that Ionic was used as a vehicle for medical doctrines already a century earlier because Aiim. is mentioned by Ε rot i an. F. Kudlien moreover was able to demonstrate that Aretaeus should be dated in the first Cent. A.D. 17 ' Kin ne tiers tar kt er llippokratisiiins (ist) spätestens im l» J h . η. Chr. unverkennbar..,. Arzte schreiben zu dieser Zeit....schon wieder ionisch'. 18 The above survey shows (a) that linguistic considerations are a trustworthy touchstone for the dating of Hippocratic writings. The material collected by Diller, Abel and especially Fleischer (who has extensive word-lists) is quite convincing in itself. Once the analysis based upon linguistic evidence had pointed the way it has gradually become possible to find snpporting evidence among the theories contained in the works which have been studied so far. It is also evident that (b) at the latest in the first Cent. A.D., but almost certainly a cent ury earlier, medical writers turned again to the dialect of Hippocrates. The first Cent. B.C. is the most likely time of composition for at least A lim. and Corel., both of which belong to the sphere of influence of the Pneumatic School. In itself, this return to the classics of medical writing agrees very well with other elassicistic trends in the first Cent. B.C.1®-

The words I have selected from the Greek text of the first section of II ebd. are given below, in alphabetic order. The Greek word is followed by the corresponding word(s) in the Latin translation(s) and (if possible) in Bergstrasser's German translation of the Arabic ps. Galen.20 The list is not exhaustive (I have not checked the history of every word). Words deriving from scholarly conjecture have been excluded (εκδοχή, έτεροίωσις, κύκλωσις). The list contains 3 verbs and 24nouns,

17

IJ nter such ung en zu Are tains von Kappadozien,

Abh. Mainz, Geist.-Sozw. Kl.

1963, 11, Wiesbaden 1904, p. 7-40. IH Hermes 1966, 57. Cf. also his /Untersuch., ρ B0« 10 For which see below, the Conclusion, p. 229 ff. ;-υ The Arabic ps. Galen does not give the full text of Ηebd. as λήμματα, but in some eases a translation of parts of the text has been fused with the commentary.

35

the latter constituting about 20% of the about 120 different nouns found in the Greek text of Ch, 1-5, which is a fairly high percentage. 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 so on. 1 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 1 bad reached turned out to be in agreement with what it had to offer. 1 have neglected to make a special study of the style, but I think Littre's characterisation quite apposite: l e s t y l e . . . a de la recherche et de l'obscurite, sans manquer cependant d'une certaine elegance'. Tins 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. ά γ ω γ ή (1,87 R.; άγωγή . . . της ίκμάδος; tr. d u c a t i o ) : ' c o n v e y a n c e f (sc, of moisture). 22 Ά γ ω γ ή in this sense is unparalleled before the second Cent. B.C. (in classical Greek 'bringing' of persons and things, or 'education", 'culture 1 etc.; cf. also ps. Plutarch's title π, παίδων αγωγής). I.G. 12(5), 872 (from Tenos): a certain Autolycus bought some property, including ύδατος άγωγάς τάς ούσας των χωρίων, "irrigation-channels" or '-ducts'; this inscription is dated by its editor in the second Cent. B.C.; Dion. Hal. 111,67: "among the three most magnificent works of Rome I put τάς των υδάτων άγωγάς (aqueducts)" ; cf. Μ on. Anc. Graec. 19,5 άγωγός ύδατος. The use of the subst. άγ. in Hebd. probably is a catachrestic extension of this technical meaning; in our text, άγ. is connected with αρδευσις (q.v.). The subst. ύδραγωγία ('conveyance of liquids') occurs in Plato, Tim. 77e8, in the description of respiration as the driving power of the irrigation system The language of Hebd. part II is studied below, Ch. VII, p. 212-3. There is a lacuna in the text: και (<ένεον> Kalbfleisch, <το έν> Roscher) τούτο ισ ι Οερμόν, ό άγωγή και «ρδευσις έστι της ίκμάδος. The Latin translations read et adunatum cum his calorem qui etc.. Perhaps <προσηνωμένον> should be con jeetured. ΓΙ ροσενόω is late Hellenistic: Jos. A J VIII,3,6 ('fitting in'); pass. c. dat. Corp. Herrn. Χ,11,17 (ed. Bude) ο σα ούν προσήνωται τω ύμένι της κεφαλής ταύτης (sc. the κόσμος), . . . αθάνατα πέφυκεν. The simplex ένόω occurs earlier, and was a favourite term of Posidonius; cf. Sextus, Μ . IX, 78 ff. (in Posidonius, 'united' things are distinguished from other types of eomposita). 21

22

36

of the blood in the body; also Arist., PA III,5,668al2 uses ύδραγωγίαι when describing the flow of blood (on the analogy between the bioodsupply and an irrigation system cf. I. M. Louie, Bull. Hist. Med. 38, 1964, p. 426, who also refers to Galen. Nat. Fac. Ill, Ch. 1.5, CI. Galeni Scripta Minora Vol III, cd. G. Helmreich, 1893, 2 1967, p. 254,1 ff.) The subst. υδραγωγός = 'aqueduct', 'irrigation-channel' first occurs in the third Cent. B.C., cf. LS J s.v. II ,2b (cf. also the meanings listed ibd. 11,1 and 11,2a); it also occurs in one of the later books of the lipid., VI 1,122, = 'dropsical person'; the adjective υδραγωγός, = "bringing water', is G raeco- Roman, cf. LS J s.v. I. - The verb άγει ν is only rarely used with moisture; Eur. Ale. 1081., with δάκρυ ('elicit a tear'), is not technical but analogous to the other examples mentioned LS J s.v. άγω 1,6. A good example is A rat., Phaen. 217 καλόν ύδωρ άγαγειν, in the story of the origin of the source Hippocrene on Helicon. Here the. verb describes a violent and not exactly 'natural' process. In Nat. Horn. Ch. 6 it is used a number of times to describe the effect of emetics upon the inner humours; here it is synonymous with ελκειν (e.g. VI,44,16; 46,6 L.). N.B.: the pathological part of Hebd. uses ολκή in the sense given above to άγ., and in a related context (the heat within the soul draws moisture unto itself; in Ch. 1,87 R. it is also heat which is operative): Ch. 14,47 R., esp. 14,74 ff. R.: τήν έφ' έωυτό (sc. τό της ψυχής Οερμόν) ολκή ν της του υγρού ίκμάδος κ.τ.λ., cf. also 14,89 R., and 19,15 R. όλκήν χολής ή φλέγματος. However, in Ch. 14 the heat exerting a motive influence is exterior to the substance moved, while in Ch. 1 it is interior to it. 2. άκολουθέω (2,72 R.; άκολουΟέει δέ "Αρκτος τω 5 Αρκτούρω ; 2,77 R.: αί δέ Πλειάδες τή< σιν e Υύασιν> άκολουθέουσι; tr. secutionem habent, folgt): 'follow upon . Not used in this astronomical sense before Autolycus of Pitane (ca. 350-300), De ost. 11,2, p. 239,24 Mögen et, τό ακολουθούν, of that part of the Zodiac which follows the rising sun; also called τό επόμενο ν, ibd. 11,2,17, cf. also Hipparchus, in Ar at. 1,11,5 (p. 114,10 Manitius): the feet of the Great Bear are distinguished as ό ηγούμενος and δ επόμενος. This use of έπομαι is technical; I. in the myth of Plato's Phaedrus may be compared, but is not technical. 3. άκολουθίη (2,74 and 83 R.; tr. sequent ia<m>): 'sequence in which heavenly bodies follow one another, cf. above s.v. άκολουθέω. No parallels in this astronomical sense: probably derived directly from άκολουθέω sensu astronomico. Ά . occurs in classical Greek, but in the abstract sense of 'sequence' it is Hellenistic, cf. LS J, s.v. 1,2.

37

4. άνΟησις (4,15 R; tr. floritio, belauben): 7 l o w e r i n g , blossoming, of plants. Not before Theophr.: 8 times in CP according to Wimmer's index, e.g. VI,8,2, VIII,3,3. Otherwise a rare word: once in Plutarch, Quaest. com. 647 f.: 'people sleeping in the shadow of a yewtree (σμΐλαξ) may be killed by its smell, όταν οργα μάλιστα προς την άνθησαν.' 5. ά ν τ α υ γ ί α (1,51 Κ.; την των άστρων άνταυγίαν; lr, splendoceui, Licht): * r e f l e c t e d light* of the stars. The noun ά. first in Xen.,Cyn. 5,18, of the contrasting colour of a hare when seen against the background of freshly ploughed earth or of a stubble-field. It is a 'doxographical' term: thrice in VS 31 A5(> (Act. 11,20,13), of Ihr sun of Empedoeies (the B-fragrn. limp. Β 44 uses the verb, άνταυγε'.). Also of the sun of Philolaus, VS 44A19 (Aet. 11,20,12) and in the explanation of the eclipses of the moon by 'older Pythagoreans', i.e. Philolaus, Aet. 11,29,4: the reflected light of the central fire is intercepted b y either earth or counter-earth. The verb άνταυγεΐν is used in the chapter on vision of Cam. (Ch. 17), which echoes AJcmeon's theory (cf, VS 24A5 = Theophr., Sots. 26, where Th. sny^ άντιφαίνη) ; we find it already e.g. Eur., Or, 1519, of a flashing sword; then again ps. Arist., Probl. 932a27, of the sea. Arist. himself speaks of άνά^λασο: and οψις ανακλώμενη (Mete. 373a32,35, of the rainbow). For th.e reflected light of the rainbow Anaxagoras uses a synonymous expression, Β 1.9 άντιλάμ,πον (verb !) τω ήλίω. The theory that the (fixed) stars have reflected light is paralleled in Metrodorus of Chios (a * pupil' of Democritus), VS 70A9 ( = Aet. 11,17,1) where ποοσλάμπεσΟα». is used; that all the stars have reflected light is a theory of Strato, fr. 85 Wehrii = Aet. 11,17,2. 6. άρδευσις (1,88 R . ; lr. irrigatio): 'irrigation . Hellenistic: in Moschio's description of the gigantic vessel of Hiero II, ab. Athen. V, 209d5; Polyb. IX,43,5. The synonymous άοΜσ. is also post-classical, Conjoined in our text with άγωγή» q.v. 7. αύτόδρομος (2,6 R . ) : 'self-moving , of the circular movement of (at (least) the heavenly bodies. Not found elsewhere. Galen XIX, p. 87 Κ, explains αυτοκίνητος, ώς έν τω περί έβδομάδων. The word αυτοκίνητος is found in one papyrus of Plato, Phaedr. 245cf) (mss. αεικίνητος); Robin rashly adopted this reading in his Budeedition.23 'A. occurs for the first time Arist, Phys, 258n2. For the Cf. the argument contra of J . B. Skemp, The Theory of Motion in Plato's Later Dialogues, Cambridge 1942 (Amsterdam 21967), p. 3 n.2. Note also that

23

38

notion (not the term) in the Stoa (Chrysippus) S\rF 11,471 ( = Arius Did. fr. 28 Diels), p. 152,32 ff. είναι το ov πνεύμα κινούν εαυτό προς εαυτό και έξ αυτού, ή πνεύμα εαυτό κινούν πρόσω και οπίσω and SVP 11,413 ( = Arius Did. fr. 21 Diels), p. 137,2 ff.: the First Element (ή άίδιος δύναμις) has such a nature ώστε αυτήν τε κινεΐν κάτω προς την τροπή ν και άπό της τροπής άνω πάντη κύκλο). For the terra cf. SVl· 11,988 (p. 287,40 το πυρ αύτοκίνητον), VS"VF 11,490 (on different kinds of (self-) motion) and the passage from Sextus, Μ. IX,76, quoied SVP 11,311, p. 113,4 ff., on the Stoic concept of Divinity, which is the cause moving and shaping the universe: αύτη ούν ή δύναμις ήτοι αυτοκίνητος εστίν ή υπ' άλλης κινείται δυνάμεως; the latter cannot be right: εστί τις άρα καθ* έαυτήν αυτοκίνητος δύναμις, ήτις άν ειη θεία και «ίδιος. 1lie term occurs in the Placita: Aet. IV,2,1 and 2 (of the ψυχή in Thales and Alemcon) and IV,3,1, again of the son! (referring to 1 V,2). N.B.: Aet. IV,2,5 the soul in Plato is said to be εξ εαυτής κινητήν. Cf. also Stob., Hermetic, Exc, XV 1,1 ψυχή.. .τυγχάνει.. .ούσα αεικίνητος κατ' ο ύ σι αν, κατά νόησιν αυτοκίνητος (with Fest.ugiere's note, Bude III, p. 74, n.2). In the long chapter εί εστι κίνησις of Μ . X» the word occurs a number of times (the possibility of self-motion is refuted by Sextus): M. X,77, where the context refers to primary and elemental bodies; M. X,83 (2 times), 84. N.B. δρόμος is used sometimes in the sense 'course', of heavenly bodies: ps.Plato, Ax. 370b6-7 περιφοράς άστρων και δρόμους ήλίου τε και σελήνης; cf. Josephus, Ant, 1,32; Philo, Act. niund., VI, p. 100,8 Cohn-W.; Dio Chrvsost. 19(36),42; M. Aurel ¥11,47; Sextus, Μ. VII,47 and X,67. In doxographical literature: Aet. 111,1,2 (Dox. 365,1 ff.) τόν ήλιακόν... δοόμον: Arius Did. fr. 34 Diels (Dax. 467,19) = SVP 11,677 μήνα δε καλεισθαι τήν του δρόμου αυτής περίοδον. Cf» also the epigram of Claudius Ptolemaeus (transmitted in the Ptolemaeus-mamiscripts, at A nth. Pal. IX,577, and elsewhere, cf. F. Boll, Das Epigr. d. CI PL, Jahresb. Phil Ver. Berlin 74, 1921,2 ff.) άστρων... αμφίδρομους έλικας. In Ocellus 19 (p. 15,19-20 Harder) h περί τήν (περί τήν is equivalent to a genitive) σελήνην δρόμο£ (separating the realms of immortality and becoming) means the 'sphere' of the moon, cf. Harder ad /., p. 92 ff. Of a meteorological, phenomenon Eur.,

Hippolytus, Philos. 19 (Dox. 568,12 ff.) quotes this sentence from the Phaedrus with αεικίνητος and uses αυτοκίνητοι in his paraphrase. F.f. also (ί. J. De Vries, A Comment, on the Phacdrus of Plato, Amsterdam 1969, note on215c5 (p. J2J), who defends αύτοκίνητον (De Vries points out that the quotation, in Hermias. 108,6 ff. Couvreur shows that this commentator had αεικίνητος in his text).

39

Ρ ho en. 163 δρόμο ν νεφέλας. Άυτόδρομος ' s e l f - m o v e d f also leans upon one of the meanings of τρέχω, viz. "to move quickly' ( L S J s.v., 1,2). - The ptc. αύτοδρομών (of backwards-flowing water) occurs once, Dion. Byz., Bosp. new. p. 53,9 Wescher (prob, second Cent. A.D.). For the παλινδρομική κίνησις of the sea (Strabo 1,3,8, from Posidonius) cf. Reinhardt, Poseidonios 108 and RE s.v. Pose id. 047. 8. ά φ α ί ρεσις (1,67 R.; σελήνης . . . προσθέσει και . . . άφαι<ρέσει> (the restoration is certain); tr. augment um et defect ionem, Zunahm e- Ahn ah me): 'decrease', of the moon. See below, s.v. πρόσΟεσις (esp. the quotation there from Vett. Valens). Both ά. and π. occur in Plato (not before), but it was Aristotle who combined them into a pair of polar technical terms: 7 u p . 1181)10 arid 17, Cacl. 299al6, Met. 1077bl0. For the doxographical use of this pair cf. the definition of one kind of Aristotelian κίνησις, Aet. 1,23,2 κατά μεν το ποσόν αυξησιν και μείωσιν (see below s.v.), έν προσθέσει τινί Οεωρουμένην και αφαιρέσει κ.τ.λ. and Aet. V,8,2, on πώς τέρατα γίνεται according to Strato: this happens παρά πρόσΟεσιν και άφαιρεσιν. Cf. also Sextus, Μ. I Χ,279 κατά άφαίρεσιν μεν οίον τά φθίνοντα, κατά πρόσΟεσιν δε οίον τά αύξόμενα. 9. β λ ά σ τ η σ ι ς (4,16 R.; tr. fructiferatio, fructificatio; wachsen p. 57 Bergstr., 17 ν c): 'budding, sprouting , of plants. Not before Arist. (once, HA 564b2); 24 times in Theophr., according to Wimmer's index, both in HP, e.g. 1,14,1, 111,5,1 and CP, e.g. 11,15,6, IV,6,2. Diels-Kranz apparently assume that ß. was used by Menestor, Men. 4, VS I, p. 375,23; but this quotation comes from Theophr., CP 1,17,3 and will not be verbatim. This word also occurs in a. reference to Democritus, CP 11,11,7, where it will be Theophrastean as well. I have found no examples of ß. in Hellenistic Greek, but it is used by Patristic authors, see Lampe s.v. To my knowledge, the verb βλαστέ ω instead of βλαστάνω does not occur before Theophr. Hebd. 4,15 ff.R. says ουδέ βλάστη σις έν Οέρει (sc. γόνιμος); cf. A rat.., Phaen. 332 ff. ούκέτι κείνο ν (sc. Σείριον) άμ' ήελίω άνιόντα (July) / φυταλιαί ψεύδονται άναλδέα (Too weakly') φυλλιόωσαι /.../ . . . τ ω ν δε φλόον ('sap') ώλεσε πάντα. 10. έ κ βολή (5,15-6 R.; οδόντων έ.; tr. dent i um inu tat ionem, Wachsen (sie) d. Zähne): 'loss\ of first teeth. In this sense not before Arist., GA 789al5. The verb εκβάλλω To shed one's teeth' occurs since Solon, fr. 19,2 Diehl (e.g. Eur., Cycl. 644); for this fr. of Solon see also below, s.v. λάχνωσις. 11. έ ν α ν τ ι ω σις (2,82 ff. R.; τά άστρα άκολουΟίην εχει άλλήλοισι και έ., tr. contrariet at em, bewegen sich... auf verschiedene Art): 'contrariety'. Not before Thuc. (once, VI II, 50, 'being at

40

variance with'); cf. for this 'logical' sense also Plat., Rep. 454a8, 607c2; SVP 11,29,17 and 50,7. Arist., Met. 986bI the plur. is used for the Pythagorean contraries; έ. is used frequently by Aristotle. In Theophr., CP IV,4,8 (plur.) 'objections'; Schol. Horn. Β on IL XX,67 = Theag. Rheg. 2, VS 1, p. 52,3 and 6: the "enmities' of the gods (elements), hor the doxograplncal use cl. l)ox. 570,4 (Ilippol., Phil. 19,23) and ibrl. 570,31 (ibd. 20,6), both times in an ethical context. The meaning of this pari of the sentence quoted from Hebd. (see also above s.v. άκολουΟίη) apparently is: "the stars follow one another but also move in contrary directions'. What contrary movements are meant? In (ieminus, ενάντιος and ύπενάντιος ate technical terms for the movement of sun, moon and planets through the Zodiac from West to East, Elem. ed. Manitius p. 10,4-5; 136,8; 140,11. Geminus, however, adds words like κίνησις, In Hebd. the idea of motion is not expressed, but may perhaps be supplied from άκολουΟίην. Boll, who thought the movements of the planets were understood, 24 quotes Eur., ft. 861 2N., άστρων... έναντίαν όδον, explained by Achilles p. 48 Ma ass as έναντιαν τοις άπλάνεσι φοράν... των πλανήτων (note, that also in the Euripides-fragment the idea of motion is expressed). Έναντίο>σις sensu astronomico is, as far as I know, only paralleled in the Hermetica, 11,6-7, a very difficult passage: "I have heard you say that the planetary spheres are moved by the sphere of the fixed stars. - Ουκ εστίν αύτη, ώ Ασκληπιέ, συγκίνησις άλλ' άντικίνησις" ου γάρ ομοίως κινούνται, άλλ' εναντία?, άλλήλαις· ή δέ έ ν α ν τ ι ω σ ι ς την άντέρεισιν της κινήσεως έστω σαν ε/ε ι * ή γάρ άντιτυπία στάσις φοράς (other terms used here are έναντιότης and ενάντιος φορά). For the problem of the astronomical interpretation of this whole passage see below, 25 12. έ π τ α μ ε ρ ή ς (1,97 R., restored 1,26 and 31; ir. septinarium, teilt sich in sieben Teilen): ' h a v i n g seven parts*, Not before Hebd. Then once in Philo, I, p. 63,23 Cohn-W. ψυχής . . . το άλογον έπταμερές; the chapter in Philo begins with the maxim χαίρει δέ ή φύσις έβδομάδι (N.B. Philo, as we have seen, quotes from Hebd. in his Op. mund.) Διμερής Arist., PA 667b32: τριμερής Arist., Top. 133a31; also in the early Peripatetic VV, 1249a30; πενταμερής Strab. 111,4,19; έξαμερής (of the six parts of the hexameter) Orph. fr. 356 Kern, one of Kern's spuria ei dubia; οκταμερής Diog. Laert. VII,110. Of the

24 25

Lehensatter 221. Ch. 'V B, p. 138 ff.

41

formations in -μερής mentioned by Κretschmer-Locker none is prePlatonic: e.g. άμερής is Platonic, όμοιομερής Aristotelian. 13. κ ό σ μ ο ς 1 (1,43 ff. Κ. τάξιν την του άκριτου κόσμου, tr. inseparabiiis mundi; 1,71 ff. R. ή του ήέρος σύστασις και κόσμος (Roscher, -μου ms.); 1 /)(> ff. R. οί των ξυμπάντων κόσμοι, tr. omnium (Ρ, ~nta A) mundi; 2,3 ff. Κ. οί υπό τη γη κόσμοι, tr. snh terra circuJi (!); 2,15 ff, R. and 2,42 ff.R. ολύμπιος κόσμος, tr. olympus niundus): 'cosmic region , 11 (2,24 ff. R. κατά μέσον ίύ τον κόσμον, tr. Ill medio mundo (A, Medio iniindi P): Ί/ie universe\ - Who was the first to say that the world is a κόσμος is a thorny question into which I cannot enter horn; it may have boon Pythagoras or one <»1 his early followers.2r> Anyhow, the at tested early uses of κόσμος show several shades of t hesame meaning: "work{-order t 'arrangement of parts', ' s t r u c t u r e d whole', etc. (cf. I Icrack 1110; Anaxag. P>8, Km p. 1526,5, Diog. A p. B2, Piniol J>1, 1)2, BO). The first instance, of κόσμος ~ (simply) 'world* may be Emp. I >134,5. In Hebd. 2,24 ff.R. the emphasis is more on the whole than on its order. In Hebd, κόσμος also means 'cosmic region', no less than 4 (5) times; the outer haven ('Ολύμπιος κόσμος) is such a region, the air is, indeed all seven regions of the universe are called κόσμοι (1,96 ff.R.). I do not think this meaning is early. The second half of Philol. A16 is often quoted in this context: here we have a tri partite division of the world into "Ολυμπος (outer heaven), κόσμος (the 5 planets, sun and moon) and ουρανός (the ύποσέληνόν τε και περίγειο ν μέρος). It has been proved, however, that this part of Phil. A16 is not authentic; a tripartite universe is post-Platonic. 27 The meaning of κόσμος in Phil A16 therefore cannot be an early example; it never was 1 )e Vogel, Pythagoras, 21 S, 278, mentions the term among those, particularly connected with Pythagoras. Our most reliable guide is Plato, Cr org. 508a3 ff.» who says that οί σοφοί (i.e. the Pythagoreans, cf. Dodds ad I.) call the universe of heaven and earth, gods and men a κόσμος. Λ et ins 1Γ J ,1 has it that Pythagoras was the first to give the name of κόσμος to the των όλων περιοχή - which probably does not mean 'the universe', but "the encompassing outer sphere*. Cf. Diog. Lacrt. VII14S: 'according to ΙΟΊ vorimis, Pythagoras was the first to call the ουρανός (heaven) κόσμος» and the earth round', where the distinction between ουρανός and γαία makes it certain that ουρανός — "heaven' (cf., on the other hand, the report in Plato, where the Pythagoreans were supposed to have given the name κόσμος to earth A- heaven). Both Favorinus and Aetius attribute to Pythagoras a meaning of κόσμος which is not attested before P.pin. 9S7b7. 27 Burkert, WW. 228-9 n.40. Burkert argues (229) that this part of AI6 is a Hellenistic appendage. 26

42

an exact parallel for meaning i in Heid, anyhow. Λ better parallel is provided by Plato, Tim. 55e-d, where the suggestion is made that maybe then 1 are 5 κόσμο», instead of one, if, that is to say, we are willing to look at the problem fron» ;? point of view which is rejected by Plato himself.28 It is not clear what Plato is thinking of: the 5 regular solids, or the 4 elements f- encompassing heaven.^0 Plutarch [de E.WH, Dej, or. 420a ff., 422c ff.) thinks that the 5 spherically arranged cosmic regions of earth, water, air, fire and ether (or Olympus', light', Ileaven 1 ) are meant. This interpretation probably goes back to the discussions on the Tim. within the Early Academy. 30 There is some evidence for this, Ε hin. 087b 7 slates that primarily the outer heaven deserves th^ name of κόσμος31 (ibii. ^771)2 κόσμος, "Ολυμπος and ουρανός are used synonymously) ; this, by the way, comes very close to liehd.* 11 so of ολύμπιος κόσμος. Aristotle in CaeL and Meie, usually has κόσμος in the sense of 'universe' (e.g. Cael. 27(>b3 το πάν όμωνύμως αν λέγοιτο κόσμος), but in Mete, ho also uses it in a more restricted senso, distinguishing between (1) the περί τάς άνω φοράς κόσμος, which is filled In rther,^ 3301)18) and (2) the περί την γη ν ολο; κόσμος which consists of the» 4 other elements, 339a, 10). 33 In \ristotle's opinion, the universe (κόσμο::) ma ν bo grosso modo subdivided into two κόσμοι.31 This use is not exactly parallel to the seven κόσμοι of Hebd., but may be interpreted as a legitimate extension or variation of a possibly early Academic subdivision of the, universe; for Aristotle, in any case, The idi a t hat thern ate mifiiiitiraable κό<τμυι (it referem e to the Atomi cs) has already been dismissed Tn<;. 55cb if. IS lYL ( ornford, Plain's Cosmology, London U952. 220 ff.: J. Kersehensteiiner,

2H

i \ o . s w n s .) ι i i .

Kerschensleioer, I\o.%nnr< 53. Ί ,ο;!ιΓ reminds otic οt a theory of tleraclides pontic us (fr. OS, fr. 100 Welirli). 31 Cf, also Tin?. 40a6, ν jth a pun on yorv/'.·; -- 'ndonmient\ and (probably) Phaedr. 246cE2 (cf. below, Ch. IV, p. 122, n. 288). 30

33

Cf. also the use of κόσμος [wundus) in Arist. π. oil. arcording to Cie., SI) 1.33

( - fr. 20 Poss) and Pestngicre's comments, I a Revelation d'Hmues Trismrgiste, II, Lf Dien Cnsmique. Paris 1040, 244-5. 33 Cf. Kerschensteiner, ibel 45 ff.» where also other Aristotelian references may be found. 34 Cf. the Earl ν Aeademir tripartite divisions of the cosmos quoted bv Barker! (above n. 27): Heraclides Pontkais fr. 95 Welirli (Zeus heaven -i- fixed stars, Poseidon 5 planets and sun, Hades --- moon aiul what is below the moon) and Xeoocrates, fr. 5, fr. 15, fr. 18 Heinze (highest heaven and what is outside it; stars; what is below the moon). On these theories cf. also P. Boyance, La religion astrale de Piaion äCictron. REG 65 (1952), 33! ff., Chi.

43

t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e e t h e r a n d t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s a r e of p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e . A n o t h e r t r a c e of t h i s E a r l y A c a d e m i c a n d P e r i p a t e t i c c o n c e p t i o n m a y p o s s i b l y b e f o u n d in Eudemus' interpretation of t h e m e a n i n g of πεντέμυχος in P h e r e c y d e s (A8, f r o m Damascius, = E u d e m u s fr. 150 W e h r l i ) a s πεντέκοτμος, b u t t h i s r e m a i n s u n c e r t a i n . 3 5 1 h a v e r e s e r v e d for t h e e n d t h e u s e of t h e p l u r a l κόσμοι in S i m plicius' t e s t i m o n y on Anaximander, VS 12 AO ( = S i m p i , in Phys. 24,14ff., f r o m T h e o p h r . ) έ ξ η ς (sc. f r o m the αρχή = the άπειρον) άπαντας γίνεσΟαι τους ουρανούς και τους έν αύτοΐς κόσμους. 3 6 i t is c l e a r t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n s of t h e one u n i v e r s e m u s t b e m e a n t b y τους έν αύτοΐς κόσμους. 3 7 S o m e s c h o l a r s h a v e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e uncommon ness of t h i s e x p r e s s i o n m a k e s the a s s u m p t i o n a t l e a s t probable t h a t T h e o p h r a s t u s h e r e is a c t u a l l y q u o t i n g f r o m Anaximander's book. 3 8 P e r h a p s , h o w e v e r , w e s h o u l d b e g i n b y t r y i n g to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t Theophrastus meant when h e w r o t e t h i s s e n t e n c e . W h e n w e r e m e m b e r κόσμος = ' p a r t of t h e universe" i n A r i s t / Mete., it is possible to i n t e r p r e t t h e κόσμοι of A n a x . A 9 a s t h e t w o chief s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n t h e one w o r l d , i.e. t h e e a r t h

Kerschensteiuer, o.e. 53 advocates the copy-right of Eudemus, It is not clear what is to be understood by the '5 hidden corners' οί Pherecydes. For further examples of κόσμος in a 'regional' sense cf. Diog. Laert. VI IΓ,48: Pythagoras was the first to call the ουρανός (heaven) κόσμος. Diog. Laert. VI 1,137 has as one of the Stoic definitions (meanings) of κόσμος: αυτήν δέ την ^ακόσμησιν των αστέρων κόσμον λέγουσί, (cf. also Philo, Α et. mu. 4, VI p. 73,9-10 Cohn-W.). In the Corpus Hermeiicum (Stob,, Hermet. Exc. XXIII,60 and 36), a distinction is made between ο έπι/θόνιος κόσμος and ό μετάρσιος κόσμος, while the hymn of Cleanthes (SVF 1,537, p. 122,3-4) has σοl δή πας δδε κόσμος, έλισσόμένος περί γαΐαν, / πείθεται, ή κεν άγης (but cf. below, Ch. IV, p. 112-3 n. 244 in fine), 36 On the other, more unreliable versions of this doxa see the excellent comments of Ch. H. Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology, NY 1960, 34. 37 G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus, The Cosmic Fragments, Cambridge 21962, 312 suggests that the distinction of the two terms depends on Aristotle's discussion of the meanings of ούρανός cLtCael. 1,9,278b 11 ff. (1. outer sphere; 2. outer sphere 4~ sun, moon and some of the stars; 3. the whole universe). But this does not explain the meaning of the plural form κόσμοι in Theophrastus. I believe that the matter can be settled by referring to the first chapter of De igne, where Theophrastus distinguishes between the 'first sphere' and that "around the earth' (see below, Ch, IV, p. 82-3 and p. 83 n. 80). Moreover, it should be remembered that the Mete., in which the double meaning of κόσμος occurs, were much more important for Theophrastus than the De Caelo (cf. the article by Steinmetz referred to below, Ch. IV, p. 82 n. 77: Theophrastus abandoned the ether-theory of Cael.; his own theory of elements is rather close to that of Mete., etc.). 38 E.g. Kahn, o.e. 49. 35

P4

and sea and air on the one hand, the heavenly 'wheels' on the other. 39 The world as a whole is here called ουρανός40 by Theophrastiis to avoid confusion with κόσμος in its special sense. The logical consequence of our interpretation is that we have to assume that, according to Theophrastns, Anaximander taught that there was an endless succession of worlds (ουρανοί), all of which arose from the άπειρον, and all of which contained the same main divisions (κόσμοι), i.e. (a) the rings (or what preceded them cosmogonically, cf. γίνεσΟαι) and (b) the earth etc. I conclude that the special meaning of κόσμος in Hebd, cannot be early, but is post-Platonic. Those who assume that κόσμοι ('cosmic regions') was already in Anaximander refer to II ebd. as the only Presocratic parallel. 1 would be guilty of circular reasoning if 1 accepted that on this basis the use in Hebd. is early as well. On the other hand, Theophrastiis 1 words in 12A9 can very well be explained when we think of what this early and often faithful pupil of Aristotle could mean by κόσμοι έν ούρανω. 14. λ α μ π η δ ώ ν (1,57 R.; tr. splendorem Littre, -idum ms.): ' f l a s h i n g brightness of the starb. The first certain instance of λ. is Epicurus, Ep. Pyth. (3), 101,5 Arr., the theory of άστραπή: brightness results when πνεύμα forces the finer cloud-particles to emerge. Epicurus here follows a theory of Theophrastiis. Perhaps he also took the term λ. from him 4 1 : (1) in Aet. 111,3,8 = VS 64 (Diog. Αρ.) A16 we read that lightning is the λ. caused by fire falling upon a wet cloud; (2) Aet. 111,5 π. ίριδος is an (in this context at least) extensive and systematic treatment of the rainbow, to which three doxographical notices have been appended. This chapter impresses me as possibly being a fragment of the π. φύσεως ιστορία.42 Here λ. occurs twice (Dox. This corresponds to Kerschenstemer's interpretation, o.e. 44, but is reached in another way. 40 Kahn, o.e. 50, following the speculative interpretation of Zeller, Cornford arid Kranz, thinks ουρανοί means the celestial 'rings', κόσμοι the arrangements of earth, water and air. He assumes that ουρανοί and κόσμοι are A naxi ma rider's own terms; but elsewhere (Al 0, A l l , A18) the celestial rings are termed κύκλοι then why not this time? (cf. Kersehensteiner, o.e. 44). 41 Cf. Arrighetti's comment, p. 483, and esp. the {German translation of the) Syriac excerpt from Theophr.' Meteorology, in E. Wagner-1\ Steinmetz, Der Syrische Auszug der Meteorologie des Theophrasi, Abli. Ak. Mainz, Geist.-S/w. KL, 1964, 1,23 (Meteo. 351a27) and the comments on p. 37 ff. (άστραπή — 'Wetterleuchten'; p. 38 the text from Epicurus is tjnoted). 42 On the difficult problem of the relation between Theophrastiis' systematical and his doxographical works cf. P. Steinmetz, Die Physik des Theophrast, Pa39

45

373,8 and 12) in what is presumably Theoplu.' own explanation of the various colours of the rainbow, which are caused by the reflection of the A. of the sun in different kinds of water-drops, e.g. Dox. 373,7 ff. ή λαμπρότης του ηλίου προσπεσούσα και ή ακραιφνής λαμπηδών κ.τ.λ. Λ. does not occur in Arist., who instead once has λαμπρότης, Meie, 370al5, in his reiutaiion ot Qeidemus' theory of light n i n g ( ! ) . Λαμπρότης (first in licit., e.g. 11,101) almost a l w a y s lias a metaphorical meaning, the literal sense apparently being reset ved ior A. (hut cf. DAX. 3/3,7 quoted above, ps. Arist., Μ-it. 305a3(> and Hipparchus, in Aral, p. 42,2 Manitius). Λάμπω and Λαμπρός are used of the brightness of heavenly bodies ( ! ) , of armour, eyes etc. since Homer. Λαμπηδών is a common wo i d in Hellenistic Greek: lüod. Sie., I ί 1,37 λ. αστραπή ( ! ) παραπλήσιας projected by the eyes of gigantic snakes; Allem., OIL Y,9() (gold); Sext. limp., Pyrrh. 1,45 (e\'es); Hut., AemAS (bronze). Common also in Patristic Greek, in literal «as well as in metaphorical significations; cf. also Corp. Menu. X,4 (νοητή λ. compared to that of the sun). For λ. of the brightness of heavenly bodies parallels are mentioned b y Lampe s.v., the beginning. 15. λ ά / ν ω σ ι ς (5,21 R.; γενείου λ . ) : 'first growth' of the beard. Only here. The verb λα/νούται in Solon, fr. 1 9,0 ί )iehl (<4. also above, s.v. εκβολή. N.P>. this is Solon's heptadie fragment), 4 3 of the down on a youth's chin ; then again Strato, A .P. X I I J 7 8 . Glossed by llesyeh. as τριχούται, δασύνεται. Λάχνη ('down') is Homeric (Oil. 11,320). 16. μ ά ν if} α ι ς (1,53 R.; τήν των άστρων άνταυγίαν και μ.; lr, Taxationen!, Porosität): 1 l o o s e n e s s of texturef rarefaction , Not before Arist. and a l w a y s joined with πύκνωσις; /7m. 2121)3, 217a 12, 2 6 0 b 8 a n d 11. In the doxograplitcal vocabulary of Theophr., cf. VS 13 (Anaximenes) A5,23 πύκν.) — Simpl., in I'/iys. 150,1, who himself uses μανύτ/jc - πυκνότης; IS (Hippasns) Λ7 9 ~ Simpl,, in Phys. 24,1» where also Heraelitns is mentioned; further VS 60 (Arehelans) lingenesia I', Batl Homburg etc, 1964, esp, 334 if. On Theophr/ theory of the rainbow s. Steinmetz, o.e. 201 ff. (not wholly convincing, e.g. in the treatment of Aristotle, who did not say that the rainbow is produced 'im schon fallenden Regentropfen', cf. Meie. 3731)21 μήπω δέ ύη): the Theophrastean 'experiment' (a rainbow is visibly produced "wenn man Wasser auspustet', Steinmetz 202) is also found Act. 111,5,9 (Dox. 373,10 if.) For this type of "experiment* <:f. Stein met ζ 323 (but ahead) AnAiotle knew how to p.. .-du« r an .n tifi< i.il rainbow in a very simple way, cf. Mete 37461 ff.). 43 Cf. further below, Ch. VI p. 161 ff. and p. 174 n. KM.

46

A7 = Aet. 1,3,6, πυκνότητα και μ. Πύκνωσις alone Theophr., CP Π, 9,2, IV,12,4, ¥,8,3, V , l l , 3 ; μάνωσις alone IV,14,2 and V,ll,3. In Arist, and in Theophr/ doxographical work μ. has the dynamic sense * rarefaction 1 ; in CP V, 11,3 it apparently has a static sense, = μανότης. As far as 1 know, it is nowhere used (as in Hebd.) for the light of the stars. Ps. Galen (p. 9,3 ν b ff. Bergstr») explains ttiat the fine light of the stars, by reflecting that of the sun, lessens the compactness of the night, which shows that he takes μ. in the dynamic sense. 17. μέθοδος (2,9 R.; the heavenly bodies have αύτόδρομον κύκλωσιν της τε περιόδου και μ.; I f . itineris): 1 f o l l o w i n g after'. In this literal sense only in an anonymous quotation in the Sucla, see L S J s.v., the beginning; probably influenced by that of περιόδου in the context. 18. με ιό ω (1,66 Κ.; σελήνης... με ιού ση ς άφαι<ρέσει.>; lr. hinae mi mien tis defectionem, Herabsteigen): ' w a n i n g , of the moon. The verb μειουσθαι (Med !) not in this sense before Plato, (once), Cr at. 409c.5 ό μεν μείς άπο του μειουσΟαι ειη άν μείης ορθώς κεκλη μένος, possibly the fons el origo of this usage, but note that Plato speaks of the month. Also ps. Arist., Mu. 399a7; Aet. 11,29,4 in the explanation by 'younger Pythagoreans' of the eclipses of the moon, i.e. in a somewhat different, but related, context. These Pythagoreans are later than Philolaus, which m a y or may not imply that this note is a later addition to the body of Theophrastiis 1 work. Hippoh, Phil. 6,5 (Dox. 560,5 ff., on the phases of Anaximander's moon) may (but need not) go back to Theophr.; cf. also Act. If 1/17,3: the tides according to Pytheas of Massilia are due to πλήρωσις and μείίυσις of the moon. Ant. Diog. 4 αύξομείωσις "waxing and waning of the moon'. For later instances cf. Philo, Op. mund. 101 (quoted below) and Spec, leg. 11,57 σελήνης αύξομένης τε και μειουμένης, Arrianus lipid. 1,14,4 and the μειωτικόν σχήμα of the moon in Vett. VaL 1,35 (p. 41,6 Knill). In Poimandres 25 the ascending soul gives up its αυξητική ν ένέργειαν και μεκοτικήν to the sphere of the moon. The verb μ. does not occur before Xenophon (Eq. 5,9 'moderate', Cyr. VI, 3,17 'disparage/): for the middle voice C. Hipp., Epid, 1,26,γ (11,690,2 L.), of the spleen, cf. Xen, Mem. IV,8,1. The subst, μείωσις is used in a more general sense by Arist., GC 320b31 ( = φΟίσις, of natural phenomena), Cat. 15a 14 (one of the είδη κινήσεως, cf. also Sextus, M. X,38 and Aet. 1,23,2 = Dox. 319,8.); Theophr., CP IV,4,11; Ar, Did. Epil. Fr. 20 (Dux. 458,5, on Chrysippus) and Fr» 27, ibd. 462,20 ff. (on Posidonius). Hippoh, Phil. 19,16 (Dox. 569,8 ff., 5 times); Niconi. Geras., hilrod. p. 3,13 Hoche

47

τά έν γενέσει και φθορά και αυξήσει και μειώσει; of the bones C. Hipp., MochL 24 (IV,368,10 L.). - To my knowledge, the use of the active voice με ιού σα as in Hebd. is unique (cf. also below s.v. τελειόο); perhaps analogous to σελήνη φθίνουσα (Arist., Gael. 2911)20)). ΦΟίσις "waning' Arist., HA 582b2, GA 767a4. The verb cpf). with μήν ('month') current since Homer (Od. .14,102, cf. e.g. Thuc., V, 19). Note that Galen's Glossary (XIX, p. 151 K.) explains φθίνει by μειούται and 3 other synonymous expressions. See further below s.v. τελειόω. 19. μ ί α (1,41 Κ. μίαν . . . έν πάσι τάξιν; tr. utiiini, erste): '/irsT, The uniim of the Latin transl. makes it a certainty that μίαν is not a copyist's error. The ordinal instead of the numeral sense is only found in the Septuaginia, cf. L S j s.v. εις 1 ,h and Schwyzer 1,5954, where this use is explained as a Semitism. It is in any case tinclassical. That the ordinal is meant is clear from Ch. 2,50 R. δευτέρην, 58 R. τρίτη ν etc. N.B. For μία in the Septuaginta, cf. Genesis 1,5 και έγένετο εσπέρα και έγένετο πρωί, ημέρα μία. It is interesting to read Philo's comment, 44 Op. mund. 15 (I, p. 4,15 ff. Colin-W.) εκάστη δέ των ή μέρων άπένειμεν ένια των του παντός τμημάτων την π ρ ώ τ η ν ύπεξελόμενος, ή ν α υ τ ό ς ουδέ π ρ ώ τ η ν , ί ν α μή τα ις ά λ λ α ι ς σ υ γ κ α τ α ρ 10 μ ή τ α ι, καλεί, μ ί α ν δ' όνομάσας ο ν ό μ α τ ι εύΟυβόλω προσαγορεύει, την μονάδος φύσιν και πρόσρησιν ένιδών τε καί έπιφημίσας αύτη. Cf. further Ioann. Lydus, Mens. II»4, P· 21,3 ff. Wuenseh και την μεν π ρ ώ τ η ν ήμέραν (of the week) μ ί α ν έκ της μονάδος, άλλ' ού πρ ο>την έκ της εβδομάδος κλητέαν κατά τους Πυθαγορείους δια τό μόνη ν είναι καί άκοινώνητον ταΐς άλλαις κ.τ.λ. From this it would appear at least that this use of μία was something special. 20. τταντρύφος (1,94 R.; ή γη... έστι π. έξ ύδατος έούσα; tr. victum, omnem victum, von der Erde ernähren sich alle Dinge): 1 all-nnrturing , of the earth. Late Hellenistic and later. First in Meleager, A.P. ¥11,476, of Γα: 'a new variation of common poetical adjectives' 4 5 ; after Meleager not uncommon in funeral epitaphs. Once The passages from Philo and Lydus are compared by \Y. Theiler, rev. of K. Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik hei Philo η von Alexandrien (Leipzig-Berlin 1931), DL Ζ 1933, 1304. Staehle had argued that Lydus knew Philo; Theiler holds that this possibly is correct, and adds the parallel in Mens. 11,4 to the other concepts which are (in a w a y ) common to Philo and Lydus. The divergence may be explained by assuming that Lydus drew on IMiiioV, lost ιτ. άριθμών (so Theiler; for π. αριθμών cf. Staehle, o.e. 7 ff.). 45 Gow-Page, The Greek Anthology, Hellenistic Epigrams Vol. 11, 638. ίΙαντό44

48

in Philo, HI p.108,13-9 Cohn-W., metaphorical: άγευστοι... του παντρόφου γεύματος σοφίας. Universally rejected varia lectio for Aesch., Sept. 294 πάντρομος (sec e.g. Groeneboom ad I. and the foolish explanation of Schol. Dindorff p. 334). Twice in the Orphic hymn-book (not earlier than the second Cent, A.D.), 10,12 and 26,2 Quandt, both times of the earth. Transliterated in ps.-Galen's comm., p, 19,5 ν d Bergstr. 21. πέπανσις (4,18 R.; tr. inaturitas, reifen die Früchte, p. 57 Bergstr., 17 ν c): ' m a t u r i n g \ of plants. Not before Arist. (twice, Mete. 380al 1 and 21, in a botanical and a medical sense respectively); once in Theophr. HP, 111,4,1; 6 times in CP, e.g. 1,14,3. Philo, I, p.227,12 Colm-W., in a metaphorical seiibe. ΙΙεπαίνω, of fruits, is Ionic (Hdt. 1,193; IV, 199) and Attic (e.g. Aristoph., Pax 1163); for its use by authors of the Hippocratic Corpus see LS J s.v., 3. N.B.: no denominatives in -ανσις occur before Aristotle, the only exception being (according to Schwyzcr I, p. 505) Plato, Crat. 405b2 περίρρανσις. In Erotian, p. 69,8 Nachmanson the word πεπασμός occurs; the reference is to de Hum. 3, V,480,2 L. 22. π ε ρ ι π ο λ ί η (2,19 R.; όδον... π.-ς; tr. iter circueundi, kreisen (in the paraphrase)): 'revolution1 of (at least) the stars, sun and moon. Only here; the usual form is περιπόλησις: Heracl. Pont., fr. 89,9 Welirli = Diog. Laert. VII 1,4; then Graeco- Roman, e.g. Philo I, p.14,15 Cohn-W., IV, ρ 148,14, V, p.9,12. An interesting parallel is the sentence on the quadrivium (in Ionic) quoted Nicom. Geras. Introd. 1,3,3 (p. 6,11 ff. Hoche) from Άνδροκύδης ό Πυθαγορικός, which mentions κύκλων περιπόλησες as the subject-matter of astronomy. Androcydes, who wrote on Pythagorean symbola, lived about the end of the fourth cent. B.C. The fragment is hardly authentic,46 but this does not diminish its relevance. Nicomachos himself, o.e. 1,3,2 (p. 6,7) defines the subject-matter of astronomy as το φερομενον και περιπολούν. The verb περιπολέο> does not occur in the here required sense before Plato, Tim. 41a3 περιπολουσιν (of the heavenly bodies; in Crat. 405c (etymology of 'Apollon') the verb πολεΐν and the subst. πόλησις are found); cf. Arist., π. φιλ. fr. 12a Ross; Epicurus, Ep. Pyth. (3),112,4 Arr. To make a complete revolution', i.e. to vanish out of sight τροφος, said by Gow-Page to be Aesehylean, is only doubtfully so: Aesch. fr. 192 2 M. 323,14-5 Mette is printed by Mette λίμναν f τταντο f τροφον AIO^ottcjv. Lobeck conjectured πάντων, alii alia. 40 Burkert, WW 151 ff., n. 9.

49

every 24 hours. Common in Philo, e.g. II, p.248,10 Colm-W., IV, p.281,17. - Possibly π.-ίη seemed more Ionic to our author than -ησις; Fleischer instances partly parallel neologisms in Praec,47: 48 ξυγχωρίη, έτοιμοσκοπίη, and in Decent. : άδεισιδαιμονίη, άταρακτοποιίη or -ποιησίη. I h e verb (see also above) occurs Hebd, 2,10 R.; here the heavenly bodies are said to 'make the earth revolve' (τήν γήν περιπολέειν ποιεύμενοι). Ριιί 2,1,4 Κ. if. this leads to the conclusion that the earth is stationary! The best version of the Latin translation (Ambr.) lias terrae circuitmn facientes. Harder proposed to change τήν γήν into τής γής and to read περιπολίην for περιπολέειν, which is a most likely emendation; 11 ' It is also possible that after τήν γήν the gen. τής γής has dropped out, which in its turn could have caused the change from substantive into verb. If this is correct, π. would oceur twice. 23. πρόσθεσις (1,65 R.; σελήνης . . . π . ; ir. anginen tum, Zunahme): 'increase', of the waxing moon. N.B.: 'Addition' not before Plato, Phaed. 97a 1, 1011)9, 101 c7; αύξησις κατά πρόσΟεσιν Arist., GC 333b 1; P/iys. 245a27 (in a general sense). 'Increase 1 : Vett. VaL 1,5 (20,17 Κ roll).. .γνωσΟήσεται, πότερον πρόσΟεσιν ή άφαίρεσιν ή ώρα έχει. Π. του ήλιου 'increase of the sun's heat', Pap. Mag. Leid. W. 9,48. See further above, s.v. άφαίρεσις, and above s.v. μειόοκ 24. σπορητός (4,4 and 11 R., -ατός ms.; tr. seminatio, Zeit der Saaten ps. Gal., p. 57 Bergstr., 17 r f.): (sowing-tin ι e'. In this sense apparently only here and in Galen's paraphrase, Comm. in lipid. / , CMC V,10,l, ]>. 13 (see also below, s.v. φυταλία). Galen speaks of both σπ. and φυτ. and adds, significantly: αυτοί (sc. the author of Hebd.) γάρ ούτως όνομάζουσιν (cf. above, p. 9 ). Other meanings: Aesch., Ag. 1392 'sown corn'; Xen. IIG IV,6,13 'sowing of corn'. The same semantic change as with φυταλία, q.v. 26. τ ε λ ε ι ό (ο (1,65 R.; σελήνης . . . τελειούσης; tr. crescent is): Ίο wax full', of the moon. The intr. is curious (cf. also above, s.v. μειόω), but cf. Arist., GA 757b24; the pass. GA 776a31, 'to bring into ripeness 1 . I have found no other instances of the verb predicated of the moon. For the expression cf. perhaps Aet. 11,29,4 τήν τελείαν πανσέληνον. Τ. in temporal expressions: Plat., Pltc. 272d7 επειδή... O.e. 20. « O.e. 66-7.

47

4H

R h . Μ. 1893, 437, n. 1. Roseher 1911, 67 proposed (περί) τήν γήν περιπόλησα

ποιεύμενοι, l)iil printed the ms.-text in his 101 3-edit ion.

50

χρόνος έτελεώθη, the solemn language of the m y t h ; for τελέω cf. LS J s.v. 1,7. For the waxing of the moon Arist. uses αυξάνω AP Ο. 90a3, Gael. 201 bl9. For the full moon Homer has πλήΟουσα, IL XVIII,484. it is difficult to resist the temptation of explaining this somewhat catachrestic use of τελειόω by means of a reference to the vocabulary til arithmetics. Λ 'perfect number' (αριθμός τέλειος) is equal to the sum of its divisors. Now 28 is such a perfect number: 1 4 - F 7 + 4 + 2 + 1, cf. Nicont. Coras. lnlrod. I, l(>,2, p. 34,14-40,10 Roche. This number is also that of the days of the month: 4 X 7 days, Theo Smyrn., Exp. 102,19 ff. Hitler μήν δέ καθ' εβδομάδας τέσσαρας συμπληροΰται; it is διχοτομος in the first week, full in the second, διχότομος again in the third and. starts anew in Oie fourth: τη τετάρτη σύνοδον ποιου μένη ς προς ήλιον και άρχήν ετέρου μηνός. Philo, Op. miind. 101, Cohn-W. ΐ, p. 35,2 if.: από μονάδος συντεθείς έξης ο έπτά αριθμός γέννα τόν οκτώ και είκοσι τέλειο ν . . . ό δέ γεννηθείς αριθμός άποκαταστατικός έστι σελήνης, άφ' ού ήρξατο σχήματος λαμβάνειν αυξη σιν αισθητώς, εις εκείνο κατά με ίω σι ν άνακαμπτούοης * αυξεται μεν γάρ άπό της πρώτης μηνοειδους έπιλάμψεως άχρι διχοτόμου ήμέραις επτά, εΙΟ' έτέραις τοσαύταις πλησιφαής γίνεται και πάλιν υποστρέφει διαυλοδρ ο μου σα την αύτήν οδόν, άπό μεν της τιλησιφαους επί την διχότομον επτά πάλιν ήμέραις, είτ' άπό ταύτης επί την μηνοειδή ταΐς ίσαις. Both quotations are from an arithmological context, in which, moreover, the. number 7 is discussed; the phases of the moon are an instance of the uni versal power of this number.50 Quite probably, therefore, the author of Hebd. is thinking of the hebdomadic nature of the month (Ch. 1,25 ff. R. he has told us that each part of the world has in itself or din em septinariurn). If this interpretation is correct, the use of the (among other things) arithmetical terms πρόσθεσις and άφαίρεσις (q.v.) can also be understood better; for πρ. and άφ. in an arithmetical sense cf. e.g. Nicom. Geras., Inirod. p. 117,20 and 22, Hoche; for προστιΟέναι and άφαιρειν in a geometrical sense cf. Ch. Μ u g l e r , Dictionnaire historiqiic de la terminologie geometrique des Grecs,

Paris 1959 (n.b.: Mugler lists uses of the substantive only as late as Proclus, but cf. Sextus, Μ. IX,277 ff., esp, 294, 298/301). The parallels from Philo and Theo also explain the opaque άνιούσης (Hebd. Ch. 1,63 ff.R.: σελήνης άνιούσης και τελειούσης κ.τ.λ.). A 'rising' moon does not make sense in our context, but a 'returning' moon does (cf. Tlieo's remark on the fourth week and Philo's άνακαμπτούσης and πάλιν υποστρέφει,.. την αύτήν οδόν...): the ever-repeated cycle is in our Cf. further below, Ch. Vf, p. 179 ff.. p. 183 ff.

51

author's mind, as is of course also clear from his reference to the moon's waxing and waning. 26. φ υ τ α λ ί α (4,5 R . ; ir. plantatio, eine Zeit, in der die Pflanzen gepflanzt werden): (-planting time , the season of late winter. Not elsewhere in this sense. Homer (e.g. IL XI1,314) "planted place 1 ; Ap. Rhod. 11,1003 'planting 1 ; Arat., Phaen. 332 (plur., quoted above s.v. βλάστη σις) 'planted places' or things'. For the semantic change and Galen's remark see above, s.v. σπα ρητό ς. Transliterated ps. Galen,, p. 55 Bergstr., 17 r e. 27. φύτευσης (4,13 R.; if. plantatio, die Pflanze, die. . gepflanzt wird p. 57 Bergstr., 17 ν b); 'planting . Hellenistic: not before Halle pap. 1,81 (third Cent. B.C.): ps. Arist. Mu. 399bl7. The verb φυτεύω since Homer. Xen., Oec. 7,20 has φυτεία in this sense, which also occurs later.

The conclusion must be, I think, that this section of Η ebd. cannot have been written before 400 or even 350 B.C. The language definitely has a postclassical colouring. The relatively great number of abstract nouns (of a "technical' nature) points towards a late date of composition as well 51 . Three words (αύτόδρομος, λάχνωσις and the seemingly archaic περιπολίη) are άπαξ είρημένα. Five words (άκολουθίη, έναντίωσις, σπορητός, τελειόω and φυταλία) have a meaning to which Hebd. has the exclusive rights. Hellenistic are άγωγή (in the sense used in Hebd.), άρδευσις, έπταμερής (if not coined by our author), μία, πάντροφος and φύτευσης; also λαμπηδών. if not from Theophrastus. From the Peripatetic vocabulary we have άνθησις (not in Arist.), άνταυγία ('reflected light', Theophr.), άφαίρεσις + πρόσθεσις (though used in a Hellenistic sense), βλάστη σις (once in Arist.), εκβολή (οδόντων, Arist.), λαμπηδών (Theophr.?), μάνωσι,ς and πέπανσις; these words, as we have noticed, also occur in later writers. The astronomical meaning of άκολουθέω (Autolycus of Pitane) is contemporary with Arist. and Theophr., while the Platonic use of the otherwise Theophrastean and Hellenistic μειόω is an isolated instance. 51

Also note, in the prologue, Ch. 1, §1,6-8 R. septinarium habere speeiem et

definitiones,

1.8-21 R . septinariam

natnram

habent

et speeiem

et

perfectionem,

28 R. oninem speeiem. Though it is hazardous to guess which Greek words are represented by species and definitiones, it should at least be clear that this arid, eoneeptual language can hardly be Presocratic. Cf. further below, Ch. V11, p. 226 n. 126.

52

Peripatetic technical terms are relatively frequent; they occur in the cosmological and botanical parts of Hebd. A possible explanation is that the author used Theophrastus' doxographical work (or a later revision) 52 c.q. works by philosophers influenced by Theophrastus 1 systematical and/or historical works 53 for the construction of his cosmology (this is also suggested by the parallels quoted in the word-list). He was in any case familiar with Theophrastus" botanical works or literature deriving from or influenced by these works when composing the chapter on the agricultural activities to be performed in the various seasons. The vocabulary as a whole (neologisms, fabricated Ionic forms, technical terms from the philosophical vocabulary and the intrusion of everyday Hellenistic idioms) exhibits the same characteristics as that of other late works within the Corpus Hi-ppocraticiim.

See further below, Ch. ¥ A, p. 130 ff. and esp. p. 137-8 n. 36. See below, Ch. IV, p. 84 n. 9; p. 86 and ibd. n. 102; p. 108 if. and p. 108, n. 21.3; p. 117-8; esp. Ch. V, p. 137, n. 36. For Theophrastus and the Stoa cf. Ch. IV, p. 84 ii. 89, p. 86 n. 102. 52

53

53

CHAPTER

111

THE PRESOCRATIC PARALLELS

The Presocratic character of the cosmology in Chapters 1, 2 and (> of Hebd. constitutes what is perhaps the principal argument pro tfie antiquity of the first section of this treatise. 1 Roscher and others have indicated a substantial number of parallels in Presocratic thought. The most thorough of all was W. Kranz, 2 who collected the parallels for almost every single item of the, cosmology and concluded from this survey that the (original of the) first section of Hebd. had been written not long after 500 B.C., because the world-pu lure its author lakes for granted is that of this period. 3 This last observation is of fundamental importance. If it could indeed be proved that the wo rid-pic tore of Hebd. as a whole is that of an earlier period (which if would be very difficult if not impossible to reproduce in later times), this would be a much more plausible argument than the enumeration of individual parallels.4 It is, however, not easy to define the Presocratic worldpicture, because the cosmological theories of the individual thinkers and schools of this period differ considerably. Ontf^ understandably, therefore, Roscher and Kranz have tried to concentrate noon the affinity between the theory of Hebd. and that of a particular Presocratic school, viz, the early Milesians. In order to achieve this, however, they were obliged to play down the allusions to theories of other Presocratic schools or individual thinkers. Another, and quite different w a y of proving the archaic character of the cosmology of Hebd. is to indicate a number of "not yets'. In this way it has been assumed that Ch. 2,24 ff.R. does not state, as yet, that the earth is a. spherical body, and/or that Ch. 2,64 ff.R. implies that its author was ignorant of the 1 2 3 4

Cf. the chronological exposition of the status quaestionis in Ch. 1, above, p. 16ff Kosmos und Mensch, 180 if. P. 180: 'einheitliches W e l t b i l d . . . als etwas Gegebenes vorgetragen'. Cf. above, Ch. I, p. 31 n. 151.

54

distinction between planets and fixed stars. If the author of Hebd. takes for granted that the earth is not a sphere and that there is no need to distinguish between planets and fixed stars, his world-picture would not only be Presocratic, but even early Presocratic. 5 Admittedly, however, the wording of 11 ebd. in those crucial passages is ambiguous. Also, it can not be proved that the, world-pieiui e as a whole is exclusively Presocratic, let alone early Presocratic. I do not wish to deny that the parallels to Presocratic. thought which have been intimated by several scholars are justifiable. This does not imply, however, that Hebd. is necessarily early, but at most that it may be so. Ab posse ad esse η on est illatio. 1 believe that the Presocratic parallels can be explained without our hav ing to azurne that ihe first section of Hebd. is itself a product of Presocratic times, 6 I also believe that it can be proved that the world-picture which the author takes for granted is definitely not that of the Presocratic period. 7 To these two points I shall return later. In this chapter, 1 shall confine myself mainly to a study of those Presocratic parallels which have been adduced by various scholars, in order to ascertain whether or not it is correct that these 'parallels* are exclusively or even undoubtedly genuinely Presocratic. First, however, f shall briefly summarize the cosmology of the first section of Hebd. The universe of Hebd. is (of course) divided into seven parts, (1) the 'inseparable' and cold κόσμος, encompassing the whole, along which 'summer and winter pass 1 ; (2) the stars, shining with subtle and reflected light, the wannest and thinnest brightness within the universe; (3) the sun, also warm; (4) the moon, with its phases; (5) the air, producing the meteorological phenomena; (6) the liquid element subdivided into sea, rivers, sources and stagnant waters; (7) the allnurtiiriiig earth at the centre of the universe, subdivided into (a) hard stony parts, (b) earth proper and (c) humid and warm parts. - The portions of the universe below and above the earth are equal in character (ίδέη) and in number and revolve in a circle around the earth, moved by themselves. Both the outermost encompassing heaven and the earth are stationary. The moon from its central position connects the other portions of the universe. Except for outer heaven and earth things are moved by themselves as well as by the 'eternal beings'. The 5 β 7

See above, Ch. !, p. 29» and p. 29-30 n. 148. See further below, Οι. V A, p. 130 ff. See below, Ch. IV.

55

stars cause the sequence of the seasons, and move in the same as well as in opposite directions. Taken as a whole, this picture of the universe is, of course, a descendant of the cosmological model of Anaximander - stable earth at the centre, enveloping heavenly bodies. This was pointed out by, among others, Roscher and Kranz. 8 It should be remembered, however, that Anaximander's model set the tone for the whole of subsequent Greek cosmology; it was modified, but not discarded/' In Hebd. we have such a modified model, as Kranz 1 0 and others have duly pointed o u t : Anaximander's order of cosmieal bodies was earth, stars, moon, sun. The right order, which we find in Hebd., presumably already was introduced by Anaximenes. 1 1 But this again does not i m p l y that Hebd. is directly influenced b y Anaximenes himself, because Ms correction became universally accepted by the overwhelming majority of ancient cosmologists. 12 Moreover, there is no evidence that Anaximander's universe was closed by a surrounding outer sphere (although some scholars h a v e argued that his άπειρον had t h a t shape and function, 1 3 this is at best no more than an implausible guess). Anaximenes, it is true, closed the heavens b y a solid and probably frozen κρυσταλλοειδές (cf. the cold outer heaven of Hebd.). Roscher 1911, 61, 68 ff. etc.; Kranz o.e. 1 80. Cf. Kahn, Anaximander, esp. p. 199 ff. Although Kahn's claims are perhaps somewhat exaggerated, no one, I think, will object to mv more modest rephrasing. 10 O.e. 180. 11 VS 13Ä14. 1). O'Brien, Derived Light and Eclipses in the Fifth Century, J HS 68 (1968), 114-127, argues (1 16-7) that Anaximenes stuck to Anaximander's sequence, because 'earthy bodies' έν τω τόπφ των αστέρων συμτεριφερομένας εκείνο ις are the cause of eclipses (13A7 = Hipp., Ref. 1,7, FS I, p. 92,1 5-6), a rid because an eclipse would be caused by the obstruction of our vision of moon and sun by the interposition of such a body. Probably, however, these άστρα include sun and moon (this is also suggested by συμπεριφερομένας έκείνοις). In Α et ins' report (13A14), which likewise mentions the 'dark bodies' (11,13,10), the αστέρες which do not turn below the earth (11,16.6) must include at least the sun, as is clear from Arist. Mete, 354a28 ff. (also quoted at 1 3A14). This is confirmed by Hippolyt us: although άστρα VS 1, p. 92,20 means the stars only, ibd. 92,12 speaks of ήλιον καί σελήνην καί τά άλλα άστρα; cf. also ibd. 92,13 and 16 ff., ού κινεΐσθαι δέ ύπο γήν τά άστρα λέγει. 12 Aetius 11,15,6 (VS 12Α18) mentions Metrodoriis of Chios and Crates as partisans of Anaximander's theory. 18 F. M. Cornford, Principium Sapientiae, Oxford 1952, 176 ff.; Th. G. Sinnige, 8 9

Matter

and Infinity

in the Presocratic

Schools and Plato, A s s e n 1 9 6 8 , 11 ff.

56

Curiously, though, then 1 is no explicit evidence that Anaximenes* imi verse is fully spherical. His earth is flat, his heavenly bodies set by disappearing behind high mountains at the Northern end of the earth. So possibly the κρυσταλλοειδές is only half a sphere. 14 If this is correct, the earliest evidence for the idea of an encompassing outer sphere is in Parmenides although even here our data are not wholly unambiguous. Usually Β 11,2-3 ολυμπος / έσχατος (ήό' άστρο)ν Οερμο ν μένος) is quoted, for 11 ebd. 2,1.5~(> I\. speaks of an ο λ ύ μ π ι ο ς κόσμος. But the idea that the outer heaven surrounds the whole is expressed in Β 10,5: ούρανον άμφίς έχοντα, which has the task of τυείρατ' εχειν άστρων (B10,7). Wholly unambiguous is only the doxographical statement of Actius 11,7,1 (28 A 37,5-(>) το περιέχον δέ πάσας τείχους δίκην στερεό ν ύπαρχε ιν. The enveloping outer sphere became a. standing feature of Greek cosmology,15 just as did Anaximander's earth at the centre, of the universe surrounded by the heavenly bodies and Anaximenes' idea of the correct s e q u e n c e of these bodies. Some scholars have assumed that. Hebd, 2,15-6 R. is a direct quotation from Parm. B11,2, but (a) Parmenides' wording is different; (b) the "Pythagorean 1 parallel adduced by Kranz proves that (to say the least) the name ολυμπος could also be used in later times.1·6 Another of Kranz' arguments in favour of the Milesian character of the cosmology of Hebd. is that Hebd., just like the early lonians, assigned the same (astronomical?) 'sphere' to both the fixed stars and the planets.17 This is not correct: Hebd. Ch. 1 does not speak of 'spheres', but subdivides the universe into 'regions' which are in a certain order, using the words κόσμος, μοίρα, μέρος and τάξις to refer to these regions. In the same way sea, rivers, sources and pools together occupy the sixth μέρος (1,78 ff.lv.). This leaves sufficient room for a plurality of astronomical 'spheres' within the one τάξις of the stars even if this has not been explicitly said.18 Guthrie, HGPh I, 1 J«s. J >n tie us etc. a,re, of course, excepted. The Atom ist s, Hera elides I < 16 Kranz' parallel, o.e. 181, is Philolaus Λ16 (Act. Π,7,7), which has been proved by W. Burkert to consist of two mutually contradicting parts, the latter of which, containing the word ολυμπος» has been appended in later (i.e. Hellenistic) times. Of. above, Ch. 11, p. 42 and ibd. n. 25. The first exact parallel (ολυμποε — outer heaven) is hi p in. 977b2. Cf. further b'dow, Ch. IV, p. 121 ff. 17 O.e. 1 S1. (Kranz assumes that Hebd. 2.04 ff. R. refers to the seven planets; for this problem, s. below, Ch. V B, p. 138 ff.) 18 Cf. (Sehr, Enisi. u. Entw. d. wiss. Welth, 209. 14

15

5?

T h e light of the s t a r s is characterized, among other things, b y μίνωσις a n d άνταυγία (1,51-2 Ε.), K r a n z s a y s t h a t μάνωσις is a n Anaximenean t e r m . 1 9 This is i n c o r r e c t : (I) t h e word itself does not occur before Aristotle, see above, word-list s . v . 2 0 ; (2) t h e idea b e h i n d the w o r d μάνωσις is b y A n a x i m e n e s not a p p l i e d to the l i g h t of t h e stars, b u t u s e d to describe one of t h e f u n d a m e n t a l properties of m a t t e r . A s for άνταυγία, see l i k e w i s e above, word-list s.v., 2 1 for the a t t r i b u t i o n of theories of reflected light. 22 For the special v a r i e t y <>f Hebd. tin re is n o e a r l i e r e v i d e n c e than M e t r o d o m s of Chios, who l i v e d s o m e w h a t l a t e r t h a n K r a n z ' proposed d a t e for Hebd. K r a n z begs the question b y a s s u m i n g t h a t this theory m u s t be older t h a n our e v i d e n c e permits us to conclude.- 3 At t h e b e g i n n i n g of Hebd. Ch, 2 we, learn that the, κόσμοι a r o u n d ttie e a r t h are self-moved, while 2,47 ff. R. s t a t e s t h a t "all other things'... (i.e. e x c e p t e a r t h a n d outer h e a v e n ) ' a r e e a s i l y m o v e d b y t h e m s e l v e s and by the eternal beings'. 24 The moon 25 occupies the centre between O.e. 182, Kranz admitb that it is not <-isy to understand this passage when one tries to supply a connection wiili the theory of Anaximenes. Koscher 1911, 61» argues that the author of Heini. 'Anhänger der Lehre von πύκνωσις und μάνωσις gewesen ist', and p. 66 has the eaiih arise from the water by a process of πύκνωσα ς. I shall return to this point later (s. below, Ch. IV, p. 107 ff.). 20 Ch. II, p. 10-7. 21 Ch. IT, p. 38. " O'Brien, o.e. 122 if, argues thai we sin mid distinguish between derived light and reflected light. This would explain the attribution to both Anaxinienes and Parmenides of (a) a fiery nature of the moon (b) a,-theory of the derived light of the moon. Parmenides Bl4 and (>15 indeed are evidence that the moon's light is derived, while Eudenins ap. Theo Smyrn., Exp. p. 199» 1 Hiller (VS 13A16) attributes to Anaximenes the theory that ή σελήνη έκ του ήλιου εγει το φως. There is, however, no direct evidence that the 'kindling' of the moon's light by the sun is a fifi h-century idea, O'Brien argnes (o.e. 120) that En dermis is a trustworthy witness. The extract from his work ap. 'theo Pr. 145 Wehrli), however, contains gross inaccuracies; it attributes e.g. to Anaximander the theory that ή γή (εστί,) μετέωρος και κινείται περί του κόσμου μέσον (though κείται is a possible emendation) and to Anaximenes the carved explanation of eclipses (this, at least, is as Theo understands him when, after Eudemus, he gives a short history of the most epoch-making astronomical discoveries.) Theo quotes Endcmns from Dercylbdes (cf. p. 198,9 Füller), tf we do not want to believe that En dem us erred, we have to accept the fact that the abridgement ap. Theo falsifies his thought. 23 O.e. 182. Cf. above, Ch. I, p. 26, n. 1 21. 24 The heavenly bodies, according to Boll, Lehensalf. 220 (Boll keeps άεΐ όντων and deletes άίδιων) and Kranz, o.e. 183, who refers to limped. B21,4 άμβροτα

58

the*, different c o s m i c 'portions' a n d is their c o n n e c t i n g link ( 2 , 4 4 f f . R.) W a s the division of t h e u n i v e r s e into two p o r t i o n s d i v i d e d by the moon so c o m m o n 'not k i n g a f t e r 5 0 0 B . C . ' t h a t the a u t h o r of Hebd. c o u l d fake it for granted-' ί do not t h i n k so. K r a n z a d d u c e s t h r e e P r e s o c r a t i c p a r a l l e l s , w h i c h , even if t h e y did bear h i m out, still w o u l d not prove that t h i s w a s a common idea. Κ ranz, moreover, is silent a b o u t t h e fact t h a t "all the other t h i n g s ' 2 6 a,re moved both b y the ' e t e r n a l b e i n g s ' a n d by themselves. 2 7 H i s parallel* are* (1) Ahmeou (24)AI ( ^ Diog. L a e r t . VII 1,8J) τψ σελήνην . . .<τε τ ά υπέρ (I)iels)> ταύτην ε/ε ι ν άίδιον φύ(7ΐν. I t is Diels' ύπέρ w h i c h , by i m p l i c a t i o n , i n t r o d u c e s the idea of a sub-] η n a r y world i n f o the text. H i s supplemental ion is v e r y probable, but t a k e s us no f u r t h e r t h a n a l a t e report on Λ lern»-on , w h i c h p r o b a b l y p r o j e c t s later i d e a s upon the ancient t h i n k e r . For these ideas there is, to inv knowledge, no explicit evidence in Ale moon, although, of course, lie did a t t r i b u t e divirutv 1 ο t h e heavenly b o d i e s ( 2 4 Λ 1 2 ) 2 8 ; (2) Empedocles ( 3 1 ) A 6 2 (•·-- HippoL T,4,3) 2 9 : " o u r worhl is full of evils, a n d ( p i u e PfHsh I > 111 it iiiind, ef. Κ mil/, air. of C h

< hi the i i h v see IX' r e i e n r d

inl 1 h . o RnspodocJ^s Lr. has the h e a v r n l v b o d i e s m h e prefer- t o identify α α β ρ ο τ α w i t h the C h . 1 V. p. 77 n. 0 2 , p. 1 27 1f. and t h e pages and notes

doubi

Ϊ 'S I. '.10. ad /., where below

W i b d . p. 1 2 9 n . 3 1 8 .

Kranz a nd Roscher do not say much a bout the eoueeption of the sun in Hebd, Note, however, that Πι. 2,69 ff. R, tells us t hat sua a ad innen follow one another. If appears that Anaxagoras was the first to tea,eh that the pathway.-) of sun at id moon are connected : Pn>cl, in Tim. 1 IT,6 1,26 ff !>. ( - 59A75) Πλάτων.,. "•Ή ν S K τον κόσμον RRPOO^OV "/ΎΤ'ΥΝ ( S ' \ OF sun . A I D mo< Ο: - Ϊ Ί ν η μ μ έ ν η ν ΠΑΡΑ^έ^ΩΚΕ, κ7.1 ούδέ τ>'/Λτηζ ήρςεν wnoz της υποθέτβω:;, άλλ* 'Αναξαγόρας τούτο ιτοίότοΓ υπiXaftev, ω : ίιτίρ'ψϊεν Εύφημος (Ιο*, 117 Wehili» proKsbJv fitj-n tJut i.anie excerpt of Fmlennis' Hisiory of Astrofhoo ν as th" cpioiaiioa in Th^o (s. p. 5S n. 22 above), which raay throw some doubt upon its credibility ). 26 These are said to 'pass through one another*, rV ά>λήλ'·>ν Λ'.ιόντ?. I-or this ( 'inception wo have an excellent Presoeratic p a r a l i d neglected bv both Kranz and Roscher; ban p. B1 7,3-1-5 (on the four elements) άλλ' αυτ(ά) ζητ'.ν τ αΰτα, δι' ά λ λ ή λ ω ν 'S έ 0 έ ο ν τ α / γ ιγνετα ι άλλοτε r/λλα -/μι ήνεκες y.izv <>\νλΊ. (1 U 7,3 \ occurs a,gain as ί >21,1 > and Γ>26, V), The 'other things' of Hebd, are also said to 'live in one another', έν άλλήλο'.σι ζωντα, winch could. I>e interpreted as an in complete reminiseence (of a sort) of ί ieracbi us' formula for elemental change (P>30, 1)72, and especially tho Stoicizing versions collected In* i) ~K, as 1-576). See further below, Ch. IV, p. 70 ff., p. 89 ff. 27 This is not a Presocratic idea; see below, Ch. IV, p. 76 ff. 28 Cf. lUirkert, WW, 227 n. 36, who also argues against Kranz' next parallel. See also ibd. Η 10 ion Faidoxusb 215 Also (juoted by Reseller, 191 ί p. 73 (whose second parallel is Philoldus 1321, from π. ψυχής, a Hellenistic pseudepigraphon : cf. Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. I, 369 ff. and Burkert, o.e. 225 ff.). 25

59

evil reaches as far as the moon, but no further; above the moon, all things are more pure, This is also the opinion of Heraclitus." Now Emp. B118 says the earth is a vale of tears, while Β121 sums up the evils of which our earth is full. Emp. Ill 18 is also quoted b y Clement, Strom, 111,14 (11,201,25 St.), who says that on this point Empedocles and Heraclitus agree. The reference is to Her. Β20, quoted by Clement two lines before, with the comment: Ήρ. γοΰν κακίζων φαίνεται τήν γένεσιν (fr. Β20 follows, in which no reference to the moon etc. is to be found). The 'agreement' between Empedocles and Heraclitus mentioned by Hippolytus perhaps does not go further than the point made by Clement. Τ can find no certain evidence in either philosopher that ί 1 ley divided the world into two parts separated by the moon. (3) Kranz' third parallel is the second part of Philolaus (44) A16. We have already seen that, this is a Hellenistic appendage. 3 0 About the meteorological phenomena produced by the air Kranz has no more to say than that all Presocratics thought about these subjects. 31 The earth is the last μέρος of the cosmic hcbdomas. As we have noticed before, it. is at rest at the centre of the universe, a feature which already occurs in Anaximander's model. It 'rides upon the air', 2,29 ff.R. έν τω ήέρι όχέεται, which looks like a reminiscence of Anaximenes,32 (13)A6,29 ff. τήν γ ή ν . . . έποχεΐσθαι τ ω αέρι. Diels-Kranz consider the word έποχεΐσθαι to be a quotation from Anaximenes' work, and so it possibly is. On the other hand, we need not think exclusively of Anaximenes; we have already had occasion to remark that the evidence that Anaximenes' universe is fully spherical is unsatisfactory. It is attested, however, that, according to Diogenes of Apollonia the (round!) earth is situated at the centre of the universe, Diog. Laert. IX,57 (64AI, VS TT, p. 52,5-6) τήν γήν στρογγύλην, ήρεισμένην έν τ ω μέσω. Also, that it is supported there by air, 64A16a υπό αέρος φέρεσθαι τήν γήν (cf. also Aristoph., Nub. 264, VS 64C2, vol. II, p. 68,5-6). In the passage from Flat, printed in DTK as 64C2 ( F S II p. 67,28) we read ουτοΓ (sc. ο α ή ρ ) ' γ ή ς όχημα ( c f / a l s o Eurip., Troad. 884, ibd. p. 6 7 , 3 0 ώ γ ή ς See above, p. 57 n. 16. Roscher, 191 I , p. 63-4 is more explicit, quoting evidence for meteorological theories of Anaximander and Anaxagoras. Such a theory, however, involving interaction between the elements and occasional references to the role of the sun, is not found in the section on air in Hebd, Ch. 1. Cf. further below, Ch. IV, p. 117 . 32 Kranz 182. Cf. also 13A7,12-13.

30 31

60

δχημα κ.τ.λ.). The syncretising of Anaximander and Anaximenes which we find in Hebd. is also a feature of the thought of Diogenes; a n d though έποχεΐσθαι is not attested for Diogenes, όχημα occurs in passages influenced b y him. 3 3 W e are also informed that the earth is "aus dem Wasser ents t a n d e n C h . 1,94 Κ. έξ ύδατος έουσα; Kranz refers to 'Thaies and his pupils', 3 5 However, Hebd. 1,90 f f . R . not only speaks about the earth as being έξ ύδατος, but teils us that it bears animals and plants upon its surface καί εστί παντρόφος έξ ύδατος έοΰσα. The last three words m a y m e a n (a) "originated from water' or (b) 'consists of water'. 3 0 To m a k e a distinction of this kind in relation to an early Presocratic philosopher is, perhaps, captious, since to Thales the αρχή (origin) of the earth continues to be the stuff of which it "really' consists. In Hebd,, however, a conscious or positive a m b i g u i t y m a y be involved. 1 do not w a n t to deny that ps. Hippocrates intends to say that, originally, the earth came into being from water. 3 7 On the other hand, I am under the impression that an a m b i g u i t y is involved in so far as έξ ύδατος έοΰσα also elucidates the epitheton παντροφος - the earth is capable of nurturing the plants and the animals, because it, in part or to a certain degree, consists of water. If this is correct, there is a close (and even verbal) affinity between the statement in Η ebd. and one of Aristotle's comments upon Thales. At Met. A , 9 8 3 b l 7 ff. (11A12) he puts forth several motives which, as he assumes, m a y have motivated Thales in choosing water as αρχή. After suggesting the connection between moisture and sperm and the relation between moisture and heat 3 8 as possible motives he continues: λαβών ΐαως τήν ύπόληψν ταύτην έκ του π ά ν τ ω ν 6 ρ αν τήν τ ρ ο φ ή ν ύγράν ο υ σαν. Aristotle appears to believe that his interpretation is correct. 3 9 But it is an interpretation, no more and no less, and it is surely a remarkable coincidence that the vestiges

On έποχεΐσθαι in Hebd, cf. further below, Ch. IV, p. 109-10; on the earth at the centre of the universe ibd., 11 9-20. 34 Kranz 182. 35 So already Roscher 1911, p. 66. 36 Cf. LS J, s.v. έκ 111,1. 37 Cf. below, Ch. IV, p. 107 ff.

33

Hebd. 6, § 1 , 2 0 f f . R . m e n t i o n s s p e r m a n d calidiim hiimidum. Ι σ ω ς in A r i s t o t l e o f t e n η on dubitantis est, sed cum quad am modestia asseverantis (Bonitz, hide χ Arislutelicus 347632 ff.) Theophrastus appears to have omitted

38

39

the 'ίσως; cf. 11A13, esp. Λ1 3,17 ff. Presumably, this information was incorporated into the doxography,

61

of the theory of Thales which can be pointed out in Hebd, show a close resemblance to the Thales which was reconstructed by Aristotle.411 The earth is at the centre of the universe, and does not move: 2,24 f t Κ. κατά μέσον δέ τον κόσμο ν ή γη κειμένη... έν τ ω ήέρι όχέεται. ώστε τοΐσι κάτω τά δέ μέντοι (τάδε μεν τά Boll) άνο> κάτω είναι, τά δέ κάτω άνω' ουτω τε δ ιέ χει ν (οή έχειν 1 μ >11) τα τε έκ βεξιης και τά ές αριστερής, και περί πάσαν την γήν ούτως έχει. 1 lie stability of the earth is not proved by its equidistance to the other bodies wiihio I lie universe or to the circumference, as in Anaximander and others, but taken for granted. From its stability together with its being at the centre follows (cf. ώστε) that up and down, left and light are relative concepts. The existence of antipodes (τοιοι /,άτω) is a^uiiiod. Ί his theory litis been thought to derive from that of Anaximandor. The problem is: did A naxi man der speak of antipodes, and did he ( onsider up and down, left and right to be relative concepts? In regard to the antipodes Anaximander (12A11,(3)) thought that των δε επιπέδων ώ μεν έπφεβήκαμεν, ο δέ άντίΟετον υπάρχει. 1 he reference is to the flat surfaces of the cylindrical earth. The cioxography only tells us that there is a second flat stirfe.ee, but not thai it is assumed to be inhabited. Nor is there· any evidence at all that Anaximander spoke in terms of the abolition of an absolute high ami low. The only documentary evidence which has been quoted in this connection is the passage from Hebd. we are considering at present. 41 Kahn says that the idea in Η ebd. must be primitive, because II ebd. refers to our hide as "up'.42 But this reference has been introduced into the text by Boll's emendation, 13 τάδε (Λεν τά άνω for ms. τά δέ μέντοι άνω, which is unnecessary in itself and destroys the balance between τά δέ μέντοι άνω κ ά τ ω . . . τά δέ κάτω άνω. We should therefore keep the text as transmitted Burkert 1 1 saw a reference to antipodes in Philolaus

For the interpretation of έξ ύδατος έοΰσα ef. further below, Ch. IV» p. <S1 ff. Kahn, Anaximander 84 ff. - Arist. Cael, 2951)10 ff., in speaking of Λ naxiniander's earth, says nothing about the relativity of the eonreots 'up' and 'down', but only thai a body like this earth ha> no need to move in either of these (or any other) directions, 42 Ibd." 85, ii. 3. 40 41

43

'Lehensall. 2 1 9 .

WW 248-9. I have followed here the text of 1Π7 as reUPJ M T L O H , AS printed b\ I > Κ HI 7 (a) does not refer to antipodes at all, (b) presupposes a central earth, i.e. can ι lot be by Philolaus. 44

62

(44)B17, from the Bacchae (but not in Doric!): . . , εστί τά <τε> άνω του μέσου ύπεναντίως κείμενα τοις κάτω. τοΐς γάρ κάτω το κατωτάτω μέρος εστίν ώσπερ το άνωτάτω, καί τάλλα ωσαύτως κ.τ.λ., where the relativity of 'up' and "down1 is also demonstrated. Burkert is in favour of accepting this fragment as genuine, because of (a) the parallel with Hebd., which lie thinks is eharacterized by the same 'mühsame Daras Philolaus B17, and because (b) Plato in the Timaeus 'mit dem gleichen Problem viel eleganter fertig geworden ist'.45 This is doubtful. Is it really possible in Philolaus' system for that side of the earth which is permanently turned towards the Central Fire to be inhabited? I think not, for we are told (44A17, Aet. 111,11,3) that the people on our earth never see the inhabitants of the comiter-eai tli, and vice versa, because both earth and counter-earth always turn the same side to the centre. But this implies that the side of our earth which is turned to the centre is not inhabited, otherwise the inhabitants of the counter-earth would see our antipodes. On the other hand the inhabitants of the4 counter-earth cannot function as antipodes on Burkert's interpretation of Phil. B17 for our 'highest' also is their 'highest'. B17, already suspect because not written in Doric, apparently speaks in terms of a central earth (it puts a great emphasis upon the μέσον of the universe), and in this w a y agrees more with the unauthentic second part of Phil. A16 46 than with the true worldpicture of Philolaus. S t e l l u n g '

The earliest locus which without any possible doubt argues in favour of the relativity of spatial concepts like 'up' and 'down' is Plat., Tim. 62d-63b, on the spherical earth at the centre of the spherical universe. Of course this passage (whieh is not the first in Plato to treat the qnestion why the spherical earth is at rest at the centre 47 ) continues the line of thought originating in Anaximander and Parmenides. But the conceptual analysis will be Plato's own. The relativity of Tip' and 'down' is not a feature of the earlier account in the Phciedo, while his definition of άνω and κάτω in the Timaeus is part of a larger exposition, beginning 61c, in the course of which a number of concepts is explained. 61 (15 ff. 'hot' is explained by reference to the mathematical properties of fire-particles; 62a5 ff. explains 'cold 1 in a similar way, and so does 621)6 ff. for σκληρόν and μαλακό v. 11 lea ν ν' 45

40 47

Ibd. 249. See above, p. 57 n. 16. The first is Phaed, HnV-1 10b, rsp. 10Se4-l 00a6.

63

and light 5 arc elucidated in 62c2 ff. and 631)2 ff. These qualities derive from the properties of the elements within their respective natural places, and these properties in their turn must be explained by the relativity of άνω and κάτω, 62c5 ff. Βαρύ and κοΰφον on this account are relative concepts as well (esp. 63d6 ff.). it is therefore most likely that Hebd. on this point ultimately depends upon the I iniaeus, for it takes for granted the relativity of 'up' and 'clown1, which Plato proves rather laboriously. There is another indication that this assumption is plausible. The account of the earth in Hebd. is concluded 2,37 ff. by καί περί πάσαν τήν γήν ούτως εχει. Kranz without reason separates this clause from what goes before it and connects it with the next section. 40 The most naftnal translation is: This holds for the whole circumference of the earth'. Could this apply to Anaximander's cylinder? 1 think not; this can only apply to a spherical earth (περί!); for the idea cf. Tim. 63 a2 ff., εΐ... π ε ρ ί αύτο (i.e. the earth) πορεύοιτο τις έν κύκλω, πολλάκις αν στάς άντίπους49 ταύτόν αύτού κάτω καί άνω προσείποι. Now, Kranz thought that the concept of a spherical earth inhabited all the way round and implying the relativity of Tip1 and 'down' was quite early, i.e. Early Pythagorean, and that for this reason Hebd. could not but reflect a still earlier level of thought. This 'Early Pythagorean theory' is not early at all; it occurs in the (Hellenistic) Pythagorean Hyponinemata of Alexander P o l y h i s t o r ap. Diog. Laert. VIII,25. 5 » There are, therefore, no sufficient reasons to vindicate the assumption that the earth in Hebd. has to be that of Anaximander, and rather serious grounds against this assumption. I do not wish to deny that the relativity of 'up' and 'down', which is valid for a spherical earth, is also valid for the surfaces of Anaximander's cylinder. 51 But even this is no proof of an allusion to Anaximander's earth. I conclude that the arguments pro the Presocratic character of the cosmology of Hebd. which have been put forth are not convincing. As soon as we try to work out the consequences of making precise attributions and seriously consider what if means to accept as a working-hypothesis the theory that the author of Hebd. 'takes certain O.e. 183 (or for a reason: for this division makes it easy to argue that Anaximander's cylindrical earth is meant). 49 According to Diog. Laert. 111,24 Plato was the fin-a to give the word άντίπύοα its technical meaning. 50 See above, Ch. I, p. 24 and ibd. n. 109. 51 As has been ably proved bv Kranz, o.e. 183» and by De Vogel, Pythagoras 172.

48

tilings for granted', we almost automatically are led to a discussion of later thought. In our discussion, we have ptirposively ignored the hebdomadic disguise in which the cosmology is wrapped. But this is a very important aspect of this theory, tor it points at something else the author of Ilcbd. Ch. 1-11. (the first section as a whole) apparently takes for granted, viz. that all things are governed by number. The theory that ail things are dominated by one number is nothing but a variation of the theory that all things are governed by number in general. It has been remarked that theories about and belief in the magical properties of the number seven are found inside and outside Greece front very early times onwards, 52 This is undoubtedly correct. But these early speculations about the number seven are about the powers of that number in isolated cases. The first philosopher to formulate a theory about the universal explaining power of number was Pythagoras. 03 Hebd, Ch. 1-11, which takes this theory about number for granted, therefore cannot antedate Pythagoreanism. It is one of the most illuminating illustrations of the Pythagorean dictum άριϋμω 8έ τε πάντ έπέοί,κεν54 which we possess. But does this imply that Hebd. Ch. 1-11 is influenced by Early Pythagoreanism? Hardly so, for the number seven does not seem to have been all-important to the early followers of Pythagoras.55 Νumber-speculatioη itself is not an exclusive feature of Early Pythagoreanism, but is also rampant in later times.56 I shall return to the arithmology of Hebd. later on. Let it suffice to conclude now, that also in this case a ' Presocratic parallel' neglected by Κ ranz and disputed by Roscher (1919 !)57 points to a date for Hebd. Ch. 1-11 which may be much later than the date somewhere within the Presocratic period which has been generally assumed up till now. Kranz, o.e. 187 ('die Sieben ist Orientalin'); De Vogel, Pythagoras 173 ff. and the evidence referred to ibd., 174 η. 1. E.g. Arist. Met. A, 987M0 ff.; b2S. Aristoxenus, fr. 23 Wehrh. 51 Quoted Sextns Μ. IV,2 and VI 1,94, 109. Cf. also the properties of the τετρακτύς as defined in the Pythagorean Oath (number 10 as the source and root of everlasting nature). 55 I η Early Pythagoreanism, 7 represents καιρός: Arist. Met. 985b30 and Alexander's comment, p. 38,16 Playduck; cf. De Vogel, Pythagoras 115 ff. and 1 74 (Pythagoras did not introduce the number seven everywhere). 56 Philo's Op. rnnnd. is a case in point. Cf. further below, Cli. VI. 57 Koscher completely overlooked the crucial point made in the text, viz, that number is considered to have universal explaining power. 52

65

C H A P T E R IV

LATER ELEMENTS IN T H E C O S M O L O G Y OF HEBD. CH. l - l I; POSIDON 1 US?

1. Our study of the Presocratic parallels in Ch. I l l did not yield a satisfactory t.a.q. tor the composition of Rebel. Ch. 1-11, but, hopefully, it did cast some doubt upon the claims which have been made on this account. In the pages which follow, I will argue that a t.p.q. can be established by adducing philosophical theories later than those of the Presocratic period. Platonic, Aristotelian and especially Stoic influences can, I think, be pointed out.

2. Our first clue is given by the theory of motion which is taken for granted in those chapters of Hebd. which are the subject of our investigation. Ch. 2,1 ff. R. we hear that the κόσμοι above and below the earth move around it by a self-moved circular motion (αύτόδρομον1 κύκλωσιν). What exactly is meant by these κόσμοι is, for the moment, irrelevant. The notion of self-motion occurs again later on in the same chapter (Ch. 2,47 ff.R.); all things except earth and outermost heaven are "moved both by themselves (ύφ' έωυτών.. .κινείται) and by the 'eternal beings"'. We may also leave aside for the moment the question of exactly what is meant by 'all other things' and by 'eternal beings'. Of primary importance, in both cases, is that the author of Hebd. betrays Iiis familiarity with the concept of self-motion and with the distinction between this notion and that of being moved by something else. This conceptual framework is not Presocratic. As is well-known, it was Plato who, after having introduced, en passant, the concept of a 'motion moving itself' in the Charm-ides* made this idea into a corner1 Explained by Galen as meaning αυτοκίνητος; see above, Ch. IT, p. 38 ff., word-list s.v. αύτόδρομος. 2 Charm. 168e9-l0... κίνησις αύτη έαυτήν κινεΐν. Cf. Κ. Dieterle, Platons Laches

und Charmides.

Untersuchungen

zur elenktiscJi-aporelisLhen

66

Struktur der

platoni-

stone of Ms later philosophy. We first hear about it at some length in the Phaedrus,3 where it is proved that self-motion 4 is the specific quality of Soul, without which the revolution of the heavens and all becoming would come to a stand-still. 5 Substantially, this is still Plato's doctrine in Ms latest work. Soul is a self-moving principle, 6 which is tiic cause oi all change and all movement for all things 7 and which steers the heaven. 8 In the Timaeus, this is made more explicit: the heavens and the heavenly bodies move because the circle of the Same and the seven unequal circles of the Different are connected with Sont. 9 Already in the Timaeus, it seems that at least some of the heavenly bodies are attributed with a soul of their own in order to account foi their power ίο counteract the movement of the circles of the Different. 10 Anyhow, Nom. 898d explicitly attributes an individual soul to each of the heavenly bodies, and though Plato does not make if clear in which way a soul of this type moves its star, 11 no doubt is left about its being a cause of motion.12 The doctrine of the ensouled heavenly bodies occurs also in the Epinomis12 which, if not sehen Frühdialoge, diss. Freiburg i. 1 >r., 1966, 244· (with references to other literature, to which add It. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy I, Baltimore 1944 ( 2 1964), 435). 3 24Se ff.; cf. also G. j . L>e Vries, Comm. on the Phaedrus, 121. - The Phaedruspassage is translated by Cicero, Sown. Scip, 27 and Τ use. 1,53-54. Cf. below, p. 89, n. 120. 4 Plato uses terms like τό αύτο αυτό κινούν, which he distinguishes from τό υπ' άλλου κινούμενον. These terms continued to be used, cf. e.g. the quotation from Sextus, below, p. 78, n. 68. 5 245e.l : ή πάντα τε ουρανό ν πασά ν τε γένεσιν συμπεσοϋσαν ατήναι. Cf. J. Β. Skemp, The Theory of Motion in Plato's Laier Dialogues, Cambridge 1942 (Amsterdam -1907), 6. De Vries, ox. ad 245d8 (p. 123) takes ουρανός to mean The universe', which is perhaps less likely. Cf. also below, p. 122 n. 288, the quotation of Phaedr. 246cl-2. 6 Nom, 896al τήν δυναμένην αυτήν αυτήν κινεί ν κινήσιν. 7 Nom. 8961)1 μεταβολής τε και κινήσεως «πάσης αιτία άπασιν. 8 Nom, 896el τον ούρανον διοικεί ν. 9 Tim. 35b ff., 38e-d. See further P. Μ. Corn ford, Plato's Cosmology, London 5 L966, 72 ff. Plato does not state that the motions of Soul and those of the heavens are identical. 10 CT. Corn ford, o.e. 87 and the ancient commentators quoted by him, ibd. 107, H.3. 11 Three possibilities arc suggested in Nom. 898e; cf. Skemp, o.e. 86-7. 12 Cf. G. E. R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy. Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Cambridge 1966, 257. 13

9<S l e .

67

written by Plato, at least represents an Early Academic point of view. To pursue the topic of Plato's theory of motion somewhat further - we shall see later on how relevant this is to the interpretation of Hebd. - we must make some remarks on Ms views concerning the motions of the elements. It appears from the account in the Timaeus that the elements do not have a source of movement within themselves, but that they are moved (a) by the 'shaking' of the Receptacle 14 which causes the random movement of l i k e to like' 15 and (b) by the revolution of the heavens, which counteracts to a certain extent the effects of the πλανώ μένη αιτία b y forcing the e l e m e n t a r y particles

inwards, 16 so that they pass through one another. Some particles are resolved by this process into their constat ualing Ii iangles, which can combine again to form new elementary particles of the same or of other elements. Fire has the greatest power of penetration (58b 1 πυρ... εις άπαντα διελήλυθε μάλιστα), that of the other elements is in proportion to their relative degree of λεπτότης. Only fire, air and water participate in the process of inter-elemental change. The isosceles triangles constituting the cubes which are the particles of earth cannot be recombined into the right-angled scalene triangles constituting the other elements.17 14 Tim, 52d if. In the 'precosmic' condition, elemental 'forms' shake the Receptacle and are in their turn shaken hy it.. Probably this should not be interpreted as meaning that either the 'precosmic' elements or the 'precosmic' Receptacle have a source of movement within themselves: 'What is really meant is that the πλάνου μένη αιτία has command of all that is in the υποδοχή and sets up this form of motion' (Skemp, o.e. 59). That necessity involves motion is unambiguously stated Tim. 48a6-7 το της πλανωμένης είδος αιτίας, ή φέρειν πέφυκεν ('in what manner it is its nature to make things move'); cf. Cornford, o.e. 160 n.2. 1. need not enter into the difficult problem whether this Errant Cause is itself of the psychic order, as seems to be cons ist en t with the Platonic principle that Soul is the cause of all movement (cf. above, p. 67, TI. 7). See Skemp, ox. 76-7 and esp. his discussion in the appendix to Ch. 6, p. 147 ff. K. Gaiser, on the other hand, wants to identify the Errant Cause with Plato's 'second' principle, the Indefinite Dyad (Piaions ungeschriebene Lehre, Stuttgart 2 1969, 196), which from this viewpoint would be an ultimate source of motion. 15 Tim. 52e5-53a7. Cf. Cornford o.e. 199. 16

Tim,

5 8 a 4 f f . ; c f . H . C h e r n i s s , Arist. Grit. Plat., 4 4 9 a n d P . S o Imsen, Aristotle s

System of the Physical W or lei. A Comparison with his Predecessors. Cornell Stud, in Class. Phil., Vol. XXX1I1, Ν.Y. 1960, 64 ff. 17 Tim, 541)6-d2. For Aristotle's criticism see Gael. 306a2 ff. This aspect of the theory of Plato was very well known, cf. Aet. 1,17,4 Iίλάτων τά μέν τρία σώματα... τρεπτά εις άλληλα, πυρ, άέρα, υδωρ, την δέ γήν εις τι τούτων άμετάβλητον. For

68

As we see, Plato's theory of motion is inextricably bound up with his cosmology and physics. This Platonic line of thought is continued by Aristotle, though with substantial modifications. 18 To summarize Aristotle's theory of motion is not easy, for it would be better, in a sense, to distinguish between several theories of motion than to treat his views on motion as a systematical and unified theory. His statements on the subject to a certain extent contradict one another, and though it is often possible to supply a link of a sort, it would be true to say that we are left with a number of loose ends. These, divergences can be (and have been) explained as representing successive stages in a developing theory. 10 It should be kept in mind, however, that Aristotle in some cases did not abandon an earlier point of view, even though it conflicted with his more mature thought. 2 0 This is especially true for his cosmology, which involves thinking about the heavens, a region which because of its remoteness (remote in more than one sense of the word) to a certain extent remains inaccessible to man. 2 1 For our purposes, it will not be necessary to enter into this extremely complicated ({nestion. I shall outline certain typical features of Aristotle's theory, and shall do so from a modestly evolutionistic point of view. In what is possibly his most mature theory, Aristotle altogether abandons the Platonic postulate of a self-moved mover and tries to prove that an ultimate principle of movement cannot be itself in motion. 22 Thus, in the last (causal, 23 not temporal) analysis all motion

Iiebd. and the Plac. ef. below, Ch. V A, p. 130 ff. and the notes to Ch. IV listed below, Ch. V A, p. 138, n. 36. 18 Cf. in general F. Sehnsen, Platonic Influences in the Formation of Aristotle's Physical System, in: Aristotle and Plato in the Μ id-Fourth Century, Stud. gr. Jat. Gothob. XI, Göteborg 1960, 213 ff., and his book referred to above, p. 68 n.16. 19 See e.g. W. K. C. Guthrie, in the Γη trod, to his edition of Gael, in the Loeb series, p. XVII ff. See also G. E. R. Lloyd, Pol An. 257 ff. (Lloyd puts special emphasis on the vitalist aspects of Aristotle's theory). 20 See below, p. 70 ff. on the self-motion of the elements in relation to the First Mover. 21 Cf. P. Moranx, Quinta essentia, RE XXIV, 1209. In this article, 1197 ff, and in the introduction to his edition of Gael, in the Bude series, X X X I V ff.» Moranx argues that contextual influences, i.e. the subject-matter studied in a certain context, in some cases can be made to explain the divergences just as well as evolutionist considerations, 22 Phys. V I I J ; VIIΪ,4-5; Met. XII ,6 ff. 23 This is the meaning of 'First' in "First Unmoved Mover 1 , cf. Γ. Düring, Aristoteles, Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens, Heidelberg 1966, 330-1.

69

w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s e is s u s t a i n e d b y the e t e r n a l l y m o v i n g o u t e r h e a v e n , w h i c h is itself m o v e d 2 4 b y t h e E t e r n a l F i r s t U n m o v e d M o v e r . In Met. X I I , 8 A r i s t o t l e s p e a k s of a p l u r a l i t y of U n m o v e d Movers, conn e c t e d n o t o n l y w i t h t h e F i r s t H e a v e n , b u t also w i t h the s p h e r e s of p l a n e t s , sun a n d m o o n . A s all h e a v e n l y n a t u r e s a r c eternal, the U n m o v e d M o v e r s m u s t necessarily b e of t h e n a t u r e of a n σΜιος ουσία. 2 5 In t h i s w a y , t h o u g h r e f u s i n g to h a v e soul s e r v e a s a n ultimate p r i n c i p l e of m o t i o n , 2 6 A r i s t o t l e still s t r i v e s to be faithful ί ο the Platonic p o s t u l a t e of t h e a s s u m p t i o n of s u c h a p r i n c i p l e . 2 7 B u t t h i s is not all. On a n o t h e r l e v e l , t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e Platonic k i n e t i c soul is taken o v e r b y a s e c o n d principle, nature (φύσις). 2 8 In t h e e a r l y b o o k s of the Physics a n d in Cacl. A r i s t o t l e u n d o u b t e d l y l e a v e s us with the impression that 'nature' is an autonomous cause of motion. Phys. 11,1, 1 9 2 b 8 ff. 2 9 defines what are to be considered as φύσει οντα; natural

Some passages in Cacl. do not go further than this onler heaven itself: 1.0, 279a33 ff., which says that ι he eternally moving outer sphere is the highest divinity and that there is nothing which is κρειττον and so causes i! to move; if.2,285a27 ff., which says 1 hat the outer heaven is εμψυ/ος and antokinei ic. On the other hand If,6,288a27 ff. and 1 V,3,3tla9 ff. (which refers to Phys, VIII,4) imply an ultimate unmoved source of motion; (hithric, o.e. XXIV treats these last two remarks as appendages. 25 The First Ilcaven is «ίδιος (Met. XI 1,7,1072a23). The divine First Mover likewise (ibd., 1072b2(>-8); it is an on σία τις αίσιος, ibd. 1 073a 1. That the eternal movement of the First Heaven is caused by an Eternal Substance (τ)4ν ai
70

o b j e c t s a r e ( a ) τ ά τ ε ζ ώ α κ α ι τ ά μέρη α ύ τ ώ ν κ α ι τ ά φ υ τ ά , a n d (b) τ ά ά π λ α τ ω ν σ ω μ ά τ ω ν , οίον γ η και π υ ρ κ α ι αήρ και ύδωρ. 3 0 B o t h t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s , l i v i n g b e i n g s a s w e l l a s e l e m e n t a l b o d i e s , h a v e έν ε α υ τ ο ί ' ς 3 1 α ρ χ ή ν . . . κ ι ν ή σ ε ω ς και στάσεως, τά μέν κ α τ ά τόπον, τ ά 8έ κατ' αύξησιν και φΟίσιν, τ ά δέ κατ' άλλοίωσιν. 3 2 The four s u b l u n a r y elements are impelled t o w a r d s their p r o p e r and n a t u r a l places b y t h e i r own natures. 3 3 A t this stage, Aristotle does not distinguish s h a r p l y between elements and ζ ω α 3 1 ; at Carl. IV,J , 3 0 8 a 2 ff. he e v e n s a y s t h a t light and h e a v y substances h a v e έν έαυτοΐς οίον ζώπυρ' ά τ τ α κινήσεως. 3 5 1 vlsowhere, h o w ever, A r i s t o t l e denies to the elements the άρχή κινήσεως και σ τ ά σ ε ω ς which he. a t t r i b u t e d to them in Phys. 11,1,1021)8 if. (({noted a b o v e ) , see Phys. ¥ 1 1 1 , 4 , 2 5 5 0 5 f f . : " i t is impossible to say t h a t ( t h e h e a v y and the light) are m o v e d b y t h e m s e l v e s 3 6 for t h a t kind of motion is conThis Aristotelian definition of φύσις is given at length bv Ac tins 1,1,2 (Dox. 274,24275,12), which mentions elements, living beings, meteorological phenomena (!), in all of which φύσις άρχή κινήσεως και ήρεμιάς. Cf. also Sextns, Μ. Χ»46, whicli refers to Aristotle's arguments against the Fleatics. wliieh lie described as άφυσικους... ο τι άρχή κινήσεως έστιν ή φύσις, ή ν άνεΐλον φάμενν. μηδέν κίνεΐσθτί π. φιλ. fr. 0 Ross). Cf. also Arius Did. fr. 2 Diels (Dar. 448.1-2) ή μέν φύσις κατ' έπίνοιαν άρχή τις έστι κινήσεως και στάσεως. 30 The ether is not mentioned here. It also moves by nature, cf. e.g. Cael. I, 2,269a6 ff. 31 For έν έαυτοις cf. Plato's analysis of bodily motions in relation to regimen and exercise, Tim. S9n I ff. των W αύ κινήσεων (of the human body) ή έν έ α υ τ ω ύφ' αότοϋ αρίστη κίνησις - μάλιστα γάρ τη διανοητικη και τή του παντός κινήσει συγγενής - ή δέ ύπ' άλλου (e.g. a. drug) χειρών. 32 For the (later) reduction of these motions cf. Phys. VI11,o,259bI 20; which derives most motions, even in living beings, from environmental causes. For the problems connected with ορεξις ef. Gnunach, o.e. 51 ff. and below, p. 72, ii. 40. 33 Cael. 1,8,276a23 ff.; l Y , 3 , 3 1 0 a l 6 ff., etc. 34 Cf. HA V l i r j ,588h4 ff,; PA I V ( 5 , 6 S l a l 2 (it is impossible to draw the exact distinction between 'living' and 'dead'). 35 Cf. J . M. le Blond S.J., Aristnte philosophe de la vie (Le Uwe premier du trails Sur les parties des A nimaux), Paris, 1945, 11 ff., who, however, in in ν opinion, overemphasizes the vitalist aspect of Aristotle's theory. We should not forget the oiov. Le Blond's other reference, Phys, VIII, 1,250b 14 does not bear him out: "if movement is a kind of life belonging to all natural objects' is a question, not a statement, and a question which Aristotle answers in the negative Phys, V r i l , 4 , 2 5 5 b 5 ff. Lloyd, Pol. Anal. 257 ff. cant ion slv speaks only of an analogy between nature arid life in Aristotle. m Cael IV,3,311 a t 1 ff. approvingly refers to this passage in. the Physics, and thereby introduces an idea in Cael which does not fit in the general theory of this work (cf. above, p. 70, n. 24).

71

nected with life and with living beings. 37 (it the elements were self-moved), και ίστάνοα άν έδύνατο αυτά αυτά". 38 This passage unambiguously states that elemental bodies and living beings are different 39 ; the same feeling is given vent to in An. 1,5,41 lal 4 ff. το λέγειν ζωον το πυρ ή τον αέρα τ ω ν παραλογωτέρων εστί.

Motion φύσει is to be distinguished

from self-motion, which is the exclusive property of the ζωον as a ολον.40 It is not an active force, but (αρχή) του πάσγειν.41 Motion of 12 elements depends on elemental change, i.e. upon a process which is caused by forces outside the elements themselves, viz. here, in Phys. VIII, by the Unmoved First Mover. This re-interpretation of 'nature' is to be explained as an attempt 43 to subordinate the motions of the elemental masses to the way things are made to go. in this way, nature still plays a modest role, but one which is rather different from i t s relative a u t o n o m y as apparent in Cael. and Phys. II. 4 4 We should

not, however, forget that even in Cael, the motions of the sublunary elements in the ultimate analysis depend on the circular motion of the Divine Heavens. 45 The ambiguities of Aristotle's theory of motion arc brought out τά τε γαρ αυτά ύφ* αύτών (so. κινεισθαι) φάναι αδύνατον ζωτικόν τε γάρ τούτο και των έμφύχων 'ίδιον. 38 ι ι w o l l i c p Aristotle continues, on this account even become possible for an element to move itself in a direction contrary to its natural one. 39 Phys. VI 11,4,254b 14 says that everything which moves itself moves b y nature. It is apparently the converse which is not true, 40 phy S% V l l 1,4,254b 14 ff. To τε γάρ αύτο ύφ' αύτού κινούιχενον φύσει κινείται, οίον εκαστον των ζ ω ο ν · κινείται γάρ το ζωον αύτο ύφ' αύτου' οσων Si ή άρχή έν αύτοΐς της κινήσεως, ταύτα φύσει φα μεν κινεΐσΟαι. Διο το μεν ζωον ολον φύσει αύτο εαυτό κινεί. Ibd. 2541)27 ff.: in living beings, we must distinguish between principle of motion and t h a t which is moved. The living being can be said to 'move itself* only if we do not care to make this distinction (254b32 το άπαν αύτο αύτο κινεΐν). Another passage even further restricts the possibility of selfmotion in living beings: VI 11,6,2591)1 -20 (see above, p. 71, n.32 and Solmsen, Arist. Syst. 245). Cf. also A. L, Peck, Aristotle, Generation of Animals(Loeb), London 3 1963, App. B., p. 576 ff., on the analogy and the difference between the animal's being moved by the ορεκτόν and the Heaven's being moved by the f i r s t Mover. 37

41

Phys.

VHI,4,255b31.

Phys. VIII,4,255b9, 18 ff. 43 Which is often only verbal: 'why natural motion? οτι πέφυκέν ποι' (Phys. VI 11,4,2551)15 ; here the old φύσις rears its head). 42

44

Cf. G u t h r i e , o.e. X I X ; S o l m s e n , Arist. Syst. 2 3 3 a n d n . 3 7 .

Cael. II,l,284a7-12. In I,9,279a28 ff. it is the 'sum of existence of the whole heaven' όθεν και τοις άλλοις έςήρτηται... το είναι τε και ζην. 45

72

vvit.ii particular vividness when we concentrate upon his statements about the heavenly bodies. The theory of the early work π. φιλοσοφίας 40 does not at tribute natural motion to the stars, as is done in Cacl., but explains their motions in terms of volition: omnia quae movenlur ant natura movcri aid vi ant vohmtateß1 Natural motion is Fr, 21 Ross ("χ- ND 11,1-1 {< t- also Pease, ad I ) 'No good Aristotelian parallel to the present three fol2) motion φύσει in the active sense of self motion which is the exclusive privilege of ζ φ * ) may be adduced (for furl her references see above, p. 71-2 and notes). 4 he restrictions regarding self-motion in /V/vs. V I 11,6, 2591)1-20 do not include voluntary action, \V. Κ. C. (dithnc, o.e. XXV11 opts for the exclusion of a transcendental mover from a reconstructed π. φ CA., because this idea is almost irrelevant in the (later) CaN. !hit. ibd. p. XXV1 lie concedes that in fr. 21 Ross only 'an eternal mover which exerts a compulsion contrary to nature' is excluded, ft is, however, certain t h a t Aristotle spoke in his π. ψιλ. of a divine highest principle of motion, in Cic., .YD 1,33 ( — fr. 26 Ross) one of the divinities in tertio de phitowphia lihvo is alimn quondam (other than mens and the niumius itself, which are also divine), whom Aristotle praeficit mundo ei que eas partes trihuif at replicatinne quadam mundi malum regal atquc tueatur. Divine is also the caeli ardor ( - ether,, cf. N f ) 11,41 in ardore caelcsti qui aether vet caelum nonnnaiur). Whether the mens mentioned by Aristotle in this context is a Divine Mind is not certain; it may be the human νους (cf. ND 1,35, where the deification of mens - and of the heavens and the stars — is also attributed to Theophrastus, who, as it seems - cf. below, p. 84, n. 89 - abandoned the theory <4 an Unmoved Mover). On the highest God in π. φ CA. cf. C. J . De Vogel, Greek Phil II, p. 33 ff. (Nr. 430 ff., with the notes oil p. 33 and 31·); E. Berti, La Eilosoj ia del brim ο A rislotele, Padova 1962» 375 ff.; and Η. J . Kramer, Der Ursprung der Geislmetaphysik, Amsterdam J963, 131 ff Both ί >e Vogel and Kramer argue in favour of mens Divine Spirit. Perhaps some speculative light m a y be shed on this extremely difficult question by examining the implications of voluntas which presumably translates TO έκούσιον (cf. M. Untersteiner, Ans tötete, Delia Pilosofia, 4 Ami e Testi 10, Roma 1963, 234 and I Hiring, Arist. 186). In the theory of πραξις in Aristotle's ethical theory, το έκούσί.ον (and not compulsion, hin vis) is involved in the attraction οί external pleasant and good objects, EN 111 0b9 ff. (for more details on Aristotle's theory of voluntary action see the second of D. j . hurley's Two Studies in the Greek A tomists, (Princeton K . J . 1967), vis.: Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary A ciion, 46

47

73

movement in terms of fiondtis and levitas; this motion upwards and downwards is (of course) not that of the heavenly bodies. 48 i n Cael., where the eternal circular motion is explained as the natural motion of a natural body, the role attributed to ether appears to abolish the distinction between natura and voluntas of π. φιλ. Cael. IΓ,7 it is proved that the stars are ethereal bodies, 11,8 that they are moved by the ethereal circles in which they are set, Aristotle (doubtlessly arguing against Plato) explicitly denies that either the stars move by an 'ensouled motion' (Cael, II, ( ),201a22), or that the heavens are moved ύπο ψυχής (Cael. II,l,284a27 ff.) On the other hand, however, Aristotle in the same work says that the heaven is 'ensouled' (έμψυχος Cael. 11,2, 285a29-30); w winch contradicts Ina mechanistic point of view; but perhaps this word here does not mean more than diving'(?). He also says, Cael II f 12,202al8 ff. that we should not think of the stars as being completely lifeless bodies, but δει.., ως μετεχόντων ύπολαμβάνειν πράξεως και ζωής. The πραξις of the stars is analogous to that of animals (including man) and plants (ibd. 202b 1-2). Aristotle, at some length, but not very clearly, elucidates how this kind of πραξις is to be understood. 50 Λ plurality of "acts* accounts for the complicated esp. Ch. 2, p. 18-1 if.) If this μετάβασις to the γένος of ethics is legitimate (and 1 think it is, ef. Aristotle's own procedure in Gael. 11,1 2), the voluntas which makes the stars move could he interpreted as either (a) a voluntary and fully conscious assent to a course of aet ion, vi':. to move in the most perfect way (cf. on this point E. Berti, o.e. 370, who, however, in his analysis of the role of the, etiler in π. φ Ca. fends ff) forget that a natural ethereal movement is explicitly exehideci by the I riieimna of Fr. 21 Ross), course which is the stars* eternal choice, or (b) their voluntary desire to follow what is good, i.e. the example of perfection sei by a highest principles which is not mentioned in fr. 21 Ross, but could be the alius qnidem or perhaps the mem (which is not necessarily unmoved) of fr. 26 Ross. I would prefer the second possibility. The first is that adopted by Theophrastiis (see below, p. 84 and ibd. n. 88 and 89) ~ if he abandoned the Unmoved Mover. 48 The affinity between this theory and that of l.aws and Ii pin. quoted above (p. 67) should not be overlooked; Aristotle may be thinking of star-souls. Probably Aristotle takes up a Platonic idea., or the theme of a discussion in the Early Academy. Others assume that Plato in the Lews-passage hints at theories of Aristotle (cf. e.g. Düring, Arist. 187 and n.27). We need not choose, for the exact historical filial ion is irrelevant to our present problem, viz. the relation between vita!ist and mechanistic notions in Aristotle. 49 Cf. above, p. 70, n. 24. 50 For πραξις, cf. above, p. 73, n. 47; something is also said by L, Elders, A vistotle's Cosmology, A Commentary on the DeCaelo, Wijsgerige Teksten en Studies 13, Assen 1966, 234.

74

movements of each of the planets, 202b30 ff.; and this πραξις is a striving after what is good, 292a23; the best would have the Good without τυράς*.-; (ibd.). 51 If is perhaps not too far-fetched 52 to connect this 'action' with the voluntary action ascribed to the heavenly bodies in π. φιλ. fr. 21 Ross. 'Πιο divergence between this passage and others in ('del. denying the influence of soul cannot, however, be explained away. It is clearly impossible to smoothe out ail the divergences; think :4 period I v ι η; · it, mperior to Um Fnsi \ Um \·<ίι, iitilhrie, ο.r. Χ Χ Ι ί Ι ff. does oof ο η hide this passage among those unambiguously implying a ι ranscendental I h w i (bnl cf. Iiis diagram, dirt 208). Λ First Mover, however, is not vet ν far a w a y . •v- .bering, If /.-,/. 1 So, η. I 7, an.I 1 S/\ argues t hat 111'· u n c i a l passages about the life and noähc of the stars in Gael. 11,12 reproduce the thought of π. φιλ, YJ above, p. 70» n. 2 !. The, inconsist encies found their way into the Placila: cf. the definition of οόηι - referred to above, p. 71 η, 20, math λ et 11,3 (ε! έμψυχος ό κοημος και προνοί'/. διοικούμενος), 4, Άριστ. ούτ* εμψυχον ολον Si' ολου (note the Stoic formula) <ν'τε νοερον ουτε προνοία διοικούμενον. τά ι i h j γάρ ουράνια (cf, Act, 1,7,32, referred to below, η. 5b) τούτων πάντων xoiw.wsw, σφαίρας γάρ περιέχει εμψύχου? κα», 'CowAc, τά ok περίγει% arfizvoc αυτών, της Η' εύτα? ία ς κατά πυμβεβηκος ού ττροηγουμένο: μτ,τέχειν, which is corre< f as far as it goes. Cf. also Λrins Did. fr. 9 Diels {/Jar, 450,12 ff.): there are a,s m a n y spheres as there are κινουνταί θεούς... wv μέγιστον τον izynv.c ττεριέχοντα; the ether is έμψυχος and eternally moves in a circle. 54 Above, p. 00 ff, 5R Met. XI 1,7,10721>3 κ-.νει... ως έρώμενον. 156 Cf. Guthrie, o.e. X X X , X X X V . The Unmoved Movers are called 'souls' of the spherical bodies Act. 1,7,32, 51

75

other movements. Elsewhere, Aristotle is more specific.57 GC II, 10,336a32 ff. we are told that the cycles of becoming and perishing are caused by the movement of the sun κατά τον λοξό ν κύκλο ν (which accounts for the seasons), 58 while ή κύκλω φορά (ibd., 337a 1 ff.) causes becoming to function as a continuous process. We are left in the dark 5 9 as to how this motion is passed on to the sublunary world. In GA IV/IO,777b27 ff. θερμότητες και ψύξεις are said to be the causes of becoming and to be themselves dependent on the sun (and moon). This is exemplified by the movements of the elemental masses; the sea is moved by air and the winds, the air is dependent on the motions of the sun (and. moon).60 The motions of these άστρα, again, depend on other motions. In the concluding chapter of (A' 11,11,338b2 ff. the series is (1) the eternal circular motion, (2) the circular motion of the sun caused by this άνω φορά, and (3) the cycle of the seasons.

3, This necessarily superficial account of the theories of motion in Plato and Aristotle and of their physical and cosmological ramifications is, within the context of the. present chapter, perhaps a rather wordy digression. Some amount of informative detail, however, is indispensable to a correct understanding of the cosmology of Hebd.61 It will be remembered that Hebd. Ch. 2,1 ff.R. speaks of κόσμοι above and below the earth, equal in form and number, which move around

57

Cf. So Imsen, .1 vi st. Syst., 370 lt. (the chapter on "the Moving Cause of all

(jenesis1);

A. L. P e c k , Gencv. An.,

A p p . Λ., p. 5 6 0 ff.

GC .11,10,3301)1 7-8 γένεσις and φθισις are connected with the approach and withdrawal of the sun. 5f> Cf. the lucid exposition of G. E. R. Lloyd, Aristotle, The Growth and Structure of his Thought, Cambridge 1968, 159 ff. That the moon is in-between does not seem to have bothered Aristotle. In GA 1V,1 0,7771)24 ff. the moon is a cause (αρχή) of change on account of its association with the sun, from which it derives both its motion and its light. Meie. 1,2,339a21 ff. we hear that the sublunary world of necessity is συνεχής... ταϊς άνω φοραΐς, so that the elements are nothing but the material causes of change, which, in the final analysis, itself is 'otherdirected'. The cause of motion is to be found in the άεί κινουμένα. That Aristotle took these ideas very seriously is, of course, demonstrated by his famous statement Phys. 11,2,1941)13 άνθρωπος... άνθρωπο ν γέννα και ήλιος. For Theophrastus' solution to this problem cf. below, p. 82 ff. 60 Cf, also GA IV,2,767a2 ff., on the "summer and winter in tlic- course of a month' caused by the waxing and waning of the moon. 61 Cf. also below, Ch. V A, p. 1 37-8, n. 36. m

76

t h e e a r t h i n s e l f - m o v e d c i r c u l a r orbits. O u t e r h e a v e n a n d e a r t h a r e u n m o v e d , w e r e a d a f e w l i n e s f u r t h e r on (2,14-17 11.) w h i l e t h e "other t h i n g s h a v e a course of revolution' (τά δ' άλλα 68ov εχει περιπολίης 2 , 1 8 1 9 R.), a n d a g a i n : e a r t h and o u t e r h e a v e n a r e u n m o v e d (2,39 f f . R . ) , w h i l e τάλλα π ά ν τ α έν άλλήλοισι ζώντα και 8ι α λ λ ή λ ω ν δωόντα αυτά [τα] ύφ' έ ω υ τ ω ν και υπό τ ω ν [άεί 6ντο>ν°2] ά ώ ί ω ν κ ι ν ε ί τ α ι (2,47 U.R.). There c a n be no d o u b t w h a t s o e v e r t h a t T h e o t h e r things" r e a l l y m e a n s all other t h i n g s e x c e p t o u t e r h e a v e n arid e a r t h , viz. 5 out of the 7 portions of t h e u n i v e r s e ; s t a r s , moon, sun, a i r a n d w a t e r . T h e s e a r e s a i d (2,47 f f . R . ) to b e (a) b o t h self- a n d o t h e r - d i r e c t e d in r e s p e c t to m o t i o n a n d (b) to p a s s t h r o u g h one a n o t h e r a n d to live w i t h i n one a n o t h e r . T h e s e r e l a t i o n s of ' p a s s i n g i h r o u g h ' a n d l i v i n g within* a r e s a i d to be m u t u a l , N o w b o t h these t y p e s of b e h a v i o u r a n d t h e whole 1 c o n t e x t , which is

02 άεί όντων, wliieh is not Ionic, is suspect, and probably is a gloss on άι8ίων which has got into the text (cf. the idiomatically correct έούσα, Ch. 1,95 R., and έυντα, Ch. 2,06 Κ.). Roscher keeps these words in his text and amends «ιδίων into ρτβίως, in order to get a text which corresponds to the Latin translations. But the translations are rather defective in their reproduction of the sentence which 1 have quoted in full above: cetera omnia in (in not in 1 \) invicem viventia et per se (sc not in A) transenntia correctly reproduces τάλλα... 81 ιόντα, and up to this point the translations are in agreement with one another. For all of what follows, Λ gives Facile semper moventiw (starting a new sentence with Facile), while Ρ reads hec eadem et per mundi partes transenntia facile semper moveniw: the three words at the end of the sentence are the same as in A, while hec eadem et per mundi partes transenntia at first sight looks like an attempt at translation of the all-important passage αυτά ύφ' έωυτων... άι^ίων. It is, of course, possible that the Greek text which served as the basis for the translations was already corrupt at this point. Roscher, as we have noticed, appears to read f-φίως in order to reproduce facile, but fails to give an explanation of semper: is it, perhaps, possible that he thinks this translates the άεί before όντων? P's hec eadem then perhaps corresponds to αυτά ύφ' έωυτων, but this is not very likely, and the repetition of transenntia from 2,49 R. as well as the inexact per mundi paries for the Greek equivalent of 'by the eternal beings* demonstrate the helplessness of the translator: per mundi partes transenntia as a whole is nothing but a repetition of the idea which the Greek text expresses a few lines earlier (2,50 ff. R.) by SC αλλήλων διιόντα ! I therefore prefer to believe that 2,53 R. semper is an attempt at translating αισίων; facile may represent an attempt at translating αυτά ύφ' έωυτων. In this way, there would be traces of both the idea of selfmotion and the idea of ("other-directed') eternal motion, (both of which are unambiguously present in the Greek), in the Latin translations, facile representing the former, semper the latter (and in the correct order). For this inter-

p r e t a t i o n of facile,

ef. Cie., Ν I) 11,31 sed per

se

ipse

ac

(Cicero's text is more amply quoted below, p. 89, n. 119),

77

sua

spornte moveatur

cosmological, make it certain that the author thinks of elements These are said to be both self-moved and moved by the eternal beings. From our long digression on Plato and Aristotle we have learnt that the concept of self-motion is Platonic, and we have also seen in what ways Aristotle continues the Platonic legacy: by splitting it up into ι notion φύσει, and other-directed motion by aioiot. ούσίαιΑ' it wilt be remembered that the idea of a sei [-moved element is mi-Platonic; elemental motion is directed by Son! and raj am Cause. 65 lint self-motion of the elements is an idea which is found in Aristotle, especially in CaeL and Phys. II 66 ; in due course, however, he subordinates this self-motion to the influence of Eternal Movers. 67 To put it bluntly: the idea of an elemental body which has if bulk ways, otz. which is moved both by itself and by an (denial something, 68 is impossible before Aristotle. The t.p.q. derived from the occurrence of the originally Platonic concept of self-motion09 is in this way replaced by an even later t.p.
4. This is not all. The elements are said to l i v e within one another', έν άλλήλοισι ζώντα (Ch. 2,48-9 lv.). This vitalist idea is absolutely urn Platonic, and not less foreign to At ist otic. We have noticed the latter \s carefulness in pointing out that the behaviour of the elements is only analogous to that of ζωα, and his scorn in rejecting the thought that the elements themselves may be considered as living beings.70 This difference between the theory of the elements in Aristotle and in Hebd. is substantial, it invites us to envisage the possibility of moving our t.p.q. even furl her down, and to look out for points of agreement That the elements are meant is «also the opinion of ps. iiaien, comm. on Nr. 22 (p. 3 V4 Cero ;lr.), 64 F o r the en-rnal substances in Aristotle of. above, p. 7(1 n. 2 v 65 Cf. above, p. 67-S. ββ Cf. above, p. 70-1. 67 See above, p. 70. The quotation from Act ins (above, p. 75, n. 53) appositely summarizes Aristotle's final thoughts ois Aula lis in' - and, by the way, shows that information on this topic was easily accessible via the handbook-literature. 68 Some did not accept this, cf. Sextus, M. X,70 (from the chapter ει ·έπ τι κινησί,ς): ειπερ ούν κινείται τι πρώτως ( l i a s a primary motion'), OLOV στοΐ/εϊυν (n.b. !), ήτοι ύφ' αυτου κινεί ή ύπ' άλλου (Sextus' critique does not apply to the Aristotelian solution). This quotation, moreover, shows that the problem of the Lause of motion continued to he discussed, and even in t he .-ame terminology β» See above, p. 66-7. 70 Cf. above, p. 72. 63

78

between the cosmology of Hebd, and that of a post-Aristotelian philosophical school. First, however, we have to take a closer look at some details of the cosmology of Hebd. itself, Our point of departure will be the κράσις of the elements. Hebd. Ch. 1,78 ff.R. says that the sixth part of the universe consists of the wet element (sea, rivms, sources etc.) blended with the heat winch is responsible for the motion of the liquid substance: και (adunatum)11 τούτο ι GL (sc. sea etc.) (kpp.ov, <\ άγωγή και άρ οευσίς imx της ίκμάδ ος. This heat is also present in the earth, Head, 6, § I ,1()~20 R. in terra ealidum; 6,§2,3 ff. R. est quiddam

ex salts splendoribus congregaluui terrae. The

wording (.adunatum, congregation) makes it abundantly clear that the heat which is to be luund m vvaicr ami. earth is nut accidentally ur intermittently present within these elements, but is an essential part of their substance. This is clearly illustrated €h.6,§2,1. ff.R., where we read that, in the universe, heat is present in two places, viz. in the upper, astral regions and in the central region of earth and water: hominis, quomodo in mundo, in duobis loc-is: est quiddam ex sol is splendor i bus congregatum terrae, hoc quod in vi seer ib its hominis el quod in ν en is ealidum, est; quod anient in superioribus partibus est mundi,

quod stellae el sol, quod sub cute est. On the cosmic level, there are two supplies of heat, viz. (a) the celestial bodies, (b) the heat blended with earth and water. Although it is not repeated explicitly in this passage also that heat is present in wafer as well, this follows from the reference to venae: for in the macrocosm ie comparison, the rivers 72 are an 'imitation' of the human veins, cf. Ch. 6,§ 1,22 ff. R., aqua . . , jliuninum imitalio est venae el qui in vents est sanguinis, loom this cosmic distribution of heat we may further conclude that that portion of the universe which is between the two hot 'places', viz. the region of air, is cold, or, at least, much colder than what is above it and beneath it. Now the heat, which is blended with earth and water, is, as we have noticed, in the last analysis derived from the 'splendors of the sun'. I take this to mean that the heat in the upper regions of the universe is in some sense primary compared to tit at near the; centre. This is confirmed by the description of the stars and the sun (cf. Hebd. 6,

71 For a possible Greek equivalent, see above, Ch. 11, p. 30, n. 22, This idea has no parallel in Presocratic: (or 'Hippocratic') thought. At Vict. 1,4, the wet element participates in the 'dryness' of the fiery element, not in its heat (το ok ύδωρ άπό του πυρός το ςηρόν · εν ι γάρ έν υδατι ςηρόν). 72 Fh. 1 ,ΚΟ 1 Η, explicitly mentions the rivers as part of tho wot element.

79

§ 2,11-12 II. quod siellae ei sol) in an earlier chapter ol Hebd.: Ch. 1,54 ff.R. says that the stars possess the warmest brightness within the universe, Οερμοτάτην73... λαμπηδόνα, while 1,58 ff.R. tells us that the sun possesses Οερμασίαν. Stars and sun possess heat to a remarkable degree. And while the heat near the centre, viz. that in water and earth, is only to be found in combination with othei elements, that portion of the heat which is to be found in the upper regions apparently is unmixed, pine heat. This is revealed by a careful reading of the beginning of Ch. b,§2,9 ff.R.: (calidum), quod in superioribus partibus est mundi, quod sie Hue et sol: stars and sun consist of nothing but heat. That this is in fact true, can also be derived front other considerations. The enumeration of cosmic strata in Ch. 1 proceeds from the circumference of the universe towards its ecu tri1, and gives its seven parts in the following order: (1) the outer heaven, (2) the stars, (3) the sun, (4) the moon, (5) the air, (6) the wet element and (7) the earth. This implies that the σύστασις καί κόσμος of the air is located below the moon. Now if the air is restricted to the sublunary portion of the universe, some other element must be assumed to be filling the spaces above the moon. This must be heat. This heat is pure: it cannot be mixed with air, for air, as we have just noticed, is only to be found below the moon. Already in Ch. 1 that heat was to be found in the upper regions was indicated by the epithet a ornantia of the heavenly bodies which we have just, quoted. It will, of course, be clear that the general world-picture whieh is taken for granted in this description of the cosmos is a descendant of that of Aristotle, f o r Aristotle, the subdivision of the universe into two different parts separated by the moon is axiomatic. 74 Above the moon is the region of ether, eternal and unchangeable, moving in a circle. Below the moon are the other four elements, which are eontin uousl ν moving up and down towards their proper places. This If this reading (of Kalbfleisch) is correct, for in Ch. 0, §2,3 ff.R. it is the sun which furnishes the heat blended with earth and water. Perhaps the stars are said to be 'hottest' in order to indicate that the nearness of the cold outer heaven does not interfere. Cf. also below, p. 185 n. 300, in fine, 74 See above, p. 71 ff. and Ch. 11, p. 43. Aristotle's location of the moon is part of the information on his system in the Placita (Aet. I ί,25,7 σελήνην έν μεθόριοις αέρος τεταγμ.ένην καί της πέμπτης, ουσίας μετέ'/ουσαν). So is his distinction between the sublunary world of change and decay and that above the moon (Aet. 1,3,22; 11,4,1 2 ' A pi στ. το ύπο τήν σελήνην μέρο: του κόσμου παΟητον, έν ω καί τά περίγεια κηραίνεται; 11,7,5). 73

80

Aristotelian model of the universe was of paramount importance for most of the subsequent cosmology. 75 In itself, this confirms the t.p.q. which we were able to derive from the comparison of the theory of motion of the elements in II ebd. with that of Aristotle. Again, we have to look out for a post»Aristotelian system which, while heavily depending on the world-picture of Aristotle, in certain respects went its own way. Though impossible without the Aristotelian example, the world-picture of Hebd, is clearly not that of Aristotle. Below the moon, we do not find, as in Aristotle, fire, air, water and earth, but only the latter three elements, while above the moon we do not find, as in Aristotle, a fifth element which is never to be encountered below it, but the same ealidum (Οερμόν, cf. Ch. 1,86-7 R.) which is also present in at least earth and water. To put it briefly: the Aristotelian ether as a body distinct from the other elements has disappeared, or, in other words, the Aristotelian distinction between the supralunary ether, the element of the heavenly bodies, and the fiery element which is below the moon has been abolished. Before 1 pursue the topic of this θερμό ν further, 1 shall complete my survey of evidence for κρασι,ς of the elements in Hebd. In the earth, not only heat, but also water is present: Ch. 2,25 ff.R. γ η . . , έχουσα έν έωυτη... τά υγρά, while Ch. 6, § 1,19-20 R. speaks of in terra ealidum humidum: heat fused with moisture is present within the earth. Moreover, Ch. 1,91 ff. R. tells us that the earth has grown from (and/or consists of) water, γ η . , , (εστί παντρόφος) έξ ύδατος έοΰσα. Together w i t h Ch. 6,§ 2,3 ff. R . est

quiddam ex solis splendoribus

eongregatum

terrae this statement perhaps allows us to speculate about the cosmogonical background of the cosmology in Hebd.: once upon a time, the earth rose from the water, and it was at that time that heat deriving from the sun was blended with it. I shall return to the problem of these cosmogonical vestiges below. 76 But, for the moment, I should like to conclude this analysis of κρασις in Η ebd. with the remark that the examples, which we have studied so far, admirably illustrate the general intent of Ch. 2,50-1 R. 8ι αλλήλων διιόντα. Cf. the unauthentic Philolaus-fragment, VS 44B21; Ocellus IS (p. 15,17 ff. Harder) and 36-7 (p. 19,28-20,11 Harder); the 'Pythagorean' Hypomnemata of Alexander Polyhistor up. Diog. Laert. ¥111,26 (cf. Festugiere, REG 1945, 18 ff. es p. 26); ps. Arist., Mu. 392a32 ff., 393a4 ff., 40Qa22 ff.; Cicero, Somn.

75

Sei p. 9 infra [hmam) iam nihil est nisi mortale et caduciim supra hmam sunt aeterna omnia. E t c . 76

P. 107 ff.

81

(except h u m a n souls),

5, The Οερμόν-theory of Heid, w h i c h w e h a v e o u t l i n e d a b o v e c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e s t h e p h y s i c a l t h e o r y of A r i s t o t l e ' s f r i e n d , c o l l e g u e a n d i m m e d i a t e successor Theophrastus. It appears t h a t Theophrastus m a d e s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e s in t h e p h y s i c a l s y s t e m bequeathed t o him b y A r i s t o t l e . 7 7 F r o m t h e list of e l e m e n t s h e r e m o v e d b o t h e t h e r a n d fire, w h i c h h e r e p l a c e d b y a n e w e l e m e n t , the Οερμον or ϋερμότης, w h i c h is a c t i v e a n d b o t h w a r m a n d l i g h t , w h i l e a i r , w a t e r a n d e a r t h a r e in themselves passive and both cold and h e a v y . 7 8 T h e terrestrial fire of our daily e x p e r i e n c e is nothing b u t a manifestation of this elemental h e a t . 7 0 In the u p p e r regions of the u n i v e r s e , this heat is to be f o u n d in a p u r e s t a t e , but in t h e vicinity of the centre it is no longer pure. Cf. the important book by 1 \ Steinmetz (Die Physik des Theophrast, cf. above Ch. II, p. 45, η. 42), who lias earned the gratitude of all students of ancient philosophy for his admirable and detailed reconstruction of Theophrastus' system of the physical world. A convenient summing-up of his results is given b y Steinmetz, ibd. p. 325 if. and in his article Ansatzpunkte der Element entehre Theophrasts im Werk des Aristoteles, in; Λ7alurphilusophie hei Aristoteles und llieophrasl, hrsg. v. I. Düring, Heidelberg 1909, (224 ff.), esp. 2 Η ff. De igne, Ch. .1. Cf. Steinmetz, Physik IIb ff., 3 60 ff., 169 ff.. In doing this, Theophrastus is following a trend set by Aristotle in some of his later works (cf. Steinmetz, Ansaizp. passim). In PA 1 l,2,04Sb! 2 ff. Aristotle discusses the various meanings of the term 'hot', without making a connection with the fire of his elemental theory. In GC and Mete, there is a tendency to use the term (tecgov instead of Tire'. In the famous passage OA II,3,736b29-737a7 (on which see also F. Solmseu, The Vital Heat, The Inborn Pneuma and the Ether, J H S 77 (1957), 119 ff. - Kleine Schriften I, Hüdesheim 1968, 605 ff.), Aristotle writes that in the seed a θερμόν is present, which makes it γονιμον. This Οερμον is not to be confused with fire, but is a hot substance analogous to το> των άστρο ν στοιχείο;. Steinmetz, Ansaizp. 241 aptly speaks of the introduction of a sixth element. Aristotle apparently has forgotten that the ether is not warm. On the Οερμόν in Aristotle (esp. in his biology etc.) see also F. Solmseig Cleanthes ur Poddonius ? The Basis uf Sloic Physics, Med. Kon. Ned. Ak. Welensch., X. R. 24» No. 0, Amsterdam 1961, 13 ff. (=- KL Sehr. I, 436 ff.) 70 De igne, p. 351,48 ff. Wimmer; Steinmetz, Physik 119 ff. Also here, the way was paved by Aristotle, cf. GC 11,3,3301)25 το πυρ εστίν υπερβολή θερμότητας. This terrestrial fire moves upward towards its 'proper place' (άνω... προς τον οίκείον τόπον στείχει) in an orthodox Aristotelian manner, cf. esp. Theophrastus' account of the formation of mountains προς όξεΐαν... κορυφήν as a result of vulcanic phenomena, ap. Philo, Α et. mund. 1 35-6, VI p. 114,2 ff. Cohn-W. ( — fr. 30 W.) Farih is pushed upwards by the subterranean fire, but grows heavier and heavier on the w a y up: the balance of power is such that mountains turn out to be conical in shape, as both (dements struggle to get to their proper place (προς τήν οικεί αν έ/.ατέρου χώραν έτυειγομένου). On the pyramidal shape of fire cf. also De igne, p. 359, 41 ff.W. (flame as πυραμοειοές).

77

82

De igne 1, p. 351,19 ff.W: in the πρώτη σφαίρα, the element is of such a nature that it is ά μικτό ν . . . θερμότητα και καΟαράν · . . . ή πρώτη (sc. φύσις) is καθαρά και ά μικτό ς, ή δέ περί τήν τής γής σφαΐραν is με μ ιγ μένη καΐ άεί κατά γένεσιν. The opposition between the "first sphere' and the 'sphere of the earth' makes it, at least to me, a certainty that ή πρώτη σφαίρα represents the whole of the supralunary universe. 80 The Aristotelian division of the universe into two parts divided by the moon is still fuutlariuuital to Theopluastns' world-picture, though, as we have noticed, with a difference: above the moon, pare heat, below the moon heat mixed with the other elements. The chief representative of this pure heat is, to Theoplirastus, the stm, which is the moving cause of change within the sublunary world,81 De igne p. 351,28 ff.W.: ή κίνησις ή τοιάδε και άλλοίωσις εις τήν του θερμού πως ανάγεται, φύσιν * ο γάρ ήλιος ο ταύτα πάντα δημιουργών. The sun is also said to be the source of the productive heat in animals and plants: άπο τούτου και ή γόνιμος έν τοις ζώοις και φυτοις ϋερμότης.82 But also the heat present in other elements is derived from the sun. The hot substance mixes with other substances.83 If the structure of the substances with which it is mixed is favourable, it can be contained.81 m Steinmetz, Physik 110 n. 4, 102 ff. argues that ή πρώτη σφαίρα means the sphere of the sun, because in Theoplirastus' physics the sun is all-important, 'though 1 do not wish to deny this, 1 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 is the realm of κρασί ς and γένεσις', that Theoplirastus is not speaking of astronomical spheres at nil, but roughly subdivides the nniverse into two regions. The interpretation of Zeller, Ph.d.Gr. 11,1,833 is correct in this respect, though wrong of course in not bringing out clearly the fundamental differences between Theoplirastus and Aristotle. The sphere of pure heat is called 'first', because the heat is 'first' in the sense of being αρχή, cf. De igne p. 351,42 fj.VV. This interpretation of the Two spheres' agrees with the interpretation of Theoplirastus' information on Anaximander's κόσμοι, for which see above, Ch. II, p. 44-5. Cf. also the distinction between τά κυκλικά and τά περί το μέσον» Theophr., Met. 5b 1 1-12. 81 As it is for Aristotle, cf. above, p. 76. On the sun see also Theophr,, Met. 7b2 ff. Mote that Theoplirastus did not abandon the theory of the 'proper place' of an element, above p. 82, n. 79. *-· De igne p. 351,34 ff.W. Cf. also p. 358,21 ff.W.: ή . . . τοις έμψύχοις σώμασιν £νυττάρχουσα θερμότη;... οιονεί ζώσα και γόνιμος ή 8 η γίνεται των ομοίων* ετι 8k πρότερα ταύτης ή άπο του ήλιου' και γάρ αύτη γόνΐί/.oc και ζώων και φυτών κ.τ.λ. (e.g., seeds germinate when exposed to the heat of the sun). 83 De igne p. 356,18 W, το Οερμαίνεσθαι δια τήν συναφή ν και κατάμιξιν. Cf. Steinmetz, Phys. 134 ff.

83

It is unnecessary to point out in detail in which respects the theory of Theophrastus corresponds to t h a t in Hebd. The m a i n similarities are that the pure Οερμόν (note the identical term !) is above the moon, the m i x e d ϋερμόν is around the earth, a n d t h a t the sun is considered to be the source of the heat within the other elements. There is also an important correspondence in another respect: in Hebd., the elements are said to be moved by the «ίδια (as well). 8 5 According to Theophrastus, the principal δημιουργός of change is the sun. B u t he echoes Aristotle in calling the moon a lesser sun, 8 6 a n d we know t h a t he, as Aristotle, w a s convinced both of the eternity of the world 8 7 and the divinity of the stars. 8 8 The stars are ensouled beings, their souls apparently consisting of the Οερμύν in its most perfect form, cf. Theoplirastus' definition of soul as τελειότης του θείου σώματος. 80 There is, however, an important difference between ps. Hippocrates a n d Theophrastus: as we h a v e already pointed out repeatedly, the elements in Hebd. are alive, έν άλλήλοισι ζώντα. In Theophrastus" physical theory, the world below the moon is necessarily connected w i t h the supralunary world in t h a t the heat in the sublunary world is derived from the heat up there. It is not, as in Aristotle, the accidental result of the motions of the sun, but the immediate result of its motion a n d its nature. 9 0 We h a v e moreover noticed that heat, according to Cf. above, p. 66 and p. 77. De ventis, p. 380,10 ff. W.: . . . ή σελήνη . . . οίον . . . ασθενής ήλιος έστι (also the moon, therefore, is a cause of winds, though to a much lesser degree than the sun); Arist., GA IV, 10,777625-6, cf. above, p. 76. 87 Fr. 30 Wimmer = Philo, Aet. niund. Ch. 23 ff., VI, p. 108 ff. Cohn.-W. 85

86

88

Cic., ND 1,35 sign is sideribusqiie

caelestibiis

(sc. divinum

tribuit

pvincipatiim).

Iambi, ap. Stob. 1,366,26 if. W. It appears that Theophrastus abandoned the theory of an Unmoved Mover or Movers, cf. Met. 10a9-21 (and 6a5~14). The power of self-movement belongs by nature to the heavens and to living beings (cf. es p. 10a.l5-6 οίον γάρ ζωή τις ή περιφορά του παντός). Movement is involved with soul (ibd., 5b3). A quotation from Theophrastus* π. ούρανου (ap. Proclus, In Tim. I l l , vol. II, p. 122,10 ff. Diehl) tells us that he held that soul is the principle of motion, and that, therefore, also the ουρανός is ensouled, and so θειος, ουδέν γάρ τίμιον άνευ ψυχής. On Theophrastus' abandoning of the theory of the Unmoved Mover cf. G rum ach, Physis und Agathon, 63 ff. G rum ach further argues (p. 64), that to Theophrastus the universe is a self-moved organism, but, perhaps, this goes a bit: too far. Theophrastus is not a Stoic, although his reinterpretation of Aristotle's system certainly paved the way for the Stoa (cf. Grumach, I.e.). - Eudemus (fr. 123a 4 b Wehrli) did not abandon the theory of the Unmoved Mover. 90 Steinmetz, Physik 160 ff., 325 ff. For Aristotle's theory cf. above, p. 76. 89

84

Theophrastiis, 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 οίκείη θερμοτης02 which is responsible for the dry exhalation even during the night. But according to Theophrastus, earth is cold; the dry exhalation is nothing but xefleeted heat from the sun. 93 In what remains of Theophrastiis' statements about the κρασις of fire with other elements, we shall look in vain for terms as strong as the adunatum and eongregatum which we have found in Η ebd. As in Aristotle, 94 the cycle of change in Theophrastus is caused by the sun, but in a definitely mechanistic way. 9 5 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 w a y . " 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 Met. J 1 a 10-7 ολίγον γάρ τι το εμψυχον, άπειρον δέ τδ άψυχο ν, and the distinction between animals and plants on the one hand and lifeless things on the other, Met. 9a14-15 μέχρι ζ coco ν και φυτών και εσχάτων των αψύχων ('right down to animals and plants and finally to inanimate things', tr. Ross-hohes). Cf. also Met. 10b21 ff. έν τοις φυτοΐς και μάλλον τοις άψύχυις ώρισμένην τιν' εχουσι φύσιν. ™ Mete. 362a3 ff. 93 Cf. Steinmetz, Physik 33, 71, 1 80, 327. 94 Cf. above, p. 76. 95 And in a. w a y which is much more satisfactory than that suggested by Aristotle (cf. on the unsurmountable difficulties of this part of Aristotle's physics above, p. 76 and ibd.n. 59). 96 This is how winds originate, cf. Steinmetz, Physik 37 ff. 97 Steinmetz, Physik 166, commenting upon Aet. 11,20,3 (Dox. 348,14-349,3). 98 By άνταπόδοσις. Cf. Steinmetz, Physik 31, 44 ff., 57 ff., 70 ff., especially 164 ff., 327. 99 Bv άντιπερίστασις: the predominating power surrounds and comprimates its contrary, thereby heightening its effect. Cf. Steinmetz, Phys. 123 ff., 220 if., 91

2 8 8 ff., 3 2 7 , a n d H . S t r o h m , Studien

zur Schrift

85

von der Welt, Μ Η 9

(1952),

6. Notwithstanding its affinities with the thought of the Early Pern patus, the physical theory of Hebd. cannot be explained on the assumption of influences from that quarter only. Both its vitalism and the idea that heat is an essential property of other elements are foreign to Aristotle and his school. It is possible to indicate the source from which these convictions have been derived. The theory of Hebd. is, in as far as some of its most characteristic features are concerned, a. Stoic theory. Its vitalism is Stoic, its theory of κρασις is Stoic. In the physical theory of the Stoa one even encounters the puzzling combination of ideas which were first formulated by Thales and Anaximenes,100 viz. that the earth has risen from the water and rides upon the air, and which, because ot its cosniogonieal aspect, conflicts rather harshly with the essentially Peripatetic notion of eternal beings as a subsidiary cause of motion.101 I do not. donbt, moreover, that other ideas which we have discussed so far, viz. the concept of self-motion and that of the distribution of the Οερμον through the universe, did reach the author of Hebd. mainly via Stoic channels. This need not surprise us when we consider the heavy debt of the Stoa to earlier thought, and, particularly, to Aristotle and Theophrastus.102 However, I shall not start by enumerating parallels from the remains of the Early Stoa. Instead of this, I prefer to adduce the rather extensive and systematical account of Stoic phvsics which is to be found embedded in the theological speculations of the second book of Cicero's De natura deoruni. This passage, ND 11,23-32, which has to be combined with ll,30b-41, does, indeed, afford a. close parallel to the theory of Hebd. The ultimate authorship of the arguments in Cicero is disputed: Reinhardt attributed this theory to Posidonius,103 others p. 148 n . 4 l . Theophrastus uses this theory to explain why e.g. the water of sources is warmer in winter than in summer, De igne p. 353, 25-27 W. 100 See above, Ch. I l l , p. 60 ff. 101 See above, p. 73-6 and p. 70, n. 25; below, p. 127 ff. 102 Much of the work on this aspect of the origins of the Stoic system still has to be done. Occasional references, of course, are to be found in Μ. I 'ohlenz, Die Stoa, Göttingen 3 1904, e.g. Vol. II, p. 41, notes on the dependence of Zeno's definition of the primary qualities of the elements upon t h a t of Aristotle's GC and on the theory of μΐξις in GC (1,10) as a forerunner of that of the Stoa. Cf. also the remarks of P, Solmsen, Cleanthes or Posidonius ?, 23. On 'theophrastus' influence see Steinmetz, Physik, 103-4, 208, esp, 330; and above, v. 89. Of the older literature, II. Si check, Unl. z. Phil. d. Griechen, breib. i. lir. -bss.s, p. 181 ff., is still valuable. 103 Poseidonios, München, 1921, 225 ff. Cf. also his final summing up, R E X X I I

86

to C l e a n t h e s , 1 0 4 I shall for t h e m o m e n t r e f r a i n from c o m m e n t i n g u p o n t h i s e x t r e m e l y t h o r n y q u e s t i o n , of w h i c h one m a y e v e n a s k if i t e v e r will f i n a l l y be solved, a n d for r e a s o n s of e c o n o m y s i m p l y t r e a t t h e C i c e r o n i a n a c c o u n t a s a piece of a n o n y m o u s S t o i c f l a c i t a , T a k e n a s a w h o l e , t h e arguments in Cicero on the a l l - i m p o r t a n t role of t h e heat w i t h i n the universe h a v e a f a i r l y c o h e r e n t s t r u c t u r e . First, it i s s t a t e d that all l i v i n g b e i n g s h a v e w i t h i n themselves a, vim caloris, on which their m o t i o n s d e p e n d ; this lieai is a calidum cf igneitm w h i c h i s s e l f - m o v e d (cieiur motu sua), a s is e v e r y t h i n g w h i c h is both hot a n d f i e r y . 1 0 5 Proof for this s t a t e m e n t m a y be derived from e v e r y d a y (experience. 1 0 6 N e x t , it is s t a t e d t h a t this h e a t h a s in itself a. vital force w h i c h s t r e t c h e s t h r o u g h o u t the whole u n i ν erst; 1 0 7 ; the hartes -mundi maximac, i.e. t h e f i l e m e n t a l masses, are s u s t a i n e d b y heat. 10 * T h i s t h e s i s is p r o v e d in t h e s a m e w a y a s the earlier statement a b o u t ζωα, viz. b y a n a p p e a l t o o b s e r v a t i o n a l evidence, for e a r t h , 1 0 9 w a t e r , 1 1 0 a n d ( e v e n ) a i r 1 1 1 s u c c e s s i v e l y . F o r t h e f o u r t h elemental m a s s , t h i n g s a r e s.v. Pnseidoriios (also as 'Sonderdruck'), 700-1. Reinhardt excepted ND II, 29-30 contincri. He wns followed hy i'ohJenz (rf. below, p. 94 n. 139), who thinks that 29-50a have been interpolated by Cicero himself (Stoa und Striker, Zürich-Stuttgart 210(j4, p. 378, n.282/1). 104 k. Philippson, Cicero, De natura dcoruni Diu h il und Iii, Symb. Osl. 21 (1941), 11 ff. (in part; cf. below, p. 94-5, η. 1 -IS); A. J. Pest ugi ere, Herrn. Tri sin. 11,380 ff. (29-30a possibly are by Chrysippiis: on the question of Cleantlies' authorship P, is not certain). P. Sehnsen, C learnt'η es or Posidonius? argues that ND 11,23-32 (29-30 excepted) 39b-41 forms a coherent whole; Cleanthes is extensively quoted in 40-41 ( -:,- SVP 1,504). and also in 24 SVF 1,513). Λ. J. KJeywegt, ('if era's Arbeitsweise im Sinei ten und dritten Buch der Schrift De natura deornm, Groningen 1961, 39 ff. in the main argues in favour of Keinhanlt's analysis, but defends tlm unity of the (Cleanthe;in) arguments on ν italic calor etc. Cf. also the arguments contra Posidonius' authorship in P. Hoya nee, Les preuves slotciennes de Γ existence des Dieux, Mennos 90 (1962), esp, 53 ff. Ibd., p. 56 ff. Boy a nee argues that 29-30a are organically commoted both to what precedes and to what follows; however, his reasons for holding this view7 differ from those given below, p. 88 n. 118. See further below, p. 93 ff. 105 ND 11,23. im ND 11,24. For at least one of these observational proofs (cf. below, p. 1.03 and ibd. n. 88) Cleanthes is quoted, 107 ND 11,24, the end. I0S ND 11,25. 109 ND 11,25-6. 110 ND 11,26. 111 ND 11,26-7. Air is maxi me frigid us, which corresponds to orthodox Stoic doctrine (cf. below, p. 100 n. 171). That it is also the coldest element in Hebd. follows from, the distribution of cosmic heat in two places, see above, p. 79.

87

s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t ; it is itself iota natura fervid, a a n d the source of sahitaris . . . et Vitalis calor for t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s . 1 1 2 No o b s e r v a t i o n a l proof for t h i s s t a t e m e n t is a d d u c e d a t t h i s p o i n t . B u t a f e w p a g e s f u r t h e r d o w n , 1 1 3 w e a r e i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e p u r e h e a t g i v e s b i r t h to t h e s t a r s , a n d h e r e C l e a n t h e s is q u o t e d a s t h e a u t h o r i t y for t h e c o m m o n S t o i c t h e o r y 1 1 4 of t h e t w o k i n d s of l i r e : t h a t w h i c h b u r n s a n d t h a t w h i c h s u s t a i n s . ( T e a n t h e s p r o v e s t h e t r u t h of t h i s s t a t e m e n t 1 1 5 b y a p p e a l i n g to the d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s of t h e h e a t of flic, sun a s a r e to be r e g i s t e r e d b y t o u c h a n d s i g h t - i.e. a g a i n (as in ND f 1,24) b y r e f e r r i n g t o o b s e r v a t i o n . 1 1 6 B u t , t o r e t u r n to t h e order of a r g u m e n t s a s g i v e n b y Cicero, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e v a r i o u s p a r t s of t h e u n i v e r s e a r e s u s t a i n e d b y h e a t e n t a i l s t h a t the w h o l e u n i v e r s e is s u s t a i n e d , in tan la dinmUale, b y t h i s calidnm . . . atque igneuni a s well. 1 1 7 W h e n w e s k i p 2 9 - 3 0 a , 1 1 8 t h e a r g u m e n t of 2 2 - 2 8 is s u m m a r i z e d i n 3 0 atque etiam ff.-31. T h e heat p r e s e n t i n l i v i n g t h i n g s is also p r e s e n t i n t h e u n i v e r s e a s a w h o l e . T h i s h e a t is s e l f - m o v e d , b e c a u s e t h e r e is n o t h i n g w h i c h is m o r e p o w e r f u l

ND 11,27, the end. ND II,39b-41. 114 Cf. Zeno, SVF 1,120 (•-,,. Arius Did. fr. 33 Diels), p. 34,24 ff. δύο γάρ γένη πυρός, το μεν άτεχνον και μεταβάλλον εις εαυτό τήν τροφή ν, τό δέ τεχνικό ν, αυξητικό ν τε καΐ τηρητικόν, οίον έν τοις φυτοΐς έστι και ζώοις, δ δή φύσις εστί και ψυχή · τοιούτου δή πυρός είναι τήν των άστρων ούσίαν. 115 Or, more exactly, of the thesis that the heavenly bodies are tola ignea (ND 11,40, the beginning). 116 In itself, this method of exemplification as found both in ND 11,23-27 and 11,40-41 is an argument in favour of a connection between these two passages. 117 ND 11,28 (this section concludes the first part of the argument on calor). 118 Cf. above, n. 103, n. 104. It should, however, be noticed that 29-30 contineri is the piece de resistance of this whole section in Cicero. It is here, not before or after, that the existence of a divine principle is proved (though in 11,32, on Plato's self-moving World-Soul, that which is self-moved is said to be divinius than that which derives its motion from elsewhere). In this way, the phvsicae rationes are subordinated to a proof for the existence of (Sod. By whom? Pohlenz (cf. above, p. 87, n. 103) suggests by Cicero. Others (among whom Reinhardt and Solmsen) think that Cicero took over the arrangement which he found in a Stoic manual. Fes tu giere thinks that the manual is Academic (Herrn. Triam. II, 405 ff.). Bovance, Dreuves stoic. 56 ff. argues that 29-30a should not be separated from the arguments before and after it. However this m a y be, it is, I think, beyond doubt that the theories of the Early Stoa in this section of Cicero reached him by way of an intermediate source or sources, and it is only reasonable to suppose that he made use of fairly up-to-date literature of this kind. 112

113

88

t h a n the whole. 1 1 9 In 32, t h e r e follows a short s u m m a r y of P l a t o ' s t h e o r y of the World-Soul a n d of h i s t h e o r y of m o t i o n i n g e n e r a l 1 2 0 Then the argument is c o n c l u d e d b y the r e s u m p t i o n of the c^/or-theme, w h i c h c u l m i n a t e s in the equation ardor-animus, with self-motion as m i d d l e term. Now, even a s u p e r f i c i a l look a t t h i s piece, ot S t o i c n a t u r a l philoso p h y r e v e a l s i t s e s s e n t i a l a f f i n i t y t o t h a t of Hebd.. T h e κρασις of t h e e l e m e n t s is, of course 1 , a well - k n o w n f e a t u r e of S t o i c eosuiological t h o u g h t . 1 2 1 H o w e v e r , the p r e d o m i n a n c e of h e a t c o m b i n e d w i t h a v i t a l ist conception of all e l e m e n t s w h i c h c a n be d i s c e r n e d in Hebdis best e x e m p l i f i e d f r o m t h e a c c o u n t in Ν I). .,. prarsertim aim is ay/for, qui est mundi, tion ainfains ah alio neque externa ρ 11 Is it sed per se ipse ac sua sponte movealur. Nam quid potest esse mundo Valentins, quod pellat alque moveat calorem euni quo ille teneatur? F o r t h e l a t t e r p a r t of t h e 119

argument cf. Arist., Cael. 1,9,279a33 ff.» quoted above, p. 70, n. 24. 120 j\j j ) ] ι 32 A udiamus enini Plato nem quasi quetulatn de urn philosophorum, vui duo placet esse motus, unum sumn, alt er urn externum, etc. It is, on the whole, likely that Cicero look over this reference, which has been worked into the whole argument of 11,23-32, froni the manual which he used. Perhaps this supports the assumption of an Academic source, or perhaps a reference to a, text of Plato found its way into a Stoic manual via Posidonius. There is a remote possibility that Cicero himself is responsible for this adornment. He twice translated the famous passage Phaedr. 245c ff., in Somn, Sei p. and Τ use. I, see above p. 67 n. 3; Somn. Sei p. and Τ use. - in that order - are earlier than NO (cf. the chronological survey of his philosophical works given by Cicero in Dir. Γ 1,1 ff.). But he used the cjnotation in Somn. and Tusc. to prove the; immortality of the individual soul (cf. also Cat > 78 and, in general, P. Boyanee, fitudes sur le Songe de Scipion, Paris 1936, 121 ff.). Furthermore, the translator of Plato's Timaeus must ha ve been familiar with the eosuiological aspects of Plato's theory (Cicero worked on this translation contemporaneously with his work on Ν I); the passage on the creation of the World-Soul is still extant). In any case, I see rio reason to assume that the reference to Plato goes back to Cleanthes, as Solmsen, CI. or. P. 20, seems to believe. For Ciccro's veneration for the divine Plato (which was shared by Panaetius and Posidonius) cf. the long list of parallels quoted by Pease ad I., p. 619-20, and further W. Ikirkert, Cicero als Platoniher und Skeptiker, Gymnasium 72 (1965, 174 ff.), p. 177-8. 121 For Zeno, cf. 's VF 1,102 Arius Did. fr. 38 Diels), p. 28,20 ff.: τήν δέ κρασιν γίνεσθαι τη εις άλληλα των στοιχείων μεταβολή, σώματος ολου Ηι ολον) τίνος έτέρου διερχομένου (with the last words cf. IJehd. 2,50 ff.R. rV αλλήλων διιόντα). For Chrysippus and Stoic theory in general cf. SV1; 11,470 ff. A very clear account of the Stoic theory of μϊξις and zpamc as compared to that of Aristotle is to be found in II. A. Wolfson, Philos. of the Church Fathers, 1, Cam.br, (Ma.)» 1956, p. 374 ff. It appears that in Aristotle, a mixture of the elements (resulting in the formation of the world-masses of air etc., cf. GC 11,3,330b23 ff.) implies

In Ηebd., heat (Hit! Οερμον or c alt dum) is fused with water and e a r t h : adunatum, congregatum.122

Cf. iVD 11,26 aquae

eiiam a dm i χ t u m

esse calorem, and, a few lines further down (of the sea): in tantis Ulis nnioribus in e hi sum esse calorem; nee en im tile externa $ et advenlicitts habendus est lepor, sed ex inlumis maris parti bits . . . exei talus. In Hebd.

we read that this heat is άγωγή VS/Λ οφοεοοις . . . της ίκμά^ος. l i i e r e is au exact parallel in Ν I) 11,27 (even air is mixed with heat, 1 2 3 for ipse.,.

oritur ex respiralione aquanmi, eanim

en im quasi vapor quidam aer habend us): t h i s vapour rises out of t h e w a t e r because it is moved by the

heat within the liquid clement, existil motu eins valor is qui aquis eonlinetur. - For the references in Hebd. to the w a r m t h w i t h i n the e a r t h 1 2 2 Cicero's long development Il,25-2(> on the lerrena natura and the

calorem

ins Hum

in terris m a y be adduced. Cf. further the general

that these, substances lose, at least in part, some of their original characteristics. According to the Stoa the original qualities except in the case of σύγχυσις, are preserved within the mixture (cf. SVF 11,473, p. 154,15 ff., from Alexander of A phrodisias' De ntixiione). This also holds true for secondary compounds. An interesting illustration is given by Alex. De mix I. p. 218,1 Bruns (S VF 11, p. 155,30 ff.): το πυρ ολον δι* ολου χωρεΐν του σιδήρου, σώζοντος αυτών έκατέρου την οικεί αν ούσίαν. Among the examples of this Stoic κρασις given by Alexander are the elements fire and air, which pass through water and earth (5FF 11, p.155,32 ff). For Aristotle's theory of mixture cf. further }. P. Anton, Aristotle s Theory of Contrariety, London 1057, p. 216 ff.; F. Sol m sen, Arist, Syst, 368 ff.; arid the important discussion of the gradual development of an onfologioal concept of the element in Aristotle, which entails the definition of the elemental worldmasses as mixtures, in P. Steinmetz, Ansatzpunkte 225 If. 122 See above, p. 7 ( ). 123 This is not unambiguously paralleled in Hchd. I hit among the products of air (Ch. 1,70 ff. K.) we find άστρΥ.παί. Further, we read in the enigmatic chapter on winds, 3,10 ff. R. άρχή μέν ουν ανέμων, όθεν ούτοι πεφύκασιν, άπο του θερμού* άπηλιώτης (and the other winds), f do not think it is legitimate to connect άττο του θερμού with άττηλιώτης and to bracket όθεν ούτοι πεφύκασιν as a gloss on άρχή. A simple change results in an intelligible, text: άρχή μέν ούν ανέμων άπο του θερμού, όθεν ούτοι πεφύκασιν* <πρώτος> άτυηλιώτης, εχομενος Βορέης κ.τ.λ.): The source of the winds is the heat, from which the following have originated' etc. ft is easy to supply πρώτος before άπηλιώτης: the assumption would be, that a' (- πρώτος) won hl have dropped out before the a- of the following word. If this interpretation is correct, the presence of Οερμόν within the air would be guaranteed by the evidence of the text, though not in the sense of adunatum f congregatnw. it: is perhaps more reasonable to suppose that the Οερμόν which is the cause of winds is that of the upper region, i.e. especially that of the sun. Theophrastus held that winds are caused by the sun. But the άστραπαί are probably caused by the heat within the air, which nevertheless, in the orthodox Stoic fashion, still remains the coldest of the elements (cf. below, p. 100, n. 171).

X)

s t a t e m e n t of 11,28 calidum Mud ciqnc igneimi... in omni fusnm esse natura. In a d d i t i o n , t h e presence of a p u r e θερμό ν in the4 u p p e r cosmic regions, whieli is the u l t i m a t e s o u r c e of the heat w i t h i n I he o t h e r e l e m e n t s , 1 2 1 is e x a c t l y paralleled b y ND 11,27 reliqua quarta pars mundi: ea el ipsa tola naher a jervida est el ceteris nah iris (i.e. the other elements) omnibus sal u tar cm in per til et vitalem calor em. T h e s t a r s a n d the s u n 1 2 5 are mentioned in this connection in the ί'leant hes-fragnient of N D 1 1 , 3 % ί ί . : neque nil a praeter ca sunt < idm ixla natura, lolaque sunt calida atque perlucida. T h e sequel t h e r e t e l l s u s that it is the1 sun which h e l p s to s u s t a i n life (of animals a n d p l a n t s ) on e a r t h . B u t this CIc~ anthes-sertion does not contribute a parallel for the notion in Hebd. that it is t he sun which is t h e source of t he In ηt w i t h i n the o t h e r elements or for t h e notion in t h e earlier chapter of ND II t h a t it is the e t h e r w h i c h is the ultimate source 1 2 6 of the. vital h e a t found in the elements. T h i s difference is, I t h i n k , h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Our o t h e r e v i d e n c e on C l e a n t h e s permits us to advance the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t h i s v i e w of t h e role of t h e sun d u r i n g t h e διακόσμησες m u s t h a v e been s i m i l a r to that of its role (luring the εκ,τύρωυ-'.ς, 1 '- 7 but it does not p e r m i t u s to say that, according to C l e a n t h e s , e i t h e r the s u n or t h e e t h e r distribute vi talis calor among the elements. However t h i s m a y be, t h e Ciceronian a c c o u n t s of p u r e h e a t do c o n t a i n some e x p r e s s i o n s which Cf. above, p. 70-80,81, for the; feature in HefxL For IJfhd. see above, p. 79-80. 1215 ND 11,27 hi peri it (see above, p. 87-8) 127.517' 1,510 ( = Pint., De mwm. ιmt. S!, p. Ifl/id): the siars reluru h> tin· ^uu. Note that Λ7) If ,39 the stars are said to be, born (vjgminlur) from i he most mobile and purest part of ihr ether (ex ir/ohilisutna pnvissinuiqne actheyis parte)', the wording at the end of 11,11, where the stars are said to originate in the ether, not in its finest part, is different (this ma ν be due to Cicero's way of summing up, and bridges the gap with the extracts from Aristotle's ττ. φιλ. which immediately follow). The 'finest part' of the, ether may refer to the 'proto-sun'. l i i e r e is a reference to τό εσ/ατον του πυρός» which is not converted into wafer though all other things are, and which starts the fe^onnr/jfjrx, in SVl·" 1,-107 ( -- Arius 1 )id. fr. 28 Diels), The evidence for Cleanthes' theory of the sun as ήγεμονικό^ is collected S\'l·" 1,1-99 (no reference to < osmogony). Note that in Sl'F 1,497 the elements (the 'parts' of the universe) are said to grow from seeds just like lho parts of living beings grow from the seeds of living beings. This is more against the assumption of a vitalist concept ion of the elements in Cleanthes than in favour of it, even though the "">~v7 υμϊ φυτά are expbeitlv mentioned among the 'parts' of the universe. The universe as a whole is a containing smaller ζω a, i.e. animals and plants. Por the cosmic 'sperma' in Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrvsippus cf. SVF 1,512 (-.-= Arius Did. fr. 36 Diels). 121

125

91

can be paralleled from Hebd. The universe itself is held together by integro...

et pur ο eodemque a c er rim ο et m ο bil lss im ο ardor e,v2H viz.

the pure heat of the upper regions. A few pages further down we read that the stars are born from the purest part of the purest element and are, therefore, perliicida. We also read that the solis ealor et candor illustr ins est quam ullius ignis etc, 128a This is paralleled in Hebd. by both the motion and the brightness of the calidum around the flesh of the human body (Ch. 6,§2,12 ff. R.), which on the macrocosmic scale corresponds to stcllae et sol. This calidum is said to be per eel er it at em splcndens.

So much for the κρασις of heat with other elements in Η ebd. and ND 11. Not only this notion, but also the vitalism of Hebd. is paralleled in the account given by Cicero ND 11,23 ff. In fact, it was precisely the vitalist conception of the elements which was one of the main reasons which motivated Reinhardt in attributing the authorship of this section to Posidonius. The calor within the elements is a calor Vitalis, and is characterized as a. vim... vitalem per omnem rnundum

pertinentem.129 It is the cause of their motions, because it is self-moved. We have already quoted one certain instance from Hebd. in which the heat which blends with another element proved to be the cause of its movement130 - a passage, moreover, which was exactly paralleled by a passage in ND. I do not believe that it is too bold to combine this hint in Η ebd. with the other statement at the end of Ch. 2, where we read that the elements, which live within one another, are moved (both) by themselves (and by the eternal beings): the presence of the Οερμον within the wet element causes it to move, i.e. makes it 'alive'. That self-motion is not the only source of life and motion, but that 'eternal beings' operate as subsidiary causes of motion can also be paralleled in Cicero: ND 11,27 it is the unmixed heat, of the fourth element which is the ultimate source of the sustaining vital heat for the other elements, a statement which is aptly though only partially illustrated by the quotation from Cleanthes (11,41), where we read that also131 (n.b. !) the sun efficiat ut omnia floreant et insuo

quaequegenerepubescant.

It is true that, to the average T Stoic/The heavenly bodies themselves are not eternal, and that the plurality of άίδια in Η ebd. forbids us to 128

ND 11,31.

128®IVDT 1,40»

120 180 131

41.

ND 11,24 the end. This is then proved for each of the elements successively. See above, p. 79 and p. 90. I.e. cooperating with the corporeus calor.

92

think of the divine and fiery ether only, which to a Stoic would indeed be eternal. This is, however, a difference which can easily be accounted for in view of the eclecticism of the author of Hebd. - a point, to which we shall return. 132 The elements in Hebd,, on this account, would be alive because of the fire present within them. And m so far as there is κράσις, they can indeed be regarded as living έν άλλήλοισι: in the Stoic fashion, they are completely mixed, without, however, losing their identity. 1 3 3 Note, moreover, that there is also water in the earth - i.e., that water 'lives' within the earth. Filially, the concept of self-motion as in Hebd,, the history of which we have traced from Plato to Aristotle/ 34 is also paralleled in the Stoic theory transmitted by Cicero. At the beginning 135 we hear that omne quod est ealidum et igneum eietur et agitur motu sua. There is motus connected with heat in ζωα, and although the word motus does not occur in the section on the elements, it is clear that the relation between heat and motion is never forgotten. It is explicitly formulated again in TI ,31 : is ardor qui est niuridi nan agitatas ab alio

neque externo

pulsu sed per se ipse ac sua s ρ ante movealur. The author here speaks of the World-Soul, 136 which he equates with heat, as is apparent from 11,32. The ardor mundi contains the heavenly bodies (II,39b ff.). We have already noticed that the ether and the heavenly bodies in Cicero cooperate with the heat present in the beings existing in the sublunary world. This is parallel to the αυτά ύφ' έωυτών και υπό των άιδίων κινείται of Hebd. Ch. 2,51 ff.R. On the other hand, only selfmotion is spoken of at the beginning of this Chapter (Hebd. 2,3 ff.): the κόσμοι above and below the earth move around it. in 'self-moved circles'. This presents no problem in so far as the heavenly bodies are meant - but the circular motion of the other elements is, perhaps, not immediately understandable. We shall return to this question below.137 At this moment, the formidable question 'Cleanthes or Posidonius?' can no longer be avoided. The theory in Hebd. as a whole Cf. below, p. 127 ff. Cf. also αλλήλων λιόντα. Stoic terminology, though not exclusively Stoic. 134 See above, p. 66 ff. 135 ND 11,23. Cf. also Solmsen, CI. or Pos., 10 ff. 136 For the World-Sou! in the Early Stoa, cf. J. Moreau, L'Ante du monde de 1*1 at on a ux Sio'iciens, Paris 1939 (Tiildesheim :ί 1065), p. 1 5S ff. On its identifieation with etheriat fire cf. Solmsen, o.e. 1 2, 18. 137 See p. 111 ff. 132

133

93

exhibits such a far-reaching affinity to that in Cicero, that the question of the ultimate authorship of the latter is of immediate relevance to our search for a t.p.q. pertaining to the former, Κ. Reinhardt, 138 followed by Μ. Pohlenz 139 argued that the section in Cicero derives from Posidonius, who would only be quoting Cleanthes for an archaic piece of 'Wärmelehre' which he wot Red into his own theory. One ο I his most important arguments is afforded by the notion of universal vis vildlis"« The exposition on tin4 elements as living beings would certainly have to be. Posuionian. The notion that the elements111 are living beings occurs in other passages as well, where its presence must be attributed to the influence of Posidonius 312 : Sen., Nat. V,5,2 est ally η id in aqua vitale ; Y,(>, 1 habet,,.

aliquant vint kilenihr'1

aer. The e a r t h

is alive (Sen., Nat. Ifl/lS), 1 4 4 the sea is a living being.141» Reinhardt further stated quite correctly 140 that the concept of vis Vitalis itself is not found in texts of or about the Early Stoa. 147 If has, however, been pointed out that it occurs in texts deri ving from the medical literature of the third Cent, B.C. 148 and that it does not occur in one fragment or us J\jseidu)iius 2-12 ff.; Kusnios und Sympathie, München 102ο, 129; Κ Κ s.\. Poseidonios 700. The relevant texts can be excellently studied in C, J . ί >e Vogel, Greek Philosophy 111, 251 ff. (Nr. 1 I/O if.), of. also, and especially, the notes, ibd. p. 250. For Posidonius' influence upon handbook-literature cf. W. 11. Stahl, Roman Science, Origins, Darlopme nt and Infineone tu the Later 'Middle Madison (U.S.A.) 19o2, 45 ft. ,3y Die Stoa 11,137. NU 11,24 the cad. Ί ins is not externus el adventicius [ND 11,26); according to Reinhardt KM s.v. Pes. 700 047--S, this is typical of the elemental theory of Posidonius (cf. Sen., Nat. V,5,1 : flic air has naturalem vim movendi se, nec aliunde concipere, seil ine:,si Uli etc.) On Pusidoiiiau vital··.m «ee a!-,ο \Y. Theiler, hie Vorbereitung des Neuplalouisiuus, Problemata I, Fierlin 1930 (repr, 1901), 70 ff. 141 Cf. l>e Voi4»'l, o.e. 25b. 1 or a general statement reflecting probably the ideas of Posidonius cf. Varro in Isodorus of Seville, /;7. XI 11,1,1-2 Mund us La tine a philosophis d ictus, quod in sein piler no motu sit, ul caelum, sol, I una, air, may in. Nulla enim requies et us elernentir, ι ο nee s <,a est, ideoque semper in motu est. Unde et a n i i u a l i a I 'arroni videntur el em ν til a, quo mam pa ^eme I ipsa niquii nt oveniur. u - Cf. RE 625, 617 ff. 143 I.e. vital force; cf. also Cie., ND IT, S3. 144 RE 082. Cf. also ND 11,83 and R e i n h a r d t s comments, Ko:m. u. Svinp. 1 Oil ff. 145 RE 647: Sen., Nat. 111,26,7 ff.; Strabo, b CS. 146 Cf. De Vogel, o.e. 251, note on Nr. 1 176a. 147 RR 64,8. 14K W. Crönert, review of SVF IV, (hiomou 6 (1930), 152 n.f ; R, Philippson, o.e. 26-7. (Philippson, Imwcvo·, p. 29, refuses to atiribtih· the vital heat of the 140

04

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 "Posidonius1, 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 the1 narrower sense uf the woikl 1 5 0 It is, o! course, true that the Kaily Stoa operated with a concept of vital heat Τ"'1 but this is not the same as a universally valid vis vital is.

F. vSolmsen, however, tiied 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 interested m the item ot trivial physiological information lor which he is quoted ND 11,24. 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?153 (3) the calor is characterized in the same way both in ND 11,23-4 and in 11,10 1, where Cleanthes is the author of the whole passage; in both places we find the same relationship between calor, sensus and vita.lM 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); Sehnsen, o.e. 7, n . l 7 : Aristotle calls the Οερμον a ζωτική άρ/ή (cf. above, p. 82, n.7S, the passage from (7.1); Hoyance, Preuv. stoic. 54·, and esp. p. 55, n.2. Cf. also Sehnsen, o.e. 1 3 if., on the vital ist functions of the Οερμον in Aristotle. It should, however, not be forgotten that in Aristotle (as later in The«»plirastos) this vitalism was definitely not conceived to include the elements 14y L, Edelstein, The Philosophical System of Posidonius, A J i ' h 57 (1936), p. 324. The importance of vitalism for S 'osidonius, however, is apparent from his def inition of philosophy, Sextus, Adihlog. i,19: the pails, of phif<>sophy belong together like the parts of the human organism. lö« RE 649. 151 Philippson, o.e. 26. Cleanthes aj>. Civ., ND 11,24 and 40-1. 152 O.e. 5. 153 O.e. 5-6, 8, 11, 12. Cf. also Boyaiice, Preuv. stole. 55 ff. 154 (i.e. 5-0. ND 11,23 α lere and crescere are effects of heat. The fire in If,40-1 which is sahilaris and vitalis is characterized in the same terms: omnia consenmt, alii, aitget, sustinet etc. Already Zeiler, J 11,1,1 37, ml and Von Arnim, SV Ε I, p. 155,7 ff. gave ND 11,23-24 Lo Cleanthes. The two kinds of fire of 11.40-1 derive from Theophrastus am! formed part of the Stoie theory as professed by Zeno (STF 1,120, cf. above, p. 88 n. 114). This fire is said by Zeno to be τηρητικόν, cf. sustinet; it is (a) proper to plants and a ninial:., he hit/ tlwir φύσις

95

The cosmic significance of vital heat m a y have been expressed b y Cleanthes to his own satisfaction b y establishing a connection between the vital heat in animals and plants and the vital heat of the heavenly bodies, 155 esp. the sun. It should be pointed out, moreover, that the concept of vis Vitalis, which Solnisen wants to attribute to Cleanthes, occurs in Cicero exactly a l ill v. point· oj transition between the treatment of ζω α and that of the elements, and that, as it stands, it is slightly out of context, for we recall that the universal validity 150 of vis vi talis is m a d e to follow front 157 what has been said about animals and plants ! But, in fact, this universal relevance is only proved in the pages which follow. Although it is possible that Cicero was somewhat careless in transcribing Iiis source, it will nevertheless be clear that the arguments on ζω α (for which Cleanthes is quoted) are 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 I'osidonius is afforded by one of the physicae rati ones in ND 11,25: atque etiam ex put eis iu gibus aquam ealidam trahi, el id maxim e fieri teniporibus hibt rn is, quod magna vis terrae eavernis eonlinealiir ealoris eaque hieme sit den si or ob earn que causam calorem ins it am c online at art ins. T h e heat

within the earth is more concentrated during the winter; therefore its effect is greater, as can be seen when we draw water during that season. Behind this is a theory of Theophrastus, viz, the physical law of άντιπερίστασις 158 : because of the άντιπερίστασις, during the winter the cold is predominant and conrprimates the hot, thereby heightening its effects. Even the example of source-water is given by Theophrastus in this connection 159 ! The relationship between Theophrastus and Posidonius has been extensively studied by P. Steinmetz, who was able to show that Posidonius both in general physical theory and for many details is heavily dependent on Theophrastus. J G 0 Steinmetz even and ψυχή (note that he does not speak of the elements I), and (b) the ουσία των άστρων. This is not far from what we find in Ν I) 11,23-4 4 4 0-41. 155 Cf. Zeno, above p. 88, n. 11 4 and p. 95 n. 154. 156 per o m n c m mundum perlinentem, 11,24 the end. 157

ex quo

( ! ) intellegi debet earn ealoris

naturam vim

habere in se vitalem per omnem

mundum perlinentem. The lack of connection at this point is overlooked by Boy a nee, Preuv. stoic. 33 11. 158 Cf. Steinmetz, Physik 1 24 ff., and above, ρ, 85, n. 00. 158 De igne, p. 353,25-27 W. 160 Physik 68-73, 170, 182-3, 223, 227, 247, 331. Cf. already the important

96

c h a r a c t e r i z e s P o s i d o n i u s ' s y s t e m a s t h a t of T h e o p h r a s t u s w i t h v i t a l i s m a d d e d . 1 6 1 A l t h o u g h t h i s is p e r h a p s a s o m e w h a t s i m p l i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , t h e r e c a n b e no d o u b t a b o u t i t s g e n e r a l a p p o s i t e n e s s , a n d w e a r e t h e r e f o r e not s u r p r i s e d if in t h e p a s s a g e of ND w h i c h w e h a v e s t u d i e d , t h i s b l e n d is o c c a s i o n a l l y a p p a r e n t . 1 6 2 W e are now facing the following d i l e m m a : either the vitalist t h e o r y of t h e e l e m e n t s is P o s i d o n i a n , a n d t h e n Hebd. m u s t b e p o s t P o s i d o n i a n , or II ebd. is e a r l i e r t h a n P o s i d o n i u s , a n d t h e v i t a l ist t h e o r y of t h e e l e m e n t s no l o n g e r is t y p i c a l for t h a t philosopher. I n t h e l a t t e r case, Hebd. w o u l d b e u n d e n i a b l e proof t h a t a S t o i c philoso p h e r w h o l i v e d before P o s i d o n i u s d e s i g n e d a t h e o r y i n w h i c h the elements are living beings t h o u g h no proof is f o r t h c o m i n g for t h e e a r l i e r o c c u r r e n c e of t h e t e r m vis vitalis i n i t s ' Posidonian/ sense. I m a y be p e r m i t t e d to s t a t e t h a t I p r e f e r t h e f i r s t p o s s i b i l i t y a l t h o u g h i t does not l e n d itself to d e f i n i t e proof. P e r h a p s , h o w e v e r , a d d u c i n g a n o t h e r

article by 11. Strohni, Theophrasi und Posidonios, Drei Interpretationen zur Meteorologie, Hermes 81 (1953), 278 ff. (see also below, η. 161). 161 O.e. 73, 247. Cf. St roh m, o.e. 295, who speaks of 'Die Umbildung des peripate tische η Kosmos' - St rohm has Theophrastus in mind - In ein von Kräften dIirchfidltes, von Leben durchflutetes einheitliches Α1Γ as being the 'Erneuerung' of Posidonius. Cf. also ibd. p. 294, ä propos Posidonius' restating of Theophrastus' explanation of the regular succession of land- and seawinds: 'Auch hier ist das Mechanische durch die Elementar kraft ersetzt', Cf. also below, p. 101-3. 102 The example of fire, produced by lapidiim conflictu atque tri tu (ND 11,25) was given by Theophrastus too, cf. Steinmetz, o.e. 115. Note that Cicero omits most of the pity sie ae rati ones. Solmsen, o.e. 18 ff. (but cf. ibd. 21) argues that in Posidonius' days the θερμόν, though still a valid concept, was old-fashioned compared to that of the πνεύμα. In view of Posidonius' general dependence on Theophrastus, in whose physical theory the θερμόν is the most important principle, this argument does not: weigh too heavily. Moreover, the allegedly obsolete concept of the θερμόν was reinstated by Athenaeus of Attalia (first Cent. B.C.) and the Pneumatic School of Medicine, cf. M. Weltmann, Die pneumatische Schule, 133 ff. (on the role of the θερμόν in the etiology of diseases ibd., p. 163). f t is hardly a coincidence that Athenaeus of Attalia 'conversatus . . . fuit Posidonw (cf. above, Ch. 11, p. 33, n. 8, and below, Ch. V A, p. 130 η . 4, a n d Ch. V II, p. 2 1 3 ff.).

E d e l s t e m , Phil. Syst. Posid. 301, n . 6 1 a r g u e s

against Posidonius as the author of the 'Wärmelehre' because of his dependence on Aristotle and Theophrastus, but he does not acknowledge the 'vital' difference between Theophrastus and Posidonius. His argument (ibd.) that the Stoic definition of the air in Posidonius as a cold element forms an obstacle, is likewise not valid: (1) already Theophrastus defined the air as cold; (2) the air is maxime frigid us, i.e. not absolutely cold, but still the coldest element.

97

t h e o r y of c o s m i c h e a t a d d s s o m e p l a u s i b i l i t y to t h i s p r e f e r e n c e . " A l l e diese T e i l e b i l d e n z u s a m m e n ein f e s t g e f ü g t e s S y s t e m . D a s g e h t a u s verschiedenen Einzelheiten h e r v o r , e r h a l l t a b e r n a m e n t l i c h d a r a u s , class ein G e d a n k e d e r g a n z e n D a r l e g u n g zugrundeliegt: die Erkenntniss v o n d e r e i n z i g a r t i g e n B e d e u t u n g d e r W ä r m e " . 1 6 3 T h i s pronouncement is not a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of Cie., ND 11,23 ff., a s it well m i g h t be, b u t a (1 b e l i e v e , c o r r e c t ) description of t h e g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e oi the m a i n b o d y of the 'Pythagorean' Hypomnemata of Alexander P o l y h i s t o r up. Diog. L a e r t V I I I , 2 5 ff., viz. of Ch. 2(>-30. H e a t i n d e e d

i m 1 quote from W. Wiersma,« Das lie feral de.:, Alexander Pfdyhistor über die pythagoreische Philosophie, Mnemosyne 1942» 97 ft. (the quotation is from p. 99). Wiersnia's words are true, notwithstanding the fact that he defended a Presocratic date for the llypotnn. (except Ch. 25» which is clearly post-Platonic) by the untrustworthy method of quoting incidental Presocratic parallels (cf. W. 4 heiler, rev. Pelattc, Gnomon 2 (1926), 155, quoted above, Ch. I, p. 31, li. 151). A.-J. Pes tug it-re (see above, Ch. I, p. 24, n. 109) established a satisfactory t.p.q. by pointing out that the distinction in Ch. 31 of veins, arteries and nerves presupposes the discovery of Heropinlus and Erasistratus (s. MEG 1945» 57; cf. also F. Solmsen, Greek Philosophy and the Discovery of the Nerves (reprinted Kleine Schriften 1, 536 if.), ΜΗ 18 (1961), esp. 184 ff.) On the Platonist theory of Ch. 25 see Fes tu giere, ibd. 10 ff. and Theiler, I.e. C. J . De Vogel, Greek Philosophy III, 342, note on Nr. 1279a shows that the derivation of the αόριστος δυάς from the One in Alexander is not Plato's, and, in her book Pythagoras, 208, argues that the monistic interpretation of Plato's unwritten doctrines can hardly be older than the second Cent. B.C. (cf. also A.-J. Fes tugiere, Herrn. Trisni. IV (1954), p. 38 and, in general, p. 32 ff.) However, H. J . Krämer, Geistmetaphysik 49-50, esp. n.93 (though admitting that ¥111,26 ff. may be later) argues that Diog. Faert. ¥111,25 does not contain anything specifically Academic since the term αόριστος δυάς itself may just as well be Early Pythagorean. 1 cannot convince myself, however, that this is correct. Does the 'Pythagorean 1 identification of δυάς with Ιπίθεσις and κίνησις really imply that this δυάς is αόριστος in a technical sense? (the identification is made Arist,, π. των Πυθαγορείων fr. 13, p. 139,5 Ross Alex, in Metaph. p. 39,16-17 Hayduck. It is, by the way, far from certain that all of the arithmological information as given by Alexander is derived from Aristotle's lost work, for the arithmology of this "fragment' is in many ways parallel to that of the arithmological literature treated below, Ch. ¥1; however this may be, the contents of p. 39,13-17 Hayduck can hardly be Early Pythagorean; and remarks on έπίθεσις and κίνησις occur in other arithmologists as well, see Anatoli us ap. [Iambi.] Theol. ar. p. 8/2 ff. Ast — p. 31,2 ff. Heiberg and Fydus, Mens, if,7, p. 24,20 Wuensch). Theophr., Mel, l l a 2 7 attributes the άόριστος δυάς to 'Plato and the Pythagoreans'; this conjoining of names sufficiently shows which kind of "Pythagoreans' are meant. Krämer also attempts (o.e. 332) to prove that the monism of the TJyfiomn, is quite early; but this is highly speculative.

98

p l a y s a p r o m i n e n t role in this 'Pythagorean' t h e o r y : (27) " t h e sun, t h e m o o n a n d t h e o t h e r s t a r s a r e g o d s , έπικρατεΐν γ ά ρ τ ό θ ε ρ μ ο ν έν αύτοις, οπερ ε σ τ ί ζωής αίτιον, ( . . . )καί άνθρώπω ε ί ν α ι προς θεούς συγγένεια ν, κ α τ ά το μετέχειν άνΟρωπον 0 ε ρ μ ο ΰ ( . . . ) διήκειν τ' από του ηλίου α κ τ ί ν α διά του αιθέρος του τε ψυχρού και του παχέος (καλοΰσι ~ sc. d i e P y t h a g o r e a n s -- δέ τον μεν αέρα ψυχρό ν αιθέρα, τήν δε θάλασσαν και το υγρό ν παχύν αιθέρα 1 6 4 ), τ α ύ τ η ν δέ τήν α κ τ ί ν α και εις τ ά βένθη δύεσθοα και διά τούτο ζωοποιεΐν πάντα. (28) και ζην μεν πάνΟ' όσα μετέχει του θ ε ρ μ ο ύ * διό και τ ά φ υ τ ά ζ ω α είναι, ψυχή ν μέντοι μή εχειν π ά ν τ α . 1 6 5 Next w e read t h a t the germ of έμψυχα contains θ ε ρ μ ό ν άτμόν within itself από δέ του άτμου ψυχήν και αΐσΟησιν. T h e point a b o u t αΐσΟησις is specified in Ch, 2 9 : τ ψ τ' αϊσΟησιν κ ο ι ν ώ ς και κατ' είδος 1 0 0 . . . άτμόν τιν' άγαν είναι, θερμόν. Now this ' P y t h a g o r e a n ' t h e o r y exhibits u n m i s t a k a b l e signs of Stoic i n f l u e n c e : (1) Ch. 2 5 the elements are said to μεταβάλλειν και τρέπεσθαι δι' ό λ ω ν 1 6 7 ; (2) Ch. 2 7 ειμαρμένη is the cause of διοικήσις, i.e. is a p o s i t i v e p r i n c i p l e : this is S t o i c . 1 6 8 (3) The soul is said to consist of fire and air, which is Stoic d o c t r i n e . 1 0 9 Λ f o u r t h sign of Stoic influence This 'footnote' is by Alexander Polyhistor, See below, n. 169. 1(3(5 Κοινώς και κατ' είδος - can this distinction be Presocratic? 167 Cf. j . Moreau, L'/lme du monde 155; A.-J. Festugiere, o.e. 17; De Vogel, Cr. Ph. 111,342, note on Nr. 1279a: 'this is Stoic Heracliteanism'; ibd. she appositely refers to parallels in Ocellus and Philo. 160 Moreau, I.e.; Festugiere, i.e.; De Vogel, o.e. 341 and esp. 343, note on 1279d. Cf. Zeno, SVF 1,87» p. 24,31-3; 98, p. 27,19-23; 170, p. 44,38-45,2, and Chrysippus SVF 11,913 (from the π. ειμαρμένης): ειμαρμένη εστίν δ του κόσμου λόγος, ή λύγος των εν τό} κόιίμω προνοίχ διοικούμενων. - 1 would like to add t h a t the idea of ειμαρμένη also seems to be present in the embryology (cf. below, Ch. VI, n. 134): i >iog. Faert. VI 11,29 "the child, when born, has in itself all the relations (viz. the της αρμονίας λόγοι) constituting life, and these, forming a continuous series (ών είρομένων), keep it t o g e t h e r . . . , each appearing at regulated intervals". For the ειμαρμένη as είρομένη τις, as ε'ιρουσα and as ειρμός cf. SVF II» 914 (p. 265,12), 913 (p. 265,6), 917 (p. 265,36), 918 (p. 266,1) and 920 (p. 266,10). 169 Diog. Laert. ¥111,28 είναι 8ε τήν ψυ/ήν απόσπασμα αιθέρος και του θερμού και του ψυχρου, τ ω συμμετέχειν ψυ/ροΰ αιθέρος. Wiersma, o x . I l l , admits t h a t this is a Stoic idea. Cf, e.g. SVF 1,135 ( — Diog. Laert. V 11,157): Zeno says the soul is πνεύμα ένθερμο ν ('luftgestaltige Feuernatur', F. Rüsche, Das Seelenpneuma, Stud. Gesch. Kult. Alt. 18,3, Paderborn 1933, repr. New York 1968, 11); SVF 11,786 Alexander Aphr., De anima p, 26,16 B r u n s ) : the soul is συγκείμενόν πως εκ τζ πυρός και αέρος (cf. also SVF 11,787, p. 219,4 and SVF III,VI,10 (----- Macrob., in Semi η. Sei ρ. 1,14,20) animam... Boethus ex aere et igne. For Posidonius cf. below, Ch. VII, p. 211, n. 39. - In the account of Alexander 164 16δ

99

is, 1 b e l i e v e , t h e t h e o r y of Ch. 27, w h e r e w e r e a d t h a t t h e a i r i s ' c o l d ' e t h e r (ether itself is w a r m ) , a n d t h a t t h e s e a a n d t h e ύγρόν a r e "thick 1 e t h e r . T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of θερμόν a n d e t h e r is S t o i c / 7 0 t h e d e r i v a t i o n of t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s f r o m t h e e t h e r 1 7 1 i s S t o i c a s w e l l . T h i s d e r i v a t i o n i s presupposed b y t h e t e r m s "cold ether" a n d ' t h i c k ether 1 . A s i m p l e t h e o r y of πύκνωσες a n d μάνωσις p l a y s a role in S t o i c c o s m o g o n y a n d in t h e S t o i c t h e o r y of e l e m e n t a l c h a n g e . 1 7 2 Festugiere l i a s s h o w n in w h i c h w a y s t h e t h e o r y of θερμόν in A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r is f o r e s h a d o w e d in A r i s t o t l e a n d D i o d e s . 1 7 3 Not s u r p r i s i n g l y M s a r g u m e n t s l a r g e l y c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e a r g u m e n t s of S o l m s e n i n f a v o u r of a t t r i b u t i n g t h e t h e o r y of t h e calidum i n Cicero to C l e a n t h e s . 1 7 4 t h e p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e a c c o u n t in A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, the soul is said to be (a) immortal, i.e. to originate from the warm and cold ether and (b) to originate from the sperm. The comments of Wiersma on these contradictory views, o.e. 106, and of Theiler, o.e. 155, are worth reading (cf. also R, M. Jones, Posidonius and Solar Eschatology, CI. Ph. 27 (1932,113 ff.) 129-30). Festugiere, ox. 47, glosses over the difficulty. 170 Or of ether and fire. Cf. in the Ciceronian account (ND 11,23) the significantly coupled terms calidum atque igneum (Theophrastus only mentions the θερμόν, see above, p. 82 ff.) For fire — ether, cf. Zeno SVF 1,102 ( = Arius Did. fr. 38 Diels), and further SVF 11,580 ( = Diog. Laert. ¥11,137), general Stoic theory: άνωτάτω μεν ούν είναι το πυρ, δ δή αιθέρα καλεΐσθαι, and, a few lines before, είναι δέ το μεν πυρ τό θερμόν. Cf. also SVF 11,1067 (p. 313,18-19, = Cic., ND 11,63) caelestem enim

altissimam aetheriamque naturam, id est

igneam,

SVF 11,413 (Chrysippus; = Arius Did. fr. 21 Diels): the fire is the πρώτον στοιχεΐον from which the others συνίστασθαι κατά μεταβολήν: first air, then water, then earth. Cf. also SVF 11,581 ( = Diog. Laert. ¥11,142), from which it appears that the elements f ire -air- w ate; r- earth are arranged according to their relative fineness and coarseness. Cf. also already Zeno, SVF 1,102 ( — Arius Did. fr. 38 Diels), In Alexander's survey (De mixtione p. 218,4 Bruns, 5 V F 11,473, p. 155, 34) both earth and water are said to be παχυμερή. Cf. also Philo, Aet. mil. 110, VI, p. 106,12 ff. Cohn-W. συνίζοντος μεν πυρός κατά τήν σβέσιν εις άέρα, συνίζοντος δ' οπότε συνθλίβοιτο εις ΰδωρ αέρος, ύδατος δέ [τήν πολλήν άνά/υσιν] κατά τήν είς γήν πυκνουμένου μεταβολήν (the sequel quotes Flenid. B36 and comments upon it). Cf. also the order of change of the (sublunary) elements Ocellus 15, p. 14,10 ff.Harder. For air as the ψυχρόν cf. SVF 11,580 ( = Diog. Laert. VII,137); SVF 11,429 ( = P i n t , Prim. frig. 952d) air as το πρώτως ψυχρόν. Stoic terms for 'concentration' are συνιζάνειν or συνίζειν (cf. SVF 1,104 (Zeno), 497 (Cleanthes); SVF 11,565; the quotation from Philo, Α et. mund., above) and συνίστασθαι / σύστασις. See further below, p. 108, n. 216, n. 218, n. 219, n. 220, both for theory and terminology. 172 Cf. n. 171, and below, p. 108, n. 216, m 218, n. 219 and n. 220. 173 O.e. 30-1, 50 ff. 174 See above, p. 95-6, and esp. ibd, n. 151. 171

100

Polyhistor ap. Diog. Laert., which contains a few unmistakable traces of Stoic influence/ 75 and that in Cicero affords a basis for seriously considering the possibility that the whole "Wärmelehre 1 in Diog. Laert. is a Stoic theory. However this may be, the theory of the Hypomn. is certainly akin to that in Hebd. and in Cicero. The passage in Diog. Laert. VIII,27 (quoted above), which describes the passing of the sun's ray through air and water (earth is not mentioned) which has the effect of ζωοποιεϊν is especially important for the interpretation of Hebd. This is the best parallel I have been able to find for the theory in Ch. 6 of Hebd., according to which quiddam ex solis splendor ibus has become united to earth (and water). 1 7 6 But with an important difference: contrary to the ideas which we have encountered in Hebd. and ND, the Vitalism' of Alexander Polyhistor's source does not apply to the elements, but only to ζωα in the narrower sense of the word; i.e., it is exactly parallel to that of Cleanthes as quoted in ND 11,23-24, and II,40-41. 177 It is distinctly expressed that την 8* έκ γης γένεσιν αδύνατον ύφίστασΟοα178; contrast the Tosidonian' idea of ND 11,26, where the power of spontaneous generation is explicitly attributed to the earth. 179 In Diogenes Laertius we have a 'Wärmelehre/ which shares almost everything with that in Cicero, 180 but not its vitalist conception of the elements. It is probably a Stoic theory, or at least a theory which leans heavily on Stoic examples. It is, no doubt, pre-Posidonian181 175 It is, of course, also dependent on Theophrastus (cf. above, p. 85, esp. for the Οερμόν of the sun). But the Stoic ideas in Diog. Laert. are blended with the theory of the θερμόν (that on ειμαρμένη = providence is worked into the passage on the kinship between man and the Gods on the basis of man's share in the divine heat: the Gods look after us, because we are their relatives). The theory of the soul according to the Pythagorean 'Υπομνήματα can not be attributed to Theophrastus, who defined soul as the 'perfection of the divine body', i.e. of heat only (see the quotation from Iamblichus, above p. 84). 176 See above, p. 79. 177 See above, p. 96. 178 Diog. Laert. VII1.28. 179 quaeque ipse ex se generata... contineat (cf. also ND 11,28). Lor the Aristotelian and Theophrastean ( ! ) antecedents of this idea cf. Pease's note ad I., p. 609 if. 180 The relation between sensus and ealor of ND 11,23 and 41 is paralleled by that between αισΟησις and Οερμόν in Diog. Laert. VIII,29. 181 E. Zeller, 111,2,104 ff. was more certain than most scholars would care to be at the present moment in attributing a Stoic origin to the whole Hypomn, He certainly erred in as far as the theory of principia in Ch. 25 is concerned.

101

a n d s h o w s u s w h a t a pre-Posidonian a n d p o s s i b l y C l e a n t h e a n t h e o r y of u n i v e r s a l h e a t c o u l d r e s e m b l e . A l t h o u g h t h e a r g u m e n t to be d e r i v e d f r o m s u c h e v i d e n c e is not v e r y s t r o n g , i t c e r t a i n l y s t r a i g h t e n s t h e c a s e of t h e Posidonian 'authorship' of Ν I) I I , 241 >-7, a n d t h u s ind i r e c t l y t h a t of a p o s t - P o s i d o n i a n d a t e for Hebd., w h e r e t h e action of t h e s u n is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Th^anthean' 1 8 2 t e r m s of Alexander P o l y h i s t o r , b u t w h e r e t h e e f f e c t s of t h e a c t i o n of t h e e l e m e n t of t h e s u n , viz. t h a t t h e e l e m e n t s arc» a l i v e , a r e m o r e in the s p i r i t of P o s i d o n i u s . T h e s p e c i a l role of t h e s u n i n t h e system of P o s i d o n i u s is w e l l - k n o w n . 1 8 3 I t c a n n o t , h o w e v e r , b e d e n i e d t h a t CI cant lies m a d e t h e s u n p l a y a v e r y i m p o r t a n t role a s well. 1 8 4 P o s i d o n i u s will b e to s o m e e x t e n t dependent on C l e a n t h e s , a n d it is, of course, wrong in principle to attribute a But his comments on the "Wärmelehre' axe, f think, sound. He adduces the account of color Vitalis in ND 11,23-24 and quotes the Hymn of Cleanthes, line 4 for the affinity between the human soul and the World-Soul. The passage on the 'ray of the sun' (Diog. L a c r t VI 11,27) which sustains life is compared to Cleanthes" well-known theory of the sun as 'weiterhälfen de Kraft'; he quotes SVF 1,499 and 530 (see also above, p. 91, n. 127). The relationship between the account of the sun in the Hypomn. and Cleanthes' theory was also noticed by P. Boy a nee, (it u des 101; he holds or held that the Ifypomn. is an ea rly document and that Cleanthes was influenced by this particular doctrine. But Ms exposition of the position of the sun within the system of Cleanthes (o.e. 87 ff.) is excellent. 182 An argument in favour of Cleanthes as the source of the theory of the sun in the Hypomn. is, I think, his theory about the shape of fire: SVF 1,498 (---· Aetius, 1,14,5) Κλ. μόνος των Στωικών το πυρ άττεφήνατο κονοειδές. He also said that the heavenly bodies are κωνοειδεΐς, cf. the passages collected as 5 F F 1,508 (the moon apparently is an exception: it is πιλοειδής, SVF 1,506 Arius Did. fr. 34 Diels); this shows that the Technical fire' is no exception. We are reminded of the shape of fire in the Timaeus, where the fire-particles are of a {»y ram ο id shape in order to better penetrate the other elements (cf. above, p. 68) and in Theophrastus (cf. above, p. 82, m 79). The conical shape of fire agrees very well with the penetrating power of the sun's ray in Diog. L a e r t V 111,27. Now, the idea that this ray penetrates the whole universe is explicitly attributed to Cleanthes: 5 F F 1,502 ( = Clement, Strom. V,S,4S,1, p. 358,11 ff.St.) Κλ. πλήκτρov τον ήλιον καλεΐ * έν γάρ ταΐς άνατολαΐς, έρείδων τάς αυγά·.:, οίον πλήσσων τον κόσμον εις την έναρμόνιον πορειαν [το φώς] άγει. This refers to the daily course of the sun. 183 Reinhardt, RE s.v. Pos. 692 ff. and the passages collected by C. J . De Vogel, Gr. Ph. 111,252, Nr. 1176c and 254 ff., Nr. 1179. Cf. also below, p. 1 26ff. One must also keep in mind that Posidonius may just as well have taken much of his solar theory from Theophrastus, cf. above, p. 84-5 and p. 96-7. and esp. p. 79, n. 162 for the concept of Οερμόν. - On the parallel sun ~ heart in Cord, (IX 88,10 ff.L.) cf. F. Kudlien, Posid. u. d. Arzieschule d. Pnenmatiher 425-6. 184 See above, p. 88, p. 91, p. 92, p. 87, n. 104 and p. 91, m 127.

102

passage to Posidonius merely because in it the sun plays a major role. 185 Nevertheless, whereever we find a theory of the sun within a universal vitalist setting, 186 we will do wise to seriously ponder the possibility of its derivation from Posidonius. 187 7. In Cie., NI) 11,24, two examples are given as proof for Cleanthes' thesis that in every living body there5 is great vis caloric, viz. (1) negal (sc. Cleanthes) enim esse ullmn cibum lam gravem quin is nock et die concoquatur,

cuius etiani in reliquiis in est calor

Us quas natura

respuerit.

This phrase certainly is a quotation from Cleanthes. 188 Possibly, but not certainly, lw> also the next example derive/·; from him: (2) iam vera venae el arteriae micare nom desinunt quasi quodam igueo motu, aniniadversumque saepe est cum cor a ηimantis a Ii cuius evolsum ita mohiliter pal pilar et nt imitaretur igneam celeritatem. In t h e m s e l v e s , t h e s e e x a m -

ples are rather trivial. What interests us at the present moment, is that according to Cicero (a) the entrails (active in the digestive process of the first example) and (b) the veins are exemplary receotacles of the heat within the body. This parallels Η ebd. Ch. 6,§2,5 ff.R.: the heat in one of its two cosmic "places', 190 viz. in the earth, corresponds to hoc quod in vise crib us hominis et quod in ν en is calidum est. The point about the venae has been illustrated some lines before, Ch. 6,§1,22 f f . R . : aqua autem f l um in um

imitatio est venae

et qui hi vents

est

sanguinis. This at the same time shows in what way the second 'place' of the calidum (entrails and veins) can be said to correspond to the earth 1 9 1 ; the rivers are here understood as parts of the earth's body. 192 Cf. R. Μ Jones, Posidonius

and Solar Fschatol··<• v, 120 ff.

Cf. De Vogel, o.e. 256, note on Nr. 1181. 1S7 1 may be excused in saying something about Reinhard Γ s often-derided 'innere Form*. The term is opaque. What Reinhardt real 1 ν means is what nowadays would be called 'structure', i.e. a whole of parts whieh a re defined both by their mutual relations and their relation to the whole. The structuralist approach can be a very fruitful heuristic device. Reinhardt was fully justified in employing it, and did so in a wholly admirable way. He achieved results which are the more astonishing in that he himself had no clear insight into its methodological nature, though his last attempt at a description (RE s.v. Pos. 612) leads to some degree of clarification. 188 SVF 1,513; note the oratio ohliqua. {8R

is»

No

190

See above, p. 79.

0faiio

ohliqua.

191

C h . 6, § 2 , 5 ff. R . congregatum

192

Ch. 1,80 R. the rivers are said to belong to the sixth portion of the universe,

terrae.

103

This parallel use of entrails and veins in Hebd. and in Cicero can hardly be accidental, particularly in view of the general parallel which we have established between the cosmological chapters of the Hippocratic treatise and the Stoic theory in ND 11,23 ff, It should, moreover, be noted that (again) the author of Hebd. apparently is taking something for granted. He expresses himself with such brevity, that our understanding of his meaning is greatly enhanced by adducing the parallel in Cicero, On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the macrocosmic application as found in Hebd. is lacking in Cicero; it m a y have been one of the physicae rationes which he omitted. However this m a y be, the comparison venae~ flumina is also to be found in a Tosidonian' 193 chapter of Seneca, Nat., 111/15,1: placet natura regt t errant, et quidem ad no sir orum cor ρ or um exemplar, in quibus et venae sunt et arteriae, illae sanguinis, hue spiritus reccpt acuta. In terra quo que sunt alia itinera per quae aqua, alia per quae spiritus curtit; adeoque ad s im Hi tu din em illam hum an or um cor p or urn natura formavit, ut etc. The arteriae, mentioned in Cic., ND 11,24, a r e

not explicitly mentioned in the account of Η ebd. Ch. 6, but in other respects the correspondence could hardly be closer. The Veins' of the earth 194 have been formed after the example of the veins conveying the blood in the human body. The same chapter in Seneca mentions also other liquids within the organism of the earth, Nat. 111,15,2 .. .quemadmodum in nobis non tantum sanguis est sed multa genera umoris, alia necessarii, alia corrupti ac paulo pinguioris - in capite cerebrum, in ossibus mediillac... - sic in terra quoquc sunt umoris genera complura etc. This corresponds to Hebd. Ch. 6, § 1 , 1 9 f f . R . quod autcm in terra calidum humidum medulla et cerebrum hominis semen.

The comparison with the description of the 'earth-animal' in Seneca allows us to bring out another important point. In Seneca, it is unambiguously stated that the human body served 'nature* as a model when the earth was formed. The same thought is also characteristic of the whole microcosm-macrocosm-comparison in Hebd. Ch. 6. When we compare this to the microcosm-macrocosm-theory of Vict. i.e. to the water. The author of Hebd. wavers between the concept of the element and that of the cosmic body; this is apparent from his treatment of earth in Ch. 1,90 ff R. and 2,24 ff. and 47 ff. R. (see also below, p.l 16-7 and p. M6n. 200). 393 See above, p. 94. 194 Seneca first speaks of hidden veins, but makes it clear that, rivers are a cont i n u a t i o n of t h e s e : Nat. 111,15,5 in terra solutis ac fluni en

effunditnr.

104

fiatefactis

vents rivus aid

I,10, UH> a n i m p o r t a n t difference which h a s b e e n n e g l e c t e d b y e a r l i e r c o m m e n t a t o r s c a t c h e s the eye. In Vict, the h u m a n b o d y is a r r a n g e d a s a c o p y of t h e u n i v e r s e (άπομίμησιν του ολου). 19(ί T h e κοιλίη h a s t h e "power' of the sea. A concretion of cold and moist water a r o u n d the b o d y is a c o p y of t h e e a r t h (άπομίμ,ησιν γ η ς ) . Circuits of fire w i t h i n t h e body have t h e 'power 1 of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies. T h o u g h it is correct to say that μίμεϊσΟοα i n t h e P r e s o c r a t i c 1 9 7 period, in general, does not i m p l y an ontological difference b e t w e e n m o d e l a n d c o p y (as in P l a t o ) , b u t is s o m e t i m e s t h e expression for a reciprocal r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e comparata,198 it w o u l d be, I t h i n k , correct to s a y that in m o s t cases t h e starting-point of t h e comparison (the comfiaratumj is a n d r e m a i n s d i f f e r e n t f r o m the com par and um. T h i s is c e r t a i n l y the case in Vict.: cf. t h e long d e v e l o p m e n t on art i m i t a t i n g ( h u m a n ) n a t u r e , Vict. Ch. 11 ff. I t is n a t u r e w h i c h p o i n t s t h e w a y here, a s it is n a t u r e w h i c h is prior to t h e h u m a n b o d y , i b d . Ch. 10. I n Hcbd., however, as in Seneca, Nat. 111,15, t h i s order is r e v e r s e d : t h e m o d e l of Vict.} viz. t h e 195 1 do not doubt, by the way, thai the author of Hebd. was familiar with Vict. and that the miVroeosne macrocosm-theory of that work is one of his 'sources'. The difference which I am going to point out is, because of this, even more significant, ft reveals the general background against which the author of Hebd. designed his picture of the world and the body - it reveals what he took for granted. That the universe as μακράνΟρωπος is not a primitive or even an early philosophical idea is argued by R, A Hers. Microeosmus from Anaximander to Paracelsus, Traditio 2 (1944, 319 ff.), 323 ff., 351 IT, who states (ibd. 323) This was the idea of Plato". He is especially thinking of the fact that in the Tim. the universe, just like man, has a soul as well as a body. If this is correct, Viet, will certainly be older than the Tim. (or at least pre-Timaean in the sense in which Democritus is Presocratic). ,9ß The next words, μικρά προς μεγάλα και μεγάλα προς μικρά, may mean 'the small aft er the manner of the great and the great after the manner of the small' (Jones, Loeb trans].), i.e. they may pertain to the mutual correspondences between the parts of the cosmos (μεγάλα) and those of the human body (μικρά). It is, however, also possible to interpret προς differently and to assume that the small and great parts of the human body exhibit the same mutual relationship as the small and great parts of the universe to which they correspond. In favour of the latter interpretation is the fact that the belly (corresponding to the sea) is said to be The greatest': κοιλίην την μεγίστην. is? Note, moreover, that Vict, is not Presocratic in the literal sense of that term, if the t.p.q. of ca. 370 P.C. established for this work by Kehm is correct (s. above, Ch. 1, p. 25, n. 116). las CT. Burkert, Welsh. u. UTss. 41 (note, however, that Hebd. Ch. 6 is his only example for the body as the model of the universe).

105

universe, has become the copy; what was the copy serves as model. At the beginning of Hebd. 6,§l R. we read that the corpora et arbor esim on the earth naturam si mite m hahent mundo quae minima ei quae magna.200 neeesse est euim tmmdi partes,201 cum sint omnia similiter, co mparari

mundo;

ex eqiialibus enim parti bits et siuiilibiis mundo consistunt.

Let us note in passing that the microcosm-macrocosm-theory of Hebd,, though exemplified for the human body only, is said to be valid for plants and animals as well 202 ; in regards to this aspect of the theory, cf. ND 11,23, omnia quae alanturtm el quae erescaut. The opening words of Hebd. Ch. 6 seem to state that the living beings imitate the world {comparari mundo), i.e. that the universe is the model. But this is not the case. It is the human skeleton which serves as the model for the s t o n y 'bones' of the earth, Hebd. 6,§1,11 ff.R. terra quidem stabilis et mobilis media lapidi quidem ossa im it alio η em Habens. Another

clear example of this relationship is Ch, 6,§1,22 ff.R.: the water of the rivers is an i m i t a t i o n (Unit alio est)

of the vein a n d the blood

within the veins. 20 ' 1 The description goes on in this way up to the end of § 1, as is clear from the genitives which must be dependent on imitatio est or sunt: Ch, 6,§1,26 ff. R. stagna ant em vesicae et longa {imitatio), {imitatio), air vero

maria vero qui in visceribus est humor is spiritus {imitatio) qui est in hornine. T h e

hominis human

body and its parts are the points of reference; it is not the reverse. We then read that the moon corresponds to the location of sensus, and, in § 2,3 ff.R. 2 0 5 that the heat in the universe is that {est... hoc quod) what is hot in the human body. 206 The universe imitates the human body. What else does this mean but that the universe as a whole is a ζωον? Of course, that the universe 19f

σώματι (sc. ζώων) καΐ φυτά.

200

Cf. the quotation from

201

The corpora

Viel.,

above p. 105, n. 19b.

ei arbor es.

This is another difference with Vict. The corpora ei arbores arc in terra; earth, bearing plants and animals (Hebd. 1,91 ff.R.) is said to be παντρόφος, flebd. 1,94 R. 204 Quoted in full above, p. 103. 205 Fully quoted above, p. 79» 206 At the beginning of Ch. 6»§1, however, the order of compared objects is reversed. This is nothing but an announcement of what is to follow. That the changing colours of the human body are explained Ch. 6,§2,13 ff.R. by a reference to celestial phenomena is no contradiction. This is an easy step, once the general frame of reference has been established. Cf. also below, Ch. V A, p. 137. 202

203

106

is a ζώον is on early, even a. Presocratic idea, and one. which we can follow down to Plato and Aristotle. 207 As far as I know, however, the point is neither brought out with the same force which if has in Hebd., nor with the same careful interest in matters of detail before we come to late Hellenistic and (iraeco-Roman times. 208 The,1 theory in Hebd, breathes the same spirit as the 'Posidonian' ideas which we have quoted from Seneca. 209 The same vita list world-picture which, as I hope to have shown, lies at the bottom of the theory of the elements in II ebd., is also partially responsible for tin; microcosm-mncrocosmtheory of this treatise. In 1 his way, the conclusions from tin; presence of vitalis! ideas within the theory of the elements are fur flier straightened. On the other hand, the arguments of earlier commentators in favour of an early date for at least the microcosm-macrocosm-theory of //ebd., which have4 been seriously undermined already by such scholars as J . f3uchesne-Guillemtn, 21il are further invalidated. The vitalist approach peculiar to the microcosm-macrocosm-theory of Hebd., which is apparent both from the whole theory and from some of its details, is foreign to earlier thought in general and to the theory of Vict, in particular.

8, We have not finished yet with adducing Stoic parallels. It will be remembered that what has been called the 'eclectic Presocratic theory" of Η ebd. combines a theory first put forth by Thales, viz. that water is the origin of the earth 211 with one first put forth by Anaximenes, viz. Ci. the excel I'M it cxposd im. -»ί Cr, Κ IC Lloyd, Vtdanty and, Analogy 232 ff. Perhaps the most i n t e r e s t i n g p a r a l l e l i s to be f o u n d Pint,, l;ac. ( ) 2 7 e f f . ; ef. below, Ch. VI, p. 204, n. 2(>4. 209 See a b o v e , p. 01, p. 1 0 1 . it is true ffiat the t r a g e d i a n Choerilns ef Athens, an earlier contemporary of Aeschylus, c a l l e d the stones the bones and the rivers the veins of the earth, fr» 2 f. 2Ν. καλ<7>ν τους λίθους γη: οπτα, τους ποταμούς γης φλέβα·:. This is, however, onJ\ a specimen of p o e t i f m e t a p h o r b a s e d upon the generally archaic l a c k of ( l i s t i n H i o n b e t w e e n t h e living and 1 h e dead (ef, W. J. V e r d e n i n s , Archaische Deuh hair one· η, I , a m p a s 2 (1 0 0 0 ) , 96 ff.), and a far cry from a theory in which t h e stones l i t e r a l ! ν copy the b o n e s and t h e rivers copy the veins. A specimen of such p r e - p h i l o s o p h i c . n l and primitive t h o u g h t is cited by Seneca, Nat. II 1 , 1 5 , 1 : the resemblance b e t w e e n the vccrptacnla of wafer etc. in the earth to veins is such vl maiores e/uorpte nosfri ntjuarnm appdlaverint venas. 210 See above, Ch. I, p. 22 ff. and i b d . n . 9 0 - 1 0 3 ; p. 26 and i b d . m 1 1 8 . 211 Ch. 1,91 ff. R. ή γ η . . . έξ ύδατος έοΰσα. Cf. above, Ch. i l l , p. 61. 2"7 208

107

t h a t the e a r t h rides upon t h e air. 2 1 2 B o t h i d e a s occur t o g e t h e r in one cosmological s y s t e m , t h a t of t h e S t o a . 2 1 3 E v e r y t i m e t h e cosmos is reborn, t h e fire first p a s s e s i n t o air, t h e n i n t o w a t e r , f r o m w h i c h the e a r t h develops. 2 1 4 S u c h w a s t h e t h e o r y of Zeno a n d C h r y s i p p u s . Zeno a n d C h r y s i p p u s t o g e t h e r a r e m e n t i o n e d in JDiog. L a e r t . Vll,13(V 2 i 5 a n d f 42. 2 J ( i W e k n o w t h a t Zeno t h o u g h t he could a l r e a d y f i n d t h i s t h e o r y in Hesiod 2 1 7 a n d also t h a t he e x p l a i n e d the p o e t ' s Chaos as being e x a c t l y this pre-eosmie moisture. 2 1 8 For C h r y s i p p u s we h a v e , besides t h e t e s t i m o n y a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d to, a n a c t u a l q u o t a t i o n front t h e first book of his π. φύσεως,219 f r o m w h i c h 1 c i t e : (fire) 8ι αέρος εις υ δ ω ρ τρέπεται, κάκ τούτου γης υφισταμένης... 220 Ch, 2,25 ff.R, ή γ η . . . έν τ ω ήέρι οχέεται. Cf. above, Ch. t i l , p. 60-1, especially for the 'Anaximenean' term έποχεΐσϋαι. 213 On the relation between the Stoa. and Presocratic thought in general cf. Cr um ach, Fhysis und Agathon, 48 : "I leraklit, Diogenes, Anaximenes, wenn mann die Lehre von άραίωσις und πύκνωσις des Weltstoffs in Betracht zieht, haben sie grundlegend beeiiiflusst oder sind von ihr aus einer gewissen Wahlverwandtschaft wieder aufgenommen und der eignen Lehre anverwandelt worden". In the following pages, Grum ach. tries to answer the question as to which motives impelled the Stoics to return to the materialism of the early thinkers. - On the cosmogony of the Early Stoa cf. also W. Spoerri, Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter, Unters, z. Diodor von Sizilien, Schw. Beitr. Alt. Wiss. 9, Basel 1959, 38 ff., 88 ff. 214 Cf. also above, p. 100, n. 171. 215 SVF 1,102 = 11,580. 216 SVF 1,102 — 11,581 : γίνεσΟαι Hz τον κόσμο ν, όταν έκ πυρός ή ουσία τραπη 81' αέρος εις υγρό τη τα (Diog. Laert. VI I J 36 and Arius Did. fr. 38 Diels, both quoted SVF 1,102, speak of ΰδωρ), είτα το παχυμερές αύτου συστάν άποτελεσθη γη. 217 In this way, he made him the predecessor of Thaies, SVF 1,1.03, p. 29,8 ff.; on Thales as a predecessor of the Stoa cf. also Sen., Nat. 111,13,1 -2. 218 SVF 1,103-105 (scholia on Virgil, Hesiod and Apollonius Rhodius; cf. also Philo, Aet. mund., VI, p. 78,6 ff. Colm-W.). For some detail, cf. esp. SVF I, 104... ύδωρ, ου συνιζάνοντος ίλύν γίνεσΟαι, ή ς πηγνυμένης ή γη στερεμνιοΰται and 105 έκ του ύ γ ρ ο υ την ύποστάΟμην γήν γεγενήσΟαί φησιν. From these passages it is clear that Zeno (whose order of elemental change is evidently influenced by Arist., GC 11,4) thinks of earth both as an element and as a cosmic mass. 219 A p. Pint. , Stoic. rep. Ch. 41, p. 1053a = SVF 11,579. Cf. also SVF 11,413, Χρυσίππου ( = Arius Did. fr. 21 Diels), p. 136,20 ff. πρώτης μεν γιγνομένης της έκ πυρδς κατά σύστασιν εις αέρα μεταβολής, δευτέρας δ'άπό τούτου εις ύδωρ, τρίτης δ'ετι μάλλον κατά το ά ν άλογον συνισταμένου του ύδατος εις γήν. 220 It is to be noted that the account of the cosmology according to Hippasus and Heraclitus in Aet. 1,3,11 uses the Stoic ideas and terms which we have encountered above (see p. 100, n. 171): Box. 284,2 ff. τούτου (sc. the fire) δέκατασβεννυμένου (i.e., having become water) κοσμοποιεΐσθαι τά πάντα' πρώτον μεν γάρ το 212

108

T h a t t h e e a r t h rides upon t h e a i r i s a Stoic notion too. According to t h e Stoics, t h e e a r t h g e n e r a l l y r e m a i n s f i x e d in t h e centre of t h e u n i v e r s e 2 2 1 b e c a u s e all bodies m o v e t o w a r d s t h e centre, SVF I f , 5 5 0 2 2 2 πιθανόν πασι τοις σώμα σι. ν είναι τήν πρώτην κατά φύσιν κίνησιν προς το του κόσμου μέσον. T h e elements, so to s p e a k , e x e r t a k i n d of c e n t r i p e t a l pressure, w h i c h keeps the e a r t h w h e r e it is. bor t h e role of air m t h i s process, a n interesting e x p e r i m e n t a l i l l u s t r a t i o n is g i v e n b y Chrysippus, SVP Ϊ Ι , 5 5 5 2 2 3 : οτι δέ καί εστηκεν ή γη, παραδείγματι χρώνται τούτω, ει τις (φασίν) εις φύσκαν κέγχρον βάλοι ή κόκκον φακού, καί φυσήσειε καί έμπλήσειεν αυτήν αέρος, συμβήσεται μετεωρισΟέντα τον κόκκον έν μέσω της κύστεως στη ν αι. καί τήν γήν δέ, πανταχόθεν υπό του αέρος ώθουμένην 221 Εσορρόπως, έν τ ω μέσω είναι καί έστάναι. Ί h e air which s u r r o u n d s t h e m a s s of e a r t h ( a n d w a t e r ) 2 2 5 k e e p s it in its p l a c e . T h a t t h i s i d e a is s i m i l a r to that in Hebdwhere t h e e a r t h , h a v i n g upon itself a n d w i t h i n itself t h e w a t e r , s t a n d s a t t h e c e n t r e s u p p o r t e d b y air, n e e d s no f u r t h e r e l u c i d a t i o n . Moreover, e v e n t h e f o r m u l a έν τ ω ήέρι όχέεται c a n be p a r a l l e l e d f r o m a Hellenistic a u t h o r , a l t h o u g h it is not c e r t a i n t h a t our first e x a m p l e goes b a c k to a p u r e l y Stoic source 2 2 6 : Philo, Vit. Mosis 11,122 (IV, p. 2 2 8 , 1 5 - 1 6 Cohn-W.) άπ άέρος τρόπον τινά γή καί υδωρ έκκρέμανται, το γαρ όχημα τούτων έστιν άήρ. But a Stoic origin

παχυμερέστατον αύτοΰ (sc. of the quenched fire = the moisture) εις αυτό συστελλόμενον γη γίγνεται κ.τ.λ. 221 Also this idea is to be found in 11ebd., ef. above, Ch. Ill, p. 62 ff. 222 P. 173,31 ff., a quotation from the second book of Chrysippus' π. κινήσεως ap. Plut., Stoic, rep. Ch. 44, p. 1054e. For Zeno, ef. SVF 1,99 (Arius Did. fr. 23 Diels), p. 27,27 ff. ορθώς λέγεσθαι πάντα τά μέρη του κόσμου επί τό μέσον του κόσμου τήν φοράν εχειν, μάλιστα δέ τά βάρος έχοντα, ταύτον S' αίτιον είναι καί της του κόσμου μονής έν άπείρω κενω και της γης παραπλησίως έν τω κόσμω, περί τό τούτου κέντρο ν καθιδρυμένης Ισο κ ρ α τ ώ ς. Fire and air, though άβαρή, nevertheless tend to the centre of the universe: τείνεσθαι δέ καί ταΰτά πως επί τό της όλης σφαίρας του κόσμου μέσον, τήν δέ σύστασιν προς τήν περιφέρειαν αύτοΰ ποιεΐσθαι. Doubtless, air and fire are centripetal because they possess "weight* when compared with the void outside the universe. See further Polilenz, Die Stoa II, note to p. 76,11 (to the passages quoted by Pohlenz, add SVF 11,646). Aet. 1,12,4 (on the Stoic theory of light and heavy) is incomplete. 223 P. 175,36 ff., from Achilles, Isag. 4, p. 34,3 ff. Maass. 224 This term occurs also in Sextus' discussion of the various possible (or rather, in his view, impossible) elemental motions, JVJ. X,82 εΐτ' άπο των περάτων ύποκέοιτο ώς επί τ ο μέσον συνοθούμενα (sc. the elemental bodies...) κ. τ. λ. 225 Earth and water together are the 'heavy' ami 'central' elements. 226 For Philo's knowledge of the Vetusta Ρ tacit a, ef. below, Ch. V A, p. 130-1, n. 4.

109

is plausible for some of the expressions in Philo, Α et. mund. IIS 227 (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 cosmos, viz. 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: ο ο γάρ έ π ο χ η ο ε τ α ί ποτε οϋτε υό'ατι παοα γη ουϋ' ύδωρ αέρι. ούτε άήρ πυρί, for what is heavy (i.e. earth and water) tends to the con he, what is light (i.e. air and lire) goes up. I >ut air and lire do not go up equally high (ούχ' ομοίως): άήρ γάρ πυρός όχημα γέγονε, το δ' ε π ο χ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ν έξ ανάγκης υπερφέρεται. It is reasonable to assume that Philo, or his sou reo, in polemizing against a Stoic theory expresses himself in the language ol that t h e o r y . P h i l o ' s last remark, that the opponents wrongly use the term έποχείοϋαι is indeed a direct hit: one cannot say that something 'rides upon' what is in fact 'above it'. 229 Another cosmogonic reference m a y be implied in Hebd. 1,71 ff. R. ή του ήέρος σύστασις και κόσμος (only possibly; for, of course, σύσταση m a y mean no more than 'substance'); cf. S\ 'F 1,00 (p. 27,33): air and fire tend towards the centre of the universe 230 but f m a t e r i a l i z e in the direction of its circumference', την δέ σ ύ σ τ α σ ι ν προς την περιφέρε ιαν αύτοΰ ποιεΐσΟαι. The word σύστασις (and σύστασιν ποιε'ίσϋαι) have in this context a locative connotation, which is parallel to what we find in Ε ebd.. We have already seen that in Stoic texts air generally is the first σύ στα σι ς ("concretion") of fire. 231 In isolation, ή του ήέρος σύσταοις would not amount to much, but in combination with the Stoic theory of the origin of the earth from water and the Stoic theory of the supporting function of air, 232 the use of this term becomes significant, Possibly, the same holds for the idea in Hebd. that the heat in earth and water is derived from the sun 233 (think of (ho role of the fire in Stoic cosmogony 234 !) Not in Leisegang's Index. Cf. Philo's polemics against the Stoic theory of eiiange and cosmic progression (quoted above, p. 100, n. 171), which uses the Stole term συνίζειν. 220 That the eartli is supported by air is also found in the description of the cosmos of Pliny 11,5»§10 fmitts (sc. aerls) vi mspeusmn,,, telluretn (cf. below, p. 114, ii. 252). 230 Cf. above, p. 109, n. 222. 231 Cf. above, p. 100, n. 171. 232 To say nothing about the other Stoie influence, ]κιν· ν discussed so far. 233 Cf. above, p. 81. 234 Cf. above, p. 91, n. 127; p. 100. n. 171. 227

228

no

9, Our information on the motions of the elements in the universe according to Chrysippus is not without inconsistencies. There is SVF7 11,527 (Arius Did. fr. 31 Diels) which gives the theory of the κόσμος according to Chrysippus; not, however, in a pure form, but padded, as is Arius' habit, with bits of general Stoic theory. 2 3 5 In this fragment (to which 1 shall return presently- 311 ) the elemental spheres are given in the sequence earth, water, air, ether. In regard to the motion, the spheres behave ill a different way: το μεν είναι πε ρ (.φερόμενο ν περί τό μέσον, τό δ' ύπομένον' περιφερόμενον μεν τον αιθέρα, ύπομένον 8έ τήν γήν και τά έπ αυτής υγρά και τόν αέρα.237 The other has a circular movement which earth, water and air do not have. In itself, this is pel fectly clear. However, the picture as given in VΓ 11,555 ( = Achilles, /sag. 4) is different. Here we do not read about four, but about five spheres, though perhaps two of these, viz. αίΟήρ and ουρανός, may be counted as one: heaven, ether, air, writer, earth. And then 238 : έν δέ τω μεσαιτάτω τήν γήν είναι, κέντρου τάξιν και μέγεθος έπέ/ουσαν, ως έν σφαίρα * και τάς μεν άλλας τρεις σφαίρας ή τέσσαρας περιδινεισΟαι, τήν δέ τής γής μόνη ν έστάναι. The spheres of fire (ether -]- ouranos), air and water circle around the earth; only that of the earth is at rest. It can hardly be doubted that SI rF 11,555 gives us a picture of Chrysippus' system which contains a greater amount of historical exactitude than that of Arius Didymus. Wo happen to know that Zeno defined the ουρανός as αιθέρος το έσχατο ν , 2 3 but he does not appear to have made a real distinction between ουρανός and αίΟήρ. We know also that Zeno and Its first two definitions of κόσμος are ascribed to Posidonius ap. 1 >iog. Laert. VI I, I 38. Posidonius, however, can hardly be the ultimate author of the whole fragment, because the order of the planets is not Iris (see W. L. Lorinier, Some Notes on the Text υj Pseudo-Aristotle 'Pie Mundo', St. Andrews Univ. Puhl. 21,

235

Oxford etc. 1025, 50 ff., 127 ff. and J . P. IVlagture, The Sources of Pseudo-

Aristotle de Mundo, Yale Class, St. 6 (1930), 121 ff.) The theory of the fixed stars (which have been set in the heaven which moves them) is not that of Posidonius either, who appears to have distinguished between the outer heaven (aether tenuis — αυγή, cf. below, p. 112) and a separate sphere for the fixed stars (cf. Cic., Nl) 11.54 and below, p. 112; see also p. 1 15. n. 256). But perhaps a 'doxographical' passage in one of Posidonius' works is behind Alius* extract. In favour of a Posidonian redaction is perhaps the comparison, at SVP II, p. 1 OS,10-20, of the supporting tunc lion of the earth to that of the οστέα of a ζωον. 236 See below, p. 113 ff. 23' P. 108,10 ff. Arnim. 238 P. 175,27 ff. Arnim. CI. also \. Tläbler. Zur Kosmogonie der Stoiber, Jbb. CI. Phil. 39 (1893), 298 ff. 239 S P P 1,115, from Achilles (/*/·.'., 5), just as SVF 11,555.

Ill

Cleanthes distinguished between two kinds of fire, the destructive and the productive 240 kind. To these Chrysippus added a third: the αυγή, the finest, thinnest and most superior kind of fire, to which the universe will revert in the end. 241 Cf. SVF 11,668 ( = Pint., Vac. Ch. .15, p. 928c) λέγουσι δέ (the Stoics) του αιθέρος το μεν α ύ γ ο ε ι δ έ ς καί λεπτόν ύπο μανοτητος ο ύ ρ α ν ο ν γεγονέναι, τό δέ πυκνωΟέν... άστρα. 1 he idea t hat the αύγή is finer than the stars was taken over from Chrysippus by Posidonius; Aet. 111,1,8 Ιίοσ. (states thai the Milky Way is) πυρός σύστασιν άστρου μεν μανωτέραν, αυγής δέ πυκνοτέραν. In Chrysippus the αύγή functions, so to speak, as a fifth element, and this explains why Achilles, in reporting on his theory (SVF 11,555), hesitates between three or four spheres, is, or is not the αυγή to be distinguished from the stars? This hesitation, only to be explained on the assumption of a difficulty inherent to the αυγή-theory attested as being held by Chrysippus, shows that Achilles used an excellent source (maybe Posidonius, who, as we saw, took the αύγή from Chrysippus). If this is correct, it is a reasonable assumption that the information about the elemental spheres circling the earth will also be correct, and (strange though it may seem) that this theory was actually held by Chrysippus. 242 At any rate, the circling of ether, air and water around the earth as reported in SVF 11,555 is an exact parallel for Hebd, 2,1 ff., where we have encountered the idea that the κόσμοι above and below the earth (these must be the stars, sun and moon; the air; and the water 243 ) move around the centre (viz. the earth) in a circle. Again a Stoic text is found helpful for the interpretation of the ρ s e u d ο -- FT i ρ ρ ο c r a t i e treatise. 244 Cf. above, p. 88 and ibd. m. 114. 2« S V F J 1 ? 6 1 1 p h i l 0 f A e t m U f U j t go, VI p. 101,1-2 Cohn-W.) Cf. also Fhilo's discussion of the three kinds of fire, ibd. p. 100,20-101,16. 242 Cf. Boyance, Etudes sur le Sange de Scipion, 77 (I have greatly profited from the whole section on 'La theorie de ban^e etiez les Stoinens et Je probleine ein cieF, ibd. 65 ff.). 243 Cf. above, p. 77. 244 It is, of course, possible that Achilles' testimony on the περΆνεΐσΟαι of the 3 or 4 spheres is based on a misunderstanding. But then such a misunderstanding was possible, and Chrysippus was actually misunderstood in this way, which is all we need for a parallel. Cf. also Cleanthes' Hymn, SVF 1,537, p. 122,3-4 σοι δή πας βδε κόσμος, έλισσό μένος περί γαΐαν, / πείθεται κ.τ.λ.: it is possible to understand (or to misunderstand) κόσμος here not as 'heaven' (for which cf. above, Ch. Γ Γ, p. 42 tf., and ρ» 44, n, 35), hut - in view of the opposition κόσμος: γαία 240

112

10. Definitely Hellenistic and Stoic in as far as one can be certain about such things, is also the whole descriptive enumeration of the parts of the κόσμος in Hebd. Ch. 1. This will become clear when we cite as proof Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels (SVF 11,527), reference to which has already been made, 245 the second Chapter and part of the third of ps. Arist., JJe Mundo**« and C L C . , ND 1 1 , 9 1 - 9 2 and 9 8 - 1 0 4 . In Cicero the description starts with the centre of the universe. In Mil., alter the general definitions οί κόσμος have been given, 248 the earth is the first of its parts to be mentioned, but the description proper starts witli the heaven and proceeds inwards. In Arius Didymus the description again starts with the earth and proceeds in the direction of the oil emu hats ice. i n Hebd, Ch, 1, the order is as in Mu.. We have already noticed that the order in Hebd. Ch. 6 is the opposite of that in Ch. 1, which means that it is the same as in Cicero and Arius Didymus. It is not so much the starting-point which matters as the sequence itself. In all those catalogues the parts of the universe are b r i e f l y characterized; a brevity, however, which does not exclude the possibility of more or less extensive embellishments. Both Cicero and the author of Mu. avail themselves of this opportunity, as can only be expected. Alius Didymus' catalogue is very sober 249 ; also that of 2 4 7

around which this κόσμο; whirles - as, roughly, the whole universe minus the earth. 245 Above, p. 111. 246 The over-all resemblance between SVF II»527 and Mu. Ch, 2 has been often studied: see Mag aire o.e. 120 ff. and H. Strohm, Studien zur Schrift von der Welt, MH 9 (1952, 137 ff.), 140 ff,, who both refer to earlier literature. Cf. also the succinet statement of Lorimer, Some Notes 52. Festugiere, Herrn. Trism, II» 492 ff. usefully prints Arius fr. 31 and Mu. 2-3 in parallel columns. 247 ND 11,91-2 is a 'partial doublet' of 98-104 (so Pease ad I, p. 775). A summary of the contents of 98-115 is given by Festugiere, Herrn. Trism. 11,399. 248 A statement on the κόσμος in general forms the proem (Ch. 1, § 1 R.) of Hebd. 'Die Betrachtung des Gesamtaufbaus der Welt ist alt, aber ihre ausdrückliche Betonung ist spezifisch hellenistisch' (Harder, comm. on Ocellus 14,6» p. 70; he quotes a number of parallels). It cannot be denied that the proem of Hebd, brings out this 'Gesamtaufbau' with special emphasis. 249 i t contains very little descriptive detail. Those details which have been left agree with Mu. (esp. the theory that the l a n d ' consists of islands piercing the sphere of water, SVF I Γ,ρ.168,21-25 - Mu. 3,392b20-33, and the lists of the heavenly spheres which mention the planets by name, SVF Π,ρ.169,1-6 ~ Mu. 2,392a20~29). As Hebd, is the starting-point of the comparisons which will be made in the following pages, the fragment of Arius Didymus will not be adduced. It should be kept in mind, however, that it is definitely parallel to Hebd. Ch. 1 in as far as the over-all structure is concerned.

113

Hebd. i s q u i t e m a t t e r - o f - f a c t with o n l y o c c a s i o n a l l a p s e s i n t o a g r a n d style.250 F o r t h e p u r p o s e s of c o m p a r i s o n it w o u l d b e b o t h c o n v e n i e n t and, 1 t h i n k , c o n v i n c i n g to p r i n t t h e s e p a r a l l e l a c c o u n t s 2 5 1 i n p a r a l l e l c o l u m n s ; b u t t h i s is, for r e a s o n s of e c o n o m y of s p a c e , n o t possible. I will r e s t r i c t m y s e l f to p o i n t i n g o u t t h e i r m o s t s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s . In all t h e s e a c c o u n t s t h e o r d e r f o l l o w e d is t h a t of t h e e l e m e n t a l s p h e r e s ; earth, w a t e r , air, fire 2 5 2 (01s the r e v e r s e ) . Μ η . a d d s t h e The same structure as m Cicero, ps. Aristotle, Arius Didymus and ρs. Hippocrates can be re cog η i zed in Diog. Laert, VIf, 137-156 (though other subjects have been worked in, since Diogenes purports to give a survey of Stoie physics, cf. Vlf,l.a2 and VI 1,100). In this way, we successively have: 137-8, definitions of κόσμος; 144-6, stars, sun, moon; 151b-154a, air; 154b, earth (viz, τά κοιλώματα της γης). Earth does not receive extensive treatment in Diogenes; the ύγρόν is not studied at all. 251 The order in Hebd. and Mu. also corresponds to the order in which these subjects are treated in the Viae. See below, Ch. V A, p. 130 ff. 252 The notion of concentric elemental spheres (to which add that of ether) goes back to Aristotle, cf. Cael. 1 i,4,287a30-bl4, esp. a32 ff. εί γάρ το μεν ύδωρ εστί περί την γην, δ δ' άήρ περί το ύδωρ, το δέ πυρ περί τον αέρα, και τά άνω σώματα κατά τον αύτον λογόν... (bl ff.) ή δέ του ύδατος επιφάνεια σφαιροειδής έστι,ν» το δέ τω σφαιροειδεΐ συνεχές ή κείμενον περί το σφαιροειδές και αύτο τοιούτον άναγκαϊον είναι. Parallels from Meie, are quoted by W. Capelle, Die Schrift von der Welt, N. Jahrb. f. d. Kl. Alt. 8 (1905, 529 If.), 537 n.2. The idea was taken over by the Stoics, cf. SVF 11,558 = Diog. Laert. VII, 155 (earth; water; air) and SVF 11,580 = Diog. Laert. ¥11,137 (fire/ether - with (a) fixed stars and (b) planets; air; water; earth). F o r a possibly Posidonian (Reinhardt, R E s.v. Pos. 702 ff.) version of this theory cf. Cie. ND 11,116-118, which mentions the 25υ

g l o b e s of e a r t h , s e a , a i r ( w h i c h vitalem et salutarem spiritum praebet

animantibus)

and heaven (in which the astra are to be found, which are naturae flammeae). Cf. a l s o P l i n y 11,5 ( § 1 0 ) : nee de elementis video dubitari quatluor esse ea: ignium summum, in de tot stellarurn Mos conlucentium oculos; proximum spiritus, quem Graeci nostrique eoclem vocabulo aera appellant, vitalem hunc et per cuncta rerum meabilem totoq-ue consertum; hums vi suspensam cum quarto aquarum elemento

librari medio spatii tellurem. On t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l y Stoic order of t h e elements in

this passage, cf. W. Κ roll, Die Kosmologie des Dlinius, Abh. Schles. Ges. f. vaterl. Kult., Geisteswiss. Reihe, 3. Heft, Breslau 1930, 6; on the general character of Pliny ΙΓ, 1 ff. see Reinhardt, RE s.v. Pos. 684 ('Nicht rein, vielfältig gefärbt, gebrochen und zersplittert sind die Spiegelungen poseidonischer Kosmologie bei Plinius'). Reference should, also be made to Seneca, Nat. 11,1,1 ff. (the proem), which divides the 'study of the whole' into that of caelestia, sublimia and terrena. T h e f i r s t p a r t s t u d i e s naturam siderum . . . et for mam ignium quibus mundus includitur, t h e p h y s i c a l n a t u r e of t h e caelum, i t s m o t i o n , if it h a s infra sese sidera...

an in contextu sui fix a, in what w a y it sustains the change of the seasons, makes the sun return etc. The second part contains a study of the meteorological

114

A r i s t o t e l i a n e t h e r as a fifth e l e m e n t a l sphere, a special f e a t u r e of t h i s w o r k w h i c h we n e e d not e n t e r into here. I n all of these d e s c r i p t i v e p a s s a g e s the c o n t e n t s of t h e e l e m e n t a l spheres a r e e n u m e r a t e d i n g r e a t e r or lesser d e t a i l ; t h i s m e a n s , t h a t t h e a s t r o n o m i c a l spheres c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e sphere of t h e h e a v e n l y e l e m e n t a r e i n d i c a t e d . I n Cicero,:2,13 A r i u s D i d y m u s a n d ps. Aristotle, the fixed s t a r s a r e c a r e fully d i s t i n g u i s h e d not only from sun a n d moon, b u t also f r o m t h e 'other' p l a n e t s . As we know, this d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e 'other' p l a n e t s a n d t h e f i x e d s t a r s is l a c k i n g in Hebd. Ch. I, 2 5 4 1 s h a l l r e t u r n to t h i s p r o b l e m below, 2 5 5 but m a y be a l l o w e d to point out t h a t a b s o l u t e f a i t h f u l n e s s in following t h e a n a l y s i s w h i c h w e see r e f l e c t e d i n t h e p a i a l l e l accounts, would h a v e possibly d i s a g r e e d w i t h the hebdomadological f a n c i e s of ps. Hippocrates. C e r t a i n l y , t h e explicit a d o p t i o n of a s e p a r a t e 'sphere" of the 'other' p l a n e t s w o u l d h a v e left no room for the e n c o m p a s s i n g άκριτος κόσμος. B u t then t h e u n i v e r s e w o u l d h a v e been left w i t h o u t a skin, a n d t h e niicr()(:osrn-macrocosm-comparison of Ch. 6 w o u l d h a v e been ruined. 2 5 6 phenomena in the air. The subject-matter of the third are waters, earth, plants and every thing contained by the earth. Seneca's distinction of caelestia, sublimia and lev vena corresponds to that of the Plac. (see below, Ch. V, p. 131 ff.); it probably derives from Posidonius (roughly corresponding to that between Ms 'Astrophysik', Meteorology and π. ' Ωκεανού, cf. Reinhardt, RE s.v. Pos. 684), as was argued by Reinhardt, Poscidonios 54-6. 283 Cicero, ND 1 ί ,102 ff. mentions first the sun, then the moon etc.: that is because he gives priority to the most conspicuous among the igneae formae in the ether or heaven (ibd., 101), 254 Cf. above, Ch. i l l , p. 57. Cf., on the 'planets' in Hebd., Ch. V B, p. 138 ff. 256 That the author of Hebd. is not original, but made a deliberate choice from the possibilities suggested by tradition may be concluded from the proem to Seneca, Nat. If (cf. above, n, 252, in fine). Among the problems studied by the science of caelestia are (Nat. 11,1,1) soliduinue sit caelum ac firmae concretaeque materiae (cf. άκριτος κόσμος, Hebd. 1,44-5 R.) an ex subtili ienuique nexum (a reference to the αύγή, cf. above, p. i l l , n, 235 and p. 112. Posidonius appears to have chosen the second alternative), agahir an agat (the solution, of Hebd, is original, but may have been in part inspired by the alternative), et infra sese sidera habeat an in context a sui fixa (Hebd. opts for the first possibility), quemadmodum α η η i vices s er ν at (cf. Hebd. 1,44 ff.R. άκριτου κόσμου... <δι>έξοδ<ου>ς εχοντ<ος> Οέρεος καί χειμώνος). If Reinhardt is right in his assumption (cf. above n. 252, in fine) that Sen., Nat. LΓ, 1 ff, derives from Posidonius and that it was he who formulated questions like these, another argument would be added to the arguments in favour of a post -Posidonian date for Hebd. put forth above, p. 93 ff.

115

In Hebd. 1,90 ff. the earth is characterized in the following words: . . . ή γή, εφ' ή τ ά τε ζ ώ α και τ<ά φυτά>· και εστί παντρόφος έξ ύδατος έουσα. MM. 2,391b 13 lias ή φερέσβιος... γή, παντοδαπών ζ ώ ω ν εστία τε ούσα και μήτηρ. Cic., ND 11,98 speaks of terra... vestita floribus, herbis, arboribus, Jrugilms, adding (11,99) quae vero et quam varia genera bestiarnm etc. 207 It appears that the earth has to be characterized as bearing animals and plants. Both in Η ebd. and in Mu. γή receives a choice poetic epi the ton. 258 The chances are, that, one or the other of these epitheta is traditional. It should, moreover, be noticed that the Landes terrae are repeated, in somewhat different terms, in Mu. 3, 3 9 2 b l 4 f f ; 5,397a24 ff. and 6,399a27 ff. 259 In 3 9 2 b l 4 ff. we encounter the ζω α and φυτά of Hebd.: γ ή . . . φυτοις βρύουσα και ζώοις; in 397a24 ff. we read γ ή . . . φυτοις κομώσα. παντοδαποις... και περιοχουμένη ζώοις, κατά καιρόν έκφύουσά τε π ά ν τ α και τ ρ έ φ ο υ σ α κ. τ.λ.; in 399a27 ff. we have, among other things, a reference to δένδρων έκφύσεις, καρπών πεπάνσεις, γοναι ζώων, έ κ τ ρ ο φ α ί τε π ά ν τ ω ν κ.τ.λ. In Hebd. 1,78 ff. the cosmic manifestations of the wet element are catalogued: τό τής Οαλάττης υγρό ν μέρος και ποταμών και κρηνέων και πηγέων και λιμνέων. As is only natural, some of these υγρά are, in the other accounts, mentioned in the description of the earth 260 ; Cic., 257

These a r e specified, a n d a reference to hominum gene re...,

qui quasi

cult or es

terrae constituti is a d d e d .

Φερέσβιος: cf. lies., Theog. 693. For παντρόφος cf. above, Ch. II, 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' Ή ρ η φερέσβιος (FS 31B6.2, cf. A33). Against this hypothesis see Maguire, o.e. 123, n.l (Mu. 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 Ή ρ η φερέπβιος to mean the 'earth* because he was familiar with the life-giving earth as a philosophical idea. Eestugiere, Iierm. Trism. 11,497 counts φερέσβιυς among the 'fleurs de rhetoric]ue' of Mu. 259 Cf. St roh in, Stud. Sehr. v. d. Welt, 143 ff. Also the description of the area of air and fire is repeated (2,392b7-13 ~ 5,397al9-24 - (>,399a24-26; Strohm, o.e. 144). 260 Elsewhere in IJ ebd. (cf. above, p. 81) the υγρά are counted with the earth, which has them 'in and upon' itself (έν έωυτfj και <έ>φ' έουτη Ch. 2,27 ff. R. By the way, εφ', not ύφ' is the correct reading; the Latin translations have in se ipsam et super ipsam). For the rivers as veins of the earth cf. Ch. 6§1,22 ff.R. (above, p. 103). Arius Didymus affords a verbal parallel, SVP 11, p. 168, 17-1.8 τήν γήν και τά έττ' αυτής υγρά. Cf. further Pliny Ι1',5, §10 (above, p. 114,

258

ii. 2 5 2 ) cum quarto aquarum elemento...

tellurem.

116

ND 11,98 m e n t i o n s font tum gelidas perennitates, Liquores perlucidos am η i um, rip arum vestitus viridissimos (the s e a is described 11,100).

Mu, 392b 14ff. 2 6 1 mentions γή και θάλασσα... φυτοΐς βρύουσα και ζώοις πηγ αϊ ς τε και π ο τ α μ ο ΐ ς; cf. 397a24 ff. γη... νάμασι ('springs') περιβλύζούσα (the sea is described 392b22 ff., 393a 17 ff.). Cf. especially 3,393a5 ff. αύτού γε μην τούτου (sc. of the cosmos as a whole) το μέν υγρό ν εστίν, δ καλεί ν π ο τ α μ ο ύ ς και νάματα και θάλασσας είΟίσμεθα. It appears that a specification of various types of waters is a common feature in these accounts. In Hebd. 1,70 ff. the air is mentioned a n d its contents are summed up: ή του ήέρος σύστασης... παρέχουσα ύετούς και άστραπάς, β< ρ οντάς > (ei grandines) και χιόνας (et ceteras cansas) For this c a t a l o g u e of atmospherical phenomena peculiar to air, cf. Mu. 2,392b(> ff. ό άήρ... έν δέ τούτω... νέφη τε συνίσταται και ο μ β ρ ο ι καταράσσουσι, χ ι ό ν ε ς τε και πάχναι και χ ά λ α ζ α ι πνοαί τε άνέμων και τυφώνων, έτι τε β ρ ο ν τ α ί και ά σ τ ρ απ α ί και πτώσεις κεραυνών μυρίων τε γνόφων συμπληγάδες.263 The et ceteras causas of Hebd. easily covers those phenomena which are explicitly mentioned in Mu. Part of this meteorological information is also given by Cicero, ND 11,101 aer... tum fusus et extenuatus sublime fertur, turn autem concretus in nub es (cf. Mu.) cogitur unioremque colligens t err am auget imbribus (cf. Hebd., Mu.), turn effluens hue et illuc ventos (of. Ma.) efficit. Not only the coincidences of detail,

especially between Mu. and Hebd., are striking, but what is even more important, the air in all of these three accounts is briefly characterized by an enumeration of meteorological phenomena. 264 In Hebd. 1,63 ff.R. the moon is characterized: it. 'returns' (ανιούσης), i.e. joins the sun again to start its course anew, 265 and has phases, Cf. above, p. 11.0. The lacunae have been supplied from the translations. 263 These phenomena are explained at; length Mu. 4,394a9 ff., the contents of which may ultimately go back to Theophrastus (see M. Strohm, Pos. u. Theophr., above p. 07, n. 160). Note that the phenomena which are put in the 'fine and fiery substance' in 2»392b3 ff. are put in the air in 395a29 ff. (the inconsistency is pointed out. by I). J. Furley, On the Cosmos, in the Loeb Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations ed. E. S. Forster, London etc. 2 1965, 353 n. e). 264 Cf. also the survey of aerial phenomena ap. Diog. Laert. VI 1,1 52-154, and the brief character]zation of the study of suhlimia Sen., Nat. 11,1,2 (cf. above, p. 114, n. 252): secunda pars traetat inter caelum terrain que versantia. Hie sunt nubila, imbres, nives 'et hunianas motura tο η i tνιιa menlcsquaecumque aer facit patiturve, haec suhlimia dicimiis etc. 265 Cf. above, Ch. II, p. 51, explanation of ανιούσης.

2ei

262

117

τελειούσης προσθέσει, καί με ιού σης άφαι< ρέσει>. Cf. Cicero, ND 11,103 luna... tum congrediens mm sole, turn degrcdiens... ν arias ipsa hie is mutationes habet. Mu. speaks about the nature of the moon riot in Ch. 2, but in Ch. 6, 399a6-12, where the list of the planets as given in 2,392a23-29 is repeated 266 (in reversed order) and the times of their courses are given. Here the moon is characterized as follows, 399a(> ff. σελήνη... έν μη ν l τον εαυτής δ ι α π ε ρ α ί ν ε τ α ι κ ύ κ λ ο ν α ύ ξ ο μ έ ν η τε καί μειου μένη καί φθίνουσα. For the other heavenly phenomena, enumerated in Hebd. (sun, stars, unmoved outer heaven), the parallels in the accounts which we have been addncing up till now are much less convincing. This is only to be expected for the omission of the 'other' planem and the assumption of a separate outer heaven a re peculiar to Hebd..mi The fiery nature of sun and stars in Hebd.26* is paralleled in Cicero: ND 11,101 aether... in quo... igneae formae, viz. sol (102), luna (103) ,260, eae stell a e quas vag as dieimus (103), stellar urn iuerrantiiim maxima multitude (104). In ps. Aristotle, where the ether is taken as a fifth element in a rather orthodox 270 Aristotelian sense, the heavenly bodies are of course not of a fiery natnre. It appears, however, that he is arguing against the Stoic theory of his 'source' in Ch. 2»3fl2a(i ff.: ουρανού δέ κ α ί ά σ τ ρ ω ν ούσίαν μεν αιθέρα καλοΰμεν, ούχ\ ώ ς τίνες, οιά το

πυρώ8η

ο ύ σ α ν α ϊ θ ε σ θ α ι . . . ά λ λ α δ ι ά τ ο α ε ί Οείν κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ο ο υ (ιέ ν η ν . 2 7 1

The coincidences both in general structure and in a number of details are too striking to be accidental. A strong fami 1 y-resemblance between the descriptions of the cosmos in these various authors cannot be denied. The advantages of comparing Hebd. Ch. 1 w ith the parallel accounts are obvions. Not only the case for a Hellenistic date 272 for For r e p e t i t i o n s of this kind, characteristic <·ί De u.otndo, .· ί. above, η. J S U Cf., however, below, p. 121 ff. for the a f f i n i t y between t h e ολύμπιος γ.όπηης in Hebd. a n d c e r t a i n ideas in Mu.; for t h e 'passing of s u m m e r a n d w i n t e r ' (Ch, 2,45 ff. R . ) cf. Mu. 6, 399a2 ff. 268 Cf. above, p. 79-80. 2 6 9 In Hebd.» nothing is said a b o u t the fiery n a t u r e ef I he irinon. Note 1 hat Cicero's a c c o u n t (sun - moon - s t a r s ) is not v e r y orderly a t this point (cf. above, p. 115, n. 253). 270 A t least a t f a c e - v a l u e , cf. Strolnn, Studien 141-2. 2 7 1 S t r o h m , Studien J 4 6 concludes his s t u d y of Mu. 2-3 w i t h t h e r e m a r k that: ps, Aristotle d e l i b e r a t e l y tried to improve upon the source he shares w i t h Arms Didyrnns. 272 A n d a r a t h e r l a t e one a t t h a t . Cicero will h a v e used a f a i r l y u p - t o - d a t e h a n d b o o k . The l a t e d a t e of Arius D i d y m u s ' source is vouchsafed b y t h e t w o 286

267

131)

Hebd. is strengthened in this way, but the peculiarities of the descriptive catalogue of Hebd. Ch. 1 become more visible as well. The planets are not mentioned and the outer rim of the universe is conceived in a way which has no parallels in the other accounts. I have already referred to the probable motive for the introduction of the unmoved ολύμπιος κόσμος,273 and i have every reason to believe that the sphere of the 'other' planets has been left, out for the same reasons for which ps. Hippocrates was obliged to sacrifice one wind out of the eight 'petals' of the Hellenistic wind-rose. 274 A few comments on Hebd. Ch. 2 may be added at this point. Ch. 1 is a purely descriptive enumeration of the parts of the universe, where, the nature of each is briefly formulated. Ch. 2 treats ί he universe from a. different point of view, viz. as a whole which is working in a certain way. The emphasis here is upon the s patio-physical relations between the parts and upon cosmic mechanics. In the parallel accounts of Arius Didymus, Cicero ND 11,91-2 and 98-104 and ps. Aristotle, which we have studied above, information of this kind is not given separately, but turns out to be part of the descriptive catalogue, 275 Which of these arrangements, that in Hebd. or that in the other sources, is the original one is not easy to affirm. 276 I prefer to think that it was ps. Hippocrates who, to a certain extent, went his own way. Posidonian definitions of κόσμος (cf. above, p. I l l , n. 235), though Festugicre, Herrn.

Tvism.

II, 512 n.9 w a n t s to a t t r i b u t e the Posidonian definitions to

Chrysippus. De mundo is a rather late treatise (it can hardly be earlier than the first Cent. B.C., but I think that Furley, 1 ntrod. (Loeb) 337 ff. has made out a fairly good case in favour of this date), and its author used the same source as Arius Didymus. 273 Above, p. 115. 274 On the wind-rose see below, Ch. V C, p. 146 ff. Note that Pliny 11,5, §10 (cf. above p. 114, n. 252) lumps stars and planets together as siellae: the obvious distinction is only made at § .1 2. 275 Cf. the formal announcement of the treatment of the 'cosmos and the greatest feat ures of the cosmos' (κόσμου... καΐ των έν τφ κοσμώ μεγίστων Mu. 1,391 a26-7) in Mu. 1,3911>4 f f . . . . ώς εκ χ στον έχει φύσεως ('nature') νΔ θέσεως ('posit ion' in the order of things) και κινήσεως. Hebd. Ch. 1 is about φύσις and Οέσιτ, Πι. 2 about κίνησις. 278 It is, however, remarkable that the account in Cic,, ND 11,91-2 Ρ 98-104, which is essentially descriptive, stands in about the same relation to 11,115b-118 (cf. above p. 114, n. 252), which puts the emphasis on rosmic and ceJesiia 1 mechanics, as Hebd. Ch. 1 to Hebd. Ch. 2. Cf. also Pliny, ll,5,§ 1 0(descriptive) §11 (cosmic mechanics). 131)

It is unnecessary to enumerate all the parallels between Hebd, Ch.2 and the accounts of Arius Didymus, ps. Aristotle and Cic. ND 11,91-2 + 98-104. Most of the information given in Hebd, Ch. 2 is quite commonplace though it has been given a somewhat original twist. E.g. Hebd. 2,24 ff. we read that the earth is situated κατά μέσον... τον κόσμο ν . . . ώστε mim κάτω τά δέ μέντοι άνω κάτω είναι, τά δέ κάτω άνω. Cf. SVF II, p. 169,9 ff. the earth lies περί τό μέσον ση μείον του κόσμου..., β δή του παντός έστι κάτω, άνω δέ το άπ' αυτού είς τό κύκλω πάντη. The relativity of hip' and 'down', 277 though not expressed in tiro 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 ύπομένον δέ τήν γήν. The same idea is found Mu. 2,3911)12 ff. ταύτης (sc. τής τάξεως, the orderly arranged universe) δέ τό μεν μέσον, ακίνητο ν τε και έδραΐον ον, ή φερέσβιος εΐ'ληχε γή; in Cicero, ND 11,91 terra sita in media parte mundi (cf. II,98). 278 The distinction between the moving and the unmoved parts of the universe, so prominent in Hebd. Ch. 2, is made SVF^ II, p. 168,15 ff., Mu. 2,391 b l 3 ff. (the earth is at rest, the heavens move; Hebd. is different: the outer heaven and the earth are at rest, the other parts are in motion). - The central position of the moon {Hebd. 2,44 ff. ή σελήνη μέση <έ>ούσα συναρμόζει αυτά) is, to a certain extent:, paralleled in Arius Didymus, cf. SVF II, p. 169,6 ff.: the sphere of the moon is the last of the celestial spheres; it touches the air; therefore it looks more like air than the other heavenly bodies, και μάλιστα διατείνειν τήν άπ' αύτής δύναμιν είς τά περίγεια. This leaves no doubt about the role of the moon as a kind of go-between for the suprahmary and the sublunary worlds.

11. Something has yet to be added in order to further clarify certain features in the cosmology of Hebd. We have already remarked upon the parallels for the idea of an outer heaven which is distinguished, from t he underlying stellar sphere. 279 We have also seen that, in Ch. 1,45 ff.R. the idea that an outer heaven 'contains the passing of summer and winter' (<δι>εξοδ<ούς> εχοντ<ος> Cf. above, Ch. I l l , p. 62 ff. A host of parallels is quoted by Pease, at ND 1,103 (p. 474 ff.) and by K. Gronau, Poseidomos und die jüdisch-christliche Genesisexegese, LeipzigBerlin 1914, 53-4. 279 Cf. above, p. 115, n. 256. 277

278

131)

Οέρεος κ od χειμώνος) can be paralleled. 2 *" As we have seen, its motion was also a topic of investigation. 281 The idea that the circular movement of the heaven (the κύκλω φορά) is the cause of the change of the seasons etc, is, of course, Aristotelian, 282 but in Aristotle, the1 First Heaven is in motion and it is not distinguished from the stellar sphere. In Heid., the why and how oi the, relation bed ween the Inseparable world' and the change of the seasons is not explained. Now this outer heaven, exerting an enigmatic influence upon what happens below, is said to be unmoved.28:{ It is, 1 think, a plausible, guess that the unmoved outer sphere of Hebd. is a. descendant of the Aristotelian First Unmoved Mover284 which is interpreted in a spatial sense, home support tor this .snpposii ion unty bo d e r i v e d bom the attributes with which it has been invested, at tributes which pertain to tiro realm cd the divine It is called Olympic and Most High: 2,15-6 R. ολύμπιος κόσμος; 2/1J i f. R. ο ολύμπιος κόσμος, ύπατος έ(όν.285 These ideas can, in part, be1 paralleled in ps. Aristotle De mundo. It would, perhaps, be rash to try to reconstrurt a common source for Hebd. and Mu., but a certain family resemblance is, unmistakable. It is generali)'· accepted thai the God. of De mundo is a descendant of Aristotle's First Unmoved Mover.286 We are told that he resides in 280 281 282

283

Cf. above, p. 1 L I a. 250 ( S e n e c a ) ; p. 118, n. 207 Cf. ibd. Cf. above, p. 76.

Cii. 2,14 ft., 39 ft. R. (earth

{Mu.)

Olympic world).

Cf. above, p. 70 iL 285 Boll's conjecture (ms. ύτο τοσωνΗζ) is u n d o u b t e d l y right, cf. the L a t i n tnoisla ί ions, which hove olvnipn>· nuindns snmwitatcni lenem. Lor ύπατος as e pi the ton of Zeus a n d other gods cf. L S j s.v. 1,1. T h o u g h ύπατος is also used in a s t r i c t l y local a n d a temporal seilte ( L S ] s.v. 1,2 and 3), its being conjoined to ολύμπιος is, I think, in favour of the interpretation adopt cd in the t e x t . Cf. also Xenocra tes fr. 18 Ifenize ( - - Pint., Ouaesi. plat. 1 007 f) το γάρ αν ω καΐ πρώτον ύ π α τ ο ν οι παλαιοί προσηγορευον · η και Η. Δία τον μέν έν τοις κ α τ ά ταύτα και ω σ α ύ τ ω ς ε χουσιν ύ π ά τ ο ν καλεί (quoted b y Strohm, Studien 159, n. 75). Xenoe r a l e s seems to have a d v o c a t e d a spatial interpretation of the realm of the Ideas, cf. fr. 5 Heinze, where the ούτία νοητή is placed outside the ούρανός. F. 1 >oyance, La religion astrale de Plat on mux Stoiciem» 331 ff. h a s p l a u s i b l y a r g u e d t h a t these ideas are derived from a literal exegesis of t h e ύπερουράνιος τόπος in the m y t h of Plato's Phaedv. (247c3); cf. a l r e a d y Ii. Μ. Jones, Posidonius and the Flight of the Mind through the Universe. CI. Ph. 21 (192(3, 97 ff.), esp. 101 ff. 286 Zeiler 111,1,660; Capelle, Schrift von der Welt 566; Festugiere, Herrn. Trism. 11,512; M a g u i r e 148 iL; Stroinn, Studien 159-60. 284

131)

the highest and. first place, and is called Highest for just this reason, Mu. 6,3971)25 ff. την μεν ούν άνο>τάτο> και πρώτην εδραν αύτο ς έλαχε ν, ύ π α τ ο ς τε δια τούτο ώνυμασται, [και] κατά τον ποθητή ν 'άκροτάτη287 κορυφή'... εγκαθιδρυμένος ούρανοΰ.288 From this it is apparent that the God is said to have his home in the highest place of the universe (cf. also 3081)8-9... αυτόν μεν επί της άνωτάτω χώρας ίδρύσΟαι). This place is explicitly defined a few pages further down, 400a4 ff.... ο θεός... άνω καθαρός έν καθ α ρ ω χωρω 6 ν Ιτύμως 289 καλουμεν ουρανό ν ά π ό τ ο υ ορον είναι

τον ά ν ω , 2 9 0 " Ο λ υ μ π ο ν

δέ ο ί ο ν

όλολαμπή

κ.·τ.λ. 2 9 1

The language used by ps.Aristotle implies that lie is unmoved: εδραν,292 ίδρυσθαι, εγκαθιδρυμένος, βεβηκώς - this is, in any case, unambiguously stated 4001) 12-13 έν άκινήνω γάρ ιδρυμένος πάντα κινεί και 2«7

H o n e , //. J »409. Cf. t h e story of how the u p w a r d s vow ige (Phaedr. 247a8 ff. άκρα ν επί τήν ύπερουράνιον - cf. De Vries, Comm. ad /., ρ. 1 3 2 - ά ψ Τ δ α . . . προς άναντες) of the souls of t h e Gods in P l a t o ' s Phaedrns ends (2471)7 if.) ήνίκ' αν προς ά κ ρ ω γένωνται, ε!<>> ττορευΟε','σαί,, έ σ τ η σ α ν ε π ί τω τ ο υ ο ύ ρ α ν ο ΰ ν ώ τ ο , σ τ α σ α ς δέ αύτάς περιάγει ή περιφορά κ.τ.λ. (cf. also De Yries, o.e. 135). Note t h a t the souls of t h e Gods do not h a v e a m o v i n g function when t h e y feast upon the sights outside h e a v e n . B u t in general, t h e "perfect (kind of) soul t r a v e l s on high and a d m i n i s t e r s t h e universe 1 ,, 24 6 c 1 2 τ ε λ έ α . . . ου σ α . . . μετεωροττορει τε και πάντα τον κόσμο ν διοικεί (cf. also a hove, p. 67 a n d ibd., n. 5). Κόσμος here p r o b a b l y m e a n s 'the heaven 5 , cf. above, Ch. 11, p. 42-3. 289 The e t y m o l o g y of "Ολυμπος also occurs Stob., Eel. 1,22,2 (1, p. 19«S W., ps. P l u t a r c h . ) and Pint., Vit. Horn. 11,95 (ei. Diels, Dox. 95-6 and Lorimer, Some Notes 109). Diels' a r g u m e n t (o.e. SN -99) t h a t a Stoic Allegorizer is t h e original source w a s accepted by Lorimer. Lorimer a r g u e d t h a t also t h e Homeric q u o t a t i o n s in Mu. (which, with one exception, it shares with t h e v a r i o u s sources reflecting the Allegorizer) derive from this s a m e source (o.e. 110), which w a s reconstructed, hi as far a s possible, by Diels, I.e. 2 9 0 Cf. also 2,391 b l 4 ff.: "the region a b o v e the e a r t h , which a s a whole a n d in e v e r y direction h a s a highest upper limit (πεπερατο.»μένον εις τό ά ν ω τ ά τ ω ) , t h e dwelling of t h e g o d s ( ! ) , is called h e a v e n (ουρανός)'. T h e highest God, dwelling w i t h i n t h e upper limit, is not mentioned here, b u t w e h e a r a b o u t t h e 'divine bodies' of t h e stars. This whole h e a v e n , i.e. including its u p p e r limit, is said to be m o v i n g , e x c e p t for t h e poles (391.bl9-392a5). 291 This is further i l l u s t r a t e d b y q u o t a t i o n s from Homer (Od. 6,42-5 a n d //. X V , 1 9 2 ) a n d a reference to t h e u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies. Strohm, Studien 159 a n d 160» n.76 points out t h a t t h e doctrine of Mu. is no p o p u l a r t h e o l o g y : the q u o t a t i o n s from Homer t e s t i f y to 'hochpliilosophische S p e k u lation 1 , which h a s its roots in Plato a n d Aristotle's π. φιλ. On t h e other h a n d , Festugiere, Herrn. Trism, 11,514 stresses 1 he o r i g i n a l i t y of Mu. a n d s a y s if foreshadows Gnostic ideas. 292 Cf. 2 , 3 9 1 b ] 2-3, w h e r e t h e e a r t h is said to be a t t h e άκίνητόν τε και έδραΐον. 288

131)

περιάγει, and esp. 4001)31 -2 ηγουμένου δέ άκινήτως αύτου. Now, it should be noted that ps, Aristotle seems to waver between the concept of a transcendent and th.it of an immanent 293 God: He is said to be both 'in' the Heaven (but the Heaven moves 291 ) and to be έν άκινήτω etc, It will be clear how close the affinitv between these ideas in Mu, and the ideas a,bout the unmoved outer heaven in Hebd. really is. In Mu,, God is put now in an unmoved place, winch has to be irna.gined as situated on the other side of the First Moved Mover (the1 stellar sphere), 205 now in this outer sphere itself. 200 Only a little reshuffling t h e eompat isons of 1he function of God to t h a t of ί b<· ' k e y s t o n e ' of v a u l t s a n d to that of the lacs ol Phidias in tic . j j d d h · 'if t i c ddHd o f h i s s t a t u e of Athena, on the Acropolis also point to a concept of immanence. 294 i d . ρ 122, in 200. 3Ι,Γ» Are,ording to Diog, Paed,. V i 1, I IS lioctlnis of Sidoti said έν reo περί φύσεω.; υύσίαν Οεου τήν τ ω ν απλανών σ φαΐ ρ αν ( 5 F F 111 ,\ h3 ; according to Act. ί .7,2 5 = SVI' I i i A 1.2, however, he said t h a t the ether is Cod). Cf. Zeller 111,2,574. 296 rhe a m b i g u i t i e s inherent to a 'spatial* interpretation of transcendence p r e s u m a b l e derive from the m v i h in P l a t o ' s Phaedr. and its interpretation in later t i m e s (cf. above, p. 121 n. 2S5). 1 'lato himself c e r t a i n l y did nothing to render such a s p a t i a l interpreta.t ion impossible (Boyance, iiehig. astrale 324 ff., who a d d u c e s the astral iheolngv of Tim. -He-42b, 9i)a and Λ'->;/;. X,901e-e). This interpretation, which p r o b a b l y s t a r t e d with X e n o c r a t e s (above, n. 285) is reflected in a. number of passages in Philo» esp. Op. wund. 09 ff. — I» p. 23,9 ff. Cohn A V., Leg. alleg. I l l , Η·1, _= f, p. 131,18 ff.GolmAV., Spec. leg. 1/207 V, p. 50,1 ff.Cohn-AV. (also quoted by Jones, I.e.). 1 'oya.nee also refers to Platonists (o.e. 3 2 6 ) : M a x . T y r . X V I (X),0, Apul. De Plat. 1,11, and (o.e. 338) to t h e rhetor Menander, l)e encomiis p. -1 14,10 ff. S pen gel. 1 ti the Hermetiea, the solution seems to be t h a t the Upper Cod resides in a 'place* outside the universe, while the Demiurge h a s his seat in the sphere of the fixed stars, cf. A set. J 9 , Stole, Herrn et. Exe. X I I , 1 and X X ί , 2 ; and Ρ· -iiv. 25 e% where the ascent of the soid through the 7 p l a n e t a r y spheres, until it r e a d i e s τήν ογδοατικήν φύσιν ('the eighth and outermost sphere, t h a t of t h e fixed stars, is described. This is the δημιουργική σφαίρα spoken of in (J^rim.) 13a', W . Seott, / l e r m e t i c a 11, Oxford 1925, 63). W h e n also t h i s sphere h a s been transcended, the soul returns to God (cf. J . Kroll» Pie I.ehren des Hermes Triswcgistos, !>eitr. Gesch. Phil. d. Mit tela Η. X U (1914), I i. 2 -1. Minister i.W. 1014, 3 0 7 : the S u p r e m e God t r a n s c e n d s the ογδοάς). In Herrn. XI 11,15 the ογδοάς is 'revealed 1 by P o i m a n d r e s . For t h e ογδοάς in t h e Christian Gnosis cf. K. Reitzenstein, Poimandres» Stud. z. Griech.-A eg. u. frühchristl. Lit., .Leipzig 1904» 54; Scott, o.e. 63-4 a n d Kroll» o.e. 304 ff. E s p e c i a l l y interesting is Basihdes, ap. Hippel.» l i e f . 7,27 εστίν ό κόσμος διηρημένος είς (1) ογδοάδα, ήτις έστιν ή κ ε φ α λ ή του παντός κ ό σ μ ο υ . . . και tic (2) έβδοιχάδα (the region of t h e 7 p l a n e t s ) κ.τ.λ. The concept of the όγδοic is foreshadowed in X e n o c r a t e s (Cic., ND 1,34 fr. 17 Heinxe), who said there were 8 (stellar) Gods: the f i v e planets, t h e sphere of the f i x e d stars, the sun, a n d t h e moon. For a r e l a t e d conception cf. Cic.» Somn. Scip. 9 : here w e h a v e 2m

131)

of the cards is needed in order to produce an outer sphere which is to be distinguished front the stellar sphere, a sphere which is unmoved and to which some divine attributes and a vague suggestion of intramundane influence have stuck, 'Ολύμπιος and ύπατος are not the only divine attributes to be found 111 the cosmoiogicai chapters of Hebd. In Ui. b,§2,13 ff.R. bodily heat below the skin around the flesh is compared to the heat below the outer heaven surrounding the universe: hominis ealidum circa cam em quod per eeleritalem sftlcudens mulat calores, si cut el illic lovem aegiocunimi inveni.es esse.2m The next sentence is desperately corrupt: Arcturius (A, ero. Mos Ρ) aulem fervoris (-es Ρ) in ho mine {in omnem Ρ) ο per alio nc ni quacslula e nuhila (que e sole η u In la P). In Ch. 6,12,9 ff.R., i.e. a few lines earlier we have been informed that the heat in the upper regions of the universe which is 'compared' to that below the skin is that of stellae el solßm Although the sentence A returius... enutrita is corrupt, it is at least certain that it mentions a star or stars, 300 which is/are related to heat (fervores), and that these are, 9 spheres, quorum unus est caelestis extumus, qui rehquos omnes compleclilur, sum m us ipse de us, arc ens et continens omnia, Cf. also the references quoted b y Maguire, o.e. 155, n. 89. For the concept of the highest Divinity in the Jlermetica cf. also Asel. 27, de us supra ν er tic em sutmni caeli consistens ubique est omniaque circum inspicit. [sic] est enim ultra caelum locus sine siellis ab omnibus rebus corpulent is alienus (this region sine siellis - cf. the outer sphere of Hebd. - is in t h e t r a d i t i o n of t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Phaedr us-myth). Especially interesting is t h e discussion of motion ami space in Herrn. 11,1-12, c u l m i n a t i n g in a definition of the D i v i n e : space, in w h i c h the world is moved, h a s to be g r e a t e r t h a n t h e w o r l d ; space is God; God is ιι η moved, but t h e u l t i m a t e cause of motion. Mow this s p a t i a l concept of God is (even to a m y s t i c ) not w i t h o u t difficulties, cf. ibd. 11,6 (I q u o t e t h e t e x t w i t h o u t the e m e n d a t i o n s which h a v e been proposed) εl δέ νοητός 6 τόπος, ούχ' 6 θεός, άλλ' ό τόπο;, εί δέ καΐ 6 θεός, ου/' ως τόπος, άλλ* ώς ενέργεια χωρητική. hor the concept of motion cf. ibd. π α ν . . . το κινοΰμενον ουκ έν κινουμένω κινείται, άλλ' έν έ σ τ ώ τ ι · καΐ τό κινούν δέ εστηκεν, a n d 8, π α σ α . . . κίνησις έν στάσει καΐ ύπο στάσεως κινείται. In Asel. 27 the highest, t r a n s c e n d e n t God is distinguished from a Zens 'between heaven and e a r t h ' . For the dependence of t h e theology of Mu. from t h a t of Plato a n d Aristotle cf. Strohm, Studien 158 ff.; however, (if I h a v e understood him correctly), S t r o h m does not enter into t h e problem of transcendence vs. i m m a n e n c e , 297 Λ s t a n d a r d epitheton of Zeus, cf. L S j s.v. αίγίο/ος. 298 So Α. Ρ h a s calorem a n d omits invent. 299 Cf. above, p. 79-80. 300 Arcturius c a n n o t be r i g h t as it s t a n d s (possibilities: 1 returns, - i, -um). Ps. Galen Nr. 41 (p. 79 Bergstr.) t r a n s l a t e s 'die beiden K a l b s s t e r n e ' ; for t h e m e a n i n g of ' K a l b s s t e r n e ' cf. Nr. 24 (p. 37 B e r g s t r . ) ' "Αρκτος, d.i. d a s Kalb, folgt 131)

in one way or another, related to a phenomenon within the human body. It is, therefore, a reasonable assumption that, where A returns or "Αρκτοι represent the slellae, lovem aegiocum will stand for sol. Indeed, ps. Galen Nr. 40 Bergstr. speaks of 'Saturn' and interprets this as "Sonne1 ! The changing colours of the skin are explained as the effects ol the, by reason of its velocity, resplendent subcutaneous heat. The same changes can be observed 'up above' when we look at the 'aegis-bearing Zeus' and (one of) the stars. The general point of comparison is clear although somewhat marred by the fact that we dein Stern, del * \ρ>-:τουρος genannt wird, d.i. der S c h w a n z des Kalbes*. Possibly, therefore, t h e original of ps. Galen had "Αρκτοι,, of which the unintelligible 0 l e t t e r s em. Has of Ρ m a y be a remnant (cf. W . Capelle, Altere Spuren der Λ Strategie bei den Griechen, Herrn. 00 (1925,373 ff.), 380 ff.). Kranz not v e r y conscient i o u s l y preferred the fancies of Harder (cf. above, Ch. 1, p. 4, n. 9) to t h e t e x t of ps. Galen as evidence for his reconstruction of w h a t ps. Hippocrates a c t u a l l y wrote (Kosmos und Mensch 157-8); his defence of A returns a g a i n s t the ' K a l b s s t e i n e ' , however, is not unacceptable, for Arcturus p e r h a p s is a b e t t e r ' s y m b o l ' of t h e effects of h e a t upon t h e skin t h a n t h e P e a r (o.e. 109; ibd. n. 7 refers to P. Boll, Antike Beobachtungen jar higet Sterne, Λ bh. P a y r . Ak. 30 (1918)). An a t t e m p t to emend the whole sentence w a s m a d e by Pfeiffer, Stud. z\ ant. Sterngl. 36 ff.; t h i s is w h o l l y speculative. His suggestion t h a t /encores m e a n s 'anger' (o.e. 37) w a s a d o p t e d b y K r a n z (o.e. 169); 'passions' is j u s t as good a guess, but we c a n n o t be certain. Ps. Galen, a t a n y rate, t r a n s l a t e s 'Die beiden Kalbssterne gleichen der Wärme, die im Menschen ist' (Nr. 41 B e r g s t r . ) . I can find no support in the t e x t for t h e supposition of Pfeiffer a n d K r a n z (which, a s I believe, u l t i m a t e l y goes back to a guess of H a r d e r ) t h a t A r c t u r u s d i r e c t l y influences a n g e r ; indeed, Kranz himself h a s to a d m i t t h a t Ch. 6 as a whole only compares bodily a n d cosmic p h e n o m e n a . Furthermore, it should be pointed out t h a t both Pfeiffer and Kranz eclectically combine those readings of t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s which t h e y can u n d e r s t a n d . This method, on t h e whole, a m o u n t s to p u t t i n g the first half as in Λ before the second half a s in Ρ Now P's que e sole nutrita c a n n o t refer to m a n , as Pfeiffer thought, for que is not — qui, but quae. K r a n z (o.e. 170) held t h a t the bodily h e a t is the antecedent, of qu(a)e, a n d t h a t this h e a t is, in t h e last a n a l y s i s , derived from t h e sun. We cannot, however, be sure a b o u t t h e antecedent, a n d not u l t i m a t e derivation, b u t only m a i n t e n a n c e is implied b y nutrita. M y own guess is, t h a t it m a y be A r c t u r u s (or the B e a r ) which is ' s u s t a i n e d ' b y the sun, j u s t as the fervoves (outbursts of passion?) within the h u m a n b o d y are sustained b y t h e s u b c u t a n e a ! heat.. This would at least agree w i t h t h e earlier t h e o r y of the derived light (heat?) of the s t a r s (cf. above, Ch. II, p. 38, s.v. άνταυγία) and, perhaps, m a k e s it easier to u n d e r s t a n d w h y the s t a r s in general a r e said to be hottest (cf. above, p. 80, n. 73). I do know t h a t in the prologue of Planters' Eudens one should t a k e the role of A r c t u r u s (splendens stell a Candida) as a special s e r v a n t of 1 uppiter (cf. lovem aegiocum !) seriously. 131)

observe the bodily phenomena from the outside and the celestial ones from the inside. This identification of Zens is not the only possible one. If one completely despairs of getting anything worth-while out of the corrupt sentence A relurius ff., Zeus has to be identified with all of the calidum within the upper regions of the universe, i.e. vvim both slellae and soLmi This amounts to the identification of Zeus and ether in the Stoic 302 sense. For tins idenüfkation mir evidence is quite sufficient; 5 VF 11,1077 ( = Cic., ND 1,40) idemque (sc. Chrysippus) disputat aet herd esse eum quem homines lovem appellarent; 5 VF 11,1.176 ( = Philod. De piel. p. 79 Ciomperz; Diels, Dox. 546) Δία δέ τον αιθέρα.303 An interesting parallel is afforded by Achilles, hilr. (p. 82,8 iL Maass:MM) Δία Μ oi μέν τον ούρανον, ot δέ τον αιθέρα, οΐ δέ τον ήλιον... έξεδέςαντο. Cf. also Joannes Diaconns, Α lieg. in Theogonimn p. 381,3(,δ Ζήνα τον αιθέρα οίητέον, τουτέστι το πυρ στοιχεί,ωτικον του παντός* τούτο γάρ ζωής αίτιον, και δι" αύτοΰ ζώμεν, κινούμενοι τε και ύποθερμαινόμενοι. το δέ πυρ, ώς ζωογόνον μάλλον και συ στατικό ν κ.τ.λ. Zens-ethei -fire is here the cause of life - vital h e a t ! The quotation from Achilles also mentions the identification of

Kranz, o.e. 108 ff. t h o u g h t lovem applied to t h e p l a n e t l u p i t e r . This is i n c o m p a t i b l e with his proposed d a t e (the n a m e s ol t h e Gods did not begin to serve a s p l a n e t a r y n a m e s before the beginning of the first Cent. A.D. Cf. F. Cumorit, Les mm is des planetes che ζ les Grecs, Ant. CI. 4 (1935), 5 ff.)» -But e v e n if t h i s proposal is rejected, t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is still h i g h l y implausible, T h e p l a n e t l u p i t e r is not the first l u m i n a r y which conies to mind when one searches for h e a v e n l y 'symbols' for the colour-phenomena of the h u m a n skin. R o s c h e r ' s suggestion (191 i, 9 7 ) : Zens ~= ether or s k y , is m u c h better. The "sky* a s a whole (Presocratic parallels h a v e been collected b y Burkert, Welsh, to JL?s\n\ 327,11.72), however, is impossible because of ps. Hippocrates* distinction between t h e cold άκριτος κόσμος a n d t h e realm of t h e t (didurn below i t ; Zens is t h e m o v i n g calidum, not t h e u n m o v e d "inseparable h e a v e n ' . 302 The Presocratic e x a m p l e s for Zeus — ether, collected b y Kranz, Index VS p. 188a7ff., a r e d o u b t f u l . Fmpedocles, if is true, called Ms f i e r y e l e m e n t b y t h e n a m e of Zeus (!U>,2; cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, JIG Ph. 11,144-6). However, in view of t h e outcome of our s t u d y of the calidum (see above, p. 79 ff., p. 87 ff.) it is not n e c e s s a r y to go b a c k to t h e Presocratic period once it can be established t h a t t h e Stoic calidum w a s called Zeus b y certain Stoics, 303 Cf. f u r t h e r j . H . W a s z i n k , Aether, R A C 1, I960, p. 152 ff. 304 This m a y h a v e been derived from Posidonius, 3 0 5 (Gaisford, Poet. min. graec. I I I ) . ( J u o t e d b y Ferguson, i n : S c o t t - F e r g u s o n , Hermetic a !¥', Oxford 1936, 412. 301

131)

Zeus and sun. This appears to be a Posidonian idea. 306 Macrobius, Sat. 1,23 quotes Cornifieius Longus (second half first Cent. B.C.) as authority for Posidonius1 interpretation of certain Homeric and Hesiodic lines, 307 which mention Zeus' trip to Oeeamis, the all-seeing and all-hearing Sun, and the all-understanding eye of Zeus. Also the interpretation οί Plato, Phaedr. 24üe (Zeus in the myth) is important. For a discussion of the evidence a reference to Reinhardt's succinct statement in his KE-aiticlc 306 may suffice. We had reason to assume that lovem aegiocum in Hebd. really is the sun because the stars (represented by either Bear or P>ear-Ward) are separately mentioned. If this is correct, and if Reinhardts theory about Posidonius identification Zeus = sun is also right, as 1 believe it is, this would add up beautifully to the results of the earlier parts of our investigation 308 the more so, because the 'aegis-bearing Zeus' represents the calidum, which earlier in this Chapter we found to be related to a Posidonian * Wärmelehre 1 . 309 The last point which 1 wish to discuss in this chapter is that of the contradiction between the assumption of αώια (Ch. 2,55 ff.R.), 310 which appears to imply the eternity of the universe, and the vestiges of cosmogonical speculation which are involved in the idea (Ch. 1, 94-5 R.) 311 that the earth lias originated from water etc. In a great thinker a contradiction of this kind would be a very serious matter, Cf. R e i n h a r d t , Kosm. u. Symp, 353 ff.; a n d R E s.v. Pos. 695-7 ('Sonne gleich Zeus'), where also other e vide nee is q anted. See f u r t h e r above, p. 102-3. 307 II. 1,423-5; 111,277; Hes SJ Op, Ihl. Cf. above, p. 93 ff. 300 Cf. above, p. 186 if. - The distinction, ia Hebd,, between a n O l y m p i c a n d H i g h e s t H e a v e n and a Z e u s / c a l i d u m below this h e a v e n can, to a certain extent, be paralleled from the tiermeiica. Asel. 27 mentions (a) a Highest, t r a n s c e n d e n t God (cf. above, p. 123, n. 296) a n d (b) (vilae?) dispensator qui est, inter caelum el tcrram obtinet locum, quem lovem ν ο cam us. (Asel. 19: cue It vet quicquid est, quod eo nomine conprehendilur, ούσιάρχης est lu ρ piter: per caelum en im / up pit er omnibus praebel vitam is different, because in piter here a p p e a r s to be a t r a n scendent power which uses caelum as his i n s t r u m e n t ; cf. Fesiai^iere, Les dieux ousiarques de Γ A sclepius, i n : I fermetisme et mystique pa'ienne, Paris 1967, 120 ff.: the idea in t h e Asel, is derived from the Oracula Chaldaica, not from Stoicism. Seott, Tiermeiica H I , Oxford 1926, 109 ff., 122 a r g u e s in f a v o u r of a Stoic b a c k g r o u n d . P e s t u g i e r e ' s a r g u m e n t s h a v e convinced me, but Seott m a y be r i g h t in holding t h a t t h e exceptional mentioning of Zens in the Hennetica may be a r u d i m e n t of Stoic t h e o l o g y ) , 310 Cf. above, p. 77, p. 84, p. 92, p. 93» 311 Cf. above, p. 107 ff. ao6

131)

but with an unoriginal thinker like ps. Hippocrates we can be more forgiving: some of the pieces which he glued together do not quite fit, But there is more in these contradictions than meets the eye. The idea that the universe came into being, but will nevertheless never perish, ultimately goes back to Plato's Timaeus. We have evidence that the interpretation of the cosmogony oi the / etuacus continued to be discussed in Hellenistic times. Philo, Aet.Mil. 7 (VI, p. 75,1 ff. Cohn-W.) 312 distinguishes three points of view: (a) the universe is eternal, unborn and imperishable; (b) the universe has come into being and will perish again; (e) though it has come into being, it will not perish: 13, p. 76,16 ff. γενητόν δέ και άφΟαρτύν φασιν ύπο Πλάτωνος έν Τ ι μα ί ω οηλούσΟαι. This depends, among other things, on the interpretation of the speech of the Demiurge to the Gods, Tim. 41 a(>if. (which is quoted by Philo). We also read (17, p. 77,20-78,3) that Plato was inspired by Hesiod. Philo's scholastic division shows that the three possible points of view probably featured as such in the handbook-literature upon which he depends. Now, the problem of the eternity vs. the birth and destruction of the world was often debater! between Stoics and Peripatetics: already Theophrastus up. Philo, Aet. mu, 117ff., VI, p. 108ff. Cohn-W. (fr. 30 Wimmer) defended the eternity of the universe. So did Critolaus (A el. mu. 70, p. 94 and 55, p. 90, = Fr. 12 and fr. 13 Wehrli). 313 The Peripatetic point of view is adopted by Ocellus314 and by the author of l)e mundo?1* Philo also tells us that ΒοηΟος γοΰν ό Σώώνιος και ΙΙαναίτιος went over to the Peripatetic side, Aet. mu. 76, p. 96,19 ff. Some editors read Βοηθός και ΙΙοσειδώνιος καί If αναίτιος, but there is no need to change the text; besides, Posidonius appears to have spoken about the dissolution of the world. 316 It has, however, been argued 317 that Posidonius may have thought that the problem can not bo solved and that he considered

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o w a s also incorporated into t h e Ρ lac., cf. Aet. 11,4,2 (Stobaeus) ΙΙλ. φθαρτών μέν τον κόσμο ν ο σον επί ττ> φ ύ σ ε ι . . . ού μην φΟαρησόμενόν γε προνοία και συνοχή Οεου. Aet. Ii,4,1 (ps. Flut.) ascribes this t h e o r y to P y t h a g o r a s , P l a t o και οί Στωικοί. Cf. also ps. ( i a l e n , Dox. 609,14. sis Wehrli, comm. ad fr. 12-13 (p. 64-65) a r g u e s a g a i n s t Theiler's assumption (in his r e v i e w of H a u l e r ' s Ocellus Luc anus, Gnomon 2, (1926), 590 ff.) t h a t Philo m a d e e x t e n s i v e use of Critolaus. On Critolaus cf. also Strohm» Studien 150. 314 To which Philo refers Aet. mund. 12, VI. p. 76,13-15, C o h n - W . 315 Cf. Magnire, o.e. 137 ff. a n d Strohm, Stadien 1 17 ff. 316 CI Diog. L a e r t . ¥II,f42; Aet. 11,9,3. 317 B y L Edelstem, Philo*. Syst. Pos. 294-5. 312

131)

eternity and destruction as alternative possibilities. It is indeed likely that the alternatives were at least discussed by Posidonius. Anyhow, it is at least clear that the younger Stoics were less enthousiastic about the destruction of the world than the members of the Early School had been. We may assume that the άίοια mentioned by ps. Hippocrates will be the heavenly bodies,318 especially the sun. We have come to the tentative conclusion that the sun319 is called "aegis-bearing Zeus' and that also the Highest and Olympic heaven exerts an influence of a kind on the cosmic processes. The heavenly bodies, esp. the Sun (and presumably also the unmoved Outer Heaven), act as subsidiary causes of cosmic motions. This answers one of the questions which we posed at the beginning of this Chapter, 320 viz., that concerning the relation between the 'other things' and the 'eternal beings' which contribute to their motions.

1 13 ) 318 Cf. above, p. 70, n. 25 and p. 77, n. 62; and further p. 77-8, p. 84, p. 86, p. 92-3. 319 Cf. also above, p. 80, p. 101. 320 Above, p. 66.

CHAPTER

V

VARIOUS QUESTIONS

(A), 1IKB1). C i L

l - l I AND THE

PLACITA

1. In discussing the description of the universe as found in Hebd. Ük, 1» we arrived at tin: ι ojichision iiiat p>. Hippocrates followed a scheme which can also be recognized in related passages in other, roughly contemporaneous works. 1 On that occasion, I pointed out that the same scheme is to be found in the Placitu as well. 2 The resemblance between Hebd. and the Plac., however, is riot restricted to (Ί ι. 1 only. Diels assumed that the Plac. of Aetius, 3 which he so admirably • Above, Ch. IV, p. 113 iL Above, Ch. ί V, p. 114, a. 251. 3 P r o b a b l y f i r s t half second Cent. A. I >. 4 Uox, 224. Diels detected traces of t h e influence of Posidonius, who is also t h e l a t e s t philosopher men! ioned by Aetius (Dox. 100). Some y e a r s l a t e r he wrote (Über das physikalische System des Sir at on, Sb. Ak. Berlin 1893, 102, repr. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte der antiken Philosophie, hrsg. v. W . Burkert, D a r m s t a d t 1069, 24 0 ) ; "ein S a m m e l b e c k e n . . . , d a s ich mit dem Namen Yetusia Placita belegt babe, j e t z t a b e r g e n a u e r als Posidonianische Άρέσκοντα (d.h. als S a m m lung eines Posklonianers) bezeichnen w i n d e " . The latest physician mentioned in the Plac, is Asck-piades, cuius jama ipso moo tanta erat ut ah homine rnedicinae • -ariosu radio modo posset pracleriri (Dieb, ibd. 2 3 2 ) ; Diels places the beginning el" A r d e p i a d e s ' floruit m the first y e a r s of t h e first Cent. B.C. (ibd. 185, n. 3). l i e is mentioned j u s t before Athenaeus of A t t a l i a in t h e list of leading Dogmatist p h y s i c i a n s in Galen, De cans. cont. p. 8,1-4 Kalbfleisch (cf. above, Ch. II, p. 33, η. 8) a n d lie is said to h a v e e m i g r a t e d to R o m e a r o u n d 90 B.C. (cl. e.g. ( b Sarton, A fHsi-ory of Science I i , Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries P.C., C a m b r i d g e M a . J959, 4 0 4 ) ; he is, therefore, a s o m e w h a t older" c o n t e m p o r a r y of Athenaeus, who himself was a (possibly s o m e w h a t y o u n g e r ) c o n t e m p o r a r y of Posidonius (Galen, I.e. conversatus enirn fuit Postdonio). See F Kadlien, Untersuchungen zu A retaios 38. - Diels 1 d a t e for the Plac. w a s confirmed v»hen W e n d land w a s able to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t Philo, De w v . 1 (cf. i l l , ρ 200,8 ff f p, 211,10 ff., p. 210,11 iL C o h n - W . ) m u s t h a v e used t h e Vet. plac. (the information a s given by Philo l a r g e l y coincides w i t h that of Aetius, but is richer in .some points), -,ee P. Wend land, Eine do vographta

131)

reconstructed, have been derived from Vetusla placila, He dated these Vet. plac. in the first Cent. B.C. 4 The table of contents of this work as given by Diels·* contains the following main, divisions: I. de pruicipiis, IL de mundo, 111. de sublim ihn s ('on meteorological phenomena'), IV. de terreslribus, V. de an im α, VT. de corpore. In Aetius, these subjects are treated in 5 books.Η We may assume that within cacti of the sections the subdivisions were roughly the same as well, though a complete coi re; »pull de nee chapter by chapter cannot, be proved. Since Diels' time, it has been generally accepted that the arrangement of subjects in the Plac, and much of their subject-matter go back to Theophrastus' φυσικών δόξα?,.7 Α.-J. Festugiere has pointed out thai the chief outlines can already be recognized in Plato's Timaeus* Festugiere further pointed out that the order of the Plac. is also followed by the Pythagorean Ilypornncniata of Alexander Polyhistor 9 and by the, 'physical' section of Albums' Didasc aliens™ a work written in the second Cent. A J ) . As I have already said, Hebd. Ch. 1-11 should, in my opinion, be counted among the m< nibers of this family. It is, both in general outsehe Quelle Tieilo's, Hb. Als F e i l i n Fs97, 1 074 Cf. Therefore also Philo, De prov. 1,22, a s s u m e d bv Diels to be an interpolation (Dox. 1 ff.), is a n e x c e r p t m a d e b y Philo himself ( W e n d l a n d , o.e. 1070 ff. and cf. Philo, Werke in dl. Üb. VIΓ, Perl in 196-1, 290). -- For Varro a n d t h e Vet. plac. cf. below, Ch. VI, p. 159, p. 1 Μ 5 ff., p. 18? (Iter. rust, a n d Τ über ο a s l . a . q . ) 5 Dox. 181-3. 0 The first two are identical w i t h those of the Vet. plac.; Vet. plac. I f l = Aet. l l l . F S ; IV Aet. 111.9 - I V.i ; V -- Aet. IV/2 - V . 2 ; Vf =-- Aet. V.3-30. 7 Cd. e.g. Dox. 21S. However, P. S t e i n m e t z h a s r e c e n t l y challenged Diels' position (of. above ; Ch. Ü» p. 45-6, n. 42). T h o u g h much of the contents of the Viae, will h a v e been derived from Theophrastus, it is not a b s o l u t e l y certain t h a t the overall s t r u c t u r e of this nia,final w a s a l r e a d y that of T h e o p h r a s t u s ' work. * 'Me nude es f> ythagoriques 6 tf. Home sort of order, of course, also reigned in the a v e r a g e Presocratie περί φύσεως (the Timaeus eontinues a Presocratic tradition). K.g., Parin enides first t r e a t e d t h e W o r l d of Being, then the W o r l d of S e e m i n g ; in HS,53 ff. he define»·; t h e elements before e m b a r k i n g upon cosmogony a n d ro.-unology. Probable, he described the formation of the world before t h a t of man. The procedure followed b y Empedocles will h a v e been s i m i l a r : a f t e r the proem, first of all the elements a,re e n u m e r a t e d (1 »(.> τέσσαρα γάρ π ά ν τ ω ν ριζώματα rrp ω τ ο ν άκουε). For an a t t e m p t to d e t e r m i n e t h e order of s u b j e c t s in E m pedocles' π. φύσεως, cf. j . P>ollack, Empedocle /, ί ntr ο due lion ä Vancienne physique, Paris 1965, 324 ff. ® Ox. 6 ff. On the II y pom τι. c I above, Ch. I, p. 24, n. 109 and Ch, IV, p. 98 ff. and p. 98, it. 163; p. 99, n. 167» n. 168, n. 169. lu

c >.r. 8-9,

131)

line and in a number of details, very close to the Plac. with which we are familiar. 1 shall not, however, make a list of all the parallels which can be cited as evidence, but restrict myself to quoting only the most striking resemblances. The outcome of this comparison constitutes an argument in favour of the late date which we have arrived at in Ch. IV; and this argument is largely independent of the earlier parts of our investigation. I believe that it is, indeed, very likely that ps. Hippocrates knew and used a work which, for convenience's sake, 1 shall continue to call Vetusta placita. Hebd. Ch. 1,§1, on the properties of the number 7 in general and on the hebdomadie structure of the universe with all that it contains, roughly corresponds to Aet. 1,1 τί έστι φύσις; 1,3 π. άρχων τί είσιν and II,1 π. κόσμου11: both these sections are on first principles. Hebd. Ch. 1, §2,41-68 R. (on heaven, stars, sun and moon12) in the same way corresponds to Aet, II J 1-30, 13 viz. the περί των ουρανίων λόγος (cf. Box. 364,10). After the ούράνια of book II, Aet. I l l treats the μετάρσια, viz. τά άπο του κύκλου της σελήνης καθήκοντα μέχρι, προς τήν Οέσιν τής γής, 14 Hebd. Ch, 1,70-77 R. describes the air and the meteorological phenomena. 15 The same phenomena (and some more) are the subject of Aet. 111,3-4.16 - Up to this point the order in Hebd. is exactly that of the Plac. For the last two sections of the universe, however, the order in Hebd. is different: Ch. 1,78-89 R. sea etc, 17 - Aet. 111,16-17, and Hebd. 1,90-95 on the earth - Aet. 111,8-15; i.e., for the last

Cf. also above, Ch. IV, p. 113, n. 248. Cf. above, Ch. I l l , p. 5 5 ; Ch. IV, p. 80. 13 11,11-12 on t h e ουρανός; 11,13-19 on the s t a r s ; II, 20-24 on t h e s u n ; 11,25-30 on. t h e moon. 14 Dox. 364,12 ff. For t h i s order (caelesiia - siiblimia - ter re stria) cf. also t h e proem t o Sen., Nat. II, quoted above, Ch. IV, p. 114, n. 252. 15 Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 117. 16 111,5-6, on meteorological p h e n o m e n a κατ 5 έμφασιν (Dox. 372,2) a r e not paralleled in Hebd. Aet. 111,7-8 ('on w i n d s ' ; "on s u m m e r a n d w i n t e r ' ) a r e also a b s e n t f r o m Ch. 1, if one does not w a n t to a d d u c e w h a t is said a b o u t t h e I n s e p a r a b l e h e a v e n ' in Ch. 1,44-8 R. The s u b j e c t s t r e a t e d in Aet. 111,3-4 a r e : 3 π. β ρ ο ν τ ώ ν α σ τ ρ α π ώ ν κεραυνών πρηστήρων τε xal τ υ φ ώ ν ω ν ; 4. π. ν ε φ ώ ν ύ ε τ ώ ν χ ι ο ν ώ ν χ α λ α ζ ώ ν . Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 117, a n d note t h e v e r b a l similarities. It should be noted t h a t neither the Ilypomn. (above, p. 131, n. 8) nor t h e Didasc. (above, p. 131, n, 10) contain a meteorological section ! 17 Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 116-7.

11

12

131)

two items the order in the Plac. is just the reverse of that m Hebd.18 In our discussion of some descriptions of the main parts of the universe which are parallel to that in Hebd, we arrived at the conclusion that Hebd., in one respect, probably is original1-9: the other accounts which we were able to adduce did not give separate treatment to (a) the nature and (b) the motions of these parts. Also in the Plac., those subjects which are treated in Hebd. Ch. 2 have not been separated from the items which in Hebd. have been collected in Ch. 1. Therefore, if we are at all correct in adducing the Plac, as a parallel, the probability of our earlier suspicion of the originality (in this respect) of ps. Hippocrates is enhanced. However, the affinity between Hebd. and Plac. is not restricted to the cosmology only. Aet. IV,2-V,2 ( = Vet. plac. V) treats the soul, perception etc.; V,3-30 Vet. plac. VI) the body. Also Hebd. treats these subjects, but in reversed order 20 : first the body and (among other things) perception, then the soul. Thus, we have Hebd. Ch. 5, on the hebdomadic nature of the ages of man ~ Aet. IV, 11 and V,23 21 ; and Hebd. Ch. 6 and Ch. 7, on the microcosm-macrocosm arid the pails of the human body in general, which correspond to the whole of Aet. V, 3-30 ( = Vet, plac, VI) in so far as these two chapters are de corpore. The microcosm-macrocosm-parallel itself of Hebd. Ch. 6 is not paralleled in Aetins. 22 Hebd, Ch. 8 treats the seven functions of the head: 1. and 2. respiration ~ Aet. IV,22; 3. sight ~ Aet. IV,13-15; 4. hearing ~ Aet. IV,16; 5. smell ~ Aet. IV, 17 ; 6. transport of food and drink towards the stomach - (fails !); 7. taste - Aet. IV, 18. Ch. 8 is followed by the very short Ch. 9 (only one sentence), on the seven vowels belonging to the vox, ~ Aet. IV,19-20 π. φωνής. I.e., II ebd. treats four of the senses23 in the same order as the Plac. but puts respiration which is 18 On sea a n d e a r t h in the parallel accounts discussed in Ch. IV, cf. above, p. 81, p. ] 16-7 and p. 116, n. 260. 19 Above, Ch. IV, p. 119. 20 This reversed order is paralleled in Albinns, Didasc. Ch. 17-22, on Hie h u m a n body a n d on perception, Ch. 23-25 on t h e sonl. The Hyponm. h a v e the order: soul (Diog. L a e r t . V I I I , 2 8 ) , b o d y a n d perception (VI 11,29), a n d soul a g a i n (VI 11,30). 21 Cf. below, Ch. VI, p. 169, n. 69. 22 O r i g i n a F in Ilchd. is also Ch. 11, the h u m a n b o d y as a m a p (at least to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t ; cf. below, Ch. VI, p. 200). 23 There i s no c h a p t e r π. άφής in Aetius. Of course, t o u c h h a d to be o m i t t e d

131)

treated after sensation in the Plac., first. 24 The appendage (Ch. 0) on the voice, on the other hand, occupies the same relative position as in Aetius. 25 It is further to be remarked that Actios treats respiration, perception and speech in his section on the soid, while in Ilebd. Ch. 8- c ) form a link between Ch, 6-7 ((dc corpore/) and Ch. 10 ('de anima). Hebd. GL 10, on the sewn parts of the soul, corresponds to Act. IV,2-7; cf. esp. IV,4, π. μερών της ψυχής. The comparison between Hebd. and Aid ins clearly brings out the fact that ps, Hippocrates was familiar with a type4 of literature in which the subjects treated by philosophy were neatly ordered. The treatment of cosmology, psychology and physiology in separate chapters, as in Hebd,, is, moreover, itself a. sign of a rather late dato of composition. At this point, mention should also be made of Hebd. Ch. 3 (π. α ν έ μ ω ν ) and 4 (π. ωρών). Again, a tidy arrangement. Tht same subjects, in the same relative order, are treated by Actios: 111,7 ('on winds 1 ) and 111,8 ("on summer and winter'). 26 They are placed by him immediately after the chapter on meteorological phenomena and before the section on the earth. Apparently, Hi od. postponed the treatment of these subjects until the cosmology proper had been completed, anyhow· in a c h a p t e r dealing with tiie specific functions of the h e a d (on touch in Vict. 1,23 cf. below, n. 25). 24 P o s s i b l y because the breath intr-in of cold air anil tla> brcai iiine~ouf of v a m » a i r w a s i m p o r t a n t for a follower of a ' W ä r m e l e h r e ' (cf. above, Ch. 1V. p. 78 ff», 89 ff.). On Hebd. Ch. 8 i f . also below, Ch. VI, p. 200-1. 25 I t should be noted t h a t llebd. Ch. S-0 also, a n d v e r y closety, t o r n s p o n d to Vict. 1,23 (cf. Roscher J 91 J, 101), which first treats the seven vowels (σημεία φωνής ανθρωπινής) ~ ilebd. Ch. 9, and then lists the seven 'figures* through which sensation comes for man : h e a r i n g ; s ^ h t (in Hebd. and Aclins, sight is f i r s t ) ; s m e l l ; t a s t e ; 'the body for touch'; 'passages o n t w a i d s or im·, a r d s for hot or col··} b r e a t h ' . It h a s been argued before t h a t the mier<>cosm ~ m acn)cnclnoes, 64 ff. R., w i t h a discussion of t h e s t a r s a n d t h e seasons. For "summer a n d w i n t e r ' cf. also Hebd. 1,47-8 R . See f u r t h e r below, Ch. V B, p. 138 ff. 131)

We may conclude, therefore, that by and largo both Hebd. Ch, 1-11 and the Plac. are built according to the same struct oral pattern. This is further confirmed, by a truly remarkable parallel between these two works, which is, however, perhaps too good to be true. The penultimate chapter of Aet ins27 (V,2 r ) ttcVc γίνεται πυρετός κ od ci έπ^έννημά εστίν) is on fevers. The mcdicai section of Hebd. is a treatise on m wm- 8 , fehres are also among the subjects announced in (Tt, 12,23 ff.R. The last chapter of Actios (¥,30 π. ύγαας es/X νόσου ϊ'ήρως) i > · <m health 'Πιο medical theories listed in the, Plw. (e ψ. part ol, book IV a n d book V of Act ins a r e rich in medical doxai) present a speeiai p r o b l e m : the h i s t o r y of m e d i e i a e was not Th;*ophrastu~3 s u b p v l , !)!<•! ,, [)<> > 2 \7, I houyh !". ι !ί y ί · »u-rlou , of t h e iinphca/fions of Asclepiades* being the latest phvsieian referred to (ef\ above, p. 130,11 4) docs not doubt t h a t 1 hi* information about Polvbns, I )lo'dos. Herophihis, E r a s i s t r a l u s etc*, conies ex vetusl·> fhaouro, B u t most of the p h y sicians mentioned b y n a m e are l a t e r t h a n Mono, t h e pupil of Aristotle who wrote a History of Medicine. W h e n Diels published his Dox>> has h e m b r o u g h t up to d a t e (Χ Χ ί, 9 - Χ Χ X I X . 3 2 t r e a t s the development of p h y s i o l o g y a f t e r ca, 300 li.C., i.e. from Herophihis down to A l e x a n d e r P h i l a l e f h ' s ) in a w a y which is p e r h a p s not u n l i k e the w a v in which tho Plac. u l t i m a t e l y d e r i v e d from T h e o p h r a s t u s m a y h a v e grown. Cf. Diels, Kl. Sehr. 238-13, who d r a w s the parallel between t h e H i s t o r y of Medicine (basing himself upon t h e n e w l y discovered I Ulrica) a n d t h a t of Philosophy, a n d further in Tiber die Excetp?e von Menons /atrika in dem Londoner Papyrus 137, Herrn. 2H (1893, 407 ff.), esp. 411, where he a s s u m e s that the e x c e r p t s from Mono's w o r k were incorporated into the Alio m i n i s via A l e x a n d e r Philalethes; i!>4. Diels also d r a w s the parallel between the s v d e m alical division of T h e o p h r a s t i i s (i.e., of the Plac,) a n d the distill·dion in t h e A n o n y m u s between dietetic a n d ' s o m a t i e ' p h y s i c i a n s a n d a third, ' m i x e d class', It is, perhaps, not u n l i k e l y t h a t the influence of Posidonius is r-'soonsible for the incorporation of medical doxai into the b o d y of T h e o p h r a s t u s ' work (for Posidonius' interest in a n d influence upon medicine cf. K. Rein hard!:. Knsm. a. Symp. 167 a n d Pos. 5 2 ; in Diog. Laert. V i 1,132, both m a t h e m a ι ies a n d medicine are c o u n t e d among the a n c i l l a r y sciences of p h i l o s o p h y ; see furl her P. Kudlien, Poseidonios und die Schule der Pneumatiker. 419 ff. a n d Unters. A ret. 35 ff,, a n d E. Schöner» Das Vieretschema in der antiken Ifumoralpotholü^ic, S u d h . Arch., Beih, 4» W i e s b a d e n 1964, 7 9 - 8 1 ; however, Κ u d l i e n ' s suggestion l h a f t h e Posidonius q u o t e d b y Aetins of A mid a is identical w i t h the Stoic philosopher h a s been r e f u t e d b y H. Plashar» Melancholie und Melancholiker in den medizinischen Theorien der Antike, Berlin 1966, 121 ff.). At the lea«t, t h i s possibility deserves t o be seriously i n v e s t i g a t e d . Cf. also below, Ch. VI, p. 1 s 1, n. 141. 27

28

Cf. above, Ch. 1, p. 1 ff.; below, Ch. VIT, p. 213 ff,1 131)

and illness in general. The announcement mentions 'other diseases and acute diseases'.

in Hebd.

12,23 If. R.

2. So much for the similarity in overall structure between Hebd. and Plac. There are, of course, also quite a number of parallel details. Most of these, perhaps, are not very significant, and only to be expected whenever similar subjects are treated. Then* are, however, also a few quite remarkable parallels. It will be remembered that our search for parallels for the 'inseparable' outer heaven of Hebd. 1,42-8 resulted in the reconstruction of a kind of background for this concept. 29 On this o c c a s i o n I suggested that ps. Hippocrates' motive for this construction was that he needed a 'skin' for the universe. A related idea occurs in the Plac. Act. 1,6 (on the origin of man's belief in the Gods30), 5: the περιέχον of the universe is here compared to that of living objects, Box. 203,23 ff.: και εκ του μεγέθους καλός (viz. the sky), πάντων γάρ των ομογενών το περιέχον καλόν, ως ζωον και δένδρον. The outer heaven is, furthermore, not only said to be solid, but also to be cold and to have 'coagulated', Hebd. 6,§2,21 ff. R. inscparahilis... soliditas quae mundum continet 31 omnem cutis coagulatio frigid a. Presocratic ideas transmitted by a handbook like the Vet. plac. may have been among ps. Hippocrates' sources of inspiration, cf. especially the opinion attributed to Empedocles in Aet. 11,11,2: στερέμνιον32 (cf. soliditas) είναι τον ούρανόν εξ

® Above, Ch. IV, p. 115 η. 256, a n d p. 120 ff. 80 This c h a p t e r begins with quoting a Stoic definition of d i v i n i t y , which is t h a t of Posidonius as g i v e n Aet. 1,7,19 (cf. R e i n h a r d t , KOSH Ι. u. Symp. 156 a n d O. Gigon, Die Erneuerung der Philosophie in der Zeit Cicero's, Entrot. H a r d t III, (Vandoe u ν res -G ene ve 1955, 25 ff.)» 38). This does not i m p l y t h a t Aet. 1,6 as a whole (cf. also t h e reference to Plato, I)ox. 293.14-16) gives us t h e a c t u a l t h o u g h t of Posidonius, b u t it is in a n y case v e r y probable t h a t m u c h of its (of course r e v i s e d ) contents go b a c k to w h a t Gigon h a s called a 'doxographisehe Z u s a m m e n s t e l l u n g ' of Posidonius. For such a 'Posidonian' d o x o g r a p h i e a l s u r v e y in t h e Comm. in A ratum cf. Diels, Dox. 231-2. If this h y p o t h e s i s is correct, t h e coincidences b e t w e e n Hebd. a n d Act. 1,6 are t r u l y significant. 3 1 Sc. imitatio est. 32 Cf. also Aet. 11,7 (π. τάξεως του κόσμου), 1 (on P a r nie Iii des), Dox. 335,11 ff. και τ ο π ε ρ ι έ χ ο ν δέ π ά σ α ς τείχους δίκην σ τ ε ρ ε ο ν ύπάρχειν. Aet. 11,7,2 s p e a k s of t h e χιτώνα κ ύ κ λ ω και υμένα of P e m o c r i t u s and Leucippns, but this is no p a r a l l e l for a n ά κ ρ ι τ ο ς κόσμος. This c h a p t e r of t h e Placitei as a whole is an i n t e r e s t i n g p a r a l l e l to Hebd. Ch. 1-2, for it discusses the opin ions of the philos131)

άέρος συμπάγεντος {cf. coagidalio) κ ρ υ σ τ α λ λ ο ε 18 ώ ς (cf. frigida).33 ifcM. 0,§2,13 ff. discusses the changing colours of the heavenly phenomena. 34 Aet. 1,6,4 does not speak about the changing colours of the sky, but it does discuss, and at some length, its beautiful colour. In this way, two important ideas in one chapter of Hchd. (about the skin of tin* univeise and the colour of the upper regions) cot respond to two very similar notions within one chapter of Aetius. The third remarkable coincidence between Aei. 1 ,(> and Hchd. concerns the opening section of Oh. 2,1 ff.R.: ϊσοι δέ τον αριθμόν ομοιοί τε τήν Εδέην οί ύπο τη γ Υ) κόσμοι τοισιν υπέρ γης, καί αύτόδρομον κύκλω σιν περιέχουσι της τε περιόδου καί μεθόδου, τή<ς> γή<ς> περατολ<ίην> ποιεύμενοι. Cf. Act. 1 ,(>,8 (έλάμομεν δέ έκ τούτου Ivvotr/.v θεού*) αεί τε γίρ ήλιος καί σελήνη και τά λοιπά των -ίστρων τήν υ π ό γ ε ι ο ν φοράν ένεχΟέντα ο μ ο ι α μεν ανατέλλει τοις χ ρ ώ μ α σιν, Ισα οέ τοις μεγέΟεσι, καί κατά τόπους καί κατά χρόνους τους αυτούς. The idea in Hchd. that the stars have reflected light (Ch. 1,52-3 k.) may have been suggested by Aet. 11,17,1.-3, which ascribes this theory to Metrodorus, Strato and Diotimns of Tyrns. Other parallels from the Plac. have been quoted in the word-list of Ch. iL 3 5 The assumption that ps. Hippocrates knew and used the Vetusta Placita solves two problems: (t) it helps to explain the presence within Hebd. of ideas ultimately derived from a number of individual Presocratic thinkers 36 ; (2) it also helps to explain the relative frequency, in ο pliers on (a) the outer sphere (b) the order of the elements (e) n a t u r a l places (d) the differences between the supra luna r y a n d t h e s u b l u n a r y world. 33 W e n d l a n d , o.e. 1075 (cf. above, p. 1 30-1, n. 4) c o m p a r e s Aet. 11,1 1,2 with Philo, De Sonin. I, i l l , p. 209,Η ff C o h n . - W . ) : h Κ ούρανυς άκατάλη-τον ε/ε ι τήν γ')πιν, ουδέν έαυτου σαφές γνο>ρισμα προς ήμσ,ς άποστείλας. τί γαρ άν ειττοιμεν; οτι π ε π η γ ώ ς έστι κ ρ ύ σ τ α λ λ ο ς , ώς ήξιωσάν τίνες; ή ο τι πυρ το καΟαρώτατον; for t h e a l t e r n a t i v e cf. also Sen., Nat. 11,1,1 solidumne sit caelum ac firmae concretaeque mateviae an ex suhtili tennique nexum (ef. above, Ch. ί Υ, p. 115, n. 256). 34 Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 124 ff. 35 Above, Ch. Ii, p. 38, s.v. άνταυγ»'α. 86 It is not too broad a generalization to s a y t h a t the Hellenistic philosophers s a w t h e earlier t h i n k e r s in the light of T h e o p h r a s t u s ' interpretation a n d - as is o n l y n a t u r a l - h e a v i l y leaned upon his g r e a t historical work a n d the works d e r i v e d from it. For t h e relation between the S t o a a n d Heraclit ns this has been proved m an e x e m p l a r y fashion b y j . Kerseheustcmer, Der Bericht des Theophrasi über J ί er akl it, Herrn. 83 (1955), 385 ff. (cf. esp. p. 411). The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t ps. H i p p o c r a t e s used t h e Vet. plac. also helps (but no more t h a n t h a t ) to e x p l a i n t h e remiriiscencies of P l a t o a n d especially Aristotle which we h a v e studied in 131)

what remains of lite Greek text of the philosophical introduction, of words deriving from the doxographical vocabulary/ 17 From this survey 1 have deliberately omitted one4 of the most striking parallels between Ilebd. and Plac,. 1 propose to deal with this parallel in the next section uf this chapter.

(ii). T i l l . SKVKN" U K A V K N C Y

STARS

Whether or not ps. Hippocrates was familiar with the seven planets is one of the most hotly debated problems in the history of the, interpretation oi Ihi id. Roscher lo fin4 la .1 cluck to his opinion that the planets were, unknown to ί he author of IfehdJ Boll, however, plausibly argued that 1. the fact thai Cic 1-5 R, speaks of "seven heavenly stars' and 2. that Ch. 2, the end, speaks of the άκολουΟίη and the έναντίωσις of the 'stars' is in favour of the contrary assumption. 2 Burkert, 3 on the other hand, asked the pertinent question what, if anything, have the seven planets to do with [he order of the reasons, with which, from time immemorial, (the majority cd) the fixed, stars mentioned by name, in this passage have been associated. Moreover, of the seven planets only sun and moon arc4 named. This is indeed the crux of the. problem. If it can be shown in ( Ί ι. IV. In this connect ion, it, should be e m p h a s i z e d t h a i the I 'Li tonic Aristotelian e l e m e n t s m Heini. ( e t e r n i t y of the world, h e a v e n l y bodies a s aUrx) which we hove discussed Ch. IV, p. 127 ft', a n ; also prominent in t h e Plac,: ef. above, Ch. IV, p. 70, n. 25 mid p. 75, n. 53, where t h e relevant p a s s a g e s from Act ins connerning A r i s t o t l e ' s t h e o r y of t h e yJAiy. are1 q u o t e d , a n d p. 128, n. 31 2» which t|tiofes t h e reference in A ('tins to P l a t o ' s tlmory t h a t t h e world will not perish. T h e concept of self-mot ion (for which a b o v e , Ch. I \\ p. 86 ff., p. 100) is also to be found in t h e Plac., cd. a b o v e , Ch. 11, p. 3f.i, s.v. αυτό^ρομυς, w h e r e s o m e r e l e v a n t p a s s a g e s a,re q u o t e d . T h o u g h I hope to h a v e shown t h a t this c o n c e p t w a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e Stoic t h e o r y followed b y p s . - H i p p o c r a t e s (above, Ch. IV, p. 93), i t s o c c u r r e n c e in t h e Plac. should also be t a k e n into a c c o u n t , bor t h e a m b i g u i t i e s of A r i s t o t l e ' s t h e o r y of motion (esp. r e g a r d i n g t h e e l e m e n t s ) cf. the p a s s a g e s from Act ins q u o t e d at Ch. 1V, p. 71, n. 29 a n d p. 75, n. 5 3 ; for t h e ( P l a t o n i c ) t h e o r y that e a r t h does not pass into one of t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s (cf. a b o v e , Ch. ΙV, p. 6 8 ) cf. t h e p a s s a g e from Aetius cpioied at Ch. IV, p. 68, n. 17. 37 Cf. a b o v e , Ch. II, w o r d - l i s t passim and p. 53. 1 2 3

Cf. a b o v e , Ch, I, p. 18 a n d ibd., n. 7 7 ; also Μ l e n g t h ) 101 ο 63 ff. Cf. a b o v e , Ch. 1, p. 2 1 ; Lebensalt. 220 ff. Cf. a b o v e , Ch. I, p. 29-30 a n d ibd., n. 1 bS; p. 30, n. 150. 131)

which way the siuk'ii j »Ιη,,'Ί s 1 tna \ be, assumed lo be associate«! with the change ot the seasons, flic problem may be saul ίο have been sol veil. First, Ie1 ns liini to t l··' Ρ \ t, which is. oeeauonally, almost incomprehensible, I pumn^e to read as follows, Oh. 2,64- ff.R.: τά τοίνυν varpe. τά ovpv.'tw. επ ν κ ζυντν. τσ,::,ιν ε/ει τ^ς των ώρέυιν εκοο/^ς (r με< ο.ερισ>ηενη< ν> (?4ν, μίη< ν file ακολουθίες μεν ό ήλιος <τή σελήνη >, ηΛίω λ ε ucA/jVfj' ίχολουΟεει el "Αρκτοι το> Άρ/.τούρω ίκολοηΟί^ν ί<οην?Λ ώσπεο και ήλ(ω σελήνη * αί ^έ Ι Ιλειά^ε ~ ττ)<Ήν 'Ya>oav άκολουΟέουσι, τω δέ Ώριων, ό Κύων. τ^υτα δέ τά Ύ.πτρα άκολουΟίην ε/ει άλλήλοισι καί cwcrcicaoiv. >7/1 γ-/ο έ<£ έχ>δ<Ό//ήε€ της των ώρέων έ| *τ]τερ<υ>ί«»ι>σιος7 όοευουο>ν μ/j < την ο.υ >τ/^ν ο-ιάοιν έ'/^.^/ όόου . ν, λ/» Ί his is the text as proposed by I »oll,8 except for the fhvd part (Oh. 2 , 6 f w l R.), where he sn j e s t e d . . . τάξιν ε/ε?, τή των ωρεων εκδοχή ρΓ^μερισμένην, «.ωσττερ κατά ώρας ώρι^μέν^ς άκολοοΟέει σελήνη> [Λεν ήλιος, ήλίω δέ σελήνη, whi'ii is >npposed to mean "Die Owdirne... haben ihre Ordnung clnrrli die Anicinaiuh rfolgc der Zeiten im Jahre eingeteilt, (wr% in gemessenen Zeiten folgt) dem Monde r]ie Sonne und der Sonne der Mond". Ulis reconstruction is, Γ think, unacceptable: (1) also in this pla.ee, we have to follow the guidance of the ί .atin inundations and of ps. Galen. Thee translate oniinem... iemporum tradendorum and 4sic sind die Ursache der Jahreszeiten'/' That is to say, not the order of the seasons determines that of the appearance of the stars, but the other wav round.: the succession of the stars determines that of the .season:··». (2) lanFs interpolation of ώοπεο.., ώρι^μέναε is iin1 * I 1·ί· • f * ν' 11 ! p'aii( > -•* is 111«·· ο;; b »-ι o* m a ! j r.msla t io;, n| y_r-,·- ^ ν : > 'C,y*>yf f h τ y ΐύντ'/ "the h e a v e n l y bodies u i e n t i " · ! ' d in the l e x t t <mnoi ho ok,rat, for sail b in» Mil» ; 3 pairs of fixed U ars vive a pipil of eiijjhi ί for this simple sum, ί ί Holl, ο.r 220). Η lb irrelevant 1.> aixom in fa vd s Poii of nut* or fit·1 ο Ρ κ τ of these emju from t h e IPi (ef., however, the a ί ι empt ; nf !\osrb<:e 1 01 0, 07 ff.). 1 a i r k e r ! , o.r 291» n.7S suaK C r ^ s t h a t h y 'seven' 1 ha sPms coumospii.; the4 const el In < ions arc: m e a n t ; i n d e n t " Λ ο τ ό ς and the Pleiad,· consist of S--7f) R. 0 Nr. 23, p. 35 Bergstr.

131)

warranted, while his change of the words μ έ ν μ ι ή ς of the manuscript into σ ε λ ή ν η 1 0 cannot be right in view of A, which translates μ ε < μ ε ρ ι σ μ έ ν η ς μ έ ν μ ι ή ς by ciivisiim est, uniim quid em, Translated back into Greek, this gives με<μερισ>μένη<ν> μ έ ν , μίη<ν δέ>, which I w o u l d propose to read. The other i n t e r p o l a t i o n s in the Greek text which I have suggested likewise lean heavily on A, Ch. 2,70-3 K.: sol liinam, solem autem luna sequi tur gives <άκολουί)έει> 1 1 μ έ ν ό ή λ ι ο ς <τή σελήνη>, ή λ ί ω δέ σ ε λ ή ν η .

Now, the basic idea in this chapter appears to be, that the change of the seasons depends on the celestial "clock1, i.e. upon (at least) the motions of sun (and moon) and the contrary motion of the fixed stars. The following fixed stars arc mentioned: the* Bear, Arcturus, the1. Pleiads, the Ityads, Orion and the Dog-Star. Among these, '"Αρκτος has no relation whatsoever to the changes of the seasons or to the weather in general. 12 It is, therefore, an important question to ask why "Αρκτος is mentioned. The answer is, as I believe: to indicate a point fixe in relation to the fixed stars. 13 One group of 'stars' consists of members, viz. (explicitly) sun and moon, which follow one another 14 ; in the saute way, the (explicitly mentioned) members of the group of fixed stars follow one another: "The Bear follows Arcturus in the same way as the moon follows the sun', and the Pleiads follow the Hyads, the Dogstar follows Orion. Within each of these groups, the stars follow one another, but the motions of the groups as such are contrary (cf. 2,82O.e. 222, n,3. Cf. also P o l l ' s cntendat ion (in A and Ρ it is r e p r e s e n t e d b y seqmtur). For άκολουΟέει a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of a clause, cf. Ch. 2,72 R. 12 Cf. Boll, o.e. 220-1. T h e P l e i a d s a r e a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d in t h e f a r m e r s a l m a n a c of Hesiod, Op. 383 ff.; 6 0 9 ff. m e n t i o n s Orion, S i r i u s a n d A r c t u r u s ; 615 ff. t h e Pleiads, Η y a d s a n d Orion, cf. e.g. W . S o n t h e i m e r , Zeitrechnung, RE IX A (2455 ff.) 2456, a n d esp. j . Röhr» Beiträge zur antiken A sir ometcorologie, P h i l . 78 (1928, 2 5 9 ff.), 281 ff., esp. 283 (the p r i n c i p a l s t a r s a n d c o n s t e l l a t i o n s c o n n e c t e d b y t h e a n c i e n t s w i t h seasonal c h a n g e a r e Σείριος (Cants), Πλειάδες ( V e r g i l i a e ) , Άρκτοΰρος (Bootes), 'Ορίων a n d ' Υάδες (Siicitlae)), a n d 284 ff. 13 T h e B e a r is no s t a r for f a r m e r s , but for sailors. S a i l o r s s t e e r b y the G r e a t e r a n d t h e L e s s e r B e a r (which encompass the North Pole, A r a t us, Phaen. 25-6), cf. A rat us, ibd, 3 7 - 4 4 a n d I Ta se's notes on Cicero's t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s p a s s a g e , ND 11,105-106 (p. 804 ff.). H o w e v e r , t h e B e a r is m e n t i o n e d in connection w i t h t h e seasons Philo, De spec. leg. 11,56-7, cf. below, p. 1 4 4 ; for "Apxroc a n d t h e p l a n e t s , cf, also below, p. 142-3, n. 28 (Aet. Tf,32,2). 14 T h e r e f e r e n c e is not o n l y to the m o n t h a n d t h e y e a r , b u t also, I t h i n k , t o n i g h t and day. 10 11

131)

92 Ε.). When combined, these motions make a division of the year possible. Now the point of the τάξιν μεμερισμένην μεν, μίην δέ kept by the 'seven heavenly stars' seems to be that the order of the seven stars, though divided into (of course seven ! 15 ) parts (seven stars), should be considered as a unity. 10 I.e., for a consideration of the celestial clock we have to acknowledge the effects of seven planets, but these stars constitute a unity in so far as their motions are 'one'. One is immediately reminded of the motions of the Different in Plato's Timaeus,11 especially of his theory that ήλιος και σελήνη και πέντε άλλα άστρα, έπίκλην έχοντα πλανητά18 were created in order to measure time, and his remark151 that the rule of the other planets (in distinction to that of the sun and moon) is generally ignored by the majority of mankind. 20 The exact interpretation of Plato's astronomy and time-reckoning 21 is irrelevant at the present moment. What is important, is the form this theory received when it was incorporated into the Plac.. Aet. IT, 1922 is entitled re. I π ι σημασίας αστέρων και πως γίνεται χειμών και θέρος. On Plato it tells us 23 : Π λ. τάς έπισημασίας24 τάς τε Οερινάς και τάς χειμερινάς κατά τάς των αστέρων έπιτολάς τε και δυσμάς γίνεσϋαι η λ ί ο υ τε και σελήνη ς και των άλλων π λ α ν η τ ώ ν και απλανών.25 Cf. Q i . 1,§1, R o s c h e r : all t h e p a r t s of t h e universe consist of seven p a r t s (esp. 23 ff.: numerosiias munch ου<τως> ε/ει έπταμερέα έχων <έκά>στου τ ω ν μερέων έπταμερέα). 1 6 All seven p l a n e t s t r a v e r s e t h e Zodiacal belt, For t h e unit of the seven p l a n e t s in contradistinction to t h a t of t h e fixed s t a r s cf. also e.g. Philo, Op, munci. 113, I p. 39,22-40,1 Cohn-W. ο! γε μην πλάνη τε ς, ή άντίρροπος στρατιά τη τ ω ν απλανών, ε π τ ά διακοσμούνται τάξε σι κ. τ. λ., a n d Corp, Herrn. X I , 7 ί8ε και τους υποκειμένους επτά κόσμους κεκοσμημένους τ ά ξ ε ι αΙων ίω και ο ρ ό μ ω διάφορο,; τον αιώνα άναπληροϋντας (see also ibd., 11,0-7, from whieh 1 h a v e quoted above, Ch. II, p. 41). 17 30d, 38c ff. 18 Tim. 3Sc5-0. 15

19

Tim. 39c6.

P l a t o also m a k e s some r e m a r k s a b o u t t h e d u r a t i o n of the orbits of the p l a n e t s a n d a b o u t t h e Great Y e a r . 21 For this, cf. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology, 105 ff., 115 ff. 22 T h e last c h a p t e r of t h e section on t h e s t a r s in Act i us. 23 Aet. 11,19,1. In 19,2 we are told t h a t according to A n a x i m e n e s only t h e sun is i n s t r u m e n t a l in bringing s u m m e r and winter. 24 "signs of t h e seasons' L S J s.v. 111. 25 Diels b r a c k e t s η λ ί ο υ . . . απλανών, which fails in Stobaens. Put t h e s a m e idea 20

131)

This is, undoubtedly, not a correct reproduction of what Plato really meant. The same idea, viz. that all stars, both planets and fixed stars, are instrumental in announcing summer and winter is attributed to Eudoxus and Λ rat us in Aid. 1 i , l ° ( 3 : Κυδοξος "Α ρ ατός κ ο ι ν ω ς <M π ά ν τ α ς 2 0 τ ο ο ς ά ο τ έ ρ α ς , έ ν οίς φ η σ ί ν ( Ρ Ιι-:!>'; ι. 1 0 - 1 2 a n · ({noted 2 7 }.

Λ( Inn tte<ίΐ\, t i i e i n f o r m a t i o n a s gicon in Λοί. Ü J M is c o n f u s e d . contributes o n e of t l i o b e s t p a r a l l e l s 1 h a v e been a b l e t o find f o r t h e i d e a in I l e n d . t h a i tin; aoven p i a n o l a a m instrumental in 1 »ringing about the changes of the s e a s o n s . It is exhvmely likely that ps. Hippocrates took oven· and adapted the1 informat ion which he found in his handbook, 28 or that he at l e a s t found in it the confirmation of η doctrine already familiar to him. N e v e r t h e l e s s , it

is a t t r i b u t e d to K u d o x a s and \ratir. in V-t. 11,10,3, which 1 shall quote in the t e x t . 1 )iels is followed h v Höhr, o.e. 20 ί - 2 , because (a) 'von einer επιτολ-q des Mondes, der Planeten oder g a r der Sonne nicht die kede sein k a n n ' (but cf. LS j s . v . : d a t e r of the sun and moon, App. !>C 5,00, Philostr. Ρ I 0, I (pi.), Arte in. 1,3 (pi.)') ; (b) ' 1 n den Werken Piatons findet sich nichts ähnliches'. In p, 270, he calls the A e t i u s - p a s s a g e *vc rdäeMic;'. Ί he question is not, however, if A e t i u s is correctly reporting P l a t o ' s t h o u g h t (n.b.: the p a s s a g e in lite Tinnitus u l t i m a t e l y responsible for the Atfjaii doxa lias been quoied above), but if the a t t r i b u t i o n to d a t o of the<e ideas is historically uadeivaaiidable, T h a t it is so indeed, h a s been a d m i r a b l y demons!rated by Kohr marsch", o.e. 200 ft., 273 ff.» 277 ff. CI", f u r t h e r below, p. 143 ff. 26 S t o b a e u s (ct. p. 141, ο. 25) s i g n i f i c a n t l y omits κοινώς and πάντας, but quotes t h e s a m e lines from the Phaen. 27 I t is to be noted that Act, 1,0 (for which cd. above, Οι, V A, p. 1 3o-7 a n d p. 136» ii. 30), \\ liich begins with a 1}< e idoni.Mi definition of Clod, quotes Λ rat. Phue-n. 513 -9 (Dax. 20-1,5 if.). 1,6 is omitted m SioOaeiH The qu<»tations from A r a l us in Aer. 1,0 and i l l · ' die the only ones m the i}Ut> . 28

A c t . 1 1,1 9 is t h e p a r a l l e l w h i c h w a s h i n t e d a t a b o v e , p . 1 3 8 , i ' e r h a p s w e m a y

a l s o a d d u c e \< ί. 1 1,32. T l i P c u n o u ^ c h a p t e r t r e a t s of question;-, ν l i i c h , p r o p e r l y

s p e a k i n g , do not belong n wet her. 32.1 last deihie> the "years* of t h e planets; t h e y e a r of S a t urn 2 years,

-- 3 0 s u n - yeaiw, t h a t of ί a ph.er

- 12 y e a r s , t h a t c d ' M a r s —

t h e n t h e y e a r of the 1 s u n is do fined., w h i c h

-· 12 m o n t h s ; t h e y e a r s of

Mercury a n d W a n s (winch arc wiih the sun) are of equal length as the sun-year. The mouth consists of f l i n t y ι lays. The ' ( T e a t Y e a r ' is finished whenever all of the seven planets return to the s a m e places (this last piece of information is oitfv in Stobaeus). In 32,2 we s u d d e n l y hear that some people i d e n t i f i e d t h e ( T e a t Y e a r w i t h o n e o r t h e o t h e r of t h e w e l l - k n o w n y e a r - c y c l e s ·

that of 8 years, t h a t of P) y e a r s or that of :V) y e a r s (cf. also Censorious, De die

η at ali

C h . IS),

T h P i s a ( n e a t Y e a r w h i c h is d i l f e i e n t i r o m t h e G r e a t

a-; d e f i n e d i n 3 2 , 2 , b u t s u d H e u h

( a . b . o n l y in S l o ! - a m e . )

the

Year

f'Hiner t y p e of

( T e a t Y e a r (as in 32,1) is a g a i n spoken oi, «and we a r e told t h a t some people said that a new ( T e a t Year s t a r t s whenever 'the -.even pfan<-K ret urn to t h e "Apy-vc

131)

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 . Röhr29 and R. Boker. :i0 Röhr31 established that no traces of this doctrine a,re to be found in the Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle or Theophrastus. 32 Iiis earliest parallel^ 1 is a passage from Philo, Op. ntunii. 1 15, 1, p. J 1 ) , 4 0 , 0 CohnVV. on the influence of the seven planets* 1 : τον μεν γάρ (sc. the air) είς τάς ετησίους έπτκαλουμένα.; ώρας τρέπυυσι //ά μεταβάλλουσα pupiotc οοας έμποιοΰντες μεταβολάς κ.τ.λ. To this 1 would like to add Spec. leg. II,5(>-7. --=- V, p. 100,18101,4 Colin-W.: ενιοt, oz αυτήν (sc. τήν έβυομάοα) καιρόν33 κροσηγορευσαν άπύ των σία Οητών τεκμ,ηράμενυι ν /jv νοητή ν αύτ/^ς ούοίαν. (5/) ο σα γάρ των έν αισθητό ις άριστα,:{<ί δι' ων αί ε τ ή σ ι ο ι ώ ρ α ι και των καιρών αί (?; cf. above, p. 140 and ibd., n. U j from which they h a v e s t a r t e d ' . From t h i s confused passage it a p p e a r s t h a t a connection w a s a s s u m e d to exist between p l a n e t a r y periods and the periods of various calendar-systems. It is interesting to note t h a t Cic., ND 11,40-50, whieh s p e a k s of the sun a n d its influence upon t h e seasons (40), of the moon a n d its similar influence (51) a n d of t h e 'other planets' (52-54) whieh, by t h e r e g u l a r i t y of their courses are, together with the fixed s t a r s (-19, 54-5), i n s t r u m e n t a l in s u s t a i n i n g all things (56), mentions both the Great Y e a r (51) and the "years' of the 'other p l a n e t s ' : S a t u r n JO y e a r s (52), Jupiter 12 y e a r s (52), Mars 2 y e a r s (53), Mercury a n d Venus, which a r e keeping p a r e with the sun, J y e a r each (53). Much of the information which in Ac! ins has been divided over t w o s e p a r a t e c h a p t e r s (11,19 and 11,32) is given by Cicero in one connected section. T h e ideas of t h i s section h a v e been a t t r i b u t e d to Posidonius by Kein Hardt (cf. R E s.v. Dos., 701; cf. also Festugiere, Herrn. Tvism. II, 41 Ν ff.), cf. also below, Ch. VI, p. 183. It should be noted t h a t A7J 11,54-5 contains the idea that the sphere of t h e fixed s t a r s is to be distinguished from tie* ether (cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 1 1 1 . η. 235 and p. 115, m 250), -1» O.e. esp. p. 209 ff. (Kap. 2. Ί lie Planeten mid die Α tmosphäre 5 ); 277 (Kap. 4. ' l i a s Z u s a m m e n w i r k e n der Tierkreisbtlder unci dm* ! 'knieten bei der Beeinflussung der A t m o s p h ä r e ' ) . 30 Weiterziehen, R E S u p p . d M . IX (1009 ff.), esp. 1017 ff. (3. 'Geschichte der W e t t e r k a l e n d a r i k von Metoii bis Aristoteles"); lO-tO ff. (1 1.' P k m e t a n s c h e W a h r s a g u n g e n ' ; 12. ' L a n g f r i s t i g e Voraussagen'), 31 O.e. 269-70, 32 W i t h the exception of ps. Theophr. De signis p. 396,24-5 W . , w h e r e Merc u r y is m e n t i o n e d : X) του Έ ρ μ ο υ ντ ( ρ... σήμαινα (ml), nut π ο ι ε ί ! ) . On Merc u r y a s t h e onl ν planet winch in older times F assumed to mfhimx-e t he w e a t h e r see Poker, o.e. 1041. S3 O.e. 270. 34 The earlier part of this, quotation lias been given above, p. I l l , n. 10. 35 E a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n arithinologv, cf. above, Π ι . i l l , p. OS and ibd., n. 55. 3€ Sc. the hea\ enlv bodies, 131)

περίοδοι τεταγμένως αποτελούνται, μετέσχηκεν εβδομάδος, λέγω δέ π λ ά ν η τ α ς ε π τ ά καί "Αρκτον και Π λ ε ι ά δ α και σ ε λ ή ν η ς αύξομένης τε καί μειουμένης ανακυκλήσεις και των άλλων τάς έναρμονίυυς και παντός λόγου κρείττους περιφοράς. This passage leaves no doubt whatsoever that the seven planets influence the seasons of the year, and also in other ways constitutes a very interesting parallel to Hebd. i l l . 2,04-92 R. It is, however, somewhat vague. The moon is, of course, included among the seven planets, but receives separate tieatinent all the same. 37 The Pleiads and the Bear arc mentioned because they consist of seven stars, which, within Philo's aiithmologieal context, is quite consistent, 38 but the Bear has nothing whatsoever to do with the change of the seasons etc. Its presence within this context is mucli more mystifying than its presence in the passage of Hebd., though it may be used as a parallel, of a sort, for Hebd, Clt.2,74 lv. The impressive but confused words which conclude Philo's sentence perhaps betray that he is no longer trying to be reasonable (it is at least true that it would have been impossible to prove that the revolutions of the other heavenly bodies besides the moon (arid the sun 39 ) or the numbers of other constellations are dominated by the number seven). But - to return to the planets and the seasons - Röhr also mentions parallels from Pliny: II,8,§33 10 : the movement of the planets, contrary to that of the fixed stars, is necessary to keep the air in motion. This parallel is also interesting in that it refers to the contrary motions of planets and fixed stars, which are a feature of the account in Η ebd. as well. 41 Elsewhere 42 Pliny has the planets inB e c a u s e t h e month consists of 4 x 7 d a y s ; cf. the q u o t a t i o n from Op. mund., above, Ch. Fl, p. 51. 38 T h a t Philo, in Spec, leg. 11,56-7 r e a l l y sins b y b r e v i t y becomes clear w h e n we eon ι pare t h e sequel to the passage from Op. mund. q u o t e d i m m e d i a t e l y before it. H e r e t h e general t h e m e is t h e power of the n u m b e r seven. F i r s t t h e p l a n e t s a r e t r e a t e d - because t h e y n u m b e r seven (113). Then the Bear, t h e sailor's beacon in t h e s k y , is praised, for it consists of seven s t a r s (114). T h e n t h e Pleiads a r e described, useful to t h e f a n n e r , also seven in n u m b e r (115). F i n a l l y , t h e sun is m e n t i o n e d : t h e y e a r m a y be d i v i d e d into t w o h a l v e s ; each ισημερία falls in a seventh m o n t h (116). In O p i f . mund., I.e., the order seven planets, B e a r a n d P l e i a d s is e x a c t l y t h e s a m e a s in Spec, leg., I.e. 39 For t h e sun, cf. above, n. 38. 40 For t h e possibility t h a t Pliny follows Posidonius cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 114, n. 252). 41 And of Philo, Op. mund, 113, cf. above, p. 141, n. 16 (contrary motion) a n d p. 143-4 (the p l a n e t s and t h e seasons). 42 Nat. 11,39, §106.

37

m

Alienee 'many of Hie fixed stars' quotiem errantinm acccssu impulsa ant coniccki radiorum exstimulata sunt, qiialiter in Sue alts (= β Υάδες) sentimus aeeidere, quas Graeei oh id pluvio nomine appellants Tins idea perhaps makes it easier to understand why ps. Hippocrates first mentions the seven planets and then, without explicit justification, goes on lo enumerate stars and constellations (among which the f Υά^ες) which have been known to stand in a special relation to the weather since the oldest limes. 44 Buk er has argued that the connection between the fixed stars and the signs of Zodiac (which is presupposed in this theory) goes back to the astronomer Callippus, 45 who also appears to have assumed that the degrees of the Zodiac connected "with Lite 11 .vet i -aars were milueiiced by the planets.™ lit this way it is possible to give a satisfactory answer to the ([nestion how the 7 planets are related to the changes of the seasons. The astrometeorology of Hebd, turns out to be heavily tinged with astrology. If Boiler's reconstruction of the theory of Callippus is right (1 am not qualified for attempting either a verification or a falsification), the second half of the fourth Cent. B.C. would constitute a t.p.q. for Hebd. (at least, lor Ch. 2,64 ff.) However, our sources only become eloquent about the 7 planets and the seasons in the days of Philo (who, as will be remembered, provides us with a t.a.q. for Hebd. by quoting from it 47 ) and in the centuries which follow. It is, on account of this, reasonable to say that the presence of a theory of the seven planets which makes them influence the order of the seasons, as in Hebd., is more in favour of a date somewhere in the first Cent. B.C. For ps. Hippocrates speaks with ssicli brevity, that he is clearly (again) taking something for granted. This he could only do when the ideas he

According to R ö h r (o.e. 2N2), P l i n y ' s t h e o r y is u n i q u e . B u t cf. below, and, for t h e c o o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n p l a n e t s a n d f i x e d stars, t h e q u o t a t i o n f r o m R h e to rins, B ö k e r o.e. 1622. 44 More p a r a l l e l s for t h e i n f l u e n c e of tiie p l a n e t s upon t h e a t m o s p h e r e , esp. f r o m P t o l e m y : b u t also from 1 a i c a n u s (X,2Uo-7) a n d P l i n y a r e q u o t e d b y Röhr, o.e. 271 ff. 4 5 O.e. 1021 ff. Cf. his Die Entstehung der Siernsphäre Ärafs, B e r . Verh, S a c h s . Ak. W i s s . 9 9 (1952), II. 5, 52 ff. C a l l i p p u s d i v i d e d t h e s i g n s of t h e Zodiac in o n e - d a y - d e g r e e s a m i i n d i c a t e d t h e l e n g t h of a f i x e d s t a r in r e l a t i o n to s u c h a degree. T h i s m a d e possible t h e c h a n g e f r o m a s t r o m e t e o r o l o g y t o " W e t t e r horoskopie', i.e. from τ η μ αίνε', ν to rroistv, cf. o.e. 1622. 46 On the κρχσις of the p l a n e t s ef. Böker, ibd. 1641-2. 47 Above, Ch. I, p. 3, 43

131)

reflects were quite commonplace; and those ideas seem to have become current only in the Graeeo- Roman period. The same brevity is responsible for the obscurities in the account as a whole. But, once it has been acknowledged that two main notions, viz. (I) the idea of an astrological meteorology, and (2) the theo/ \ of the motion oi the nxed slais as opposed to that of the planets, are treated together in this passage1, most of its difficulties, it is hoped, will ilisa ppi ar. The cont t ary motion results in the ever diHereof positions of the planets upon the celestial globe, i.e. in a whole scries of relations between the seven planets and the signs of the Zodiac and other fixed stars, which, from a eertain time onward:-»» wvre thought to be important in foicackling tin weather.

(c). THE

WIND-ROSE

Ch. 3 of Hebd. lists 7 winds, which can be mapped out in a wind-rose. The history of the wind-rose in antiquity is relatively well-known. We have knowledge of various types which succeeded one another or co-existed. The wind-rose of IJ ebd. is to be identified with one of these types. 1 give, a brief outline of the development. 1 The Homeric epics know four winds, βορέης (North), ζέφυρος (West), νότος (South) and εύρος (East). 2 The first wind-rose we know of 3 is in Aristotle, Meie. 11,6, which lists 1Ü4 winds, 4 X 2 of which are opposite to one another T h e f u n d a m e n t a l s t u d y on the subjeet is Λ. Rellin, Griechische Windrosen, Kb, La\ \k., 1 1ii?. KL, 1010. Vbh. 3, München 1916. K. Nielsen, Remarques stir ies norns grevs ei latins des vents ei des regiom, du del, Class, Med. 7, (1945), i.-1 1 3 is especially important for the h i s t o r y of wind names a n d for the Latin e q u i v a l e n t s of Greek names. E q u a l l y indispensable is R. l ' ö k e r , Winde, RE Υ Π 1 A 2, 1958, 2211 ff. ('Windrosen' p. 2326 ff.) See also J . F, Masselink, De Gricks-Romeinse Windroos, diss. Leiden 1956. Of the earlier l i t e r a t u r e C. Kaibel, Antike Windrosen, H e r m e s 20, 1885, 579-624 m u s t be mentioned honoris causa·, some oi itb f a u l t s were corrected b y D'Arcy \Y. Thompson, The Greek Wi/nds, Class. Rev 1918, 49-56, who ( p r e s u m a b l y because of w a r - t i m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ) ignored R e n i n ' s work. T h e short s u r v e y in <«. Aujae, Sfrabon ei la science de son temps, P a r i s 1966. 25S ff. is insufficient. 2 Od. 5,295-6 n a m e s them all. 3 Jf the traditional e a r l y d a t e of 11 ebd. is a e e e p i e d , its wind-rose is t h e first. 4 Or 11 {Mete. 3 M a 3 - 4 mentions the φοινίκι? c - between εύρος a n d νότο: r e j e e t i n g i t as a loeal a n d u n i m p o r t a n t w i n d . Cf. Nielsen o.e. 39: Ves dix v e n t s places, Aristote a en verite fini ^a rose des vents'). 1

131)

on geometrically constructed diameters of the horizon, while two winds are without opposite wind: βορέας και άπαρκτίας Ν

S

νότος Compared to the Homeric system and the vague systems in between, the geometrically constructed rose of Aristotle has besides other advantages that of precision and exact localisation. Six names (and regions) have been added to the epic ones. Εύρος has been shifted southwards to make room for ά?τηλιώτης, which may be a scientific name. The new name for the (pure) North-wind, άπαρκτίας, possibly also is of scientific origin 5 ; the old name βορέας is still synonymous to it. After Aristotle, Timosthenes6 constructed a rose of 12 winds. He added 2 new winds, λιβονοτος (or λευκόνοτος) and εύρονοτος (or φοίνιξ), by filling in the vacant spots in Aristotle's diagram to the left and the right of νότος. He moreover reserved the name άπαρκτίας for the pure North-wind, giving the old name βορέας to Aristotle's μέσης7, as we 5 ΊΊι is is the hypothesis of Rehm, 22 3. The form ά τη Χιώτη ς testifies to a Ionian origin. 'Απαρκτίας means '(wind) from the άρκτος*, i.e. the North. If this is correct, we m a y perhaps assume the existence of an early Ionian, scientific wind-rose. Άπηλιώτης (four times in licit., see below n. 29) is thought by Höker, o.e. 2336, to be originally a local name, which m a y be correct. Böker, o.e. 234J derives άπαρκτίας from an earlier form *άρκτίας (which is what he wants to read for ms. f άρκτος in Hebd. 3,16 M.; on this see below, p. 151 ff.) Anyhow Rehtn's observation that άπαρκτίας and άπηλιώτης are analogous formations is correct, which renders a common scientific origin for both names at least plausible. 0 Classiimi praefee tus (Pliny, A7 at. ¥1,183) under Ptolemy Philadelphia. On Timosthenes see Rehm 47 ff.; Nielsen 4 1 ff ; Böker 2352 ff., who argues that with Rhodes as centre this rose is correct and useful. 7 Rehm 49 calls this 'die ein/ige wesentliche Abweichung'.

131)

know from the geographer Agathemerus (third Cent. A.D.) ΤιμοσΟένης . . . προστιΟείς μέσον άπαρκτίου και καο/άου βορέαν.8 This wind-rose is the one behind that in ps. Arist. Mu394b 10 ff. 0 It was also described by Varro (possibly in his or α maritima1®), as we know from Seneca, Nat. V, 16-7. We also encounter it in other Latin authors. 11 Timosthenes' system was used bv rlolemy in his great geographical work. 12 Two roses in stone from the first Cent. AT), (or possibly somewhat later) also testify 1 3 to its continued use, In Hellenistic times another rose, consisting of 8 winds, also came to lie used. This rose occurs for the first time in connection with the "Egyptian parapegmatists\ which are dated by Reluu at about the end ui the thud Cent. E.G.11 Ί he name.s of thou winds are φορέας, άπηλιώτης, εύρος, νότος, λίψ, ζέφυρος and άργεστής; βορέας, according to Rellin, designating both tin- pure N.-wind and the JSi.-E. wind. 15 It certainly is use d by the astronomer Hipparchus of Nicaea (active between ca. 160-125 B.C.). i.e. in his parapegma. Hipparchus reserves άπαρκτίας for the pure N.-wind as opposed to νότος; βορέσ.ς COM I I (ed. C. Müller, P a r i s 1861), p. 473,1 If. = Fr. 6 W a g n e r (E. A . W a g n e r , Die Erdbeschreibung des Tiuiosthcnes von Rhodos, Leipzig 1888, p. 65). A g a the in er as' incorrect p h r a s i n g ('he a d d e d B o r e a s b e t w e e n A p a r k t i a s a n d K a i M a s ' ) p r o b a b l y is d u e to t h e f a c t t h a t h e w a n t s to derive Timosthenes' rose from t h e a n o n y m o u s rose of 8 winds of Hellenistic times, which he describes GGM II, p. 472,22 ff. (for which see below). See h o w e v e r Masselink, o.e. 76. It is interesting to note t h a t a rose of 12 w i n d s also occurs in the "scientific treatise" incorporated into the a p o c r y p h a l Book of Enoch, Ch. 76. 9 Nielsen, 58 ff.; Boker, 2377. 10 Cf. R. Reitzenslcin, Die geographischen Bücher Varros, K e n n . 20, 1885, esp. p. 51 tS ff. (the article which inspired t h a t of Kai bei mentioned above, p. 146, ii. 1); Nielsen, 90 ff. bur Seneca a n d Timosthenes cf. also Böker, 2371 ff. 11 P l i n y , NaL 11,119 ft. a n d Gelhus 11,22,3 ff., in a historical s u r v e y t r e a t the H o m e r i c s y s t e m (4 winds), the s y s t e m of Timosthenes (12 w i n d s ) a n d t h e a n o n y m o u s rose of 8 w i n d s (in the order 4 - 8 - 1 2 ) . S u e t o n i u s fr. 151 (Suetonii reliquiae ed. .Reifferscheid, p. 228 ff.) h a s a rose based upon Timosthenes, a s h a s Vegetans, Epit, rei milii. IV,38. In some cases, there a r e slight v a r i a t i o n s in t h e w i n d - n a m e s . 12 See Nielsen's a n a l y s i s , o.e. 62. 13 G.l.G. 14,1308 s --= C . l . L . 5, s u p p l 2 0 4 ; C.LG. 14,906 C . L L . 10,6119. On these bilingual inscriptions see Nielsen, 102-3. 14 A. Rellin, Parapegmastudien, (cf. Ch. 1, p. 25, n. 116) 35 a n d 104. Kehni points out, however, t h a t it is no more t h a n p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e 'Egyptians'* are earber than Hipparchus. 15 Parap. 103. Böker, 2370, observes t h a t t h e f o r m u l a αύτος 6 Βορράς w i t h these p a r a p e g r n a t i s t s m a y i m p l y a differentiation between N. and N . - E . 8

131)

with him is N.-E. 16 This rose is the one described by Vitruvius, I,6,4-5 17 and recommended by the Roman architect for the purposes of practical town-planning (1,6,6-8 and 12-13). It is described by Pliny, Nat. VI,331 ff. and recommended by him for practical agricultural purposes. The general surveys of Gellius, 11,22,3 ff. and Pliny, Nat. 11,1.19 ff. describe it, giving both the Latin and the Greek windnames. Agathemerus, GGM II, p. 472 describes it before describing the rose of Timostheno. In Hie first Cent. B.C., Androuicus of ί yiilius, mentioned by Vitruvius 1,6,4, built his famous Tower of the Winds at Alliens, of which enough survives to be certain t i n t Iiis winds were βορέας (Ν.), κοακίας (N.-E.), άφηλιώτης, εύρος, νότοc, Χίψ» ζέφυρος and σκίρων (N.-W.). We also have a late Roman wind-rose, winch has tiro singularity of calling N.-E. Boreas and N.-W. ( ! ) Λ qui to.1* As to the wind-names of this rose* of 8 winds, there arc some divergences. 19 The N.-W. wind is always called άργεστ^ς/corns, except on Andronicns' Tower, where it is called σκίρων. We know this name from Aristotle's wind-rose as an equivalent of άργεστής; it is undoubtedly a local Attic name. 20 Audi omens' Tower is ab>o singular in calling N.-E. καικίας, not βορέας. Καικίας is not used by either the 'Egyptian' parapegmatists or Hipparchus, while our Roman sources invariably have aquito21 jboreas for N.-E, A possible explanation is that also κοακίας may have had local currency in Attica. 22 Andronicus' R e l i m . Windy. 71 m l , Parap. 103-4; Nielsen, 51 ; Bdker, 2371, V i t r u v i u s on! ν gives the L a t i n w i n d - n a m e s . Pieforc describing the ros^ of 8 w i n d s he b r i e f l y mentions t h e Homeric 4-\vmid-system, j u s t as Seneca, P l i o v and Gellius h a v e done in t h e i r respective' historical' s u r v e y s . Vnrro ha.> been suggested as t h e common source for t h e a c c o u n t s in these R o m a n a u t h o r s which in various w a y s resemble each other (Nielsen, 11 ff,» 107, and oihers, b a t cf. PI. D a h l m a n n , R E s.v. M. Terentim Varro, S u p p . U M , V i (1935), 1251), while Posidonius h a s been suggested a s Y a r r o ' s source (e.:<. Nielsen, 10S). This is cert a i n l y possible (though cf. Poker, 2360 ff,; esp. 2371-2 on V a r r o - Posidonius), b u t need not concern us here, t h o u g h t h e possibility is e n h a n c e d by the inferences concerning Posidonius in Ch. I V a n d Ch. V I ; ef. also below, n. 27. , g R e p r o d u c t i o n in R e h m , Windv. 68. This p r o b a b l y is an error of the workshop (Höker, 2365). 19 F a vor in us* a c c o u n t ap. Gellium I.e. is confused a t o n e p o i n t : cur us is eivfvi as t h e n a m e of t h e pure l v - w i n d , h u t we are also told t h a t sailors use to call it ά τ: η λ u υ τη ς Is uhsnl Α Η Ί IS. This confusion is also t h e cause t h a t with P i v o r m u s , S.-E. is vulf ur mis /ευ ρ όνο το ς (not εύρος). 20 Nielsen, 35-6. 21 On this e q u i v a l e n c e Nielsen, 78 a n d 119. 22 Nielsen, 33. I t s first occurrence is in a non-scientific text, Aristoph., /:.'
17

131)

putting of καικίας at Μ,-Ε. made it possible for him to give the old name βορράς to the pure North-wind. Note that Agathemerus I.e. likewise calls the N.-E.~wind καικίας. With him, however, this is due to Ms desire to derive the rose of Timostlienes from the rose of 8 winds. 23 We are therefore justified in regarding the following diagram as representing the anonymous24 Hellenistic rose in its most usual form 25 : septentrio

/ άπαρκτίας Ν

S auster j νότος It is clear that this rose is a simplification of Timostlienes' amplification of Aristoteles wind-rose: it eliminates κοακίας (Arist., Tim.), θρασκίας (Arist., Tim.), λ φ ο ν ο τ ο ς and ε ύ ρ ό ν ο τ ο ς , but keeps βορέας between N. and E. For this distinction between βορέας as N.~ E. and a pure N.-wind (άπαρκτίας) there is no evidence before Timosthenes.20 Information about the locations and names of winds is scarce So Rettin, 7-1» Nielsen» 58. The pure N.-w ι mi ni Ai;at hemerus is not {as on the Tower of W i n d s ) βορέας, I ait άτταρ/.τίαν 24 On the basis of ps. Galen's c o m m e n t a r y on π. χυμών» X V I ρ, Ί03 Κ., t h e invention of t h i s windrose w a s formerly ascribed to Κτ-atosthenes. Kalbfleisch, h a v i n g accepted to edit t h i s work for the CMC,, discovered t h a t it is a fake (see t h e Berichte on w o r k in progress for the CMC by IL Diels. Sb. Ak. Fieri. 101 115 a n d 1916, 138). Rehin, Wtudr. 74 and 70 ff., gives an e x t r a c t of Kalbfleisch\s a n a l y s i s of t h e sources of this compilation (see also Böker, 2364). Most d a m n i n g w a s t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t "zahlreiche S t e l l e n . . . a u s der zuerst in Bologna, 1489 erschienenen lateinischen Übersetzung der Aphorismen des Moses M a i m o n i d c s e n t n o m m e n sind'. 25 Cf. the d i a g r a m s of Relim, Windr, 70 a n d Nielsen, 48. 26 H ä b l e r ' s s u m m i n g - u p of t h e h i s t o r y of t h e n a m e B o r e a s ( B o r e a s , RE IV, 1899» 720 ff.) is still correct.

23

131)

before Aristotle's wind-rose. Thrasyaloes of Thasos developed a twowind system, with βορέας for northerly and νότος for southerly winds.27 The Hippocratic treatise π. άέρων υδάτων τόπων only names the N.and S.-winds (βορέης and νότος).28 In Herodotus the four (Homeric) cardinal winds are mentioned, with βορέης invariably designating the N.-wind. The names λιψ and άπηλιωτ/]ς make theii inat. appearance in his Histories,29 Αίψ also occurs in a fragment of Democritus, l Π 4,8. 30 Kcιν/,ίας is first found in a text of Aristophanes, a > · \\ e ha\ c already 11 seen/ In Xenophon βορράς and νότος always mean the N.~ and S. »winds. 32 The general line of the development of the wind-rose, is clear. Up to Aristotle, flicie is no certain evidence about wind-io·*·.» although there is some information about wind-names and wind-systems, Aristotle's rose counted 10 winds. In Hellenistic times two wind-roses were in use, one of 12 and one of 8 winds, of which that of 8 apparently was the most practical. The wind-rose of ilcbcl. is no other than this practical wind-rose of 8 winds, minus 1 wind. Ch. 3,14 ff. list1"- these wind- as follows, starting at the East and proceeding counter-clockwise: <πρώτ^ς>Μ άπηλιώτης, έ/ό μένος βορέης» έπειτα άρκτο: (sie), <εϊ>τα ζέφυρος, μετ αυτόν 8' ό λίψ, επζιτη νότος, έχόμένος εύρος. The names of the winds correspond to those of the anonymous rose of 8 winds, as does their order of succession, f "Αρκτος, however, instead of άπαοκτίας presents a special problem, to which we must turn first. There can be no doubt zvinni • j o τους κυριωτάτο'κ; ανέμους, κ α ί vvr-- S t r a b o i, e. 20 - Γ 5 i s , 2 . P o s i d o n i u s up. S t r a b o X V I I , p. 7 9 0 ( K S 3 5 , 1 ) r a i l - him a i o r e r u n a a W A r i s t o ! lo. it is v e r y d o u b t f u l if t h e o t h e r w i n d - n a m e s in S t r a b o ' s h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t c a n be a s s i g n e d to T h r . i s v n i r e s ' s y s t e m ; t o m e at leaW t h i s inWrprHriHoii scents a bit furred. I Joker's r e e o n s t r u c t i o n of a r o m n l e t e windrose for r i i r a s y a l c e s is < 1 f > 111 > t fu I, a n d t h e m o r e so a s h e b a s e s t h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n f o x . 2343 f f . ) u p o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t T h r a s y a l c e s m o d i f i e d t h e rose of Hebd, 2H R e h r n , Windrosen J 8 f f . ; Nielsen, 23 ff.; .Höker, 2333 ff.

27

λ ί ψ Ϊ 1,25; ά π η λ ι ώ τ η ς ¥ 1 , 2 2 , 1 5 2 ; Vi 1,18*. VS I i , p. 144,23 I o a n n . L y d . , Mens. p. 7 8 , 1 0 W . ) 31 S e e p. 149, n. 22, 32 N i e l s e n , 25 ff., a r g u e s t h a t K e n . , A nab. TV, 5,3 t h e άνεμος 'ioopy.^ έν/.ντ'.ος is-*. N . - K . - w i n d . T h i s p r o b a b l y is e o r r e e t . b u t d o e s not. imp];/ t h a i w e m a y a d d u c e t h i s u s e a s a p a r a l l e l for βορέης ( t h e N . - E . w i n d ) in t h e wind-a ose of ilebd,% which Nielsen t h i n k s i t i s : X e n o p h o n d o e s n o t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n βορΙης a m ' a n o t h e r (pure) N.-wind, 33 CL a b o v e , Ch. I V , p. 90, n. 123. 29 30

131)

that f άρκτος designates the pure N.-wind in contradistinction to βορέης, which designates the N.-iL-wind. Boll supposed f άρκτος to be a corruption of άργεστής,34 hut if there is a corruption, that of άπαρκτίας is of course much easier. The Latin translations have septentrio for f άρκτος. Some1 confusion has been caused by the fact that βορέης is translated by africus (A, ajriamm P). Rehm assumed that the order of the winds in the Latin translations (;subsolanus, africus, septeutrio, favonius, lips, a us!er, cunts) originally w.is subsolanus, septentrio, africus, etc. and that africus originated ί renn a transliteration of j άρκτος.35 He points out that lips and eurus are also transliterations. For earns this is incorrect: this word occurs in unscientific Latin as a normal equivalent to vidlurhiisrύ Lips, on the other hand, does not occur except in scientific Latin prose.37 Its current Latin name, since the clays of Cicero and Caesar, is africus. Now the Greek text Ch. 3,18-9 R. μετ' αυτόν W ό λίψ is translated post hum qui appellatur Lips, in which qui appellatur is an addition of the translator, who thereby indicates he is transliterating and/or using an unusual word (n.b.: no qui appellatur wiili cither africus or eurus). The only motive for not translating λίψ by africus has to be that africus had been used up already. Therefore Rein it's hypothesis of a transliterated and later corrupted arctus is refuted. This still leaves us with the difficult africus (instead of aquilom) as the equivalent of βορέης. This admits of an explanation: the translator misinterpreted εχόμενος βορέης as meaning: The wind connected with Boreas1. Now the wind connected with Boreas on the diameter of the wind-rose is no other than africus. This mistranslation had the automatic consequence that africus could not be used again, this time for translating λίψ. Consequently, the translator had to transliterate later on in the text. Rehm/s subsidiary hypothesis that the order of wind-names in the Latin translation is at one point wrong is unBoll, Kl. Sehr, 218» m l . This proposal w a s unsuccessful, Roseher (UU 1. p. 81-2) a s s u m e d t h a t άργεστής h a d been left out, which h a s been u n i v e r s a l l y accepted. His reasons for m a k i n g Boreas Ν. - Κ. and A r k t i a s N. are, however, not convincing. 85 Windr. 31. 36 Cf. t h e m a t e r i a l collected b y Nielsen, o.e., 82 if. and Sen.» Ν at, V, 16,4 ab Oriente hiberno eurus exit, quem nostri vocavere vidtumum.. sed el eurus iam eivitate don at us est et no sir ο sermont 11 em tarn quam alienus intemenit, 87 Cf. Nielsen, o.e., 92. 88 See above, p. 149, n. 21.

34

131)

necessary. It even complicate·; matters further, for on this hypothesis seftcntrio would translate not f άρκτος, but βορέης, which, as wo saw, is usually translated by 'upi/ilo.3IJ Septentrio, originally equivalent to Greek άρκτος --- the North, already in Cicero designates the Ν .-wind, and is also equivalent to άπαρκτίας in later timers.40 Of course sepic ntno in A and i> ι an ι·,ausiate both \ άρκτος and άπαρκτίας: the Latin translations hold no clue to the original reading of the Greek text. We, mud :-.ujyoM , however, ihat γ άρκτος ί.> Idu- on motion of a windrvime. Rellin'11 corrected it into άπαρκτία/:, which also occurs in the Arabic translation. 12 Böker suggests *άρκτί«ς/ί:* which is an easier con 111) I ion, but unfortunate!)* would be άααξ είρημννον. The corruption itseii is ea ·ι! ν ex pj a m e d

» <ι;. >eu ]i\

13it: pi·· siivs ι,Γίϊο

ot vp^aoc.

Ch. 2,73 1\. (in the passage on the άστρα, only a few lines away). Another possibility perhaps is άρκτιος, which could become corrupted even easier into f άρκτος than *άρκτίας or άπαρκτίας. "Αρκτος (a rare word, not before post-classical times) means "northern' according to the didionaries 1 hav^ consulted. In Galen's Glossary, XIX p. 85 Kulm, Imwewr, 1 found the I olio wing gloss: άρκτιος* a ά::ο της άρκτου π ν έ ω ν

cvioi οέ άρκτιον άντνκρυς γράφοοσν;, of which ί do not

entirely understand the kilter part, but which, in am/ case, shows that there was in antiquity some textual evidence for αρκτιος — άπαρκτίας. About Galea's source for this note Γ can hazard no opinion, it may have been an earlier lexicon. All in all, there is some justification for correcting Hebd. 3,17 iL f άρκτο; into άρκτιος, more in any case than there is for a hypotheticnj *άρκτί-'.ς. Those1 who lik" to play safe will maybe continue to prefer the correct ion άπ?ρκτί'/ς This allows us to draw the following diagram hw the wand-rose of Hebd.: 3 άρκτιος (or άπαρκτίας) Ν

(omitte 4 ζέφυρος

ψ

£ 1 άπηλιώτης

5 λ

S 6 νότος 131)

As lias already been remarked, this corresponds exactly to the anonymous Hellenistic wind-rose of 8 winds, N.-E. being omitted for numerological reasons, The mimes of the winds and their order are the same in both cases. This was of course acknowledged by Rehm. 44 Rehm argued that the wind-rose, the hcbdowadic heart of the windehapter in Hebd., cannot be a late* interpolation. ' Das ganze4 Hebd. aber so spät anzusetzen, class es unter dem Einfluss jener hellenistischen Windrose stehen könnte, vfne st hlerhiweg phantastisch'. 45 The resemblance, between the rose in Hebd. and the Hellenistic rose, whieh cannot be fortuitous, has to be, explained, he suggests, by making the1 latter an imitation of the former.46 That in Hebd. βορέης is N.-K. instead of N., as up to and in* hiding Aii.Totle, did. not bother Rehm, 17 but it bothered Nielsen and motivated his unlikely interpretation of a passus in Xeiiophon as a parallel for fIebd.[H In Böker's survey the rose of Hebd. is put before that of Aristotle, and treated as genuine Presocratic testimony 49 ; its resemblance to the Hellenistic rose is not explained. On our hypothesis of a H e l l e n i s t i c date for Hebd. all these: difficulties vanish. We do not have to search lor pre-Aristotelia n pa ra liehfor βορέης as N.-K. distinguished from N., als Nielsen did, or reluctantly to explain it away, following Rehm. We have already seen that there are serious reasons, both from a linguistic and from a philosophical point of view (think also of the influence of the Plac. and of the astrometeorology), for the assumption of a Hellenistic date for Hebd. part I. To this may now be added the Hellenistic wind-rose S e e d b o v e , Ρ f.fo Π. 21. Niels(;ii, «so iL Winde. 3 b 4 - P. 51» iO r a B e t g s t r . 43 2 3 4 0 1. 14 Windr. 32 ff. A l s o B b k e n 2 3 0 1 ( q u o t e d bebnv, p. 154, u. 10). 4 5 I b d . 33. R e l l i n d o c s not w a n t to a c c e p t R e s e l l e r s v e r y e a r l y d a t e , but p u t s Hebd. a t c a . 4 5 0 B . C . 4e Wifidr, 3 3 ; a l s o M a s s e l i n k , o.e. 87 g i v e s the p r i o r i t y to f f c h d . ; B ö k e r 2 3 0 f ' d i e N a m e n s r e i h e lehnt, sich in d e r F o r m ihrer An folge an Hebd. an'. B u t w h y s h o u l d t h e i n v e n t o r of t h e p r a c t i c a l wind rose of 8 w i n d s t u r n t o a n o b s c u r e Hippocratio work? 47 I b d .

:v> iri

48 s 0 0 |) |5p n 32. Nielsen, "f our^e, accepted the 1 radii lonal date of /lebd. 4 9 O.e. 2 3 3 9 ff. T h i s in i t s t u r n l e a d s to a very f o r c e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e r o s e of Ί hrasyalces, see above, p. 151 and ibd., n. 27. 131)

of (Ίο 3, ~ a piece of evidence whicli is completely independent from tliο other evidence which we have discussed up till now. The author of Hebd, simply took the wind-rose as current in his own day, deleting one wind. An additional gain is the elimination of Η ebd. Ch. 3 from the pre-Aristotelian history of the wind-rose, which in this way no longer has to account lor an otherwise nnexplieable exception to the general line of development.

131)

CHAPTER

VI

Η Β Bf). A N D AR IT Η Μ Ο LOG Υ ; POSIDONIUS AGAIN

1. The history of .uu ient aritlnnology still remains to be written, 1 Around, the turn of the present century, nobody, so it seems, doubted that the role of Posidonius in this history had been a major one, Schmekel had been able to prove that a part of Sextus' exposition on the criterion (Μ. ¥11,91-100), chiefly dealing with number as the source of knowledge according to the 'Pythagoreans', was ultimately derived from Posidonius.2 The information on 'Pythagorean' number1 ' t h e term w a s introduced,, or r a t h e r re introduced, by Λ. I >ebitte, litiul, litt. Pyth. 139» who also (ibd, 139 ff.) gi\es a brief outline uf the h i s t o r y (as lie sees i t ) of a r i t h m o l o g y from the E a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n s onwards. 2 Die Philosophie clef mittleren Sioa in ihrem geschieht,lichen Zusammenhange, Berlin 1892, 404 Cf.; ef also 1. Heinemanu, Poseidoni> metaphysische Schriften I, B r e s l a u 1921» Hildesheim U90S. 206, Schmekel a s s u m e d t h a i Sextus, Μ . VLI, 91 ff. derives from a Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato written by Posidonius because ibd., CCS we read ω ς . . . οησιν ό 1 Ιοσει^ώνιος τον .Πλάτωνος Τίμαιο ν έξηγούμένος» H e f u r t h e r pointed out Chat ibd, 102 Posidonius' distinction of συναπτόμενα, ηνωμένα a n d διεστωτα occurs a n d t h a t 107 ff. quotes d e t a i l s connected with t h e construction <4 the Colossus of Rhodes which are nowhere else to be found (108; for other evidence hi f a v o u r of a Stoic h a n d l i n g of t h i s p a s s a g e cf. below p. 1 57, n. 3 a n d |). 1 9-1. n. 212). H i e assumption of the existence of a formal Commentary on t h e Tim. h a s been a p t l y criticized b y Reinhardt, Pos. 414 ff., ef. also Κ Ε s.v. Pos. 569, though even he a d m i t t e d t h a t Posidonius c a n n o t but h a v e c o m m e n t e d upon certain a s p e c t s of P l a t o ' s dialogue (cf. also L. Edelstein, Phys, Syst, Pos. 304 and n.72). S c h m e k e l ' s a r g u m e n t s concerning t h e i n i i t y a n d consistency of t h e reasoning a t Μ . V I I ,91-109 h a v e been reinforced b y W . B u r k e r t , Wash. u. Wiss. 48-51, who also a d d e d a r g u m e n t s in f a v o u r of the u l t i m a t e a u t h o r s h i p of Posidonius (among other t h i n g s by a d d u c i n g Μ . VI L, 119, which t a k e s u p the t h e m e of 93; cf. also SVF 11,859, which will echo Posidonian ideas, a n d the simitar theory of t h e P n e u m a t i c s described b y W e l l m a n n , Pneum. Seh 142); cf, f u r t h e r W, B u r k e r t , Cicero als PI at on ih er... 179--S0. R e i n h a r d t h o w e v e r a r g u e d t h a t the ' Py t h a g o r e a u ' passage in Μ. VI I,93 ff. h a s been inserted b y S e x t u s himself b u t this h y p o t h e s i s h a s been r e f u t e d b y B u r k e r t , I.e.: t h e n u m b e r - t h e o r y should not a n d c a n n o t be e x t r i c a t e d from the e p i s t e m o -

131)

theory as given by Posidonius-Sextus 3 also occurs in the works of a number of authors dealing with arithmological subjects. 4 Therefore, Sehmekel argued, also other materials shared by this same group of writers but not in Sextus (viz. pronouncements upon the powerful manifestations of individual numbers) had to be traced back to Posidonius. 5 This conclusion, of course, goes too fat. If Porodoiikts spoke of aG and another group of waiters speaks of a ~f b, it does not follow that als») Posidonius i real od a J b. It was, therefore, only to be expected that Sehmekel was severely criticized. 7 The-most important contribution to this criticism, perhaps, is that of P. E. kobbins, who tried to prove that Posidonius (ap. Sextum) based himself upon an logical passage, and its e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n b e t r a y s the hand of Posidonius. Cf. f u r t h e r below, p. 192 ff., for t h e present wi iter's v i e w s upon this quest ion. 3 In o u t l i n e : the logos a t t a i n e d b o m m a t h e m a t i c s is the criterion, as r e a l i t y itself is of a m a t h e m a t i c a l n a t u r e . P i k e knows (the term Used is καταλαμ[ίώνεσϋαι; S e h m e k e l o.e. 407-8 m a y be right in referring to the Stoic κατάληψις, cf. S P F I i , 8 5 0 =-- Act. IV,8,1 «ίσΟηοίς εστίν άντί)ηψις ob αισθητηρίου ή κατάληψις) like, a s i osidomus illustrated in his exegesis of the 1 im. t h e τετρακτυς (1,2,ό,4,), musical h a r m o n y and the production of geometrical m a g n i t u d e s a n d solids from t h e point are treated a n d the fact t h a t n u m b e r is involved in a n y t h i n g a p prehended b y m a n , w h a t e v e r t h e s t r u c t u r e
earlier treatise from which also the other arithmologieal writers would depend in various ways. 8 He argued that this anonymous 'Pythagorean' treatise would have to be placed earlier than ca. 100 B.C., as not only Posidonius, but Varro as well appears to have mach» use of it. 9 Robbins also tried to lay the foundations for a, reconstruction of this iii ιοί ι y intuit wo ι k and for a history uf its influence, 10 but this undertaking, as he himself acknowledged, remains highly speculative, and its results have nut won general acceptance. 11 R o b b i n s ' e s t i m a t i o n of a. I . a a p f u r t h e a n o n y m o u s a r i t h m o l o g i e a l

Posidonius and the Sources of Greek , ί rithmohgy. P t Ph. 15 (1020), 300 ff. His idea of an A n o n y m u s w a s a n t i c i p a t e d by Delatte, I.e., who s p e a k s of hm g r a n d Receuil d'epoqtie a l e x a n d r i n e , qui fitl utilise p a r ι me foule d ' a u t e u r s de la decadence', b o b b i n s based Iiis a r g u m e n t s m a i n l y upon S e x t u s 111, IV,2 1 0, which is a doublet of Μ. V 11,01 -100, w i t h o u t the episternological implications of t h e l a t t e r p a s s a g e . H e a r g u e d t h a t the a r g u m e n t a s in IV,2-10 is clear, while t h a t in V I I , 91 ff. is confused. However, B o b b i n s only a d d u c e d Μ . VI 1,91 ff. up to 104, a n d q u i t e i n a d e q u a t e l y s u m m a r i z e d 105-109, which is essential to t h e section a s a whole. Therefore, his elaun t h a t 1 \ ,2-10, because cogent a n d clear a s c o m p a r e d to VI 1,91 if., m u s t be the original version, is unfounded. Robbins w e n t on to c o m p a r e 1V, 2 ff. \s ith passages in Theo of S m y r n a a n d Anatoli us a n d concluded (o.e. 314) t h a t the s u b j e c t s as t r e a t e d in Μ . IV,2-3 a n d b y Theo a n d Anatoli us originally formed the introduction to a ( ' P y t h a g o r e a n ' ) treatise on t h e first ten numbers. He then c o m p a r e d the set pad to Μ. 1 V.2 3 ( t r e a t i n g t h e d e r i v a t i o n point-line-surface-sol id a n d h a r m o n i c ratios) with corresponding passages in v a r i o u s a r i t h m o l o g i e a l writings, which s u b s e q u e n t l y he a t t r i b u t e d to this s a m e Anonymus. ö O.e. 319-20. Varro is quoted by Celli us (1,20, without book-title, gives scientific infoi m anion c o m p a r a b l e to that of ί 'osidonius αρ. S e x t u n i ; 111,10 is an a b s t r a c t of his Hebdomad es mi de imaginibns, and contains aritii analogical lore a b o u t the number s e w n ) . Varro is also t h e principal source of C elisor in us, i)e die naiali Ph. 4-15 (Ch 2,2 refers to his . Itticus de nwmeris, Ch. 9,1 ίο the Tubero de origine hit man a, and his n a m e is mentioned a number of t i m e s : i f , Diels, Dox. 186 ff., esp. 188). See f u r t h e r below, p. 185 if. 10 The Tradition of Greek Arithmotogy, CP Ph. lo (P)21), 97 ff. 11 i n t h i s article, he e x p l i c i t l y a s s u m e s (p. 98) t h a t Posidonius q u o t e d from t h e A n o n y m u s a n d t h a t this work therefore m o s t h a v e 'existed b y the last half of the second cent, B.C.' Cf. the doubts expressed b y Ph. Merlan, Prom Platonism to Νeoptatonism, T h e H a g u e 1953, 4 9 m l , \V. P u r k e r t , Weish, u. Wiss,, 50 n.22 a n d H. J . Krämer, Geistmet, 47, η.82, arid especially the d e t a i l e d criticism of V. de Palco, Sui traltati aritmologici di Ν icomaco ed A nalolio, Rev. 1 n d o - Ρ ι χ τ ο ί talica 6, 1922, fase. 3-4, 51 (211) ff. However, K r ä m e r accepts Robbins' t.a.q. a n d p. 331, n.551 assumes th;it Posidonius (who. a s he argues, o.c, 55, n. 1 20 did not w r i t e a ' C o m m e n t a r y ' on the Tinmen,s, but only wrote about it) m a d e use of a ' P y t h a g o r e a n ' tradition. 8

131)

treatise is, as I believe, untenable, and is so for two reasons. (1) The fact that Yarro appears to have used it in no way implies that this source must have been as old as that. Diels has proved that Yarro {ap. Censorinum 12 and ap. other later writers) made extensive use of the Vetusta placitaP On the basis of Robbins' hypothesis, this would mean that the I el. plac. would have been u ritten ca, i()() B.C. However, since Diels tin.1 I el. plac. have been dated somewhere between Posidonius and Yarro (who are separated by about one generation). 1 ' Diels saw no objection against Varro's use of the Vet. plac.: constat novissirno cuiqite libra inliiassc polyhisloris cnriositalem. (2) As has already been remarked above, tin; arithmology as found in the arithmo logical liteitdiuv c o n t a i n s both (a) general Ί \ iha-gorean' numbertheory 15 and (b) anthniologieal lore about the numbeis I -10. 10 Posidonius ap. Sextum indeed discusses the scientific theory and some of the applications of the implied epistemology for practical life; but lie is not epioted by Sextus for ailthniological inhumation as sub (b). Now, Kobbins appears to have ma.de a mistake analogous to that of Schmekel. If Posidonius spoke of a and another group of writers speaks of a b, it does not follow that both Posidonius and these other writers follow a source which contained both a and b. In combination, these two arguments appear to entail that Yarro a f f o r d s a t . a . q . for t h e a r i t h m o l o g i e a l A n o n y m u s (as for c o n v e n i e n c e ' s

sake I would at this moment piefer to call this source) somewhere about the middle of the first Cent. B.C. It has already been pointed ° i n Censori η us the information derived from (a) the [ 'et. plac. alternates with (b) arithmologieal informal ion and genera! * P y t h a g o r e a n ' number-theory. Dieb deliberately excluded (b) (Dox. 197). 13 Dox. 188 ff. bur the evidence of Rev. run ei. below, p. 2 1 1 14 Dox. 201. Cf. above, Ch. V A, p. 130-1. In as far as individual numbers are treated in this section, it is in a scientific w a y (theory of dimensions, musical h a r m o n i e s etc.). The only n u m b e r s mentioned are those of the te tract us (1 - 2 i- 3 Η 10). In the main, liiere idea-; h a v e been borrowed from the E a i l v A c a d e m y (cf. 1 uirkcrt, o.e. 40 ff.; Krämer, o.e. 48 fig chief I ν concentrating on X e n o c r a t e s ; for Posidonius a s m e d i a t o r between the E a r l y A c a d e m y and Xeoplaf oiiisiii cf. Merlan, o.e. 30 fig and a l r e a d y Beiträge ear (ie schichte des antiken Platniiisneus, Phil. 8 1 (1034), esp. 197 ff.). 16 Here all the numbers 1-10 are treated ("eine Full·' von Anwendungen, S y m bolen, Allegorien und Theo!«»gnmena der Zahlen von 1 bis 10 sowie m it h mologische Spekulationen über ihr Verhältnis zueinander s< hliessen s k h an", K r ä m e r o.e. 17 S).

131)

out that the number-doctrine which is discussed in Posidonius-Scxtus should be assumed to ha\re been derived fiom the circle of Mate's immediate pupils. 17 We have other evidence of PostHornns' interest in the theories of the Early Academy. We know that he is said to have stated that in Plato's Tihiacus the Soul is intermediate between inteiiigibilia 18 and sensibiiia, and thai lie deiined uns b o l d m mathematical terms. 19 Ph. Merlan has arg nod that this definition, which identifies mmiI with three s i n c ^ d ma iE mal hals (viz, \n ί ί ( («a) oombep (b) the geometrical and (o) mathematical harmony) presupposes the combination of the definitions of Xenorrates 20 and Spensippus aJ and a third one, which may either be or not be original with Posidonius.22 Meilan's cuiiiiubiuii, which tu nu· won is im-stap thai Posidonius, in explaining the llmaens, continued the line of interpretation which begins with the Early Academy. It is only natural to suppose that he studied the original works of Speusippus and Xenocrates, and not a handbook reporting their ideas on the subject. 23 In my opinion, this even further diminishes the possibility that he derived the number-theory as contained in Sextus, Μ. ΥΠ,01 ff., and which is mainly based upon ideas current in the Early Academy, from an arithmological Anonym ηs.24 Above, p. 159, n. 15. T n t e l l i g i b i l i a ' (and ' s e n s i b i i i a ' ) : it is not a b s u l a l e l y c e r t a i n w h e t h e r or not Posidonius expressed himself in these Platonic t e r m s If he did, t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what is a i c a n t with these m l e i i i g i b i l i a (and of their ontological s t a t u s ) presents a difficult problem. T h e use of these i c o n s in a n e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e Timaeus need not, of course, i m p l y t h a t Posidonius himself f u l l y or even a t all a d o p t e d P l a t o ' s point of view. Cf. f u r t h e r below, p. i 93 fi. a n d notes. 10 Pint. />e an, procr. in Tim. Ch. 22 (1023b). The d e f i n i t i o n : τήν ψ υ χ ί ό ' έ α ν siwj, του ίζ6ύιία 3ιαο :α καθ' άριΟμο; γοίζπ rt-j.j'zv άρμονί'ΐν ;: "t~L£//>vr /.. (Τ. further below, p. 103 ff. and De Vogel, Greek Phil. I l l , Nr. 1 Ρ) >m . 20 W h o said t h a t Soul is a self-moving number, fr. 60 Heinze. 21 W h o d e f i n e d Soul in geometrical terms, tr. 40 bang, 22 From Plat, to NenpL 34 ff. (cb also Phil. 1931, 20+ ff.) As to the t h i r d part of t h e definition, Merlan suggests, o.e. 35, t h a t this is due to ' M o d e r a t e s (if he preceded Posidonius) or some member of the A c a d e m y ' . For IV«sidoniusand S p e u s i p p u s cf. Jones, PtaUmiam of Plutarch 70. The identifier f ion of Soul a n d h a r m o n i c ratios is, of coarse,, inspired b y Tim. 35b-3bl> (cf. also below, p. 196), 23 bor an analogon cf. his s t u d y and a d a p t a t i o n of T h e o p h r a s t o s (above, Ch. IV, p. 82 ff., p. 190-7 a n d esp. ibd.» η. lo0-2. 24 A t S e x t u s M , IV.5-S and Anafolms, π. feyjfo- p, 32 Helberg (.-- [Iambi.], Theol. ar. p. 30,2-15 de Falco) me h a v e t h e identification of 4 w i t h both body (the last term in the derivation pouitdiiie-surfacw-body) and soul (as h a r m o n y , 17

18

131)

These considerations are important to us for several reasons. In the first place, Hebd. Ch. 1-11 is an arithmologieal exposition on the powers of the number 7, and as such falls within the class of arithmologieal literature. There are, indeed, a number of undeniable parallels between Hebd. Ch. 1-11 and those sections in the arithmologieal literature winch deal with the. number seven.2·' In the second place, a passage from Hebd., viz. Ch. 5 (on the seven ages of man) is quoted or paraphrased by a group of aritlmiological writers (among whom is Varro) together with Solon fr. 19 Dich). If it could be established that this quotation goes back to an Anonymus antedating Posidonius, the whole of our foregoing investigation would be seriously discredited. 26 However, we have seen that the assumption of this date for the Anonymus is based upon insufficient foundations. 27 Moreover, the quotations of Solon fr. 19 and II ebd. Ch. 5 only occur with one group of arithmologieal writers, while another group at this point in the exposition, though treating the same subject, does so in a different way. This divergence, which is of fundamental importance, was first pointed out by Robbins. 28 Solon ps. Hippocrates are quoted by the following authors:

because the perfect harmony consists of the fourth (3:4), the fifth (2: 3) and the octave (1:2), so that: the ratios contained in the number four suffice to constitute the soul), cf. Merlau, r'/οηι Plat., 47 ff. 11 has been argued by V. de Kaico. o.e. 54 ff. that the treatment of 4 in the arithmologieal authors goes back to Posidonius. Merlan, o.e. 48 accepts de Falco's conclusions and attempts (ibd., 49 ff.) to establish t h a i Posidonius must have found the equation 4 = soul = pyranus with Speusippus. On the role of the number 7 in this context cf. below, p. 192 ff. Roscher, who followed Sehmekel c.s. in deriving the arithmologieal literature from Posidonius' supposed Comm. on the Pun., of course assumed that Posidonius was largely influenced by Hebd., cf. 1906, 99 ff. and 191.3, 104 ff. See further below p. 196 ff., where some of the parallels mentioned by Roscher will be discussed. 2(5 In Ch. 1V, 1 have tried to establish that Hebd, cannot be earlier than Posidonius. 27 Above, p. 150-9. 28 Tradition 102, η. 1, 112 ff. ('a test passage upon which the S' ( = Anonymus) "family as a, whole divided into two camps', ibd. p. 113). Robbins* account is marred bv a few inaccuracies pertaining to the classification of arithmologieal authors on the basis of this test-passage, which for the most part have been corrected by de Kalco, o.e. 57 ff. 131)

(1) Varro ap. Censoriiium, De die natali Ch. 14,29 where first Varro \s own division of human life in periods of 15 years is given (14,2); then Hebd. CI). 5 is paraphrased (only the numbers being given, 30 not the phenomena related to each period; 14,3); Solon and ps. Hippocrates are compared (14,4) 31 ; Varro's name is mentioned again (14,6); then the e leg la Solutus is mentioned and paraphrased (14,7). (2) Philo, Op. ni'imd. 104 (full quotation oi Solon tr. 1 ( )) and 105 (quotation of lleud. Ch. 5, the first sentence1 of whieh has been slightly altered); (3) Anatolius, π. δεκάίος p. 37,5-22 lieib. (Solon) and 37,23-38,5 Heib. (ps. Hippocrates). 32 -- Probably, the order of quotations as in Philo and Anatoli us is the correct one.3:1 Ch. 11,6 h a s a passing reference ίο Solon in connection with the n u m b e r 7, quo iota vita ham a a a jinitur. Hippocrates... a Hi que me did are mentioned here as well, but only for the doctrine t h a t each seventh day is a critical d a y . It is therefore incorrect to s a y t h a t Cli. 1 I in mentioning Solon |- Hippocrates a n t i c ipates Ch. 14: this is only true in as far as Solon is concerned. Cf. below, p. 187-8, li. 180. s o Incorrectly ! The third period is said to e x t e n d to 28 years, t h e sixth to 56» t h e seventh to t h e l a s t y e a r of life. 31 Solon is s a i d to h a v e divided the third, sixth a n d seventh period of Hippocr a t e s into t w o h a l v e s of seven y e a r s each, in order to a r r i v e a t ten h e b d o m a d s . T h e a n a c h r o n i s m m a y be Ceiisotiiius* own contribution (cf. a t 7,5, quoted below, p. 106, n. 53, the analogous misplacing of E i n y p h o i i ) . 32 This p a s s a g e (without Solon fr. 19) h a s been incorporated into [ I a m b i . ] , Theol. ar. p. 55,13-56,7 de Faleo, 33 Solon, not ps. Hippocrates is q u o t e d by Clement, Strom. V [ , 1 6 , 1 4 4 , p. 505, 13-506, 6 St. His source is t h e π. εβδομάδος of ITermippus of l ' e r y t u s (Strom, VI, p. 506,9-10 St.), a c o n t e m p o r a r y of H a d r i a n . F a v o n i u s Eulogius Ch. 14 ( F a voiiii Euiogii 1 Jisputatio de Sumreio Scipionis, ed. et t r a d . R. -E. v a n W e d d i n g e n , Coll. L a t u m us X X V I i, B r u x e l l e s 1957, p. 29,5 ff.) q u o t e s Hippocrates Cous... in Vibrio quos π ε ο ί ε β δ ο μ ά δ ω ν ap pelt at, for (1) the theory t h a t the seed turns into blood w i l h seven d a y s (cf. Hebd. 1, §1,8 f f . R . ) ; (2) the t h e o r y t h a t seven m o n t h ' s children are viable (not in Hebd.)] (3) t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e first teeth a r r i v e w i t h seven m o n t h s (not in Hebd.) a n d (4) t h a t t h e y are shed with seven y e a r s (cf. Hebd. 5,14 R. ); (5) then Hebd. Ch. 5 is p a r a p h r a s e d up till and including t h e fourth h e b d o m a d ; (6) quid am philosophi a r e q u o t e d for t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e intellect does not increase a f t e r 35 years. Consequently, F a v o n i u s a p p e a r s to combine the a e c o u n t s of the two f a m i l i e s of a r i t h m o l o g i e a l w r i t e r s (cf. below, p. 163 ff.). However, F a v o n i u s wrote his little t r e a t i s e by h e a r t a n d w i t h o u t using his l i b r a r y , cf. Ch. 20, p. 37,15-16 v a n VV.: Ilabes de numeris quod sine l ihr is in agello posit us potui reminisci. T h a t this r e m a r k is the plain t r u t h w a s p r o v e d b y M. S i c h e r ! : (1) lei von ins' incorrect q u o t a t i o n s from Cicero's Somninm Scipionis c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t he w a s q u o t i n g b y heart, ef. Sieherl, De Sonmii Scipionis text-it constituendo If, Rh. Μ. 102 (1959), esp. p. 353 i f , ; (2) his e x p o 2a

131)

The authors of the second group do not have the quotations of Solon fr. 19 and Hebd. Ch. 5. (1) Moderates 34 ap. Theo, p. 104,1 ff. fells us that the fetus in the womb is complete in 5 (males?) or 7 weeks; that it is viable with 7 months 35 ; that the child grows his first teeth with the seventh month and sheds them with seven years; that στυερμα is produced and ήβη arrives in the second hebdomad, that the beard begins to grow and increase in length is effectuated in the third, and increase in breadth in the fourth hebdomad. (2) Varro ap. Gellium 111,10 (i.e. the abstract from the first book of his Hebdomades, published 39 B.C.) agrees with Theo in speaking of the fetus (111,10,7), of the growth of the first teeth with seven months and of shedding i hem at one's seventh year ( l i t , 10,12; he also tells us that 'real' teeth appear during the second hebdomad). 36 The two quotations are also absent from (3) Nicomachus of Gerasa, ap. [Iambi.], Theol. ar.; (4) Macro bins, In somn. Seif).; (5) Caleidius, In Tim., and (6) Marti anus Capella. 37 Nicomachus and Μ ar robins give substantially more information than Moderates up. Theo, and their extensive accounts are to a large degree identical, a fact which has, of course, been acknowledged by both Robbins and de Falco. 38 However, both these scholars are silent sit ion contains m a n y m a r c a nicies, Mie ihm bei d i r e k t e r Benutzung schriftlicher Ouellen sicher nicht unterlaufen waren' ( Sicher], Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des l*avonius Eulogius, Abh. Ak. Mainz, Geist.-sozw. KL, 1959 Nr. 10, p. 4. These inaccuracies are t r e a t e d a t l e n g t h ibd., p. 38-45, One such m i s t a k e was a l r e a d y pointed out b y Robbins, Trad. 119, w h o concluded t h a t Favonius cannot be used a s a source for V a r r o ) . On a c c o u n t of this, F a v o n i u s cannot be used as independent evidence for t h e π'construction of the a r i t h mologieal ί radii ion. : n t h e o used a c o m m e n t a r y on P l a t o ' s Timaeus by Ad rast us (first half second Pent. A.D.), cf. E. fliller, De Adrasti Peripateliei in Platonis Timaeum commentary^, Kii.M. 2b (bS/'l), 5S2 ff * lo whieh he m a d e a d d i t i o n s from other sources. Schmekel, o.e. 409 ff., n.3 a r g u e d t h a t Theo p. 85,8-106,14 Hiller is from Ί hrasvihis, b u t Borghorst, o.e. 16 ff. p e r s u a s i v e l y a r g u e d t h a t p. 99,24-104,19 Hilter h a v e been derived from Moderatus. A l r e a d y Hiller (o.e. 584 a n d 584, u . l ) h a d pointed out t h a t t heo's observations on t h e n u m b e r 7 cannot h a v e been d e r i v e d from Ad rast us. Cf. Philo, Op. mund. 124 (1, p. 43,1 ff. C o h n - W . ) a n d V a a t o l i u s p. 35,26-7 Heib. 315 < >ii the basis of this passage, R o b b i n s p u t V a r r o in t h e second group, forg e t t i n g Censorinus Ch. 14, where id ebd. Ch. 5 and Solon fr. 19 Diehl are quoted. 37 Cf, Robbins, Trad. PI2 and de F a l c o ' s corrections, o.e. 37. Caleidius a n d CapeOa ( R o b b i e 1 1 1) disagree w i t h Theo, Nico in ach us and Macrobius in one minor d e t a i l (cf. below, p. 171-3 and p. 1 72 3, n. 97 and n. 98). *IH h'obbins, o.e. 114, 11b; de Falco, o.e. 58, 131)

about the fact that the parallel treatment of gestation and life in Macrobius and Nicomachus is said by both these sources to be a doctrine of Strato and IModes.311

2. Before commenting upon Diodes tr. i l l , however, ί want to adduce three other passages. The first is fr. 175 Wellmann (from Athenacus 10 of Attalia via Oribasius). The heptadic scheme of Diodes1 embryology lias been altered by Athenaeus in order to fit into an enneaclic one.41 Here we read (among other things which can be paralleled from Diodes 42 ) that about the third ennead, ώς φησιν 6 Διοκλής, έν ύμένι μ υ ξ ώ δ ε ι γ ί ν ε τ α ι φ α ν ε ρ ώ ς αμυδρός δ τ ύ π ο ς τ η ς ρ ά χ ε ω ς κ α ί 39 Lr. 177 W e l l m a n n (1901). W e l l m a n n only quoted the Macrobius-version (up to In somn, Sc. 1,0,73), which was discussed a l r e a d y by K. Sprengel, Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arznei künde, 1, Leipzig, 418-16, 465-6. Koscher (1913), 02 ff. (cf. also 1906, 99 if. a n d 148 ff.) printed Nieom. ap. [ I a m b i . ! , Theol, ar. p. 61,13-67,2 de Laleo a n d Maer. 1,6,63-76 in parallel columns, o m i t t i n g most of t h e arithmological e x t r a ' s which p r o b a b l y h a v e been a d d e d b y Nicomachus. The s a m e portions of b o t h t e x t s h a v e been p r i n t e d in t h e s a m e w a y b y \V. J a e g e r , Vergessene Fragmeide des Peripaietihers IHohles von h'arystos, (Abh. Preuss. Ak. Wiss. 1938, phi I.-hist. Kl. 3, p. 1 ff. = Scripta minora If, R o m a 1960, 185 i f . ; the t e x t s ibd. p. 209 ff.). P. W e n d l a n d ' s suggestion (fieri. Phil. Wochensehr. 1889, 987 a n d 1892, 872) t h a t Nicomachus w a s Macrobius 1 source h a s been r e c e n t l y reaffirmed b y W . H. Stahl, Macrobius Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, trans]. with intr. a n d notes, Ν. Y.-London. 1952, 2 1966, p. 28, n.13 (here he s a y s t h a t Macrobius t r a n s l a t e d p a r t of t h e Theol. ar.; a t p. 38, where he tells us t h a t he aceepts t h e a r g u m e n t s of Kobbins' Tradition, he suggests t h a t Macrobius either d i r e c t l y or indirectly followed Nicomachus, or else followed a Neoplatonie source which in its turn would be d r a w i n g upon N i c o m a c h u s ' Theol.). However, J a e g e r o.e. 216 ff. a p p o s i t e l y r e f u t e d this hypothesis, which does not e x p l a i n w h y Macrobius left out t h e arithmological i n t e r p o l a t i o n s m a d e b y Nicomachus. T h e problem of Macrobius' i m m e d i a t e source for his arithmological c h a p t e r s a p p e a r s to be still unsolved. P, Coureelle, Les lettres grecques en Occident de Macrohe ä Cassiodore, Paris, 1942, 21 948, w h o w a n t e d to derive most of Macrobius' c o m m e n t a r y from t h e w o r k s of especially P o r p h y r y a n d Plothens, m a d e a single exception (p. 2 5 ) : In somn. Sc, 1,5 and 6 would he derived, through a n a n o n y m o u s ' e o m m e n t a t e u r l a t i n ' , from Varro, i.e. u l t i m a t e l y from Posidonius; K. Mrass, Macrobius* Kommentar zu Cicero's Somnium, Sb. Preuss. Ak. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 1933 (232 ff.), 238 ff. a s s u m e d t h a t P o r p h y r y ' s Commentary on t h e Tim actis w a s Macrobius' source for these subjects. 40 Cf. above, Ch. 11, p. 33 a n d ibd., n. 8 ; Ch. Υ Λ, p. 130, n. 4 ; Ch. V I I , p. 213 ff. 41 J a e g e r , Verg. Fragm. 207. Cf., however, below, p. 165, n. 50. 42 Cf, below, p. 167, n. 59,

131)

ο της κεφαλής (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 develops faster than the female, but also starts to move earlier, as is said explicitly by Hippocrates 43 and Diodes. The third is from Varro ap. Gellium, 111,10,7: post deinde qiiarta hebdomade, quod ems (sc. of the fetus) virile secus futurum est, caput el spina, quae est in dor so, inforniatur. The conclusion is obvious: Varro quotes (indirectly, no doubt) from ' Diodes' and gives his views upon the development of the male fetus, omitting 44 to speak of that of the female, which (according to Galen) is slower. The excerpt from Athenaeus therefore also speaks of the male fetus only. The identification of the doctrine as quoted by Varro is made certain by the correspondence of ο τύπος της ράχεως και 6 της κεφαλής ~ caput el spina, quae est in dor so It should be kept in mind that 'Diodes fr. 177 We 11 mann' is not just a report on a theory of Diodes: the parallel passages in Nicomachus and Macrobius give an exposition of the views of a number of medical authorities upon the importance of the number 7 for human life from conception till birth and from birth till death. Most of this exposition indeed reports the views of Diodes (and Strato), but there is also a quotation from Nat. puer.fm while in the Nicomachus-version 47 Diodes' calculation 48 of the gestation-period (the 210 days of the seven month's child) is compared 49 to that of Cam. Ch. 19 and Epid. V,116 L., from the latter of which a sentence is quoted. - Further, Nicom. p. 62,8-9 speaks of 'Strato, 50 Diodes και πολλοί έτεροι των ιατρών'. 51 Nat. Piter., Ch. 21 (Υ Η, 510 F.). The omission m a y be due to Gellins. 45 Cf. Well mann, p. 201, m at 16. 4β VII,490 L. Quoted by Nicom.. p. 61,15-62,7, paraphrased by Mac v., In somn. Sc. 1,6,64. 47 P. 64,4-17 de Falco. 48 Cf. below, p. 168 and ibd., n. 61 and n. 62. 49 Cf. Jaeger, Verg. Fr. 226. 50 The extent of Strat.o's contribution is not easy to gauge. Perhaps he largely agreed with Diodes, perhaps he is an intermediate source (so Wei!mann, o.e. 201, n. at 12; Jaeger, o.e. 215 ff., 221). Wehrli, Schule d. Arist., 5. Straten, only prints the em bryology (fr. 97-9) and does not: want (p. 71) to ta ke the treatment of life after birth into account; for Diodes, he prefers the enneads of fr. 175 Wellmann, which leaves Diodes (in Nicomach us and Macrobius) with next to nothing. For the present writer's guess about Strato, see below, p. 1 77-8. 51 Macrob. 1,6,65 only mentions Strato and Diodes. 43

44

131)

131)

These 'many other physicians' may be followers of Diodes, whose Γυναικεία was an important and influential book. Jaeger thought that these disciples of Diodes were responsible for what he took to be inaccuracies in the account of Diodes' theory a f t . Nicomadmm-MacroMum as compared to the version given in fr, 176 Wdlrnaim, but this assumption is not necessary. 02 It is also possible that such authorities as the early physician Hippo are meant (cf. for his theories Cens. 7,2-3 and below, p. 1.74)/'3 whose theories in part agree with those of Diocles/Strato. Further, the account of gestation etc. in Ν icon i; trims and Macrobius should really start at Macr. 1,6,62 ~ Nie one p. 0.1,1 cie hah o.:>l Macrobius says (1,6,62) hie (sc. 7) den/que est numerus qui hcmimcni coneipi,

formari,

edi,

vivere,

all

ac

per

ouines

a datum

gradus

tradi

senectae atque omni no eon si are jaeit, Λ reference to menstrual ion follows, and then we hear that sperm not rejected within seven hours is pronounced effectives Nicomach us' version is completely parallel, but fuller, and contains proof that the ideas about the first se\ui hours of the sperm really belong to the thcor\ cf Diodes cud Stiato, for in Nicomachus these first seven hours of flic sperm in the womb axe explicitly compared 55 to the crucial first seven hours 52 W e l l m a n n o m i t t e d Macr. 1,6,66 (cf. Nicotin p. o2.20-o.M- de h'aleo), because it is said here t h a t m a l e e m b r y o s develop slower t h a n female, cf. j a e g e r , o.e. 221, n.2. However, 1 )ioeles/Strato are s p e a k i n g here a b o u t nine month'!; children (females eompk-ie in the sixth, m a l e s in the seventh week). P r o b a b l e t h e e m b r y o n i c d e v e l o p m e n t of these children w a s assumed to differ from that of seven m o n t h ' s children, for the (male) fetus which is formed with Ihr. sevent h w e e k is said to be v i a b l e with seven inont lis (Maer. 1,0,05-0; Nieoin. p. 02,10-20). Sec f u r t h e r below, p. l b s , n. 00. I t is t e m p t i n g to connect Nicomachus' πολλοί ετεροι τ«' >v ίατρών with Pens, 7,5; ..,sepiinio mense ρ are ιό mulierem posse phtrinn a:ijirmant, ui Thea ν ο Pytiiagorica Aristoteles Peripaleiicus, Diodes (fr. 174 W e l l m a n n ) Enenor S trat ο η limpedoeles Epigenes m ultique praetere a, quorum omnium consensus limyphoniem Cnidium nan deterret id ipsum intrepid,e perneganlem. However, Pens, 7 , 2 - 6 h a s been derived from the I V/. plac. (1 hels, J)ox, 105). At most, therefore, b o t h Niconi. and Vet, plac„ go b a c k to t h e s a m e source, to w h i c h the Vet. plac. m a y h a v e m a d e s u b s t a n t i a l a d d i t i o n s : e.g., Epigenes is not a, p h y s i c i a n . It is i n t e r e s t i n g to f i n d Empedocles in Censorinus' list, since he is also referred to (though for t h e s e v e n t h w e e k of t h e e m b r y o ) b y Theo, cf. below, p. 170 a n d ibd., n. 75. 54 J a e g e r begins a t 1,6,63 ~ p. 61,13 de Falco. 55 P. 61,6 tf. de F a l c o : επτά ώραις τ%ϊς πλείστα ι ς ήτοι πρυσπλάσοεται ύς ζοογονησιν το νοστιμώτερον αύτου ή άπολισΟαίνει, κ α θ ά π ε ρ ά μέλει κ7.1 αντιστρόφως άπο τ η ς φυσικής του εμβρύου ομφαλοτομίας εις την της εξόδου έπίΒειίιν επτά ωρών 58

of the newborn infant, 56 which likewise determine life or death. 57 The embryology of Strato and Diodes (from now on, I shall refer ίο the portion of the text printed by Jaeger 58 ) continues as follows. Nat. puer. is quoted for the formation of a membrane, containing a liquid mass, in the first week; little drops of blood appear upon the surface of this membrane, according to Diodes ami Strato, in the second week; these specks of blood penetrate into the4 liquid mass in the third week; in the fourth week, ihr moisture ι oagulatcs into some tiring intermediate between blood and flesh; during the fifth week (i.e. up to 35 days) the embryo grows into the size of a bee, and already has, in outline, head, neck, thorax and limbs (Nicomaehus) ~ membra omnia el destgrmia lolius tor ports lineament a (Mu.en »I au->). i.e., by the 35th day the (male) embryo is complete in outline./'9 At ούκ εντός διάστημα αναλύεται, έν α!ς συμμέτρους Ικανόν άντέχειν το κύημα, ούτε τη άπο του ομφαλού τροφή διακρατεΐσθαι έχον ετι ως φυτον ή μέρος, ούτε π ω τ ν] θύραθεν εισπνοή ώς ζ ω ο ν ήδη άπροσάρτητον και αυτοτελές κ. τ. λ. The parallel (but not its i m p l i c a t i o n ) w a s acknowledged b y Roscher, 1906, Η 7 . 56 Of which we e x p l i c i t l y h e a r well within the 1 b o d e s - p a s s a g e : Macr. 1,0,67 ~ Nicotin p. 0 1,20 (>5,3 de Falco. Cf. below, p. 10S a n d ibd., n. 65. 57 Nieoma.eluis (see above, p. J66, n. 55) in s p e a k i n g of t h e unborn b a b y calls it φυτόν - Stoic terminology, cf. SVF 11,806 (p, 222,18 ff.) το βρέφος έν τη γ α στ ρ I φύσει τρέφεσθαι νομίζει (sc. C h r y s i p p u s ) καΟαπερ φυτό ν (cf. Roseher, 1906, p. 148, n.216).

Cf. above, p. 161, n. 30, t i p to this point, this closely agrees math Diocles fr. 175 Well mann (cf. Wei I m a u n , o.e. 201, n. at 14, 16, 18; tub,: A t h e n a e u s a l t e r e d Diocles' s c h e m a in order to get an cm ι cadi c e< imputation, el, above, p. 164 a n d ibd., n. ί 1 ): until a me d a y s , 'hoes' of blood; a r o u n d 18 d a y s θρόμβοι (cf, Nicotin ρ» 62,1 2 de Falco ΟρομβούσΟαι) σαρ /.ώΛ'εις (for the sequel cf. above, p. l e t ί ) , the em ο ρ ό b complete a t J 6 (Diocles: 35) to 40 d a y s ( u n d o u b t e d l y , t h e i e s s a i a c o u t a d o r Oct. Ch. 1, cf. below, p. 175, n. 113)). V a r r o ap. Gellium 111,10,7 (cf. also above, p. 229) supplies some e x t r a in formation a b o u t the first w e e k : nam cum in ideruui... mulieris genitale semen datum est, priniis septem diehus con gl ob at uν c
131)

seven months it is viable (γόνιμον).00 Jaeger 61 lias rightly insisted upon the importance of the number 35 for Diodes' computation of the gestation period (6 X 35 = 210 clays). 62 After the embryology, the hebdomadie history of life from birth till death is given. The first seven hours after birth decide about life and death 63 : non-viable infants eannoi breathe more than seven hours (Macr. 1,6,67). Nieomaehus has the additional information 04 that the seventh hour decides προς.», τήν τυυ άναπν,εομένου άέρος παραδοχή ν, ύφ' ού τ ο ν ο υ τ α ι το της ψυχής είδος. Unmistakably Stoic language, and not derived from either Diodes or Strato. 05 Macrobius then gives physiological and psychological information about the first seven months, which need not concern us here.00 Then we hear (from both sources again) that the infant starts teething with seven months, sits with fourteen, speaks its iirst words with twenty-one months etc. After seven years, it sheds its first teeth and begins to grow Teaf teeth; it learns to speak during the first hebdomad,157 Nieomaehus says that the προφορικός λόγος develops in the first, 68 the ένδιαΟέτος λόγος in the second hebdomad, the latter with the help of the 'seven

60 Cf. also Gens. 7,5-6 — D i o d e s fr. 174 W e J l m a r i n ( p a r t l y qnoted above, p. 166, n. 53), w h e r e w e r e a d t h a t according to Diodes, S t r a t o a n d m a n y others seven m o n t h ' s children a r e viable, a n d according to Aristotle a n d Diodes also eight m o n t h ' s children. For Diodes, this is confirmed Act. Υ, 1 <S,3 (also q u o t e d b y W e l l m a n n a t fr, 174). This shows t h a t Diodes' theory was not exclusively hebdomadie, a n d m a y offer a chic as to t h e contribution (or selection) m a d e b y Strato. 61 O x . 222, 226. Cf. also a l r e a d y Roscher, 191)6, p. 149 if., n.220. 62 Nicom. p. 64,11 ff. de Kaico. 63 Cf. above, p. 166-7 a n d p. 167, n, 56. 64 P. 65,1-2 de Falco. eg j t w iH g 0 b a c k to whoever c o m p a r e d Diodes a n d S t r a t o w i t h the H i p p o c r a t i c writers. For other vestiges of Stoic t h o u g h t in Nieomaehus cf, above, p, 167, n. 57, a n d below, p. 169, n. 69, p. 182 if. 66 Cf. J a e g e r , o.e. 223, A t t r i b u t e d to D i o d e s by Well mann too. This a c c o u n t is v e r y s i m i l a r to t h a t in Oct. Ch. I, cf. below, p. 175-6. 67 There is some divergence here. Macrobius s a y s pleno absolviiur iniegviias loquendi a t t h e s e v e n t h y e a r , while Nieomaehus d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e προφορικός λόγος a n d t h a t of the ενδιαΟέτος λόγος (to which nothing in M a c r o b i u s corresponds). Cf. also below, p. 170, n. 74 and n. 75. 68 καθό λογικόν (cf. Α et. 1 V J 1,4, quoted below, p. 169, n. 69) ήδη υπάρχει (p. 65, 14-5 de F a l c o ) .

131)

senses", viz, the orthodox five + φωνητική and σπερματική οασΟησις: Stoic doctrine again. 69 1Λ 6 5 , 1 1 if. d e P a l c o . ( f. R o s c h e r , 1906, 151 a n d e s p . i b d . p. 105» n . 1 6 5 if., w h e r e S t o i e p a r a l l e l s sire g i v e n for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of s p e e c h in the^e h e b d o m a d s of y e a r s : Diog, L a e r t , V [ ί , 5 5 ' n i a i i ' s v o i c e is a r t i c u l a t e a n d , a s Diogenes s a y s , a n υ It era nee οί r e a s o n , wlueJi (sc . t h e v o i c e ) c o m o s io m a t u r i t y w i t h 14 yeans", A e t . IV, 1 1,4 (: - S ί /·" 11,83) ό δέ λόγος, κ α θ ' ον ιεροσαγορευόμεΟα λ ο γ ι κ ο ί (ef. a b o v e , ρ, 1 6.S, n. ί>8) . σ^μπληρουσΟαΛ λέγεται, τ/(ν π ρ ώ τ η ν εβδομάδα: /Vet. V, 23,1 ( - S l l ; I 1,64); 1 i e n i e l i f t i s a n d t h e S t o i c s s a y 1 hat άρχεσΟοα τους ανθρώπους τ η ς τε> ε'.ότητος περί τ ή ν δευτέραν εβδομάδα» περί ην ο σ π ε ρ μ α τ ι κ ό ς κ ι ν ε ί τ α ι ορρός, κ α ι γαρ τ ά δένδρα άρχε τ« ι τότε τελεί,ότητος, όταν άρ/ηται γεννών τ ά σ π έ ρ μ α τ α · περί οέ τήν δευτέραν έβδυ[/άδα έννοια γ ί ν ε τ α ι καλυ"; τε κ α ί κ ά κ ο υ και τ'ή ς διδασκαλίας οιύκλν. M c i - v i r h u s say:·; t h a i m a n 1/-; ejop.» f h o u g h ί a n d b e c o m e s λογικός hi t he s e c o n d h e b d o m a d , b e c a u s e n o w t h e n u m b e r of s e n s e s r e a c h e s c o m p l e t i o n b e Hit1 a d d i t i o n of t h e r e p r o d u c t i v e p o w e r at 14 y e a r s . In Aet, I \ \ 1 1,1 ff» w e r e a d t h a t t h e s e n s e s a r e a l r e a d y i n s t r u m e n t a l in p r o d u c i n g ό κ α τ ά ένδιάΟεσίν λόγος d u r i n g t h e f i r s t h e b d o m a d , but t h e r e m a r k s a b o u t r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n g o o d a n d e v i l in Act. V»23,1 s h o w t h a t t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t is o n l y c o m p l e t e d d u r i n g t h e s e c o n d h e b d o m a d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , N i c o m a c h u s ' p h r a s i n g p r o b a b l y is somew ha t c a r e l e s s (he p u t s t h e ένδιαΟέτος λόγος a n d t h e b r o o m i n g λογικός in t h e s e c o n d h e b d o m a d , ef, a b o v e , p. 168, n. 67 a n d n. 6 8 ) . I n f a v o u r of t h i s a s s u m p t i o n is t h e f a c t , t h a t Philo, Lcg. all. Ϊ» Cli, 1 V, 1 0 (----- I, p. 6 3 , 1 5 ff. Cohn.AY.) s a y s : "they s a y t h a t m a n b e c o m e s λογικός d u r i n g t h e f i r s t s e v e n y e a r s , . . a n d t h a t d u r i n g h i s s e c o n d p e r i o d of s e v e n y e a r s h e r e a c h e s c o m p l e t e c o n s u m m a t i o n ; for a t t h e a g e of 14 w e a r e a b l e t o beget o f f s p r i n g like o u r s e l v e s ' . T h e p a r a l l e l in Philo is, m o r e o v e r , in f a v o u r of t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h i s S t o i c t h e o r y u l t i m a t e l y b e l o n g s to t h e o r i g i n a l a c c o u n t of t h e a g e s of m a n u s e d b y \ i e < » m a c h u s : e l . b e l o w , p. 182-5, n. 148, 69

M a c r o b i u s s p e a k s of the s e v e n v o w e l s (1,6,70), w h i c h a r e a l s o r e f e r r e d to b y Philo, Op. mmid. 126 (1, p. 43,11 ff. C o h n - W . ) , w h i l e t h e s e v e n s e n s e s of

Nicomach us (cL SVF 11,827-833) are mentioned Op, wand.

117 (p. 41,14 ff.

C o h n - W ). J a e g e r , o.e. 22A ( a n d n . 2 ) a t t r i b u t e s t h e s e v e n s e n s e s a n d t h e προφ. a n d ένδ. λ. t o P r o r n s π. τ η ς εβδομάδος, b e c a u s e N i c o m a c h us r e f e r s to t h i s w o r k p. 5 7 , 1 3 ff, d e P a l c o for t h e e t y m o l o g y of έ π τ ά ς . B e c a u s e t h i s e t y m o l o g y ( έ π τ ά ς , σ ε π τ ά ς, σ ε β α σ μ ό ς ) a l s o o c c u r s in Philo, Op. imtml. 126 (1, p. 4 3 , 1 7 ff. C o h n - W . ) J a e g e r (o.e. 21 0 - 2 0 ) a r g u e d t h a t , s i n c e Philo a l s o m e n t i o n s t h e L a t i n w o r d seplem in t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , Prorus» w h o s p o k e of σ ε π τ ά ς , m u s t l i k e w i s e h a v e r e f e r r e d to septern. T h u s , h e t h i n k s , P r o r u s w o u l d be e a r l i e r t h a n P h i l o . A b o u t t h e d a t e of t h i s p s e u d o - P v t h a g o r e a n w o r k n o t h i n g is k n o w n w i t h a n y c e r t a i n t y ( N i c o m . p r o v i d e s t h e t . a . c p ) , so i t m a y h a v e b e e n e a r l i e r t h a n Philo, f t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e e t y m o l o g y έ π τ ά ς - σ ε π τ ά ς a l s o o c c u r s M a c r , 1,6,45. T h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n P h i l o a n d P r o r u s is m o r e in f a v o u r of a c o m m o n s o u r c e t h a n of t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t P r o r u s w a s P h i l o ' s s o u r c e . T h e r e f e r e n c e to septern· may h a v e been a d d e d , h o w e v e r , b y P h i l o h i m s e l f , w h o p r e s u m a b l y w a s a b l e t o c o u n t to t e n in ' L a t i n . Pa it one m a y a l s o b e p e r m i t t e d t o t h i n k of an u l t i m a t e s o u r c e , e . g . a w e l l - k n o w n p h i l o s o p h e r of t h e f i r s t C e n t . IPC. w h o r e c e i v e d - m a n y R o m a n v i s i t o r s a n d a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n f o n d of e t y m o l o g i e s .

131)

with seven years, and in holding that seven month's children are viable. In their account of the ages of man Capella and Calci dins go as far as the fifth hebdomad, i.e. speak of one more hebdomad than Moderatus, but their information is by no means as full as that of Nicomachus and Macrobius. Puberty and sexual ripeness occur with fourteen years,1J& the beard arrives in the third,1,6 the incrementa siainrae in the fourth, 97 the iiivcnalis aetatis ficrfectio in the fifth 98 05 Cf. Diocles Strato, Moderatus ap. Theo (Hehl. Ch. 5, 17-8 R. only mentions sperm, Solon fr. 19,4 only p u b e r t y ) . 96 Cf. Diocles-Strato, Theo, Hebd., Solon. 97 In spite of Robbies, Trad. Il l, tlnV, is lie- '-olr J i f f e i e n c e between Capella j Calculi lis a n d Tlieo ρ Nicomachus f Macrobius. and so de Falco, o.e. 57, is right in r e g a r d i n g it as a minor one, (Theo, Nicomachus and Macrobius p u t the increase in length in the third hebdomad, while Capella a n d Calcidius are silent a b o u t the increase in breadth in the fourth h e b d o m a d ) . 98 J . H. W a s z i n k , Studien zum Timaioskonimentar des Calci diu $ I, Phi los. a n t . 12, L e i d e n 1964, a r g u e s t h a t Cale. Ch. 1-25, 32-50 a n d 56-118 h a v e been derived from the c o m m e n t a r i e s on the Timaeus of A d r a s t u s a n d P o r p h y r y (Hiller - cf. above, p. 163, n. 34 - a n d S w i t a l s k i - cf. above, p. 157, n. 5 - h a v e est a b l i s h e d b e y o n d doubt t h a t Ch. 44-46 a n d 55-91 h a v e been derived, either d i r e c t l y or indirectly, from the c o m m e n t a r y of Adrastus, which is reproduced, in p a r t , b y Theo of S m y r n a ) , a n d t h a t it is unlikely t h a t Calcidius k n e w Adrastus 1 c o m m e n t a r y only t h r o u g h t h a t of P o r p h y r y . W a s z i n k follows Borghorst (cf. above, p. 163, n, 34) in a s s u m i n g t h a t Theo p. 99,24-104,19 Hiller h a s been d e r i v e d f r o m Moderatus, a n d a r g u e s t h a t Theo reproduces the t e x t of M o d e r a t u s w i t h o u t modifications (o.e. 17-8). Now Calcidius Ch. 37 contains some e l e m e n t s w h i c h are not in M o d e r a t u s (different description of t h e third a n d fourth h e b d o m a d of h u m a n life-years, t h e fifth as a n e x t r a over Theo). Since Adrastus is Calcidius' source for most of Ch. 35-8 (so W a s z i n k , o.e. 15-19), he p r o b a b l y is also his source for the account of the ages of man which is different from t h a t of Moderatus. However, these differences are m u c h less i m p o r t a n t t h a n W a s z i n k , w h o does not a d d u c e the parallels in Capella, Nicomachus a n d Macrobius, holds t h e m to be. Moreover, t h o u g h it is possible t h a t Theo did not a b b r e v i a t e Moderatus 5 a c c o u n t b y o m i t t i n g the fifth h e b d o m a d , it is c e r t a i n l y possible t h a t M o d e r a t u s a b b r e v i a t e d his own source. If A d r a s t u s ' (surmised) a c c o u n t of t h e a g e s of m a n differed from t h a t of Moderatus, it did so only in t h e w a y outlined above, n. 97. - A much, more s i g n i f i c a n t difference between Calcidius (Ad r a s t u s ? ) a n d M o d e r a t u s ap. Theo is the puzzling reference to Hebd. in p. 86» 6 - 8 W a s z i n k : In aegritudinihus quoque iuxta eundem numerum niotus fieri usus experientiaqiie docnit et Hippocrates cum saepe alias in pier is que Ii bris suis tum etiam in his evidenter quos de hebd om a dibits instituil. T h e reference to t h e Corp. Hipp, in general is correct (cf. the w e a l t h of evidence collected b y Roscher 1906, p. 60 ff., 67 ff. a n d 1913, 88 f f . ) ; so is t h a t to Hebd. (Ch. 1,13-15 R., cf. below, p. 203, n. 263, in fine; Ch. 26-7). T h e r e m a r k a b o u t

131)

hebdomad. Presumably, both passages in the last analysis go back to the same source which is ultimately at the basis of the account in Theo." We may provisionally conclude that the two classes of arithmological writers distinguished by Robbins and de Palco have been, indeed, correctly divided, it is, however, preferable to formulate the differentia specifica in a more exact way, and also better to take into account that Varro a/>. (lell'mm100 belongs to the second class, while

t h e n u m b e r seven in r e l a t i o n to diseases also in Theo (p. 104,9 ff. U d l e r ) follows upon the passage on the ages of man» and it can be- pa ralleled in oil km" arith ~ mologists (cf. the parallels collected by W a s z i n k ad /.)» but none of these, except Philo, mentions Hippocrates or //ehd. ft is t e m p t i n g to at tribute the reference to 11 ebd. to Adrastns. It should be pointed out t h a t the slight c h a n g e in the account of the ages of mail h a s the effect of bringing this p a s s a g e into s o m e w h a t closer a g r e e m e n t with 11 ebd. 5,19-26 Κ.» which a t the third h e b d o m a d only mentions the beard, and which p u t s the increase of the b o d y in the fourth h e b d o m a d . Perhaps the most plausible e x p l a n a t i o n for both this c h a n g e and the addition of the book-title of Jlebd.io the r e m a r k on the seventh d a y as a critical d a y is t h a t A d r a s t n s (?) corrected a n d a m p l i f i e d t h e exegesis of the Tiniaeus which served a s his source (and as t h a t of M o d e r a t n s up. Theo) bv a d d u c i n g an arithmologieal t r e a t i s e (for which cf, below, p, 181-2) which contained q u o t a t i o n s f r o m Hebd. Some confirmation of this assumption is forthcoming from t h e f a c t t h a t Philo's i n t r o d u c t o r y account of t h e ages of m a n in Op, mund. 103 (where Solon fr. 19 a n d Πebd. Ch. 5 follow) is different from t h a t in Leg. all. 1,10 (which is closer to Ν i co m a c h u s - Μ aero b i us). Cf. below, p. 180-1, n. 140, where these t w o p a s s a g e s a r e compared, a n d p. 181-2, n. 145, where reasons are given for t h e ass u m p t i o n t h a t Leg. all. 1» Ch. 4 is in some respects closer to t h e orginal source. Op. mund. also contains other traces which point a t the use of a revised source: the a n n o u n c e m e n t in 103 m e n t i o n s t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of the e m b r y o , b u t this subject is only t r e a t e d as f a r a w a y a s Op. mund. 124 (cf. below, p. 1 81-2, n, 145), There, we f i n d a q u o t a t i o n from Π ebd. Ch. 1 (cf. below, p. 203» n. 263) concerning the dev e l o p m e n t of the embryo, upon which (as in ilebd. Ch. 1, cf. a g a i n below, p. 203, η. 263) a r e m a r k concerning t h e role of the n u m b e r 7 in diseases follows (125; cf. also Hebd. Ch. 26-7), to winch, in Philo» the n a m e of Hippocrates h a s not been a t t a c h e d , p r e s u m a b l y because a s t a t e m e n t on m e n s t r u a t i o n h a s been p u t b e t w e e n t h e dictum on e m b r y o l o g y and t h a t on 7 in diseases. Compared to the a c c o u n t of X ie< >m ac h us - λ 1 aero bins, t h a t of Op. mund. is c e r t a i n l y secondary. Because t h e reference to H i p p o c r a t e s a n d Hebd. in Calciclius quoted a b o v e is parallel to t h e account in Op. mund. 125, 1 s u b m i t t h a t A d r a s t n s a d d u c e d the s a m e ( s e c o n d a r y ) source as Philo. For other evidence that Philo used a second a r y source cf. below, p. 190, p. 202. 99 For 'theo, cf. above, p. 170-1. 100 Cf. above, p. 163. 131)

Yarro ap. Ceiisorinnm 101 belongs to the first. To the problem of these different strains in Varro 1 shall return below, 102 'the disparity between the two families of arithmologists should be formulated, 1 think, as follows. The» second family (Varro af>. < Tellium; Μ ode rains ap. Theo, Nieomaehus ap. [iambi.] TheoL ar.; Mac robins; Calridius; Martianus Capeila) has the l)ioeles-M rato passage (or an a t t r a c t ol this passage) as its distinguishing mark, The first family (Varro ap. Censoiiniim; Philo; Anatoli ι is) is elianteierized 1)) Ute quotations of Solon IV. I Diehl and Held, Cli. 5. The features shared by [he exposiüoiis in both families can be accounted for on the assumption that Solon fr. 10 1 Hehl is one of the sources of Diocles-Strnto 103 auch as f would like to add now, of I lei>d. i h. 5 101 as well. In addition to Solon, other predecessors of Diodes and Strato can be pointed out, such ris Itippe» (last part of the fifth Cent. B.C.), the author of Cam,, that of Oct. and that of [Arist. j IIA ViL flippy (ap. Censor. 7,2 ~ I '.S 38ΛΚ») said that the baby in Hie womb is viable with seven months, that the first feHh of the infant grow with seven months, that they fall out with seven years and. thai pubei iy begins with fourteen, 105 Consequently, in Hippo we h a w a theory about the embryo which is combined with an arc omit of the first two hebdomads Cf. a b o v e , p. 162, 1\ 185 if. 103 Cf. a b o v e , ρ» 171 a n d picker, o.e. 224. Aristotle approvingly- refers to Solon's e l e g y in Ρυί'ίί. Χ f 1,16,1 J 1:3bJi ff. (τών ;ϊοιητ<"/ν τινές ., οl μετρ^ύντζε ταϊς έβδομάσι την ήλικίαν) a n d incorporates soiiH; of its i d e a s into Iiis own s y s t e m fibd., 1 3 3 5 a 2 0 ff.: a m a n s h o u l d m a r r y a n d he,yet offspring at 37 — Solon, fr. 10,0-11); 1 3351)31 ff.: tin 4 a g e - l i n i i i tor h a v i n g ( hildren should be a b o u t 5e, ι lie a y r vvha h is the h i g h - w a t e r m a r k of the i n t e l l i g e n t e ~ S o l o » , fr. 1 0 J J ; U i i a J ' ^ ft,: c h i l d r e n should sin.ece« I to t h e i r h> ! h e s ν lieu t h e s e h a v e reaehed a b o u t 70 y e a r s Solon fr. 10,17-1 H), T h e a t t i t u d e of A r i s l o l l e is it possible e x p l a n a t i o n for St r a t o ' s i n v o l v e m e n t with the h e b d o m a d doe trine. Cf. f u r t h e r below, p. 175 ff, 11,4 T h i s is n o t o n l y 1 ilady on the basis of t he o v e r a l l parallel, b u t c e r t a i n on account of u n d e n i a b l e verbal <-i'h<»es: Solon fr. 10,2 έχβά/λει /1ebd. 5,10 lv [Πόλης (ef. also a b o v e , word list s.v.» ( Ί ι . II, p. -10); Solon fr. 1 : >,-f> γ έ ν ε ι ο ν . . . λαχνοΰται ^ Π ebd. 5,20 -1 l v vcv^'v; λ αχνώοεί·^ (λα/ν. is a hap a A ' cf. a b o v e , word-list s . v . , Ch. If, p. 4 C j ). bor Solon a s a. source of If ebd.. Oh. 5 cf. Kran/, Kosmos -mid Mensch 1 Ν 5 (ibd. n.t>2 t h e v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s a r e q u o t e d ) , 105 H i p p o ' s t h e o r y is not e x c l u s i v e l y h e b d o n i a d i e ι all these periods, he said, m a y s t r e t c h into periods of 10 months/vears. i l l s c o m p u t a t i o n of e m b r v o n i c d e v e l o p m e n t ((Tie,. 0,2 - I 'S 3 8 Λ 1 6 ) c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r ; from t h a t of S l r a i o , Ϊ h o d e s arid other a u t h o r i t i e s : format ion of the child with 60 da\ s. flesh with t h e fourth m o n t h , liaif and n a i l s with t h e f i f t l r 101

102

131)

of life-years as in Solon.106 A similar theory is to be found in Cam. 107 : the embryo is viable with seven months, the child gets his genuine teeth with seven years (Πι. 19), when the milk-teet h are shod (Ch. 12108); the largest teeth and all the other teeth appear from seven to fourteen years; man continues to grow during the third hebdomad 109 ; in the tourth, most people get their wisdom-teeth. 110 Conset] uoiitly, also in Cam, an embryological theory and a hebdornadie division of human life have been joined togcthci .Ί11 This ciitbtyohigy also makes ose of the number seven, while tin* account of the4 ages of man is a kind of dentist's version of part of Solon's elegy. - ideas similar to those of Cam. also occur in Oct. (tc. οκταμήνου)112 though the arithmology of this treatise is by no means exclusively hebdoinadie. 113 Ch. I Co. ol this work draws a parallel between gestation and post-natal life114 which is much more explicit than that of Cam. and, for this reason, much closer to Diodes and Strato: the seventh day of pregnancy is critical (Ch. 1,3) 115 ; with seven months the άρ/ή... της ιελειώσιος of the embryo begins (Ch. 1 ,(>)mi; with seven months, children begin to

T h e only difference being t h a t tlie time of 1 he first t e e t h i n g is more e x a c t l y indicated, 107 T h e evidence lias been c o n v e n i e u l l y collected by Roscher 1913, 81 ff», 85 if. T h e view of the a u t h o r of Cam. Ch. 10 on e m b r y o n i c development is s t r i k i n g l y different from that of S t r a t o and Diodes (and t h a t in Nat. pucv., ef. above, p. J65, p. 1 6 7 ) : he describes the e m b r y o of seven d a y s as a v i r t u a l l y complete hemm neu I us (it is of flesh, lias limbs etc.), 108 As in Solon, it is not specified e x a c t l y when the πρώτοι ο^όντε: a p p e a r . 11)9 Of. Solon, fr. 19,5 i>. 1111 Roscher 1913, S5-6 correctly indicated the differences between the 'ages* in Cam, Ch, 13 a n d those in Η ebd. Ch. 5» which e x c l u d e the possibility of a direct influence (the n a m e s of the- age-classes are different as well). 111 Cf. J a e g e r , o.e. 222. 112 Also these passages h a v e been collected by Roscher, 101 3, Hb ff. I h a v e used Hippocrates, De octimestri par tu, De sepiimestri par tu Cp.), ed., vert., comm. f i . Grensemann, CMC 1,2,1, Berlin 1968. Grerisemann follows J n r k ( ] . j u r k , F< amenta I f i p p o c ratea, diss. Deri in IQOO, 59 n . l ) in Iiis reconstruction of Oct, 1 will quote the c h a p t e r s of Oct. a f t e r ( i r e n s e m a n n ' s n u m e r a t i o n . 113 Oct. c o u n t s with t e s s a r a c o n t a d s (periods of 40 d a y s ) a n d p u t s special e m p h a s i s upon both first a n d seventh d a y s (Ch. 1,3 Gr.). The periods of gestation a n d life, like those of disease, are computed in d a y s , months, t e s s a r a c o n t a d s and years. 114 Cf. Grensernann's c o m m e n t a r y , o.e. 08-0, 115 Abortions u p to this d a y are called not - yv. because, as vet, Hie e m b r y o does not live. m ; T h e e m b r y o is viable with 210 d a y s (Ch, 108

131)

teethe (Ch. 1,7) 117 ; with seven years, children shed their milk-teeth and get a new set of teeth. 118 The resemblance of this account to that of Diodes and Strato is obvious. Finally, the embryology and division of human life of [Arist.] HA VI ί 119 have to be adduced, - a work in which theories, borrowed from Cam., OcL and other Hippocratic works, have been assimilated. When the sued remains in the womb, it is clear that conception has taken place, because the έκρύσεις happen within the first seven days (HA VII,3,583n25-7) lau ; the gestation period lasts seven (or eight, or ten, oi even eleven) months (IIA VII, 4,584a3S ff.)121 but no child born before seven months is viable (HA VII,4,584bl ff.); most infants which die, do so before the seventh day (HA VII,J2,588a8); children begin to teethe with the seventh month (HA V 11,10,587b 14 fi.); φέρειν 8ε σπέρμα πρώτον άρχεται το άρρεν 117 Cf. D i o d e s a n d S t r a t o , a b o v e p. 168, Oct. 1,10 ff. too s t a t e s t h a t m a l e e m b r y o s d e v e l o p faster t h a n f e m a l e o n e s : cf. Diodes, fr. 176 Well m a n n , a b o v e p. 165. T h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e i n f a n t in OcL l » b D 1 5 is in m a n y w a y s p a r a l l e l t o thru of D i o d e s a n d S t r a t o

ap. Macr. 1,6,68. Ch. 1,18. I h a v e simplified this account b y o m i t t i n g t h e tessaracontads. T h e r e l e v a n t p a s s a g e s f r o m ITA h a v e l i k e w i s e been collected b y Roscher, 1906, 92 ff. ' t h a t HA VI L is not b y Aristotle w a s first a r g u e d b y Id. A u b e r P P . W i m m e r , Aristoteles, Thierhunde (text., t r a n s b , c o m m . ) , P e i p z i g 1868, vol. 1, p. 7 ff. (cf. also P . D i t i i n a y e r ' s T e u b n e r - e d . of H A , Peipzig 1907, p. VII f i ) ; see f u r t h e r esp. t h e a r g u m e n t s of E. D u r i n g , Aristoteles 500 ff. T h e f i i p p o c r a t i c sources of HA VIE h a v e been s t u d i e d a n d the p a r a l l e l s collected b y II. K ü h l e wein, Beiträge ζην geschickte und beurlheilnng der hippohratischen Schriften, Phil. 42 118

119

(1882), 119 ff., viz. 11, Die hippokratische

Sammlung

und Aristoteles'

t hier künde

buch Ρ/ /, p. 127 ff. (parallels b e t w e e n Oct, a n d ΠΑ V ί ί h a v e also been i n d i c a t e d in t h e a p p a r a t u s of ( h c n s c m a n n ' s e d i t i o n ) , j . Tricot, t r a n d . of // ί, Paris 1957, vol. 1 p. 18-19 a r g u e d in f a v o u r of t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of it A V11; also P. Pouis, Bude- ed. ol ΠΑ, Paris ! 96 |, vol. 1, p. X X V f f P X X i X a p p e a r s not to d o u b t t h a t HA V11 is b y A r i s t o t l e ; A. P. Peck, b o e b - e d . of HA., 1905, V o l I, p. Id V ff. b r i e f l y s u m m a r i z e s t h e a r g u m e n t s pro aru ί contra a n d a p p e a r s t o b e m o d e r a t e l y contra. H o w e v e r t h i s m a y be, it is a t least c e r t a i n t h a t t h e IIA in our possession is n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e work left b y Aristotle a n d t h a t a d d i t i o n s c o n t i n u e d to be m a d e (e.g. IIA 11,11 is b y T h e o p h r a s t u s ) . Cf. (). R e g e n b o g e n , Zur Ilisloria A nimahum des Aristoteles, in: Kleine Schriften, hrsg. v. P . I )irl me ier, M ü n c h e n 1961, p. 2 7 4 : " W i r h a b e n uns v o r z u s t e l l e n , class die von Aristoteles h i n t e r lassene IIA ein G r u n d b u c h d e r p e r i p a t e tische η S c h u l e über diesen G e g e n s t a n d g e w e s e n u n d g e b l i e b e n ist» a b e r d a s s folgende G e n e r a t i o n e n von P e r i p a t e t i k e r n in Z u s ä t z e n auf Grund eigener B e o b a c h t i m g e n den ' t e x t v e r m e h r t und e r w e i t e r t h a b e n " (on HA 11,11 ibd. 272 ff.). 120 Cf. also ibd. 582b 12-1 (and a b o v e , p. 175, η. 115). 121 Cf. CA ΙV, 1,7721)0 ff.

131)

ώς επί το πολύ έν τ ο ι ς ε τ ε σ ι τ ο ι ς δις ε π τ ά τετελεσμένους* άμα δέ καί ή τρίχωσις της ήβης122 άρχεται (ΗA VII,l,581al2 ff.); and at the same age, females begin to menstruate (HA VII,l,581a32 ff.) 123 Though most of these ideas can be paralleled from Cam. and Oct., the affinity to the theory of Strato and Diodes is quite close/24 and this may help to explain why Strato's name came to be associated with that of Diodes. Whether HA VII is by Aristotle or not, it is, in any case, a product of the Peripatus, and it may either reflect ideas held by Strato or else' have set an example which he may have followed. In other books of the HA a hebdomadic scheme is also occasionally applied to the gestation-periods, though not to those of man, but to those of animals; these passages may be either Aristotelian or represent somewhat later Peripatetic interpolations. 125 In this way, we read that the time of development of most insects έπτάσι μετρείται τρισιν ή τέτταρσιν (HA VJ c ) J 553a2 ff.); that the gestation-period of all fishes takes place έν χρόνοις διαιρουμένοις εις τον των εβδομάδων αριθμόν (ΗA VI,17,570a28 ff.); and that the kingfisher, which builds its nest in seven clays, έν δέ ταις λοιπαις επτά ήμέραις τίκτε ι ν τά νεοττια και εκτρέφειν (ΗA Y,8,542bl3 ff.) From this it would appear that either Aristotle or his school or both applied the hebdomadic scheme to gestation (of man and certain animals) and the first life-periods (of man). When we combine this with Aristotle's favourable references to Solon's hebdomadic elegy in the Politics}20 the conclusion that a theory of gestation and life divided according to a hebdomadic scheme is not without precedent within the Peripatetic school is justified. Strato may have borrowed a detailed 127 embryology, possibly connected with views concerning the first hebdomads of years of human life, 128 from 122 Pubic hair. [Aristotle] compares this τρίχωσις with the first flowering of plants (o.e. 5<Slal5 ff.). 123 [Aristotle] also assumes that sperm is sterile μέχρι... των τρις επτά ετών (HA Υ11, l , 5 8 2 a l 6 ) . Of. also HA V,14,544b25: άρχεται δέ φέρειν το σπέρμα περί τά οIς επτά έτη, γεννητικός δέ περί τά τρις επτά. 121 The danger of the first seven d a y s is clearly parallel to that of the first seven hours according to Strato and Diodes, for which cf. above, p. 166-7. 3 25

F o r such interpolations in HA, cf. above, p. 176, n. 119.

Cf. above, p. 174, u. 103. The details of Diodes fr. 175 Wellmann (cf. above, p. 164-5 and p. 167, n. 59) are unparalleled, both in the Corp. Hipp, and in the writings of Aristotle and the Early Peripatus (HA). For a possible streamlining executed by Strato cf. above, p. 168, n. 60. 128 As with Hippo, in Oct., and in Cam.

126 127

131)

Diodes, 129 and lie may have extended the numerical scheme over the whole span of human years, 130 following Solon and Aristotle. On the other hand, it is not absolutely impossible that this extension is due to Diodes himself though it is perhaps less likely that this is so because of the fact that his embryology was not exclusively hebdomadic. 131 In view of the parallels between HA VI I ami certain ilippocratic works, 132 the quotations of Nat, puer,, (arn.v'n and lipid, may also go back to Strato, bid they ma ν just as well have1 been added by the ultimate source of Nicomacluis and Macrobius, which may have drawn a comparison between the views of the Ilippocratic physicians and those of a younger generation. However this may be, it should be clear that the passage froiu Nicoinachus and Man obi us treating gestation and human life forms a unified and well-structured whole, and that the theory attributed to Strato and Diodes in a sense unifies and crowns the thoughts of predecessors in the field. 134 1 2 9 W h o m he, therefore, m a y h a v e quoted. - t need not enter into the problem of the d a t e s of Diodes' life here, j a e g e r , Verg. Br. 198-9, believed in a close relation b e t w e e n D i o d e s a n d Strato, which, on the basis of his l a t e d a t i n g of Diodes, is not impossible because lie t h o u g h t that he h a d proved t h a t Diodes w a s a c o n t e m p o r a r y a n d pupil of Aristotle, see his I)iokles von Karystos, Berlin 1938, 2 1963 a n d Verg. Fr. 195 ff. The l a t e d a t e w a s accepted b y L, Edelstein in his review of J a e g e r ' s book, A j P h 61 (1940), 483 ff. (reprinted in Ancient Medicine, ed. b y O. a n d € . f.. Tern kin, "Baltimore 1967, 145 ff.), though with some modifications. However, one of the p i l l a r s s u p p o r t i n g j a e g e r ' s construction w a s r e m o v e d b y b. Hemitnann, Diohles von Karystos und der prophylaktische Brief an König Antigonos, Μ Η 12 (1955), 158 ff. R e c e n t l y , P. Kudlien, Probleme um Di υ hies von Karystos, S u d h . Arch. 47 (1963), 456 ff., once more h a s a r g u e d in f a v o u r of m a k i n g Diodes a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y of Plato. 130 Cf. also the curious opening sentence of it A V f l (1,581a9 ff.), which m a k e s a promise a b o u t a description of h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t until old a g e which is not kept, a n d which l i n k s p r e - n a t a l to p o s t - n a t a l γένεσις: περί 8f ανθρώπου γενέσεως της τε πρώτης της έν τ ώ Οήλει και της ύστερον μέχρι γήρο>ς κ.τ.λ. (this f o r m u l a is r a t h e r s i m i l a r to t h a t of Philo quoted below, p. 181, n. 145). 131 Cf. above, p. 168, n. 60. 132 Cf. above, p. 176, n. 119. 133 Cf. ab., p. 165. J a e g e r t h o u g h t ( V e r g . Fr. 222) t h a t Cam, Ch. 19 w a s quoted b y D i o d e s himself, which is of course possible a l t h o u g h not l i k e l y . H e does not a t t r i b u t e t h e q u o t a t i o n from Nat. puer, to D i o d e s . - A t t h i s m o m e n t , mention m a y be m a d e of an u n t e n a b l e h y p o t h e s i s of Roscher (1913, 81 n.132; 85, m l 38; 8 6 ; 105), w h o t h o u g h t t h a t t h e h e b d o m a d i c ideas in Cam., Oct. a n d t h e D i o d e s ρ St ra t o - f a m i l y of arithmologists which cannot be paralleled from Hebd. h a v e been borrowed from lost portions of a fuller version of this treatise. 134 The e m b r y o l o g y of the P y t h a g o r e a n Uypo-mnernata (Diog. I acrt. V111, 28-29)

131)

3. At this point, I want to return to another member of the Diocles-andStralo family of arithmologists, viz. to Moderatus a f t . Theo of Smyrna, Just before his account of the embryology and of the ages of man, Theo gives the following information (p. 103,16 ff. Hiller): έπο μένος δέ τ/] φύσει και ό 11λάτων έξ επτά άριΟμών135 συνίστησι τήν ψυχήν (the Wurld-hou!) εν τω Τ ι μα ί ω (35b-c). 136 ή μέρα μεν γαρ και νύξ, ως ψησι 11 ο σε ιδώ νιος, άρτιου και περιττού φύσιν εχουσι* μήν δέ καθ' εβδομάδας τίοοαρας συμπληρουται, τή μεν πρώτη έβδομάδι διχοτόμου της σελήνης ορωμένης, τή δέ δευτέρα πλησισελήνου, τή δέ τρίτη διχοτόμου, πάλιν δέ τή τετάρτη σύνοδον ποιουμένης προς ήλιο ν και αρχήν έτέρου μηνός. Although the point of Posidonins* explanation is not wholly clear, an interpretation may be altem plod along the following lines. Posidonius appears to have1 made a connection between the division of the World-Soul into harmonic intervals measured (or rather constituted) by seven numbers and the function of the World-Soul in regard to the division of Time. Now, day and night, the week etc. are produced by the revolutions of the Same and the Different. Seven days nights together constitute the week, the smallest unit of which is the natural i:> also an off-shoot of this t r a d i t i o n : the male seed is a drop of b r a i n - s u b s t a n c e , which, w h e n .introduced into the womb, throws out ίχώρα και υγρό ν και α ί μ α . . . , έξ ων σάρκας τε και νεύρα και οστά και τρίχας και το όλον συνίστασθαι σ ώ μ α . . . (29) μορφοΰσϋαι δέ το μέν πρώτον παγέν Ιν ήμέραις τεσσαράκοντα (cf. Oct,, referred to above, p. 175 a n d n. 113), κ α τ ά δέ τ ο υ ς τ η ς α ρ μ ο ν ί α ς λ ό γ ο υ ς έ ν έπτά ή εννέα ή δέκα το πλείστον μησί τελειουϋέν άποκυΐσκεσΟαι το βρέφος (i.e. the t h e o r y of t h e llypumn. is not e x c l u s i v e l y h e b d o m a d i e ! ) , ε χ ε ι ν 8' έ ν α ύ τ ω π ά ν τ α ς τ ο υ ς λ ό γ ο υ ς τ η ς ζ ω η ς» ών είρομένων συνέχεσϋαι κ α τ ά τ ο υ ς τ η ς α ρ μ ο ν ί α ς λ ό γ ο υ ς » εκάστων έν τεταγμένο ις καιροΐς επιγενομένων. This last sti!ileiice, a b o u t the 'harmonic blueprints' contained in t h e newborn infant, which determine (is it too bold to think of t h e - Stoic - ειμαρμένη in connection with είρομένων? ei. above, Ch. IV, p. 99, n. 168) in a d v a n c e w h a t is going to happen d u r i n g life, is, 1 believe, a reference to the life-periods of m a n . These are not specified, but it is possible t h a t periods of seven y e a r s a r e m e a n t : the t e x t has έν τεταγμένο ις καιροΐς, a n d to the P y t h a g o r e a n , καιρός = 7. (Note t h a t also the periods of e m b r y o n i c development a r e unspecified: in both cases, we h a v e to tie eon t e n t with the general f o r m u l a κατά τους της αρμονίας λόγους. Also iioie, t h a t t h e t e s s a r a c o n t a d does not e x a c t l y fit w i t h a c o u n t i n g in weeks), bor the possibility t h a t a c o m p u t a t i o n of the της αρμονίας λόγους h a s been preserved in V a r m ' s Tube-ro cf. below, p. 190-1, n. 198 (n.b.: the t e s s a r a c o n t a d is m e n t i o n e d by Varro in connection w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t , d o m i n a t e d b y the n u m b e r 7, of ten m o n t h ' s children, b u t he is silent a b o u t the w e e k s a f t e r t h e first week of this cab-gory). 1:15 1,2,3,4,8,9,27. Cf. Cornford, ad. /., 66 if. 131)

day consisting of day and night. The number one ( = day night, in this context) is both odd and even. 137 A week, consisting of seven such natural days, is measured by a phase of the moon, i.e. by phenomena caused by the revolutions of the Same and the Different, A complete lunar cycle of 4 X 7 natural days constitutes the month, Consequently, the abstract iroin Posidonius in Theo goes, as 1 believe, at least as far as the sentence about the lunar cycle, in which the number seven [»lays a dominating role. Does the abstract in Theo from Posidonius' discussion of a passage in the Tim. also extend as far as the passage on embryology and the year-hebdomads of human life which we have discussed above? On general grounds, this L· quite plausible, at least lor the embryology, for pre-natal life is reckoned in weeks and months, and the week and the month are discussed by Posidonius. However, it is also probable that the hebdomads of years were adduced by Posidonius, for it is only natural to suppose that in discussing number, the World-Soul and time he spoke about the year as well. Because he appears to have defined the natural day multiplied by seven as constitutive of the week, he may, along the. same lines, have assumed that the year multiplied by seven constitutes a natural period of seven years. While we discussed the much fuller version of the embryology and the theory of the ages of man in Nieomaehus ap. [Iambi.], Theol. ar.,lzs we observed undeniable indications of a Stoic handling of this material 139 : (1) the embryo considered as φυτόν; (2) the tension of the soul caused by breathing; (3) the προφορικός and the ένδιάθετος λόγος, and (4) the seven senses, i.e. the traditional five + speech + reproduction. 1 cannot make myself believe that these Stoic ideas are an addition for which Nieomaehus is responsible. 140 137

T h a t 1 is botli odd a n d even w a s a n E a r l y P y t h a g o r e a n doctrine (cf. Arist.,

Met. 1,986a 17 if.), which continued to be held in later times. 138 Cf. above, p. 168-70. 139 These have been omitted in the Μ acr ο b i u s - ν e r si on, though he speaks of (1) the first seven hours as being crucial in regard to the sperm within the womb; (2) the effects of breathing during the first seven hours of the infant's post-natal life; (3) of speech in the first, hebdomad of years, and (4) of reproduction. Possibly, the Stoic ideas had been purged a w a y in a source intermediate between Macrobius and the original source of Nieomaehus. 140 Philo, Leg.allA ,CYv A (an obviously much shortened account) treats the power of the number 7. The Stoic theory concerning speech, reason and reproduction which occurs in Nieomaehus also occurs here (cf. above, p. 168-9). Now, in this passage this theory is interwoven with an account of the ages of man (up to the 131)

The simplest explanation, 1 think, is offered by assuming that the original abstract from 'Strato, Diodes and many other medical authors' was the work of a Stoic, and that this Stoic is no other than Posidonius, 141 whose name is mentioned in Theo immediately before that writer's (i.e. Moderatus") exposition of the importance of the number seven in pre- and post-natal human life. Rob bins also acknowledged the.4 probability that the embryology etc. in Theo is derived from Posidonius,142 but lie accounted for its occurrence in Theo, Nicomach us, Macrobius etc. by explaining it as an interpolation by Posidonius in the original anonymous arithmological treatise which he assumed to have been used by Mm, 143 The original anonymous treatise would have contained the quotations of Solon fr. 1() Diehl and Hebd. Ch. 5 which we still find in Philo and Anatoli us; Posidonius would have replaced these quotations by the Strato-arid-Diocles material. However, as has been pointed out above, the assumption of an anonymous arithmologist prior to Posidonius is unfounded. 144 Consequently, the opposite conclusion, viz. that the version represented by the family of Philo and Anatolius represents a revision 145 of an original exposition third hebdomad of years) which is preceded by a remark on the being viable of seven month's children! Philo says, o.e. I, p. 63,13 ff. Cohn-W.: των βρεφών τα μεν επτάμηνα γόνιμα... * λο γικόν τέ φ α σι ν άνθρωπον Υ.ύ.τχ τήν πρώτην επταετία γίνεσΟαι, οτε ήδη ίκ αν ό ς "εστίν 'έ ρ μη νεύ ς είναι των συνήθων ονομάτων και ρημάτων τήν λογική ν ε ξ ιν περιπεποιη μένος, κατά δέ τήν δευτέραν έπταετίαν άκρως τελειοϋσΟαι * τελείωσις δέ έστι δύναμις της του ομοίου σποράς * περί γαρ τήν τεσσαρακαιδεκαετή ήλικίαν το ομοιον γεννάν δυνάμεθα* τ ρ ί τ η πάλιν επταετία πέρα; έστιν αυξήσεως* άχρι γαρ ένος και εικοσιν ετών έ πι $ ί δ ω σι ν εις μ έ γ ε θ ο ς άνθρωπο:. The growth in length of man during the third hebdomad is put: in the third hebdomad by Theo, Nico mach us and Macrobius as well (cf. above p. 170-1, and, on this same chapter in Leg. all., also below, p. 182, n. 148), - Philo's introduction to Solon and TTebd., Ch. 5 (Op, mund. 103, I p. 35,25-36,8 Cohn-W.) is different and closely follows Solon : teeth in the first, sperm a in the second, the, beard in the third and ισχύς in the fourth hebdomad. Cf. also above, p. 173, u. 98 in fine. 141 For Posidonius and medicine cf. above, Ch. V A, p. 1 30, n. 4, and especially p. 135, n. 27; below Ch. ¥11, p. 226-7. August., Civ. /λ V, 2 (cf. Cicero, Über das Fatum ed. K. Bayer, München 1963, 94) tells us that Cicero said that Posidonius explained a passage in 'Hippocrates' in an astrological way; cf. Fat., Ch. 3, the beginning. 144 See p. 1 56-9. 142 Trad. 1.13 ff. 143 Cf. above, p. 157-8. 145 Evidence of revision is apparent from Philo, Op. mund. 1.03 (J, p. 35,21-25 Cohn-W.) αl έκ βρέφους άχρι γήρως άνθοώπων ήλικίαι αετρούμ^ναι ταύτη (sc. τη έβδομάδι), where, in other words, a treatment of both embryology and life posterior to birth is announced. However, no embryology is given in 1 03-5, but only the account of the ages of man; some brief embryological notes are

131)

of Posidonius is e n t i r e l y possible. 1 4 6 However, before e n t e r i n g into t h i s possibility 1 w o u l d l i k e to a d d u c e some n e g l e c t e d e v i d e n c e from N i c o m a c h u s p o i n t i n g a t Posidonius 1 4 7 a s t h e u l t i m a t e source of m u c h of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e n u m b e r s e v e n g i v e n b y b o t h this waiter a n d b y Macrobius. N i c o m a c h u s , j u s t like Modern i n s ap. Theo, s p e a k s about the moon, the w e e k a n d the m o n t h before discussing t h e periods of h u m a n life; t h e exposition in Macrobius is l a r g e l y parallel. Both a u t h o r s speak a b o u t t h e l u n a r periods, a n d do so in m u c h more d e t a i l t h a n Theo. 1 4 8 only given as far away as Op. mund, 124 (I. p. -12,1 8 -43,3 Cohn-AW), <4\ furt In*r below, p. 203, n. 2(>3. t o r the possibility that Ad rust as not only m.ed a 'Cum mentary' on the Tim. but adduced an arithmologieal trea 1 ise as wc41 cf. above, p. 172-3» ii. 06. 146 De Palco, o.e. 58 assumes that Varro ap, Censoriniim, Philo and Clement (i.e. Herrnippus of Perytus) go back lo Posidonius, who would have «pmted Solon fr. 19 and Hebd. Ch. 5 and nothing besides. On this hypothesis, the Diodes- a η d - Strato material would have been borrowed from a post-Posidonian secondary source. De Palco explains the Stoic ideas in Xicomachus' version of this material by assuming that Nicomachus occasional^- did use Posidonius (but this assumption does not account for the fact that the Stoic ideas in Nicomachus are closely interwoven with the Diocles-and-St ι a η > material). Theo (i.e. Theo's source), on the other hand, would have made little use of the secondary source and much use of Posidonius (fait Theo's account of the embryology and of the ages of man is that of de 'Falco's secondary source). Further, it should not be forgotten that Varro belongs to both families (cf. below, p. 185 ff.) 147 G. Airmann, De Posid. 54 ff. discusses this passage, but ncgPcP its specifically Stoic character. 148 Nicom. ap. [Iambi], T/ieol. ar. p. 50,5-00,0 .v, Macro!»., in sown. Sap. 1,0, 48-60. The lunar cycle is also treated betöre the ages of man by Philo, Op. mnnd. 101, I» p. 35,1-10 Cohn-W, Philo here does not speak of the sea,; however, ibd. 113 (cf. also above, Ch. V B, p. 143), 1» p. 30,22-40,13 Cohn-W, lie speaks at length of the σ υ μ π α θ ε ί α between the seven planets and air !- earth, instancing among other things the rivers, the seas and ζωά τ ε . . . και φυτά καρπούς γενν^ντα (p. 40,W-11 )· In Leg,all. 1, Ch. 4,8 (I, ρ, 63,9 ff. Cohn-W) which in some respects appears to be closer (cf. above, p. 1 80-1, n. 140) t< > the original Posidonius-version than Op.mnnd. which, as Τ believe, is dependant on the anonymous aril htnologist (according to L. Cohn, Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Ρ hi los, Phil., Supp.-Bd. VII, 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, συμττν.Οεστάτου TTGQC τά επίγεια άστρου, occur by sevens'; nature effects the changes in the atmosphere by dint of this number (cf. Op. mund. 113, I, p. 40,1 ff. Cohn-W., where this influence is attributed to the seven planets), and also the phenomena connected with birth etc. are 131)

Both authors also discuss the hebdomadic cycles of the tides of the ocean, which run parallel to the hebdomadic periods of the moon149 (not in Theo), In Nicomach us the moon is considered to be intermediate between tlu' supralunary and the sublunary worlds and to be capable of influencing what occurs on earth because of this mediating position.150 A few pages later on (p. 64,17-19 de Falco 151 ) the development of the embryo is compared to that of plants. This is riot in Macrobitis; all the same, Jaeger 152 wanted to attribute this comparison to Diodes, However, the idea that the moon influences the development both of animals and plants occurs in a passage of Cicero (NI) 11,50), which has been attributed to Posidonius 1 » 3 : midtaqne ah ea (sc. I he mo<>u,:V1) •manarit ct jiuunl quihus et a η im a tit es alantiir auges cant que et pubescant matiiritatemqiie adseqnantur quae or i until r c terra. It is, therefore, perhaps better to attribute the aside on plants to Posidonius; the brief remark in Cicero about the augcscere (αύξάνειν) and pub esc ere (ήβάσκειν) of anim antes (ζωα) should, 1 think, be conremulated by 7, The role of the moon appears to be that of mediator between the seven planets, of which it is one, and the phenomena, on eartli which depend npon the seven planets (cf. Nicomachus on its intermediate position, below, n. 150). - Also Varro ap. (Sellinm I [1,10,6 treats the lunar cycle before the human embryology and the hebdomads of life-years. - For the ideas of the Pneumatic physicians on the relation between the moon and the atmosphere cf. Wellmann, Pneum. Sch, 147-8 {for the Pneumatics and the Stoa, esp. Posidonius, cf. below, €h, VII, p. 213 ff.). 149 Nieom. p. 60,6-20 de Falco - Macrob. 1,0.01. 150 The circle of the moon is the eighth counted from a b o v e and the t hird from below (p. 59,6-7); i.e., astronomical and elemental spheres are not ditTv-ent iafod, the order being 1. outer heaven, 2-8, planets, 9. air, 10. water and earth. The sphere of the moon is said to τήν των περί γην αποτελεσμάτων άπ'.τέλεσιν και έξουσίαν άποφέρεσθαι, μεσαί/μιον νοουμένην των τε άνωθεν και των κάτωθεν (ρ. 59, 7-10). It does this by dint of the number seven, employing the number four {4 χ 7 ---- 28 - the lunar cycle) as a secondant. 151 οτι και τά σπέρματα πάντα ύπέρ γη ν αναφαίνεται οι έβδομης μάλιστα ή μέρα; έκφυόμενα, και έπτάκαυλα ώς επί παν τά πλείστα γίνεται» τά τε βρέφη κ.τ.λ. 15-j Ycyo. Freien. 222. However, the chances that Strato made this comparison are greater, cf. IIA VII,I, 5Klal5 ff.» cited above, p. 177, n. 122. The Stoic who handled this material must in any case have adhered to this view, for he called the fetus a φυτόν (cf. above, p. 167, n. 57). For a Stoic parallel to this comparison cf. Act. V,23,l» quoted above, p. 169, n. 69. Roscher, 1906, 137 quotes parallels from Pliny, Nat. ΙΓ, 153 Cf. above, Ch. V B, p. 143, n. 28. 154 N.b.: Cicero in this paragraph (ND 11,50) discusses the lunar cycle.

183

nected with the Macrobius.

Diocles-and-Strato

section in Nicomachus

and

The tides of the Ocean are also influenced by the lunar cycle. It is a well-known fact that Posidonius was greatly interested in this phenomenon, which he interpreted in the sense of his theory of cosmic sympathy. 155 In Cic,, ND IT,10, a paragraph on cosmic sympathy which goes back to Posidonius,156 the aestns maritimi fretommque angustiaelh1 are said to orin aid ohiln lunae commovert. In Nicomachus also, the moon is said to regulate the height of the waters of the ocean (p. 60,6 ff. de Pal co διατιΟέμενον 8έ και τον Ώκεανον158 υπ' αύτη ς (sc. the moon) κατά τους έβδομαδικούς άριΟμούς ορώ μεν; the actual process is depicted in detail). Now. the moon which influences the Ocean apparently also influences the lives of the animals living in it; it even influences the lives of all animals. 159 But these instances of cosmic sympathy are brushed aside: τί γάρ δει νυν οστρέων τε και f εγκεφάλων και μυελών f 160 μινύΟησιν και των πλείστον ζώων τήν συμπάΟε ιαν έπεξιέναι τήν προς το άστρον τούτο, όποτε έξ αυτών τών τοις άνθρώποις συμβαινόντων αύτάρκως δυνάμεθα πεφαΟήναι περί τών λεγόμενων.161 The evidence in favour of attributing this thought to Posidonius is quite strong: his favourite idea of συμπάθεια is explicitly formulated in a context which explains the increase and decrease of the Ocean by the influence of the moon. If this inference is correct, we probably also have found one of Posidonius1 own motives for speaking about the preand post-natal 162 life of man (cf. also below, p. 196). 155 Cf. Reinhardt, Pos. 121 ff. ; Kosm. u. Svmp. 58 ff.; RE s.v. Pos. b71 (esp. on the άστροειδής περίοδος of the sea, which occurs συμπαθώ? rfj σελήνη). 156 Reinhardt, Kosm. I l l ff.; cf. also Pease's notes ad J. 157 This can perhaps he paralleled: the Ruripus' seven changes ma thin each 24 hours are mentioned by Strabo (1,3,12; IX,2,8), who may have taken this from Posidonius. Ευριποι are also mentioned in the arithmologieal literature; Theo p. 104,18 Hiller, Anatoli us p. 36,24 Heiberg. Cf. further Pease's note at Cic, ND 111,24, p. 1012-3 and Roscher, 1906, p. 158 n.172 (who does not refer to ND 11,19). 168 The word ωκεανός itself is revealing: Posidonius wrote περί Ωκεανού, not περί θαλάττης. Roscher, 1906, 107-8 attributed this passage in Nicomachus to Posidonius, but did not comment upon the notion of cosmic sympathy. 159 Cf. also Cic. NT) 11,50, quoted above, p. 183. leo Apparently corrupt. Roscher (1906, 147) thought of έ/Ινοι έναλοι and μύες, which de Palco in app. cr. qualified as fortasse recie. 161 The reference to menstruation and the Strato-and- i >iocJes passage follow. 162 The hebdomads of years of human life are not an example of συμπάθεια with the moon only, but of συμπάθεια with the sun as well. No reference to the sun

184

4. At this point 1 want to return to the problem of the relative date of Pos ido nius' Comments upon certain passages in the Τ im a cits wrhich i believe to have been the source of Modemtus ap. Theo, Nieomaehus up. I Iambi.j TheoL ar. and Macrobius, In Somn. Sc., and to that of the anonymous arithmological treatise which I believe to have been followed by Philo and Anatohus. As has boeni pointed out above, Va.no belongs to both these families of arithmological authors: the. abstract up. (.ellinni belongs to the Theo-famih, while the abstracts ap. Censorinum belong to the Philo-fam . The Hebdomad es, from which Gell u s 111,10 gives us an abstract oi book I, wa.s published in >') ! >.C.. when Yarro had entered upon his 78ih year. M ; l It was a majoi woi k, v/luch he undoubtedly lia.cl been working at for some years»1'55 ' e embryology etc. of this work has· been discussed above 160 ; it belongs, unmistakably, to the Theo-family. The (kite of the work (·»? works) by Yarro pilfered by Oensorinus has not been transmitted What's more, it is even problematical which work or works by λ a το are at the basis of De die natali €h. 1-15: the logisloricus Alliens de Immerts is quoted Cons. 2,2-3, while the Tubero de origine humana is quoted ibd. 9,1. Diels assumed that the whole of ('ens. 4-14 has been borrowed from the Tttbcro.ul The problem of the probable content of the Yarronic logistorici is inextricably bound up with the interpretation of the logt star icus as a literary genre, i follow Dahlmann 168 in assuming that the logisioriciim and the year is to he; found in Nieomarhus' account, but robins, in somn. Sc„ ί,(),57-(>0, speaks of 1he hebdomadie uaiurc; of the sun and the year after his. section on the moon and before- that on the Ocean. For the present writer's guess a,bout IYvsidonius' possible treatment of time in connection with his:, explanation of the seven number* constituting the World-Soul, cf. above, p. 1 7980. Cf. also above, p. 183, n. J 50, on the implication of the fact that the moon, being the net her most of the seiurn planets, transmits their influence to what is below. 163 See p. 158, n. 9 and p. lb!-3. ?r»4 ON MIS f 11,10,17: tum ibi add.il (sc. Varro) se ηη-η-μιο ia-m duoda imam mi novum Jiebdomadam ingvessum esse, Varro was born in 1 1 7 B.C. 165 Cf. H. Dahlmann, Μ. TenmNus Varro, HE Supp.-Bd. VI (1935, 1172 ff.), 1227-8. 1611 P. 165 ami p. 167, n. 59. ,β7 Cf, above, p. 159, n. 12. 188 If. Dahlmann- R. Heisterhagen, f 'avvomscfw Stud in ι, /. Zu den Logistorici, Abh. Ak, Mainz, ceist. -so/w. ΚΊ 1957, Nr. 4, p, 15 ff, in his RF,-article (ef above, n. 165), 1262 ff. Dahlmann was less positive about this identification, wliich was first proposed by L. Η. Κ rah η er. i m The term logisfonci has been explained by Heisterhagen, o.e. 9, as meaning

185

axe identical w i t h the. Umdatiertes11® referred to b y Cicero, Ac. fio. 1,8 a n d Ad Ali. VII Γ,48,2, a n d t h a t Varro u s u a l l y w r o t e a laudatio of this k i n d in order to honour a r e c e n t l y d e c e a s e d p e r s o n a l i t y , 1 7 1 a s c a n be m a d e a l m o s t certain for some of these works, 1 7 2 D a h l m a n n h a s a r g u e d (and so h a v e others) that the Tubero de uridine hum-ana w a s w r i t t e n in honour of L. Aelius I ubero, l 7 a a. friend of Cicero, a s u p p o r t e r of P o m p c y like Varro himself a n d like most of the people c o m m e m o r a t e d in t h e laitdationes, a n d a n a p p r o p r i a t e figure to hold forth on the s u b j e c t of the origin of m a n , b e c a u s e he w a s i n t e r e s t e d in philosophy (Aenesidenuis d e d i c a t e d his λόγοι ΙΙυρρώνε'/π to h i m ) . As f a r as I know, the y e a r of h i s d e a t h a p p e a r s to be u n k n o w n . However, I a m not a b s o l u t e l y .-aire t h a t this T u b e r o is a more likely c a n d i d a t e t h a n his son, (). Aelius Tubero, 1 7 1 who w a s also a s t a u n c h s u p p o r t e r of P o m p c y . He prosecuted L t g a r i u s before C a e s a r in 46

'scientific led π res', 'Dialogic in denen der Titelträger einen I .ehrvortrag hielt*, 'Monographien in DialogfonW (ibd. p. II), cf. Cicero's (dito de sencctnle, La et ins de amicitia. An important peeuhantν of Yarro's logistorici is 'jene Tatsache» dass der Haiiptnnterredner - durch sein Wissen» durch sein Beruf oder durch sein Schicksal - in einer ganz besonderen 1 ieziehiing zu dem Thema seines Lehrvortra.gs steht' (ibd., p. 11). 170 Which were of a philosophical nat ur<\ cf. Cie.» Je. po. I»8. 171 Cie., Ad Aft. ¥111,48,2, speaks of the Laudatio Porciae (the sister of Cato IUicensis, probably deceased in the first half of 45 B.C.), Dahlmann, o.e. 140 assumes that Varro on I ν at the end of his life collected all his laudaliones under the name of logistorici. 172 Dahlmann, o.r. 37 IT.: (Pia.s de pace was probably written in eoininemoration of (). Caecilius Ο I. Kahilis Metellus Sejpio, who committed suicide in 40 11(*.); ibrl. 40 ff. (the Marcellus: Μ. Claudius Marcellus was murdered in 45 B.C.) Cf. further 11. Dahlmann-W. Speyer, Varronische Studien II» Abh. Ak. Mainz, geist. so/w. KL 1050, Nr. 11» p. 8 ff. ( M a r i u s de jortnna, probably written on the oeeasion of the violent death of the so-ea lied I'seudoniarhis, 44 B.C.); ibd. 18 ff. (the Latercnsis: M. J uvea tins Lateronsis committed suicide in 43 B.C.); ibd. 10 ff. (Messalla de calci, udine, probably written in honour of M. Valerius Messalla Niger, who appears to have died just before the civil war). Consequently, most of the logistorici which can be dated appear to have been written between 50-40 B.C. (cf. Dahlmann, Yaw. Stud. [I, p. 8, p. 12.) 173 HE I, s.v. Aelius, Nr. 150. 174 R j ? ρ s.v. Aelius Nr. 156. Dahlmann suggests that this Tubero is identical with the Catus to whom the Cains dr, liberis educandis was dedicated (Catus oder Cato? Noch einmal der Titel von Varros Logistoricus, in : Νavicula Chiloniensis, SIndia philologica F, Jacohy... ohlata, Leiden 1956, 117 ff.) Dahlmann admits that this is no more than a guess. There is, as far as Γ know, no evidence that this Tu beΐΎ) was called Catus. 186

B.C., and afterwards retired from public lite, devoting his time to the writing of several works on civil law in an old-fashioned style and to the composition of a History of Rome. Since ho must have been working at these tasks for a number of years after lb B.C., his death may have preceded that of Varro by only a, few years. A historian cannot be said to be unfit lor the rot" ο I protagonist m a, discussion about the origins of man. It is, however, difficult to be certain about these things. If Tube.ro the, father is meant, the Τ über ο probably Is contemporaneous with the majority of datable logistorici, which were written between 50-40 B.C.; if Tubero the, son, his laudatio ma ν be as late as the Aiticas de niwieris}1" It is, however, probably to be preferred to accept the traditional identific.alion of Tubero with L, Aelitts Tubero. 176 Earlier discussion on the sources of Censorious' De die ναι all 4-15 has been superseded by that of 1 ieisterhagen, 177 who has argued quite plausibly that Ch, 4-11 have, been borrowed from the Tubero: Ch. 4 speaks of the origin of the first men (Ch. 4,3 is, moreover, parallel to Rer. rust, ί 1,1,3); Ch, 5-6 treats of reproduction, Ch. 7 of the gestationperiods, so that Ch, 5-7 belong naturally to the Tubero™; Ch, 7 11 continue the discussion of the gestation-periods. 1 ™ However, Ch, J 2-13, on the importance of music for man and for the1 creation of the world, form a, digression; it is unlikely that also these chapters are from the Ttihcro? 1 ^ Filially, Ch, 14-15,3 treat the ages of man, and discuss the years which are considered to be especially dangerous for our health, To us, these chapters are especially important, since the quotations of Ilei)d. Ch, 5 and Solon fr, 10 Diehl occur in Ch. 14. These chapters are undoubtedly Varronie 180 : (1) Ch, 11,2 Varro's own 17:5

i . P o m p « » i i i i i s A t h e n . · d i e « ! in 3 2 Η . ί \

l a i r t h e d a b · of t h e

Hilar;

t f.

Dahl-

Varf.Siud, if,21 i f . : it is the l a t e s t k n o w η /f historic us. 177 Yarv. Stud. !, 20 f i . ,7ft h e l m v . p, 191-2, tj, 10«, in fine. OS H i p p o , tnenl jonecl C h <)t I f w h e r e the Tubero is e x p l i c i t l y i p i o t e d ) is a b o referred to in Cens. Oh. 5» Ch, 0 and < Ίι. 7. 179 Idetsterhs^en argues, p. 24 ff.» tint also Oh, I U (fin anisic) is f r o m the Tithcm, because tins chapter is indispensable ίο the ο ι oig of fhe I Pythagorean theory d i s c u s s e d in C h . 11, Also < Ίι. S, o a IIa- Ciiaiikicorii.m ratio must tie from the Tubero, because of the backwards reference to this chapter in (Ίι. 1 I ,s ff, ( i b d . p. 25). ί would like to n d d t h a t Varro a(>. O o l l i u m 111,10/) also refers to a C h a l d a e a n t h e o r y ( t h o u g h not to nil embryologies 1 o n e ) . i79a ο c 25-6. Speyer, Yaw. Stud, 11,49-51, proved that this passage is from the De musica» one of the 9 books of the Disriplinae fen. 34-3 !>.('.). Ileisferhrtgen» ox, 27, Jlis third a r g u m e n t , viz. that fhe r e f e r e n c e s in S o l o n and Hippocrates at Ch, 14,3 are paralleled at Ch. 11,6 is i n c o r r e c t , for at 11,6 Hippocrates, alii que w edict axe only q u o t e d for the theory that the seventh maim,

187

division of lift! into periods of 15 years is given; (2) Ch. 14,6 his name is mentioned again, in connection with the Etruscan libti fatales (cf. 11,6). However, the subject of Ch, 14-15,3 is different from that of Ch. 4-11 : the theme of the ages of man and of the anni climaelericoe is not connected with that of the origo hnmaua.mi Therefore, if this material has been borrowed by Censormus from the Tubero, the contents of this work are not wholly covered by its sub-title: Varro would have treated, not only the origin of man, but human life as a whole. Because Ch. 15,1-3 give the computation of the death-years of several philosophers, Varro would even have discussed a subject which is the exact contrary to that of the origo huniana.182 Therefore, HeisterhageiCs final, and cautious, conclusion 183 is that Ch. 4-11 certainly and Ch. 14-15 possibly go back to the Tubero. However, the assumption that, the Tubero would have treated of the death-years of philosophers is not very plausible. Though Ch. 4-11 appear to derive from the Tubero, the A tticus de niimeris is a much more likely source for Ch. 14-15,3. T. Pomponius Atticns 184 died in 32 B.C., cum sept em el septuaginla annos complesset (Ncpos, XXV,21), i.e. in his 78th year. The only quotation from the A ttieus is found in Cens. 2,2-3: on the dies natalis a bloodless sacrifice is offered to the genius, for it is improper to kill on the day qua ipsi lucent accepissent and Ti mac us 185 says that no-one kills a sacrificial animal at the altar of Apollo Genitor at Delos. Dahlmann 186 has argued that this brief fragment offers no clue for a hypothesis about the probable contents of this logistoricus: we have to start from the connection between Atticns, the great captain of finance, and the numeri mentioned in the sub-title; the numeri discussed by Atticns must be the numeri aes significant es.187 However, since the concept of numerus is connected, with the sciences of matheday is a critical day. Solon is mentioned together with Judaei and Elruscorum libvi, which perhaps entails that this particular reference to the elegy is a fruit of Varro's own erudition. 181 Heisterhagen, o.e. 27. However, he emphasizes the fact that the number 7 is a 11-important both in Ch. 14 and in Ch. 9 if. 182 Heisterhagen, o.e. 28, η. 1. 183 O.e. 28. 184 RE Supp. Bd. V11, 503 ff. 185 Fr. 117 Jacoby. Cf. De Vogel, Pytha-onu 1 81. l8R

187

Varr. Stud. IT, 21 ff.

Ling. tat. IX,81 ff.; cf. also ibd. ¥,169 ff.

188

niatics, with chronology etc., Atticus m a y have touched upon these subjects as well. 188 But Dahlmann does not want to accept that Atticus spoke about numbers in a 'Pythagorean' way1·89: he must have spoken, first and foremost, as a financial expert. To me, this seems highly doubtful. Is a discussion of moneymatters a proper subject tor a laudatio with philosophical pretentions? Possibly, Atticus took the numeri aes significant es as a starting-point, but he will have undoubtedly pursued his exposition in a philosophical way. In an article published many years ago, M. Schanz 100 argued that the numeri arc1 the years of human life (lor in Gens. 2,2, Varro speaks of the birth-day), and more especially the elimacterical years discussed De die nat, 14. li,i Dahlmann 192 rejected these conclusions: "Die Jähre des menschlichen Lebens, speziell die klimakterischen, stehen dem Begriff der numeri fern, und ebenso der Person des Atticus als etwaigen ausgewiesenen Sachkenners dieser Lehre". 193 It is, indeed, incorrect to define the concept of numeri exclusively in Schanz' narrow sense. But Dahlmann errs in alleging that the numeri are foreign to the years of human life. This contention is not only refuted by the actual contents of Gens. Gli, 14, but also by the abstract from the imagines in Gellius 111,10,17: tum ibi addii (sc. to Iris exposition on the number 7) se quo que iam du odec imam armor urn hebdomadam ingressum esse. Now, Atticus died at 78, when he was just as old as Varro at the time of the publication of the Imagines: the coincidence must have struck Varro as it strikes us. Furthermore, the relation between the protagonist and the subject of the logistoricits may also have been more or less accidental, e.g. it m a y have been furnished by an incident in his life, 194 Atticus died after having completed 11 heb™ Vary, Stud. 11.24 Dahlmann refers to Varro's De principiis immer arum in nine books, which probably treated Pythagorean number-doctrine, and to the fifth book of the Disciplinae, on arithmetics, i.e. the science of numeri. Gellius, XVII 1,14,2 refers to qui de numeris latine scripserunt: according to Dahlmann the reference is not to De ρ vine. or to Disc. Y, but to the Atticus, because the subtitle de numeris is identical with Gelliiis' formulation. 189 Ibd. However, the quotation from Timaeus is 'Pythagorean', of. above, n. 185. 190 heiträge zur römischen Literaturgeschichte, Rh Μ 54 ( 1 S 0 0 ) , 1 0 ff. (3. Varros Logistoricus: A tticus de numeris, ibd. 25 ff.). 191 Schanz concluded that the Atticus was offered to Atticus on the occasion of his 63rd birthday, which is rightly rejected by Dahlmann. 192 O.e. 22-3. 193 O.e. 23. 194 Cf. above, p. 186, n. 169, the quotation from Varr. Stud. p. 11 ('durch sein Schicksal'). 188

189

(ίοηΐίids of years. Surely, this makes linn the proper protagonist of a learned discussion on the subject of the computation of the periods of human life. Only when viewed against this background, the discussion of the death-years of various philosophers and men of science in 15,1-3 becomes understandable·. Alt in is and Varro ask: which is, (be proper tune to die? Therefore, 1 prefer to assume that Cms. Πι. 14-15,3 have been derived front the A Ulcus, not born the Tuberu. In favour of this -issurnption are the following considerations, summarized from ilie discussion above: (1) The abstract from the Tuber ο stops at Ch. 12» where an abstract from the De nmsica begins up to the end of Ch. 13; (2) Ch. 14-15,3, if bom the 7 /nV/e de uridine huniaua, «Iis» η sr. a topic (viz. death and the proper t ime I ο die) foteign to the sobject of that logistoricus; (3) if Actions' death at 78 years is taken a:, the motive for dedicating a laudatio Ιο him, the topics treated in Cens. 14-15,3 naturally belong within the spheie of interest of that work.197 Of course, At tic us may ha\ e also spoken of other subjects connected with numeri (Varro loved to repeat him >e|and numbem ere η favourite subject with him). If these con elusions are cor root, the Imagines, which belong to the Theo-family of arithmological writings, are earlier than the Alliens de numeris, which because of the quotations of Solon fr. 10 Diehl and Hebd. Ch. 5 belongs to the Philo-family of arithmological works. 198 And, perhaps, also: what is the proper a t t i t u d e towards d e a t h ? Idle proper attitude towards birth is t o u c h e d upon in tin.' quotation f r o m the Alliens in b e n s . 2,2. b o r A t t a uV attitude in the bot- of death c b Vepo·-,, X X Y ' . J b 2 2 . Cf. above, p. iNo. p. ISN. 107 While the Tuberu is restricted lo the1 origin of mankind and to the origin of 195

m a n a s a n i n d i v i d u a l ( e m b r y o l o g y !).

Ί lie Τ libera, which has to be dated a,bout 40 or about 30 B.C. (, f. above, p. 186-7) belongs to the; Theo da nail v. in Cens. Ch. 7» the tern pur a qui bus partus suleant esse ad η a sc en dum niaturi aie discussed, and the opinions of Hippo (cf. above, p. 174) and many others, (cf. above, p. IoO, n. 52») are referied to. These theories (in as far as the number 7 plays a rule in them) are typiVal of the Theofamily: seven-month's children viable, first teeth with seven months, change of teeth with seven, puberty with fourteen year.;. Ch. Η gives the Chakiaeatt theory concerning viable infants. Ch. 0 quotes the embryo logical . omputations of various authorities» and especially of 'Pythagoras'» who has two different computations, which are given at length in Ch. 11 ; the development of seven month's children (210 days) i 4 dominated bv the number 0. that oi Ο month's children (284 days) by the number 7. Severn month's children develop as iullows: in the find 0 daw, a humm huiem; is ha med, m the next Ν flays a fiumot' im

190

The Im. have been written before 39 B.C., the Ait. was written after 32 B.C. On my hypothesis, Varro would have used Posidonius' Comments on the Timmus for the first book of the lm., while he would have adduced the anonymous arithmological treatise, which, as I believe, was written later than Posidonius' Comments, for Ins A Ulcus de numeris. In view uf the relative dale.-» of hit. ami All., this is entirely possible. In the Alt., Varro again availed himself of the most recent in the next 9 euro; in the next 12 clays (i.e., after 35 days) the formation of the e m b r y o is completed. T h e i n f l u e n c e of the number 6 is apparent from the fact that 6:K, 0 : 9 and 6:12 r e p r e s e n t q u a r t , quint and octave respectively (this has been e x p l a i n e d (Vir,. Ch, 10), and that t h e whole period of gestation lasts 0 χ 35 days, 'this theory is obviously based upon that of Strato and Diodes: humor lade us, humor sanguineus, completion of the1 embryo with 35 clays and the g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d of ο 35 d a y s can all be paralleled (el. above, p. 167). Ί lie formation of ten month's children is as f o l l o w s : after 7 tlavs, semen turns into blood, while the e m b r y o is fully d e v e l o p e d at ea. 40 d a y s (the i n t e r m e d i a t e stages are not given). Quart- hiGraecia dies habe)/1 quadragesimos tu sign es etc, (1 1,7): undoubtedly an echo of the t e s s a r a e o n t a d - t h e o r y of Oct, (cf. above, p. 175, n. 113). The t e n - m o u t h ' s child is viable after / χ 40 ( >) .· 2N0 days, or 40( !) weeks; h o w e v e r , as it is born on the first day of the last w e e k , the gestation-period lasts 274 days. Thus, it would appear thai Varro lor the Tuber ο not only used the 1 'et. plac. (cf. above p. 159), but also either the original source which he used when composing the first book of the imagines, or this book of the Im. itself. The 'Pythagorean' theory of Cens. Ch. 11, though obviously based upon that of Strato and Diodes and (if tin» liippocratie writers mentioned in the Stratoand - Diodes-passage, is as a whole unparalleled, though the computation of the two different gestation-periods can be paralleled in other sources (Burkert, Weish. u. Wiss. 224, n. 12«S); cf. also what has been .-aid above (p. 166, n. 52) about the possibility that the Strato-and- 1 boch-s passage contains traces of the computation of the development of other than seven month's children. Possibly Varro adduced a psendepigraphic 1 Vi h ago reu η treatise (as he appears to have done for the part of De nimica quoted by Censorinus in Ch. 13. Now, in the ' Pythagorean' Hyporsm. ap. Diog. Laert, VI 11,29, cf. above, p. 178-9, n, 134 we read that 'according to the ratio's of harmony, in seven, nine, or at most ten months, the mature child is brought forth'. Varro may have used such a source, which may not have spoken of nine month's children (or Varro himself may have left out this category), and which may have given the actual computation of the 'ratio's of harmony*; however, he may have a l s o executed the computations himself on the basis of a hint such as that given in the IIyptmin.) Possibly, he also worked out other hints given by his source (cf. Pobbms, Trad. 117 and n.2 and 3, who says that 'a noteworthy characteristic of Varro's arithmology is its independence'» and who quotes some addit ion;·, apparently made by Varm, However, Kobbins 117 n.3 has overlooked the simikn iti«s. between < 'ens. Ch. 1 1 and the1 Strato -and -1 >ioel»-.. passage).

sanguineus,

191

literature. 199 Additional evidence is offered by the sub-title of the logistoric us, viz., de numeris = περί αριθμών, an apt title for an arithmological treatise (it was also used by Philo). 200 Thus, the evidence offered by Varro is in favour of the assumption that Posidonius' Comments upon the Timaeus are prior to the anonymous arithmological treatise which was used by Philo and Anaiolins.21,1 The above considerations amount to a return to SchmekcPs hypothesis, though in a modified ίοι m. it would be tempting io speculate about the form which Posidoiiiiis' comments upon the Tünnens may have taken, but this extremely difficult undertaking, involving a complete re-evaluation of all extant ancient arithmological literature and of ail ancient post -Posidonian comments and commentaries on the Timaeus» cannot be attempted here. This undertaking would also be complicated by the likelihood that post-Posidonian commentators adduced aritlmiological treatises as well, 202 and that arithmologists may have continued to make excerpts from comments or commentaries on the Timaeus.2m It is, however, permissible to try to answer a few questions. First, it is, I think, indeed unlikely that Posidonius wrote something The closeness of the Tuber ο to the Hebdomad es (i.e. to the Theo-family of arithmologists) is in favour of ea. 40 B.C. as a date for this treatise, i.e. in favour of considering L. Aelius Tuhero as the protagonist of this logistorieu^. 190 Cf. the quotation from 1 )iels, above ρ 1 5(). 200 Cf. above, Ch. 11. p. 48 n. 44. 201 For Philo, see above, p. 173 η OS, p. ISO 1, u. 140, p. 1N2--3, n. 148. 202 Cf. above, p. 172-3, n. 98, on the possibility that Ad rast us used an arithmological treatise. 203 Though all the vestiges of a commentary on the Timaeus in the arithmological literature may have been derived from Posidonius' Clommeuts by the tiist wholly arithmological writer. The remark in Theo quoted above (p. 179), that Plato constructed the World-Soul in the Timaeus out of seven numbers, is paralleled Anat. ρ» 36,23 Helberg IIA. έξ επτά αριθμών συνέστησε τήν ψυχ/,ν εν τώ Τιμαίω; in Lyd,, Mens. 11,12» p. 35,10-17 Wuensch this becomes και γάρ τήν ψυχή ν υ Τίμαιος έξ επτά αριθμών συνέστησε. A slightly different version is found Theo p. 96,4 ff. Hilter έν οι ς (sc. 1,2,3,4,) άριΟμοιν και τήν ψυχή ν συνίστησιν ο ΙΙλάτων έν τω Τιμαίω, which associates the soul with the pyramid (cf. above, p. 169-1, n. 24). Cf. further Philo, Op.mund. 119 (1, p. 41,25-42,1 Cohn-W.) έβ^όμω στόματι, δι' ου γίνεται θνητών μέν, ως Ιφη Πλάτων (Tim, 75(1), ε!σοδοζ, έξοδος δ' άφθαρτων. De Fa loo ο c. 58 ff. assumes cm th.e basis of this evidence (and of Mac rob., In somn. Sc. 1,6,45-6; 11,2,1; 11,2,14 ff. and Sextus, Μ. ¥11,91 ff.) that Posidonius' *Commentary' either mainly or (exclusively discussed the nnnibers 4 and 7. Cf. also Schmekel, o.e. 412, 414, 418, 424 ff.

192

in the nature of a full and formal commentary on Plato's Timaeus®* The evidence suggests that he wrote about numbers, soul and sensibilia, taking the Timaeus as his starting-point. (This is why I have preferred to speak of Comments instead of Commentary; concievably, these Comments may have been part of a more general work). It should be pointed out that the evidence concerning his explanation of the Platonic WorkbSoul 205 agrees with the exposition on knowledge in Sextus, M. ¥11/11 ff.20« The definition of the World Soul in Plutarch defines this entity in the terms of the three kinds of mathematical. We are also told that Posidonius assumed that the World-Soul (just like mathem a t i c a l ) is intermediate between Intelligibilia and sensibilia'. 207 But it is only likely that Posidonius assumed that this definition is also applicable to human souls, for in the Timaeus these are forged out of the same mixture as that which was used by the Demiurge in creating the World-Soul, 208 and after the same pattern; the revolutions of the human soul too are said to be those of the Same and the Different. 209 In Sextus Μ. VI 1,91 ff., number is involved both with human λόγος and with reality; it is constitutive of both the agent and the object of cognition, for like knows like. The reality of the sensibilia, which is permeated by number, we may say, can be known by soul210 because soul itself is of the nature of number. Though intelligibilia in the Platonic sense are not mentioned by Posidonius ap. Sextum, he distinguishes between body and the incorporeal, by stating that together these constitute all that there is (VII, 99, τό τε σώμα και το ασώματο ν . . . , έξ ών τά πάντα), and that everything apprehended by man is either body or incorporeal (see the d i s j u n c t i o n in V I I , 1 0 1 παν το καταλαμβανόμενοι άνθρώπω... ήτοι σώμά

εστίν ή άσώματον). In VII,99 he exemplifies this statement in the following w a y : στιγμής γάρ ρυείσης γραμμή ν φαντασιούμεθα, ήτις εστί

μήκος άπλατές, γραμμής 8ε ρυείσης πλάτος έπο ιή σα μεν, δπερ εστίν Reinhardt denied the existence of such a formal Commentary (cf. above, p. 156, n. 2) and criticized Schmekel and his followers on this account, correctly, as f believe. 2U5 Cf. above, p. 160 and ibd., n. 19. 206 Cf. above, p. 157, m 3. 207 Cf., however, above, p. 160, n. 18, and further below. 208 Tim. 41(1. 209 Tim 41 d, 43d. 210 The cognitive λόγος of man resides in his soul. Cf. the doublet Sext., Μ. IV,6, which uses the term ψυχή. 204

193

έπιψάνειά τις αβαθής, επιφανείας δέ ρυείσης στερεον έγένετο σώμα. With the stereometrical we are in the realm of solid body, but with point, line and surface apparently not, cf. φαντασιούμεϋα ("we form a notion)', έπο ιή σα μεν ('we concieve'): point, line and surface are products of the mind, ασώματα. Both σώμα and ασώματο ν are said to be conceived by means of number.211· in Μ, VII,104 the topic of the cognition of incorporeals is resumed: time 212 is mentioned and, as in VI 1,101, again point, line and surface, which, "just like the other things 213 which we discussed a moment ago' are perceived by number; 214 The ontological status of these incorporeals presents a difficult problem. According to the orthodox Stoa, the πέρατα... των σωμάτων mere!) exist κατ' έπίνοιαν ψιλήν.1!,Γ> Posidonius, however, appears to have deviated from this theory by assuming that the limits of the solid body' appear not only in thought, but also exist in reality. 210 On account of this he has been called a mathematical realist, 217 Presumably, we have to interprete the word 'realism' here in the sense that Posidonius attributed intelligible reality to (at least some of) the mathematical. The account in M. ¥11,99 and 104 (cf. also the σώμα... τρί,χη 8ιαστατόν in Μ. ¥11,101) appears to indicate that sensible reality only begins with the fourth term of the sequence point-linesurface-solid. Now we happen to know that Chrysippus 218 compared certain geometrical theorems to ideas (άπείκαζεν... ταΐς ίδέαις 219 ): 211 The incorporeals are represented by the numbers 1, 2, and 3, the solid body by 4 (or 3, cf. Μ. VI 1,101). 212 According to orthodox Stoicism, time is one of the four kinds of ασώματα (cf. the list in Sext. Μ. X,218 -- S P P 11,331 : λεκτόν, κενόν, τόπος and χρόνος). The faet that time is explicitly qualified as an incorporeal proves that the 'Pythagorean' number-theory was discussed by a Stoic. Cf. further E, Brehier, La theorie des incur parcels dans fanden Siotcisme, Paris 31902, esp. p. 54 ff. 313 Presumably, bodies (VII, 101-3). 214 The final sentence of VI 1,104, which lumps incorporeals and bodies together, takes up the announcement of VI 1,101. Further, also in V 11,99 the solid body follows upon the sequence point-line-surface; ibd. this statement is preceded by a reference to number as means of cognition of both categories similar to that at the end of 104. 215 Proclus, in prim. Lud. comm. p. 89,16 ff. Friedlein =·= SVF 11,488. 216 Diog. Laert. VII,135 επιφάνεια δέ έστι σ ώ μ α τ ο ς πέρας ή το μήκος καί πλάτος μόνον ε/ον, βάθος δέ ού (cf. Μ, V 11,99). ταύτην δέ IJ οσειδώνι,ος έν τρίτω περί μετεώρων και κατ' έπίνοιαν (cf. text at ιι. 215) καί καθ' ύπόστασιν απολείπει. 23 7 Edelstein, Philos, Syst. Pos, 303; Merlan, Platonisrn ΐο Νeoplatonisrn 36. 218 Gemimis ap. Procl, in Euch p. 395,13 ff. - SVP 11,365. 219 Zeno and his followers said that the 'ideas' of earlier philosophers are nothing but έννοήματα ημέτερα, devoid of reality (SVP 1,65; for Cleanthes cf. 5 VF 1, 494).

194

'for just as these' (sc. the ideas) 'comprise the coming-to-be of infinite things within finite limits (πέρασιν), also in those1 (sc. theorems) 'infinite things are comprised within finite places1.220 According to Chrysippus, therefore, the figures of geometry are έννοήματα. To Posidonius, on the contrary, they would both be έννοήματα and subsist in a certain way. 221 Presumably his incorporeals not only subsist within the mind, but in some sort of objective fashion as well. His explanation of the Platonic World-Soul 222 points in the same direction. According to Plutarch, An. procr. 1023b, Posidonius and his followers assumed that: the Soul is a mixture of the των περάτων ουσία223 and the νοητον or νοητά. We do not learn from Plutarch what is understood by these νοητά. However, as the Soul is defined in terms of three kinds of mathematical^ it is perhaps permitted to think, among other things, of the ασώματα mentioned in Sextus, viz, point, line and surface, which, consequently, would have some sort of intelligible subsistence. However this may be, it is, at any rate, an undeniable fact that Posidonius ap. Sextum applies the theory of number to bodies and to empirical phenomena in general, and that he taught that cognition of these objects takes place by means of number. This holds for the cognition of the structure of bodies (Μ, VII, 101-2) and for the qualities of body perceived by sense-perception 224 (103) as well as for the practice of ordinary life (105-6) and for the arts and crafts (106-9). 'l he number uf individuals corresponding to an 'idea' is infinite, just as the number of geometrical figures corresponding to a geometrical definition. Chrysippus continues: "For if, the height of (i.e., the distance between) 'the parallels remaining equal, one imagines (νοουμένων) an infinity of parallelograms upon the same base, all of these turn out to be equal.' 221 Cf, also Posidonius' definition of the geometrical figure, which (by Proclus, ibd. 143,6 ff.) is contrasted to that of Euclid; ό Ηε ίί. πέρας συγκλεΐον άφορίζεται το σχήμα, τον λόγον του σχήματος χ (ορίζων της ποσότητος και αίτιον αυτόν είναι τιθέμενος του ώρίσΟαι και πεπεράσθαι και της περιοχής (consequently, Posidonius' definition of the circle only mentions the επιφάνεια and not the area contained by it). I.e., πέρας, though not being of a bodily nature, is a cause and acts in a certain way (the orthodox Stoa attributes the power of acting or being acted upon to body only). In order to be able to do so, it must have a subsistence of a sort. 222 Cf. the definition quoted above, p. 160, m 19. 223 Merlan, o.e. 34 wants to take this as a subjective genitive and translates "the kind of being which lias' or "accepts1 limits", i.e. matter. 224 Cf. the explanation of sensible qualities on the basis of the geometrical n nah ties of the object pen ieced and the percieving sensorium, Tim. 64 c ff. 220

195

Second. Posidonius ap. Theo comments upon the fact that the World-Soul in the Timaeus is constituted of seven numbers. 225 He may easily have done so with the definition of the World-Soul which has been quoted above226 in mind, for the arithmeticals 1,2,314,8,9,27 also constitute the harmonic ratios (1:2, 2:3, 3 : 4 etc,) and the four dimensions, i.e. point, line, geometricals and stereometricals (1,2,22,23 and 1,3,3 2 ,3 3 ). I have argued above that the exposition of the importance of the number seven for the lunar cycle, 227 the swelling and decrease of the tides of the Ocean,228 animal life in general 229 and prenatal and post-natal human life in particular 230 which are to be found in the arithmological literature can also be traced back to Posidonius, All these phenomena belong to the realm of sensibilia. If Posidonius, in discussing the Timaeus, spoke at some length about the importance of the number seven in regard to the realm of sensibilia, this exposition would be exactly parallel to Ms remarks ap. Sextum on the importance of number in general in relation to sensibilia. The abstract ap. Theo tells us nothing about cognition. But the fact that both the soul and a certain amount of sensible objects are said to be constituted according to the same number (i.e., 7) is exactly parallel to the principle that like is known by like which is adhered to by Posidonius ap. Sextum. Moreover, because the seven numbers constituting the Soul together encompass all kinds of mathematicals, Soul can be said to be indeed capable of embracing the whole of sensible reality. I therefore conclude that Posidonius, in commenting upon certain passages of the Timaeus, really devoted some space to the importance of the number seven within the realm of sensibilia. The passage on the pre- and post-natal life of man, which made it possible to quote a number of medical authorities, was, moreover, quite apposite in the context of a discussion of certain topics of the Timaeus, for this dialogue is to a large extent concerned with physical man.

5. How much Posidonius actually wrote about the number seven is a problem which may be insolvable and into which, at any rate, I cannot 225 226 227 228 229 230

Cf. above, p. 179 (and p. 192, n. 203). P. 160, n. 19. Cf. above, p. 182 if. Cf. above, p. 184. Cf. above, p. 183, p. 184. The Strato-and-Diocles passage. Cf. above, p. 184 and p. 165 ff.

196

enter here. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized at this point that the two classes of arithmological writings which, after Robbins, we have been at pains to distinguish on the basis of their having either the Strato - and- Diodes passage or the quotations of Solon fr. 19 and Hebd. Ch. 5, also differ as to one other item, which follows immediately (or almost immediately) upon their accounts of the ages of man. Theo lists the seven vital organs, as follows (p. .104,15-16 Hiller): σπλάγχνα επτά, γλώσσα, καρδία, πνεύμων, ήπαρ, σπλήν, νεφροί δύο. The same organs are mentioned by Nieomaehus ap. [Iambi.], TkeoL ar., p. 67,19-20 de Falco (who calls them σπλάγχνα μέλανα); by Macrobius (1,6,77 nigra membra... lingua, cor, pulmo, ieciir, lien, renes duo), by Mart. Capeila (VII,739), and by Calcidius (Ch. 37, p. 86,10-11 Waszink). Philo, Op. muni. 118 (I, p. 41,21-3 Cohn-W.) mentions as εντός (μέρη) the same σπλάγχνα, but begins with στόμαχος instead of γλώσσα.232 Anatolius (p. 36,11-12 Helberg 233 ) agrees with Philo. It is tempting to assume that Posidonius gave a list of the seven vital organs as in Theo etc., and that the anonymous arithmologist substituted στόμαχος for γλώσσα. However this may be, it seems, at least, very plausible that Posidonius continued his account of the importance of the number 7 for the development of the human body with a list of the vital organs; within this context it was not inappropriate. Now, in Nieomaehus not only the seven vital organs have been listed, but also p. 68,1 ff. de Falco (1) the 7 καθολικά μέρη, viz. κεφαλή, θώραξ, χείρες δύο, πόδες δύο και αίδοΐον; (2) t h e 7 διατρήσεις έ ν , , , τω προσώπω, viz. οφθαλμών β', ώτών β', ρινών β', στόματος α'; (3) t h e seven

organs which transport food and breath (τά τε πνοήν και τροφή ν διαφέροντα), viz. φάρυγξ, στόμαχος, 234 γαστήρ, εντερον, μεσέντερον, κύστις και το προς τη εδρα, ο τίνες άρχόν καλουσιν. M a c r o b i u s a g r e e s w i t h

Nieomaehus though he gives the lists in a. different order (and has a few more of such lists, which I omit): (1) in aperto... septem... corporis partes: caput, pectus, manus pedesque et pudendum (1,6,80); (2) et quia sensus eorumque ministeria natura in capite velut in arce constituit, septem foraminibus sensuum celebrantur o f f i c i a , id est oris ac deinde oculorum, narium et murium hints (1,6,81); (3) septem alia... ad cibiim Cf. Robbins. Trad. 113. See also Leg. all. 1,12 (I, p. 64,2-3 Cohn-W.) 283 In Anatolius, this list is placed before the quotations of Solon and Hebd. Ch. 5. 234 This is consistent with the list of 'black organs' in Nieomaehus, which begins with γλώσσα, not with στόμαχος. In Philo and Anatolius, the στόμαχος is one of the 7 σπλάγχνα. 231 232

197

et spiritum accipiendum reddcndumque sunt deputata; guttur, stomachus, alvus, vesica et intestina principalia tri a: ,.. unum dissiplum..., alteram ... quod Graeci μεσέντερον dicunt, t er Hum... hi ram (1,6,77). Theo has an abbreviated version: he only mentions, but does not specify (2) the πόροι... κεφαλής επτά, and (3) of the bowels etc. he only mentions the έντερον though with the additional information that according to Herophihis it measures twenty-eight yards. Philo, Op. mund. 11.8 (I, p. 41,20 ff. Colin-W.) has a list of (1) the parts of the body w hich are έν φανέρω which differs from that of Nicomachus: he mentions κεφαλή, στέρνα,235 γ αστή ρ,230 διτταί yzlozc, 8 m m βάσεις 237 ; (2) his list of the 'seven indispensables' used by the κεφαλή is identical to that, of Nicomachus 238 (except for a comment on the (Huelion oi the mouth, which receives food and drink and. utters speech 239 ); (3) he has no list of organs transporting food and breath. 240 Anatolius' list of ολόκληρα μέρη του σώματος looks like a combination of Philo's two lists: κεφαλή, τράχηλος,241 στέρνα, πόδες β\ χείρες β' (ρ. 36,10 ff. Heiberg); (2) his list of the seven openings (πύροι) of the κεφαλή (p. 36,14-15) is identical to that of Nicomachus and Philo; (3) lie has no list of organs transporting food, drink and breath, but, instead of this, a note on the length of the έντερον according to Herophihis, just like Theo.242 Consequently, the difference between the two families at this point not only consists in their having either γλώσσα or στόμαχος at the beginning of the list of σπλάγχνα, but also in their having or not having a separate list of organs which transport food and breath. In Nicomachus and Macrobius, four different kinds of bodily parts have been

Cf. Nicomachus' Οώρας. With Nicomachus, this organ is on the list of organs transporting food and breath. 237 The list in Leg. all. 1,12 (I, p. 64,3-4 Cohn-W.) is different : κεφαλή, τρά/ηλο-. στέρνον, χείρες, κοιλία, ήτρον, πόδες. Apparent!ν, κοιλία and ήτρον (which are no μέλη) have been added to an original list. Ί hey may have been iahen from a list of organs connected with Hie transport of food etc. 238 The same list (but without the comment on the function of the. mouth) is given in Leg. all. 1,12 (I, p. 64,5-6 Cohn-'W.: το... πρόσωπον έπταχη κατατέτρηται). 239 Quoted above, p. 192, n, 203; cf. a J so below, p. 201. 240 In part, these functions are ascribed to the last item of the list of the seven indispensables, cf. n. 239 (and also the 'mixed' list quoted above, n. 237). 241 Cf. Leg.alL 1,12 (above n. 237). 242 With a difference: according to Theo, this length is 28 yards, according to Anatolius (cf. above) 21 yards. 235

236

198

distinguished in a really proper way, i.e., according to t y p e and function, In Pliilo, who (as we had reason to assume) used an intermediate source, the distinctions are blurred. The list of the seven organs transporting food and breath appears to have contained (originally) a reference to the length of the έντερον, which has been preserved by members of both families. From the fact that both families have preserved these lists, and that iu one family (which we have had occasion to connect with an intermediate source on other grounds) the principle underlying the division has been blurred, we may, 1 think, conclude that Posidonius, in Ms Comments on the Timaeus, spoke of these subjects after Ms discussion of the ages of man. Anyhow, these mat fers are not foreign to the physiological context which we have tentatively assumed to obtain for this section of Posidonius1 work. With the above lists, the analogous lists at. II ebd. Ch. 7, 8 and 11 should be compared. 243 First. At Ch. 7, the following Septem partes are listed: (1) caput; (2) manus ο per urn mini strati χ; (3) interior a viscera et praeeordiorum 2U definitio ; (4) the veretri... (pars) urinae profusio; (5) (veretri pars) seminisministratiira; (6) longao, id est intestinum ma jus, cibis sediminis Roscher 1913, p. 107 ff. only compares the arithmological lists beginning with κεφαλή with those in Hehd. Ch. 7 and 11. In p. 105 he quotes Philo's list of openings of the head, comparing it with Ch. 8. His explanation of the coincidences is that Posidonius follows Hehd. (cf. above, p. 161, n. 25). - The list of bodily parts which can be abstracted from Ch. 6 (the microeos;n-macrocosm-parallel) is different. This implies that in Ch. 7 and 1 1 a different 'source' is used. Roscher laboured in vain to make Ch. 6 fit with Ch. 7 and Πι. 11. 244 The meaning of praeeordiorum definitio is difficult. Ps. Galen (Νr. 44, p. 91 Bergstr.) comments: "die Scheidewand, die φρένες genannt wird... Und er hat schon und richtig daran getan, dass er die Scheidewand an dieser Stelle stellte; denn dadurch, dass er von der Scheidewand spricht, weist er hin auf das, was über ihr und unter ihr ist von den Gliedern". I.e., ps.-Galen ignores the interior a viscera and tries to make sense of the φρένες by making this organ divide the whole body. He is perhaps thinking of the function of the φρένες in the map of Ch. 11, and also of the microcosm -macrocosm - parallel: at p. 92 Bergstr. he compares the head (the upper part of the body) with the outermost cosmic sphere, which is, of course, incorrect. His interpretation is therefore not reliable at this point. However, he was followed by both Harder and Roscher, who translate 'Zwerchfell'. Perhaps praeeordiorum def initio means no more than praeeordia, cf. Ch. 11,9-11 R., where Ionia lies inter viscera et praeeordia. However this may be, the fact that viscera + praeeordia (?) count as one item is an indication of juggling. 243

199

exitus; (7) crura arnbulationes. Two different types of partes have been combined in this list, viz. outer and inner parts of the body. Caput, manus and crura correspond to the κεφαλή, χείρες and πόδες of Nicomachus and Philo, Leg. all. I.e. (in Op. mund. I.e. he has βάσεις instead of πόδες) and the caput, manus pedesque of Macrobius. The veretrum is mentioned among the outer parts of the body by Nieomachus (αίδοΐον) and Macrobius (pudendum). In Hebd., however, its two organic245 functions have been listed, The interiora viscera and longao id est intestinum mains correspond to several items of the lists of organs transporting food and drink of Nicomachus and Macrobius (it is, perhaps, also possible to identify the interiora viscera with some of the σπλάγχνα listed by Nicomachus, Μ aero bins, Theo and Philo as well), viz. with στόμαχος, έντερο ν etc. The list of Ch. II 246 is slightly different: (1) caput et fades; (2) medulla, cervix; (3) tertia pars inter viscera et praecordia; (4) crura; (5) pedes; (6) venter; (7) venter inferior et longaoy intestinum maius. Items not found in Ch. 7 are (2) medulla, cervix, (3) the organ which is between bowels and lungs, (4) crura, (6) venter, (7) venter inferior. Two things are clear: (a) the number 7 is only reached at the price of some smuggling, (b) In Ch. 7, pedes means legs', in Ch. 11 4 feet' in contrast to crura = legs". This fine distinction was, no doubt, made in the interest of the comparison between a map and the human body, A similar distinction is made between venter and venter inferior. Now, the list in Ch. 11 introduces an exterior part of the body, viz. the neck (n.b. together with the medulla, i.e. the organic substance contained within this part) which is not on the lists of bodily parts of Nicomachus and Macrobius, but which occurs on that of Anatolius. 247 The venter (γαστήρ) occurs in Nicomachus' list of organs transporting food etc, Second. In Hebd. Ch. 8, the caput is said to have a septinariiim auxilium ad vitam: (1) the introduction of cold (air); (2) the exhalation of heat from the whole of the body; (3) visits iudicium2m; (4) auris

245 It should be noticed that Nicomachus' list of organs transporting food and drink mentions the κύστις, that of Macrobius the vesica (above, p. 198). 248 Ch. 11 contains the curious map of the world, the parts of which are compared to that of the human body. Cf. above, Ch. I, p. 19-20, and p. 20 n. 88. 247 And on the 'mixed' list of Philo, Leg, All 1,1.2; cf. above, p. 19«, n. 237. 248 Indicium: it should be noticed, that in some arithmological authors 7 items known by means of vision are listed (e.g. Philo, Op. mund. 120, I» p. 42,3 ff.

200

audit us; (5) naves respir antes odor em intellect us; (6) umoris bibitionis et cibontm transmissio, arteria et sthomacus; (7) linguae gustus sensus. In four of those functions of the head (viz. (1), (2), (6) and (7)), the mouth plays a major role,249 Mouth, eyes, ears and nose constitute the seven openings of the head in the list of these openings of Nicomachus, Macrobius, Anatoluis and Philo (Op. mund.) However, Philo, as we have seen, adds that the mouth is the είσοδος of food and drink (and the 'exit' of words), as Plato stated: on account of the reference to the Timaeusthis remark may ultimately go back to Posidonius1 Comments. The introduction of liquid and solid foodstuffs is mentioned as a separate function of the head in Hebd. Ch. 8. A rteria (— φάρυγξ251) and sthomacus are mentioned in Nicomachus' list of organs which transport food252 (and breath). Breath is mentioned at the beginning of the list of Hebd. Ch. 8.253 Finally, γλώσσα occurs as the first item on Nico mach us' and Macrobius' lists of σπλάγχνα.254 On the basis of this comparison we may conclude that there is not one item 255 in the lists of Hebd. which cannot be paralleled from the lists in the arithmologieal literature. This coincidence cannot be accidental. As we have already noticed, 256 the lists of exterior and interior parts of Nicomachus and Macrobius have been drawn according to principles which are clearly visible, each list containing Cohn-W.), The emphasis upon the cognitive function of the senses (visus indicium, mares... in le 11 edits, linguae... sensus) is perhaps not accidental: cf. 1 , osiilonins-Sextus on the cognitive function of the senses, Μ. VII»93, 103 and 119 (cf. above, p. 193-5), 219 In the first two, of course, the nares cooperate. 250 Cf. above, p. 198 and p. 192, n. 203. 251 The ancients used φάρυγξ both for wind-pipe and oesophagus. Macrobius has guttur, siomachus among the seven organs which serve ad cibum et spirit ton accipie ndum redd end urn que. 252 Cf. above, p. 197. 253 Both breathing-iti and breathing-out. For the breathing-out cf. Macrobius* reddendum (above, n, 251). 254 Hebd. Ch. ,S mentions 4 of the 5 senses, Ch. 9 mentions speech. It is perhaps permissible to think also of the 'seven senses* mentioned by Nicomachus (cf. above, p. 168-9); Nicomachus took this from Posidonius, as 1 believe. Hebd. Ch. 9 also mentions the seven vowels. It is a remarkable coincidence that Macrobius, who lacks some of Nicomachus' finer distinctions, at this point mentions the seven vowels (cf. above, p. 169» n. 69). For the parallel between Hebd. Ch. 7 and 8 and the Vet. plac, cf. above, Ch. Υ A, p. 133 and notes. 255 Except for the ad hoc differentiations of crura-pedes and venter-venter inferior. 256 Cf. above, p. 198-9.

201

parts or organs of a different type. In Hebd., these principles have been abandoned. To me, the most likely conclusion to be drawn from this difference between Nicomachus + Macrobius and Hebd. is, that the author of Hebd. was familiar with the lists as we have them in both these authors, and that he put forth lists of his own making, basing himself upon the materials offered by Iiis source. The confusion which reigns in the lists of Philo (at least in some of them, esp, in Leg. all.) and in Anatolins (also only in some cases) may be explained in the following way. Earlier in this chapter, I have argued that Philo and Anatolins (who both quote Hebd. Ch. 5) depend on the anonymous aritlimologist who revised and completed Posidonius' arithmology.2·17 It is possible that the anonymous aritlimologist revised the lists of the parts and the organs of the body under the influence of the lists of Hebd. Perhaps, this would not only explain part of the confusion, but also offer an explanation for the fact that both 2b8 Philo (Leg. A11.) and Anatolins mention the neck among the exterior parts of the body. Both Philo (Op. mund.) and Anatolius used a source containing the quotations from Hebd. Ch, 5. The neck is mentioned at Hebd. Ch. 11,9 R., undoubtedly because of the Isthmus on the map. 259

6. On the basis of exterior evidence, viz. the different treatment of human embryology and of the hebdomadic periods of human life in the two classes of arithmologieal writers, we have concluded that Hebd., a (]notation from which work is to be found in the members of one of these groups, is later than Posidonius' Comments on the Timaeus of Plato. 260 From the comparison of the lists of parts and organs of the Cf. above, p, .181-2, p. 185. Cf. above, p. 198 and ibd. n. 237. 259 The apparent dependence of the various parts of the body listed in If ebd. Ch. 11 upon the original lists of parts and organs is in favour of rejecting Roscher's hypothesis that, this map is original and 'very old'. Furthermore, it should be recognized that it is by no means certain that the author of Hebd. only mentions those parts of the world which he knew or which he thought especially important. On the contrary: also in this ease the hebdomadie principle of selection will have prevailed (cf. the omission of one wind from the wind-rose, above Ch. V C, p. 1 50 ff., and the lumping-together of planets and tixed stars, above Ch. I l l , p. 57, Ch. V B, p. 138 ff.). 260 Cf. above, p. 161 ff., p. 173-4, p. 181-2, p. 185 ff., p. 190-2.

257

258

202

human body, which are to be found in the arithmological literature, with those of Hebd., we have concluded that ps.-Hippocrates used the original lists contained in Posidonius' work. 261 On the basis of this evidence», we may conclude that probably the whole arithmological approach predominant in Hebd. has been inspired by the section on the number 7 in PoMdonms' (Comments. Consequently Hebd. Ch, 5, on the ages of man, was modelled not only after Solon fr. 10 Dicht,262 but after the whole St raio-and-Dioclos passage, 263 which has been preserved by one class of arithmological authors, as well. Ilowever, ps. Hippocrates surpassed Posidonius in as far as he introduced the number seven cvervwhere, even when this necessitated no small amount of juggling: think of tlie way in which he arrives at 7 winds or at 7 parts of the universe. A connection between Hebd. and Posidonius' ('omments would also help to understand other peculiarities of the pseudo-Hippocratic treatise. For instance, the intermediate and mediating function of the moon (Ch. 1,63 ff.R.) is exactly parallel to that in Nicom. ap. [Iambi.], 2fil

C f . a h m e , p . l r ) 7 if.

Cf. above, p. 171. n. KM. 263 Knowledge of this passage explains the embryology of I fehd. t which, in the account of ps. Hippocrates, has been separated from the exposition of man. In Ch. 1,8 ff.R. we read septem die ruin enagulationeiu sem in is hum an i et inde fovmationem naturae hominis. The eoagulatio of the send is parallel to that of Nat. puer. quoted in the Strato-1 Socles passage (cf. above, p. 167, the formation of the membrane) and that, of Yarro (above, ibd. n. 5C)), The anonymous arithntologist, who appears to have ieplaced the St ra to-a tub Dioclrs passage bv the quotations of Solon fr. 19 and Hebd. Ch. 5, seems to have worked ίο this fragment of ft ebd. Ch. 1 i n t o his own treatise, for th<* Greek text (slightly paraphrased) is quoted by Philo, Op, wund. 124 (1, p. 42,18 ff. Colm-W.): φησί δέ και f ϊ τττυοκράτης 6 της φύσεως επιγνώμων έν έβδομά^ι κρατύνεσΟαι και τήν ττή;ιν της γονής καΐ τήν άνάπλασιν τήί σαρκός We should not understand this to mean that the solidifying of the seed and the format ion of the flesh occur within the same week, but that each of these processes takes seven days, or rather, that it is measured by the number seven. In this way, the parallel between the embryology of Strato-1 )ioc!es and that of Ifehd. is complete. The arithmologist (or, at any rate, Philo), ibd., adds a note on menstruation and on seven month's children which is not paralleled in Hebd,; however, the next item, on the role of the number seven in diseases is paralleled by the sequel to the embryologieal statement of Hebd. Ch. 1, viz. by Ch. 1,13 ff.R. etdeterminationum egriludinum. In Philo, the embryologieal details (Op, mund. 124) have been put a few pages away from the account of the ages of man (Op. mund. 103-5), which only mentions the βρέφος in passing (I, p. 35,24 Cohn-W., cf. above, p. 173, n. 98 in fine and p. 181-2, n. 145). 262

203

Theo 1. ar.} p. 59,5 ff. de Falco, a passage which we had occasion to attribute to Posidonius. 264 Moreover, as we have noticed before, 265 Hebd,, in describing the phases of the moon uses arithmological language, and the discription of the phases itself is exactly parallel to that of the arithmological writers. 266 Furthermore, the connection with a work related to Plato's Timaeus perhaps helps to explain (1) why the analysis at Hebd. 2,30 ff. of the concepts hip' and 'down1 is so remarkably similar to that of the Timaeus,267 and (2) why the earth is excepted from motion at Hebd. 2,40 ff.268

In the course of our analysis of the cosmology of Hebd.f2m we came to the conclusion that the vitalism of the elements and the theory of heat of our treatise must be explained on the assumption that ps.~ Hippocratcs was influenced by Posidonius. If also, as we have thought reasonable to assume, the arithmology of Hebd. is dependant on that of Posidonius, the main ideas which went into the composing of Hebd., part I, have been adequately explained and traced back to a single historical origin. This source, viz. Posidonius, affords a link between the arithmology and the cosmology of Hebd. which cannot be established, as far as I see, on any other basis.

Cf. above, p. 182-4. Note, however, that Nicomach us-Posidonius (cf. above, p. 183, n. 150) speaks of ten. spheres, not of seven. The parallel was noticed by Roscher, 1906, 147 η.21 2. For Hebd. and the lunar cycle cf. also above, Ch. IV, p. 117-8. - The mediating function of the moon is also a featiire of Plutarch., Fac. (927e ff.), 928c. H. Cherniss, Pint. Movalia VII (Loeb), 94-5 (cf. also P. Boyance, fitude sur le Sange de Sei pi on 85, η.2) adduces Hebd, Ch. 6, § 1 at this passage of Plutarch. It should be noticed that. Far. 927e ff. has a comparison between the structure of the universe and that of the human body which is (as far as the general idea is concerned) parallel to t h a t of Hebd. Ch. 6. It has been argued t h a t a related passage in Fac. m a y reflect Posidoniari ideas, cf. De Vogel, Greek Phil. I l l , Nr. 1192d and the references quoted there, p. 269. 265 See Ch. II, p. 60 ff., word-list s.v. τελειόω. 266 Ibd., p. 51, parallels from Philo and Theo have been quoted. 287 Cf. above, Ch. I l l , p. 62 ff. 268 Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 68, p. 77. 269 Cf. above, Ch. IV. 264

''04

CHAPTER VII

HEBD. P A R T I I (CH. 1 2 - 5 2 ) AND I T S R E L A T I O N TO P A R T I (CH. 1-11)

1. In the preceding chapters our investigation, for the methodological reasons outlined in Ch. I,1 has been restricted to the first part of Hebd. As will be remembered, it was Roscher who distinguished between the two parts of the treatise because (1) the arithmology of part 1 is not applied in part II and (2) the theory of 'hot' and 'cold' of part II only plays an insignificant role in part I. 2 On the other hand, even Roscher postulated some kind of unity to obtain for the whole treatise in as far as its first part is an 'adaptation, of older materials' incorporated into his work by the author of part IL 3 However, Roscher's second argument has been opposed by Gehr,4 who argued that the theory of "hot" and "cold' in part II is more relevant to part I than Roscher assumed it to be. He further observed that the singular theory of Ch. 1,85 ff.R. involving the liquid element as the "Aufbewahrungsort der Wärme" occurs also in Ch. 15,18-9 R., while Ch. 15 as a whole is very similar to Ch. 6 (minus the detailed and extensive microcosmmacrocosm-parallel) . To do justice to the second part of Hebd. would entail an interpretation as detailed as that of the first part attempted in the preceding chapters. This cannot be done within the frame-work of the present study. Moreover, the author is convinced that an interpretation of this kind should be left to specialists in the History of Greek Medicine, However, some points may be made. On the one hand, the theory of 'hot and cold' can indeed be proved to be common to both parts of the treatise, It has been established before 5 (or so I think) that the 1 2 3 4 5

Above, p. 30-1. Cf. above, Ch. I, p. 17-8 and ibd. n. 70. Cf. ibd., p. 18 and ibd., n. 74. Cf. ibd., p. 26-8. Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 78-103.

205

'Wärmelehre' of part 1 elates from the first Cent. B.C. If a variation of the same theory can be pointed out in part II, the same consequence would seem to be valid. On the other hand, some of the expressions and theories contained in part II point in the direction of a rather late date of composition. These theories, especially those of a purely medical nature, are not connected, oi not necessarily related, to those of part I.

2. The ( t h e o r y of hot and cold1. Ch. 15 may be our starting-point. Roscher6 was wrong in speaking of a Tetradenlehre im Gegensatz zu Kap. b\ for the four elements oi Ch. 15 correspond exactly tu those of Ch. 6,7 the only difference being that the arithmological classification of Ch. 6 is not repeated. There are, moreover, correspondences between Ch. 15 and Ch. 1 and Ch. 2. Though the text of Ch. 15 is not wholly intelligible, 8 this much, at least, is clear: we are told that the earth contains portions of the other elements, Ch. 15,5 ff.R.: "the earth contains a warm part of sun; all its moisture consists of water; all what is cold breath (in the earth) consists of air; while what is bony and fleshy consists of earth.' 9 Κρασις of the elements, just as we found in Hebd. part I. 10 Also details can be paralleled: 15,5-7 R. terra habet ealidam quidem solis partem corresponds to Ch. 6,§2,3 ff.R. e<st> quiddam ex solis splendoribiis eongregatum terrae, hoc quod... ealidum est.11 For the liquid element within the earth cf. Ch. 6,§1,20-29 R.12 The presence of the cold clement (air) within the earth is not mentioned

8 1913, p. 24 (cf, above, Ch. I, p. 17, n. 70). In Ch. 15,9 K. the ms.-reading aquae should be retained, cf. 15,7 solis: 15,11 aeris; 15,13 terrae (below, n. 9). 7 On the four elements in Ch. 6, cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 78-81. 8 The opening sentence of Ch. 15 is opaque; perhaps Quae autem mundiis tradet (?) corporibus, ea tam se (eaten us A, acten us P) ha bent quam (quum P) animalia et quae nascuntur ( — φυτά) omnia. It is clear that the composition of the bodies of living beings is compared to that of the universe, as at the beginning of Ch. 6 (cf. above, Ch. 1Y, p. 106). The λήμμα of ps.-Galen, Nr. 94-5 Kergstr. is not very helpful, as it is more like a paraphrasis than a translation, 9 Terra habet ealidam quidem solis partem: lieorem autem omnem aquae," quod autem frigidurn / latum aeris/ quod ossosuru el car no sum terrae, 10 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. 90-1. 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 us so sum ei car no sum terrae) is exactly parallel to Ch. 6,§1,14 R. ossa12 and 18 car ο. - 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. παντροφος έξ ύδατος εούσα, while ad slat um animalium el quae nascunler may be com pared to Ch. 1,91 ff.R. έφ' f) τά τε ζω α καί τ<ά φυτά>. The sentence following upon this one 15 can also be paralleled from pail I: with aqua... nutriment-urn cf. παντρύφος εξ ύδατος έουσα, with aqua as vas calidum cf. Ch. 1,78 ff.R., on the θερμόν blended with the liquid element. 16 Next we read (Ch. 15,19 ff.R.) quod autem solis calor11 est, <est> cremcntum el m ο t ii s omni bus.Ih This goes much further than Ch. 1,85 ff. k., where it is only said that heat is the cause of the motion of the liquid element 19 ; however, cf. 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 skin and the outermost heavenly sphere, Ch. (>,§2,21 ff. R. Consequently, the theory of the elements of Ch. 15 corresponds to that of part I: both the κρασις of the elements and the idea that heat ultimately borrowed from the sun 23 is the cause of motion, a correct recognition of which is of ibd., p. 106. Ch. 15,14 ff. lv. Est autem terra tmindi nutrix ad $ fat am aninialtum (adstatio animalihiis P) et quae nascuntur ( - - φυτά) ex licore. The commentary of ps. Galen (Nr. 94 Bergstr.) has it that the earth 'dauernd und stehend ist und nicht von ihrer Stelle weicht' and that 'alle Vegetation nimmt die Nahrung von der Feuchtigkeit'. 15 Ch. 15,18-19 R. Aqua vera nutrimentuni et vas calidum. 16 This was already pointed out by Gelir, o.e. 213; ef. further above, Ch. IV, p. 79 ff. 17 Cf. 15,6 ff.R. calidam solis partem, quoted above. 18 The living beings and the elements. 19 Cf. above, on aqua... vas calidum. See further Ch. IV, p. 90, p. 92. 20 Cf. above, Ch. i V, p. 1 05, for the connection bed ween this statement and the theory of the θερμόν. 21 Ch. IV, p. 92 ff. 22 15,22 ff.R. Cf. also above, Πι. IV, p. 107 ff. on the (Stoir) theory of earth as originating from the liquid element. 13

14

23

Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 79, p. 02-3.

207

p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e for t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Η ebd. p a r t I, a r e to b e found in p a r t I I of t h e t r e a t i s e too. N e x t , let us t u r n to Ch, 13. Roscher spoke of a "dualistische A u f f a s s u n g der Seele, i m Gegensatz zu K a p . X ' . 2 4 H o w e v e r , a s will be seen, t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n Ch. 13 a n d Ch. 10 is o n l y a p p a r e n t . 2 6 T h e t e x t of Ch. 13 a s printed b y Roscher is l a r g e l y u n i n t e l l i g i b l e ; it c a n , h o w e v e r , be r e c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h t h e help of ps. Galen's λήμματα, Nr. 62-74 Bergstr, 2 « 1913, 18 (cf. above, Ch. I, p. 17-8, n. 70). Cf. Gehn above Ch. 1, p. 28, n. 134. 26 1 propose to read as follows: (I In ergo d ico hominis aninuinr t illic < credo me die ere originale calidum (5) frigidum (for frigidol) cone return. * Originale ante in dico 'calidum' quod manavit de pat re el de (10) ma Ire, quando conveneruni adinf c a l i d u m el vicem ( = άλλήλοις, cf. Ch. 2,48 R.) ad injantuni generational!; frigidum' (sc. dico), quando const-item nt (15) adinvicesu (-= άλλήλοις) in mat rice, <post>quam [co] quod vacatur semen a paire (IDS. parentibus, but cf. ps. Galen Nr. 64 Bergstr., 'Wenn das Sperma vom Erzeuger ejakuliert wird und so den Uterus trifft') man ans cecidit in (20) mat rice in. Ei tibi d ix er ο *animae caloremei mm 'oninem animam hominiss, hoc dico originale cahduni. Et (25) cetera calida omnia aut de temporibus facta dicam ei sole, mit ex quibtis mandncamiis mit bibimus, i (et ms.) ex p υ cutis (30) midta habeutinm vocabula aut de conviviis contrarioriini cihorum ad saluiem. Ei quando dic 'aer<e>m (35) frigidmu' aut *aridum spirit um non originale aui ipsius animae hominis frigidum dico, sed totius (40) mundi animae. Et quando ah his quae eduntur ei bibunt u-r dico frigidum, aut ex utrisque quae in superioribus (45) dicta stmt (sc. the habentia mult a vocabula drunk ex poculis and the cibi contrarii ad salulem consumed de conviviis) frigidum dico, [et] non oportet me existnnare mult a frigida dicer e, sed loc (is ms.) in quibus constitutum (50) frigidum divisiim est acienus d i f f e r r i arbitror (or: me arhitrari}). Translation: "Consequently, whenever 1 speak of the human soul, you must take me to mean the original heat (5) grown into one with the cold. However, by original heat 1 mean the heat which lias flown from the father and the (10) mother at the time at which they came together in order to produce offspring; 1 (only) speak of heat and cold, when these powers have (15) united within the womb, when what is called seed and what flows from the father has fallen into the (20) uterus. And whenever I speak of the heat of the soul, and not of the human soul as a whole, 1 mean the original heat. All (25) the other hot things of which I will speak 1 understand to have been heated by the seasons or by the sun, or to be contained in what we (usually) eat and drink, or to be derived from drinks (30) with many names, drunk from goblets, or from unhealthy foods consumed at large dinners. And whenever I speak of cold (35) air or dry πνεύμα, I do not mean tlie original cold, i.e. that of the soul of man himself, but that of (40) the Soul of the whole universe. And whenever J speak of the cold derived from what is eaten or drunk, or from the (unhealthy) foodstuffs and drinks (45) which have been mentioned above, you are not invited to understand that I mean a plurality of cold things: no, 1 am (only) of opinion that the 24

25

208

The purpose of this chapter is riot only to give a definition of soul, but also to distinguish between the various meanings and connotations of the terms 'hot' and 'cold'. The author distinguishes (1) the 'original' hot and cold which constitute the human soul, (2) the (additional) hot and cold derived from what is eaten and drunk, and (3) the cold of the air and the heat of the seasons and sun, connected in some way with the Soul of the universe. Both (2) and (3), we are to understand, influence (1). All the same, what is cold (and, undoubtedly, also what is hot) is one, the only distinction being one of place. Now, in Ch. 10 the soul is said to have seven parts, while Ch. 13 only mentions two: original heat and original cold. But the opening sentences of Ch. 10 also mention both the hot and the cold as parts of the soul. The sentence concerning the cold is unambiguous: secundum aetherium frigus utile (Ch. 10,7-8 R.); but that concerning the calidtim is almost unintelligible. 27 However, ps. Galen's commentary on Nr. 47 Bergstr. 28 says: "Hippokrates sagt: der erste Teil der Seele ist die ursprüngliche Wärme, die im Anfang der Schwangerschaft ist. Und wisst, dass das Sperma sich verfestigt und so wie das Lebewesen wird (?) in sieben Tagen". Though I would not know how to reconstruct the Latin text of the beginning of Ch. 10,29 this much, at least, is clear, (50) cold Is divided differ in the which I have indicated". The text of ps. Galen has two λήμματα to which nothing in oui corresponds (Nr. 65 and Nr. 69 Bergstr.) I do not know how to extra's; though Nr. 65 looks like an anticipation of the beginning of Ch. 20 of Ch. 14, it is, of course, entirely possible that our Latin are abridged at these points. Nr. 65 Bergstr. strongly emphasises the vital importance of the inborn heat; Nr. 69 Bergstr. says that its effects are contrary to those of the heat outside the body. in (eis Ρ) septern dies quod in aere (Roscher proposes to read mcitre) et quod in Ps. Galen Nr. 47 Bergstr. has "Auch die Seele wird in sieben Te to which perhaps P's septe forme (P's omitted) may be added. 28 P. 103; cf. also ibd. p. 105: 'der erste Teil von den Teilen der Seele ist die et inde fi[ci]ens Fi[ci]ens and f[ac]iens could have Translation: 'first the hot, from which

209

that ps. Hippocrates spoke of the originale calidum as the first part of the soul. Ch. 13 mentions no more parts of the soul than these two; Ch. 10, on the other hand, true to the hebdomadic principle of enumeration of the first part of the treatise, adds five more parts: 3: the umor which is to be found in the whole body; 4. the "earth'30 which has to be fed by the blood; 5. bile, colera amara, causing disease and pain 31 ; 6. all 'sweet food' of the blood32; 7. the salt parts 33 . Perhaps these other parts of the soul mentioned in Ch. 10 may be connected with the general theory of II ebd. part II in the following way: The "hot of the soul' nourishes itself by drawing 'water' unto itself (Ch. 14,22 ff. R.) There is only one umor, however, bearing many names and showing diverse characteristics under the influence of the hot and the cold (Ch. 18; examples: chole (= χολή), fleu mat a (= φλέγματα), aqua salsa etc.) In abnormal conditions, these humours also are assimilated by the hot of the soul (Ch. 14,29 ff. R. speaks of a χολώδες διακεκαυμένον και έχον χυμών < παν >το ίων ίκμάδ<α>ς, Ch. 19,15 R. of a όλκήν χολής ή φλέγματος).34 The flesh is an earth-like substance formed under the influence of the cold (Ch. 15,12 ff., 22 ff. R.; Ch. .18,3 ff.R.); it 'melts' - dissolves under the influence of excessive psychic heat (Ch. 24,70 ff.R.; 28,38 ff.R.) Properly speaking, these substances drawn unto itself by the soul during illness are not 'parts' of the soul, cf. also Ch. 24, the beginning, which as such mentions only calidum et frigidum. However, the moisture used up by the soul both in illness and health becomes part of the soul, the excess of heat contained in certain moistures disturbing the balance between the original hot and cold of the soul in favour of the calidum.^ Therefore, I submit that it is not improper to speak of seven parts of the soul, as in Ch. 10, within seven days that which is in air and within living beings'. For 'in air' of. the originale frigidum which unites with the seed when it has been introduced into the womb, Ch. 13,13 ff.R. (above, p. 208, n. 26). 30 Probably, the flesh; cf. Ch. 15,12 ff.R. (above, p. 207). See also the comment of ps. Galen, p. 105 Bergstr.: " Denn er sagt: der vierte Teil ist die Erde, und er meint damit das, wovon er gesprochen hat von dem mit einer geringen Feuchtigkeit feuchten Teil der Erde; und er meint damit das Fleisch und Blut:. Und weiss, dass das Fleisch (der) Nahrung b e d a r f . . B u t the sentence in Ch. 10 remains difficult. 31 Cf. ps. Galen, Nr. 48 Bergstr. 32 Cf. ps. Galen, Nr. 49 Bergstr. 33 I.e., possibly, the φλέγμα (so ps. Galen, Nr. 50, p. 109 Bergstr.) 34 Cf. also e.g. Ch. 27. 35 Ch. 24,1 ff.R. (quoted below, p. 215).

210

adding to the two primary parts those substances which are used up by the hot of the soul both in normal and in abnormal conditions (n.b.: cold moisture straightens the hot of the soul in as far as it is moisture, and adds to the cold of the soul in as far as it is relatively cold). 36 If this interpretation is correct, Ch. 10 is an anticipation of the general physiology of Η ebd. part IL

3. Indications for a late date of Hebd. pari II. In Ch. 13,33 ff.R. the cold within the human soul is distinguished from the (frigidum)... to tins mundi animaeß7 I larder's translation printed by Roscher ('ich meine damit nicht..., sondern die Seele ( = Luft?) der ganzen Welt') is misleading, for the text explicitly defines "cold air or dry breath" as part of the World-Soul and does not identify the two. We can easily supply the other part of the World-Soul, viz. the heat, for the similarity obtaining between the cold of the soul and that of the universe is of course also valid for the heat of the soul and cosmic heat. 38 The term World-Soul (which, on the basis of the comparison with the human soul made in Ch. 13, should be taken seriously) is indicative of a late date. We should not think, however, of the Platonic, but of the Stoic World-Soul, which, just as that of Hebd. Ch. 13, is of a material nature and which, also just like that of Hebd. Ch. 13, consists of heat (fire) and air ( p n e u m a , cf. aridum spirt tum) Ρ It is likewise a Stoic doctrine that the composition of human souls is analogous to that of the Soul of the universe. 40 It should be pointed out that Ch. 40,23-4 R. speaks of quod in an una est umoris, i.e. undeniably counts umor among the constituents of the soul. Cf. also Ch. 42,14 ff. color em vero eins qui est anunae receptorium id est sanguinis. 37 Cf. above, p. 208, m 26. 38 The structure of the universe and that of human body and soul being the same (cf. Ch. 14,95 ff.R.; Ch. 15, quoted above p. 206, n. 8, etc.) 39 For the Stoic conception of human soul cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 99, n. 169. For the Stoic World-Soul (pneuma, fire, God) in general cf. Moreau, Arne du Monde, 164 ff., esp. 177 and 177, n. 9; see further F. Rüsche, Das Seelenpneiima. 6 ff. 10 Cf. SVF f, 124; 1,495; 11,633; 11,634. It should be recalled that Posidonius in this respect followed the Early Stoa, cf. Act i us I, 7,19 Ποσειδώνας πνεύμα νοερον και πυρ ώ δες (sc. τον Οεόν είναι φησιν. Cf. also De Vogel, Greek Phil. I l l , Nr. 1196a-d) and Diog. Laert. VI 1,157 Ποσειδώνας πνεύμα ένΟερμον είναι τήν ψυχήν. However, this is not all, for Posidonius was also influenced by the psychology of Plato and Aristotle (Galen, De Plac. Hipp, et Plat. p. 432,9 ff. and p. 476,2 Müller), and appears to have advocated a (subdued) dichotomy of 36

211

This affinity between the psychology of Hebd. part II and the ideas of the Stoa also helps to interpret the (in itself curious) doctrine of Hebd. Ch. 19,53 ff. and 20,1 ff. R., that the heat within the soul is both beneficient and lethal, i.e. that it makes the body grow as well as shrink by consuming all its moisture. We are reminded of the ambiguous nature of the cosmic fire according to the Stoa, which is both πυρ τεχνικό ν 41 and a destroying force (think of the έκπύρωσις !); cf. esp. Cleanthes, SVF 1,504 ( = Cic., ND II,40), 42 where the fire of the sun, though of the nature of the πυρ τεχνικόν of living beings, not only makes things grow, but is also capable of burning them up (etiam saepe

comburat).

Furthermore, the vocabulary of part II (at least in some chapters) is also indicative of a late date. 43 In Ch. 14,11 R· περιπεσεΐν means "come to grief1»44 a sense for which Liddell and Scott quote no parallels earlier than Polyb. ¥111,36,4 (cf. also Lampe s.v., 1); Ch. 14,40 R. τήξις occurs once in Aristotle, Mete. 382b30, then in Theophr., De lap. p. 341,13 ff.W., then in Hellenistic times; Ch. 14,68-9 (των νούσων) άνεσιν,45 'remission': though άνεσις is a good Ionic word, the earliest parallel for its use with diseases (fevers!) which I have been able to find is in the Pneumatic physician Archigenes, ap. Galen VII, 424 K. (cf. also ibd., 427 K.) We pass on to Ch. 19,14 R.: σκευασίη appears to be not a genuine Ionic word: Liddell and Scott quote no instances of σκευασία(!) earlier than Plato; it is also Hellenistic. 46 higher and lower powers (δυνάμεις) of the soul. Cf. Verbeke, L' Involution... Pneuma 14 ff. and De Vogel, ibd., Nr. 1184 ff. W e have studied the higher part of the soul according to Posidonius above, Ch. VI, p. 160» p. 192 ff. 41 Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 88, p. 92 and ibd. n. 114, p. 95-6, n. 154. 42 Cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 88. 43 I have not investigated the language of part II as extensively as t h a t of part I. 44 Περιπεσεΐν is used absolutely. Translation of the opening sentence: 'Whenever an abnormal q u a n t i t y of moisture enters the heart and the arteries and the hollow veins', άνάγκη των προειρη μένων περιπεσεΐν τίνα, 'as the natural heat is moved and is collected in the innermost recesses of the belly' etc. The Greek words quoted should be translated: 'then, of necessity, some of the aforementioned (organs?) come to grief'. It is wrong to take νοΰσοι as antecedent and to translate περιπεσεΐν by 'occur', as is done b y F. Lornmer, Zur Komposition der hippokratischen Schrift π. ε β δ ο μ ά δ ω ν 82 (on his proposed arrangement of the order of chapters in this part of Ilebd. for which cf. above, Ch. I, p. 15-16, 'humours' or even 'qualities' is the obvious antecedent). 45 Cf. also Ch. 14,85 and 96 R. and Ch. 46,36 and 47 R. 46 The curious expression 'φύσιος σκευασίης' m a y mean 'a dressing-up of nature', i.e. special w a y s of preparing natural foodstuffs, with results damaging to our

212

Ch. 19,34 έκκαυσις; the first instance quoted by Liddell and Scott is Arist., Mete. 342a2; then Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman (cf. also Lampe s.v.) Ch. 19,44 ff.R. ή φαρμάκοισιν εύαγώγοισιν εξαγάγω τις τάς ακαθαρσίας47: it appears that εύάγωγος is used catachrestically ('medicines which are easily handled' 48 ); at any rate, the word - according to Liddell and Scott - does not occur before Plato, and even there not in a medical sense. 49 Ch. 19,71 διάψυχρος is not(!) in Liddell and Scott, while 19,74 R. διάχολος apparently occurs only here (n.b.: these two terms occur in the vicinity of διάθερμος, which is a good Ionic word, and so may be analogous formations). Ch. 28,11 άκμαστικός is Hellenistic, 50 Ch. 50,17 R. υπερνικά even Graeco-Roman (Liddell and Scott mention, apart from Iiebd. Ch. 50, Galen XIX, 645 K.; Ep. Rom. 8,37; Lib., Descr. 30,9,4 (cf. also Lampe s.v.)), while Ch. 46,36 and 47 R. has the word άνεσις in the same sense as Ch. 14,68-9 R. The Greek fragments of part II of the treatise therefore exhibit the same linguistic characteristics as those of part L 5 1

4. A f f i n i t y with Pneumatic Medicine. Though Hebd. part. IF 2 is im dependent in many details, its doctrines (both general and particular) recall those of the Pneumatic school of medicine. 53 health (cf. on the foods and drinks of civilization Ch. 13,29 ff.R., above p. 208, n. 26). (note the plural) in the ense of 'filth' appears to be 48 49 50

51 52 53

The term άκαθ. occurs also Ch. 19,39 and 19,47 R. Cf. aiso below, p. 220. LS J s.v. 1,2 quote Galen XV, 78 Κ. εύαγωγότατος χυμός, 'easily purged'. Though the Greek text of this passage has been derived from Aetius of Amida has not been translated into Latin, I do not think t h a t it has b y Aetius. Cf. above, Ch. II, p. 35, p. 52. For earlier interpretations of part II, cf. above, Ch. I, p. 6 ff. No up-to-date history of this school exists, let alone a collection of fragments

R E Supp. Bd. X I (1968), p. 1097 ff. M. Wellmann's Die pneumatische Schule bis auf Archigenes in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt, Phil. Unt. 14, Berlin 1895, is still indispensable. Cf. also G. Verbeke, Γ Involution de la , 191 ff. and (for the theory of 'elements') Ε. Schöner, Das the Pneumatic school upon the Stoa in general, Kudlien (cf. also above, Ch. II, p. 33, n. 8 and Ch. V A, p. 130, n. 4 and p. 135, n. 27) t h a t on Posidonius in particular; cf. also H. Diller, Eine stoisch-pneumatische Schrift 193-4.

213

In Ch. 24,10 ff.R. we read calidum et frigidum el humidum el siccum utraque in febribus talia efficiimt et ftatiiintur etc. Roscher said "hier tauchen plötzlich neben dem calidum et frigidum noch die Prinzipien des humidum et siccum auf, von denen bisher keine Rede war. Wahrscheinlich handelt es sich hier um eine spätere Einschiebung". 54 However, Roscher's observation is incorrect: the ύγρόν ( , h u m i d u m p l a y s an important role in the etiology of Ch. 14 (and elsewhere), while the siccum occurs at the end of Ch. 17.56 Hot and cold are active, wet and dry passive 57 'qualities 1 or 'substances'. 58 This (ultimately Stoic) theory was also adopted by the Pneumatic school: the hot, the cold, the wet and the dry are chosen as στοιχεία; of these, the hot and the cold are ποιητικά αίτια, the wet and the dry υλικά αίτια. 59 Athenacus» began with the δυνάμεις of which living beings 60 are composed (τά γάρ προσεχή των ζώων λαμβάνω, ουχί τά κοινά πάντων σωμάτων στοιχεία 61 ); the point of departure is the microcosm, which is projected upon the 1913» p. 40, n.46. The translations have umor. In Ch. 14 (and the following chapters) umor is coupled with Οερμόν (calidum). 56 ..June umorem et s i c c it at e m. Dico siccum quid cm quod terrae pars est. Cf. Ch. 15,22 ff.R.: the cold coagulai li cor em et simulat terrain et facti aliquid fieri speciem et corpus (cf. Ch. 43,1 ff.R. corporis autem hominis ex um ore coagiilati); Ch. 21,20 ff.R.: the heat of summer dries the moisture (aestas... calefaciens et sic cans umorem), Cf. also Ch. 13,36 R., avid um spiritum, and the exposition on umor in Ch. 18. It should be noticed that the importance of the 'qualities' in the chapters prior to Ch. 24 stands out much better when Lommer's rearrangement of the text of Ch. 14-20 is accepted (cf. above, Ch. I» p. 15-6). 57 Efficiunt et patiuntiir: cf. the action of the θερμόν upon the ύγρόν in Ch. 14 and the activities described in the quotations given n. 56 above; see also e.g. Ch. 41,9 ff.R. carnium umor es quae ex calido soluiae sunt; Ch. 50,32 R. umor praevalet ignem. For the effects of cold upon umor cf. Ch. 17,12 ff.R., for that of both cold and hot upon umor the whole of Ch. 18. 58 'Qualities' or "substances': the distinction between these categories is (in Hebd.) unimportant. In Ch. 14, το ύγρόν is both a quality and a substance; so is το Οερμόν; Ch. 18 speaks of umor» but could equally well have spoken of umidum. For the (identical) point of view of the Pneumatic School, cf. Weltmann, Pneum. Sch. 134, n. and 135, m l . 59 Wellmann, o.e. 133 ff. Athenaeus of Attalia refers to predecessors (τινές των αρχαίων) for this conception of the στοιχεία (Galen XIX, 356,6 ff.K., quoted by Wellmann p. 135, n.2). 60 In the microcosm-macrocosm-parallel of Hebd. Ch. 6, the living being likewise is the point of reference; cf. above, Ch. IV, p. 104 if. 61 Ap. Galen 1,465,4 ff.K. (quoted Weltmann p. 135, n.2). Cf. also 1,457 K. (quoted ibd. 133, n.6). 54

55

214

macrocosm. 62 To this aspect of his theory the outlook of Hebd. Ch, 15 may be compared, in which the organic point of view is likewise primary, and in which the 'elements 1 in the sense of hnacrocosmic elemental bodies' are characterized by κρασις, i.e. by the presence of several 'qualities' (στοιχεία in the sense of Athenaeus) within each of them. Furthermore, note that 'earth' is formed by the action of the cold (Ch. 15,22 ff.R.). Cf. also Ch. 13: first the calidum and frigidnm of the soul, then that of the universe 63 ; and Ch. 50,22 ff.R., 6 4 where the prevailing of umor or sicciias in the human body is compared to certain meteorological phenomena. Now, in Hebd. part II fevers (and acute diseases generally) are caused by a wrong κράσης of primary 'qualities', 65 cf. e.g. Ch. 24,1 ff.R.: animae aiilem paries, calidum et frigidum, quamdiu quidem aeqales sunt sibi, incolumis est homo. Si autem praecesserit calidum frigidum in a equal it ate, tunc quidem inflammaliir frigidum; quanto mag is c alu er it frigidum, tanto magis aegrotat corpus hominis causodis et acutis febribus. This is a Pneumatic doctrine as well. 66 The idea that the unnatural increase of a quality may even result in death is likewise Pneumatic 67 ; it occurs also Η ebd. Ch. 14,60 ff.R., Ch. 19,46 ff.R., and Ch. 20,1 ff.R. (in each of these places, this quality is the hot 68 ). Especially clear are the examples given Ch. 50,22 ff.R. (in the semiological section): a repetition of the fever is lethal, because the Cf. Wellmann, o.e. 147 ff., on the 'qualities' of the seasons (and also Galen I, 522 K., quoted ibd., p. 144 ff. n.6). 63 Cf. above, p. 208, n. 26. (14 Quoted below. 65 Wrong κρασις is, according to Pneumatic theory, not only the cause of fevers, but also of other diseases. This, perhaps, helps to explain why such acute diseases as those mentioned at the end of Ch. 24 (cf. 'freneticos', 'l<e>th areas', 'peripleumonias' and 'epaticas,)t and peripleumonia and pleuritis, discussed at length in Ch. 27, are, in Πebd., subsumed under the fevers; Aretaeus, in his treatise on the causes and signs of acute diseases, treats both the fevers and these other diseases. Lethargy is caused by an excess of the cold and wet, i.e. by phlegm (Wellmann, o.e. 157-8; on phlegm in Hebd., cf. also above, p. 210, n. 33). Phrenitis is caused by the hot and the dry, i.e. by bile (Wellmann, o.e. 158). On diseases of the lungs caused in similar w a y s (n.b.: καύσος and inflammation of the lungs have the same cause !) cf. Well mann, o.e. 159. 66 Wellmann, o.e. 144 ff.; 163 (according to Athenaeus, fevers are caused by an abnormal increase of the hot and the dry, according to Archigenes b y an abnormal increase of the hot and the wet). 67 Wellmann, o.e. 145. 62

Cf. above, p. 212.

215

moisture which has not been used up the first time is now consumed; sic autem in Mo mundo siccitas super siccitatem veniens quae sunt perdit quidem et alia nasci prohibebii. Death also ensues in the opposite case (when the moisture prevails), as is to be seen in a recurring of the dropsy: hoc idem et in quibuscumque morbis um or praevalet ignem, si cut ydropis quae vacatur... (36) propter imbecillitatem eius qui in homine est caloris similiter, sicut et in toto mundo si imbres super imbres fuerint. Hebd. part II constitutes a treatise on fevers; and fevers were amply discussed by the Pneumatic physicians as well. 69 There are points of similarity: e.g., the theory that fever is caused by an excess of the wet causing an excess of the hot (Ch. 14 k . ) is similar to the Pneumatic theories quoted by Wellmann. 70 Furthermore, the theory of Ch. 14 that the καυσώδεες πυρετοί have a beginning, a middle and an end ( C h . 1 4 , 3 4 f f . R . άρχή; α κ μ ή , , , καί μέσον; i b d . 5 5 ff.

μέσον; τελευτή

=

άνεσι,ς) corresponds to the Pneumatic conception that all fevers are characterized by a similar development, though Herodotus and Archigenes appear to have distinguished 4 periods (Athenaeus* division seems to be lost). 71 Moreover, the καυσώδεες πυρετοί are said to be caused by bile (Ch. 14,28 ff.R.), which corresponds to the Wellmann, o.e. 85; 163 ff.; 210 ff. ('insbesondere h a t die therapeutische Behandlung der Fieberkranken in dieser Schule eine umfängliche Literatur hervorgerufen', ibd. 210). For the ideas on fever of the early Hippocratics G. Sticker, Fieber und Entzündung bei den Ηippokratikern, Sudh. Arch. 20 (1928), 150 ff., 22 (1929), 313 ff., 23 (1930), 40 ff. m a y be consulted (these are in m a n y w a y s similar to those found in Hebd,, but lack the systematical background of t h a t work. N.b.: Sticker's survey also treats later theories than those found in the Corpus Hipp.). - Hebd. part 11 distinguishes several kinds of fevers which are among those recognized by the Pneumatic physicians; καυσώδεες πυρετοί (Ch. 14; 33,1; 34a,21 R.), cf. Wellmann o x . 167-8; cotidianae, tertianae and quartanae (Ch. 23,77 ff.; 26,13; quartanae (only) 29,2 and 30 (pass.); diuturnae 31,1 R.), cf. Wellmann, o.e. 166; epialus (ήπίαλος) Ch. 25,22 R., cf. Wellmann, o.e. 167. The intermittent fevers are explained by the Pneumatic physicians as caused by dvscrasia of primary qualities (Wellmann, o.e. 166). For the λειπυρίαι of Ch. 26,12 R . and 31,1 R. I have found no Pneumatic parallel. 70 O.e. 163. Cf. above, p. 215, n. 66. 71 Wellmann, o.e. 163. Archigenes spoke of άρχή, ακμή, παρακμή and άνεσις. B u t for παρακμή, which looks like a refinement, these terms correspond exactly to the terminology of Hebd. Ch. 14. Herodotus put a period of increase between άρχή and ακμή, which could be interpreted as a deviation from an original model comparable to t h a t of Archigenes. N.b.: Ch. 30,21 R. aeeessionem means ' a t t a c k ' ( = ακμή), not, I think, 'increase'. 69

216

Pneumatic explanation of this kind of fever: "sein Krankheitsstoff ist die gelbe Galle'. 72 Another important aspect in which the doctrine of Hebd. part II is akin to the theories of the Pneumatic school is its therapy: "die älteren Pneumatiker (legten) mehr Wert auf die Regelung der Diät und auf mechanische Hilfsmittel als auf medicamentöse Stoffe. 73 Ihr therapeutisches Verfahren war naturgemäss darauf gerichtet, die vorherrschende Qualität zu bekämpfen, die übermässige Wärme durch kühlende Mittel, die übermässige Kälte durch wärmende, die übermässige Feuchtigkeit durch trocknende und die übermässige Trockenheit durch anfeuchtende Mittel". 74 I shall not give a full catalogue of therapeutical measures advised in Hebd. part II which illustrate this general maxim. Some examples, however, may be given: Ch. 19,54 ff. R. the hot kills the body... if μη δεις το Οερμον κατασβέσ/j. This is made more explicit in Ch. 20,9 ff.R., where the author fulminates against his less enlightened collegues, who are unfamiliar with the value of dietetics in the treatment of fevers: uecessitas extinguere ignem umidis et frigidis cibisP The same general idea occurs in Ch. 21,15 ff. R., where, in a discussion of the diseases (fevers) accompanying the seasons, we are told that doctors in summer fight against the heat of this season, which is instrumental in bringing about the disease: calorem miindi contestantes qui auxilium dant.7G (It should be noted that the patient is not; allowed to stop drinking, 77 otherwise the fever will consume the moisture of the body (Ch. 24,63 ff. R.)). But not only the hot is combateel, but also the cokl: in some kinds of fevers, attacks of the hot and attacks of the cold accompanied by perspiration alternate, cf. Ch. 24,12 ff. R. 78 Now such colds have to be combated in 72 W e l l m a n n , o.e. 168. In Ch. 19,14-21 R. fevers in general are said to be caused by the attraction of bile or phlegm. Furthermore, in Ch. 25 causus is caused by bile (cf. also Ch. 30). 73 Such φάρμακα were used, however; cf. Wellmann, o.e. 136, 219 ff. and beb, p. 220. 74 Wellmann, o.e. 201. A number of examples of therapy on the basis of general physiology is given ibd. 158 ff. (lethargy, caused by ψΰξις έμφυτος: heat the sick-room etc.) See further the detailed exposition ibd. 201 ff. 75 Cf. also Ch. 23,18 ff. R. 70 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.e. 228-9. 78 For corresponding Pneumatic theories cf. Wellmann, o.e. 166-7.

217

various ways, ante accession-cm™ (Ch. 30,21 R . ) : cf. Ch. 30,3 ff.R., the patient's legs and arms should be anointed multo calido aliqito and then be rubbed 80 until the heat returns; his arms, legs and especially the head should be warmed as much as possible, and his body should be anointed with an oil containing various hot ingredients 81 ; aquam cakdcmi should be 'given' to the tibia, the body etc, by means of wool or from mugs which have been heated beforehand. 82 On the other hand, in case of diutiiruae and λ ζ ι κ υ ρ t ω / t b r c s , at a certain moment a water)· soup made, from cooked cold semina (corns of grain) has to be administered in order to cool the fever (Ch. 31,34 ff.R.) 8 3 - Cf. further also Ch. 34a: the physician should ta ke care to cool the heat ( a t . . . rejrigeni calidum, Ch. 34a,5 R.) by making use οί niedicmnina in jricdanlia, the effect of which is compared to that of void water which is poured into a kettle in order to prevent it from boiling over. Further Ch. 35, where prescriptions regarding the sick-room of feverpatients are given: one is not allowed to talk in there, for voces calefaciiiut acrem quod anli damns (35,7-8 R. 8 4 ); the patient should be dressed and kept under the bed-clothes, or he will get an attack of shivers which is a prelude to a rise of temperature (35,16-17 R.). But both what lie wears and the bed-clothes should be soft and clean, in order to make the patient comfortable (if uncomfortable, he will turn about, which again raises Iiis temperature). Moreover, his legs and feet and arms up to the elbow should be anointed with hot pomade (ceroiarium = ceratum), and they should be covered with soft and vvarm

Before another attack of the fever; cf. above, p. 216, n. 71. On rubbing cf. below, p. 219. 81 1 "or similar detailed prescriptions cf. Weltmann, o.e. 211 ft. 82 l,e , a ioiiipress of pre-wai med wool drenched in hot water lias to be applied externally, while hot water should be drunk from mugs already heated. 83 In this same chapter, the author speaks of the kinds of foods which are allowed. We are told which kinds of vegetables are hot, which cold, and which kinds of water, food staffs (cibi) and wine are relatively colder or hotter. This is Pneumatic dietetics, even though the actual examples given in Ch. 31 do not correspond to the details which may he gathered from Well mann, ox. 202 ff. in Ch. 31,61 ff.R. we are told that the recuperating patient should avoid both the sun and the cold, both work and discussions and that sort of tiling. However, he should bathe in warm water, and be massaged both in bath and after his bath (cf. Ch. 30,3 ff., paraphrased above). η·ι {.·,>r Pneumatic ideas concerning the effects of speech cf Wellmann, o.e. 142-3; the theory that speech 'die innere Wärme vermehrt' (Wellmann, o.e. 143) is analogous to the idea quoted from Hebd. 7y

60

218

blankets, or else Iiis limbs will become stiff and cold, when the heat departing from them goes to the superiores paries of the body 85 and stimulates the causos (Ch. 36). - in Ch. 37, means to stimulate breathing, i.e. the exhalation of the hot from the wann lungs and nonviolent ways of (extracting hot moisture from the body are recommended.. So much for the general etiological frame-work within which the tlieiapeiitic measures which are taken are imbedded. Many points of detail also agree with known Pneumatic prescriptions. We have already observed that Hebd. (Ch. 30,3 ff.R.; 31,68 ff.R.) puts special emphasis on rubbing. According to Celsus, De medic. 11,14 Asclepiades was the iusi medical authoi co treat rubbing extensively. 811 It became very popular with the Pneumatics, 87 who probably followed88 Asclepiades in as far as a recognition of the importance of massage is involved, but wiio in (heir therapeutical applications of this treatment were largely original. At any rate, the advocacy of rubbing in Hebd, part 11 constitutes a l.p.q.: rubbing became not popular before the first Cent. B.C. An interesting correspondence in detail is, that Herodotus

85 I.e., the regions near the heart and the head, cf. Ch. 34b,3 ff.R. (ad praecordia superioribns par Ulm••). In Ch. 34b we are told that the patient's head should fie raised by pillows in order to prevent the blood to collect and the hot to constitute itself in mortalibus locis. Cf. the definition of death in Ch. 52: the hot has collected ad superior a thoracis near the heart, while the rest of the body has become cold] after the hot has consumed the moisture of these regions, the s p i r i t (το πνεύμα του θερμού) is breathed out both through the flesh and the nose, and the soul departs, leaving the eold body behind. See also Ch. 39, where it is advised thai cataplasmata of lentil-seeds be put on the praecordia, in order to stop the heat from remaining in this place, i.e. from collecting the blood, which causes spasms and kills the patient (id η on permanens calor in haec colli gat sanguinem et spawios faeiens oeeidat, ,19,3 ff, R.) bor the regions of thorax and heart in Pneumatic theory cf. Weltmann, o.e. 140-4 (esp. Galen's criticism, o.e. 141, m l ) . 8(5 Celsus says that Asclepiades behaved as if he were the inventor of this pract ice, but that Hippocrates ( = 111,76 L.), already, had comprised the whole subject in a few wonts (Celsus 11,14,2, Hipp, ...qui dixit frictione, si vehemens sit, day an corpus, si lends, molhvi, si mult a, niiniii, si mo die a, inpleri; the same attribution is made Oribasins Coll. Med. VT,17 (Daremberg 1, p. 490,11 ff.) r= Galen, San. tu. If,4, ¥,110-11 K.). M7 Cf. Wellmann, o.e. 211 ff, Asclepiades probably is an older contemporary of Athenaeus, cf. above Ch. V A, p. 130, n. 4 ; lor Athenaeus' use of theories of Asclepiades cf. also Wellinarm. <>.e, 69,

219

gave the patient warm water after the massage. 89 - In Hebd., light 90 purgatives are recommended in order to clean the body from filth 9 1 (Ch. 19,44 ff.R. η φαρμάκοισι εύαγώγοισι έξαγάγη τις τάς ακαθαρσίας 92 ); this corresponds to the Pneumatic preference for harmless φάρμακα, 93 The body may also be purged by bleeding, for according to the Pneumatics both too much blood and corrupted blood have to be dealt with in this way. 9 4 Bleeding is also recommended in Hebd. (Ch. 29,7 ff. interior es vetias iucidere); it is especially interesting to observe that in Ch. 30,22 ff. bleeding is said to be necessary after an attack of the quartana, and when other measures have already proved successful (si ant em Ms quart anae medicaminibus sanos fee er is, sine sanguinis et cholerum el flegmalis exir actione, poslmodiim oportet pur gare corpora et sanguinem detrakere, at η on urn or qui in corpore lanχ it et minime febre consumplus est, congregatus ad aliquant partem corporis malum adportet mains α quartana febre). This corresponds to the practice of Herodotus, who preferred to postpone bleeding until after the attack or even until the fever had wholly subsided. 95 Wellmann characterized the doctrine of the Pneumatic physicians in the following words: "ihre pathologischen Principien, ihre therapeutischen Grundsätze lassen sich nur aus den physiologischen Grundanschauungen ihres Systems verstehen". 96 I submit that the same Weltmann, o.e. 212. Cf. above, p. 218 (on the giving of aquam calidam). The lightness of these purgatives can also be measured b y the fact that they are placed on the same level as a spontaneous cleaning of άκαθαρσίαι (Ch. 89

90

19,38 ff. R.). Cf. also below, n. 92.

'Filth' is caused, according to the Pneumatics, by dyscrasia of the 'powers', cf. Wellmann, o.e. 163, and of primary importance in the pathology of fevers. 92 Cf. also Ch. 23,15 ff.R. llaec (sc. immunditiae) antem febres increscere faciunt nisi qitis (1) e due at eas purgatione aid (2) cibis aiixilimn deferenti frigidis infrigidet ant (3) spontaneae erumpentes sursiim vet dear sum secedant. Cf. also Ch. 23,71 ff.R., 24,41 ff.R., 31,18 ff.R. The medicamina of Ch. 25,18 R. include rubbing etc. 93 W e l l m a n n , o.e. 219 ff., esp. 221. Cf. also ibd. 158 (castor as a purgative of phlegm in ease of lethargy; purgatives of yellow bile in case of phrenitis). 94 Ibd. 226. 95 Ibd. 228. 96 Ibd. 1 32. In itself, this peculiarity both of Hebd. and of Pneumatic medicine constitutes a decisive difference with the Cnidian doctrine reconstructed by I. M. Lonie, Cnidian Treatises of the Corpus Hippocraticum, CLQu.N.S. XV (1965), 1 ff. Lonie accepts as Cnidian works A f f . (π. παθών), Μ orb. (π. νούσων) I, Morb. 11,1-11, Μ orb. 11,12 ff., Morl). III and Int. (π. των εντός παθών): 'beyond these works, any ascription is uncertain, even, I should be inclined to say, un91

220

close relation b e t w e e n p a t h o l o g y a n d t h e r a p e u t i c s on t h e one side a n d t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l principles (i.e., t h e t h e o r y of t h e e l e m e n t a l forces) on t h e other i s v a l i d for Hebd. p a r t I I a s well, 9 7 B e c a u s e , moreover, b o t h t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l principles a n d t h e p a t h o l o g y a n d t h e r a p e u t i c s of Hebd, in t h e m s e l v e s correspond closely to those of t h e P n e u m a t i c school, a s h a s been d e m o n s t r a t e d above, t h e conclusion t h a t Hebd. belongs to t h e P n e u m a t i c sphere of i n f l u e n c e s e e m s i n e s c a p a b l e . T h i s conclusion holds true, e v e n t h o u g h t h e πνεύμα 9 8 itself is not v e r y p r o m i n e n t . H o w e v e r , it m a k e s a s u d d e n a p p e a r a n c e in Ch. 5 2 : likely* (o.e. 3). Louie rightly emphasizes that in these Cnidian works, which in general contain three ingredients (symptoms, therapy and etiology, cf. ahove, Ch. I, p. 12-3), etiology is by far the least important of the three (o.e. 3), but he assumes that an etiology common to all these tracts was contained in the lost Κνίδιαι γνώμαι (o.e. 24 ff.) This is of course possible. However, the special and consciously scientific emphasis upon physiology and etiology as in Hebd. part II would appear to be Hellenistic (cf. also Lonie, o.e. p. 4 and n.l : 'It' sc. the modem, scientific concept of the relation between cause, symptom arid treatment - 'does not appear with full explioitness until the Alexandrian period'). I do not wish to deny that there are points of similarity between the Cnidian etiology reconstructed by Lonie a.nd the theories of Hebd. part 11; however, cf. above, Ch. I, p. 13-4. 97 Also the third section (semiology) of part 11 is based upon and intimately connected with the general theory. Semiology is possible because the quod in anima est ealidum (Ch. 40,19-20 R.) determines the colour of the body as a whole and of its parts, especially the tongue and the eyes; it further determines the colour of the bodily secretions, influences dreams, the voice, the ventositas {cf. below, p. 223, n. I l l ) , respiration and the pulse (ibd., 5 ff.) Accordingly, a black colour (or a colour approaching black) is throughout interpreted as a bad symptom, as it is assumed to be caused by burning, i.e. by an unnatural and unhealthy domination of the hot of the soul. For the colours of the eye, of. Ch. 41 (esp. 41,3-4 R., the eye shows anima quomodo <se> habe at, while ibd. 9-10 R. carnium umores quae ex calido solutae sunt recalls the general pathology); for those of the tongue cf. Ch. 42 (in which the word anima occurs three times, cf. esp. 42,24-5 R. animae caloris). See further Ch. 44,6 R. and esp. ibd. 13-14 umoris desudationem quae de calove fit (pathology); Ch. 45,3-6 R. anima. . . qiiaecumque patitur eius cat or ex umoris viciu and ibd. 14-5 R. incalescens anima immunditiis (άκαθοφσίαι cf. above, p. 213, and p. 220, n. 91.) aut eibo (cf. above, p. 217) conturbata; Ch. 49,21 ff. R. celerius umor qui in corpore est... consumitur de flamma caloris (etiology and pathology); Ch. 52, on death (the concentration of the calor animae in the chest and the departure of the πνεύμα του θερμού etc.). The microcosm-macrocosm-parallel which dominates the general theory of the pathology and therapy is also found a. number of times in the semiological section: Ch. 40,13 ff. R.; Ch. 42,30-1 R.; Ch. 50,28 ff.R. 98 For the πνεύμα cf. Wellmann, o.e. 137. 1 have the finer and explicit distinctions, as between πνεύμα ζωτικόν, πνεύμα σύμφυτο ν and πνεύμα ψυχικόν 221

the hot of the soul has withdrawn towards the* place above the diaphragm and burns up all the moisture" which is there; έπειδάν ό π λ ε ύ μω ν και ή κ α ρ δ ί α τήν ίκμάδα αποβάλω σι, του θερμού άΟροοΰντος έν τοί'σι Οανατώδεσι τοποις, αποπνέει άΟρόον το π ν ε ύ μ α του θερμού, όθεν περ ξυνέστη το ολον, είς το ολον πάλιν, το μεν δια των σαρκών, το δέ δια των έν κεφαλή αναπνοών, 100 όθεν το ζην κάλου μεν.101 άπολείπουσα δέ ή ψυχή το του σώματος σκήνος κ.τ.λ. The subject of αποπνέει is, I think, ο πλεύμων (και ή καρδία). Ij iIns is correct, we have found a reflection of the Pneumatic theory of the mechanism of breathing 1 0 2 in which lungs and heart together a re the openitivc4 organs Furthermore, if we are allowed to read δ πλευμων και ή καρδία, όθεν το ζην καλού (λεν, the para, lie! with Pneumatic theory is complete; according to Aretaeus, the heart is the seat both of breathing and of liie. lp:l That which leaves the body is called το π ν ε ύ μ α του θερμού; it is that from which the ολον (i.e. the individual living being) came to be what if was, 104 and it returns to the ολον (i.e. the universe) 105 from which if in mind. However, for the πνεύμα ψυχικόν cf. Πι. 10,14 ff.R. (discussed below . p. 223-4, n. 1.1 3); for the πνεύμα σύμφυτον cf. Ch. 1 3,36 ff. 1 \. originale.. .calidum (and frigidum !) 99 Cf. Ch. 14,72 ff.R.: <Μ>ΧΊΊ> το της ψυχής Οερμόν αφη τήν iq' έωυτο όλκ/jv ζ η ζ του ύγροΰ Ικμάδος και του ψυχρου - and linder the conditions out lined in Ch. 52, this ολκή is no longer possible —, τότε [του ζην] διάλυσης> της ψυχής γίγνε< τ >Ύ'.... <έ>άν μεν τελείως, θάνατος. 100 Αναπνοή and διαπνοή (through the pores of the skin) were distinguished by the Pneumatics, cf. Well mann, o.e. 138, 101 1 suggest that όθεν το ζην καλουμεν be put immediately aft ex καρδί'/. los Well mann, o.e. 137-tf, of. Are! ο ens, p. 15,0 ff. Hude: πνπύμο.ν δέ κ ν l r'ry αίτίην ισχει της ολκής * ένίζει γαρ αυτέ ο υ μέτον σττλάγχνον θερμον, ή καρδίη, Ζω~ήα κα». αναπνοής άρχή' ή δε και τ ίο πνευμόνι της ολκή- του ψυχρου ήέοος τήν ττοΟην ζνΠιοοί" έ κ φλέγε ι γαρ αυτόν* έλκει δέ καρδίη πρώτον, τοιγαρουν, ή ν μεν ή καρδίη ::αΟή, ουκ εις μακρόν του θανάτου ή άμβολή (see also Κudlien's comments on this passage, Posid, u. d.... Pneum. 427). Cf. also Aretaeus p. 22,26-23,3 Hude. - It should be noted that the condition ήν ή καρδίη παθή is fulfilled in Hebd. Ch. 52. 103 Cf. above, n. 102. The region of the heart and lungs is the 'region of death' (cf. the passages quoted above, p. 219, n. 85) and consequently also Hi.it of life. On the heart as the seat of life according to Pneumatic theory ef. Kudlien, Posid, u. d Pneum. 425 ff.; lint. z. A ret, 34. 104 Cf. Ch. 15,22 ff.R. quod a it tern acris f r i g i d a irrigatio constituii... facil g liquid fieri speciem et corpus; 20,1 ff. R ... το Οερμόν (sc. της ψυχής) αυςε».... τά σώματα. 105 το ολον ολον: again the microcosm-macrocosm-parallel (cf. p. 221, n. 97, in fine). For the 'from which - into that"-formula cf. Athena/uis ah. Gal. XIX, 356,6 ff. K. (quoted Wellmann, o.e. 135, n.2): "the hot and the cold etc , εξ ων πρώτων φαινομένων και απλούστατων και ελαχίστων 6 άνθρωπος συνέστηκε καΐ εις ά έσχατα φαινόμενα καΐ απλούστατα και ελάχιστα τήν άνάλυσιν λα;/.βάνει."

222

originated. 10 * This πνεύμα must be assumed to partake of the cold, for otherwise it could not be called πνεύμα 107 though it is of course a πνεύμα ένθερμο v. That it is a kind of blend of hot and cold is confirmed by the fact that what leaves the body is also called ψυχή. 108 - The extensive prescriptions concerning respiration, which we have already encountered in our survey of the therapeuti« measiuW 0 " advm aied in Hehd., undoubtedly should be placed within this context as well: cf. Ch. 37,10 ff. k . el de pulmoniim call do respiratioiicni ο he del fieri. This respiration is stimulated by inducing the patient to sneeze 111 ; the importance of this treatment is analyzed in Ch. 38 (again, the hot is exhaled, cf, 38,5 ff. R. per as et naves educens quod pracbei color cm visccribus). The function of respiration is ίο cool the body. 11 " Quite important is an opaque passage in Ch. 2 ( ),11 ff.R, i l 3 ; in Uli iinately (through the parents) and during the course of life. Cf. the definitions of Ch. 13,33 ff. K. (above, p. 208-9, n. 2b). 108 Cf. Ch. 1 3» 1 ff. R.: tibi ergo dico hominis an im am, illic ν (Ch. 10,40 ff. R.) In Ch. 28,45 ff. K. the ceasing of certain fevers is exphuned by the fact that a sick man breathes harder than a healthy man and is therefore able to exhale the (impure) mixture which had been attracted by the hot (υπό της του θερμού Βίης τε και άκμης ένδον αυτό το θερμόν Η Ά της αναπνοής έ ξ α τ μ ι ζ ο ν άναπνέε'. καI έΕ'·>0έεται το ύγρόν, ο προσήγαγεν το θερμόν. αναπνέει δε και δια τ ω ν ρινών ώσπερ και του στόματος πλέον <*/ρ όκόσον υ γ ι α ί ν ω ν εκάστοτε* ούτως άτοψύ/ετοα παν το σώμα). 110 hor the lungs cf. above, p. 222» n. 102 and n. 103. 111 If he does not respond, this is a very bad sign (Ch. 51,100 ff. R.) hot respiration in the semiologies.I section cf. also Ch. 40,0 ff R, el ex vfintnsitale quemadmodnm an h riant (because ventosns is a Latin equivalent of ιτ^-.··>'^τν'.<>- the probable Greek word translated by veniosifas is πνευματισμό-, 'use of the breathing'); Ch. 46,33 ff. R. το πνεύμα μανότερον καΐ λεπτόΤΗΡον is Ί ifood sign; Ch. 51,142 ff. R., on the respiration of a dying patient. 112 Cf. Wellmann, o.e. 138: 'Die Atoning (αναπνοή) dient... ίο erster Linie der inneren Wärme zur Abkühlung'; cf. also Verbeke, o.e. 196. The theory of Ch. 8,3 ff.lv. (on the first two ways in which the head helps to sustain life) U similar; frigidi introüus per quem ubique pat el: ... secunda ferr oris c.\< h^abitin ex omni corpore. That the function of breath is to cool the inner heat w,is already held by Philistiou and Diodes (Diodes fr. 15 Well mann), Plato (e. Tim. 7(>e), Aristotle (e.g. PA III,6,668b34 ff., De iuv. 23 ff. = 487b22 ff.) 113 ... sirnid equideni aerium spiritum quod abstracto quae animae habet el res pi vans naribus trahentes A, simul quidem etherio spiritum quod ad statu que anime ha bent et respirant naribus trahentes 1 \ I propose to r
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' (aeritim spiritum ~ πνεύμα) of the soul (quern animae habent) and the 'breath' which enters through the nose (respirant naribus trahentes). The distinction between the (if I may say so) πνεύμα ψυχικον and the πνεύμα άναπνεόμενον 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. 114 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 arteries contain blood as well as pneuma, though if 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 hypothesis 117 ; 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 vents): in Ch. 46,26 ff. R. it is a good sign if αί 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 πνεύμα of the Pneumatics, cf. Wellmann, o.e. 137 ff., 141; cf. esp. 137 'das Pneuma ist das Eingeatmete, dass sich dem σύμφυτον πνεύμα assimiliert' (his theory t h a t the 'inner pneuma/ is the source of the inner heat is based upon a wrong interpretation of the two passages quoted o.e. 1 37 n.7). The 'breath' of the soul has the function of the πνεύμα ζωτικόν. us Well man η, o.e. 141. 116 Wellmann, o.e. 70, 139-40; Yerbeke, o.e. 195. 117 If he really means the veins in contrast to the arteries, this theory could bean inversion of that of Erasistratus, who held t h a t 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 Medizin 1, Berlin 1949, 97-8). However, the word venae, (not arteriae), occurs in Celsus' description of Erasistratus' theory, De med., proem 15 si sanguis in eas ν en as, quae spiritui accommodatae sunt, transfunditar et i η ft a m m ati ο η em, quem Graced φλεγμόνην noniinant, excitat eaque inflammatio talent motum e f f i c i t , qualio in f ehre (I) est, ut Ε r a s i s trat ο placuit. So venae could be used in a larger sense and include both veins and arteries, as is probably also the case in the oilier passages in Hebd. 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

φλέβες (translated venae) αί έν τη σι χερσί και έν τοΐσι κανΟοΐσι και επί τησιν όσφρύησιν ήσυχίην ε/ωσι, πρότερον μή ήσυχάζουσαι, while a heavy pulse in the same veins is considered a bad sign (Ch. 51,9 ff.R.) 119 Again, in Ch. 14,1 ff.R. disease ensues when too much moisture enters into the heart, the arteries (!) and the venae cavae (τάς αρτηρίας και τάς κοίλας φλέβας). However this may be, it has to be recognized all the same that Hebd, part II is rather reticent about the pneuina. Another difference, perhaps, with the general trend of Pneumatic theory is the big place given to semiology (Ch. 40-52); Athenaeus did not recognize semiology as a separate branch of medical science.120 But other branches of medicine which he did recognize121 are amply represented: the φυσιολογικό ν and παΟογν(ομονικόν (Hebd. Ch. 13-23), and the θεραπευτικών (Ch. 24-39, where also the διαιτητικόν is represented, cf. esp. Ch. 31,35 ff.R.) Moreover, Athenaeus by no means rejected semiology, but treated it as a sub-division of the θεραπευτικό v. In this connection, it should be recalled that the announcement of subjects to be discussed in Ch. 12,23 ff.R. only speaks of the etiology of diseases and of their therapy, i.e. formally includes the semiology of part II in the therapeutical section,122 Aretaeus, on the other hand, treated semiology together with etiology, 123 and Archigenes wrote a treatise in 10 books entitled περί της των πυρετών σημειώσεως. 124 Consequently, Hebd. 119 ...ei quod super cilia p ids ant i a solid α et quae in angulis oculorum et in cubitis venae similiter. The importance attached to the pulse in Hebd. (though it: is a far cry from Hebd, to the refinements of the later Pneumatics, for which cf. Well man u, o.e. 70 if., 169 ff.) is itself indicative of a post - Η i ppocrat i c date, for a theory of the pulse appears to have been first developed by Praxagoras (Wellmann, o.e. 169, who also speaks briefly of Herophilus; cf. P. Steckerl, The Fragments of Praxagoras of Cos, Phil. ant. 8, Leiden 1954, 17 ff., who also briefly enters into the difficult problem of the first introduction of the distinction between veins and arteries). 120 Wellmann, o x . 131, n. 1. On the relation between the semiological section and wha t precedes cf. above, p. 221, n. 97. J 2 1 Ibd., 131. 122 Ipsas febres et alias causas et quidem acutas egritudines ο nines quomodo fiant docet (etiology) et facias quomodo oportet cohiberi, aut no η fieri, et nascentes quomodo debeant curari recte (therapy). Ilberg (1894, p. 27) assumed t h a t the adverb recte announces the semiological section, but this cannot be correct. The reference to the doctrine of Athenaeus, on the other hand, explains why the semiological section needs not to be announced separately. 123 Cf. the title of his οξέων παθών αίτια και σημεία. 1 2 1 Wellmann, o.e. 85.

225

part II in this respect also stays close to Pneumatic doctrine. The theories of those scholars, who on the basis of the division of subjects in Hebd. attributed the medical part of the treatise to the school of Cnidus, 125 may be considered to be refuted by adducing the Pneumatic parallels, A propel rc.eogiiiti.oii of the fact that Hchd. pai t 11 belongs to the sphere of influence of the Pneumatic school126 also helps to explain why it could pass itself off so successfully as a 'genuine', i.e. early, Hippocratic treatise; the Pneumatic physicians consciously strove to be true Hippocratics! Athenaeus' theory of the στοιχεία is a. return to older medical thought 127 ; the teachings of Alexandrian medicine are, for the most part, rejected. Moreover, with some Pneumatics the admiration for Hippocratic medicine was so extreme, that they endeavoured to use Ionic as the vehicle for scientific (i.e. medical) thought, Aretaeus is a case in point, but before Aretaeus' time, one already finds Λ lim. (π. τροφής) and, probably, Cord. (π. καρδίης),128 Finally, the association of Hebd. part. II with the doctrines of the Pneumatic school is also corroborated by its dependence on the theories of the Stoa, 129 which shows itself in its theory of the soul130 and of the elemental forces,131 its predilection for accurate definitions etc., 132 and its belief in the connection and overall resemblance between the microcosm and the macrocosm.133; more especially, the dependance on Posidonius' brand of Stoicism, with its strong emphasis upon the 13»

Cf. above, Ch. I. p. 12 Π Within this context, also the 11 )efinicrlust' of Hchd. should be placed, which is apparent e.g. in Ch. 13, whore several meanings of 'hot' and 'cold' are distinguished and defined. The same altitude is found in part I, Ch. 1 (distinction between the whole and its parts, use of the term species in a logical sense, see above, Ch. II, p. 52, u. 51). Cf. for the Pneumatic school in general Well mann, o.e. 68-9, Kudiien, Ρ nennt. (RE) 1103 and Diller» Stnisch-pneuw. Sehr. 193. J27 As he acknowledged himself, cf. above, p. 214, n. 59. 128 Cf. above, Ch. II. p. 32 ff.; F. Kudiien, Pneum. (RE), 1101. Both π. τροφής and π. καρδίης are written in a form of Ionic which, like the vehicle of thought used by the author of Hebdbetrays its origin in a Hellenistic milieu. 129 For the Stoics and the Pneumatic School, cf. Wellmann, ox. 133 ff. and Kudiien, RE 1103: "Konstitutiv ist zunächst einmal die enge und ausdrückliche Verbindung zur Stoa als solcher, die sich in dieser Form bei anderen Ärzten oder Arztesehuleri nicht findet 1 . 130 Cf. above, p. 208-12. 131 Cf. above, p. 206-7, 214 f t 132 Cf. above, n. 126 and Wellmann, o.e. 132. 133 Cf. above, p. 211, p. 213 ff. and p. 221, n. 97 in fine, p. 222 n. 105. i2f»

226

nuerocosm-macrocosm-para llel «ind its theory of the elemental qualities as 1 forces',134 is also a feature of the Pneumatic system. 3. I he relation he he ecu the hro parts of Hebd. The undeniable resembj;>nre - :\t ίο tin» author - between the ideas and docilities of Hebd. pail II end those of the Pneumatic physicians allows us to date this part of the treatise: its t.h.q. is approximately /00 B.C. We have acknowledged the fact that Λ then η ens of Attalin was η contemporary and associate of Posidonius,135 and we have recognized, among the ideas contained in Hebd. part 11, theories influenced by the Stoa in ^enond end hv Posidonius in part in d π r ft will be remembered that in tho foregoing eha piers similar conclusions wore reoched regarding //ehd part Ϊ: this part of the treatise could also be dated in the first Cent. B.C., and the ideas which are to be found in Ch. 1-11 ore also strongly influenced by those of Posidonius. These two parts of our investigation arc wholly independent of each other: the inter]
227

is studied almost exclusively in regard to its physiological functions, which is the same attitude as that adopted in Hebd. part II). Consequently, the evidence in favour of regarding the treatise περί εβδομάδων as a unity is extremely strong. The only arguments in favour of a distinction of two mutually independent parts are: ( ! ) the fact that in part I, the "Wärmelehre' 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 11» the most important entity. 1 - 39 (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 viewed 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.

139 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.

ZJi

CONCLUSION

The results of our investigation may be summed up as follows: the ps, Hippocratic tract π. εβδομάδων has to be counted among those works in the Corpus Hippocratwum 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. 1-11), 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. 1-11 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 Posidonius). The last chapter (Ch. 53), which announces a second volume, is probably spurious. Π. εβδομάδων admits of a consistent interpretation when ca. 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 classic istic trend in the philosophy of the first Cent. B.C. is conveyed by O. Gigon, Die Erneuerung der Philosophie in der Zeit Ciceros, in: Recherches sur la tradition Platonicienne, Entret. Hardt III, Vandoeuvres-Geneve 1955, 25 ff. 1

229

Early Academy are rediscovered by Autiocluis oi Ascaiou and Posidonius, Tlieoplirastus by Posidonius 2 ; the works oi tlie founding lathers of the Peripatetic School are re-edited by Androuicus; [he Pneumatic School of Medicine, starting with Posidoiiius' contemporary Athenaeus of Attalia, turns again to the (-lassies of medical literature, while some oi lis early adherents (I la.· authors oJ Λ ihn. a m t t ord.) even revive the literary dialect of 'Hippocrates', Hebd. partakes of this genetal orientation both in its literal its philosophical and its more strictly medical aspects, though it can be pioved that it is a child oi its time. If this proof is ι ejected in favour of assuming an early date of composition ioi this tίealise, ihr i olio wing au.uhionisms .should bo capable of being de lei κ led: 1. The author of Hebd. pail 1, though writing, say, ca. 400 B.C. or even earlier, expressed himself occasionally in the idiom of Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman times. 2. He anticipated Plato's theory of a self-moved entity, Aristotle's theory of an entity which is both self-moved and moved by something else, the Stoic theory of κρασις, and Posidonius' theory of the elements as living beings. 3. l i e anticipated the structural arrangement of the doxographical literature: raid of the general philosophical exposition of the iirst Cent. B.C. 4. He anticipated a wind-rose of the Hellenistic period. 5. l i e anticipated the Graeco- Roman astrometeorological conception that the planets influence the seasons of the year. 0. He anticipated a number of arithmological ideas (including some minute points of clot ail) which wen? much later expounded in Posidonius' Comments on the Timaeus, 7. The author of Hebd. part If, writing ca. 400 or, say, even ca. 350 B.C., anticipated the Stoied Vsidoniau theory of the κρασις of elemental qualities. 8. He anticipated the etiological and therapeutical doctrines of the Pneumatic School of Medicine, (h Just as the author of part J, he occasionally expressed himself in the idiom of Hellenistic and Graeco-Kornau times, 10. Notwithstanding these remarkable1, achievements, the author of Hebd. part II did not distinguish himself from other ί lippoeraties, while the author of Hebd, part 1 had a poor mind. To the4 mind, of the present writer, these assumptions are miacceptable, and certainly so when taken together. Consequently, it would appeal that Hebd. has to be written off as an (independent) soma e fot P I C M X raiie thought. However, (he, loss foi Presoeraiic 2

P. Steinmetz, Die Phvsik des Theofdirasi,

230

3,11 if

studies is compensated by gains in other fields, viz. that of the philosophic koine 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 Η ebd. confirms what we already knew or thought we had snflieient reason to believe. Confirmation of views concerning the elusive Posidonius, however, is most welcome, a u d i t is hoped that the present study will have achieved, among cither things, a small contribution to the discussion of such vexing and well-worn problems as Posidonins' vitalism and his 'Goniments upon thο Timaeus,

231

I N D E X OF NAMES (modern

names

Abel K., 33 n. 7, 34 and notes, 35. Achilles of Alexandria^ ?), I l l and ii. 244. Adrastus of Aphrodisias, 163 n. 34, 172-3 n. 98, 182 n. 145, 192 n. 202. Aenesidemus of Cnossus, 186. Aetius of Antioeh, 130 and n. 4, 1.3.1, Ch. V A (passim), 141 ff. Aetius of Amida, 4, 8 n. 27. 135 n. 27, 213 n. 50. Agathe m er us (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. Allers, R., 105 n. 195. Altmann, G., 157 n. 5, 182 11. 147. Anatolius of Alexandria, 157 n. 4, 158 n. 8, 160, 174, 181, 185, 192, 197 and n. 233, n. 234, 198 and n. 242, 200, 201, 202. Anaxagoras of Clazoraenae, 27 n. 129, 29 n. 145, 38, 59 n. 25, 60 n. 31. Anaximander of Miletus, 1.8 and n. 76, n. 77, 25 n. 115, 44, 45, 47, 56 and η. 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.

italicized)

Antiochus of Ascalon, 230. Anton, J. P., 90 n. 121. Aratus of Soli, 142 and η. 25, n. 27. Ar chela us of Athens, 29 n. 145, 46. Arehigenes 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 η. 39, 62, 68 n. 17, 69 ff., 78, 80 and n. 74, 82 and n. 78, η. 79, 83 η. 80, 84, 85 and n. 95, 86, 89 η. 121, 95 n. 1.48, 97 n. 162, 101 η. 181, 107, 121, 122 n. 291, 124 η. 296, 135 n. 27, 137 n. 36, 143, 146, 149, 151, 154, 166 n. 53, 1.68 n. 60, 174 11. 103, 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 ii. 271, ii. 272, 119 n. 272, 120. Arnim, IL von, 95 η. 154. Arrighetti, G., 45 n. 41. Asclepiades of Bithynia, 130 n. 4, 135 n. 27, 219 and n. 86, n. 88. Athenaeus of Attalia, 33 and n. 8, 34, 97 η. 162, 130 n. 4, 164 n. 39, 165, 167 n. 59, 170 n. 77, 214 and ii. 59, 215 and n. 66, 216, 219 η. 88, 222 n. 105, 225 and n. 122, 226, 227, 230. Atticus, T. Pomponius, 187 n. 175, 188-90. Α übert, II., 176 n. 119.

233

Aujac, G., 146 11. 1. Autolycus of Pitane, 37» 52. Baccheius of Tanagra, 9 n. 29. Bailey, ff. W., 23 n. 104. Basilides of Alexandria, 123 n. 296. Bayer, K., 181 n. 141. Bergsträsser, G., 4 n. 9, 5 n. 10, 35. Berti, Ε., 73-4 η. 47. al-Bitrik, 4 η. 9. le Blond, / . Μ., 71 η. 35. Bottack, ]., 131 η. 8. Böker, A\, 143 and η. 32, 145 and η. 43, η. 4 6 , 1 4 6 ιι. 1, 147 η. 5, ιι. 6, 148 ιι. 9, η. 10, η. 15, 149 η. 16, η. 18, 150 ιι. 24, 151 η. 27, η. 28, 153, 154 and η. 44, η. 46. Boethus of Sidon, 99 η. 169, 123 η. 295, 128.

Boll,

F., 5 η. 11, 20-1, 22 η. 100, 25 η. 114, η. 115, 39, 41, 58 η. 24, 62, 121 η. 285, 125 η. 300, 138, 139 and η. 4, η. 6, η. 8,140 η. 11, η. 12, 152 and η. 34. Bonitz, ff., 61 η. 39. Borghorst, G., 157 η. 5, 163 η. 34, 172 η. 98. Bourgey, Ε., 12 η. 41, η. 42, 13 η. 44, 14 η. 54. Boyance, P., 43 η. 34, 87 η. 104, 88 η. 1.18, 89 η. 120, 95 η. 148, η. 153, 96 η. 157, 112 η. 242, 121 η. 285, 123 η. 296. 204 η. 264. Brehier, Ε., 194 η. 212. Biirkert, W., 24 η. 109, 29-30, 31 η. 151, 42 η. 27, 43 η. 34, 49 η. 46, 57 η. 16, 59 η. 28, 62 and η. 44, 63, 89 η. 120, 1.05 η. 198, 126 η. 301, 130 η. 4, 138, 139 η. 4, 156 η. 2, 158 η. 11, 159 ιι. 15, 191 η. 198. Caesar, C. Iiilius, 152, 186. Calcidius, 157 η. 4, 163 and η. 37, 1703, 174, 197. Callippus of Cyzicus, 145 and n. 45. Capelle, W., 11.4 n. 252, 125 n. 300. Celsus, A. Cornelius, 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, IE, 67 n. 2, 68 n. 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 n. 168, 108 and η. 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 ii. 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.Claud.Caes.Aug.Germ.), 33. Cleanthes of Assus, 44 n. 35, 87 and η. 104, 88, 9.1 and n. 127, 93, 95, 96, 100 and n. 171, 101, 102 and notes, 103 if., 112 and n. 244, 194 n. 219, 212. Cieidemus (in Arist.), 46. Clement of Alexandria, 60, 157 n. 4, 182 n. 146. Cohn, Ε., 182 η. 148. Cornford, Ε. Μ., 43 η. 29, 45 η. 40, 56 η. 13, 67 η. 9, η. 10, 68 η. 14, η. 15, 141 η. 21, 179 η. 136. Cornificius Longus, 127. Courcelle, P., 164 η. 39. Crates of Malles, 56 η, 11. Critolaus of Phaseiis, 128 and η. 313. Crönert, W., 94 η. 148. Ciimont, F., 126 η. 301. Dahlmann, ff., 149 η. 17, 185 and η. 165, η. 168, η. 1.69, 186 and η. 172, η. 174, 187 η. 175, 188, 189 and η. 188. Daremberg, C.t 3 η. 3, 219 η. 86. Deichgräber, Κ., 7 η. 21, 20 η. 86, 32, 33 and η. 3, η. 5, 34. Delatte, Α., 31 η. 151, 156 η. 1, 158 η. 8. Democedes of Croton, 22 η. 99. Democritus of Abdera, 18 η. 76, 26

234

η. 124, 30 n. 148, 38, 136 n. 32, 151. Dercy Hides (platonieus), 58 n. 22. Diels, //., 3 ii. 3, ιι. 17 m 69, 19-20, 59, 122 n. 289, 130 and n. 4, 131 and η. 4, 135 n. 27, 141 m 25. 150 n. 24, 158 n. 9, 159 and n. 12, 166 ii. 53, 185, 192 n. 199. Diepgen, P., 224 i l 11 7. Dieter le, 12., 66 n, 2. Diller, //., 25 n. 116, 33 and notes, 34 and ii. 9, 35, 213 IL 53, 226 n. J 2o. 'Diocles of Carystus, 10 and n, 35, 11, 164 if., 174 and n. 105, 1.77 and n. 127, 178 and n. 129, n. 133, 181, 183, 203 and n. 263, 223 n. 112. Diogenes Laertius, 114 n. 250, 169 n. 69. Diogenes of Apollonia, 27 η. 130, 29 η. 145, 60, 61, 108 η. 213. Diotimus of Tyrus, 137, Dirlmeier, F., 176 η. 119. Dittmayer, Ε., 176 n. 119. Dodds, E.R., 42 n. 26. D'Ooge, M.L., 157 n, 4. Duchesne-Guillemin, ]., 22 m 99, n. 101, 23 n. 103, n. 105, 24 n. 108, 107. Diiring, J., 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 ii. 149, 97 n. 162, 128 n. 317, 156 ii. 2, 178 n. 129, 194 n. 217. Elders, L., 74 n. 50. Empedocles of Agrigentutri, 26 n. 124, 27 n. 129, 29 m 145, 38, 59 i l 24, 60, 116 n. 258,126 τι. 302, 131 η. 8, 136, 166 η. 53, 170 and ιι. 75. Epicurus, 31 n. 151, 45 and IL 41. E p i g e n e s of Byzantium, 166 n. 53. Erasistratus of lulis (Ceos), 34, 98 n. 163, 135 m 27, 224 n. 117. Eratosthenes of Cyrene, 24, 25 η. 116, 150 n. 24. Ermerins,

F., 5 η . 1 1 .

Erotian (lexicographer), 4 n. 7, 7, 8 and n. 26, 33, 34, 35, 49. Euclid, 195 n. 221.

Eudcmus of Rhodes, 44 and n. 35, 58 ii. 22, 59 n. 25, 84 n. 89. Eudoxus of Cnidus, 25-6 n. 116, 59 n. 28, 142 and m 25. Εuenor of Alliens, 166 n. 53. Euryphon of Cnidus, 162 n. 31, 166 n. 53. Falco, J\ de, 158 ». 11, 161 m 24, 163 m 38, 171 ii. 86, n. 92, 172 n. 97, 173, 182 ii. 146, 184 n. 160, 192 ii. 203. Eavonius 1 Eulogius, 157 η. 4» 162-3 η. 33. Eavorinus of /Vrelate, 149 n. 19. Ferguson, A.S., 126 n. 305. Festugiere, A.-J., 20 m 88, 24, 39, 43 ii. 32, 81 n. 75, 87 m 104, 88 i l 118, 98 n. 163, 99 η. 167, n. 168, 100 and n. 169, 113 n. 246, m 247, 116 ii. 258, 117 IL 272, 121 n. 286, 127 11. 309, 131, 143 n. 28. Flas liar, FL, 135 η. 27. Fleischer, U., 33 and IL 3, 34, 35, 50. Foesius, 7 n. 21. Förster, ES., 117 η. 263. Fredrick, C\, 17 η. 66, 22 η. 102, 25-6 u. 116, 29 I L 143, η. 145. Furley, DJ,, 73 η. 47, 117 η. 263, 119 η. 272. Gaiser, Κ., 68 η, 14. Gats ford, l i e , 126 τι. 305. Galen of Pergamum, 4 η. 7, n, 9, 5» 6, 9 and I L 29, 10, 11 and n. 40, 12 ii. 44, 33 and n. 8, 34, 37, 38, 50, 52, 66 η. 1, 130 IL 4, 153, 164, 219 n. 85. ps. Galen (anonymous comm. on π. α ί τ ι α ς r:α0 ών), 3; (an. comm. on Hebd.), 4 and η. 10, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15-6, 20 IL 88» 35 and η. 20, 47, 52, 78 η. 63, 124-5 η. 300, 139, 199 I L 244, 206 η. 8, 207 η. 14, 208 and 208-9 η. 26, 209 and η. 27, η. 28, 210 η. 30, η. 31 η. 32, η. 33; (an. comm. on π. χυμών), 150 η. 24.

235

Geminus (stoicus), 41, 194 η. 218. Gehr, Η., 27-8, 29 η. 143, η. 145, 57 η. 18, 205, 207 η. 16, 208 η. 25, 227 η. 138. Gellras, Amins, 149 η. 17, 157 η. 4, 165 η, 44» 167 η. 59, 189 η. 188. Gigon, 0 „ 136 η. 30, 229 η. 1. Goetze, Α21-2, 25 η. 115, 26 η. 120. Gomperz, Th., 19 η. 83, 22 ιι. 102, 26 η. 118. Gorgias of Leontini, 21. Gow, A.S.F., 48-9 η. 45. Grensemann, II., 175 η. 112, η. 114, 1.76 η. 119. Groeneboom, P., 49. Gronau, Κ., 120 η. 278. Grumach, Ε,, 70 η. 28, 71. η. 32, 84 η. 89, 108 ιι. 213. Guthrie, W.K.C., 57 η. 1, 69 η. .19, 70 η. 24, 73 η. 47, 75 η. 51, η. 56, 126 η. 302. Häbler, Α., 111 η. 238, 150 η. 26. Hadrian (imp. Caes. Trai. Hadr. Aug.), 162 n. 33. Harder, Chr., 4 η. 9, 5 η. 1.0, η. 11, 50, 125 η. 300, 199 η. 244, 211. Harder, R., 39, 113 η. 248, 128 η. 313. Heiberg, J. L., 3 η. 5. Heinemann, I., 156 η. 2. Heinimann, F., 178 η. 129. Heisterhagen, R., .1.85 η. 168, η. 169, .187 and η. 179, η. 180, 188 and η . 181, η . 182. Helmreich, G., 3 η. 6, 37. Heraclides of Pont us, 43 n. 30, n. 34, 57 η. 15. Heraclitus of Ephesus, 29 n. 145, 46, 59 η. 26, 60, 108 n. 213, n. 220, 137 n. 36, 169 n. 69. Herrnias of Alexandria, 39 n. 23. Hermippus of Berytus, 162 n. 33, 182 ii. 146. Herodicus of Selymbria, 29 n. 145. Herodotus (Pneumatic physician), 216 and n. 71, 219, 220. Herodotus of Thurii, 151. Herophilus of Chalcedon, 98 n. 163,

135 η. 27, 198 and n. 242, 225 n. 119. Hesiod, 108 and n. 218, 128. Hiero II, 38. Hiller, Ε., 163 η. 34, 172 η. 98. Hipparchus of Nicaea, 37, 46, 148 and η. 114. Hippasus of Metapontum, 46, 108 n. 220. Hippo of Rhegium, 166, 174 and n. 105, 177 n. 128, 187 n. 178, 190 n. 198. Hippocrates, 9, 10, 11 n. 40, 16 n. 65, 33, 35, 1.62 η. 29, n. 31, n. 33, 165, 172 η. 98, 173 n. 98, .181 n. 141, 187 η. 180, 209, 219 n. 86. Hippolytus of Rome(?), 39 and n. 23, 56 η. 11, 60. Homer, 122 n. 289, n. 291, 146. Hunain ibn Ishaq, 4 n. 9. lamblichus of Chalcis, 100 n. 175. llberg, J., 3 n. 3, 5 n. 11,6 n. 15, 7 n. 21, 8 n. 25, 12 and n. 43, n. 44, 13 and n. 45, η. 46, 14 and n. 52, n. 54, 15 n. 58, 16, 17 and n. 67, 18, 20 n. 86, 225 n. 122. Isidorus of Seville, 157 n. 4. Jaeger, W., 8 n. 25, 10 n. 35, 25 n. 116, 164 n. 39, n. 41,165 n. 49,166,168 and n. 66, 169 n. 69, 170 n. 72, n. 74, 174 n. 103, 175 n. 1.11, 178 n. 129, n. 133, 183. J o l y , R., 25 n. 116, 26 n. 118. Jones, R.M., 100 n. 169, 103 n. 185, 121 n. 285, 122 n. 296, 157 n. 7, 160 n. 22. Jones, W.H.S., 19 n. 81, 32 η. 1, 33 η. 3, n. 5, 135 n. 27. Jurk, J., 175 n. 112. Kahn, Ch. H., 44 n. 36, n. 38, 45 n. 40> 56 n. 9, 62 and n. 41. Kaibel, G., 146 η. 1, 148 n. 10. Kalbfleisch, Κ., 5 η. 1.1, 36 η. 22, 80 η. 73, 1.50 η. 24. Karpinski, L.C., 1.57 η. 4. Kerschensteiner, /., 28-9, 43 η. 29,

236

η. 30, η. 31, 44 η. 35, 45 η. 39, 40, 137 π. 36. Kern, Ο., 41. Kirk, GS., 44 η. 37. Kleywegt, A J . , 87 η. 104. Köster, W.J.W., 23 η. 103, 24 η. 106, 26 η. 117, 32 η. 1. Krakner, L.H., 185 η. 168. Krämer, Η J 7 3 η. 47, 98 η. 163, 157 ιι. 4, 1 5 8 ι ι . 11, 159ιι. 15, η. 16. Kranz, W., 19 η. 78, 22 η. 101, 24, 25-6, 29 η. 145, 45 η. 40, 54, 56 and η. 8, 57 and η. 16, η. 17, 58 and η. 19, 59 and notes, 60 and η. 32, 61 and η. 34, 64 and η. 51, 65 and η. 52, 125 η. 300, 126 η. 301, η. 302, 174 η. 104. Kroll, /., 123 η. 296. Kroll, W,, 114 η. 252. Kudlien, F., 33 η. 8, 34-5, 102 η. 183, 130 τι. 4, 135 η. 27, 178 η. 129, 213 η. 53, 222 η. 102, η. 103, 226 η. 126, η. 128, η. 129, 227 η. 134. Kühlewein, Η., 176 η. 119. η.

Lasserre, F., 25 η. 116. Lesky, Α., 33 η. 3, η. 8. Littre, Ε., 3 η. 3, η. 4, 4 η. 7, 6 η. 15, η. 17, 7 η. 21, η. 23, 8 η. 24, η. 27, 9 η. 30, 10 η. 31, 11 η. 38, η. 40, 12 and η. 41, 14, 16 η. 65, 33, 36. Leucippus of Miletus, 136 η. 32. Lloyd, G.E.R., 67 η. 12, 69 η. 19, 71 η. 35, 76 η. 59, 107 η. 207. Lobeck, C.A., 49 η. 45. Lommer, F., 5 η. 10, 15-6, 18 η. 70, 212 η. 44, 214 η. 56. Lonie, Ι. Μ., 13 η. 44, η. 48, 15 η. 54, 37, 220-1 η. 96. Lorimer, W.L., 111 η. 235, 113 η. 246, 116 η. 258, 122 η. 289. Lotus, P., 176 η. 119. Lydus, Ioann. Laurentius, 48 η. 44, 157 η. 4. Maass, F., 25 η. 116. Macrobius, Ambrosius Theodosius, 157 n. 4, 163 and n. 37, 164 ff., 174, 178, 180 n. 139, 181 and n. 140,

182, 183, 184, 197, 198, 200 and n. 245, 201 and n. 251, n. 253, 202. Maguire, J.P., 1.11 n. 235, 113 n. 246, 116 n. 258, 121 n. 286, 124 n. 296, 128 η. 315. Maimonides, Moses, 150 n. 24. Martianus Capeila, 157 η 4, 163 and n. 37, 170-1, 174, 197. Masselink, J. F., 146 η. 1, 148 n. 8, 154 η. 46. Meleager of Gadara, 48. de Menasce, / . P . , 22 η. 99, 23 η. 103. Menestor of Sybaris(P), 40. Meno (peripateticus), 135 n. 27. Merlan, Ph., 158 η. 11, 159 η. 15, 160 and η. 22, 161 η. 24, 194 η. 217, 195 η. 223. Meto of Athens, 30 η. 148. Metroclorus of Chios, 18 η. 76, 27 η. 127, 38, 56 η. 11, 58, 137. Mette, HJ., 49 η. 45. Michler, Μ., 22 τι. 99. Moderatus of Gades, 160 η. 22, 163 and η. 34, 170-2, 173 η. 98, 174, 179, 181, 182.

Moraux, P., 69 η. 21. Moreau, /., 93 η. 136, 99 η. 167, η. 168, 211 η. 39. Mrass, Κ., 3 η. 3, 21, 1.64 η. 34. Müller, C., 148 η. 8. Müller, C. W„ 10 η. 36. Mngler, Ch., 51. Abdalla b. al-Muqaffa, 23 n. 104. Nachmanson, E., 7 and n. 20, n. 21, n. 22. ibn ai-Nadim, 23 n. 104. Nero (N. Claud. Caes. Aug. Germ.), 33. Nicolaus of Rhegium, 33 n. 8. Nicomachus of Gerasa, 157 n. 4, 163ff., 174, 178, 180 and n. 139, n. 140, 181 and n. 140, 182-4, 185 n. 162, 197, 198 and n. 235, n. 236, 200 and n. 245, 201 and n. 254, 202, 204 n. 264. Nielsen, K., 146 n. 1, n. 4, 148 n. 9, n. 10, n. 12, n. 13, 149 n. 16, n. 17, n. 20, n. 21, n. 22, 150 n. 23, n. 25,

237

151 η. 28, η. 32, 152 τι. 36, η. 37, 154 and η. 40, η. 48.

Plot in us, 164 n. 39 Plutarch of Chaeroneia, 193, 195, 204 η. 264. O'Brien, /λ, 56 η. 11, 58 η. 22. Pohlenz, Μ., 86 n. 102, 87 n. 103, 88 Ocellus Lucanus, 99 η. 167, 128. n. 118, 94, 109 n. 222. Ori basins of Pergamum, 164. Polybus of Cos, 135 n. 27. Pompey (Cn. Pomp, Magnus), 186. Page, D., 48-9 n. 45. Porphyry of Tyrns, 164 n. 39, 172 n. 98. Panaetius of Rhodes, 89 n. 120, 128. Posidonius of Apameia, 20 n. 88, 33 Par menu! es of Elea, 30 n. 148, 57, 131 and n. 8, 34, 36 n. 22, 40, 47, 86, n. 8, 136 ii. 32. 87 n. 104, 89 n. 120, 92, 93, 94-5, Pease, /LS., 73 n. 4(5, n. 47, 89 n. 120, 96ff., I l l ii. 235, 11.2, 114-5n. 252, 101 n. 179, 120 n. 278, J40 n. 13, 115 n. 256, 119 n. 272, 126 n. 304, 184 n. 156, u. 157. 127. 128, 129, 1 30 n. 4, 135 τι. 27, Peck,A.L.r 72 n. 40, 76 n. 57, 176 136 η. 30, 142 η. 27, 143 η. 28. 144 n. 119. η. 40, 149 η. 47, 156 and η. 2, 157 Peters, Κ /<:., 22 η. 99, 23 η. 104. and η. 3, η. 6, η. 7, 158 and η. 9, P f e i f f e r , Ε,, 21 and notes, 22 η. 100, 29 η. 11, 159, 1.60 and η. .1.8, η. 22, n. 145, 125 η. 300. 161 and η. 24, η. 25, η. 26, 1 79-84, Pherecydes of Syros, 44 and n. 35. 191, 192 and η. 203, 192-6, 197, Philipp son, P., 87 n. 104, 94 n. 148, 95 199 and η. 243, 201 and η. 248, n. 149. η. 254, 202-5, 21.1-2 η. 40, 213 Philistion of Locri, 223 n. 112. η. 53, 226-7, 229-31. Philo Judaeus, 3 and it, 5, 41, 47 and Fraxagoras of Cos, 225 η. 119. n. 44, 99 n. 167, 109 n. 226, 11.0 Proclus Diadochus, 195 η. 221. and n. 228, 112 n. 241, 123 n. 296, Proras (pythagoricus), 169 η. 69. 128 and n. 313, n. 314, 130-1 n. 4, Ptolemy, Claudius, 23 η. 104, 39, 1.45 143-4 and notes, 145, 157 n. 4, η. 44, 148. 162, 169 n. 69, 173 n. 98, 174, 178 Ptolemy Philadelphus, 147 η. 6. n. 129, 181 and n. 1.40, 182 n. 146, Pythagoras of Sa mos, 42 and η. 26, 44 n. 148, 185, 192 and n. 201, 197 η. 35, 65 and η. 55, 128 η. 3.12, 190 and η. 234, 198, 199 and τι. 243, η. 198. 200 and n. 247, 201, 202, 203 Pytheas of Massilia, 47. n. 263, 204 n. 266. Philolaus of Croton, 26 n. 124, 30 n. Regenbogen, Ο., 176 η. 119. 148, 38, 47, 62 and n. 44, 63. Re hm, Α., 25 η. 116, 105 η. 197, 146 Plato, 37, 43, 47, 64 n. 49, 66 ff., 74, 78, τι. 1, 147 η. 5, η. 6, η. 7, 148 and 89 and n. 120, 98 n. 163, 1.05 and η. 14, 149 η. 16, η. 18, 150 η. 23, n. 195, 1.07, 122 n. 289, n. 291,123η. 24, η. 25, 151 η. 28, 152, 153, 4 n. 296, 128 and n. 312, 136 n. 30, 154 and η. 45. 137-8 n. 36, 141, 142 and n. 25, Reifferscheid, C.W.A., 148 η. 11. 143, 156 n. 2, 160 and n. 18, 178 Reinhardt, Κ., 20 η. 88, 86 and η. 103, n. 129, 179, 192 n. 203, 201, 201-, 88 η.. 118, 92, 94 and η. 140, η. 144, 211 η. 40, 212, 213, 223 n. 112, 102 η. 183, 103 η. 1.87, 114-5 229, 230. η. 252, 115 η. 256, 127 and η. 306, Plautus, T. Maccius, 125 n. 300. 135 η. 27, 1 36 η. 30, 143 η. 28, 1 56 Pliny, the Elder, 144 and n. 40, 145 η. 2, 157 η. 7, 184 η. 155, η. 156, n. 43, n. 44, 149 arid n. 17. 193 η. 204.

238

, IL, 21 η. 98, 123 η. 296, 148 η. 10. Robbins, F.F., 157 and η. 4, 158 and ιι. 8, η. 10, 161 and η. 28, 163 and η. 33, η. 36, η. 37, η. 38, 164 η. 39, 171 η. 86, η. 94, 172 η. 97, 173, 181, 191 η. 198, 197 and η. 231. Robin, L., 38. Röhr, f . , 140 η. 12, 143,145 η. 43, η. 44. Roscher, W.H., 3 η. 6, 4 η. 7, η. 8, η. 9, 5 η. 11, 6 η. 18, 21, 11 η. 40, 16, 17-9, 20 and η. 90, 21, 24, 25 and η. 115, 27 and η. 132, 28 and η. 134, 36 η. 22, 50 η. 49, 54, 56 and η. 8, 58 η. 19, 59 η. 25, η. 26, η. 29, 60 η. 31, 65 and η. 57, 77 η. 62, 134 η. 25, 138, 139 η. 4, 152 η. 34, 154 η. 45, 161 η. 25, 164 η. 39, 167 η. 55, η. 57, 168 η. 61, 169 η. 69, 172 η. 98, 175 η. 107, η. 110, η. 112, 176 η. 117, 178 ιι. 133, 182 τι. 152, 184 η. 157, η. 158, η. 160, 199 η. 243, η. 244, 202 η. 259, 204 η. 264, 205, 206, 208, 209 η. 27, 211, 214. Rose, F., 24 η. 112. Rosenthal, F., 23 η. 104. Rüsche, F., 99 η. 169, 211 η. 39. Sarton,

G., 130 η. 4.

Schanz,

Μ., 189 and η. 191.

η. 3, η. 5, η. 6, 159, 161 η. 25, 163 η. 34, 192 and η. 203, 193 η. 204. , Ε., 135 η. 27, 213 η. 53. W., 123 η. 296, 126 η. 305, 127 Seneca, L. Annaeus, 104 and η. 194, 107, 114-5 η. 252, 148 η. 10, 149 η. 17. Sextus Empiricus, 156 and η. 2, 157 and η. 7. Shahpuhr Τ, 22 η. 99, 23 η. 104. Sicherl, Μ., 162-3 η. 33. Siebeck, Η., 86 η. 102. Sinnige, Th.G., 56 η. 13.

b , ] . B . , 38 η. 23, 67 η. 5, η. 11, 68 η. 14. nsen, F., 68 η. 16, 69 η. 18, 70 η. 28, 72 η. 40, η. 44, 76 η. 57, 82 η. 78, 86 η. 102, 87 η. 104, 88 η. 118, 89 η. 120, 90 ιι. 121, 93 η. 135, η. 136, 95 and η 148, 97 η. 162. 98 η. 163, 100. of Athens, 40, 46, 161, 162 and η. 29, η. 31, η. 33, 171 and η. 86, η. 92, 174 and η. 103, η. 1 04, 175, 177, 178, 181 η. 141, 187 η. 180, 188 η. 180, 197 η. 233. IV., 140 η. 12. of Athens, 160 and η. 22, 161 η. 24. Speyer, W., 186 η. 172, 187 η. 179a. Sprengel, Κ., 164 η. 39. Κ., 48 η. 44. V. U., 94 η. 138, 164 η. 39. F., 225 η. 119. P., 44 η. 37, 45 η. 41, η. 42, 46 η. 42, 82 η. 77, η. 78, η. 79, 83 η. 80, η. 84, 84 η. 90, 85 η. 93, η. 96, η. 98, η. 99, 86 η. 102, 90 η. 121, 96 and η. 158, 97 η. 162, 131 η. 71. , of Athens, 10 η. 35. , G . , 2 1 6 n . 69. 141 η. 25, 142 η. 26, η. 27, η. 28. Strabo of Amaseia, 151 η. 27, 184 η. 1.57. Strato of Lampsacus, 38, 40, 137, 164 ff., 165 and η. 50, 168 η. 60, 174 and η. 103, η. 105, 177-8, 181, 183 η. 152, 203 and η. 263. Η., 97 η. 160, η. 161, 113 η. 246, 1.16 η. 259, 118 η. 270, η. 271, 121 η. 285, η. 286, 122 η. 271, 124 η. 296, 128 η. 315. Β. W., 157 η. 5, 172 η. 98.

239

C.L., 178 η. 129. 0 . , 178 η. 129. of Miletus, 39, 61, 62, 86, 107, 217. of Rheeium, 41.

Theiler, W,f 22 n. 102, 26 n. 118, 29 η. 145, 31 n. 151, 48 11. 44, 94 n. 140, 98 n. 163, 100 n. 169, 128 n. 313. Theano (pytliagorica)» 166 n. 53. Theo of Smyrna, 51, 58 τι. 22, 59 n. 25, 157 τι. 4, 158 n. 8, 163 and n. 34, ii. 37, 166 η. 53, 170-1, 172 n. 96, n. 97, n. 98, 173 and n. 98, n. 99, 179, 180, 181 and n. 140, 183, 192 n. 203, 197, 198 and xi. 242, 200, 204 n. 266. Theophrastus of Lesbos, 29 n. 144, 30 n. 148, Ch. ΓI passim, 52-3, 74 n. 47, 82 ff., 86 and n. 99, n. 102, 95 n. 148, n. 154, 96 and notes, 98 n. 163, 101 n. 175, n. 179, 102 n. 182, 128, 131 and n. 7, 135 n. 27, 137 n. 36, 143, 160 n. 23,176 n. 119, 230. Thompson, D'Arcy If7., 146 η. 1. Thrasyalees of Thasos, 151 and n. 27, 154 η. 49. Thrasyllus of Mendes, 163 n. 34. Timaeus of Taiiromenium, 188. Timosthenes of Rhodes, 147 and n. 6, 148 and n. 8, n. 10, n. 11, 150. Tricot, /., 176 n. 119. Tubero, L. Aelius, 186 and n. 173, 187, 192 n. 198. Tubero, Q. Aelius, 186 and n. 174, 187. Varro, M.Terentius, 3 n. 5. 94 n. 141, 131 n. 4, 148, 149 n. 17, 157 n. 4, 158 n. 9, 159, 16f, 162, 163 and n. 33, n. 36, 164 n. 39, 165, 167 n. 59, 170 n. 73, n. 75, n. 77, 173, 174,179 n. 134,182 n. 146, 185-92, 203 n. 263, 229. Verb eke, G., 212 n. 40, 213 n. 53, 223 n. 112, 224 n. 116. Verdeniiis, W.J., 107 η. 209. Vitruvius (Μ. Vitra v. Pollio), 149 and n. 17. Vogel, C. J. De, 19 η. 81, η. 84, 24 η. 109, 25 η. 115, 42 η. 26, 64 η. 51, 65 η. 52, η. 55, 73 η. 47, 94 η. 138, η. 141, η. 146, 98 η. 163, 99 η. 167,

102 η. 183, 103 η. 186, 160 η. 19, 188 η. 185, 204 η. 266, 211-2 η. 40. Vogt, Ε., 25 η. 113. Vries, C.J. De, 39 η. 23, 67 η. 3, η. 5, 122 η. 288. 1 Vaguer, Ε., 45 η. 41. Wagner, Ε. Α., 148 η. 8. Waszink, J. Η., 126 η. 303, 172-3 η. 98. Weddingen, R.-E. van, 162 ii. 33. Wehrli, Ε., 128 η. 313, 165 η. 50. Wellmann, Μ., 7 η. 21, 10 η. 35, η. 36, 11 η. 38, 24 and notes, 31 η. 151, 33 η. 8. 97 τι. 162, 156 η. 2, 164 η. 39, 165 η. 45, η. 50, 167 η. 59, 168 η. 66, 183 η. 148, 213 η. 53, 214 η. 58, η. 59, η. 60, 215 η. 62, η. 65, η. 66, η. 67, 216 and η. 69, η. 71, 217 η. 72, η. 73, η. 76, η. 77, η. 78, 21.8 η. 81, η. 83, η. 84, 219 η. 85, η. 87, η. 88, 220 and η. 89, η. 91, ιι. 93, 221 η. 98, 222 η. 100, η. 102, η. 105, 223 η. 112, 224 η. 114, η. 115, η. 116, 225 η. 119, η. 120, η. 124, 226 η. 126, η. 129, η. 132. Wendland, P., 130-1 η. 4, 1.64 η. 39. Widengren, G., 22 η. 99. Wiersma, W., 98 η. 163, 99 η. 169, 100 η. 169. Wimmer, F., 38, 176 η. 119. Wolfson, H.A., 89 η. 121. Xenocrates of Chalcedon, 43 η. 34, 121 η. 285, 123 η. 296, 159 η. 15, 160. Xenophon of Athens, 151 and η. 32, 154. Zaehner, R.C., 23 η. 104. Zarathustra, 22 η. 99. Zatspram, 23 η. 104. Zeller, Ε., 45 η. 40, 83 η. 80, 95 η. 154, 101 η. 181, 121 η. 286, 123 η. 295, 157 η. 7. Zeno of Citium, 86 η. 102, 88 η. 114, 89 η. 121, 91 η. 127, 95 η. 154, 96 η. 155, 99 η. 168, 100 η. 171, 108, 109 η. 222, .111, 194 η. 219.

240

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Early (s. also universe, tri.ivision of; World-Soul), 43 and n, 34, 44, 68, 74 n. 48, 98 n. 163, 159 n. 15, 160 and n. 19-22, 230. acute diseases (s. also fevers), 1, 13, 15, 136, 215 and n. 65. 58-9 n. 24, 70 and n. 25, 77 and n. 62, 78, 84, 93, 127-9, 138 n. 36. 60 and n. 31, 76, 79, 82, 85, 87, 90 and n. 123, 100 n. 171, 109 and n. 222,113 ff., 117 and n. 263, n. 264, 120, 132, 143, 182 n. 148, 206; cold a., 10, 79, 82, 87 n. I l l , 90 n. 123, 97 n. 162, 100 and n. 171, 134 n. 24, 206, 207, 208-9 n. 26, 209, 218, 222-3; a, supporting the earth 60, 86, 109-10, 114 n. 252. >., 169 and n. 69. 10 and n. 36, 215 ff. (5. also ζω«)» 16, 61, 71 η. 30, η. 32, 72 and η. 40, 74, 85 η. 91, 95 and η. 154, 96, 106, 116, 183, 184, 196, 207 and η. 14, η. 18; heat in an., 83, 87. 172-3 η. 98, 181.-2, 185; 191-2, 202. , 85 η. 98. 26 η. 124, 29 η. 145, 38, , 137 η. 35. 85 η. 99, 96.

241

1, 2, 17 η. 70, 21, 26 η. 120, 28, 41, 51, 65, 98 η. 163, 133, 134 η. 25, 1.43 and η. 35, 144 and η. 38, 154-5, Ch. VI 228, 229, 230;

d, 157 η. 4. (5. also winds), 153-4. :τος, 24, 37, 124-5 η. 300, 127, 139 and η. 4, 140 and η. 13, 1.42 η. 28, 144 and η. 38, 147 η. 5, 151 ff. τοΰρος, Arciurus, 37, 124-6, 127, 1.39, 140 and η. 12; as an < of άνταυγια, 125 η. . α (5. als *

sun), 30 and η. 148, 38, 40, 46, 56 η. 11, 57, 76, 82 η. 78, 96 η. 154, 118, 139, 153; astral theology (s. also stars, divinity of), 123 n. 296, αστραπή, 45 and n. 41, 90 n. 123. astrology, 125 n. 300, 115, M6, 181 u. 141. astrometeorology, 138-146, 230. astronomy (s. also άστρα; eclipses; heavenly bodies; moon; outer heaven; planets; spheres; stars; sun), 37, 38, 39-40, 41, 49, 138 if. Atomists, 27 n. 129, 43 n. 28, 57 n. 15. αυγή (s. also spheres), l i t n. 235, 112, 115 ii. 256. αύτόδρομος, 5. αυτοκίνητος, αυτοκίνητος (s. also self-motion), 38-9» 66 ii. 1. Avesta, 22 n. 99, 23 n. 104, 24. Basic concepts of natural philosophy explained by Plato, 63-4. Bear, 5. "Αρκτος. beard ($. also periods of human life), 46, 163, 170 and n. 71, 171, 172, 173 ii. 98, 174 n. 104, 181 n. 140. bleeding, 220, 224. blood (s. also bleeding, venae), 210 and ii. 30, 220; irrigation-system of the b., 37, 103. bod}-, human (s. also lists of parts and organs of), 104-6, 133 and n. 20, n. 22, 134 n. 25, Ch. ¥1 passim, Ch. VII passim; b. as a map, s. map; rn athemat i a >- physi cal b., 160 m 24, 193-6. βορέης (s. also winds), 24, Ch. V C passim, 147, 150, 154, botanical subjeets, 38, 40, 49, 50, 52, 53. Bundahisn, (Greater), 22-4, 26 and n. 120.

Calendar, calendar-systems (s. also parapegma; year), 25-6 n. 116, 141-5, 142-3 n. 28. ealidum, calor (s. also ardor; elements;

fire; frigidum; heat; hot; soul ; θερμόν), 11 n. 40, 18 n. 70, 61 n. 38, 79, 80, 81, 87-8, 90-4, 95, 96 and ii. 157, 100 and n. 170» .101 n. 180, 1 03, 124, 126 and n. 301, n. 302, 127 and n. 309, 208 n. 26, 209 and n. 29, 2.14 and n. 55, n. 57, 215, 217, 218, 221 n. 97, 222-3; orginale ealidum, 10, 208-10, 2223; vis caloris, 103 ff.; Vitalis calor, 91, 95, 102 ii. 181. Cnidian School of Medicine, 12-3, 14 and n. 54, 16, 22 n. 99, 220-1 n. 96, 225-6; elemental theory, 12 ff.; tripartite sehe me, 12 ff. cold, s. air; s. hot, the, and the eold. elassicistie 1 rends in the first Cent. B.C., 35, 229-30. clock, celestial, 140 ff. cognition, s. epistemology. condensation, s. πύκνωσις. constellations, s. stars. Corpus Hippocraticmn (s. also embryology ; Ionic, revival of), 2, 3, 4 n. 7, 6, 8 ii. 25, 1 3 n. 44, 27 and n. 130, 28, 32-5, 49, 53, 172-3 n. 98, 174-5, 178, 226, 229; chronological questions, 28, 32-5. cosmogony (s, also earth, origin of; stars, origin of), 45, 58 n. 19, 61, 81, 91 and n. 127, 100 and n. 1.71, 107 ff., 110, 131 n. 8. cosmology (s. also elements; heaven ; κόσμος; microcosm-macrocosm; motion; nature; self-motion; spheres; universe; World-Soul), 3, 18, 23 η. 1 03, n. 104, 24, 26, 28 ii. 142, 29, 30, 42-5, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 65, Ch. IV passim, 131 n. 8, 227 n. 138; cosmological models (s. also universe), 56, 57, 81. and n. 75; Seneca's division of c., 114-5 n. 252, 117 n. 264, 132 n. 14. eriterion, logos from mathematics as a, 157 n. 3. eounter-eartli, 38. 63. Damdet-Nask,

242

22 n. 99.

death, causes of (s. also heat, destructive), 212, 215-6, 219 n. 85, 222 and n. 99, n. 102, n. 103. definitio, definitions, 52 n. 51, 226 and

n. 126. Denkart, 22 τι. 99, 23 n. 104. digestion, 37, 103, 133, 197 ff,, 210-1, 218. divinity, of the heavens, s. heaven; of the stars, s. stars; spatial interpretation of, 123 η. 296; d. in Μ u., 121 ff.; (1. in Corp. Herrn., 123-4 n. 296, 127 n. 309. doxographical literature (s. also handbooks), Ch. II passim, Ch. V Β passim. Earth (s. also antipodes; counterearth; elements; κρασις), central position of, 18, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 n. 33, 62 n. 44, 63, 109, 119-20; characterisation of, 116-7; cylindrical form of, 25 n. 115, 62, 64; earth, the, 16, 38, 48, 49, 58, 60-4, 106 and n. 203, 113 ff.; as living being, 94, 104 ff.; motion of, 50, 58 n. 22, 62 n. 41; nature of, 55, 57, 60, 61, 68 n. 17, 79, 82, 85, 87, 100 n. 171, 109, 138 n. 36, 206-7; origin of, 61, 81, 86, 107, 108 and n. 218, n. 219, n. 220, 207 and n. 22, 215; sphericity of, 19 n. 79, 20 n. 85, 25 n. 115, 29-30 and n. 148, 63, 64, 111; stability of, 18, 50, 56, 60, 62, 66, 77, 109 and n. 222, 111, 204, 207 n. 14; stability of, taken for granted, 62, 64; e. supported b y the air, s. air. eclecticism, 2, 19, 20, 27, 30, 93, 107, 127 ff. έκττύρωσις, 91, 212. ειμαρμένη, 99 and n. 168, 101 n. 175, 179 n. 134, Eleatics, 71 n. 29. elemental bodies, 39, 71 ff., 78, 85, 104, n. 192, 215; elemental change, 39, 59 n. 26, 68 and n. 17, 72, 76 and n. 58, n. 59, 99, 100 and n. 171;

elemental masses, 43, 72, 76, 79, 85, 87, 90 ii. 121, 104 n. 192, 10910,114 ff., 215; elemental qualities (s. also hot, the, and the cold), 13, 16, 18 n. 70, 37, 79 ff., 82 ff., 90 ff., 206-11, 212 n. 44, 214-5, 226-7; elementary particles, 63, 68. element, first, in the Stoa, 39, 100 n. 171; elements, theory of, in Aristotle, 70 ff., 78, 82 ii. 78, 8 9 - 9 0 n. 1.21, 114 n. 252; th. in Plato, 67 ff., 78; th. in Posidonius, 92, 93-4, 114-5 n. 252» 230; th. in the Stoa, 86 ff., 108 ff., 114 ii. 250, n. 252, 230; th. in Theophrastus, 82 ff. elements (s. also air; earth; ether; fire; heat; Οερμον; water), 41, 43, 59 n. 26, 60 n. 31, o f , OS and n. 14, 71, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90 ff., 91 ii. 127, 104 n. 192, 107 ff., I l l ff., 113 ff., 131 n. 8, 137 n. 32, 206, 226-7; e. as living beings, 72, 78, 85, 87, 92-4, 94 n. 141, 95 and n. 148, 96, 97, 204, 229, 230; κρασις of e., s. κρασις; motion of, 59 n. 26, 68 and n. 14, 71, 76, 78 and n. 68, 80, 92 ff., 110, 111 ff.; proper place of e. in Aristotle, 71, 72 n. 38, in Plato, 64, in Theophrastus, 82 n. 79, 83 n. 8.1; self-motion of e., 70-1, 78, 207. embryo, s. fetus. embryology (s. also fetus; periods of gestation), in [Arist.], HA, 174, 176-8; in Athenaeus of Attalia, 164-5, 1.67 ii. 59; in Corp. Hipp.: Cam., 165, 174, 175 and n. 107, n. 110, 176, 177 n. 1.28, 178; Epid., 165, 178; Nat. puer., 165 and n. 43, n. 46, 175 n. 107, 178, 203 n. 263; Oct., 174, 175-6 and n. 112118; in Diodes, 164-5, 165 ff., 167 n. 59,168 n. 60,178; in Diodes and Strato acc. to Macrob. and Nicom., 164, 165 ff., 181, 203 n. 263; in Favonius Eulogius, 162 τι. 33; in Hebd,, 203 n. 263; in Hippo, 166, 174 and n. 105; in Moderatus

243

ap. Theo, 170, 181, 182 η. 146; in Philo, 173 η. 98, 181-2 η, 145, 182 η. 148, 203 η. 263; in 'Pytliag'. Hypomn., 99 η. 168, 178-9 η. 134; in Strato, 165 η. 50, 177-8; in the Stoa, 167 η. 57; in Varro, 165, 167 I L 59, 170 I I . 73, n. 75, n. 77, 179 n. 134, 183 n. 148, 185, 187, 203 n. 263. έναντίωσις (s. also heavenly bodies, contrary motion of), 40-1, 138, 139. epistemology, 156-7 n. 2, 157 n. 3, 158 n. 8, 159,193-5. eternal beings (s. also aiSm), 58, 59, 66, 86, 92, 129. ether (s. also elements), 43, 44, 70 m 25, 71 n. 30, 74 and n, 47, 80, 81, 82 and n. 78, 91 and n. 127, 92, 100 n. 170, 111, 115, 118, 123 n. 295, 126 and n. 301, n. 302; in "Pythag/ Hypomn., 99,100; aether tenuis = αυγή, 111 n. 235, 112, etiology of diseases, 1, 12 ff., 15, 97 n. 162, Ch. VII,4 passim, 229. εύρος (s, also winds), 25 n. 112, Ch. V Β passim. evaporation, caused by the heat intrinsic to the water, 90. experiments, simple, 46 n. 42, 109. explaining power, of elemental theory, in Pneumatic Medicine, 216 and n. 69, 220, 221 n. 97; - in Hebd. part II, ibd., 13, 221 n. 96; - of number, universal, 1, 17, 65 and n. 57, Ch. VI passim; explaining power of number taken for granted in Hebd., 65; - of microcosm-macrocosm-theories, 1, 13, Ch. VII,·4, passim, 228, 229; - of vis Vitalis, 94, 96. Fetus (5. also embryology; periods of gestation; seed), complete in the womb, 163, 166 n. 52, 167 and n. 59,170 and n. 73, n. 75,175 n. 107, 191 n. 198; development of f., 99 n. 168, 162 n. 33, 166 11. 53, 167 f t ,

173 n. 98, 174 n. 105, 175 and 11. 107, n. 113, 179 11. 134, 190-1 n. 198; d., enneadic, 164-5, 190-1 11. 198, hebdomadic, 163, 165-166, 167-8, 203 m 263, tessaraeontadic, 167 n. 59, 175 n. 113, 179 n. 134, 191 11. 198; male and female, different development of, 163, 166 n. 52, 170; f. as φυτόν, 167 n, 57, 180, 183 n. 152; viability of f.: 7 months, 162 n. 33, 166 m 52, n. 53, 168 and n. 60, 170, 172, 174, 175 and I L 116, 176, 181 n. 140, 190 n. 198, 203 n. 263; 8 months, 168 n. 60, 176; 9 months, 166 11. 52, 176, 190-1 11. 198; 10 months, 176, 191 n. 198. fevers (s. also acute diseases), 1, 6 11. 17, 10 and n. 35, 11, 12 n. 41, 13, 14 and 11. 51, 15 and n. 60, 135, 212, 214, 215 and n. 65» m 66, 216-7 and n. 69, 218 and n. 79, 220 and n. 91, n. 92, 223 n. 109, 225 m 122, 229. fire, ignis, πυρ (s. also elements), 43, 68, 79 11. 71, 82 n. 79, 100 n. 171, 109 n. 222, 111, 113 ff., 126, 216, 217; shape of, 68, 82 n. 79, 102 n. 182; = ether (s. also ether), 100 n. 170, 11. 171; terrestrial, 82 and n. 79, 97 n. 162; two kinds of in the Stoa, 88 and n. 114, 95 11. 154, 1 1 2 , 212.

First Unmoved Mover (s. also motion), 69 ff., 72 and n. 40, 73 n. 47, 75 and n. 51, 121; spatially interpreted, 121 ff., 123-4 n. 296. φρένες (s. also Ionia), 20 n. 88, 199 n. 244. frigidum (s. also hot, the and the cold); orginale f., 208-9 n. 26, 210 n. 29, 222-3. φύσις (s. also nature), 9-10, 70 ff., 72 and n. 43, 73 n. 47, 78, 95 n. 154. Gestation-periods, s. periods of gestation. Gnosticism, 122 n. 291, 123 n. 296.

244

Great Year (s. also calendar), 30 n. 148» 141 n. 20, 142-3 n. 28. Handbooks (s. also doxographical literature), 78 n. 67, 88 n. 118, 94 n. 138, 118 n. 272, 128, 130 ff., 135 n. 27, 142, 160. head, functions and 'openings' of, 133, 134 n. 25, 197, 200-1. heart, 34, 102 n. 183, 212 n. 44, 222 and n. 102, n. 103. heat (s. also ardor; calidum; elements; fire; hot; κρασις; θερμόν), 28, 61, 81, 82 ff., 106, 206 ff., 208 ff., 214 ff.; destructive, lethal, 88, 210, 212, 215; distribution of, s. universe; in animals and plants, s. animals, s. plants; of heavenly bodies, s. heavenly bodies; inborn (s. also calidum, originale), 10, 208-9 η. 26, 218 η. 84; in man, 125 η. 300; motive power of, 36 n. 22, 37, 79, 83, 85, 87 ff., 93 ff., 207; primary, 79, 83 n. 80, 89, 91; pure, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 88, 91, 92; in the seed, s. seed; of the soul, s. soul; of the sun, s. sun; vital, 88, 91, 92, 94-5 and n. 148, τι. 154, 126. heat, theory of; in Cicero's ND II, 86 ff.; in Cleanthes, 91 ff., 102, 212; in Hebd., 28, 79 ff., 89 ff. and Ch. IV passim, 134 n. 24, 204, 228; in Posidonius, 92 ff. and Ch. IV passim; in the 'Pyth.' Hypomn., 98 ff.; in Theophrastus, 82 ff. heaven, outer, 27 n. 129, 42 and n. 26, 43, 44 n. 37, 55, 58, 77, 80, 111 and n. 235, 118-9, 127 n. 309, 1214, 137 n. 32, 199 n. 244; cold (s. also κρυσταλλοειδές), 55, 80 η. 73, 136-7 and η. 33, 207; enclosing, 42 η. 26, 56, 57, .115, 122 η. 290, 136; ensouled, 70 η. 24; inseparable (incl. άκριτος κόσμος), 6, 55, 115 and η. 256, 126 η. 301, 132 η. 16, 136 η. 32; solid, 27 η. 129, 115 η. 256, 136 and η. 32; stars,

relation to, 41, 111 η. 235, 115 η. 256, 120 ff., 1.43 η. 28; unmoved, 55, 66, 77, 120, 121, 123-4. 1 26 η. 301, .129. heavenly bodies (s. also άστρα; heaven, outer; moon; planets; stars; sun), 56, 57, 73 ff., 75, 92, 93, 105, 117, 118,122 n. 291,129,138 if.; brightness of, 46; divinity of, 59 and n. 24; contrary motions of, 40-1, 1 38 ff.; ensouled, 67, 73 n. 47; heat of and in, 79, 88 n. 115; motion of, 37, 38-9, 47, 49, 50, 57, 67 f l , 73 ff. and n. 47, 75, 92, 137; origin of, 5. stars; sequence of, 37, 47, 56-7. heavens, changing colours of, 106 n. 206, 137; divinity of, 70 n. 25, 84 ii. 89; motion of, 74, 75-6, 111, 120; remoteness of, 69; revolution of, 66, 67, 121. heavy and light, 64, 71 if., 82, 109-10. IIistory of Medicine, 135 n. 27. hot, the (s. ardor; calidum; elements; fire; heat; θερμόν); hot, meaning of discussed by Aristotle, 82 n. 78; - (and cold), defined in Hebd. Ch. 13, 208-9 and n. 26. hot, the and the cold (s. also elemental qualities), 1, 10, 11 n. 40, 1.7 and n. 66, 17-8 n. 70, 28 and n. 134, 205, 206-8, 208-9 n. 26, 209, 210, 228; in Aristotle, 76; in Plato, 63; in Posidonius, 96-7; in 'Pyth'. Hypomn., 99-100; in Theophrastus, 82, 85, 96; the hot, the cold, the wet and the dry, 13, 15-6, 18 n. 70, 206-10; the hot, the cold, the wet and the dry in Pneumatic Medicine, 214-5. humidum, (h)umor (s. also moisture; ύγρόν; water), 61 n. 38, 90, 104, 1.06, 190-1 ii. 198, 2.10, 214 and n. 56, n. 57, n. 58, 215, 216, 217, 220, 221 n. 97. humours, 16, 37, 210 and n. 33, 212 n. 44, 215 n. 65, 216-7, 220 and n. 93. Hypomnemata, 'Pythagorean', 24 and n. 108, n. 109, 31 n. 151, 64, 81. n.

245

75, 98 ff., 131 and η. 8, 178-9 η. 134, 191 η. 198 latrica, $. History of Medicine; s. physiology, history of. 'innere Form', s. word. Ionia (s. also φρένες), 19, 20 n. 88; Ionian origin of certain wind names, 147 ii. 5; Ionian philosophy, 18-9, 25; Ionic, revival of, 33-5, 50, 53, 226, 230. lupiter, s. planets; s. Zeus. Καύσος (s, also fevers), 10-1 1, 13, 215 ii. 65. κίνησις, s. motion. Κνίδιαι γνώμαι, 12 ιι. 44, 221 n. 96. κόσμος (s. also cosmogony; cosmology; heaven; universe), 29 n. 144, 42-6, 111 and n. 235, 113 and n. 248, 119 n. 272, n. 275, 122 n. 288, 123 n. 296, 132; 'region of the universe', 42 ff., 83 n. 80, 121; two κόσμοι: in Anaximander aec. to llieophrastus, 44-5; in Aristotle, 43; in Theophrastus, 83 and n. 80. κρασις (s. also elements, theory of; μιξις), 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90 and n. 121, n. 123, 91, 92, 93, 2067, 230; of earth and water, 93, 103 and n. 192, 116-7 and n. 260, 109; of the elements, 79 and n. 71, 81, 85, 89 and n. 121, 90 n. 121, 215; of heat and earth, 79, 80 and ii. 73, 90-1, 103 and n. 191, 110, 206; of heat and earth and water, 80 n. 73, 81, 90, 93, 103, 206 and n. 10; of heat and water, 28 and n. 133, 61 n. 38, 79, 80 and n. 73, 81, 90, 110, 205. κρυσταλλοειδές, -δώς, κρύσταλλος, 56, 57, 137 and ιι. 33. l i f e , 5. vitalism; periods of human, s. periods. light, reflected (s. also άνταυγια; Άρκτοΰρος), 46, 58, 137; derived, 58 n. 22, 125 n. 300. liquid element, s. water.

lists of organs and parts of the human body, hebdomadic, 197-202; in if ebd., 199-202; in Hebd. and in other works, comparison of, 199202.

living beings, 5. animatia, s. ζωα. λόγος and cognition, 193 n. 210; ένδιαθέτος λ., 168 and n. 67, 169 n. 68, 180; προφορικός λ., 168 and n. 67, 169 ii. 68, 180. lunar cycle, 47, 51, 117-8, 144 and n. 37, 179-80, 182-4, 196, 204 n. 264; influence on the tides of the Ocean, 184 and notes. Map, in Ilebd. Ch. 11 (s. also microcosm-macrocosm), 19-20, 133 ii. 22, 199 n. 244, 200 and n. 246, 202 and n. 259. μάνωσις, s. πύκνωσες, mathematics (s. also arithmetics; criterion; number-theory), ancillary science to philosophy, 135 n. 27; in. and epistemology, 156-7 n. 2, 157 n. 3, 193-6; mathematical realism of Posidonius, 193 ff.; philosophy of mathematics, 158 n. 8, 160-1 ii. 24. medicine (s. also acute diseases; allopathy; Cnidian School; Corpus Ilippocratic um; embryology; etiology; fevers; Pneumatic School; Posidonius; prognosis; semiology; therapy) Ch. 1 passim; Ch. VII, 4 passim; ancillary science to philosophy, 135 n. 27; Greek, in Persia, 22 n. 99, 23 n. 104. mens in π. φιλ., 73-4 n. 47.

menstruation (s. also sexual maturity; periods of human life), 166, 170, 173 n. 98, 177, 184 n. 161, 203 n. 263. meteorological phenomena, meteorology (s. also air; winds), 39-40, 45-6, 55, 60 and n. 31, 71 n. 29, 85, 117 and n. 263, n. 264, 132 and n. 16, 134, 143, 182 n. 148, 214 n. 56, 215.

246

microscosni-macroeosm (s. also map), -parallel 13, 17 n. 66, 20 n. 88, 21, 22-4, 79, 103-6, 115, 133, 199 n. 244, 205; -theory (s. also explaining power), 20 n. 88, 107 n. 209, 133; in Choerilus of Athens, 107 n. 209; m Greater Bundahisn, 22-4, 26; in Hebd. part 1, 1, 13, 17 and n, 66, 20 n. 88, 21, 22 and n. 100, 23 η. 103, 25 η. 115, 26 and n. 118, 79, 92, 103-7, 115, 124-5, 199 n. 244, 204 n. 264, 206-7 and η. 8, 228; in Hebd. part II, 1, 206-7 and ii. 8, 211. and ii. 38, 221 n. 97, 228, 229; Hebd. and I 'let. compared, 105-7; in Posidonins, 20 η. 88, 106-7, 211-2 n. 40; in Seneca, 104-5; in Plato's Tim., 105 n. 195; in Vict, 22 n. J 02, 26 and n. 117, n. 118, 105-6; in Plutarch, 204 n. 264. Milesians, 29, 54, 57. μίμησις etc. (s. also microcosm-macrocosm), 29 n. 145, 105-7. μΐξις, mixture (s. also κρασις), 83, 86 n. 102, 89 n. 121. model and copy, relation between, s. microcosm-maerocosm, Hebd. and Vict, compared; models, cosmological, s. cosmology, moisture (s, also elements; hum id urn; water), 36-7, 61, 108, 206, 212, 217, 219, 225. month (s. also lunar cycle), 39, 47, 48, 51, 76 ii. 60, 140 n. 14, 144 n. 37. moon (s, also lunar cycle), 115, J17-8, 132 and n. 13, 138, 139 and n. 4, 140, 141, 142 n. 25; eclipses of, 38, 47, 56 n. 11; influence upon the development of animals and plants, 183, 184; mediating function of, 58-9, 182-3 n. 148, 183-4, 185 n. 162, 203, 204 n. 264; motion of, 39, 41, 49, 59 n. 25, 76 and n. 59, 77, 117 140, 144; nature of, 22 n. 88, 47, 58 n. 22, 76 and n. 59, 84, 106; phases of, 40, 47, 50, 51-2, 55, 76 n. 60, 117-

8, 144, 179, 180, 204; position of (s. also universe, sublunar ¥ «Mid supralunary world), 20 n. 8 \ 43 n. 34, 47, 55, 56, 58-9, 60, 76 and n. 59, 80 and n. 74, 81, 83, 106, 120, 132. motion (s. also moon; natura; planets; self-motion; soul; stars; sun; φύσις), 40, 47, 55, 58, 59, 66 ff.. 77 and n. 62, 86, 98 n. 163, 112, 119 and n. 275, n. 276, 120, 124 n. 296, 129, 207; caused by heat, s. heat; Aristotle's theory of, 69 ff., 78, 138 n. 30; Plato's theory of, 66 ff., 78, 89, 138 n. 36, 204; Stoic theory of, 86 ff., 92 ff., I l l ff., 120, 138 n. 36; Theophrastus' theory of, 82 ff., 84 n. 89; theory of taken for granted in Hebd,, 66, 78. mountains, formation of according to Theophrastus, 82 n. 79. Natura, natural, nature (s. also φύσις), 70 ff. night and day, 140 n. 14, 179-80. Neoplatonic, Keoplatonism, 159 n. 15, 164 n. 39. number (s. also arithmology; epistemology; explaining power; lists of organs and parts of the human body; mathematics); numbertheory, 156-7 and n. 2, n. 3, 158, 159 and n. 15, 160 and notes, 193-6; number, cognition and perception in Posidonius, 193-6; ii. eonceived in a qualitative way, 228; number and Soul (c.q. the World-Soul), 160, 193-5, 196; World-Soul consisting of 7 numbers, 196. Observational proofs (s. also experiments), 87 and n. 106, 88. Ocean (s, also sea), 184 and n. 158. ογδοάς, 123 n. 296. ολύμπιος, ολυμπος (s. also heaven; κόσμος; ουρανός; ύπατος), 27 n.

247

129, 42, 43, 57 and η. 16, 119, 121 and η, 285, 122 and η. 289, 124, 127 η. 309. ορεκτόν, δρεξις, 71 η. 32, 72 ίι. 40. Orion, 139, 140 and η. 12. ουρανός (s. also heaven; κόσμος; δλυμπος; ύπατος), 42 η. 26, 43, 445, 67 η. 5, 111, 121 η. 285, 122 and η. 290, 132, 137 η. 33, Παντρόφος, 48-9, 61, 81, 106 ίι. 203, 116 and η. 258. πάγος (s, also heaven, outer), 6, 27 η. 129. parapegma, parapegmatists (s. also calendar), 25 n. 116, 148 and m 14, n. 15. pathology (s. also therapy), 11, 16, 26, 37, Ch. VII,4 passim. perception (s. also epistemology; senses), 99, 133, 134 n. 25, 157 n. 3, 193 if., 197, 200-1 and n. 248. periods of animal life, hebdomadic, in HA, 177. periods of gestation, computation of (s. also embryology; fetus; periods of human life and of gestation, parallel between); in [Arist.], HA VII, 176; in Diodes, 165, 168, 170 η. 72; in Oct., 175 and n. 113; in 'Pythag.' Hypomn., 99 n. 168, 178-9 η. 134, 191 n. 198; in Varro, 190-1 n. 198. periods of human life, hebdomadic (s, also beard; menstruation; seed; sexual maturity), 133, 162 ff., 168-70, 171-3, 174-8, 180, 184; in Aristotle, 174 n. 103, 177, 178; in [Arist.], HA, 174, 176-8; in Calcidius, 163 n. 37, 171.-3; in Mart. Capella, 163 n. 37, 171.-3; in Corp. Hipp.: Cam,, 174, 175 and n. 110, 176, 178 and n. 133; Oct., 175 and 11. 1.12; in Diodes and Strato acc. to Macrob. and Nicom., 167 n. 59, 168-70, 171, 172 n. 95, n. 96, n. 97, 174, 181, 182 and n. 146, 197; in Favonius Eulogius,

162 η. 33; in Hippo, 174-5; in Moderatus ap. Theo, 163, 170-1, 172 η. 95, η. 97, .181, 182 η. 146; in the Peripatus, 176-8; in Philo, 169 η. 69, 173 η. 98, 180-1 η. 140, 181 η. 145, 182 η. 148, 203 η. 263; m Posidonius, 5. periods of human life and of gestation, parallel and relation between; in 'Pyth.' Hypomn., 179 n. 134; in Solon, 171, 174 n. 103, 178, 181 n. 140; in the Stoa, 169 n. 69; in Strato, 165 η. 50, 177-8; in Varro, 162 and n. 30, n. 31, 163, 183 n. 148, 187, 189; (periods of human life), of 10 years, in Hippo, 174-5; of 15 years, in Varro, 162, 187-8. periods of human life and of gestation, parallel and relation between, in [Arist.], HA, 176-8, 177 n. 124, 178 η. 130; in Corp. Hipp.: Cam., 175; Oct., 175-6; in Diodes, 164 ff., 177-8; in Diodes and Strato acc. to Macrob. and Nicom., 164, 165, 166-7, 167 n. 59, 170, 175, 178; in Favonius Eulogius, 162 η. 33; in Hippo, 174-5; in Moderatus ap. Theo, 163, 170-1, 181; in Philo, 173 η. 98, 181 η. 145; in Posidonius, 180-4, 196; in 'Pythag.' Hypomn., 179 n. 134; in Strato, 165 ff., 177-8; in Varro, 163. Peripatus, 44, 52-3, 86, 97 n. 161, 110, 128-9, 176 n. 119, 177, 230. Persia and Greek culture (s. also Bundahisn, Greater; medicine), 22 n. 99, 23 n. 104. physicae rationes in Cicero ND LI, 87 ff., 97 n. 162, 104. physiology, history of, 135 n. 27. planets (s. also άστρα; spheres, astronomical ; stars), 42, 43 n. 34, 70, 111 n. 235, 113 n. 249, 114 n. 252, 115 n. 255, 118, 126 n. 301; p. and fixed stars, distinction or lack of distinction between, 18, 21, 30 and n. 148, 55, 57, 115, 118, 119 and n. 274, Ch. V Β passim, 202 n.

248

259; motion and orbits of, 41, 70 n. 25, 74-5, 142-3 n. 28, Ch. V Β passim; p. and the seasons, 30 and η. 150, 139 and Ch. Υ Β passim, 182 ii. 148, 230; p. and the seasons taken for granted in Hebd., 145-6; the "seven planets', 21 and n. 95, 24 n. 108, 29-30 τι. 148, 30 and n. 150, 42, 57 n. 17, 123 n. 296, Ch. ¥ Β passim, 139 n. 4» 182-3 n. 148; lupiter, 126 η. 301. plants, 16, 61, 71, 74, 85 n. 91, 91, 96, 106, 116, 183 and n. 151, 207 and ii. 14; heat in, 83, Pleiads, 25 n. 116, 30, 37, 139 and n. 4, 140 and n. 12, 144. πνεύμα (s. also spiritus; Pneumatic School), 39, 45, 97 n. 162, 211 and n. 39, n. 40, 219 n. 85, 221-5. Pneumatic School, 33, 34, 35, 97 n. 162, 156 n. 2, 213-27, 229, 230, 23 L; development of fevers, theory of, 216 and n. 71; dietetics, 217 ff., 218 n. 83, 225; division of medical science, 225-6; elemental qualities, theory of (s. also explaining power; Οερμόν), 214-5; etiology, 214, 215 and n. 65, n. 66, 216-7, 218, 223 n. 109, 225, 230; influence upon Hebd. part II, Ch. ¥11,4 passim, 229; i. upon other treatises in the Corpus Hippoeratictim, 33 and n. 5, n. 8, 34, 35; microcosni-macrocosm-theory, 214-5 ; pneuma-theory, 221-5; P. and Posidonius, 213 n. 53, 226-7 and n. 134; respiration, theory of, 222-3; semiology, 221 n. 97, 225 and n. 122; P. and the Stoa, 213 n. 53, 226 and n. 129; therapy, 2179, 223, 224, 225, 230. Posidonius (s. also 1 ndex of Names; anonymous arithmologist; άντιπερίστασις; classicistic trends in the first Cent. B.C.; elements; elements as living beings; heat, theory of; hot, the and the cold; lunar cycle; mathematical re-

alism ; microcosm-macrocosm; number; periods of human life .aid of gestation, parallel be. een; Pneumatic School; psychology; seed; self-motion; Stoic ideas in Nicomachus; Stoic handling of 1 Pythagorean' ι naterial; sun; Vet. plac.; vitalism; World-Soul); Commentary {orComments) on the Timaeus of Plato, 156 and n. 2, 157 and n. 6, 158 n. .11, 161 n. 25, 185, 191-2, 199, 201, 202-4, 231; decisive influence on ί I ebd. part I, 204; on Hebd. as a whole, 22931 ; Pos. on intelligibilia and sensUnlia, 160 n. 18, 193-6; Pos and medicine, 130 n. 4, .135 n. 27, 181 n. 141, 196, 226-7; on outer heaven and fixed stars, 111 n. 235, 112, 115 n. 256. πραξις in Aristotle's cosmology, 73 n. 47, 74, 75 and n. 52; in Aristotle's ethical theory (s. also voluntas), 73-4 n. 47. Prescocratic(s), 1, 2, 18, 19, 27, 29, 30, Ch. Ill passim, 105, 107, 143, 154; Presocratic parallels, 1, 18 n. 76, 19 n. 79, 26, 27 n. 127, 29 n. 144, n. 145, 30, 31 ii. 151, 45, Ch. I l l passim, 79 n. 71, 98 ii. 163, 126 n. 301, n. 302, 131 n, 8, 1 36-8, 230-1. prognosis (s. also semiology), 12 n. 41, n. 44, psychology of Hebd. (s. also soul; World-Soul), 10, 11, 13, 28 τι. 1 34, 37, 1 34, 208-11, 221 n. 97, 227; of Posidonius, 193 ff.; in 'Pythag.' Hypomn., 99 ff.; Stoic p., s. Stoa. puberty, s. sexual maturity, πύκνωσις and μάνωσις (s. also σύστασις), 46-7, 58 and n. 19, 100 and n. 171, 107 ff. pulse, 221 n. 97, 224-5 and n. 119. Pythagorean! sm (s. also Hypomnemata \ Stoa), 18 n. 75, 21, 24 and n. 108, 38, 41, 17, 49, 57, 64, 65, 98 n. 163, 98 ff., 156 and n. 2, 158 n. II, 159, 188 and n. 185, 189 and

249

11. 188, 11. 189, 191 η. 198; Pythagoreans, 21, 29 η. 145, 38, 42 η. 26, 47, 48, 98 η. 163, 156. (,J ιι all ties, s. elemental qualities. Rarefaction, s. πϋκνωσις and μάνωσις. relativity of 'up' and 'down' (s. also earth), 62-4, 120, 204; taken for granted in Hebd,, 64. respiration (s. also soul), 10, 133, 134 and n. 24, 197, 198, 200, 201 and ii. 253, 219, 221 n. 97, 222-3. rubbing, 218, 2L9-20; as t.p.q., 219. Saturn, 125, 142 n. 28. Same, the, and the Different, s. WorldSoul. sea ($. also elemental bodies; elem. masses), 100; as living being, 94; in Posidonius, 40, 184, 196; region of the universe, 55, 117, 132; tides of (s. also moon), 47, 184, 196. seasons (s. also planets), 9, 10 and n. 35, 11, 16, 30 and n. 150, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 76, 86 n. 99, 96, 115 n. 256, 118 ii. 267, 120-121, 132 n. 16, 134 and n. 26, Ch. ¥ Β passim, 209, 214 n. 56, 215 n. 62, 217 n. 76. seed, sperm, σπέρμα (s. also embryology; sexual m a t u r i t y ) , 61 and n. 38, 100 ii. 169, 104, 176, 177 n. 123, 179 n. 134, 181 n. 140, 208 n. 26, 210 ii. 29; development of, in the womb, 162 n. 33, 166, 176, 179 n. 104, 203 n. 263; first seven hours of, 166 and n. 155; heat in, 82 n. 78, 99, 208 n. 26, 209; of plants, 169 n. 69, 183 n. 151. self-motion (s. also elements), 38-40, 55, 66 ff., 78 and n. 68, 88 n. 118, 89, 92 ff., 138 n. 36; in Aristotle, 69 ff., 73 ff., and n. 47, 78, 230; in Hebd., 38 ff., 55, 58, 59 and n. 27, 66, 77, 78, 86, 92 ff., 207, 230; in Plato, 38 ff., 66 ff., 78, 230; in the Stoa, 39, 87 f t , 92 ff.; in Theo™ phrastus, 84 n. 89.

semiology (s. also Pneumatic School; prognosis; pulse), 1, 4 n. 7, 12 n. 41, 13, 15, 221 n. 97, 229. sensation, s. perception, senses, the, 133, 201 n. 254; cognitive function of, 193-5, 201-2 and n. 248; seven senses in the Stoa, 168-9 and n. 69, 180. sexual m a t u r i t y (s. also menstruation; periods of human life; seed; senses, seven, in the Stoa), 163, 169 ii. 69, 170, 171, 172, 174-5, 177, 180 and n. 139, 181 n. 140. siccitas, siccum (s. also elemental qualities; spirit us, aridus; the hot, the eoltl, the wet and the dry), 214 and n. 56, 215. Sirius, 30, 40, 139 and n. 4, 140 and n. 12. skin (s. also microcosm -macrocosm), 79, 115, 124, 125 and n. 300, 126 n. 301, 136, 137, 207. soul (s. also psychology; World-Soul), 9-10, 39, 47, 67, 75 n. 56, 84 and n. 89, 89 n. .120, 96 n. 154, 101 n. 175, 122 n. 288, 123 n. 296, 133 and ii. 20, 160, 193-6, 208-10; departing, 21.9 n. 85; heat (c.q. the hot) of, .10, 13, 37, 99 ff., 208-1.0, 221 n. 97, 228 η. 139, 222-3; the hot and the cold of, 208-11, 215, 222-3; s. and motion, 37, 67 ff., 75 n. 53, n. 56, 78, 84 n. 89, 122 n. 288, 160 and n. 20; s. and number, s. number; nurturing itself, 37, 210; seven parts of, 209-11; tension of, caused by respiration, 168, 180. Sparta, 20 n. 88. species (s. also de/initio), 52 n. 51, 214 η. 56. speech (s. also λόγος προφορικός; periods of human life), 133, 134 and n. 25, 168 and n. 67, 1.69 and η. 69, 171, 180 and u. 139, 180-1 ii. 140, 192 ii. 203, 198, 201 n. 254, 218 and n. 84. spheres, astronomical (s. also cosmol-

250

ogy; universe), 18, 39, 41, 57, 70 and n. 24, n. 25, 73 n. 47, 75 and n. 53, 83 n. 80, 113 n. 249, 115, .120,122 ff., 123 n. 296, 132, 183 n. 150, 204 n. 264; cosniological, 42» 43 and n. 34, 44-5, 55, 57, 80, 83 and u. 80, 85, 109-10, l.Li ff., 1 145 and n. 252, 132, 183 in 150, 204 η. 264, Spiritus (s. also πνεύμα), 104; aridus spiritus, 208 n. 26, 211, 214 n. 56; Vitalis spiritus, 114 n. 252. stars (s. also άστρα; J leave η, outer; heavenly bodies; motion ; planets; spheres), 18, 41, 55, 56, 74, 77, 80, 124 ff., 1 32 and n. 13, 134 n. 26, Ch. V 1> passim; brightness of, 45-6, 55; constellations (s. also Aquarius; "Αρκτος; Άρκτουρος; calendar; Orion; Pleiads; Sirius), 30, 37, 138, 140, 144, 145; divinity of, 84, 122 n. 290, 123 n. 296; ensouled, 67, 74 n. 4, 84; fine light of, 47, 55, 58; fixed stars (s. also planets), 18, 21, 30, 41, 43 n. 34, 57, 111 n. 235, 114 n. 252, 115, 123 n. 296, 138, .139 n. 4, 144, 145; heat of, 55, 79, 80 and n. 73, 88, 91, 124; motion of, 74, 75, 1 11 ; origin of, 88, 91 n. 127, 92; πραξις of, 73-5; revolution of, 49-50; reflected light of (s. also άνταυγία; Άρκτουρος), 18 η. 76, 27 η. 129, 38, 58, 125 η. 300, 137. Stoa (s. also elements, theory of; embryology; fire, two kinds of; κρασις; motion; periods of human life, hebdomadic; Pneumatic Medicine ; self-motion; World-Soul), 31 n. 151, 33, 34, 39, 86 ff., 100 ff., 104, 116 n. 258, 127 n. 309, 168 and ii. 65, 169 and n. 69; Stoic cosmogony, 100, 107-8; Stoic cosmology, 39, 86 ff., 108 ff., 114 η. 250, n. 252, 126 n. 302, 207 n. 22; Stoicizing versions of Heraclitus, 59 n. 26, 99 n. 167, 169 n. 69; Stoic conception of mathematics,

194-5; Stoic ideas in Nicomachus, 167 n. 57, 168 and n. 65, 169 and n. 69, 180, 1.82-4 (Posic· nius); Stoic physics, 114 n. 250, n. 252, 128-9; Stoic psychology, 99 ff., 211 and n. 39, n. 40; Stoic handling of Pythagorean' material, 150 n. 2, 157 n. 3, 194 n. 212; Stoic ideas in the 'Pvthag.' IIvponui., 99-100; Stoic theology, 39, l i b n. 258, 127 η. 309, 136 n. 30; Stoa and Theophrastus, 53 n. 53, 84 n. 89, 86 and n. 1 02. s u b l u n a r y a n d supra,binary world, .s\ universe.

summer and winter (s. also seasons); in the course of a month, 76 n. 60. συμπάθεια, sympathy (cosmic), 182 n. 148, 184 and n. 155, n. 158, n. 102. sun, 38, 43 n. 34, 55, 56 and n. 11, 60 n. 31, 80, 115, 124 ff., 129, 132 and n. 13, 138, 139 and n. 4, 140, 141 and n. 23, 142 n. 25, 206, 207; (reflected) light of, 38, 46, 47, 92; heat of, 50, 55, 76 and n. 58, n. 59, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 91, 92, 101, 110, 118, 206, 207, 212; motion (and orbit) of, 39, 41, 49, 59 n. 25, 76, 77, 85, 102 n. 182, 140, 142-3 n. 28, 144; sustaining power of, 76 and n. 58, n. 59, 83 and ri. 82, 84, 91 and u. 127, 10.1, 102 n. 181, n. 182, 143 n. 28; = Zeus, 127; in Aristotle, 76 and n. 57, n. 58, n. 59; in Cleanthes, 91 and n. 127, 102 and n. 181, η. 182; in Hebd., 55, 79, 80, 82, 101, 127; in Posidonius, 102-3 ; in Theophrastus. 83-5, 102 ii. 183. σύστασις, 42, 80, 108 η. 216, η. 219, 109 η. 222, 110, 112, 117. Teeth, 40; teething, 162 η. 33, 163, 168, 170, 171, 1 74, 175 η. 106, 176, 181 η. 1 40, 190 η. 198; growth of 'real' teeth, 163, 168, 175; shedding of first teeth, 162 n. 33, 163, 1.68,

251

170-1, 174 and η. 104, 175, 176, 190 η, 198. theories, use of, s. explaining power, therapy (s. also Cnidian School; Pneumatic School), 1, 6 n. .17, 10, 11, 12 ii. 41. n. 44, 13 and n. 44, n. 49, 15, 217-9, 223, 224, 225, 229, 230. Οερμόν (s. also ardor; calidum; elemental qualities; fire; heat; hot), 11 ii. 40, 18 n. 70, 36 n. 22, 79, 80, 81, 82 and n. 78, 84, 86, 90 and n. 123, 97 n. 162, 98 ff., 100, 101 n. 175, 102 η. 1 83, 207 and n. 20, 219 n. 85, 221 n. 97, 222 and τι. 102, 223 τι. 109; in Pneumatic theory, 97 n. 162, 214 ff.; m Theophrastus, 82 ff., 97 n. 162. time-reckoning, s. calendar, transcendence vs. immanence in Mu., 121-4. Ύ γ ρ ό ν (s. also elements; humidmn; moisture; water), 108 n. 218, 114 n. 250, 11.6 and n. 260, 117, 214 and n. 57, n. 58, 222 n. 99, 223 n. 109. universe (s. also cosmology; earth, central position of; κόσμος; spheres, cosmological), 42 ff.; centre of, 62, 63, 113; cosmic mechanics, 119 and n. 276, 120; distribution of heat in (s. also κρασις), 55, 79, 80, 81, 82-3, 86, 87; as ζωον, 91 η. 127, 106-7; eternity of, 127 ff.; as μακράνθρωπος, 105 η. 195; schematic descriptions of, Hellenistic, compared to Hebd. Ch. 1-2,11.3 ff., 131; schem. descr. of, Hellenistic, taken for granted, 118,133; sphericity of, 19 η. 79, 56 ff., 60, 114 n. 252; structure of particularly emphasized in proem of Hebd., 113 n. 248; sublunary and supralunary world (s. also moon, mediating function and position of), 39, 43-5, 59, 60, 71., 76 and n. 59, 79, 80 and n. 74, 81 and n. 75,

83, 137 n. 32, 183-4; sublunary and supralu nary world taken for granted, 59, 80; univ., systematic description of in the Plac., Ch. V A passim; tripartite division of, 42, 43 n. 34. ύπατος (s. also ολύμπιος; ουρανός), 121 and η. 285, 122, 1 24, 127 η. 309. Varro's logistorici, nature of, IN5 ff.; A Hie us analyzed, 188-90; A, dated, 188, 1.90; Cens. Ch. 14-15,3 attributed to the A tticus, 188-90; Tuben> analyzed, 186-8, 190; T. dated, 1 87, 1 90-2 n. 198. veins, venae (s. also mierocosmmaerocosm), 79, 103, 10 4 and n. 194, 106, 107 n. 209, 116 n. 260, 212 n. 44, 224 and n. 113, 117 n. 118.

Vetusta Ρ tacit a, (s. also doxographical literature; universe), 1 30 ff., 159, 191 n. 198. Vict., possible date of, 25-6 τι. 116, n. 118, 105 n. 195. vis Vitalis (s. also vitalism), 92, 94, 96 and n. 157, 97. vitalism (s. also elements as living beings; vis vitalis), 69 n. 19, 71 and n. 35, 72, 74 n. 48, 77, 78 and η. 67, 85, 86, 87 ff., 89, 91 ff., 94 and n. 140, n. 141, 95 and n. 148, n. 149, n. 154, 96, 97, 101, 107, 127 n. 309, 204, 230; vitalis color, s. calor. vocabulary of Hebd. part I (s. also word-list), 36 ff., 52-3, 138, 230; of part II, 212-3, 230. voice, vox, s. speech. voluntas in π. φιλ. (s. also πραξις), 73-4 and η. 47. vowels, the seven (s. also speech), 134 n. 25, 169 n. 69, 201 n. 254. Water (s. also elements; humidum; κρασις; moisture; sphere (s); ύγρόν), 28, 61, 77, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 100 η. 171, 105, 107, 108 and

252

η. 218, η. 219, η. 220, 111, 113 f t , 116-7, 205, 206; liquid element, 55, 79, 80, 92, 104, 116-7, 206, 207, 210. vviiK I-names (s, also winds; wind-rose), Ch, V C, passim; scientific origin of certain w., 6, Ionia, wind-rose, 24 and n. 110, 119 and n. 274, Ch. V C passim, 202 n. 259, 230; Hellenistic, taken for granted in 11 ebd., 154; history of, Ch. Y C; 12 petals, 147-8, 152-5; 10 petals, 146-7; 8 petals, 148-151, 154; 7 petals, 151. winds, 21, 24 and 24-5 n. 112, 76, 84 n. 86, 85 n. 96, 90 n. 123, 97 n. 161, 132 n. 16, 134, Ch. V C passim. word, a good, for Reinhardt's 'innere Form', 103 n. 187. word-list for Hebd, part I, 36 ff.: 1. αγωγή, 36-7; 2. άκολουΟέω, 37; 3. άκολουθίη, 37; 4. άνΟησις, 38; 5. άνταυγία, 38; 6. άρδευσις, 38; 7. αύτόδρομος, 38-40; 8. άφαιρεσις, 40; 9. βλάστη σις, 40; 10. εκβολή, 40; 11. έναντίο^σις, 40-1.; 12. έπταμερής, 41.-2; 13. κόσμος, 42-5; 14. λαμπηδών, 45-6; 15. λάχνωσις, 46; 16. μάνωσις, 46-7; 17. μέθοδος, 47; 18. μειόω, 47-8; 19. μία, 48; 20. παντρόφος, 48-9; 21. πέπανσις, 49;

22. περί,ττολίη, 49-50; 23. πρόσθεσες, 50; 24. σπορητός, 50; 25. τελν.ύω,

50-2; 26. φυταλία, 52; 27. φύτευσις, 52. world-picture taken for granted (s. also universe), 54, 55, 59, 64, 65, 80-1, 104; Presocratic -, 54 ff. World-Soul (s, also number); in Cicero's ND, 89 and n. 120, 93 and n. 136; in the Early Academy, 160 and notes; in Hebd. part I I, 211, 215; in Plato, 67 and notes, 68 n. 14, 78, 88 n. 1 18, 89 and n. 120, 160, 179, 192 n. 203. 211; in Posidonius 'explaining' Plato, 160 and notes, 179-80, 193, 195-6, 211-2 ii. 40; in the Stoa, 102 n. 181, 211 and n. 39. Year, division of (s. also seasons), 9, 1.1, 25 ii. 116, 139 ff.. 1.44 n. 38. Zeus (s. also planets; sun), 43 n. 34, 121 n. 285, 124 ff. Zodiac (s. also astro meteorology ; planets), 37, 41, 1.41 n. 16, 145 and n. 45, 146. ζω« (s. also animalia; elements as living beings; vitalism), 71, 72 and ii. 40, 78, 83, 85 n. 91, 87, 93, 96, 101, 1.06 n. 1.99, 116, 117, 184, 207, 214.

253

h

in to

oo CO oe μ r* ce κ ~ §> I ζ» vO Μ ON sO Μ s; •ro p« 00 ΓΪ ? 04 Μ 00*' du r Ό cn ο CI d 5 ic Ρ iß" CO C\ I -d § ο jO S X κ 1 υ > •υ Γ Ο J Η ο Ο^ /r) CO Η cd £ § Τ di r—; Ρ ν<

in

»

N O •m Ν r-i ^ .

? *

>Ο, Ν^ ψ £ > οι C© OΌ

α

^ ^ Ν Μ • - ^ lO d. „ i> •- η Γ2; Λ ά.

Μ Ο ο ρ: Μ < ιΌο 3 Ο οι «C "Ό C„L m„ Ο co , m Χ ρ ω , ^ ρ Ρ 'Ό Η Κ ι> ά Ä 'Χ

ρο ΙΓ>

Ο

ΙΟ -φ Λ

c

C Ό

Γ - Η 00

Μ < «Μ -χι ·-

Ο

νο Λ co ν Μ |>

t> <

Ν >ο <

Α·

ιο

- d, -χ co η ^ ΙΟ Η
m co C O ρ, ι> Η «

CO

ο -φ

TfΙ> (η

ΙΟ ,

ΙΟ ""φ ΙΟ ·« 2 ^ ^ Ο

φ» ~φ ^^ 5 S ^ 2 ρ vo 0 <

ΟΙ ο CM

ΟΊ Ol Ol G* iO

Ο « Ν

ω «Μ Sr C'M b V η ο g <

S

• ö ft 04£ Ξ t i H-* Η εΛ

CO

ρ, Μ ίΐ Μ Μ ΙΟ

σ^ irj Ο · ' οι ... οι ά · S ö ο , ^ —, α ρΟ νΟ ^ d w . t> « _ ,+. .- ΓΟ οο " Ν 00 Ζ sC ^Ö Ρη. ^ ι-«. S ä

•φ |> , η, -

-tΙ Ο

-Φ

^ Ρ-

^ s

Η t>« pQ Μ Μ Η ^ ON « Λ ce α -ο pO Ο^ Η 00 Μ ·«Λο Ν Ο Ο Η> - CO CO CO CS Μ CO

-φ ρ*

(Ο ^ Ο ΓΟ^ VO ÄS Cu Νο" Μ ο ΙΟ Μ^ ΟΙ ΓΟ ΓΟ t^ CO _·

Qu Η , Γ σ* ΙΟ λ . to ? ® CΜO ο d Γί , - ι> Ο 1Γ) 01 fi ·

, ο

ΟΙ Ο ι> ι> ΜC ^ VO of CO ^ ο α·4· • λ

-γ" ο ci ο' toΙ 0£ d C·O, , Ο W ^ ^ 11 . « 1 · t"- CQ 2 1 ^ο ^rL00 rf «, ΓΜ Η COώ « ^ t Ι> rt- i Oζ CJ Η ^* C3^ m cd οι C »ο ^ -φ rt JO 00 ι> Μ Η ί> οο μ οο OS g ^ w μ Ν . ^ γ- "Φ .. "Φ ιο -φ p.;

ö C O

d ώ ( !οι >· ^Ι> . Ν 1 •Φ α, «β 4 pH. Γ ΙΟ « ™ 11I r ia Η iö 00 & « vO mm * ~^ m ττ σ^ 00 οι < Il> Q O μ£ ^ Ν α co ρ

Ml iO CM

de Gener atione Animaliiim II 3,736629-73737, p. 82 n. 78, p. 95 n. 148. IV 2,76732 ff., p. 76 n. 6 0 ; 4,7721)6 ff., p. 176 n. 121; 10,7771124 ff., p. 76 n. 5 9 ; 10,7771)25-6, p. 84 n. 8 6 ; 10,777627 ff., p. 76. de Gener atione et Corruptions I 10, p. 86 11. 102. II 3,330623 ff., p. S9-90 11. 121; 3,330625, p. 82 11. 7 9 ; 14, p. 108 n. 2 1 8 ; io,336a32 ff., p. 7 6 ; 10,336617-8, p. 76 11. 5 8 ; 11,33862 ff., p. 76. Hisioria A nimalium II 11, p. 176 11. 119. VII I,58ia9 ff., p. 178 n. 130; i , 5 8 i a i 2 ff., p. 177; i , 5 8 i a i 5 ff., p. 177 n. 122, p. 183 n. 152; 1,581332 ff., p. 177; 1,582316, p. 177 11. 1 2 3 ; 3»5§3&25-7, p. 176; 3,583612-4, p. 176 11. 120; 4,584335 ff., p. 176; 4,58461 ff., p. 176 ; 10,5871)14 ff., ρ 1 76; 12,58838, p. 176. VIII 1,58864 ff., p. 71. η. 34. de luventute 23 ff., 487622 ff., p. 223 11. 112. Metaphysial I 3,903617 ff., p. 6 1 ; 5,985630, p. 65 11. 5 5 ; 5,986317 ff., p. 180 11. 1 3 7 ; 6,987610 ff., p. 65 11. 53. XII 6 ff., p. 6 9 n. 22, p. 75; 7, p. 70 11. 2 5 ; 7,107263, p. 75 n. 5 5 ; 8, p. 70, p. 75. Meteorologica I 2,339319, p. 4 3 ; 2,339321 ff., p. 76 11. 5 9 ; 3,339618, p. 43. II 5,36233 ff., p. 85 n. 9 2 ; 6, p. 146-7; 6,36433-4, p. 146 n. 4 ; 9,370315, p. 46. III 4,373a32, 335, p. 3 8 ; 4,373621, p. 46 11. 4 2 ; 4,37461, p. 46 n. 42. de Partibus Α nimalium II 2,648612 ff., p. 82 11. 78. III 6,668634 ff., p. 223 11. 112. IV 5,681312, p. 71 n. 34. Physica I 1,19268 ff., p. 70-1; 1,192618, p. 70 11. 29. II p. 7 8 ; 2,194613, p. 76 11. 59. VII 1, p. 6 9 ii. 22. VIII p. 7 5 ; 4-5, p. 69 n. 2 2 ; 4, p. 70 11. 2 4 ; 4,254614 ff., p. 72 n. 39, n. 4 0 ; 4,254615, p. 72 n. 4 3 ; 4,254621 ff., p. 73 n. 4 7 ; 4,254627 ff., p. 27 11. 4 0 ; 4,254632, p. 72 n. 4 0 ; 4,25535 ff., p. 71-2; 4,25565 ff., p. 71 n. 3 5 ; 4,25569, p. 72 n. 4 2 ; 4,255618 ff., p. 72 11. 4 2 ; 4,255631, p. 72 n. 4 1 ; 5,25832, p. 3 8 ; 6,25961-20, p. 71 11. 32, p. 72 11. 40, p. 73 n. 4 7 ; 8, p. 70 n. 25. Politica VII 16,1335329 ff., p. 174 n. 103; 16,1335332 ff., p. 174 11. 103; 16,1335631, p. 174 11. 103; 16,133563 ff., p. 174 n. 103. π. τ ω ν Π υ θ α γ ο ρ ε ί ω ν fr.13 Ross, p. 98 η. 163. 7Γ. φ ι λ ο σ ο φ ί α ς p. 91 η. 127, p. 122 11. 291 ; fr.9 Ross, p. 71 η. 2 9 ; fr.i23R., p. 4 9 ;

256

fr.21R., p. 73 and η. 46, ρ. 73-4 η. 47, ρ. 75; fr.26R., ρ. 43 η. 32, ρ. 73-4 47.

η.

[ARISTOTELES]

fr.250 Rose, ρ. 24-5 η. 112. de Mundo, 1,39^26-7, p. 119 η. 2 7 5 ; 1,39104 f£, p. 119 η. 2 7 5 ; 2-3» ρ. 113 a n d η. 246, ρ. 118 η. 2 7 1 ; 2 , 3 9 l b l 2 ft, Ρ· 120, ρ. 122 η. 2 9 2 ; 2 , 3 9 ^ 1 3 ff., ρ. 120; 2»39ibi3» Ρ- 116; 2,391^14 ff., Ρ- 122 η. 2 9 0 ; 2,39ibi9~392a5, ρ. 122 ιι. 2 9 0 ; 2 » 3 9 2 a § f £ , ρ. 118; 2,392220-9, ρ. 113 η. 2 4 9 ; 2,392023-9» ρ. 1 1 8 ; 2,392a32 ff., ρ. 81 11. 7 5 ; 2,3921)3 ff., ρ. 117 η. 2 6 3 ; 2,392b6 ff., p. 117; 2 , 3 9 2 b 7 - i 3 , Ρ· 116 η, 2 5 9 ; 3 , 3 9 2 b l 4 p. 116, p. 117; 3 ? 39 3 b 2 0 ~33> Ρ· H 3 n. 2 4 9 ; 3 , 3 9 2 b 2 2 ff., p. 117; 3 , 3 9 3 a 4 ff., p. 81 11. 7 5 ; 3,393ms ff., p. 117; 3>393 a I 7 ff·, P· 117; 4,394*9 P- 117 n. 2 6 3 ; 4 , 3 9 4 1 1 1 9 ff., p. 148; 4,395*29 ff., p. 117 11. 2 6 3 ; 4>395"3
fr.23 Wehrli, p. 65 n. 53. ARIUS DIDYMUS

Epitome (ed. Diels, Doxographi Graeci), fr.2, p. 71 11. 29; fr.9, p. 75 11. 53 ; fr.20, p. 47; fr.21, p. 39, p. 100 n. 171, p. 108 n. 219; fr.23, P· 109 11. 222; fr.27, p. 47; fr.28, p. 39, p. 91 11. 127; fr.31, p. I l l , p. 113 and 11. 246, 11. 249, p. 116 n. 258, 11. 260, p. 118 11. 271, p. 118-9 n. 272; fr.33, p. 88 11. 114; fr.34, p. 39, p. 102 n. 182; fr.36, p. 91 n. 127; fr.38, p. 89 11. 121, p. 100 n. 170, 11. 171, p. 108 n. 216.

ATHENAEUS ATTALENSIS

ap. Galen, ed. Kühn, Vol. 1,457, p. 214 n. 61; Vol. 1,465,4 ff., p. 214 11. 61; Vol. 1,522, p. 215 n. 62; Vol. XIX,356,6 ff., p. 214 and 11. 59, p. 222 n. 105. AUGUSTINUS

Dei, V,2, p. 181 11. 141.

de Civitate

AUTOLYCUS ed. M o g e n e t

11,2, p. 37. BOOK

OF

Ch.76, P . 148 I I . 8. Greater, C I 1 . 2 8 , p. 22 and

ENOCH,

Β U N D A H I S N ,

N.

99, p. 24, p. 26 and 11. 120.

CALCIDIUS

in Platonis Timaeum Commentarius ed. Waszink, Ch.1-25, p. 172 n. 98; 32-50, p. 172 11. 98; 35-8, p. 172 11. 98; 37, p.85,21-86,6, p. 171 11. 93, p. 172 11. 98; 37, p.86,6-8, p. 172 n. 98; 37, p.86,10-11, p. 197; 44-46, p. 172 n. 98; 55-91, p. 172 η. 98; 56-118, p. 172 n. 98. CELSUS

de Medicina,

prooem.15, p. 224 11. 117; 11,14, p. 219; 14,2, p. 219 11. 86.

CENSORINUS

de Die Natali, Ch.2,2-3, p. 185, p. 188; 2,2, p. 158 11. 9, p. 189, p. 190 n. 195; 4-15, p. 158 n. 9, p. 185, p. 187; 4-14, p. 185; 4-11, p. 187, p. 188; 4, p. 187; 4,3, p. 187; 5-7, p. 187; 5-6, p. 187; 5, p. 187 n. 178; 6, p. 187 11. 178; 7-11, p. 187; 7, p. 187 a n d 11. 178, p. 190 11. 198; 7,2-6, p. 166 11. 5 3 ; 7,2-3, p. 166 a n d 11. 5 3 ; 7,2, p . 174; 7,5, p . 166 11, 5 3 ; 8, p. 187 11. 179, p. 190 n. 198; 9 ff., p. 188 n. 181; 9, p. 190 11. 198; 9,1, p. 158 11. 9, p. 1 8 5 ; 9,2, p. 174 n. 105,

257

CO CO d

Μ ID T-I

ft

Ο"

οσ\ OJ

Γ**·

ft ΟΙ

'

Ό Ι

Ρ,

VO 0Ί ™ d ^

m m

Φ

χ χ ιο Ό CO σ\ ΟΙ d

ft

d

ο" \0

VO H<< X X X

J0

3

Ο Ο

ΟQ β ΖΝΝ Ο

ο CO οι

ft

Λ 00 οι τΗ d d

ft

νο οι οι

ΙΟ νο ft 00*" CO

ft

Ol d

ft

Γ-.

sΗ xi ο

Ο

τΗ

0

Ο

Ο

00 00 χ"

6 ff) Ol ft

ο

ο

ΙΟ s

«

ο Φ CM Ή OJ

yD

00

•Φ Φ φ- , CO ι ΟΙ

ft

Ο

d

oo" φ CO rH ft r-i „ a ^ IN Ol > ^ oo Ο

Ο

ft ^

τφ" Η I> Η ο"

d

^ φCO ο d

οΜ m 0* U IO Ö ri «vO ft o"

rH Φ 00 C O ΙΟ J> ft C O rii Ο Ι r H CO 8 1 d •rf. ft OJ ft IN ft Μ ϊ Λ Φ T^ ft•COΦ Ι Ο in rd in Ο U ft t H CO ΡΦΦ § ? τΗ d • *Φ U «X) ft ft ίο" d d ft IM d ( CO ο ο φ S <ν ^ οι > W to > ft co ( tH Ο ft CJ & ft ^ Ö CO ,. T rH ft ft < m Μ VO Η , d ft ,φ fc Η c„f Α ^ ft α ft. 2 v Ο W (NJ G G οr " Q 1 CO * Ö "Φ ^ Φ : m ft Ο CO C O Η •Η J. 0 ·^ Γ^ C O b< p. ti 3W · r>» IN o\ io rC oo ΦGO Φ ^s «siν a a Ö ^ Α ft V Γi ft · ft s ^§ ΜΓ ^Γ ft. Vi*' · ft ft d d ft ft (-4 d ^ ζϋ Χ β ^ "A,. S ο ο Q Q ft £

^ ^

H

-d d

- Κ

ΤΗ

ο οι

ft

TO

ft

VO

Λ

— σ\

ι> μ VD 00

Ol d CO

Ol

ft ft

οΙ Ο

ΤΗ

£ Η 5 *

in- ^ . 00 © Ö

Η

Μ

τ-Η

d2 s

^

ft

TH

(i 8 "a I

φ «η

d w 3 sg ω4J Ρ £ >"0 <4 Ό r<_Co ^ J < 1 Cß Ο CO Ο

^

*

Ο

m Μ

Ο VO

iO

00

ft ft in ft t> oo οο" T H 1Λ Ύ-> τ-* ft 1 H d Μ Η r-1 r^ 3 ft in r-1 νο ί+4 οι tH Λ d ft ö Ό νο Ό" J>* ο to Τ-4 ο ft τΗ to ft ΌO ^d α C CO iO VO ft Ι Ο t>· T H οΝ T H ΟΙ ο ft Μ " co ft ft σ\ cC VD CO m d ^ iO oo" rH d oc f-j Λ «Μ VO Η rH τΗ m Ο ft Η d d 1-ί iO o ^ οι d" ΓΗ δ οι ft CO ft CO ο oo •J) iO Η ft 'νΟ ft HT Η* d ^ d ^ ^ of w CO C O j>. * OS ^ 0*4 Ν^ TH »d • a^ u d d vi ft Ö oo >

Vi

Ο

rf OD τ ι · m oo oo vo f Η Ο σ^ to οΙ oo ü ^ ^ ο « S 0\ η σ ^ « Ο Ο in m οι Ο ft ft g o^ Η Η > ft ft 00 ft 00 ° ft Ö ^ a o" oo" 00 Ö ft ^ ö m VO f , 00 σ^ Μ οTT 9 fO 2 & ± i αΦ ο ft ft ^ vi « Ol ^ «3 · - d ^ d ^ ft of φ" r_· , ft rH ö· Ä ft O^f ο » vo" O ^ vo ft Λ ft o\ 00 Ν Ö ON^ ft rH CM • Ν ö CO Λ ö· . σ\ ^ rf& « g ^ ^ Λ ft ^^ ft w Ol ö . ^ »η« ft^ vo m »o , _ ft Ο w ο r — ! , „ J > TH l> oo ilvo ι Γ Ο < N ^ , 00 00 . » ο τΗ , ο o^ ο § ft »Äσν r H. ft . . ö Ol ft ^ ~ ft Ol « co α rH 0% d* ο + 00 ^ d w 00 so ^ r^ ft 5 2 00 Η IN VO W ft d Η ft d 00 x Os 00 0\ d d ft TrH -H Ol ö tH r H ft ft tC t> Ol ^ "Φ ,Λ ο « ο 2 ^ !f TH ft ft ft 5 H3 O CO Ol CO ö τΗ ^ft Oin d O" d vO of CO CO ' 00 ft ^ ο C H V O Ol « ft Λ ο fN. Ö νο ft 0 0 ft CO 1 - σ\ TO Ol m όο οι Ol Σ> d . -Φ οι ; in ft Ö Ν IN ο . cr> öc d ft O οι ^ ft ο ^ ft ^ Ol ^ τof Η IN ft ά IN Ο d » OC CO CO d °f ft t^ et tC R- ft Η "Φ oj 7 VO τ04 Η d Ol 00 k, m d T-i „ i C 8 8 •φ S 00 Ο " » »a Η eo _ τΗ d Ο Φφ ft ft ι IφO "s ft ν O" 00 00 d CO ft o\ σ» <Χ3 τΦΗ ^ ft ft α T H α) κ ^ oo" ft 0C φ ft T CO Ο_( 0CO 0 Ol oo" oi O. ft A w > ft Γ d ^ ο d ^ 00 ο ft 1 , 00 IN νο ^ OS « ft _ m ft !>· dri th^ Q\ v Λ d 1-» ' ft ο ft ft οο" rH . O* rH ι> Μ1 CO "Φ w" ι > Γ in w T F — I . „ co Ol 1 * ft Μ 1 CO τΗ ft CO CO φ 00 · ο d Ο 1 CO Μ cö a\ . IO T • Φ Ö Ό ο t ά 00 r2H fci ^φ φ TrH Ο CO Ο if) rH Φ ft ft S ο ISQ ft . ftÄ τΗ v O 1" τΗ rH rH ^ Ν ο" § fO ο ^ · ΤίÖ Ή· 1Λ eo Η Η Ö CÖ Ö Ö ö C} d d d ft ft 1Λ ft ftS ft Vi I

Φ νο Ol ο OD m Φ Μ τΗ oo ά Ο VH '§) CO |> . « οι eo CB Ol 4 ΟΙ -Μ d ft es τοο ΗΟ ft T> Ι^ ο i •ft Ο CO ο Η vO ΟΙ rH Ο d m ^ CO Μ Ο Ο t- ü τΗ ft Ό Ο (Ν ^ Α Ο Ι οι ft σ\ ri- S ft VO -dQ T-' te d ^ D Ο Ο 03 Μ Ο S ft Ο Μ Ό Μ" Χ Ο «Μ V Mm ρ Μ ΓΙ fr Η Ν CO υ s ^ο α. < Η Μ Η --ο Η Χ b ft Ό οΟ ι w ig -ο 00 Ο οι ο ΙΟ in 11 CO m s •S pr Οι ft a A QΜ V i > _ Μ Η-4 m ρOTΦ! -o D χ χ χ fa

>

*

Ο

ο

rH COCO ft CO c> Ν η ft Ή •Ν~ of ΙΟ_i Ν ft ι>» Η σΓ Ο ft vp d σι cf 1—i IN ft d 00 ft Η IN rH οο" Ch IN ^ oo rH ft 00 00 Ν r H ft its ft ft «5 CO Η TH TH N 00 Μ ΗΗI00 rH ft 00 00 τΗ of VO τΗ TOft d rH r H 00CO d ft COTH ft m o" Η ( ft vO rsH oo "Φ Φr H Η vo" Ν ft d CO * 00 Ο IN τσ^ d 00 00 Η CO rH 00 . Ol Ö Ό d ft ^

ft

ft

ft

^ o\ ' ft 00 CM 5 ^ rH τ-i. tH^ . σΓ ft , ο ft ft Ol „ ft o^ co d 01 νο 00 M a τΗ Η s S fto - σ\ rH L· vq . vo m rH 3 ft rH s

Ν 00 I w CO CO D MH m |> TH Η et ft Ö ft d 00

00 ••δ-q > Vi ^ vO" m ft § Ο to 'φ Η in §Vi Ν W m κ Η < q Μ JΗ u Ο

OL Ν

%o I Λ

f

s

TO"

•Φ

Ο M . -ICO ,

FT . Ο

. CT)

Ö

s "p

EÖ Ö Ο ^

FT

«. CO

(

Α.

FT OO

its

s^

d ΟΙ

Υ

^ o\ Α ft ΤΗ > ® FE^tiS CO in ^ ΝΟ

:D

I

>>

I ft ft § S l Ο

ft? UD R>*

00

d Η m ö 5

^

Ο Ί"

^O

O

V

^ ΓΟ OL EO Η *> D Λ • - F> Ι |> TH 1> FT Ö Ό * ·> VO Ο . i> ft ft

Ο I *

VC

>Ο ft.

(fl

D

W

i

CO

Iß

ft

S

D

m -

Ö

.

00 VO

ö

VO

£m 3

CC M » « VO ΤΗ

Ρ.

VO

oo

CT) T-J <M

TH

m

Ρ £ Η

ο VD

3

d κο Η

ft

ο" VO

S

m m

Ol

U

ft

Ν

8

RL

g

& i s

ft oo" Μ -D

μ ν

Ο

RS ,

FT Η R D ? 5 I G

> £

Ν

d d<Ü

a

ο ο

3

W

ο

ο

co J?

T^ T

D ^ Ο

Ό

2!

, Ut

ö'

- ΝΟ

8 ά

aS

IFT

Ö

^

Ό 1ft

D ^ II D ° ^ ^ «Μ . . . ΣΝ , . -Φ M · <Ό 00 ^ ΡΗ CO ΤΗ Ο W PH D .

'Μ Η

D

· m

A

Ο

. ^ Ο FT

1 Λ

F '

ft & s i-4 ^ ζ ft ^ PQ T

ο\

^ S r4 Η Η U , ΟΑ Ο ςΝΊ Ρ^ ° ° . Σ^.

S VfJD

Λ

d

»

..

*

DM «

^ OO PH Ο Λ ^ CO

Ä

Φ

I-J VO ^

-

d Ρ- ^

M

Α

m «

d rH

ft

P.

C

I ^

00

D

Ö

m

P

d 5

00" Ν

•

Α> Η

ft d

XF-

Ο Ν D

OO \0

FI

4t-

in Ο"

t

*

VO Μ

ι-5

»J W Ο

Ο

M3

PH Ö "

P, ft

TH

Ο CO RO TH VC CO 00 Λ Ο „ Η VO^ _ , „ ΤΗ

Ο ο Ν

οο α- J

1 0

^

ΛS, ΟΟ (

• ^

D Ü Μ

^

CO

τΗ

Ο FT τΝΗ ft^ οΗ σ\

Ρ-> CO

Ο . CO , 'Τ Ö ^

CF Η

O"

Κ

TH

CO ft

ΤΗ

00 00

00

ft of

in

Ρ

υ <

Ο FT Ü3 Κ ß 2

«

W Κ

D O

Ο CÖ

ο ο ο

CO

CO -Φ

00

CO CO

1ft

.

> > ^ 00

^F·

Q\

vO

d

vO 00

d ft vfiT 00

ft ~ CO

^ ft d m

W

«Ο

Ν «Q

m

Ι>

m CM

Ο Ο

Α VO

M

ΝΟ CO Β ςΝΙ

Ρ.

-Φ , Ο

Ö

CQ »N R^ . «Μ Ρ,

Ο VD ^ . Ö Ρ. Μ

Ο . ~ « VO

Ο

ο

CR^

νΟ

Ο

Ρμ

\ά m ΟΟ CO

ο C O 00 ΊΟ

Ρ.

S

οί d ^ ΝΟ Ö

la

rH . ΟΟ ft 5 s

ΝΟ ? C*

Q

Ο Ν

<M VO

d

Q

^

r

^

M

G Β

ft o Ο «3

Ο > «I

^

to •«fi

1 Ι

•Ο«ί»

I CO Ο Ί/) Ρ G »5»

Ο §

^ <

VI "

§ Ο

6

rd

ft

d

I

H

ft

«Ν

ft Οff

IN

IN

CO

Ȁ

s

m

VO

ft

. ΤΗ ^

OO

ON 00

TP

in

™ ^

S η Ö U W W

. ^ Ρ OO ΤΡ ΕΛ ^ Τ 00

, Ο Τ? .

ft

IN

in Η Ο

0) ^

A,

Ρ A

. ^

α, Α) Β ft . ^ ρ, Η _R ^ ο CO οο

w Ρ, Ρ, ί

. Ι>

ft ςι,^ „

6 « Η

..

OO RP OL m Ν M d m Η ft Ö tH m Τ—I ΤΗ CO co m CO

Ö

VO ^ ft <M FFL «

m O^ in VO οι ft ö EO σ\ t n S «Η τΗ Ο VO

^ ft

ft OO ft CO

M

CQ

, ^ F CO O ·-

Ö

«Μ

Ο VO

CO VD

ft d in

ft GO Μ Μ

CO

fflm

ft ^ 00 Μ IN

d

VO ^ 00
Μ

.d ά ι ? it ο IFFI vD M00"Φ T^ w

Υ S Η

τΗ . on CO CO ft C O ft p

vO

yH

CO W

S

ft

ON

G

IN OO

: 00

'

ft

FT?

C^ o\ ι X> CO · rH ft « . OO TH

ft

Τ-Γ CO

•rH ΟOl

Ο CO Ι 00 CS «

a

ft; oo co Ο ft ft Ö Ö ft ö in

Σ\

FTS

TH IN OO -Φ Σ^ CN ft ftl> COrH

o\ CO

iH

I

IN M

SS

D^ T ; F

P-* F I

Ä

Ρ- ft

Μ Ά

M · Ρ- τΗ rH TT Ö

FT^I

^ Β V- Ο I Ζ ^ Ζ ^

. . . L-S S 5 «OO Ο pH

^

d

W H TH CO .

Λ Ö

^ 00

R FT

^^

ft

d Ο «Ί RH

I

ft

du Η ο

χ

^ d

Ο -Φ . Ä Ο TH OF . TRI P. Ö . ^ P, VO Ο

^ di C « A Y? 'C) C\ a, ^ 00 α' ^ £ Ρπϊζ Ο

Ih

d ^

Λ

^ u & Ζ 00 ,

^ft ft ^

Ο Ο

- sg ss ss Ο Ο

οι

* ft

m ft ^ vO „ · VO

Ο • - Σ\ Ο . Q. V -M IN

Μ m ^

ft

00

Η Ol CO ΓΝοο in in Ο ο !00 oo m >» CO CO O Ν τΗ σ\ H CM Ν rH rH rH rH rV Ο ft d ο ö ft ft d ft d in cf CO in in ft* Ο ΟrH o" 00 CM Cvl 85 rH τΗ 00 ON Ν tH d d ft ft ; -φ in d ft φ ^ ft ft Η τ—) CO CN rH * τΗ ΟΙ00 ^ ^H CO Ο VO Ο X · ^ ft d H ft ft QQ" rH Ö ft I ΤΗ O Ο T3 ; I> th m Θ . VO D CO . 00 G s ' W ft » W ΣΙ •ö , ο«ηο οeo : S ? Β ^ „ ft T3

:,

ft d CT 2

Η

FT^ 0 ΤΗ »-I Λ

« Ψ ·

CO ft- ^ä

ft •

d

in

S P

2 .00 m ^ a CO ft <M SH. 3_· Όa Ö d I ft ft ^ § S ν© CH Ö <Η ,φ CÖ ft§ rH i>* „ in rH » CO oo m ft Β . Ο Τ-· FC S Ρ d < 5 ti α . ο . Λ W S m ft ΟΗ D FT ft ^ yjj" xf- rHs ^ IN EN · Ν (Λ m in Ν ft ö < Μ

Ε ^ ^ ,Η © . ^ FT I C ^ Η ^

Η ft

^ pio - . vo CO tH ft . Γ iö

.

^ D D VO

κΊ

2 s-s Ä I

ν© '

in rO Ö ΝA ^ Ο M A .3 ^ «« > ι d a tiZ ftΟ vi th > 1 Χ ^

£

^

S >

§

^ 53

ο ο

ö ΙΗ RC ö J_ rH s ^ τΟ —i

Ι> P ° 0

Ο

τΓ in m

A

1

ο

S

00 CO d

νο

U ^ Λ ^ Ο ft

d Ο

co

Ό

CO

Λ a m β

co

§

D T/2

2

5ο 12

V

§ - » ο «< ri « η <

<%

Ο

ö

00 .

in p-t r-i

VO

TO M

ο

00

RO

TH

ft

CO tH

τί Ö C Ö 00

CO r-i m

oo w

ft

00 Ol

TJ

d

CO

Ο

3

S

•if»

Ο

C/}

IT m m d

"Ö

CÄ

ρ^ Ν Ν Ο ^ Η 2ο

ft

ΓΟ ^ a

w ^

Cfl Ρ 5 ί Η Χ <

σ\

ft

Q ro l> « > **

00

vO

Qh

. Ρ GO Ο u en

£ ZI ο s ίζ Η A Ρ Ρ £

Ο C M

oo OD

m c\

ft

cf( Μ >Ν Χ χ

ft

Sw Vt Μ Η VO ON y-U IO

ft ft

ft

l> rf v® c* ft l> Μ Η CO ft φ ΙΟ »

ft

ί

ft

00

^

ft

in Η ft »o t> «3 Ν p IT 00^ £

>

Χ

t^ Γm GO Ol CM

rH ο. c^i rI

νθ GO d ON

φ g S g w Ρί <

OD

ο £ ft Ρ co CM m OD 00 . CS! CM S CM rH d

ft

CM

φ« oo w m CM i> . . ^ d <ί cc ^ - SJ. Μ ft ö

IT) ft o

ft

, CM
m CP ft CO m oo θ 00 •Μ • - r>. τ2 ^ p, Ρ ^ ο 1 Η ΡΗ

ft

I d ö rP Ο Ο -d ω m Ρ ρ ^ ' Ρ w ft

ON

ft

-φ Ρ ΙΟ -φ τΗ

νθ" C m ><

U

οο ON ft ο" ft CO

« ο

IN Ρ

ft

ft

>

..

00 ^

eo μ

^

^ d hh Μ <M , CN ^Ο rH I

•S S ft CO rf ^ CO £ ο

S νθ ^ ^ ^s

ρ

ίί

ft

Ο ^ Ν ft

ft

ro Ο Η CO © Η COΟ « Ο ^ ΜΜ Η ^ in d ft• C οO O^ rH ro w*~ • ft d Ο Ν mft OJ Η < tH , ft ·; ΓΟ ft

Μ

$ η < »o α Η h Ο . τ Η mΓΟd ^ CM ft W 00 O τΗ Λ * C ft Η ft ft ft

- ιη VO ^Γ ο -Φ is ONin «ι rö , Ν ^ Φ ft wΟ ^ö · ~rH00Sft 3 . ^- 0C . ft ft Μ ΓΟ ο α^ S νο

Ο ft Η

Ch Η ftH Ο τη m Λ ΙΟ ι -

CM ö » m Ö QQ2 m ^ ' ^ χft rH Υ>00

£

Ο vo in Ο Ο Ν ^ δ 00 ^ « ^ d . ^ Η VD ^• ·»οt-ONVCON . . , . cf V O T-4 T^ ON VO-Φ , . vO . ft ft ö oi Ο p ONin m ^ ο ^ ^VP Ρ· νθ. 0 COvO VO rVO r> ft co ft Ή _ OO vO rin T"1 T?· ft ft ON ^ , VOVO vO νθ TH p .« w co vO V© c m ft CO. 00 o ^ ο ΓfN| CM d vo • Tl Oi vo in rH t—· vo ρ d d e00 rH CM T-J P. ft tn r- 0r- T-J ON TH . 10 ft 00 ΓΟ P, ^ ft ft ft τ~< VC ΓVC m ON. CM in I r—-C ' , v O 00' v O m vO ^ „ 0 ft «Η ON vD νθ ^ CO . a τΗ Ο 00c^ m d ΓCO TH ^ r^ yH Ο vO C -Φ M vo ft ft ft d go rH Ol νθ" Ν in VO ^ ft m m l> VO ΟΪ VO d ^ 2 vrT - Ρ ο ι> ο ί> ft t^» C•OΡtH Ρ^ vO νθ m ft vo ft ft ft ft ft

C O Umt Γ Γ U* ζ\| ft o. r H Ο ^J ^ , vo ο . ο ο* η α ftoo ft ft t> v O σ^ ο KD IftÄ? I ι & ft Tf ft r?«S ve d ι « Γ. 5: ο Ο oo ^ 00 00 Η CM ft oo ft w w ft CO Uf) „ <M rH H^ . ο Η Λ Λ Ο & Μ ft V? 00· ft ft σ\ oc »ο νθ" ^ 00 -Η m uΝ ft • ο " Ν ο^ vO TO vfiιT in ft ^ 0C ^ 5a" £ ά ζΜ vO η ά g. . CO ft Κ ϊ Γ » ft. Ο ο ft Ο Γ- CO « - 00 · ρΛΓ. b N ft . Γο Ο • -φ οΗ ^ oo W ft I Ν d ; Ρ ο" -τ ^•Γ ^ ft ft § oo" ^ ^ ft ft "' ^ ^ Q, ο ο Ο Η ί . νο : ft m 2 Ä • ; cL • ~ 00 ο Ο cm « c Γ- ft Γ Ν ; ο 5 J fO C ' ρ ^ ft « ν© ' ^ Ö 00 ^ . ^ μ ΓΟ ft S ft CO S r52 H ^CM CO Ν τ}- ρ ft ft d η G0 SO Ν ρ %Μ

• - fO -φ, r^ ^t VO CO Η CO οff) 2Ν » fOH η vo . ft 1 έ * ft « in ^o Ο tv ^ft ft \θ ^ I ti s ^ ft Ο» ft ι Ο . m O ft . ir< ft ^ ft PC « ί> ΤO ft « ,Η V • ft ft ?• - ^JC> »ONft α) «ö ο " Η s «ο rH 00 0 η Q, Ο - CO ^ , \0 « · ^ s ft ο τ m 00 ft^ ft oo in in ö "i min öJ m ~ , id Tf r H ft 0\ ft oo C vO ^ ΡΌ ^ ft co cL ^ 1Κ γ- ft fO Ό ^ VO · VP ίΡ s ? ο« in ρ .. « ο ρ. Ο i d ft 00 VO οoo io 8 « ° «χ m

ρ

Ä ft H d vT m ^ ^ \D m 0Q Ν ft -r oo % ο t-» ^ Ο V O οO ·§ C ft• -t" in ε ft , m ft ο ft \D ο Ν S ON ο \0 v O » - ά 7 r^ 3 Η , \£> m < 7 - « »| · 3 vO " ' σ^ c» ft oC " η on w § 5 i Ü ^ O N ft to νθ · . ^ § ftci ft Ö ft co i ο q r • ^§ co ft JM CO d ON IT iCO* CM§CO* Ρ•S Η Ο Η Η rΦ ^D ^ 3 Ι ο κ^ιη Μ* Μ* VO m m ^ ft ρ I £ I ^ ft^ νθ V0 ft ft Ρ ft ft I ^ Μ ft Ο Μ% ^ ft Ρ ft ft ft <

CO Ο 4 00 ο^ι w m w CO l> ii ft Η Ν ^Ο ft ΜI Ü 0 τ-* Λ CO ο κ ο ft ft ^t* ft 0 θ" , κ η " w «Ν 0" Tt- d Ρ "φ Η Φ C ftO g ρm ρ, ζ . οΥ. -< ^ "φ ^s> < ν© υ ^ φ ^ ρρ Μ ft ΙΟ ΓΗ α ο

m Ρ Ζ Ρ cß g Ρ Ο (Λ Ρ w ο ^ s ο υ

ft - co ΓΟ <Μ

,φ ρ. ο Ν

ft c ^Η Ν Μ ft

«

1

ft ι>

Ρ ft d m

ί

ft^ ο ^

m ρ ^ö ^ C?p 2 Ο Ρ

vC ii CI

ο Ο Ό ο§ VC -φ ft Μ ft ^00 (Λ Ο ζέ «.r oo sO D i i w Η Η^ ^ Λ . ^ Η -S a 5 ^ < ρ < < >* α ^ ν μ Ρ > ^ Cß 0 0 η S ι - ^ Μ g ^ 5 > > Ο 00 ft
CO νθ Ol

CM MD Ol

o m

ft

ts. P-I rOI H σΓ d CO τΗ Th

ft

ft

M 4) l> M ο Μ Μ O οto C Th Ο TO

oi τΗ

ft

TH

C*

tS 0©

Ö

^ Ό OL

ft

TH O OL

00* ο OL

d L> οτΗ

ft

sP β SM CO Ti 1 Οm ft Β Μ OH TF" «Μ

^

Λ ° si

S * <0

§

Q

00 •ts» s CO sSE ξ '•o

ιο

"Β ^

ο Ο ^ Ό

00 fO rn Η5 Λ

^ Λ ft

-Φ

ß

OL CM CM

Ο

φ ΤΤ in ο σ^

d

Η OL 00 Ο

rt

Μ

^

«Ϋ

0 0

·

D ιη , Ο ^ Ο Ο rH Κ 00 Α· © TO, OJ Λ Ο

1Λ «

„ Η •Β

Ο I •11

2 ^

Ο Ο S * oi I ft Τ

ο en

•Λ Ρ Ξ

υ

σ\ οο οι d Ol ΟΙ

ft

χί 4J Ρ 6 55 Λ ο CÖ

00

-

Η Ρ " Ρ FT

m ft

00 C O

©

s Φ

U §

m Th ά ft CO d en * Ö CO ft Π ΟΙ κο dt ο ^00 Η : CO sO m1 τ—ι . ft ^ ft ^ -h CO CO d cL co Η ä g CO d ^ ft C O C^ 00 Th c CO m d ; d rf i ->J ο a, -Φ ro ; d Ρ ft . ^ οd Ο rn Ol rh Wm Ν Ό Ο > . ,,Μ ro CO ΚVM ο CdO ft ο Ι -h q Η Η Τ t-H Μ Ρ' OI Ι-Γ '•ο ο > j+4 νθ ft Ν ϊ Η ν© ft c ft „ " H-l ft y oc C in , "Τ μ00 CO d Η 00 ·« ^i 5 d· ^pΜ ο Ο Μ 00 ^ Ci o. Ci 6 ο CO . ^UM Vmd d ft Ν m Μ in ^ CO ^O > ·. . ^ ά. ft Ο ft 2 ^ ft jP ι> ^ Η • ι-· ^ T h •S Ä g Η ο I ft ά ft ft £ S § 0Ϊ d Ν νθ m •'S Μ ^ Μ — ) 1 J-· Μ Μ Ρ, Μ S Vj

Α

Ν FO

Ρ,

g S

« Ρ Ο

^ Υ ~ W ^

Μ CO

ft

VO OI

IT) d M

Α

d

Ο CN|

ft

Ο RH

S: ft d

·

00 TH

ft Φ m

V0

OI M Λ

rH SO

Ü ά k Η 4h *d <* S ά ft « « m in

. Λ . Ν M

m > Ρ Η Ν W

; · ; P^ ! . .

:

ft f . ~ VO

ft

ft w

§ *O Η 2 ο J. •C* TJT h ο VO τΗ S tJd rH

S ft

^

ft ώ d - ft •Γ of t-

m

J3 00 ft ο oo ο 00 Tf m to £ t l ^ fϊκ' S ο? Ο ΟΟ

f

n

CO Th VO O I

OI Th ft χΓ «5

ft

vo

00 o\ d l> CO Th

ο ο

CO

ft m

I P Ρ

I

ρλ

Ol ft tx m Φ "Φ

ν

«-d ο

ο Ο

ft

Ο m

•<s> Th

Ο 3

d ^ τ- g ft„ oo σ* OI · in Ttoi xh ö ft oo

ο Ρ ο m

σ» Ol οι ft d ο α ft ft 00 hS ΜΜ 000 ™ ft .in- «ρ. VO ^ Ol ι> a^ in οι ΟΙ Η β d

CT) l> VD m d α

ft

οι CT) Ό Ö cö Ol VO

ft

s

I

£ ft Ό CO 1 ö 00 s H ft Ö Η "IS

ΟΙ rH 00 Th rH rH m Oi OI Ö OI OIτΗ O I ft Ρ d ft VdD d 1m 00 rH Ο ο in Ο d Y H οΜ ft ^ 00 m ft τm —i « t 2 Th ο Η Ν m • »Η φ . ft Ol 00 ft Μ 00 I 1ft cn d Ol i> ö. ft. σ^ σΓ C O TJ"Ö d d U**5 vo ö ^ s ft ft cö m 00 OI τto Η ^H ON ^ IN IR> , .-Η l> ft ft ff) Ο rH ft d Ν TO ft JW oi ΜΗ τΗ V FT O Ο 2 oi Ol d ^ in ^ RF J> M" d rHI ο O ft Ο TJ ft « Ν Η ft 00 00 ö ötö d 00h m of "φ T d Th V O M rh Ol •rH d ft ft rH in OO τ—ι oo «n in *N d ft vo c^ cf tN ft . ö cn τΗ ^ m τ—i l> tH « ft m r^ Ο ι a\ © Ol vO CO CΗ ft Tt· , p Ο ft rH PO ο ft c ft Η σ^ m ft « 1 Η Η W * ^ τ}- in ΙΟ Η ft tN Th *> vO CO OO CT» Ao^1-1 . CTs C\ τ Η τ Η V H Th jp ο σ^ .. ft in σ> ft d τΗ Tf- m TO J > Oi Tf f-—4 hO^m^ ' fp ft ft ö l> CO Ν d 00 CO νθ IN d d I m Ο ΤΗ co m Η in vo σΓ rH σΓ P, d Ό CO t- CO » ft 0\ Os ^ Μ ο^ ^ο Ο τΗ • - ft ft ft ft Ο ft ft_«7
>

^

ft ö • a " « ü ^ ft ^ftr~4 ft οι 00 · - τ~· cc φ t^ τί- ο ύ ci m in ^ §Λ Η. Η, Μ. eo Ο « ft 1 Ö ft ρ ρ m \D ON

Η ji ff) 00 Ν f Η cd Tfg^ o^ vo Ή ^ C O r-i rH ft·- ρ, ^ d d 13 Ό Jr ΤΗ Ό-ΡooΜ00 00 ^ ρ Η Tf . OO Q, oo ft . oC ττί ρ- ^ ft ^ Ό ^ σ^ Ο ^ ό a in . in Ν 00 Ό Ν σ^ ο m ΜΦ d Tf- οι, η Η t Μ ι ν© οο rÖ ft ft ft d 5 }5Γ00 οι » VO VO '"τΗ C O CO V ü Μm S m ft ft ft TO ^ ^ ftΛ °0 CO ^ - H •Η 00 · — ο , „ σ^ oo ^P, ο νθ αΜ ( m Ρ m TT ^ j ^ΟΙ «^ ^^ ηΡ 00 00 (Χ) . Ρ r-. ci. ^ ρ \ο Ό · , τΗ ΟΙ Ο , «Γ 'Ό Ο fl Ϊ ^ ft Μ ^ΗΟ^ ο ι> Ο Γ- , ' — Γ ™ Ο ' m ° Ö CO 4h ο ft οι ο /-« CM pfi O 00 CO ·rH- 'Ο Οϊ<Μ οι S ** V C O C T ) rH c\ Th VO r-H ft rf r-f λm tC m t-i 00 « co ft ft oo η ft . oo m „ VD Οs OI Q u! ö d • - oo" ft in o d CC' Μ Ό . jP νο ^Ol , Ö ft^ m ο Μ r .~. C -N . d Th . d oo ft «Μ Ο Ä ν© Ö I M Ο W ΡΓ ^ 5 ^ «G ü " 7t ^

Η W ft in

IN

d

CO

ΝΟ M ΟΙ

ΙΗ CO

σ

ΟΙ

οι

Λ

CO

VO

ft

00

Ρ »n . ^

ρ. ά Μ- . »m & οι 7 d co «η

w ft Ρ ρ ρ «ί φ)

Α.

Φ

Ό ©

Ο

£

CC CM d d s,00 m^

„ 5W VT VO

FT Ö

ffl

ft {?

Ρ

a

tC -h

^ it) Ta h

s i ft ^

-

ί «a CO ft

ft Λ

CO ^o

S

fcä ώ οΗ Ο ^ ET

Ο >

Μ >H Μ Ο >

Ο tN Ο ft 00 ^ d co Ο (Β φ

H"

ft ft ft

^ m νθ" < ß, Ρ ρ ορ

S

Α

m νθ <M

-Φ VD CM

p. 181, ρ. 182 η. 146, p. 187, p. 190, p. 197, p. 203 a n d n. 2 6 3 ; 19,1-2, p. 1 7 1 ; 19,2, p. 40, p. 174 IL J 0 4 ; 19,4, p. 1.71, p. 172 n. 9 5 ; 19,5-6, p. 171, p. 174 n. 1 0 4 ; 19,5, p. 171, p. 175 n. 1 0 9 ; 19,6, p. 4 6 ; 19,7-8, p. 1 7 1 ; 19,9-10, p. 174 n. 1 0 3 ; 19,13, p. 174 n. 1 0 3 ; 19,17-8, p. 174 n. 103. SPEUSLPPUS

fr.40 L a n g , p. 160 n. 21. STEPHAN ÖS AT11 ENI EN SIS

Comm.

in Hipp.

A ph.,

Vol. II Diel/, p.326, p. 10 11. 35.

STRABO

1 3,8, p. 40, p. 94 η» 1 4 5 ; 3,12, p. 1 8 4 a . 157; 29, p. 1 5 1 n. 27. IX 2,8, p. 1.84 n. 1.57. XVII 1,5 (p.790), p. 151 n. 27. STRATO

fr.85 W e h r l i . p. 3 8 ; 6- 97-9 W . , p. 165 11. 50. SUETONIUS

fr.151 Reifferscheid, p. 148 n. 11. C(l. ¥()I1 A r n i m I 65, p. 194 n. 219; 87, p. 99 11. 68; 98, p. 99 n. 168; 99, p. 109 n. 222, p. 110; 102, p. 89 n. 121, p. 100 n. 170, n. 171, p. 108 11. 215, 11. 216; 103-5, V- 108 11. 218; 103, p. .108 11. 217; 104, p. 100 11. 171, p. 108 11. 218; 105, p. 108 11. 218; 115, p. I l l n. 239; 120. p. 88 11. 114, p. 95-6 n. 154; 124, p. 211 n. 40; 135, p. 99 n. 169; 176, p. 99 11. 168; 494, p. 194 τι, 219; 495, p. 211 11. 40; 497, p. 91 11. 127, p. 100 11. 1 7 1 ; 498, p. 102 n. 182; 499, p. 91 11. 127, p. 102 n. 181; 502, p. 102 11. 182; 504, p. 87 11. 104, p. 2 1 2 ; 506, p. 102 11. 1 8 2 ; 508, p. 102 n. 1 8 2 ; 510, p. 91 n. 1 2 7 ; 512, p. 91 n. 1 2 7 ; 513, p. 87 11. 104, p. 103 11. 1 8 8 ; 530, p. 102 11. 181; 537, p. 4 4 n. 35, p. 1 1 2 - 3 n. 244. II 64, p. 1 6 9 11. 6 9 ; 83, p. 1 6 9 n. 6 9 ; 311, p. 3 9 ; 331, p. 1 9 4 n. 2 1 2 ; 365, p. 1 9 4 n. 2 1 8 ; 413, p. 39, p. 1.00 n. 1 7 1 , p. 1 0 8 n. 2 1 9 ; 429, p. 1 0 0 n. 1 7 1 ; 470 ff., p. 89 n. 1.21; 471, p. 3 9 ; 473, p. 90 n. 121, p. 1.00 n. 1 7 1 ; 488, p. 1 9 4 n. 2 1 5 ; 499, p. 3 9 ; 527, p. I l l , p. 1 1 3 and 11. 246, n. 249, p. 1 2 0 ; 550, p. 109; 555, p. 109, p. I l l , p. 1 1 2 ; 55«» p. 1 1 4 n. 252; 565, p. 100 IL 171 ; 579, p. 108 n. 219; 580. p. 100 n. 170, p. 1 0 8 11. 215, p. 1 1 4 IL 2 5 2 ; 581, p. 1 0 0 n. 171, p. 1 0 8 n. 2 1 6 ; 611, p. 112 n. 241 ; 633, p. 2 1 1 11, 4 0 ; 634, p. 2 1 1 n. 4 0 ; 646, p. 1 0 9 n. 2 2 2 ; 668, p. 1 4 2 ; 677, p. 39; 786, p. 99 n. 1 6 9 ; 806, p. 1 6 7 n. 5 7 ; 827-33, p. 1 6 9 n. 6 9 ; 850, p. 157 11. 3; 859, p. 1.56 n. 2 ; 913, p. 99 n. 1 6 8 ; 914, p. 9 9 11. 1 6 8 ; 917, p. 99 11. 1 6 8 ; 918, p. 9 9 11. 1 6 8 ; 920, p. 99 n. 1 6 8 ; 988, p. 3 9 ; 1067, p. 100 IL 1 7 0 ; 1077, p. 126; 1176, p. 126. III VI,2, p. 123 n. 2 9 5 ; VI,3, p. 123 n. 2 9 5 ; VI,ίο, p. 99 11. 169.

STOICORUM VETBRUM F R A G M E N T A

THALTCS

I I A 1 2 , p. 6 1 ; I I A 1 3 , p. 61 n. 39. THEAGENES REG IΝ US

8,2, p. 41 ed. H i l l e r p.85,8-106,14, p. 163 n. 3 4 ; p.96,4 ff., p. 1 9 2 n. 2 0 3 ; p.99,24-104,19, p. 1 6 3 11. 34, p. 172 n. 9 8 ; p.102,19 ff., p. 5 1 ; p.103,16 ff., p. 1 7 9 ; p.104,1 ff., p. 163,

THEON S M Y R N A E U S

266

p. 170-1; p.i04,9ff., Ρ· 173 n. 98; p.104,15-16, p. 197; 5.104,18, p. 184 n. 157; p.198,9, p, 58 n. 22; p.199,1, p. 58 11. 22, THEOPHRASTUS de Caelo (ap. Procl., in Tim.), p. 84 n. 89. de Tgne eel Wimmer, CI 1.1. p. 82 n. 78; 1,4, p.351,19 ff., p. 83; 1,5, 9.351, 28 ff., p. 83; 1,5, p.351,34 ff., p. 83 n. 82; 1,6, p.351,42 ff., p. 83 11. 80; 2,16, p.353,25-7, p. 86 11. 99, p. 96 n. 159; 4,33, p.356/18, p. 83 n. 83; 6,44» p.358,21 ff., p. 83 n. 82; 7,52, p.359,41 ff., p. 82 n. 79. Metaphysial eel. Ross- Pobes, 5bn-i2, p. 83 11. 80; 6a5-i4, p. 84 11. 89; ff., p. 83 11. 81 ; 9a 14-5, p. 85 n. 91 ; i o a 9 - 2 i , p. 84 11. 89; 101115-16, p. 84 11. 89; i o b 2 i ff., p. 85 11. 91; n a i 6 - 7 , p. 85 11. 91; n a 2 7 , p. 98 n. 163. Meteorologiea ed. Wagner-Steinmetz, 35^27, p. 45 11. 41. de Sensu (ed. Diels, Doxogvaphi Craeei), 26, p. 38. de Vent-is ed. Wimm er, 3,17, p. 380,1 ο ff., p. 84 11. 86. fr.30 Wimmer, p. 82 η. 79, p. 84 11. 87, ρ. 128. PS.TII EOPHRASTUS

de Signis Tempestatuni ed. Wimmer, 3,46, p.396,24-5, p. 143 11. 32. TIM A Ε US fr.147 Jaeoby, p. 188 n. 185. TIMOSTHENES fr.6 Wagner, p. 148 and n. 8, p. 149. TZ LCTZES

Chiliades, 10,534 f£, 12,219 ff., 12,283 ff., p, 30 11. 148. VARRO Attieus de Numeris, p. 158 n. 9, p. 185, p. 187 and n. 175, p. 188, p. 18911. 191» p. 190, p. 191. Hebdomades ( = Imagines), p. 158 11. 9, p. 163, p. 165, p. 167 n. 59, p. 183 n. 148, p. 185, p. 187 n. 179, p. 189, p. 190, p. 1.91 and n. 198. de Lingua Latina V,i§9 ff., p. 188 11. 187; IX,81 ff., p. 188 n. 187. de Musica, p. 187 11. 179a, p. 190, p. 191 n. 198. Orα Maritima, p. 148. de Principiis Numerorum, p. 189 11. 188. Res Rusticae, II,1,3, p. 187. Tubero de Origine Humana, p. 158 n. 9, p. 179 n. 134, p. 185, p. 186, p. 187 and n. 178, n. 179, p. 188, p. 190 and n. 197, n. 198, p. 191 n. 198, p. 192 n. 198. VEGETIUS

Epiioma

Rei Mi tit avis, IV,38, p. 148 η. 11.

VRTRUVIUS

de Arehiteetura,

1,6,4-5, P· 149; 6,4, p. 149; 6,6-8, p. 149; §,12-13, p. 149.

XENOPHON

Anabasis, IV,5,3, p. 151 n. 32. XICNOCRATES fr.5 Heinze, p. 43 n. 34, p. 121 n. 285; fr.15 H., p. 43 n. 34; fr.17 H. t p. 123 n. 296; f r . i 8 IT., p. 43 n. 34, p. 121 n. 285; fr.6o H., p. 160 n. 20. ZENO, $. SVF

267

II ps.GALEN us, Comm. ps. HIPPOCRATES de Hebdomadilms Ch.i-20, CI1.1-17, CI1.1-11,

Ch.1-5, Ch.1-2, Ch.i,

Ch.2,

Ch.3,

in ps.Ilipp.

ΓΙebd.,

s. above, p. 261.

ed. Roscher

p. 4, p. 5» p. 8, p. 9. p. 4 11. 9. p. 1, p. 2, p. 9, p. 16 11. 64, p. 17 a n d 11. 70, p. 18, p. 19, p. 26, p. 31, p. 05, p. 66, p. 131, p. 135, p. 101, p. 205, p. 200, p. 227, p. 228, p. 229. p. 3, p. 5 11. 11. p. 3, p. 18, p. 136 n. 32. p. 3. p. 28, p. 37. p. 54, p, 57, p, 80, p. 11 3, p. 115, p. 118, p. 119 and 11. 275, p. 130, p. 132 11. 16, p. 133, p. 173 n. 98, p. 206, p. 226 11. 126, p. 227 n. 138; x,§i, p. 113 n. 248, p. 132, p. 14J n. 15, p. 227; 1,6-8, p. 52 n. 51; 1,8 ff., p. 162 11. 33, p. 203 11. 263, p. 227 11. 137; 1,13 ff., p. 203 η. 263; 1,13-5, Ρ· 172 η. 98; ι,ι8-2ΐ, ρ. 52 η. 51 ; 1,23 ff., ρ. 141 η. 15; 1,25 ff., ρ. 5 1 ; 1,26, ρ. 41.; 1,28, ρ. 52 η. 51 ; 1,31, ρ. 41 ; 1,41-68, ρ. 132; 1,41, ρ. 48; 1,42-8, ρ. 136; ι,43 ff·, Ρ· 42; 1,44-8, ρ. 132 η. 16; 1,44-5» Ρ· H 5 η. 256; ι,44 ff·, Ρ· 115 ιι. 256; 1,45 ff·. Ρ· 120-1; 1,51, ρ. 38; 1,51-2, ρ. 58; 1,53, ρ. 18 η. 76; 1,52-3, ρ. 137; ι,53, Ρ· 46; ι,54 ff» Ρ· 80; 1,57, ρ. 45; ι,58 ff., ρ. 80; 1,63 ff, Ρ· 51, ρ. 177-8, ρ. 203; 1,65, Ρ· 50; ι,66, ρ. 47; 1,67, Ρ- 40; 1,70-77, Ρ· 132; 1,70 ff., ρ. 90 η. 123, ρ. 1 1 7 ; ι , 7 ΐ ff., p. 42, p. 110; 1,78-89, ρ. 132; 1,78 ff., p. 57, p. 79, p. 116, p. 207; 1,80-1, p. 79 11. 72; 1,80, p. 103 11. 192; 1,85 ff., p. 205, p. 207; 1,86-7, P· 81; 1,87, p. 36, p. 37; 1,88, p. 38; I,90-5, p. 1 3 2 ; 1,90 ff., p. 61, p. 1 1 6 ; 1,91 ff., p. 81, p. 107 n. 211, p. 207; 1,94-5, p. 127, p. 207; 1,94, p. 61, p. 1 0 6 n. 203; 1,95, p. 77 n. 62. p. 54, p. 58, p. 92, p. 118, p. 1 1 9 and n. 275, p. 120, p. 133, p. 206, p. 227 n. 1 3 8 ; 2,1 ff., p. 66, p. 76, p. 112, p. 1 3 7 ; 2,3 ff., p. 42, p. 9 3 ; 2,6, p. 6 ; 2,9 ff., p. 4 7 ; 2,10, p. 50; 2,14-17, p. 7 7 ; 2,14 ff., p. 50, p. 1 2 1 and n. 283; 2,15 ff., p. 4 2 ; 2,15-6, p. 57, p. 121 ; 2,18-9, p. 77; 2,19, p. 4 9 ; 2,24 ff., p. 42, p. 54, p. 62, p. 1 2 0 ; 2,25 ff., p. 81, p. 108 n. 2 1 2 ; 2,27 ff., p. 1 1 6 n. 260; 2,29 ff., p. 60; 2,30 ff., p. 204; 2,37 ff., p. 64; 2,39 ff., p. 77, p. 120, p. 1 2 1 and II. 283; 2,40 ff., p. 204; 2,41 ff., p. 121 ; 2,42 ff., p. 4 2 ; 2,44 ff., p. 59, p. 1 2 0 ; 2,47 ff., p. 58, p. 66, p. 77; 2,48-9, p. 78; 2,48, p. 208 11. 26; 2,49, p. 77 11. 6 2 ; 2,50 ff., p. 77 11. 62, p. 89 n. 121; 2,50-1, p. 8 1 ; 2,51 ff., p. 93, p. 207; 2,53, p. 77 11. 6 2 ; 2,55 ff., p. 1 2 7 ; 2,64 ff., p. 21, p. 30, p. 54, p. 57 n. 17, p. 138, p. 139-40, p. 1 4 5 ; 2,64-92, p. 144; 2,64-5, P· 1 3 8 ; 2,66-71, p. 1 3 9 ; 2,66, p. 77 n. 6 2 ; 2,68-70, p. 139 n. 8; 2,69 ff., p. 59 11. 25; 2,70-3, p. 1 4 0 ; 2,72 ff., p. 37; 2,72, p. 140 11. 1 1 ; 2,73, p. 1 5 3 ; 2,74, p. 37, p. 1 4 4 ; 2,82-92, p. 140-1. p. 21, p. 24, p. 134, p. 146, p. 155, p. 227 n. 1 3 8 ; 3,10 ff., p. 90

268

Ch.4, Ch.5,

Ch.6-11, Ch.6-7, Ch.6,

Cli.6,§i.

C1I.6,§2,

CI1.7, Cli.8-9, Ch.8, Ch.9, Ch.ίο, Cti.il,

eii.12-53, Ch.12, Ch. 13-53, Ch. 13-52, Ch. 13-23, Ch. 13-20, CI1.13,

Ch. 14-20, Ch.14,

Ii. 123; 3,14 ff., p. 151; 3,16, p. 147 11. 5 ; 3,17, p. 153; 3,18-9, p. 152. p. 9, p. 134, p. 227 11. 138; 4,4, p. 50; 4,5, p. 52; 4,11, p. 50; 4,15, p. 38; 4,16, p. 4 0 ; 4,18, p. 49. p. 3 a n d n. 5, p. 133, p. 161, p. 162 a n d 11. 33, p. 163 a n d n. 36, p. 171, p, 173 11. 98, p. 174, p. 175 n. 110, p. 181 a n d n. 140, p. 182 11. 146, p. 187, p. 190, p. 197 a n d 11. 233, p. 202, p. 203 a n d 11. 263 ; 5,14, p. 162 11. 33; 5,15-6, p. 40, p. 171 .11. 89; 5,16 ff., p. 171 ; 5,16, p. 174 11. 104; 5,17-8, p. 172 11. 95; 5,19-26, p. 173 n. 9 8 ; 5,20-1, p. 174 η. 104; 5,21, p. 4 6 ; 5,24-5, p. 171 11. 91. p. 227. p. 134. p. 21, p. 22 and n. 1 00, p. 27, p. 28, p. 54, p. 101, p. 104, p. 105 n. 198, p. 113, p. 133, p. 199 11. 243, p. 205, p. 206 and 11. 7, p. 207, p. 214 ii. 60. p. 22, p. 204 11. 264; 6,§1,1 ff., p. 106 and 11. 206; 6,§1,11 ff., p. 106; 6,§1,14, p. 207 ; 6,§1,18, p. 207 ; 6,§1,19 ff., p. 104; 6,§1,1920, p. 79, p. 81; 6,§1,20 ff., p. 61 11. 38; 6,§1,20-9, p. 206; 6,§1,22 ff., p. 79, p. 103, p. 106, p. 116 11. 260; 6,§1,24-5, P· 224; 6 , § i , 26 ff., p. 106; 6,§1,31 ff., p. 20 11. 88. P. 21; 6,§2,1 ff., p. 79; 6,§2,3 ff., p. 79, p. 80 11. 73, p. 81, p. 206; 6,§2,5 ff., p. 103 and 11. 191; 6,§2,9 ff., p. 80, p. 124; 6,§2,11-2, p. 80; 6,§2,12 ff., p. 92; 6,§2,13 ff., p. 106 11. 206, p. 124, p. 137; 6,§2,21 ff., p. 136, p. 207; 6,§2,21-2. p. 6. p. 133, p. 199-200 and 11. 243, p. 201 n. 254. p. 134 and 11. 25. p. 133, p. 134 11. 24, p. 199 and 11. 243, p. 200-1 a n d 11. 254; 8,1 ff., p. 10; 8,3 ff., p. 223 n. 112; 8,12 ff., p. 10. p. 133, p. 134 and 11. 25, p. 201 11. 254. p. 28 11. 134, p. 134, p. 208, p. 209, p. 210 a n d 11. 30, p. 211; 10,1 ff., p. 209 n. 27; 10,7-8, p. 10, p. 209; 10,12 ff., p. 10. p. 19, p. 20 a n d 11. 88, p. 133 n. 22, p. 199 and 11. 243, n. 244, p. 200 a n d η. 246, p. 227 n. 138; 11,3 ff., p. 20 11. 88; 11,8-9, P- 20 11. 88; 11,9, p. 202; 11,9-11, p. 199 11. 244. p. 1, p. 2, p. 205, p. 206. p. 10, p. 14, p. 229; 12,23 ff- Ρ· 15, p. 135, p. 136, p. 225. p. 16. p. 229. p. 13, p. 225. p. 9. p. 16, p. 17 n. 70, p. 28 11. 134, p. 208 and p. 208-9 n. 26, p. 209, p. 210, p. 211, p. 215, p. 226 11. 126; 13,1 ff., p. 223 11. 108; 13,13 ff., p. 210 11. 29; 13,29 ff., p. 213 11. 46; 13,33 p. 211, p. 223 n. 107; 13,36 ff., p. 222 n. 98; 13,36, p. 214 11. 56. p. 15, p. 16 and 11. 63, p. 21.4 n. 56. p. 3 11. 6, p. 4 n. 10, p. 5 11. 10, p. 16 a n d n. 63, p. 37, p. 209 n. 26, p. 214 and 11. 55, 11. 57, 11. 58, p. 216 a n d 11. 69, 11. 71; 14,1 ff., p. 224 11. 117, p. 225; 14,11 ff., p. 212; 14,22 ff., p. 210; 14,28 ff.,

269

C O <4* Η I rH Ο Μ « m id 1 d r H Μ οι -Φ in CM τΗ ΙΟ ΟΙ IT) ft Ö od O-I SO JH C O ft ΟΤ 3 1 ΟΙ rH CO οθ , cT Οί ft du & Η ο σ^ oo y fi P. m σ^ m J> Of OO N co r-' ν C Ο. «Ν τCO Η d CO Η ^ fe rf» Η _4 τΗ -Γ Ol ΙΛ ^ © ι> §* ΰ ά rj\D Ö ^1 JaVh ΟΙ ον 1 m OJ Ol rσ^ H νοΝ ν© OJ «Ν Γν| ^ m υη Tf s O Ol Ol. ro in ft « ΟΙ ft in o r ft . . PO λ η f Γ «3 . m ei Η Η ΙΛ χ iö ^ rH 00 Ol μ m ^ cm ΊτΗ * * 7 ( CO » r H 3 ft Μ Ρ Ο m, ft ft CO i n « Ν S 2 .n d d ο OI CO l> βο α « Ο Ν CO Ol ^ ο OI r-4 m oi Η , in m jn ΙΟ t> ι> ο^ -+•—i d d OD OJ ο ί ft Ol ft Ö S Si CO ΙΟ 00 ~ O I O I τι* Η Oi ^ \, ,. Π r^· ft ft Ol α r? ,„d Ο ^ Ol N · rt d co 3 „ ^; ^ Ο Ι - Η 00 d Ν Η (Τ) · £ rΟ Ι Ο! C M Ο Ι τΗ W Ν VO "Φ τΗ Μ Η ft Ο! Ν W Μ W Η ft Μ ο ft ft ft ft ^ ft 0, Α Ä Η ft CI ft m ft ft ft ft Μ m JS „ „ * ι H" cf CO m Ό t in« d 1Λ i>00 Ο» Ο Ο TJ. in m m in CO CO 00 PO CO ^ Q rd xi Λ Λ A J A xi xi -d U Ο Ö U ο w· Q Ό Ό Ο Ό Ό Ο U

ft ft

Ο Μ Ö

ο Λ U

ο m Λ U

Η d CO m m m & rd pd Ο Ο υ

C1O Tf. c< ei Ö U

i n « c> t^ oo CI CI CI Μ CI ,0 rd rd rd U U Ο U U

Ν ο" CO pd a υ

Μ" PO pd υ

j. CO yCS CO CO xi rd υ u

CO CO οι Ol τΗ - sa" Τ ^ Ρ, oj o^ οι OI σ^ σ-» CO ο ft Ν ft Ν ft. Ν Ol ^ ft ^ CO _ Λ r\ ft w ο Γ ^ Tf Jm ο 2 ^ ^ 2 53 kD Sa in Ο ο^ rH in Ji-J r-4 ΟΙ Ol ο pn in & Ξ Ο in Ol . ο S ft TF CVJ V» Μ rh -aö ft P ö CI Ol ft ft & Ö ft ft m ο in ft O , OI Μ Μ . . ο C Ö 00 Μ ft Μ ft ft ^ Ν rf- co Ο uj -r oo Ν d . -ι σ> CO Sm ι> ι ΟΙ « .Λ 3. c^ Ν 0s CI Cb Ol C O («η 00 ο ,« χ S + J oo Ό ^ ο Ol d Τ 1 l> ft C O Η Γ- <+4 Ο « ΟΙ ^Μ C O Ci t S ^ CO . d Ol Μ Ol M Ol ^ 00 rH Ο VC ft Tf- ft . -a l> Η of ο ft d ιη OJ t> Ol in oi . ^ ft ft q co ^ s ft s © Η vo O I 0 ^Μ οÜ ftΓ . cä CI ft ts ft ft οι in 00 t + 4 Γr-τ H ΟΙ f Η Ο 01 OJ V ^ Ä Ol Η ft sd « , r H ^ «_« C T · in rH ο Jh I> Ο Ι ^ ft cf ft' Η οι m rH Ol Cl ftOI Η 1 l> -Γ Ol CO Ν Ol Ι r-4 ft in * . ΛΟ d Ol in ft fd; -co ©* - ft Ol |> ι> ft ft CI Ο 00 ' ν CO Οί ft ο Η Ol CO CO «a ~ -φ ft in rCl Ν Ν Γ rH οι d en w ' rH eo Η Λ Η a3 ^ Ν .. Η OI in r-4 Ol ä 2 Ol H* in w Ο Ν Ols CO S M oj in Ol Ol o^ Ο 0 V m » «(Η ft ft ft Η i> ft rH ft Ν Μ .~ K D οι C„O o^ ft Ol Ο PI Ol οι ο ft ο οCO rH οο· ΟI ο H ^oi CO ^ Ο C . CO ΟΪ <7\ d •Ο Oi Η Μ ft CI l> Ο o\ m o" ft . . - Η l> ft Ol ft in m d J M ft w IM ft Ο _ ft. tr^: ^ οι CO -Φ d in ΗΓ d PI Ol Μ Ol d d d ο" ο ο d ^ ^ . ft d Μ in Η ft Ol th α <4-1 Ol rH Ol o m ft 00 («Η + tH C ιη ΓtJ- •rH Ol rH •W Mm οι rH l> rH rH Ol oo" vO d H rH a^ ft rH O^ Μ ^ · ι> Ö cn d Cl d -η O I Η m -d oo" τΗ cL ft ή CT> ft U CO ia in ο ο ft ö Λ Ö ft Μ Οί *θ ft 00 m ^ w ^ ^ S d d ·1 »n ιη d Ν Ol d u^U j«Γr-% * - ft « 5J, <J " «Ο in Μ rH CO rH ο* - ^^ s « oo Ö OI Ο ^ Ο in cn < M z2 ^ Ο ft ° s ^ Φ «β . . O I ft s ^ « s ^ 4ΟΪ Ρη ft % ο Ol ^ . . Ό rf i « ,Η m ft S^ ο ο CJ |> ft ^« in in ft. VfT d Oi Ol Η" οι . CO . ft 0 ö ft c CM Pft ^ ^ C O ^ Η 4· I ί' Ρ; d . . C O I Ol ft <M Ä ft ^ t-T Ο»' ^ , Η d α Ο « V OΙ 00 s TH |> vd ΜΗ η Ö . ^ .- ^ τ— — rI in' ^ ^ ι> t^ d ^ ^ τΗ |> CO I • ΟΙ ^ CO td Ο I ^ in . Ο Ι ο •V: ΐ CO ö Ol CO *>•00 ^ Ν ι τ Η C O C O ro ιη τ Η < μ ιη , *n C O Η ^ co , r H r H C O O I CO τΗ^ νο oo ΟΙ ^ CM ΟΙ 1 04 ft Ol - . ft. ft. «ο ft. ft. ft ft ft ft ft Η ft OJ ft ft ft Μ ft ft ft. Ηιη ' in ft 00 . ft d ft CI ft ft ft d Cl ftΙ Μ*"ft COft Ηin ft Ο νΟ m in ΛΛ Ό Ο