Aristoteles in The Ancient

T v •
^ • r i*
T v 7 i} . * *
- •*
STUDIA CRAECA E T xW.ÄXM'WW

E L lilr t ' '£ »
GOTIIOBURGENSIA 4*. >
ARISTOTLE
IN T H E ANCIENT
BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION
By
INGEMAR DURING
GÖTEBORG
CONTENTS
Page
P r e f a c e ................................................................................................................. 7
P a r t I. E ditions oj the A n cien t Vitae Aristotelis

1. D iogenes L a e r t i u s .................................................................................... 13
T h e M a n u s c r ip ts ........................................................................................ 13
A P IZ T O T E A I IZ ............................................................................................ 29
C o m m e n ts....................................................................................................... 57
2. H e s y c h iu s ....................................................... So
1
T h e M a n u s c r ip ts ......................................... 80
A P IZ T O T E A O Y Z BIO X K A I TA Z Y l ’f& iM M A T A A Y T O Y •. $2
Com m ents. P seu d o-H esych iu s . . . .■.............. : ...................... . 89 4
3. V ita M a r c i a n a ...........................................................................................
T h e M a n u s c r i p t ........................................................................................ 94
r E N O Z A P I Z T O T E A O Y Z .......................................... 96
C o m m e n ts...................................................................................................... i 0j
4. V ita v u l g a t a ............................................................................................... I2 o
T h e M a n u s c r ip ts ........................................................................................ I2o
rE N O Z A P I Z T O T E A O Y Z ....................................................................... I3 I
C o m m en ts......................................................................................................
5. V ita L a s c a r is ............................................................................................... I4o
6. V ita l a t i n a .................................................................................................. 142

Th e M a n u s c r ip ts ........................................................................................ j^ 2
Liber de vita et gcnere A r is to tilis ........................................................ jg i
C o m m en ts......................................................................................................
7. M edieval V ita e A r i s t o t e l i s .................................................................. 164

J o a n n e s V a le n s is 164. W a lte r B u r le ig h 165. L ib e r de V it a et
m o rte A r is to te lis 16 7 . L eo n ard o B ru n o 168. G ia m b a t tis t a
G u a rin i 178 . J . J . B e u r e r 17 9 . P J . N u n e z anrl A . S c h o t tu s
179 .
4 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
P art II. The Syriac and Arabic Tradition on Aristotle's L ife

and W ritings
B ib lio g r a p h y 183. page
T h e S yriac t r a d i t i o n .............................................................................. 184

V ita S y ria ca I, w ith c o m m e n t s ........................................................ 185
V ita S y ria ca I I , w ith c o m m e n ts........................................................ 187
T h e A ra b ic trad itio n on A risto tle 's l i f e .......................................... 189
an-N adim , K ita b al-Fihrist, w ith c o m m e n t s ............................... 193
al-M ubashir, K ita b mukhtar, w ith c o m m e n ts................................ 197
al-Q ifti, a n alysis of his a r t i c l e ............................................................ 208
Ib n A b i U saib ia, Tabaqat a l-a tib b a '................................................. 213
D is p o s itio n . L i fe of A r is t o t le a c c o rd in g to P t o le m y 2 13 . E x t r a c t s
fro m M u b a sh ir 2 17 . N o te fr o m al M a su d i 2 17 . O th e r n o te s 218 .
A r i s t o t le 's W ill 2 19 . E x c e r p t s fr o m H unayn 220. A p h o ris m s
2 2 1. P t o le m y ’s C a ta lo g u e o f A r is t o t le 's W r it in g s 2 2 1 . N o te on
p s e u d e p ig r a p h a 2 3 1.
C o m m en ts...................................................................................................... 231
P art III. Fragm ents of the A n cien t Biographical Tradition

I. C hronology of A ris to tle 's l i f e ................................................. 249
II. D escen t and F a m i l y ................................................................... 263

A r i s t o t le 's W ill 263. N ic o m a c h u s , h is fa t h e r and son 265.
P h a e s tis , h is m o th e r 267. P y t h ia s , h is w ife 267. P y t h ia s , h is
d a u g h te r 268. H e r p y llis 26g. N ic a n o r 270 . F ro m T h e o p h r a s tu s '
W ill 27 t.
III. H erm ias of A t a r n e u s .................................................................. 272
IV . R e la tio n s w ith P h ilip and A le x a n d e r ...................................... 284

A le x a n d e r ’s t u t o r 284. Z o o lo g ic a l in v e s t ig a t io n s 288. S ta g ir a ,
r e b u ilt b y A r is t o t le 2go. C a llis th e n e s 294. A le x a n d e r p o is o n e d
b y A r is t o t le 296. O t h e r re m a in s o f H e lle n is tic fa b r ic a t io n 297.
V. A risto tle and I s o c r a t e s .............................................................. 299
V I. A risto tle and P l a t o ..................................................................... 315

H is fr ie n d s h ip w it h P la t o 3 1 5 . I n p h ilo s o p h y A r is t o t le a n d P la to
d is a g re e d 3 18 . « W h ile P la t o w a s s t ill alive», la te e c h o e s 3 2 1.
A r is t o t le o p p o se d P la t o 322. The h a rm o n iz in g o f P la t o and
A r is t o t le 332. A m m o n iu s H e rm e iu an d h is d isc ip le s 334.
V II A risto tle ’s l i b r a r y ......................................................................... 337
V III. A risto tle honoured b y th e D elph ic A m p h ictyo n s . . . . 339

ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 5
Page
IX . A r isto tle ’s d icta on lea vin g A t h e n s ....................................... 341
X. A r is to tle ’s A p o l o g y ...................................................................... 343
X I. A r is to tle ’s d e a t h ............................................................................. 345
X II. A p p earan ce and personal q u a l i t i e s ...................................... 34g

A p p e a r a n c e 3 4g. P e rs o n a l q u a litie s 3 4 g. O b t r e c t a t io v a r ia 3 52 .
X III. Som e an cien t v e r d i c t s ............................................................... 353

W illin g n e s s t o re v is e h is o p in io n s 353. A r is t o t le in t h e e y e s o f his
c o n te m p o r a r ie s 3 55. C ic e r o and D io n y s iu s o n A r is t o t le 3 61.
A r i s t o t le ’s s t y le 363.
X IV . In d ire ct evid ence from A risto tle 's ow n w ritin gs . . . . 366

M e th o d s o f w o rk . H is p e r s o n a lit y a s a s c h o la r 368. T h eo ry and
p r a c tic e 369. H is le c tn re -r o o m in th e A c a d e m y 3 7 1.
XV. E a r ly in v ective s a ga in st A r i s t o t le .......................................... 373

F ro m A r is to c le s 3 73 . E p ic u r u s 3 76 . T im a e u s 3 77. A r is t o x e n u s
378. E u h u lid e s . C e p h is o d o r u s 3 7g. L ycon. T h e o c r it u s 3 8 1.
A p e lllc o n 382.
C om m ents on ch. X V ................................................................... 384

E p ic u r u s 385. T im a e u s 386. A r is to x e n u s 3 87. E u h u lid e s .
D e m o c h a re s 388. C e p h is o d o ru s 389. L ycon. T h e o c r itu s o f C h io s
3 9 1 . A p e llic o n 392.
X V I. C h aracteristic sayin gs. B on-m ots. A n e c d o t e s ................. 396

N a t u r e 396. M an , S o c ie t y 3 9 7 . V a r ia 399. B o n - m o ts a n d a n e c
d o te s 400.
X V II. T h e w ords nEQÎnazoç, 71LO171(11FIv, [Ieo (7Z (iti]tlxo ç.......................... 404

ih p in a z n ^ = sc h o o l. G e n e ra l sen se 404. O f è x r o v IJtQ u id xo v
405. T h e a e t io lo g ic a l le g e n d 405. A m m o n iu s H e rm e iu a n d h is
fo llo w e rs 40g.
X V III. T h e R om an ed ition of A r is to tle ’s w o r k s ........................... 412

T y r a n n k m 4 12 . A n d ro n ic u s 4 13 . C o m m e n ts 420.
X IX . ’EÇaneQixoi Xoyoi................................................................................ 426
XX. T h e n eop laton ic in trod u ction s to th e stu d y of A risto tle 444
P a r t IV . From H erm ippus to Ptolem y

A b rief su m m ary of results and co n clu sio n s..................... 459
In dex testim o n io n im ........................................................................................ 47g

PREFACE
T h is book has a lon g h isto ry. I t w as begun as an in vestig ation of
th e passages in w hich P lu ta rc h speaks of A ristotle. D eta ch ed from
their c o n te x t som e of these passages len t th em selves to d ifferen t inter
pretatio n s and I found too th a t th e y w ere used as evid ence for qu ite
d ifferen t opinions. I t soon b ecam e ap p aren t th a t th e scattered fr a g
m ents of th e b io grap h ical trad itio n cou ld n o t b e fu lly understood and
p rop erly in terp reted unless on th e basis of an exam in ation of all the
m aterial. T h e aim of th is b o o k is to present th is m aterial and the
result of m y ex a m in a tio n of it and to trace th e d evelop m en t of the
b io grap h ical trad itio n concerning A risto tle ’s life and w ritings.
P a r t I contain s critical edition s of all an cien t V ita e A ristotelis, based
on fresh collations of all m an u scrip ts k now n to me. T o th e v e r y last
I hoped to find another m anu scrip t of th e V ita M arciana, now preserved
o n ly in M arcianus 257, w hich is to d a y alm ost indecipherable, b u t m y
hope failed. T h e edition s of th e V ita e pose problem s w hich I h a ve
set forth in the introductions. T o each te x t I h ave added testim ouia,
a running com m en tary, and a short ch ap ter w ith a general evalu ation
In this p a rt of th e b o o k I h a v e also included a b rief su rv e y of some of
the la te m ed ieval V itae .
P a rt I I con tain s a su rv e y of th e S y ria c and A ra b ic trad itio n . My
chief o b je c t has been to p resen t read ab le tran slation s of th e m ost
im p o rta n t V ita e A ristotelis and to discuss th e problem s raised b y
these te x ts. T h is m aterial has b een h ard to deal w ith for a non-
orien talist, and it w ould h a v e been im possible for m e to g iv e an ac
cou n t of it, had I n o t received k in d an d generous assistance from m y
orien talist colleagues, Professors O scar L öfgren and B ern h ard L ew in,
G ö teb o rg U n iv e rsity , and D r. R ich a rd W alzer, O xford U n iv ersity . I
w ish to em phasize, how ever, th a t I am alone responsible fo r all sh o rt
com ings in th is chap ter.
P a rt I I I con tain s a b o u t four hundred passages from ancien t and
m ed ieval w riters, selected from a large collection of excerpts and
arranged accord in g to su b ject-m atter. I h ave experim ented w ith
s INGEMAR DÜRING
several ty p e s of arran gem en t an d fin a lly decided upon the one chosen
here. T h is arrangem ent of th e m aterial in e v ita b ly leads to certain
repetition s for w h ich I a sk th e rea d er’s indulgence. I hope th a t the
freq u en t cross-references and th e In d e x testim on iorum w ill help the
reader to find w h a t he w a n ts to find.
In m ost cases each passage or clu ster of passages is p rovid ed w ith
a com m en tary. In m y com m en ts and in terp reta tio n s I h a v e follow ed
the sim ple m ethod applied in e v e ry c ritic a l trea tm en t of sources and
authorities. E a c h sta te m en t has firs t been exam ined sep a ra tely, w ith
due consideration g iv en to te x tu a l problem s, lan gu age, co n tex t, m ode
of transm ission, th e w rite r’s p e rso n a lity (if k now n ), tim e and tendency,
and so forth. I t has th en b een com pared w ith related te x ts and fu rth er
an alysed and in terp reted w ith th e u ltim a te aim of fin d in g ou t as m uch
as possible a b ou t tren d s and ten d en cy in th a t branch of th e b io grap h ical
trad itio n to w hich th e passage belongs. C ertain fa cts recorded in the
b io grap h ical trad itio n are of such a n atu re th a t w e can n ever p rove
w hether th e y are tru e or not. B u t w e m a y a d va n ce a step nearer the
tru th if w e can p ro v e th a t th e au th or (or his source) is biassed and
fin d ou t som ething a b o u t his prejudices or ten d en cy. In m ost cases it
is possible to evin ce th a t he follow s a certain trad itio n w hose general
ch aracter w e are able to determ ine. H ow ever, e v e ry b o d y fam iliar w ith
the an cien t b io grap h ical tra d itio n know s th a t th e m aterial is fragile
and often open to d ifferen t in terp retation s. I h a v e h o n estly tried to
m ake a clear d istin ction b etw een fa cts and h ypotheses and le ft m an y
questions open w ith a non liquet. B u t I am fu lly aw are how com
p licated and d ifficu lt th e problem s are and how e v a s iv e th e tr u th is.
T he reader w ill find th a t m y conclusions are often q u alified b y an
ad dition al “ p ro b a b ly ” or su b ject to oth er reservations.
I t is m y hop e th a t th e editions of th e V ita e A risto telis togeth er w ith
th e large collection of testim o n ia w ill p ro v e useful as a source book
for th e purpose of reference, q u ite irresp ective of th e appended
com m ents.
P a r t I V contain s a b rief o u tlin e of th e d evelop m en t of th e b io g ra
ph ical trad itio n from H erm ip pu s to P tolem y-el-G arib.
I h a v e of course had a g rea t m ass of m aterial to d raw upon in the
w orks of the m a n y scholars w h o h a v e w ritten on th e life of A ristotle:
B randis, Stah r, B la k esley , Zeller, B y w a te r, S hu te, B usse, B au m stark,
P raech ter, Jaeger, M u lv an y , W orm ell, H u b b ell, M oraux, and m any
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION ((
others cited or referred to in m y notes and com m ents. M y separate

d eb ts to predecessors I h a v e tried to ack n ow led ge in all cases w here
th e y w ere con tracted ; I m a y som etim es h a ve p u t dow n, from ignorance
or forgetfulness, as m y own, w h a t o u g h t to h a v e been credited to
another. L e t m e say, how ever, th a t w ith o u t th e d iligen t and careful
w o rk done by generation s o f scholars tow ard s cla rifyin g obscure
passages and h id d en rap ports in the b io grap h ical trad itio n , this presen
ta tio n and, if I m a y be allow ed to sa y so, th is tid y in g -u p of th e en tire
m aterial, could not h a v e been achieved.
In th e course of m y w ork on th is b o o k I h a v e received k in d and
generous assistance from m a n y persons and in stitu tion s. I am under
deep ob ligation to th e D irectors and th e sta ff of m a n y libraries whom
I h a v e caused tro u b le in m y search fo r m anuscripts. T o m ention
in d iv id u a l nam es w ou ld b e invid iou s w h ere so m a n y h a ve so cou rteou sly
helped me. F o r m y tra v els I h a v e received generous g ra n ts from th e
S w edish G overn m en t, from m y ow n U n iv e rsity , and from th e H enrik and
A n n a A h ren b erg R esearch F und; I am d eep ly g ra tefu l for th is support.
T h a n k s to an in v ita tio n from th e In stitu te for A d v a n ce d S tu d y in
P rin ceton , N . J ., to spend the academ ic y ear 1955/56 as m em ber of th e
In stitu te , I w as able to d ev o te th a t y e a r to u n distu rb ed w ork on com
p letin g the m anuscrip t. I w ish to express m y sincere gra titu d e to th e
D ire cto r of th e In stitu te, D r. R o b e rt O ppenheim er, for this in vita tio n ,
and to th e sta ff o f th e In s titu te for kind assistance and cou rtesy during
m a y s ta y a t P rin ceton . I offer m y w a rm est th a n k s to m y friend and
colleague H a ro ld Cherniss w h o a lw a y s allow ed me to draw freely on
his stupendous k n ow led ge of P la to and A risto tle and th e entire A risto
telian trad itio n .
F o r perm ission to reprod u ce a p h o to g ra p h of th e fam ous im age of
A risto tle I am in d eb ted to th e D irecto r of th e V ien n a M useum of th e
H isto ry of A rt. I also w ish to th a n k Mr. Iv o r M orris, lectu rer in
E n g lish a t th e U n iv e rsity of G öteborg, w h o h as been k in d enough to
go th ro u g h m y m an u scrip t.
T h e p u b lica tio n of th is b o o k h as been m ade possible b y generous
g ra n ts from H um anistiska Fonden, th e S w ed ish S ta te F u n d for research
in th e hum anities, and from m y U n iv e rsity .
G öteb o rg U n iv e rs ity A p ril 1957.

Ingemar Düring.
PART I
EDITIONS OF THE A N CIEN T VITAE

ARISTOTELIS
DIOGENES LAERTIUS
T H E M A N U S C R IP T S
A fte r all th a t h as been w ritten on th e m anu scrip t trad itio n of th e

w ork of D iogenes L a e rtiu s1) it seem s to me su fficien t to sta te q u ite
b rie fly th e conclusions I h a v e reached. I h a v e collated tw e n ty -fiv e
m anuscripts and relied on th e collation s m ade b y oth er scholars2) of
fiv e m anuscripts. T h e sig la used fo r th e in d ivid u al m anuscripts are
w ith tw o ex cep tio n s those com m on ly used; th e sm all letters used to
d istin guish th e fam ilies and groups of m anu scrip ts are m y own.
T h e b est three m anuscripts of D iogenes are th e follow ing:

B = B orb on icu s N eap olitan u s I I I B 29 (olim 253), s. X II.
P = P arisinus gr. 1759, s. X I I I ex.
F = L au ren tian u s 69.13, s. X I I I ex. (B yw a ter and M artini = L)
*) C, W a c h s m u th , Sillograp horum gr. reliqu iae. L e ip z ig 1885. P . 5 1 — 54.

E . M a rtin i, A n a lecta L a ertia n a . L e ip z ig 1899. (A lso in: L e ip zig e r S tu d ie n 19,
1899.) — “ Zur h a n d sc h r. Ü b e r lie fe r u n g d es D L ," in: R h e in . M u s . 55, 1900,
p . 6 12 — 624. — A n a le cta L a ertia n a . II. L e ip z ig 1902.
A . G e rc k e , " D ie Ü b e r lie fe r u n g des D L , “ in: H erm es 37, 1902, p. 40 1— 434.
E. S c h w a r t z , in: R E I X , 1903, co l. 739.
S . P . L a m p r o s , ‘A v é x ô o t a ânavdla/iaTa A to y év o vç t o v A n e ç r io v , in: N éoç
voftvr)ft(m 3, 1906, p . 2 5 7 — 376 .
D io g e n is L a e r in V ita P la to n is , re c. H . B r e ite n b a c li. F . B u d d e n h a g e n , A . D e-
b ru n n e r, F . V o n d er M iih ll, in: Iu v e n e s dum su m u s. A u fs ä t z e z. kl. A lt.-w is s .
d er 49. V e r s . d . P h il. u . S c h u lm . zn B a s e l d a r g e b r a c h t. P a s e l 1907.
P . V o n d e r M iih ll, E p ic u r i cp istu la e 1res. L e ip z ig 1922.
A . D e la tte , La vie de Pythagore. B r u x e lle s 1922. P . 63— 9 1. (M ém o ires de
I'A c a d , de B elg iq ue, C l. d. lettres. I l e série. T . X V I I .)
A. B ie d l, Z u r Textgeschichte des L a ertio s D io g en es. D a s G ro sse E x z e r p t <2>.
C i t t a d el V a t ic a n o 19 5 5 . { S tu d i e T e s t i 184.) A w e ll-b a la n c e d a c c o u n t o f th e
in v e s t ig a t io n s on t h e m a n u s c r ip t t r a d it io n o f D io g e n e s, in c lu d in g a f u ll b ib lio
grap h y.
R e fe re n c e s to e a r lie r lite r a tu r e are a lso fo u n d in D e la t t e ’s b o o k an d in
R . H ic k s 1 e d itio n o f D io g e n e s, L o e h L ib r a r y , 19 2 5 .
2) B y w a t e r (A), M a rtin i a n d G e rc k e (Ih, K , N ), L a m p r o s (A ).
14 INGEMAR DURING
To these m a y b e added tw o old good copies of P:
Co = C on stan tin opolitan u s V eteris Serail 48, s. X I V in.1)

Q — P arisinus gr. 1758, s. X I V .
A ll oth er m anuscripts, e x c e p t th e E x c e rp ta , present a te x t w hich is

in all respects inferior to th a t of B P F , c o n v en ien tly called th e editio
vulgata. T h e y can be ro u gh ly d ivid ed into tw o fam ilies, here called
v and w , and fu rth er su b d ivid ed in groups, as follow s.
F a m ily v.
V = V a tic a n u s gr. 1302, s. X I V .

U = U rb in as gr. 108, s. X V (B iedl X I V ) .
O = O ttob o n ian u s 355, s. X V , frag m en t only.
I) = B orbon icu s N e a p o lit a n s I I I B 28 (olim 252), s. X V .

G = L au ren tian u s 69.28, s. X V .
S — P ala tin u s gr. 261, s. X V I .
T = U rbin as gr. io g , s. X V .
Z = L obkow icen sis V I f. c. 38, s. X V .

M atr = M atriten sis 4676, s. X V .
C = C an tabr. Coll. T rin ita tis R. 9.18 (olim 442), s. X V .
K = V indobonensis 59, s. X V .
X = V a t. R eginensis 103, s. X V I , fragm en t on ly.
M =-- M arcianus gr. 896 (olim 393), s. X I V (Biedl X V ).

in A = A ru nd elianu s 531, s. X V .
N = M onacensis 159, s. X V I .
') T h e S w e d is h E m b a s s y in A n k a r a a n d C o n s u la te G e n e ra l in I s t a n b u l h a v e
k in d ly a ssiste d m e in o b t a in in g a m ic ro film . T h e n a m e o f t h e sc rib e is g iv e n a s
A g a p io s (n o t liste d b y G a r d t h a u s e n ) : X ( qi <tx ) e yoQ t(Tjf ejiwv 7rovt]fi(iTwv
fiy ia tqioq fiorjOEL p o i r w a<b dovAw ' A y a n lw zdj (p o ssib ly : axaTehq. o r nxexAq.). O n e
lin e, c o n ta in in g a n o th e r n o te , is ille g ib le . I n th e m o n o g ra m A g a p io s is c le a r ly
le g ib le , th e se c o n d n a m e u n c e r ta in . M y fr ie n d . P r o fe s s o r P . M o ra u x , h a s in sp e c te d
t h e m a n u s c r ip t a n d c o n fir m s t h e re a d in g s . H e te lls m e t h a t t h e w a te r m a r k s
are th o se fo u n d in C. M . B r iq u e t (L es F ilig r a n e s, 1507) N o . 12 0 19 ( B o lo g n a 1310 )
an d 12030 (B o lo g n a 1309), fu r t h e r t h a t t h e m s is on p a p e r, 2 2 9 x 1 5 6 m m , 1 5 7 ff.
w it h 29 t o 3 7 lin e s p e r p a g e . I t seem s f a ir ly c e r ta in t h a t t h e m s is w r it t e n in th e
fir s t q u a r te r o f t h e X l V t h c e n tu r y , n o t m a n y y e a r s a ft e r P .
Fam ily w.
W = V a tica n u s gr. 140, s. X I V .
H = L au ren tian u s 69.35, s. X I V .
E = P ala tin u s gr. 182, s. X V .
Ia = M arcianu s gr. 1030 (olim 394), S. X V .
Ib = B arberin u s I 21 (olim 275), pars posterior, S. X V I (called
F 2 b y M artini).
Y = A n gelicau u s 97, s. X V I .
The so-called Excerpta Vaticana.
L on ger version:
0 = V a tica n u s gr. 96, S. X I I I . Inc. f. 6 i b ' AoiaroreXrjg i n negL-
nvroc nM rcovog = D L V 2, ex p l. D L V 21 ovdetQ <piXoQ. In V a t. gr. 93
(V7) we possess an abrid ged tran scrip t of 0 , w ritten A . D . 1338.
D escribed b y B ied l, pp. 52 — 70.
Shorter version:
U = P arisinus suppl. 134, S. X I V .
A —■A th o u s Mon. D ion ysii 90, S. X I V .
T h ere are fu rth er m an y m anu scrip ts contain ing excerpts, b u t as th e y

are of little va lu e for th e te x t th e y m a y be om itted here.
M y collation s confirm W a ch sm u th ’s opinion th a t all our m anuscripts
in clud in g those of th e E x c e rp ta , are d erived from th e sam e arch etyp e,
th e only m an u scrip t of D iogenes th a t su rviv ed th e d ark centuries. I
h a v e found no evidence su p portin g th e opinion th a t P or F are descended
from an original other, let alone b etter, th an B. H ere is a selection
of errors com m on to al] mss:
(1) Tifiodeoi;
(7) T h e te x tu a l errors in th e hym n.
(16) ave Xovra
(19) tovto — EV/uogyiaQ
(20) cpiXog
(21) d> (piXoi
sv rep fjOtxqi xdtv efidofittiv
(22) E rro rsin th e catalogu e of w hich I m ention on ly title 99 SsvaxQaTovg.
(2g) ojiTtxa
i6 in g e m a r d ü r in g
(31) dvr Lot go<pov

(piXoaoqiiaQ
(32) anofivrjfiovevfidziov
diareivEi
T h e errors are m ore freq u e n t in th e la s t page of th e m anuscripts than

in a n y oth er p a rt of th e V ita A ristotelis. I t is in this la s t page too th a t
th e scribe of F h as in trod u ced m ore new (and en tirely conjectural)
readings th a n in a n y oth er p age of th e V ita . A possible exp lanation
is th a t, in th e original, th is p ag e w as m ore w orn and d ifficu lt to
d ecipher th a n th e precedin g pages.
T h e th ree principal m anu scrip ts h a v e been w ell described and dis
cussed b y D ela tte. B was fa ith fu lly copied from th e origin al b y a scribe
who did n o t care to chan ge or im p ro ve th e te x t, and this is n ot very
com m on in a tw e lfth cen tu ry m anu scrip t. I t is th erefore n atu ra l th a t
th e te x t is im paired b y m an y in sign ifican t and m o stly orthograph ical
or p aleograp h ies! errors. I f w e disregard these u n im p ortan t errors the
t e x t is T em arkably good. I w ou ld in fa c t go so fa r as to m ain tain th a t
B is the o n ly en tirely reliable m an u scrip t of D iogenes. Its high va lu e
appears from th e fa c t th a t in th is sm all section of D iogen es’ work,
B alone has p reserved th e correct reading in a t least fou r cases,1) B P
as again st F in a t lea st six teen cases, and B F as again st P in a t least
tw e n ty -tw o cases. I t is n o te w o rth y th a t th e readings in w hich P F are
rig h t as again st B are u n im p ortan t and m o stly concern m atters of
orth o g ra p h y, e. g.:
(18) /zerecogioat; (fieTECogTjaag B )

C at. 58 aigerov (egerov B)
86 Siatgeaeig (aigsoeiQ, h a p lo g ra p h y in B)
88 avfifjovAia- (ovfifiovAeiag B )
B alone gives us a t e x t w ith o u t em endations and serious corruptions.

On th e co n tra ry , b o th P and F (or th e m an u scrip ts from w hich th e y
w ere copied) w ere w ritten b y scribes w ho d elib e ra te ly in terp reted and
em ended th e t e x t of th e ir original. T h e B y z a n tin e diogdwrrji; w ho is
responsible for th e te x t of P em ended sp arin g ly an d w ith caution; the
m an w ho w ro te F , gen ero u sly and som etim es even a rb itra rily . Som e of
’ ) (8) n o r l/ieXXev, (13) n a iö lo v (also W ), C a t . 24 a , (34) firrrov, tj x afl' e£iv.

th e v a ria n t readings in B P F can b e b est exp lain ed b y assum ing th a t

the scribes in terp reted th e sam e u n cial a rc h ety p e in d ifferen t w ays,
e. g.:
(4) 'EXEvatvia, ’ EAevatvldi
(8) evt QO<pog, BVTQoq>ov
avyag, a v y d '
(13) dvaûag, avdgiog
(14) av add.
(19) t edveforetiv, te Qvtixoxwv
Cat. 35 evardastg, evaraaig
47 <*, 6
(28 ) (Lg flEQOQ, 6XoflEQ&g
vnaXEuto/ievov (B alone w rong), vnoXeujiofievog
(3 3 ) exovti , EXOiV
E7i£i, eni
(34) dtTTov, 8e ijtro v
In other cases it seem s m ore lik e ly th a t th e readings in P and F are

em endations:
(9 ) eig fo r ngog
(n ) EVETVXOflEV for jlf.QLETVyO/XF.V
(J 7 ) dnocpEQExai for dvaqiFOErm
(18) yXvxstg 6e xovg xagnovg
S i for re
(19) Se I om.
T h e critical a pparatu s lists a b o u t tw e n ty readings (m arked P vulg.)

w hich m ust b e regarded as inferior. I agree w ith those scholars w ho
date P to the late th irteen th cen tu ry.
B P I and p a rticu la rly P h a v e been corrected b y con tem p o rary and
later hands. A tte m p ts h a v e been m ade to distinguish as m a n y as seven
d ifferent correctors of P . F rom existin g m anuscripts o f the f a m i l y w
w e can clearly see th a t P was copied several tim es: Co w as c o p i e d
hefore a n y corrector had been a t w ork, Q not u n til a certain set of
corrections had been introduced; w hen H w as copied still m ore co rrec
tors had em ended the te x t. In m y opinion it is, h o w e v e T , an illusion
to believe th a t w e can distinguish th e alleged s e v e n hands w ith anv
am ou n t of certain ty (especially in th e case of erasions, ch an ges of
Goteb. U n iv . A r s s i r . L X I I I : 2 ■
>
jg rx G E M A R d ü r in g
accen ts and sim ilar sm all thin gs), and U sen er’s ju d gm en t is still valid:
“ quid prim a m anus d ed erit nunc a u t p lan e in certu m a u t va ld e dubium .
T h e best c o p y of P is Co; i t reproduces readings w h ich h a ve after
w ard s been o b literated in P and th u s helps us to restore th e original
readings of th is m anuscript:
(2) xa ante TiwAdota om.
(9) qitjai om.

vixtj for avxa>
(10) eit; S' 'AOijvag äqiixeaOai
(13) negi om.

natdoi Siotxelv
C at. 93 nevabtnov
M3 Svelv deavaatg
(29) de post xQitrjQiov
A curious error in (32) p roves b eyon d d ou b t th a t Co is a co p y of P

and n ot a c o p y of th e sam e origin al as P (exam ples from oth er sections
of the t e x t th a n th e L ife of A risto tle could ea sily b e adduced, e. g. the
lacu n a I V 33). In P -vat in 6jio 6i 6ovai is w ritte n w ith a flourish
ex te n d in g d ow n w ard s to th e n e x t line, ju s t b etw een th e w ords <pvaixa>v
ajiouvrmovev/idrtov, and th ere it ta k es th e shape of th e ta ch yg ra p h ic
sign com m on ly used for xat. A n d sure enough: Co reads cpvatxcbv xa i
djtouvTjaovevfidrojv, a ty p e of error uncom m on in this carefu lly w ritten
m anuscrip t. Since th e origin al readings of P are som etim es erased by
later correctors, Co is a va lu a b le su b sid iary, an d I h a v e therefore
q uoted Co in th e c ritical a p p aratu s w hen its readings are of interest.
T h e sam e is tru e of Q (used as p rin cipal m s b y B y w a te r), b u t this
m an u scrip t w as not copied from P u n til a t le a st one, p o ssib ly tw o
correctors had w orked th ro u g h th e te x t.
T h e tw e n ty -o n e m anu scrip ts of th e tw o fam ilies v w follow P v e ry
clo sely Som e of th e m w ere copied from P or its descendants, others
from m an u scrip ts closely akin to P, now lost. I t is p a rticu la rly note
w o rth y th a t th e y reproduce num erous sm all m istak es and om issions
found in P , e. g. in th e ca ta lo g u e of A n s to tle s w ritings.
5 fj om.
24 ä om.
38 äßyfi
47 d
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION
71 om. (sic)
84 ü om.
143 x a i 1 om.
144 ã post ãr]fioxQirov om.
I t is p re tty safe to conclude th a t all the m an u scrip ts of th e fam ilies

vw are u ltim a te ly d erived from th e B y z a n tin e edition of D iogenes of
w hich P is th e m ain rep rese n ta tiv e now preserved. It w ould th u s be
sufficien t to record o n ly th e readings of B P F and discard all oth er
readings com pletely. I h a v e h ow ever not follow ed th is principle, for
tw o reasons: firstly because I th in k it is n ecessary to p rove the su p erio
r ity of B P F b y ad du cing th e evid en ce from th e deteriores, secondly
because th e readings of th e textus receptus, figu rin g in cu rren t editions
and quotations, are m uch influ enced b y these deteriores.
F has, in th is sh o rt section o f D iogen es’ w ork, no less th a n six ty
va ria n t readings in passages w here no oth er m anu scrip t offers any
va rian t. O rd in a rily th is w ould perhaps in d u ce us to discard F com
p letely, a reaction e x a c tly opposite th a t of C ob et w ho regarded F as
“ un des m eilleurs m anu scrits de D iogène qui e x iste n t” and w hose te x t
offers m a n y exam ples of his confidence in th is m anuscript. H ow ever,
F has so m a n y good readings in com m on w ith B or P or w ith B P th a t
it is quite clear th a t F is clo sely related to them and d erived from a
v e ry good source near to th e arch etyp e. I th u s agree w ith D ela tte
th a t F is v e ry v a lu a b le, b u t I w ou ld say th a t its va lu e depends m ore
on its errors and m istakes th an on its ow n con trib u tion s to th e te x t.
T h is m a y sound lik e a p a rad o x , b u t F is in fa c t a m ore va lu a b le w itness
than P , in spite of its glarin g em endations and slo v en ly om issions The
reason is th a t these em endations stan d o u t so m a n ifestly th a t there
is h ard ly ever a n y d ou b t a b o u t them .
A s to th e relationship of B P F th ere are tw o con flictin g opinions
w hich m a y be illu stra ted thus:
W ach sm uth D iels U sener M artini

O ercke D ela tte
x
B
F
INGËMAR DÜRING
20
T h e m ain d ifference is th a t W a ch sm u th regarded B P F as three

d ifferen t b ranches of th e th e sam e arch etyp e, w hereas th e others
regarded B P as d erived from th e sam e h y p a rch e ty p e.
D e la tte sum m ed up h is opinion in th e follow in g w ords, Vte de Pylha-
nore p 73: “ E n b eau co u p d ’en d roits où B P o ffren t un e leçon d ifficile
à com prendre ou corrum pue, F présente une va ria n te qui p a ra ît
m eilleure à prem ière vu e, m ais q u ’ un m in u tieu x exam en p erm et de
condam ner. C ’est que la fa u te conservée p ar B F e x ista it dans les
origines de B P F et q u e F a v o u lu la corriger, non par des recherches
paléograph iq u es, m ais par des con jectu res ph ilologiques, si bien qu il
n ’est pas p a rv en u à retro u ver la b on n e leço n ." A lth o u gh I am m uch
im pressed b y th e argu m en ts p u t forw ard w ith such skill b y D ela tte
and his predecessors, I m u st conclude th a t th e evid ence from the
section of D iogenes w ith w h ich w e are concern ed here rath er supports
W a ch sm u th ’s stem m a. M y ow n ob servation s do n ot confirm th e
th e o ry of a p a rticu la rly close relationship b etw een B and P , origin ally
p u t forw ard b y U sener, su p ported b y D iels, and fu rth er d eveloped b y
G ercke and D ela tte. D esp ite th is aw e-inspiring a ccu m u latio n of distin
guished au th orities, I am afra id th a t I m u st argue th a t F stan ds closer
to B th a n to P; I h a ve a lrea d y said th a t in th e V ita A n sto te lis B I
are rig h t a gain st P in a t lea st tw e n ty -tw o cases. B u t B F also h a v e a
num ber of errors in com m on, each of w h ich is certa in ly insignificant,
b u t ta k e n to g eth er th e y gain som e m om entum :
(12 ) avxiyv v(e)txàv(ogi

[lévroi for fié.v xi
(14) b oth h a v e m isinterp reted 'A fi^ gam da
{15 — 16) âcprjvai, âvaBfivai
( 19 ) è v T ifiW T é g o v ç
C at. 47 b o th h a v e m isinterp reted èg iorixa t

96 ràç
(32) récroaga
(34) v n on in tË i
W e lo o k in v a in fo r such coincidences b etw een F and P. O n ly in

six in stan ces does F present a reading superior to B and P . T hree of
these are u n im p o rtan t and inconclusive: (4) èfavoiviai, (7) xogot, (16)
aundga Two represent ea sy em endations w ith w hich alm ost any
in tellig en t scrib e cou ld b e credited: (9) avxw for th e q u ite m eaningless
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRAD ITIO N 21
vixr] (a ty p ic a l un cial corru ption in B P ), (16) o r ayetgoig for OTayEtoij.

There rem ains one rea lly good em endation, th e elim ination of the
ancien t gloss {17) aegog. B u t w e m u st b e aw are th a t th is m ight w ell
be an ancien t error, and th a t D iogenes him self cou ld h a v e read, in the
te x t he transcribed, ano row negiexovTog degog. W e find th e same
error in other m anuscripts of A risto tle, e. g. V a t. gr. 226, D e an. I g
4 11 a 19 (as recorded b y B ek k er, n ot b y H icks).
W ith W ach sm u th , then, I regard B P F as th ree rep resen tatives of

the sam e transm ission. T h e v a lu e of b o th P and F is determ ined by
their relation to B . W hen b o th or one of them agrees w ith or supports
th e reading g iv en b y B , w e should prima facie accep t th is reading and
su b ject it to th e te st of in terpretation . In cases w here P F do n ot agree
w ith B , we should a lw a y s su sp ect th a t th e readin g th e y offer is an
em endation or a co n jectu re w hich m a y or m ay not be accep table. For,
unlike B , both P and F are diogdcbaeig, revised editions.
T h e use of th e term vulgata is often criticized to d a y , b u t in our case
it is the app rop riate w ord. T h e te x t o f th e tw en ty-o n e m anuscripts of
the fam ilies v and w is su rp risin gly uniform and of v e r y little valu e
for establishing th e te x t. M artini rep eated ly tried to p ro v e th a t the
detenor es ( = the vulgata) represented a sep arate branch of th e tran s
mission, called a, ind epen d en t of B P F w hich he called /?. G ercke and
D elatte h a ve d em on strated th e fa ls ity of th is th e o ry and it is super
fluous to repeat th eir argum en ts. W h en occasion ally a go od reading is
presented b y th e v u lg a ta , it is due to em endation. I h a ve adopted
tw o such readings w hich are found in th e v u lg a ta , b u t not in P and Co,
namely:
(9) added in its proper place, P s w u m.

(14) em xofiiadjj udz (this is p ro b a b ly , b u t n ot certain ly, th e correct
reading).
The tw o earliest and b est rep resen tatives of the v u lg a ta are V and W .
V is w ritten in an archaizin g h an d w ritin g and seem s to be m uch earlier
than it is; b oth are from th e X l V t h cen tu ry. W is gen erally held to
be copied d irectly from P. I t c ertain ly stan ds closer to P th a n V does,
and V on der M uhll rig h tly says “ v id e tu r flu xisse ex P ” . T h e critical
apparatus shows, how ever, th a t W som etim es differs from P. T his
could be explained b y assum ing th a t W has ad opted a certain selection
22 INGEMAR DURING
of th e correction s in P, b u t th e capriciousness of such an assum ption

is p a te n t. I t w ould fit th e evid en ce b est to presum e th a t P and W
d erive from th e sam e original. T h a t V stan ds close to W is proved
b y the ch an ge of th e order of w ord s in (18) (pvaecog aaxrjoeaiq ftadrjaEax;,
w hich is n ot fou n d in th e rest of the v u lg a ta . I t is h ard to b elieve th a t
th is error could h a ve b een m ad e in d epen d en tly in V and W . H ere we
en counter th e m ain problem in th e p ro tra cted discussion of the D iogenes-
vu lg a ta . A solu tio n w hich recom m ends itself b y its sim p licity is to
assum e, as I h a v e done, th a t P is, n ot th e ancestor of th e v u lg a ta , b u t
th e m ain represen tative. B eh in d P V W and th e rest of th e fam ilies
v w is a m an u scrip t y (G ercke used th e sym b o l z), th e original editio
vulgata. W e do n ot k n ow h ow m a n y copies w ere m ade of th a t m an u
script. W e happ en to h a v e a good p arallel in th e tw in m anu scrip ts
A and 77 , the one in A th o s and th e oth er in P aris, w ritten b y th e sam e
scribe and representing a p a rticu la r edition of th e E x c e rp ta .
I h a v e grouped W to g eth er w ith h because o f th e fa irly close rela
tionship to P . B u t H w as alm ost c e rta in ly copied d ire ctly from P ,
after P had b een corrected b y a t least tw o hands. H and D are the
m ost ty p ic a l la te rep resen tatives of th e v u lg a ta . In D th e te x t is b ad ly
con tam in ated . T h e evid ence for th e grouping of the m anuscripts is
found in th e c ritical a p p aratu s. A fu ll discussion of th e a ffiliation
m u st be reserved for an edition of th e com plete te x t of D iogenes.
u T h e m an u scrip t U is d ire ctly copied from V . A fragm en t of no

valu e, in O ttobo n . 355 > belongs to th is group.
d T h e m ain rep resen tatives are th e gem elli D G , p ro b a b ly copied

from H , a fter H h ad been corrected. S is copied from D . T is
c le a rly related to S b u t has an a d m ix tu re of oth er readings; I am
inclined to th in k th a t D e la tte has over-estim ated th e v a lu e of
th is codex mixtus.
z I regard Z and M atr. 4676 as th e b est rep resen tatives of this

grou p , w hich is v e r y u niform and d erived from one and th e same
h y p a rch e ty p e.
m I t is d o u b tfu l w h eth er th is group of con tam in ated m anuscripts

should b e in clu d ed in v or even regarded as a group a t all My
grou p in g is based on th e general relationship to dz. I t is possible
(but v e r y uncertain) th a t A and N w ere copied from M.
h T h e evid en ce su p ports M artini's opinion th a t all m anu scrip ts in

th is group w ere d ire ctly or in d irectly copied from H . H again was
copied from P, a fter P had been su b jected to th e efforts of at
lea st three, p o ssib ly four, correctors.
The m an u scrip ts of the so-called E x c e r p ta V a tic a n a p ro v e the

existen ce of a v e r y good ea rly m anuscript akin to B. L am p ros showed
th a t A and 77 w ere w ritten b y th e sam e scribe (dvxicrcoixoi dAAijAfov);
77 also contain s a collection of ex cerp ts from P h ilo stra tu s’ Lives of the
Sophists w hich I in ten d to deal w ith in another connection. T he
han d w ritin g of seem s to m e to in d icate th a t it is earlier th a n A 77 ;
I w ould assign it to th e first h a lf of th e X I H t h cen tu ry; on this assum p
tion it w ould b e th e n e x t earliest m an u scrip t of D iogenes. T h e B y z a n
tin e scholar w ho m ade these excerp ts w as p a rticu la rly interested in the
apophthegm s and th e an ecd otic m aterial. D e S tefa n i (Studi It. di
filol. cl. 12, 1904, p. 169) su ggested th a t th e excerp ts w ere m ade b y
some of th e en cyclopaed ists of th e te n th cen tu ry, w hen C on stantin e
P orp hyrogen netos encouraged w ork of th a t kind, b u t on good reasons
Biedl has rejected this h yp o th esis1). A lth o u g h th e t e x t of *P A 77
is sligh tly abridged in com parison w ith th a t of (I>, th e recensio is
identical. T here is n othin g in th e te x t of A 77 w hich is not also found
in 0 , and th e y even reproduce a ch ara cteristic error of 0 , in (16),
eêyEtQono.
T h e follow in g readings exclu de th e p o ssib ility th a t th e excerp ts w ere
m ade from one of th e e x ta n t m anu scrip ts B P F and in d icate th a t the
original w as a good m an u scrip t akin to B:
(5) t exo<; lo a e a i P , n o t B F
(9) tjg ’ A 6rjvr)<uv n ot V
i m vixt) o n ly in B P Co Q W
(17 ) adgog n ot F
(18) re p o st naXiv not P , iXEXEcngiaaQ not B
(19) t e 6veo)tg>v o n ly in B F
8eZ an te a xo n slv o n ly in B F
(20) 8vo awfiaaiv not V
') S ee B ie d l, p . 50 a n d p . 1 1 8 . I f w e a ssu m e w it h V o n d er M iih ll a n d B ie d l
t h a t t h e e x c e r p ts fr o m D io g e n e s a n d th e so -c a lle d P s e u d o -H e s y c h iu s w e re m ad e
a t th e sam e tim e , t h e c o m p ila to r m u s t h a v e u se d th e S u d a ; lie c a n n o t th e re fo re
b e e a r lie r th a n t h e X l t h c e n tn r y .
24 INGEMAR DÜRING
In no instan ce 0 presents a readin g w hich is not found in a t least

one of B P F . T h e conclusion is th a t 0 is a descendant o f th e same
a rch etyp e as BPF and represents an independent branch of this
trad itio n .
T h e v e rb a l e x tra cts from D L in th e Suda ta k e us b a ck to a m anuscript

of th e te n th c e n tu ry = E . T h e idea w e can ob tain of th is m anuscript
b y com parin g th e readings w ith B P F brin gs us to th e sam e conclusion
as in th e case of 0 . E does n ot show a d ecisive resem blance to a n y of
these three branches of th e tran sm ission and presents no reading (apart
from paraphrases) w hich is n ot found in one or m ore of them . L ik e 0 ,
then, E has som e va lu e as a su b sid iary w itness, b u t in this section of
D iogen es’ w ork I h a v e found no reason to an n o ta te its readings in
th e apparatu s. T h e ex tra cts from S u d a are included in th e testim onia.
Notes on some of the editions.
T h e editions are listed in F ab riciu s-H arles, B ihl. graeca*, vo l. IV , and

b y D e la tte in his V ie de Pythagore, p. 9 7 — 99.
D iogen es’ L ife of A risto tle w as p rinted for th e first tim e in th e editio
princeps A ld in a of A risto tle , vol. II , 1497, after a m an u scrip t belon ging
to group d, po ssibly S.
T h e E ditio princeps Frobeniana of D iogenes, B asel 1533, w as printed
a fter a co p y of Z, m ade b y M. A u rigallu s. T h e textus receptus of D io
genes w as th u s ta k en from a v e ry obscure source.
Joann es Sam bucus, in his la tin edition, A n tw erp ia e apu d P lau tin u m
1566, seem s to h a ve been th e first w h o recogn ized B , if w e a tta c h an v
w eig h t to w h a t he says in th e E p istu la n uncupatoria: “ E ten im aliqu ot
exem p laribu s graecis vetu stissim is illis cum in terp retation e collatis atqu e
etiam eru d itis ob serva tion ib u s F u lv ii Orsini R om an i doctissim i et m ihi
am icissim i v iri ad iu n ctis, spero me non parum com m en dationis lection i
huius scrip toris in d u stria ita com parasse, u t et versio n o va cu i otium
superest in stitu i et graeca recudi longe em endatius p o ssin t.” T h e tra n s

lation is poor; th e e x tr a c ts from D iogenes, tran slated b y Joann es V a-
lensis and inserted in his L ife of A risto tle are b etter. (His Communilo-
quiurn is p rin ted in Cologne, b y A . T erhoern en , 1472, and b y J. G rii-
ningen, A rg e n to ra ti 1489, see H a in nrs. 7441 and 7444, and b elow p.
164).
T h e edition of H . Stephanus, P aris 1570, presented a G reek te x t
m ain ly based on M and G w ith som e good em endations. I t included
th e old versio Am brosiana, m ad e in R o m e 14 3 1, p o ssibly from V or W .
T h e V ita A ristotelis w as pu blish ed w ith som e em endations and notes
b y J. T h . B uhle in the first vo lu m e of his Aristotelis Opera Om nia,
B ip o n ti 1791.
In gram B y w a te r ’s an on ym ous edition , p r iv a te ly p rinted b y th e
Clarendon Press, carries th e title A P I E T O T E A O Y E B I O E E K T O N
A A E P T IO Y , Aristotelis vita scriptore Laertio cum adnotalione critica
et fragmenlis antiquae versionis Lalinae. O xon iis M D C C C L X X I X . I t is
based on fresh collation s of A B F ( = L ) Q V . B y w a te r included e x tra cts
from th e m ed ieval L a tin tran slation s and a n n otated th e readings.
A com plete a pparatu s should perhaps include all readings from m ed ie
v a l tran slations w h ich are earlier th an or con tem p o rary w ith ou r G reek
m anuscripts, also those m ade b y V alen sis an d B urleigh. A n ex a m in a
tion of th e m aterial proves, how ever, th a t these tran slation s are of
little or no v a lu e for establishing our te x t of D iogenes, a t lea st in this
section.
T h e present editor is p a in fu lly aw are th a t th e d ifficu lties an editor
of D iogenes has to fa ce are alm o st insuperable. I t is n ot a t all d ifficu lt
to establish th e tran sm itte d te x t, b u t th is does n o t ta k e us fu rth er
b a c k th an to the ninth- or ten th -cen tu ry m an u scrip t w hich is th e ancestor
of all m anuscripts now k n ow n to us. T h is te x t, now represented m ain ly
b y B F P , is v e r y u n satisfacto ry . T h e cru cial problem is this: was
D iogenes’ ow n te x t, his origin al m an u scrip t, in th is b ad shape, or has
th e te x t d eteriorated du rin g th e transm ission: and if so, to w h a t extent?
D iogenes’ w ork is a com pilation of litera ry sources ran gin g over a
period of a b ou t goo years. I t lack s sty listic u n ity. I t is probable th a t
th e author w en t on m akin g insertions and ad din g m arginal notes until
he p a r tly spoiled his origin al arrangem ent. It is probable, too, th at
som e o f these ad ditions w ere rath er carelessly inserted in th e te x t,
either b y him self or b y the scribe w h o first copied his original m anuscript.
20 INGEMAR DÜRING
T h is m akes D iogen es’ w ork appear m ore d isord erly, not to sa y sloppier,
th a n it rea lly is. I t is h a b itu a l to sneer a t D iogenes as an insipid and
stu p id author, b u t h ow far can w e go in g iv in g him cred it for all ldnds
of negligence? Is he responsible for o b vio u sly erroneous readings like
(3) S evoxgart)(v), (17 ) negtdxovTOQ adgoQ, (20) ylXot;, (31) <piXoao<piac,
or for th e com plete disorder in p arag rap h 33? I f so, how old are these
errors? T h e te x ts w hich he ex cerp ted w ere of course not w ith o u t
te x tu a l errors, and w e m u st ex p ec t th a t he inherited m an y of these
an cien t errors, perhaps even w ith o u t n oticin g them . T h e assum ption
th a t h e w as stu p id is m a in ly based on th e epigram s w ith w hich h e has
adorned his work: th e y b e a t th e record in b ath o s and b ad taste. But
th is m an ifestatio n of in sip id ity does not giv e us th e rig h t to dismiss
him once and fo r all as an ign oran t ass. H e is a ch ild of his tim e; he
deserves to be lau ghed at, b u t he has u n d o u b ted ly collected for us a
m a terial w ith o u t w hich our know ledge of th e h isto ry of ancien t philo
sop h y w ou ld b e m u ch poorer; h e has traced and used som e excellen t
sources, and he h as p u t his m aterial in a to le ra b ly good order. He
should be com pared w ith m en like P h avorin u s, G ellius and A then aeus,
and n ot w ith w riters of distin gu ished excellence. H is w ork is a m otley.
A n editor of th e te x t of a com p ilation lik e D iogen es’ w ork can never
be sure w h eth er he is restoring th e au th or-com piler's original te x t, or
m a k in g it b ette r th a n or d ifferen t from the original.
S IG L A
B = N ea p o lita n u s I I I B 29, s. X I I .
P = P arisinus gr. 1759, s. X I I I ex.
F = L au ren tian u s 69.13, s. X I I I ex. ( = B y w a te r, M artini L)
0 = V a tica n u s gr. 96, s. X I I I
Co — C on stan tin opo litan u s V eteris Serail 48, s. X I V in.

Q = P arisin u s gr. 1758, s. X I V .
V = V a tica n u s gr. 1302, s. X I V .
W = V a tica n u s gr. 140. s. X I V .
w = consensus W h.
h = consensus H E I Y I h
H = L au ren tian u s 69.35, s. X IV 7.

E = P ala tin u s gr. 182, s. X V .
I = M arc. gr. 1030 (olim 394), s. X V .
Y = A n gelican u s 97, s. X V I .
Ib = B arh erinu s I 21 (olim 275), pars posterior ( = M artini F 2).
v = consensus udzm .
u = VU.
U = U rbin as gr. 108, s. X V .
d = D G S T E d itio A ldina.
D = N eap olitan u s I I I B 28, s. X V .
G = L au ren tian u s 69.28, s. X V .
S = P ala tin u s gr. 261, s. X V I .
T = U rbin as gr. 109, s. X V .
z = Z M atr K C X fr.
Z = L obkow icen sis V I , f. c. 38, s. X V .
M atr = M atritensis 4676, s. X V .
K = V indobonensis 59, s. X V .
C = C an tabrigien sis Coll. T rin ita tis 442 (R. 9.18.), s. X V .
X = V a tic a n u s R egin ae S u eciae 103, s. X V I .
fr = E d itio F ro ben ian a = Cod. A u rigalli.
m = M AN .
M M arcianus gr. 896 (olim 393), s. X I V .
A = A rund elianu s 531, s. X V .
N M onacensis 159, s, X V I .
v u lg = consensus w v.
pi plerique
Did. Didym os Kom m enlar zu Demosthenes, P ap . Berol. 9780. Ed.
H . D iels e t W . S ch u b art. (Berl. Klassikertexte I. Berlin 1904).
A th . = A th en aei Deipnosophistae, ed. K a ib e l 1887 — 90, G u lick 1927 — .
A P IZ TO TEA H Z
(1) ' AgiaxoxEXr^g Nixo/ud%av xa i &aioxidog Zxayeigixrjg. o Se N ixo -

!ia%oq, tfv and Nixofid%ov xov Maydnvog rov ’AoxX rjm ofi, xaOa cprjaiv
"Eg/im noq ev xcb IJ eqi 'AgioxoxeXovq- xa i ow Eplov 'A /ivvra rco M axs-
dovcov fiaotXei ( ev) iargov xa i tptXov xgetq. ovrog yvrjouoxaxog rchv
nXaxcovoq fiadtjrcbv, xgavXdq xr\v <pwvrp>, cbg cprjat Tifiodeog o ’ AOtjvalog
ev toi IJ eqi fiicov aXXa x a i io%voaxeXr)q, cpaotv, ijv xa i /iixgofi/Aaxog
t.adrjxi x ETtiar/fiqi ygihjihiiaq xa i daxxvXioiq xai xovqo.. so%e Se xa i
vtov Nixofiayôv s£ EgnvXXL&og t rjg naXXaxfjg, cog qirjoi Ti/xaioq.
(2) 'A n ea xi] Se IlXaxcuvog etc nEgiovrog- w o te tpaoiv exeivov eLueiv,
’ AgtaxoxeXrjg rjfiag ajiEXaxxiae, xaOajiEgel ra ncoXagia xogeaOevxa xrjv
fir jx e g a tp r jo i S' 'Eg/uisrJiag tv xolg Blotg oxi ngEaftevovTog avxov
iiQOq 0 tXm7iov vnEg A 8rjvaicav nyoXaoyijg iyevExo xfjg ev 'Axadrjfieiq
( 1) E r a y u g a : S t r a b o V I I /r. 33: . . . Icu; E r a y e lg o v , no?x(nz r o t ' A g u n o z e k o v q .

F r . 35: iv rw xoTjica n otiizy p e z a za>v 'A xa v B la iv h/xeva Z ’rd y ew a , egtj/iog, x a i
avzr/ Tfiiv X aX xidixcuv, ' A q io t o t e Xovq Tiara/;. |] yvtjauinaTOQ: D io n . H a l. E p . ad
P o m p , i , p . I I 226 U s e n e r - R a d e r m a c h e r . || r g a i'A o ;: V it a H e s y c h ii 1; P lu t . D e
aud. poet. 8; D e ad u l. el a m ico 9; H e ro d . I V 15 5 d e A r is t o t e le C y r e n e o : J ia ii
tox(v)6tpojvos x a i rgavXoq. | ia S fjr t im a rjfia >: A e l. V ar. hist. I l l 1 9 . || ’ E gnvXildoq\
T im a e u s F G r H is t 566 F . 15 7 ; H e r in ip p u s ap . A t h e n . X I I I 589 c; A ria to c le s ap.
E u s e b . P r a ep . ev. X V 2. ||
( 2 ) Il?.dra>voq ht n eg w v zo; : A e l. V ar. h isl. I V 9; A u g u s tin u s De civ. dei
V I I I 12 — J o h n S a lis b u r y P o lic r . V I I 6. alii; T h e o d o r e tu s Graec. a ff. cur.
I V 46 = T 39; P h ilo p o n u s I n A n a ly l. post., C I A G X I I I 3, p . 243.20 lo r o g e iz a i
(5e x a i Cc&ito; ro il I lk d z w v o q x a g r eg d iza za 7iEgi ro v ro v ro v d oyfiat o ; cvtrzrjvai
avzco rov ’ A g io z o zsA tp ’. || jim Xagia : A e l. V ar. hist. I V 9; H e lla d iu s a p . P h o t, in
B ib l. co d . 279, p . 533 b 15 B e k k e r îgeafitvovrat;: r e c tiu s P h ilo c h o ru s F G r H ist
328 F . 224. ||
( 1) <f.enri6uq B y a ia z ta d o s P v u lg . etpeartdöoi; F co rr. B u h le || /ia%alovoc B

(toxdwvoQ F || avreßico v || ( i v ) R ic h a r d s || [iaÖ tir&v : aöij.tp&v F || d a n te
Adrjvalog o m . z x a i a n te vlov om . z Ti/inioq: rifidOEog c o d d ., co rr. C. M u e ller
F H G I 2 11 ||
( 2 ) äjie/.rotTrjaF. B || r d a n te 7ttn?.df)i<i om . F C o su p p l. P 1 || noArigia B
xogeaÖEvra D ü r in g : y em irß n n a co d d . ]| x a i a d d . a n te "Eo p m n o c, F || n y o h ’w y o i
(sic) h II
30 INGEMAR DÜRING
oxoXrjz Sevoxgdryg- eXOovra dy avröv xai BeaaäfiEvov i n dXXco rrtv

eXeaOai neginarov tor ev Avxeico xai fiexgi fiev aXei/i/iarog
dvaxdpnrovra rote fiadrjxalq ov/u<piXoao<peiv, o6ev IJegmaTtjTixovg
ngooayogevdfjvar {oi 6' o n ex voaov neginarovvn ’AXefdvSgw av/inegi-
narütv dieXeyero a r m .) (3 ) ineidrj de nXeiovg iyivovro rjdT], exdßtoev
xai ein<hv
Aiaxgov aiconäv, Sevoxgaryv d' la v Xeyeiv
ngoQ deaiv aw eyvpvafr rovg fiaörjrdq, dfia xa i gyrogixatg in a o xü v .
eneira fievroi djirjge ngog 'E g p ia v rov £vvov%ov, ’Aragvecog ovra rvgav-
vov (7v oi fiev tpaai naidixd yr.verrOai avrov. o i S i xa i xydevaai avrw
dovra rrjv Qvyarega fj adeX<pidr}v, wg <pr\ai Arjfiiqroiog 6 Mayvqg b>
t o is IJegi ofiwvvfiajv notyrwv te xai avyyga<pecov ög xai dovXov
EvßovXov <pr)ai yevdodai rov 'Ro/Aav, ydvet BiBwov dvr a xai rov deo-
ndrrjv dveXovra. 'A g ia rm n o g 8' iv rcb rerdgrw IJegi naXacag rgwprjg
<pqaiv EgaaOfjvai rov 5AgiaroreXrjv naXXaxidog rov 'E gfiiov. (4 ) rov de
rrvyxwgrjaavroq lyrjfic t avrrjv xa i 06ve vntgyaigcnv roj yw aup, dg
' ABrjvaioi rfj ’EXevatvla Arj/iT)rgr raj re ' E g p iq naiäva iygaipev, Sg
ev S o v yeyganrat. evreidev re yeveoOat tv M axeöovlq nagä GiXinnoi
ä v a xä p m o Y T a n eg a ta T E iv : P lu t. A n seni ger. resp. 26 = D ic a e a r c h u s jr. 29 W e lirli. ||

( 3 ) a ia x e 6v x t L : C ic . D e or. I l l i 4 , ; p h ilo d . V ol. rhet. I I p. 50.21 S u d h a u s
c f T 3 1 — 32. II Jieoc d la t v : C ic . Or. X I V 46; D e fin . V 4, 10; D e or. I l l , 4 i; G a le n ’
I V 73 5 K . || o w e y v ft v a b : P h ilo d . Vol. rhet. I I p. 50.2 S u d h a u s . || ' E o p ta p : cf
T III. II evvovxov. T h e o p o m p u s ap. D id . = F G r H is t 1 1 5 P . 250 e t T h e o c r it u s
C h iu s ap. D io g . L a e r t . V 1 1 = D ie h l 4 8 (ex H e ro d . V I I I 104— 6), u o d e p o ste ri. ||
n a id ix d : h a e c e T h e o c r it o flu x is s e a u sp ico r, u n d e V it a H e s y c h ii, S u d a . E t y m .
M . II xrt& evaai- H e rm ip p u s a p . D id . = T 15 f. || d v y a x io a 17 dSekptfrjv : S tr a b o
X III 1, 57; c f T i g . || (SoüAon : T h e o p o m p u s ap. D id . = F G r H is t 1 1 5 P . 250
u n d e p o s te ri. || d v rto v xa : T e r tu ll. A polog et. 4 6 .15 = T 21 c. || i e a<rffjva, - A fa r ,
TQI : E u b u lid e s e t L y c o P y t h a g o r e u s a p . E u s e b . P r a ep . ev. X V 2, 722 a b = T 58 f
e t i, u n d e T h e o d o r e tu s Graec. aff. cur. V I I I 34 e t X I I 50 = T 64 b c. ||
( 4 ) £0t iE — y w a lq i : T im a e u s a p . P h ilo d In d . A c. H ere. S — F G r H is t 566
F. 158 b = T 5 1 a. II Tiatnva : H e rm ip p u s a p . A t h e n . X V 696 a = T 17.
7iq) : H e rm ip p u s ap. C ic. D e or. I l l 35, i 4 j = T 32 a. ||
: de u || v n t iU o F || TcegaianjrixovQ R e is k e : jte.Q u im rjjixov co d d . || aufineQuna

TÜV C o b e t : av p iu Q u o v R ic h a r d s av/inngtov c o d d . || ä r r a B P v u lg . p i. r a ih a z ||
^ ( 3) i y b o v r o ud || x a i I x a ß ia e v e b iü v c o d d ., co rr. R o e p e r ; exdOtjacv B z |[
z,f:voXQaTT)v : 'Ia o xg ä xrjv B u h le , e d ito re s p le r iq u e || x a i a n te nndz a d d . cod d.
p r a e t e r W || S/ia om . F || & v e l TerdgTio W ila m o w it z : n gd xcp B p 'v u l g . . om . F ||
( 4 ) ife v a tv tö i P v u lg . : il£ v a iV E la t B J|
x a l Xafislv fj.aQrjrrjv nag’ avxofl xov v'tov ’ AXeâvdgov, x a l alxfjaat

avaaxrjaat civTofi xrjv nargida xaxaoxa<pelaav vno iX!.nnov xa l rv/elv-
oIq x a l v 6(iovq Belvcu. aXXa x a l iv xfj axoXfj vofioBExelv /jijiovfievov
Esvoxgdxrjv, a,axe y.axa S ix a rj/iegag aqyovra ntue.lv.
'E neidrj 8 ’ iddxei intetxux; a irq i avyyeyevfjaBai ’ AXs^dvSga), anrjgev
eiq ’ ABrjvaq, avarrjaaq avrm rov avyyevfj KaXXiaBevrjv xov 'O X w Btov
( 5) Sv x a l naggr]aiaozixu)xegov XaXovvra r& fiaaiXei xa l /ht) neiBdfievov
nvxd) tpaaiv intnXtjâvxa elnElv-
(bxv/j.ogo$ <5rj fiat, xixo q , ia a ea i, o F ayogevetg.
xa l <5?) xal iyevEXo. dol-aq yag ' EgfioXacp avfi[t£xeo%rjXEvaL rrjq siq
’ AXi£av 8 gov emfiovXrjq iv atdrjga negtriyzro yaXsayga, (pBsigubv xa l
axdfiiaroq- x a l xiXoq Xeovri nagaflXrjBelq ovxco xaxeaxgeipev.
'O 6 ’ o$v 5A g taxor iXtjq iXBdiv siq r&q ’ ABrjvaq x a l rgla ngoq rolq
M xa rfjq oyoXrjq dqirjyrjad/nEvoq lxr\ vnei-fjXBev eiq XaXxtda, E vgvue-
dovxoq avxov rov legoydvrov 8 txtjv aaeêiaq ygayiafievov f) Arj/iotplXov,
tbq (prjai (frafiaiglvoq ev Ila v roS a jifj larogia, ineidy^neg rov vfivov in o ilj-
aev eiq rov ngoEiotj/ievov 'E g fiia v , ( 6 ) aXXa x a l iniygafi/ia i n i rov
ev A eXcpolq avdgiavxoq x o io ix o v
x o v 8 e n o r’ ov% oauaq nagafiaq fiaxagtov Biptv ayvijv

e x x e lv e v IJegatov xo!jo<p6 ga)v fiaatXevq,
ov (pavega X6y/rt tpoviotq iv ayd>ot xgarrfaaq,
aXX’ avdgoq niaret ^grjadfievoq doXtov.
avaarrjnai — xaxaoxaipE tm iv : c f T 27. || voftovQ Oetvat : V i t a S y r . I 7, l lu b a s h i r 27

c f P lu t . A d v . Colot. 32, 1 1 2 6 c E 6do£os Hi K vtdioig x a i ’ A g i a r o r i h ^ SzayEtpfcaiq,
nXdxtiwoQ ovteq ow t)6eiq, vofiovQ eygaipav = T 27 i. !i tv Trj axaXfj vo/ioBertiv :
In d . Iib r. 139; P in t. A d v . Colot. 32, 1 1 2 6 c = T 2 7 i; A tlie n . I 3 f. | x a x a d ix a
jj/idgaQ : c f Q u in t, In st. or. I 2, 24 tricesim u s dies. || KaXXia6£vt]V : T 28. |]
(5 ) TiagQTjOiaaTixwTeQov : A rr ia n u s I V 9 ,10 = T 28 e. ]| 6>xtfioooq — uyogevEtz :
II. 18, 95; c f D io g . L a e r t . V I 53. || negtijyero : A r r ia n u s I V 14, 1; T a t ia n u s
A d v . Gr. 2, M ig n e 6, p. 808 = T 28 d . || yaXtayga xaieoxgEyiev : S u d a s. v. K a ih -
o6£vr)s - T 28 h . || qidEtgidbv : P lu t . Vita Alex. 55 = T 28 c; S u d a . || Evgvfirfiov-
T05 : In d . Iibr. H e s y c h ii i8 g ; A t h e n . X V 6 97 a = T 45 a; M u b a sh ir 20. ||
(6 ) tov S e — S o lio v : H e rm ip p u a ap. D id . = T 1 5 g. |
AajSetf n a g ’ a v ro v fiaOtjrrjv B ||
(5 ) (paaiv : tpaal S i F || texoq om . u }\ Eocteai : eaaate B u HaaiE F |i (bxv-
fia)QG£ F 7, || x a l a n te €yh>eto om . u || doiaQ : defeat z || yaXaidyqa B P ||ila v -
TO&anfi iaroqLa oiti. F , su p p l. F * in te r col. || e n o U i F ||
(6 ) ixreiV E B 1 P 1 F, su p p l. in B F |] (paVEgqi D ie ls : <p <iv ] eqqq [Aoy]îj[c D id .
ipavEQtbz B P F v u lg . || tiL o tei i 7tEtOot O r th | <5oIMjqv v e l SoAlcoq z ||
32
INGEMAR DÜRING
E v x a v 6 a drt n m v axövirov ereh m rja ev , &g cprjotv E v M Xog iv xfj

ntVTtrri xcov Icrxogicov, ßtovg erV e ß d o ^ x o v x a . 6 d’ avxög <pr,mv avrov
xa t UXaxcovi xgiaxovxovrrjv cvarrjvai, d im tin raiv ßeßicoxe yäo xpia
fiev n o o g r o iq e tfx o v x a , nX dxiovt de b txaxaidexixrjg a w ia r t,. ' '
O 8 e v/ivog E%ei tovxov r ö v xqotiov
(7) A g exä TT.nXvfiayßt. yevei ßgoxeo>,
drjQafia xdXXiaxov ßitp,
aäg Tteoi, naqQeve, fioq<päg
x a l Qavelv fyXoixdg iv 'EXXädi noxpog
x a i ndvovg rXrjvai fiaXegovg äxdftavxag'
xoiov i m tpQEva ßdXXeig
xagnov loaOdvaxov %qvooti xe xqelooco
xa i yovecov fiaXaxavyqxoio 6 ’ vjtvov
oevd> h e x o i A iög, ’ HgaxXerjQ Arjöag xe xogoi,
noXX averXaoav igyotg adv äveinovxeg Övvaptv
aoig xe noBoig' 'AxiXevg A ta g t ’ 'A id a äo/iov tfXdov,
fiy.övtrov ex eo d em fo u t e V it a H e s y c h ii et Suda, cf T 46 a. I, EZunXoc
v Z T J v v ',m322 T "46 raehc 7 i it,,r iD Vita UaaiWae I2: Cf JaCoh>- phli-

156 a y Z ;? 7 ib<XV - ? Crm«566F
T 15 f; A t h e n . X V 6 * a = T ,J . J ? ~ *P- D id .
BBpnhe : F ev/iolog H z || xai a d d . a n te öl(mblT(üv d z

;op om. P fdy reta F || rot? o,n. u || imaxatdexivr,? « . -a. BP imaxaOtx&tr>
s e d a m l a c u t u a d d ltu m F -H r ,, u W a h n i hm f a w f t * ^ dz „
( ) y ei . evei A t h . A || ßgarecot D id . ßgoreLa B P v u lg A th ACE et)it
X tZ Z J > ßT D id - ßU° P C o F 11 A th A ßico aä re

Z , D, , l " " f* A th - E 11 ff“ ? B F ‘ “* v u lg . II rtre i B F 1
/ .J L d m T " ^ F A t h ' A " iv a n te A th . A || axa-
Morr» D id . a^ arov, A t h . A C E e p it. || zolov : xoiovrov F |, xag^ . L T0C
B Fp I Z
B P F w zm
TrleL Huvarw
K albd u d r
BeT*k‘ 11 WWyuTo*
d ö d ra ro »
A th A
’ ; ,»«1
n Bcrjjk* r f e i,
s t r v t i f < -'» - 4 » . m . us
Z T ä T .A t h - A 11 CT£fi A t h - A C E e p it . aoC ( B ) P F v u l e .
O ,W ■' ^ 1 CT£Z 01 W U a m o w itz : gvat ex C o (m certu m ) P bexa
e« v u lg . ytrn. 000 D id . ivexev o A t h . A ê-/ 0 A t h C E e o it
oi»i lir u n c k ,| Atö, : ,5£ loi D id . |, E id . A th ^ ^ “ g f '
V -u t m ^ o tF ^ 0l B P ^ A th . A C B e p lt
2 ^ t 7 5 Bl-!i T 5 r , 3 p^ 1 — ™ - ^ 4 ,"
T- M « n öo/ioti ' ö 7V ; ' P ,t ! D id - eo d d - ü
v u lg A t h A C E
g. A t h . A C E e p it ai[Sao/6oM]ovQ D id . ^|| ö6/jove
B l d W a°
fjXvÖov B o e c k h F || <■'" ?
(8) aâç <5’ ëvexsv tptAiov fiog<pâç 'ATagvéoç ëvrgotpoç âeAiov %7}çcooev
avydç.
Toiyàg àoiÔifiov ëgyotç âQàvazov t ê fiiv av&r]aovai Moïïaai,
M vafioavvaç dvyargeç, Aiàç Çevîov oéfiaç avÇovaai (piiiaç te yégaç
fÏEflaiov.
"E a ri S ovv x a l eîç tovtov rjficâv ovrcoç ëy ov
Evçv/isôœ v h ot ' e/meXXev ’ AgtaroréArjv àoeftEiaç

yçâyiaoBai A tjovç [ivotiôoç û>v nqônoAoç,
âAXà jtiùiv âx àv n o v vnéx<pvye- tovt âxoviTi
fjv à g a vtxfjani ovxoipâoEtç aôixovç.
( 9) Toütov jIqôjtov <Paf}a)QÏvoç èv Ila v T o ô a jif iarogia Aâyov <prjai

ôtxavLxov vnèg éavrov avyygdyiai èn œvtfj ravrj] rfj ôixt] x a l kéyeiv
ùiç 'Aôrjvr/Oiv
ôyyyrj èn ôyxvrj yrjgâaxet, otixov S i n i avxa>.
(8 ) MiXXatv Evgvfiéôcov n o t ’ ’ Agim oTdXrpi — â ô ixo v ç : A n th o l. p a l. V I I 10 7. ||

( 9 ) kâyov ôtxavtxov : A th e n . X V 6 97 a b = T 22; O rig e n e s Contra C els. I 380,
cf V I I 6g5 e t I I 399 = T 45 c. || oyyyri — a v x w : O d y s s. V I I 120 e t E u s t a t h iu s ad
Idc.; A e l. Var. h ist. I I I 36; E lia s I n Cat. p r , C I A G X V I I I i , p . 12 3 .2 9 ; fr . 667
R o se , c f V it a m M a rc . 4 1; T 4 4 .||
(8 ) ipd tov B 'P (in ra s., in c e rtu m ) F C o d z m A t h . A C E e t in p a ra p h r a s i, e p it.

(piAiavç B aw tpiAla u tptAtaç G 1 S T tpiX[tav] D id . ||x a i a d d . a n te ' A ra g v éo ç
A th . ACE e p it. || àragvéoç B P F D id . ss. ü)£ m . a. B âTagvéwç C o v n lg .
A t h . C E e p it. ihngrnvEoç A t h . A || cv tço tfo ç B F D id . A t h . A E e p it. hngm pov
P C o v u lg . |j jjXtov u t v id e t u r h a b u it p a p . D id . rjeXiov A t h . A C E e t in p a ra p h r a s i,
e p it. U x^Q-nfrev] D id . || a vy a ç B 1 avy â ç F C o A th . C E , e t in p a r a p h r a s i A C E ,
e p it. a vy â ç P v n lg ., D ie ls in D id . || r o tyag B t otyàg A t h . AE e p it. to yàg
m ut in n o i- P F zo ïy a g d n o ïy a ç C o w u z m [roi]yag D id . || àolôi/iov D id . A th .
ACE e p it. à olôiftoç B P F v u lg . |, àOâvnznv D id . A t h . A C E e p it. âQavcnot B P F
TUlg- Il filv '■W v A t h . A || av&rjaovai W ila m o w it z : a v ^ a a v a i co d d ., d e e s t in
p a p . D id . |l M vafioovvaç — fiepalov o m . e p it. fivrj/Aûavvijç A t h . A C E jiVTj/ioav-
[vaÇj D id . || QvyaTEgeç A t h . A C E || afiÇovaat m u t. m . a.in figÇovtfai F || x a i
a d d . a n te yégaç d rey a gaç A t h . A || fiefiaiov : P efla laç A t h A C E , d e e s t in p a p
D id . ||
otfo om . u || n o rè fiéXXrw P F w m fiéXXeiv u f ié le v d z || ygiiipunOm u d m |
ngàanoAoç d || fTvxoç>âvraç F trvxo<pavoEtç u avxa<pàvTEtç z j|
( 9) Xàyov (pijni S. m qrrfli om . B P C o W , p o s t avyygaipai p o s u it F , a d d . m . a. P
u n d e re c e p e ru n t w u <paoi d z || w ç o m . u || avxw F P J v u lg . : vtxrj B P C o Q W 0 ||
Côteb. U n iv . A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 -
34 INGEMAR DÜRING
&r]oi 8 A noUoSm gog h X govtxoiq yewrjdrjvai fiev avzov rq> ngoizut

fr e t zfjq qO oXvtxntd&oq, naoafinlF.lv 8e T1M t <»vi xa l Stargltpai nag
avz6v elxoatv frrj, inzaaatbexezy avazdvza. m dzrnvog bk zeXevzy-
aavzog zd, ngwzw fre t (r ijg grt oXvfintddog) in i GeoyiXov, ngng 'Eg/uav
djzagai xa l ftelvat err/ rgia- xa l elg T£ Mvzdr'jvrjv eXdelv i n ' agXOVIog
EvfiovXov zd, zezagzcp ezet zrjq ev SXvfintdSog. (10) in i ITvOodozov 6’
eXOelv ngoq <&ikinnov zd> Sevzegcp ezet zr,g gfj oXvjumddoq, ’AXeidvSgov
nevzexaidex err, r}6rj yeyovdzog. elg V 'AOrjvag a<ptxio6ai zd) Sevziga,
fre t zrjg gtd oXv/iniddog xal iv Avxeiw ayo?.daai frrj zgia ngog zolg
dixa. elz' gjia ga i elg XaXxlSa zd, zglzco fre t zijg gid 6XVfintddog, xal
- A x o M S w e o s : J a c o b y . P h i l. V n ters. X V I , ,9 0 2 . p . 3 1 6 - 3 3 9 ; T 1. || y s w r fir jv a ,:
D io n . H a l. E p . ad A m m . 5 iy c w r fir , S i x a zA to v q8 M v p m d S a A io x e £<povQ 'A6*vr>-
m v aezoV T o; , G e lliu s N o * , alt. X V I I » , 25 eoque ip so a n n o qui erat p o st recuperatam
urbem sep tim u s A n stn tclem p h ilo so p h u m n atum esse; V it a M a rc. 10 i n i Aiorqitpovq-.
V i t a H e s y c h i, 6 i y ^ B r , iv rrj q 8 di.v/m tdSi. || e lx o a iv h n : D io n . H a l E p . a d
A m m . 5 x e 6vov eixooaETtj = V it a M a rc. 5 e t n ; V i t a U s a ib ia e 3; V i t a v u lg 4
e t H r t a o ^ S c h o l. in A r is tid e m I I I p. 635 D in d o r f e lx o a t n g d s ro i< n h rre o u d ii-
a a i err, (xe er n pro x f r n re cte J a c o b y ) . || iit t a x a iS e x t t r j a v o r d v z a : D io n .
H a l. Ep. ad Am m . 5 i n i f l o h ^ X c v a o x ovroq . . . o x r a x a id ix a r o v i z o r £x(ov]
E u m e lu s ap. D io g . L a e r t . V 6 & r t a x a ^ E x i n j ; , S y n ce U u s p . 4 3 1 .I g d na i f h o v z ,
E u s e b iu s C a n o n , s. o l. 103.2: A r isto U U s X V I I I aetatis a n n u m Kerens P la to n is
au d ito r est. ||
( 10) n ev T exa tS cxa h r , : c f J u s tin . X I I ,6 ,8 tx a c la p u eritia per q u in q u en n iu m

sub A n s lo te le . . . c rev it. C i U s a ib . 6 e t 2 2 . || e k S ' ’ AO^vaq d ^ ixdadat : D io n . H a l. E p .
ad A m m . 5 i n ' E v a iv h o v dgXovToq atpuxofievot; e k 'A B rjva - i a x 6 \a tev iv A v xd a >
xeovov erw v Sw Sexa ; V it a H e s y c h ii 5 c r r) ly . || X a h tld a : S t r a b o X I , 1 1 . p. 488. II
a n a g a t — vaaoi : D io n . H a l. E p . ad A m m . 5 tb id g a ; e ls X a X xiS a v6aw r r jx tn f,
V i t a M a rc . 18, v u lg . 19. la t. 43, U s a ib . 8; T X I . j|
Mèv : ón ? W sed fièv P= Q o m . C o || a i ™ om . v || r ã n e d>TV è t ó d F ||
a n te e fl o m . z || n a g a v tã i S c a lig e r . e d ito r e s || im a x a iâ E x é r r j ss. -d- B

-£TJJ P W u d -drrj h z m ên raxalÒ E xa èttov F ê m à x a i Séxa ítcò v D ie ls || av-
azTtaavrojv z || m á x w v a ç . — àX vfim áSoç o m . W s u p p l. W 2 || < t rjs õrj ó/.vu-
m a S o ,) S ta b r || : r.lç P VUlg . || x n i s lç TÉ _ ^ ò lv ^ u íè ^ post av-
a ra v ra c o d d ., c o r r e x i m o n e n te S tah T || te d el. C o h e t ||
_ ( 10) nvÔoòojTov B nvOárov F || ^ ò f : d ç P v u lg . || ncvTzxaiÔ Ex fr r , ■i x a i
< t r ã v F , im m o s c rib e n d u m y x a i l h V || 'A ^ á v Ò Q a v - Ò À v ^ c á ó o ^ om z M ' ||
£‘ \ " , Ò" i(?lxé° 6al P ’ u ^ àBrp-aç 6' à v tx É cd a i dM= A N || à jzãoai d ç
X a te iô a ( x a i ) t q j tq Itu , . . . óXv/imáSoç [xai] T Ú .rm ija a i M o r a u x r e c te se d si
c o rrig e re D io g e n e m v is . s c rih e e h ' àjzd ga , e k X a A x íó a x a i r ete v r r jo a i tõ > tq Ito ,
XTÁ. II Ttjç Qiô : Ttjs ÔExázrjç x a i ixa T o a rrjç F ||

teXevt ijaai èrœv xgi&v nov xa't é£rjxovra vóaw, Sre x a l ArjfioaSévrp,
xaTaaxgexpai èv KaXavgía, ènl &iXoxXéovç.
AeyETai òè ôlà xrp> KaXXiadévovç tt.qòç ’ AXèÇavògov avaxaaiv ngoa-
xgovaai tõ > fiaaû.EÏ- xâxEÏvov èn l xw t oürov Xvnrjaai ’ AvaÇi/iévrjv /ièv
avÇrjaat, nèfixpai ôè x a l SEvoxgáxei òóion.
(11) ' Anèoxoiye. <5’ eiç avróv èm yçajufía x a l Q eó x g a o ç ó X lo ç ,

oíÍtmgi . Tiaiyaaç, ã ç y y m B qvoív èv x& Elegi O eoxq ítov
'E g fiío v evvovxov rjò' EvpovXov âfia ÒovXov

arj/xa xevóv xerófpgwv xeüÇev ’ AgiaxoxéXrjç.
àXXà xa l Tífxcjv avxov xaQrfxpaxo eh tw v
ovô ãg AgiaxoxeXovç elxatoavvtjç àXeyetvíjç.
K a i ovroç /ièv ó fiíoç rov <piAooó<pov. rj/uetç ôè x a l òiaôyxaiç a ir o v

negtExvXofiev, ovxm ízcúç èyovaaiç-
“E a x a i fièv ei- èàv ôé xt m,/j.(iaivrh ráòe ôiéBexo ' AgiaxoxéXrfç.
(1 a) 3E níxgonov fièv eivai návrcuv x a l òià navxóç ’ A v x m a xg o v

(1 2 ) Êœç d' SvN txàvœ g xa za X á fa , èmjucAeíaOm ’ Aqiaxofiêvnv, TífiagXov,
Innagxov, AiozéXrj, Qe/npgaaxm, èàv fiovArjxai x a l èvàéxrjxai avrm,
x&v te natòicov xa i EgnvXXíôoç x a l rãtv xaraXeXEtjufièvaiv.
Ar,MooOévVv : A u lu s GeU ius N o d . atl. X X I 35 e t 34 P o st aliqu a nto D e m e s n e s

vita fu n ctu s est; S u d a s. v. Ar)/ioo6êvi)<;. || n g o a x g o v a a i : P lu t . V ita A le x . 8 v tio tit o
t e QOV ëaXev. Il 'A v a itfié v r p — E e v o x ç á r e , : P lu t. V ita A le x . 8 t) n eg i 'A v á £ a ç x óv
re TIftp xai rà ize/i<p6êna S e v o x çœ te i n ev rtjxo v ra záX avra ; D io g . L a e r t . I V 8
'A A eià v ô g a v avyyùv àgyügtov âjuHrreU.avToç a v rã,. || ( 1 1 ) 'E g p ia v — ' A q u tz o tíX tiç
H e rm ip p u s a p . D id . 6 .4 6, B K T p . 27 = T .5 h; P lu t. D e e x ilic 10 603 c = T 65 b '
A n s t o c le s ap. E u s e b . P r a tp . ev. X V 2 = T 58 k , || o v ô ' - àXeyetvrjç ■F t 41
W a c h s m u th ; v e r su s e x H orn . V 701 d e to r tu s e st. || n eeiE rv Xo u n , c f D io g
L a e r t . I I g 7 ; V 6g. || ( 12 ) N otdviug : T 13 . ||
( â ir r a ) p o s t érw v a d d . B y w a t e r || ôè m u t. m . a. ia t e P || P a a à e i — ^ in
m a ig . F , u t v id e t u r m . p r. ]| 'A v d £ a o Xov p r o ’ Ava£i/iávrjv m a lu it A ld o b r a n d ín i alii
( 11 ) tm y g a/i/ia su p p r. B y w a te i || f a f a v D id . à r f o v a » co d d . ’ A ^ a v z o ç
Cohn II jjiT : t e xai D id ., A n s t o c le s ap. E u s e b iu m || â f t „ ■ró ô e D id ., A r i
s to c le s (I afjfia : f iv i^ a A n s t o c le s || xevotpgov E || revÇev : dfjxEV D id ., A risto c le a
ovô â,j in ras. in c e r tu m F || àçurroréXriç F d H ' -n ç ss. £, V u n d e -£ , U ||
a te y e iv jjç B â/^nyEvrjç u àXoyevrjç d ||
nEQiervxofiev B F cv€rvXoftrv p v u lg . || ôierlB ero F ||
( 12) "In n a g x a v : v n a g Xov d M a tr. K , om . Z C X f || ôtoreXrj B F || x a lô w v B *F II
êgnvÀalÔoç B F || 11
3& in g ë m a r d ü r in g
(b) K a l 5 xav &ga fj xfj natôí, èxôóoBai avrrtv Nixàvooi- èav ôè xfj
nai&i avfj.ßfj xt (ö /ir\ yévoixo ovôé écrcai) ngò xov yrj/xaaßai rj èneiôàv
yÿfirjxai, firjjtw naiôicov õvxcov, Nixàvüio xvgioç éarco xa i tteoí xoü
naiôíov xa i nsg i xcõv ãXXcov ôioixelv à£úoç xa i avxov xa i r/fiâv. èm/ie-
XetoÕai ôè Nixávmg xa i xrjç naiòòç xa i roti naiAòç N ixofiàôv, ôncoç
áv àgioi r à Tif.QL avTcbv, wç xa i nazi]Q ojv xa i âôeXipóç.
(c) 'E á v ôè ti ngóxsgov ovfißaivrj N ixávogi (6 firj yèvoizo) rj ngò
Tov Xaßf.lv xfjv n a lò a f) ÈnEiÔàv Xdßr), jirjnm naiôtcov òvrcov, èav fièv
XI èxeívoç xáÇr), xatixa xvgia èoxta.
( 13) (d ) ’Eàv ôè ßovXrjxai Geócpqaozoç f eivai /UEzà xfjç natôóç,
xaBdneg ngóç Ntxávoga• | ei Ai /urj, xovç èmxgónovç ßovkEvofievovg fiez'
’ Avxinázgov xai negi xrjç naiôóç xai negi xov naiôíov òiotxetv ontoç áv
avzolç ôoxfj àgtaxa eivai.
(e) ’ Em fieX eloBai ôè xovç Èmxgónovç xa i N ixávoga fivrjadèvxaç È/jlov
x a i 1EgnvXXíôoç, õ zi onovôaía negi è/xè èyévexo, xcòv xe ãXXoiv xa i
èàv ßovXrjxat ãvAga Xafißdveiv, õnojç ju?j àvaÇícoç ijftwv ôodfj. ôovvai
á’ avxfj ngóç xo iç ngóxegov ÒEÒofiévoiç x a i âgyvgíov xáXavxov èx xcàv
xazaXEXeififiévmv xa i Beganaívaç xgeíç (ã ç ) áv ßovXrjzai, xa i xrjv
naiAíaxrjv ttv ly ß i xa i n a lô a xòv Ilvg oalov. ( 1 4 ) x a i eàv fièv êv X aXxíôi
ßovXrjxai oIxeïv, xov £evã>va xov ngóç x ã xrjnat- èàv òè év Zza yeíg otç, xrjv
naxqwav o ix ía v ónoxégav ô’ ãv xovxaiv ßovXrjxai, xaxaoxEváoai xovç Èm
xgónovç axEVEOLV olç d r òoxfj xàxeívoiç xaXwç ê%eiv xa i ' EgnvXXlòi ixav&ç.
(2 a ) ’ EnifiEXeíaBo) ôè Nixávcog x a i Mvgfirjxoç xov naiôlov, ónmç àÇUoç
fjfióbv xoiç iòloiç ÈmxofiiaBij, avv xoiç vnáq%ovoiv ã EÍXrfí>afitn> avxov-
( 13 ) (e) ÓTi onovÔ ata : H e rm lp p u s ap. A th e n . X I I I 589 c è m / ie íe la ç rrjç ôeov-
arjç z£Tv%T]xevat = T 12 b . ||
( 14 ) év X a h t lò i o lx e lv : S t ia h o X 1 ,1 1 = T 46 b. || év E r a y e lg o iç o ix ía v : q u a m
e x h e r e d ita te T h e o p h ia s t u s p o ste a a c c e p it, D io g . L a e r t . V 52. ||
(I b) êxôóoO ai B P w u m ixô íô m a O a t (sic) F èxÔEÔóoõai d z |] avTTjv vetxávcuçt B

id e m se d v ix F arnfjvixávoQ i u avrrjvtxavogi D H || prônai : /ir) d /it)t e z ||
n a iô lo v : n atôà ç F || a v ro v : av xov c o d d .. co rr. H n e b n e r || (1 c) ov/ißaivjj P v u lg .
o v fiß a lv et B avfißair) (sic) F av/zßfj C o b e t || /.riß?) : Xdßot d z || fir/nru : /it]-
xért u II Tt : ro t B F u d z || r á i o i F |]
( 13 ) (1 d) @eòq>gaarov u d || f slv a t — N ix á v o g a f o ra tio v id e t u r t u r b a t a ||
ngóç om . F || ßovAofievovs F d 7. || n e g i a n te r o í n a iô ío v o m . P C o Q W a d d . P s ]|
n a iô lo v BW : n a iô ó ç P C o Q F v u lg . || ôoxfj : Ôo x e l F u || (1 e) é g n v la tô o ç F ||
FI ï r. : Èfiov F | âvaÇlw ç : âvàÇtoç P v u lg . àvaÇlq) C o b e t || ôeôo/ièvotç ôeofié-
v oiç u elQTj/ièvoK in m a rg . D , in t e x t u d || ( â ç ) a n te m> B y w a t e i eav F v u lg . ||
( 14 ) év a n te % a k ilö i o m . F , su p p l. in m a rg . || ßovX rjrai t o v k o v F || (2 a) âv
a d d . a n te à£laiç F * P v u lg . || énixofiurO fi u d z : em xoafii& jj B énixoaftrjOf} P C o F w m ||
(b) elvai ôè x a i 'A r fg a x t ô a ètevBégav, xa i ôoüvai avrfj <• . -> ôrav

r\ tea lç èxô oQjj, nsvraxoaiaç ôgaxfiàç x a i r fjv Ttatôioxrjv tfv l%Et ^
' (c) Ôovvai ‘ ôè x a l GaÀfj ngoç rfj n a iô ia xy f r h<*> w w j 0 £i<xtf
yiXiac. ôgaxfiàç xa l naiôtaxTjV
(15) (d) xa i Zifia» X™Qk ™ v ngoregov âgyvgiov avrœ elç naTÔ
â U o v (ôoBévroç) n na làa ngiaaBai rj âgyvgiov ôovvai. ^
(e) T d Xfova <5’ ÈXtvOegov elvai, Srav y n a lç èxôoOfj, xat 0 i2<ova
x a l ’ O iv u n to v xa i to Jiaiôiov a vrov■ , _
(f) u Ù tzM ôè rœv navôUov ftrjôêva rœv êfiè QsgcmevovTW, a M a f f l -
adai avrolQ- Srav ô' èv f jh x ia yévuvrat, èXevQégovç âyetvai xa z aÇiav.
( , a ) ’ E nw eX eîoB ai ôè x a l rwv êxôeôofiévwv eÎx 6vojv naga TgvXuova
ôncoç è m r e L o B e ïo a i âvartOœotv, n t e N ixdvogoç x a l r, IJgofrvov, Îjv
ôtevoovw v èxôotivat, xa i j rrjç f^ r g à , rfjç N ixdvogoç. xa i rrjv Agifivr,-
arov rrp> nenot-nfiévyv àvaOeîvai, fmcnç fivyfieiov avrov fj, Enciôt) Snaiç
ets Xevt r]OE'
( 16 ) (b) x a l <rrp>y rrjç M T g à ç r rjç y/isxégaç rfj A / ^ r g i àvadeîvai

elç NEfiéav rj ônov âv ôoxfj-
(c) Snov ô' âv noiœ vrai ryv ra<prjv, èvratida xa i Ta ü v B ia ô o , oar
âvsÀdvtaç Belvai, â an eg avri] n g o a ê r a ^ v ,
(d) âvaOEÏvai ôè xa i Nixâvoga oœdévra (fjv e i X^ v m g avrov q t * W > ]
Cwa Aldiva rergaJtnxV à d * ai ’ A9r>V* h I x a yt ^

Tovrov îaXovatv avrai ai ôiaQfjxai rov rgonov.
( 15 ) è M v é v œ v : c l D .m o s t h . X V I I I 122 . || ( 16) W Q<k : P l i « ! « H is t. nat.
X X X V 106
(2 b) à r f a a x à ô n B à r f ß a x lö a P v u lg . F * t a « « g . a ^ o a x tà a V || —
in d ic a t te s ta m e n tu m a p u d U s a ib ia m |] x * o n , F . s u p p l. s u p r a ||<2 c) & cm .
d z 11 ( 1 5 ) (2 d) x a i a iw - M t a i t n r b a t a v id e t n r o r a tio || oi/iCo B P F ^ u r n ntf^v
dz V fc - edd- « <ô°0é” ° 0 P ° st C a sa u to n u s poat SMov D u rm g ,
o r a tio t o t a t u r b a t a || eic * .« P ä M o v p o s t S o w a i m a lu it R e is k e *
ôovvai F II (2 e) T tîZûn-a fr ., e d d . o m n e s || O M ß m Xov M em e k e | (a f) ™ à la w
S y lb u r g I! O e é B e o a z || à ^ v a t B F II (3 a) h t M o p h a » F II V Q v M w a B P w z m
Jov! ud « fi J t : F * °“ , z H a n te s u p r a lm e a m P ||
d II avaO r> at B F || : a O ™ d || ( 1 6 ) (3 b ) < T ^ > C a s a u b o n ^ r „
A r,M n » C a s a u b o n u s r
(W u » T ea d * Il BF || B v ^ i a v P F v n lg . Il <3 c]I «
fr : d v ^ ra BP v u lg . à v a (eU v ta add. m . a.) Or.trac F || (3 <f) J
om n^ ev F BPz a^ vev W tu d m « aray^ K F «oy«««
B P v u lg . Il a u ra i om . u II a 2 s u p r a lin e a m F !
38 INGEMAR DÜRING
A é y sr a i ôè x a l Xojiáôaç avxov nXeíaxaç Evgrjodar x a l Avxcova Aéyeiv

d>ç èv TivéÀcp 6 eq/j.oí> èXaíov Xovoíro x a l rovXatov òu m aú olxo. êviot ôè
x a l ãaxíov Beçfiov èÀaíov ÈjimBévai avxòv r ã arofiáÔ) <paoí• xal ônáxE
xoi/uãro, ocpaígav yaAxrfv (íáXke.adni avx<b slç xatglav Xexúvtjç vnoxei/ié-
vi)ç, Iv êxneoovorjç xfjç acpaígaç elç xt)v Xexávtjvvnò xovipóyov èÇêygotxo.
( 17) ’ AvatpégExai ô ! elç avròv x a l àncxpBéyfiaxa xáXkiaxa xavrí.
èçctíxrjdeiç x í negiyíverat xégòoç z o lç yiEvôo/uévotç, "O xav, èiprj, Xéyawtv
âÀrjBeiav, firj ntareveadai. óvEiôtÇófievóç jiore S n novrjgcõ âvdgdjnq)
èXerjfioovvrjv èÔcoxev, O v xòv xgónov, elnev, âXkà ròv ãvOgomov rjXérjaa.
avvexèç eicóOet M ysiv ngóç xe xovç tpíÀovç x a l xovç yoixã v xa ç avxcb,
evO" âv x a l ônov ôtaxglfiitív èxv%ev, <hç f\ jxèv Sgaaiç ànò xov jiegiéxovxoç
Xa/ufiávEL xà <pãç, i\ ôè ipvx^ r ã v âBrjfiáxMV. noXXáxiç ôè xa l
âjtoxetvófiEVOÇ xovç ’ AOrjvaíovç êtpaaxEV evgyxévai nvgoiiç x a l vófiovç.
âXXà 3ivgolç fièv XQVCr@a l> vófMoiç ôè firj.
(18) Trjç TiatÔeíaç êq>rj xàç [ièv glÇaç e h a t m xg áç, ròv ôè xagnòv
AoJtáôaç : L y c o a p . A r is to c le n a p . E u s e b . P r a e p . ev. X V 2 = T 58 i, u n d e P lin iu s

H is t. nat. X X X V 162 = T 64 a e t T h e o d o r e t. Graec. a ff. cur. X I I 50— 5 1 =
T 6 4 c . || OEQfiov èXaíov : L y c o ap. A r is to c le n ap. E n s e b . P ra ep. ev. X V 2 =
T 58 i, unde T h e o d o r e tu s T 64 c. C f C e n so rin . D e die nat. 14, in fin e — T 50 c,
C e ls. D e m ed. I I 1 7 = T 64. |] orpalgav : haec de A le x a n d r o n a r r a t A m -
m ia n u s M a rc . X V I 5 ,4 (A lexa n der) aenea concha su p p o sita , btachio extra cubile
protento, p ila m ienebai argenteam , u t cu m nervorum vigorem sopor laxasset in fu su s,
g esta m in is la p si tin n itu s abrum peret som n um .
( 17 ) ròv ãvOgtonov : E th . N ic . V II I 11, 116 1 b 5 jJ fièv o ih ôovXoç o v x f.crn
<ptXia tiqòç a vróv, fí ô ' âvôgam oç. || S g a a iç — V VXV ■^ E lh . N ic . I 4, 10 96 b 29
túç Èv a á ifia n ôipiç, èv ymxfj vovç A le x . A p h i. I n M eta p h ., C I A G I . p. 580 .10 .
C f e tia m P r o tr . fr. 6 W a lz e r , p . 3 6 .18 — 2 1; fr. 9 W a lz e r , p . 42.6; M eta p h . I i ,
980 a 2 1 ; c f Tirn- 47 b c. || t ò qiwç : D e an. I I 7, 4 i g a 9 oiijf ÓQãxai ávcv <pa>-
T Ó ç .— vó/joiç ôè fiij, c f E th . N ic . V I I , 1 1 5 2 a 20— 24. ||
( 18) rfjç jtaiÔEÍaç — yXvxvv : H e rm o g e n e s P ro g y m n . 3 o lo v á ’ IfTaxQdrrjç èpr/rrn
r ijç jiaiÔEÍaç xijv /ièv QÍÇav Eivai m x g á v , zòv â i xa qn à v yXvxvv u n d e A p h th o n iu s
P rog ym n a sm . 3; c f d ic tu m P la to n ia t o i iç Trjç ágETijç xXãrvaç Iõqw ti x a l nóvoíç
(f>VEaBai T h e o n P ro g ym n . V 29; h o c d ic tu m a d M . C a to n e m ie f e r t D io m e d e s in A rte
gram m . )|
p o s t èv F a ss. vygãi || xa l — ô u m w X o lzo o m . F , a d d . m . a. in m a rg . || avròv F J

ai>r <5 F ‘ II «tç xatglav M o ia u x : eÍ ç tijv "/Fina c o d d . 0 || èxnEaoiaav u || èíéj/g»)To z |
( 17 ) ÒJiotpéçETai P wum àvaqiégErat — x a l o m . Z C X fr . | àXrjdEiav : áXjjÔij
C o b e t || ô éów xev z || ãv su p p r. B y w a t e r || ô n ov su p p r . R e is k e || à ig o ç a d d . p o s t
7iEQtè%ovroç B P v u lg . í> J] êtpaaxEV : ZXeyEV F ||
( 18 ) êqpr) o m . F || yXvxEtç Ôè roiiç x a g n o ii; P C o ss. -vv -àv P !Q yXvxvv ô i
rotíç xaQ7iovç ss. -òv W y X v x eíç ôè ravç xriQTimiç h yXvxvv ôè ròv xa gn ò v v ||
yXvxvv. igoixijQEtg x i yr]Q<iox£i xa xv , Xdgtg, E(pr\. igcoxrjOsig xi e o x iv
iXnig, 'Eygrjyogdxog, ebiEV, ivvnvtov. Aioyevovg la%dd" avtm di&ovxog

vorjaag öxi s i [ii\ Xdßot, %of.i.nv elr) fiE fje X s x r jX M g , Xaßotv e<prj Aioysvrjv
fiE ta xfjg xgsiag x a i xi]v ia%ada dnoXcaXEXEvaf n aXiv xe diöovxog Xaßwv
x a i iXETECüQiaag mg xä naiöta ebidiv xe M eyag Aioyivrjg, dnsÖMxsv
avTä). rgiMV icpi) Öelv natdeia, ipvaecug, /ladrjoecug, äoxrjOECog. axovaag
vno t ivog Xoiöogetadat, ’ A n d rea (ie, ä<pr], xa i /j,aoxiyovxa>. xö xdXXog
navxdg eXsysv intaxoXtov avaxaxixiuxsgov. ( 1 9 ) o i öe ovxco juev A toy evtjv
(paatv öglaaoQat, avxöv 6e ö&qov ein slv ev/iogepiav ZojxgaTqv Se
oXiyo/govtov xvgawida.’ UXdrMva ngoxsgrj/ia <pvoE(og' 0 Eoq>gaoxov
aicoTlMoav äjiatTjv 0 Eoxgtxov IXerfavrivr/v £rjfiiav Kagveadrjv aöogv-
(pagrjTOv ßaotXsiav. F.Qwxrßelg xivi dia(pdgovatv 01 nETiatdsvfiEvai xcuv
änatdevxcov, "Oaq>, eT
j ie v , ol £ & vxeq t &v xedvedixaiv. xrjv naibeiav
SXeyEv ev f i s v xalg e v x v%iaig elvm x o a / i o v , i v <5e xalg axv%iaig xa xa -
cpvyrjv. xcov yovecuv xovg naidsvaavxag evxifioxsgovg slvai xwv fidvov
ysw tjodvxtuv xovg fisv yag xo t ’fjv, xovg de xö xaXätg Cfjv n a a a a y / .n O a i.
X<igit; : J o h . C h ry s . I n E p . ad. C o l. I . p . X I 3 2 7 b M o n tfa u c o n zo v iplXov äv xaX Jajj,

flie g t i f j - ia n tg a g ^ X^qiq . || iXji'iQ — evvjiviov : a d P in d a r u m r e fe r t S to b a e u s
F lo r , io g .1 2 . ad P la to n e m A e l. V ar. hist. X I I I 29. || la x d ö a xzX. : c f D io g .
L a e rt. I I 118 . || tpvaecoi; /taBrjaecog ä a xi}aew ; : E th . N ie . X 10, 1 1 7 9 b 20 tpvatc
£005 6i8a%r) x a i ).6yos *= P o l. V I I 1 3 , 13 32 a 40, yvatc, eOo; Xoyog, c f P r o ta g .
B 3 D ie ls, u n d e h o c d ic tu m flu x is s e s u sp ic o r. {| rö xaXXo; : S t o b a e u s F lo r . Ö5,1 1;
P u h liliu s S y r u s Sen t. 16g form osa fa cies m uta com m endatio est. ||
( 19) Söjqov : c f S to b . F lo r . 6 5 ,1 2 öfbgrj/ia y iio io 5. ]| ol n enalöevfiE voi : a lite r
re s p o n d e n t C h ilo D io g . L a e r t . I 69 e t A r is t ip p u s I I 69. II rVjv naiößiav — x a r a -
ipvytjv : S to b a e u s A n th o l. I I 3 1 , p . 207 W a c h s m u th , n. 33 (ad A r is to te le m rela -
tu in ), p. 2 1 1 n. 58 (ad D e m o c ritu m ; re v e r a ia m A n t ip b o n s im ilite r D ie ls ' 87
B 60. M a x im u s, c . 17, p . 586. ‘ A g ia ro T eb jQ ra tg fisv nahm xd T iijjij, r au;
&e y iv xa t; o e x n n ib d a ; vo Cq xo o fio v x a i nr,(f,ah:iav || Ttbv y o v ia iv —
TiagaaxeoOai : c f F lu t . V ita A le x . C. 8 in fin e: £tjv — x a h u ; irjv-, T h e o n Progym n.

V 29 e t 32 (32 *I a o x q a n j; o gr/raip nagfjvEi r o te yvaigifioi; Tigozifiäv z & v yoviiov
■zoit; diäaoxdXovQ o t i o l fiev r o ü fijv fiavov, o l S e ötöäcrxaXoi x a i ro v xa fo o ; trfv
a l n o i yeyävnatv (32 t ö xa läic. £ijv n a g ea x o v r o ). ||
lq>t] : eItiev P |] ia x a S a ötöovro; avreö F || pf) : judv K ü h n || f.dßr} v 0 || x a i

a n te t/jv ia x a ä a o m ., s u p p l. in m a rg . F || 7,t ' P ■vulg. || fiETEiogijoa; B d z ||
nai&eLa : n a iö la F || tpvatw ; äaxtjaew i; //a 0*jff£cus W u || E raza hixa iT E gov F !|
( 19 ) ov zo j B y w a t e r : Toffro c o d d . || /jev (paai dioyfaqv F || zo v zo a d d . F a n te
(j&ttav p ro q u o ( 8 e o v ) a n te öibgov C o b e t || Ev/iogiplav M . C a sa u b o n u s : ev/ioßtplaQ
B P F v u lg . 0 || x lv i : tC u d || zeQvtjxoxciv P v u lg . || brci/n o rlg ov ; B F || ro ii5 61
zo xaA cö; £rjv o m . B , su p p l. m . a. in m a rg . ||
40 INGEMAR DÜRING
itgóç róv xavx<í>[i£vov wç òjiò /ie.yá).rjç nóXewç etrj, O v rovro, i(pr\í S e I

a xonelv, aÀX’ ôortç fisy á lrjç nargíÒoç ãÇtóç ècrriv. (20) ègwrrjÕEÍç r í
sa ri tpiXía, &prj, M ia y w x i ^vo a ó fia a iv èvoixovaa.
T â v (ò ") âvOgwnwv SXeyE rovç fièv ovtcü (peiÔecrQai cí>ç áei Crjoo-
flêvovç, zovç ò’ ovxojç ãvaXiaxeiv wç avrítca re 6 vr)$ofiévovç. ir.oòç róv
nvdófievov <5i à r í r o lç xaÀolç nokvv yoóvov ófiiXotifiev, TwpXoti, êipt],
ró ègwrrjfia. êgwrrjOEtç r í n o r' avr<p negiyáyovEV èx tptloaoyiaç, ècprj,
To àvem ráxrw ç noielv ã n v e ç òtà ròv òjiò r ã v vójucuv cpófiov noioüaiv.
ègcorrjôeíç n & ç âv ngoxÓTrcoiEV o i fiaQrjraí, êqirj, ’ E à v rovç ngoéxovraç
âtwxovreç rovç varsgoirvraç /irj âvafiévwai. ngòç róv ebióvra àòoMoxrjv,
ènetòi] jioTJ.à avr ov xarrjvrXrjaE, M ijri aov xarEcpXvágrjaa\ — M à A í ’ ,
elnsv, ov yág aoi ngoa£lXov. (2 1) ngòç ròv ainaaájie.vov wç eh j fíi)
âyaBw êgavov Ôeòcoxwç (<pégerai yàg xa i ovrwç) O v rw àvOgwnw,
tprjaív, êòw xa, àXXà rw ãvÔgwnívw. igcorrjOeíç nw ç r o lç (píXoiç ngoa-
tpegoífiEda, £<pr}, ’ S2 ç âv Ev£aifie8 a avrovç rjjj.lv ngoatpégeadai. rrjv
â tx a L o a v v r jv ètprj ã g e r r jv ywxyç d ta v E fir jr ix r jv r o v x a r ’ â Ç ia v . x á l k t a x o v
( 20 ) f iía y vxrj : c£ J o h . C h ry s . I n E p . T h ess. hom. I I , p . X I 438 c M o n tfa u c o n

*} VVXV x a i *5 xa g ô ia fila . || rotiç fièv ipeíâecrôat — zedvrjio/iévovç : L u c ia n u s , A n th .
p a l. X 26 ãiç xe6vt)£ó/íevoç tíü v amv áyaOojv àjióXave, tüç fiè. f}iwoó/icvoç <peIôeo
a(ov tcreávaiv; c f P lu t. D e eu p . div. 8, 5 2 7 a o v x áxotieiç ' A o ia to té X o v ç Xéyovtoç
ô t i o i ftèv ov xgã>vrat o i âè JiagaxQóõviai. || ivrpAov ró ÈgwtTjjia : S to b a e u s F lo r.
6 5 ,14 . ]| t ò dvem trberaiç n o ie iv : E ih . N ic . V I 1 1 , 1 1 4 3 a 8 1} tpgovrjotg è n ir a x -
Ttxjj — Pyotr. fr. 4 W a lz e r; c f E ih . N tc . V 9, 1 1 3 4 a 1 õixaioaOvrj è a r i xaO’ rjv
á ô lx a io ç )Jy£T(it tiq o x iix Ò ç x a r á n g o a íçea iv to íi S tx a ío v ; P lu t . D e virt. m orali
7, 44 6 e tó v E e v o x q ó to v ç káyov òv èxeív o ç e b te n e ç i tw v nlrjÔtitç qptAoaoyovvTaiv
ô n jióvov TtoutiSaiv íxovaU a ç (sua sponte, C ic e ro D e rep. I 3) â moiovaiv S xo vreç
o i Xouioi (5tà tóv vá/iov. |{ nrbç nv nçaxÓTtroiev : S to b a e u s A n th o l. I I 3 1 W a c h s -
m u th , p . 207, n. 30. || tiqò ç tóv àâokéaxTjV — xazeiplváQtjOa : P lu t . D e garruli-
tate 2, 503 a h a e c e t a lia d e A r is to te le ; c f S u d a s. v. xari]âoKéaxr)aa. ||
( 21 ) r & ãvdow jilvqí : S to b a e u s F lo r . 3 7,3 2 . || ôixaioavvTfv — x a x d f/a v : [A rist.]
D e virt. et v itiis 12 5 0 b 16 t ó ôiavEjirjTixóv ro v x a r ' â££av; T o p . 143 a 15 e£ív
Io q ttjto ç KoirjTíXTjV jj ôiave/irjTixrjv r o í la ov, 145 b 35 ôvnafiiç r o v iaov óiaie./ir]TOítj;
C ic e ro D e in v . I I lõ o iu s titia est ha bitu s a n im i suam cu iq u e tribuens dignitatem . ||
xa v xófiev o v B |; n ó fcca ç ettj o m . F su p p l. m . a. || ô e í o m . P v u lg . || ã a riç : ei
t is C o b e t ||
( 20 ) tpiUa R ic h a r d s : <plXoç B P F w u d m TiEQieyivEto F || ò ià Ttflv B 1, mut. in tóv |]
tóv vójiov F u || aÍTot! noU á F || xatTjVtTjoe B ||
( 21 ) âv p o s t yiãiç c o d d ., su p p r . R ic h a r d s || siQoo<fF.oó/if.6(i F || Itpi] p o s t n qoa-
<pégea6at tr a n s p . F || .
ARISTOTLE I N THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 41
êqioôtov t (h yr/oa t rjV 7iaiôeiav eAeye. (prjat ôè (PnßaiolvoQ èv tôj ôevtÉqoi

rœv ' Ano/j.vrjp.av£v^(haiv û j ; êxdaTore TJ.ye.i, qi tpiAot, ovâeiç tplAoç. âÀAà
x a i èv t ai ’ H B tx& v eßö 6p(u èaxi. x a l raiirn fièv siç avxov avayioexai.
Zwieygaipe ôè na/j.JiÀeïoTa ßtßAia 3 dxàAovBov rjyrjadfirjv vnoygaxpai
ôià T 7j v t z e q 'i ndvxaç Aôyovç rdvôgàç âgerrfv. (22)
I. ITegl ôtxaioavvTjç äßyd.

2. lie g t Ttoirjrâiv äßy.
3- lie g t (piAaaoqAaç äßy.
4- IloXtrixÔQ aß.
5- lie g t grjTogtxrjt; rj ToHAnç ä.
6. NrjgtvQog ä.
7- ZoqpiOTTjÇ ä.
8. MevéÇevoç ä.
rib H d ix & v ißö o /iw : E th . Eud. V I I 12, 12 4 5 b 20 nvfif Ic; (piôc qi noXXoi
<pikoi; c f E th . N ie . V I I I 4 1 1 5 6 b 2 5 — 32 e t I X 10. 1 1 7 1 a 1 5 — 17. ||
In d e x librorum .
1 C h r y s ip p u s F t. S t. Vet. I I 1 3 1 , p . 41; D e m e tr iu s D e eloc. 28 it> toic, ’ A g u rro re-

Aovg T J io i StuaLonvvrjq; C ic e ro D e rep. I l l 8 (A risto te le s) de ip sa iu stitia quattuor
im p lev it sane grandes libros, u n d e L a c t a n t iu s In st. diu. V 14 = f t . 85 R o se . ||
2 D io g . L a e r t . I l l 48; V I I I 57; V i t a M a rc. 4, v u lg . 3, la t. 4; c f n o ta m a d 83. ||
3 C ic e r o De nat. deor. I 13 A ristotelesque in tertio de p h ilo so p h ia libro. || 4
C ic e ro E p . ad Q u in t, ft. I l l 5 A risiotelem denique quae de repu blica et praestante
viro scribat ip s u m lo q u i; P s e u d o -E lia s I n P o r p h . Isag . com m ., co d . M o n a ce n sis
399 f. 19 3 11 ( C I A G X V I I I 2 su p p l. p r a e f. B u sse , p . X X I I ) tygaipe ya# ix a re q o q
x q l H o A n u eo v xa't I I o ) it£ üiv, xcti £v fiev ztJb UoXtTixcb tö v q v tq v e ^ o m i (Txo7iovt
i v Se Tjj T l o l t r t l q Staipw voiaiv. || 5 Q u in tila n u s In st. or. I I 1 7 , 14 A risto teles . . .
in Gryto. ]| 6 T h e m is tiu s Or. 33, p. 356 D in d o r f = jr. 64 R o s e o ' Agurrort:Xt]Q
TCÖ Stakoyqi xd> KogivQlm . || 7 D io g . L a e r t . V I I I 5 7; I X 25. ]|
iv ß tw v F || Xeyet B11 : Aeyoi c e te ri, e d ito re s || tu co d d ., co rr. B* e t C a sa u -

b o n u s ]| iv Xfp 'H O ocw v ißSo/iq) D ü r in g : £v tö > tjOixoi ram eßdd/iwv B F w u z m
ev TMV rjQixätv Ttb £ßäo/im F 1 c t t<® rjdtxd> rat ißäö/im F J h rq> Cqj riTiv ij 0t-
xw v d || nvveyoatpr. Se. ß iß X ia n o U a d F || <2 om . B , ss. m . a. d jieg q u o d AJdo-
b ra n d in i in t e x t u m r e c e p it || vnoygatpat om . F , su p p l. in m a rg . ajioygaxpai z ||
I n d e x librorum :
4 n o h r ix o i c o d d ,, correxi jieqi add. F || 5 jj o m . P v u lg . p i. yqvTioq B

yqvAAos P yQiiM.01; F || 6 in W V H D v e s tig ia o m issio n ia t i t . 6— 9 in a rc h e ty p o ;
t it . 6— 7 o m . B a d d . in m a rg .; t it . 6— 9 t u r b a v it F ; t it . 8— 10 om . H a d d . in
m a rg .; t i t . 7 — 9 o ra . W D a d d . in m a rg .; t it . 9 b is P u m |
42 INGEM AR DURING
9- ’E q co tix o c A.
10. E vfinoaiov a.
11. I I e q I nXom ov a.
12. IlgOTQETlTtXOC; d .
13- IJegl yvxijq A.

M- I J e q i £v%7
j<; a.
iS - 11£ul EvyeveiaQ a.
16. IJegl rjfiovf]Q a.
17- 'AXegavdgoQ t] 1meg ajzoixi&v a.
18. IJegl fSaaiAEiac; d .
19. IJ eqI naideiag a.
20. U eg i t ayaOov d/Sy.
21. T a £x rcbv Noficov nXaTcovoQ dfiy.

22. Ta ex , rrjQ I l o for slag aft.
23- Olxovo/iixnQ a .
24- IlE gl (ptXiag a.
25- I J e q i to v 7ida%Eiv ij jienovdevai a.
9 A r i s t o C e u s a p . A th e n . X V 674 b = fr . 95 R o s e (u b i p r im u m iv SEvregqi ig co tixw v

e rro re m s c r ib a e esse su sp ic o r). | 10 A t h e n . X V 6 7 4 ! 'AgtmoTE^Tjg ev to j S v fin o -
OUp. || 12 T e le s a p . S t o b a e u m I V p . 7 8 5 .15 H e n se = fr. 1 W a lz e r = fr. 50 R o se;
C ic e r o D e fin . V 4 atque de h is rebus ( v it a c o n te m p la tiv a ) el sp len d id a est eorum
et illu s tr is oralio. || 13 C ic e r o D e div. I 25; P lu t . D io n 1 1 E u d m io s e l j ov ’ A g t-
crrnTF./ru; ajtoSavovra to v I ls g t lpvyj]~ diaXoyov in o lrja e. || 14 S im p lic iu s I n D e catlo,
C IA G V II p. 485.20 = V i t a la t. 52. |] 15 P lu t . A r is tid e s 27 e i drj t o y e I le g i
evyeveiag fiipXlov ev ro ig yvtjatois ’ AgiO TO ie'Aovi 8 eteov. || 16 c f D io g . L a e r t . in
in d . lib ro r u m T h e o p h r a s t i V 44 J le g i ^Sovijg <!>g 'AgiozoTEXovg. || 1 7 — 18 c f C ic.
E p . ad A lt. X I I 40 e t X I I I 28; V i t a M a rc. 2 1, v u lg . 22, la t . 2 1. || 19 D io g . L a e r t .
I X 5 3 ’ AgiotOTE^tjs iv t o j IJEgl TiatSeiag. || 20 A le x a n d e r A p h r . I n M eta p h . A
p a s s im = fr. 28 R o se ; V i t a M a rc . 32, la t . 33 a. || 21 C f in d . lib r. P to le m a e i a p .
U s a ib ia m n. 16 b. | 22 C f in d . lib r . P t o le m a e i a p . U s a ib ia m n . 16 e t e p ito m e n
T h e o p h r a s t i in in d ic e e iu s lib r o r u m V 43. || 23 O ly m p io d o r u s P r o l. et in C a t.,
C IA G X I I 1, p . 7 .3 6 o ix o v o ftixa de wcmEg o O ixavo/iixog a v t o i , y ey qairra i ydg
ain<b O I xgvo /jix o z u n d e E lia s , C I A G X V I I I 1, p . 1 16 .2 3 . || 24 A n u lla se rip to re
a ffe r tu r . || 25 P la n e ig n o tu s. ||
14 cv x& v F || 16 d o m . F ]| 1 7 a jio ix u a v B y w a t e r : ajioixcov co d d . || 20 jie g i

t o v ayaOov u || 23 olxovo/tlat; B F olxavo/itxwt; li ( J ltg i) oMOvoplag R o s e |
24 <pi.Xafla<fiti' h a o m . PF v n lg . ||
A R IS T O T L E I N T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 43
26. I le g l èntm rju& v a.
27. T fe ç i EQiozixcbv aß.
28. A v a e iç ègiarixai 6.
2 g. A ia içéa eiç ocxpioTtxai 6.
30 . U eq I èvavriaiv ä.
31. TI eqï eiô&v y.ai ycvwv â.
32. I Î e q I iô ic o v â. (23)
33. 'Yno/j,vr)[i,aTa im%EtQi]Ti)cà y.
34. IJqordaEiç tieqI âQErrjç äß.

35. 3E votöoeiq â.
36. TI eq I tôjv naaaym ç Xeyo/iévuiv rj x a r à ngoodsoiv â.
3 7 a. I I eqI nadœv â.
3 7 b . (ÜEQÎy Sgyfjç â.
38. 5H d ix & v äßyöe.
3g. TJeqI aToiyeicüv äßy.

40. 'Y n è g êntOTr)[ir)ç â.
2 6 ~ Â ~ n u ïlo ^ scrip to re a ffe r tu r . || 2 7 V id e t u r esse lib e r in t it . L o y io r ix w v ëXeyx01-

se d m e r a c o n ie c tu ra e st. || 28— 29 C f D io g . L a e r t . V 2 g. ]| 30 A le x a n d e r A p h r . I n
M eta p h . 1004 a 2. C I A G I, p . 2 5 0 .17 àvcm é/met Tj/iac, . . . eîç tijv 'E x lo y r jv t w v
êvavrlw v, tuç lô ia n eg i io v z îû v ngayfiaTEvadfievoQ. || 3 1— 32 C f T o p . I V i , 120 b

12 /lEzà r a v r a n eg i rcâv n gà c tà yévo; x a i rà ïôtov È ï i m r i o i ; 31 = T o p . I V ;
32 = T o p . V . Il 33 D e mem. 4 5 1 a 19 èv r o îç È m x e ig t}fta n x o îç Aôyaiç e t R o s s ad
lo cu m ; c f T o p . 10 1 a 29— 30. || 34 C f D io g. L a e r t . V 29 ngoTaaeœ v nArjÔoç; I n d .
lib r. P to le m a e i ap. TJaaibiam n. 84— 85. || 35 C f A n a l. py. I I 26, 69 a 3 7 êvoxarJLÇ
(5’ itr c l n çÜ Ta oiz n g o rd a ei èvavrla. || 36 = M eta p h . A , ab ip s o A r is to te le sa e p e
su b t it u lo I Ie q I r o i n o a a Xcôç c it a tu r , e. g. 1028 a 4— 1 1 . || 3 7 a C f E th . N ie . I I 4,
110 5 b 21 Aéyto èà TidÔT] fièv èjuBv/aIov ôgyi)V (poßov dgdijoç ipiïovnv j'agàv tpû.ltiv
fiïo o ç noBov ZfjAov êAeov, 5).«k o is e n c r a i rjôovij i\ Xvnr). || 3 7 b C f e x c e r p t a e lib ro
S en ecae De ira = fr. 80 R o se ; fr. 96 e t 9 7 R o s e = T 6 7 e. || 38 P o t e s t esse
e d itio E th ica e E u dem ea e, sin e lib ris A E Z e t c u ra lib ro H in d u o s lib ro s {1— -5, 6— -15)
d istrib u te), sed m e r a c o n ie c tu r a e st. || 39 C ita tu r êv r o ï.ç n sgi ciTQiyeirjiV D e an. 423 b 29
e t D é sensu 441 b 12. se d n u m p r o t it u lo lib r i a c c ip ie n d u m s it a d m o d u m e s t d u b iu m .
40 H u n e lib ru m e u n d e m esse a tq u e M eta p h . I* te m e re c o n ie c e ru n t v ir i d o c ti. ||
2 7 n eg i ègm rixûiv F u d , in m a rg . m . a. yg. Ègiozixâtv F || 28 è g a c n ix a i u d ||

2 g aotp ia ztxàç F z || 31 eiämv F ! rjâovwv F 1 â om . B P F v || 33 in iX E ig rß txa
BPwum , ss. m . a. fia - B è n tXEiQi}fiaTliià F ê m y v g ir ix à h È m xeig iT ixà d
èntxEtQWTtxofi z II 34 n g o z d a iç ss. m . a. ei B ä ß y z || 35 E vozaaiç P v u lg . ||

36 ngàÔeoiv FDz â : e 11 || 37 ab n eg i nadeöv Sgy ij; ä c o d d ., c o rr e x i IÏE gl
naBw v <»3 n e g i) àgyrjq R o s e TJegl ndB ovç d gyijç I n d . H e s y c h . 30 ]| 38 ä ß y ö

F 5P v u lg . II 40 vnèg : n eg i F ||
IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
44
41. I le g l âg%rjç «■
42. A ia ig èoeiç t£.
43. AiatçETixâtv â.
44. ( J J eqi) êgri)Ttj(Tecuç x a i ôaioxgiaEùiç dfi.
— 46. IJgoTdaEiç m.gt xivyaeoQ â.
47. UgaxdaEiç, ègtartxal â.
48. EvXXoyiaîoï â.
49. IJooT£Q(t>v àvafoftixüiv âf}ySeçÇriO.
50. 5AvaXvrixœv vatégcov [isyâXojv àfi.
51. TIfqÏ ngofiXrjfidrojv â.
52. MeOoôixà àjîyôeçÇr).
53. IJ e çi rov fleittovn ç â.
54. IJ eq 'i t r\ç lôéaç â.
55a. "O goi 7tgà xôiv Tomxôiv â.
55b. <Tonixœ v S)fiyÔEçÇ.
56. ZvXXoytafiüyv à fi.
57. EvXXoyiaxixov x a l âgoi â. ( 2 4 )
58. IJegi to v aîgezoû xa i t oü avfifiEfirjxoToi; â.
41 P la n e ig n o tu s . || 42 C f a l y c y g a / ifth a i ô ta w èa ziz aed u t r u m P la to n is an co m m u n e

A c a d e m ia e b o m im , in c e rtu m ; D io g . L a e r t . I I I 80 (P la te ) Ô tfa ti ôé, <pr,oiv 'A g u t z o -
tM ijç - e t c f A le x . A p h r . a p u d P h ilo p . l u D e gêner, et corr., C I A G X I V 2, p . 2 2 6 .18 . ||
44 A le x a n d e r A p h r . I n T o p . p r .. C I A G 11 1 . p . 5 2 0 . 5 - 8 àÇ to vo l tiw>£ hiiy g ri-
tpeiv t à pifiM ov TO&TO I le g l içcoTrjaccoç x a i dn o x g la co iç, àM .oi â i I l t ÿ i rdieo> ç x a l
à jio xg la eœ ç. I! 45 — 48 I g n o t i. Il 49 = E d it io v e t u s t a in q u a A n . pr. in n o ve m
lib r e s d is t i ib u t a e r a n t, q u o ru m sin g u li 5— 6 p a g in a s B e k k e r i c e p e ru n t. || 50 — A n .
post. c o r p o r is n o stri. |] 5 1 I g n o tu s . || 52 R h et. 1 3 5 6 b 19 xaQ A ntg b - z o îç M eôo-
ô ix o ïç ( = T o p ica ) eîgrjzat, c i in fr a V 29; T o p . I i , 100 a 18 21 ^ fiiv ngoOeaiç
tijî n ç a y fia T tla ç fiéBoôov nvgeîv. || 53 I g n o t u s . || 54 N u m id e m s it a tq u e lib e r
I J eq 'î lôediv a b A le x a n d r o a liisq u e c it a tu s . v a ld e d u b iu m e st. || 55 a = T o p . I . ||
55 b C lc e ro T o p ic . 1 in c id is ti Trebati in A risto telis T o p ic a quaedam quae sunt
ab illo p lu r ib u s Ubris exp lica ia . ]| 5 b — 57 I g n o t i. || 58 = Top. I I I I I , c f I I 7.
113 a 20 e t I I I 6, 120 b 7 — 8. ||
73 Ô Laigetixov R o s e 11 44 </ 7eoi> R o s e || 45— 46 I l t ç l xtvrÊCüç â . n g o z â o e iç â

c o d d ., c o r r e x i || 47 7to8orixa c o rr . in cûO ffrixai(aic) B è£agi<TTixai in m a rg . m . a.
yg. è g u n ix a l F E v g u rttx a l W a ig e ( o ) r ix a i h || d : â P v u lg . || 48 av U o yu r/iôç F ||
49 0 su p p r. C o b e t || 52 fie6oSixd)V R o s e || 55 a 7tgô rœ v fr.: ngcuTwv B F d ngm zov

Pwum z I 55 b (roTiotdiv d> e x H e s y c h lo J a e g e r || 57 ervU oy iarixw v F h o M o y i-
xàv z T avX A oyicm x& v Sgcav Ttid. H e s y c h . 55 || 58 i p f x o i B aig erexov d || 58
— 59 c m . F , s u p p l. in m a rg . in f. m . a. ||
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 45
59 - Tà tcqò rtúv rónatv ã.

60. Tom xãv j iq ò ç tovç Sqovç aß.
6 1. n á d t] ã.
62. A ia tQ E T tx ò v ã.
63- MaQrjfiaxixòv â.
64. ' Ogia/xol ty .
65- 1E m % e iQ r ]{ iá T a )v nß.
66 -6 7 . IJgoráaEtç t ie q i y ô o v r jç ã.
68. TI eqí êxovaíov ã.

69. IJ eqí x a lo ti ã.
70. O èaeiç £7ii'/ E ip r jT ix a i x e .
71 - 0 ÉdELÇ ê g tü T ix a l ô.
72. 0 é o E iç c p iX ix a l ß .
73- &EOEIÇ JlEQl yv%rjç ã.
74 - I J o h t tx à ß .
75 . IJ o h r ix rjç àxQoáoea>; mç iq Oeotpoáarov äßyÖEgCr/.
59 S im p lic iu s I n C a t., C 1A G V I I I , p . 379-8— 12 ztvèç ftèv y à ç ã>v x a i ’ A v ô çá v ixá ç

èo ztv n a g à zijv nQÓdeatv z o v fhfiXlov TT.gooxF.laflal cpaaiv vná zivo ç z a in a zoti t ò z& v
KatTjyoQicõv fh p ito v I lg n tÆ v zónoyu èniyorítpavToç, o v x ivvoovrreç o v zo i 71Óot]v x e Eâv
ov z fj T o m x jj J in a y p a rríq fiávov âXXà x a i zãt jieq í z & v xazrjyogiw v j.áyqi eía á y ei z à
eÍQr\[ibia. D e h a c re m a g n a d isse n sio in te r c o m m e n ta to r e s d e q u a u b e riu s M o ra u x
d o c e t, L is te s an cien nes p p . 58— 64. P r o x im u m v e r o v id e t u r q u o d a ffe r t A le x a n d e r
A p h r . I n T o p ., C I A G I I 1 , p . 5 .2 7 á £ io v a í ziv eç rô mgcotov fiifiXtov (sc. T o p ico ru m )
fiij T o m x ó v , ci) 7â IIq<\ tcúv zó n w v èiziygátpicaOai. || 60 = T o p . V I I — V I I I ; in c. 139 a
24 z ijç ôk ne.Qi zo v ç õgovç n g a y fia z ela ç , e x p l. 1 5 1 b 24 z à / j h ovv n eg i zo vç ÔQia/tovç
í i t i zoaoú zov EÍQr]aQo). || 6 1 — 64 I g n o t i. || 65 C f. n . 33 e t A le x . A p h r . I n T o p ., C I A G
I I 2, p . 2 7 .1 7 x a i i a z i ò i pifíXía zo ia & za ' A g ia zo zéX o v ç te x a i &£o<pgáazot> yeyga/x/iêva
êx o v r a rrjv eiç zà âvzixel/teva 6t ivôóÇw v imxEÍQFjaiv. || 66— 6 g C f in d . lib r.
P to le m a e i a p . U s a ib ia m 84— 85; in fr a V 29 ngozáaecov jiAijÔoç, ]| 70 C f n. 33 e t
65; A le x . A p h r . I n T o p ., C I A G I I . p. 5 4 1 .9 r d JigofiArjfiaza ã x a i Ô iaetç èa ziv
êÔoç avTãt léyzLV. || 7 o — 73 C f in d . lib r. P to le m a e i a p . U s a ib ia m 64. ]| 74 E n n d e m
esse a tq u e lib r u m tifo l n o X m la ç ágíazrjç, i. e. P o l. H 0 , su sp ic o r. || 75 P o litica
c o rp o ris n o stri. ||
59 tiqò ztbv : ngá) zatv 131, co rr. m . a. || 60 zo m x à v d z m || 66 rfôovã)v F || 66— 67

7iegl rjôovfjç ã. n g o zá a etç ã c o d d ., c o r r e x i || 70 (ta ss. m . a. B È m xetQ fl/tazixat F
èmXEiQTjZixal w u z m -tztx a i d || 7 1 o m . P v u lg . || 74 ( d é o e tç ) J to X tzix a (í) R o se ||
75 6 a d d . F , e ra su m ||
46 INGEMAR DÜH1NG
76. íle g i ôtxaúov ãf}.
77- Te%vã>v avvaycüyr) ãf).

78. TéyyriQ grjzogixrjç ãf).
79- Téyyi] ã.
80. “A X lrj zê%vr) ãf).
81. Medoôixàv ã.
82. Tkyyyc, t fjç Ô eoòéxxov awaycoyrjç ã.
83. TJnny/j.mf.i.a T£%vr)ç 7ioir]ZLxfj~ ãf).

84 . ’ Evdv/irifiaza gyroqixa ã.
85. FFsgi /jtEyédovç ã.
86. 5Evdv/iTj/idzajv ôiatQÉOEtç ã.
87. IJ eqi XéÇecoç ãf). ( 2 5 )
88. TTf.ol ovfifiovXíaç ã.
89. Evvayatyi)<; ãf).
90. I l e ç l qivaecoç ãf)y.
76 Q u id t it u lu s s ig n ific e t a p p a r e t e P o l. I I I i , 12 7 5 a 8 o l ô ix a lw v (íe t ^ o v t e ç
rjõrj n o A ir a i. | 77 C ic ero D e or. I I 38, 160 A risto telem cu iu s et illu m legi librum
in quo ex p o s u it d icend i artes o m n iu m su p erio ru m ( v id e 78); D e in v . I I 2 veteres
scriptores artis d icen d i u n u tn in locum co n d u xit A r istó tele s; c f P h ilo d e m u m in Vol.
rhet. I I p. 361 S u d h a u s . ]| 78 = R h et. I — I I ; C ic e ro D e or. I I 38, 160 ( v id e 77) et
illo s in q u ib u s ip s e su a quaedam de eadem arte d ix it. || 79— 81 N ih il p ro c e r to d e h is
a ffe rri p o te s t. || 82 E p it o m e a r tis r h e to r ic a e T h e o d e c tis , c f V a l. M a x V I I I 14,3. ||
83 V i t a M a rc. 4 t ò rrroi n o ttjT ixijç civyyna/i/ja V i t a la t. 4 de poetica tractatus; V it a
v u lg . 3 r d yey ga fifiá va nvrãi negt jio itjtísíjjs ; c f q u a e a ffe r t G u a r in u s V e r o n e n sis in
su a V i t a A r is to te lis : quae de elocutione poetarum libro u n o et quae de p o etis libris
tribus ei quae de iragoediis libro uno, q u a e u n d e h a u s e r it n e sc io . || 84— 85 I g n o ti. ||
86 E n n d e rn esse a tq u e R het. I I 22— 24 co n icio . || 87 = R het. I l l , cf. 1403 b
15 n tQ i ôè xfjQ AíÇecaç é^ófieràv ia z iv eb ielv . || 88— 8g I g n o ti. || 90 = P h y s. I I
— I V , c f S im p lic . I n P h y s ., C l A G X , p . 923.8 r d fièv n b rce fltfiAía t ò tiqò ro vro v
& v a tx d xaAotioiv, r d ò è èvzetítev T.0Ü1 T h ljt xivtjoEüiç- ovzco yàg x a l ’ A v â gá vixo£ ív
xô) tq Ito ) rã>v 'AgearoTÈAovç j}if}Aúüv h ia r d r r s r a i, /la g r v g o tv ro i n e g i t wv 7igd>rwv
x a l &Eo<pgáaTov ygáipavroç E vòrjjiov 71roí- rtvoç avT(p TQJV 7jLiíiOT7]/iF.i oil' àvziygátpajv
x a r à rà né/xnrov pifiAlov. C f R o ss , A r is to tle 's P h y s ic s , O x fo r d 1936, p . 4. ||
77 o w ay m y rjç R o s e || 80 ãÀArj XEjfyãv a w a y a ty fj ãf) P âÀAijç TCyyfnv awayíayrjç, âfi

R o s e || 82 rêyVTj' tiov Q eo Ôíx t o v aw aycnyrj ã F sía a y w y ijç '/ || 83 ngayfiaTEÍa
Cobet n ga yfiaT E ia i m u t. m . a. in -eía i B -e la i P w u m h T -EÍat F G S -ía ç 2 ||
84 d om . P v u lg . || 86 a lg ê a tiç B || 88 ov/*f)o(v)AEtaç B z || 8g p o s t go p o s u it F
aw a y ca y ij F ||
A R IS T O T L E I N T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 47.
9 1- &V O IX O V <3.
92. lie g t xfjç ’ A g y jr t e.iov (pikoaotptaç äßy.
93- IJ eoi xfjç E neva h a ia v xa i Sevoxgàxovç â.
94- T à I x rov Ti/xalov x a i xmv ’ A q % v x f Î(o v ä.
95- I I q o ç xà M eU aaov â.
96. I I q o ç x à ' A A x fia lb ù v o ç â .
97- IJgoç xovç IIvdayoQEÎovç â.

98. I I qoç xà ro g y iov â.
99. Ilg à ç xà SEVoq>àvovç â.
IOO. I I q o ç x à Zrivaivoç â.
IO I. Ile g i xœv Ilvdayogeiw v â.
102. H egt Ç,d>œv äßyäe^^Tjd.

103. ’ A v a x o fiw v äßyöeg£.
IO4. *ExXoyrj âvaxo/iàtv â.
105. 'Y tieq xàiv awQéxcûv Çw mv â.
10 6. 'Y n èg xwv fivÔoXoyov/iévaiv Çaiœv â.
IO 7. 'Y n èg xoti firt yewâv â.
10 8. Ile g i <pvxàtv äß.
91 I g n o tu s . || A d g i — 94 c f. T o p . i a g b 12 tx A iy e iv Se ) x a i e x zrnv y ey g a /jfii-
vwv Xoywv, r d c 6e 6iayga<pas n o if.io fia i jtsg i d xa a ro v y h o v i; inore&brzaq. zttjgfc,
o lo v ~7.roi a y a d o i rj tzfdI Mai 7tegl ayaB ov navzog, no^dfirvov njin zo v Ti
eanv naQanrj/zalveadai Se x a i zaq exdtrzaiv 66£ag, olov o n ' Eii7ie6oxXfjc, Tczzaga
eyr/ae zw v ocofiatatv a z o iy e ta e lv a i• 8 e I t) yag av T i? to vn o zivoq E ig T jfie v o v
irdo^nv. II 94 S im p lic iu s I n D e caelo, C I A G V I I , p . 3 7 9 .16 6q x a i ovvoyiv rj

£mto/it}v to w Ti/iatov ygaq>eiv o v x am jîwaEv. || 9 7 e t 101 I a m b lic h u s D e vita
P y th . 'A gioroTeA ris ev zo Iq ( n e g i xfjq ) IlvBayogixTjQ <piAoaoq>laq = fr. 192 R o s e . ||
102 = H is t. an. I — I X , cf. I . D u rin g , “ N o te s on t h e H is t o r y of th e T ran s
m issio n o f A r is t o t le 's W r it in g s ” , in : A c ta u n iv . Goth. 56, 1950: 3, p . 49. || 103
C f D u rin g , N o tes etc., p . 57; A p u le iu s D e mag. 40 libras ' A va zo fim v A risto telis =
R o se , F ra g m . A n s t . p . 2 15 . || 104 A p o llo n iu s H is t. m ir. 39 'A g w zo te A r ic ev r a t ;
ixX oyaiQ Td)V ‘ Avazo/itHv = jr . 362 R o s e . || 105 I g n o tu s . || 106 C f in d . lib ro r u m
S tr a to n is , D io g . L a e r t . V 59 I l e g i ztbv itvQoAoyovfih/aiv ty a iv . || 10 7 = H is t. an. X ,
cf 633 b 12 ngoiotiarjs de z fjz rfAtxias avSgi x a i y w a ix i ro ti fiij ysmiav dVirjXais
avvovzat; to a lz io v o r e ftev h> a/jcpotv ia z iv o ze 6’ ev Bazsgcp fiovov. || 108 S a e p e
c it a t u r ab ip s o A r is t o t e le , B o n it z 104 b 38. ||
92 a g /v zla iv P h ' A q %v zo v I n d . H esych . 83 || 93 n e v a b n io v P C o W u || 94 to «

om . F || 96 zag BF dx/ialtovog B P JQ || 9 7— io o o m . F , su p p l. 98— 10 1 m . a.
re c e n s in m a rg . || g g Sevoqidvovq M e n a g iu s : (E voxgdtovg c o d d . || 102 rfi om .
ud II 103 rfl ad d . u d ||
48 IN G E M A R D Ü M N G
io g . &vaioyva>[iovtxàv ã.
IIO. 'IaTQ ixà (}.
u i. IJ eqí fiováôoç ã.
112. E rjfiela %£tfxcí>va>v ã . ( 2 6 )
113. ’ AarQovofjiixàv ã.
114. sO n n x ò v ã.
115 . IIe q í xivijoEcoç ã.
116 . IIe q í /Àovotxrjç ã.
XI 7 - Mvrjuovixòv ã.
118 . 5AnoQrifj.ÓT(úv 'OfiTjgixwv ã/9yáeç.
119 . Annorjfiazciy noirjTixà ã.
120. (fivoíxcov xa rà cnoixetov Xfj.
121. ’ EmreOeafiévGov ngofiÀrjftátcüv ã/ 3.
122. ’ EyxvxXíw v ãfi.
123. M t)%(ivixòv ã.
10 9 I g n o t u s , c f. R . F o e r s te r , " D e A r is t . q . f. P h y s io g n o m ic o r u m in d o le ac c o n
d ic io n e " , in: A b h a n d l. M . H ertz d a r g e b t B e r lin 1888, p p . 288— 303. || 11 0 C f V it.
M a rc . 4 ia r g tx à nQO^hqfiOXQ; V i t . l a t 40 m e d icin a lia problem aia = P ro bl. I, 859 a
i Õ<ja la zQ ixá . A t r e c tiu s G a le n u s , Com m . ad /. H ip p o cr. de n at. k om ., C M G V 9: i ,
p . 1 5 .2 7 z à ç rrjç 'IdTQ ixrjç aw aycnyfjç . . . pífiXovç èm yeyQ afifiévaç fièv 5A g ia r a -
teA ov ç, ófioAoyovfiévaç á ’ v n à Mévcuvoç 8ç tJv fiaQr}rr)ç a vro v y ey g á y ô a t. || 1 1 1 —
TT3 I g n o t i. II 1 1 4 P ro b l. X V I , 9 13 a 26 ÔEÍxvvrat èv r o lç 'O titix q Z ç , cf R o se , A r ist.
p seud ep ig r. p . p . 3 73 — 3 78 . J| 1 1 5 — 1 1 7 I g n o t i. || 1 1 8 V i t a M a rc. 4. v u lg . 3, la t.
4; in te r fr a g m e n t a m u lt a t i t . in v e n itu r a p u d a n t i- a t t ic is ta m a n o n y m iim , A n ec.
B ekkeri I p. 84.26 = jr . 179 R o se . ]| 1 1 9 C f n o ta m a d 83. || 120 P o te a t esse
c o lle c tio p r o b le m a tu m v e t u s t a ; a lia m u t v id e t u r se d sim ile m e d itio n e m in d ic a t
E lia s In C a t. p r ., C l A G X V I I I 1 , p . 1 1 4 .1 1 t ò <5á n outlX a (sc. scrip ta ) tòç Tfi
nqÒQ E v x a ig o v avrcò yE yçafifiéva êpôofi7}xovza p iflM a I I eqí a v fifilx rw v tcúv
Xojolç n gootfiloiv x a i èm Xáyov x a i rrçç ôtatçéaECúç. |J 12 1 I n t e llig e ,,a d d it a m e n t u m ,\

122 G e lliu s N o ct. A t i . X X 4 verba haec ex A r isto te lis libro exscrip ta qui
fia r a êy xv xX ia in s cr ip tu s e s tj t e x t u s q u i a ffe r tu r e s t P ro b l. 30 ,10. || 123 V it a
M a r c . 3, la t. 40. ||
109 qw aioyvcüfitxòv F || 11 o íazQtxòv co rr. m . a. F raxríxà z || 1 1 4 o m . F , su p p l.

m . a. in m a r g . || 1 1 9 Ç AnaQrjfiaTay B e r n a y s noiTjZtxàv ã F 7
iotr)Tixã)V ã R o se |J
120 <(JAjioQ rjfiáTúiv) fo r t asse a d d e n d u m (pvatxà d (pvoixòv x a r à otoí^êícüv Xi7 u
(ss. m . a. d) F || 1 2 1 ènvzedeifiévüjv fo r ta s s e s c rib e n d u m c u m M o r a u x |j 122 om .
d ]| 123 fiijxavtxcüv fo r ta s s e sc rib e n d u m c u m R o s e |J
124. IJgofiXijfiara t.x tôiv Arjfioxoirov aft.

12 g . IJ eqi Trjç XtQov â.
126. Ila Q a fio la l â.
127. “ A tclxtci tf}.
128 . 'EiTjTaa/xéva x a rà yévoç lô.
12 g . A ixa iutfia za â.
130. ’ O X vfim ovîxai â.
1 3 1/2 . IJvdtovtxai fiovaixrjç â.
13 3 . IJvBixoç à.
13 4 . IJvôiovixûtv ëXeyxoi â.
13 5 . N lx a t A ïo w o ia x a t fi.
13 6 . IJ eq 'i rçayqtôubv â.
13 7 . AiôaoxaA tai â.
138. Ila g o ifiia i â.
13g. N ôfioç a v a a i r t x o Q â.
140. NofiLfiüiv âfiyô.
124 S im p lic iu s In D e Caelo, C I A G V I I p. 294.33 à H y a i x ràtv ' A giarorékovc,

n tq l A r jfto x ç h o v naQ ayçaqiévra. || 12 5 — 1 2 7 I g n o t i. || 128 E . H e itz , D ie verl.
S ch r. des A r ., L e ip z ig 186 5, p p . 2 3 7 — 238 h u n e t it u lu m it a in t e r p r e t a v it ut
o p u s c u la X IV c o m p re h e n d a t q u o ru m t it . 129— 140 re ste n t; quae c o n ie c tu ra
pa ce M o ra u x n o n sp e r n e n d a v id e tu r . || 12 9 V i t a M arc. 4 (la t. 40) -zà y ry g a fi-
/iéva avTw A ix a ic û fia ta 'EAArpiiômv ho Aecov. || 13 0 Cf L. Z ie h e n , R E X V II,
co l. 252 7; F . H e s te r, " A i . u n d d ie S ie g e rlis te n v o n O ly m p ia ” , in: G y m n asia n 52,
1 9 4 1 , p . 29— 38. H 1 3 1 — 13 4 D it t . S y « .a 2 75, c i T 43. H 135 C f in d . lib r. H e s y c h ii
12 6 N ixdtv A tovvoiaxd tv àcrtiy.ü)v x a i Arjvalüm ; E . R e is c h , R E V co l. 398, e t q u a e
a ffe r t M o r a u x p. 12 6 — 7. || 13 6 C f q u a e a d 83 n o t a v i. || 13 7 S a e p e c ita n tu r , c f
fr. 6 18 — 630 R o se . || 138 C e p h is o d o ru s ap. A th e n . I I 60 d èm xifiç. râ, tpiAoaàqtqt
dtç oit Jtotrjaavtl P.ùyav àÇiov toi n a g oi/iia ç âBgotaa 1. || 139 C f V 4 rv z jj n y o lf]
vo/io Beteîv ; A t h e n . V 186 b ’ AgurroréAovQ a v / im tn x o l tiveç fjaav vo/ioi ; I 3 f ô t î
■SevoxpaTïji à X a herjôovioç xai E n ev a u in o c, ô ’ A x a ô tjfiia x à ç xai ’ ÂgtcnoTéXric
o v o o iT tx o v ç (paatAtxoitç co d d . avfinoT txoitç S c h w e ig h â u se r, c f B e r g k , F ü n j A b h .,
L e ip z ig 1883, p . 67) êyçayiE. || 140 A p o llo n iu s H ist- m ir. 1 1 Açi(TTOTéXr]i; . . . iv
vcifti/miQ flaoftftQtxnïç — jr . 604— 605 R o se . ||
124 d /3 d z f m . a. H , in t e x t u I E V , R o se || 12 5 — 12 6 p a r te s (su h titu lo s) esse

lib r i 12 4 s u s p ic a tu r M o r a u x || 128 l£ r)ia o/jéva D ü r in g : ègriyfiéva BPFCoW M A
èÇrivfjhia h è^ y r]fté v a u d z M o r a u x || 1 3 1 — 132 TivOiovJ.xat ( â . I I eql) fio v a ixfjç d
R o se à p o s t m iBtovbiat d . u n d e A ld in a || 134 cA eyj;oç C a s a u b o n u s || 13 7 <5w5a
axaXuav F II 139 avaraT utàç B P F v u lg . N à/ioi o v a o m x o i R o s e || 140 voftifiatv
In d . H e s y c h ii n . 1 3 1 : vo/iûiv co d d . |
Gcteb. U n iv . Â r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 4
50 IN G Ë M A R D Ü R IN G
141. Kaxrjyogiàv a.
14 2 . I I e q I s g fifjV E Îa ç â. (2 7 )
143. IIoXixEÎai tiôXeojv ôvoïv ôéovaai otj, m it îôtav ôrjfioxgaxtxal xa i

ôX iyagxixai xa i âgtaxoxgaxtxai xa i xvçavvtxai.
144. ‘ Em oxoA aL U goç &iXvnnov i n Egi) ZrjXv/ifigtavtî>v èm aroXai,

ngàç ’ AXéÇavôgov fi inioxoX ai, ngoç 7Avxinaxgov 6, ngàç
Mévxaga à, ngâç ’ Agiarcova â, n ço ç ' 0 Xvfj,mâôa â, ngàç
' Htpataxiaiva â, ngoç Ge/xiorayogav a, ngoç &iX 6£evov â,
ngàç Arj/j.oxgnov â.
145 . “E nrj tbv àoyji' ’ A y vè Oecjv ngèafîiaB' éxaxafiôXe.

146. ’ E Xeyela d)v àg’/ j f KaXXixéxvov firjxgoç Qvyaxsg.
riv ov xa i a i nâaat /xvgiàÔEç (TTt%{ov xéxxageç xa i xexxagdxovxa ngàç

xoïç nEvxaxtaxiXioiç xai Ôiaxoaioiç è^ôofir/xovxa.
K a l xooaüxa fièv avxcô nengayfiaxsvTai fhfiXia. ( 2 8 ) fiovXe.zat &' êv
avxoîç xâÔE-
Aixxàv elvat xàv x a x à <ptXoao<piav Xoyov, xov fièv n gaxxixàv, xàv ôè
ÔEtoçrjxixàv xai xoü ngaxxtxoû x ov xe rjBtxov x a i noXtxixov, ov xà xs
1 4 1 — 142 M a n ife s tu m e s t h o s t it u lo s h ic e rro re q u o d a m irie p s is s e . || 143 V it a

M a rc , e t la t 23 ia z o çla v rw v n i noXtxeiw v ; V i t a v u lg . 23 Itrrdgrjoe r ù ç crie n o At
t e l a s . j| 14 4 D e m e tr . D e eloc. 225; 230; 233; V i t a M a rc . 16 ; 27; 42; c f R o se
F rag m . A r is t. p . 4 1 1 ; q u a e d e e p is tu lis A r is t o t e lis c o n ic i p c s s u n t c o lle g it M o ra u x ,
L is te s an cien nes, p . 13 3 — 144 . |
( 28 ) TiQaXTtxov — OEWQrjTixov : M e ta p h . II, 993 b 20— 23; D e a n . I 3, 407 a
23; c f A lb in . E p it . I I I 1— 5, L o u is p . 9— 10; J u lia n u s O r. 6, p . 190 a; A m m o n iu s
I n P o r p h . is ., C I A G I V 3, p . I I . 6; A le x . A p lir . I n A n a l, p r., C I A G I I 1, p . 1 .1 4 . ||
1 4 1 xa xrjyog lat R o s e |] 143 ôveïv P h ; ôè oHoai B* ôeotiaatç B ’ P W C o ôéavaai F

ôeovaatv v u lg . pl. || x a r ' lôlav D ü r in g : x a i iô la B P F w u m x a i lô la i d z ( x o tv a i)
x a i îôia t B e r n a y s x a r ’ eÏÔi] M o r a u x || x a i te r u t in t e x t u B u , te r o m . F x a i*
o m . P v u lg . pl. |] 144 ar)Avfif}Qt(av)â>v — ngoç nAr.çav o m . B 1 arjAvjuPgicuv B *P
v u lg . arjiv^glœ v F , c o r r e x i || fiévrog a 0 F || â p o s t A rjtiàxg irov o m . P v u lg . ]|
14 5 mv àg^ ai F tbv }j dg%r) d || ix a z a fio A s B F w u d m -ipoAs F -r)P6?.r z || 14 6 èXeyEÏa
mv d ÈAeytalüiv B iA p y ela t tbv P h iAcyeltuv F mv s u p p l. F ! || mv 7) àg y ij d ||
a i n â a a i : S jia a a t F d n an tit W ||
( 28 ) in c . e x c e r p t a q u a e le g u n tu r P s e u d o -H e s y c h ii co d . <î ]| tpiAoaotplav : tpiAo
F II Tà T£ fjdixov 0 II
negi nöXtv x a i xd n sgl olaov inoysygdipQar xoß äe dEüigTjxtxoü xov xe

tpvaixöv x a i Xoyixov, ov x 6 Xoyixov ov% d)g fiegog, dXX’ (hg ögyavov
ngoT]xgißü)fi£vov. x a i xovxov dnxovg vnodsfiEvog axonovg xo xe mdavöv
xai t o dXrjQeg diEodqyrjOE. övo öe ngog ixaxEgov övvdßeoiv i^gijoaxo,
öiaXexxixfj fiEv xai grjxogtxfj ngog xa mdavöv, ävaXvxixjj öe x a i ipiXo-
aotpia TtQog xo dAr/deg' oväiv vnoXemo/isvog ov xe xojv ngog evgeaiv,
ovxe t(iiv noog xgiaiv, ovxe [irjv x&v ngog xgfjaiv. ( 2 9 ) ngog /if.v ovv
xrjv f.vqf.cii.v xd xe T o m x ä x a i M edodixä nagedfuxF, ( x a i) ngoxdoetov
nArjOog, cbv ngog xä nQoßXrjfzaxa nißavojv £m%EigT]fj,dx(ov olöv xe
E vnogelv ngog 6e xrjv xgiaiv r a ’ AvaX vxixä ngöxega xai vorega- ä i ä
fxiv ovv xojv ngoxegcuv xd Xrjfifiaxa xgivexat, öui öe x&v varigtov 7}
awayojy?} egexdCexar ngog öe xrp xgfjoiv r<* Te äycoviaxtxä x a i x d
fiig o g (x»js q>iXoaa<piaq): A le x . A p lir . I n A n a l, p r ., C I A G I I i , p . 1.8; A m m o n iu s

I n A n a l, pr., C I A G I V 6, p . 8.6; p . 10 .2 4 — 1 1 .2 1 ; O ly m p . P r o l. et in C a t., C I A G
X I I i , p . 1 4 .1 7 . || n g o jjxg tß io fiev o v : M eta p h . I V 3, 1005 b 4 S e i yag jieg i zo&tcov
(t. e. logic) fjxeiv n g o e m o z a / ih o v s . || m öavov : T o p . V I 12, 14 g b 26 e a z i örjzwg
ß iv o ä w a fie v a ; z o ev ixdrrzca m davav deaigetv. (| dwa/ietQ : R het. I 4. 1 3 5 g b
13 Sta X exzixtj e t grjzogixrj ö w d fietq s u n t, n o n in ia z r jß a i. || StaKexzatfi x a i grjzogixtj :
c f R het. I 2, 13 5 6 a 25 r tjv grjzogtxrjv olav naga<pvig r i z ijs S ia X exztxrji elv a t x a i
Tfj; neg'i t ä fjQr) n ga y/iazela g, c f C ic . A c a d . I 8,32 (ex A n t io c h o A s c a lo n ita ) . ||
eCgeats xglnic, zqfja ig ; (in v e n tio , iu d ic iu m , a p p lic a tio ), c f A le x . A p h r . I n A n a l,
p r ., C I A G I I 1, p . 1 .6 Tavrrjs (sc. j j j s XoytxrjQ) ij te eig ea iq e a zt x a i ij a v a z a o ic
x a i rj ngciQ z ä x v g u o z a r a XQ*ia l£- II
( 29 ) M eOoStxa: : c f in d . lib i. n. 52. || ngozdoecav nXijöoQ : cf in d . lib r. n . 66
— 6g. | A iiftfiaza : A m m o n iu s, I n A n a l, pr., C I A G I V 6, p . 26.36 o i ö i U z a iix o i
ätjidi/iara avzä q (sc. Tai ngozdaetq) x a i X ijfifiaza ix d Ä o w = S V F I I 7 7 , fr . 237. ||
mniaywyr) : h a c n o tio n e R het. I I 23, 1400 b 26, I I I 9 1 4 1 0 a 22, se d n u sq u a m
in s c r ip tis lo g ic is. || Jigög zrjv XQrjotv : c f S ap h. el. 175 a 3 jiqoq z lv a yrgrjaiv oi
zo io v z o t zotv Xayüiv w qJj.i/ioi. || äyatvtcrtixd — ig ia z ix w v : c f S o p h . el. 16 5 b 11
iteg i öe zd>v äy w v ia zixw v x a i ig ia ztx to v v w hiyaiftev. || r a n eg i egaizi}oeajt; : = in d .
lib r. n . 44, in d . lib r. H e s y c h ii n. 43 = T o p . V I I I ; c f S o p h . el. 175 a 1 wv
fiev o»« a i ig a izjja etc x a i Tiwi egatrtjzdov iv z a tc nyojvinziy.alq ö ia z g iß a ig eigt]zaf,
A le x . A p h r . I n T o p ., C I A G I I 1, p. 520.5. || ovÄAoyiOficbv.ci in d . lib r. n. 48, 56,
5 7 , e t ap. D L e t ap. H e s y c h iu m . ||
zjjv add. a n te 31oAtv F || x a i z o ß n eg i olxov F j| yeygaipQat <!> || ov zd Aoytxov

Om., s u p p l. m . a. in m a rg . F || ojq (lacu n a) /iigo$ B oXofiegwQ P F v u lg . r5 dig
SXov pego? M o ra u x || jtgoTjxgißüifievov D ü r in g ngoa- c o d d . |j vnoAeuioftEvov B ,
o m . F , su p p l. m . a. V7toXeuioßCi>oq, vnoXemd/ievoq P v u lg . vnoX uioßevoq <P |
evgEotv : eg ew a v H ||
( 29 ) zo m xa S te p h a n u s , u n d e R u fu s e t e d d . : ö n z ix ä B P F v u lg . 0 |
M o ra u x || (r d ^ a n te n g ö zeg a a d d . B y w a t e r || z d a n te n egi igcüzijoEwQ o m . F ||
52 IN G E M A R DÜ RTN G
71EQÍ èga>rijaE<uç, ègiarixaiv t e xai aocpiaxixãv èXéyxcov te x a i avX-

Xoytofiãv x a i r ã v Óuolíliv to v to iç . xom jçto v ôè rfjç âXt]8síaç r ã v /xèv
x a r à rpavTaaiav èvEoyrjfiázaiv TTjv aladrjoiv ánecprjvaTO- rrhv ôè rjdtxãv,
r ã v negi jiáÀiv xai jiegi olxov xai negi vó/iavç, ròv vovv.
(30) TéXoç ôè êv èÇéÔero xgfjotv àçETrjç èv /3tco reXeíw. eçpr] ôè tt]v
evòaifiovíav avfinXrjgco/ia èx toiojv àyaOãv s lv a r r ã v negi fvxr)v, â
ôrj x a i ngãra r fj ôwá/nei xaX sl' êx ÔevtÉçcov ôè ràv negi a ã fia ,
vyizíaç x a i laxvoç x a i xáXXovç xai tüjv jiagajeXr]al(ov r ã v Ôè èxráç,
nXovrov x a i evyeveíaç xai ôóÇrjç xai tcüv ófioícov. rrjv re âgerrjv fit)
EÍvai avrágxj] ngòç evôai/xovíav. ngoaÔEioOai yàg r ã v t e negi a ã fia
x a i T ã v èxròç àyadãv, xaxoôai/uovrjaovroç to v aocpov xâv êv nóvoiç fj
xâv èv TtEvía x a i ro lç ôfiaíotç. tt)v fiévroi xaxíav avrágxi] ngóç x a x o -
ôat/iovíav, xâv ô n ftáXiara Tiagfj avTfj r à èxròç âyadà x a i rà negi
xgirtjgiov : S t o b a e u s E c l. I 58 = A r ii D id y m i E p it., D ie ls D o x . p. 456 ,9 xgiTTjgia

6’ eivai t fjç ro ir r o v yvwaEcoç to v te voDv xai tt/v aiaOijOiv, c f B o e th u s S V F I I I
2 65; C le m e n s A le x . Strom . II 4; 1 5 .5 — T k e n d o r e tu s , Graec. a ff. cur. I 90. ||
aioÔTjOiç : D e an. I I I 3, 428 b 18 aía6t]Oiç rã>v lÔUov àXrjôrjÇ = 427 b 12. || zòv
voòv : E th . N ic . I 4, 1096 b 2g e t sa e p e s im ilite i. ||
( 30 ) TÉ ioç — teAeI((í : E th . N ic . I 6, 1098 a 16 — 20; E th . E u d . I I 1, 1219 a
38; S t o b . E c l., I I W a c h s m u th , p . 5 0 .1 1 — 5 1 .1 7 ; c f p . 14 4 .16 ; C ic. D e fin . I I 6 ,19:
A ristó teles m rtu lis u su m cutrt vilae perjectae prosperitate co n iu n x it. ]| av/inXrjoco/ja:
c f C iit o la u m a p . C iem . A le x . Strom . I I 2 1 , p . 179 S y lb .: K g irá X a oç ôè x a i av rà ç
ÜEQUiaTTjTixòí TE^.r.íórtjTa êÂeyev x a r á tpvaiv nignnm nnç fitov, TÍjv i x t i 7iv tqiüjv
yevãiv ovfinXriQOVfiÉv7]V tg ty ev tx^ v (ita B em ays: nqoyevixTjv co d d .) te/.íirírjjTc!
ftijvvcov. C f A r ii D id y m i E p it . a p . S to b . E c l., I I 46, p . 10 W a c h s m u t h = Fr.
p h il. 11 M u lla c h , p . 8g: ro v ç ô i vofiCÇovraç r à r o i atò/tazoç x a i r d ££cuOev àyaÔà
ovfi7iAt]Qoôv T f]v Evôat/jovíav, c f. p . I I 5 1 W a c h s m u th . A le x . A p h r . D e an., S u p p l.
A r i s t . I I i , p . 16 2 .2 6 cv ô a ifio v la avftnXriQcoaiç t ã v àyaÔãtv. || è x tqicüv àyaBáiv :
c f R h et. I 5, 1360 b 25; E th . N ic . I 8, io g 8 b 1 3 — 15 e t p a ssim . || n g ã n a Tfj ôw á/iEt :
c f E th . E u d . I I 1, 1 2 1 8 b 33 aÍQET(í)T£Qa x à iv Tfj ipvxfj xa B án eg ôia tçov/jzd a x a i
èv z o lç ÈÇwTEQtxoíç Aóyotç e t P ro tr. fr . 1 1 , p . 5 0 .1 5 — 18 W a lz e r . || ■ôyislaç lo% voi
xáAAovç : e a d e m e x e m p la A r iu s D id y m u s a ffe r t, c f M . M o r. I 3, 11 8 4 b 3. || fir]
aiixd gx í] : E th . N ic . I 5, 10 9 7 b 8 et p a ssim . || 7igoaÒEÍo6ai : E th . N ic . I 8,
10 99 a 3 1 — b 6. || xã v év n ó vo iç fj : E th . N ic . V I I 13 , 1 1 5 3 b 19; cf. I 8, l o g g b 2. ||
è ç ia r ix ô v D iir ilig : i g t c r c i x á B P F v u lg . Í Q u n tx á te exp. B y w a te i || r e p o s t

êgurrueá om . F |j a o i p i a r t x & v ê X é y x a iv ss. m . p r . -01 -01 P Q , u n d e a a < p ia r ix à o i
Ih ry y n i W |] t é p o s t è)J .yy /i\v o m . F || ô è p o s t x g i T r j ç io v d e le tu m in P ( e x s ta t
in C o ), o m . h v || T ã v n e q I n á X iv d : rd n e g i n á X iv BPF w u m z (P ||
( 30 ) xa t add. a n te ttjv evó. z || v y eía ç c o d d ., co rr. B u h le j| x a i a n te ia x v o ç
om . d || è x t qItcúv Ôè tcüv è x r ò ç d u n d e A ld in a || t c a n te m g i aa)fj.a o m . z ||

a n te xaxoôaLfiovijaovroç d u n d e A ld in a || xaxoyvcúfiovrjaavToç a d d . m . a.
in m a rg . yg. xaxoÒaifJiovr}(javTO£ V || xâ v èv jio v tjq o lç fj u d ||
»
a& fia. (31) to ; r âçExàç ë<pr] fii] àvxaxoXovôeïv h>bÉ%£o(lai yàg

<pgávijnóv x iva aal ófioíaiç ôtxatov õvxa ãxóXaoxov xa í âxgaxrj eivai.
£<pr] ôè xòv aoqjàv fii] EÏvai fièv ájtaQrj, fiexgionaOfj òé.
Tr/V xe <ptÀíav (ógíÇ exo ia ó x r jx a e v v a ía ç àvxiaxgó<pov. x a v xrjç ôè xrjv
[tèv e lv a t o v y y E v ix fjv , xrjv á ’ èga>Tixr]V, xrjv ÔÈ kevLXf]v. e iv a i ôè x a i
xò v egcoxa fit] fió v o v a w o v a í a ç , ãXAà x a i (piXíaç. x a i èg a a ô rja E a ô a t ôè
x ò v aotpòv x a i n oX tX E iíoeod a t, y a /irja etv y e firjv x a i ovfißidyaE tv. ßixav
xe xgicbv övxfov, ôettíQ Tjxixov, n g a x x ix o ß , rjÔ ovtxoti, xò v d sco g y x ix o v
iv éxg tv E v . EV%gr]oxa ôè x a i x à è y x v x X ta /nadrjjuaxa n g à ç à g E xijç â v á -
Xrjipiv.
( 31 ) fir} àvxaííoAovÔelv : E th . N ie . VI 13, 1144 b 3 3 ^ ajgíC on rai âÀÀr)Xajv a l

à g E x a t, M . M o r . I I 3, 1 1 9 9 b 36. || fiexgiona B fj : O ly m p io d o r u s I n M eteor., C I A G
X I I 2, p. 1 4 9 . 2 8 K a/.õíç e b iev S n x o lç qpiAaaóqioiç à g x e l xò fjzrrrv Bvftoüoôai, ov
xò /iTj<5’ üáíuq 6 v fio v a 8 a r xã> /tèv yàg BeIoí n g én ei rj ájiáBeta, x o iç âé <piAaoog>oiç
âgxsxrj x a i HEXQianáQe.ui. A le x . In T o p ., C IA G I I 1, p . 239.6. S u d a s. v.
fie xg io n a B elv. — T h e m is tiu s , O r. X X X II M exg io n a d ijç, p. 4 3 2 . 2 6 D in d o rf. ||
ev v o la i ávxtaxgóipov ; E th . N ie . V I I I 2, 1 1 5 5 b 33 evvoia èv àirtuiEnovBóai qpiAía,
c f. E ih . E u d . V I I 1 0 , 1 2 4 2 b 18 ; M a g n a M o r . I I j i , 1208 b 29 tó âvxiqiiXeladai. |
avyyevixrjv égairixtjv Çevtxrjv : a lite r E th . E u d . V I I io , 1 2 4 2 a; E th . N ie . V I I I 3,
1 1 5 6 a 7 x g ta tò xr)í tpiXiaç etôr/; avyyevixrj V I I I 1 4 , 1 1 6 1 b 12 ; È g a ix ix r j V I I I 3.
1156 b 3; Çevixi) 1156 a 31; cf D io g . L a e r t . I I I 8 1 = D iv . A r ist. 2, M u tsc h -
m an n ; S t o b . E el. I I p . 1 4 3 W a c h s m u th . || o w o v o la ç — <pMaç : c f D io g . L a e r t .
V II 1 2 9 — 30; S t o b . E e l. I I p . 1 4 2 . 2 4 W a c h s m u th ; c f S V F I I I p . 1 80— 1 8 2 . ||
ègaaÔâEcrBai : c f D io g . L a e rt. V II 129 ; SFF I I I fr . 6 5 0 — 2, 716 — 22; S to b .
E e l. I I p . 1 4 4 . 9 W a c h s m u th . || jioXixEvaEoBat — av/ißuhaeiv : S t o b . E e l. I I p. 1 1 1 . 3
W a ch sm u th x a i ßa otA evoeiv x a i ß a a ik e i ovpßiw af.aO ai ; p . 1 4 4 . 9 ; S V F I I I fr.
690— 3; c f E p ic u r i fr. 6 U sen er. || ßUov xgteov : Protr. fr. 4 W a lz e r ; E th . e t P o l.
p a ssim ; S to b . E e l. I I , p . 1 4 4 . 1 6 W a c h s m u th . || F v y g ^ m a — àváÁ7)y>iv : c f Protr.
fr. 4 W a lz e r 6 eI àçèyeoB ai xrjç ínurx7jfiriQ xxã a O a i] ct fr. 6 3 R o s e e t E p ic u r i fr. 1 7 2
U sen e r; S F .F I I I fr. 6 5 4 . j
( 31 ) fir] dxoXovBeîv 2. || ôfioUaç om . <? || ô i p o s t ê<pr} o n . | fitv om . u d ||

post u ltim a verba f. 56a xrjv r e (rpiXíav) i t e r a v it f. 56^ évòéyjaO ai — xrjv xe
(qiiXlav) F II (ógiaaxo || àvxiaxgá<pov M e n a g iu s : àvrltngoipov B P F v u lg . 0 ||
xrjv ôè igajxtxrjv o m . <1> e t xrjv /jèv EÎvai íev ix tjv xt)V ôè a. || qpiAíaç D a v ie s : ipiXo-
oo<píaç B P F v u lg . || áé a n te xòv aoipóv om . v || jioX ixeveaBai F || y e A ld in a ,
R e is k e : xe. B P F v u lg . <t> || fjrjv o m . || nv/ißuuaeiv S te p h a n u s : av/ißu ha ai F
o v fiß u ö o a i B P w u m d <P avixßuövai z C o b e t crvfißiwaEodai B y w a t e r [| èxgivev
u d A ld in a jigoéxgiVEV fr . e d d II
54 IN G E M A H D Ü R IN G
(32) “E v Te róiç ipvaixoiç airioXoycúraToç n agà návT.aç èyévero,

(Lote x a i Trent t& v f.lnylaro^v r à ç a h ía ç àaioòiòóvar ôiÓTteg x a i ovx
òXíya (hfl/.ía owéygaipe qw aixãv vno/xVTjfiáTwv. ràv ôè Qeóv âam/ucnov
àjiécpaive, xadà x a i ó TlXártav ôiaxeívetv 6' avxov rrjv Tigovoiav fièxgi
tójv ovgavícov x a i elvat àxívtjxov a v x ó v xà á ’ im y e ia xa rá rrjv nçóç
xavxa avfináQeiav oíxovofieloôai. eivai òè 7iagà r à tétT a g a axoiyela
x a i ãX).o nè/inxov, f.£ ov rá aidegia a w ea xá va r âXXotav ò’ avxov rrjv
xívTjatv eiv a r xvxXotpogrjxixrjv yág.
(3 2 ) ah io X o y w T d T oç : c f S t r a b o I I 3,8, p . 104 noXv yág i a n t ò a h to X o y ixò v

n a g ' civtoj (sc. P o sid o n iu s) x a i t o ágtOTQTeAÍÇov. || ròv 6eòv à a ó /ia xo v : in 1. I I I
D e p h ilo so p h ia , c f. C ic. D e nat. deor. I 13 ,3 3 sl7lG corpore idem vult esse deum = fr.
26 W a lz e r; V i t a la t . 52 — W a lz e r p . 100; P h y s . V I I I 10, 267 b 25 ó t í à õ ia iq ctó v
i o r t x a l á/iegèç x a i ovôèv ix o v fié y e Ô o ç; D ie ls D oxogr. p. 305 'AgtaToTiXr/Q to v fiév
òvoitÓ ta i deòv elâ o ç âigíOTÓí’, ófioím ç I lX á tw v i, S e x t . E m p . P y r rh . H y p . I I I 218
'A gim ordX Tjç ftév àaw /iarov fh iF v eIvm tò v Oeóv x a i n èg a ç to v oiigavov. ||
7igóvotav : F lu t . E p it. — D ie ls Doxogr. p. 3 2 9 .1 1 o l ftév â/.hoi n á v ie ç è/iywxov
TÒ» xótjfiov x a i n govoía ôlolxov/íevov. — 330.5 ' AqinTm f.lrjC. nirz' efiy>v%ov ÒXov ól
SXov or.TE Xoyixòv o v te voeqòv o v re ngovoía S lo lxo v /jev o v r à fiev yág ovçávia
tovtcüV návtcov xoLvayve.lv atpaíçaç yàg nagÈ%Eiv êfltpúxovç x a l CoiTLxáç, r a ôè
n e g íy e ia (iijôevòç avT&v, tjjç ô' EvxaÇíaç xará ovfipEfirjxòi; ov ngor/yov/tEvcoç
fir.xèyEM. Sed c f D e p h il. fr. 1 3 W . = P h ilo . || x a i eiv a i âxlvrjrov avTÚv : D e
C aelo I 9, 279 a 30— 33 xaõájiE g èv t o lç è y xv xX ío iç q>tXoao<prjfiaGi n eq l x à õ eia
noXXáxtç nçoqialvExaL, M eta p h . I V 8, 10 12 a 31 = D e p h il. fr. 16 W a lz e r . || r d ò '
i n l y Fm — otxovofiE ioQ ai : C f. M eteor. I 2, 339 a 21 éctri ô’ è(- àváyxrjç o v v e ^ ç
71(nr, oÔToç Ta lç ãvio <pogaiç w are n ã a a v a v x o v ttjv âvvafiiv xvfiegvãaBai èxeIOev;
C ic . D e nat. deor. I I I 1 1 ,2 8 illa vero cohaeret et perm anet n aturae virib u s n o n deorum
estque in ea iste qu a si consen sus quarn avfináBEiav G raeci vocant. || ovfindOeLav : C f.
S K F I I p . 170 .3 2; 172 .3 9 ; C ic . D e d iv in . I I 33 = S V F I I 3 4 7 .12 aliqu a in natura
reru m contagio. || ã íX o nÊfi7rtov : V it a M a rc. 3 7, la t . 3 7, v u lg . 27; d o x o g r a p h i
o n m e s = a ldéçiov aã>[ia\ ps. G a le n u s H is t. p h il. «« D ie ls p . 6 1 0 .1 7 ’ AgioroTéXT/ç S i
TOVTOLÇ ngoaiÕTjxe x a i r à xvxXotpoQTjTixov oo>fia = p. 6 18 .1 6 — 21; P lu t . a p . E u se b .
X IV 16 - D ie ls D o x . p. 305 'AgtaroTÉXrjÇ tò v ftkv ávíUTÓTtü Oeóv eIóoç yciQ im ov,
imfÍEflr}xÓTa r j j aqpaíga r o v n a v ró ç, ijr tç è o tív aidègtov am fia, t o Tif./tTiTOV i n
a v to v xaXovftEvov — xívov/ievov xvxÀ oçiogtxâ iç. ||
( 32 ) aÍT iíÚ T aroç 0 ahioX oyixcÓ TaToí V || jiávrajv in m a rg . r] n a g à n á vra ç z

n á v tm v iyévEro fiá X ta ra F || à n oÔ L & w h || fhftÁla o m . F || Sián eg — v7iti/tvit/iíí[ijiv
om . ’!> II {iTiopvrjfidTOjv C o b e t : âjio/ivrj/iovEVfiárrüv co d d . || xa d à : xaBemeg d wç
(o m isso x a i ) 0 || S l o t e í v e l v ( v a d d . m . a. M ) A ld in a , e x H e s y c h io E n h le :
ô lo te I v e l BPF v u lg . II o txo v o fielo B a i : xivElaÕat 0 || rà a n te T É rrap a om . W ||
réo n a g a BF 0 | r d alOégia '. r à Orjgia w || àXXolav á ( í) avrnfi B F W u m 0 '.
âXXoi S è av ro v m u t. m . a. in áÀXoiav F àXX' o la v ô’ aiirov z àXX o l a v 6 ' aó-
t 9jv d II xvxXo<pogrjTixijv B P W m 0 : -tpogixijV F u d z -ifoorjrixov h ||
i
K a l TTjv y>v%i\v S' âoeh/iaxov, èvxeXexeiclv ovaav Ttjv nçdixrjv nœ/inxoç

(frvaixov xa i ogyavixov ôw â/iei Çairjv ë%ovroç■ ( 3 3 a ) Xéyet ôè xrjv
èvxeXê%siavi r jç è o x i v F .lû n ç r i àaœ fj.rnov ôirxrj i ï èax iv i\ ovata y.ar
avx 6v 7j fièv xa xà ôvvafiiv, d)ç è v rdi xrtoâ) o 'EQfirjç ê m x r jÔ E io x r jx a
£%ovti èm ôéia a d a i xovç 2<zga>cr»?£aç, x a l èv xû> xaXxœ âvôçtàç- x a Q ’
ê£iv ôè XéyFxat <jj> èvxtX tyiia rj r o i awxexEXsafiévov 'E ç fio û fj àv-
ôqiâvxoç. (3 4 a ) ro èvxeXeêÎo. <5ë ôtxxôv, rj x a 6’ é£iv rj xar’ èvégyeiav.
xax" èvÉQysiav fièv d iç â êygtjyoçoç Xi.yF.xai tp vy rjv g % e tv y.aQ' S Çiv S
a>ç o xadsvÔœv tv otrv x a l ovxoç vnonbirrj, ro ô w à fiE L nqoaéBrjXE'
(3 3 t ) adjjjctxoç ôè c p v a ix n v , ènel xœv acafidxcDV xà fiév êaxi XEiooxfirjxa,
tuç xà v7io x f .%v lx & v ytvôfieva, olov nvqyaç, n X oîov xà ôè V7io gwaecaç,
T-rjv yiv%Tjv — £cojj» 6JJ0VT05 : D e an. I I I , 4 1 2 a 27 e t b 5; d o x o g r a p h i om n es,

e. g. D ie ls p . 387 b J— 5, u b i a d d itu r: rrjv A" t'.l’Tt/.Lytiav a x o v a r io v avri tov
elfiovg x a i Trjq tvEQyeiaq. ||
I (33 a ) A iy tt x t X.\ s im ilite r e x p lic a t lo c u m T h e m is t iu s in p a r a p h r a s i, C l A G V 3,
p . 39; a d m o d u m s im ilite r P h ilo p o n u s , I n D e an., C I A G X V , p . 2 1 1 .2 9 . II S m r j :
c i M eta p h . V 7, 1 0 1 7 b 1 — 9; I X 6, 1048 a 32— 35. |] K a ra Svvafiiv : A i i i D id y m i
E p it., D ie ls D oxogr. p . 448.21 (/vzFAcyj.uiv 6' a v ro n goaE in zv)' 6 ya@ j;aA xoc
avdgia.; ovSen<o jiXr/v o t i fir] S w d ftet, dianXaadEtg de x a i t rjv TigoaqioQov Aafidjv
fion<; rtv £vT°} f.%tud A d y era t; e x e m p lu m Swa/iEt fv T01 XiSqj 'E g fiijg , c f B o n itz
j 287 b 1 7 . ||
(34 a ) 0 xaBevSiov : p r im u m h o c e x e m p lo u su s e st A iis t o t e le s in Protr. jr. 14
W a lz e r , p. 5 7 1 0 , u b i v id e m u s n o tio n e m S w a / ie e — tv to y t la in s t a t u n a sc e n d i. ||
oto/iarog : aw /jara z T || yaQ p o s t acbftarog a d d u n t B P F v n lg . 0 , e x p u n x it B y

w a te r||
(33 a ) ttjv BF 0 : o m . P v u lg . || rj p r o fo r ta sse s c rib e n d u m cu m M o ra u x ||
SiTTT) S ' èoztv — xar avt o v a n te Xéyei — àn<:)unrov B P F 0 , tra n s p .
v u lg .
B y w a te r S itt t) &' avTT) êa r i z ![ rj oiiala D u rin g : avrtj B P F v n lg . 0 \ o 'E g iirjç :
ôégfirjç 0 II Ê xo v ti : lx<nv P F v u lg . è x ov ® Il iniX é^ aadat F 1, co rr. m . a. || tovç
om . z II x a i 6 h tü> x a ?-xù àvSgtdg c o d d ., c o r r e x i || ( $ ) ÈvzcXn-/F.iq M o ra u x .

ivxeA éxeta BPF v u lg . 0 || a w r e X e o fib o v B 1, co rr. m . a. || rj a n te âvÔ Q idnoç
om . 0 II
(3 4 a ) ro — n Qoaédrjxe M o r a u x m o n e n te h ic p o su i, le g itu r p o s t olov èv avrca in
co d d . 0 II ivri.XEXt.ia M o ra u x : à w à f in B ’ in ra su ra , P F v u lg . 0 || ô w d/iei ô m o v
se d S ittô v in ra s u ra , u t v id e t u r p ro <5È ^ rro v B S w à / iti ôè Tjrrov P F v u lg . 0
t o Sw d fiE i ôè S ittô v M e n a g iu s, u n de e d d . j| xaf) êljiv rj o m . P F v u lg , 0 , ovtoç
m u t . m . a. in ovTiaç F || vn on b iT E i B ' F 1 j| t & ô w d /iti P v u lg ., e x p i. e x c e r p t a

q u a e le g u n tu r p s .- H e s y c h ii c o d ic is Çp |]
(33 b) èn ei : i n i P 'h d ||
cLq (fvrà xai xà xã>v t,<h<nv ôgyavtxov ô' eine, ro v ré a n ngóç xi x a x E -

axf.vaa/j.Évov, <bç rj õgaotç ngóç to óoãv xai nnoi] ngóç xò ãxovetv
Svvá/Ltf.i. ôe Ça>r]v ixovroç, olov èv avxã.
(3 4 b ) IloXXà òè xa i âXXa negi noXXâ)v òjt.f.(privara, âneo fiaxgòv âv
elrj xaxagtd/ieladai. xolç yàg õXotç ffiXonovnixaroç èyévero xa i evgexi-
xw xaxoç, ojç ôfjXov èx x ã v ngoyeygafifiêvmv avyyga/j./jtáx(üv, â ròv
àgiOfiòv èyyvç tfxei xexgaxooímv, r à ona ye âvafi<píXsxxa- noXXà yàg
x a i ãXXa eíç avxàv ãvatpéçExat a vyy g á jifim á re xa i ànoipdéyfiaxa,
àygáyov <p(avfjç evaxoxri/xaxa.
(3 5 ) r e y á v a a i ò ' sAgtaxoxéXEiç ôxxái' ng& xoç a v x ò ç o v x o ç ■ôevxegoç
ó n o X tX E va á fisv oç ' AQrjvrjaiv o v xa i ôixavixol (pégovxai X á y oi ^ a g íc v r c ç '
x g íx o ç 7ie g l 'IXiáòoç n en g a y fia x É V fj-êv o ç ' x é x a g x o ç EixeXuíixrjç grjxw g,
noòç ròv ’ Iaoxgáxovç lla v r jy v g t x ò v â v xty ey g a q xtíÇ ' n é f in x o ç o èm -
xXrjÔEÍç MvQoç, A ia xív o v t o t ! E aixgaxixov y v á g ifio ç - êxxoç Kvçrjvaioç,
y s y g a q x b ç n e g l notrjxtxrjç • f.ßöo/ioq n a tô o x g ífir jç , ov fié fiv r jx a i *A g ia x ó -
£evoç ev x ã) IJXáxíüvoi; ßiq>• õ y ô o o ç y g a fifia x t x à ç ã a r jfio ç , o v tp égexai
xéXvrj TtEgi nXEOvaafiov.
T o t ôrj Exayetgíxov yeyóvaai fièv noXXol yvcíigtfioi, âiaxpégwv ôè
fiá lia x a 0eó<pgaaxoç, negl ov Aexxéov.
(33 b ) ngóç r i xa rea x e v a a fiév o v : c f D e part. an. I V 12. 694 b 13 õgyava nqòq
r ò Igyov tf <pvaiç n o te i. j| ó ç a a iç n g ò ; rà ógãv : c f D e an. I I I 4, 426 a 13 ôgaatç
tf rfjç õyecoç èvégyeia.
(3 4 b ) 7to/./.à y à g S lX a . c í O ly m p io d o r u s P r o l. et in C a t., CIAG X II 1,
p . 1 3 .7 — 14.4.
( 35 ) ' A g ta ra zéX eiç : O ly m p io d o r u s P r o l., CIAG X II 1, p. 13 .2 0 Sià òè ó/iai-
vv/iíav avyygatpÉoiv èvodevovro èa 6‘ õ t e x á ß iß X ia , òiá xi fir] e lç x a i fióvoç ’ A ç t -
arorèXrjç ó Z r a y e ig ír tjç êy év eto àXÀà x a i ó EJitxXrjV M vÔ oç, àÀÀà St] x a i ó xaXov-
/1EVOÇ naiöorglßriQ -, e a d e m a ffe r t E lia s , I n C a t. p r ., C I A G X V I I I 1, p. 128 .10 .
ógyaviO Tixod z || T o u T « m om . P, add. m . a. in m a rg . || tf a d d . a n te àxotf <P

A ld io a , S te p h a n u s , e d ito re s om nes j| o lo v èv avTw b is, se d e x p . B ]|
avrw B P P v u lg . 0 ||
(3 4 b) ngo y ey ga fiflb itov o m ., su p p l. m . a. in te r co l. F || tcóv a d d . a n te zerp a -
xoalm v C o b e t || a v y y g á fifia xá r e D ie ls : a v y y g d ß fia x ’ avroti B P v u lg . || atirou x a i
ánofpÔ éyftara om ., su p p l. m . a. in te r c o l. F || ãcrcoxtfftara h , se d e i- ss. â- H ||
( 35 ) a v zò ç om . F || Xóy01 <pègavrai F j| nEngayfiaxev/íévoç o m . F n ejiça y fta -
tEvoa/xètoç z || âvrtygaijxoç F ]| A ia x ív o v — y viògifioç o m ., su p p l. m . a. in m a rg .
in f. F || t o v o m ., s u p p l. m . a. in m a rg . B |
COM M ENTS
( 1) T h e ep igram in V ita M arcian a i show s th a t 0 aiaxiQ is th e

correct form . - T im oth eu s of A th en s, R E V I A , N o. 15, quoted four
tim es b y D iogenes, is la ter th a n Zenon and m igh t h a ve been qu oted
b y H erm ippus. — <paaLv, who? T h is is th e k in d of stu ff th a t H erm ippus
m igh t h a v e fou n d in A risto n ’s Z w ayaiyi].
Correct: A risto tle 's pedigree; he descended from th e M achaon-branch
of th e gu ild of th e A sclep iad ae. T h is b ra n ch of th e celeb rated fam ily
of p h ysician s is b e s t a tte s te d in S ta gira (R E II , col. 1675), and the
fa m ily cam e from A n dros (p. 267). H is fa th er liv e d w ith A m y n ta s I I I
(c. 393 — 369) as his p h ysician and friend. Subjective: yvrjaicoTaroc.
F ro m m a n y details w e can see th a t th e te n d en cy in H erm ip p u s’
b io g ra p h y w as favo u ra b le to A risto tle, b u t it w as b y no m eans a glo ri
ficatio n , like th a t of P to lem y . Possibly true: ioxvooxEfyt; — xovga, if
from A riston . Wrong: XQavkoq, tran sferred from A risto tle B a ttu s,
T 49 b . — N icom achu s, his son b y H erp yllis, see m y n ote on 9 b — g.
(2) yewrjQevra gives no sense; alone, it can n o t m ean “ n ew ly b orn ,
as th e com m en tators suggest. See T 37 ab. — iXeaOai — TtQoaayooevOrpm.
I f w e disregard th e w rong m o tiv e g iv en for A r is to tle ’s choice of th e
Lyceum , th e first e x p la n a tio n of IleQmaTrjTiyoQ as d erived from
U eq Itkitoq (nam ely th e one b u ilt b y T heoph rastus) is correct, cf.
H e sy ch iu s g. T h e m em bers of th e school w ere n ot called P erip atetics
un til a fte r T h eo p h rastu s, see T 70 a. B u t H erm ip pu s m istak en ly
assum ed th a t th is n am e h a d som eth in g to do w ith th e L yceu m ; th is
ph rase in H erm ip pu s is th u s th e nucleus of th e la ter legend “th a t
A risto tle foun d ed a school in th e L y c e u m ” , see m y n ote on T g3 c.
dXeififiaTOQ, in th is sense on ly here; w e m a y com pare Cicero
De Or. I I 21 in media oratione de m axim is rebus et gravissimis dispu-
tantem philosophum omnes unctionis causa relinquunt; ita levissimam
delectationem gravissimae, ut ip s i ferunt, utilitati anteponunt. O n the
d evelop m en t of m eaning in su b sta n tives in -fia and -fftc, see G. R o tt-
ger, Studien zur platonischen Substantivbildung, D iss. K ie l 1937. The
IN G E M A R D U R IN G
58
ph rase corresponds to th e ecbdivog neginarog for a d va n ced stu d en ts,

T 76 f. — negmaTrjrixovg. R e is k e ’s em endation recom m ends itself, for
A risto tle w as n ever called a P erip atetic; h u t H erm ip pu s (or D iogenes)
m igh t of course h a ve b een g u ilty of th is m istake. T h is is th e perm an en t
problem in th is t e x t and in V ita M arciana, too, and a lth ou gh I do not
rep e at th is argu m en t for ev ery em endation, th e problem has co n sta n tly
b een in m y m ind. — oi d ', there is no tra c e of th is trad itio n elsewhere;
it is not d erived from H erm ip pu s b u t m igh t b e an idea of P h avorin u s.
C o b et’s co n jectu re is an im provem en t.
N o certain fa cts are reported in this p a rag ra p h . Possibly true: th e
anecd ote cbTeXaxriae (from A riston ?), b u t th e in terp reta tio n is false.
W rong: outiarr] IJ M ro v o g i n negiovrog is p ro b a b ly based on A ris-
to x e n u s T 58 d and 61 a. I assum e th a t a lre a d y before Philochorus
evioi h a d been in terp reted = A ristotle, in th e u n fav o u rab le trad itio n .
— TiQEojlEvovTos avrov, a pologetic fictio n b y H erm ippus; th e correct
fa cts in Philoch orus, T 3. I assum e th a t th is is th e nucleus of th e sto ry
to ld b y P to le m y = U sa ib ia 1 7 — 21, see m y n ote p. 233. — iXQovxa
— a%oh]v, a consequence of th e apologetic ten d en cy; X en o cra tes w as
a lw a y s his friend.
(3 — 4) See m y com m en ts on T 3 1 an d T 76 f. T h is is th e dedivog
jiEgbiaxog for th e y o u n g stu d ents. I t is d ifficu lt to b elieve th a t a lread y
H erm ip pu s confu sed Iso cra tes and X en o cra tes. B u t D iogenes m igh t
h a v e m isinterp reted th e sto ry; he saw th a t H erm ip pu s in th e preceding
p arag rap h h a d spoken of th e r iv a lry b etw een A risto tle and X en o cra tes,
he w as led a s tra y , eith er m isreading th e nam e, or su b stitu tin g th e
nam e of X en o cra tes. I t w ou ld b e m eth o d ica lly w rong to chan ge th e
t e x t here. — ngog deotv, see m y note on T 32, esp ecially 32 c. — O n
th e fou r d ifferen t notices a b o u t H erm ias, see m y n ote on T 21. —
T h e auth or o f th e p a m p h le t "AgiaxvJtnog rj negl naXaiag rgvrprjg is
unknow n; S a tyru s m a y h a ve cited him in his L ife of E m pedocles, D L
V I I I 60; if th is is tru e, he m u st b e som ew h at earlier th a n H erm ippus.
T h e q u otation s in D L from th is p a m p h le t are h ow ever all of such a
n atu re th a t th e y are b est exp lain ed as ad ditio n s m ade b y D iogenes
him self.
Correct: T h e fa c t th a t A risto tle a b o u t 360 or sh o rtly afterw ard s
repente mutavit totam jormam disciplinae suae, is w ell a ttested , see
T 32. — A risto tle w en t to H erm ias, th e ruler of A tarn eu s, in spring
347. H e w en t to M acedonia in 343/2, as tu to r of A lex a n d er. H e le ft
CaUisthenes as his successor, cf. M u bash ir 19, U sa ib ia 6. A ll this from

H erm ippus. — D oubtful: T h e resto tatio n of S ta gira, see T 27, also in
P to lem y ; S ta gira w as p ro b a b ly n ever d estroyed , see M u lv a n y ’s dis
cussion of th e evidence, in: Class. Quart. 20, 1926, p. 160. — aXXd xa i
— noielv, a n ote inserted from another source, tran sfer to
A risto tle of a h a b it p ra ctised in th e A ca d em y , and also in the later
schools. — Wrong: T h e slander on A risto tle and H erm ias, from th e
u n fav o u rab le trad itio n , T 21.
( 5 — 6 ) T h e sto ry a b o u t CaUisthenes (T 28) is from H erm ippus,
accord in g to D id ym u s in T 15- — T h e q u o ta tio n from H om er is used
in slig h tly d ifferen t form D L V I 53. - T h e epigram on H erm ias is
from H erm ip pus, see T 15 g. In th is passage from H erm ippus, D iogenes
has inserted a short n ote jJ Arj/no<piXov from P h avorin u s. I ta k e this
as an in d ication th a t D iogenes had access to th e origin al t e s t of H er-
m ippus. E u ry m e d o n ’s in d ictm en t is m en tion ed (and fu rth er elaborated)
in P to le m y ’s V ita , see M ubashir 20, U sa ib ia 7; th e inscription on ly
here and in D id ym u s. - O n E u m elu s, see T 46 a; all three statem en ts
are tran sfers from S ocrates to A risto tle , rgiaxovTovrrji; rejected b y
P to le m y in V ita S y ria ca I 6, F ih rist 6, U sa ib ia 12; V ita M arc. 11 says
TEoaaQaxovrovtrjQ, p ro b a b ly an error b y som e cop yist.
Correct: T h e p u n ishm en t of CaUisthenes. A ristotle, h a v in g sta y ed
th irteen y ea rs in A th en s w as ind icted for im p iety b y E u rym ed o n , le ft
A then s, and settled in Chalcis. H e set up a sta tu e of H erm ias in D elp h i
w ith th e reported inscription. E u m elu s’ statem en ts rig h tly rejected as
false. — Wrong: E um elus.
( 7 _ 8 ) See C. M. B ow ra, “ A risto tle ’s H ym n to V ir tu e ” , in: Class.
Quart. 32, 1938, pp. 18 2 — 189, w ith reference to earlier U terature (also
in: Problems in Greek Poetry, O xford 1953 ; PP- * 3 ® I 5 °)i ani^ ^he
ex cellen t com m ents b y D . E . W . WormeU, in: Y a le Class. Studies,
5 . 1935 . PP- 6 3 — 6 5 - I f 1 m a y use A risto tle ’s ow n w ords, Metaph. I I ,
993 b 2, I th in k th a t, b y now , a considerable am ou nt of know ledge
a b o u t th is poem is am assed. B o w ra ’s a n alysis of th e relation of this
poem to A rip h ro n ’s Paean and to X e n o p h o n s Mem. I I 1, 22 34^
* illu m in atin g; I q u ote his conclusion: ‘W e can u n derstan d w h y A risto tle
addressed ’ A g era in a U terary form th a t had b een proper to ApoUo.
So A risto tle p la y e d his p a r t in th e process b y w h ich th e old P aean ,
w h ich w as th e h y m n to ApoUo, w as gra d u a lly a d ap ted to new uses
u n til it b ecam e a h ym n of praise to such m en as Seleucus and T itu s
6o in g e m a k d ü r in g
F la m in ln u s.” I fu rth er agree w ith B o w ra th a t it is a m istak e to look

for rem iniscences of sp ecific A risto telia n eth ica l doctrin es in th is poem:
“ such ideas as it d isp lays are large ly tra d itio n a l” . A risto tle is n o t
tre a tin g 'A g e x a as th e P la to n ic F o rm or Id ea. B o w ra 's em endation
aav aveuzovxzg 6vvnfj.iv (he com pares P in d . Pyth. I 32 and X 9) is
a d efin ite im provem en t of th e te x t; and bvvafiiQ has of course n ot th e
special sense o f “ p o te n tia lity ” ; “ th ese heroes proclaim b y th eir deeds
th e po w er o f A r e ta ” . W o rm ell’s m ain con trib u tion is his fin e rem arks
on th e p o etical com position of th e h ym n . — T h e ad dition of x a i before
'AxagvioQ EvxQo<poQ spoils th e m etre. W ila m o w itz ’ em endations dofiov
and avSrjaovai M ovaai are ev id e n t im provem en ts. W h e th er w e should
read M va- or Mvrj/ioavvag is im m aterial, see G. B jo rc k , A lp ha purum ,
p. 187.
(9 ) O n A ris to tle ’s A p o lo g y, see m y n otes on T 44 and 45. — <pr]ai,
o m itted b y B , w as p u t b a c k in its rig h t p lace b y D.
P iecin g tog eth er th e evid ence w e g e t the follow in g p ictu re of how
th e tra d itio n has developed: (a) H erm ip pu s included in his b io g ra p h y
th e sto ry th a t, in a letter to A n tip a ter, A risto tle h ad le t fa ll th e tw o
rem arks allu d in g to S o cra tes’ fa te ( = T 44 a), (b) A rtem o n , or another
H ellen istic w riter, ad ded th e sto ry a b o u t th e A p o lo g y , tran sferrin g to
A risto tle th e sto ry a b o u t T h eo p h ra stu s’ A p o lo g y a ga in st H agnonides.
P h av o rin u s (and oth er w riters, T 45) spread th e sto ry; i t is now “ a
forensic sp eech ” , (c) P to le m y reported th e tw o d icta (V ita M arc. 41,
E lia s T 44 c), to g eth er w ith w h a t is now fou n d in M ubashir 22; b u t he
rejected th e A p o lo g y = U sa ib ia 10.
(9 — 1 0 ) See m y notes on T 1 a — e. — nag' avrov is th e w ell a ttested
lectio difficilior. — S ta h r saw th a t th e te x t in th e follow in g lines is in
disorder; th is m igh t be due to carelessness in th e tran scrip tion , b u t I
do n ot th in k th a t w e can lea ve th e t e x t unem ended. I h esitate to go
fu rth er and can cel th e erroneous nevxexaiSexa, a lth ou gh w e k n o w how
often num bers are corru pt. I also h esitate to p u t in th e t e x t B y w a te r's
a d d itio n <dvxa>; th is ge n itiv e w ith o u t th e p a rticip le is p erm itted in
th is k in d of u n lite ra ry lan gu age. In th e la s t p a rag ra p h , too, of th e
chronological e x tr a c t D iogenes h as m ade him self g u ilty of an error in
tran scrib in g his source; th e “ th ird y e a r of 0 I.114” belongs to x a i xe-
fevxrjoat, n ot to ibm oai. I t is d o u b tfu l w h eth er w e should co rrect
th is, b u t if w e do, w e should follow th e prin ciple in v a ria b ly applied of
p lacin g th e d a te a fter th e in fin itive , and n ot m erely let xa i chan ge its
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 6l
place. — W e do n ot k n ow from w h a t source D iogenes to o k th e q u o ta t

ion from A pollodoru s. — T h e n ote XeysTat — dcjga is from H erm ippus,
see T 28. P lu ta rch , V ita A lex . 8 = T 25 a, speaks a b o u t gifts and
honours conferred on A n a xa rch u s and X en ocrates; H erm ippus m en
tions A n axim en es of L am p sacu s ( = S u d a s. v.); it is possible th a t b o th
w riters referred to th e sam e person, and eith er of th e te x ts m igh t be
corrupt. — T h e w ords ngooxgoüaai TtS ßaatXel m a y refer to th e sto ry
told in T 28 b.
( 11) O n T h eo critu s, see T 58 k w ith com m ents. O n B ry o n of Chios,
see m y n ote on T ig h. B o th q u otation s are from H erm ippus.
The W ill. F ro m th e n ote after S tr a to n ’s w ill, D L V 64, xadd nov
ovvijyayev ’ Agiarcov 6 Kf.loq (this is th e readin g of B ), it is gen erally
assum ed th a t H erm ip pu s (see T 12 c) g o t th e t e x t of th e fou r w ills of
A risto tle , T h eo ph rastu s, S trato n , and L y c o n , from A risto n ’s Collectanea,
and D iogenes from H erm ippus, p o ssib ly th ro u g h P h avo rin u s as in ter
m ed iate source.
T h is rem ark ab le docu m en t h as been in terp reted and discussed over
and over again. S p ecial literatu re: C. G. B ru n s, “ D ie T estam e n te der
griechischen P hilosoph en ” , in: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte. Rom anistische Abtheilung. I, 1880, pp. 1 — 52; stresses
th e legal po in ts of view . R . D areste, “ L es testam en ts des philosophes
grecs” , in: A nnuaire des etudes grecques, 16, 1883, pp. 1 — 21; of little
valu e. A . H ug, “ Z u den T estam en ten der griechischen P hilosoph en ” ,
in: Zürich Universität. Festschrift zur Begrüssung der Vers. deutscher
Philologen u. Schulm änner. Z ü rich 1887, pp. 1 — 21; conscientious d is
cussion o f th e d ifficu lties. T h . G om perz, “ P laton isch e A u fs ä tz e I I .
D ie angebliche p laton isch e S ch u lb ib lio th ek u n d die T estam e n te der
P h ilo soph en ” , in: Sitz.-ber. A k a d . W ien, phil.hist. Classe, 140: 7, W ien
1899 (only on th e q uestion of th e school library); M. P lezia, “ T estam en t
P la to n a i A r y sto te le sa ” , in: M eander II , 1947, pp. 2 1 5 — 224; Jaeger,
Aristotle, pp. 320 — 22, fine in terp reta tio n of th e w ill as a hum an docu
m ent.
T h e w ill w as ed ited b y A n d ro n icu s in his book on A ris to tle ’s w ritings,
and e x tra cte d from th is source b y P to lem y-el-G arib and inclu d ed in his
b io grap h y (V ita M arc. 43, E lia s T 75 p), and fin a lly tran sm itte d to us
in tw o alm o st id en tica l A ra b ic tran slation s, F ih r isi an d U saibia I, see
m y com m ents p. 238. D iogenes’ te x t, u ltim a te ly d erived from A riston
of Ceos, th ro u g h H erm ip pu s and p ro b a b ly P h avorin u s, has passed m an y
62 in g e m a h d u r in g
interm ed iates. A ndronicus, on th e oth er h an d , m a y w ell h a v e found

a c o p y , perhaps even th e original docum ent, am ong A risto tle ’s p riv a te
papers, in th e fam ous find from Scepsis. T h is is on ly a con jectu re, and
th e m ain argu m en t in su p port of it is th a t it is d ifficu lt to th in k ou t
an oth er reason for A n d ronicu s to in clu d e th e te sta m en t in his book,
w hich ap p a ren tly w as no b io grap h y in th e proper sense of th e w ord.
A n d ro n icu s' te x t, a lth ou gh tra n sm itte d to us th ro u g h P to le m y and
S y ria c and A ra b ic tran slations, is in som e, n ot u n im p ortan t, points,
b e tte r th an D iogenes, as I h a v e show n in m y com m ents on U sa ib ia ’s
te x t. U n fo rtu n a te ly for us, th e t e x t is n ot com plete; p o ssib ly b ecau se
th e p a rag ra p h s on th e sta tu es did n ot in terest th e A ra b ic scholars. T h e
A ra b ic t e x t th u s is of g rea t va lu e, n o t for em ending th e t e x t of th e
G reek original, b u t for th e in terp reta tio n of th e fa ctu a l co n ten t of
th e w ill.
Som e scholars h a v e assum ed th a t th e e x ta n t w ill is on ly an ad dition
to an earlier m ore com plete w ill. T h e m ain reason for this assum ption
is th a t A r is to tle ’s w ill does not con tain a n y provisions concerning th e
school p ro p e rty and his lib ra ry . B u t A risto tle w a s a m etic in A thens;
h e could n o t leg a lly possess real e state in A th en s. H e h a d his fa th e r ’s
house in S ta gira, his m o th er’s house in Chalcis; he p ro b a b ly rented a
house in A then s; th e L y c e u m w as of course n o t “ h is” school, alth ou gh
he lectu red there. A cco rd in g to his w ill, he does n o t k n ow w here he
w ill be buried, onov av nounvTai rrjv Ta<prjv. T h ere is no reason to
presum e th e existen ce of an earlier w ill, and in a n y case w e do not
k n ow a n y th in g a b o u t it, since it is not referred to in th e e x ta n t will.
I ta k e it th en th a t A risto tle w rote th is w ill in Chalcis, som e m onths
b efore his death. T h e in fo rm ation a b o u t A ris to tle ’s f a m i l y con tain ed
in th e w ill I h a v e set dow n in T g a and in m y notes on T g — 14.
T h e ap p o in tm en t of A n tip a te r as a k in d of H o n o ra ry T ru stee, corre
sponding to th e R o m a n tutor honoris causa, testifies to th e g rea t friend
ship and in tim a te relations b etw een th e tw o m en, so d ifferen t in posi
tion and in th e ir w a y s of life.
A r is to tle ’s son N ico m ach u s is un iversal heir (legatee), b u t as h e is
of te n d er age, his siste r’s son b y P roxen u s, N ican o r, is to ta k e possession
o f th e estate as heres institutus (to use th e R o m a n term ), as soon as
he returns from his jou rn ey. T h a t he w as on a dangerous m ission, far
a w a y from hom e, is a p p a ren t from th e w ord s a t th e end of th e w ill.
V ita M arc. 2 says th a t A risto tle ad op ted him , and W ila m o w itz (P hil.
Unters. IV , p. 264, n. 1) held th a t th e ad option of N icanor w as a

n ecessary p rereq u isite to an u n d erstan d in g o f th e w ill. H u g rig h tly
refutes th is opinion. T h e supposed ad op tio n is a la te in terp retation of
th e w ords in th e w ill (1 h) “ as if he w ere fa th er and b ro th e r” .
T h e fiv e executo rs are p ro b a b ly close relatives. T h e y are to interven e
(a) if A risto tle should die before N ican o r has retu rn ed from his jou rney;
(b) if N ican o r should die p rem atu rely, b efore P y th ia s ’ m arriage, or
before she has a child, and (c) if N ica n o r dies in testa te, and (d) if
T h eo p h rastu s has n o t in terven ed to ta k e ch arge of th e children. No
less th a n fou r conditions are specified; w e ob serve T h eo p h rastu s’ peculiar
position as th e close friend of th e fa m ily , and in r e a lity it was he w ho
too k care of N icom achu s, for N ican o r died a few y ea rs a fte r A ristotle.
B u t A risto tle has sp ecu lated further: suppose th a t N ican o r should die
and T h eo ph rastu s b e unw illing, then th e decision is laid in the hands
of A n tip a te r. I t is all clear and logical, and could it b e otherwise?
(1 e) is en tirely d ev o te d to H erp yllis, his m aid an d chief serva n t
a fter his w ife P y th ia s ’ d eath. See m y n ote on T 12.
T h e prin ciple th a t sla ves sh ou ld be g iv en free x a x ' a£iav is m entioned
P ol. V I I , 1330 a 32 {the prom ise to deal fu rth er w ith th e question is
n ot fulfilled), and Oec. I 5, 1344 b 4.
Comments. T he oth er three w ills use th e presen t tense diazLQEixai.
In th e A ra b ic te x t th is sentence is m issing. I assum e th a t th e w ords
Sisdero ‘ AgtcnoreAqg are a p arap hrase b y P h av o rin u s or D iogenes.
— xaxaM ßrj, arrives and ta k es possesion of th e estate. — In th e w ords
naidoq naidlov th e ending w as a bb reviated ; it is now im possible to
sa y in each case w hich form A risto tle used. — T h e A ra b ic t e x t says
“ m y serva n t H e rp y llis” , an im p o rta n t differen ce. — (1 b) ixdooGai,
m isinterp reted in th e A ra b ic tran slation. V ita M arc, says dovvai. —
(1 c) T h e presen t tense is w ell a ttested , and C o b e t’s em endation unne
cessary. — T h is is W ila m o w itz ’ m ain argu m en t fo r a ccep tin g th e
sta tem en t in V ita M arcian a th a t A risto tle h ad ad op ted N ica n o r as
his own son. “ D ass er sogar, über das a ttisc h e R e c h t hin aus, das R e ch t
ein räum t, falls er m it der T o c h te r keine K in d e r erzeuge, selb ständ ig ein
T estam e n t über alle zu errichten, das w äre, w enn N iko m ach u s legitim er
Sohn und also In testa terb e w äre, eine gan z w id errechtliche B eein trä ch tig
un g des letzteren. E s ist also offenb ar N ika n o r U n iversalerbe; zu seinen
L a ste n fallen alle E in zel Verfügungen, zu gu nsten der H erp yllis, des
N icom achus, einzelner S k la v e n .” B u t th is is an in terp retation b u ilt
64 IN G E M A R D U R IN G
on R o m a n conditions. B ru n s and H u g r ig h tly o b ject th a t if N ican o r

had been an ad op ted son, th e w ill w ou ld n ecessarily h a v e con tain ed
som e h in t to th is effect. W h a t w e know is th a t N ieom ach u s (who, if
w e accep t th e A ra b ic t e x t in 2 a, is th e u n iversal legatee) w as of tend er
age, perhaps four or fiv e yea rs old, and th a t N ican or, son of A r is to tle ’s
sister A rim neste, w as th e old est m ale m em ber of th e fa m ily; it is h u m an ly
un derstan d ab le th a t A risto tle tru sted him in th e w a y he does in th is
w ill, w ith o u t h a v in g fo rm ally ad op ted him . — ( i d) T h e A ra b ic te x t
says: “ If N ican o r sh ould die in testa te , and if T h eo p h rastu s consents
and is w illin g to ta k e his p la c e ” . T h is is m uch clearer th a n th e G reek
te x t, in w hich th e in terp re ta tio n of elvat jie.ta ttJq jiatdog rem ains
an open question. S e x tu s E m p iricu s, T n b, says th a t P y th ia s m arried
N icanor; th is is our on ly evid en ce th a t he retu rn ed from his dangerous
m ission. H e died soon a fterw ard s, and P y th ia s m arried Procleus;
he too died, and b efore 300 she m arried th e fam ou s p h ysician M etrodorus.
A cco rd in g to T h eo p h rastu s’ w ill “ A ristotle, th e son of M etrodorus and
P y t h ia s ” is to associate w ith th e m em bers of th e school, if he so desires.
T h is in d icates th a t h e w as too y o u n g to b e in clu d ed in th e group of
rep u tab le scholars, called th e xotvcavia. T h e p rovisions in T h eo p h rastu s’
w ill p ro v e th a t he a c tu a lly did w h a t A risto tle in (1 d) foresees: “ he
to o k his ( = N ica n o r’s) p la ce ” . I th in k th e A ra b ic t e x t conies closer
to th e origin al th a n D iogenes. — (1 e) T h e e x tr a c t from H erm ip p u s in
A th en . 389 c = T 12 c, confirm s th a t D iogen es’ t e x t is th e sam e as
th a t of H erm ippus. T h e A ra b ic t e x t is m ore ex p lic it and ch aracterizes
H erp yllis cle arly as h a v in g a s e r v a n t’s sta tu s. See m y note on T 12.
— dva£UoQ is w ell a tte ste d and th e sam e expression recurs in (2 a).
H is provision s fo r H e rp yllis te s tify to his g ra titu d e for h er go od services;
in d irectly, and lik e th e w ill as a w hole, his w ord s b ear w itn ess of his
n oble ch aracter. — (2 a) See m y n ote on th e A ra b ic te x t. M yrm ex
m u st h a v e h ad som e sp ecial sta tu s in th e household, b u t th e w ord ing
excludes th e p o ssib ility th a t h e w as A risto tle 's son b y H erp yllis. —
av, ad ded b y th e v u lg a ta b efore a£tcoq is a plain m istake. T h e d a tiv e
r o t; ISioiQ goes b est w ith inixoafiT) 6fj, and avv toIq vnagxovaiv w ith
Enixofiiodj). B u t t olq i&ioiQ EnMoafirfieiq b itxo fiia d fj avv zoig vna g -
Xovaiv w ou ld be an in to lera b ly verb ose expression. As th e te x t
stan ds now , rolg Idioig is e q u iv a le n t to ngoq tovq idiovQ, “ to his
hom e” , and th is is w h a t th e A ra b ic tran slatio n says, too. — (2 c)
T h ales is a b o y , n o t a g irl as H ick s assum ed. — (2 d) is corrupt;
th e va rio u s em endations, inclu d ing m y ow n, are su b jective. — (2 e)
T achon, un an im ou sly tran sm itte d in th e G reek and A ra b ic tradition,
can h a rd ly b e right, accordin g to w h a t sp ecialists on G reek nam es
assure. N everth eless it m u st h a ve been accep ted as th e righ t form b y
P to lem y , fo r else it w ould not h a v e fou n d its w a y to th e A ra b ic tran sla
tions. T h e list of m ore th a n tw o th o u san d nam es, afford ed b y th e
M ycenaean ta b le ts, show s th a t there w as m u ch m ore freedom than w e
h a v e h ith erto know n in m akin g proper nam es b y com bining a ll kinds
of stem s w ith stereotyp ed endings. So, a fter all, T ach o n m igh t b e right.
Tâ%iOTOÇ is found as a m an ’s nam e; th e ty p e is com m on, cf. ErgafSoiv,
MÉvcdv etc. (3 a — d) S ta tu es (or busts) are to b e m ad e of the grow n-up
m em bers of th e fam ily: A r is to tle ’s b roth er A rim nestu s, his sister Arim -
neste and her husband P roxen u s and th eir son N icanor; w e do not know
th e reason w h y his m o th er’s sta tu e should b e d ed icated to D em eter at
N em ea (I h a v e found no m ention of such a tem p le in th e literature).
(3 c) proves th a t his m arriage w ith P y th ia s w as a h a p p y one and disproves
th e slander. T h e vo w in (3 d) p roves th a t N ica n o r’s jo u rn ey w as of a
dangerous character; h e m ig h t h a v e been sen t to S ta gira to settle
som ething. On possible id en tification s, see T 13. On a XiBiva
see Journ. of Philology 32, 1 9 17 , p 303, and th e note in H ick s' edition.
Cf. £wa fiagfiagiva, A th en . V 196 f.
( 16 ) Xéyerai ôè xa i Xonâôaç xrX. See m y n ote on L y c o n P y th a g o -
reus, p. 391, and cf. m y note on M uhashir 5. I t testifies to th e fa c t th a t
A risto tle w as rich, and th a t he suffered from a stom ach disease. The
in triguin g sto ry a b ou t his alaru m -d evice is trea ted b y P. M oraux,
“ L e réveille-m atin d A r is t o t e ” , in: Les Études classiques 19, 19 5 1, pp.
305— 315. H e recalls th e sim ilar sto ry a b ou t P la to , A th en . I V 174 c,
see D iels’ reconstruction in A n tike T echnik2, 1920, p. ig8 . M orau x
shows th a t A risto tle ’s d evice m ust h a v e been a kin d of clepsyd ra, w h ich,
w hen th e w ater reached a certain level, p rojected a sm all b ronze ball;
the b a ll fell down, Xexavrjç imoxeifiévrjç, into a b ron ze vessel, pro d u c
ing a sound w hich w oke him up. T h e t e x t as given b y D iogenes is
p ro b a b ly epitom ized; fiaXXeaBai avr <5 is su sp ect b u t tolerable, eiq
t ?jv XEÎQCi gives no sense a t all; th e ball m u st fall, not in his hand, b u t
in th e bronze vessel, and a t th e e x a c t tim e when he w anted to be roused
from his slum ber. M o ra u x ’ em endation eig ttjv xaigiav (sc. wgav)
restores the sense; eîç xaigiav w ith o u t the article is still better; a cco rd
ing to the b est a ttested u sage xaigiav alone, as a p red icative a d je ctiv e
Gôieb. U n i v . A r s s k t. L X I I I : 2 5
66 INGEMAR DÜRING
to atpaigav, w ou ld h a ve been su fficien t. A m tnianu s (or his source) m is

in terp reted th e sto ry , b elievin g th a t th e b all fell “ from his h a n d ” .
( 1 7 — 2 1 ) See T 67. I t is p rob ab le th a t H erm ippus, too, included a
n um ber of apop hth egm s in his b io grap h y. In a n y case D iogen es has
m ade additions from oth er sources. T h e sto ry in (21) 7iqoq t 6v a h ia -
adfitvov is a d o u b let o f (17) oveidiô/xsvoQ n o te. T h e series of d efin itions
o f b e a u ty in (19) includes a d efin ition b y Carneades, w h o is a t lea st one
gen eration later th a n H erm ippus. Comments: (17) rov avdgamov —
Tip dvOgamivtp, Cic. Pro Quinctio 31, 97: si non hom inis, at hum anitatis
rationem habere: H erodes A ttic u s ap. G ell. N o d . A lt. I X 2, 7: demus
huic aliquid aeris cuicuim odi est, tamquam homines, non tamquam hom ini.
M o st o f these apop hthegm s are “ w an d erin g” stories. — aepos is
p ro b a b ly an a n cien t gloss, b u t D iogenes m igh t h a ve found it a lread y
in his source, see p. 21. — (18) T his a p op h th egm is qu oted b y H ieron.
Comm, in lerem . I, n , and b y A usonius, Protr. ad nepotem (Idyll.
IV ), 72 carpturi dulcem fructum radicis amarae. — T h e sto ry abou t
D iogen es and th e fig is curious. W e h a v e a p arallel in D L I I 118.
T h e cu stom w as this: A held ou t a fig to B , p u ttin g a question to
him; if B g a v e the co rrect (or expected) answ er, h e to o k th e fig.
K u h n , in his com m ents on th is passage, suggests certain em endations
in order to harm on ize th e tw o passages, b u t his te x t does not m ake
b e tte r sense. A s fa r as I can see, th e p o in t here is th a t A risto tle despised
th e p la y w ith th e fig and kn ew D iogenes to o well to enter into a discu s
sion w ith him . — (19) B y w a te r ’s em end ation of roiftro is n ecessary,
b u t I do n ot th in k th a t C o b e t’s Oeofi is needed, even if A risto tle speaks
o f happiness and oth er good th in g as Sdigrjfia 6eoi5, Eth. N ic . I g, 1099 b
11. “ B e a u ty is n a tu re ’s g ift to m a n ” is w h a t he m eans. T h is sentence,
in clu d in g C arnead es’ d efin ition, is a note, inserted b y D iogenes in th e
source he tran scribed . Im m isch, (“ E in G ed ich t des A risto te le s” , in:
P h ilo l. 65, 1906, pp. 1 — 25) m ista k en ly said th a t A risto tle held P la to
in such a h igh esteem th a t he called him Tcgoregrj/ia <pvoea>g, and H eilan d
in his d issertation , A ristoclis M essen ii reliquiae, Giessen 1925, p. 44,
ela b o ra ted th e th e m e further; th is is th e reason w h y th is m istak e found
its w a y in to th e hand books. T h is is a good illu stra tio n to w h a t w e m u st
assum e happ en ed v e r y often in th e a n cien t b io grap h ica l trad itio n . —
d&ngixpogrjTOt;, P o l. V 12, 1 3 1 5 b 28, P lu t. A ristides 7. — rtvt dtatpegov-
atv, an oth er answ er to th e sam e question D L I 69. — oaco tcovrsg, Otium
sine litteris mors est et hom inis vivi sepultura, Seneca E p. mor. 82,3.
(2 0 ) Eth. E nd. V I I 6, 1240 b 2 Aeyerai negl <piAiat; <!)g laor-qg <piAo-

TfjQ, xa i fiLav tpvyjjv elvai rolg 1ptAotg. R ic h a rd s’ em endation qjiAta
is an im provem en t; a sim ilar error in V 31, in b o th cases p ro b a b ly due
to a b b re via tio n s of the endings. ( 2 1 ) T h is apop hthegm , d u p licatin g th e
one in (17) is ta k e n from an oth er source, and th is is in d icated b y th e
lan guage, too. In th e firs t version w e find eAerj/j.oavvrjv in th e concrete
sense, “ a lm s” , w hich is late H ellen istic usage. T h e tw o apophthegm s
ngoQ rov ainaadfievov and iQcoTrjBeig jta>g t olg <piAoig are construed
w ith th e oblique o p ta tive, n ot found in a n y of th e tw e n ty -o n e previous
ones, av, r ig h tly cancelled b y R ich ard s, is an error caused b y the sub
sequen t av. T h ese tw o apophthegm s, th en , are ta k en from th e same
source. T hen follow tw o apop hthegm s in th e form of definitions, again
from another source; fin a lly, a n ote from P h avorin u s, in clu d in g an
an n otation from D iogenes him self: “ th is is found in the seven th book
of th e E th ics, to o ” . T h is n ote proves th a t H erm ip pu s (or th e unknow n
author) had access to or kn ew an ed ition of th e Eudemean E thics w hich
included th e books w hich it h as in com m on w ith th e Nicom achean
Ethics.
T h e parallels adduced in th e testim on ia show th a t not a few of these
tw e n ty -six apophthegm s are genuine in th e sense th a t th e ideas th e y
express are found in A risto tle ’s e x ta n t w ritings. B u t w e can cle arly
see th a t th e collection is com piled from differen t sources an d th a t it
contain s som e “ w an d erin g” stories, and som e sa yin gs a ttrib u te d to
oth er people, too. W e can therefore ascribe to A risto tle no oth er sayin gs
th an those attested b y his own e x ta n t w ritings.
The Catalogue of Aristotle's writings h as recen tly been th o ro u g h ly

exam ined and discussed b y P. M oraux, L isles anciennes des ouvrages
d'A ristote, L o u va in 1951. I refer to his b ib lio gra p h y and his copious
and careful references to th e earlier literatu re. I h a ve refu ted his thesis
concerning th e origin of th e c atalo g u e in m y paper “ A riston or H erm ip
p u s?” , in: Class, et med. iy , 1956, pp. 1 1 — 21, b u t th is hyp o th esis is a
rath er un im p ortan t detail in his v a lu a b le book. H is m ain contrib u tion
is th e in terp retation and discussion of th e in d ivid u al titles. I h ave
lim ited m yself to v e ry brief notes, appended to each in d ivid u al title in
th e testim on ia under th e text; for fu rth er inform ation I refer to M oraux.
A s I h a v e said in m y paper, m entioned a b o v e (which I am now
sum m arizing), our evidence favou rs th e trad itio n a l opinion th a t the
68 INGEMAR DÜRING
ca ta lo g u e is a list of m anu scrip ts of A r isto tle ’s w orks in th e possession

o f th e A lex a n d rian lih ra ry. T o be m ore precise, I w ould sa y th a t it
is an in v e n to ry of th e m anu scrip ts acq u ired fa irly soon a fter th e lib ra ry
w a s established. A p a r t from the History of A n im a ls and th e Anatom ai,
th e im p o rta n t b iologic w orks and th e Meteorology are m issing, b u t these
w orks are ex p ressly m en tion ed and qu oted b y th ird ce n tu ry w riters;
it is in con ceivab le th a t th e A lex a n d ria n lib ra ry should not h a v e possessed
copies of these w orks. T h eir absence from our catalo g u e is b est exp lained ,
if w e assum e th a t it is an old in v e n to ry m ad e before th e collection w as
com plete. T h e disposition of th e in v e n to ry is this:
(1) N os. i — 19. The w orks m ost w id ely k n o w n by th e general

p u b lic in H ellen istic tim es.
(2) N os. 20— 24. H ere w e recogn ize A r is to tle ’s synopses of P la to ’s
d ialogues and oral teach in g , later qu oted under th e co lle ctive title
r a nXaxum tnd. W e do n ot k n ow a n y th in g certain a b ou t 2 3 — 24; th e y
m ig h t be d o x o g ra p h ic h yp o m n em a ta of th e k in d m entioned b y A risto tle
Top. I 14, 105 b 12.
3. N os. 2 5 — 73. L o g ic a l and d ialectica l w ritings. Som e of th e
titles are k now n to us as title s of sep a ra te p a rts o f th e pragm aties, other
titles seem to b e e n tire ly o u t o f place. In m a n y in stan ces M o ra u x ’s
in terp retation s of in d iv id u a l title s are convincing. M ore th a n a n y other
p a rt o f th e catalo g u e, this sectio n giv es th e im pression of b eing an
in v e n to ry of m an u scrip ts in th e possession o f a lib rary . I t is lik e ly
th a t N os. 42, 43 and 62 w ere d ifferen t m anu scrip ts of th e sam e w ork,
and th e sam e can b e said a b o u t N os. 48, 56 and 57. W e m ust rem em ber
th a t <paaiv ev tfj fit,yakr\ flipl/.toOijxr) evofjaOai ' Avalxrcinoiv /j.ev rea-
oagaxovTa flifiAov;, KaTijyoguhv Se dvo, P hilop. In Cat pr., C I A G
X I I I 1, p. 7. 26.
4. N os. 7 4 — 75 P o litica l w ritings, v e r y m eagre indeed. W e should
h a v e exp ected to fin d th e eth ical treatises here {it is alm o st certain th a t
E p icu ru s k new and used th e Nicomachean E thics), and th e om ission is
d ifficu lt to exp lain . N os. 7 8 — 79. W o rk s on rh eto ric and on style.
N os. 90 — n o (109— ix o m a y b e la te interpolations). W o rk s pertain in g
to n atural p h ilosop h y and b iology. N os. i l l — 116 . M ath em atical
w orks, in clu d in g optics and m u sical th eory. In th is section w e can see
th a t th e a u th o r has a ttem p ted to arran ge th e books accord in g to their
su b ject m atter.
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION Gg
5. N os. 1 1 7 — 127 (128). ’ Aizogij/xara and 7iQo^Xrjfj,aTa. I t is possible

th a t 128 is a co llective title referrin g to th e follow in g section.
6. N os. 12 9 — 144. C ollectan ea. H ere N os. 141 — 142 are certain ly
m isplaced, p ro b a b ly in terp olated in th e course of transm ission.
7. L e tte rs and poetry.
I can fin d no p h ilosoph y behind th is arran gem en t, no idea th a t
A r is to tle ’s w ritings should b e arran ged accord in g to som e principle
inh erent in his philosophy; it is p u re ly m a tter-o f-fa ct. A n y librarian
endow ed w ith com m on sense cou ld h a v e m ade th is list, sta rtin g w ith
th e m ore w ell-know n, p opu lar w orks, p roceedin g w ith th e b u lk of th e
sch olarly w orks ro u gh ly arran ged accord in g to their su b ject-m atter,
then th e so-called h y p o m n em a tic w orks and th e collectan ea, and
finish in g th e catalo g u e w ith th e personal d ocu m en ts, letters and poetry.
H erm ip pus w orked in th e A lex a n d rian lib ra ry and had access to its
inven tories and catalogu es. H e h it u pon an old in v en to ry of A risto tle ’s
w ritin gs and in corporated it in his b io grap h y, w ith o u t essen tially (or
perhaps a t all) chan gin g its character. P erh ap s he realized th a t it
w ould h a ve in v o lved him in a laborious w ork, en tirely outside his
com petence, to in v estig a te these fou r hun dred-odd rolls, m a n y of
w hich had more or less id en tical titles or no titles a t all.
Diogenes' outline of Aristotle's -philosophy, V 28— 34, h as been tre a te d

b y P. M oraux, “L ’exposé de la ph ilosophie d ’A risto te chez D iogène
L a e rc e ” , in: Revue philos, de Louvain 47, 1949, pp. 5 — 43. I do not
agree w ith M oraux th a t A risto tle “ du tem ps q u ’il é ta it encore p la to
nicien, il exp rim ait des idées bien d ifféren tes” , and th a t “ une v é rita b le
révolution s ’est opérée dans son esprit lo rsq u ’il com pose l ’E thique” ) he
has ex aggerated th e difference betw een th e dialogues and th e school
literature; he is convinced th a t the Nicom achean E thics and other
pragm aties w ere un kn ow n before A ndronicus. A lth o u gh I h a ve a
d ifferen t opinion in these m atters, I agree alm ost en tirely w ith M o rau x's
analysis of D iogen es’ outline, and m y com m ents show how m uch I
h a ve learned from his va lu a b le article.
D iogen es’ outline or epitom e consists of three parts, dealing w ith
logical, eth ical and p h ysical ôàÇai. T h e logical epitom e is of poor
q u ality ; th e original au th or of th is epitom e k n ew A risto tle ’s w ritings
in th e condition in w hich th e y w ere circu lated before A n d ro n icu s’
edition; he saw A risto tle through stoical sp ectacles and described his
70 INGEMAR DÜRING
opinions in sto ica l term s. T h e eth ical epitom e is clear and on th e w hole
based on c o rrect in terp retation s of opinions expressed in th e Nicom a-
chean E thics an d th e dialogues. B u t th is epitom e, too, has a stoical
tinge. T h e last epitom e, a lth o u g h m eagre in con ten t, is of excellen t
q u a lity and w ith o u t traces of syn cretism , and m u st h a v e been w ritten
a fte r A ndronicus; it could for in stan ce be based on N icolau s of D am ascu s
or som e of th e oth er ea rly p a rap h rasts. I t is im possible to sa y w hether
D iogenes used three d ifferen t sources or fou n d th e w hole ou tlin e in an
an th o lo gy; in m y opinion w e h a v e a te n d en cy to u n d erestim ate his
c a p a b ility o f h u n tin g up sources and com pilin g m aterial. In a n y case
I do n ot th in k th a t he fou n d th is o u tlin e appended to th e catalogu e,
a lth ou gh he inserts it b etw een a p a ra g ra p h on th e n um ber of lines,
o b v io u sly b elon gin g to th e catalogu e, and a p a rag ra p h on th e num ber
o f A r isto tle ’s w ritin g s, w hich m a y b elon g to th e catalogu e. I t is a
com m on h a b it w ith him to in sert new m aterial in a source w hich he
is tran scribing.
( 2 8 — 2 9 ) Povkerai ev avrotg rdfie. T h is serves as a title of his
outline. T h e d ivision of p h ilosop h y in to tw o p arts, th e p ra ctica l and
th e th eoretical, is fou n d ev eryw h ere in A r is to tle ’s w ritings. T h e in te l
lectu a l a c t iv ity w hich is called noirjtixov, cre a tiv e a c tiv ity , is often
m entioned, e. g. E th. E u d . I 5, 12 16 b 17. T h e Poetics is an exam ple
c f a w o rk d ev o te d to one bran ch of c re a tiv e a c tiv ity . T h is d ivision is
also the b ack gro u n d of th e discussion of th e “ w isdom of th e in te lle c t”
and “ p ra ctic a l w isd om ” in th e Protrepticus. L a te r com m en tators w ho
cared m ore for th e form th an fo r th e su b stan ce of A risto tle ’s ph ilosop h y,
sp eak a b o u t th e th ree-fo ld d ivision of p h ilosop h y as an a ccep ted A r is to
telia n d ogm a. B u t th e tw o -fo ld division is found even am ong th e
n eop laton ists, e. g. A m m on iu s I n Porph. is., C l A G I V 3, p . 11.6 . The
su b d ivision o f p ra ctic a l ph ilosop h y is correct; b u t then th e confusion
begins.
t ov de OecoQrjTixov tov re tpvatxov x a l Aoyixov. T h is is th e stoical
d ivision. The stoics a m alg a m a ted m etap h ysics {= w hat A risto tle
th o u g h t of as th e m o st e x a lte d p a r t of th e o retical philosophy) w ith
p h ysics, and th e term “ lo g ic ” , in trod u ced b y th e Stoics, com prised both
logic in th e A risto telia n sense, d ialectics and rhetoric. T h ro u gh A lb in u s and
oth er sy n cretistic w riters, th e n eop laton ists in h erited th is arrangem ent.
ov to Aayixov ov% <wc fjisgoq aAA’ d>q ogyavov ngorjxgtfio)/j,£vov. T h e
m anuscrip ts read oXofiegdtq, w h ich is im possible (6).oaxena>q w ou ld be
ARISTOTLE IX THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 71
slig h tly b etter), b u t M o rau x saw th a t w e h a v e here a sligh t indication

of som ething w hich later b ecam e a cherished topic, n am ely the question
w h eth er logic is p a rt of ph ilosophy or m erely of p rop aedeu tic value,
see A m m on ius I n A n al.p r., C I A G I V 6, p. 10.8 — 11.22. H e suggested
ojg oAov fienoQ, b u t I th in k /lEQoq, is su fficien t, IlgoorjXQtficofievov does
n ot giv e sense; the w ord is found in S trab o X V 1,14 , p. 690, in th e sense
“ to add fu rth er ex a ct d eta ils” . T h e sense required here is "a n in stru
m en t w hich from th e ou tset gu aran tees ex a ctn e ss” , and ngoaxgiflovv,
a lth o u g h foun d o n ly Schol. A ra ti 58 (accord in g to Stephanus), is on
a par w ith ajiaxgifiovv, Staxgifiovv, iâxgifiovv. T h is sm all parenthesis
arouses suspicion in th is co n tex t, becau se it a d vo cates a d octrin e w hich,
as fa r as I know , is n ot traced before A ndronicus. T h e idea th a t logic
is a p rop aed eu tic science, an in stru m en t of ph ilosophy, is A ristotelian
(Top. V I I I 14, 163 b 11), b u t m en tion ed b y him o n ly in passing.
An d ronicus form u lated th e d octrin e and in ven ted Organon as a collective
title of th e logical corpus. F ro m th e discussion in Am m onius (I. c.) we
ga th er th a t t iveq rwv IIAazajvixcbv held th a t logic w as p a rt of p h ilo
sophy; it is A lb in u s and his follow ers he has in m ind. A p a rt from this
parenthesis, th e logical epitom e is d ecid ed ly p re-A n d ronicean in ch a
racter; th e logical w orks are n ot qu oted in th e m anner w e are used to
a fter A n dronicus (see M o ra u x ’s com m ents). I th erefore conclude th a t
this parenthesis is a la ter ad dition to th e original epitom e, b u t I d ou b t
w hether D iogenes had th e com peten ce to m ake it.
x a l to v to v diTTOVQ — 8ieaa<prjae. T h is again is correct: in rhetoric
the aim is to a tta in nicniQ and to mOavov, w hereas d ialectics aim s at
th e tru th . B u t the am algam ation of logic w ith rhetoric is stoical; it
is in terestin g to com pare A lb in u s’ Epitom e 8. T h a t <ptkooo<pla (no d ou b t
the a u th or w as th in k in g of w hat w e call m etaphysics) occurs tog eth er
w ith dvaXvTixri (in th e au th or's lan gu age = dialectics) m igh t be e x
plain ed sim ply b y th e fa c t th a t these tw o b oth aim a t atta in in g dArjdeia.
U n lik e M oraux, I can n o t see traces of P laton ism in th is incid en tal use
of th e w ord <ptAooo<pta. — ovdev vnokemo/iEvog xxX. T h is, too, I ta k e
as a general ch ara cte riza tio n of A risto tle ’s achievem ents in th e field
of logic and rhetoric, and as such it is correct: th e term s correspond to
inventio, iudicium , applicatio. T h e T opics is m ain ly devoted to evgeai-.
th e Analytics to xgioig, and XQfjOii is dealt w ith everyw h ere, b u t
p a rticu la rly in th e Soph. E l. and th e Rhetoric. M o rau x rig h tly observes
th a t th e a u th or of th e ep itom e characterizes the aim and co n ten t of
72 INGEMAR DÜRING
th e logical w ritin g s in v e ry general term s and, s tr ic tly speaking, his

a cco u n t is n ot correct. B u t th is is w h a t w e ex p ec t to find in an u tte rly
abrid ged ep itom e such as this, r a krjfifj,ara — nQoiaaeit;, is stoical
usage. T h e te x t m u st b e em ended in three places: 'O n n x a . for Tonixa.
w as corrected b y Step h anu s; before jigoTaaecDV jiXrjOoQ M orau x rig h tly
ad ded (x a i); th e error in th e su b seq u en t p a rt of th e sentence, jiqoq xrjv
Zgrjoiv — tovtoiq is n ot so ea sy to define precisely, and th e te x tu a l
problem can be solved in va rio u s w a ys. T h e sim plest solu tio n is this:
as exam ples of w ritin gs inten ded for p ra ctica l use he first m entions
ra re ayaivicnixa xa i r a tieq 'i iounyaeatg, then (ra negl) egicrrixajv
re. xa i ao<piarixu>v iA iyyoiv etc. A s is ap p a ren t from th e testim on ia,
th e first expression is used, 165 b 1 1 , as a description of th e su b ject
d ea lt w ith in th e Soph, el., and in th e pre-A n d ronicean catalogu es several
titles are found, corresponding to sep arate p a rts of th e Soph. el. and
th e Topics. W e can n o t know , how ever, w h eth er th e au th or had certain
“ b o o k s” in m ind, or if he is sim ply giv in g a general description of th e
Soph. el. an d certain parts of the Topics. T h e expression xai t & v ofioiwv
tovtoiq fa vo u rs the second a ltern a tive. — nQirrjQiov : th e stoical
term in o logy is a p p aren t, b u t th e sta tem en t is correct; a sim ilar doxo-
g ra p h y is fou n d in D iels Doxogr. 456.9— 12, from A riu s D id ym u s.
M o raux rig h tly saw th a t votf? as a criterion stan d s for w h a t A risto tle
called ogdoQ XoyoQ or ogOi] xgiaiq (see m y review of D irlm eier’s N ikom .
E thik, in: Gnomon 1957, p. 182).
(30) T h e a u th or of th e ethical epitome has applied th e d oxograp h ic
m ethod, an d th e disposition is intelligen t: (a) th e aim of an eth ical
life, (b) d ifferen t k ind s of goods, ovfinArjgw/ta, (c), v irtu e is not avTagxrjq,
b u t v ic e is, (d) th e v irtu es are not recip ro cally im plied, (e) th e w ise
m an an d th e passions, (f) friendship, (g) th e social life of th e w ise m an,
(h) th e th ree k ind s of life, (i) th e v a lu e of a gen eral ed u cation for th e
a tta in m en t of virtu e.
T h e te n d en cy, to o , is clear. T h e au thor is a S toic w ho desires to
show th a t A risto tle p a r tly agrees w ith , p a r tly differs from sto ical
doctrine. On th e w hole th e in terp re ta tio n of A risto tle is correct,
a lth ou gh th e sto ical tin g e is apparent.
T h e end of eth ica l life is co rrectly defined, b u t avfinX^Qcofia is stoical
term inology, C h rysip pu s, S F F I I I 73. D em etriu s L aco n , col. 14,4 (ed.
D e F alco ), speaks of nXtigcofia tcuv ayaOcbv. I ta k e it th a t th is is an
in terp retation in sto ical term in o lo gy of A ris to tle ’s d efin ition £a)rjg
reXeiat; evegyeia x a z ' agf.TTjv reksiav. A risto tle n ever speaks of the
goods of th e soul as ngw ra xfj dwajiEi, b u t th e sense is im plied in th e
passages qu oted am ong th e testim on ia, and also in Rhet. I 5, 1360 b 25.
(c) is q u ite correct, a lth ou gh w e can n o t fin d e x a c tly th is form ula in
A risto tle s e x ta n t w ritings; this lea ves a broad m argin for conjectu res
concern in g his dialogues; see M oraux, w ho h ow ever also observes th a t
A lex a n d e r, De anima., C l A G S u p p l. II , p. 154.28, in his c h a p ter en titled
o n avraxoXovOo’S aiv at agerai sa y s xa i eotiv ai>Tdgxr)<; rt xa xia ngog
xaxo&aifioviav. In m y opinion (c) is n oth in g h u t an in terp retation
in stoical lan gu a g e of A ristotle; in th e n e x t p a rag ra p h th e author
fr a n k ly ad m its th a t th e sto ical d octrin e of th e interdepend en ce of the
v ir tu e s is n ot A risto telian , cf. C hrysippus, S V F I I I 72, S ex t. E m p.
Pyrrh. H yp, I 68. Text: M ost editors h a v e retain ed (bg before xaxoSai-
/iov?joovTog, added b y D and ad op ted b y th e A ldina; th e sta tem en t
is m ore o b je c tiv e w ith o u t th is a>g.
(31) flergiojrddEta. T h is, too , is stoical in terp reta tio n of A ristotle;
th e w ord is n ot found in A ristotle, b u t th e id ea is in com plete agreem ent
w ith his fieaorrjg, cf. e .g . E th. N ic . I I 4, 1105 b 28 « 6f. /leaan; ex5.
C icero says a b o u t th e O ld A ca d em y , L u cu llu s 44, 135 mediocrilates illi
probabanl et in omni permutatione naturalem volebant quendam modum.
I can n o t see th a t th ere is a n y con tra d ictio n in v o lve d b etw een w h at
A risto tle says in the fragm en ts of his p o p u lar w orks (some of w hich
are found in T 67 e 5 — 7) and in the th ree eth ical pragm aties or in the
Rhetoric on th e su b jec t of ogytf and aogyrjaia. In som e situ ation s of
life a good and h e a lth y anger is b oth desirable and necessary, b u t we
should n ever allow ourselves to be blinded b y rage. I t is the ty p ic a l
A risto telian com m on-sense attitu d e; we h a v e rea lly no evid ence for
“ cette fougeuse lu tte du jeu n e A risto te con tre les p a ssion s” ; on the
co n tra ry , th e fragm en ts of th e Protrepticus, b est k now n of all popu lar
w orks of A risto tle in th e 35o’ies, te stify to his w ell-balan ced ju d gm en t
and m id d le-w ay position.
ipdia. A g a in w e fin d th a t th e d efin ition is correct, a lth ou gh A risto tle
has n ot used e x a c tly these w ords in a n y of the num erous passages in
w hich he defines friendship. If, then, A risto tle him self does n ot stick
to a certain form u la, w h y should w e conclude th a t th e sto ical ep itom ator
to o k th is special form u la from an otherw ise unknow n w ork On F rien d
ship? Evvoia is, accord in g to EN I X 5, 116 7 a 3, dgxV <pMa~:
avriaTgotpoig is, as far as I can see from the passages adduced b y
74 INGEM A R D Ü R IN G
B o n itz, n ever used b y A risto tle in e x a c tly th e sense required here; it

is H ellen istic usage. B u t if w e com pare th e passages given in th e testi-
m onia, and th e ep itom e in M M I I I I , 1210 a 7, w e shall fin d th a t th e
d efin ition given b y our ep itom ator is correct. A risto tle often speaks
of th ree species of friend ship , based on to ayaBov r)bv XQiioipov (the
lan gu age varies), and th e e p ito m a to i id en tifies these w ith ovyysvtxi)v
eoa>rixrjv Hevixijv, w hich, if n ot e x a c tly coverin g th e field, is n ot bad.
I do not th in k th a t th e lan gu age of th e ep itom e ju stifies th e conclusion
th a t its au th or w as en tirely ign oran t of A risto tle ’s eth ical pragm aties.
T h e d ivision of friend ship into th ree species, fou n d in D L I I I 81 =
= D ivisiones Aristoteleae 2, su b stitu tes (pvotxij for crvyyEvixij, w hich is
an oth er reasonable in terp re ta tio n of A risto tle 's doctrine.
xa i egaaBrjaeaQat. T h e au th or h as th e S to ica l ideal of T h e W ise
M an in m ind, a d evelo p m en t of A r is to tle ’s anovdalog rivrjO. W e h a ve
no frag m en t of A risto tle in d icatin g th a t h e d ea lt w ith th e su b ject of
th e social life of th e W ise M an, and I fin d it d ifficu lt to b elieve th a t
th e d ialogu e IJ o k n ixo g d ealt w ith th is su b ject. T h e m eagre fragm en ts
sp eak an oth er lan gu age, and so does Protr. fr. 13, w h ich I th in k is
based on th e TIoXtTixoq and P la to ’s d ialogu e w ith th e sam e title.
Text: ovfißiM oeiv is p referable for p alaeograp h ical reasons, and th e
a c tiv e is n ot uncom m on in la te te x ts.
iy x v x h a (laBtj/MTa. I t is in terestin g to fin d th is stressed b y P to le m y -
el G arib ap. M ubashir 4. T h e fa c t as such w as w ell-kn ow n th ro u g h
th e v io le n t a tta c k s of th e E picu rean s, see B ignone, L Aristolele perduto,
I I 58.
T h e sto ical tin ge in th is epitom e is a p p aren t, e x a c tly w h a t w e w ould
e x p e c t from a m em ber of A n tio ch u s’ school, qui appellabatur Academ icus,
erat quidem si perpauca wiutavisset germunissimus Stoicus, sa y s Cicero,
L u cu llu s 43, 132. T h e a u th o r w as also anxiou s to em phasize th e position
of A risto tle and th e Stoics, as opposed to th a t of E p icu ru s, w ho held
th a t ovx egaaBrjastat 6 aoqiÖQ (fr. 574 U .), an d th a t nokvpaBia w as
a b a d thin g.
(32) T he physical doxography is w ritten b y an ou tspoken adm irer
of A ristotle; h e is a ir io A n y c o r a r o as S tra b o said a b o u t Posidonius.
negi iAaxioxw v, cf. Part. an. I 5, 645 a 23, as an ex a m p le a t random .
t 6v Beov aadifiarov. H ere I th in k th a t M o rau x is rig h t in assum ing
th e d ialogu e On Philosophy as source. I t is w ell a ttested th a t during
th e w h ole of a n tiq u ity th is d ialog u e w as k n ow n as an a u th o rita tiv e
expression of A risto tle ’s cosm ology. T h is h ow ever does not im ply

th a t w e can regard w ords taken from this epitom e as “ fragm en ts" of
th e dialogue, b u t, a t th e m ost, as evid en ce su p porting oth er sim ilar
echoes from th e ITegi (ptXoao<piag. A t th e sam e tim e we m ust be on
o u r g u a r d a ga in st th e syn cretism , so ty p ic a l of th e tim e. W e know
th a t A risto tle does n ot sp eak of Tigovoia (Ôeov), and it is c o n tra ry to
all e x ta n t evid ence to b elieve th a t he held such a v ie w as expressed in
our epitom e, unless w e w a ter it dow n co n sid erably1). I t is a stoical
in terp re ta tio n of A r is to tle ’s d octrin e of th e tran scen d en tal and unm oved
m o v er (this expression is n o t correct, since A risto tle a lw a y s speaks of
“ th e p rim ary prin ciple o f m o v em en t” tô ngtbrov xivoüv, b u t it is an
in v e te ra te h a b it to personalize th is a b stra ct principle). T h e ep itom ator
m ig h t also h a v e had in m ind th e soul (or souls) of th e stars w hich in
th e D e philoaophia are said to be th e cau se of th eir m otion and thus
exten d its in flu en ce to th e h e a v e n ly b o d ies” , (see e. g. D iels Doxogr.
P- 3 °5 a !)• A cco rd in g to an oth er stoical epitom e, Doxogr. p. 466.4,
th e h ea v en ly spheres are Bela ttjv tpvoiv xa i efiipvyâ xa i ôioixov/ieva
Kara. T7}v TtQovotav, and a little fu rth er on ôiaretveiv x t \ v oji avTrjç (sc.
ttJç àjiAavrjç atpaiÿa;) ôvvafiiv eiç zà negiyeia. W e need o n ly su b stitu te
TiQàvoiav for ÔVva/uv to reach full agreem ent. T h e follow in g sentence,
too, t à (5 èniyeta — oixovofieiodai, is influenced b y th e sam e sy n
cretism ; w e m a y com pare D e mundo 396 b 23— 25, on th e h arm on y
of the universe.
(3 3 ) T h e definition of th e soul is literally quoted from D e anima.
T h en follow s an ex p la n a tio n w ord for w ord of th e term in o logy used in
th is definition; th is is w h a t D iels used to call “ der G elehrtenstil der
alexan drin ischen S ch u le ” , w h ich still is found in Philodem us, and then
a ga in in A lex a n d e r of Aphrodisias. M oraux saw th a t th e te x t of th is
ex p la n a to ry note is in disorder, and w hen I com pared his a rticle w ith
m y ow n ideas I found th a t w e w ere in alm ost com plete agreem ent.
N ow it is q u ite possible th a t D iogenes w ro te down th e te x t ju s t as it
stan d s in our m anuscripts, “ le p a u v re D iogène si peu fam ilier a v e c les
sp éculation s m étap h ysiq u es” , as M oraux says. N everth eless I th in k
*) D e p h il. jr . 13 R o s s = P h ilo D e praem . et poen.'. x a i ô zt ngovoiav àva yxatov

EÎvai. W e c a n n o t k n o w w h e th e r th e s e are A r is t o t le 's w ord s, or P h ilo 's in t e r p r e t a
t io n . I f w e a ssu m e t h a t t h e y are q u o te d v e r b a lly fro m D e p h ilo so p h ia , w e d o
not know th e c o n te x t; th e y m ig h t b e p a r t o f a d ia lo g u e in w h ic h d iffe r e n t
s p e a k e r s s e t fo r th d iffe r e n t o p in io n s.
76 IN 'G EM AR d ü r i n g
th a t to lea v e th e te x t in th is sta te w ould b e to show too m uch deference

to th e dead le tte r of th e transm ission.
In th e definition itself y áç is superfluous; it w as rig h tly rejected b y
B y w a te r. T hen follow s th e exp lan ation .
(1) A é y e i Sè ttjv £VT£À£%eiav ij,* èariv eIôóç t i ãaw /iarov in order
to un derstan d w h a t ngcinr] èvruÃtycia is w e m ust k n ow th a t he d i
stinguishes tw o k in d s of being, (a) òirrr) á ’ ècnlv ?j ovaía x a r ’
avróv. (a) rj fièv x a rá âtrvajutv, exem p lified in th e usual m anner w ith
th e H erm es-itnage in th e w a x, or th e i)krj of th e fu tu re statu e. (/}) v.aff
é$tv ô’ <)J) èvTEÀexEta, “ th e com plete r e a lity ” , exem plified b y the
com pleted statu e. B u t th e soul w as said to be the “ first en te le ch y ” ;
in fa ct, th e w ord “ en te le ch y ” is used in tw o senses: (aa) xad 3 êÇtv,
exem p lified in the usual w a y b y “ th e sleeper” ; th e epitom atoT adds th a t
A risto tle in trod u ced th e term ôvvá/iei in order to accou n t for the
“ sleeping frie n d ” who, in a certain sense, is still “ a tru e frien d ” , althou gh
n o t a c tiv e ly so; (/J^) r\ x a r ' èvéçyeiav, he w ho has a soul (or is a
friend) and is aw ak e and a ctiv e.
(2) E x p la n a tio n of a á fia ro ç (pvaixoi5, as distin guished from the
artefact; (3) of àgyavtxov; (4) of òwájXEi <5é Çcorjv èxovrog.
M orau x suggests th a t th e note iv ovv x a l oinnQ vjioTihrtj], to
ôw áfiet ngoaÉGrjxe caused th e erroneous tran sposition . In restored
con d ition , th e t e x t is p e rfe ctly clear and understandable; th e exp lan ation
of th e term s is sim plified b u t correct. E n te le c h y is a EÇtç tíjç reAetoTrj-
toç an d all e Iòi] and reArj are é£etç t iveç. T h e tw o kinds of en telech y
in (aa, f)fi) are exp lain ed in e x a c tly th e sam e w a y b y P hiloponus,
C l A G X V , p. 2 1 1 .2g, an in d ication of th e s ta b ility of th e com m en tary-
trad itio n . T h em istiu s’ paraphrasis, too, C I A G V 3, p. 3 9 .3 — 21, is
v e ry sim ilar. W ith (3) 1içó ç Tt nageax£vaa/j.£vov w e m a y com pare
Part. an. 694 b 13 ôçyava Ttçòç t ò êgyov rj gwoiç notei.
T e x t: (1) T h e article is o m itted b y th e v u lg a ta and th e editors, but
it m akes sense in this ex p la n a to ry fu n ctio n , rjç is defensible, b u t
M o ra u x ’s em end ation is w orth considering. T h e oth er em endations are
su fficien tly m o tiv ated b y th e su ggested tran sposition of th e te xt.
ovaLa in stead of avrr] can of course n ot be a c o p y ist’s error, and an y
ex p la n a tio n m u st n ecessarily b e su b jective. B u t suppose th a t the
w ord w as read and in terp reted as ovoa, th en a c o p y ist or excerp to r
m igh t b e excu sed if he su b stitu ted avTrj. In a n y case it is obviou s th a t
am i] giv es no sense.
(38) IloXXd de xa i aXXa xzA. T h is n ote w as w ritten b y th e m an

w ho ex cerp ted the C atalogu e from H erm ippus, p o ssib ly b y P havorin u s.
H e ob vio u sly k new a b o u t th e existence of pseu d ep igraph a, n ot m entioned
in H e rm ip p u s’ catalogu e, b u t included in H e sy ch iu s’ catalogu e. He
also kn ew of collections of apophthegm s, n ot included in D iogen es’
te x t. H e had cou n ted th e num ber of books; th e figu re 400 shows th a t
he had coun ted th e P olities as one book. M o ra u x cou nted 551 books;
a sim ple calcu latio n (p. 192, Listes anciennes) show s th a t th is figure
tallies w ell w ith th e num ber of lines a t th e end of th e catalogu e. T a k in g
as stan d ard an a vera ge p age of a G reek te x t in th e L o eb lib rary, w ith
30 lines of 40 letters in each line, A r is to tle ’s lite ra ry o u tp u t according
to H e rm ip p u s’ catalogu e, in w hich m ost of th e g rea t pragm aties are
m issing, w ould correspond to a b o u t 12 000 p rinted pages.
ayga<pov (pcovfjg FVOToyrj^ma, a ty p ic a lly H ellen istic flourish w hich
could h a rd ly h a ve flow ed from D iogen es’ pen. T h e su b sta n tiv e is found
on ly here, b u t ev<ttoXelv in P o lyb iu s and P lu tarch . Cf. Eih. N ic. V I
io , 1142 b 2 on svaroxia-
( 3 5 ) yeyovaat xt A. O lym piod oru s k n e w tw o of th e nam es m entioned
in th is list. T here is no reason to b elieve th a t he had g o t th is inform a
tion from D iogenes. T h e hom onym s w ere p ro b ab ly p a rt of th e original
o u tlin e of th e prolegom ena w hich , at lea st from P o rp h y ry ’s tim e, served
as an in trod uction to th e stu d y of A ristotle. — d evt eqoq R E No. 10,
r qItoq R E No. 16, tetoqtoq R E N o. 15, tie/au to - R E N o. 21, ixzo q
R E No. 20, Efidofiog jr. 66 W ehrli, oySoog R E No. 17.
The disposition of Diogenes' biography. P. M oraux, “ L a com position

de la v ie d ’A risto te chez D iogene L a e rc e ” , in: Revue d E t. gr. 53, 1955,
pp. 124 — 163. V alu a b le are th e com parison b etw een th e com position
,
of th e fiv e P erip a tetic biographies, p. 1 5 4 and th e note on V 6 — 8 on
p. 16 1. T h e b est general ch aracterization of D iogen es’ w ork is found
in E . S ch w a rtz’ article in R E V .
D iogenes does not follow th e sam e plan in all biographies; nevertheless
it is possible to recon stru ct a general design w hich he m u st h a ve had
in m ind. In his carefu l stu d y of th e su b ject, in L a V ie de Pythagore,
D e la tte suggested th e follow ing plan as rou gh ly in d icatin g th e top ics
w hich D iogenes u su ally tried to include in his biographies (of course
o n ly w hen he h ad sources available):
I. O rigin, pedigree. 2. R ela tio n to a ph ilosoph ic school; sch olarch ate,

Siadoxrj- 3- E d u ca tio n . 4. C haracter, often illu strated b y a n ecd otes
and apophthegm s. 5. Im p o rtan t even ts of life. 6. A n ecd otic accou n t
of his d eath, u su ally follow ed b y an epigram . 7. ax/ir^ and related
chronological facts. 8. W orks. 9. D octrin es. 10. P articu la r d ocu m en ts,
will, letters. 11. H om onym s.
I f w e a p p ly th is plan to th e b io grap h y of A ristotle, w e find (1) origin
and pedigree, V 1; (2) relationship to P la to , fou n d atio n of a school,
2 ~ 3; (3) im p o rta n t even ts of his life, 3 — 8; (4) anecd otic acco u n t of
his d eath ; (g) ch ro n ology, 9 — 10; (6) th e w ill; (7) apophthegm s, illu stra t
in g his ch aracter, u n u su ally num erous, 17 — 21; (8) in d ex librorum ;
(g) d ox o g ra p h y; {10) hom onym s.
A s in all oth er biographies, th e n a rra tiv e is fre q u e n tly interru p ted
b y insertions; ty p ic a l exam ples are 6 — 8, d ealt w ith b y M oraux, and the
tw o insertions im m ed iately a fter th e w ill. I f w e look a t th e section
b egin nin g (V 5) 'O <5’ ovv ’ AgicnoTtArjQ w e g e t a glim pse of h ow he is
w orking; th e m ain line of th e n a rra tiv e is this: “ A risto tle w ith d rew to
C halcis, in d icted fo r im p iety — he died there — I h a v e w ritten this
epigram on his d e a th ” ; in th is n a rra tiv e h e has inserted a num ber of
n otices from d ifferen t sources. F o r details, I refer to M o rau x and to
m y ow n b rief com m ents. T h e Quellenunlersuchungen and th e p rotracted
discussion on th e com position of each in d ivid u a l b io grap h y has dem on
stra ted th a t w e can n o t ex p ec t to fin d o u t e x a c tly from w h a t sources
each sta te m en t is tak en ; w e can see th a t th e general design is freq u e n tly
in terru p ted b y insertions and th a t th e t e x t is in disorder, and w e are
often tem p ted to rearran ge it; b u t w e are n ow ad ays m ore inclined to
b elieve th a t th e disorder is a n atu ra l consequence of th e m eth od follow ed
b y D iogenes and oth er an cien t com pilators. T h e y used one or tw o
books as m ain sources; in their e x tra cts from these b ooks th e y in te r
p o lated w h a te v e r th e y found of interest; if th e y m ade these additions
in th e m argin(s), th e scribe w h o copied th e original m anu scrip t could
easily happen to in sert them in th e w rong place.
I t has often been suggested th a t P h av o rin u s w as D iogen es’ m ain
source, b u t th e evid en ce does n o t sup port th is opinion. I w as glad
to fin d m yself in agreem ent w ith M orau x on th is point. D iogen es’
references to P h av o rin u s are of a v e r y special kind, and from him he
b orrow s w h a t m ig h t be called "lea rn ed fo o t-n o tes” , w hich h e inserts
in his te x t. D iels tried to p ro v e th a t D em etriu s M agnes had played
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G K A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 79
an im p o rta n t role as in term ed iate source; M o rau x th in ks of A riston

as the u ltim ate source of th e b io grap h ical m aterial.
I t is th e u ltim a te source th a t is of in terest to us; I can n o t see w h y we
should reject D iogen es’ ow n w ords: he sa ys th a t his m ain source w as
H erm ip p u s’ L ife of Aristotle. T h e q u otation s in th e D id ym u s-p ap yru s
and references to H erm ip pu s in oth er a n cien t w riters confirm this; w e
k n ow enough of H e n n ip p u s’ w ork to sa y w ith confid ence th a t it provided
the groun d w ork for D iogen es’ b iograp hy.
T h e follow ing w riters, cited b y D iogenes, had p ro b a b ly a lrea d y been
quoted b y H erm ippus: B ry o n ( n ) , A risto tle (21), E u m elu s (6), L y c o u
<19), T h eo critu s of Chios (11), T im aeu s (1), T im oth eu s (1), Tim on
(11). T h e p am p h let 'A o im m n o Q n sg l naXmag TQWpfjg m igh t be
earlier th an H erm ippus, b u t I find it v e r y u n lik ely th a t H en n ip p u s
used it. B u t H erm ippus also used a n um ber of sources w hich he p rob ab ly
m entioned, and m ost im p o rta n t am ong th em w ere A riston of Ceos and
Philochorus. F o r his ch ro n ology of A r isto tle ’s life H erm ip pu s m ust
h a ve relied on Philochorus; P to le m y used his accou n t, and w e fin d a
la te epitom e in V ita M arciana. A riston p ro vid ed th e te x t of th e W ill
and p o ssibly some o f th e anecdotes.
D iogenes m entions th ree w riters w hich he can n o t h a ve found in
H erm ippus, because th e y are later: A pollodoru s, D em etrius of M agnesia,
and P havorin us. T h ere is no reason to d ou b t th e fa c t th a t he had
access to th e original w orks of these three authors. I t o u g h t to h a ve
been ea sy for him to find a co p y of A p ollod oru s’ Chronica. I ven tu re
to con jectu re th a t D iogenes, a fte r h a v in g read th e chronological accou n t
in H erm ippus, did th e m ost n atu ral th in g of all: he looked up th e m ost
w ell-know n b ook of reference on th e su b ject and com pared notes; the
result w as th a t he com bined H erm ip pu s-P hilochorus w ith A p ollod oru s
(who in his tu rn also relied on Philochorus); D iogen es’ version therefore is
slig h tly d ifferen t from D io n ysiu s’ . I offer th is guess for w h a t it is w orth.
D em etrius' b ook on th e hom onym s p rovided him w ith another
stan dard w ork of reference. A m ore d ifficu lt case is P havorin u s; th e
title of his w ork in v ites th e w ild est conjectures; G abrielsson ’s books
p rovid e exam ples.
T o sum up, even if I should h esitate to sa y w ith M oraux th a t w e can
a rrive a t “ une idée assez ex a cte de la m anière dont tr a v a illa it D io gè n e” ,
I tliin k th a t our kn ow ledge is su fficien t to p rovid e a sound b asis for
our ju d gm en t on th e v a lu e of th e m aterial he has tran sm itted to us.
VITA HESYCHII
The manuscripts.
T h e b est m an u scrip t is A m b rosian u s 490 = L 93 sup., n in th cen tu ry,
b e a u tifu lly w ritte n in la rg e m inuscle, th e earliest k n o w n m an u scrip t
of th e Categories, see L . M in io-Palu ello, preface to his ed iü o n p. X V .
T h e te x t of th e V it a is preced ed b y a scholion, inc. e * rœv a yohœ v
Z u m h x io v , con tain in g an e x tr a c t from bis in tro d u ctio n to th e Cate
gories, C l A G V I I I , p. 14 .3 - 15 .5 . A fte r th e V ita follow s th e te x t o f
th e Categories. T h e arran gem en t is th u s th e sam e as in th e n eop latom c
logical corpus, o n ly th a t th e V ita H e sy ch ii is su b stitu ted fo r th e V ita
v u lg a ta . , * .
D u rin g th e X V I t h ce n tu ry seven copies w ere m ade; tw o are fou n d in
Am bros. 724 = R 1 1 7 sup., fou r in A m bros. 704 = Q 121 sup., and
one in A m bros. 635 = P 105 sup. ,
A m an u scrip t in th e B ib lio th e ca Q u eriniana in B rescia, B n x ia n u s
A V I 13 from th e X l t h or X l l t h cen tu ry agrees w ith A m bros. 490
even in ’ m inor details; I h a v e found on ly one v a ria n t readin g, Eiç
eùOwaç fo r n Qàç EvSvvaç. Th is v a ria n t is also found in P a la tin u s gr.
124 X V t h cen tu ry , and this is h a rd ly accid en tal. T h e P a la tin u s con
ta in s th e V ita w ith o u t the catalogu e; its fou r p ecu liar v a r ia n t readings
are slips due to carelessness b y th e copyist.
P arisin u s suppl. gr. 557 * th e m an u scrip t used b y M énage fo r his
ed itio princeps. I t is v e ry late, p ro b a b ly X V I t h c e n tu ry or la te r and
carelessly tran scrib ed from eith er A m b r. 49 ° or a m an u scrip t of th e
sam e ty p e , b u t w ith num erous sm all errors. W ith tw o or th ree e x c e p
tion s, M énage reprod u ced in h is ed ition a ll erroneous readin gs in 557 -
in clu d in g e. g. (cat. 123) W " * - PalatinU S and

ovyyQdftfiara in stea d of ovvrayftara. B u t a n y sc n b e w ith th e title of
th e V ita in m ind m igh t h a v e m ade th is em endation.
O tto b o n ia n u s gr. 178. w ritte n A . D . 159 3 . contain s a fter th e t e x t of
th e V it a v u lg a ta f. 3 . a b rief e x tr a c t from th e V it a H e sy ch ii w ith
e x a c tly th e sam e t e x t as in Am bros. 490.
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 8l
I t is possible, th en , th a t a ll know n m anu scrip ts are copied d ire ctly

or in d irectly from Am bros. 490.
W ith such a sim ple trad itio n it is e a s y to estab lish th e tran sm itted
te x t, b u t. as is usual in te x ts of th is kind, th e real problem arises when
th is is done. Som e titles in th e c atalo g u e of A r is to tle ’s w ritin gs are so
ob viou sly corru p t th a t I h a v e not h esitated to ad m it m odern em enda
tions. B u t in prin ciple a te x t of th is kind should be edited as tran s
m itted to us and th e suggested corrections a n n o ta ted in th e critical
apparatus; th is is th e rule th a t I h a v e follow ed.
Editions.
T h e V ita is know n in th e literatu re under th e nam e of V ila M ena-
giana, because it w as first edited b y G illes M énage in th e Lond on ed i
tion o f D iogenes, 1663. H is Anim adversiones, exten d ed and consider
a b ly im proved, w ere th en pu blished in th e b ea u tifu l folio edition,
A m sterdam 1693, p rin ted b y H . W etsten iu s, togeth er w ith th e notes
of H . Stephanus, C asaubon us fa th er and son, and others; a verita b le
treasure-house from w hich all la ter com m en tators h a ve borrow ed
m aterial.
V. R ose reprinted th e In d e x H esych ii in his Aristoteles pseudepi-
graphus, pp. 1 8 — 20, reportin g th a t T ischen d orf had seen a m anuscript
of th e V ita H esych ii (“ cum edito plane con sp iran tem ” ) in St. J o h n ’s
m on astery in P atm o s. T h e In d ex is reprinted in th e B erlin edition of
A ristotle, vol. g, p. 1466, and then in R o se’s Aristotelis fragmenta, 1886,
togeth er w ith th e V ita. I t w as also reprinted b y B u h le in th e first
vo lu m e of his edition, b y W esterm ann in his V it arum scriptores, and b y
F la c h in his H esychii M ile s ii Onomatologi quae supersunt. P. M oraux
in his Listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristote deals a t len gth w ith
problem s connected w ith the In d ex librorum .
S IG L A
A = A m brosianus 490, S. I X .
B = B rix ian u s A V I 13, S. X I - X I I
P = P a la tin u s gr. 124, S . X V .
M = P arisinus suppl. gr. 557, S. X V I , = editio M enagiana.
M énage = em endationes M enagii.
Gôteb. U n iv. A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 6
A P IZ T O T E A O Y Z B IO Z K A I TA Z Y IT P A M M A T A AYTOY
( 1) ’ A g u jr o x iX y ? v id g N ik o n o v xai G a io x td S o ? - 6 6e N i x 6f i a X o g
l a r o o g rfv r o v r w v ’ A a x X y m d d c o v y e v o v g , a n d N t x o M d X o v r o v M a X a o v o q -
E x 'Z r a y e t g c o v , n 6 Aea>g r r jg O odxr^ vSjv. (2 ) K a i ddeX <povg p h i a Xev A o^vyaxov *<u
’ A o tu v n o r n v , dvyaxega 8e « .to I lv d td f io ,, r fj: O vyaxgog E g fiio v rov
e ir o v v o v , o ; x a i O h jiia g mv avxrp e a n e in e . (3 ) d e r g u ftv y
’ A g ta x o r iX o v g Bvydryg rexvw oaoa n g o E r sX e v r y a e v A g ta x o r e X o v , xoH
n arpoc (4) e IXe h i x a i v l o v N i * 6/ i a X o v i t ' E o n v lh b o q n a X X a x fjq ,y v
aE zd flv d id d a nag 'E g / iio v to * sm ovyov, S o t * yv & gXw v ’ A r a g v e w q
(v tb o a Si avxy Tgw ddog) E v fto v X o v Se to # B lO w o v dovX a; yEyovw g
iX a p e - xai avxov 'E g f i lo v n a td tx d y e v o / iiv o v ’ A g m x o x tX o v ;. (5) i) g S s
6e e r r , ty r fjg T lE g m a x y x ix y g xX yM ayg c p iX o a o y ia q 6 t a r o tv
f r o i x y n a > b i b d t a i d v a %a > g y a a v r a r y g ' A x a d e f i i a g t v y n X a r c o v « W a f e r .
(6 ) iy e v v y d y 6* tv r fj qO 6X v » m d 8 t xai d s te d a v e v d x d v tx o v m & v iv
X a X x i d i , b t o x t i x a X e l r o n ,« K e v d w a g , in E t d y i y g a V E r w i o v a e tg E g fiia v
xov E v v o ty o v (7) o i 8i < p aa i v o a w a v x o v x E X e v r fja a i p u o o a v x a exy o,
d e rtv eg fy . (8 ) ^ v iy g a y e & X ia ly y k «. (9 ) M A oz< * * '

xrtg o XoXyq xa xd r« |n - iy h o v r o olds- 6 e 6<pgaoxog, - t ^ u t c ov I lg a t i-
rtXyg, Avxcov, ’ A g io r u v , A vxia xo g , IIga£i<pdvyg, 'Ieg(ow (iog, Uovxavtg,
(Poopimv, KgixdXaog. ( 10 ) r d 8e avvxdyfiaxa avxov xa tx a .
V i t a ( i l — (7) e t in S u d a s. v . ' A q io to tI A tjs ( 392?)-

T it e x h ib e n t cod d . V it a e || ( 2 ) Orr/argoQ : {iT)XQO<; P II ^ fiio v Sud« AS
s v in S u d a c o d d . o m n e s : 'E g f i d o v c o d d .V i t a e || 6X ^ i a ? c o d d . V i t a e : O la d ia ;
codd Sudae || ( 4 ) e l Xe c o d d . V i t a e : la y / cod d . S u d a e || i ,y a y r r o p o s t jj
S d « . a i k J ,„ I <„> * BP II <7 ) 1 “z z ;
Zni o e x p l. V ita Sudae || ( 8 ) e y y v g o m .P II ( 1 0 ) a w r a y ^ a r a AB . o v y y e au-
n ara PM . C£ V i t . M a r c . 45 || a v to H n o M a v n a Q x a v o t e x p II
I. Ile g i ôixaioavvrjç à.
2. Ile g i notrjT(bv y.
3- Tlegi cpiAoaoq>iaz à.
4- Ilo X n txo v ä.
5- I le g i noXiTixïjZ i\ FçvXoç y.
6. NrjgtvOoç â.
7- Ile n i 71A0VT011 â.
8. £ o < p ia T ?)ç â.
9- Ile g i evx'ijç.
10. M evéievoç â.
11. Ile g i evyeveiaç â.
12. ’ E g co T tx o ; â.
13. Ile g i ipv%fjç â.

14 - llg o r g e m ix o v â.
15 - Tlegi ?]ôovijg â.
16. Ile g i ßaaiXttac, â.
17 - O lxovoßixov â.
18. Ile g i naiôeiaç rj naiôcvrtxov à.
19. ZvXXoyio/iwv â .
20. Ile g i tov àyaôov â.
21. I le o i àgx&v jj (pvaeatg â.
22. ’ AXétavôgoç t) vnèg àjioixubv â.
23. Tà éx tô >v vôjucov nXârcuvo; ß.
24. Ile g i iptXiaç y.
25 - Ile g i è m o T r jfiâ iV â.
26. I le g i tov n A n y / t v fj n e n o v Q é v a i.
27. Ile g i è g t c n ix c ô v Xoycav ß .

28. lie g t e iô o jv â.
2 9- A v a e iç è g ia r ix a i à.
3 o- T le g i n â ô o v ç o o y fjç â.
S i- Aiaigéaeiç ootpiortxai â.
32 . Ile g i ê v n v T u o v â .
I n d e x librorum :
3 p ro <5le g e n d u m y . D ia lo g i in in d ice c o llo c a ti s u n t se cu n d u m n u m e ra m v o lu m i-
n n m . || 5 p r o noXnixr)Q A B M le g e n d u m Qt)ZOQt)tTjq, p r o y le g e n d u m a. || 8 aotptarixfiQ
M II 19 p r o ovM oyia/iw v A B M le g e n d u m avkXoyia/ioi |] 20 p r o a le g e n d u m y
24 p r o y fo r ta s s e le g e n d u m a || 30 le g e n d u m I le g i na8<bv a. I le g i o oyfjs d. I|
84 INGEMA® DÜRING
33 - ' Yjio/j,VTj/iaTü)v imxeiQrjTixwv y.
34 - Hgoxdoetg liegt agexf]g ß.

35 - lie g t aroi'/ßuav y.
36. ’ Evaxdaetg.
37 - lie g t xwv nooa%tbg Xeyo/ievtov t) tojv xa x a n g d (o ) 6eoiv d.
38 . IJgoxdaEfav ä.
39- 'H dtxtbv x.
40. Ile g i xtvtfoea>g ä.
41 - lie g t diatgeoeoov l£.

42. Atatgextxtbv ä.
43 - Ile g i £Q(OTi]oecoQ xa i cuioxgiaecoQ ü.
44- Ilgoxdaeoiv enioxiy.iov ä.
45 - I le g i iöiag ä.
46. ’ AvaXvxtxtbv ngoxegatv 0 .
47 - ’ AvaXvxixwv vaxegcov ß.
48 . IlooßXrjfidxciiv.
49- M edoSixa.
50 . lie g t x o t ßeXxiovog <2.
51 . 'Ogcov ßtßXlov ä.
52 - Tontxw v C.
53 - 6
M a r)fjta xtx(bv ä.
54 - S v X X o y ia jj.ü > v ß .
55 - E v X X o y ta x ix & v ö gcov d.
56 . I le g i a ig e x o ß xai a v j i ß a iv o v x o g ä.
57 - Ta ngo xw v x ö iic o v ä.
58 . I le g i exovouov ä.
59 - T om xcäv ngog xovq ö g o v g g.

60. Ilddr) ä.
61. 'Ogtafidiv ßtßXla ly.
62. ’ E m % E tg r ifid x a ) V ß .
63- I le g i xaX X ovg ä.
64. I le g i ö i x a i w v ß .
37 siegt Tmv 7ioaay/>K Aeyofievwv r;- rdiv x a x ä jiQodeaiv <5 A B M , in M co rr. m . a.

1] in jj, q u o d r e c e p it M e n a g e Jl@ 6( < l ) ( ) r n i v R o se | 55 le g e n d u m £ v ? .X o y tm ix ö v
x a i öqoi | 59 5 sig ö u m in A p o t e s t le g i c vel x a i, e a d e m a b b r e v ia tio n e u su s e st

s c r ib a p r o , in 9 3. x a i B M |
1
I
65. &éaeiQ êm%eiQT)Ttxai ev ßißXloig xe.

66. Q éoeiç êgœ ztxai êv ßtßXioiQ ô.
67. O éa eiç yiX ixai èv ßißXloiQ ß.
68. O éoetç tieq I yniyrjQ êv ßtßXUo d.
69. G éaeiç n o X m x a i ß.
70. IloX iTixijç àxQ oâoEw ç rj.
71- T e '/vÛîv awayrityijv d.
72. Té'/vrjÇ çrjrogixfjç y.
73- Té%vrjç â.
74- Téyvrjç rfjç ô eo ô é x ro v owaycuyrjv èv y.
75- Téxvrjc TiotrjTiy.fjç ß .
76. 5E v 6v/j,f]fidT(ov çr]Toçixœv à.
77- IJeqI fXF.yF.0oV~ .
78. 'E v 8vfj.T)fiaT(üv ô ia ig é oE ig .
79- I l eqI XéÊœç xaOagâç â.
80. T Ie q I o v fiß o v X rjs â.
81. TIeqÏ ipvaEùiç â.
82. I I eqi <pvoixd>v â.
83. I I eqI xfjQ ’ A q%vtov (piXoaexplag y.
84. IIeqI Tijç Zn E vabm ov xa i E evoxq ozo vq â.
85. 'E x rà)v Tifiaiov xa i ’ A o%vtov â.
86. J I qoq t a MeXîooov ô.
87. Ü qoq r à 'AXxfiaim voç â.
88. I I e q I to' iv ÏJvOayoQEÎfov â.
89. Ü qoç rà rogy iov.
90. IIeqI to v fir j y E w â v d.
9 1. IJeq'i Ço îc jv 8.
92. IIeqI T ù iv avvOéxwv Ç m cov â .
93- I I eqI avaTOfidiv ç.
94- ’ ExXoyrjv rom w v â.
95- IJeqi tw v fivQoXoyovfj,Évojv Ç w cdv â.
69 p m déoeiç (crrore r e p e titu m e p iio r e titu lo ) n oÂiriy.al le g e n d u m 7io?.tTixa.

T itu lu s in d ic a t libTos V I I — V I I I P o lit. — D e o p tim a fo r m a rei p u b lic a e . || 71 e t
74 ovvuycoytj M || 74 y s u sp e c tu m , fo r ta s s e le g e n d u m ä || 78 ô ia ig éo ëiç R o s e :
x a i (a b b re v . in A) algéotcov A B M || 83 <pi/o ad d . m . pr. in m a rg . A || 84 n sv a b i-
n o v A II 87 âAx/iéwvoç A M , co rr. M én a g e || g2 Çatwv om . B || 93 ç A B M : f R o se
94 èxXoyt) M II
I
86 IN G Ë M A R D Ü R IN G
g6. I le q 'i <pvrcbv fi.
97. 0 vatoyvcojuovixà fi.
98. TlEQt Imoty.fjç fi.

9g. E r jfiE ia x e ifiw v ù iv â.
10 0. r i e g i /jLovààoz â.
10 1. ’ A argovofiixov â.
10 2. I J eq i xm )o£ u > z â .
10 3. 'O m ix o v « .
10 4 . J J eg i n o v a ix i] g â.
10 5. riénAov.
10 6 . 5AnogrjfiâTwv 'Ofit]gixd)v ç.
10 7. ‘ A7ioQï]fidru)v Oeiaiv à .
108. I J o ir jT ix o v â.
109. Mvrj/jiovixov â.
1 10 . & v a ix (b v h ) x a ià O Tûtxeiov.
n i. METa<pvatxà x .
112. I J Q o fih ]fià r o 3 v èm TEÔEa/iêvwv.
113. ’ EyxvxXimv (}•

114. Mr]xavM ° v â.
115. KvxXov neqî notrjttiiv y.
116 . IjQ 0f}Xr]iuâT0)v Ar}/£OxniT£L(i)v fi.

117. IJ eqi rrjç XtOov â.
118 . IJagafioAwv â.
119. AyôiaràxTM v ifi.

120 . A ixa iù ifu ÎT O jv jtôkecôv â.
121. ’ Et'f]raa/j,êva>v x a r à yêvog là.

122. ’ OAv/jiJziovtxaç fiifiXiov â.
123. ü v d io v ix a ç fiifiUov â, èv & Mévaix/tov èvixr)0£v.
124. I I eq I fio v a t x fjç â.

125. ’ E A é y x w v o o c p ta T ix û v i] jie q i è g ia x ix w v .
g 7 cpvotoyvtr.fiixu M , corT. M é n a g e |' g g avmiayuiç, A B M o ijjitla ss. 111. a. 51

0,/juaalaç p r o p . M én a g e , a c c e p it R o s e || 106 s v e l Ç in A le g i p o t e s t C B M ||
107 Oeieov fo tta s s e p r o 'Hoiofieituv R o se || 1 1 3 è y x v xh o v A B M || 1 1 9 SiazâxTmv
p e r lia p lo g r a p h ia n i A B M || 123 le g e n d u m HvBiovixthv. p ifiïovç M , a b b r e v ia tio n e m
in A m a ie in t e r p r e t a tu s e s t sc rib a . || 125 H ic t it u lu s c la re d e in o n s tr a t q u o m o d o
c o m p ila to r v e l c o r r e c to r q u id a m la b o r a v e r it . L e g e n d u m nvdiovMcbv ikéy/m v â.
V e ib o nvd ion xw v e asu q u o d a m d e p e rd ito s c r ib a s u p p le v it t lt u lu m sa n e n o tu m
se d liu ic lo c o a lie n u n i. ||
A R IS T O T I.E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 87
126. N txœ v A iow otaxãiv àaxtxwv xa't Arjvaicov.

12 7 . I I qooi/à Ícov ã.
128 . lie g t rgay(üôiü)v ã.
129. I I eqI òtôaoxaAtcúv ã.
130. Nóficov avaxaxtx&v ã.
131. NojxLfioiv ô.
132. KaxrjyogiCov ã.
133. I I eq I ég/irjveíaç.
13 4 . IJgorégœv dvaXvxixwv ß.
135. JIoXtXEÍaç nóXewv iôtm nxœ v xa i Ô T j/ w x g a m v x a l 0XtyagXtxmv
( x a i) âgtaxoxoaxixœ v xat xvgaw ixw v gvt].
136. £vaatrtxd)v TigoßXrjfiäxiav y.
137. ’ E m axoX àç x.
138. "Enr], <bv âg%iy ’ A yvè Beõjv ngcaßioÖ’ exaxrjßoXE.
13 9 . ’ E X eyela, ã>v à p p y KaXXixéxvov firjxgóç Ovyctxeg.
140. IIeqI x ü >v EôXcüvoç àÇóvojv e. ^ ^
1 4 1 — 14 2 . r ie g i fiaxagtôxrixo; ( fj) T i ôijnoxe "Ofirjgoç êjioitjoEv xaç
' HXiov ßotig.
14 3 . ’ A j i O Q ij f t a x a H aioóov èv â.
144 . ’ Anogrm axa ’ Ag/iXoôv E vgatiôov XotgiXov êv ßißXioi; y.
145. ’ Ajtogrjjuáxcuv noirjxixi ü v â.
146. A lx ía ç jiotrjxixàg.
14 7. IlQoßXr\fiax(üV 'OfirjQixâiv 1.
148. &voixt]g àxgoàaewg trj.
14g. IJegi y e v é o E a iç xal qiôogâg ß.
150. IIeqI [iEXEÚgmv 6 rj fiEXECogoaxomxá.

151. I I eq I tiXovtov û.
152. ÏIeqI rpv%f]Ç y.

153. I I eqI g T jx o g i x r jg .
134. Trjç /isxà (tà > <pvaixà t.
155. TJeqi Çoxov ioxogia; 1.
156. I I eq I {(ùtav xivr\aeoiç, y.
157. I I eqI Çôhüv /joqudv y.
xaizvoavvixüivnaootpuoviôim
127 legendum
zixâvxat
ont. M pro
|| 128-130 » . B || 135
A B M li 14 1— 142 titu lu m restitu i, m onente M oraux

<
x*a™
fiaxQ
legendum
0
z>lôtavàçw
* ° se
oßizr)ZO
<
;
.nT
xiQ
Q
a
B
138
rt^
a
ß
M enage
r
a
r
et ti
vel d n M H 14S ,j in n] in rasura A |] 152 M [|
158 . IJf.qi. Çohov yevÉaefoç y.

159- IJ e q i z fjç zn v N eiX o v ä v a ß d a e coç.
160. l ie g t zfjç f.v r o t e fiaBrj/iaaiv ovoíaç.
161. Ile g i a va a iztc jv 7} a vfin oa iu iv.
162. I J eq I ôóÇrjç.
163. IJegi àQEzf)Q.
164. TJeqí (pwvfjç.
16 5 . IJegl <jvfißiüj<j£a)g àvôgòç x a l y w a txóç.
166 . N ófiovç á v á çò í x a l yafierfjç.
16 7 . IJ eqi iazgixrjç £.
168. Zvfi/ilxtOiV ^Tjzrjfiárcav oß, ÍÕ; (ptjotv E vxatgoç ó ãxovazTjc avrov.

169 . IJénX ov 7ieqié%ei Sè iatOQtav av(i(iixro%'.
170. IJ eqi ygóvov.
171. lie g t ßaatXeiag.
172. IJegi naiÂEtaç.
173. I I eq I oyiEíoç ß.
174- T Ieqí ridixâjv N ixoftaxE tcov.
1 7 5 - ’ YnoQrjxaç.
*7^— 1 77 - H ç ò ç ,AXéâvÔgov t} IIeq i Q7]TOQOí i) noXizixov.
178. Téyyrjv êyxo)fitacreixtjv.
17g. (IIe q i) B a vjia a ú ov à xov o fiá zco v .
180. 5E y xá ifiia rj vfivovç.
18 1. <I I eqi) òta<poQã(ç).
182. ‘E qojtixwv ç.
183. IJ eqi Evyevf.taç ã.

184. I J e q i àvOgcónov çwoscoç.
185. I I e q i x ó o fio v yevéosajç.
186. Nó/Átfia ' Pcofiaúuv.
18 7 . No/áÍ/kdv ß a g ß a g tx w v avvaymyrjv.
*PEvôsmygaipa òém
188. ’ AvaTo/iTj ãvÔgámov.

18g. ’ AnoX oyía ä asßeia ; tt.ooq Evgvfiéòovza.
190. rEaigyixá.
160 tijç : toíç A || 174 ijOwv A B r]6 mv JI || 176— 177 titu lu m restitui; in d icat
librum qu i sub titu lo Rhet. ad Alex, versatur. 7i£çi ’AÀsÇâvôgov tj‘ (ef 37) nsgi
grjzogoç i) 710X1x1x0« A B M || 17g (n tq i) R ose || )8 i õiayogá A B M , corr. R ose ||
187 avvayaiytj M ||
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 8g
191. *E yxd)[itov Xoyov.

192. M ayixov.
ig 3 . I I eqI aaxpQoaihirjç.
ï 94. ’ AAeSàvSçov èyxfajota.
ig 5 - ’ E yxojfiiov Tt.XovTov.
196. riooç ’ AÂéÇavôgov.
ig 7 - IJ êqi fieGoôov.
194 exxXrjaia A B M , c o ït . R o se , fo r ta sse le g e n d u m lyxhjfia j| 19 5 — 196 lo rta sse

le g e n d u mUoo~ 'AAéÇavôçav iyxwfiiov TiÀovzav.
COM M ENTS
H . S ch u ltz in his article H esychios, R E V I I I , 1912, col. 1326, sum s

up th e resu lt of th e p ro tra cted discussion on th e sources: “ D ie Q uellen-
un tersuchung b ei H . h a t w en ig sichere R e su lta te ergeben .” W e have
before us an epitom e, th e elem ents of w hich w e can p a r tly trace in the
e x ta n t fragm en ts of th e b iograp h ical tradition.
( 1 ) U ltim a te ly from H erm ippus and alm ost e x a c tly corresponding to
th e opening w ords of D iogen es’ V ita.
(2) T h e nam es of A r is to tle ’s b roth er and sister are found together
o n ly in th e n eop laton ic V ita e , i. e. p ro b ab ly in th e V ita P tolem aei.
T h e note on H erm ias is d erived from th e u n fav o u rab le trad itio n
{ = T 21), u ltim a tely from T h eo critu s of Chios, b u t th e phrase 6 ; xa i
BAifjiag (bv avTrjv eotieiqev adds an e x tra flavour.
( 3 ) T h e first sta te m en t is correct = T 1 1 b , th e second is p la in ly
incon sistent w ith th e W ill and n ot found an yw here else.
( 4 ) P ro b a b ly from H erm ippus, u ltim ately from T im aeus; see m y note
on T g. O n H erm ias, x a i d ovAoq, see T 21.
( 5 ) T h is is th e rig h t exp lan ation of the nam e, althou gh w rongly
tran sferred to A risto tle, and com es from an old source u n tain ted b y
th e a etiological legend, see T 70 a.
(6) T h e y e a r of his b irth from Apollodoru s, th e aconite from E um elus,
see T 46 a. H esych iu s can h a rd ly h a v e found these tw o statem en ts
togeth er in H erm ippus.
go IN G E M A R D U R IN G
( 7 ) “ Illn ess” , from A p ollod oru s, com bin ed w ith th e incorrect “ a t th e

a ge of s e v e n ty ” from E u m elu s.
(8) I f w e co u n t th e books listed in th e firs t p a rt of th e catalogu e
( i — 139), accep tin g th e tran sm itte d num bers of books and assum ing,
w hen no figure is given , th a t th e title represents one book, w e get 403
b ooks plus th e 158 b ook s of th e Polities. M o rau x cou n ted in th e origin al
list of H erm ip pu s (or as he b elieved , A riston ) 551 books (Listes anciennes,
p. 192). T h e n um ber of oxiypi, accord in g to H e rm ip p u s’ catalo g u e
w as 445.270, correspon din g rou gh ly to 5 5 ° p apyru s-ro lls of a b o u t 800
lines each.
( 9 ) On th e a p o cry p h a l list of diadochs, see B ru n ck , in: R E S u p p l.
V I I , col. 908 — 9 11; E . H o w a ld , in: Hermes 55, 1920, p. 91.
( 10 ) H e sy ch iu s’ C atalo g u e o f A r is to tle ’s w ritin gs has been d ealt
w ith a t len gth b y P . M orau x, Listes anciennes, pp. 195 — 271. P lezia
has a n ote on th e c atalo g u e in De Andronici R hodii siudiis, p. 51.
O n th e first p a r t of th e catalogu e, titles I — 139, th ere is general
agreem ent. A s appears from th e follow in g su rve y, it is essen tially th e
sam e Tliva£ as th a t tran sm itted b y H erm ippus.
N os. 1 — 24. T h e w orks m ost w id ely know n to th e general pu blic in
H ellen istic tim es; th e list agrees p r e tty w ell w ith H erm ippus.
N os. 2 5 — 68. L o g ic a l and d ialectical w ritings; a few titles m isplaced,
b u t th e general agreem en t w ith H erm ip pu s is obvious. I t is interestin g
to see th a t both lists preserve an old error: fjdtxtov (title 38 in D L , 39
in H .).
N os. 69 70, and title 64, m isplaced; th e sam e th ree “ p o litic a l”
w ritin gs as in H erm ippus.
N os. 8 1 — 98, eighteen w ritin g s on n atu ra l ph ilosophy and biology;
as in H erm ippus, th e list ends u p w ith tw o in terp olated titles, 97 98,
an oth er old error w hich b oth lists h a v e preserved.
N os. 99 — 104, th e sam e six m a th em a tical and astron o m ical w ritings
as in H erm ippus.
N os. 10 5 — 119 , h yp o m n em a tic w ritings; N o. i l l m u st b e a la te
addition, perh aps b y H esych iu s him self.
N os. 120 — 13 1, collectan ea; N o. 121 is perh ap s th e general title.
N o. 123 h as preserved an an cien t gloss, p ro b a b ly an an n otation b y th e
librarian w h o m ade up th e origin al IJiva£. “ T h is is th e book b y w hich
he d efe a te d th e correspon din g b ook of M enaechm us."
N os. 132 — 133, ad ded in th e sam e w a y as H erm ippus 141 — 142.
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N
N os. 135 — 139, th e sam e as H erm ippus.

B o th catalogu es, then , are tran scrib ed from th e sam e original.
A ccord in g to H e itz , D L is m ore reliable, accord in g to H o w ald th e list
of H esych iu s is a deteriorated co p y of th e list in D L . L ik e M oraux I am
more inclined to b elieve th a t D iogenes and H e sy ch iu s ind epen d en tly
used th e sam e original, and th a t in som e sm all and rath er un im p ortan t
d etails H esy ch iu s has preserved th e origin al b e tte r th a n D iogenes. A t
lea st tw o ad ditions are v e ry late and m a y be ascribed to H esych iu s
him self: title 96 (this w ork w as not d ivid ed in to tw o books u n til the
second cen tu ry A . D .), and title m .
T h e appendix Hesychiana, titles 140 — 197, raises problem s w hich can
n ever be answ ered sa tisfa cto rily. M o ra u x ’s h ypoth eses are v e ry
ingenious, b u t I d o u b t w hether he can persuade a n y b o d y to b elieve in
them . A n d w h a t has P o rp h y ry to do w ith this list? A s far as I know ,
his 0 tXoao<pog iarogia did n o t include a b io g ra p h y of A ristotle, let
alone a C atalogu e of his w ritings, genuine or spurious.
T h e appendix consists of fou r d ifferen t parts.
N os. 140 — 147 b elon g to th e class of ajiogrifiara or nqo^Xrjfiaxa,
p o ssibly w ith one excep tion , N o. 140.
N os. 148 — 158, a selection of th e w ell-kn ow n pragm aties, as edited
b y A ndronicus.
Nos. 1 5 9 — 187, a list of variou s w ritings, in v itin g w ild conjectu res
as to th e original arrangem ent. C hrist, and later P lezia, suggested th a t
th is is an in v en to ry of a H ellen istic lib rary , e. g. in R hod es or Pergam on,
an a ttr a c tiv e and sim ple hypothesis w hich, how ever, as P lezia rig h tly
says, “ aequo iure affirm ari ac negari p o te st” .
N os. 188 — 197, a list of pseudepigraph a. Such a list w as p ro b ab ly
included in A n d ro n icu s’ w ork; a t lea st he discussed th e titles of spurious
works. D iogenes m erely says th a t he know s th a t some books, circulated
under A risto tle 's nam e, are avapqiiXexTa. M o ra u x ’s reconstruction of
th e original alp h a b etica l order in th is list, p. 271, is a ttr a c tiv e b u t does
not c a rry us a n y fu rther.
H esychius, a d iligen t collector of fa cts, m u st h a ve com piled th is
ap p en d ix from d ifferen t sources. T h e first and th e th ird section are
p ro b a b ly pre-A n dronicean. T h e second list, 148— 158, is certain ly m ade
a fte r A n d ro n icus, b u t e q u a lly certain is th a t th e titles are q u ite a rb itra
rily arranged. I f H esych iu s h a d k now n A n d ro n icu s’ w ork, he w ould
h a rd ly h a v e p resented such a disordered list of th e pragm aties. I t is
92 IN G E M A R D t) S lN G
therefore m ore lik e ly th a t th is section, too, is an in v en to ry of a lib rary.

I t is fu tile to m ake an y conjectu res concern in g th e fou rth section.
A s to th e in d ivid u al titles, I refer to M o ra u x ’s carefu l an d va lu a b le
com m ents. A ch ara cteristic fea tu re of th is c atalo g u e is th a t so m a n y
of th e title s are in th e a ccu sative. T h e h isto ry of th e tran sm ission of
th is list is en tirely unknow n; it m a y, or m a y n o t h a v e been interfered
w ith during th is process.
I t is gen era lly assum ed th a t th e V ita H e sy ch ii is an ep itom e of th e
origin al Onomatologon of H esych iu s, and th e lan gu age in (4) w ould
lend som e su p p ort to th is hypothesis. C on cern in g th e relationship w ith
D iogenes w e can o n ly sa y th a t H esych iu s used th e sam e b io grap h ical
sources, b u t th e m ix tu re is h is ow n, and on tw o or th ree p o in ts he
tran sm its in fo rm ation w hich is p la in ly w ro n g and n ot found an yw h ere
else. T h e cata lo g u e p roves th a t he had access to post-A n d ron icean sources.
T h e Suda con tain s an excerp t of ou r V ita u nder N o. 3g2g A d ler.
T h e te x t is id en tica l w ith th a t of Am bros. 4go w ith a few m inor v a ria n ts,
an n o ta ted in th e critical apparatu s.
P S E U D O - H E S Y C H IU S
T h e essential fa cts a b o u t th e com pilation k n ow n u nder th e title

'H o v x io v M iXyaiov negl tojv £v naideia StaAafiipavrcov are w ell su m
m arized b y H . S ch u ltz, s. v., R E V I I I , col. 1325.*) T h is com pilation
contain s an ex cerp t from D iogen es’ L ife of A risto tle begin nin g 5A q io to
rekrjv rov ETayF.igl.rrjv (pacsi naiava eiq rov OAaSlav ' EgfiLav notrjoavTa
og r\v avrov nsvdegoQ xaTaxgiQijvai m tlv dxavnov xal asiodavF.lv.
T h is sentence is epitom ized from th e te x t of th e V ita H esych ii, as given
b y S u d a (3g2g A dler), w ith th e readin g OAadiag instead of dfaftiag,
e x a c tly as in th e Su d a. T h e follow ing is a slig h tly a b b re via ted ex cerp t
from D iogenes V 28 — 34 fiovXeTai Sirrov slvat tov y.aza rpt.loantpiav
Xoyov — to d w d fie i n g o a d B r jX E . (In m y edition th e la s t sentence has
been transposed.)
J) H e s y c h ii M ile s ii q u i fertur D e v iris illu strib u s librum , re c. J . F la c h , L e ip z ig

1880. A ls o in: H e sy c h ii M ile s ii O nom atologi quae su persu n t, e d . J . F la c h , L e ip z ig
1882; B io g r a p h i graeci q u i ab H esy ch io pendent, rec. J . F la c h , L e ip z ig 1883. In
a ll th e s e e d itio n s th e t e x t is v e r y u n s a t is f a c t o r ily e d ite d . T h e tr u e n a tu r e of th e
c o m p ila tio n w a s d isc lo se d b y L e h r s a n d c o n fir m e d b y M a rtin i, A n a le cta L a ertia n a
I I , L e ip z ig ig o 2 . S e e E ie d l, op. cit. a b o v e p . 13, p p . 1 1 7 — 120 fo r fu r th e r d e ta ils .
* ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 93
T h e b est m an u scrip t is V a t. gr. 96 (0 ), from th e X I H t h cen tu ry,

w hich also con tain s th e E x c e r p ta L a e rtia n a (see a b o v e p. 23). M artini
p ro v ed th a t th e oth er m anu scrip ts all d erive from 0 .
L au ren tian u s 59.37, S. X V = F la c h B , d erived from 0 through an
in term ed iate source.
P arisin u s gr. 3035, S . X V I = F la c h C, d ire ctly copied from 0 .
P a la tin u s gr. 129, S. X V I = F la c h D , a frag m en t copied from 0 .
L au ren tian u s 70.14, = F la c h A , w ritte n a fter 1 5 7 ° b y C hristopher
R ufus.
R u fu s had access to H . S tep h a n u s’ edition of D iogenes (1570) and
in trod uced in his t e x t m a n y readings from th is edition, in our section
e. g. th e co n jectu re T o m xa fo r ’ O jir ix a V 29.
W e h a ve p rev io u sly show n th a t in th e E x c e r p ta L ae rtia n a 0 w as
copied from a m anuscrip t clo sely akin to D iogen es’ B . T h e readings
in this p a rt of P seu d o-H esych iu s are n ot so illum in ating, b u t th e y
point tow ard s th e sam e conclusion, n am ely th a t the origin ator of th is
epitom e, a scholar of th e X l t h cen tu ry , used fo r th is epitom e th e sam e
m anuscript as th e one w ho m ade th e E x c e r p ta L aertia n a . I t is th ere
fore p rob ab le th a t the sam e person is responsible for both th e E x c e rp ta
L a e rtia n a and th e ex cerp ta called P seudo-H esychius. T h e readings
o f 0 are a n n otated in th e critic a l a pparatu s to th e te x t of D iogenes.
1
VITA MARCIANA
T H E M A N U S C R IP T
T h e V ita M arciana is so called becau se it is tran sm itte d to us in one

m anuscrip t on ly, M arc. gr. 257, w ritten a b o u t 1300, and rath er earlier
th a n later. I t is found f . 276“ — 277® (new pagin ation : 278®— 279“ ),
im m ed iately follow ed b y th e te x t of the V ita v u lg a ta . T h e t e x t is now
so d am aged th a t considerable p a rts of it are im possible to decipher.
T h e t e x t w as first edited b y L . R o bb e, V ita Aristotelis ex codice
M arciano Graece nunc prim um edita, L eid en 1861, a fte r a tran scrip t
m ade b y C obet. C o b et had told him th a t “ liber passim situ d etritu s
e st e t lacer et periosu s, u t scateret lacun is, q u as om nes d iligentissim e
in d ica v i et ub icu m q u e fieri p o tu it e x p le v i” . R o se saw th e m anu scrip t
in 1857. In his ed ition , pp. 4 2 6 — 436 of Aristotelis fragmenta, L eip zig
1886, he confirm s th a t th e t e x t w as p a r tly d estroyed b y th e ink
w hich h a d gra d u a lly corroded th e paper. O n th ree visits to th e Mar-
cian a I h a v e tried to decipher w h a t is le ft of th e te xt; th e D irector of
the lib ra ry has in th e m ost cou rteou s w a y arran ged special ph otograp h s
for me; the result, h ow ever, is m eagre. L a rg e sections of th e t e x t are
hop elessly dam aged.
I t is h igh ly p rob ab le th a t C ob et h ad a lrea d y filled th e gap s b y re
tran slatin g the V ita latin a; it is now im possible to d istin guish R o b b e ’s
ad ditio n s from C o b e t’s origin al tran scrip t, w h ich I h a v e n ot seen.
R o b b e fra n k ly adm its: “ saepissim e L a tin a G raece verten d o ita lacu n as
su p p levi, u t sp atiu m in G raeco exem p lari va cu u m relictu m im p le a n t” .
B u t y e t it w ou ld b e q u ite w rong to sa y th a t th e present te x t of th e
V ita M arciana sim p ly is a tran slation of th e V ita L a tin a ; it is ea sy to
see th a t th e tw o te x ts d iffer in m a n y respects, and w here it is possible
to d a y to ch eck th e te x t as edited b y R o b b e an d im proved upon b y
Rose, th eir readings are n early a lw a y s confirm ed. I can not, h ow ever,
m ake m uch of th e readings ad du ced b y R o se in his c ritical apparatu s.
In som e cases he h as been to o pessim istic; it is in fa c t possible to
decipher som e readings w hich he h as o n ly te n ta tiv e ly suggested; in
other cases th e te x t is to d a y co m p letely d estroyed . T here is a large
hole in folio 276, and th e m iddle section of th e recto p age is alm ost
en tirely illegible; of th e last p a rt of th e V ita on f. 277“ o n ly a dozen
w ords can b e deciphered w ith certa in ty . T h is b ein g so, I find it useless
to p rin t a fu ll critical ap p aratu s, w hich w ou ld ta k e m ore space than
th e t e x t of th e V ita itself.
T h e so-called V ita L asca ris in cod. M atrit. 4676 con tain s an epitom e
of some paragrap h s in our V ita , tran scribed from M arc. 257, see p. 140.
A scholion in M arc. 405, w hich I h a v e d ealt w ith on p. 123, contain s
a sm all frag m en t of th e V ita M arciana, w h ich m igh t b e d erived from
a m anuscrip t oth er th an M arc. 257.
T h e earliest m anu scrip ts of the V ita la tin a are from the beginning
of th e X H I t h cen tu ry. T h e tran slatio n m u st h a ve been m ade from
a G reek m anuscrip t a t lea st a hun dred y e a rs earlier th a n M arc. 257.
r E N O r A P IZ T O T E A O Y Z
( 1 ) ’ A okttotÉX^ç o <pdôao(poQ u o Xea)ç fièv tfv E t ayelgœv, ra ôè

Z T â yetça noXiç O çâxrjç nkqoiov 'OXvvBov xa l MeOwvrjç, vlàç ôè N ixo -
/lâxov x a l aiaTLÔoç, àftqjoïv àno Mayâovoq, roü 'A a xX rjm o t xa xa -
yo/ibw v, (hç ôrjXol ro e k am ov èniygafifia-
<T>aimiôoç fjv firjTonç x a l Ntxofià%ov yEVETijçoç

tü>v ' AaxXi]maôd)v Ô loç AgtoroTEXrjç.
( 2 ) y éy ovE Ôè a v r à iv o v fiô v o v "AgtcnoTÉXfjQ àXXà x a l A g lfiv r ja T O ç x a t

’ A g i f in ja T ï ) . 6 Ôè yE N i x 6 f i a Xo ç im o à ç r> ’ A fiü r r o v to v M axE Ô dvm v
P a o d é e j ç ro t! O d h i n o v T ia rg o ç, x a l x a r à fivrjfiTjv r o v o lx e io v n m g ô ç
’ A ç to T O T é fo jç tov ê a v r o ti n a l ô a N i x 6 f i a Xov n g o a r jy o g E v a ev , cp x a l r à
N i x o f i â x e i a ’ H B t x à È y ç a y e . n a T çô Ù ev S g a tû > 'A ç i o t o t é Xei x a t e x rrjç
à v é x a B e v yeveâ<; rj n e o i tpvaioX oyta v xal ia r g ix r jv êÇ tç. ( 3 ) ogtpavdç
( 2) P s e u d o -E lia s . I n P a r p h . is. com m . in e d itu s, co d . M o n a c. f. 193 ^ (c i - C I A G

X V III. p r a e i. B u sse , p . X X I I ) : A e Ï yàg M é v a i Sri ’AgiatoràXtjç ëa Xe
su p p l.
xai naxèqa N a ta p a x o» x a i vlov N tx ô fia x o v xai ëygajpE ngàç éx a té g o v ç l'fiix a '
ngaypaxelai- xal inéygaWE ro fièv ngàç tov naxÉga MeydXa N i x o ^ e i a , ro âe
nçôç rov viàv fiix g â . E L I A S P r o l. philos., C I A G X V I I I i, p . 32-34: A ta pév
yào rà ?/6ixov yeyga/i/idva avrib eiai rà 'H O ix à ngàç E vôrjfiov yiafijjrrji' xat &Ua
n pàç N ix o / ia x o v to v T ia rig a, r à M eydX a N ix o f ià x Eta< * a i N ix o / ia x ov T0V
viàv, Td M ix g à N ix o n A x u a . C f C I C E R O D e f in . V 4 .10 = T 76 b . || ’ A g lp v r ,-
OTOÇ : in te a ta m e n to V 15, c f. T 9 a 8. || iargixrjv : PLUTARCH U S V iia
A le x . 8 A o x r î S i fio i x a i tû tptfoaxgeiv ’ A te£ àvàg ai ngooxgiyiaaQai p a M o v e t egcov
'A ç u n o r iX t jç . A E L IA N U S Var. hist. I X 22 X iy o v a i rcw ç 77vd ay ogelovç n avv
aipàôga Ttzgi rfjV iaTgixrjv o n o v ô d o a i xéjcvrjv x a i IlX â x o iv ôe tpgovttSa èç a v ttjv
è o x e ’ n kiaT T jV x a i ' A g w r o z é lr iç o N ix o ftà x o v x a i S U o t no).Xol. ||
tit. a d d id i |l
( 1) C a ta z iô o s : 0 £ < 7 t(< 5 o c b is ||
ARISTOTLE IX THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 97
hi ytvofitvoQ àvdyexat n a g à I I o o Ç f. v w tcü ‘ A ra ç v e ï, ov xfjç fJtvrjfirjç x ai

t QOfprjç /ivrj/Ltovevœv xov avxov vlôv N ixd voga ExgEipe x a i ènaldevoe x a i
vtov ènotrjaaT.o x a i zeXevx&v èxéksvaev èv ôiadrjxaiç z'qv êavxov dvyaxéga
I 7v6tàô a yEVo/j,évrjv avxtp w ià lïv d tàèo ç ôovvai avxô) ngoç yâfiav.
(4 ) "Em ç fièv ovv ë n vé.aç ?Jv, xrjv xcbv èXf.vdéoojv èn a tÔ E vsxo jiatôeiav,
mç àriXoî xà yEyga/ipéva avxcp 'OfirjgLxà Çr]Trj/j,axa xa i rj T f jç ' I f o a ô o ç
Pxôoaiç t)v SéÔfoxE rà) ’ AAEÇâvÔQw, x a i ô I J eq l jzoïrjxœv ôiâXoyoç xai
to IJegl noirjxixrjç avyyga/ifia xa i a i ' Prjxoqixai xéyvai xa i xà ’ Iaxgtxà
nQoßXrjfiaxa xa i xà & v o ix à ngoßXrj/iaxa èv eßöofnqxovxa ßtßXtoig övxa
xa i xà 'O n x tx à ngoßArj/iaxa xa i r à Mr)%avtxà ngoßArjjuaxa xa i xà
yeyga/i/iEva avxip Aixaiaj/iaxa ' EAXrjviôtov nökscov è^ cbv & i h n n o ç xàç
cpiAoveixiaç xœv 'EXArjViov ôiéXvaev, (b ç /xEyaXogijftovrjaai t io x e xa i
e it ie ïv , "Q giaa yfjv TTéXonoç. yéyganxai <5’ avxœ xa i rj xaiv jiohxe.ioiv
iaxoqia v a x E g o v .
( 3 ) IJgoÇévtp — - N ix â v o g a in t e s ta m e n to V 15 . c f 9 a 5; 13 a e t c. (| èv ôtaBrj
xa iç\ V 12 èxôôaB ai av T tp N cxavog i. ||
( 4 ) 'O firjQ ixà Çr/TTÎfiaTa : I n d . lib i. D io g 118 , H e s y c h ii 106 e t 14 7, P t o le
m aei 98. | jj zrji ’ I h a ô o ç êxôoati; : O N E S I C R I T U S F G r H is t 134 F . 38 =
T 25 a. || ô ü e q î jioltjzûîv SiàXayoQ. I n d . lib r. D io g . 2, H e s y c h ii 2, P to le m a e i 7. ||
t o TI eq I TioirjTixijç avyyga/i/ia : I n d . lib r. D io g . 83, H e s y c h ii 75, P t o le m a e i 2 1. ||
a i QTjTOQtxai TÉ%vai : In d . lib r. D io g . 7 7 — 78, H e s y c h ii 7 1 — 72, P to le m a e i 27
e t 39. || r à ia r g ix a ngoft?.rjfinzti : In d . lib r. H e s y c h ii 16 7 (?), P to le m a e i 8 1. |]
rd y v a tx à ngopArj/jaza iv ô fiifiAÎoiç : I n d . lib r. D io g . 120 {?), H e s y c h ii 168,
P t o l. 76. E L I A S I n Cat. p r ., C I A G X V I I I 1, p . 1 1 4 .1 2 Ta ngoQ E v x a ig o v avzm
y^ygafifièva ip ô o /irjxo v ta fiifiM a IJegi a v fifilxra iv ÇrjTrjfidzwv = T 7 7 a. C ita n t u r
ab A I -F a r a h i a p u d S a id a p u d U s a ib ia m " s e p tin g e n ti lib r l ab eo s c r ip ti e t E u c a e r o
d e d ic a t i" . C f q u a e a ffe r t M o ra u x , L is te s anciennes, p . 11 8 . || r à o n n x à 7igof}\rjjiaTa
x a i fiT)%avtxâ : E L I A S , C IA G X V III 1, p . 1 1 6 .1 1 x à ôè fia O ij/iarixà a v zo v wç
rà O n n x à x a i M rj% avixà avzw ftifiÀlrt yeyga/n/iéva — A l- F a r a b i, P r o l. in p hilo s.
A risto telis, ed. S c h m o ld e rs, p . 20. ]| ô ix a tw fia z a : In d . lib r. D io g . 129 , H e s y c h ii
120; P h ilo d . V ol. R het. I I 57 Sudhaus r à 7teçi zaïv zo noiv ô ix a ta ifia za . || r à ç
qiiAoveixlnç ôii/.vaev : D e fo e d e re et c o n v e n tu q . v . xoivov aw èôg tov c i G e y e r,
R E X I X 2, co l. 2299. | 7j Tùiv TioknEiwv ia r o g la : I n d . lib r. D io g . 143 . H e s y c h ii
135. P to le m a e i 86. C f q u a e a ffe r t J a c o b y , F Gr H is t, N o tes I I I b 2, p p . 45g— 60
de iis q u a e te m e re c o n ie c it H . N isse n , R h . M u s . 49. 1894, p. 1. ||
( 3 ) /ivrjfitjç xai rgotpijç jç R o b b e R o s e || IlvO tdôci, IlvG ià ô o ç ITvOaiôa,

I lv d a iô o ç II
( 4) /leyaXogrjfiov^Tjaavrny R o se , sed v id e V it a m L a s c a r is ||
Göteb. U n iv . Arsskr. L X I I I : 2 7
q8 in g e m a r Dü r in g
(5) ' Exã>v Ôè yevófievoç ê n x ax a íô e x a xov Ilv Q o ï ô e o f l XQVaavr° i

avxtb <piXoao(pElv ’ Adrjvrjai <poixâ ZutxgáxEi x a t ow fjv avrtp rov /xé%oi.
TíXevrrjç avxov %góvov nX-tjv óXtyov õ v r t r fiExà Ôè xotixov (poixã TTkâxuyvi
x ai aw fjv zovrqj tòv fiÉ%gt xeXevxrjç avxov xqóvov eixoaaETt) rvy%á-
vovra, <l)ç avxòç ÈmaxíXXutv (friÃijinra XéyEf (6) x a i ovxai (piXonóvajç
aw tjv nX áxojvt coç xrjv oixlav avxoü àvayvœ axov oixlav ngooayogEv-
Brjvai. 6a /ià yàg liXáxm v eXe'/ev, 'AnUüfiev siç xrjv xov ávayveúaxov
oixiav, ( 7 ) x a i ãnóvxoç x fjç áxgoáoEcoç aveßoa• rO NoVç cbiEoxi, xaxpòv
xà âxgoaxtjgiov.
(8) 'EnéÇrjOE ôè nXáxcovi êxrj x y , nfj fièv natÔEveov & iA ínnov n a lô a
AXÂÇavôgov, ni] ôè av/inEgiuhv avxà) noXXrjv yrjv, n fj òè avyynárpojv,
nrj ôè òiôaaxaXeíov ngosaxcáç. (9) ovx ãga avxtpxoôó/jrjaEv ’ A g io x o -
xeÀt)ç IlXáxaw i t o A vxeiov, diç 'Aoioxóêvoç n o ã x o ç èovxo<pávxt]a£ xa i
’ AgiaxEÍÔrjç voxeqov rjxoXovdrjOEv, eí jxèym xeXevxt}ç aw fjv nXáxcovt.
(1 0 ) xa i oxi IJXáxciiv fièv êxéxÔT) èn i Aiaxi./j.ov ãg%ovxaç ’ Aôqvrjai xa i
ßiovg ext] n ß fiExiqXXal-e xáv ßiov èn i Oso/píXov ’ Agi.axoxèXrjç ôè xe%6eÍç
èni Atoxgé<povç xa i ßiovg êtíj te Xevxô. èn i &iXoxAéovç, qioixã òè
nXáxcovt ' AgtaxoxéXrjç èni N avaiyévovç xa i âuio OEocpíXov ètp ov
( 5 ) T o i IJ v d o i 6eov : I U L I A N U S O r. V I I p . 238 D = fr . 653 R o se , se d t c x t u s

adm odum in c e rtu s . |] qioizQ. H c o x g á z E i : O L Y M P I O D O R U S In P la t. Gorgiam ,
P- 39 ' J a h n E o i x g á z i j ç n o X À ovg x a i à y a Ô o iiç in o lrja e, K i ß r j z a I J X f í r w v a ' A p i a z o -
ziXrp/ x a i Tovç TOIOVTOVÇ. B E D A , M ig n e i o , p . 539, e t R O G E R B A C O N , O pus
m a iu s I I 13 , p. I 54 B rid g e s: A n te vero m ortem Socratis n atu s est A risto teles
q u o n ia m per 1res an n os auditor eiu s fu it, sieu t in V ita A r isto telis legitur. || e tx o -
aaETTji; zvyxdvm v : = A P O L L O D O R U S ap. D io g . L . V 9. ||
( 6 ) TTjv o ix ia v a v zo v : A E L I A N T J S Var. hist. I I I 19 xaÖ* êtxVTov àjTióvza €Íç
tTjv nóAiv = T 36. I ( 7 ) ó votiç Ö T tE a z t : P H I L O P O N U S D e aetern. m u n d i V I 27,
p . 2 11 R abe: T lç yàç à^toniaxózEQoç /idnrvç zrjç TlX áxaivoi á ó f j j í y é v o it' ãv
'AQ H rtozéAovç Sç e ïx o a i f ib i nov èvtavzovç ftefia d tjrevxéva t lé y e z a t IlX á ztn vt,
à y xtv o ía âè z o v ç ô a o i jiiónoTE ngó av xov n a g ’ "EXXrjat y ey ó v a a i v jiE g q xó v zio e, x a i
únò n X d zfü V oç xo o o v zo v zfjç ây%ivoiaç fjyáaBi) w ç N o vç rijç ô ia z ç ifiijç v r i avxov
xgoaayogeveaÔ at ; M u b a sh ir 12, U s a ib ia 29. ||
(8 12) P H I L O C H O R U S F G r H is t 328 F . 223 = T t f. ]| ( 9 ) o v x ãga áv-
z tp xo õ ó p iio ev : Cf 25 et T 58 d et 61 a. || ( 10 ) è n i N a va ty év o vç : R e c t iu s
APOLLODORU S ap . D io n . H a l. F.p ad A m m . 5 è n i aoyuvTQ-. |]
( 5) E Íx o a a e z rj x v y y à v o v z a : E ix o o a E Z r jç x v y ^ d v o iv R o b b e R o se , a d d . m . p r. in
m arg . e ix o o a E x o v ç zvyxavovzoç (tg is x ff) n X t jv ô X iy o v ôvza R ic h a r d s ||
( 7) x o x p o v z à x g w z ijg io v R o se x w q tà v à x g w z ^ g io v Robbe x o v ip o v to à x g o a z fjg io v
L a s c a r is , in c o d ic e p a e n e o b lit e r a t a ||
xtXevxã IlXáxoiv Êwç 0iXoxÀéov; èrp' ov xeXevxõl 'A g ia xo téAjjç Üttj xy

èjiéÇrjOE FlXáxmvv (11) ovx âça ovv, (bç avxoi ovxo(pavxovvxéq (paaiv,
T E a a a g a x o v x o v x r jç ’ AoiaxoxéXrjç (poixã IJXáxmvt ènt E vò ó^ ov rov yàg
’AgtaxoxéXovç £•/ êxTj ßiw oavxo; ro ía êxrj êaxiv ànò Qaváxov IJXáxwvoç
à<pr]Q7]/j.éva>v xwv x ixœv à èayóXnae IlXáxcovr èv Sè. xoíç rntalv èzeoiv
ov fiávov ovx Fjv xoaavxa èxQÉaOai àXV ovòè gáòtov âvayvíbvar ( 12)
oõtcd <PiXóy<})QOÇ iarogrjae• xal S ri ovòè eíxòç rfv ’AgiaxoTsXtj Çévov
õvTa Tovto ôvvaaôai nnie.lv y.arà TIXáxmvoç noXíxov xvy%ávovxoç xal
fiéya ôwafiévov òtà Xaßglav xal TifióQeov xovç ’AQrjvrjdi axgaxrjyrj-
aavzaç xal xará yévoç avr<b nçoar)Xovxaç.
( 1 3 ) M erà ôè xrtv IlXáxojvoç xe XevtÍ]v ZnEvam noç fièv 6 líXáxcnvoq
àòtXtpiôoQç {èxvyyave yàg vínç õiv Ilavxávr)ç xrjç àôsXipfj; IlXáxwvoç)
òiaòéxErai xrjv ayoXtjv. ( 14 ) ' AgiaxoxèXn]ç ôè axéXXexai eíç MaxEÒoviav
ftExajiEfKpOeiQ vnó G>iXhmov eçp’ tu xóv viòv avzov naiÒEvoai. ( 15) Kat
oflrcoç fjv xífiioç <&tlínna> x a l ’ OXvfim ãòi á>ç âvaOsívai avxcb fisd'
êavxwv âvôgtávxa. ó ôè cpiXóaoqioç fiéya ftégoç &v xi)Ç ßaaiXeiag, <ptXo-
ao<píaç ógyávcp xfj òm áfiEi n gòç evnodav èxgrjoaxo iva xe êxaoxov
( 11 ) i n i Evôál-ov : V it a ]a t. i i tem pore E u d o x i. A P O L L O D O R U S ap_ D io g . L .

V I I I go róv K vtôiov EvôoÇov á x fiá a a i x a r á trjv zglrrjv x a i è xn xa cttjv àXv/Mitáâa.
i. e. 368/5. II ( 12) X a ß g la v x a i T ifió õ to v : A R I S T I D E S Or. 46, I I 324 = T 61 a,
sed C h a b r ia m e t Ip h ic r a te n ; P L U T A R C H U S A d v . Colot. 32, p . 1 1 2 6 C 'A6)]vala>v
»Sá X a ß g la i arg a zrjy oi x a i <Dwxíwvcç ’ A xa ô rj/ila ç ai’iß a iv o v . |
( 13) E L I A S , In C a t., C I A G X V I I I 1, p . 112 .2 0 : K a i zcõv avBgamivaiv àva
XaiçijoavToç ôia ôéxE zat zijv oxoAijv S n E v a in n o ç á wíòç zrjç IloTíóvTjç àÔEÀ-
</>t]ç TOÖ U A droivoç- o v x èxv y / n v s yàg TT/vixatra Ttagcbv á ' A gtazorF .bjq- /íF.in-
rrtaÀiÀ- yàg tfv v n ó Q ik b in o v èv A la x eô o v lq èn i rw naiÒEvaai zòv r.íni av zo v
’ AAíÇavfiQov (re liq u a in v e n ie s 2 1). ||
( 14 ) m é M e z a i : R e c t iu s P H IL O C H Q R P S F G r H is l 328 F. 224 = T 3
ànoÔEÔrj/irjxàz o ç eíç M axeôovíav eo te m p o re q u o m o rtu u s est S p e u sip p u s ; D L
V 2 ngeaßevovroi; a v z o v x g ò ; & l?.in n o v. ||
( 15 ) àvÔQiávxa : P A U S A N I A S V I 4, 8: Tòv S' êregov nrrn firjôèv éa ziv Í ti íyg afifia
jjvr/fiovevovaiv (óç ’ A g im o x th ^ z Irrziv ó è x rthv @Q(fxl(uv Z rciy iíg w v , x a i avráv
rjtoi /jaõrjZTjÇ rj x a l OTQazuaTtxàç àvÉOrjxsv ãzE Jiag‘ ' A vtuiotqo ) x a i ngóregov
io x v a a v r a n a g ' ' A X ièáv ô gtú . || ipiÀoooiplaç ÓQyáv(o : ite ru m 46. ||
( 11) ' A ota rozèÀ rjç <p(otxç I IÀ á r w n ên i E v ó )ó £ o v le g e r u n t R o b b e e t R o se .

h o d ie n o n le g i p o s s u n t |
( 15) ßaOiXeiag s u p p le v it R o b b e , a c c e p it R o se , lo c u s d e t e im in a r i p o te s t sed
v o x ip s a o b lite r a ta || <pi).oGo<plaC o m is e ru n t R o b b e e t R o s e ]|
à
100 INGEMAR DÜRING
EveçyETÒbv x a i ná/xiç ôXaç xa i návxac, ã/ia. ( 1 6 ) Soa /ièv yàg êxaaxov

tvtjgyérrjaev, a í yeyçafz/xévat avxâ) xa rá xovç (iaoiXÉaç n egí xivwv
èm axoXai ôrjXotioiv, ( 1 7 ) Soa ôè náXeiç oXaç, r à E xáyeiga òrjXot xa i
’ E qeooòç t) GeocpQáoTov xa i &avíov tcòv aiixov fj.a0rjx(bv nargíç- ryv
t e yàg éamoG naxglôa E xáystga xaxaoxa<pEioav vnà <l>tXÍ7inni) sieíBei
tov ’ AXèt-avògov ôevteqov xxía a i xa i %d)(}aç éxègaç avrfj xaraôtòóvai,
ávO’ <hv oi E xa y eig lxa i [xfjva ngoarjyógevaav Exayeiglxrjv x a i èogrr)v
fjyov 1
AgiaroxéXeia- ( 1 8 ) x a i èv X aX xíôt xEXEvxrjoavxoç fiEXEnéâvxo
rà ocbfjia xa i (icüfiòv ènêoxfjaav x á xá<pu) xa i ’ AgiaroréXEtov rov rónnv
êxáXEaav xa i èxei xrjv fiovXrjv rjBgoiÇov ( 19 ) xa i EgEaaòv fiéXXovaav
vnà 4>tXbznov noXiogxt]6fjvai êneiaEv dgoeOrjvai. ( 2 0 ) noXXà Ôè xa i
’ Adrjvaíovç r.vrjgyéxijaev èv xo lç xa rá &íXi 7inov ygáfi/iaaiv, (úç ABrj-
vaíovg èv xfj ãxgonóXsi ávôgtávxa avrd) àvadeívai. ( 2 1 ) iva ôè xa i
návxaç avBgwnov: EVEgyExqar], ygácpei rw ’ AXeÇávôgcp fiifiXíov IIeq í
fiaaiÀEÍaç ôtôáaxaiv ônw ç fiaaiXevréov. (f. 276 b) õnf.n ovxmç EÔgaae
eIç TíyV ’ AXeÇávógov \pvyr]v (bç Xéysiv õ te /i?) (byéXrjaè rtva- Erjfieonv
ovx êfiacíAeiiaa, ovôéva yàg ev ènoírjaa. (2 2 ) ôneg taov èa ri rã)
èjii%cügLa>ç XEyo/iévoD èn i xtov èn ôXlyov agga>axovvxa>v, xovxéaxiv
ètprjfiEQOV vóaov, IJagà fila v òià yàg xò fiij noirjaai xi)v Tj/iégav exeÍv 7]V
xàç vyiatvóvxo)v èvegyeíaç.
(2 3 ) 5Ax/náaavxi ôè ’ AXsÇávdqa) xa i èm axçaxEvaavxi xa xà Ilsgocbv
awEtfjXOev ovôè xóxe xov (piXoaocpeZv àjioaxófiEvoç. xfjv yàg taxogtav
( 17) õ a a ôè noXciç SAaç : D E M E T R I U S D e in lerp r. 233 'A g t a t o x é b ií fxt.vzai

x a i àzioÕ£Ít;EOÍ n ov X6*jTat èjtKTroAtxcúç, o/ov â ifiá ía i fio v ló fie v o ç õ n ófjolm ç yQtj
£V€çy£T£tv r à ç fteyáX aç tióáeiç x a i x à ç /utxçáç tprjaiv ( = jr . 6 56 R o se ). || xfjv n a -
t gíÔa xatacrxa ip eioa v : D L V 4 e t T 27 a — h . M a n d e v ille ’s T r a v e ls . I 27 k . ||
( 19 ) x a i ’ E g ea a o v — à<pE0ijK3i 1 lia e c n u lla fid e d ig n a . || ( 20 ) x jj A x ç o i toAet
àv ô çiáv ra : U s a ib ia 1 7 — 18. P ost pugnam C h a e r o n e n s e in A th e n ie n s e s P lii-
lip p o s t a tu a m . A le x a n d r o et A n t ip a t r o e iv ita t e m et p r o x e n ia m d e c r e v e r u n t,
P A U S A N I A S I 9,4; P L U T A R C H U S D em o slh. i i \ S c h o l. in A r is t P a n a th . 178 ,16 :
d e A n t ip a t r o H Y P E R I D E S fr. 77 K e n y o n . V e r is im ile e s t h a e c a P to le m a e o in
A r ia to te le m t r a n s la t a esse. ||
( 21 ) E L I A S In C a t., C IA G X V I I I 1. p . 1 1 2 .2 4 ''AMÇavÒQOv (ef s u p ra 13)
(iv naQfit.ajiwv o vrtu ; íjii/icXwí; ènaíôevoE ttjv Parráixr)v in ia r ijiir jv w ç im X éyeiv
t o v 'viJLéÇavÔQüv Tjvíxd [írjfièva u)<pèXr}cíEV ó tc SrjfiEQOV o v x ifJfiatXevaa - 1 77 a -
C f T H E M I S T I U S O r. 8, p. 128 D in d o r f = jr . 6 47 R o s e . ||
( 22 ) n a g à /jlav : = a lte r n is d ie b u s. P O L L U X I 7; P O R P H Y R I U S V ila P lo t.
7; S . X ili N arra tion es, I I I 34, M ign e yq, p. 6 1 7 a. ||
( 17) nQOTjyÓQf.vaav iiQ im oT tkiov m p r. in m a rg . ||

ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION IO I
TCÒV (,OV) TlOÂlTEKbv TOTE (WváÀE%E. XOLl fJ,éXÀOVTL G V flfiá Â X stV TO) U.EQ
a t x ( o 7toXéfÀ(ü o v x £<pyj T à íe q e lo . T a a i o t a y e v é o d a i . ó ô é y e fir) tz e ig O e iç

avvéâXs xa i èxeXevxtjoev. xa i ov% fjTtov ôè xá>v <p8aoávxa>v fiaoiXétov,
'A fivvxov <PiXLnnov ’ OXvfjmiáòoç ’ AX eU vÒoqv , ’ Avxüzaxgoç ò diaôeÇá-
fiEvOQ tt]v ’ AXstávôoov fiaoiXeiav ôia xifiYjQ e X/e xov AgioxoxèXy .
(24 ) Tov áe ZnEvobinov XEXevxriaavxoç oi âatò xfjç aôXij; fisx a -
TiêfjtTiovtai xáv ’ A oioxoxiX ir xa i hiahiyavxai avxrjv avróç rs xa i S evo-
xgáxrjç oaxpgovéoxaxa. xa i 3AgiaxoxEXrjç fièv ev A vxe Ííu , JZEVoxgáx?], ôe
Èv 5A xa S rjfiia , M a xa i ÜXáxojv, èn aí òevoev. (25) ov yàg <bç A g t-
<itó £evoç xa i 5AgiOTEtÔTjç íaxógrjaav, IJXáxwvoç Çwvxoç xat ev Axa-
ôrjfiítf naiÒEvovToç âvxwxoôó/itjaEv ó AgiaxoxéXTjç xó A vxeiov . (26)
EUttEQ yág xiç ãXXoç çpaívEXai o AgtoxoxèXtjç xaxajtXayEiç IJXaxojva

ÈniygáqjEt yàg eíç avxóv
fíaifiov ’ Agt(rcoTsh]ç iôgvoaxo xóvós JlXáxuivt

x a i áXXa%ov TiEgi avxoti qnrjaiv
ãvôgÒQ õv ovâ’ aivEÍv xo la i x a xo la t Qé/iiç.
(27) x a i qtaívexat èv xa lç ènioxoXalç QavfiáÇwv IlXáxaiva xa i avviaxaç

r o lç fiaaiXevoi tov ; TlXáxwvi x a rà yévoç xoivaivovvxaç. (28 ) fjôrj ôè
x a i èv o l; àvriXéyEt IJXáxojvi nXaxaiví&iv avxóv <prjoo[i£v. ÜXáxatv
yág èaxiv ó Xéyojv Eaixgáxovç /iev ôXíyov <
pqovx ÍÇeiv, xfjç ò aXr/Osia;
( 23 ) E L I A S I n C a t., C I A G X V I I I i , p . 1 1 3 .3 1 : a í H o i n e l a i ã ç la ro g ija et à*
to « 7io/.).r)V yfjv neqieXBeív a/i a 'A is .íá v ô g íú t <5 f}am Xei, â ç è x â lô w x e x a r à arat-
XEÍov ôiaxoalaç jie v rrjx o v ra o õo aç ràv àgtQfiàv. — P . 33.8: yírygaftfiiyai ô av ro j
d a t x a i I I o h T t ia i â ia x ó a ia t (sic) róv àniOfinv ãç avveyedipaTO í x toO 7io)j.^v y ip
av[iJiEQie\Úelv ' A ii^ a v ò (io í ziõ /SaoiÂíí. || ( 24 ) C I C E R O A ca d êm ica I 4, 17 =
T 7 1 b. E L IA S In C a t., C IA G X V III i. p. 112 .2 8 : ’ E xeIQ ev ô' v n o a r ç b p a ; ú
A g ia to rêX rjç âiaôé-/_rcat xrtv o ZoA»)v tov E n s v a in n o v avv E r.v m q a if.i x a t àpcpÓTtaoi
iXéyoVTo IleQtnaTtjTixoí- || ( 25 ) A R I S T O X E N U S a p . A iis t id e n = T 61 a; O L Y 1I-
P IO D O R U S = T 34 c . || ( 26 ) xai àXXaxoü : O L V M P I O D O R I 1S = T 34 c.
D A V ID In P orph. I s ., C I A G X V I I I 2, p . 1 2 1 .1 4 = T 72 e. |] ( 27 — 28 ) C f T
41 a — d . ||
( 28 ) O L Y M P I O D O R U S = T 34 c. |[ n X m w v lfr iv avxóv <prjOo/i£V : T 4 1 e — j. |]
XwxgdTOVÇ — noXv : P haedo gi c afiixgòv yQavxloaVTCC, S m x g á t o v -, Tijç rV à h t-
QeI(i<z n o h ô . ]|
( 24 ) ènaíÒEVGEv le g it R o se , h o d ie n o n le gi p o te st.
( 25 ) ÍOTÓçTjoav le g e n d u m cu ra B u sse v o teo o v R o b b e e t R a s e se c u n d u m v it a m
1a tin a m , in c o d ic e o b lite r a tu m ||
( 26 ) xaTanÀayElç fo r ta s s e le g e n d u m cum B u sse 77
X (n a iE tfo)yfÀévoz R obbe
ÒTíOJiTorjOeiç c o n ie c it R o se , in c o d ice n o n le g i p o t e s t ||
102 INGEMAR DÜRING
noXi)• x a i “Eycoye otidevi a/Xrp n gódvjuóç ri/it 7i£Í0eadai fj n ii Xóyw

ãç ãv [io i XoytÇo/iévcp ßeXrtarog xara<paívT)Tac x a i E i firj av a a v ro v
Xéyovroç àxoiirjç, õXXov Xéyovroç yui) m o re v o y ç . (2 9 ) iacoç í5’ oijáè
?tgòç r à Ò oxovvra ITXára)vt (láytErai, âXXà ngòç ro v ç xa xw ç a vrà
sxXaßovrag, ã ç x a i rà áyévfjtov r o i ovgavoü èv rfj IJ e g i ro v ovgavoii'
rtvèç yàg x a rà yjgávov avtò rfxovoav x a i ov x a r ’ a iría v elvat. (3 0 )
x a i rà ç iâéaç èv r o lç M e rà r à qm aixá- rtvèç yào « f w r o i vo-õ avrà ç
êy w y e — xa ra tp a lv tjza i : C riio 46 b : éytb ov póvov vvv àXXà x a i ã el ro to v ro ç

o lo ç Tojv èficõv fiTjÓEvi ãk/.ç) neíõeaO at i] r w Xáyta õç äv p o t ÀoyiÇopévcp ßt'/.ria-
ro ç q>alvr\rat. || £t fifj — n ta rev a tjç : A le . 1 , 1 1 4 e: x a i èàv pi} av rà ç av a a v ro v
áxovaj/ç ôn rà ô lx a ta avpqiégovrá èa riv , ãXX01 y e Xéyovzi fir) n usrE va ^ . |]
0 L Y M P I 0 D 0 R U S P r o l. et in C a t., C I A G X I I 1, p . 10.8: q u i A r is t o t e li o p e ia m
d a t h o n e s tu m e t in te g r u m esse d e c e t x a i aw Eâiç im X é y o v ra aúrw r à ç r o t ID .á -
riovoç tpeovàç õ r t ' E l pi) av a a v ro v Xéyovroç à x o v o jjç, firjÔEvi ã/./.oj Xéyovri m a r cv a flç’ ,
x a i 7iáXtv 'S w x g á z o v ç p èv à/.íynv tpgovrtarèov, rrjç <5" àArjdelaç n oX v', arjfiatvovroç
i5ià n á v u o v rovrtov ■fjplv f ín ô e í n ávrw v rrjv áÀtjÔEtav n g o r ip ã v x a i n á v r a ravrrjç
ÔEvrEga nnir.lnßat. — Id e m fe re E L I A S , C I A G X V I I I I, p . 122.2 e t 12. ||
( 2 9 ) iacoç <5’ ovôé : S I M P L I C I U S I n D e caelo, C I A G V I I , p . 6 40 .27 = T 41 j. ||
O L Y M P I O D O R U S = T 34 c; In M eteor., C I A G X I I 2, p . 14 4 .8 : p ã íX o v 6 ' ow
r o v r o tç è v a v r io ir a i áX).à r o lç xaxcaç r à Tiag avrw v /.tyóftEva öiaX apßavovaiv. —
P H IL O P O N U S D e aetern. m u n d i I I 2, p . 29.2 R a b e = T 40 ]. |] (oç x a i rà âyé-
vijrov r o ß ovgavov : D e caelo I 10; S I M P L I C I U S I n D e caelo, C I A G V I I , p . 92.30:
Iva x a i pdOcopev jiô jç ó p èv TlX árm v yevrjtòv X iy st r à n ãv, ó ò ' ’ Agiaror^Xr/ç
áyévrjzov, o v x iv a v n o v p s v o t (sie) ngòç àXX.qXovç. || év rfj I I e q i r o v ovgavov : I 10,
2 79 b 4. II rtv èç yàg x a r à ynóvnv — elva t. A r is to te le s v e r b u m ycvrjráv ( T i m .
28 b) e x s c r ip to in t e i p ie t a t u s e st, D e caelo I io , se d P H I L O P O N U S D e aetern.
m u n d i V I 8, p . 148.2 R a b e , h a e c d ic it : A v r à ç (ó IlQ á x k o ç) tprjaiv ròv IIÁ draiva
yevriràv Xiyetv rnv xá o p o v oi'% tòç àg xijv ro v F.lvai elXt]<pót a , àXX cbç èv rqi
ylveaOat r à Elvat é%ovra, x a i êrt yEvrjròv aiç vjzà 6 e o i yevófievov x a i o v x avràv
ia v zcõ rov Elvat a ln o v õ v ra, âriEg èfftiv r ò x a r a ir la v yevrjràv Elvat. Cf quae
a ffe r t S I M P L I C I U S I n D e eaelo, C I A G V I I , p . 296. 12 — 18 (et q. s .). e t q u a e
H. C h e rn iss ad hunc lo c u m c o n e la m a tu m te s t im o n ia c o lle g it, in : A risto tle's
C r itic ism 0j P la to , p p . 422— 23. |
( 3 0 ) x a i r à ç lô éa ç : T 41 f. || rtvèç y à ç È$a> ro v »oii = F a r m . 13 3 c 6. Cf PLU -
TARCHUS P la c . I 1 0 ,1 1 = D ie ls D o xo g ra p h i p. 309; in c o m m o d e c e c id it q u o d
te x tu s c o rru p tu s est; e m e n d a tio q u a m p r o p o s u it B ig n o n e , L 'A r is to te le perduto
I 64) ÈÇw yE yovvlaç r o v voõ ro v Oeov e x eiu s s e n t e n t ia e s t e t fu n d a m e n to c a r e t.
E x tr a in te lle c tu m id e a s p o s u it P O R P H V R IU S , V ita P lo t. 18: A ià x a i ã vri-
ygátpaç ngooqyayov à e ix v w a t nEigtúpEvoç õ rt È{n> r o v vov vtpéarriXE r à vóij/za.
(2 9 ) à y h r jr a v r e s titu i: y tw tjr á v R o b b e e t R o s e , in c ó d ic e n o n le g i p o t e s t ||
vnêdevro xa i SM ot àiôia a lo 6Vxà v n tla fío v avxáç, olov â tiq a m m

áôávaxov íj w nov. "O x i yàn ov (ío vU rm avràç navxtm aai prj t h a t ,
ònXol èv to Iç ' H B ixo íç Uycov i m i p eivai xr,v rákiv, rr,v fièv ev toj
arçarfjyfo, rv v á ’ èv x<? atqaxonéòm , x a l aixíav xrjv h e ç a v xrjç sregaç-
xai èv xoíç IJeqÍ ywxf)ç ràv xa x êvéçyeiav vovv elvat r à Jtçáypaxa. ^
( 3 1 ) K a i fiá ia ò* & ’ A eioxoxéÀt)ç xò ftdoç fiéxçioç yéyovev, et ev
uèv xoíç K axrjyoçlaiç yrjoi fii) Seív nqoxeÍqcoç tmocpaíveoOai àlXa
noXXáMç è jie o x e w é v o v , xa i fii]v oè&è ôtcmoQtlv fióvov àxçijoxov etvai
( 3 2 ) x a i èv xoíç IIeq Í to v âyaO of A e í p&pvfjoBat ãvdgconov ovxa ov
V a ria s quas de ideis a ttu leru n t opiniones v iri docti D A V I D affert, I n P o r p h . l t

C 1A G X V I I I 2, p. 1 1 5 . 4 - 1 1 6 . 2 , et S IM P L IC I U S I n D e caelo. C 1 A G V I I . p
87 i 11; in utroqu e loco c ita tu r D e m u n d o 399 b 1. || à iô ia atodrjza, 1. e. corpora
caelestia; de n otion e cf M eta p h . g g i a 9 f t 1069 a 30; S IM P L IC I U S I n D e c a * ,.
p 277 II ô z i y à e ov p o v le z a i - è z é g a i : P H I L O P O N U S I n A n a l. post..
C 1A G X I I I 3 p 242.26 (et sim iliter E L I A S , C I A G X V I I I 1, p. 48) 3«
v n ia rovriov á n o J i o y ^ o t , á ç S t , «boi & lâ ia ç xã>V n g a y p á zm v z o v ç õ ^ o v g -
yovç Xáyovç ótaQQTfii^v Xa i avxàç ó ‘ A g ia zo r é k r ,ç n a v z a x ofl M . e t a ffertur
M eta p h A ,0 , 10 75 a 12 ( = D e m u n d o 399 b 1). H u ic apologiae nullam fidem
h a b e t Phlloponus: si P lato species Xóyovç ô W U)vqyMO»ç esse docuisset, neque
Aristotelem u m quam talem doctrin am im p u gn aturum fuisse, et ceteros discípulos
P laton em non recte intellexisse; itnmo A ristó teles (paívExai òeí âvztxg v ç zta òoy-
a a r t u a y ó p ev o ;. || èv z o íç W ix o í ç : V ita lat. in eth icis vel m e ta p h isu is. D e m undo
,5 9 a 3 0 - b 10, e t M eta p h . X I I 10, 1075 a 1 1 — 15. Id e m exem plu m afferun t
A S C L E P IU S , C I A G V I 2, p. 44.35 = T 41 f. S IM P L IC IU S . V I I , ’
X V I I I 2 p. t i 5.28. II èv z o iç n t Q i y>vXrjç : I I I 7 . 4 3 1 b 17 - A S C L E P I .
T 41 f, S I M P L I C I U S , I n de a n .. C I A G X I . p. 279.8 ÕXrnç Ôè o »ofií EOt, z a
n o á y / ia r a & x a r èvègytiav vowv.
( 31 ) r ò M o ç /iérg>oç : O L Y M P I O D O R U S I n M eteor. 339 a 2, C I A G X I I 2,
p 12 1 8 : B X ène ôè z t tiÉTQiov ÉBoç (le ge n d u m ^Ôoc), n & ç o i f èv o k a jio ô e ^
vvoív à n o y a lv tr m â U à p s x e ^ w v <pr)oiv '& p m r á ^ Q a . C f p . 21 in 339 b 29 ™
aeavv^ at V o k tlç í ^ q U , ™ «A. - P H I L O P O N U S I n D e gener. an.
76o b 2 C IA G X IV 3. P- 158 .2 7: M a i O0« T + ; p c iQ ió x n z o ç , Qetoxaz*
V á o o ó y w v xO Q Vçm ózazE. I n C a t., C I A G X I I I 1, p . 13 2 .2 3 In
M eteor , C I A G X I V 1, p . 7 -35 : rpiUaotpov r o i ’ A q t o z o z ílo v ç r o ffioq x a i tpua-
A« 0£Ç . . . èyw ô’ o l/ ia i x a l z o v z o nETQiáÇwv £ í q t ] x ív . C f T 50 b . || èv /iev r a n
K a r n y o o la tç : 8 b 21: “ Irrmg ôè XaXenàv vnèg zã>v zoiovraiv aq>oòe wq <v*n<patvc-
aOai m tio V A ^ í^ a x s ^ é v o v zò f ib n o t ô i ^ o o ^ é v a t i<f ê x á o z o v avztov ovx
ã r o tjo r ó v èa nv. O L Y M P IO D O R U S , In C a t., C I A G X I I 1 , p . 113-8 : O zi m
z t U i Trjç K a z n y o g la ; <pr,m v ô r^ Ia cç _ ^ iv r a t r a yag a ^ n ) ,
Aovróç io z iv n e ç i rwv n a n ' a v z o v k.ynfiévaiv.
( 32 ) x a i èv z o iç I le g i to v à y a ô o i : F r . 27 Rose. C f E th . N tc . 1 1 7 ' < 7 3 2-
J04 1NGEMAX DÜKING
ftdvov tov evTvyoVma dXXä x a i tov dnodeixw vxa. ( 3 3 ) K a i ev Tolg

H dixo ig Nixo/j,axeiotQ■ &iXog (lev o dvrjg, tpiXr) <5’ r) dbjOeia- a/itpolv
de (piloiv ovroiv, 8atov ngoTifidv ttjv aXrjOetav. ( 3 4 ) xat ev roig Me-
T e d lQ O lQ - TQ v TO. flE V Ö jia Q O $ U f.V , T & V d‘ FJfOJT.TO/lEdd T lV d TOÖnOV Xai
h , I o k avroig■ 0 v% dJtaS ovdi dig dXX' <bieigdxig rd s a ä r ie yeveoQai

t o k dv6gd)noig dotag, h a fir) fiiy a cpgovcbfiev i<p’ o k evgiaxeiv doxov/iev.
(35) Kai roiotirog /iev 6 (pddaoipog- ngoaedTjxe de tfj cpiXoaocpia
nXeico nag' airrjg d vektfa ro . ( 3 6 ) rf} ydg 'H S ix f, t o t i j v evdat-
fioviav firjrr. iv to lg exxaq ajiorideadai, cog o noXvg avdgconog, firjTe
iv xfj ywxfj povov, chg 6 m d x o jv , dXX’ eXeiv p h to xtgog iv yjvXjj,
frm aiveodai de xa i dXißeodai fiovov avrrjv vno t & v ixro g fit) eO eX6vtcov,
oixeuog ralg XtÜem xgrjoäftevog. K a l ydg r ä g v n o v ^ a h d o v a m Ö
to xdXXog eXei, xgvnrerat de xaxd fiovi]v rf]v envpdveiav, xa i ra BXi-
ßofieya t o avzo peyeBag eXovTa xa x dXrjBetav, iXdrrco^ cpaiverai ,i6vov.
( 3 7 ) t f j de qmatoXoyta ngoaeByxe xyv n e fim y v ovaiav x a i t o xar
eladox^v og d v ( 3 8 ) rfj de fiaBrjfianxfj t o o£vya>viov elvai tov x & vov
t&v oyiEcuv did to i n i nXeov ngoisvai Tfjv orpiv o i ogq. fieyidovg- x a i
( 33 ) x a i iv t o k 'H d t x o k ■E th . N ie. I 4, i° 9 6 a 16. E L I A S I n Ca t. C I A G

X V III i p 122 4. C f A T H E N A E U M i n e. || ( 34 ) iv t o i i M n c io e o tq : M eteor.
339 a 2 e t b 29. - Iva fit) ftiy a . V erb a sun t O L Y M P IO D O R I a d lo c u m , cf
^ (S fe)3«' JoJMs ä v e e to n o i, d x ß o a n jq u s ita tis s im iim a p u d A M M O N IU M , E L I A M .

P H IL O P O N U M . || QvnaCvsoßai x a i BUßeaOar. : E ih . N ie . I ii. P- i i o o b
8U ß e ‘ X vfiatveza i (gim aivovat 1099 b 2); h a e c e p ito m e v e r a e s t se d h a u d r e c t i
e p ito m a to r d ic it se p r o p riis v e r b is A r is t o t e lis u su m ease. || t o xaUoQ ; : E th .
N ie I 1 1 . P- 110 0 b 30 d ia M p n e t, xd x a M v . E U S T R A T I U S a d lo c ., C I A G X X
97.28 w iv t a k d v o w e Qia t; x a r a n b r z.o v ^ t ’ iv r a k s m ^ Q la K vntgaiQ oÊvo-,
c f. H o r . C a tm . I 10,13. || „ _
( 3 7 ) 7ien irtnv ovaiav : notissim um . || to xar e ia ö oXr\v oqav. Top. I 14.
lo s t & ogwuF.v fla S zy o n n v o l z i ovx ix n in x o r te q . De an. II 7. 4 *9 a 17:
n L ^ o s y d e « to « a ia O n n x o i, y lv tr a t z 6 6gäv. O L Y M P I O D O R U S I n M eteor.,
C IA G X II 2 p 5.5 : w aavtcog S ’ iv r fj I h ß i ynX* * 4
» iavrof> ^ a ir £ ‘ d6âV
A x a i <5t< äaa<päk (Ideler : aaycbz codd.). ^ V“ Q ° > 1' xn T ' elaSoW
in o ia ß E v a tv e v x a ^ g r r p o lx ela v 06 £av drtôateviov. S IM P L IC I U S , I n D e a«.,
C I A G X I , p . 183.4 ■■■Ti v fv egy siav ro d aloO r^ ov 0eX0/J£vov. E ly m . M agn. s .v .
a i uev nXf.at atodijoEiQ x a i ' ela S o xv v ev eg y o ü a iv avrr/ de (1) nQ aaii) x a x f.y.nounrjv.
( 38 ) 6 h rywvtov s lv a i tov xcövov : P r o b l. XV 6 ,) zw v Srpcojv e x m w a t i xüjvo;
io r iv . E U C L I D E S O ptica, p . 2.4 H e ib e r g : t o v n o t<5v dipeaiv ncqttynfif-vov <iyf,un
elv a i xw vov. ||
( 36 ) 6 JioXi>s<Sx*o?> R o b b e 6 JioXvC R o s e , c h a r t a d e p e rd ita

y.azà rovro yào ovôèv z& v ôotofiévcjv õXov ã/na ôgãzai, x a l zavrrj fieíÇova
yíveaOat tòv AÇova ttjç f.x rovzov rfjç fiáoEcoç x a l ó£vycí)viov ròv xwvov
(biortXrloQar ( 3 9 ) rfj Ôè ÔEoXoyía zò firj r à návza eyxóa/iia eivai,
wç zò eIx Ôç , àXX' f.lvaí zt x a l v n sq xó a fiio v Èv yàn rqj nê/mxu> rrjç
(pvaioXoyixrjç tò noãiTov firjôè x a zà av/j,flefir]}tóç <prjai xtvztaõai, zov
èyxoo/iiov òià zò w atw réraxrai xa rà ov/j,{3e()r)xòç xtvov/iévov x a l Èv
rã ôyôáia zfjç, <t>vaixrjç tò ngózcoç xivovv áxívr/zov eivai fiovXszat.
( 4 0 ) avzov á ’ evgrjfiá êartv rj Aoyixi) ràç ovXXoyioztxàç /ir.dóôovq t & v
ngayfiázcov (htnyojQÍaavTOÇ.
( 4 1 ) ' E navaazávzojv <5* avrãi tô> v 5AOr/vaícov v n e y m g r / a E v elç XaX-
xíôa, T o a a ü r o v v jie itz Ò iv w ç‘ Ov a v y y o > o r ja o j 'Aôr/vaíotç ôlç ãfiaozEtv
elç (ptXoootpíav. ( 4 2 ) ènEi ôè zà avzà xadrjxovza ovx f/v noXtzr/ xal
£évq> jieol t r/v zmv 'Aôr/vauav nóXtv, èmazéXXcúv 'AvTtnázgui yçá<pEc
Tò ’ Adtjvrjai ôiargíÊtv e o y c ü á e ç - õyyvrj yàn èri òyyvr/ yr/gáaxEi, avxov
à Ènl crúxq>‘ r r jv ôtaôayr/v z& v avxo<pavzovvz(uv alvirzófiEvoç. (4 3 )
K a l zs Xevzõ. èxEiOE ôiaõtjxr/v èyygacpov xaraXinóiv, rj cpèqETai naoá te
’ A vôgovíxco xa i IIroXE/xaí(p jusrà z ã v m váxoiv rctiv avzov avyyça/i-
/lá T f u v , ( 4 4 ) Ènl natal fièv Ntxojiá%(p x a l IJvOtáôt, yvr/aíotç ôè fiadr/zalç
xai xará zovzo ó g ã za i : E U C L I D E S , ib . p. 4 .2 1: oiiôèv Tcjv âgwficvtov âfia

õXov ó g ã za t. C f R o se , A r is t. p seud ep ig raphu s, p. 378. ||
( 39 ) è y x á o / iia — ünegxóa/iiov : D e p h ilo s. fr. 8 R o ss , in fin e = P H I L O P O N U S
I n N ic o m . Isag . I 1 : n k / iin ov í r i tiv rá Xouiòv Êq>gaaav r à Oriu x a i v n eg xóa ftia
x a i àfiEzáflXrjza 7zqvzeXwç x a i zfjv zovrcov yvw aiv xvg taízd zijv (hvófiaaav. ALEX
A N D E R , I n M eta p h ., C I A G I i . p . 5 9 2 .10 . S Y R I A N U S , I n M eta p h ., C I A G V I 1 ,
p . 79.22 e t p a ssim . ]| év y à ç zm n é / im q i xfjç <pvaioA.oyixfjç. P h y s . V 1, 224 a 26—
2g. C f q u a e a ffe r t S I M P L I C I U S I n P h y s ., C I A G X , p. 966 .1 ( V ’ Z 1}) iyxóa /iio^
oüaa. II èv xw àyâáq) zrjç <Ptlo tx ijç. P h y s . V I I I 5. S I M P L I C I U S , I n P h y s ., p.
4 2 1.2 2 : K a i ó ' A g ia z o z c b i ; t <3 IlX á ztovt xazaxoXovOcüv z ò ngw zaiç xtvoòv à x í
vrjzov e iv a i tpt]Oi, zijv fièv tp»xr)V tác áxtvrjzov fjV x iv e i xívrjoiv, zò v ôè vovv tác
x a i x a z à z à ç ÈvegyEÍaç à/XFzájiaxov. (421.32) x a i ovôèv èv z o v z o tç èa zi ôiáqxurov
ITÍázajvi. x a i ’ AgiOTozÉÁEt z o t d vájiazo; z o ü a izo x iv r jz o v . ||
( 40 ) jj XoyiXTj. C f q u a e a d V it . v u lg . 26 a ffe iu n tu r . || ( 41 ) ov avyy_coQâcj.
T 44 a — d, 45 c. ( 42 ) õyxyr] è r i õyxvrj. Odyss. V I I 120— 12 . T 44 a - -d.
DL V 9. II
( 43 ) StaO/jxrjv êyygaipov ; D L V 12 — 16. E L I A S I n Cat., C I A G X V I I I 1. p .
1 0 7 .1 1 ã>ç q>T)ai IJToX efiaíoç ó &i).áôeX<poç (sic) ^0/ âvaygaqrijv avzw v TiOLjjtíúfit
voç x a i zòv ftíov x a i t jjv ôiaOrjxr/v. D e m e m ó ria A r a b ic a a p u d a n -N a d im , F ih r is t,
I b n A b i U s a ib ia , D e sectis dociorum , e t I b n a l-Q ifti, H isto ria eru d itoru m , v id e p. 208.
( 40 ) á7io%ciiQÍaavzoç : ôtaxgívavzoç s u p p le v it R o b b e una(avX )7ÍaavToz R o se ,

q u id le g e n d u m v a ld e in c e rtu m ||
( 42 ) a d v e r b a ’ ABrjvqm ôiaZQÍfieiv m . pr. in m a rg . in f. a d d . avzóv
io 6 IN G E M A R D U R IN G
@£o<pgáaxa> CP a v i a Ei)ôr)/ucp Kàvtü) ’ A g ia r n ^ é v o i A ixm á oxq r (4 5 )

o w x á y / ia a i òi %iXíoiç r ò v á g i 6ju ó v , ( 4 6 ) TtoXXá f iè v ô v v d / iE v o ç nagà
x o lç xóxe fiaat.Xf.üai, &iXbmw ' OXvfimá&i 'AXE^ávôgqi ’ A v x m á x g o ) , x j j
Òe ô v v á fie i ógyáva) iptXoaoqjíaç % g r]a á [if.vo ç.
( 4 7 ) ” Iòiav Òè xíjç ’ AgtaxoxéXovç tptXoaoipíaç xà firj à<pioxaa6at x&v
èv a g y ã v fiExà yag xàç àjioôeíÇsiç xa i xovç noXXovç fiagxvçExar (4 8 )
xa i èv xolç 11Egl ovgavov x o v ç nXavr}Xaç âva>/iáXoiç xtvEladat Xéyet
<5íà zt]v èvágyetav, xo>v xaXov/itvcav arpaioihv x&v áveXixxovocúv x-fp
ófialrjv xívyoiv a w Ç ovoáv ( 4 9 ) xai èv x a lç K axrjyogíaiç xaxaoxEváÇei
xàç àxófiovç ovaíaç xa i ngoxáxxE i x&v xaQáXov ôià fióvrjv xrjv èvágyEiav:
( 5 0 ) x a i yàg õxt xà xaddXov ovx èaxiv, xa i èv xolç IJegi tpvxfjç tprjai.
to yàg Çehov xò xaQóXov i\xoi ovòèv èaxiv rj vaxegov àaa<pkç yàg xò èv
x o lç noXXolç xaOóXov òiò xa i xaxavayxaÇt.i jcdvxaç èx xrjç è v a g y E Ía ç .
( 45 ) : E L IA S = T 75 p. || ( 46 ) rígyávqi q>iXoao<píaç : c f s u p ra 15 . ||
( 47 ) xõ jtííj ã<p(oxaa 6a i : S I M P L I C I U S I n C a i., C l A G V I I I , p . 6.22: O vâa/iov
<5’ fOt.Xti r ijç éva gy ela ç è tlo x a o Ô a r ôtxxrjç <5‘ ovar/ç èv a g y sla ç e lç n la x iv , xrjç
fiév àjin vou xr\ç ô’ àrí aiaBrjOeajç, x o lç /jf.x' alaOrjOEcaç qãiniv SiaXEyó/iEVoç
xrp> ájià x ijç alodrjoetoç n goxtfiÇ . || fie x à yàg x à ç à n o ô e líe iç : S I M P L I C I U S , I n
D e caelo, C l A G V I I , p . 1 1 6 .9 eÍxótúúç o ív /iexa x a ç àjioâelÇ eiç x a i x rjv àn à x wv
(paivoftÉvmv n a g a y e i n lo x iv t] n a i v x a i x o lç y r n X etm o tç à g x e l n gò ç xá oiixcaç
TiyEtodat. S im . I n p h y s. X . p . 1 3 1 8 .1 0 = S c h o lia B r a n d is 448 b 6: r.Boç éa x i xdi
'A g ta xo xe X ei fie x a xà ç á n o õ el^ eiç x a ç xtüv n g ò avxov fia g xv g la ç w ç ovfiçpiavovoaç
avxoti x a lç àn oâelE ea i n ag áy eiv. ||
( 48 ) èv XOLÇ TTroi ovgavoi) : D e caelo I I 6 e t M eta p h , X I 8, S I M P L I C I U S I n
D e caelo, C I A G V I I , p. 422.3— 28. || ( 49 ) èv x a lç K a x rjy o g ía iç : Cat. 1 b 29— 3 1.
S I M P L I C I U S I n C a t., C I A G V I I I , p. 8 0.27, 8 2 .1— 35. || ngoxá xxE i : ib . p . 7 4 .1 5 . ||
(5iá fioWjV xTjv èvàgyetav : c f S I M P L I C I U S , p. 8 7 .1 5 tbç yvwgt/iwxegov nagrjxEV,
P H I L O P O N U S , I n C a t., C I A G X III i , p . 6 1 .1 1 itgòç xrjv xã>v 71oXXcbv yvw aiv
xfjv òtfiaaxaX lav noiov/ievoç. || ( 50 ) èv x o lç J le g ! 'Pv^rjç : D e an. I 1 , 402 b 7
x ò Sé Ç õ jo v xà xaOoXov fjxo i oòõev ècrxtv rj vaxe.gov. ||
( 49 ) xaxaaxE iiaÇ et : x a x a n x tjx x e x a i c o n ie c it R obbe, a c c e p it R o s e , in co d ice

non le g i p o t e s t II TtgoxáxXEt : ngoxlÔrjai c o n ie c it R o b b e , a c c e p it R o se , n o n le gi
p o t e s t ||
COMMENTS
V M — V ita M arc.; V V = V ita vulg.; V L = V it a lat.; V S = V ita syr.
(1 ) T h e epigram on ly id V M , V V , V L . T h e a ttrib u te Slog indicates

a late a u th o r and a ten d en cy to glo rify A ristotle; I guess th a t P to lem y
com posed th is epigram , follow in g a w ell-kn ow n p a ttern . T h e opinion
h as b een expressed th a t in P to le m y ’s origin al d/nipoTEQOt applied to
A risto tle and his fa th er, an d th a t th e tran sfer to P h aestis is th e w ork
o f th e ep itom ator, b u t M ubashir 2 shows th a t th e sta te m en t com es
from P to lem y .
( 2 ) A r is to tle ’s b ro th er is m en tion ed in th e w ill; th e nam e of his
sister on ly in V M , W , V L an d H esych iu s, see T g a 7. T h e idea th a t
A risto tle h a d inherited an in terest in m edicine and n atu ral philosophy
from his fa m ily tra d itio n is found o n ly here.
( 3 ) I t m igh t w ell be tru e th a t he w as b rou gh t u p h y his uncle P roxe-
nus; th a t th e la tte r w as from A tarn eu s is m entioned only here; if true,
it w ould add an e x tr a reason for A risto tle ’s relation to H erm ias of
A tarn eus. Cf. U saibia 3. I assum e th a t the follow ing s to ry abou t
th e ad op tio n is a conclusion w hich P to le m y has draw n from th e w ill
and from th e fa c t th a t P roxen u s w as, as U sa ib ia says, “ th e m an d atory
of his fa th e r ” .
( 4 ) F ro m now on th e V ita is coloured b y a ten d en cy to rom anticism ,
com bined w ith a desire to exto l A ristotle. M ubashir 3 — 7 has an accou n t
of A r is to tle ’s childhood w hich m u st be derived from P to lem y , even if
we assum e th a t M ubashir has am plified it. T he "all-em b racin g b ran ch
of lea rn in g” clearly goes b a ck to th e sam e original as ttjv rchv eXevOdgojv
naideiav. I assum e th a t P to lem y b u ilt up this sto ry on th e titles of
th e books w hich he m entions; w e shall see other exam ples of th e sam e
kind, e. g. his sto ry a b o u t th e Eyxdifiiov nXdnnvog, T 34 c. T h e te sti-
m onia show w here he fou n d th e titles. T h e anecd ote a tta ch ed to th e
title of th e A txa iw fia ra is found on ly here. A sim ilar n ote is found
appended to title 123 in H e sy ch iu s’ catalogu e; a possible exp lan ation
I0 g in g e m a r d u r in g
is th a t A n d ronicu s in h is “ cata lo g u e raison n é” ad ded com m en ts of

th is k in d , and th a t th e tw o n otices in H e s y c h i u s and P to le m y are
r e m a in s of such com m ents. - O n t h e t i t l e s m entioned in th is paragraph^
see M orau x, L istes, p. 118. - I th in k w e c a u a lrea d y in th is p a rag ra p h

see th a t th e m an w h o ep itom ized P to le m y ’s V it a in serted ad d itio n s of
his own. T h e polities are m en tion ed in (23) w here th e y belong, I regard
th e sentence yeyQOJirai - voteqov as ad ded b y th e ep ito m a or.
(5 ) Corresponding to M ubashir 9 an d U sa ib ia 28. T h a t h e join ed
P la to on th e a d v ice of th e D elp h ic oracle is an in v e n tio n b y P to le m j
en tirely in accord w ith th e te n d e n c y of his b io g r a p h y . P erh ap s it
w a s inspired b y w h a t A risto tle said a b o u t D elp h i in th e first boo o
D e philosophia. B u sse r ig h tly observed th a t th is sto ry is an a rgu m en t
for assign ing th e b io g ra p h y to th e period a fte r Ia m b lich u s
N on e of th e S y ria c or A r a b ic versio n s has a w ord a b o u t S o cra t
in th is conn exion . T h e ep itom ator h a s eith er in v en ted th is him self
or ta k e n it from sources u n kn ow n to us. T h is id ea w as th en fu rth e r
d evelop ed b y th e au th or of th e V it a v u lg a ta . H e cou n ted on his fin g e r,
and fou n d th a t A risto tle m u st h a v e sp en t th ree years w ith S o c ra te s
T h e a ccu sa tive, elxoaaerfj zvy Xdvovra, is lectio praeferenda, th e
is a tte ste d b y all our sources. H ere w e lea rn th a t th e in fo rm â t,on is
d erived from a letter to P h ilip . .
(6 ) I t is curious th a t th is anecdote, w h ich sa y s som eth ing v e r y
essen tial a b o u t th e d ifferen ce of approach b etw een P la to a n d A r i* 0 tie .
is fou n d on ly in th is obscure place. T h e sta tu s of an a v a y v œ o r y ç in
th e A ca d em y w as th a t of a servan t; h e w a s p ro b a b ly a sla v e train ed
for his ta sk . A b o o k w a s regarded as “ pu b lish ed ” w h en i t h a d b een
p u b licly read b efore an assem b ly, à v e y v œ o fié v o v . M o st p e o p le including
th e y o u n g m en in th e A ca d em y , “ h ea rd ” books; A ris to tle d iffered from
th e m a jo rity in th is respect: he “ re a d ” b o o k s as w e do; w e h a v e his
ow n w ord s for th is fa c t (T 56 b). A fte r h im th is b ecam e m uch m ore
com m on, and to jo k e w ith th is h a b it w ould th en h a ve b een P ° m tk s ^
T h is is w h y I b elieve th a t th is sto ry is tru e: th e p o in t is un derstan d ab le
on ly if th e d ictu m w as coined in th e 360’s.
( 7) - M ubashir 1 1 - 1 2 , U sa ib ia 29. P h ilopon u s p ro b a b ly h as it
from ou r V ita . T h is sto ry o b v io u sly h as som ething to do w ith L.picharmu>
ir 12 D iels: vovç 6e fj x a i vov: à xo v er x à U a xaxpa xa t r w p fa The
t e x t of th e d ictu m is u n certain; L a sc a ris’ reading xnvyov is certa in ly
w ron g' b u t w e can n o t sa y w h eth er ou r m an u scrip t reads a xe oarr)Qiov,
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N IO g
to aKQoaxfiQiov or xoxq ^ qiov , as R o se believed, anqoax^ and

axouTTiGjov are q u ite d ifferen t tilings, and th e w ord s are confu sed b y
th e co p y ists in oth er passages, too . W e can th erefore d iscard th e la st
v a ria n t, w h ich p ro b a b ly ow es its existen ce to th e fa c t th a t som ebody
m ista k en ly b elieved th a t th e d ictu m w as a trim eter. T h e w ord a ^ o a x n -
oiov is late; i t is possible b u t n o t p rob ab le th a t it w a s used in P la to s
tim e- he w ou ld h a v e used a p a rticip le of dxovm or axgo& fiat or th e
s u b sta n tiv e a xg o a xa i P la to can h a rd ly h a v e coined our d ictu m in th e
form it is tra n sm itte d to us. T h e m an w h o coined i t had in m m d the
E p ich arm u s-fragm en t, r o * - T h e d efin ite a rticle is required
b y th e gram m ar, b u t a la te w riter desiring to m ake a b a d tn m e te r
m igh t h a v e allow ed him self xoxpov axgoaxrjQtov
I t is possible th a t P la to ga v e A risto tle th e n ick-nam e N o te (as Phflo-
p onus says), and th a t P to le m y added th e rest. A n oth er problem is
this- if P la to rea lly called A risto tle 'T h e R e ad er" and The M ind ,
a ie w e to in terp ret these ironical n ick-nam es as expressions of approb a
tio n or as hum orou sly critical? L ik e D iogenes P to le m y ev id en tly
regarded th em as a p p reciato ry nam es, expressing P la to ’s high esteem .
B u t o rd in arily a nick-nam e is given for purpose of ridicule; if true,
th ese nick-nam es w o u ld im p ly th a t P la to d isapproved of A risto tle s
vo racio u s appetite for reading and th a t he found him too q u ick -w itted
and rash. .
(8) T h a t A risto tle accom panied A lexan d er is co n tra ry to th e ancient
trad itio n . T he S y ria c and A ra b ic trad itio n know s n othin g a b ou t this.
I t is p ro b a b ly an ad dition b y th e epitom ator.
( g 1 2 ) See m y com m ents on T I f P to lem y observed th e a ct
th a t A risto tle w as “ a stra n g er” , i. e. a m etic, as is show n b y V M 42.
N o other source m entions th is im p o rta n t fact. - XEaaaâxovxovxrjc,
confirm ed b y Y L , is d ifficu lt to explain; presu m ab ly i t is an old error
for XQtaxovxovxrjv, E u m elu s ap. D L V 6. - cm Evdoôv, confirm ed
b y V L , is another ex trem e ly v a lu a b le piece of inform ation , fou n d on ly
here. — T h e n e x t sentence xov yag ’ AgtaxoxeXovg — avayvcovai re
ve als th e hand of the epitom ator. _ ,
( 1 3 ) Am m onius and O lym piod oru s (T 72 ab) o m it Speusippus, an
so does th e S y ria c and A ra b ic trad itio n , M ubashir 14. U salb ia, w ho
g iv es us th e m ost fa ith fu l accou n t of P to le m y ’s V ita , describes in 5 -
co rrectly A risto tle ’s v is it to H erm ias, his sta y in M acedonia, and his
su b seq u en t return to A then s. I therefore assum e th a t th e ep itom ator
of V M has abridged th e account, lea vin g o n ly th e b rief notice (14)

a b o u t A ris to tle ’s tutorship.
( 15 ) F ih rist 7 — 8, M ubashir 28, U sa ib ia 15. — T h e te x t: V L 15
in d icates th a t th e G reek origin al used b y th e ep itom ator m a y h a v e
read: fif.ya (tegos o')v rrjg paaiXdat; = in magna parte fu it consors
regni ipsiu s, and qi/.oancplaQ doyrivm — E%grj(jaTO = {49) usus est or-
gano philosophie. In our m anu scrip t I th in k I can id en tify som e fa in t
traces of <pdooo<pias, b u t I can n o t see fiaaiXeias; th e t e x t is visib le
tow ard s th e m argins, and b y cou n tin g th e n um ber of letters in each
line w e ob tain a criterion for ju d gin g w h eth er th ere is room for th e
word 0a a tleia s or not; ta k in g in to accou n t th e num erous ab b revia tio n s
used in th is m anu scrip t I w ou ld say th a t it is possible, b u t n o t a t all
certain. In a n y case th ere is no room fo r th e G reek w ords (found in V V
15) corresponding to “ laboravit pro rege” \ again w e learn th a t th e tra n s
lato r of V L used a te x t w hich contain ed m ore th a n our VM . — T h e
phrase “ in exercising his influence he used p h ilosoph y as an in stru
m en t” recurs V M 46. — evegyEXcbv. F ro m th e exp an d ed versions in
F ihrist 12, M ubashir 26, U sa ib ia 24, w e can infer th a t P to lem y d ealt
w ith th is to p ic a t som e len gth using A risto tle 's (genuine or faked) letters
as his m ain source. T h e w ord s eva sxa arov, n o k eii oXag, ndvTaq
afia giv e us th e disposition.
( 16 — 1 7 ) O n S ta g ira , see T 27. A sim ilar sto ry w as p ro b a b ly in ven ted
abou t E ressu s in a fa k ed letter; no oth er an cien t source kn ow s a b o u t it.
( 1 8 ) = V S I 10, M ubashir 2 9 — 30, U sa ib ia 30— 31. T h e ten d en cy
to g lo rify A risto tle is th e b ack grou n d of these stories so ty p ic a l of th e
religious a ttitu d e in Ia m b lich u s’ school.
( 1 9 ) I t is ex trem e ly u n lik ely th a t P h ilip h a d a n y in terest in cap tu rin g
E ressus.
( 2 0 ) T h is b rief sentence is a ll th a t rem ains of th e long sto ry told b y
U sa ib ia 1 7 — 21, see m y com m ents. A g ain w e find th e letters quoted
as evid ence.
( 2 1 ) A s an ex a m p le of A risto tle ’s general evegyeaia one of his books
is cited. T h is gives us a glim pse of h ow P to le m y w orked; th e w hole
sto ry is in v en ted b y him on th e basis of a b o o k -title in th e In d e x libro-
rum. - O n th e b ook, title 18 in D L , see M oraux, p. 38. R ose, A n s t.
pseud, p. 94, ad du ces a passage from D io C hrys. Or. I I On K in g sh ip
w hich m igh t h a v e som e conn exion w ith A r is to tle ’s b ook. B u t this
w ould as w ell a p p ly to th e th ird and fou rth discourse on th e sam e su b ject.
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N III
I h ave not been able to fin d th e dictu m ascribed to A lex a n d e r in a n y

source earlier th a n P tolem y.
( 2 2 ) T h is curious com m en t m ust be an ad dition m ade b y th e epito-
m ator.
( 2 3 ) = M ubashir 24, see m y note. T h e note on th e P olities is in terest
ing, cf. P hilodem u s T 31 f rovg re vofiovg avvaycov a/ta t <5 fiadyrfj xa l
rag roaavrag noXvxeiag. I t is possible th a t A risto tle and T h eoph rastu s
co.*i“cted th is d ocu m en tary m aterial, law s, con stitu tion s, enactm ents,
on th e in stiga tio n of P h ilip and A lex a n d er, du rin g th e la s t yea rs of th eir
s ta y in M acedonia. — T h e n ex t n ote again, “ th e om ens w ere not
a u spicious” , is a n eop laton ic fab rication . — T h e n ote on A n tip a te r is
a conclusion d raw n from th e letters, th is tim e q u ite correct.
( 2 4 ) Cf. P h ilochoru s T 3. I t is curious to see h ow n ear this com es
to w h a t C ice io sa y s, Acad. 1 4 , 1 7 = T 71 b. In aaxpgovEarara the
ten d en cy of P to le m y ’s V ita shim m ers through.
( 2 5 ) A fa in t trace in V S I I 2; a curious exp an sion in M ubashir 10;
F ih rist 5 and U sa ib ia 4 are p o ssib ly d erived from th e sam e original.
On A ristoxen us, see m y note on T 58 d, p. 387. U su a lly it is possible
to find o u t, w ith a fair am ou nt of certa in ty , w h a t P to le m y said in his
V ita b y com bin ing th e evid ence in th e G reek, S y ria c and A ra b ic trad i
tion. H ere it is alm ost im possible. I can on ly offer a conjecture: P to lem y
reported th e sto ry of A risto x e n u s and A ristid es (with evtot = Aristotle)
and rejected it as untrue; he said th a t A risto tle had d eputized fo r P la to
during his second v is it to S icily (a tran sfer from H eraclides), and th a t
A risto tle had n ot opened a school of his ow n during P la to ’s life-tim e.
( 2 6 ) See m y n ote on T 34 c. I f I am rig h t in m y assum ption, P to le m y
quoted th e elegy in th e form in w hich w e read it in O lym piod oru s and
th e ep itom ator fa b rica ted th e silly verses w hich w e now read in th e V ita ,
still m ore deteriorated in th e W . Busse, on th e co n tra ry , assum es th a t
O lym piodorus w as th e au th or of the section 25 — 27, Hermes 28, 1893,
p. 274: “Sie gehen also au f O lym piodor zu rü ck und sind jed en falls
aus dessen Lebensbeschreibung des A ristoteles entnom m en, die wir
zw ar n icht m ehr nachw eisen können, aber analog der Lebensbeschreibung
P la to s ohne B eden ken annehm en d ü rfen.” I h a v e th e highest respect
for B u sse’s erudition and solid qu alities as a scholar; still I v e n tu re
to suggest th a t here he has fallen victim to a m ethod w h ich w as v e ry
com m on in his generation, n am ely to su b stitu te an en tirely unknow n
source, “ die w ir n ich t nachw eisen könn en ” . In P to le m y ’s V ita , a
II2 in g e m a r D u r in g
p ro d u ct of th e n eoplaton ic trad itio n and v e r y sim ilar in ch ara cte r to

P o r p h y r y ’s Vita P lo tin i in its rela tiv e exactn ess and richness in fa cts,
and to Ia m b lich u s’ V ita Pylhagorae in its general ten d en cy, Am m onius
and O lym p iod oru s possessed a b io g rap h y of A risto tle w h ich on th e
w h ole satisfied their needs. T h is V ita is not unknow n; even if w e can n o t
recon stru ct it in all its details, w e h a ve a fa irly good id ea of its disposi
tion an d - m ore im p o rta n t - its ten d en cy. W e know th e m ethods
applied in th e late n eop laton ic schools in in trod u cin g stu d en ts to th e
stu d y of A ristotle; th e prolegom en a presuppose th a t th e teach er h as in
his hands an epitom e of a b io g rap h y of A risto tle, in clu d in g an In d ex
librorum - he m akes freq u e n t references to th is epitom e; our V it a M ar
cian a is such an epitom e, b ased on P to le m y ’s V ita w ith a n um ber of
ad ditio n s am algam ated w ith th e origin al epitom e b y a process of accre
tion; ou r V it a v u lg a ta is a la ter cop y, con sid erab ly w atered -d ow n and
deteriorated . T h ese are solid fa cts, ea sy to prove. Is it n ot m uch
b e tte r to build on them , and t r y to reconcile th e un kn ow n w ith these
k now n facts?
( 2 7 ) C ertain ly from P to le m y and based on letters w hich he foun
in A rte m o n ’s collection.
^28 _3 0 ) T h is is a section in w h ich it w ou ld b e n atu ra l fo r th e owner
of th e ep itom e to m ake additions. F ro m th e p arallels adduced in th e
testim on ia - and it w ou ld be ea sy to a d d m ore of them , see B u sse’ s
discussion — it is clear th a t w e are here in th e m id st of th e neoplatonic
school-discussion in th e la te fifth cen tu ry. Ju d gin g from th e general
te n d en cy of P to le m y ’s V ita , I fin d i t lik e ly th a t th e first sentence
represents his opinion; certa in ly he m u st h a v e ad du ced som e exam ples,
and th e w hole of (28) m igh t b e d erived from him . T h e rest, esp ecially
th e idea th a t A risto tle figh ts a gain st m isrepresentation s of P la to ’s
doctrines, is ty p ic a l of Am m onius and O lym piodorus. T h is ad dition to
th e origin al epitom e is th e m ain argu m en t for m y opinion th a t our
V ita M arciana is a p ro d u ct of A m m on iu s’ school, althou gh , as w e shall
see, la te r th a n th e tw o coryp h aei. T h a t it is in note form , inten ded
for exp an sion in an oral lectu re, is ob viou s. — yQixoig is an old error,
th e correct reading is of course ev r o t ; fiEta r d q>vaixa\ th e L a tin tran s
la to r foun d it in his source or ad ded th e co rrect reference. A lexan d er,
in his com m en ts on th e passage. C l A G I, p. 7 i 5 - 5 , says: d e l yog U yetv
on to ayaddv xa i z6 agtoTov rov navtog S itto v ea n v , tj xe r a f t ? xat
6 nndjTo; v o i;. T h e b ad in terp reta tio n of this, Strtyv elvai r yv rdîv,
is w h a t w e ex p ec t from a m ind o b fu scated b y th e k in d of in stru c

tion given in O lym p iod oru s’ school. O u r passage is d ire ctly influenced
b y Sim plicius, as B usse saw; his te x t (V II p. 87,6) is: Strxrjv xrjv xaîv xty
fiiv ev rcb axgaxt]y 0>, xtjv 6e ev xtp axgaxoneöcp x a l rijv exegav ex xrjg
exsgag. T h e ep itom ator “ setzte fü r die P rä p o sitio n ex das verstän d lichere
alxiav und schrieb x a l alxiav xrjv erdgav xrjg dxsgag” , and th is is th e te x t
I h a v e adopted. T h e m an u scrip t, as usual in critical passages, is in
decipherable. — D e an. I l l 7, 431 b 17 is co rru p t in m ost m anuscripts,
and a lrea d y Sim pliciu s h a d before him a corru p t te xt; he w as clever
enough n ot to m isunderstand it. T h e correct te x t is: 8\cog <5s a votig
eaxiv 6 xa x' ivegyeiav xa ngayftaxa [vodiv], T h e w ord vo/Lv w as added
early; it is quite superfluous, as T o rstrik says, see H ick s ad locum, and
B usse, Hermes 28, 1893, p. 271. T h e ep ito m a to r of our V ita has
m isinterp reted th is sen tence grossly, ta k in g it as an argu m en t for
his opinion th a t A risto tle held th a t “ th e th in gs are id ea s” .
(3 1 ) On the top ic of his fiexgioxyg, see T 50 b and th e testim onia.
P a in t traces in th e A ra b ic trad itio n , M ubashir 38 an d U sa ib ia 36. W e
h a ve no basis for con jectu res as to w h a t P to le m y said on th is su bject.
( 32 — 3 4 ) See the testim on ia. T h e alleged qu otation from D e bono is
a m ystification ; th e idea is akin to th e cen tral th em e of the Prolreptieus:
(piXoao<prjx£ov. “ L ife itself is n ot enough, even if it brings extern al
happiness; on ly th e good life, th e life of a philosopher, is w orth liv in g ” ;
or as Socrates said, A p ol. 28 e q)iXoao<povvxa fiE delv ^rjv. I f genuine,
th e sentence m ust be explained as a tran sition al phrase, lead in g ov er from
a general introduction to th e m ore specific th em e of defin ing the good.
( 3 5 ) T h e d oxograp h y is indeed v e ry d ifferen t from th a t g iv en b y
D iogenes L aertiu s. H ere as in section (28— 30), th e professors w ho
used the epitom e m ust h a v e felt free to add and change th e te x t ad
libitum', th e top ic w as a central them e in th e school-discussion. The
em phasis is laid on w h a t doctrines A risto tle “ added to p h ilo so p h y ” .
A gain we get a glim pse of th e apologetic tend en cy: “ he ad ded m ore
than he selected ” , i. e. u n like m ost philosophers he w as n ot an eclectic,
but ad van ced m an y new ideas. T h e reading of th e best m anu scrip ts
of V L ab ipsa elegit is a m istranslation, corrected b y la ter scribes as
so often in this V ita. ave.Xf.ârn in th e sense required here is la te usage,
recorded from th e neoplatonic com m entaries.
( 3 6 ) N o oth er opinion of A risto tle h as been th e o b ject of such a
p rotracted and polem ical discussion in a n tiq u ity , and it is rare to find
Goteb. U n iv . A rsskr. L X I I I : 2 8
in g e m a r D U R IN G
IT4
such an unbiassed report as this one. N othing prevents us from assum

ing that it is an epitome of P tolem y’s account.
( 3 7 ) E v e r y dem ography m entions “ th e fifth elem ent b u t i t is
surprising to fin d to «« 0 ’ d o d o w 6Qav as second choice. T h e ph rase
itself is rare; i t is tem p tin g to assum e
from Olympiodorus, quoted in the te s tim o n y and our passage lt
impossible to say whether i t has come to the ep.tome f r o * O ly m p io
dorus or whether Olympiodorus borrowed it from the epito . _
( 38) T h is doctrin e, too , is conn ected w ith A risto tle s th eo ry of sig h t
have inte,ested the author particularly. 11 » . -
traces of su ch an in terest in th e n eop laton ic com m entators^ nor h a v e
I fou n d a n y th in g else of a ch ara cte r to ex p la in w h y th is d o c trin e ol
tZZJZJL.
„ W e o r £ n f ib r e s h e , , ju d gin g from the complete silence ,» th e
I assume th a , it comes f r o m an earher source, , ..
our P to lem y . T h e au thor seem s to h a v e rea d Meteor. 5-
(3 9 ) I th in k th a t th e u su a l ap ologetic te n d en cy can b e fe lt m th e
firs t sentence. T h e tw o passages are co rre c tly reported , see th e te st.
“ (4 0 ) W 26 sh ow s th a t our passage is a v e ry b rief ep itom e of th e
here th e n eop laton ic professors w ere on th eir hom e g ro u n ^

(4 1 ) T h e b io grap h y is resum ed a fter th e d o x o g ra p h y ; i t b egin s v e r j
a t a p i l y both here and iu W . A comparison with H .r m ip p n ,a fo
D L v 5 M ubashir 20, an d U sa ib ia 7 show s th a t th is w o u ld h a v e b een
to rep o rt th e sto ry a b o u t E u rym ed o n . W h y is th is sto ry
en tirely om itted , b u t th e apop hthegm s related to th e ^ o r y r e c o r d e ^
M y ex p la n a tio n is this: th e la te n eo p la to n ist w ho is r e s p o n sib le fo r h
t e x t of ou r V ita M arciana h a d no in terest in th e s to ry about. E u r y
medon's accusation; he liked the apophthegms, for ^
in his lectures; th e prolegom ena, esp ecially th o se o ’ .
I f j r t ” S i u g . i » th e sam e w a y th e A ra b s o m itte d c e rta m t h in g ,
th a t w ere o f no in terest to them ; th e m ost c o n s p ic u o u s e x a m p le
th e p a rag ra p h s in th e W ill co n tain in g th e provision s a b o u t statu es.
« , T clau se is one of th e v e r y few d ire ct q u o ta tio n s from
P to lem y ; u lt im a t e * i t goes b a c h to a p h r a s e in a U tte r a k e d j.
genuine, w h ich P to le m y used as source; i t m ig h t also b e an in feten
drawn b y Ptolem y from Philcchorus, see (12).
( 4 3 ) This note proves th a t the ep itom ator used P to le m y ’s b iograp hy;

P to lem y in his tu rn had quoted A ndronicus; th e form u la naga re
’Avfigovixw xa l IJroXefiaico follow s th e h a b itu al p a ttern . I t proves,
too, th a t P to le m y ’s V ita included th e w ill and th e In d e x librorum ; the
description of P to le m y ’s w ork is th u s e x a c tly th e sam e as in th e A ra b ic
trad ition , F ih rist 19, a l-Q ifti I, U sa ib ia I, see p. 208. T h e F ih rist says
“ his d e a th ” in stead of “ his w ill” , b u t th is is p ro b a b ly due to th e tran s
lator. P to lem y is n ot ch aracterized b y a n y surnam e in th e G reek
tradition; E lia s confuses him w ith P h ilad elp h u s (if it is n ot a c o p y is t’s
error for <piX6ao<pos, as som e scholars believe). T h e A ra b ic surnam e
el-G arib is discussed ou p. 209.
( 4 4 ) T h e list of disciples is rem ark ab ly correct; oth er nam es m igh t h ave
been m entioned b y P to le m y and th e list abrid ged b y th e epitom ator.
( 4 5 — 4 6 ) “ A th o u san d rolls” m u st be a round figure; th e glo rifyin g
ten d en cy again, avvrayfia for ovyygafifia (also H esych . 10), th e earliest
exam ple in D iodorus I 3. noXXa — ’AvTuidrgcp could h a v e been th e
final flourish in P to le m y ’s V ita . (46) looks lik e an ad dition b y th e
epitom ator, cf. (15), b u t it is of course possible th a t P to le m y w ished
to em phasize th a t A risto tle used his excellen t relations w ith th e M ace
donian cou rt and w ith A n tip a te r for th e m ost n oble purposes.
( 4 7 — 5 0 ) T h is has been added du rin g th e tim e in w hich this epitom e
w as used in th e n eoplatonic schools. One ad ditional p arag rap h is
found in V L , also from Sim plicius. H ow are we to exp lain these five
additions which, if w e look a t th e parallels in Sim pliciu s’ com m entaries,
m ight h a v e been added b y him or ta k en from his books? Sim plicius
seems to h a v e w ritten m ost o f his com m entaries a fter his retu rn from
Persia; th e school in A th en s w as o fficia lly closed, b u t he m igh t h ave
arranged p riv a te instruction, as th e professors did in A lex a n d ria du rin g
periods w hen political conditions w ere trou b led and a fter th e A rab s
had cap tured th e c ity . B u t th e n ature of his prolegom ena in v ites us
to regard them as w ritten for readers, not for listeners, and th e y are
decidedly n ot notes ajid qiwvfjg. I can see no reason w h y Sim plicius
him self should interfere w ith the epitom e of P to le m y ’s V ita ; w e can
find none of those references to th e V ita w hich are so com m on in
Am m onius, O lym piodorus, E lia s and D av id and w hich are found in
Philoponus, too. In m y opinion th e V ita M arciana (apart from these
paragraphs) represents th e epitom e as it w as in th e generation after
O lym piodorus. Am m onius and O lym piod oru s n ever refer to Speusippus;
n 6 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
on th e c o n tra ry th e y assert th a t P la to w as su cceed ed b y X en o cra tes

and A risto tle (T 72 ab). E lia s rein stated Speusippus, follow in g th e
V ita ; his and D a v id ’s prolegom ena are fu ll of echoes of b o th V ita Mar-
cian a and v u lg a ta . W e do n ot k n ow a n y th in g certain a b o u t E lia s, b u t
he m u st h a v e been rou gh ly con tem p o rary w ith Sim plicius, and earlier
rath er th an later. I fin d it v e r y d ifficu lt to b elieve th a t E lia s added
th e paragraph s 4 7 - 5 0 and V L 52 from Sim pliciu s' w ritings. I th e re
fore assum e — and this is of course m erely a con jectu re - th a t these
additions w ere m ade in th e m iddle of th e six th cen tu ry b y an unknow n
scholar w h o used th e V ita in th e o rd in ary w a y as an in tro d u ctio n to
a m an u scrip t con tain in g th e logical w ritin gs of A risto tle and one or
m ore of th e usual ngoXEyofieva tt}<; Aoytxrjg. E q u a lly possible is th a t
th e ad ditions w ere m ade in e x a c tly th e sam e m anner du rin g th e nin th
cen tu ry re v iv a l, th e period in w hich our earliest e x ta n t m an u scrip ts of
th is kind w ere w ritten . - ( 4 7 ) T h e argu m en t as such is com m on, b u t
th e form u latio n is ta k e n from Sim plicius. ( 4 8 ) I h e te x t is en tirely
d estroyed in th e m anu scrip t, and it is n o t even possible to decide how
m a n y letters are m issing. T h e restoration of the w ords b etw een
rvdgyetav and r& v avekm ovow v is therefore a rb itra ry.
( 4 9 ) I do n o t u n derstan d R o b b e ’s and R o se's readin g x a T a jih ]T T f.T a i.
T h e a u th or of th is passage has epitom ized Sim plicius, w ho says,^ C .M G
V III, p. 87.14: r a iir a 5e x a r a a x e v a C o iv to fie v to e IS oq ev x o Iq
d r o fio tc Z fz iv r° elvaL yvw Q i/idnr.Q ov nagrjxE v. O lym piod oras,

C I A G X I I 1, p. 23.35 58.20— 28, sa y s essen tially th e sam e, b u t
adds th e o b servation th a t th is is v a lid on ly for th e Categories, a b ook
inten ded for beginners. A sim ilar discussion is carried on b y Sim plicius,
p. 82.15; his lan gu age is n g o r a T T E i, n o t n g o u d r jo t . — ( 5 0 ) T h e last
sentence rounds off th is com m en t and p roves th a t (4 7 - 5 °) b elong
to g e th e r and m u st be regarded as an ad dition m ad e b y one and the
sam e person, p resu m a b ly th e m an w h o is responsible for th is edition
of th e n eop laton ic V ita .
General character of the V ita M arciana.
A v e r y good a n a lysis of th e V it a M arciana w as m ade b y A. B usse in

his p a p er “ N eu p la to n isch e L eb en sbesch reib u n g des A risto teles , in
Hermes 28, 1893, pp. 2 5 2 - 2 7 6 . H is conclusions need b e m odified on ly
in p o in ts of m inor im portance.
Our V ita is a late d escen d an t of an origin al epitom e of P to le m y ’s

L ife of A risto tle. I h a ve assum ed th a t th is b io g ra p h y w as w ritten after
the tim e of P o rp h y ry , p ro b a b ly b y a m em ber of Ia m b lich u s’ school in
the fou rth cen tu ry. W e do n o t k n ow w h en th e epitom e w as m ade,
b u t ju d gin g from th e lectu res held b y m em bers of A m m on ius' school
and preserved in th e P rolegom en a (ch. X X ) , th e ep itom e ex isted in
the la tte r h a lf of th e fifth cen tu ry.
I t w ould be an illusion to b elieve th a t we can recon stru ct th e original
epitom e. B u t b y com p arin g th e descen dan ts n ow e x ta n t, n am ely the
tw o Greek, th e L a tin , and th e tw o S y ria c V ita e , an d th e A ra b ic epi
tom es of P to le m y , w e can fin d o u t th e com m on elem ents; assum ing
th a t these com m on elem ents are the skeleton of th e origin al epitom e,
we shall fin d th a t in th e present te x t th e follow in g paragrap h s m ust be
regarded as later interpolations: (22) th e m ost curious of all additions;
I w ould explain it as an oral com m ent, m ade in passin g b y th e professor
when he com m ented on th e ep itom e p a rag ra p h b y p aragraph; (25) is
a repetition of (9), in d icatin g th a t th e professor w as an xiou s to stress
this fact; (28— 30) contain additions w hich, ju d gin g from th e testim on ia,
can be ascribed to O lym piodorus or one of his disciples; again th e p ro
fessor w anted to em phasize th a t A risto tle nXaTtuviCet and o v j io o q to .
Soxofivza juaêroi; he adds exam ples from th e D e caelo, M etaph. and
De an. in support of his opinion; in th e sam e w a y he su p p orts th e
statem ent in (31) b y adducing exam ples from th e Cat., De bono, Eth.
N i c and Meteor.; the testim onies in d icate th a t all th is m aterial is
derived from O lym piodorus’ oral instruction ; (36— 40) con tain a su rve y
of A ristotelian doctrines in ethics, ph ysio lo gy, m athem atics(!), th eo lo gy
and logic (crum pled), w hich is v e r y curious indeed; it is possible th a t
the original epitom e contained a sim ilar su rvey, w h ich w e now possess
in its last stage of decay; one d etail, xa x eiadoxyv ogiv, points to
O lym piodorus, b u t for th e inclusion of th e o p tic doctrines I h a ve no
exp lanation to offer; (45) is repeated from (15) b u t m ight be epitom ized
from th e final sentence in P to le m y ’s V ita; (47— 50) are o b vio u sly added
after the tim e of Sim plicius.
In these paragraphs th e later additions stan d o u t as blocks of phrases
and sentences characterized b y their peculiar lan gu ag e and ten d en cy.
M uch more d ifficu lt to determ ine are the sm all additions w hich a ie
am algam ated in the te x t of th e original epitom e. B usse w as of the
opinion th a t the author of V ita M arciana (I w ould rath er say: one of
n 8 IN G E M A R D tJ K lN G
th e interpolators) is responsible fo r the in trod u ction of Socrates in (5).

I am n o t so sure of this. P to le m y ’s V ita w a s inspired b y a ten d en cy
to g lo rify A ristotle; he m a y w ell h a v e found it su itab le for his purpose
to lin k A risto tle w ith Socrates; he m entions S ocrates in conn exion w ith
A risto tle ’s h a s ty retrea t from A th en s in 322 ( W 19, V S I 3). I t is
n o tew o rth y th a t our te x t of th e V ita M arciana does n ot sa y m ore th a n
th a t “ he sta y e d a v e r y sh o rt tim e w ith S ocrates, u n til S ocrates d ied ” .
T h e id ea th a t A risto tle during three y ea rs w as a disciple of S ocrates
is a la te r am p lification of th e origin al sta tem en t, w hich h as led to a
certain confu sion in paragrap h s 8 — 12. In V ita v u lg a ta 30 it is regarded
as an a ccep ted fa c t th a t A risto tle sp en t three years w ith S ocrates, and
th e ch ro n olog y of his life is a d ju sted to co m p ly w ith th is fact.
A n o th e r sign of confusion, cau sed b y late interpolators, is found in
(23— 24). A lm o st all an cien t w riters, even of th e b est periods, are
careless in m a tters of ch ro n ology, b u t it is neverth eless d ifficu lt to
b elieve th a t P to le m y cou ld h a v e com bined th e tw o co n tra d icto ry
statem en ts in (23) and (24) in th e m anner our V ita does. A n o th e r d eta il
is th a t ou r V ita speaks of 250 P olities, ju s t as A m m on ius, C l A G I V 4,
p. 3.28. T h ese p aragraphs, too, seem to h a v e been interfered w ith b y
m em bers of A m m on iu s’ school.
T h e stra tifica tio n of our V ita is com p arab le to th a t of an old settle
m en t w here people h a v e liv e d du rin g m a n y hundred years. I do not
th in k th a t w e can sp eak of an “ a u th o r” of th e V ita and of “ sources” ,
from w h ich he has com piled it. I t has reached its presen t form b y a
process of w hich w e can ob tain som e id ea b y stu d y in g th e n eop laton ic
prolegom ena. T h e oral in stru ction w as based on a school-edition of th e
Organon. T h e ed itio n w as introd u ced w ith a /e v o ? AqiaxoxLXovz,
fo llo w ed b y a TlQooijiiov rfjs Aayixrjq ngayfiareiag. In e x ta n t m an u
scrip ts w e fin d tw o sm all in trod u ction s of th is kind, one beginning
’ E nsidt] &£ Xoyixr); n Q a y fia z E ia q aqxy to ngoxel/ievov fhfiXiov, see
b elow p. 12 1 , and one ’ Exonoc, e a n rw ' A q io x o x ilf L i.v r a t ; KmrjyonlatQ,
see p. 125. In m a n y e x ta n t m an u scrip ts th e V ita is com bin ed w ith one
o f these in trod u ction s, o ften w ritte n in th e m argin.
T h e p rofessor com m en ted on th e V ita , th e stu d e n ts to o k d ow n notes
p rep arin g a t e x t o f th e ir ow n asio qxovrjq. W h en a fte r som e yea rs th e
stu d e n t h a d passed his course and b egan to te ach him self, he used his
ow n ed ition w hich th u s included th e n otes ta k en dow n w hen h e w as
youn g. T o th e original V ita w as ad ded w h a t he found to b e of valu e.
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N I ig
In cod, P aris. 1928 w ith its curious title w e possess a la te co p y of a

t e x t derived i x rwv a w o va tâ v ’ A/u/jcoviov rnfi 'E qîe Iov .
O nce th e school tra d itio n w as broken , th e V ita w a s d etached from
its conn exion w ith th e n eop laton ic prolegom en a and th e Organon. I t
could now b e used as an in tro d u c to ry scholion in a n y m anuscript
contain ing w ritin g s of A risto tle . B u t it is still m ost com m on ly found
in m anuscripts co n tain in g th e t e x t of, or com m entaries on th e Categories.
It is often ascribed to A m m onius, w h ich in d irectly proves th a t it w as
A m m on ius w ho in trod u ced th e h a b it of using th e epitom e of P to le m y 's
L ife of A risto tle in his O T al instruction . B u t in rea lity , our V ita M ar
cian a is th e co llective product of several generation s of n eoplatonic
students of A ristotle.
V ITA VULGATA
T he G reek V ita v u lg a ta is found in 31 m anu scrip ts. T h e follow ing

nine are p ro b ab ly all w ritten before A . D . 1300.
A m brosian u s gr. 922 (D 78 sup.), f. 33“ —34 •

L au ren tian u s gr. 10,26, f. 8oh— 8 i b.
L au ren tian u s gr. 71,3 . f- 83s — 85 a.
L au ren tian u s gr. 7 2 ,1, f. 88a— 8 g b.
L au ren tian u s gr. 72,5, f. 22ab.
M arcianus gr. 1 1 1 5 , f. (w ithout num bers) 1 — 3.
P arisin u s gr. 1844, f. 26°— 27h.
P arisinu s gr. I 9 7 1 » n b — I 3 b-
V a tic a n u s gr. 246, f. 44ab.
Since m a n y of these m an u scrip ts and those listed below con tain the
te x t of A ris to tle ’s Categories or th e com m en taries of P o rp h y ry , A m m o-
nius or P hilopon u s, th e y are described b y A . B u sse in th e prefaces to
his editions in C I A G I V 1 - 6 and X I I I 1. T h e earliest of th ese m an u
scripts is p ro b a b ly L a u r. 72,5, w h ich b y som e scholars is assigned to
th e elev en th cen tu ry. T h e L au r. 10,26 can n o t b e m uch later. T hese
tw o m an u scrip ts w ere alm ost c ertain ly w ritte n before 1200. T h e P ar.
1844 is earlier th a n is gen erally assum ed and w as p ro b a b ly w ritten in th e
ea rly th irtee n th cen tu ry. T h e la te st of th e m anu scrip ts in th is list is th e
V a t. gr. 246, w h ich m a y h a ve been w ritten in th e early fo u rteen th cen tu ry.
T h e follow ing ten w ere w ritte n during th e fo u rteen th century:
A n gelican u s gr. 30, f. g4h— 9611, A . D . 1393 -

A n gelican u s gr. 42, f. 8h— g a.
C on ven ti Soppressi 41, f. 8 i b— 83“.
G enuensis F . V I 9, f. 48“— 4gh.
M arcianus gr. 257. 1 277s — 278b.
M arcianus gr. 405 (olim 217), f. ga— n b.
M utinensis (Estensis) gr. i8 g , f. 3 a— 5 a-
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 12 1
N eap olitan u s B orb on icu s I I I D 37, f. 1 — 2.

Parisinus gr. 1773, f. 238b— 239” .
V atica n u s R eg. gr. 116 , f. 25“ — 27b.
T h e follow in g eleven w ere w ritten du rin g th e fifte en th cen tury:
A m brosian us gr. 56 (A 160 sup.), f. 4 1 “ — 42b.

M atritensis gr. 4553. f. 46“ — 47“.
M atriten sis gr. 4676, f. i4 6 b— 14 7“. A . D . 1462.
Parisinus gr. 1928, f. 66“ 66b.
Parisinus gr. 2020, f. 1 — 3.
U rbin as gr. 55, f. 187“ — 190“ .
U rbin as gr. 56, f. 23“ — 23b.
U rbin as gr. 57, f. 45s— 46®.
V atica n u s gr. 1498, f. 2 7b— 28b.
V atica n u s gr. 2 i8 g (olim Colum nensis 28), f. 50b — 5 i b.
V indobonensis int. phil. gr. io , f. 1 — 2.
T o th is group also belongs th e m anu scrip t a fter w hich the E d itio

princeps A ld in a w as printed.
F in a lly there is one m anuscript, O ttobo n ian u s gr. 178, f. 1 — 3,
w ritten A. D. 1593.
T he m anuscripts can be d ivid ed into fiv e fam ilies w hich I call abcde.
T h e first tw o fam ilies preserve a te x t w hich is, in all p ro b ab ility, v e ry
near to the original, and th e differen ce betw een a and b is v e r y slight.
In these th e V ita is p a rt of a general in trod u ction to th e logical w ritings
of A ristotle. I t is possible th a t Paris. 1928 has p reserved a title w hich
comes near to th e original title:1) *loidvvov Poaufifnixo'S 3AieiavdgEcoQ
to v ( f r iio n o v o v dx r d iv aw ovoubv *A/j.fiwviov r o t rEg/ieiov a x o h x a i
anoaT]fj.Ei(baeiQ r.lq xac 'AgiarorekovQ Kazr/yoglai;. In th e b est m a n u
scripts the V ita is follow ed w ith o u t a n y in terru p tion or new title, b y
an in trod uction to th e a rt of logic, begin nin g ’ Eneidi] 6e koytxfjg jigay-
fiarEiaq a g % fj to n g o x E ifie v o v fiipAiov, edited b y A . B usse in C l A G
X I I 1, p. X , from th e tw o L a u r. 72 ,1 and 71,3. C ertain differences of
lan guage in th e tw o fam ilies ab on th e one hand, and th e three fam iliae
deteriores on th e other, w ill be discussed later.
’ ) B u t th is title does n o t im p ly th a t P hiloponus was th e author of th e V ita ,

o n ly th a t he w as assum ed to be its au th or since th e V ita w as tran sm itte d to geth er
w ith his com m entaries.
F am ily a.
T h e b e st three m anu scrip ts are L a u r. 10,26, L au r. 72 ,1 and \iat.
246. In all essentials th e y g iv e the sam e te x t, and th e y can he c h a ra cte riz
ed as gemelli. T h e L a u r. 72,1 and V a t. 246 h a v e three v a r ia n t readings
in com m on, (1) ISiov (17) eXvoe and (26) xovg xavovag diaxqivag and
Tiov TtonyfiaTcuv, w hich proves th e close a ffin ity betw een these tw o
m anuscripts, b u t oth er readin gs p ro v e th a t V a t. 246 can n o t h a ve been
copied from L a u r. T h e U rb . 55 is a c° p y of L au r. 72.1.
T h e P aris. 1844 offers a n um ber of readings w h ich p ro b ab ly are
d erived from a com parison w ith an oth er m anuscript. Som e exam ples.
(1) ’ A fiv vrov , ( 2 ) o i x e ia iq , (3) n o ir j x t x & v , (6) insertion of x o v , (10)
om ission o f o. T h e m ost ch ara cteristic reading, w h ich P ar. 1844 shares
w ith M arc. 257 and P aris. 1773, is (26) bvrvnfiEvoiq in stead of dmaxa/ievoig.
R ose, w h o clo sely follow ed M arc. 257, ad op ted th is readin g in his te x t.
I regard Par. 1844 and M arc. 257 as gemelli and P ar. 1773 as a d irect
co p y of 1844. In one passage the scribe w ho w ro te P ar. 1844 introd u ced
a q u ite n ew sense: (10) s i x a l firj avixQEtps xa vno IJXdxwvog slgrnibia.
T h e scribe w as o b vio u sly sh ocked b y th e su ggestion th a t A risto tle
o v erth rew P la to ’s doctrines. T h is readin g is also fou n d in P ar. 1773.
In th e L a tin version fou n d in Quaestiones Alexandri Aphrodisiensis
naturales . . . Geenliano Herveto Aureliano inierprete, B a se l 1548, the
passage is tra n sla ted as follow s: cum el in huiusm odi consilio ab illo
non discreparet. T h is show s th a t th e a u th or of th is L a tin tran slation
used one of th e tw o P aris m anu scrip ts or one clo sely a ffilia ted to
them .
T h e M atrit. 4676 w as w ritten b y L asca ris in M ilan in th e y e a r 1462,
as h e sta tes in a n ote on f. 14 7s : xonog x a l xxfjfia Kcovaxavxtvov
A aaxagso j ; B vta vxiov £v MsSioXdvq) exyoatpev £ t e i av£P, t o / ie v e£
avroO, to i e xsXevxalov e x Mavovt)Xov fia 6r\xof>. I t con tain s a c o m
p le te co p y of th e w ork of D iogenes L ae rtiu s. T h e la tte r p art, from
f. 68°, tow ard s th e end of th e L ife of A risto tle V 3 1 xov aoyov dnabi)
fisv fit] slvai, is w ritten b y M anuel. F . 146“, a fte r th e t e x t of D io
genes, follow s th e V ita v u lg a ta u n der th e title fitog ’ ApioxoxEXovg
dXXcog EiQ w hoQ . A fte r th e end of th is V ita follow s th e e x tra c t from
the V ita M arciana, w hich I shall deal w ith la ter u n der th e title V ita
L ascaris. T h e t e x t of th e V ita v u lg a ta is a rath er free paraphrase,
in w hich L asca ris h as in trod u ced som e readings from V ita M arciana
and often chan ged th e lan gu ag e a rb itra rily , w ith o u t ad din g a n y th in g

in substance. I q u ote th e first paragraph:
'A g ia r o r e h jc xo fikv ysvog fjv MaxeScbv, noXswg Se Zraystgag rfjg
0 gdxr]g, nXrjaiov’ OXvvdov xaiMsdutvrig- viog N ixo fid yo v la xg o v' A fivvxov,
oOev xa i rov Idiov viov N ixojiayov cbvdfiaoEV. dfKporsgot 6e o l yovelg
‘ Aaxhrjm ddai rfoav A n o th e r h an d ad ded a b o v e th e line and in the
m argin som e sentences from th e V ita v u lg a ta . C h ara cteristic is also
the follow in g passage: (VM 6 , W 5) m ote rov IJXdxmva rov xofi
’ AgtoroTEXovg olxov dvayvmaxov olxov xaXelv x a i avrov vovv, ov
auidvrog xowpov t o dxgoaxtjgtov exaXet. ovSe IlXdzaivog £utvxog dvrq>-
xodofifjoe nvxfp to A vxeiov, dig rivsg diaftaXXovotv xa i ngcbrog ’ Agi-
axoiEvog.
I th in k these e x tr a c ts aTe su fficien t to elu cid ate th e ch ara cte r of this
V ita , a rb itra rily com piled from th e V ita v u lg a ta and th e V ita M arciana.
T h e V ita h as fou r d istin ctiv e readings in com m on w ith M arc. 257:
{11) avdgog ov o i f f snaivelv x o lo i x a x o lo i Oe/uig, (14) ’ AAd$avdgm>
xov & iX innov, (19) elg (piXoaotpiav dig d/iagxelv, and (21) ev ’ Axadrjfiia
in stead of ev Maxedovta. F ro m this I d raw th e conclusion th a t L ascaris
and his disciple copied this V ita from M arc. 257, w here th e y found both
versions togeth er and cou ld com pile them in th is a rb itra ry w a y . It
is furth er clear th a t the readings of M atr. 4676 are of no va lu e for
estab lish in g th e t e x t of th e V ita v u lg a ta .
A sim ilar case is afforded b y M arc. 405, in w hich th e V ita carries the
follow in g title: IJgoXEyo/ieva elg rag ’ AgtarorsXovg K axyyogiag. The
t e x t is d efectiv e and begins 'AgtoxoxeXyg e tt veog d)v (3). I t is v e ry
m uch abridged, b u t th e reading (3) JTsgi noctjxixijg and som e other
m inor coincidences in d icate th a t it w as copied after a m anuscript
b elon gin g to th e fa m ily a. A fte r th e w ords (22) Sjiojg d si fiaoiXevEiv,
th e follow ing is added: onsg ovxtog edgaaev Elg rrjv ’ AXE^dvSgov ywxyv,
rbg Xdyeiv oxe xiva ovx axpsXtjoe' rHr]fitgov ovx ifiaoiX evaa'' 8neg
taov sari rd> fjtiy/og icp (sic) Xeyofirvoj In i nbv i n oXiyov dggatarovv
xwv, xovxiaxLV ECpr\[iEgov voaov, naga fiia v, Sia xo fit) novrjaat xrjv
rjfjiigav ix e iv t) v rag rcuv vyivaivovrcov ivEgyeiag. T h is is clearly taken
from V ita M arciana 21 — 22. I f M arc. 405 had been a late m anuscript,
w e w ould n o t h a v e h esitated to conjectu re th a t th e co p y ist h a d used
th e M arc. 257 in m uch th e sam e w a y as L ascaris. H ow ever, Marc.
405 w as perhaps w ritten even earlier th an 257, and if th is is true, it
w ould be th e o n ly existin g m anu scrip t w hich contains a fragm en t of
J2 4 in g e m a r d ü r in g
th e V ita M arcian a ind epen d en tly of M arc. 257. B u t th e rela tiv e age
of th e tw o m anu scrip ts rem ains an open question; th e \ i t a m M arc.
405 is a rb itra rily pieced to g eth er, and th e frag m en t of th e V ita M ar
cian a is too un im p ortan t to allow an y reliable conclusions.
F a m ily b.
Th e b est three m anuscripts of th is fa m ily , L au r. 72,5, L a u r. 71,3
and M arc. mg. om it (18 — 19) i v A v x e iq > — a ’ A g ia x o x e X r jg , w hich
proves th eir close affin ity . T w o of them , L a u r. 71,3 and M arc. 1 1 1 5 ,
h a ve a v e r y d istin ctiv e error in th e ep igram (1) tp a ia x ld o g rjv vi6q
ss. w h ich m akes it a lm o st certain th a t th e y are copies of th e
sam e a rch etyp e.
A p a r t from m inor differences, th e fa m ily b is ch ara cterized b y fiv e
new readings:
b
(1 ) t o fiiv yevOQ *<? ^ ? iv E l
(2) diafiE[ivrifj,ivog /lEftvrj/ievog
(3) I J e g i T to iT jr ix r js I l e g l n o it j x i x c o v
(6) t& v iv 'A Q r jv a iq iv ’ A d r iv r jO i

(19) fiE T E T te n a d v x a g a i a g fiE X E JiE ira <5e d v x a g a ia g
A m on g th e m inor differences m a y b e m entioned:
( ig ) rjdvvaxo fjdwrjdr)
(18) o i ’ Adrjvaloi ’ AQ rpaiot
(23) o w w Sevoev awdiSevEv
(29) x a i iv xft) oydoq) ^ x^> oydoq)
Som e of these readings g iv e th e im pression th a t th e w riter of th e

a rch etyp e of th e fa m ily b desired to im p rove or n orm alize th e lan gu age.
In oth er cases i t is n o t possible to decide w ith c e rta in ty w hich of the
readin gs a or h represents th e lan gu ag e of th e original. In th ree of these
in stan ces I th in k th a t e v e ry b o d y w ill ad m it th a t th e fa m ily a gives us
d ecid ed ly th e b est readin g (or th e le c t io d i j f i c i l t o r ) : d ia f ie fiv r jfie v o g , I l e g i
n o t r jx ix f j g , f i e r i n e t x a d v x a g o ia g . A s m y t e x t shows, I am inclined to
regard th e readings o f a as superior also in oth er instances, and some
reasons for th is w ill b e g iv en later. B u t, regarded as a w hole, th e
t e x t of th e fa m ily b is o n ly slig h tly inferior to th a t of a.
F a m ily c.
T h e p ictu re changes w hen w e com e to th e th ree fam iliae deteriores.
H ere th e t e x t h as been su b m itted to a rath er a rb itra ry trea tm en t.
T h e fa m ily c, w hich in som e respects stan d s close to b, is represented
b y th e tw o A n gelican i, 30 and 42, and P ar. 2020. T h e earliest of these
is A n gel. 42 w hich also contain s som e p rim itive draw ings of A risto tle
and A lex a n d er, to g eth er w ith e x tra cts from their correspondence. T he
t e x t of th e V it a is m uch abrid ged and w hole sections are om itted.
A n gel. 30 g iv es a com plete te x t, and th a t it is copied from th e same
a rch etyp e is p ro v ed b y som e v e ry d istin ctiv e com m on errors and
lacun ae. P ar. 2020 is a p p a re n tly d ire ctly copied from A n gel. 30.
T h e a rch etyp e of th is fa m ily in trod u ced som e readings ch aracteristic
of th e th ree fam iliae deteriores, such as:
(1 5 ) x a i ixa o ro v ISta xa i navrag xoivfj
(1 6 ) noXXovg
(1 7 ) noXkovg
{17) xazaaxacpeiaav
T h e m ost d istin ctiv e featu re of th is fa m ily of m anu scrip ts is an

am using ad dition to th e te x t, (14) after noXct : o lx o i xadrjpevoq xa i
<pt?.ooo(pwv A n oth er in n ovatio n is (5 ) o l x o v a va y vco o E co g. A p a r t from
th e curious addition, I do n o t th in k it w orth w hile to record in d etail
th e v a ria n t readings of this fa m ily either here or in th e critical
apparatu s.
F am ily d.
In four m anu scrip ts of th is fam ily, P aris. 1 9 7 1 . M utin. i8 g , C on v.
,
Soppr. 41 and M a trit. 4 5 5 3 th e V ita is follow ed b y a sm all preface
to th e C ategories, w hich is also found in oth er m anu scrip ts of th e
Categories, b u t w ith o u t b eing preceded b y th e V ita . I t som etim es h as
th e title and rrjq r ov & d o n o v o v ifyyrjoecog and b egin s E xonog sort
X(b ’ AgiaToreXet iv Talg KaxryyaQiaig, cf. A . B usse on Coislinianus 330
in C l A G X I I I 1, pref. p. I X . In tw o m anuscripts of this fa m ily another
te x t is appended, in G enuensis F .V I 9 w ith th e title xiva £rjTElrai
eni naarjg TEyvrjg x a i Ento'zrjfi'rjg, in U rb . 56 w ith o u t title , beginning
’ E n i 7iaaT]q TE%vr]q xa i entaxrjfiTjg rsooaQa taS ra xa za AQiaxozEkr\i>
ngoftXrifiara 6q>EtXo/iEV, cf. A . B u sse on TJrb. 56 in C l A G I V 3,
pref. p. X X X V I I
I2 g IN G E M A S d O k i n g
T h e a rc h ety p e of th is fa m ily in trod u ced a g re a t n um ber of v a n a n t

readings. Som e exam ples:
(1) M jSfjrou
firjrgog de f,v 0eoridog
(2) olxeiatg
(3 ) t o yeygoLfifievov a vT o v iif.oi. TiQaxTtxfjg
(11) iv t o la 1 x a x o lo tv
(ig 17) as recorded above in fa m ily c.
(25) eig ytXaaocplav
(25) eavrijs (sic) JigooOelg ex t fjg dyxivoiag eavTov
(30) exfil. StyoE dk rov ovpnavra xQOvar (— av™ v
In no oth er fa m ily is th e t e x t so hom ogeneous as in these six

m anuscripts, b u t there is no con clu sive evidence of one being copied
from th e other.
T o th is fa m ily also b elon gs th e la te O tto b o n . 178, w h ich w as p ro b a b ly
cop ied fro m th e sam e m an u scrip t as M atrit. 4553 - A fte r th e V ita
v u lg a ta th e c o p y is t h as en tered th e follow in g note, com piled from th e
V ita H e sych ia n a . de err, ly rrjg negm arnrtxijg xXrjOeia^cpiXoao-
<piag did to iv 7teQmdr<o ijxoi x fa c o d ibd la t d v a x ^ o a v r a r Vg Axadr,-
ulac ri m d r o iv idtdagev. iyevvr]8ri be iv rf} qO oXv/imadt^ xcu ajzidavev
d xo n rov m<bv iv X aX xidi 6to n ixaX elro nqdg evdvvag, inetdi} eyqaye
jiaidva e k 'E Qtieiav x6v evvofiyov oi d£ <paai voatp a ir o v
B ^ a a v r t H n 6- V 6 ’ A e iororeXr,g vi6v N i x o ^ o v eg EpnvXXldoq
naXXaxrjg, ijv ^ o „ e r a U vdiag (sic) m e ’ ' E ef> e io v r o v ew o v Xov
oon g oqxcov ’ A toq vevs- ymoa de avrr, T g o a b o g • EvfiovXov de rov
BcOwov dovXog y iy o v e■ eXafie xa i a v r o t ' E q ^ o v n a td ixa y ev o ^ v o v
’ AgtcnoreXovg. T h e n follow s A risto tle ’s le tte r to A le x a n d e r and oth er
ex tra cts.
F a m ily e.
In th e a rc h ety p e of th is fam ily th e V ita w as also o rigin ally com bin ed
w ith th e sm all p reface to th e Categories m en tion ed a b o v e p. 125 and
b egin nin g oxojiog i o n . In one of th e b est m anu scrip ts, N eap. I l l D 3 7 .
i t carries th e title Ttva d el 7i q o 8 eo ) q e I v ra>v dexa xarrjyogituv.
T h e eig h t m anu scrip ts of th is fa m ily fa ll in to tw o groups. O ne is
com prised b y N eap. I l l D 3 7 . U rb . 57 - P ar. 2189 and th e m a n u scrip t
from w h ich th e E d itio princeps A ld in a w as prin ted . Par. 2189 w as

certain ly, and U rb. 57 alm ost certain ly, copied d ire ctly from th e
N eapolitan us. In these fou r m anu scrip ts th e V it a ends in th is w ay:
fiExa &e ys xtjv xoQ TTAaxcovog x e Ae v x ^ v eCqoev sxrj x y idiSal-£ Se e£

'A6f]va>v e Iq Maxedoviav vnoaxgeipag ’AAe£avSgov tov xxiaxrjv v s^rjxovxa xgtatv.
T h e co p y ist w as n ot satisfied w ith th e b rief su m m a ry of A risto tle ’s

life in th e v u lg a ta , b u t m ade a su m m a ry of his own. I t is repeated
w ith som e in sig n ifica n t va ria n ts in th e fo u r M SS.
In th e second grou p , represented b y A m b ros. 922, R eg. 116 , V a t
1498 and A m bros. 56, th e V it a ends in th is w ay:
fiExa 8£ ye xrtv tov IIXdxa>vog xeAevxtjv ££r)oe ixrj x y . xa i exeXevxr]aEv

dig eigrjXEtfiev (eigrfxafiev A m bros. 56,922) %q 6vcuv yeyovcbg (<3 v Am bros.
56, 922) £y.
T h is sm all d ivergence in d icates th a t Am bros. 56 is copied from 922,

and V a t. 1498 from R eg. 116 . A n um ber of com m on errors confirm s
th is conclusion, b u t in th e case of R eg. 116 and V a t. 1498 th e tw o
m anuscripts m a y w ell b e gemelli, copied ind epen d en tly from th e sam e
m anuscript.
T w o of th e later m anuscripts A m bros. 56 and V a t. 2189, h a ve preserved
th e title: ex to v iAon6vov a%o?.i<nv nagEx()ohai- fiioq ’ AgioxoxtAovg.
T h e te x t of th is fa m ily is d efin itely inferior. A p a rt from a n um ber
of v a ria n ts listed in th e critical apparatu s and m a n y readings too
Insignificant to b e p u t on record, th e follow ing m ajor chan ges h a v e
been introduced:
(11) ex xov (icofiov dveyelgai

(15 — 17) change of case: a ccu sa tive instead of d a tive
(17) chan ge of tense: im perfect instead of present
(17) [iiXXovaav vn ’ AiE^dvSgov ddixrjBfjvat xfjg adixiag iggvaaxo
(eggrfoaxo 922)
(ig ) xa i yag — 'AQrjvaTai: alvnxo/ievog xov <povov xoti Emxgaxovg (from
A elian us, T 44 a)
(23) ev xfj olxeia naxgtdi
(29) cog 8r]XoT ev xw oydow xonca (sic) xfjg yvoixrjg dxgodoEaig
I2 g IN G E M A R D ttR IN G
F u rth e r chan ges are m ade in R eg. 116 and V a t. 1498, of w h ich I
m en tion o n ly th e follow ing:
( 8 ) t a t ov StfiaoxaXov (pgovel
(15 ) . . . xa i exaaxov idia xa i ndvxaq xotvfj. fiexd Sk (thus om ittin g

paragraph s 1 6 - 1 7 ) T a ir a Z n ev a b in o v XExeXevxyxoxoQ oq xyv oxoXfy
xoH m drcavoQ dtedetaxo /nerd Sevoxgdrovg o xeU ovxat o l 'A B y-
valoi . . .
I t is ob viou s th a t th e readings in trod u ced in th is fa m ily are quite

a rb itra ry m od ification s an d of no va lu e fo r establishing th e t e x t of
th e original.
T w o m an u scrip ts rem ain, P ar. 1928 and V in d o b . 10. T h a t th e la tter
is a d irect c o p y of th e form er is apparent. I q u ote o n ly tw o strikin g
readin gs w h ich th e y alone h a v e in com m on:
(2) d.vaTQO<pfjg (for xqoqrifc), in P ar. 1928 dva is w ritten a b o v e th e line,

in V in d . 10 avaxQofprjQ is in trod u ced in th e te x t
(9) (piXoQ fiev Ecoxgaxyg, yag ov, <DJ.d
T h e t e x t is so con tam in ated th a t it is im possible to sa y w h a t kind

of t e x t th e c o p y ist of P ar. 1928 or its p ro to ty p e follow ed. T h e readings
rd> fiBv yevEi and (if.jivrjfif.voQ in d icate th a t th e a rch etyp e w as a
m an u scrip t of th e fa m ily b, b u t th e readin g IJegl noiyxtxrji (if it is
n o t a con jectu re) can o n ly h a ve b een d erived from a m an u scrip t of the
fa m ily a. In th e m ix tu re of readings, ty p ic a l of th e d and e fam ilies,
it is possible to single o u t one w hich can n o t b e a co n jectu re of the
c o p y ist but b e tr a y s know ledge of a m an u scrip t of th e e-fam ily.
(1 1 ) ex rov (ofiov dvEyetgai. I fin d it m ost lik e ly th a t th e cop yist
ha d access to one m an u scrip t o f th e fa m ily b and one of th e fa m ily e.
I t is cu riou s th a t th is co n tam in ated m an u scrip t preserves a title (see
a b o v e p. 121) w hich, if not original, c e rta in ly com es v e r y close to b ein g so.
Conclusions.
T h is su rv e y show s th a t th e t e x t of th e V ita v u lg a ta has been fairly
w ell tre a te d in 13 m an u scrip ts of th e fam ilies a and b w hich giv e, in
all essentials, th e sam e te x t. In th e rest of th e m anu scrip ts th e te x t
is carelessly trea ted and m uch altered. I t is n ot possible to establish
a stem m a, b u t th e process can b e v isu alized thus.
Ar is t o t l e in the b io g r a p h ic a l t r a d it io n 12 9
archetype
W ithin the fam ilies it is easier to show th e a ffin ity of th e m anuscripts:

these stem m ata a t th e sam e tim e p ro v id e a k e y to th e sigla used in
th e critical apparatu s.
F am ily a.
Par 1844 M arc 257
C ontam inated: M arc. 405
F a m ily b.
Fam ily c.
A n g '42
Ang. 30
I
Par. 2020
Göteb. U n iv . Â r s s k r . L X I H . 2
130 1NGKM .VR D Ü R IN G
Family d.
Ott . 178 U rb. 56
F am ily e.
I
A lilina Am br. 5b V a t. 1498
Contaminated: P ar. 1928
I
V in d . 10
TENOE A PIE TO TEA OYE
(1) '0 ' A oi(TT O T£?.r)Q t o fif.v yévoç t]v MaxEÒáv, uó X e o iç ôè Erayeígaiv,
víòç Ntxojuáxov, iargov ’ A fiiivra tov t ü jv Maxeôóvwv ßaotXiaiQ- odr.v
xai tò v t&iov vtàv Ntxójuaxov itçoorjyógEvoe, fivíjfirjç èvexa tov oíxeíov
naxgóç, ngàç ÕV xai T a Nixofxáyeta è y g a x p E V firjTgàç <5’ yv OataTÍòoç-
ãfi<pÓTEgoi ò' o v T o i o te N ixó fia xo ç xai rj & a ia riç rà yévoç e IX ov ò ji ò
’AoxXrjjztov. jxaQTvgel ôè t o v t o iç tò eiç tòv ’ AgtaToréXrjv EÍgrjfiévoi>

èníygafifia tovto v iyo v tòv t gónov
moTtÔoç i\v fitjrgòç xa i N txofiáyov yevexijgoç

Tãv ’ AoxÁtjjiiaôüiv ô loç ’ AçtoTOTÉbjç.
( 2 ) fiE x n ô è TtjV TF.XevT?)v t o v N i x o f i á x o v x a i r f j ç & a t o T t ò o ç à v á y E x a i
o Agi(TTO TEÀrjç TT.aaa t iv l IJq o £ év a > ' A r a g v e l , o v x a i z r jç T o o tp fjç â ia ju e / i-

v r jfiè v o ç 6 ' A g ia r o T é X r jç ov f in v o v t ò v t o v t o v v i ò v N i x á v o g a a v e d g ey iE
x a i n ã a a v n a iÔ E ia v èn a iÔ E v a E V à X À a x a i v ià v a v t ò v í p x E i o n o n j o a r o xai
tií. yévoç, àgunotéXovç L . 10 ,26 L . 72 ,5 c F V I 9 M a tr. 4 5 5 3 a d d . in m a rg .

ra. p r. iwáwov àhi£avÒgém<; t o « r p iX o x á v o v h 7 2 .1 t ò yévoç àgiaTotéXovç M a r c .
1115 t ò yevoç rov à n t a r o t E À a v ç P a r. 1844 L . 7 1 ,3 iojávvov ygrifi/tatotov àXeÇav-
Sgíuiç to v yáonóvov e iç tà ç xarr/yogíaç àîtnotéÀovç é £ q y t]O tç V a t. 246 èx
Tw v t o ü axoXUttv nagcxßoAac ßloQ agiorotéXovç A m b i. 922 A in b i. 56
(p iX oT tóvov
V a t . 2 18 9 ßioc, agtaroTÈÀovç (piXonóvov R e g . 1 1 6 id e m xará ipihtnovov A ld in a
imáwov ygafifiarixov xov <piXojióvov èx twv owovauùv á/i/icovíov to v ègfiEÍov
a%oXixai â n o o t j f i e u ó ô c t ç e íç rrfç àgtaroTÉ/.ovç xaxr)yoglaç P a r. 192S || (1) tò ftèv
yévEt L . 10 .26 tÆ fi è v yéve, b c d e || ôè m il. L . 7 2 ,1 || t o « â p v v t a L . 7 2 ,1 à fiv v -
Tov e (Ißr/xov d || èvexa, b re c c p le riq u e || otxulov : iôíov c || fir/zgò; ôè t/v
L . 10 ,26 V a t . 246 P a r. 1844 cd ftrjtQ Ò ç ijv L . 7 2 ,1 p r/rg o ç ôè b || y a i a t í ô o ç
P a r. 1844 (pEvtníòoq M arc. 257 (fowrciôoç L . 7 2 ,1 ipeartôoç c e tt. || àfi^ á teg o t
ô è : à. i x é v to i L . 7 2 ,1 || y E y g a / j / jé v o v è m y g a /ifta L . 72 ,1 || (2) to« a n te A W
fia x o v om . L . 7 2 ,1 ]| ó a n te ' A gim ozèX r)'; otn . L . 7 2 ,5 || nagà t ã Tiçoïévw áxagvEÍ
L . 72 .1 II ti£ fiv > )p é v o ç b c d e || ftóvov õ z i tò» L. 7 2 ,1 || tò v t)(ox aV T o ti UHWioiijöd-
ficvoç x a i T e X e v tiõ v L . 72 ,1 ||
teXevtcuv y iv Talg lötatg 6taQi]xaig inergeips ttjv iavToü Bvyaxega

Ilv ß td d a Sovvat ya/iEiyv Tat Ntxavogi.
(3 ) r0 /itv ovv 5AgiO TO Tehfe e t 1 viog thv tt]v tc jv eÄevQeqojv n a id eia v
enatÖEvero, tag öyX ol ra yE ygafifisva avrät n eg i noirjrüjv x a i ngog
non jT a g, e t 1 fiev ro i t ä ' 0/j.rjgov nooßX rj/jm a x a i a i g y ro g tx a i z iy v a i.
{4) ' E m a x a iÖ E x a 6' e r t ö v y e v ö f i E v o g x a i T rjq T l v B i a g x e X e v o v a y g a v x ä t
(p iX o a o tp E lv g te X X e tm iv 'A d r j v a i g , iv d a tp o n ä E coxgdT E i xai a vvsan
to v tc o ir t ] tg ia . T f .X f .v T ijo a v T o g Se to v E caxgdT ovg cpoiTÖ. T l X a r c o v i x a i
t o v t o j a v v e a r tv e tt] e lx o o i. (5 ) x a i T o a a v T tjv r jo x r jo e v i n t f i i X s i a v w m f .
to v U X arcova to v o lx o v to v ’ A g ta zo zeX o v g o lx o v ä v a y v a io T o v x a X r .lv .
(6 ) ov yäg ir t £ ö > v to g IJX a T cov og a v T io x o d o / i r j a E v avröj to A v x e io v 6
’ A n t a T O T iX r jQ , cog T iv e g v n o X a p ß a v o v o i. n cbg yag r jd v v a T O , fie y a to te
d w a fie v io v X a ß g to v te xai T ifio d io v t o jv ev ’ A O r jv a ig o T n a T q y a iv xai
t c ö y s v E i n g o a r jx ö v T C o v t o j I l X a r c o v i :
{7) IJEigibvTai yag Ttvsg Xiyetv o ti e ti f<ävro$ IlXarcovog ävTcoxo-

döfirjOEv avTÖi to A vxeiov 6 ’ AgtaTOTiXrjg, i x to v ev n oXXolg ävriXEyeiv
1(5 TJXdrcovr (8) ngog ovc grjrsov ö n oi>y änXcög avTiXf.ysi to j IlXaTiovi
äXXä Tolg fii\ vorjaaoi to. rot! UXaTcovog. si 6e xa i avrä) Tm TlXanavi
ävTtXeyei, ovdiv ä r o n o v xa i ev toYitoiq yag r a to v IlXaTcavog cpgovEl.
(g) avToü ydg e o ti Xoyog ort fiäXXov öei Tfjg äXt]6etag cpgovrit,Eiv tjnsg
aXXov Tivog. äfiiXet. xa i in i XiÊthg iprjat r a v T r “ ipiXog fisv Eco xgaTyg,
aXXd fiäXXov ipiXrarrj rj äXrjdeia". x a l uXXayov- “ EcoxgaTovg fiiv i n ’
oXiyov tpgovTioTEov, xyg <5’ aXrjdeiag in i noX v". ( io ) to ü to ovv xa i 6
(5) Bessarion, I n ta lu m n . P la to n is . ed. M öhler, p. 30.15.

(10) tovto rV 'AgiaroTEXrjQ nejiolrjxev. P H IL O P O N U S , De aetern. mundi V I 8,
p. 144.20 R abe: . . . ixeivo Sr) to Jioi.vdQv).Tjrov iamaiQ Jtgoaaöeiv, d>q iptXog /niv
y ev L . 72 ,5 : iv L . 10 ,26 L . 7 1 .3 M arc. 1 1 1 5 c d iv L . 7 2 ,1 P a r . 1844 e ||

iöia iq a b e : o ix tit iiq c d || nvOiöa L . 10 ,26 tt/v ß a iß a L . 7 2 ,1 m tia ld a c e t t . ||
( 3 ) ItevO eglaiv L . 10 ,26 || jia iö e v E ia t L . 7 2 ,1 || r ö yEyga/Afievov a&coS d || nonyc<bv
L . 72 .5 : jtoiTjTtxfjg ac Tionv.TLxijr d nnirjTtxwv b e , le g e n d u m nf.Qi notTjzwv x a i
n eg i TioiriTtxijq || ftiir to i x a i r ä 6/irjgov Tiotrjftaza L . 10 ,26 /lhrta i Ta ro ii ofirjgov
L . 7 2,5 II (4) avxtä : avTdv L . 10 .26 d || xg ia e t i j L . 7 2 ,1 || Toii a n te E w xgd xovq
o m . L . 7 2 ,1 || (6) fcätTOä rofl nXdTwvoq b c d e || OK n v eg tm oAa/ißavovat o m . L . 7 2 ,1 |
diTva/idvtov to te L . 7 2 ,1 || xljjv iv rißr^vrjnt b c e || (7) netgäivrat - TiXartuvt om .
L . 7 2 ,1 || (8) r<ü n ka to iv i- oii Totir^p öe äXXä xo ig pt) c || äXXä x a i t olq L . 7 2 .1 ||
r a t o ö ötöaaxdXav ipgovei R e g . 1 1 6 |] (9) fiäXXov elv a i 6 eov xi)Q L . 10 ,26 || i n i
reXovg L , 7 2 ,1 || tpiAog — tpgovxioxeov o in .. s u p p l. in m a rg . m . p r. L . 10 ,26 ||
7iwg yaQ ov a d d . p o s t Za>xgdxi]Q P a r . ig 2 8 || /iäXXov o m . P a r . 1844 || tpiXxa-
Tog c d || ä W .a x°ö o m . L 10 ,26 '| (10) 6 a n te ’ A g in xoxiX rjg o m . b c e ||
A R IS T O T L E IM T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 133
’A gta roréX rjç nenotTjxev. d x a l â v è r ç e tp E rà v n o n X d rw v o ç eiçtjfiéva,
x a v r a f iB a o v fiq x o v a a m ut ô te n ç a g a r o /xi] ßovX öfiE VO Q im F.Q i6c.lv t t)v
âX r)0 £ tav . ( 1 1 ) à fié X e i y à g ô r i n o X X fjV e v v o i a v £<j%t tz o o ç t ov IJ X â T c o v a
6 ’A g to ro ré X riç, ôrjXov è x t o ü x a i ß c o fio v à v te g d ia a i t w I J X d r a t v i, êv
ci) ên êy g a tp E V o v t o j ç -
ßcofiov ' AaiaToréhjÇ êviàovaaro TÔvôe IJXdrcovoç,
ài-ip oî ôv ov Qèfiiç èv ro ïa i xaXtTiolatv âxoveiv.

(12) £vvfjv ôè t w TlXdrcavi 6 ‘ AgiororèXrjç ërrj eIxo o i. (13) fiErà
ôè rrjv rod TlXarcovoq teXevtt/v ôiaôÉxerat xrjv rovrov oxoXrpi Z jie v -
a in n o i 6 àôeXyiôovç avrcov. vioç yàg fjv ovroç ilorcovrjç ifjç rovrov
âÔEXiprjç. (14) 6 ôè yE ’ AgiororèXrjç ig^ era i êv (ïléXXf)} rfj rœv M a-
xeôdvcov nôX ti, ëv9a naiôevei ’ AXéijavôgov rov xriorrjv, (15 ) x a l fiéya
IJXâraiv, tpikzega ô ’ ij àj.rjOeia, S âfj x a l a v z o ç à to v n X d zo jv o ç /taOjyzrjç ’ A ÿ u n o -

t iXrjÇ x a t è t f .o o i m m in jx a a tv , a i âè ftix ç à tov olxe/ov o w e iô o te ç x a i z ijç â/.rjBeiac
<pgavzlÇovzeç (sc. t h e h a r m o n iz in g n e o p la to n ists) n a v r a x à h n v z o ôfj Icyofievov
xivoSotv awr^yogov zf/q tâlaç d jtd rijç . | àvézgeipc. A T T IC U S ap. E u seb . = T
40 e (<5) zfjv n â a a v àvarQEnei <pikoaoq>iav Ilk a r to v o ç.
(12) P s e u d o -E lia s , I n P o r p h . Isa g ., c o d . M o n a c. 39g, f. 2 13 a: A e î ô’ eiôévat
ô z i (it.rà zrjv t o H /Ikd zw v o ç te Xe v z t ) v fitj avra£ ê x e i z o v ’ A g itr to z é to v ç ( fi e t à
’ AkèÇavôgov yàg fp> t o t e à ’ AçuTZOzékrjç) S ie ô é ia z o zr/v r ov IlX àzcavoç äiarf/ißrjv

E n e v o tn n o ç o to u to u àôEkpiôoix; , d à jià ü o zw v r jç Trjc, àâehpijç avroû (re liq u a
in v e n ie s 18). ||
(14) zo v x z la r ij» . P s e u d o -E lia s , I n P o rp h . I s ., cod . M o n a c. 399. f. 193 b (B u sse,
C I A G X V I I I 2, su p p l. p ia e f. p. X X I I ) : 'E ygaytE yàg x a i ixdzEQ oç x a l I l o h z i x o v
xa t I lo k n e ï a v , xal Iv fièv ztn I 7ofaztxû) to v avzàv ly o v o i axon à v iv ôè t >/
Ilo h T E ta ôia<pwvoHaiv ô fiiv yào 'A ÿ ta zo zêX ^ ç rmvwv x a i ’ A feÇ àvô go ) r ETo zov ßiov x a r à o z o r / n o v .
£t x a l fir) (il?) C a sa u h o n n s) àvézQEyiE P a r . 1844 P a r . 17 7 3 V e r s io B a s. N unez

S y ib u r g B u h le W e s te r m a n n || (11) yàg o m . L . 10,26 || eI%e d e || è x z o û ßüifiov
âviegcboat (àtpiEgàtaat c) d i x zo ü ßoj/tov àveyEÎgai e || x a l a d d . a n te i n éyçatper
L. 10 ,26 |] idptiociTo M a tr. 46 76 || nkdzcovt L . 7 1 ,3 M arc. 1 1 1 5 c || Sv ov Ôdjutç
èv z o ia i x n x o ia iv àxoticiv d Sv ov défliç (ss. rjzot oi) ôlxaiov) Èv z o iç ftakenoiaiv
àxovEiv P a r. 1844 ôv ovô' ê n a iv tlv r o ïa t x a x o îo t ÔÉfiiQ M a rc. 257 M a tr. 46 76
âxovELv o m . L . 10 ,2 6 la c u n a m in d ic a n s || (12) trwip/ : rjxokovOtjae L . 10 ,26 ||
Ëztj : xqovovç L . 10 ,26 II (13) zrjv to v o m . L . 10,26 || n g ia m o ç L 7 2 ,1 || 0 tow -
zov âÔEkqtiiïoüç L . 10 ,2 6 || noraivr/ç L 7 2 ,1 V a t . 246 c norour/ç L . 10 .26 b

notovrjç ss. nw zlvrjç P a r. 1844 n o zovoç d novràvr)ç M arc. 2 5 7 || (14) </ 7i/An>
v e l (MiéÇa)> v id e t u r in te rc e d is se || MaxeSovcov o m . L . 10,26 la c u n a m in d ica n s
jioAei : Xùiça R e g . 1 1 6 V a t . 1498 ss. jioAei U r b . 5 5 y a ia M a rc. 2 5 7 p o s t JioAft
a d d . o ïx o i xaôijfiEVOÇ x a i <pikooo<pihv c || to v Œ M n n o v M arc. 2 5 7 M a tr. 4676
( 1 5 ) fiégoQ p i y a L . 10 ,26 |[
fiegog yeyovz xijg xovxov ßaoiXeiag. noXXä ydo ydw ydy naod rw ß aat-
Xel xa i xfj Svvdfiei öeövrcog Exgrjoaro ev not&v x a l Exaoxw Idia xa i
7ta.oi xoivfj. (16 ) xa i oxt fjev TtoXXolg idla ev etzoitjdE. dyXiooovoiv ai
q>SQÖ/ievai avxoi) o v o x a x ix a l em aroXal x a l <a i> jisg i xivcov nnog to v
ßaoiXea. (17 ) oxt Se x a l xoivfj noXXoig ev EitoiyaE, dyXoi x a l t o xyv
rtiiv Exayf.iowv ir.oh.v xaxaoxa<p8elaav neideiv xov ’ AXe£avdgov aiiOtg
xxtCetv, o 6ev xa i o i E xa y eig lra t eogxyv im xeX ovot xqj ' AgioxoxeX ei,
’ AgioxoxeXeia avxyv ngooayogevovxEg. x a l xov fiijva <Y ev q> y eogxy
emxEXelxai E xayeigixyv ngooayogEvovai. x a l xyv ’E geoodv df. xyv xoti
6eo<pgdoxov noXiv fiiXXovoav adtxyOyvat vjid roß ßaaiXecjg ’ AXeiavdgov
eXvxgaioe xtjg adixiag.
(18 ) M exa de xatixa xeXEVxyoavxog xov E n ev a in n o v fiexaaxEXXovrai
oi A dy va ioi t o v 'A giororeX yv, x a l djurpoxEgoi ovxoi o xe ’ AgioxoxsXyg
xal o' Sevoxgaxyg dieds£avxo ryv xov IlXdxtavog nyoh)v. x a l 6 /iev
êvoxgaxyg ejiaidEvaev ev A x a d ijfiia , 6 d’ ’ AgtaroxdXrjg ev AvxeIo).
(19 ) fiEXETiEira avragaiag yevofidvyg ev xolq 'AOyvaioig, tfXOsv 6 ' A g i-
oroxEXys ev X aX xidi, eigyxdjg r o t ; 'AOyvaioig 8x1 “ O v x äv edooj vfiäz
<5<£ eig <ptXoao<piav d fia g x elv ". xa i ydg ydt) yaav t o v Etoxgdxy rpovf.v
aavxeg o i 'A d y v a io i . ( 2 0 ) ddyXojoe 6e xa i ’ Avrtnaxga) x(I> ßaoiX el oxi t o
ev ’ Adyvyotv iväiaxgtßetv igywdeg. ein s de x a l t o 'O/iygtxdv ix eiv o enog-
(18) P s e u d o -E lia s , ln P orph. Isa g ., co d . M on. 399, f. 2 13 a (cf s u p r a 12):

E tT a T£Ä£VTli<J(LVTOQ TOVTOV fJETEOTElXaVTO Ol AdfjVaiOt TOV ' A OtflTOTf/TiV x a t £ 7 lQ t -
ÖEVOE fl erd S e v o x q o to v s , x a i 6 pr.v ' A Q io ro T fh jQ ev zrit A v x s ia i ediöamer.v, o <5c

E e v o x g d ttji ep z fj ' Axaör//ii(f.
ftdvvaxo L . io ,2 ü L . 7 2 ,1 || x a l i x a m o v I6ia x a i jiavrag xoivfj cd e || n ü a i : n a a ij

72‘5 II xo iv ij L . 7 1 ,3 || (16) iioÂoifg c d e || inoiEi L . 10 ,2 6 || örjXovaiv ce ||
a i qtegö/iEvai a v a r a r ix a l f . m m n / . a i a iir o t z ie q I t iv ih v e || x a i o m . L . 7 2 ,1 || ( a i )
a d d id i || naga t iv o jv d || (17) no/.Aov; cd e || in o ie i L . 10 ,2 6 || x a i t o rfjv tü jv
L . 10 ,26 x a i rt/v tw v ab x a i t o rr/v c d e || x a z a o x a t p E io a v L . 7 2 ,1 V a t . 246
M a rc . 2 57 c d e ]| netQüiv L . 7 2 .1 Jteiaat e |i a iffli; x z f e i v : ä v a x z ia a t e || e jieze-
X ow e tuj Antmc,rc?.Ei. : avrät e || ngtaroTeXEiav c o d d ., c o r r e x i || em reX siT a i
o m . L . 7 2 .1 || EjicreÊtro, nQoarjyoQEvov e || ig ija a d v L . 10 ,26 ig ia a o v L . 72 ,1
de p le r iq u e fi£).?.ov<jav v ji AXi:, avdooi* dätxtjdTjvai trjq dötxiaQ fl]ov [7(1Tn (eggij-
aa ro) e || eX vrgaiaaro L . 10 ,26 eX voe L . 7 2 ,1 || (18) i i r r a a r ü l o m a i M a rc. 257
tne/Xovrat c e t. | o i om . b || ovroi o m . e | 5 1e iE v o x g a r i/ t; xa i o dp«7ToreA»je
M a rc . 1115 | SieödiavTO — E E vaxg art^ o m . L . 72 ,5 || EnaiSevEv c e \ i'wtmoTrXr/Q
6e e 1 e v A v x e Io ) — 6 ägioToxeXtjg o m . b | (19 ) hr. a d d . a n te n v z a o a ia c , de || äv
om . e 1 s is rrjv <piXoaoq>iav L . 7 2 ,1 || x a i yag — o i AOr/vatoi : atvirrofiEvo^ to v
qiovov to v o fa x g d T O V C e || (20) idijXcoae : idXw L . 7 2 ,1 co rr. m . a. || o ti om . L .

10 ,26 || o t i T a i; äOijvaiaiv L . 7 2 ,1 tö ev äOijvai± e |] SiaTgißeiv 1.. 10 ,26 e ||
nyXvrl èn õyxvrj yrjoáaxei, avxov ô' èn l arxfii,
wç èx zovzatv êkéyxcov zàç z c íív 'ABrjValcov avxo<pavzíaç.

(21) sEnavÉQxezai á’ avBiç ó ’ AgiazozéXrjç èv M axeòovía• x a l noXXà
èôvvt]Brj jiaoà zo íç zó ze ßaatXevai, n a çà zcõ 'AXeÇávôgto x a l na/jà zfj
’ OXvfxmáòi zfj zovzov firjzgl x a l nag ' Avzm ázgcp z e x a l <PiXúz7iw.
(22) reu <53 'AXegávôgw x a l n sg l ßaatXetaq èygaxpev èv évi /xovoßißXqt,
naiôevcov avzóv ójtuiç <5e l ßaatXevetv. (23) àjiéXti xa i avvtóôevaev
avzqj x a l êaat zmv Bnay/iávmv, èv6 iozógrjoe zàç ave noXizeíaç.
avvwÔEvae <5’ avzm xa i èv zfj ÜEQaiôi, èvBa noXéfiov yevofiévov xa i
zeXevztjaavzoç zov ’ AXeÇávôgov vjiéozQ E ifie v ó 3ApiazozeXr/ç Èv zfj éavzov
nazgíòi.
(24) M ézgioç òè yéyovEv 6 ãvfjg ovzoç zo íç rjBsaiv elç vTzegßoXijv.
(25) èv (ptXoaorpía ó’ vnegßeßrjxe zá âvBgtúmva fiézga /it]Sèv èXXutèç
negl avzíjç ngayfiaxevoáfievoç, âXXà x a l itoXXà avzfj ngoaBeiç èx zrjç
éavzofi ây/ivoíuç rtjv ÒXrjv xazcógBcooe yiXooaipíav. (26) zfj fièv yàg
26 F r u s tu lm n t a n t u m in v e n itu r in V it a M a rc ia n a . E th . N ie . I 1 1 , 1 10 1 a 3:
xaOájieg xai oxvzozà /iov èx tcüv ôoôévzcov a x v z ã v xá À A io tov vnóòrjfta n o ielv .
O L Y M P IO D O R U S P r o l. in log., C IA G X II 1. p. 1 7 .3 7 : x a i ãl-iov Ô avfiáaat
TÚv z e T l/.(íx (ova x a i 'AgiOTorei-rj, x a i tov fièv ’ AçtazoTÉAovç <óç jjajofrravroç x a i
é(f>evQovioç ãvev n Q áyfia zoç to v ; xavóva ç, IlX á roiv o ç ôè %(»(j‘ i xavó viov XFyQTj/iévov
z .j à jio ô e ííe f o i yàg .-ra/aioi àjioâeiÇ ai fièv fjheinav, ànóôeiÇiv í5í jioiijíTai o v x
ijôeiaav, za v zò náa ^ ovreç tn iq xe^grj/iévoi; fiirv vnoôrj/uaoi, axv zo zo fiE iv ô ’ àyvoovat.
E L I A S P r o l. p h ilo s., C I A G X V III 1, p. 23 5: -f} tptXoaotpla xa ze a xe va a e v éavrfi
rov nvXXoytapòv x a i xéx Q ijza i avzõt àgyávi u, a i ò ’ â).).at zé%vat xèyorjVTai [t è v
avX).oyia/jõ), Tioifjaai ò’ ov ôvvayzai. x a i íoix ev f\ fiiv tpiAoaoffía axvzoTÓ fiw Tin
x a i TioiovvTt r .iü ò r jfid ta x a i ipoQovvti, a i õ" àÁ/.at -cravai (pngovm póvov, ov
x a i TioioúvTt. C f T h e m is t. O r. X X V I, 311 d , p. 376— 7 D in d o rf: axvroTÓ ftov»
— im m a fiÉ v o iç . F o n te m e t o rig in e m h u iu s c o m p a r a tio n is in v e n ie s E th . N ic .
I li, iio i 04. — ôiaxQtvaç rovç xavóvaç, c i P H IL O P O N U M , In A n a l. pr.
prooem ., C I A G X III 2, p. 6 .14 : 'E v r a v ô a yevó/ievoç ó & e (iía r io ç i n oq eï U y a iv
’ Aga y 'A ç ta zo T é).o v ; è a r i yévvtj/ia z à 'A v a h t z ix à tj ov ; x a i qjqaiv ô zi y é w ijfia
pèv a v z o i o v x è a z i■<paívezai yàg à 6elo ç íD .á zm v ovAAoytaziXíbç x a i à n o ô etxzixã tç
è r i Syxifv L . 10 ,26 ÈXeyxóvzwv L . 10,26 || (21) 0' ògíarorÉ A ?}; avõiq L . 72 .1

na g à a n te r o íç o u i. L . 7 2 ,1 || ß a o ik tv o v a i L . 10 ,26 || n a g à a n te om . L . 10 ,26 [
(23) awúÔEVEV h a im ü — o w iü ô ev a e om . L . 72 ,5 || x a i êam o m . L . 7 2 ,1 rãiv
ia o í L . 10 ,26 II ei'da : ôte x a l e |] ImÓQTjoe : iazTjoe P a r . 1844 P a r . T773 V e r s io
B a s . N u fie z S y lb u r^ B u h le W e s te r m a n n || n o h z e la ç : noXei; e || to v a n te ’ AAe-
Í óv Ôqov o m . L . 10 ,26 || ía v z o v : a v z o v b c olxe Io e || (2^) óè om . L . 7 2 .1 || (25) et;
<pü.oaoq>íav d || a v zfj : éa v ztjç d || <pi}.ooo<píav h ic des. L . 10 ,26 ||
Xoyixfj 7tgoaé 6 t]xe òiaxgívaç rovç xavóvaç òjcò xã v jigay/iáxcov xa i

noirâaç, tt)v ànoÔEtxxixrjV fièBoòov oi yàg ndXat òoloôetÇai fiev fíôeoav,
ànoòelêiQ òè 7r.oif.Tv ovx rjTtíaravxo, xavxn 7iáo%ovT£ç xolç axvxoxofielv
fièv jxr\ òwa/nèvoiç, vnoÒrjfiaai ôe %gfjo6 ai èniaxa/Liévoiç- (2 7 ) rfj òè
ye tpvaixfj ngoaèÔrjxE xrjv nèfiTtxrjv ovaíav, ( 2 8 ) xfj òè ÔEoXoyía eí xa i
firjôèv ngoaédrjXEV, àXX' ovv ovôèv jr.F.gi avxrjç èXXtnèç ènoay/iaxEvaaxo'
(2 9 ) ov yàg xà èyxóafiia fióva #<5e t, tü ç x iv e ç vnoXa/ißävovaiv, àXXà
xa i xà ímEgxóofiia, wç ôrjXol xa i èv x á óyôáqi Xóyco xrjç <t>voixrjç
àxçoáoEwç, Xéywv ôrt ré ngajxov alxiov ovòf xad' èavrò xtvrjróv èoriv
ovôè xaxà avßßeßrjxoq, éx xovxov èvôsixvvfiEvoç ôrt ovôè oco/iá è a n
tó Ôe i o v ovôè jtaÔrjxóv.
(3 0 ) 'E ^ tja e ôe tóv avfinavxa ygóvov á ’ AgtmoTF.Xrjq èxr] è^rjxovxa
xg ía 1 énxaxatôèxaxov yàg êzoç ãycuv (poixã HaixgáxEi xa i xovxcp gvve -
axtv ixt] xg ía • aw tjv ôè xa i rà) ÜXáxutvi érrj eixo a t. fiExà òè yE xrjv
xov nXáxcavoç xeXevxttjv êÇrjoev èxr) etxoat xg ía ■ o òè ovfinaç %góvoç
xfjç Çbjfjç a v r o i àgtd/iovfiEvoç èxr] nagetaqiéçEi èÇrjxovxa xgía. èÇtjxooxòv
xgíxov êxoQ ãyojv ó ’ AgiaxoxèXrjç èxEXsvxrjaev.
T av x a Xèyeiv F.yo/XEV jieqí t o ü ßiov xoü ’AgtoxoxèXovç.
ifegofievoç èv x t tw <Paíõwvi x a i èv n ã a i a x tô o v n ò ro v r o t ç ôtaÁ oyoiç. a w r á ia t

>5’ ainov (sc. A r is to te ie m ) xai xf.yyihnm xavoai t io í tó Jigoxel/Aevov avy y ga ft/ja ovô'
ãroTtov. P h ilo p o n u s v id e t u r in a n im o h a b u isse q u a e a ffe r t P la t o P h a ed . 104 e — -
105 b. H a e c e t S h o r e y n o s tra in m e n te m v e n it , c f q u a e a ffe r t R o ss , A n a ly tic s, p . 26.
{26) t ovç xavovaç ôeaxglvaç L . 7 2 ,1 |j náX ai a d na)jiu> i b c e || fjôetaav L . 72,5 j|

è n U n a m o L . 72 ,1 |] xg fja d a i ò w a n èv o iç P a r . 1844 P a r. 17 7 3 M a rc. 2 57 e d d . om
n e s II (29) x a i a n te i v zãi óyôóai om b e || Xáyw : to n a i e || Aéycov : Xóymv e |
èoTiv p o s t xiVTjxàv o m . L . 7 2 ,1 || (30) o w e o ii» é t ti t gla o m . L . 7 2 ,1 || y e om .
M a rc . 1 1 1 5 c II ãga a n te rg ír o v èro ç ad d . M arc. 257 || expl.\ 'A g im o -
TtÃovç a b fJr;CT£ — éxeÀethrjoev M a rc . 2 57 êÇtjoe — i.Çt)0£v érrj x y rafrza lè y e iv
— AgtfrzozáÁovç P a r . 1844 P a r. 1 7 7 3 V e r s io B a s. N u n e z S y lb u r g B u h le W e s te r -
in a n n e Çt)<t£ — àçiÔfiav/ievo; y lv e ta t ê i i j x y àXXa m i n a ?,iyeiv — ' A g ia to té X o v ç c
cÇrj0£ ôè tóv avfinavTa yjiüvov a tito v f y d iÇ tja e — x y í ô í ô a í e ôè V ; 'AOrjvdm eiç

M a xrô o v ía v vjiooTçáipaç 'AÂél-avôgov tòv xtíottjv * <’ú x a i aw w ôcvaE fiFyoL x a i T<bv
ßgayftavarv (sic) fiè y a n a g ’ a v n o ôw á/iEvoç' x a i ÈTEfevrtjaev wç eigr/xa/iev xgóvojv
ãiv N eap. I I I D 37 P a r . 2 18 9 U r b . 57 A ld in a eÇrjOE - x y x a i èreÀevrrjaEv
o)ç eigrjxa/uEv xgóvcuv wv f y . A m b T . 922 V a t . 1498 se d eigtjxetftev e t yeyovãiç

R e g . 1 1 6 A m b r . 56 ||
COM M EN TS
T h is V ita has passed th ro u g h e x a c tly th e sam e process as th e V ita

M arciana, and w h a t I h a v e said a b o u t th e general ch ara cte r of th e
V ita M arciana applies to th e V ita v u lg a ta , too.
The V ita con tain s som e ad ditio n s w hich are also found in an
anon ym ous B y z a n tin e com m en tary on P o rp h y ry ’s Isagoge, w hich,
follow ing B usse, I h a v e called P seu d o-E lias. T h is com m en tary is
som ew hat, b u t p ro b a b ly n o t m uch la ter th a n E lia s and D a v id and
can be d a ted to th e m iddle of th e six th cen tu ry; for fu rth er d etails
I refer to B u sse’s D ie neuplatonischen Ausleger der Isagoge des Porphy
rias, B erlin 1892. A ccord in g to B u sse this P seu d o-E lias is th e “ a u th o r”
of th e V ita vu lg ata; I w ou ld m o d ify th is in th e sam e w a y as in the
case of th e V ita M arciana.
T h is V ita , then, is th e origin al ep itom e of P to le m y ’s V ita in th e
form w hich it had ob tained a fter h a vin g passed throu gh a t lea st three
generation s of stu d en ts in th e school of Am m onius and O lym piodorus.
W e can im m ed iately see th a t th e lan gu age has becom e m ore B y za n tin e
in character: th e lan gu age in V ita M arciana is alm ost th e sam e as in
th e early n eop laton ic com m entaries, w hereas the V ita V u lg a ta has
m an y exam ples of v u lg a r G reek idioms:
V i t a M a rc ia n a V i t a v u lg a t a
(3 ) iv SiaO tjxaic ( 2 ) iv Tali idlaiQ StaOijxau;
(5 ) tov I Iv B o i 8 to0 ym'jarivtiK (4 ) tijQ IJvdlaq xtXevovatj^ arOJ^Tai
’ AdrjvrjOt (poixa, ow rjv atirifi ev ’ABtjvatc faBa <poirp, o v v e o ti
rovro)
(6 ) otfrto (ptXoTiovaiQ mwfjv (5 ) ToaavTJjv rjaxTjaev iniftiXeiav
(12) rovq 'Adrivtjoi aTQaTTfyrtaavxaq (6 ) twv iv ’Adtjratg OTQaTrjyojv
xal xard ydvoq ngooijxovras Tip ybvt.i ngoarjxovTtDv
(13) tt/v axoitjv (1 3 ) trjv TOVTOti axa).r)v
( 1 4 ) OziAierai elg MaxtSavtav — itp'
<5
( 14) fg y trn L ev r f) tw v M axedovtuv
Jiaideiaat n dAit — evfla nai&Lvt.i
(T5) Tft~ jiaoikriaQ (15) T r j' to v to v (SaaU.f.iaQ, ev n o w iv
Eva ix a a r o v Evegyezwv ixdorw (noUoic)
i3 § 1NGEMAH D Ü R IN G
V i t a M a r c ia n a V ita v u J g a ta
<23) x a z d I h o m a v awegrjAOe.v — cm- (2 3 ) awtöäevfjfv a v z & Iv r f j IJegatöt
zijv la rog lav z & v n o h - — icrzogTjoe ra ? n oX ir elaQ —
ZEllfiv vjiem gEifiai iv rf) l a trroii n a tg td t
(41) Inavaazdvrcov z & v ’ AOrjvaiwv (19 ) dvtaQoiat; yevonevr}Q jJAflev fa
vn exa ig qaev sis X a A xfö a X a ? jiiö i
I th in k this is su fficien t to show th e d ifferen ce in language. A co m

parison of th e fa ctu a l co n ten t g iv es th e follow in g result.
VM 1 — 3 V V i — 2, abrid ged b u t n ot changed.

^M 4 V V 3, abrid ged and m ore like V L .
VM 5 V V 4, w ith o u t reference to P h ilip ’s letter, and
sTrj tql(i added.
VM 6— 7 W 5, o m ittin g th e dicta.
VM 8 L a c k in g .
V M 9 — 12 V V 6 con tain s p a rt of V M 9 and 12, th e rest

om itted. V V 7 — 1 1 is d erived from O lym pio-
dorus and corresponds a lm o st e x a c tly to V L
2 6 — 30. W 12 is repeated from V V 4.
V M 1 3 — 15 V V 1 3 — 15 v e r y sim ilar, avdgiavra and <pdoao-
<piag OQyavtp o n ly in V M , XTlarrjv o n ly in
VV.
\ M 16 — 17 V V 16 — 17, th e first p a rt abridged, th e second
p a rt am plified.
V M 18 T he tran sfer of his b o d y to S ta gira, om itted.
VM ig V V 17 E ressus.
V M 20 L ack in g.
V M 21 V V 22, abrid ged .
V M 22 L ack in g,
V M 23 P a r tly in W 21.
V M 24 V V 18, b u t oi ’ AOyvatot instead of oi and axoXfji.
V M 25 L a c k in g , b u t cf. W 6.
V M 26 V V i i , and b e tte r in V V th an in VM .
V M 2 7 — 30 L ack in g.
V V 1 9 — 20 is = V M 4 1 — 42.
W 21 corresponds to V M 23.
^ M 3i V V 24, as o ften in th is V ita , ex a ggerated .
VM 3 2 -3 4 L a ck in g ; v e r y ch aracteristic; each professor had

his ow n sta n d a rd exam ples.
VM 35 W 25, am plified and ex aggerated .
W 26 on logic, m uch m ore th a n in V M 40;
found also in V L 42.
V M 36 ethics L a c k in g .
V M 37 p h ysio lo gy W 27, b u t o n ly “ the fifth su b sta n ce” .
V M 38 m ath em atics L a ck in g .
V M 39 th e o lo gy W 28, b u t en tirely different.
V M 40 See above, W 26.
V V 29 = V L 39, the first sen tence also V M 39.
V V 30 = V L 45.
V M 41 W 19.
V M 42 Cf W 20.
VM 43- 5° L ack in g.
I th in k it is apparen t from this su rv e y th a t V M and V V are tw o

independent versions of th e sam e original; th e d ifference b etw een the
tw o V ita e is sa tisfa cto rily explained b y our assum ption as to their
genesis. V M is thus n ot the “ sou rce” of V V , b u t b oth are collective
products of a successive school trad ition . W e shall soon see th a t the
V ita latin a gives us a th ird exam ple. T h e m ost conspicuous addition
in V V , in com parison w ith V M , is p aragraph 26, on A risto tle ’s ach ieve
m ents in logic. T h e first p a rt of th is paragrap h com es from O lym pio-
dorus, as is ap p aren t from th e testim onia. T h e second p a rt a b ou t the
axvTOTOfiac, inspired b y A risto tle ’s w ords Eth. N ic. I 11, 110 1 a 4,
is m ore elab o rated in E lia s; again we see an exam ple of th e grad u al
am algam ation of m aterial from the oral instruction.
T h e additions m ade b y P seu d o-E lias or during his tim e are found in
(12), (14), and (18). E sp ecia lly interestin g is th e passage in w hich he
su b stitu tes o l AOyvaloi for oi ajio o%oXr]Q. A n oth er ch aracteristic
phrase, o n ly found in P seu d o-E lias and V V , is ’AXeâvdgov rov xtutttjv.
T h e agreem ent b oth in lan gu age and substance betw een P seu d o-E lias
and certain p a rts of th e V ita v u lg a ta cannot be incidental. L ik e Busse
I th in k w e can sa fe ly conclu d e th a t our te x t of the V ita v u lg a ta is a
c o p y of th e n eop laton ic ep itom e of the L ife of A ristotle in th e form
in w h ich it w as used in th e m iddle of the sixth cen tu ry, in the school
in w hich th e un kn ow n P seu d o -E lia s tau gh t.
VITA LASCARIS
L iteratu re: A. T o v ár, “ P a ra la form aeión de la V ita M arciana
de A ristóteles. Sobre un n uevo fragm en to en el codice M atriten se
4676 (olim N 9),” in: Emerita n , 1943, pp. 180— 200; L. A lfon si, “ Su
tina V ita di A ristotele scritta da C. L a sc a ris” , in: Giornale d i M etafísica
4, 1949, pp. 3 8 1 - 3 -
I h a ve b riefly m entioned th is e x tra c t from th e V ita M arciana ab ove,
p. 122. I t is added on th e last page, f. i4 7 v, a fte r th e te x t of the V ita
v u lg a ta , and consists of three p aragraphs, epitom ized from the V ita
M arciana, as follows:
(r = V M 10) 'O TlXánov tzéyOrj èn i AiotI/j.ov ãçxovroç xa i fiiovç

ètt] ti /3 /LtETi]ÀÀaÇe róv fiíov èn i 0 eo<píXov ’ AgiarozèXrjç ôè èrèydr] èni
Atorgèipovç xa i fitovç èzrj Çy zeX evtõ èn i <l>iXoxXéovç- tpoizã ôè TTkdnnvi
èn i N avoiyèvovç x a i èariv ànà &Eoq>íXov è<p’ o \5 teX ev zí ílX árojv êcuç
&tXoxXèovç è<p ov teXevzõ. 'A g taroréirjç êztj xy d ènéÇtjae ílXázcovi-
(2 = V M 9 and 25) ovx ãga àvzèozrj Çãvzi Ukázwvt' (3 = V M 4)
Sn vèoç d)v 8AoiarorèXriç ow édrjxe ôiáXoyov zàiv noiTjzãv x a i neni
nottjzixijç x a i zà ç grjrogtxàç xa i zà fj.i]%avixà ngo^X^fiara xa i iargixà
xa i cpvaixà èv o pifiXíoiç xa i rà ò n z ix à ngofjXrjfiaxa xa i zà yeygafifièva
avrâ1 ôixauáfiaza r<òv 'EXXfjvíòcjv nóXEatv, án> & íX m noç zà ç (ptXoveixíaç
avzdüv ôiéXvoev, d>ç fiEyaXogrj/iovfjaai nazE xa i eb ze lv '"Q g ia a yrjv
IléX onoç ■rd ç òè nnhz.F.íaç vare.gov yéygatpF.
I h a v e underlined th e w ords w hich are n ot fou n d e x a c tly as in th e
V ita M arciana.
I recall th a t th e M atrit. 4676 w as w ritten in M ilan in th e y e a r 1462.
T h e V ita v u lg a ta w as copied from M arc. 257, a m a n u scrip t w h ich also
contain s th e o n ly e x ta n t te x t of th e V ita M arciana. L a sc a ris’ te x t of
th e V ita v u lg a ta is in terp olated w ith readings from th e V ita M arciana.
I t is possible th a t th e la tte r V ita w as a lre a d y d ifficu lt to decipher (see
p. 94) and th a t this is th e reason w h y L asca ris d id n ot m ake a full
co p y . M arc. 257 belongs to th e m an u scrip ts g iv en to th e lib ra ry of
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 14 1
St. M ark in 1468 b y C ard inal B essarion.1) T h e D irector of th e B ib lioteca

di S. M arco has been k in d enough to inqu ire into th e destinies of th is
m anu scrip t b efore it reached V en ice, b u t th e resu lt w as n egative. N o
circum stances now know n , how ever, sp eak again st th e p o ssib ility th a t
L ascaris saw and copied it in M ilan in 1462.
L asca ris saw in th e b ad ly d am aged te x t of th e second V ita in M arc.
257 certain sta tem en ts w h ich in terested him as su p plem en tin g th e tw o
te x ts he (and his disciple) h ad copied in w h a t is now M atrit. 4676.
P a ra g ra p h 1 of our te x t supplem ents V ita vu lg . 4 — 5 and does not
e x a c tly correspond to D iogenes V 10; he to o k it from \ M 10, p ra ctic a lly
w ith o u t ch an gin g th e te x t. F ro m D iogenes V 2 he had in m ind the
w ords a n co n ] IH aroivoq eri negiovroQ, and it w as w elcom e to him to
b e able to refu te this, in his eyes no d o u b t shocking, statem ent; in th e
second p arag rap h he epitom ized b riefly V M 9 and 25, n oting dow n
th e th ree w ord s w hich h a v e so g r e a tly p u zzled T o v a r. T h e th ird p a ra
graph supplem ents W 3; in fa ct, it w as once o m itted b y th e originator
of th is V ita . I t does n ot contain a single piece of inform ation w hich is
not found in V M 4, too; th e o n ly differen ce is th a t th e lan gu age is
sloppier. A p p a re n tly T o v a r has read ot gtjrogixol, b u t the te x t reads
Tag QrjTOQixaq, and his argu m en t therefore lack s foundation.
T o v a r sum s up his argu m en t in th e follow ing conclusion. E l frag-
m ento de M adrid es resto de la fuen te de donde proceden las noticias
m as seguras de la V ita M arciana y con serva esta fu en te con fidelidad,
sin las m ezclas que la echan a perder en la V ita M arciana. I th in k
th a t th is is giv in g L a sca ris too great credit.
A ccep tin g T o v a r ’s conclusions A lfon si contends th a t p aragraph 3
con tain s an an cien t list of A risto tle ’s w ritin gs in chronological order,
confirm ing th e sta te m en t of P hilodem u s ( = T 31 f) and certain h y p o
theses of B ign one. C astles in th e air.
1) H . O m o n t. " I n v e n t a ir e d e s M S S g re c s e t la t in s d o n n é s à S a in t- M a r c d e V e n is e
p a r le C a rd in a l B e s s a rio n , in : R ev . des B ib l. 4. 1894, p p . 12 9 — 18 7 . O n B e ssa rio n ,
L . M o h le r. K a r d in a l B . als Theologe H u m a n ist u n d S taatsm an n, P a d e r b o r n 192 3—
42. O n L a s c a r is , V . L a b a t e , “ P e r la b io g r a fia d i C. L a s c a r is ," in: A rchtv o S to n co
S ic ilia n o , 19 0 1, p p . 222— 24°-
VITA LATINA
I know th e follow ing 65 m anu scrip ts o f th e V ita L a tin a . T h e ta sk

of tra cin g them was m ade m uch easier a fter th e appearan ce of th e tw o
volum es of Aristoteles L atinus (abridged A L in m y lists). T h e d escrip
tions of the m anu scrip ts in these tw o volu m es m ake it superfluous to
add here a n y inform ation on th e m anu scrip ts or th e folio (page) of
in cip it to explicit.
T h e V ita occurs w ith or w ith o u t th e la s t paragraph (52). T h e fo llo w
in g 29 m anu scrip ts con tain th e longer version:
A treh aten sis (Arras) 741, S. X I I I , A L I 416

B rugensis (Brugge) 478, S. X I V , A L I 156
C an tabrigien sis B ib l. U n iv. Ii. 2.10, S X I V , A L I 261
E rlan gen sis i g 4 , S. X I I I - X I V , A L I 912
G em eticensis (Rouen) 920, S. X I I I — X I V , A L I 743
H ispalensis B ib l. C olom bin ae (Sevilla) 82.1.5., S. X I V , A L I I 1186
L au ren tian u s G ad dian u s 89 inf. 39, S. X I V , A L I I 1337
L au ren tian u s L eop . Med. F esu lan u s 167, S. X I I I — X I V , A L I I 1347
L ipsien sis 1339, S. X I I I X I V , A L I 964
M arcianus lat. V I 52, S. X I V - X V , A L I I 1610
M arcianus lat. Z. L . 234, S. X I V , A L I I 1635
M atriten sis B ib l. N a t. 1427, S. X I I I - X I V , A L I I 1192
M oguntinus (Mainz) I I 194, S. X I I I , A L I 10 11
M usei B rita n n ici, R egiu s 12. c X X , S. X V , A L I 310
N ea p o lita n us B orb on icu s I V B 16, S. X V , A L I I 1469
N e a p o lit a n s B orbon icu s V I I I E 24, S. X I I I - X I V , A L I I 1478
N eo-E b u racen sis (M organ L ib ra ry , N ew Y o rk ) 857 (olim A d m o n te n s k
487), S. X I I I , A L I 34.
O xon iensis Coll. B alliolen sis 232 A . S. X I V , A L I 349
P arisin u s la t. 7695 A , S. X I V , A L I 609
P arisinus lat. 14700, S. X I I I , A L I 640
P arisinus lat. 16490, S. X Ï I I — X I V , A L I 690

P arisinus B ib l. u n iv. 119 , S. X I I I , A L I 725
P ragen sis N U K I V D 6 (Truhldr 660), S. X I I I X I V , A L I 201
T rid en tin u s 1780, S. X I V , A L I I 1581
V a tica n u s lat, 2083, A . D. 1284, A L II 1842
V a tica n u s lat. 2084, S. X I I I - X I V , A L I I 1843
V a tica n u s R egin ae S u eciae 1 3 1 1 , S. X I I I — X I V , A L I I 1798
V a tic a n u s B orghesin us 127, S. X I I I , A L I I 1730
V a tic a n u s B orghesin us 308, S. X I I I — X I V , A L I I 1742
T h e follow ing 33 m anu scrip ts contain th e shorter version:

A udom arensis (St. Om er) 592, S. X I V , A L I 422
B ononiensis (Boulogne-sur-M er) n o , S. X I V , A L I 450
B ud ap estin en sis Mus. N a t. 64, S. X I V , A L II 1252
B urd igalen sis (B ordeaux) 1000, S. X I V , A L I 455
C an tabrigien sis D om us P e tri 90, S. X I I I — X I V , AL, I 251
C laustron eoburgen sis 1052, S. X I V , A L I 49
C racoviensis Jagellon icu s 506, S. X I I I , A L I I 1665
G raecensis (Graz) I I I 93, S. X I I I - X I V , A L I 58
L aud un en sis (Laon) 434, S. X I V , A L I 485
L au ren tian u s lat. 84.3, S. X I I I , A L I I 1321
L au ren tian u s C on ven ti Soppressi 95, S. X I V , A L I I 1334
L au ren tian u s S, Crucis X I I sin. 7, S. X I I I X IV , A L II 1363
L au ren tian u s S. M arci 6 1, S. X I V in., A L I I 1380
L ip sien sis 1368, S. X V — X V I . A L I 976
M arcianus la t. V I 33, S. X I V in., A L I I 1595
M onacensis lat. 438, S. X V , f. 157®, a fragm en t only.
M onacensis lat. 8003, S. X I I I - X I V , A L I 1037
N eo-E b u racen sis (M organ L ib ra ry , N ew Y o rk ) 858 (olim A dm ontensis
452), S. X I I I , A L I 31
N orim bergensis I V I , S. X I V , A L I 1087
N orim bergensis V 21, S. X I V , A L I 1089
P am p ala n en sis (Pam plona) B ib l. C ap itu li 8, S. X I V , A L I I 1214
P arisin u s lat. 632g, S. X I I I , A L I 572
P arisin u s lat. 14 7 17 (olim St. V icto r 30), S. X I I I — X I V , A L I 642
P arisinus lat. 16083, S. X I V in., A L I 659
P arisin u s B ib l M azarin eae 3459, S. X I I I , A L I 522
P arisinus B ib l. M azarin eae 3460, S. X I V , A L I 523
144 1NGEMAR Dt'RING
P arisinu s B ibl. M azarineae 3461, S. X I I I , A L I 524

R em ensis (Reims) 868, S. X I V , A L I 73^
S an ctae Crucis (H eiligenkreuz) 40, S. X I I I ex., A L I 75
T recensis (Troyes) 1959, S. X V , A L I 764
V a tica n u s B orghesinus 126, S. X I I I — X I V , A L II 1729
V a tica n u s B orghesin us 170, S. X I V , A L I I 1737
V olaterran u s (V olterra) 6366 = L V I I.8 .5 , S. X I V , A L I I 1656
I h a ve not seen th e follow ing three m anuscripts:
Berolinensis lat. Q u. 395, S. X I V , A L I 823. A co p y of th e Corpus

recentius w ith th e longer version of th e V ita .
M atriten sis B ib l. P a la tii 255 (according to in form ation , now in S a la
m anca), S. X I V , A L I I 1210. T h e Corpus recentius in clu d in g the
V ita .
P arisin u s lat. 15460, S. X I V — X V , A L I I 655- T h e V ita ad ded b y a
la ter hand.
T h e L a tin V ita w as tran slated from a G reek original, v e ry sim ilar

to b u t not id en tical w ith V ita M arciana, p ro b a b ly a b ou t A. D. 1200.
T h e ch ara cter of th e tran slation in d icates th a t it w as m ade rath er early,
w hen th e tran slators w ere still u n fam iliar w ith A risto tle ’s lan guage
and tran slated alm ost w ord for w ord w h a t th e y fou n d (or b elieved th e y
found) in th eir originals. H en ce tran slation s like “ sicu t P oliens a it” ,
“ prop ria sen sib ilia” .
T h e page w ith th e sigla w h ich I h a v e used in th e c ritical a pparatu s
a fford s a good synopsis of how I h a v e grouped th e m anuscripts. I do not
th in k th a t the ch ara cte r of th is te x t ju stifies a fu ll presentation of
m y collations; I shall o n ly g iv e a v e r y brief description of each group.
The jam ily a.

T h e origin al tran slation is b est represented b y th e fiv e m anu scrip ts
of th e group a1. T h e te x t ends w ith a sentence corresponding to V ita
M arcian a 47. In our t e x t o f th e V ita M arcian a th ree sentences then
follow , w h ich are tran sferred to th e V ita from som e of the n eoplaton ic
com m en taries (see th e testim on ia), p ro b ab ly from Sim plicius. In a
sim ilar w a y an ad d itio n w as m ade to th e original tran slatio n in a1, viz.
a sen tence from M o erbek e’s L a tin tran slation of S im p liciu s’ De caelo.
This ad dition is found in th e m anu scrip ts of group a2. T h is grou p does
not represent th e origin al tran slation , fo r it contains, beside th e original

sto ck of good readings of a1, also m a n y corru p t readings, and also som e
em end ation s of ob vio u sly corru p t readings in a1.
H ere is a selection of readings w hich d istin gu ish th e fa m ily a from
th e rest of th e m anuscripts.
a be
(2) fu it ip si deleted: an im provem en t
(4) adhuc iuvenis iuvenis adhuc
docebatur doctitat (wrong)
vite add. (unnecessary)
sepe (sim plification)
immoratus
recepit scholas Platonis
constituerunt as an a ltern a tive
philosophie potencie, m isinterp reted abbrevi-
a tion
(17) appellantes vocantes
(22) propter hoc quia quia
(23) Antipater anticipater or anticipatur
(27) si autem et P laton i contradicit si autem contradicit P laton i
(31) oppugnat oppugnavit
(35) que ab ipsa elegit que ipse elegit (wrong)
(40) P h iiip p u s pkilosophus, m isinterpreted a b b
reviation
(42) demonstrationes — assignare th e grad u al deterioration in be
b egins in a2
(48) m ille numero numero mille
A n oth er conspicuous difference betw een a1 and a2 is th a t p ra ctic a lly

all proper nam es are b a d ly m altreated in a2. T h e fiv e m anu scrip ts of
a1 are v e r y hom ogeneous, b u t all a2 m anu scrip ts present a n um ber of
v a r ia n t readings; if w e look a t B alliol 232 A w e shall find a g rea t num ber
of v a ria n ts in th e m argins, m a n y of w hich are also found in th e oth er
m em bers of th e group. G en erally th e m anuscripts of a1 are carefu lly
w ritten , w hereas th e opposite is tru e of a2. B u t in spite of differences
in details, th e seven m anu scrip ts of a2 are sim ilar in general ch aracter
T h e scribe w ho w ro te th e ir ancestor introduced a num ber of new read
ings. H ere are som e selected exam ples:
Goteb, U n iv . A rss/tt. L X I I I : 2 10
146 IN G E M A K D U R IN G
(8) partim autem doctrinis eminens

{14) morabatur, n ot accep ted b y be: nutritus est is p ro b ab ly d erived
from a m isinterp retation of m ittiiur, read as nutriiur and th en
changed. T h is in d icates th a t th e 53 m anu scrip ts of th e bc-
trad ition all d erive from th e sam e arch etyp e.
{18) Ephesum for Eressum
(19) appellantes for nominantes
(22) ilia die op era tion s sanorum non facit
(24) viri om.
(32) ethicis is d ire ctly tran slated from the G reek t e x t and m u st th e re
fore be th e original readin g (if the tra n sla to r had th e sam e G reek
t e x t as we). I th erefore assum e th a t N orim b. V 2 1, L a u r. S.
C ru ris X I I sin. 7, and H eiligen kreu z 40 represent th e original.
T h e tw o oth er m anu scrip ts of a1, M organ 858 and Paris. 6235,
and th e w hole group a2 read methaphisics, w hich is a correction
of th e G reek original.
(33) moribus. T h is is th e o n ly case where a1 (except M organ 858) has a
d ecid ed ly w rong reading, in omnibus, w hich can n o t b e a tra n s
lation b u t m u st d erive from a m isin terp retation of th e L a tin
moribus.
(39) diminute for deficienter
(41) tractans fo r detertninans
(43) ivit for discessit
A glance a t th e c ritical ap p a ratu s is enough to see th a t m ost of th e

new readings in trod u d ed in a2 w ere in h erited b y th e v u lg a ta te x t in b e.
T h ere is no dou b t, then, th a t th e fiv e m an u scrip ts of a1 com e closest
to th e arch etyp e, th e L a tin tran slation m ade b y a m an belon ging to
th e generation of W illia m M oerbeke. I t w ou ld b e n atu ra l to regard th e
tw o earliest represen tatives of th e group, M organ 858 and P aris. 6325,
as th e b est m anuscripts. B u t, as I h a ve ju s t said, th e y read (32) meta-
p hisicis for ethicis. T h e G reek origin al has ev r o t ; -ijOtxoiQ. T h e o n ly
p lau sible e x p la n a tio n is this: th e tran slato r rendered lite ra lly in ethicis;
a sub seq u en t corrector observed the fa ctu a l m istak e and su b stitu ted
in m etaphisicis. T h e th ree la ter (hut certa in ly n o t m uch later) m a n u
scripts, H eil. 40, L au r. S. C rucis 40, and N orim b. V 21, preserve the
origin al reading; w e m u st conclu d e th a t th e y are descended from a
m an u scrip t w h ich m u st b e earlier th an th e tw o earliest e x ta n t m anu

scripts.
T h e upshot of th is argu m en t is th a t th e t e x t m u st b e established on
th e basis of a1 and th a t th e rest of th e m anu scrip ts h a v e o n ly a subsidiary
valu e.
The fam ilies be.

T h e 50 m an u scrip ts of th e fam ilies be presen t a v e r y u niform te x t,
the L a tin v u lg a ta . T h eir a ffilia tio n and d istribu tio n in groups is of
secon d ary im portance, an d I shall lim it m y self to a v e r y brief sum m ary
of th e results of m y exam in ation of th is m aterial.
O f th e 30 m anu scrip ts o f th e fa m ily b o n ly 6 h a v e th e longer version,
n am ely th ree in b 1, Mog. I I 194, V a t. 2083, B ru g. 478; th ree in h2,
P aris. 16490, M arc. V I 52, P aris. 7695 A ; none in b 3. T h is is perhaps
the origin al ty p e of b , for w e find it in one of th e earliest m anuscripts
(and perhaps th e best) of th is fa m ily , P aris. 16490. In this m anuscript
th e V ita follow s a fter B o e tiu s’ De disciplin a scolarum, and th e title
is Liber de vita arislotelis (el de secundo philosopho). T h e “ L ife of the
Second P hilo sop h er” , i. e. A l-F a ra b i, is om itted , b u t it is n otew o rth y
th a t a m an u scrip t b elon gin g to th e group a2, N o iim b . V 21, has a sm all
trea tise De secundo philosopho im m ed iately a fte r the V ita Arislotelis.
In som e m anuscripts th e last paragrap h (52) is o b vio u sly ad ded from a
source oth er th a n th a t from w hich the V ita b revio r w as copied; th e
subscription in M arc. V I 52 sa ys ex p ressly E x p licit liber de vita Aristo-
tilis ex m ultis libris particularibus.
O f the 17 m anuscripts of th e fa m ily c o n ly th e v e ry late Lipsiensis
1368 has th e shorter version, b u t it is copied from L ip s. 1339, and for
som e reason th e scribe om itted th e la st paragraph.
T h e d ifference betw een b 1 b 2 and ba is p u rely tech n ical, if I m a y use
th is expression. T h e proper nam es p rovid e sign ifican t readings. Thus
b 1 has (3) acarni, b 2 acarlu, b a cartu, the nam es of A risto tle ’s disciples
(47) are fim am endim ium clinum dircum in b3. T h e d ifferen t readings in
(8) partim vero loco doctoris eminens are v e ry significan t. T h e sentence
(40) scripta est ah eo — posterius is tran sm itted in slig h tly d ifferent
form in th e th ree groups, th e grad u al deterioration of th e sentence (42)
anliqui enirn — assignare is another d istin ctiv e reading. T h e fou r
m anuscrip ts of b 3 are gem elli; th e y all contain De porno, Vita Arislotelis
and Secreta secretorum.
14 8 IN G E M A B D U R IN G
T h e m ost d istin ctiv e error in c is th e d istortion of the nam es of

A risto tle 's disciples (47) phaniam plan(i)ant oliium ; in c3 the scrib e has
d eleted planiam b u t p reserved m ost of the oth er errors. G en erally
sp eakin g, th e differen ce b etw een th e three groups is of th e sam e “ te ch n i
c a l” n atu re as in b , and I shall spare th e reader th e details.
M ost of th e m anu scrip ts of th e fam ilies he con tain th e so-called Corpus
recentius, a large collection of A risto telia n and p seu d o-A ristotelian
trea tises used in th e u n iversities and oth er schools of h igh er learning.
The critical apparatus

I h a ve b een v e r y restrictiv e in an n o ta tin g v a r ia n t readings. The
t e x t is b ased on a1; v a r ia n t readings w ith in th is grou p are listed. A
selection of ty p ic a l v a r ia n t readings representing th e oth er groups is
added; th is selection is n ecessarily su b jective, b u t I th in k it gives a
fa ir pictu re of th e v u lg a ta trad itio n . Som e v a r ia n t readin gs of no
va lu e a t all for th e t e x t h a v e been listed fo r th e sole m o tiv e of p ro vid in g
evidence for m y grouping of th e m anuscripts.
E ditions.
T h e V ita la tin a w as first p rinted in Opera Arislotelis D e naturali
philosophia, im pressa V en etiis p er m agistru m P h ilip p u m V en etu m 1482.
I t con tain s th e w hole Corpus recentius; th e V ita is p rin ted a fter a
m an u scrip t v e r y sim ilar to P am p alon en sis 8, belon ging to th e group
b 2. T h e ed ito r has m ade several em endations, b u t m ost of th e proper
nam es occu r in th e d istorted form com m on in th e v u lg a ta trad itio n .
T h e n e x t ed ition is in Aristoteles. Opera nonnulla latine per Ioannem
Argyrophilum et alios. V en etiis p er G regorium de G regoriis. 1496. T h e
V ita (longer edition) is prin ted on th e first folios (w ith ou t num bers)
a fte r a m an u scrip t of the fa m ily b 1. On P . J. N u n ez and his editions
o f th e V it a M arciana and V ita latin a , see p. 179.
T h e V ita , then, has b een p rin ted m a n y tim es. T h e first critical
ed ition w as m ade b y V . R ose, in its fin al form in his Aristotelis frag-
menta, 1886. F o r tu n a te ly he happ en ed to fin d one of th e b est m a n u
scrip ts, x = N orim b. V 2 1, and im m ed iately saw its va lu e. H is e =
= E rlan g en sis 194 (a2), his b = P aris. 1 4 7 17 (b1), his q = N orim b.
I V 1, p = P aris. 7695 A (both b 2).
T h e earliest q u o ta tio n is fou n d in A lb e rt M agnus, Super eth., O pp
t. IV , p. 9.
S IG L A
consensus a1 et a2
S. X I I I M org. 858 S. X I I I A rra s 741

Paris. 6325 P aris. 14700
S. X I I I - X I V H eil. 40 S. X I I I - X I V M organ 857
L a u r. S. Crucis E rl. 194
X I I sin. 7 B alliol 232 A
N orim b. V 21 S. X I V L a u r G add. 89.39
S. X V N eapel. I V B 16
b — consensus b1 b2 6a
b 1 S. X I I I V a t. 2083 b2 S. X I I I L au r. 84.3.
Mog. I I 194 M az. 3459
S. X I I I X I V Mon. 8003 M az. 3461
P eterhou se 90 P aris. 16490
P aris. 14 717 Crac. Jag. 506
S. X I I I - X I V B orghes. 126
S. X I V R em . 868 N orim b. I V 1
B rug. 478 G raz I I I 93
M az. 3460 S. X I V L a o n 434
B ud . 64 Paris. 16083
M arc. V I 33
b 3 S. X I V L au r. S. M arci 61 P am p lon a 8
B orghes. 170 K lo stern eu b u rg 1052
L a u r. C onv. Soppr. 95 St. O m er 592
B o rd e a u x 1000 V o lte rra 6366
Paris. 7695 A
S. X I V - X V M arc. V I 52
E d itio princ., V en etiis 1482
c consensus c‘ c2 c3
c1 S. X I I I P aris. 119 S. X I I I B orghes. 127

S. X I I I - X I V M atr. 1427 S. X I I I X I V B orghes. 308
R ou en 920 N eapol. V I I I E 4 2
P ra g I V D 6 V a t. 2084
T ren to 1780 L au r. F es. 167
L ips. 1339
S. X I V M arc. Z. L . 234
c3 S. X I I I X I V V a t. R eg. 13 11 Colom b. 82.1.5
C an tabrig. Ii.2 .10
S. X V Mus. B rit 12.

CXX S. X V X V I L ip s. 1368
pi. = plerique, e. g. c pi. — p le iiq u e codices fam iliae c.
I can n o t refer the follow in g th ree m anu scrip ts to a n y specific group

of be: B onon. n o , T ro y es 1959, Mon. 438. I h a ve not seen: B erol 393,
M atr. 255, P ar. I 54 6°-
LIBER DE VITA ET GENERE ARISTOTILIS
(r) Aristotiles philosophus de gente quidem fu it Macedo, de patria vero

Stagiritanus. Stagira autem civitas est T rad e, vicina Olintho et M othoni.
filiu s autem fu it N icom achi et Festie, ambobus a Machaone Asclepiade
descendenlibus, sicut désignât epigramma quod fu it in ipso sic dicens:
F estide fu it matre et Nicomacho genitore,

qui descenderunt ab E sculápio, insignis Aristotiles.
(2) genitus autem est eis non solum Aristotiles sed A rim n istus et A rim -
niste. N icom achus autem m edicus fu it A m in ti, regis Macedonum , patrie
P h ilip p i, et ad memoriam proprii patris Aristotiles suum filiu m N ico-
machum appellavit, cu i et N icom achia Ethica scripsit. itaque habitus
fu it quidem et circa philosophiam et m edicinam a pâtre et propria prima
generatione. (3) post mortem autem N icom achi et Festidos parentum
ducitur a quodam nomine Proxeno Atarneo, cuius famam et nutrimentum
habens in memoriam ipsiu s filiu m N icanora educavit et docuit et sibi
filiu m fecit et in morte sua precepit in testamento suam filia m nomine
Pithaida genitam eidem a Pithaida tradi illi N icanori in uxorem.
(4) Aristotiles autem adhuc iuvenis existens doctrinam eloquentiae
docebatur, ut declarant Homerica commenta scripta ab eo et Ilia d is
T itu lu s : L ib er de tiiia et genere A r is to lilis H e il. 40 I n c ip it genus et vita A risto -

lilis P a r . 6 325 id e m + p h ilo so p h i S. C r u c is X I I sin . 7 d e e s t t it . in M org. 858
N o r. V 21 in c ip it (liber de) vita A r is lo tilis a? b c || (1) A risto tiles gente quidem
m acedo p a tria vero stragira a’ || stagiritan us, stagira u b iq u e P a r . 6325 M org.
858 N o r. V 21 stra giritan us, stragira u b iq u e a’ re ll. a' b1 stra n g irita n u s,
strangiria b* b 3 || civ ita s est a 1 b c est civitas a* || et a n te N ic o m a c h o om . a J
{2) ig itu r itaque habitus qu idem fu it ei c. ph. et m. fu it ip s i a pâtre et (cum M org.
858) p ro p ria generatione a || (3) A tarneo D iirin g : aterni a 1 aca rin io sim . a a aearni
b1 acartu b s b 3 c p l. || n ichan orem b ! b s c || p ith a id a b is a p hitiad am , -a be
eidem om . b e || nichom ari b e || (4) iu v en is adhuc b e || docebatur: doctitat be
dictamen quod dedit Alexandra et dialogus de poetis et de poetica tractatus

et de rethorica.
(5) Factus autem X V I I annorum et P ith ia precipiente ipsum philo-
sophari mittitur Athenas, ubi adhesit Socrati et moratus est cum eo tribus
annis. mortuo autem Socrate adhesit P latoni et moratus est cum ipso
annis X X usque ad finem ip siu s P laton is, sicut ipse déclarai mittens
P h ilip p o , (6) et tantam adeptus est dilectionem P latonis et diligentiam
circa studium philosophiae quod Plato domum Aristotilis domum lectoris
vocabat et frequenter dicebai “ E am us ad domum lectoris” {7) et ipso
absente a leciione clamabat "Intellectus abest, surdum est auditorium ",
(8) V ix it autem post mortem P latonis annis X X I I I , partim quidem
docens Alexandrum filiu m P h ilip p i, partim autem circumdans cum eo
multam terram, partim autem componens libros, partim vero loco doctoris
eminens. (9) non igitur edijicavit Aristotiles L iciu m contra Platonem
vivum existentem, sicut Aristoxenus accusavit et Aristides postea conse-
cutus est. adhesit autem P latoni usque ad finem suum. (j o ) Plato autem
natus fu it Diotim o dominante Atheniensibus et vivens annis L X X X I I
fin ivit vitam suam sub Theophilo. Aristotiles autem natus sub Diotrofo
et vivens annis L X I I I moritur in tempore Philoclei. adhesit autem
Aristotiles P la ton i tempore N ausigeni, et fuerunt a Theophilo sub quo
moritur Plato usque ad Philocleum anni X X I I I quibus Aristotiles super-
vixit Platoni. (11) non igitur est, sicut menciuntur, quod X L annis
moratus est Aristotiles sub Platone tempore E udoxi. A ristotile enim
L X I I I annis vivente très anni tantum restarent a morte Platonis, ablatis
X V I I annis quibus sluduit in trivio et tribus quibus studuit cum Socrate
et ablatis X L quibus studuit cum Platone, sicut ip s i aiunt. in tribus
et tractatus de poetica a* b c || et rethorica i ’ b c || (5) et a n te P ith ia o m . b c ||

a d h e sit': heait a ]| cu m eo a n n is X X a1 b c || fin e m vite ip s iu s b c || p h ilip p o a
p h 'o v e l philo so p ho b c || (6) vocavit a 1 || frequenter a: sepe b c || (8) circum da n s
cu m ip so b c , le g e n d u m c ircu m ie n s vel circu m ita n s || libros o m . a 1 (e xc. P a r. 6325) |
p a rtim vero loco d e d a n s em in en s a1 M a tr. 1 4 2 7 pa rtim autem d octrin is em inens
a* p a rtim vero doctoris em in en s b 1 c* pa rtim vero d o ctrin is em in en s c ' pa rtim
vero doctoris vel d octrin is em in en s h s b" c* pa rtim vero vice doctoris d octrin is em in en s
P a r . 16 490 a lii a lia | (g) non est autem verum quod ed ifica v it a 1 b non en im autem
verum qu. e. c p l. || A r is tid e s : aristotides a* b c p l. || (10) D io tim o : d ica in o E t l.
ig 4 d ich m io b* d rim o M a tr. 14 2 7 d ictim o a1 b c p l. || D io tro fo : dyaforo E r l.
19 4 dyocorpho B a llio l 232 A diciorfo a 2 b c p l. || P h ilo c le i: p h ilo d ei, -eum a* h c ||
(11) qu ida m a d d . a n te m en ciu n tu r a a b c || im m ora tus b c || L I I I : v ig in ti tribus a1 ||
vivente L X I I I a n n is b c || tantum o m . a 1 ]| sicu t: ut b c ||
autem reliquis annis non solum non fuisset possibile tanta componere,
sed neque facile legendo transcurrere, (1 2 ) sicut Philocorus historizavit, et
etiam non fu it conveniens Aristotile extraneo existente posse facere contra
Platonem qui erat civis et m axime potens propter Gambriam et Timotheum
principantes Atheniensibus et genere sibi cognatos.
(13) P ost mortem autem Platonis S peusippus quidem suscepit scolas
suas, fuerat enim hie filiu s Pontonis, sororis Platonis. (14) Aristotiles
autem m iltitur in Macedoniam, ubi docet Alexandrum filiu m P h ilip p i.
(75) et intantum fu it honoratus a P h ilip p o et Olympiade matre Alexandri
quod sibi construxerunt cum eis statuam, et in magna parte fu it consors
regni ipsiu s et m ultum laboravit pro rege, et cum esset magna pars, philo
sophie ad benefaciendum potentia usus est, benefaciens et singulis proprie
et omnibus communiter. (16) et quod m ultis quidem proprie benefecit,
declarant m isse ab eo epistole et de quibusdam ad regem. (17) quod autem
et communiter benefecit m ultis, demonstrat illud quod civitatem suam
Stagiram dirutam p rius a P h ilip p o in d u xit Alexandrum regem iterum
rehedificare et regionem aliam ip s i tradi. propter quod et Stagiritani
festivitatem celebrabant Ari&totili Aristoteliam ipsam appellantes et mensem
in quo festivitas celebrabatur Stagiriten nominabant. (jS) et etiam Eres-
sum urbem Theofrasti et Theophanii ipsiu s discipulorum debentem destrui
liberavit a destruetione. (i q ) Stagiritani autem detulerunt corpus Aristo-
tilis mortui Calchide ad Stagiram et altare construxerunt in monumento,
locum iliu m Aristotelium nommantes, et ibi ad consilium congregabantur.
(20) in m ultis autem et Atheniensibus benefecit, ut declarant tractatus
qui sunt ad P h ilip p u m , ita quod Athenienses in acropoli statuam illi
autem p o s t in tribus om . b c || r eliq u is om. a* h c ]| fu isse t a: fu it b c p o ssib ile

om . a1 nan so lu m s u ffic ie n s fu isse ! M o rg. 858 || etiam a d d . a n te neque a 1 b c ||
(12) p h ilo co lu s b c II m a xim e a1: valde a’ b c || (13) recepit scolas p la to n is b c ||
pron tonis v e l porthon is v e l po tho n is a 1 porcon is b c || (14) m ittilu r a 1: m orabatur a 3
n u tritu s est b e || docebat a 1 || (15J co n struxeru n t a constitu erun t b p l. construxerunt
vel co n stitu eru n t c p l. || laboravit a 1 b 1 b a c: laborabat a ! b* || pa rs sc. (.reg ni) ||
p h i'e = p h ilo so p h ie a: p o 'e = poten cie b c p l. p o ssib ile N o r. I V I P a r. 1 4 7 1 7 ||
(16) benefecerii b ' b* p l. || et a n te de o m . a 1 b c || de o m . b 1 b* pl. || (17) et a n te
com m u n iter o m . a ’ | benefecerii b 1 b 3 p l. || dem onstrat: m onstrat v e l declarai a J |
d iru p ia m a ' p l b c || celebrant e t m o i celebratur a4 b 3 b" c p l. ]| A risto telia le g e n d u m ||
ap pella ntes : vocantes b e || stager tem a* stragiriien b 1 b 1 c strangiriten b 1 || (18) ephe-
su m a 2 b c II ip s iu s a1: suorum a* su t b c || debentem d estru i: destruendam a* | (19)
p etuleru n i a ’ : d u xeru n t b c corpus a risto tilis m ortuum in calcide d ed u xeru n t (red- PaT.
1470 0 B a llio l 232 A) in stragiram a* ir. calcid am (calidam c) in stra(n)giriam b c ||
in a n te m onum ento o m . a ’ || n om m a ntes : ap pella ntes a5 b c || ibi a 1: illu c a ' h c ||
in g e m a r d ü r in g
construxerunt. (21) ut autem et omnibus hom inibus universaliter benefaceret,

scripsit Alexand.ro librum de regno docens ipsum qualiter oportet regnare.
et intantum movit animam A lexandri ad benefaciendum quod dicebat
“ Q uia non benefeci aliquibus hodie non regnavi". {22) quod equale est
egrotanti modice a morbo ejfimero, propter hoc quia ilia die non faciunt
Operationen sanorum.
(23) Iuvene autem existente Alexandro et m ilitante contra Persas, eundo
cum eo neque tunc abstinuit philosophari. tunc enim composuit historiam
ducentarum et quinquaginta politiarum . et associavit ipsum usque ad
Persiam , ubi bello facto rediit ad suam patriam. et nichilom inus A n ti-
pater suscipiens A lexandri regnum in honore habuit A n stotilem quam
Alexander.
(24) Speusippo autem nepote Platonis mortuo suos discipulos susci-
p iu n t Xenocrates et Aristotiles sapientissim i viri, et A n stotiles qutdem in
L id o regebat, Xenocrates autem in Achadem ia, ubi et Plato studebat.
(25) non enim, sicut Aristoxenus et Aristides posterius dicunt, Platone
vivente et in Achademia docente Aristotiles contraedificavit L iciu m . (26)
et hoc temptant quidam dicere propter id quod ex p lu n b u s contradicit
Platoni. (27) contra quod dicendum quod non sim pliciter contradicit
Platoni sed non intelligentibus ea que sunt Platonis. si autem et Platoni
contradicit, non est inconveniens, et in h iis enim ea que sunt Platonis
sapit. (28) P latonis enim est sermo quod magis oportet de ventate curare
quam de ahquo alio, et alibi dicit “ A m icu s quidem Socrates, sed magis
arnica v e r i t a s e t in alio loco “ De Socrate quidem parum est curandum,
de veritate vero m ultum ". (29) hoc igitur et Aristotiles fecit et destruxit
dicta P laton is, quamvis consona sibi fecit, nolens despicere ventatem.
(30) H abuit autem multam dilectionem erga Platonem Aristotiles, et
quod sit verum patet ex eo quod aram consecravit ei in qua scripsit ita:
(22) a a n te morbo o n . a"- b c || propter hoc o m . b c || q u ia i li a die o p e r a tio n s

sa noru m non f a c t (ja ciu n t n o n n u lli) a» b c || (23) " M a ': et * b e u b i bello et
facto P a r 14700 || n tc h ilo m in u s p o s t A risto tilem a> u n d e in c n im iu m quan tum v e l non
m in u s qu an tu m v e l A risto telem n ich o m a ch i quan tum || an ticipater v e l a n t i c i p a t e
(ita N u n e z ) b c |1 quam a1: quan tum a* b c |] (24) Aristotiles^ D u rin g : <m'(vel
areV siopha nes (aristosse E r l. 154) c o d d . ]| v iri o m . a« b c || regebat in licio a* legebat
in licio b c || (25) arisiid es (arestio E r l. ,9 4 ) a aristotides b e || contra cu m ed ifica m t
a s II (26) tem ptam t c || propter M u d quod c p i. propter hoc quod a* b" b a J| e x a ': in
a 2 b c || (27) s i au tem contrad icit p la to n i b c || sa p it om b e || (28) q u idem p o s
Socrate om . b c || (29) et* o m . b> b* c etsi n o n destru xit N u n e z a llii ||
Aram Aristotiles fundavit hanc P latonis,

viri quem non est conveniens m alis laudarc.
(31) Fortassis autem neque ad ea que videntur oppugnat Platom sed ad

eos qui ipsa male opinantur, sicut ingenitum esse celum in libro qui est
de celo. quidam enim secundum tetnpus ipsum intellexerunt sed non
secundum causam esse. (32) et ideas in metaphisica. quidam enim extra
intellectum ipsas posuerunt et alii propria sensibilia arbitrah sunt ipsas,
ui hominem immortalem et equum. quod enim non vult ipsas omnino
non esse demonstrat in E th icis dicens duplicem esse ordinem, hunc quidem
in duce exercilus hunc autem in exercitu, et alterum esse causam alterius.
et in libro de anima intellectum qui est secundum animam esse res.
(33) M ultum namque Aristotiles moderatus fu it moribus, unde in
predicamentis ait “ N on oportet prompte diffin ire sed quidem multociens
considerare” et “ dubitare de singulis non esse in u tile". (33 a) et in kiis
que de bono “ Oportet rem inisci hominem existentem non solum bene for-
tun atum sed et demonstrantem” . {33 b) et in E th icis N icom achiis A m icus
quidem vir, arnica autem veritas, ambobus vero existentibus amicis sanctum
est prehonorare veritatem". (34) et in M etheons “ Quorum quaedam quidem
dubitam us, quaedam attingimus secundum aliquem modum” . et in eisdem
“ N o n semel neque bis sed infinite easdem opiniones fieri hom inibus” ,
ut non m ultum sapientia superbiamus in quibus invenire videmur.
(30) M a rsiliu s F ic in u s , O pera I 770 . e d . B a s e l 15 6 1: A r is to te le s in te m p lo ararn
P la t o n i s t a tu a m q u e s a c r a v it h o c e p ig r a m m a te (se q u itn r t e x t u s ) .
(32) S im p lic ii p h ilo so p h i a c u iissim i com m entaria in I V libros D e caelo A risto telis,
V e n e tiis a p . H ie r. S c o tu m 1 544 (re d d id it M o erb ek e): E l ut m eam sententiam dicam ,
videtur m ih i et in his eandem pa ssion em p a ti A ristoteles quam m id e is p a ssu s est.
E te n im et in M is esse quidem causas om n iu m in deo et secretas has pla ne dans videtur.
siq u id em d u p lice m esse ordinem ait hu n c qu idem hie, hunc autem in conditore, et hunc
ab illo lam quam d u p licem ordinem . hunc quidem in duce exercilu s, hunc autem in exer-
c iiu , et alterum ab altero; ubi autem otdo sem per et segregatio est. C a u sa s lam en eisdem
n o m in ib u s cu m his quae hie vocare recusavit, hom inem aut equum aut a h q u id alioru m
quae hie su n t, qu ia de fa c ili cu m n o m in ib u s c o n c u n u n t m ultorum horum phantasiae.
(31) forte a 2 b c |1 o ppu gn a vit b c || male in te llig en t ip s a a= || o p in a n tu r a1: i n

te llig e n t a 5 b c || in g en itu m P a r. 6325 M o rg. 858: et genitum c e t t . || (32) im p o su eru n t
b 3 || et a n te a lii o m . b= t>* || esse: in esse a 1 || ethicis H e il. 40 N o r. V 21 S . C ru cis
X I I sin . 7: m etaph ysicis r e c tiu s P a r . 6325 M o rg . 858 a 2 (exc. E r l. 194 m echanicts)
i n eth icis vel m eta p h ysicis (m athem aticis n on n n lli) b c || (33) m oribus: in om n ibu s
a 1 (e x c . M o rg . 858) || (33 a) exntem u n d e exeuntem in n o n u llis || (33 b) en tibu s
p le r iq u e || (34) qu oru m : horum a! horum quidem quaedam b c || ut a1: quod
a* b c || su perb iam us sa p ien tia a ! p i |>
jg g in g e m a r d ü r in g
US, E t talis quidem secundum vitam fu it philosophus. addidit autem

philosophie plura que ab ipsa elegit. (j6 ) ethice quidem addidit fd m ta tem
neque in exterioribus bonis conslare. sicut P olien s ait, neque m amm a
solum sicut Plato dicebat, sed habere quidem formam in amm a. coinqm nan
autem et contristari solum ipsam ab extenonbus non bene se habenhbus,
probrie dictionibus utens. etenim que coinqum anlur m te n u s ipsam
pulchritudinem habent, occultantur autem secundum solam s u p e r ficiem , et
contristata eandem m agnüudinem habent secundum ventatem. (37) P ^ i c e
autem addidit quintam essentiam. (38) mathematice vero o ng om u m esse
conum visuum propter id quod in p lu s incedit visus em us i n s u l t magm-
tudinem, et secundum hoc enim n ichil eorum que videntur totum sim ul
videtur, et sic maiorem fieri axem base que est ex hoc, et oxigonium conum
p erfid- (39) théologie vero et quamvis nichil addidit, tarnen ntchtl de
deficienter determinavit. non enim solum mundana vidü, sicut quidam
putant, sed ea que sunt supra m undum , sicut déclarai et in octavo de pht-
sico auditu dicens quod prima causa neque per se m obilis est neque se
cundum accidens, ex hoc demonstrans quod divinum neque corpus o
neque passibile.
Uo) C om to su it autem et m edicinaüa problemata et phisica problemala
in L X X Ubris existentia et aspectiva problemata et m echanic*, et senptas
ab eo iustificationes Grecarum civitatum cum quibus P h ilip p u s h es
Graecorum determinabat. scripta est autem ab eo historia polüeiarum
posterius. . .
(41) l n philosophia vero transcendit humanam mensuram n ichil dim i
nute de ea determinans sed et multa ip s i adiciens ex sut sollertia totam
,-0 w secundum vitam Aristotiles philosophus E r ! . 1 9 4 Aristotiles a d d . a n t e
philosophus a ’
. A
1 I Viand r e e t e b c II (1 6 )
Il queipse elegit h a u d r e c t e b e J »13
bonis extenonbus b c ||
«I (ôohtui N o r . V 1): fioltticus E : 'l. «<>♦ tin n u l * . B a U io l i * 3
S î S i ä »« jeu t-ä *
* s r . . » . » - — - » • • -
p „ „ „ . M i . . . . . ' b e I| fr >' II (.« )
a. ph's = philosophus b c II posterius a n t e histona b c script.1
t a l i t e r m a liia b e || (4 1] de eadeterminans a : tradens et
posterius o r a t i o t u r b a t a a l i t e r i n a i n s i>c 11 v* j
L e a n s de ea a* tractans b c ]| et a n t e multa o n , a* b c || 4 » a. * II
direxit philosophiam . (42) logice enim apposuit distinguens regulas a rebus

et faciens demonstrativ am scientiam. antiqui enim demonstrare quidem
sciebant, demonstrationes autem facere ignorabant, idem pacientes coriariis
potentibus quidem uti calceis, non potentibus autem rationem assignare.
(43) Insurgentibus autem ip si Atheniensibus discessit Calchidam, hoc
dicens quod “ N o n concedam Atheniensibus bis peccare in philosophiam ".
(44) et mittens Antipatro scribit “ Atheniensibus commorari periculosum ".
et dixit M ud Hom eri “ P ir u s namque supra pirum senescit, ficus autem
supra ficu m ” , successionem accusatorum enigmatice loquens. (45) V ixit
autem Aristotiles annis L X I I I . decem et septem annos habens adhesit
Socrati et cum hoc stelit tribus annis, adhesit autem et P la ton i viginti
annis. post mortem autem Platonis v ixit annis X X I I I . totum itaque
tempus vite sue numeratum fuerunt anni L X I I I .
(46) E l mortuus est in Calchide dimittens testamentum scriptum quod
fertur ab Andronico et Ptholomeo cum voluminibus suorum tractatuum.
(47) dim isit autem filiu m N icom achum et filia m Pithaida, prnprios autem
discipulos Theofrastum, Phaniam , E udim ium , Cliium , Aristoxenum et
Dicearchum, (48) tractatus autem m ille numero. (4g) M ulta autem potuit
cum regibus qui fuerunt tempore suo, P h ilip p o Olim piade Alexandro et
Anlipatre. potentia autem usus est organo philosophic.
(50) P roprium autem fu it philosophic A ristotilis non discedere a mani-
festis, post demonstrationes enim et muliorum tesiimonia ferre.
(42) J o h n S a lis b u r y , M etalog icu s T V 7: F u it autem a p u d P erip a tetico s tantae

au ctoritatis scien tia d em onstrandi ut A ristoteles, qui alios fere omnes et fere in om nibus
p h ilo so p h o s superabat, h in c com m une nom en sib i quodam proprieta tis iu re vind icate!,
quod dem onstrativam tradiderai scien tia m .
(42) qu idem a n te sciebant o m . b c | dem onstrationes — assignare t u r b a t a in b,

v a ld e t u r b a t a in c || (43) d iscessit a 1: iv it a s b c || quod o m . a 'b c || <44) scrip sit a! ||
illu d hom ericum b 1 c M u d o m . b 1 h* | p o s t loquens a d d itu r sch o lio n n u lliu s p r e tii

in N o rim b . V 21 |[ (45) et a n te decem a d d . b c || habens X V I I an n o s adhesit v e l
X V I I habens a d hesit a 5 || hesit socrati a 1 b 1 c p l. || cu m hoc: cum eo a ' b c |J stetit
om . b ‘J b a sieiii.se/ a1 p l. || et P la to n i: cum platone a 1 | v id e n tu r co d d . a 1 legisse et
cu m stelisset cum hoc tribus a n n is ad hesit cum Pla to n e v ig in ti a n n is || et a n te P la to n i
om . b c | | autem p o s t mortem o m . b c J| (46) androm aco b ’ j| (47) et alteram (/ilia m
n o n n u lli) p hy tian d am c || n o m in a d isc ip u lo r u m : u t re ce n su i, in a1 e t in b 1 b 1 pl.,
t u r b a t a in m u ltis , e. g. a id im iu m clericu m et dircatum (alii a lia ) a* p ha n ia m pla -
n ia m eu d im iu m o litu m c jim a m en d im iu m c lin u m dircum b J || et a n te D icea rchu m
om . b c || (48) n um ero m ille b c (49) est p o s t u su s o m . P a r . 6325 N o r. V 21 |
(50) e x p l. ferre a 1 b p l. ||
158 INGEMAR DÜRING
( 57 ) E x p licit genus et vita A ristotilis philosophi.

(52) Fecit autem Aristotiles librum de oratione, unde S im p liciu s:
“ Quod enim intelligat aliquid et super intellectum et super substantiam,
Aristotiles m anifestos est apud finem libri de oratione plane dicens quod
deus aut intellectus est aut aliquid ultra intellectum .”
(52) S I M P L I C I U S I n D e caelo 292 b 10, C l A G V I I , p . 485.20: " O n yàg í vvof I

t i x a i v jièq ràv roüv x a i x »)v ovaiav ó ’ AgiOTOTéÃrfÇ, ôíjÀáç è a t i n gòç r o í? Tiégaai to v
fitai êójcijç fitpÃiov oa<pwç ebiibv ô ti á 6eàç tj v o v í iartv ij x a i ènéxEtvá t i to i) vav.
C f M eta p h . X I I 9, 10 74 b 30— 35. S im p lic ii v e r b a la tin e r e d d id it M o e r b e k e i t a
(ed. S c o t i 1544, 1. I I , f. 28 b): quod en im in tellig a t a liq u id et su p ra in tellectu m et
su p ra su bstan tiam A risto teles m a n ifesto n s est in calce libri D e O ralort (sic) pla ne
d icens quod D eu s est intellectu s aut et a liq u id ultra in tellectu m . — T e x tu s qu em
a d h ib e n t F a b r ic iu s -H a r le s I X 534 f ic t u s esse v id c t u r .
(51) E x p lic it — p h ilo so p h i a1, sim . b p l ., sim . in n o n n u llis co d d . e d . lo n g io r is p o s t

in tellectum || (52) F e c it — intellectu m a 2, b 1 b 5 n o n n u lli, c |] et a n te librum a d d . P a r.
14700 e t 7695 || de oratione sc. IJeg i iv%rjs || a liq u id o m . n o n n u lli ||
COM M EN TS
T h e V ita la tin a is n ot a v e rb a l tran slatio n of th e te x t of our V ita

M arciana. A com parison p aragraph by p arag rap h w ill g iv e us a
b asis fo r ou r conclusions.
V M 1 — 3 = V L 1 — 3. Macedo is n ot found in V M , b u t in W . ducitur
a quodam, m istak e of th e tran slator, famam et nutrim entum : the ex a ct
readin g in V M can n o t b e determ ined; (prifinjQ is in all p ro b ab ility
C o b et's retran slatio n of fam am; V V says xQoqjfjg.
V M 4 = V L 4, but con sid erab ly abrid ged and m ore like V V 3.
dictamen is v u lg a r latin for poema, I h a ve fou n d no citatio n earlier than
th e X I H t h cen tu ry , b u t accord in g to D u C an ge it is found in this sense
in m ed ieval V ocab u laria.
V M 5 = V L 5, b u t again th e lan gu age agrees m ore w ith W 4: P ythia
praecipiente = rrjg TlvQLac, xekevovarjg. moratus est cum eo tribus annis
= V V , b u t n ot at all in VM .
V M 6 — 7 = V L 6 — 7, b u t again tantam adeptus est dilectionem =
W 11. T h is fa ct, th a t again and again th e sam e phrases recur, a lth ou gh
th e arran gem en t is con sid erably changed, gives us an id ea of how these
ep itom ators w orked: th e elem ents of th e b io grap h y ( = th e original
ep itom e of P to le m y ’s V ita ) are com m on prop erty; th e ep itom ators fe lt
c o m p letely free to arrange th e fa cts according to their ow n ideas.
V M 8 = V L 8, b u t th e phrase SidaoxaXetov ngoeaxcbi; has caused
confusion; th e num erous m anuscripts of the V ita latin a can b e rou gh ly
d ivid ed in to fam ilies b y ob servin g th e m anner in w hich th is ph rase is
rendered.
V M 9 — 12 alm ost e x a c tly — V L 9 — 12. tempore E u d o xi help s us to
restore th e G reek te xt; th is phrase is in po in t of substance th e m ost
v a lu a b le con trib u tion of th e V ita la tin a to th e biographical trad ition.
T h e corresponding G reek w ords i m Evdo£ov h ave been exp lained in
va rio u s w a y s b y W ilam o w itz and Jacob y. In m y opinion th e y are easy
to un derstan d , if w e consider th e ch aracter and genesis of th is epitom e.
T h e u ltim a te source is Philochorus. A s an argu m en t in refu tin g th e

opinion th a t A risto tle w as an 6tpijiaBr]Q h e said som eth ing like this:
“ th is is n ot tru e, for A risto tle cam e to th e A ca d em y as a y o u n g m an,
w h en E u d o x u s deputized for P la to as head of th e sch ool” , ad din g th e
nam e of the archon of th e year. In w h a t m anner P to le m y abridged
or am plified P h ilo ch o ru s’ accou n t, w e do n ot know , b u t th e m an w ho
is responsible for the original ep itom e of P to le m y m erely said th a t
"A r is to tle join ed th e A ca d em y w hen E u d o x u s w a s sch olarch ” . I am
n o t sure th a t th e late neop laton ists understood b i l Evdo£ov. F in d in g
th is nam e am ong th e nam es of archons th e y m ay h a v e b elieved th a t
E u d o xu s was th e archon of th e year. T h e w ords ( i l ) ablatis — sicut
ip si aiunt are p ro b ab ly n othin g b u t an unsuccessful a tte m p t to interpret
th e G reek te x t
V M 13 = V L 13.
V M 14 = V L 14, m ittitur as in VM ; another reading in W . The
passage is abridged.
V M 15 = V L 15, cum eis shows th a t th e tran slator did n ot qu ite
un derstan d th e G reek te x t. T h is ty p e of tran slatio n is com m on in th e
first generation of tran slators a t th e end of th e X l l t h cen tu ry. H ere
our V ita M arciana has a shorter te x t th a n th a t used b y th e tran slator.
E t in magna parte fu it consors regni p ro b a b ly renders fieya ftegoQ wv
tfjQ fiaoikeiat;, b u t el cum esset magna pars is a verb al tran slatio n of the
sam e phrase, philosophiae — usus est renders (piXonoaorpLaq ogyava) xfj
dm’dfiei exQfjro, et m ultum laboravit pro grege is n o t found a t all in VM ,
b u t in V V w e read noXXa yag idwrjOr] nana rd> ftaotXr.l. B u t th e
“ a u th o r” of th e G reek V ita from w h ich th e V ita latin a w as tran slated
has n ot “ com piled ” his t e x t from our V ita M arciana and our V ita
latin a ; his te x t is a third v a ria n t of th e sam e origin al epitom e. The
origin al t e x t m a y h a ve run thus: o dt. q>iXoaoq>og fieya fiegoQ a>v
Trjc fiaaiXeiac; noXXa F.bvviqBrj naoa rtp ftamXp.i x a i (fiXoaafpiaq ogyavw
rfj S w dfiei ngog evitouav exgiioaxo.
V M 1 6 — 17 = V L 1 6 — 17, h u t slig h tly d ifferen t in the arran gem en t;
W to o is d ifferen t here.
V M 18 — i g — V L i g — 18, in reverse order. P h an ias, V M 17, T 27 d.
V M 20 = V L 20, e x a c tly th e sam e te x t.
V M 21 = V L 2 i, e x a c tly th e sam e te x t, b u t in V M 22 = V L 22 w e
can see th a t th e tra n sla to r did not u n derstan d th e G reek te x t, That
th is curious note occurs in V L proves th a t th e G reek origin al w as closely
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N l 6l
related to our V ita M arciana; it m u st h a ve been a G reek te x t used in

th e sam e school.
V M 23 = V L 23. H ere again w e fin d th a t VI/ giv es us a te x t w hich
is a m ix tu re o f V M and W .
V M 2 4 — 25 = V L 24— 25, e x a c tly th e sam e te x t; posterius proves
th a t th e tran slato r read voTF.gov, n ot ioTogrjoav.
F ro m now on th e V ita latin a disagrees c o m p letely w ith V ita M ar
ciana. W e su d d en ly find a lon g passage e x a c tly corresponding to the
te x t g iv en b y th e V ita v u lg a ta . V L 26 — 30 = W 7 — II. T h is is
an oth er argu m en t for m y opinion th a t th e a u th ors of these th ree
n eop laton ic V ita e used th e sam e m aterial.
In th e n e x t p aragraph w e m eet the te x t of our V ita M arciana again.
V L 31 = V M 29, ingenitum in d icates th a t our tra n sla to r read ayfrvyrnv,
V L 32 = V M 30, propria sensibilia, th e tra n sla to r read ISia a ia O rjT d
and tran slated lite ra lly . The error iv t. o 'lq ' JIQixoiq = in E lhicis
sup ports w h a t I h a ve said in m y n ote on {21). T h e q u otation from
De anima is lite r a lly tran slated ; th e tran slato r h as fallen victim to the
sam e m istak e as th e a u th or of th e G reek original.
V M 3 1 — 34 = V L 3 3 —3 4 , e x a c tly the sam e te x t, b u t it is curious
to ob serve th a t th e tran slato r did n ot un derstan d ovra b u t tendered
i t hominem existentem.
V M 3 5 — 38 = V L 35 — 38, w ith th e sam e ty p e of m istakes: P oliens,
proprie dictionibus utens.
V L 39 (theology) = W 2 8 - 2 9 , the agreem ent is com plete, ju s t as
in V L 26 — 30 = W 7 — 11.
V L 40 — V M 4, th e second part. In tran scrib in g th e t e x t w hich
corresponds to V M 4 th e a u th o r of the G reek origin al happened to
o m it m ore th a n h alf of th e te x t; he ad ded it here; th e L a tin tran slation
follow s his arrangem ent. P h ilip ’s d ictu m is om itted.
V L 41 = W 25, not found in VM.
V L 42 = W 26. In V M 40 w e fin d an oth er te x t, v e ry abridged.
V L 43 = V M 41, e x a c tly th e sam e te x t.
V L 44 — V M 42, b u t th e im p o rta n t w ords a b ou t his sta tu s as a
m etic are om itted.
V L 45 = V V 30, com plete agreem ent, but th e la s t sen tence is
om itted.
V L 46 = V M 43, b u t in Calchide in stead of ix£ u ib .
V L 4 7 — 49 — V M 4 4 — 46, com plete agreem ent.
Goteb. U n iv . j 4r s s ir . L X I I I . - 2 II
V L 50 = V M 47, b u t the exam ples given in V M 48— 5 ° are lackin g.

A fte r th e end of th e V ita w e find an oth er ad dition from Sim plicius,
V L 52. T h is seem s to be an ad dition m ade a fte r M oerbeke's tran slation
of S im pliciu s (see th e testim onia).
Conclusions. O ur V ita latin a is tra n sla ted from a G reek origin al
cu rren t in th e sam e neoplatonic school as th a t in w hich th e V ita M ar-
cian a w a s used. T h is G reek origin al is n ot a com pilation m ad e from
th e tw o e x ta n t G reek V ita e , b u t a th ird v a r ia n t of th e sam e origin al
epitom e, used co n tin u a lly in th e n eop laton ic schools (G reek and S yrian)
a t lea st from th e tim e of Am m onius u n til th e schools w ere closed tow ard s
th e end of th e six th cen tu ry.
T h e relationship b etw een th e th ree V ita e is rath er com plicated . It
is easier understood if w e d istin guish b etw een w h a t m igh t b e called
the groun d w ork, an d the in d ivid u al additions. T h e grou n d w ork is
com m on p ro p erty and d erived from th e epitom e of P to le m y s V ita or
from th is V ita itself; it is in fa c t possible th a t th e origin al t e x t of P to le
m y ’s V ita w as k now n to E lias.
V ita M arciana and th e G reek original of our V ita la tin a preserve this
groun d w ork w ith o u t chan gin g th e lan gu age, b u t th e y d iffer consid erably
in th eir selection and arran gem en t of th e m aterial. I f w e look solely
a t those elem ents w h ich form th e grou n d w ork, w e m u st conclude th a t
these tw o V ita e are clo sely related an d p ro b a b ly earlier th a n th e V ita
v u lg a ta . T h e m an w h o w ro te dow n th e V ita v u lg a ta used a m ore
colloquial lan gu age, even in tran scrib in g passages from th e grou n d
w ork. T h is differen ce in lan gu ag e does n o t in itse lf c o n stitu te an argu
m en t for assigning th e V it a v u lg a ta to a later date; it m erely tells us
th a t th e “ a u th o r” of th e V ita v u lg a ta w as less c o n serv a tive in his
lan gu age th a n th e “ a u th o rs” of th e tw o oth er V itae .
T h e in d iv id u a l additions, how ever, g iv e us som e u sefu l ind ications
w h ich m a y help us to assign a re la tiv e d ate to each of th e three
V ita e .
T h e V ita L a tin a contain s no d o xograp h ic ad ditio n s of such a ch ara cter
th a t w e h a v e to assum e th a t th e y are ta k e n from S im pliciu s, ap a rt
from (52) w h ich seem s to b e an ad dition m ad e in th e th irtee n th
cen tu ry . W e m u st rem em ber th a t m uch of th e m aterial in th e n eop la
ton ic com m en taries (in a w id e sense, in clu d in g Sim pliciu s and P hiloponus)
is in h erited from w rite r to w riter; a general agreem ent in su b stance
does not im p ly th a t a certain passage is tran scrib ed from a certain
w riter; o n ly w hen th e agreem ent is alm o st com plete, b o th in substance

and lan guage, w e are ju stifie d to in fer a close relationship.
T h is is th e case in V M 4 7 — 50. T h ese paragrap h s m u st h a ve been
added a fte r th e tim e of Sim plicius.
In th e V ita v u lg a ta w e fin d a t lea st th ree certain traces of close
relation ship to E lia s (paragraphs 12, 14 and 18).
M y conclusion is therefore th a t th e G reek origin al of our V ita latin a
is th e earliest version; V ita v u lg a ta w as used b y E lia s or in his school;
our V ita M arciana did not e x is t in its present form u n til a fte r Sim plicius.
MEDIEVAL VITA E ARISTOTELIS
T h e L a tin tran slation of th e n eop laton ic L ife of A risto tle w as m ade
som e tim e in th e b egin nin g of th e X I H t h cen tu ry . Joh n S alisb u ry
a p p a re n tly did n o t know th e V ita , eith er in G reek or L a tin . R ose
b elieved th a t O tto of F riesin g h ad seen th e L a tin V ita . O tto says,
Chronic. I I 8, p. 75 H ofm eister: Socrates . . . educavit Plalonem et A ris-
totilem . . . Sed Platonem qui praefati Aristotilis non solum apud Socratem
condiscipulus sed et -post mortem Socratis praeceptor fuit, longe post
Hieremiam fuisse. T h is is too general to allow a n y certain conclusions;
he m a y h a v e seen th is in V ita latin a 5 (or th e G reek original), b u t on
th e o th er hand, if he h ad k n ow n th e V ita , his inform ation on A risto tle
w ould n ot h a v e been so exceed in gly m eagre as appears from his w ork.
T he earliest q u o ta tio n s from th e V ita la tin a are found in R o ger B acon
(see T 8), A lb ert M agnus (see R ose, Pseudep. p . 590) an d in th e Specu
lum histonale of V in cen t de B ea u va is, all som ew h at earlier th a n Joann es
V alen sis. B acon q u otes B ede (T 8) as an a u th o rity , and from his
w ords i t em erges th a t B ed e m u st h a ve know n th e n eop laton ic V ita
A risto telis, p resu m a b ly th e V ita v u lg a ta and n o t a L a tin V ita .
Joannes V alensis.
Joan n es V alen sis (or G allensis), “ ordinis fratru m m inorum d octor in

th e o lo y a ” in P aris, died 1285, is th e au th or of a com pilation D e v ita
A risto telis.1) I h a v e seen it in an edition, in th e possession of W a lte r ’s
A r t G a lle ry , B altim o re, w ith th e title: Sum m a Joan nis Valensis de
regimine vite humane seu margarita doctorum ad omne propositum.
V en etiis per G eorgium de A rriv ab en is M an tu an u m 1496. T h e section
ff. 1 6 7 — 232 is en titled C om pendiloquium de v itis illu striu m philoso-
ph orum , and sectio n I I I 5, 1 — 7, ff. 196 b — 202 b, D e v it a A ristotelis.
i) S e e a b o v e p . 25 a n d t h e n o te s in V . R o s e , D e A r is to te lis Hbrorum ordine et

auctoritate, B e r lin 1854, p p . 245 a n d 248.
A fte r (a) a b rief in trod u ction follow s (b) T ra c ta tu s de v ita eius tia n s-
la tu s de greco in latin um . T h is is our w eltkn ow n V ita latin a in the
shorter edition; th e te x t is of th e ty p e w hich I h a v e called a2 and has
no v a r ia n t readings w o rth an n otatin g. A n ote in his in trod u ction proves
th a t h e has found th e tran slatio n som ew here and does n o t k n ow its
origin ator: antequam colligantur quae de eo dicta sunt in diversis libris
scribatur tractatus de vita eius translatus de greco in latinum ut dicitur,
m axime quia non habetur a m ultis communiter. A fte r the V ita follow
(c) his ow n com m ents w ith qu otation s from St. A u g u stin e = T 39 c,
(d) quotation s from Cicero on A risto tle , (e) a m ed ieval poem , d ifferen t
from th e one d ea lt w ith below , b u t of no in terest, (f) q u otation s from
G ellius, P lin y , G regorius — T 48 b, and th e d ictu m calamum in mente
tingebat = 40 e d), w hich h e ascribes to P o rp h y ry , and fin a lly (h)
ex tra cts from th e m ed ieval A ristotle-legen d of P ersian origin, on w hich
see m y p a p er ‘ ‘V o n A ristoteles bis L e ib n iz ” , in: A n tike und Abendland
IV , 1954, p. 145, n ote 58. In la te r editions of th e Comp end iloquium
th e origin al te x t is som etim es con sid erably ch an ged b y la ter interpola
tion s from W a lte r B u rleig h ’s w ork. B u rleig h ’s m odern ed ito r H . K n u st,
w h o inspected an edition from 15 1 8 1) w as therefore led to conclude th a t
Joannes had used B u rleig h as his source, w h ich of course is im possible.
Walter Burleigh.
T h e n e x t a tte m p t to w rite a life of A risto tle w as m ade b y W a lter

B u rleigh (or B u rley), born a b o u t 1275, and 1305 fellow of M erton
C ollege in O xford , a disciple of D u n s S cotu s. H is Liber de vita et moribus
philosophorum is ed ited b y H . K n u s t in: B ibl. des litt. Vereins in Stutt
gart, N . 177, T u b in gen 1886. B u rleigh 's b ook is of course fu ll of m is
tak es: he confuses S o cra tes— Isocrates, X en o p h a n e s— X en op h o n , A gesi-
lau s — A rcesilaus etc., w h ich is easily u n derstan d ab le to e v e ry b o d y w ho
has seen h ow G reek proper nam es are m a ltrea te d in L a tin m ed ieval
m anuscripts. B u t in sp ite of such gross errors B u rleig h ’ s w ork is more
th an a sim ple com pilation, like th e Compendiloquiutn. I t has rig h tly
b een said th a t th is book is th e first E u ro p ea n attem p t, a fter P o rp h y ry ,
to w rite a h isto ry of philosophy; B u rleigh is a forerunner of Ionsius.
i) S u m m a J o a n n is W a llcn sis de regim ine v ile hum ane seu tir id a r iu m doclorum
e x o p tim is qu ibusque authoribus com porlata . . . im p ressa per . . . J Knot>!<iucli e t
P . G e tz . A r g e n t in a e 15 18 .
i6 6 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
H is con cep tion of A risto tle is po or or, s tr ic tly speaking, non-existent;

he is a collector of fa cts and b e tra y s no in terest in th e personalities he
is describing. T h e b ook w as v e r y p o pu lar and w a s tra n sla ted into G er
m an, S pan ish an d Ita lia n . N ineteen p rin ted editions are know n.
B u rleig h ’s V ita is based on our t e x t of th e V it a latin a , fa m ily c1,
b u t he has used m an y sources, in clu d in g th e A ra b ic V ita e . A fte r V L 7
he inserts from G ellius th e fic titio u s le tte r = T 30 f. A fte r V L 8 w e
fin d the follow ing note, com piled from th e A ra b ic trad itio n , cf. M uba-
shir 20, 21 and 26, F ih rist 12, Post mortem autem P la ton is scolas eius
assumpsit Aristotiles et docendo philosophiam multos discipulos conqui-
sivit. Tandem invidus quidam sacerdos suasit Atheniensibus, ut Aristo-
tilem cogerent idola adorare(\), quod senciens Aristotiles inde recedens ad
terram suarn Stragmiam se reduxit metu compulsus, ne id sibi inferrent
quod Socrati intulerant (cf. V it. vu lg . 19) quem perimerunt veneno. Ibique
vacabat elemosinis insistendo pupillos et orphanos maritando et eosdem
gubernando. T h e la s t sen tence is found o n ly in th e A ra b ic trad ition.
A fte r th is follow s a collection of apoph thegm s, m ost of w hich seem to
be d erived from th e A ra b ic trad itio n , too; then a sim ilar collection
com piled from Joan n es V alen sis, V in c e n t of B ea u v a is and oth er m ed ieval
sources; th en those co llected b y D iogenes L aertiu s; fin a lly th e in scrip
tion on A r is to tle ’s sign et e x a c tly as g iv e n b y U sa ib ia F , see p. 218.
A fte r th is follow s an ep itom e of th e Liber de secretis secretorum, w ith
m an y distortions.
T h e n e x t p a rag ra p h is = V L 41 ■w ith ad ditions b y th e au thor. H ere
he has in serted a n ote from J o h n S alisb u ry: F acundus autem fint
eloquio sed uberior sensibus, agilitatem corporis et perspicaciam ingenii
habens (see T 71 e). A fte r h a v in g said th a t A ris to tle reached th e age
of 62 yea rs, he adds th e sto ry to ld b y G ellius, T 47.
T h en follow s a cata lo g u e of A ris to tle ’s w ritin g s com piled from variou s
sources. F ro m th e title s g iv en and esp ecially th e arran gem en t of
certain titles, it is clear th a t B u rleig h k n e w n o t o n ly th e c a talo g u e in
D iogenes b u t also th a t contain ed in th e V ita H esych ii. I can n o t fin d
a n y certa in tra ces of P to le m y ’s catalogu e. H e h as rearran ged th e
titles ro u g h ly accord in g to su b ject-m atter: logic, n atu ra l ph ilosop h y
and b io logy, rh etoric, va rio u s h y p o m n em a tic w ritin g s, eth ics and
politics. I t is possible, th o u gh n o t necessary, to assum e th a t h e w as
inspired to th is arran gem en t b y P to le m y s catalogu e. T h e title s of th e
dialogues are d istrib u te d rath er a rb itra rily am ong th e oth er w ritings,
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION ™7
ap p a ren tly accordin g to h is id eas a b o u t th e ir su b ject-m atter. H is list

con tain s no title s u n kn ow n to us, an d I rega rd it as superfluous to
b o th e r th e reader w ith m y an alysis of h is som etim es rath er a w kw ar
tran slatio n s of th e G reek titles.
A fte r th e catalo g u e follow s a n ote com posed of V L 23, D L 34 ^ (but
trecentos), and V L 4^-

I do n ot k n ow th rou gh w h ich channels B u rleig h o b tain ed his know
led ge of th e A ra b ic tra d itio n on A risto tle ’s life; h e m u st h a v e use
S panish or L a tin tran slations.
Aristotle, a forerunner of Christ.

In his b o o k D e vanitate scientiarum Cornelius A g n p p a reports th a t
th e professors of th e o lo g y in C ologne h a v e p u b lish ed a trea tise De
Salute aeterna Aristotelis an d a m etrical trea tise De vita et morte Anstote-
lis T h e H e n ry E . H u n tin g to n L ib r a r y in S an M arino Ca. has k in d ly
p ro v id e d m e w ith a m icrofilm of th e v e r y rare in cu n ab u lu m contain ing
th is poem under th e title Liber de V ila et morte Aristotelis m etnce con-
scripta cum glossa interUneali. (no d a te or printer). I t is also p rinted in
Problemata Arestotelis determinantia multas questiones . . . cum eius em
Arestotelis V ita et morte metrice descripta subiunctis metrorum cum inter
Uneali glosa sententialibus expositionibus, (no d ate or printer) of w hich
T h e B ritish M useum L ib r a r y has k in d ly provided a m icrofilm . A ccord in g
to th e catalogu es, th e edition of th e Problemata is said to b e p rm te
before th e Liber de V ita, b u t a com parison of th e t e x t in d icates th a t
th e reverse m ig h t be true. B u t since I do n ot know a n y th in g a b o u t th e
m anuscrip ts and n e x t to n othin g a b o u t th e tech n iq u e of th e in cu n a
b u la I can n o t decide th e question.
C. A. H eu m an n tells us th a t a friend of his fou n d th e Problemata
“ in eines arm en B a u te n B ib lio th ec u n w eit G ö ttin g en ” , and he published
th e m etrical trea tise (“ diese R a r itä t” ) in his Acta philosophorum X V
H a lle 1724, a v e r y su itab le h a ven of rest for th is curious p rod u ct of
th e C ologne schoolm en. W e fin d here th e often q u oted words:
Regula nature divino fulgida iure,

Exem plar gratum dante natura creatum,
lu s tic ie norma, veri pulcherrim i forma,
Cellula virtutis, supreme gaza salutis.
i6 8 IN G E M A » D I K I N G
T h e “ poem ” com prises 412 lines (408 in th e Problemata and in H eu m an n s

edition), and th e la s t fo r ty lines are a parap h rasis of th e Liber de pomo,
recen tly ed ited b y M. P le zia.1) T h e poem is p ro b a b ly com posed in the
m iddle of th e X lV t h cen tu ry.
Leonardo Bruno Aretinus.
L eon ard o w as born in A rezzo 1369 and died 1 4 4 4 - H e w as one of

th e earliest disciples of C h ry so lo ia s in F loren ce, and a fterw ard s a v e r y
in fluen tiou s an d celeb rated m an, secreta ry to In n o cen tiu s V I I and the
fou r follow in g popes, th e la st of w hom w a s th e fam ous M artin V . He
w as a g rea t friend of P oggio. H e w ro te a life of A risto tle , d ed icated to
N ico lao A lb erg a ti, card in al of th e H o ly Cross in Jerusalem . S ince
A lb erg a ti was m ade a card in al b y M artin V , the V ita is p ro b a b ly w ritten
ab o u t 1430. I giv e th e t e x t here a fter a late m anuscript, cod. M usei
B rit. A dd. 27 491, f. 40 a (olim 46) — 48 a (54):
Leonardi A retin i A ristotilis vita in cip it, ad

Cardinalem S. Crucis.
Quanta nobis Aristotiles philosophus atque adeo generi humano benejicia

contulerit et ad disciplinarum omnium laudem et ad virlutem morumque
laudatissitnam comparationem omnes intelligunt. Q uis vero ipse fuerit
et quibus maioribus ortus et per quos studiorum gradus curriculum vitae
traduxerit et ubinam gentium vixerit obieritque, nemo fere cognovit. Ex
quo fit ut ingrati quodam modo reperiamur, beneficia quidem prompte
suscipientes, auctorem vero beneficiorum non curantes agnoscere. Ego
igitur hanc partem sum m i viri ignoratam p rius omnibus atque obscuram
in lucem prodere constitui. ltaque vitam eius ac mores et cetera quae ad
hanc spectant partem in hoc libro conieci, coUigens undique atque convertens
quae ad cognitionem eiusm odi viri pertinere videbantur. A d te potissim um
destinavi hunc librum , quod iam pridem compertum habebam te inter
m axim as occupationes tuas lectione cognitioneque summorum virorum
plurim um delectari. N otitia quippe rerum earum non dubito ut apud te
et alios praestantes ingenio viros et auctorilas huius philosophi et amor
augescat.
») Eos 47 , 1954 (pi- 1956). pp- 19 1— 217: o n th e A r a b ic o rig in a l se e J. K r a e m e r ,

in: S tu d i o tie n la listic i in onore d i G . L . della V id a , R o m a 1956, I, pp. 4^4 5°6-
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N l6 g
Aristotiles philosophus ex oppido fu ii nom ine Stagira obscuro quidem

per se n isi quod huius viri claritate refulsit. Pairem vero habuit Nicomachum
medicinae professorem artis. Genus paternum in M achaonem E scu lap ii
filiu m continuata certissimaque successione referebat. Ip se vero N ico-
machus apud Am yntam , Macedoniae regem, P h ilip p i pairem, et medici
et a m id locum obtinens multunt et gratia et opibus in regno potuerat.
E x hoc Aristotiles natus est anno primo, ut quidam tradunt, nonagesimae
nonae olym piadis. Matrem quoque habuit non obscuri generis nomine
Phestiada.
Aristotiles auteiti firima aetate in M acedonia educaius, ubi adolescere
coepit, Aihenas studiorum gratia m issus cum caeteris operam disciplin is
haud mediocrem dedisset, tandem P latoni per id tempus Academ iam mira
discipulorum celebritate incolenti in philosophia adhaesit.
D edm oseptim o aetatis anno fuisse perhibent cum Platonem audire
prim um incepit. E iu s d iscip lin is X X annis perseveravit auditor, nihil
omittens ex his artibus quae ad summum futurum philosophum pertmere
videbantur. Erat in eo acriias ingenii summa nec sane minor aut vigilantia
aut sedulitas. Cupiditate vero discendi ita flagrabat ut nullum disciplina-
rum genus sibi incognitum paleretur. Itaque non in utraque modo philo
sophia praeslitit sed in dialectid s et mathem atids longe prim us habebatur.
N ec in his tantum sed et rhetoricae et poeseos perfectam quandam cogni-
tionem adiunxerat, historiae vero ita curiosus ut neque caelo neque terra
neque mari quicquam relinquere vellet in c o g n itu m in d o le praeterea mira-
bili ut ad singula natum praecipue dicas, ut et carmina ah eo pulcherrime
scripta et soluiae oraiioms copia ornatusque ostendit.
M ortuo Platone ad Hermiam Atarnei tyrannum profectus triennio fere
apud ilium desedit. H anc eius moram nonnulli obiredatores vehementer
carpsere quasi parum philosopho congruentem, laceraturque hoc in loco
m axime pro a ndlla e cuiusdam amoribus paene insanis, quorum gratia
ilium desedisse apud Hermiam quidam scripsere.
Exstatque in eum epigramma nobile Theocriti C h ii am arissim is sane
verbis obscenitatem et desidiam illi exprobrantis. Sed haec omnia ut
falsa et ab obtrectatoribus ficta existimem, facit quod mox inde protinus in
Macedoniam evocatus a P h ilip p o et aliis rebus auctus honestatusque est,
et Alexandro filio in disciplinam tradito maximam auctoritatem in regno
promeruit. N am illuc quidem adduci non possum ut existimem hominem
m inus integra fama in eo ipso tempore a praestantissimo rege aut iantopere
appetitum evocatumque aut unicum tantae spei filiu m huic potissime
170 IN G E M A S D Ü R IN G
creditum. E t sim ul a Demetrio M agnesio scriptum reperio, necessitudinem

quandam A risto iili cum Hermia fuisse quod eius neptem in matrimonio
haberet eoque veluii officio retentum penes ilium fuisse.
Sed postquam in Macedoniam rediit, honore ac dignitate longe prim us
habebatur, ut admiraretur eius sapientiam rex et quasi decus ingens regni
ac felicitatem suorum lemporum existimaret. Apparet id in epislola
P h ilip p i quant ad Aristotilem de Alexandro scripsit. “ D iis, inquit, grattas
habeo non tam proinde quant natus est quam pro eo quod nasci contigit
temporibus vitae tuae. Spero enirn fore ut educatus eruditusque a te dignus
existât et nobis et istarum reruin susceptione .
Decern ferme annos circa Alexandrum fuisse videtur, nec lamen in eo
solum occupatus. Sed et per id tempus multa per se ipsum , multa et per
regis potentiam inquirens occultissima naturae indagabat.1)
Alexandro deinde in A sia m cum exercitu commigrante ipse Athenas
rediit ac sui copiam in Lycaeo exhibere incepit, Xenocrate per id tempus
Academ iam obtinente. Docebat vero plerumque inambulans auditorum
turba circum fusus, ex quo ipse sectatoresque eius Peripatetici phtlosophi
nuncupati sunt. Su nt tamen qui tradant partem illam gymnasii in qua
docebat Peripatum , i. e. deambulatorium, fuisse. Itaque ut Academ ici
Stoicique a loco dicti sunt, sic et Peripateticos de loco ipso cognomentum
suscepisse.
Tredecim annis in Lycaeo florentissime docuit compluresque sua disci
plina clarissimos viros effecit. Tandem ilia communi philosophorum invi-
dia quod non recte de D iis sentiret accusatus, metuens ne ut quondam
Socrati sic eliam sibi in iudicio pereunâum foret, A n tipatri quoque ami-
citiam, qui tune A theniensibus odiosus erat, ne sibi noceret form idans2) ,
deserta sui defensione Chalcidem abiit, ibique de cetero fu it quoad e vita
decessit.
N u n c vero quidem cursu quodam celerrimo praetervecti spatium illiu s
vitae conspeximus. Flectenda iterum ratis est ad mores eius viri et domestici
usus quasi figuram disciplinam que et librorum ab eo scriptorum m ulti-
tudinem intuendam.
1) T h a t A r is t o t le w o r k e d in t h e fie ld s o f z o o lo g y a n d b io lo g y d u r in g h is s t a y in
M a c e d o n ia is a c o n c lu s io n d r a w n in m o d e rn tim e fr o m t h e o c c u rre n c e o f c e r ta in
p la c e -n a m e s in h is b io lo g ic w r it in g s a n d o th e r c irc u m s ta n c e s . I t is n o t m e n tio n e d
in any a n c ie n t so u rc e know n to m e. L eo n ard o m a y h a v e in fe rr e d t h is fro m
P lin y = T 26 a.
■) T h is is n o t fo u n d in a n y a n c ie n t sou rce.
Form a quidem fu it haudquaquam conspícua; duobus tamen praecipue
dehonestabatur, gracilitate crurum et pusillitate oculorum. Itaque quo
dignitatem quandam redimeret adversus corporis vitia, et vestiiu paulo
m signiori utehatur et anulis digitos honestabat, et tonsuram ceterumque
corporis cultum de industria adhibebat, cum tamen reliqua in vita modestis-
sim us esset. M ores autem in eo graves et obscenitate ridiculoque alieni
fuerunt, ceterum mites et qui benignitatem potius haberent quam prae se
ferrent. E xstat eius humanitas atque dilectio in patriam, in suos, in
fam iliam , in discipulos, in omne denique genus hum anum quam paulo
post per singula persequamur. Patrim onium i) fu it illi satis amplum,
cum ex hereditate paterna tum ex regum largitione. N am et praedia in
Stagiris habuit et reditus, ex quibus modeste sim ul liberaliterque vitam
duxit cum uxore, filiis et am icis. Plenam illiu s domum servis fu isse nec
maribus modo verum et fem in is, testamento eius apparet. Memorat enim
permultos utriusque generis, deinde mandat neminem venumdari eorum
qui sibi serviverint, sed liberos dim itti, quibusdam tamen in servitio filiorum
uxorisque nom inatim relictis.
Uxores vero habuit duas, P h itaid a scilicet et Herpilidem , quarum
P hitaida a lii filia m , a lii neptem Hermiae A ta rn ei de quo supra dixim us.
H erpilidem vero plerique ancillam eius fu isse tradidere, mortuaque uxore
prim o consuetudine ab eo receptam mox procreatis filiis pro uxore habitam.
E x hac H erpilide N icom achus filiu s illi natus est, ad quem sunt Eihicorum
libri, et filia 2) N icanori desponsata.
Stagira urbs a P h ilip p o eversa ut restitueretur ab rege obtinuit legesque
et formam reipublicae ipse descripsit qua posimodum ea civitas usa est,
habuitque licet absens diligentissim am patriae curam?) Cives autem ob
haec merita tanto in honore illu m habuere, ut festos dies et ludos quotannis
etiam eo vivente4) faciendos illi publice dedicarent. Festa ipsa celebritas
Aristotelia nuncupata. E t in patria quidem haec illiu s beneficia exstant.6)
In suos vero ac necessários tanta caritate benevolentiaque fu it, ut
paene supérflua atque nim ia illiu s observantia videatur. N icanore genero
aegrotante pro eo vota fecit: si incolumitatem reciperet statuas se duas,
alteram lo v i servatori, alteram Iu n o n i sospitae, dedicaturum.
’ ) N o t e x a c t ly so in a n y a n c ie n t so u rc e .
s) O n e o f th e fe w m is ta k e s in t h is a c c o u n t.
s) P o s s ib ly fr o m V a le r iu s M a x . = T 27 b.
4) N o t in a n y a n c ie n t sou rce.
l ) P o s s ib ly fr o m M a n d e v ille = T 27 k .
T„ „ IN G E M A S D Ü R IN G
1/ Z
D iscip u lis vero m ultum delulit; amavitque unice praeserhm eos qui
exceli er e visi sunt. Exstant eius in Theophrastum permulta cantaUs
amorisque indicia, et iUud in prim is quod ipsum , hcet imparem genere
tamen generum sibi testamento désignât, si quid N tcanori contigen .
profiter quod alten filia tradenda foret. Curam vero omnem filiorum ac
rerutti suarum arbitrio fideique propinquorum discipulorum que commisit
Antipatro dumtaxat ob honorem adiecto. Callisthenem vero usque adeo
amavit ut adversus Alexandrum regem gravíssimas im m icitias pro eo
suscipere non dubitaverit. F u it autem Callisthenes A ristotilis d isciPul»s
necessitudine etiam quadam materna stirpe sibi coniunetus excellentissim a
disciplin a iuvenis. H ic ad regem ab Aristotile m issus, cum in A sia m
ilium prosequeretur, quasi Herm olai coniuratiom s auctor ab Alexandra
interfectus est. Atque constat falso obiectum M i coniuratiom s crimen.
Ceterum odiosum faciebat regi nim ia in disputando libertas et contentionum
pertinacia. Quam ob causam interfectus ab M o putatur. T u lit igitur
huius necem perindigne Aristotiles nec verbis et querehs hberioribus
fiefiercit. H in c et regis infensio secuta est non latens neque obscura. Itaque
ad A ntipatrum scribens Alexander cum huius ccmiuratwms mentionem
fecisset sese exadurum poenas m inilatur non a CaUisthene modo verum
et ab his qui iliu m ad se m isissent, de Aristotile non dubie sentiens. M issaque
per idem temPus ab Alexandra dona Xenocrati am plissim a fuerunt, non
tarn ut illu m honoraret quam ut Aristotüem a se praeteritum desP ectumque
ostenderet. E t Aristotiles posthac celatim favisse A ntipatro quo regnum
M acedoniae retinezet existim atus «si.1)
Tempora quibus A then is fu it inquieta porro difficiliaque fuere, p n m o
ob timorem A lexan dri post Thebas eversas civesque expostulatos. m ox ob
A n tipa tri s u s p ic io n s atque certamina. Quo qmdem tempore principes
Uli oralores Demosthenes Hyperides Demades E schines diversa m republica
sentientes crebris turbulentisque contionibusque omma commiscebant.
T u tu s tamen inter has procellas Aristotiles fu it usque ad A n tip a tri tempora.
nui Alexandra defuncto M acedoniae potitus est regno. T u n c ab t u r y -
'medonte (Aurimedonte cod.) die sibi dicta, cum in iu d iä u m vacardur.
defensionem prim o aggressus est orationemque pro se quam diceret lu d icia -
lem perscripsit. M o x veritus iudicum im peritiam et accusatoris gratiam
deserere iu d iä u m ante diem canstituit. lta Chalcidem fugtens ibi posthac
fuit non solum uxore et liberis verum etiam auditonbus') plensque eo se
transferentibus.
1) N o t fo u n d in a n y a n c ie n t so u rc e .
D iscípulos vero habuit complures quorum praecipui Theophrastus et

Menedem us (sic pro: Eudem us) et A ristoxenus qui postea M u sicu s cog-
nominatus est. N am Callisthenem omnibus praecellentem violentia regis
abstulerat. Theophrastus et M enedem us principes relicti et quidem ex
ip siu s sententia iudicioque supremo. Fertur enim (sequitur n atratitin cu la
ex A u lo G ellio X I I I 5 deprom pta),
N ec tamen ea cautela vitare potuit quin aliqui perinde quasi non recte
spreti ab eo atque posthabiti offenderentitr, quorum unus Aristoxenus
fuisse creditur, ut postea scriptis eius deprehensum est. H ic Aristoxenus
genere fu it I talus, patria Tarentinus, et propter excdlentiam eius artis
M u sicu s est cognominatus.
M igravit autem e vita Aristotiles anno aetatis suae sexagesimo tertio,
post Romam vero conditam quadringentesimo trigésimo secundo. Eodemque
ipso anno Demosthenes orator A then is profugus in Ita lia 1) et Aristotiles
etiam A then is profugus in E uboia diem obiere.
N ec defuit ab A ristotilis obitu veneni suspicio, sed et fama fu it et manda-
runt quidam libris potato ilium aconito voluntarie interisse; quod falsum
est. Q uid enim opus fu it solum verlere et A thenis fugere, si voluntarie erat
obiturus? A n non ut in Euboia sic etiam A thenis potare aconilum et
fin ire vitam licebat? Arguit praeterea testamenti series in Euboia conditi
quae aliena protinus a voluntaria morte conspicitur. S ic enim incipit:
“ E run t omnia recte: si tamen quid contingat, Aristotiles testamentum
suum in hune modum fecit."
Hoc autem principium quis non videt non desperantis esse hom inis sed
vitam affectantis? Cum etiam omen vitet moriendi, et recte cuncta fore
dicat, si vita supersit. C um illis ergo sentio qui morbo interisse ilium
tradidere qui et plures sunt et certiores auctores.
Haec de moribus eius usuque doméstico rettulisse sat esto. N on enim
haec tam diligenter in philosophis spedanda sunt quam studia eorum
praeclaramque disciplinam intuendum ; de quibus iam dicere ordiemur.
Vivo adhuc Platone in m ultis ab eo distare coeperat, nec deerant plane
iam qui Aristotilem sectarentur. N ec tamen in summa rerum inter eos
quidem philosophos contrarietas esse putatur aut dissensio. Eadem enim
videntur sectari Academ ici veteres ac Peripatetici, a Socratis Platonisque
disciplin a ambo fluentes, eandemque de virtutibus et moribus, de bonis
et m alis, de natura rerum, de immortalitate animorum opinionem habentes.
Itaque in genere quidem ipso ac summa rerum nequaquam inter illos
*) L e o n a r d o h a s m is in te r p re te d D L V i o a n d re a d in Calabria.
d is c r e p a n tia est, in partícu la vero et m ediis1) quoque distare illos adversari

a l apparet. F u it enim Plato vir sin g u la rs quidem ac per ( e x ) c e lle d mul-
tarum ac variarum rerum s c ie n iia praeditus: eloquentia vero tanta ut supra
hominem sese attollere illiu s eloquium videatur. Caeierum traditiones eius
interdum tales sunt ut assensu bonae mentis potius quam p robations
necessitate nitantur. N am de natura anim i ipsiusque transm igration
discessioneque in corpora permulta traduntur ab Mo prolata magis hom m i-
bus quam probata. E t in optimo civitatis statu constituendo ea nonnumquam
sentit quae ab hoc nostro u su consuetudineque vivendi plurim um abhorrent.
M ulieres enim communes om nium esse censet, quo n ih il despicabihus
cogitari potest: jilio s vero ita incertos ut nemo neque suos neque ahenos
queat agnoscere. Patrim oniorum autem iura sustulit atque omnia omnium
communia esse voluit. Contra haec igitur et huiusm odi remtens A n stotiles
cum probabilem adversandi materiam nactus esset, etiam vivo Platone
sectatores reperiebat. Praeterea dodrina Platonis varia est et incerta.
Socrates enim ubique inductus nullo disciplinarum ordme quasi a carcere
ad calcem discurrit; sed modo hoc modo illu d pro arbítrio agit et tn dis
putando non tam quae ipse sentiat dicere videtur quam ahorum sentenhas
dictaque refellere. Aristotiles vero et cautior in tradendo fu it (nihil enim
aggreditur quad probare non possit) et moderatior in opinando, ut haec
quae in usu vitaque comm uni versantur adiuvare, non aliena et abhorrentia
et nunquam profutura meditari iliu m appareat. A d haec ip sis in rebus
explicatio seriosa atque perdiligens, ut sive logice sive physice sive ethice
tradat, c o n tin u a i ubique doctnna sit et ab ipsis prim ordns rerum ad
jin em usque perducta scientia, tamquam pater düigens qui non solum
genuisse filios ] sed per pueriiiam adulescentiamque educatos non p n u s
deserat quam continuato diligentiae studio in viros traduxent. Haec
autem continuatio diligentiaque doctrinae in Platane non fuit, sive üle
non putaverit oportere sive noluerit sive parva m inutaque et quasi disciph-
narum elementa contempserit. Itaque illiu s libri perfectis mm robushsque
disciplina hom inibus aptiores sunt, teneros vero instituere non satis possunt.
A ristotili vero perm ultum débet hum anum genus, quod disciplinas ante
se varie dispersas in unum quasi corpus singulas redigere nobisque eas
tradere dignatus est. Itaque qui discere volunt, hune am plectan oportet,
cuius libri descripti sunt ut et parvulos instituere et medíocres alere et
robustos exercere ac perficere voluisse ilium appareat ac om ms aetatis
nostrae curam cogitationemque suscepisse. N ec phüosophiae solum,
*) S ic c o d e x , fo r ta s s e le g e n d u m m ethodis.
17 5
quamquam in ilia eminet, sed aliarum quoque sive artium sive facultatum
curiosissim us fuit. N am et rhetoricam artem pluribus voluminibus om-
nemque illiu s vim naturam ornatumque explicuit. E t de poetica multa
perscripsit et utriusque harum studiosissim us fuit.
Exercuisse vero in eloquentia iuvenes ac postmeridiano tempore prae-
cepta dicendi tradere ac sapientiam cunt eloquentia miscere1) instituisse
constat. Idque fecisse tradunt Isocratis rhetoris gloria permotum; qui cum
longe im par scientia foret d iscipu lis tamen abundaret famaque de illo
magna drcum ferretur, dixisse Aristotilem ferunt ‘perabsurdum esse tacere se
cum Isocrates loquatur'\ atque ita docere eloquentiam auditores suos coepisse.
Ips e certe quae scripsit omnibus dicendi ornamentis figurisque re/ersit,
quod in libris eius manifeste apparei. Expertus sum apud quosdam doctos
viros graecarum tamen litterarum ignaros fidem non fieri assertione mea
dum A ristotilis eloquentiam commendo.2) Q uippe adulterinas h uius philo-
sophiae translationes lectitare soliti intricatum quendam et obscurum et
inconcinnum arbitrantur. Sed non sunt illi A ristotilis lib ri nec si vivat
ipse suos d i d velit, sed merae translatorum ineptiae. Ille enim politissim us
scriptor esse voluit, et quod voluit curavit et quod curavit assecutus est.
Verum quia verba fidem non faciunt mea, M . T u llii Ciceronis accedat
auctoritas. C u i enim h i de eloquentia iudicanti credent, si M . T u llii
iudicio non credent? Liber est Topicorum M . T u llii ad Trebatium. In
eius libri prohemio ita scriptum est: l‘Sed eo magis reprehendendi sunt
quod non solum rebus Us quae ab Aristotile dictae et invenlae sunt allici
debuerunt ad enm perdiscendum, sed dicendi incredibili suavitate et
copia.” *) I n libro autem prima D e finibus bonorum et malorum inquit:
“ Credo te m inus delectari ab E picuro, quia haec Aristotilis et Theophrasti
ornamenta dicendi contempsit.” *) I n primo ergo incredibilem suavitatem
et copiam, in secundo autem ornamenta dicendi A ristotili tribuit. In
epistulis autem ad L entulum , Scripsi, znquit, D e oratore libros tres quos
Lentulo nostro puto fore non inutiles. Abhorrent enim a communibus
praeceptis atque omnem veterum Aristotelicam et Isocraticam rationem
oratoriam complexi sunt.” B) I n epistolis vero ad P om ponium ita scribit:
J) T 32 a, see m y c o m m e n t o n T 32.
s) L e o n a r d o h a d s tu d ie d G r e e k u n d e r C h ry s o lo ra s; k n o w le d g e o f G r e e k w a s
s t ill a p r iv ile g e o f a fe w sch o la rs.
a) N o t e x a c t ly o u r t e x t .
4) I 5 ,1 4 , n o t e x a c t ly o u r te x t.
fl) A d F a m . I 9,23, th e t e x t s lig h t ly c h a n g e d .
* tn g ê m a r DÜR1NG
170
“ Meus autem liber totum Isocratis myrothecium (lacunam in d ic a v it
scriba) atque omnes discipulorum eius arculas ac non m h ü £
ielia pigmenta c o n s u l t . ” ') I n Rhetoricorum autem secundo ) Ua
Z m - A d veteres çuidem scriptores h uiu s artis usçue a Pn n c ,Pe
> 7 I« (Chtesia cod ) repetitos unum m locum concluait Arts
«*- “- * • r r : iz
c o n s c iK Ü atqu, cnoiaia iilig m te r ac t.n lu m .» v a to r J n * >P»>
s m v U * ' a brcvitate pracsUiit. «I » ° ™ iUom m ^ '
TZrZJJ«
-M rfsM i» » w
„„ ai c u e n d z n multo .1 « » « « ”
«»* *»'«
W " *
esphcatonm . , e , M
“ * "i “
.
iocli, sitnorum h o m in g tes!imonia i e A r iW ü is
iZ T r P r ^ u , «/«. — r r - r r S£
« * . » » # « - £ - 3 5 T « £ T ïJS E L
in id lip u n t ac rerum ipsarum vix umbram quandam tntueniu .

inlmJtgunt, y utteris auantum nemo alter
Z ,J Z T ^ « M r i« OU . M M » ^ “
Wiam so/«/,, tn or*/«««* observandos
r r r ,r
Î L Ï S S S Î » - - - * •» -—
“T ^ T l I w it h v a r ia n t re a d in g s ; t h e c o p y is t d id n o t u n d e r s ta n d t h e
G r e e k w o rd .
*) D e iKu. I I 2 .6, v e r y clo se t o o u r t e x t .
? T P r f~ Î w a s not a c k n o w le d g e d u n til th e end of th e
X l X t h c e n tu r y .
A R IS T O T I.E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N I77
eloquentiae verum etiam alios docere voluisse apparet; in quibus, di

boni, quanta observatio est, quam, irita ac perdiligens praeceptorum traditio,
quam accurata rerum ad earn artem pertinentium evolutio.
Atque ego libenter quaererem ab his qui Aristotilem non credunt eloquen
tem fuisse, utrum non curavisse ilium dicant ut eloquens esset, an non fuisse
licet curaverit eloquentiam consecutum. Prim o, non curavisse qui d id
potest, cum tanta Volumina de ea arte perscripserit? Assecutum vero tanto
studio eloquentiam non fuisse tam excellens ingenium nim is stulti atque
in sip id i est existimare. E t adsunt testimonia eloquentissimorum virorum
illiu s facundiam m iris laudibus extollentium. Equidem n isi prolixitatem
nim iam vererer in fin ita paene ex illiu s libris recitarem, in quibus et arti-
ficiu m dicendi sum mum et cuncta verborum sententiarumque ornamenta
inesse ostenderem. Sed hoc satis; ad reliqua transeamus.
Libros autem usque adeo multos scripsit ut non solum legendo verum
etiam enumerando fatigare auditores possint. N o n enim ea tantummodo
scripsit quae nunc inter manus versantur, sed longe plura quae deperdita
sunt. Scripta vero eius licet m ultiplicia variaque fu erin t, tamen ad genera
quattuor reduci possunt. Eorum una pars eloquentiae suasionisque ratio-
nem complectitur, altera ad civtlem moralemque pertinet disciplinam , tertia
disserendi praecepta continet, quarta vero secreta naturae ac rerum occul-
tissimarum causae rationesque explicantur. Atque in illo quidem genere
quod prim um a nobis positum est artes eius rhetoricae nominantur, pluri-
bus libris ac diversis voluminibus explicatae. I n eodem genere collocanda
sunt ilia quae de Hom ericis quaestionibus sex libris explicuit et quae de
arte poetica libris duobus et quae de elocutione poetarum libro uno et quae
de poetis libris tribus et quae de tragoediis libro uno. Addo etiam huic
generi cohortationes atque epistulas quas ad P h ilip p u m quas ad Alexandrum
quas ad Olympiadem quas ad Hephaestiona quas ad A ntipatrum misit.
Addo versus ab eo factos et orationem iudiciariam pro se scriptam. M orales
quoque atque civiles perm ulti ab eo scripii sunt libri. N am et ad Eude-
mum libri de moribus octo qui etiam nunc extant et M agnorum moralium
libri duo et ad Nicom achum libri decem in quibus perfectio eius disciplinae
inesse putatur. Praeterea Economicorum libri duo, Politicorum libri octo.
l i s addantur hi libri in quibus sunt ab eo mores et instituta centum quin-
quaginta octo civitatum multa cura magnaque diligentia perscripti. P rae
terea de iustitia libri quattuor, de gubernatione reipublicae duo, de voluptate
liber unus, de summo bono libri tres, de regia gubernatione liber unus,
provocativi ad virtutem libri duo, ad leges Platonis libri tres, ad rempub-
Göteb. U n iv . A r s s k r . L X I I I . 2 12
licam Platonis libri duo, de legibus libri quattuor, de divitiis et opulentia

liber unus, de nobilitate liber unus. Ia m vero in duobus reliquis
generibus, quorum alterum in disserendi iudicandique ralione positum
dixim us, alterum in secretorum naturae pervestigatione quam m ulti eius
libri adhuc extent omnes scim us; quam m ulti vero am issi atque perditi
sint in utroque illorum genere operosum sane negotium esset in praesentia
referre atque connumerare velle. Traditur quippe libros supra trecentos1)
ab se scriptos reliquisse; horum pro m ultitudine pauci extant, sed credo
optimi atque probatissimi. F in is .
T h e V ita is based on D iogenes and th e V ita latin a, b u t th e au th or

w as w ell read and added su ita b le passages from C icero, P lin y , G ellius
and A u gu stin ; he has also ex cerp ted A elian . In com parison w ith th e
earlier m ed ieval a ttem p ts, th e V ita is a rem ark ab le achievem en t. I t is
in fa c t rem arkab le, even if w e com pare it w ith m uch later prod u cts,
e. g. M elan ch th on ’s Oratio de Aristotele2) or N u n e z’ w ork, not to sp eak
of B eurer. In his conception of A risto tle th e a u th or w as fa r ahead of
his ow n period. H is V it a testifies to th e h igh stan dard of th e Ita lia n
h um an ists in th e early X V t h cen tu ry. U n fo rtu n a te ly it rem ained
alm o st unknow n; none of th e later V ita ru m scriptores h a v e seen it.
A s reported in th e n e x t p a rag ra p h G u arin i ed ited it as his ow n w ork.
Giambattista G uarini
w a s born in V ero n a 1425. In th e m id d le of th e c e n tu ry h e w as a cele
b ra ted professor of G reek in th e u n iv e rsity of F errara. A m o n g his
disciples w as A ld u s M an utius. H e died i 5 J3 - H is life of A risto tle is
p rin ted in Plutarchus. V itae illustrium virorum sive parallelae. V ol.
sec., V en etiis, N icolau s Jensen, 1478, ff. 2 17 a — 2 ig a (num bers are n ot
printed): A risiotilis viri illustris vita per Guarinum Veronensem edita.
T h e t e x t is a tran scrip t, w ith m an y errors, of L eo n a rd o ’s V ita . U n d er
G u a rin o ’s nam e this V it a w as reprinted in E ra sm u s’ ed ition of A risto tle ,
B a se l 15 3 1, a n d accord in g to lib ra ry catalog u es also in H . G em u saeu s’
ed ition , B a se l 1542; I h a v e n o t seen these tw o editions. A s a m a tter
of fa ct, h ow ever, th e V ita rem ained un observed.
, ) T h is fig u r e o c c u r s o n ly in B u r le ig h , a n d th is p r o v e s t h a t L e o n a r d o h a s u sed
h is c a ta lo g u e o f A r is t o t le 's w ritin g s.
*) P h . M ela n th o n is O pera, ed . C. G . B r e its c h n e id e r , v o l. X I , H a lle 1843, p p .
6 4 7— 658, p a r t ly b a s e d o n t h e V i t a la t in a , n a r r o w in it s o u tlo o k .
J . J . Beurer
is th e a u th or of a loq u aciou s eu lo g y of A ristotle, pu blish ed in his h oo k
P roo em iu m P e rip a teticu m (the rest of th e title fills th e page), B asel
1587. T h e V it a is based on our t e x t of th e V ita la tin a w ith additions
from D iogenes and other ancient w riters; th e com m en ts are in cred ibly
stupid, in terestin g from the p o in t of v ie w th a t th is b ook shows how
low th e stan dard of a celeb rated professor of G reek could b e n orth of
th e A lp s a t th e end of th e X V I t h cen tu ry. I t w as to th e accom p an im ent
of such in eptitudes th a t th e sch olastic A risto tle w as b rou gh t to the
grave.
p j mN u n ez and A . Schottus
w ere good scholars. T h e y approach ed th eir su b ject as historians and
philologists. N ufiez (Nunnesius) found a m an u scrip t of th e V ita latm a,
fa m ily c1: “ huius nos exem p lar ta n tu m unicum n a c ti” . A p p a re n tly
he did not know th a t th is V ita a lrea d y h ad been used b y m an y oth er
scholars, b u t published it as an ed itio princeps tog eth er w ith th e G reek
V ita v u lg a ta in: Vita Aristotelis Peripateticorum p rincipis per Am m ontunt
seu Philoponum , addita Vetere interpretatione Latina longe auctiore nunc
prim um ex M S edita, cum copiosis et eruditis Schotiis, B arcin on e 1594,
reedited L eid en 1621 and H e lm stad t 1666 w ith o u t changes in th e te x t.
H e is also th e auth or of a Peripateticae philosophiae institutio, w h ich I
know in th e H e lm s ta d t edition of 1667, contain ing ad d itio n al com m ents
on th e life and w ritin gs of A ristotle. M easured w ith th e stan d ard s of
h is period, N ufiez' com m ents are erudite and sensible; his b o o k w as
th e stan dard w o rk on th e su b ject until, tw o hun dred years later, it
w as superseded b y B u h le ’s in tro d u ctio n and editions of th e V ita e in
his Aristotelis Opera omnia.
A . S ch ottus, Vitae comparatae Aristotelis ac Demosthems, olympta-
dibus ac praeiuris Atheniensium digestae, A u g u sta e V ind. 1603, is a
carefu lly com piled and reliable w ork. H e w as a friend and adm irer
of N unez and w rote a V ita o f him , pu blish ed in th e H elm stad t edition
of 1666, m entioned above. F . P a triz z i deals a t len gth w ith th e neopla-
ton ic V ita e in his celebrated D iscussiones Peripateticae, vo l. I 7, B asel
1 5 7 1, b u t it w ou ld ta k e m e too fa r in to th e h isto ry of A ristotelian ism
to discuss his opinions.
PART II
T H E SYRIAC AND A R A B I C TRADITION

ON
A R I S T O T L E ’S LIFE AND WRITINGS
THE SYRIAC AND ARABIC TRADITION
Bibliography :
W en reich = J. G . W enreich, De auctorum graecorum versionibus et

commentarüs syriacis arabicis armeniacis persicisque commentâtio.
L ip siae 1842. O n A risto tle , pp. 12 6 — 176.
R oeper = I h . R oeper, Lectiones Abulpharagianae. 1. A d graecarum
litterarum historiam locos nonnullos illustrandos. G edani 1844. II.
D e H on ain i Vita P latonis. G ed ani 1866.
S an gu in etti = B . R . S an gu in etti, “ C inquièm e e x tr a it de l ’o u vrage arabe
d ’ Ih n A b y O ssaib i’ah sur l ’h istoire des m éd ecin s.” T rad u ction
française accom pagnée de notes. lu : Journal Asiatique. V :e Série,
8, 1856, pp. 3 1 6 — 353, on S ocrates, P la to and A ristotle.
Steinschneider1 = M. Steinschneider, A l-F ara bi. D es arabischen P h ilo
sophen Leben und Schriften. M it besonderer R ü ck sich t a u f die G e
schich te der griech. W issen sch aft u n ter den A rabern . A n hang:
L eb en und T estam en t des A ristoteles von P tolem aeu s. In: M émoires
de V Académ ie imp. des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg. V I I : e série. Tome
X I I I . N o. 4. S t.-P étersb ou rg 1869. P p. 1 8 7 — 207.
Steinscheider2 = "D ie arabischen Ü bersetzu n gen aus dem griechisch en .”
In: Centralbl. f. Bibl.-wesen, Beih. //.'J. L eip zig 1890— 91.
Steinschneider3 = “ D ie arabischen Ü b ersetzu n gen aus dem griech isch en ”
In: Centralbl. f. Bibl.-wesen, B eih. I V : 12, L e ip z ig 1893.
M üller1 = F . A u g. M üller, D ie griech. Philosophen in der arabischen
Überlieferung. H a lle 1873. (F estsch rift der F rä n kisch en S tiftu n ge n
zu dem go-jähr. D ok torju b . des H errn Prof. B ern h ard y.)
M üller2 = “ D as arabische V erzeichnis der A ristotelisch en S ch rifte n .”
In: Morgenl. Forsch., Festschrift H . L . Fischer gewidmet. L e ip z ig
1875.
K la m ro th = M. K la m ro th , “ Ü b er die A u szü ge aus griech. S ch riftstellern
bei a l-J a 'q u b i . I I I . P hilosophen. In: Zeitschr. d. deutschen morgenl.
Ges. 41,1887, pp. 4 1 5 - 4 4 2 .
D ieterici1 = A. D ieterici, D ie N aturanschauung und Naturphilosophie

der Araber iw zehnten Jahrhundert. A u s den S ch riften der L äu te re n
B rüder. B erlin 1861.
D ieterici2 = A l-F ara bis philosophische Abhandlungen. A u s dem A ra b i
schen ü b ersetzt. L eid en 1890.
B aum stark* = A . B a u m stark , “ L u cu b ra tio n es syro -graeca e” . In: Jahrb.
f. cl. P h il., Suppl. B . 2 1, L eip zig 1894, pp. 3 3 3 — 524 -
B a u m sta rk 2 = Syrisch-arabische Biographien des Aristoteles. Syrische
Commentare zur E I E A r D P H des Porphyrios. (A ristoteles bei den
S yrern vom V . — V I I I . Jah rh u n d ert. I.) L e ip z ig 1900.
L ip p e r t1 = J . L ip p e rt, De episiula pseud-aristotelica n eq 'l ßaaifa.iaq
commentatio. Diss. H alle. B erlin 1891.
L ip p e rt2 = Studien auf dem Gebiete der griech.-arab. Übersetzungs
literatur. B ra u n sch w eig 1894.
L ip p e rt3 = Ib n al-Q ijtis T a rih al-hukama. L eip zig 1903.
R u sk a = J. R u sk a , Das Quadriviunt aus Severus bar Sakkus B u ch der
Dialoge. L eip zig 1896.
W a lze r = M. G u id i e R . W a lzer, “ S tu d i su a l-K in d i I. U no scritto
in tro d u ttiv o alio stu d io di A risto te le ” . In: M em . della R. Acc. N az.
dei L in ce i, CI. di scienze m orali. Ser. V I . V ol. V I . F ase. V . Rom a
1940. P p . 375 — 419- — O th er litera tu re is listed b y R . W a lze r in
his “ N ew L ig h t on th e A ra b ic T ran slatio n s of A risto tle ” , in: Oriens
6, 1953 . PP- 91 — 142-
A m o n g general w orks of reference, a p a rt from B rockelm an n and S arto n 's
Introduction, m a y b e m entioned: A . M ieli, L a science Arabe, L eid en
1939, and D e L a c y O ’L e a ry , How Greek Science passed to the Arabs,
L o n d o n 1948.
T H E S Y R IA C V IT A E A R IS T O T E L IS
O f th e S y ria c tra d itio n on A ris to tle ’s life o n ly tw o po or fragm en ts

are know n to th e presen t w riter, b o th edited b y B a u m sta rk 2. A ll th e
orien talists w ho h a v e exam ined th e A ra b ic b iograp hies of A risto tle
agree th a t th e y m ust go b a c k to a S y ria c tran slatio n of th e G reek V ita
of P to lem y -el-G arib . T h e y h a v e a d d u ced lin g u istic argu m en ts w h ich
seem p r e tty convincing. T h u s for in stan ce L ip p e rt2 p o in ts to th e fa c t
th a t th e A ra b ic w ords fo r Ugevg and UgoqidvTrj/;, used b y Ib n A b i
U sa ib ia (7), are b e tte r u n d erstan d ab le if w e assum e an in term ed iate
S yriac tran slation of the G reek w ords. I t is therefore probable th a t

there once existed a com plete S y ria c tran slation of P to le m y ’s w ork.
B u t ju s t as in G reek literatu re th e origin al has been lo st and o n ly the
frag m en tary V ita e M arciana and v u lg a ta rem ain, so it has happened
in the S y ria c tra d itio n , too. T h e tw o S y ria c yevrj are even m ore ep ito
m ized th a n th e G reek V ita v u lg a ta , b u t oth erw ise rath er s i m i l a r .
I t w as A m m on ius H erm eiu an d his follow ers w ho w ere th e m ain
authorities for th e S y ria n N esto rian s w ho b ro u g h t A risto telian studies
to N isibis and G u n de-Sh ap u r,1) w h en th e em peror Zeno h ad closed th e
school of E dessa. W e k n ow from th e G reek tra d itio n th a t th e school
of A m m on ius (including O lym piodorus, P hilopon u s, E lia s and D avid )
b ased its k n ow led ge a lm o st en tirely on P to le m y ’s w o rk and abrid ged
versions of th is w ork. I t is q u ite n atu ral, then , th a t P to le m y ’s b ook on
A risto tle should h a v e had such a d om in atin g in flu en ce in th e S yriac
trad itio n .
V IT A S Y R IA C A I
Cod. Berol. S ach a u 226.
(1) IJQaêiQ or life of A ristotle, son of N icom ach u s th e p h ysician

from S tagira, w ritten b y A m m on ius. W e should first ask a b o u t his
b irth -p lace and his kin, and in connection w ith th a t inqu ire into th e rest.
(2) A risto tle was a n a tiv e of S ta gira in T h racia near C halcid ice and
also near O lyn th u s, a place m entioned b y T h u cyd id es in th e fifth book
(V 18), w here he enum erates th e allied cities.
(3) H is fath er w as N icom achus, his m oth er’s nam e w as P ary satis.
B o th is fa th e r ’s and his m oth er’s fam ilies descended from A sclepius.
(4) I t is said th a t h e joined th e stu d ents assem bled aroun d P la to
on the a d v ice of an oracle from P yth io n , and th a t h e w as P la to ’s disciple
for tw e n ty years.
(5) D u rin g th is tim e it som etim es happened th a t he w as n ot present
in th e audience, and then P la to w ould sa y “ T h e M ind is a w a y ” or
“ T h e philosopher is fa r from th e tr u th ” or “ T h e audience is a d eaf on e” .
(6) N o t in accord an ce w ith tru th is w h a t is said a b o u t him , n am ely
th a t he did n ot tu rn to ph ilosophy u n til he w as th ir ty years of age and
a fter h a vin g p ra ctised m edicine.
’ ) S e e m y s k e tc h " V o n A r is to te le s b is L e ib n iz " , in: A n tik e u . A b e n d la n d I V ,

H a m b u r g 1954 , p p . 1 3 3 — 5, a n d th e lite r a tu r e q u o te d th e r e .
jg g IN G E M A R D U R IN G
{7) B u t it is tru e th a t he w as th e law -g iver of th e Stagirites.

(8) H e d ied in Chalcis, 67 years old.
{9) I t is said th a t a sw arm of bees w as fou n d aroun d the urn contain
in g his ashes. .
(10) T h e S tagirites sent e n vo ys to b rin g h is ashes from C halcis,
and w hen th e y had b ro u g h t th e u rn to S tagira, th e y deposited it in a
place called T h e A ristoteleion w here th e y also w ere w o n t to hold th eir
councils. ,
(11) H e le ft tw o children, b o th of ten d er age, a son caUed N ico-
m achus an d a d aughter. H e also le ft a g rea t p ro p e rty , n um erous m ale
a u d fem ale servan ts, an d m a n y oth er th in gs. (12) H e appo in ted A n ti-
p a te r ex ecu to r of his w ill, an d to g eth er w ith h im m a n y oth er of his
friends, callin g upon th e ir assistance.
Comment. N o e x ta n t G reek, L a tin or A ra b ic ep itom e of P to le m y ’s

b io grap h y has e x a c tly th is com bin ation of notes, b u t a p a rt from (9)
a ll details are fou n d sep a ra tely eith er in V ita M arciana or in th e F ih n s t
1. In th e sam e w a y as th e yevoq ’ A o io x c t M ovq w hich w e call
V ita v u lg a ta , th is V ita has served as in tro d u ctio n to a course of lectures
on A risto tle b y A m m onius, p ro b a b ly on th e Categories and P o rp h y ry s
Isagoge. T h e S y ria n sch olar w ho w rote th is V it a h a d perhaps a tte n d «
A m m on iu s’ lectu res and ta k e n dow n these notes.
2. W e learn here th e reason w h y th e nam e of O ly n th u s figu res in
P to le m y ’s V ita . S ta g ira w as u n kn ow n , b u t O ly n th u s could easily be
id en tified , an d p ro b a b ly also M ethon e (w hich h ow ever is fa r from
Stagira); b o th nam es are m en tion ed T h u c. V 18. _
3. T h e nam e o f A r isto tle ’s m oth er w as b a d ly tre a te d also in th e
V ita latina.
a = V M 5 , F ih rist 4, U sa ib ia 3.
5. T h e S y ria n tran slato r d id n o t un derstan d o NoVq o j i e o x i and
therefore g a v e tw o a lte rn a tiv e tran slations.
T h e sta te m en t in 6 is fou n d in F ih rist 6, U sa ib ia 12 an a so
in a l-Q ifti b u t n ot in M ubashir. T h e S y ria n tra n sla to r m u st h a v e read
ia x o ^ v in his G reek original, in stead of w h ich w e m ust
assum e for th e G reek origin al w h ich is U sa ib ia ’s u ltim a te source. s
B a u m sta rk 2, p. 35, says, th is p ro v es (together w ith oth er d iscrep an ces)
th a t th is S y ria c V it a is an ind epen d en t b ra n ch of th e trad itio n . The
sta te m en t in 7 is fo u n d in M ubash ir 27 and U sa ib ia 14, b u t n o t in th e
F ik rist. B o th fa cts are fou n d in th e G reek trad ition: th e u ltim ate

source o f th e first sta te m en t is E u m elu s (cf T I f, note, and V ita Mar-
cian a 11), th e second is found in D L 4 and P lu ta rch (T 27 i) and p rob ab ly
in th e te x t of w hich V ita M arciana 16 is an epitom e. I assum e th a t b o th
statem en ts are ta k en from P to le m y ’s V ita .
F rom th is brief exam ple w e can see th a t th e S y ria c and A ra b ic
w riters used th e sam e m aterial, b u t each w riter m ade his ow n selection
and arran ged his notes accord in g to his ow n ideas.
8. A fte r th e w ill, Ib n an-N adim (F ih r ist) has added th e follow ing
note: “ B y th e h an d of Ish aq and his oral com m unication: A risto tle
liv ed to th e age of 67 y e a rs ” . Ish a q ib n H u n ain th u s gives th e sam e
figure as th is S y ria c V ita , w hereas th e second S y ria c V ita and then
m ost w riters in th e A r a b ic trad itio n sa y “ 68 y e a rs ” . B au m stark has
draw n far-reach in g conclusions from th is w h ich I th in k should be
regarded w ith a certain scepticism .
g. C f th e w ell-kn ow n sto ry a b o u t P la to ’s dream in V ita P laton is
I 165, p. 387 W esterm an n. In v ie w of w h a t w e know of th e ch aracter
of P to le m y ’s V ita , he m ight w ell h a v e told th is sto ry . O n bees as sy m
b ols of th e souls of deceased righ teou s m en, see P o rp h y ry , D e antro
N ym ph. 19.
10. U sa ib ia 30 and M ubashir 2g; com plete agreem ent.
11. M ubashir has all th is (and a little more) in 3 3 — 34, U sa ib ia o n ly
p a rt of it, in 35.
T h is V ita can be ch aracterized as a S y ria c version of th e G reek V ita
v u lg a ta . A ccord in g to B au m stark it has le ft no traces in th e S y ria c
trad itio n . T h e S y ria c t e x t is edited b y B a u m sta rk 2 (appended to p.
130); his tran slation is found p. 38. T h e tran slation has b een checked
b y m y colleague, P rofessor O scar L ofgren .
V IT A S Y R IA C A II
Cod. V a t. syriacu s 158.
(1) A risto tle w as th e son of N icom achus, a p h ysician from S ta gira,

a c ity in th e lan d of M acedonia.
(2) A t seven teen y e a rs of age he becam e a disciple of P la to the
philosopher, an d as long as he stu d ied ph ilosophy u n der his gu idance,
he c o n s ta n tly occu pied him self w ith h im (his doctrines).
I gg in g Em a r d D r in g
{3) H o w ever, b eing frightened b y th e ex ecu tio n of S ocrates, he

le tire d from A th en s and sta y ed near th e H ellespon tus.
(4) W h en P la to died Speusippus, since h e w as his nephew , to o k
ch arge of P la to ’s school. H e sen t a m essage askin g him to retu rn and
becom e lead er of P la to s school.
(5) W h en for som e tim e he h ad been th e lead er of P la to s school
he le ft it for th e L y c e u m , and w h en he h a d fou n d ed his ow n school
th ere and e s ta b lis h e d him self as lead er of an oth er ph ilosoph ic sect,
his follow ers b ecam e k n ow n as th e P erip a tetics, b ecau se h e used to
lectu re to th e m w a lk in g u p and dow n in th e L yceu m .
(6) A m o n g his fam ous disciples w ere T h eo p h rastu s, E u d em u s, A le x a n
der th e K in g of M acedonia, and m a n y others.
(7) H e fin a lly w ith d rew to C halcis in E u b o ea, and th ere h e ended
h is life w a tch in g th e ebb and flo w of E u n p u s in E u b o e a.
(8) A risto tle reached th e age of 68 years.
Comment. T h is V ita to o is ed ited b y B a u m sta rk 2 w ith a tran slatio n

on p. n 6 . I h a v e seen th e V a t. 158 (on m icrofilm ), and m y colleagu e
L o fe re n has checked th e tran slation . A ccord in g to B a u m sta rk th e
sam e t e x t is fou n d in P aris, sy r. anc. fonds 16 1 and O rient. M edic.
P a la t. 196. , .
A m m on iu s and O lym piod oru s o m itted S peusippus en tirely and m ade
A risto tle and X en o cra te s d irect successors of P la to (T 72 ab). T h is
trad itio n w as follow ed by M u bash ir 13 -14 . A b u -l-F a ra g ( - B a r-
H ebraeus) and others. E lia s follow ed P to le m y an d rein stated S p eu sip
pus. and w e can see th a t th is V it a follow s E lia s. B a u m sta rk 2 has d ealt
w ith th is b ra n ch of th e tr a d itio n u n der th e title “ D er A n o n ym u s des
Ish a q ib n H u n a in ” , pp. 1 0 5 - 1 3 0 . exp ou n d in g a series of h yp o th eses
w h ich form a v e rita b le house of cards. T h ese “ n icht-p tolem aischen
Q u ellen ” are a h oax. T h e V ita sy ria ca I I con tain s n oth in g th a t can n o t
b e d erived from P to le m y . I t is an offsh oot of e x a c tly th e sam e t r a c
tio n as th e G reek V ita v u lg a ta . .
(1) = V ita M arc. I. - (2) = V M 3, com bin ed w ith an epitom e of
VM g im p ly in g th a t "h e did n ot fa ll a w a y from P la to ” . T h e sam e
them e, m ore elab o rated , in M u bashir 10. - (3) is a m ud d led epitom e
of V M 41 as w e c a n see from th e v a ria n t in V it a v u lg a ta i g . H e espon
t u s ” is an error of th e sam e ty p e as “ P a r y s a tis ” in V it a sy ria ca I , and
no im p ortan ce should b e a tta ch e d to such a m istake. - (4) - V M 13.
N o A ra b ic source m entions Speusippus in th is co n tex t. T h e “ m essage”

m ight b e a plain m istak e, caused b y ign oran ce and m isunderstanding of
a x e/ .A E T a i. In an y case I w ou ld fla tly d en y th e p o ssib ility th a t this
sen tence represents a tru s tw o rth y trad itio n . — (5) T h is is not found
in a n y o f th e G reek V ita e , b u t w e h a v e th e sam e tra d itio n in Am m onius
and O lym piodorus, T 72 ab, w ith o u t Speu sippu s. T h is is th e cru cial
point, see p. 204. T h e a u th o r of V it a sy ria ca I I has k now n th e G reek
V it a in th e sam e version as th a t used b y E lia s an d D a v id , n ot in the
version used (or a t least propagated) b y A m m on iu s and O lym piodorus.
T h is is th e m ain d ifference b etw een th e tw o V ita e . Cf. M ubashir 14.
— (6) == V M 4 4 — 46. — (7) is n o t fou n d in th e G reek V ita e , b u t see
T 48 abc and M ubashir 22 — 23.
T h e re v iv a l of learn ing in B a g h d a d began in th e early ninth cen tu ry,
a t a b ou t the sam e tim e as A lcu in an d his disciples began establishing
schools and seats of learn in g in F ra n k . T h e G reek litera tu re in m ath e
m atics, m edicine, geograp h y, astron om y and p h ilosop h y w as tran slated
into A rabic, som etim es from th e G reek origin als b u t m ore often from
S y ria c tran slations. K la m r o th ’s list of G reek books tran slated into
A ra b ic gives an im pressive p ictu re of th e ran ge and e x te n t of this
in tellectu al a c tiv ity . A s appears from W a lze r’s copious notes in his
editions1) of a l-K in d i and his article in Oriens, ou r know ledge of the
A ra b ic tran slations is stead ily increasing. O ne of th e results of the
rev iv a l of A ra b ic literatu re w as th a t th e S y ria c literatu re gra d u a lly
fell into ob livion and becam e obsolete. A ccord in g to m ost orien talists
w h o h a ve d ealt w ith th e question, th is is th e m ain reason w h y so
little is le ft of th e S y ria c literatu re w hich served as in term ed iate
betw een G reek and A rabic.
T H E A R A B I C T R A D I T I O N O N A R I S T O T L E ’S L I F E
In th e A ra b ic trad itio n A risto tle is the philosopher, and A l-F a ra b i

T h e Second Philosopher. T h e earliest products of th e B a g h d a d r e v iv a l
of learning a lread y te s tify to th e enorm ous in terest th a t A risto tle and
his w ritings aroused. A lth o u gh m uch has been w ritten on A risto tle in
th e A ra b ic trad itio n , a h isto ry of A ristotelian ism in th e M iddle E a s t is
*) A ls o " U n o s c r itt o m o ra le in e d ito d i a l- K i n d i ” , in: M em . della R . A c c . N a e.

dei L in c e i, S e r. V I . V o l. V I I I . F a s c . 1. R o m a 1938.
ig o 1N G E M A R D tiR IN G
s till m issing. I t has b een an arduous ta sk fo r a classicist and non-

orien talist to arrive a t a n y th in g lik e a clear apprehension of th e tru e
fa cts. A s is seen from th e b ib liograp h y, th e litera tu re on th e su b ject
is p a r tly v e r y old; m oreover it is rich in co n tra d icto ry sta tem en ts w ith
a generous a d m ix tu re of u n p roven h ypo th eses, and also, from th e p o in t
of m ethod, som ew hat d ifferen t from th e litera tu re on problem s concern
ing th e classical a n tiq u ity w ith w hich th e present w riter is fam iliar.
T h e follow in g su rve y is therefore g iv en w ith all reserve: I h a v e tried,
to th e b est of m y a b ility , to e x tric a te such fa cts as are of essential
in terest for our su bject: A risto tle in th e b io grap h ica l trad itio n . I h a ve
p e rm itted m yself to sim p lify th e A ra b ic nam es accord in g to co n v en
tio n a l principles, after h a v in g qu oted th e m on ce in fuU, om ittin g th e
d iacritica l signs, e. g. Ib n A b i U sa ib i'a = U sa ib ia , Ib n an-N adim =
= an-N adim , al-MubaSfiir = al-M ubashir or sim p ly M ubashir.
1. T h e Introduction to the Study of Aristotle b y a l-K in d i (d. a fter
873) is ed ited b y W a lzer w ith in trod u ction and notes, to w h ich I refer.
I t is reproduced b y a l- Y a ‘ qubi, B rock elm an n I 226, w h o died 897.
H is ch ro n icle of w orld h isto ry is ed ited b y M. T . H ou tsm a, L eid en
1883, and th e section on A risto tle is d ea lt w ith b y K la m ro th , p. 420.
A m o n g th e n eop laton ic com m en tators S im pliciu s alone ad opts th e
q u ad rip a rtitio n in logic, p h ysio lo g y , p sych o lo g y an d m etap hysics;
W a lzer does n o t b elieve th a t a l-K in d i has used Sim pliciu s d ire ctly , b u t
rath er th a t th e ir u ltim a te source is com m on. I t is possible to recogn ize
som e of th e “ ten p o in ts” and traces of th e sm all in trod u ction s to logic.
T h e w o rk reflects conditions as th e y w ere b efore Ish aq ib n H u n a yn .
2. O ne of th e scholars b elon gin g to th e ea rly school of tran slato rs
m u st h a v e tra n sla ted P to le m y ’s V ita A risto telis, in clu d in g th e W ill and
th e list of his w ritings. B y a process of elim in ation B a u m sta rk 2 (p. 35 )
reached th e conclu sion th a t it w a s Ish aq ibn H u n a y n (d. g io or g n )
w h o inclu d ed p a rts of i t in h is w o rk T a rikh al-atibba . P rofessor L e-
w in, h ow ever, inform s m e th a t no evid en ce can be fou n d for th is h y p o
thesis. N everth eless it seem s p rob ab le th a t it w a s Ishftq w ho tran slated
P to le m y ’s w o rk in to A ra b ic, eith er from th e G reek origin al or a S y ria c
tran slatio n . C ertain fa c ts in th e A ra b ic trad itio n p ro v e b ey o n d d ou b t
th a t a ll A ra b ic w riters w ho h a v e d ea lt w ith A r is to tle ’s b io grap h y
h a v e used, d ire ctly or th rou gh in term ed iate sources, one and th e sam e
u ltim ate source: a series of b io grap h ical notes on A risto tle in A rabic.
T h ere are no signs w h a te v e r th a t a n y of th e la te r A ra b ic w riters
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N I9 I
used a G reek or S y ria c original. T h e en tire m aterial is, d ire ctly and
in d irectly, d erived from P to lem y-el-G arib , in clu d in g th e additions m ade
in th e n eop laton ic prolegom ena, w h ich w ere also accessible, first in S yriac,
then in A ra b ic. T h e conclusion th a t I h a v e reached du rin g m y w ork
on the A ra b ic trad itio n is th a t e v e ry d eta il in th e variou s accou n ts of
A risto tle ’s life is eith er (a) d erived from P to le m y 's w ork (including
additions from th e prolegom ena), or (b) a fictitio u s ad dition m ade in th e
S y ria c or (most p ro b ab ly) th e A ra b ic trad itio n . I h a v e not found an y
traces of D iogenes, A n d ro n icu s or H erm ip pu s, a p a rt from such details
as could h a ve been in clu d ed in P to le m y ’s V ita.
3. T he earliest e x ta n t b io grap h y is fou n d in th e K it ä l al-Fihrist b y
Ib n A b i Y a 'q u b an-N adim , B rock elm an n I 144. T h is bibliograph ical
en cyclopaedia, edited b y F lü gel-M ü ller, L e ip z ig 1871/72, w as com pleted
before 987. A tran slation is g iv en below . A n -N a d im ’s in terpretation
o f A risto tle ’s nam e, rep eated w ith m an y v a ria n ts b y his successors,
proves th a t he did n o t un derstan d G reek.
4. T h e n e x t w ork of im portan ce for us is th e K itä b mukhtär al-hikam
wa-mahäsin al-kilam, “ T h e book of selections of w isdom and b ea u tifu l
sa y in gs” , b y th e A lex a n d rian sch olar and ph ysician A b u -l-W a fa al-
M ub assir Ib n F a tik , in the second h a lf of th e X l t h cen tu ry. T h e sec
tion on A ristotle is found in L ip p e rt2; it serves as an in trod u ction to
his collections of “ b eau tifu l sa y in gs” of A ristotle. A full tran slation is
given below.
5. T h e scholar know n as Said, w hose fu ll nam e is A b u - 1-Q äsim S a 'id
ibn A h m ad ibn 'A b d al-R ah m an ibn M uham m ed ibn S a 'id al-Q ortu bi
al-A nd alusi, (and w h o is therefore d ifficu lt for th e ou tsider to id e n tify
in th e variou s form s in w hich his nam e occurs in th e literatu re), w rote
a b ou t 1067— 68 a sum m ary of un iversal h isto ry, gen era lly qu oted under
th e title Tabaqät al-umam, B rockelm an n I 344. H e p aid special a tte n
tion to th e h isto ry of science, and m uch use w as m ad e of his w ork b y
U sa ib ia and al-Q ifti. I h a v e n ot h ad a va ila b le th e tran slation b y R .
B la cM re, “L iv r e des categories des N a tio n s” , in: P u ll, de l ’In stitut d.
hautes etudes Maroc, X X V I I I , P aris 1935, o n ly th e edition b y L . Cheiko
S. J ., B e y ro u th 1912.
6. N e x t com es th e Tabaqät al-hukam ä’ , “ Schools of W ise M en” , b y
a l-Q ifti Ö am älad din al-Q ädl al A k ram , d. 1248, B rockelm an n I 325.
In th e old literatu re he is gen erally quoted under th e nam e G em aled-
dinus (W enreich: D schem aluddinus); I perm it m yself to call him sim p ly
IN G E M A R D O S I N G
IQ2
a l-Q ifti. A n a n a lysis o l his a rticle o n A n s to tle .s g .v en b y S tem sch

a«, n 1 * 7 if., and a general su rve y is g iv en below .
îost" im p o rta n t of o n , A .a b ic s o „ « * s is t i e K M f+ M
« M W . “ B o o k o i s o n r c « for
d o cto rs” , b y Ib n A b i U Sa ib i‘ a. H e w as a p h ysician and died 1270
B rock elm an n I 325- T t e sectio u o n A r is to tle ’ P P ‘ 54 57 ^ , “

ed ition . is p a r tly tra n sla ted b y
- S m S . C i t e o f b is p ro fu se oont-
L en* L is t a * h as m a d * i t v e r y d ifficu lt f o , tb e reader t o a t o m
a com prehensive v ie w of U s a ib ia ’s im p o rta n t article^ I h a v e tried
im p ro ve u pon th is b y m y an alysis and tran slatio n
8. B rie f m ention should b e m a d e of ^ chxom de^ of A b i ^ F a r a g ,
generally called Bar-Hebraeus or Abulpharagms. 122 ■
1 P m yyitp
a re based o n a l-Q ifti a n a are
o n A r is to tl:, p p . 9 1 9 3 . b io grap h ica l lex ico n of
th erefore of secon d ary im p ortan ce o n ly T h e b i o g r p
H a g g i K h a li,a , d. * 5 8 . T m
al-M asudi, a l-S h .h r a sta n i a n d

1,v B au m stark*. B a u m sta rk h as m ade a stron g case for his
hvpotlv-sis th a t a l-Q ifti used Ib n a l-K h a m m a r as one of his m teim ec «ate
sources b u t I m u st confess t h a t I rega rd his elab o rated s te m m a * w -
« an d 117 . w ith g rea t scepticism . H is Quellenuntersuchung * o f exact! y
th e sam e k in d as th e X l X t h c e n tu ry w o rk on D iogenes L a e ius.
a H L i Sight the three extant biographies of an-Nadim . al-Mubash,
and S i c so similar that it would £
tw o earlier versions in the
s e ,~ tio n o f fa cts th a t a » » £
o f a ll th ree is ju stified . T h eir c h ie f v a lu e fo r u s l i e s In th e fa c t th a t
th e y en able us to reco n stru ct th e V it a P tolem aei.
K IT A B A L -F IH R IS T
I B N A N -N A D IM K itä b a l-F ihrist, ed. G. F lü gel, J. R ödiger, A.

M üller, L eip zig 1871/72, pp. I 246 — 252; M ü ller1, w ith notes; tran slation
b y M üller1 and B a u m sta rk 2, p. 39 ff. M y tran slatio n has been checked
b y m y colleague L ew in .
(1) T h e nam e m eans “ th e lover of w isd om ” ( = (piXoooyoq) or “ the

distinguished, th e b est” or “ th e p erfect, th e ex cellen t” .
(2) A risto tle w as th e son of N icom achu s, son of M achaon, of the
kin of A sd ep ia d es w ho in ven ted th e science of m edicine for th e G reeks.
(3) T h e follow ing is told b y P tolem y-el-G arib ; he says: th e nam e of
his m other w as P h aestias and she w as descended from A sclepiades.
B u t he him self w as from a G reek c ity called S tagira, and his fath er
N icom achus w as the ph ysician of P hilip, fa th er of A lexan d er. (4) H e
w as one of P la to ’s disciples. P to le m y sa y s th a t he a ttach ed him self to
P la to because of a vision sen t to him b y G od th e L o rd A lm ig h ty in
the tem ple of P yth io n . H e says th a t A risto tle sta y ed in (P la to ’s) school
tw e n ty years. (5) W hen P la to had gone to S icily , A risto tle succeeded
him in the headship of the school. (6) I t is also said th a t he began
his stu d y of ph ilosophy when he w as th ir ty yea rs of age.
(7) H e was th e m ost eloquent am ong th e G reeks and their m ost
prom inent w riter of learned books, th e m ost distin guished of th eir
scholars after P lato, and th e one w ho a tta in ed th e high est stage in
philosophy. (8) H e was held in high esteem b y the kings, and A le x a n
der conducted his affairs in accordance w ith his precepts.
(9) There exists a collection of letters and treatises, w ritte n b y him
to A lexan d er on political questions, beginning thus:
T h e n fo llo w s an a p o c ry p h a l le t t e r a n d e x t r a c t s fr o m le tte r s t o A le x a n d e r
s im ila r t o th e le tte r e d ite d b y L ip p e rt1, b u t d is tin g u is h e d fro m th is b y
a p ro fu se a n d e n tir e ly u n -G re e k r h e to ric ; as M ü ller a lr e a d y s a w , th e se
e x t r a c t s m u s t b e c o n sid e re d as A r a b ic fictio n .
(10) I t is fu rth er said (sc. b y P tolem y) th a t w hen P h ilip w as dead

and his son A lexan d er becam e k in g and tu rn ed to w age w ar w ith the
Coteb. U n i v . A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 13
in g e m a r d u r in g
n atio n s, A risto tle w as free and w ith o u t business, and th erefore w en t

to A th en s, ( n ) T h ere he estab lished a seat of learn ing, and th is is th e
p la ce w hich w as nam ed a fte r th e ph ilosophers w ho ta u g h t w hile w alkin g.
(12) H e d evo ted him self to prom oting happin ess am ong m en, to su p
p o rtin g th e feeble, (13) and he also re-erected th e buildin gs of th e c ity
o f S tagira.
(14) A b o u t him num erous stories are circu lated of w hich w e on ly
h a v e m en tion ed th e essentials.
{15) A risto tle died a t th e age of 66 in th e last d a ys of A lex a n d er, or,
as oth ers con ten d, in th e b egin nin g of th e reign of P to lem y , son of
L ag u s. (16) H e w as succeeded as head of th e school b y T heo p h rastu s,
th e son of his sister.
(17) T h e w ill of A ristotle. al-G arib says:
T hen follow s th e W ill, the te x t of w h ich is p ra ctica lly id en tical w ith th a t
of U saibia. S m all differences are an n o tated in th e notes on U s a i b i a . A fte r
th e W ill com es a su rv e y of his w ritings.
(18) C lassification of his w ritings:

I. L o g ical treatises: KaxrjyoQiat, lle o i egfiijvtuiQ, Ava).vxixd 6ft
A n a l, pr.), 3A n o S eix xtxa aft ( = A n . post.), T om xa S fty S et^ Q ,
Eoqiiaxtxd, ' P rjxogixa, IloirjX ixd. A p p en d ed are n otes on existin g
com m en taries and tran slation s in to S y ria c and A rab ic.
II. P h y s ic a l treatises: Q vaixi] axooaaiz dfiydetyQ, IJf.ni oigavov
x a i xoafiov dftyS, TIeqi ytvioEOK xa i tp O o g d M rxea w o Z a y ix d , IJ eqI
ymxrjs afty, Ile n t aioQrjoecot; xa i aiaOrjX<bv aft, I h o i ftiftkta 18
(i. e. H ist. an. io , De gen.an. 5, Part. an. 4).
I I I . T h e Treatise of the Letters w h ich is also k n o w n under th e nam e
of Theology. T h e disposition of th is trea tise ( = th e M etaphysics) is
accord in g to th e G reek alp h ab et, and th e first is th e little elif .
A p p en d ed are n otes as in section I.
IV . E th ic a l treatises: ftQixd fttftXia ift. T h e existen ce of other
e th ica l w ritin g s is v a g u e ly h in ted at.
V. A trea tise on th e m irror, tra n sla ted b y H a g g a g b. M atar.
V I. A trea tise called Theologoumena w h ich a l-K in d i h as com m en ted
on.
T h e n follow s a list en titled "P h ilosophers of n ature w hose d ate and
succession we do n ot k n o w .” H ere tlie follow in g note.
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N ig g
(ig) P tolem y-el-G arib w ho w as an ad herent of A risto tle and spread

know ledge a b ou t his m erits; he is th e a u th o r of a b ook “ O n th e life
o f A ristotle, his d eath, and the classification of his w ritin g s” .
Comment. W e leara from th e w riter's ow n w ords th a t he has before

him the V ita of P tolem y-el-G arib; h e gives us th e title of it and says
in (14) th a t his ow n notes are a b rief epitom e. O u r conclusion is th a t
before 950 there w as in circu latio n in B a g h d a d an A r a b ic su m m ary of
P to le m y ’s V ita , inclu d ing a fu ll tran slation of the W ill. Since an-N adim
presents his classification of A risto tle 's w ritin g s in ro u gh ly th e sam e
form as a l-Y a q u b i (see K la m ro th p. 420), B a u m sta rk concluded th a t he
had not seen the A ra b ic tran slatio n of P to le m y 's catalogu e. B u t this
is a w ea k argum ent, for he m ig h t h a v e found P to le m y ’s catalo g u e too
d etailed and tech n ical and h a ve preferred th e classification based on
the trad itio n al prolegom ena. M oreover w e ob serve th a t, u n like a l-K in d i
and al-Y aq u h i, an-N adim regarded the D e anim u as one of th e p h ysica l
treatises.
(1) A sim ilar exp lan ation occurs in M ubashir 1, in al-M asudi, al-
S hahrastani and U saibia; as a th ird a ltern a tiv e th e tran slation “ the b est
b re a k fa st” is given; a ll these n otes p ro v e th a t th ese scholars did not
understand Greek.
(3 ff.) T h e agreem ent w ith V ita M arciana, another epitom e of P to
le m y ’s V ita w ith additions m ade b y G reek scholars, is strikin g. (3) —
= V M 1 and 2; (4) = V M 5; (5 ) N o t in V M , b u t since M ubashir 13
and U saibia 4 giv e the sam e inform ation , w e m u st assum e th a t th e
A rabic sum m ary of P to lem y contain ed th is statem en t. V M g is a
refutation of it. I f w e assum e th a t P to le m y ’s V ita contain ed b oth the
po sitive statem ent and the refu tation , it is easy to see w h y th e A ra b s
(who w ere unbiassed on this point) selected th e p o sitive p art, and the
neoplatonists the refutation. — (6) V M 1 1 = V S I 6 refutes th e opinion
th a t he w as a late learner, see m y n ote on T I f. — (7) is not found in
V M or in Mubashir, b u t in U saibia 15 “ he had g rea t influence am ong his
fellow men , th e them e w hich an-N adim fu rth er developed in th is p a ra
graph. I t is h igh ly probable th a t th is glo rification of A risto tle is d erived
from P tolem y. Cf. T 25 a (2). - (8) = VM 15, cf P lu ta rch T 25 b. -
(9) = V M 16, further developed b y adding faked e x tra cts of letters. —
(10) Cf. V M 23. - (n ) N o t in VM , b u t in V S I I 5 and U saibia 23;
it is h igh ly probable th a t P to lem y had included some inform ation on
ig 6
o
th e name n e Slx m V » o l in h is V ita , J
M u b a s b ir ,6 an d U s a ib ia 2 4 '. « V M . 7;
V M 16; ^ , " ° b ° — i= b is p a rag ra p h s
i t 1S w o r t h y .b a t ' ^ ^ ‘^ “ ashir « 7 and U sa ib ia *
1 2 — 13 are com bined in j nQte h y a n .N ad im , c h a ra cte r« -
th e agreem ent is tb n s c o r n p ^ • J ^ hfa a g e , tb e
in g h is epitom e. - U 5) V M « / . 5, M u bashir 23
V ! L la tin a 45
a n d U s a ib ia 11 sa y 68 B a u m sta yv ^ T h e a d d itio n ‘l a
are in gen iou s b u t o b je c tiv e y in terestin g. O n ly a G reek w riter

th e reign of P to le m y , son o -agu* H e {ound t h a t A risto tle
c o u ld h ave m a d e th is v e r y sp b im scli w a s an A le x a n d ria n ,
£ - s 7 — ch— y. ^
t0 d a te A risto tle ’ s d ea th « 0 * « a v e r y w ea k a r * u m ,n t
successor in A lex a n d ria. T ' ^ sch olar. _ ( l 6) = V M 44;
fo r P to le m y h a v in g been an siste r’s son ” ; th e confusion
M u b a s h ir 3. - U s a ib ia 34 ” ri™ d to P to le m y , c. V M >3-
„ itb P la to -S p e u s ip p u s can h a n ily o t , » t diw o t o are
- ,l6 ’ ? W v L r r S" - 1 i cla ssificatio n is io n n d in

m entioned in V M 4 5 - ^ ^ d erived from th e n eop laton ic
a l-F a r a b i, S aid an d a Q , N icolau s of D am ascu s, as R o ep er
prolegom en a and m a y go ’ v a th e ’ O x r ix d , see R ose,
suggested . T h e treatise y , ^ fam ou s I ’r o . ^
4 n s f. pseudep. p. 373 . ■ ai_Rindi as a genuine w o rk of
OeoXoyixv b y P ro clu s a P ^ n s M k ’s Tfeo/ogy, see m y
A risto tle and circu lated urn. < __ (j8', C f. V M 43 and th e
V on Aristoteles bis L eibniz p. M 4 . n ote 55 -
title g iv en b y U saibia.
A L -M U B A S H IR
a l-M U B A § § IR . K ita b mukhtdr al-hikam wa-mah&sin al-kilam , ed.

ig,
L ip p e rt2, p. 4 — w ith tran slatio n and notes; tran slation h y B anm -
stark 2, pp. 3g—51 and 120 — 124. M y tran slatio n has b een checked
b y m y colleague L ew in .
(1) Inform ation on A ristotle. T h e nam e in G reek m eans ‘ the p erfect

or th e ex cellen t” . H is fa th e r's nam e w as N icom achu s, w hich m eans
“ the figh ter or conqu eror” .
(2) N icom achus w as a p h ysician ; his son A risto tle w a s born to him
in a c ity called S ta gira in th e region of C halcidice, belon ging to th e
p rovince of T hracia. H is m o th er’s nam e was P haestis. H is fa th er was
th e court-physician of A m y n tas, fa th e r of P h ilip , fa th er of A lexan d er.
H is father w as th e son of M achaon, and his lineage on his fa th er's
side therefore goes b ack to Asclepius. T h is fa m ily is th e m ost n oble
am ong the Greeks. H is m other too traced her descent b ack to A sclepius.
(3) W hen he w as eight years old he w as b rou ght b y his fa th er to
th e cou n try of A thens, celebrated under the nam e of “ th e cou n try of
w ise m en” , and here the b o y sta y ed in th e L yceu m . H is fa th er handed
him over to a school of poets, orators and school-m asters, and he sta y ed
there nine years. (4) T his branch of learning, th e know ledge of language,
was called b y th e G reeks “ the all-em bracing” , because e v eryb o d y needed
this know ledge w hich is an in stru m ent and a t the sam e tim e a gu ide
to all kinds of wisdom and virtu e, showing too how each b ran ch of
know ledge has been created.
(5) There were, how ever, am ong th e w ise m en some w h o despised
the know ledge of the orators, lexicograp hers and schoolm asters, and
cavilled a t those who d evoted them selves to these professions. To
these calum niators belonged E p icu ru s and P yth ag o ras. T hey held
th a t these occupations w ere of no use for acquirin g w isdom , since the
gram m arians w ere nothing b u t schoolm asters, th e poets n othin g b u t
w eathercocks and liars, th e orators m ere calu m n iators, cajolers and
rabid revolutionaries.
o IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
ig ö
(6, W h e n th is cam e to A risto tle ’ s eats, he cam e forw ard to defend
t h i schoolmasters, orators and p o ets an d p lead ed th eir cau se sayin g.
“ W isdom ca n n o t d o w ith o u t th eir k n o w led g e, since logic is the instru-
,1 t oT Z* k n o w lc d e ,- (7) He fu rth er said: "M a n s s u p e r io r ly
in com parison w ith th e anim al is based on m a n ’s pow er of s p c « h . >
he Z
a m an in th e tru e sense of th e w ord w h o a h .
of h ittin e th e m a rk and exp ressing d e ftiy th e th o u g h ts of his s o d .
I T o ls h o w to arran ge th e w ord s p r o ^ r ly and
w h ich are a t th e sam e tim e terse an d gracefu l. (8) Since
,h most ex a lted Ol all th in gs, it m u st be « m th e m ost luci
IW
„,m
, b y the most eloquent tongue, and in the most sncc.a c tfo rm .
a „d mistakes, vulgarities and barbam m s. and Imgnfauc
sach defect» obscure the light ol wisdom, ol.stn.et
«he perspicuity. o b ln sc.te the
S T t h e poets.
A th en s in th e c o u n try of the w ise m en.
present". And w h o , A nstotle a m cd ^ ,.N o t until

tio n ' th e audience is co m p let . ( ) , oq; j . “ Ppad
the Mind i , here” , and when Aristotle had arnved. he sard. Read.
W h » fo r lh e second tim e R a t o w ent to Sieily. he made Aristotle
% 7 ^ pi“ o
the Lyceum . T h e re he founded a school o f p h ilo s o p h y r t.e h u a s ^ » ^
■*«
P ia t o ra r on.
optm ÄT h , W M nÄ
g. I ^ Ä^ ^ ^ — fa s u p e« * o■
lflu o s,
TC*embl<B^he tra in in g of th e m ind th ro u g h ph ilosoph y. H e n ce w e m u st

A R IS T O T L £ IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L TR ADITIO N ’ IQ g
train and exercise b od y and m ind to g e th e r.” T h is m axim he im parted

to A risto tle and X en o cra tes, b o th of w hom in stru cted their pupils in
this doctrine, and th e result w as th a t th e y all philosophized w alking
and the school as a w hole w as called th e P erip a tetic school.
(16) X en o cra tes sta y ed in th e A c a d e m y teach in g th e doctrines of
P lato. A risto tle’s entire a c tiv ity as professor of ph ilosophy, including
the com position of his hooks on logic and oth er branches of ph ilosophy,
w as carried on in a place w h ith er he had w ith d raw n and w hich w as
called the L yceu m . H ere he d eposited his b ooks to b e kept. H is p h ilo
sophy and his b ooks w ere a t th a t tim e called “ th e science th a t gives
the tru th as answer, and th e science of listen in g ” .
(17) B u t when P la to w as dead, A risto tle w en t to H erm ias th e S lave,
th e ruler of A tarneus; w hen th e S la v e w as dead, he returned to A then s.
(18) Then P hilip sent for him and he w en t to him in M acedonia and
stayed there, teach in g ph ilosophy, u n til A lex a n d e r m arched off against
the countries of Asia. (19) A risto tle th en le ft C allisthenes as his succes
sor in M acedonia and retu rned to th e co u n try of A th en s and stayed
there ten years, teach in g in th e L yceu m .
(20) Thereupon a m an am ong th e high priests b y nam e of E u rym ed on
cam e forw ard and denounced him as a m an to be shunned b y everyb od y.
H e gave a distorted accou n t of his philosophy, claim ing th a t he did
not p ra y to the gods w ho a t th a t period w ere w orshipped, and did not
show them due respect. H e w as prom p ted b y jea lo u sy and b y an old
grudge w hich he bore to him in his heart. (21) W hen A risto tle learned
about this, he w ithdrew from A th en s to his n a tiv e c o u n try C halcidice,
fearing th a t th e y should a ttem p t on him w h a t th e y had done to Socrates
the tem perate, w hom th e y execu ted b y poison. (22) H e w ithd rew
to the place ju st m entioned in order to stu d y ebb and flo w in the gu lf
of E uripus close to E u boea, and to w rite a book oil th is phenom enon.
(23) H ere death cam e to him , and he died th ere and w as buried there
H e reached th e age of 68 years.
(24) W hen P hilip w as dead and his son A lexan d er had succeeded to
th e throne and proceeded from M acedonia to conquer th e countries
of Asia, A ristotle detached and freed him self from th e association
w ith the affairs of the king. (25) H e founded the afore-m entioned seat
of learning and began to d evote him self to w ork for th e com m on w eal,
(26) to supporting the feeble, to g e ttin g m aidens m arried, to p rotectin g
orphans; to assisting those w ho w ere eager to learn and becom e ed u cated ,
200 IN G E M A H D tiR IN G
w h oever th e y w ere and w h a tev er kin d of schooling th e y w an ted , and

to ob tain in g bursaries for th a t purpose; to ob tain in g alm s for th e poor
and to w ritin g con stitu tion s for th e cities. (27) H e re-erected th e c ity
of S ta gira, and it w as he w ho ga v e th e S ta girites their law s.
(28) H is fam e w as great am ong men; g rea t honours and high ra n k
w ere conferred on him b y th e kings.
(29) T h e in h ab ita n ts of S ta g ira tran sferred his b o d y w hen it h ad
m ouldered; th e y collected th e bones, p laced th em in an urn of b ron ze
w hich th e y d ep osited in a place called th e A ristoteleion . T h e y m ade
th is th e ir m eeting-place w here th e y assem bled in council for th e d elibera
tion of im p o rta n t m a tters and th in gs th a t grieved them . (30) T h e y
sou gh t com fort, too, a t th e p lace of his tom b, and p eacefu l tra n q u illity
w here his bones rested. W h en som eth in g in th e realm of p h ilosoph y
or learn in g seem ed to th em to o d ifficu lt, th e y w en t to th a t p lace and
sa t dow n to d eliberations. T h e y ta lk e d th ere to g eth er a b o u t th e m a tter,
u n til th a t w hich w as obscure becam e clear, and u n til th e y w ere sure
a b o u t th a t w h ich had been a m a tter of dispute. F o r th e y b elieved th a t
th e ir com ing to th e p lace w here A r isto tle ’s rem ains w ere bu ried w ould
p u rify th e ir m ind, im p ro ve th e ir ju d gm en t, and m ake th eir under
stan d in g m ore subtle. T h e y w en t th ere, too, in order to p a y respect
to him a fter his death, to show th e ir m ourning for his d ep artu re and
th e ir grief a t th e m isfortu n e th e y had sustain ed b y th e loss of th e source
of w isdom th a t he had been to them .
(31) A risto tle had m a n y disciples: kings, princes and others. A m o n g
th e m w ere T h eo p h rastu s and E u d em u s, K in g A lex a n d e r, A R M IN U S
(read: H erm ippus), A S ’H U L U S (read: A n dronicus), and oth er cele
b ra ted m en, d istin gu ished in learning, prom in ent in ph ilosoph y, and
fam ou s for their noble descent. (32) H e w as succeeded as head of th e
School and professor of th e sam e d octrin es as he had ta u g h t, w ith th e
sam e ran k as him self, b y his second cousin T heo p h rastu s. W ith him
w ere tw o m en actin g as assistants, called A R M IN U S and A S ’H U L U S .
T h e y w ro te m a n y b ooks on logic and ph ilosophy.
(33) A t his d ea th he le ft one b o y N icom ach u s, tend er of age. and a
y o u n g d au gh ter. H e also le ft a g rea t estate, m a n y servan ts and m aids,
and oth er things. (34) H e m ade A n tip a te r execu to r of his w ill tog eth er
w ith a n um ber of his friend s ta h elp him . H e g a v e T h eo p h rastu s a
free h and to join th e execu tor, if h e so desired, and to p a rticip a te w ith
him in th e ad m in istratio n of th e estate.
(35 ) A risto tle w rote m a n y books, a b o u t one hundred. I t is said that,

apart from these hundred, he w ro te others too. A m o n g th e la tter are
tw e n ty b ooks w hich w e h a v e seen and w hich are still in th e h and s of
men, nam ely eigh t books on logic (the sam e as in F ih r is l 18), eig h t books
on ph ysics (only seven are enum erated, as in F ih r isl 18), one book on
ethics, one book on co n stitu tion s (the P olities, 170 accord in g to al-
Masudi), one large book called M etaphysics, also k now n u nder the
title Theology, i. e. D ivin e D iscourse, one b ook on m a th em atics and
m echanics.
(36) F u rth erm ore belon g to th e sam e class of w ritin gs th e (open)
letters and th e personal letters, m a n y of w hich are know n under
th e nam es of in d ivid u al addressees, but we have n ot seen these
books.
(37 ) W hen P la to reproached him fo r his books and w ritin gs on
philosophy, he excused him self w ith th e follow in g w ords: " A s to th e
children and heirs of philosophy, I do n ot deem it n ecessary to conceal
an yth in g from them ; as to its enem ies and despisers, I do n o t th in k
th a t th e y can a tta in ph ilosophy b ecause of th eir ign oran ce of its doctrines
and their own disdain and con tem p t for them , caused b y th e d ifficu lty
of access. I h a v e expounded th e doctrin es of ph ilosophy, b u t at th e
sam e tim e fortified ph ilosophy so th a t it is im pregnable and so th a t th ey
cannot clim b the gates, th e ign oran t not a tta in it, th e w icked not tak e
possession of it. I h a ve p u t philosophy in an orderly form w hich causes
no difficulties w h atever fo r th e wise, b u t is of no use to liars and im
postors.”
(38) A risto tle w as fair, a little bald-headed, of good figu re, and ve ry
bony; he had sm all eyes, grew a th ic k beard; his eyes w ere blu ish , his
nose aquiline, his m outh sm all, his ch est broad. W h en alone, his g a it
was hurried; when together w ith friends, leisurely. H e w as a persisten t
reader of books; he shunned em p ty talk; when questioned, he pondered
every word and k ep t silen t for a w hile before he replied. H e spent
some tim e of th e d ay in th e fields or b y th e rivers. H e liked m usic
and the com pany of m athem aticians and dialectician s. H e w as ju st
and fair in discussions, fran k ly ad m ittin g w heth er h e w as rig h t or
wrong. H e w as m oderate in his clothing, eatin g and d rin kin g habits,
in sexual intercourse and in his em otions.
In his hand he held an astrolabe.
(39) H e died a t th e age of 68.
Comment. V M = V it a M arc., V V = V ita v u lg ., V S = V ita S yriaca.

(1) F ih rist i , U sa ib ia I.
(2) V M 1 — 2; V S I 2 — 3; F ih r ist 2; U sa ib ia 1; th e m istake “ son of
M ach ao n ” in th e F ih rist too . T h a t b oth paren ts w ere descended from
A sclep iu s is th u s sta te d in all sources d erived from P to lem y .
(3 — 4) A ra b ic ela b o ra tio n of V M 4 ix i veog d)v, n ot fou n d in a n y
oth er A ra b ic source; “ all-em b ra cin g” m u st b e an a tte m p t to tran slate
ryxvy.Xioq n a td sla , V M has ttjv xd>v iXevdegcov naidsiav. T h e original
said noirixai Qrtxoof.Q ygafi/naxixoi I t is w ell attested (Pol. V I I I 3,
1338 b 2, etc.) th a t A risto tle considered a w ell-rounded general ed u ca
tion as a n ecessary prereq u isite of higher studies; E p icu ru s polem icized
again st and derided th is noXv/naQia.
(5) N eith e r in V M , n or in a n y A ra b ic source, b u t w ell a ttested b y
T 31 and th e testim on ia adduced in ch. X V , see m y com m en ts p. 385.
P y th a g o ra s is of course L y c o n P yth ag o reu s. A lth o u gh this t e x t has
passed th ro u g h so m a n y interm ed iates du rin g m ore th an one thou san d
years, an echo of th e acrim onious polem ic of th e E p icu rea n s is still
p ercep tible. — I fin d it d ifficu lt to b elieve th a t M ubashir had access
to a n y oth er sources th a n th e A ra b ic su m m ary of P to le m y ’s V ita ,
in clu d in g ev en tu a l ad ditions from th e n eop laton ic prolegom ena. N ow ,
th ere is no trace w h a te v e r of th is q u arrel w ith th e rep resen tatives of
rh eto ric eith er in th e n eop laton ic V ita e or in th e prolegom ena; the
reason is th a t th is su b ject w a s of no in terest to th e n eoplatonists, w ho
n eve r com m en ted on and h a rd ly ever m entioned A risto tle ’s w ork in
rhetoric. T h e A ra b ic scholars, on th e oth er hand, w ere p assion ately
in terested in rhetoric, w h ich to them w as alm ost syn o n ym ou s w ith
general ed u cation. N a tu ra lly , then, th is passage wras of g rea t interest
to th em . F ro m w h a t source did th e an on ym ous au thor (m ost p ro b ab ly
= Ish a q ib n H u n ayn ) of th e su m m ary of P to le m y 's V ita get th is rare
b it of inform ation? I t is d ifficu lt to see th a t he cou ld h a v e g o t it from
a n y oth er source th a n th e V it a itself. I f not, w e m u st assum e th a t
he had access to G reek b ook s of w hich no oth er traces are le ft in the
A ra b ic trad itio n . F ro m a m eth od ological p o in t of v ie w the conclusion
w h ich en tails th e le a st n um ber of d ifficu lties is preferable; it therefore
seem s to m e ju stifia b le to infer th a t th is p a rag ra p h is d erived from
P to lem y .
A n o th e r inference w hich w e shall see su p ported b y fu rth er evid ence
in this: T h e V it a M arcian a represents b u t one specific selection of
facts, ta k en from P to lem y ; its te n d en cy is in accordan ce w ith well-

know n n eop laton ic tren d s. O th er selections are represented b y the
S y ria c V ita e and th e d ifferen t A ra b ic w riters. B eh in d all o f th em lurks
P tolem y, th e com m on treasure-house of inform ation.
(6— 8) O n ly in M ubashir, tran scrib ed b y U saibia 27; no trace in V M
o r the prolegom ena. (6) T h e use of ogyavov in th is sense is d erived
from A ndronicus. I t is w ell a ttested (VM 43, T 75 p 1 — 3 th a t P to
lem y used A n d ro n icu s’ in trod u ction as one of his chief sources. I th e re
fore assume th a t th is p a rag ra p h is an elab o ration of a sim ilar sta tem en t
in P to le m y ’s V ita . (7) T h a t “ m an, and m an on ly, has rational prin cip le”
is a w ell-know n A risto telia n ten et, see P o l. I 2, 1332 b 4 Aoyov fiovov
avBgconog ExEt r & v th e G reek original, tran slated in M ubashir's
source, said a) rcbv n ?.X (n v SiatpeQOfiev rcov £ q>w v, w ith w hich w e m a y
com pare Iam b lichu s P r o t r ., p. 36.7 — 15 P istelli (on w hich see m y note
in: Eranos 52,1954, p. 160) <u yag rcov a A A io v diarpego/nev £mo)v — X6yov
x a l (p Q o v rjo ec o g fiixg a T iv a x a i e v exeivoig a lB v y / ia r a , aorf-idQ d i B eco g r/T ix iijg
71avxsluic, afioiga, Metaph. I I, 980 b 23, D e an. I l l 3, 428 a 24, H ist. an.
V I I I 1, 588 a 20 and 25, l%vr) = alBvy/uara V I I I 1 1 , 608 b 4, Gen. an.
I l l 2, 753 a 13; th is is one of A r is to tle ’s fu n dam en tal ideas. N ow
V M contains a num ber of sim ilar q u otation s of w ell-know n p ith y
w ords from A ristotle, o b vio u sly d raw n from P to le m y ’s V ita . I th ere
fore assum e th a t th is paragraph, too, is based on a genuine q u otation
from one of A risto tle's lo st dialogues. N o t o n ly th e in trod u ctory sentence
b u t th e rest too, is A ristotelian in co n ten t, and I w ou ld even say
th a t w e can still p erceive an u n m istak ab le A risto telian rin g in th e la n
guage. — “ Terse and g ra ce fu l” , d g i / i i x a l r/Svg, ’ A<pgodtTi]g /xeotoq,
cf. ch. X X , p. 448. — (8) T h is is in prin ciple w h a t A risto tle teaches in
Rhet. II I. In the w ords “ th e lig h t of w isd o m ” w e m eet the sam e
etym o lo gical p la y as in Protr. jr. 9, p. 42.15 — 16 W alzer, discussed by
Bignone, L ’ A risl. perdulo, p. I I 518.
(9) VM 5 e tw v yEVOfiEVOQ im a x a id E x a . U sa ib ia 28 says "d ialectics
in stead of “ eth ics” , b u t ethics and politics are often com bined and this
reading is therefore preferable.
(10— 12) T h e first sentence o f (10) = V M 5, V S I 4, U saibia 3.
Mubashir om its the sto ry a b ou t th e oracle. — T h e second sentence of
(10), in this form , on ly in M ubashir, b u t V S II 2 says essen tially the
same; no G reek source; possibly m isinterp retation of V M 6 (piAonovw;
avvfjv or V M 26 xaranXayeig IlXdroiva. T h e a n ti-A ristotelian H ellen istic
IN G E M A K D U R IN G
204
- j i <r ryf, « v s th e opposite: ov ngoalero rov
trad itio n , represented ?y 3 ^ som ething 0f th e k in d in
dv<5ga. I t is q u ite p o s * A ristotle VlUt w c should then ex p ect
o r d e r to glo rify h is id . th leg o K i a b o u t A risto tle ’s

E u m e lu s d id in a s.n u lar w a y (T 46 a), th e g < ^
A p o lo g y ( T 45 ) * I
“ S t,ik i° l “ a„ T i V « or a n y A ra b ie source, b u t ( . 4 ) - V S II 5 . and

pa^ r ; « I d id n o , h ap p en to
tb ese th ree p u t u T o n th e r ig h t
S0T ,fit M y t h a t i t w a s M ubashir w h o p ick ed th is in lo r m a t» «
T J
from an ed itio n ot t i 0.». ■
■
P■— *"d * ta T “" I;
con tra d ictio n b etw een ( 1 4 - 1 6 )
th e re b y cau sin g confu sion and a gla g h o tter
1 .v,« o f th e te x t? T h o se w h o know rus w orn ^ «
T ^ a c ^ c n . e him as a d ilig en t c o m p i l e r , pron e to tran sen b e
th a n I d o. c h a r a c te ru , r t t seem s to m e m ore
so u rc e , and w ith o u t k n ow led ge o l G reek- ^
p ro b ab le th a t " ^ n t t h - t h . G reek
P to le m y ’ s V ita , who, w a s . m an ^ ^
th e « r « » l 7 ■ 0| t e M ^ p b y are p ro b a b ly A ra b ic
s11 r . s ^— o »OT1* QTiq,

*>— , er’ >- —
J ^m om uns / «” cC a i.,
Am i C -M i* i v 4,
r 6 .r ^ r r ^ r ^ „ - — *
U T - ? = U sa ib ia 5 . is ex trem e ly v a lu a b le to us, b ecau se i t p ro v es th a t
P to le m y ’s V it a con tain ed «1* s£ ge to

n eop laton ic V ita e nor th e prolegom en a sa y a
A risto tle ’s life; th e m an w h o com piled th e V ita M arciana transferred

‘ A tclqvevq to P roxen u s (VM 2), th a t is all. P to le m y could not po ssibly
have o m itted H erm ias en tirely from his b io grap h y. In th e sources he
used he m ust h a ve m et th e u n fav o u rab le accou n ts w hich , as w e can
see from th e testim on ia in ch. I l l , d om inated th e b iograp hical trad ition.
N ot even A ristocles, this lo y a l p h il-A risto telian , could escape being
im pressed b y it (see th e end of T 58 j). H is ten d en cy b eing to glo rify
A ristotle, P to le m y n a tu ra lly w an ted to m a k e as little as possible of
w h a t he regarded as a deplorable in cid en t in A risto tle ’ s life. A note
corresponding to M uhashir 17 w o u ld h a v e b een su fficien t for him; to
say more w ould in e v ita b ly h a ve in volved him in d ifficu lties. B y com
bining V M 1 3 — 14 and M uhashir 17 - i g w e get th e follow ing disposition
in P to le m y ’s V ita: a) P la to dies, Speu sippu s scholarch; b) A risto tle to
Herm ias; c) P hilip sends fo r A ristotle; d) h e lea ves C allisthenes as his
successor.
(18 — ig ) = H erm ippus ap. D L V 4, U saihia 6; o n ly (18) = V M 14.
If, as I assum e, P to lem y described A risto tle 's v is it to H erm ias as an
interlude w ith o u t fu rth er significance, he had to in v en t th e sto ry abou t
A risto tle’s return to A then s. Th. B e rg k a ttem p ted to p ro v e th a t
A ristotle during 345/342 w as really in A th en s lectu rin g in th e L yceu m
instead of in M ytilene; he based his argum en t on Isocr. Panath. 3 3;
I h ave rejected this hypothesis in m y note on T 5 3 a.
(20) = H erm ippus ap. D L V 5, U saibia 7, not in V M because this
was of no interest to the neoplatonists. T h e o n ly e x ta n t G reek source
speaking of th e hierophan t E u rym ed on is D iogenes L a e rtiu s V 3
( = Herm ippus); a few other echoes of D em ochares’ speech are com
m ented upon on p. 388, T 5g g, and p. 344, T 45. N o d ou b t th e sto ry
was w ell a ttested in the G reek trad itio n , and P to le m y could h a rd ly
h a ve avoided reporting it. T h e w ords “ d istorted acco u n t of his philo
so p h y” recall O rigen’s &ia 1 tva doy/iara rfjg rpiAooorpiaq avzov (T 45 c).
— U saibia has a valu able addition from P tolem y: “ A risto tle sp eaks of
this in a letter to A n tip a te r” . W e are again rem inded th a t these letters,
w hether genuine or faked, collected b y A rtem on in eight books, p la y e d
an im portant role as treasure-house for th e biographers.
(21) = V M 41, V S II 3, U saibia 8. I t is clear th a t the c o n te x t in V M
is destroyed, for inavaazdv t c d v com es v e ry a b ru p tly , cf. V V i g and
V S II 3 abou t Socrates, missing in VM . T h is is illum inating: V V and
the S yriac and A ra b ic trad ition go together against V M . T his supports
t in g e m a k d u r in g
m y opinion th at V M is only o n e among m any summaries of Ptolem y's

v;+«> — Chalcidice is of course a mistake for Chalcis.
U 2) N o t in th e n eop laton ic V ita e , b u t in V S I I 7 an d th re e la te
G reek sources (T 48). I t is p rob ab le t h a t th is is th e origin al v e rs o
ivctl b y p to lc m y (w ho m ig h t h a v e fou n d it in H e m u p p u s or o th e r
I s T ^ r h c f i t as sta te d here m ig h t w ell b e tru e: th e aged * c k y
llhi,c i p h e r . ^ ^ ^ ^ J ^ S in L ^ u s t L 3 a h ld y kn ew
th ^ d is to r te d *version, th is to o m ust b e m u ch earlier th a n P to le m y .

t n \ = V M 4 3 , F ih rist 1 5 U sa ib ia 1 1 , .
2 4 - 2 7 ) fo llo w in e x a c tly th e sam e order in F i W a n d U s a f lm -
(24I = V M 23. F ih rist 10, U sa ib ia 22. - (25 ) - V M 24, r” -
u i i h i a 23 “ com m on w e a l” . ct. V M 15 » « » 7 « ™ » » 1» d m .
M N o t in a n y G reek source, p ro b a b ly A ra b ic ela b o ra tio n o f i a a
1-Joto, B t e e r h n m V M 16; Fife.* I2 . U sa fb ia 24 - (27 ) - VM 7.
V S I 7 , F ih r ist 13, U sa ib ia 25. -
I2" W e are b e , , in tb e
in tellectu al atm osp here o f I . m b B c W school: « • ^ ^
s s s n s u a . s a w - - - -
tb e S tafiirites p aid h om age to th e ir great b e n e fa c to r
= V M 44. v s I I 6, Usaibia 3 3 - 34 - T h e tw o names are
p u w lin g . U p p e r t an d B a u m sta rk ^
u “ cherd r M e l a n d « o^ A p h ro d isias an d o n ^ o f th e i ^ o r p r o p h e t»
could have been mentioned possible,

name is certainly corrup’.. The name 01 n c n
Kuf Ptolem y could not have called him an assista ^
Thcoohras-
P
tus” I venture the somewhat hazardous con]ec ure ^
corrupt names stand for Hermippus and Andronicus. ^ o ^
unlikelv th a t Ptolem y mentioned his two predecessors
k n o w n ' Hermippus’ biography. and th at he used Andronicus book*
tt££TS
- - r •r
£
r
£
s
r J i S I - not find it unthinkable
th a t P to lem y m entioned H erm ip pu s and A n d ro n icu s as “ disciples of

A risto tle” , and th a t he said som ething a b o u t th e ir w ork on Theophrastus.
T h e A ra b ic tran slator or M ubashir can n o t h a v e in v en ted th e nam es
and the facts, b u t th e y m a y w ell h a v e m isu n derstood th e G reek te x t
in the passage a b o u t T h eo p h rastu s’ a ssociatio n w ith H erm ippus and
Andronicus. — “ Second cou sin ” , litera lly “ h e w as his m o th er’s sister’s
son” ; confusion w ith P lato-Speusippus.
(33 ) = V M 44, V S I n , F ih rist 16, U sa ib ia 35.
(34 ) = V M 43 o n ly m entions th e W ill; V S I 12; F ih r ist 17 and
U saibia giv e the W ill in extenso.
(35 ) V M 45. T h e w ords “ one h u n d red ” are p ro b a b ly a m isin terp reta
tion of £i7 iol. T h e rest is an ad dition m ade b y M ubashir him self and
testifies to th e existen ce of an im pressive C orpus A ristotelicu m .
(36) Cf. VM 16. T h e “ con fid en tial le tte rs” m a y refer to th e im aroX ai
ovoTcm xai in V M 27 and W 16.
{37) T h is is ta k en from al-F arab i, see D iete rici2, p. 1 1 . I t is a
ty p ic a lly A ra b ic elaboration of th e tw o letters in T 76 f, first m entioned
b y A ndronicus. I t is probable th a t al-F a ra b i found th e origin al story
in P to le m y ’s V ita , or m entioned from th e V ita in th e n eoplaton ic
prolegom ena.
(38) = U saibia 36. T h is is a description of a ficticiou s im age of
A risto tle in a m anuscript. T h e au th or has ca refu lly p reserved the
ancien t trad itio n th a t he w as fiixQOfifiaxoQ. H is (i£TQi6xriq is a w ell
attested topic, V M 31 w ith testim on ia, and T 50 b.
a l -q i f t i
a l- Q I F T l G A M A L A D D I N Tabaq&t a l-h u kam a , ed. J. L ip p e rt, L e ip

zig 1903.
I. s. v. Ptolem y-el-Garib:
T h is sch olar w as du rin g his lifetim e a philosopher in th e c o u n try of
th e G reeks, and he is n ot id en tical w ith th e au th or of th e A lm agest.
H e w as a friend of A risto tle w h om he lo ved and defended from his
enem ies, and he tran sm itte d his doctrines to e v e ry b o d y w h o w as eager
to acqu ire k n ow led ge a b o u t th em from him . O n acco u n t of th is he
w as a h ig h ly reputed and honoured scholar du rin g his lifetim e.
M an y kin gs an d scholars are k n ow n u n der th e nam e of P to lem y .
T h e y d istin gu ish ed them from one another b y ad d in g a sp ecial nam e,
so th a t w e can k n o w th em under th is nam e.
In order to show his solicitu d e concerning A risto tle th is scholar
w rote a b ook “ O n th e life of A risto tle , his d eath, and th e classification
o f his b o o k s.”
Comment: T h e F ih r ist says (19): “ P to lem y -el-G arib ^ v h o w as an a d

heren t of A risto tle and spread know ledge a b o u t his m erits; he is th e
a u th o r of a book O n - b o o k s ” . - U sa ib ia , in th e in trod u ction to his
b io grap h y, says: “ T h u s speaks P to le m y in his book to G allu s on th e
life and h isto ry of A ristotle, his W ill and th e list of his fam ous w ritin g s.”
- A p a r t from th e fa c t th a t his nam e is m entioned several tim es in
th e biographies, th is is all inform ation w e h a ve on P to le m y in A ra b ic
sources. A lm o st id en tical is th e title given b y E lia s, T 75 p 3.
A l-Q ifti’s w ork is a b io grap h ic h an d b ook w ith a b o u t one hundred
articles on G reek authors, arran ged in alp h a b etica l order, w ritten
betw een 1230 and 1235. T h e original, now lost, w as used b y U saib ia,
A b u -l-F a ra g , and A b u -l-F id a ; w h a t is le ft is an ep itom e and sev eral
e x tra cts . Steinschneider, L ip p e rt and B au m stark ch aracterize th e w ork
as a com pilation of earlier w orks, p a rtly lost, p a r tly e x ta n t. S tein
schneider1, pp. 187 — 191 gives a general su rv e y of his b iograp hical
article on A ristotle; som e ad d itio n a l n otes b y B a u m sta rk 2, p. 15, and

b y L ip p e rt2 in his com m ents on M ubashir. L a tin tran slation of the
catalogue b y Steinschneider, in: Aristotelis Opera Omnia, V , Berlin 1870,
p. 1469. — On th e special problem of id en tifyin g our P to le m y a great
m any scholars h a ve expressed opinions; a good su rv e y of the literatu re
in P. M oraux, Listes anciennes des ouvrages d'Aristote, pp. 289— 294.
I t was W . Christ and J. L ip p e rt w ho sim u ltan eou sly su ggested th a t
ou r P tolem y is id en tical w ith th e rath er obscure P tolem aios Chennos,
w ritin g in th e la s t half of th e first ce n tu ry A. D.
It is im portant to realize th a t th e p resen tatio n of P to le m y in our
three sources is n othin g b u t an elabo ration of th e title of his book.
E v e ry th in g in this n ote is ob vio u sly based on th e book itse lf as th e only
source. L ip p e rt interpreted th e sentence “ T h e y distinguished — under
this nam e” as im plying: “ and th is is w h y P tolem y-el-G arib also has a
special name, given to him b y the G reek s” . Susem ihl, in his review
o f'L ip p e r t 2 (Berl. P h il. Wochenschrift 15, 1895, p. 1130) added the
follow ing rem ark: “ dass diese B ezeich n u n g “ der F re m d e” n ich t erst
vo n den A rabern herrührt, erhellt aus der nachd rü cklichen A n g a b e von
Q ifti” . U n fortu n ately th is is n ot so; U sa ib ia 's sta tem en t is not a t all
so definite and unam biguous.
B usse (in: Hermes 28, 1893, pp. 252 — 276) saw th a t the sentence in
al-Q ifti should be interpreted thus: “ this is th e reason w h y th e special
nam e el-G arib has been given to this P to le m y ” . A l-Q ifti know s a b ou t
nam es like P to lem y Soter, P hiladelphus; he th in ks th a t th is P to lem y
w as called el-G arib for th e sam e reason, b u t he n either sa ys nor know s
w hether the surnam e wTas given to him b y th e G reeks or th e A rabs.
Since the n ote on P to lem y is found in p re tty m uch th e sam e form in
our three sources, th e y m ust h a v e found it in th eir com m on source,
the anonym ous tran slation or su m m ary of P to le m y ’s book, p ro b a b ly
m ade b y Ish aq ibn H u n ayn . T h is w riter, then, w ro te this n ote as an
in trod u ctory note in his sum m ary. T o distinguish his m an from the
fam ous P to lem y he called him el-G arib = ignolus. T his, I th in k, is
the exp lanation w hich recom m ends itself b y its sim p licity. N eith er
E lias, nor th e V ita M arciana know a n y th in g a b o u t a surnam e.
W ith some hesitation I ven tu re to suggest a possible a ltern a tive
solution of the problem . B oth U saibia and al-Q ifti (Cat. gg) sp eak of
“ his book to G allu s” . I t is of course possible th a t P to le m y ’s book had
a Greek title, corresponding to his rendering: IJ qoi; rdXXov neoi rov
Göteb. Univ. A r s s k t . L X I I I : 2 14
TN GEM AR D U R IN G
210
210
J.1 -Tf«; T-fic dtadvx7K avrov x a i negi rrjg r o êwq
P lov r ° * A 0 ^ o r a ° v , . ^ ^ m ore p io b a b ie th a t th is is a descrip-
t& v avyyQauf*nr0iV, *n ‘ . , -, i - tb e title it m igh t
* . book , if w « *
h a v e been som ething , ' ct>mm0„ surnam e o f R o m a n
catio n to th e unknow n (.a liu s con tem p o ta ry p h il-A ristotelian ,
fam ilies of h igh stan din g , pro >.i >>
„as its counterpart in Diogenes' .n k n o . n I ^ l o - H ^ ^
p ia to n ist (D L I I I 47 )
W e know from G alen th e nam es „1 m an y „ is th u s

am ateurs d ev o te d th em selves to H o w ev „ , i , Is
Q - t o P ^ t e th a t t t e W ^ t ^ L » . " r e gnilty of the m ost

a notoriou s fa c t th a t th in k th a t w e
cu riou s m isin terp retation s of prop er j“ “ “ ’ Q ib can h a v e
can ex clu d e th e p o s s ib ly he does n o t sa y
his book
to G aU us (literally: C A I.A h ) . M * ..........^ a b so lu tely o u t o f th e
i n a n y case the id en tification » .t b C h . n n n , n bso W ^ y ^ ^
question- P W - l J J ‘£ - “ “ “ j at onic in its general character
;- L i r s
«“ ■ 7 too ^"merely . conjecture, but not an
■
D‘ ' r L nne. The name, however was very common; » e must rest
ta p ro k , We one. The n ^ on ^ „ have
r S , t » t-> * • « V. ia. * r ? . i S X k d s o m e
S tc in sc h n cid e .'s tran slatio n p k tlo s^ h .s, , £ * « « * » ^ ^
scholars astray, b u t already Graeco-Roman empire” .
~ 4 b y a l-Q ifti is th e r 1. ^ ^ f u r t h it evidence
T o sum n p „ A lex a n d ria n n eop laton ist, influ enced
crops up, is th a t to ny - ({ourth rpntUry A . D ) , and th a t
b y or bel0Bgm ^ ° a ri“ 1w a1s ^ to h im b y th e an on ym ou s w riter of
£ e A n ”b T srn n n ,a ry ( - Ish aq?) to d istin gu ish h im from th e am ous
P to le m y , a u th or of th e f - M aseS\ w lth o u t a n y sUrnam e. E lia s ,

I n V it a M arcian a 43 h e “ “ “ W to d d p h u s; th is in d ic a te ,
I S f f a b o u t 500 , N o o th er G reek
source m entions him .

As to the title of his w ork we m u st rest co n ten t w ith th e descriptions
given b y E lias (T 75 p) and the th ree A ra b ic sources. E lia s says o
dvayQCuprjv avzcov n o ir jo d fiE v o Q xai zov filov x a i z r jv <5ia0jjxijr, and
since E lia s' prolegom ena w ere k now n to th e A ra b s, th e title or d escrip
tion given b y them m ay w ell b e u ltim a te ly d raw n from th is passage in
E lias; b u t this does not exp lain th e ad dition “ to G a llu s” in U saibia.
2. A l-Q ifti’s article on Aristotle.

A. E ty m o lo g y of A risto tle 's nam e. F ra g m e n ts of a biograp hy: he
stayed tw e n ty years w ith P la to , w ho called him T h e M ind. H e w as th e
m ost prom inent of G reek philosophers, esp ecially in logic. ( = fragm en ts
o f P to le m y ’s V ita.)
T hen follow s a su rv e y of A ris to tle ’s w ritin gs = U sa ib ia H, but
w ith less details, o b viou sly from Said.
B. A risto tle w as A lex a n d e r’s teach er and sent m an y letters to him.
I t was through A lexan d er and A risto tle th a t p h ilosoph y reached the
Muslim countries. Then follow s a ty p ic a l A ra b ic sto ry (from th e Fihrist).
A risto tle appears in a dream before calip h al-M am un, answ ers questions,
and exhorts M am un to arrange for th e tran slation of G reek books.
A lth o u gh in sym bolic form , th e sto ry tells th e tru th . Stein schneider
adds th a t U saibia tran sferred th e legend to H u n ayn .
C. (also from th e Fihrist) H ow th e G reek books reached B agh d ad
(see the interesting articles b y G. B ergstrasser in: Abh. f. d. K u n d e
des Morgenl. 17: 2, 1925; Isis 6, 1924, 2 8 2 - 9 2 and 8,1926, 6 2 5 - 7 2 4 ;
F . R osenthal, “ T h e tech n iqu e and approach of M uslim sch olarsh ip” ,
in: Analecta Orientalia 24,1947.) W e are told th a t al-M am un sends
messengers to the em peror in R um (Constantinople). W hen he h esitates,
al-M am un threaten s to reduce the freedom of th e Christians; he asks
th e em peror to send him A risto tle ’s works, b u t th e em peror replies
th a t he has no copies of these w ritings. T h e y are th en found in a deserted
convent, brought to B agh d ad , and tran slated in to A rab ic. T h e result
w as a great reviv al of learning. A s B ergstrasser’s accou n t shows, this
story, too, contains p a rt of th e historical tru th .
D. N otes on th e translators.
E . A n other story abou t a deserted house, full of books w h ich were
brought to B aghdad.
F. P to lem y ’s V ita, including th e full te x t of the W ill = F ihrist.
G. S u rvey of A risto tle ’s w ritings = F ih r ist, b u t not n early so careful
212
H. P to le m y ’s c atalo g u e o f A risto tle ’s w ritings. ^
Schneider in Aristotelis 0Pera Om nia, V pp. 1 4 7 0 - 7 3 . B au m stark* p £
6 7 - 7 0 com m en ts b y M orau x, pp. 2 8 9 -3 0 9 - S ince U s a m a ’s tra n sc rip t
oi th e catalo g u e is superior. I h a v e ta k e n his t e x t as th e basis of m y
ed itio n and an n o ta ted a l-Q ifti’s readings, as show n m m y n otes^
/ j r s s r r Ä t r Ä j
K O n different sects in philosophy, from al-Farabi a c c o r ^ n g to

Steinschneider (this is probably right), from a l-G h azzali. according
Baum stark T h e s u b J n c e of the chapter is found in the neoplatonic
prolegom ena, see ch. X X , p o in t (i), p. 445-
Comment: I h a v e clo sely follow ed S tein schneid er in th is su rve y

A d d in e w h a t I h a ve found in M üller, L ip p e rt and B a u m sta rk and th
m ore recen t literatu re q uoted. I th in k th is su rve y m akes it R e c t o r
th a t a l-Q ifti is on ly of secon d ary im portance for th e reconstru
P to le m y ’s V ita .
IB N A B I U S A IB IA
IB N ABI U S A I B I 'A 'Uyürt al-anba ft tabaqät al-atibbä\ ed. F .

A u g. M üller, K ö n igsb erg-K a iro 1884. pp. I 5 4 — 69. M y tran slation has
heen checked b y m y colleague L ew in.
D isp o sitio n of the article.

I. B io g r a p h y o f A ris to tle .
A . E x p la n a t io n o f A r is t o t le 's n a m e . F r o m a ]-M asu d i.
B . L ife o f A r is to tle a c c o rd in g t o P t o le m y e l-G a r ib .
C. A d d itio n a l n o te s fr o m a l-M u b a sh ir.
D . N o te fr o m a l-M asu d i o n A r i s t o t le 's t o m b in S ic ily .
E . N o te a fro m a l-M u b a sh ir on A r is t o t le ’ s d isc ip le s a n d on his persona]
a p p e a ra n ce .
F . a n d G. N o te on A r i s t o t le ’ s s ig n e t fro m H u n a y n and a n o te from al -
S ig ista n i.
H . G e n e ra l s u r v e y o f A r is t o t le ’s w r itin g s , fro m Ib n S a id .
I. A r is t o t le ’s w ill a c c o rd in g t o P to le m y .
II. G n o m o lo gy .
J. E x c e r p t s fro m H u n a y n .
K . A p h o rism s and a n e c d o te s fro m a l-M u b a sh ir.
III. B ib lio g r a p h y .
L. P t o le m y ’ s c a ta lo g u e o f A r is t o t le ’ s w r itin g s .
M. A d d itio n a l n o te on A r is t o t e lia n p s e u d e p ig ra p h a .
A, The article begins w ith a n o te ta k en from al-M asudi on the

etym ology of the nam e of A ristotle. A s in a l-V a q u b i, A risto tle is said
to be th e son of N icom ach u s al-G erasi. T h is confusion w ith the neo-
pythagorean N icom achus of G erasa is found also in a l-Q ifti, s. v. N ico
machus.
B. L ife of Aristotle according to Ptolemy.

Thus speaks P to le m y in his book to G allus on th e life and histo ry
of Aristotle, his w ill and th e list of his fam ous w ritings.
2 in g e m a r d u r in g
(1) Aristotle was the native of a city called Stagira situated in

t a
land called Chalcidice which is part of Thrace, near O lynthus and Metho-
ne. The name of his mother was Phaestis.
(2) H e says: Nicomachus, Aristotle’s father, lived as a physician
with Am yntas, father of Philippus, and this Phihppus was the father
of K in g Alexander. The fam ily of Nicomachus traced its descent from
Asclepius. This Asclepius was father of Machaon, and Machaon father
of Asclepius. The fam ily of his mother Phaestis, too, was descended
(x)
from Asclepius. . .
I t is said th a t when his father Nicomachus had departed this
life Proxenus, the m andatory of his father, handed over th e young
man to Plato. Some relate th at he was entrusted to Plato in compliance
with an oracle of God the Lord A lm ighty in the temple of Pythion.
Others say th a t this so happened only because Proxenus and Plato
were friends. I t is further said th at he spent tw en ty years in Plato s
^ ( I n V h e n for the second time Plato went to Sicily, Aristotle became

his deputy as head of the school called the Academy. O n P lato s return
from Sicily Aristotle moved to the L yceum and there founded the
school th at w a s named after the walking philosophers. _
(O W hen a t last Plato died, Aristotle went to Hermias the Slave,
the ruler of Atarneus. W hen this slave died, he returned to Athens,
called the c ity of philosophers.

(6 ) Then Philip sent for him. H e went to M a c e d o n ia and taught
there until Alexander moved across to the lands of Asia. H e left Callis-
thenes as his successor in Macedonia and returned to Athens and stayed
ten years in the Lyceum .

(7) Thereupon one of the priests which are called hierophants by
name Eurymedon, came forward with the purpose of denouncing him.
H e indicted him for impiety, claiming th at Aristotle did not hold the
gods in honour. H e was prompted b y grudge which he bore to.him m
L heart, and Aristotle speaks of this in a letter to Antipater (8)
W hen Aristotle learned about this, he withdrew from Athens to his
home in Chalcidice, because he did not w ant the Athenians to attem pt
on him anything th ey had done to Socrates, Plato s teacher, whom
they executed. (9) H e departed before any steps were taken against
him. and nobody did him any harm until he departed, after ha g
received the bill of indictm ent from the hierophant. (10) N o t in ac-
coid an ce w ith tr u th is w h a t is said a b o u t A risto tle , n am ely th a t h e w rote

an apology a ga in st th e accu sation s of th e hierophant. O n no accou n t
should th is b e regarded as true; on th e co n tra ry it h as b een palm ed
off upon him.
(11) W hen A risto tle h ad arrived a t his hom e, he sta y e d there u n til
he died there, 68 yea rs old.
(12) H e says: W h a t w e h a ve said a b o u t his life shows th a t th e y are
wrong w ho contend th a t he did n ot d ev o te him self to the s tu d y of
philosophy un til he had reached an age of th ir ty years, and th a t, up
to th a t tim e he had tried his hand a t govern in g th e cities, his aim being
to im prove th e conditions of th e cities.
(13) I t is said th a t th e in h a b ita n ts of S ta g ira tran sferred his b o d y
from th e p lace w here he died to th e ir ow n c ity , buried it in a place called
The A ristoteleion, and th a t in th is p lace th e y held th eir councils on
im portant m atters and thin gs w hich grieved them .
(14) I t w as A risto tle w h o drew up a code of law s for th e in h ab ita n ts
of Stagira.
(15) H e had g rea t in flu en ce am ong his fellow men. T h is is clearly
proved b y the honours bestow ed on him b y th e K in gs w ho w ere contem
porary w ith him . (16) W ith w h a t zest he practised goodness and strove
to do good services to his fellow m en is ap p a ren t from his open letters
and his books and from w h a t the reader can gath er in these w ritings
concerning his num erous in terview s w ith con tem porary kings and
individuals, b y w h ich n ego tiatio n s he prom oted their affairs and proved
useful to them .
(17) On accou n t of his num erous good deeds and excellen t services
in this respect, th e A th en ia n s w en t so fa r as to assem ble and decide
b y vo te to d ra ft an inscription . T h e y had it chiselled in a stone colum n
which th e y set up on the h igh est citad e l of th e ir c ity w hich is called th e
Sum m it. (18) In th e inscription on th is colum n th e y m entioned th a t
A ristotle of S tagira, son of N icom achu s, h a d served th e c ity w ell b y
doing good and b y th e g rea t n um ber of his own acts of assistance and
beneficence, and b y all his services to th e people of A then s, esp ecially
by interven ing w ith K in g P h ilip for th e purpose of prom oting th eir
interests and securing th a t th e y w ere w ell treated ; th a t th e people of
Athens therefore w an ted it to be q u ite clear th a t th ey appreciated th e
good th a t had com e o u t of this; th a t th e y bestow ed distin ction and praise
upon him, and w ould k eep him in fa ith fu l and honoured rem em brance.
2 l6 IN G E M A R D O R JN G
(ig) T h ose of the m en in high position who hold him u n w o rth y of

th is honour, m a y th e y after his d eath tr y to do w h a t he did, ta k in g
share in all affairs w here th e y in their ow n in terest w ou ld like to m a k e
an in terven tion .
(20) W h en th e A th en ian s h ad decided to set up th is inscription , th e
decision w as opposed b y an A th en ia n b y nam e of H im eraeus. As
regards A risto tle he a d v o c a ted a c o n tra ry opinion and pounced upon
th e colum n on w hich th e A th en ia n s had decided to inscribe th e la u d a to ry
w ords and w h ich th e y had set up on th e p la ce called th e S u m m it of th e
c ity , and hurled it dow n. O n accou n t of th is deed he w as (afterw ards)
seized and execu ted b y A n tip a te r.1) (21) T h ereu p on an A th en ia n b y
n am e of S tep h an u s, aided b y num erous others, set up a colum n of stone.
On th is th e y inscribed such praise of A risto tle as had b een expressed
in th e origin al inscription; in ad dition th e y e x p lic itly m en tion ed H im e ra e
us w ho had h urled dow n th e colum n, related w h a t he h a d done, and
recom m ended th a t he should b e exiled and th e c it y purified.
(22) W h en P h ilip w as dead and his son A lex a n d e r h ad b ecom e k in g
and had proceeded from his n a tiv e co u n try to w a ge w ar w ith th e nations,
and approached th e v ic in ity of A sia, A risto tle d eta ch ed and freed
him self from th e association w ith th e affairs of th e k in g and from his
o ccu p a tio n w ith thin gs of th a t kind. (23) H e w en t to A th e n s and
established th e sea t of learn in g m en tion ed earlier w h ich w as nam ed
after the w a lk in g philosophers.
(24) H e d ev o te d him self to prom otin g happ in ess am ong m en, to
su p p ortin g th e feeble and th e poor, to g e ttin g m aidens m arried, to
p ro te ctin g orphans and ob tain in g ed u cation for them , to assistin g those
w h o w ere eager to learn in w h a te v e r branch of learn in g th e y w a n ted
to stu d y ; and w h a tev er kin d of schooling th e y w anted , he assisted th em
in ob tain in g th e ir goal; and he d id th is for th e w elfa re of th e poor,
fo r th e com m on w eal of th e cities, and (25) he also re-erected th e b u ild
ings of his n a tiv e c ity S tagira.
(26) H e w as a lw a y s v e ry m oderate in his w a y s and unassum ing,
consid erate in his in tercou rse w ith h igh and low , po w erfu l and w ea k ,
and his readiness to in terven e for his friends w as so g rea t th a t it can not
b e described. T h a t th is w as so is clear from w h a t th e b iograp hers
relate and from th e fa c t th a t it agrees w ith e v e ry th in g th e y h a ve to
sa y a b o u t th e excellen t q u alities of A risto tle and a b o u t h is life.
J) T h e A r a b ic t e x t re a d s A N T I N O O S .
C. Extracts from M ubashir.
And al-M ubashir says in his w o rk Selected maxim s and beautiful
sayings (the follow ing, tran slated b y Stein schneider1, p. 202, section 14.
contains an accou n t of A r is to tle ’s childhood, corresponding to M ubashir
3 — 7; since som e slig h tly v a r ia n t readings in th e follow ing paragraphs
are interesting, I g iv e a fu ll tran slation),
(27) A risto tle said: T h e su p erio rity of m an to th e o th er anim als is
based on m an ’s pow er of speech, for a m an in the tru est sense o f the
word is he who is m ost eloq u en t in his speech; w h o know s how to
express his th o u gh ts in th e m ost e x a c t m anner and a t th e rig h t tim e,
and who is able to determ ine the correct m iddle course betw een terseness
and su a vity . A n d since w isdom is th e m ost ex a lted th in g of all, it
m ust be expressed in th e w isest possible m anner: in a lan gu ag e w hich
is a t the sam e tim e profou nd and eloq u en t, su ccin ct and free from
errors and corrupted th o u gh t; b riefly , b y overcom in g ou r in a b ility to
speak and our stu tterin g w h ich ob fu scates th e lig h t of w isdom and
bereaves us of th e fu lfilm en t of th e end fo r w hich w e exist; preju d ices
our argum ent, confu ses ou r percep tion , d ep rivin g it of sense and be
getting ignorance.
(28) W hen he h ad term in ated his s tu d y of th e poets, gram m arians,
and orators, h e d evoted him self to the disciplines of d ialectics, politics,
physics, m athem atics, and th eo lo gy ( = m etap hysics). H e join ed P lato,
becam e his disciple and an appren tice in his school. H e w as then
seventeen y ea rs old.
(29) A l-M ubashir says: W h en P la to held a class and som ebody asked
for perm ission to sta r t reading, P la to said: " N o t u n til e v e ry b o d y is
present” . H e often said: “ N o t u n til th e M ind is h ere” . A n d when
A ristotle had arrived , he said: “ R ead , he is here n o w .”
(30) A l-M ubashir says: W hen A risto tle w as dead, th e in h ab itan ts of
Stagira collected his ashes and laid th em in an urn of b ronze and
deposited it in a p lace w hich th e y called T h e A ristoteleion . T h e y m ade
this their m eeting-place w here th e y assem bled in council for th e d eli
beration of im p o rta n t m a tters and th in gs th a t grieved them . (31) =
= M ubashir 30.
E . Note from al-M asudi on A ristotle's tomb in Sicily.

(32) Al-M asudi sa ys in his b ook on th e roads and th e p rovin ces th a t
in the b ig c ity called J A L Z A M ( = Messana) in th e island o f S icily
th ere is a cathedral-m osque w hich w as p rev io u sly a C hristian church,

w ith a v a s t tem ple-hall.
H e says: I h eard som e logicians relate th a t a G reek w ise m an, n am ely
A risto tle, w as hanging on a w ooden b lo ck in th is tem ple-hall, w hich
th e m oslem s tran sform ed in to a m osque; th a t th e C hristians praise th e
m iracle-w orkin g pow er of th is idol and esp ecially its healing pow er,
and th a t th e G reek inscription on it p roved its ex a lted nature.
T h e y fu rth er said th a t th e reason for h anging him up b etw een h eaven
and earth was th a t people com e th ere to p ra y for rain or for other
im p ortan t m atters w hich induce th em to seek refu ge in G od A lm ig h ty
and approach H im , as for in stan ce in tim es of m isfortun e or disaster
or in settlin g disputes.
A l-M asud i says: I saw ind eed in th a t place a w ooden b lo ck w hich
looked as if it could h a v e been th is grave.
E. Notes on Aristotle’ s disciples and his personal appearance.

(33 ) == M u bashir 31, w ith th e sam e c o rru p t nam es. (34) = M ubashir
32. (35) = M ubashir 33. (36) = M u bash ir 38, in trod u ced b y th e words:
I sa w in som e books a description of A r is to tle ’s personal appearance.
A cu riou s d ifferen ce (the o n ly one) is th a t U sa ib ia sa ys h e grew a
sparse b e a rd ” , and M ubashir th e opposite, “ a th ic k b ea rd ".
F. Note from H unayn ibn Ishaq on A ristotle's signet.

A risto tle 's sig n et is said to h a v e carried th e follow in g inscription:
T h e one w ho refuses to sa y w h a t he does n o t know , is w iser th a n the
one w ho pours forth w h a t he know s.
G. Note from a l-Sigistani’s Ta'aliq.

A risto tle 's m an d atory w as S A R A K O S T A S (? stan ds for Ih eop h ra stu s
or A n tip a te r), an d h e reached th e age of six ty -o n e years.
H. General survey of Aristotle's literary work.

T a k e n from Ib n S ‘ aid al-Q ortubi, K itab at-ta'rif bi tabaqat al-umam,
a su m m a ry of u n iversal histo ry. T h e su rv e y resem bles clo sely the
n eop laton ic prolegom ena, b u t th e titles g iv en as exam ples of variou s
ty p e s of w ritin gs are n o t e x a c tly th e sam e as in a n y of th e fiv e e x ta n t
prolegom ena.
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2ig
I. Aristotle's W ill.
P tolem y sa ys in his b ook to G allu s on th e life of A ristotle: W hen
A risto tle w as a b o u t to die, he w ro te his w ill w hich w e now com m unicate.
(i a) B y th is w ill I a p p o in t A n tip a te r for ever to be execu to r of
e v eryth in g th a t I leave; and u n til N ica n o r shall arrive (and ta k e
possession), A ristom enes T im arch u s H ip parch u s and D ioteles shall ta k e
charge of all m a tters th a t require atten tio n and ta k e th e necessary
m easures concerning m y estate, m y serva n t H erp yllis, m y oth er m aids
and servan ts, and th e p ro p erty I leave; and if T h eo p h rastu s consents
and he is in th e position to assist th em in th is task, he shall ta k e ch arge
as well.
(i b) W hen m y d a u gh ter shall be grow n up, N ican o r shall adm in ister
her affairs; if she should die before she is m arried, or when she is
m arried b u t before she has a child, N ican o r shall adm in ister b o th her
prop erty and th e p ro p erty of m y son N icom ach u s. I t is m y la s t w ill
and testam en t th a t h e shall ta k e ch arge of th is as he th in ks fit, in all
th at concerns them , ju s t as if he w ere th eir fa th er or brother.
(i c) I f N ican o r should die before m y d au gh ter is m arried, or a fter
her m arriage b u t b efore she has a child, and if <(in such case ) N icanor
in his w ill has m ade arran gem en ts a b o u t th e p ro p erty th a t I leave,
this shall be adm issible an d leg a lly valid .
( i d) I f N ican o r should die in testa te , and if T h eo ph rastu s consents
and is w illing to ta k e his place, it shall b e so in all m atters in w hich
N icanor was in charge of m y son's affairs and also as regards m y other
estate;
and if T h eo ph rastu s shou ld be u nw illing to ta k e upon him self this
trusteeship, then th e ex ecu to rs appo in ted b y m e shall again tu rn to
A n tipater and to g eth er w ith him consider w h a t th e y are to do w ith
m y estate, and then m ake th e arran gem en ts th e y see fit.
(i e) T h e execu to rs and N ican o r shall b ear m e in m ind w hen th e y
make arrangem ents for H erp yllis. F o r ju d gin g from w h a t I saw of
her earnestness in rendering service to m e and her zeal for all th a t was
becom ing for m e, she h as d eserved w ell of me.
T h ey shall giv e her a ll th a t she needs; and if she should desire to
m arry, th e y shall se th a t she b e given to a m an of good repute; and
besides w h a t she a lrea d y possesses, she shall be g iv en one talen t,
equivalen t to 125 R o m a n librae, and th ree m aids w hom soever she shall
prefer, besides t i e m aid sh e has a t present, and her b oyservan t;
and if she chooses to rem ain in C halcis, she shall liv e in m y house,
in th e gu est-house b y th e garden; if she chooses to liv e in S ta gira, she
shall liv e in m y fa th e r’s and g ra n d fa th er’s house; and w h ich ever of
these houses she chooses, th e execu to rs shall fu rnish them w ith such
household th in gs as th e y th in k proper and as she m a y need, w h a tev er
she m a y claim as n ecessary for sa tisfy in g her w ants.
(2 a) A s to m y estate and m y son, th ere is no need for me to b e
concerned a b o u t te sta m e n ta ry provisions. N ica n o r sh all ta k e charge
of th e b o y M y rm ex and see th a t he fin a lly is sen t b a ck to his hom e
w ith all his p ro p e rty in th e m anner he desires.
(2 b) M y m aid A m b ra cis shall b e given her freedom , and if, a fte r she
has been m ade free, she rem ains in m y d a u g h te r’s service u n til m y
d au gh ter m arries, she shall receive 500 drachm as and th e m aid she
now has.
(2 c) T o T h ales shall b e g iv en th e yo u n g girl th a t w e recen tly b ou gh t,
a b o y from am ong our slaves, and a th o u san d d rachm as.
(2 d) T o Sim os shall b e given , in ad dition to th e b o y for w h om he
a lread y h as received m on ey, m on ey for a b o y w hom he m a y b u y for
him self, and besides he shall fu rth er receive w h a t the execu to rs m ay
fin d proper.
(2 e) A s soon as m y d a u g h te r m arries, m y b o y s T a ch o n , P hilon, and
O lym p iu s shall b e g iv en th eir freedom .
(2 f) N eith er th e son of O lym p iu s, nor a n y oth er of th e b o y s w ho
h a v e w a ited upon me shall b e sold, b u t th e y shall con tin u e th e ir service
as slaves u n til th e y reach th eir m anhood, and w h en th e y a rrive a t the
proper age, th e y shall h a ve their freedom ; as to w h a t shall th en be
g iv en to them , it shall b e decided accordin g to w h a t th e y h a v e deserved.
(The rest of th e w ill is n o t fou n d iu th e A r a b ic trad itio n .)
J. Excerpts from H unayn ibn Ishaq.

T h e first p a r t is a sto ry on th e origin of learn in g and science in a n
cien t G reece, w id ely qu oted in A ra b ic literatu re. A n um ber of aphorism s
are said to h a v e been e x tra cte d from a discourse, held b y A ristotle.
T h en follow s a cu riou sly d isto rte d version of th e w ell-kn ow n ten p a ra
graphs of th e 'n e o p la to n ic prolegom ena, n ow represented as stages in
acq u irin g kn ow ledge in th e ten b ran ch es of learning.
U sa ib ia adds an o b servation on regim en.
K. Aphorism s and anecdotes. From al-M ubashir.
A lth o u gh fictitio u s, these aphorism s and anecdotes b e tia y som e

acq uain tance w ith th e G reek trad itio n .1) O n ly in tw o cases we can find
direct parallells: no. 55 is a v a r ia n t o f th e w ell-kn ow n th em e amicus
Plato, and no. 74 develops an eq u a lly w ell-know n A risto telian ten et,
n am ely th a t on ly th e possession of speech and intelligen ce distinguishes
m an from th e oth er anim als. T h e anecdotes on A risto tle and his
disciples are w itty and of th e sam e ty p e as th o se told b y Diogenes:
pointed answers to shrew d questions.
The last paragraph, no. 8g, is a ty p ic a lly O rien tal sto ry. I do not
know w hether it is a S y ria n or A ra b ic inven tion . T o m y m ind it rath er
has a certain Persian flavou r.
“ W hen A risto tle w as a b o u t to die, he asked his friends to erect an
octagonal colum n on his to m b , carry in g on each side an inscription ".
T h e a p ocryp h al inscription w h ich now follow s is w id ely quoted. It
w as included in th e Secreta secretorum, b y far th e m ost p o p u lar of all
pseudo-A ristotelian treatises in m ed ieval E u rop e. I t w as edited w ith
in troduction and com m ents in R isala fi S h a n h al-H ikam , b y A b u
A b d allah M uham m ed b. K h o d ja , T u n is 1873. T o m y colleague P ro
fessor L ew in I owe th e inform ation th a t an edition (of the lon ger form )
of th e A ra b ic t e x t was published b y A. B ad a w i in his D irasat islam lya,
15: I, Cairo 1954, pp. 65 — 171. A n E n g lish tran slation w as p u b lish ed
b y A . F u lto n in Opera hactenus inediia Rogeri Baconi, F a s c. 5, O xon ii
1920.
L. Ptolemy el-Garib
Catalogue of Aristotle's writings.
(C atalogue of A risto tle 's w ritin gs accord- Ui.va^ tojv t ov ' A giaroxi.-
ing to w hat a m an called P to le m y Xovq a v y y Q a f ifia x c u v .
relates in his book to G alas >
[Of fam ous b ooks m entioned b y P to lem y
the follow ing are b y A risto tle ]
*) See t h e lite r a tu r e q u o te d b y W alzer, S tu d i su a l- K in d i I I , M em . A c c d ei

L ln c e i V I . V I I I . I , 19 3 8 , p . g , n o te 3, a n d U s a ih ia J , co m m e n ts.
IN G E M A R D tjR IM G
222
Published works.
1 I lg o r g e m tx o s
i — 2 H is b ook in w hich he ex h o rts to
philosophy, th ree books. In G reek
2 T IEgi rpdoao<plag y
en titled n g o rg sn n xo g (pdoao(pia<;.
3 EoquaxrjQ a
3 H is b ook ZoyicnrjS, <one b o o k .)
3 a Ile g i gT]Togtxrjq r}
3 a [His b ook on the rh etoric art, three
rgvAog y
b o o k s]
4 H is b ook on ju stice (righteousness),
4 Ile g i dixaioavvrjs d
in G reek en titled negi Sixatoov-
v>]i, fou r books.
5 H is b ook on th e m ode of life and
5 IJ eqI naideiag 8
h a b its w h ich b en efit m an s soul,

in G reek en titled negi naiSetag,
fo u r books.
6 IIe o i evyevtiac, e
6 H is b o o k on n o b ility of b irth , in
G reek en titled negi evyeveiag, fiv e
books.
7 Ile g i noirjr&v y
H is b o o k on poets, th ree books.
7 8 IJegi (iaadeiat; c
8 H is book on kin gsh ip, en titled
negi PaoiteiaQ, s ix b ooks.
M iscellaneous writings, in alphabetical order.

g IJegi zayaOov e
9 H is b ook on th e good, en titled negi
ayadofi, fiv e books.
H is b ook en titled A rc h y ta s, three 10 ’ A g x v t a q y
10
books.
1 1 IJegi dro/LMov yga/i-
ii (H is b ook in w h ich he speaks of
in d iv isib le lines, en titled negi r t i v fiu)v y
a z o f io ) v y g a f i f i & v , th ree b o o k s .)
[H is b o o k on lines, w h eth er th e y
are d ivisib le or n ot, th ree b ook s ]
12 I le g i dixaiwv 8
12 (H is b o o k on w h a t is law fu l and
ju s t (legal questions), en titled
negi dixaiuiv, fou r b o o k s .)
[His book on th a t w h ich has th e
ep ith et law fu l, four books.]
13 I le g i 8ia(pogag 8
13 H is b o o k on d iv e rsity and differen tia,
en titled negi dtatpogd;, four books.
14 H is book on love, en titled negi 14 ‘ E q w x ix w v y

èçmxixœv, three books.
15 H is b o o k on th e F orm s, w h eth er 1 5 I J eq I e I ôcüv y
th e y e x ist or not, en titled jtegl
slâwv (iôeûv),
l6 <His book in w hich he epitom ized 16 ’ E m r o fii] x fjç IJX â -
th e dialogue of P la to on the
xcovoç jioXtxetaç /9
govern m en t of cities, en titled TfXd-
twvoç noXixEia, tw o b o ok s.)
16 a [His book in w hich he epitom ized (?) 'E n iro a i) xrjç IlXdxw-
P la to ’s dialogue, tw o books.] voç noXiTEtaç /?
16 b [His book in w hich he epitom ized ( ?) ‘ E n n o f i f ] t w v IJX dxa> -
P la to 's dialogue on th e go vern VOÇ VÔjLlCOV E
m ent o f cities, fiv e books.]
16 [His book in w hich he epitom ized (?) 5E m x o fii) xov nX âxfû
P la to ’s dialogue on pleasure and voç <£iXrjliov ( ?) ’ E m
his book on go vern m en t (or on xo/xij xov nXâxcovoç
the statesm an?), tw o books.] IJoXtxixov (?)
17 (H is book on pleasure, en titled 1 7 ÎTsgi ijôovijz â
u eq i îj<5oi/jjç.)
18 ((H is book on . . . e n t it le d » . . . . 18 (?) 0 a vfta aia dxoûo-

fiara, ten books. (Uara
T9 H is book on m ovem ents, en titled 19 T I e q I x i ir f o E i o ç
7i£Q i M v r jo e w v , eigh t books.
20 H is book en titled Q uestions of 20 M rjxavixà nço^Xr,-
m echanics, called firjâvixa jrgo/?- Itaxa fi
Xtj/iaxa, [tw o books, add. K TO v].
21 H is book on th e a rt of p o etry. 21 ÏIeq î Tioirjxixfjç (?)
22 (His book on) th e doctrin es of 22 TJ eq I rivQayoQEÎüiv
P y th a g o ra s (a n d his follow ers),
tw o books.
23 H is book on th e spirit, en titled 23 I I e q I TiVEV/iaxoQ y
tceq'i nvevfiaroc, th ree books.
24 (A book w hich he called Q uestions, 24 I I QofiXrjiudxcov y
in G reek TtQofiXrjfidxoiv, three
b o o k s.)
24 a [His bonk on letters, th ree books.] 24 a ( ? ) II fol a x o tx E Îto v
25 A b ook en titled T h e E g y p tia n N ile, 25 I I e q I tov N edov y

in G reek n eqi roti N eiXov , three
books.
26 H is book on th e places w h ich 26 I I e q i tov <pa)A.EVEtv a
anim als choose to lie hid d en and
hib ern ate, en titled Jtegl t o v <pa>-
Xe v e iv , one book.
27 A b ook called C ollection of A rts, 27 Te% v& v ow aycjyr) d
in G reek xeyvwv ovvaycoyij, one
book.
28 H is b ook on friendship, en titled 28 I I e q i tpMag y
n eqi (pi/lag, th ree books.
A n d ronicu s' edition, 2 9 — 56.
a. Logical writings.
29 [H is b ook on th e categories, one 29 Karrjyogiai a
book.]
30 A b o o k called negl EQfjTjVEtag, <the 30 I I e q i inurjveiag <i
second of th e logical w o r k s ,) one
book.
31 [H is b ook t o m xa , eig h t books ] 3 1 Tom xcov t)
32 H is b ook en titled avaXvTtxa, tw o 32 ' AvaXvTix&v
books. 71QOTEQCDV (}
33 H is b ook aJioSeixTixrj, i. e. dem ons 33 ’ A n o d e tx n x fi

tra tio n (H is b ook en titled M inor (= 'AvaXvTixtav
T reatises, in G reek avaXvzixa, votcqcqv (i)
K ™> .
34 H is b ook ootptartxri, one book. 34 Z o y ioT ixw v kXiyymv
b. E thical, political and rhetorical writings

35 A b ook en titled M ajor trea tises on 35 ’ HOixibv fiEyaXoiv ft
ethics, in G reek fjdixu>v fieydAiov,
tw o books.
36 A b ook en titled M inor treatises on 36 ’ Hdtxti) v Evdrjfieiojv
eth ics, w h ich he d ed icated to
E u d em u s, in G reek fjOtxuv Evdrj-
e ig h t books.
37 H is book on th e go vern m en t of 37 Ilo X n ix & v Tj
cities, en titled noX inxw v, eight

books.
38 [His book on th e a rt of p o etry, 38 TJ e QI J1017]TIX?)Q ß
tw o b o o k s]
39 H is book on th e a rt o f rhetoric, 39 Téxvtjç çrjTOQtxf}ç y
( i. e. th e d iscou rse,) th ree books.
c. Philosophy of nature, biology.
40 H is b ook L ectu res on nature, eigh t 40 0 v aixijç àxgodaew ; rj

hooks.
41 H is book on th e heaven s and on the 4 1 IJ eq I ovçavov xa l
w orld, four books. xoa/iov ô
42 H is book On com ing-to-be and 42 TTegi yevéaswç xa l
ceasing-to-be, tw o books. q>ôoçâç ß
43 H is book on thin gs in th e h eaven 43 I I eqI jlETE<i}QO}V 6
above, four books.
44 H is book on th e soul, three books. 44 lie g t ipvxrjç y
45 H is hook on sensation and the 45 I I eqI aiadrjaEcoç xa l
ob jects of sensation, one book a iaß tjT W v d
46 H is book on m em ory and sleep, 46 FI eqI fxvrjfirjç xa't
one book. avafivijaEco;
46 a I I eqI vnvov xa l
iyQTjyogoEtüç
47 H is book on th e m ovem en t of 47 I I eq I Çwcdv xivrjasiDÇ â
anim als,
48 and on their a n a to m y, en titled 48 ’ A va rofi& v C
xivrjoemq tm v <(£V'«ur>) av a ro fi& v ,
seven books.
49 H is book on th e p h ysical ch aracter of 49 I I eq I Ço>aiv rflotv
anim als, ten (fifte en , Q ifti) books. (ic r t o g i w v ) 1
50 H is hook on th e v it a l parts of 50 IIeqI l,<!j w v fiogiojv 6

anim als, en titled ^(oixcbv fionicov,
four books.
51 H is book on th e generation of 51 T Ieqi Çqmtv yF.véar.wç e
anim als, en titled n eo i <<£(uci»'>)
yeveoRoj- fiv e books.
Goteb. Uni v. A r s s k r . L X 111. 2 15
22Ô
52 H is book on the progression of 52 H eqi Ç o jco v n o g e ia ç a
lan d anim als, en titled n e ç ln o g e ia ç ,
one book.
53 H is b ook on th e len gth of life <of 53 TI eq I ^ qo^ ottjtoç
an im als) and on b r e v ity of life, xa2 fio a x ^ io ^ r o g a
one b ook. ( _ (
5a H is book on life and death, one b ook. 54 ^ e g l Ç œ f jç xai dava-
rot) d
55 H is b o o k on p lan ts, tw o books. 55 TIeqi <pvrd)v fi
d. M etaphysics.
56 H is book on th a t w h ich com es 56 Ttbv fierà rà cpvaixà iy
after th e ph ysics, th irteen books.
Hypom nem atic writings, in alphabetical order.
57 H is b o o k on question s of m a tter, 57 ’ A n ogfffiaxa i h x â , â

one book.
58 H is b o o k on p h ysica l questions, fou r 58 ’ Anoqr]fidr<av
books. «p v o ix w v <5
59 H is b ook on classification , in tw e n ty - 59 A t a t Q é o E iç xç
six books, in w hich h e deals w ith
th e classification o f (the p a rts of)
tim e, th e soul, th e passions; th e
agen t, th e p assive, and th e process
of actin g; friendship; th e classes
of Good: th e G ood p ertain in g to
th e in tellect and to th e soul,
and th e e x te rn a l Good; he also
enum erates good and b a d q u ali
ties; th e d ifferen t k ind s of science
and learning; [the m ovem ents; th e
d ifferen t m odes of expression in
lan gu age; th e species of th a t
w h ich ex ists and how it is divided;
and th e b ook is en titled <5iat£>s<T£i£.]
60 H is b o o k on th e classification s of 60 AiatQÉoELÇ nX d tœ voç ç
P la to , six books.
61 H is book en titled C lassification of 61 AirUQFCIFtC, V7108É(JE(0V
th e p relim in ary sta tem en ts from a t V T Lm .iÜ F V T a i f.v t w
w hich inference sta rts and w hich X oyq) (x a l v ito x E iv -

are th e basis of discussion, six ta t (?) ç
books. (?) A ia tg é a e iç èvdv/ntjfjiâ-
t o jv ç
62 H is book en titled On refu ta tio n 62 ’ EmxeigrjfxaTa X8
based on th e fa c t th a t th e prem iss
es of the opposite con ten tion are
ta k en from th a t w hich is going
to be proved, in G reek called
imxEtgrifiaTa, th irty -n in e books.
63 [A book on som ething called evarâ- 63 ’ E v a T a o F .tç ty
astç, th irteen books.]
64 [A book on propositions, th irty-fo u r 64 O éof . i ç Xô
books.]
65 H is book on erotic questions, en titled 65 Q è g e iç ig c o T ix a l â
déoEiç ÈgcoTixai, one book.
66 H is book on ph ysical questions, 66 déasiç (pvatxai â
en titled Oeoeiç (pvatxat, one book.
67 A book en titled C atalogu e of p ro 6 7 0 É aE(ov âvayçafpT] (?) â
positions (theses), in G reek ôéoecav
âvaygaip?], one book.
68 H is book D efinitions, in G reek ôgot, 68 " O qoi tç
sixteen books.
69 H is book on w h at is required for 6 g 'O g im tx à 6
a definition, en titled ôoiaTtxâ,
four books.
70 H is book on th e definition of T o n 01, 70 (?) " Ogot 7iQQ rc 5 v
one book. r ojitxûiv â
71 A book en titled T a b le (List) of 7 1 Tlgog ô o o v ç Tontx&v y
definitions of tojioi , in G reek 7igâç
ogovç totiixwv, th ree books.
72 [His book on th e P red icab les in a 72
definition (by w h ich one defin ition
is distinguished from another),
in G reek en titled . . tw o books.]
228
73 [H is b o o k on the cou nter-evid en ce 73 ?

for definitions, th ree books.]
74 [The b o o k on th e a it of d efin ition 74 ? (xeywj ogtcrrixf] fj
w h ich T h eo ph rastu s used for (the ■ntyorjzai ©eàq>gaaxoç
ex p la n a tio n of) th e P rio r Ana èv ’ AvaX vxtxoïç ngo-
ly tics, one book.] t égoiç)

75 ( ? ) n g Ö Q r o v s o g i o f i o v Q ß
75 A book en titled T a b le (list) of
definitions, in G reek Jigàç tovç
oqmtjuovç, tw o books.
76 H is b ook on questions, en titled 76 ngoßh]naT<av it]
TtQO^Xfifiaret, six ty -eig h t books.
77 H is b o o k on ob jection s raised b efore 7 7 TJgoßkrjfidrmv ngoayo-
h an d in solvin g a problem , en titled gevoitévcov y
jigo^Xrjfidxa>v jtgoayogevn/ieva,
three books.
78 llg o ß h iu riro jv êyxv-
78 H is b o o k on general question s w hich
teach ers m ake use of, en titled xXiojv 6
ngofUXrjfiaxa kyxvxXia, fou r books.
79 H is book on p recep ts, en titled 79 TlagayyeX/iaxa S
TzagayyéXfiaxa, fou r books.
80 "Ynofiv^ fiara ß
80 H is b ook called M em orials, in G reek
vnofivr\fJtnxa, tw o books.
Other hypomnematic writings.

81 ngoßXrjfiaTa (x a x à
81 H is book Miscellaneous questions of
ajtogàôrjvy iaxgixà £
medicine, entitled ngo^/xaxa
(x a x à anogdôrjv) iaxgixd, five
books.
82 Tlegi ôiaixTjÇ d
82 H is b ook on regim en, en titled nsgt
ôtairrjç, one book.
83 Peaigyixthv te (t)
83 H is b o o k en titled O n agricu ltu re,
in G reek yEwgyixHiv, in fifteen
(ten K h O mv) books,
rieg i vygov (vygôiv)
a In th is w ork is fou n d his lecture
on th e m oist, one book,
Ile g i £1iQov [Çrjgwv)
b follow ed b y his trea tise on th e dry.
c [His book on th e pulse. O mvj
A H IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 22g
d T h en follow th e treatises on com m on (?) TI eq 'i rdivxaràipvaiv

phenom ena, [three books] <one avfißaiv6vxu>v
b o o k ).
e T hen follow three [two] books, T I e q ï fiE T e d iQ fo v
en titled On th in gs in th e h eaven
above.
f T h en tw o books [one book] on the (?) Tlegi Ço)o)v
generation of anim als,
g A n oth er on th e sam e su b ject [on (?) Tlcgl rofl avTafi
th e generation of anim als], in
tw o books. And th e w o rk is
called yeatgyixwv.
84 H is b ook en titled P rop osition s, in 84 IJgoTdaEiq Xy (xy)
G reek ngorâaeiç, th irty -th re e
[tw enty-three] books,
85 follow ed b y a book on th e sam e 85 IJQoràaetç £

su b jec t b u t w ith oth er k ind s of
propositions, seven < thirty-one)
books.
M iscellaneous collectanea.
86 H is book O n th e go vern m en t of th e 86 r io X n e ia i jioXewv 00a

cities, en titled n oX n ela i. In th is
he deals w ith th e go vern m en t of
m a n y peoples an d cities, G reek
and others, and th e ir d ifferen t
constitution s; th e n um ber of p eop
les and cities he m entions is 1 7 1 .
87 H is b ook called M em orials, in G reek 87 ‘ Y n o f iv T j/ n c n a ic
vnofivtiftaTa, six teen books.
88 A n o th e r b ook of th e sam e kind, 88 ?
<(and on con trad ictio n s K v) , one
book.
8g H is book on d ialectical a rg u m en ta 89 ’ EntxetQrjfiaTtov ä
tion, en titled £7iixEtQr]ftaTa)v, one
book.
230 IN G E M A R D tjR IN G
90 H is b o o k on th e w a y in w hich one 9 ° H EQl tzqoq xl &

th in g is related to another, en titled
negl xov nQOQ xi, one ( s ix )
book.
91 H is b ook on T im e, en titled tieqi 91 I I eqI XQOVOV a
Xgovov, one book.
Private documents and memoranda.
92 H is books w hich w ere found in the 92 (?) BtfiXia vnaQXovta

lib ra ry of a m an called A p ellicon . ev xfj ’ A jieXXixwvxoç
[nam ely th e follow in g books,] pij}fao8rjxr)
(A book in w hich a m an called 93 5E niaxoX al ' A qicsxo-

93
A rtem o n collected his letters, in xéXovç âç aw eX eisv
eig h t p a rts.) ’ AgxÉjuaiv èv fj
ptfiXioiç
[A large collection of num erous
letters, in eig h t parts.]
94 A b ook en titled A n oth er m em orand- 94 Mvtjuovixàv âXXo

um .
H is b o o k on th e life (w ays of life) 95 IloX ixeiaç /? ( = IJegi
95
of the cities, en titled noXiXEia, in âQÎotrjç noXixeiaç,
tw o books. P o l. V I I — V I I I ?)
96 F u rth er, oth er letters w h ich A n dro- 96 xai èmaxoXai âXXai âç

nicus foun d, in tw e n ty books. evqev ’ A v Ôq ovixoç , èv
x fiijiXioiç.
F u rth e r « a n u m ber o f » m em orials. 97 x a l vnofivr]fiaxa rov

97
You w ill fin d th eir num ber of evgijasiç x o v âgiOjuov
lines an d th eir in cip it in th e fifth xihv axi%(av xai xà;
b ook o f A n d ro n ik o s’ w ork on th e âg% àç èv x w n Éfinxw
C atalo g u e of A risto tle ’s w ritings. ’ A v fiç a v ix o v IIeq'i

n iv a x o ç xcav ’ A q i o t o -
xéXovç jîtfoXiwv.
98 O n recond ite problem s in H om er, 98 ’ AxOQfjflâxCÛV ' 0/J.ljQl-

in ten parts. xôjv , Èv 1 (hfiXloiç.
99 H is b ook on th e general purpose of 99 IJf.ni îaxQtxrjç
m edicine, en titled laxoixfj
(H ere ends th e num ber of his books,

according to w hat P to le m y sa y s in
his book to G a la s.)
[P tolem y says: W ith th is the lis t of
books b y him th a t I h a ve seen com es
to an end. T here are th o se w ho know
of a num ber of oth er books (^ ascribed
to h im )).]
M. Additional note on Aristotelian pseudepigrapha.

“ From other sources than P to lem y w e learn a b ou t oth er (Aristotelian)
w ritings. I say th a t th a t there are also th e follow in g books b y Aris-
to tle .”
Then follow s a v e ry curious list of 40 titles, m a n y of w hich w e can
id en tify as A ristotelian pseudepigrapha, w ell-kn ow n in m ed ieval E urope.
I t is sufficien t to g iv e som e exam ples:
Kitab N a ‘t al-ahg&r, D e lapidibus.
J. R uska, Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles. H eidelberg 1912.
Al-hiyal, Mechanica.
Kitab al-qaul 'ala r-rububtya, Theologia Aristotelis, ed. P, N. d e’ Castel-
lani, R om a 1519.
Som e parts of th e Secreta secretorum, b u t not th e w ork as a whole.
There are furth er fiv e titles of b ooks on th e popu lar them e A ristotle-
A lexander, further w orks com bining A risto tle and H erm es (Trism e-
gistos), works on alchem y and astro lo gy.1) N o. I I in th e list is en titled
Aristotle's W ill to N ikanor, p ro b ab ly th e one w e possess.
N one of the titles in this list represents a genuine w ork of A ristotle.
COM M ENTS ON U S A IB IA A - L
On the id en tification of P to le m y and th e title of his book, see p.

208. I do not repeat here com m ents m ade in m y notes on M ubashir.
( 1 — 2) = V M 1 — 2, V S I 2 — 3, F ih rist 2, M ubashir 2.
(3) The first sentence = p a r tly V M 3; no oth er S y ria c or A ra b ic
source. In T 9 a, on the basis of th e w ill, I h a ve assum ed th a t P roxen u s
*) Cf. th e c h a p t e r P s e u d o -A r is t o t le in: L . T h o r n d ik e . A history o f magic and

experim ental science, I I , N e w Y o r k 192 3 , p p . 246— 278.
w as m arried to A ris to tle ’s sister and fa th er of N icanor. T h e second

sentence = V M 5, V S I 4, F ih rist 4. T h e “ tw e n ty y e a rs ” appear in all
sources.
(4) T h e first sentence is not found in V M , b u t in F ih rist 5, M ubashir
_ T h e second sentence not in V M , b u t th e ex p la n a tio n of th e nam e
“ P e rip a te tic ’ in V S I I 3 and M ubashir 14; M ubashir says “ W h en P la to
w as dead, A . w en t to th e L y c e u m . . T h e confu sion is apparent.
(5) N o t in V M , b u t M ubashir 17. B a u m sta rk ’s tran slatio n “ the
eu n u ch ” is a tran sfer from th e u n fav o u rab le trad itio n . T h e G reek
origin al p ro b a b ly h a d “ th e sla ve of E u b u lu s ” , and th e nam e was
om itted in th e A ra b ic tran slation.
(g) _ v m a nd 23, M ubashir 18. T h e second sentence is not found
in V M , cf. T 28 a and g. I can see no reason w h y P to lem y cou ld not
h a v e included th is inform ation in his V ita .
(7) N o t in V M , b u t V M 41 enavaordvTojv, see m y n ote on M u bashir 20.
(8) = V M 41. S ocrates is not m entioned in VM , b u t in W 19,
V S I I 3, M ubashir 21 and here.
(g) N o t in V M or in a n y oth er source; p ro b a b ly free elaboration .
(10) N o t in V M or in a n y oth er A ra b ic source, b u t w ell a ttes ted in
th e G reek trad itio n , see T 45. A s in th e case of (6), I can see no reason
w h y P to lem y could not h a ve in clu d ed th is in his V ita .
(11) V M 43, cf M ubashir 23 and F ih rist 15. V S I 8 says 67 years,
see m y note; V S I I 8 sa y s 68 years.
(12) V M 1 1 TEaaaQaxovrovTrjQ, b u t E u m elu s ap. DL V 6 r Qia-
xovzoutTjv = V S I 6, F ih rist 6. T h e figu re in V M is p ro b a b ly a plain
m istake. (A n other ex p la n a tio n is g iv e n b y J a c o b y , P h il. Unt. X V I ,
p. 326.) T h e second p a r t m a y hide som e rem iniscences from th e E p ic u
rean polem ic, T 58 b, fu rth er d eveloped b y M ubashir 5.
(13) = V M 18, V S I io , M u bashir 2 g — 30.
(14) C f V M 1 6 - 1 7 ; V S I 7, F ih rist 13, M ubashir 27, T 27 i.
(15) = th e second p a rt of V M 23, cf V M 15, F ih rist 7 — 8, M u bash ir 28.
(16) C f eveeyeTdiv V M 1 5 — 16, o n ly a h in t in M ubashir 25. The
source w as at ysyQafifidvai avX(b xaxct tovq flaoiXEaq jzeqi t ivojv
biiaroX at, as V M 16 says.
( 1 7 — 21) T his is th e m ost in terestin g p a rt of U sa ib ia ’s version of
P to le m y ’s V ita . In V M 20 o n ly a sh o rt note: n oU .a 8e xa i ’ Adrjvaiovg
EVTjQyeTrjOEv fv tolq xaTa &iXtJinov ygd/i/taaiv, uiQ ABrjvaiovQ iv t fj
axgonokei avdQtavra nm qj avaOelvai, cf. th e tran slation in V ita latina;
entirely o m itted in th e V ita vu lg a ta ; H erm ip p u s’ words TiqeapEVOvrog

avxoti v 7t.eo ’ Adr)vau»v, D L V 2, m ig h t be th e nucleus of th e story.
A ccord in g to th e scattered evid en ce of th e an cien t biographical
tradition A risto tle w as p u b licly hon oured th ree tim es: (a) b y a statue,
set up in S ta g ira b y P h ilip or A lex a n d e r and seen b y P au san ias. V I 4,8;
m entioned V M 15; p ro b a b ly tru e; (b) an inscription in D elph i, express-
m g the g ra titu d e o f th e A m p h ictyo n s = T 43, still e x ta n t, (c) the
inscription in w itness o f p ro x en ia m entioned here and th e sto ry atta ch ed
to it.
I t is apparen t th a t th e te x t g iv en b y U sa ib ia p r e tty w ell follow s
the h a b itu a l p a ttern of such inscriptions. W e recogn ize im m ed iately
such phrases as edo£ev rfj povAfj x a i to , d fo w . . . msiSrj jigM vftoc
£0X1(1 Ttf.Qi Tov dfj/xov tov ’ Adrjvaicuv tioif.Iv oxi av dvvrjrai ayadov x a i
vvv xat f.v TW jiqoo Gev xQdvq> . . . dvaygayxirw ev axrjXrj XtQivtj xai
Bexoj f.v dxgoTioXet. . . b ia w ia a i avxov oxi dvrjg dyaBog eaxiv xai tj.oif.I
oxt dvvarai ayadov xov dfj/iov tov 'AOrjvaimv. B y piecin g together

such phrases from e x ta n t inscriptions E . D reru p reconstructed the
inscription presented in th is paragrap h as follow s (Athen. M ittheil.
23, 1898, p. 369):
... e h rev. i n F ib i} A g ia x o x E A tjg N t x o f i d x o v i T a y e i g h r j g d v r jo d y a O o q
EOT tv n e g i TOV d r jfio v x o v ’ A d r jv a lt o v x a t n o i s i a r t d v v a r a i d y a B d v x a i
i m / iE X e lT a t "A Q r jv a u o v t & v d y i x v o v f i e v w v wg (P iA u ztto v n g d T T a jv a y a d o v

OTI dvvarai 'A Q r jv a io tg n a g d O L X u it i o v d e d o X 6a t t o i d flfj.a, T <b 'A O r j
v a u o v F7T.aivF.ant A g u jT O T e X r jv N t x o f i d x o v Z T a y e i Q h r j v d g fT T jg evF.xn x a t
E v v o ia g x a t F.lvat a ir c o v T ig o jjev o v x a i E V E g y ir ijv t o v d rj/ io v r o C ' A O y v a ic u v

avrov x a l rovg exyovovg- on w g a v x a l o i aXXoi. d j i a v r e g tp tX o T tfi& V T a i
f I S o t e i; S r i 6 S rjfioQ F jttO T a T a t x d g t r a g a j i o d t d o v a t r o t g f.iq a v r o v tpiXo-
T tfio v / ie v o tg , dvaygdxpai to d e to ip ^ tp ta fia . . . h OTrjXr) X t6 ivq> xal

B e tv a i ev d x g o 7io X e t . . .
From the w ording of (18) w e can see th a t th e w riter of th e original

G reek te x t of th e V ita w an ted to g iv e a su m m ary of th e con ten t of the
inscription, n ot th e t e x t of th e decree. N everth eless w e can h ear th e
echo o f th e usual o fficial phrases; A risto tle is introd u ced w ith his full
name.
(19) D rerup su ggests th a t it is a parap h rase of som ething in the
inscription; I am m ore inclined to un derstan d it as a reflection or
com m ent, coined a fte r phrases in a (faked) le tte r from A n tip a te r,
inserted b y P to lem y .
224 IN G E M A K D C R IN 'G
(20) T h e m anu scrip ts read A I M A R A U S , and th e id en tifica tio n w ith

H im eraeu s is therefore p r e tty certain . N o A ra b ic w riter cou ld p o ssib ly
h a v e in v en ted th is nam e and p laced it in th is co n tex t. O n H im eraeus,
see K irch n e r’s Prosopogr. 7578, and R E S u p p l. I V , col. 7 4 3 - H e was
one of th e prom inent anti-M acedon ian s and w as ex ecu ted b y A n tip a te r
in O ctob er 322, alm ost e x a c tly a t th e tim e o f A risto tle ’s d eath. As
fa r as w e k n o w , h is ex ecu tio n h a d n oth in g w h a te v e r to do w ith the
sto ry to ld here. B u t th e m an w h o a m alga m a ted th e sto ry a b o u t th e
p roxen ia decree w ith th e s to ry a b o u t H im eraeu s m u st h a v e know n
a go od deal a b o u t con tem p o rary A th e n ia n h isto ry . P to le m y is th ere
fore n o t th e au th or of th is s to iy .
(21) T h ere is no evid en ce for id en tify in g th e S tep lian u s of th is in
scrip tion w ith eith er of th e tw o w ell-kn ow n S tep h a n i of th e period
( = K irch n e r 12885 and 12887 = R E N os. 4 and 5). A s a n in d ivid u a l
S tep h a n u s cou ld of cou rse n o t set up an inscription on th e A cropolis.
K n o w in g w h a t w e do a b o u t th e ex tre m e ly confu sed p o litica l conditions
in A th en s in th e y e a rs follow in g A risto tle ’s d eath , w e m u st ad m it th a t
i t m ig h t h a v e been possible for S tep h an u s and h is follow ers to g e t th is
m otio n carried b y th e official proced u re. W e m u st th en assum e th a t
eith er th e origin al source or P to le m y ab rid ged th e accou n t, om ittin g
th e m en tion of th e official procedure.
If w e assum e th a t th e in scription concerning p roxen ia is genuine, we
m u st t r y to determ in e a possible d ate. A p rob ab le occasion w ou ld be
in spring or sum m er 34 ° . w hen th e A th en ian s con d u cted negotiations
w ith P h ilip and A risto tle w as in M acedonia, eith er in S ta gira (which
is m ost probable) or in M ieza. See R E s. v. P hilip p os, col. 2280, and
P h ilo ch o ru s F Gr H ist 328 F . 53 'AQrpaUov (xev Q lh n n o v a h ta /izv a v
&oy eiv r o t n o U fio v , <ZhXLnnov 6 i ’ AOrjvalwv iyxaXovvroQ. F o r w hat
is' to ld in (20— 21) it is also possible to fin d support from existin g
parallels. A fte r 319/18 th e avfingoedgoi ( = “ th e follow ers of S tep h
a n u s” ) cou ld have their nam es m en tion ed in th e inscription , cf.
C IA I V 2, 245 b. W e can also fin d p a rallels for th e re-erection of
inscription s, f. g. C I A I V 2, 231 b w ith tw o decrees, one from 323/2
and one from 318/17 im p ly in g th a t th e inscription should be re-erected
T h e u p sh ot of th is is th a t th e lan gu a g e and th e fa ctu a l d etails of
these p a rag ra p h s are of such a ch ara cte r th a t w e m u st exclu de the
po ssib ility th a t th e sto ry is a piece of A ra b ic fiction. I t m u st go b ack
to a G reek original.
I f w e assum e th a t th e origin al w as P to le m y ’s V ita and accep t m y

d ating of P to le m y to the fou rth ce n tu ry A . D ., th e question arises
w hether w e can cred it P to le m y w ith th e in ven tion of this sto ry. I do
not th in k w e can.
W e possess num erous fragm en ts of H ellen istic literatu re dealing w ith
or based on official decrees: I le g l ififjipia/xdrcuv, IlEgt avaQ^fidrmv, Ile g l
[ivi][idra>v, and sim ilar titles. B egin n in g w ith C raterus, th is h'terature
comes to an end in th e first cen tu ry A. D. P lu ta rch is, as fa r as I know,
the last auth or w ho m eth od ically u tilizes sources of th is kind and
includes te x ts or parap hrases of decrees and oth er p u b lic docum ents
in his n arrative. I t is h igh ly im prob ab le th a t a fou rth cen tu ry w riter
used th a t m ethod. W e m u st go fu rth er back.
T h e sto ry can n o t h ave been p a r t of the u n fav o u rab le trad itio n on
A ristotle, as for in stan ce T 36, b u t m u st h a v e been told b y a phil-
A ristotelian w riter. T his lim its ou r choice considerably: tw o nam es
m ight b e suggested, H erm ip pu s and A p ellicon . H erm ip p u s’ b io grap h y
w as v e ry w ell know n and used as source b y a n um ber of la ter w riters,
p rob ab ly also absorbed in th e xoivrj tarogla. I t is d ifficu lt to see
a n y reason w h y th e fine sto ry a b ou t th e proxen ia should h a v e been
lost during the process of transm ission; I therefore discard H erm ippus.
A p ellicon w as less know n (quoted only b y A ristocles, T 58 1), and all
we know is th a t he w rote on A r is to tle ’s relations w ith H erm ias.
W e know th e nam es of H ellen istic w riters on local h isto ry w ho w rote
b elletristic descriptions of m onum ents and inscriptions, adding b io
graphical m aterial and variou s oth er details of general interest: Unter-
haltungsliteratur. A n exam p le a t random is H eliod oru s (R E V I I I ,
col. 16 — 18) w ho w ro te on th e A cropolis m onum ents.
T h e m ost p rob ab le source, how ever, is th e ep istolograph ic literature.
Artem on, a con tem p o rary of A p ellicon , co llected and edited A risto tle ’s
correspondence; it is ju stifia b le to assum e th a t A p ellico n ’s fam ous find
of A risto tle ’s personal a rch iv e in Scepsis p rovid ed him w ith some
m aterial. T h is large collection in eigh t b ooks c ertain ly contain ed m a n y
faked letters, too; all H ellen istic collections of letters know n to us
contain a m ix tu re of genuine and spurious letters. T w o of these faked
letters w ere used b y A n d ro n icu s (T 76 f), and it is w ell a ttested th a t
P to lem y often refers to A r is to tle ’s correspondence as his source. I do
not th in k th a t w e are fa r from the tru th if w e assum e th a t th e sto ry
about A risto tle ’s p ro x en ia w as to ld in a le tte r from A n tip a ter, pretended
2 ^G IN G E M A R D U R IN G
to h a ve been w ritten a fter A risto tle ’s d ea th (cf T 50 f), and faked b y

A rtem o n b u t accep ted as evid ence b y P to lem y .
A scep tic m igh t ob ject: w h y is it th a t th is sto ry w as n ot seized upon
b y a n y oth er w riter before P to lem y ? I w ou ld answ er b y a d d u cin g
an oth er exam ple of a docu m en t from A ris to tle ’s ow n tim e w h ich does
n ot em erge from the m ass of trad itio n u n til a b o u t eigh t h u n d red years
a fte r his death; and th is tim e it is a genuine docum ent: his fam ous elegy
on P la to , qu oted in th e V ita M arciana and th en b y O lym piod oru s
(T 34 c). I t is h igh ly p rob ab le th a t it w as our P to le m y w ho rescued
th is preciou s piece of p o etry from oblivion.
W e are n ow rea d y for th e final question: is th is sto ry true? W as
A risto tle rea lly honoured b y th e A th en ia n s as proxen u s an d bene
factor?
In sp ite o f th e fa c t th a t th e d etails ta k e n sep a ra tely seem tr u s t
w o rth y and are d erived from good sources, and th a t th e transm ission
from a H ellen istic w riter th rou gh P to lem y to U sa ib ia is th eo retically
q u ite possible, I am convinced th a t th is sto ry is a H ellen istic fab rication
of th e sam e kind as w e h a v e m et so m an y tim es in th e b io grap h ical
trad itio n . K n o w in g w h at w e k n ow a b o u t A risto tle ’s sta tu s and position
in A th en s, w e can n o t p o ssib ly b elieve th is sto ry . I t is tru e th a t this
honour w as som etim es conferred upon persons u n w o rth y of such a
d istin ctio n , b u t th en th e y w ere tem p o rarily popu lar for some p o litica l
reason. If, then , th is sto ry is a fake, how w as it done?
A fte r the n ego tiatio n s follow in g th e b a ttle of C haeronea, a sta tu e
w as set up on th e A cropolis in h on our of P h ilip , and a decree of proxen ia
w as v o te d in honour of A lex a n d er and A n tip a te r (VM 20 w ith te sti
m o n ia l T h ese honours w ere tran sferred to A ristotle, and so th e fine
sto ry w as concocted.
S im ilar tran sfers are k now n from th e u n fav o u rab le trad itio n , see
T 49 b on TQ avX os xrjv 1p w v rjv , my notes on L y c o n P yth ag o reu s,
p . 391; on A risto tle 's A p o lo g y. T 45; on E u m elu s, T 46 a. A n oth er
tran sfer is su ggested as possible in m y n ote on M ubashir 13. O ther
exam ples can b e m entioned: A m m ian u s M arcellinus (D L V 16 test.);
a l-F a ra b i (see m y n o te on T 76 f).
(22) = V M 23, F ih rist io , M ubashir 24. — (23) = V M 24l F ih rist 11,
M ubash ir 25. — (24) = elabo ration of evrjQyexrjaev V M 15 — 16, Fihrist
12, M ubashir 26. - (25) = V M 17, V S I 7, F ih rist 13, M ubashir 27.
T h e agreem ent in disposition an d co n ten t is a lm o st com plete. T he
curious w ords “ to g e ttin g m aidens m arried ” could be an interpretation

of the paragrap h s in his w ill dealing w ith his d a u gh ter P yth ias.
(26) = V M 31, no oth er A ra b ic source. I f th e la s t sen tence is derived
from P to lem y , it throw s som e lig h t on th e n atu re and ten d en cy of
his com pilation b u t it m igh t as w ell be a n ote added b y U sa ib ia him self.
(27— 29) = ses M ubashir 7 — I I w ith com m ents.
(30 — 3 1 ) = V M 17 — 18, V S I 10, M ubashir 29— 30, see m y notes on
M ubashir.
(32) In th e church was a big cru cifix suspended from the ceiling.
Som e unknow n m oslem w ise-cracker re-interp reted the C hristian
sym bol, su b stitu tin g T h e T ea ch er of th e A ra b w orld of scholars for
th e g rea t T each er of th e Christians.
(33— 36) see m y notes on M ubashir 3 1 - 3 3 and 38.
(F) T h is is a d istorted echo across th e cen tu ries of S o cra tes’ w ords

a pi] olda ovx olofiai sidevat. The id ea of collectin g fictitiou s
signet inscriptions seems to be an A ra b ic (perhaps Persian) inven tion .
T h is inscription m ust h a v e been k n ow n to W a lte r B u rleigh, w ho in his
Liber de vita et moribus philosophorum (w ritten c. 1300) says: D icitur
eciam quod in sigillo Aristotilis scriptum juerat hoc verbum: M elior est
homo qui abscondit sapienciam quam habet, quam qui propalat sapienciam
quam non habet.
(H) T h e section on A risto tle ’s w ritings in S a id ’s w ork Tabaq&t al-

umam is also found in al-F a ra b i (pp. 83— 91 in D ieterici2). A s fa r as I
can judge, S aid can not m erely h a v e tran scrib ed al-F a ra b i. I t seem s
to me m ore p rob ab le th a t th e y used th e sam e source. T h e differen ce is
in principle th e sam e as th a t b etw een th e variou s versions of th e G reek
prolegom ena.
T h a t th e prolegom ena w ere k n ow n in th e S y ria n trad itio n is proved
b y the Book of dialogues of S everu s, tran slated b y R u sk a . A l-F a ra b i's
account of th e “ ten p o in ts” clo sely follow s th e G reek p a ttern , b u t h e
is rem ark ab ly indepen den t, com pared w ith E lia s or D av id . T h u s for
instance, in section 4 j io Ob v oqxteov, he discusses P la to ’s opinion th a t
th e appren tice should sta rt w ith m ath em atics,1) th a t of T heophrastus
th a t he should s ta r t w ith ethics, th a t of A n dronicus th a t he should
sta rt w ith logic, and, co n tra ry to th e neoplatonists, he fin a lly decides
>) O n th e s ig n ific a n c e o f th is , s e e W a lz e r , S tu d i sm a l-K in d i I, p . 377.

him self for ethics. O f th e e x ta n t G reek prolegom ena, E lia s ’ version

alone m entions “ th e 70 hooks th a t A risto tle w ro te to E u k a iro s” .
Said and al-F a ra b i m ention th is collection, w hich ind icates th a t their
source w as a S y ria c tran slation of E lias. See K la m r o th ’s su rvey, p. 435.
I. Aristotle's will.
(1 a) F ih rist is alm ost id en tical. D iogenes: an im p o rta n t d ifferen ce

is th a t th e A ra b ic tran slation s speak of H e rp yllis as “ m y se r v a n t"
or “ m y m a id ” ; their lan gu age in (1 e) is con sisten t on th is point. See
m y n ote on T 12. A m inor difference, po ssibly in d icatin g th a t D iogen es’
version is abridged, is th a t in th e A ra b ic tran slation s T h eo p h rastu s is
m entioned in a sep arate clause. In th e follow in g paragraph s, too, there
are in d ication s th a t th e A ra b ic tran slation s are based on a slig h tly m ore
com plete te x t th an D iogenes.
(1 b) F ih r ist h as n o t (but D iogenes has) th e w ords “ as if he w ere
their fa th er and b ro th e r” . T h e tran slato r did n ot u n derstan d th a t
ixSoaOat m eans “ shall b e g iv en in m arriage to N .” — T h a t th e te x t
in D iogenes is ep itom ized an d th erefore n ot q u ite clear, is show n b y
th e ph rase (Nixdvcog xvgiog e.az<n) x a l tieqi tov naidlov, leavin g it
to th e reader to guess th a t N icom achu s is referred to. T h e A ra b ic
(or perhaps a lread y th e S yriac) tran slation m akes a m uddle of exd oad a i’,
th e tra n sla to r p ro b a b ly th o u g h t th a t it m ean t “ shall be en tru sted to ,
be ta k en care o f” . A p a r t from th is th e A ra b ic t e x t is clear, and ta k e n
to g eth er th e G reek and A ra b ic te x ts g iv e good sense.
(1 c) D iogenes says: “ before he m arries th e g ir l” ; th e A ra b ic versions
present a te x t consisten t w ith th e error m ade in the previou s p aragrap h .
(1 d) A p a r t from an u n im p o rtan t tran sposition of w ords, th e te x t
of th e F ih rist is th e sam e as th a t of U saibia. T h e ep itom ized t e x t of
D iogen es is difficult; as so often in D L , w e do n ot k n ow w hether it is
a te x tu a l corruption or due to n egligence b y D iogenes him self. The
A ra b ic te x t confirm s an in terp reta tio n of th e G reek te x t w hich o th er
w ise w ould h a v e been d ifficu lt to uphold.
(1 e) D iogenes sa y s o n anovdaia negl cue iysvETo, th e A ra b ic t e x t
is m ore ex p licit. W e h a v e 110 m eans of d ecid in g w h eth er th e A ra b ic
tran slatio n fa ith fu lly renders th e origin al or is exp an d ed .
V e r y curious is th e ad dition “ i. e. 125 R o m a n lib ra e ” . T h e h igh est
eq u iva len t fo r a talentum m axim um th a t I h a ve found in H u ltsch , is
120 librae. W ho added th is gloss? H a r d ly P to lem y , rather A n dronicus,

from whose book he tran scrib ed th e w ill and the Index librorum .
(2 a) H ere w e h a v e the m ost in terestin g differen ce b etw een the
A rabic tran slation s and D iogenes: th e firs t sen tence is en tirely lack in g
in Diogenes. T h is sentence, if genuine, m u st im p ly th a t th e you n g
N icom achus w as A risto tle ’s leg itim a te son in his m arriage w ith P y th ia s
and the legal heir of all his estate. T o G. B ru n s in his discussion of the
will (see p. 61) th is w as th e m ain problem .
If an interpolator had w an ted to chan ge th e te x t of th e testa m en t in
order to m ake it q u ite clear th a t N icom ach u s w as A risto tle 's legitim ate
son in his m arriage w ith P y th ia s, and his p rin cipal heir, he w ould h a rd ly
have inserted a sentence in this p aragrap h , b u t rath er in th e beginning
of the will, in (1 b) or before (1 e). I find it u n lik ely th a t th is is an
interpolation, but I can n o t offer an y reasonable ex p la n a tio n of the
loss of th is im portan t sentence in D iogenes.
N ow we m ust rem em ber th a t D iogenes go t his te x t either from
H erm ippus or from P havorin u s, w hereas P to le m y to o k his from A n d ro
nicus. B o th H erm ippus and P h a v o rin u s’ tran scrip t p ro b a b ly h a ve
A riston of Ceos as their u ltim ate source, and th e t e x t passed m an y
interm ediates. Andronicus m a y h a ve found a co p y of A risto tle ’s w ill
am ong the papers from Scepsis; th is m igh t even h a ve been th e
reason w hy he included th e w ill in his book w h ich oth erw ise does not
seem to h ave had a biographical character. I offer these co n jectu res
for w hat th e y are worth.
In the second sentence D iogenes differs from th e A ra b ic tran slation
on tw o points: (a) a£ta)Q rjfi&v in stead of “ in th e m anner he d esires” ;
possibly the phrase w as rendered in e x a c tly b y th e tran slator, (b)
D iogenes adds (the p ro p erty of his) “ w hich w e h a v e received ” , a elkriqia-
fiev amaC. This, too, m igh t be d u e to n egligen t tran slation .
T h e A rabic tran slation su p ports th e readin g of th e v u lg a ta , im xofiiaQ fj.
(2 b) T h e clause “ if she rem ains in m y d a u g h te r’s se rv ic e ” is a not
unim portant ad dition in th e A ra b ic tran slation.
(2 c) H icks ap p a ren tly u n derstood T h ale as a fem inine nam e, b u t
no such form is know n. — D iogenes sa y s, slig h tly d ifferen tly, “ in
addition to th e m aid w hom he h as and w ho w as bou gh t, a thousand
drachm as and a m a id ” .
(2 d) H ere th e G reek te x t in D iogenes is alm ost c ertain ly corru pt.
H is te x t implies: (a) besides th e m on ey earlier paid to him to en able
h im to b u y another serva n t, Sim os shall receive: (b) either a serva n t

b o u g h t fo r him , (c) or a correspon din g sum of m oney.
T h e A ra b ic te x t im plies th a t he shall receive b o th (b) and (c). T here
is n oth in g in D iogenes correspon din g to th e w ord s “ w h a t th e execu tors
m a y fin d p rop er” . A gain , it is d ifficu lt to im agine th a t th is w as added
b y an interpolator. T h e A ra b ic te x t as a w hole giv es b e tte r sense.
(2 e) A ll G reek m anu scrip ts of D iogenes h a v e th e readin g Taxeov.
I t is n o tew o rth y th a t th e A ra b ic tran slatio n to o h as this reading.
D iogenes h as “ O lym p iu s and his naidtov" (which p ro b a b ly m eans
“ his son ” , and n o t “his b o y -s e rv a n t” ). In th e A ra b ic tran slation s “ the
son of O ly m p iu s” is referred to in the n e x t p aragrap h . T h e A ra b ic
versio n seem s to m e m ore logical. N on e of th e v e ry y o u n g sla ve b o y s
are to b e g iv en th eir freedom u n til later, w hen th e y h a v e shown th a t
th e y deserve it.
I t is possible th a t w e should read O lym pich u s, w hich is m ore ty p ic a l
as th e nam e of a slave.
(2 f) A s usual D iogen es’ t e x t is slig h tly shorter; th ere is nothing
a b o u t “ w h a t shall be g iv en to them . . A fte r the la s t w ord an-N adim
ad ds, o u t of his ow n head, “ if G od A lm ig h ty so d ecid es” .
Some general remarks on the text of the will. T here is a rem arkab le
agreem en t b etw een th e G reek t e x t of D iogenes and th e tw o A ra b ic
tran slation s. W ith one excep tion , th e ad ditions in th e A ra b ic t e x t in
com parison w ith D iogenes seem to me to be original, n ot interpolations.
T h e excep tion is th e ex p la n a tio n of “ ta le n t” b y “ 120 R om an p o u n d s” ,
an o b vio u s gloss. T h is in itself is p ro b ab ly an ad dition m ade b y A n dro-
nicus, w h o w ro te his b o o k in R om e. F o r w h y should P to le m y , livin g
in A lex a n d ria as I assum e, or a S y ria n or A ra b ic tran slato r h a v e found
i t useful to in sert th is exp lanation ?
F ro m reasons adduced b y L ip p e rt and B a u m sta rk it is probable
th a t th e tran slatio n of P to le m y ’s b o o k On the L ife of Aristotle w as m ade
b y Ish aq ibn H u n a yn a b o u t A . D. 900. eith er from th e G reek original
or from a S y ria c tran slation . Ish aq is k n o w n as a v e r y conscientious
scholar and tran slator. Since th e A ra b ic t e x t of th e w ill is of such
ex cellen t q u a lity , w e are j ustified in b elievin g th a t th e oth er e x tra cts of
P to le m y ’s b ook, too, are of th e sam e q u a lity , and th a t th e y can b e used
in recon stru ctin g th e m ain lines of P to le m y ’s bio grap h y.
A p a r t from ( 1 7 — 21), th e sto ry a b o u t th e inscription, H im eraeus,
and S tep hanu s, on ly s lig h tly allu d ed to in th e G reek sources, every
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 24 I
single sta tem en t in th e A ra b ic b io grap h y is su p ported b y th e G reek

tradition. T h e general agreem ent b etw een the G reek ep itom e of P to lem y ,
preserved in th e V ita M arciana and th e tw o a d ap tation s, th e tw o brief
S yriac V ita e , and th e A ra b ic trad itio n , is strikin g. T h e m ore fan cifu l
A rabic additions to th e b io grap h y sta n d o u t clearly and are easy to
rem ove from th e origin al te x t.
(J) F rom H u n a y n ’s w ork K ità b nawàdir al-falâsifa wal-hukama

wa'àdâb al-m u‘a llim ïn al-qudamà’, tra n sla ted b y L oew en th al, Honein
ibn Ishak. Sinnspriiche der Philosopken, B erlin 1896, pp. 108 — 116.
(K) A F ren ch tran slatio n of these aphorism s and anecd otes b y B.

R. San guin etti, in: Journal asiatique, V :e série, vol. 8, 1856, pp. 340—
352. N o. 74 = M ubashir 7 and U saibia 27.
L. Comments on Ptolem y’s Catalogue. P . M o ra u x ’s va lu a b le book.

Les Listes anciennes des ouvrages d ’ Arislote, L o u v a in 1951, deals a t
len gth w ith P to le m y ’s catalo g u e and g iv es fu ll references to th e earlier
literature. I h a v e learn t m uch from his discussion of th e com plicated
problem s, b u t I do not a lw ays agree w ith his conclusions; see m y paper
A riston or H erm ippus?” , in: Classica et mediaevalia, 17, 1956, pp.
1 1 — 21. M. P lezia (full title T 75) closely follow s B au m stark b u t c o n tri
butes m any good observations.
M y tran slation of the catalogu e is based on U saibia, b u t I h a ve
added a l-Q ifti’s readings:
O b = Cod. B erol W etzstein I I 323

[ ] on ly found in U sa ib ia O m = Cod. M onac. 800
O' = Cod. V in d o b . F liig el 1164
K b = Cod. Berol. in fol. 493
<[ ) o n ly found in al-Q ifti K m = Cod. M onac. 400
K v = Cod. V indob. F lü g e l 11 6 1
/ / not in th e te x t, supplem ented
( ) varian ts in m y tran slation
A full critical ap p a ratu s is found in S tein schneid er’s edition, in the

Berlin A ca d em y edition of A risto tle, tom . V , pp. 1469— 73. A n u n satis
fa cto ry edition of a l-Q ifti’s c a talo g u e is found in W enreich, pp. 14 6 —
162; his com m ents are rath er confusing. B a u m sta rk 2 giv es a com plete
Gôteb. U n iv . A r s s k r . L X 1 I I . 2 16
tran slatio n of th e tw o versions of the catalogu e, pp. 61 — 70, profuse

com m en ts and a b old reconstru ction o f th e origin al catalogu e of A n dro-
nicus, b u ilt on L it t ig ’s book on A n dronicus. I am scep tical of these a iry
constru ction s. In m y edition I h a v e ad ded te n su b -titles (Published
w orks, etc.) to d istin guish th e sections of th e catalogu e.
General observations. T h e disposition of th e C atalog u e is this: (1)
N os. 1 — 28. T h e first eigh t are his m ost w ell-kn ow n works, pu blished
durin g h is life-tim e; th e tw o m ost celeb rated to p th e list. T h e rest is
a list in a lp h a b e tica l order of v a rio u s w ritings. (2) N os. 29 — 56. An
in d ex generalis to A n d ro n icu s’ edition, w ith th e w orks arran ged essenti
a lly as in our best m anu scrip ts and in B e k k e r ’s edition of th e Corpus.
I t is n o tew o rth y th a t th e w ritin gs on th e p h ilosop h y of n atu re and the
b io lo gical w ritings are arran ged in “ descending ord er” , sta rtin g w ith
th e trea tises on principles, and not accordin g to th e n eop laton ic “ ascend
in g o rd er” . (3) N os 57 — 91. H ere w e can d istin gu ish th ree subdivisions.
5 7 — 80 is a collection of h y p o m n em ata, p rob ab ly arranged in a lp h a b etica l
order: àjioçrj/naTa, ëtaigêaeiç, enizEiQ-rifiaza, êvardaf.iç, Oéaeiç, ôoot,
n o o fih ifim a , vnofivrj/zcna. T h e second section, 8 1 — 85 contain s other
h y p o m n em a tic w ritin gs of d ubious origin. T h e th ird section, 86 —
91 lists fu rth er collectan ea, am ong th em th e fam ou s Polities. (4)
P riv a te docu m en ts of v a rio u s kinds, inclu d ing “ th e w ritin gs from A pelli-
c o n ’s co lle ctio n ” , letters, m em oranda, and p ro b a b ly a n um ber of
p seu d ep igraph a, n ot specified b u t corresponding to th e sim ilar list given
b y H esych iu s a t th e end of his index.
F ro m title 97 it is ju stifia b le to conlude th a t A n d ro n icu s’ “ catalogu e
raison n é” contain ed th e in cip its and inform ation a b ou t th e num ber of
ortôt.
T h e f a c t th a t th e second section giv es us a list of th e treatises included
in A n d ro n icu s’ edition w hich w e can ch eck w ith th e arran gem en t of
th e sam e w orks in our b est m anu scrip ts is th e m ost rem ark ab le feature
of th is catalogu e. I f th is p a rt o f th e ca ta lo g u e has su rv iv ed th e trials
of th e lon g tran sm ission from A n dronicus, th rou gh P to le m y , to U saibia,
it is ju stifia b le to assum e th a t th e oth er sections, too, g iv e us a fairly
reliab le con cep tion of A n d ro n icu s’ niva£. A n o th e r d eta il w h ich indi
cates th a t th e origin al arran gem en t is preserved is th a t th e Parva
naturalia are d ivid ed in one p sych o lo g ica l and one b io logical part.
T h ere are, how ever, also in d ication s th a t th e arran gem en t has been
chan ged. B etw een A n d ro n icu s and P to le m y falls a w ork b y A drastus,
teacher of A lexan d er of A p h rod isias, I I e q I t t}$ T a t e a ><; T t S v 5AgiaroTsXovg
avyyQafifiaxcjv or tt}q ’ A q io to teX o v c (piXoaocpiaq, and w e k n ow from th e

discussion in Sim plicius and in oth er prolegom en a th a t A d rastu s disagreed
w ith A ndronicus in m inor details. T h e arran gem en t of th e w ritings
belonging to th e O rganon w as a m a tte r of m uch dispute am ong th e
neoplatonists. W e can see th a t P to le m y does n ot follow th e n eoplaton ists
in grouping th e Rhetoric and the Poetics to g eth er w ith th e logical w ritings,
b u t preserves A n d ro n icu s’ disposition. P le z ia ’s discussion of this
pa rt of the catalogue, p. 5, is v a lu a b le.
Th e Nicom achean E thics is om itte d b oth b y al-Q ifti and U saibia,
b u t this is p ro b ab ly on ly due to a m ishap in Is h a q ’s tran slation.
The te x t of th e catalogu e m ight be tran slated from a S y ria c tran slation
of the G reek original. N o w onder, th en , th a t th e titles h a v e suffered;
the iden tification is in m a n y cases v e r y u n certain. I refer to M o ra u x ’s
com m ents on the in d ivid u al titles and lim it m y self to a few o b serva
tions.
Section I , N os. 1 — 28. T h e first nine titles ( 1 — 8) represent w orks
w hich w ere fa irly w ell know n in a n tiq u ity ; th e y h a v e ro u gh ly th e sam e
collocation in th e other catalogu es. B u t th e arran gem en t is q u ite
different. In D L and H th e num ber of books is th e principle accord in g
to w hich the titles are arranged; here it is d ifficu lt to see w h a t principle
the author has follow ed. I d istru st th e “ tetra lo g ies” reconstru cted b y
B aum stark. (1 — 2) are u n d o u b ted ly th e m ost celeb rated am ong
A risto tle ’s published w orks, and w e m a y con jectu re th a t th e oth er
seven are arranged in descending order of celeb rity. W e m a y ask w h y
on ly these nine titles are given , b u t w e do not know th e reason. — In
the second p a rt th e tw e n ty -fo u r titles (9— 28) are arranged in s tr ic tly
alphabetical order. A s M o rau x shows, m ost titles are know n from th e
other catalogues or from q uotation s. I t is curious to find th e titles of
(possibly) four E n tro/iai of P la to 's dialogues, b u t n ot th e epitom e of
the Timaeits, m entioned b y Sim plicius, C l A G V I I , p. 379.16, and also
in A rabic sources (Steinschneider3, p. 21, n ote 105). — (12) could be the
Aixaiw /iara x o Xecdv 'EXXrjvidaiv, V M 4. — (15) Q ifti’s tran scrip tion
prob ab ly corresponds to tieqI eIdfoXaiv. — (16) S evera l titles h a v e been
confused; on ly th e first tw o title s are certain , b u t (16 c) m u st describe
tw o epitom es, otherw ise unknow n. — (18) A d ifficu lt problem ; th e
alphabetical order induces us to con jectu re 0avfj.aaia d xovapaza, listed
am ong th e d o u b tfu l titles tow ard s th e end of H e sy ch iu s’ catalogu e,
IN G E M A R D O B IN G
244
N o . 179. - (21) T h is title is rep eated in title 38. A ccord in g to W en-

reich al-Q ifti giv es th e follow ing title: D e a rte p o etica secundum P y th a -
gorae eiusque sectatoru m p la cita. B a u m sta rk b o ld ly con jectu res l l f m
fWvotxTji; Kara rovg IJvdayogeiovg, oth erw ise en tirely unknow n.
Sim plicius, C l A G V I I , p. 38 6 2 2 refers to th e book m entioned in title
22. — {24 a) O u tsid e th e a lp h a b e tica l order; an u n in telligib le in ter
p o lation in U sa ib ia 's te x t, p ro b a b ly due to a plain m istake. A ccord in g
to W enreich, h ow ever, th is in terp olation is found in al-Q ifti, too. —
(25— 26) are p ro b a b ly su b -titles under th e general title IlQofiX^fiara,
ju s t as D L 6 8 - 6 9 u n der llgoraaF.iq. - T h e real problem w hich this
a lp h a b e tica l list raises (and w h ich w e can n o t solve) is this: w h a t could
h a v e in d u ced th e a u th o r of th e catalo g u e to select e x a c tly these titles?
D id h e com pile his lis t b y using th e catalogu e tran sm itte d b y H erm ippus
and lib r a r y catalo g u es k n o w n to him (c. g. in R o m e an d R hodes), or
did he on ly include such w ritin gs of w h ich he had seen existin g
copies?
Section I I , N os. 2 9 - 5 6 . Sim pliciu s and B o etiu s inform us ex p licitly
th a t A n d ro n icu s placed th e Topics im m ed iately a fte r th e Categories,
an d th a t h e rejected th e D e interpreta tion as spurious (although he m ust
h a v e included his discussion of th is question in his “ c a talo g u e raisonne” ).
P to le m y did not follow him in rejectin g th e D e interpr., b u t ad opted his
arrangem ent: Cat., D e interpr., T op., A n al, pr.. A nal, post., Soph. el.
T h e order w as changed, p o ssib ly b y A m m on iu s and his school, "u t
le c to r a sim pliciore m ateria ad m agis com p licatam qu asi gradibus
d u cere tu r” , as P le zia says. T h e Topics w ere p laced a fte r th e tw o A n aly
tics. O ur earliest m an u scrip ts and B e k k e r ’s ed ition h a v e preserved
th is arran gem en t. In sig n ifica n t as it m igh t seem, this show s th a t P to le
m y follow ed A n d ro n icu s v e r y closely.
T h e eth ical, p o litical an d rh eto rical w ritin g s are placed a fter the
M etaphysics b y B ek k er; in th e old G reek m anu scrip ts th is group of
w ritin gs is tran sm itte d sep arately; th e m ed ieval Corpus did n ot include
L a tin tran slatio n s of th ese w orks. W e h a ve th e re fo re no m eans of
deciding how th e y w ere collo cated b y Andronicus; it is q u ite possible
th a t th e disposition in P to le m y ’s ca ta lo g u e a ctu a lly is th e disposition
follow ed b y A n d ro n icu s in his edition. T h e p h ysica l and biological
w ritin gs are arran ged essen tially in th e order fa m ilia r to us; w e observe
th a t th e n on -A risto telian D e mundo is n ot included; on th e order of the
Parva naluralia, see Sir D a v id R o ss’s com m ents in th e in troduction to
his edition. — T his excellen t In d e x generalis of A n d ro n icu s’ edition

has been u n d u ly n eglected b y th e editors of th e Corpus A ristotelicu m .
Section I I I , N os. 5 7 — 91. I t is ap p a ren t th a t th e titles 5 7 — 80 are
arranged in alp h ab etical order, and it is possible th a t th is arran gem en t
originally com prised th e titles 8 1 — 85, too. N o t a few of these titles
m ust h ave been sub-titles, grou p ed under a general title “prob lem s” ,
"h yp om n em ata” etc. — (59) is often m en tion ed, e. g. b y Sim plicius,
C IA G V I I I , p. 65.5. — (61) is im possible to id e n tify w ith a n y am ount
of certain ty. M uller, L ittig and B au m stark suggest A laigeaeig EvOv/irjfid-
tcu». — (62— 63) G eneral titles, not specified. — (64) I t is d ifficu lt
to see the reason w h y o n ly th ree su b titles (65— 67) are specified. —
(68) I f th is is a general title, th e titles 6 9 — 73 cou ld be su b titles. 72
is im possible to id en tify. S tein sch n eid er’s tran scrip tio n is brs awds
basis as'hin bmata, and M iiller’s ( K v) brusa urs bass as'hin mmata, both
unintelligible. B au m stark ’s reconstru ction s are n ot en couragin g and I
therefore abstain. — (77) I t is in terestin g to com pare th is title w ith
D L 121 lm r F .Q f.i.jL L t:v a jv or imredEa/ndvcov ngoßh]/j.dra)v. I t is possible
th a t title 77 w as a general in trod u ction to th e collections of problem s.
(79 ) Cf Fhilodem us Vol. Rhet. I 8g S udh aus aoquanxd nagayydXfiaTa.
— (81 — 82) I t is possible th a t 82 is a su b -title u nder th e general title
“ prob lem ata” , and this m ay a p p ly to 83, too: 1IgoßXrjfinTa yEoogyixa,
w ith 83 a — f as fu rth er sub-titles. T itle 83 is qu oted Geopon. I l l 3,4,
se V . R ose Arist. pseudepigr. pp. 268— 275. — (90) I h a ve not been
able to find th e reason w h y W enreich gives th e follow ing title: E p ita p h ia
heroum 1. V I, quae P epli nom ine censentur.
Section I V , N os. 9 2 — 99. I t is tem p tin g to assum e th a t title 92 is a
general title, and th a t all oth er titles in this section, ex c ep t 93, are
sub-titles; further, th a t th is is a list of the m anuscripts w hich A p ellicon
bough t from A ris to tle ’s heirs in Scepsis and S u lla b ro u g h t to Rom e.
A rtem on ’s w ork m ight h a v e been listed here becau se it contain ed a
collection of A risto tle ’s letters.
I f we look a t the catalogu e as a whole, it is d ifficu lt to exp lain its
peculiar character, unless w e assum e th a t it is based on th e ntvak m ade
up b y A ndronicus and included in his book on th e cla ssification of
A ristotle s w ritings. W e do n ot k n ow if A n d ronicu s’ w ork contain ed (a)
a plain list of the titles, i. e. a 7tiva£ of th e kind w e possess in D iogenes
and H esychius, and (b) a sep arate discussion of th e in d ivid u al titles, or
if his w ork w as w h at I h ave called a “ c a talo g u e raisonne” in w hich the
246 iN G E M A R d ü r i n g
n iv a i and his discussion w ere com bined. I t is easier to un derstan d the

ch a ra cte r of P to le m y ’s cata lo g u e if w e assum e th a t he e x tra cte d it
from a “ c a talo g u e raisonné” .
Comment on M . M. Stein schneider1, p. 194, prom ised an ed ition of

th is curious list of p seu d ep igraph a, w h ich he h ad m entioned a lrea d y
in his Zu r pseudepigraphischen Literatur, B erlin 1862. A s far as I kn ow ,
he n ever fu lfilled his prom ise, b u t he gives ad d itio n al info rm ation on
the list in Steinschneider3, p. 71 and passim . W en reich ’s list, pp. 158 —
162, is of little valu e; th e list in M üller1, pp. 5 4 — 5 ^, con tain s m an y
in terestin g id en tification s and suggestions.
PART III
F R A G M E N T S OF T H E
A N C I E N T B I O G R A P H I C A L TR ADITION
I. CHRONOLOGY OF ARISTOTLE’S LIFE
99 ,i D iotrephes 384/3 B ir th of A ristotle; he w as born in 384,

in th e first h alf of th e O ly m p iad year.
103.1 N ausigenes 368/7 D e a th of D ion ysiu s I of S yracu se, in
sprin g 367.
103.2 P olyzelu s 367/6 P la to goes to S icily in M a y or June
367 and is a bsen t from A th en s u n til
103 i4 i *'■ a t lea st tw o fu ll years,
perhaps more. In his absence E u d o xu s
is scholarch. A risto tle com es to
A then s, in his seven teen th year. (P lato
seems to h a v e sta y e d in A th en s abou t
three yea rs b etw een th e tw o visits
to Sicily.)
104.3 Molon spring P la to ’s th ird v isit to S icily , togeth er
361 w ith Speusippus, X en o cra tes, E u d o x
us and H elicon. H eraclid es scholarch.
H e retu rns to A th e n s in th e second
h alf of 360.
108.1 T heophilus 348/7 F a ll of O ly n th u s in A u g u s t— Septem ber
348. D em osthen es and th e anti-
M acedonian p a r ty to pow er, ea rly in
347. A risto tle leaves A th en s and
goes to A tarn eu s, sprin g 347. P la to
dies, p ro b a b ly in M ay 347.
iofl,4 E u b u lu s 345/4 A risto tle retires to M ytilen e. (W e do
n o t k n o w w hen he le ft M. and w en t
to S tagira.)
109.2 P y th o d o tu s 343/2 A risto tle sum m oned to M ieza as A le x
an d er’s tu tor.
109.4 341/0 M entor tra p s H erm ias. H erm ias e x e
cuted.
250
P h ilip leaves for B yza n tiu m ; A le x a n
n o ,I T h eo ph rastu s 340/39
der regen t du rin g his absence.
D e a th oi Speusippus. A risto tle n om inat
1 1 0 ,2 L ysim a ch id e s 339/8
ed as scholarch of th e A ca d em y , b u t
X en o cra tes carries th e v o te an d is
elected in spring 338. - P h ilip sends
am bassadors to T heb es.
A u g u st 338, b a ttle of C haeronea.
P h ilip is slain. T w e n ty yea r old A le x a n
iii.t Pythodemus 336/5
der succeeds him a b o u t J u ly 336.
T hebes d estro yed b y A lex a n d er, O cto
1 1 1 ,2 E u ain etu s 335/4
ber 335. A risto tle returns to A th en s
and ta k e s up teach in g in th e L yceu m .
D e a th of A lex a n d er, Ju n e 323. L am ia n
114,2 Cephisodorus 323 12
w ar. E p icu ru s com es to A th en s, in
his eighteenth year.
A t th e tu rn of th e y e a r 323/22, not
la te r th a n in ea rly spring 322,
A risto tle retires to Chalcis.
A M acedonian garrison enters M u n ychi-
1 1 4 ,3 P h ilo cles
on, S ep tem b er 322.
D e a th of D em osthen es in th e island
of C alau ria neaT T roezen , O ctob er 322.
D e a th of A risto tle . H e died sh o rtly
before D em osthen es, in his house at
Chalcis, in his 63rd year.
C *— <• H w e c o « ,,. <-■
sen se).
A S I S T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 251
D u rin g these th irty -e ig h t years he w rote, accordin g to the ancient

A lexan d rian c atalo g u e p reserved b y D iogenes, a b o u t 5 5 ° books of
together 445.270 lines (ortôt), i. e. alm ost fifteen fhfiXia reckoned
b y the year. E v e n if w e cou n t o n ly those b ooks w hich w e k n ow d efin itely
th a t he has w ritten , his o u tp u t exceeds con sid erably th a t of P la to .
In com paring th e tw o m en it is in terestin g to ob serve th a t th e m ost
fertile period of P la to ’s life b egan w hen he had reached th e age of s ix ty -
two.
1 a D I O N Y S I U S H A L I C A R N A S S E N S I S E p. ad Am m aeum c. 2,
721, p. I 258 U sener-R ad erm acher: O vx e.Xa.%iaxr]v Ss fj.01 xa i av
na.QE0X0V gonrjv elg to fir] nagFoytuc, EÊTaaai rr/v aXrjdeiav, nanaxaXutv
yavEQOvq noif]aai rovq Xoyovg, olq Efiavzov n en eixa ArjfiooOevovq a xfia -
£ o v to c f]dr] xa i t ovg hzi<pavE<naTovs eigtjxoTog dycova~ rare vno ’ A q i -
gtoteXovq t a? gr/rogixa; yeyqaipBat T e j 'v a ; .
1 b P H IL O D E M U S Vol. rhel., ed. Sudhaus, p. II 102, supplem entum

p. X X X V III: . . . xt]v eavrov yvuifir]v nagto]Tdv£iv, xarapa\XX(nv
<5fi] ArjfioodEvi] r ip> av[T>jv £<5o]^£v ix<pa>velv. xa i yna [XdyEt]' ' ex tojv
Efioiv Xoycuv [}) di\(f£l[F.L\a . fir) oi!rv xgtre[ov ovtco ; aXX]u yag fioi
ro v io <t o ) ngayfia &w xiojv o%vgo[i fid\6d>v naga IlXdrcovog [«at]
naga tov fiaXXov ix7iovr)aavroi; ’ A qiotote Xovs tt]v noX m xijv te [ xvt]v,
oc] iyEyovsi noXtrtxoQ [<piXooo]<pia re yivmaxoiv . . . .
2 Ttjv avrrjv fiogav exrpojvtiv fo r ta s s e le g e n d u m .
Comment. F . O livier, in his dissertation De Critolao Peripatetico,

B erlin 1895, p. 33, showed th a t D ion ysiu s w as inspired to defend D em o
sthenes’ o rig in ality as orator b y a con ten tion m ade b y C ritolau s (iiq
twv ex t o t IlegindTov, E p. ad A m m ., prooem .). L ik e Sudhaus, Vol.
rhet. Sitppl., p. X X X V I I I , I th in k th a t T 1 b is a q u otation from C ritola-
u s’ pam ph let. T h e w ord o%vgovv in th e sense of “ co n firm ” is v e ry rare;
it is used in a passage w h ich w ith c e rta in ty can be ascribed to Critolaus,
Vol. rhet. I I 98.12. I t is th u s fa irly certain th a t it is C ritolaus w ho
quotes A r is to tle ’s w ords ex t& v kfiutv Xoywv r] dxpsXEta, and adduces
P hocion as an exam p le of a celeb rated p erso n ality ed u cated b y A risto tle .
I t is from general reasons u n lik ely th a t this is a genuine qu otation
from a w o rk of A ristotle; it is incom p atib le w ith w h a t w e k n ow abou t
him; it is rea lly d ifficu lt to believe th a t A risto tle ever b oasted of h a vin g
been so m eb o d y’s teach er, and, least of all persons, of D em osthenes.
2^2 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
Critolaus eith er to o k th is qu otation from a spu riou s letter or fa k e d it

him self; th is w as a com m on h a b it in th e H ellen istic disputes.
I c D I O N Y S I U S H A L I C A R N A S S E N S I S E p . ad Am m aeum c. 3, 723:
O vô' Èx xwv 'AgtoxoxéXovç r e Xvwv xwv vaxegov ÈÇeveyüeiawv o i Ar)-
fioaôévovç Xóyoi avveráXBr)aav ã / là x a ff éxegaç xivaç d a a y w y á ç
vnèg <bv èv lôla ôrjXwato ygatpfj xà ôoxotivxá p o r JioAvç yag o negi
avxwv Xóyoç, Sv ov xaXwç eIXfv Éregaç ygatprjç notfjaat nágegyov. ev
ôè tw nagávxi rovxo Tieigáaofiat yavegàv notfjaat, 8xt ArjfioaBevovç
àxfiáÇovxoç rjôr) xa xà xr)v noXtxeiav x a i xovç Ènupaveoxáxovç Eigrjxoxoç
àyã>vaç xovç xe Ô ixanxovç xa i xoòç ôt]/ir,yogtxovç xa i Bav/iaÇoftévov
ôtà náarjç xfjç 'EXXáôoç èn i ôeiváxrjxt Xóya,v to te o' (piXoaoyoç xaç
grjxogixàç êygayiE xéyvaç. àváyxt) 6’ locoç ngwxov, wç nageXaßov ex
xwv xoivwv lo x o çiô v , d x a x tlm o v fjfilv oi xovç ßiovg xwv avôgwv
avrcaiáfiEvot, ngoEtnelv. noif)ao(iai <5’ àjiò ArjfioaÔÈvovç xrjv ãgXt)v.
id D I O N Y S I U S H A L I C A R N A S S E N S I S E p . ad Am m aeum c. 5 ,
727- *AgiaxoxèXrjç naxgòç fièv rjv N ixof*àXov xò yèvoç x a i xrtv xeX-
vm àvayègovxaç eIç M a Xáova xòv *A m X r p u M , m àç ÔÈ 0 aiaxiôoç
àiioyóvov xtvòç xwv Èx X a lx íÔ o ç xi)v ãnoixlav àyayóvxmv elç Exayeiga-
èyewrjdrj ôè x a xà xf)v èvEvrjxoaxrjv x a i èváxrjv ’ OXv[m iaòa AtoxgEiponç
’ A W fa m v Sezovxoç XQiaiv êxeat Ar)pooBÈvovç ngeoßvxEgoQ. èni òe IloXv-
tfX o v âçXovzoç XEÃevxrjoavxoç x o t naxgòç òxxcoxatòèxaxov éxoç ÈXwv eiç
’ ABrjvaç TjXôev, x a i avaxadeiç ÜXáxw vi Xçóvov eixoaaexfj ôiExgiye avv
airtã. ànoBavóvxoç ôè H X árw vo; èn i 0 eo<pÍXov ãgyovxo- ánrjge ngoç
'E g u ía v xòv 'A x a g v è m xvgawov x a i xgtexfj Xgòvov na g ' a v x ã < ô ta> -
xgíipaç èn EvßovXov agXovxoç elç MmiXiívtjv èXwqíaBr)- ÈxeiBev ôe jiqoç
M X m n o v & Xexa x a x à IJvdóôoxov ãgXovxa, x a i ôtèxgirpe Xgóvov àxxaexfj
nag a v x ã xaB^yovpevoç ’ AXeBávôgov p exà Ôè xfjv 0 tXínnov xeXevxrjv
èn ' Evatvexov ãgXovxoç àîxáÊvoç elç 'ABf)vaç èaxoXaêv ev A vxeu o
•ygávov èxã>v ôchôexa. x& Ôè xgtaxaiôexáxw , fiexà xi]v AXeÇavôgov
xeXevxÍ]v èni Krjftaoôthgov rígXovxnç ÒJiágaç elç XaXxíôa vóacg xeXevxA,
xgía ngòç xolç ê tfx o v x a fitáa aç êxr,. - (6, 7 2 9 ) ravxa (íev ovv eoxiv
ã naQaÔEÔáxaotv rjfilv o i xòv ßiov xov âvôgàç àvaygáxpavxeç.
n a r q ò z H erw erden : vtòç codd. H â a n z ç e tp t* titu li, cf R E V 54 5 . ^ A ie t-

t Q fyovç J a c o b y A i o t o ^ o v ç scrib end um || 7ze EaßuzEgoV codd., corr. W o lf || aJtaß-
vétos P ànagvéiov B || rgíipaç codd., corr. W o li |)
i e A P O L L O D O R U S ap. D iog. L a e r t V 9 - 1 0 = F Gr H ist 244 E . 38-

Comment on 1 cde.
B oeckh, K lein e Schriften V I ig 5 , show ed th a t th e dates are correct.
H. D iels, “ C hronologische U n tersu ch u n gen über A pollodoros C h io n ik a ,”
in: Rhein. M u s. 3 1 , 1876, p. 4 3 — 46 com pared th e tw o versions in
D ion ysius and D iogenes. T h e fragm en ts of A pollodoru s w ith copious
notes b y F . J a c o b y , A-pollodors Chronik, P h ilo l. Unters. X V I , Berlin
1902: restated F Gr H ist 244 F . 38.
D iog. L a e rt. V g. D ion ys. H al. E p. ad Amm.

5, P 727 -
<prjai (5* ’AnoXXdScogoq Iv
Xgovixalq
1. B irth 384.
yEWt]df]vai fi£v a m 011 r<b iyevvrfirj <)e xa xa rrjv evevr]-
ngojrw exei rfjq q8 ’ OXvfimddoq' xoarrjv xa i F.vdrrjv OXv/iTiiaSa,
AioTQEfotig 'Adrfvrjoiv dg-/ovroq y
great ArjjuoaÖevovq nQEaßme.Qoq.
2. S ta y w ith P la to , 367 — 347.

71 agaßaXslv Se IlXaram i xa i ijii 6e rJoXv^jXov äßôvroq
Siarglipai Jtao’ avrov elxoaiv err] reXevrrjaavroq roi J nargoq dxrw-
ETiraxaidEXETi] avaravra' xaiÖExarov etoq e%ci>v elq Aörjvac;
fjXdsv, xa i avaradeiq nXdrcovi
XQovov EixoaaerrJ diergitpe aw
av rqr
3. W ith H erm ias. 347— 345.

nXaroivoq de TEXevrrjoavroq rip äjioÖavdvroq Öe TlXdraivoq in i
TiQ(i)xu) ezei \rrjq gr/ ’ OXvftmdöoq) OsocpiXov agôvroq djirjge jzgoq
ETii QeotpiXov nn dq'E fljiiav ajriigai 'Eg/xiav rov ’ Aragvr.cjq rvgawov
xa i fielvat srrj rgia- xat rgterrj %govov 71an’ avrw
(dtayrgtyiaq
4. In M ytilen e, 3 45 — 343 -
x a l elq re MmiXr}in}v iXQeiv en in EvßovXov ägxovroq slq
ag%ovroq EvßovXov rät reragrü) MvnXfjvrjv i%(ogia 6r)-
et ei rfjQ grj 5OXv[intddoq-
254
5. W ith P h ilip, 3 4 3 - 335 -

hù I J v Ôo ô ó t o v ô ’ e XOelv ttçoç
èxeïO ev ôè ngÒQ <PÍÂi7i 7iov
ã% ETo xarà I T v Q ó Ô o to v â g y / jv T a
fp L ltJ in o V TM ÔEVTÉQO) £TEl T Ï]Ç Íj6
x a l ò tr T ijty e y o à v o v ò x T a e r f j 71a o
‘ OXvjjmiáòoç, ’AkeÇávôoov nevre-
t iv T Õ t x a d r j y o v f i e v o ç ' A ksS á v ò o o v
xaíÔEX’ (legendum y x a l 1) etrj
rjôrj yey o v Ó T O Ç .
6. T eaching in th e L y c e u m in A th en s, 3 3 5 — 3 2 3 -
eiç <5’ ’ AQrjvaç àquxèodai rã) fiETà ô è TÍ]V 0 d Í 7i 7i o v teXevtíjv

ôevréçw érei rrjç g ia ’ OXvfimáôag en ' E vat.vF .T 0 v ãgxovToç âtpixò-
xa l èv A v x eíw ayoXàaai ÉTfj toki fiEvoç EÎÇ 'Adrjvaç èoxóÀaÇev èv
Tiqòç t o Iç ôéxa. Avxeícp xqóvov èrã v ôd iÔ E xa -
7. D ea th , 322.
tcü ÔÈ T Q ia x a iÔ E x á r a ) fiF x a T )]v
r ir cbtãgat e Iç XaX xtôa rã)
’ AXeÇávõçov TfArvT^v ètzí Rt]<pi-
t q Í t íú ètei TTjç giò 5OXvfimáÒog
aoòdioov á f^ w r o c dânfjsa; eiç
x a l TEÄevTfjoai érã>v rgicõv tt.ov
X aX xióa vóoot TtXevrqi TQÍa tzoòç
x a l êÇrjxovra vóaio ôtê x a l Arjfio-
t o ïç ÈÇijxovra fíiw aaç ettj.
adévrjv xaraaTQÉtpai èv K a ka v o íq
Í 711 lÀ0xX£0VÇ'
N on e of th e tw o versions reproduce e x a c tly th e w ords of th e original.

T h e sty le in D iogenes is indirect; D ion ysiu s has slig h tly tran sform ed
th e te x t. A s to su b stan ce, b o th h a v e added som e d etails w h ich could
h a rd ly h a v e in terested A pollodoru s. I t is fu tile to sp ecu late a b o u t the
in term ed iate sources. D iod oru s m entions as his source th e xoival lorogtai.
1. T h e com parison w ith D em osthen es w as p ro b a b ly m ade b y A p o llo
dorus.
2. “ in his eighteenth y e a r ” is m ore precise, and w e are th erefore
prim a facie inclined to accep t it as true. B u t th ere are d ifficu lties. O ur
sources are unanim ous in asserting th a t he w as b orn in th e second half
of 384 and th a t he w a s in his 63rd y e a r w hen he died in S ep tem b er or
in th e b egin nin g of O cto b er 322. A cco rd in g ly his b irth d a y fell betw een
J u ly and Septem b er. A s to his a rriva l in A th en s, th ere are tw o co n flict
in g opinions (but it is o n ly a m a tter of m onths). P h iloch oru s ( = T I f)
says th a t h e arrived etil N avaiyhovQ . A s I argu e in m y note on T 1 f,
th is w ou ld m ean th a t he join ed P la to ’s school in th e la te sprin g of 367
(the n atu ral tim e to sail to A th en s). A p ollod oru s says th a t he arrived
i n i IloX v^ X ov, b u t w e m a y ob serve th a t D ion ysiu s alone gives this
name; his w ords “ in his eighteenth y e a r ” w ou ld im p ly th a t A risto tle
did not arrive in A th en s u n til a fte r th e begin nin g of O ctob er 367. A
sim ple ex p la n a tio n offers itself: D ion ysiu s (i. e. Apollodorus) m ay h a ve
counted a fte r th e h a b itu a l an cien t m ethod, inclu d ing th e y e a r of his
birth, In th e chronological synopsis I h a v e placed A r is to tle ’s arrival
under P o lyzelu s, b u t ind icated th a t I a cc e p t P h ilo ch o ru s’ d a tin g as
m ore tru stw o rth y .
D ion ysius I died in th e e a rly m on th s o f 367. A llow in g a m inim um

of tim e for correspondence and trav els, P la to cou ld h a ve se t ou t for
S icily in M a y or June.
3, xaQtjyov/ievog is m issing in D L w ho instead of th a t gives th e

incorrect t ie v t Exaid ex ’ err) ysyovorog. W ith D iels I assum e th a t th e
error is due to th e au th or and th a t it is n ot an error m ad e b y th e copyist.
6. D iogenes sa y s 13 yea rs, inclu d ing th e y e a r w hen he le ft A thens;
D ion ysius is m ore precise; A p o llo d o ru s’ cou n tin g is n orm ally inclusive.
7. D iogen es’ te x t is in disorder; see m y n ote on th e passage. — I t is
n otew o rth y th a t D iogenes and P h iloch oru s m ention th e nam e of P hilo-
cles, archon d u rin g th e yea r in w h ich A risto tle died, w hereas D ion ysiu s
m entions th e n am e of Cephisodorus, archon of th e preceding year. D id
b oth of them abrid ge th eir source, and happened to do it d ifferen tly,
or did th e y use d ifferen t sources?
T h e tw o versions are ind epen d en t of each other, b u t th e ten d en cy in

b oth versions to d u p lica te or ev en trip lica te th e d ates in order to m ake
them more precise is th e sam e. T h e final w ords in D ionysius: “ th is is
w h at has b een handed dow n to us b y th e m en w ho w ro te th e m a n ’s
life ” m ay in d icate th a t h e b orrow ed his m aterial n ot from Apollodorus,
b u t from a b io grap h y. D iogenes, too, certa in ly to o k his m aterial from
some in term ed iate source. T h is source w as also used b y H esychius:
(1) EyevvrjOri ev rfj qO oXvfimadi, (6) rjgSr 6' err) iy r rjg nfpiTrarrjrixf/Q
xXrjQetajjg tpihooocpiag, (7) oi de ifamv voa(p avrov rEXsmrjaat. There
is no evid en ce fo r D ie ls’ assum ption th a t D em etrius M agnes p ro
vid ed th e com m on source for D iogenes and D ionysius.
I t is clear th a t H erm ip p u s m u st h a v e offered som e k in d of chronology.
I t is a p rob ab le c o n je ctu re th a t h e relied on P hilochorus, and th a t
con sequen tly P tolem y-el-G arib to o k th e m aterial w hich w e now h a v e in
th e V ita M a icia n a 9 — 12 from H eim ip p u s. If this assum ption is correct,

w e h a v e tw o lines of trad itio n from Philochorus: (1) P h iloch oru s —
H erm ip p u s — D iogenes and P to lem y ; {2) P hilochoru s — A p ollod oru s —
(interm ed iate source) — D ion ysiu s.
F in a lly it is app rop riate to ad d a n ote on D ion ysiu s m ain argum ent,
th e co n tro v ersy on the d a te of th e Rhetoric and its influence on D em osth e
nes. D ion ysiu s' purpose is to show th a t A risto tle w ro te his Rhetoric
lon g a fter D em osthen es h ad p roved him self a b rillia n t orator. H e had
a v a ila b le a co p y of A risto tle ’s Rhetoric in A n d ro n icu s’ edition, i. e.
th e sam e w ork as w e possess to d a y , in clu d in g th e TJeqi M£ eojq. H e
could n o t k n ow th a t th is w ork is an a m algam of d ifferen t treatises,
w ritten a t d ifferen t periods of A r is to tle ’s life. F ro m his p o in t of view
his conclusions w ere justified . See T 2.
i f P H IL O C H O R U S in V ita M arc. 9 - 1 2 = F Gr H ist 328 F . 223.
Comment. “ T h is fragm en t is im p o rta n t becau se it show s th a t th e

P erip a tetics did n ot w a it h a lf a m illennium for A ristocles of M essana
to refu te th e m alicious gossip a b o u t th e relatio n of A risto tle to P la to ,
spread not o n ly in w ritin gs from th e circle of th e A ca d em y b u t in those
o f co n tem p o ra ry historians, to o .” (Jacob y).
A cco rd in g to J a c o b y ’s opinion, o n ly th e w ords ovrco ^ iXo^ oqoq
ioTQQTjOE — nQoarjxovrog are ta k e n from P h iloch oru s ( = V M 12).
T h is is, h ow ever, d o u b tfu l, for th e a rgu m en t in paragrap h s 9 12 is
coheren t, and it is d ifficu lt to see w h y a la te com p ilator should h ave
arran ged th e m aterial lik e this.
There are tw o ea rly u n fav o u rab le trad itio n s a b o u t A risto tle w hich
h a v e le ft d efin ite traces in la te r au thors. A cco rd in g to one trad ition ,
A risto tle riv a lled w ith P la to and open ed a school of his ow n w hen P la to
w as still alive. T h is is em p h atica lly refu ted b y D io n ysiu s in T 2. L a te
versions o f th is sto ry are found in D L V 2, in A elia n = T 36, and in
A ristid es = T 61 a, and it is w ell sum m ed u p b y A ristocles = T 58 d,
p. 387. T h e u ltim ate source of th is trad itio n is A ristoxen u s, b u t this
m aster of insin u ation , as h e h as b een called, did n o t m en tion a n y name;
Iviot, says A ristocles, tran sferred th e sto ry to A ristotle. A ccording
to th e oth er tra d itio n , em an atin g from T im aeu s (— 51 a) and Eum elus
(D L V 6 TQiaxovxovrrjv, also in F ihrist, p. 19 3 . b u t V M 1 1 t Eooagaxov-
rotirije), he w as an oiptfiadrjg.
T h a t b o th these argu m en ts w ere p a rt of th e u n favou rab le trad ition
on A risto tle th a t w as a lread y in ex isten ce b efore 300 B. C. is proved b y

the fa ct th a t, in th e fragm en t now u nder discussion, Philochorus refutes
these contentions. C h ron ologically th is is q u ite possible: A ristoxen us
m ust h a v e w ritten his V ita P la to n is soon a fter P la to ’s death. E um elus
is unknow n, b u t he is p ro b a b ly id en tica l w ith th e p e rip atetic philosopher
(Meineke, Rose, J a c o b y F Gr H ist I I C p. 13 1, and I I I B p. 483). J a c o b y
ascribes our fragm en t to P h ilo ch o ru s’ A tthis and assum es th a t the
catastrop h e of 306 B. C. (when Sophocles carried his la w w hich w as
directed a gain st th e Peripatos) g a v e P hilochoru s an o p p o rtu n ity to
deal retro sp e ctively and a t som e len gth w ith th e relation of th e P erip atos
to th e A cad em y.
P hilochorus refutes th e tw o argum en ts b y ad du cin g a series of chrono
logical fa cts, ty p ic a l of an ex p ert historian. A p a r t from one detail,
these fa cts are th e sam e as th o se ad du ced b y A pollodoru s. P hilochorus
says th a t A risto tle join ed P la to ’s school m i Navaiyevovg. T his m a y
w ell be true. P la to w en t to S icily a fte r th e d eath of D io n ysiu s. H e died
in the archonship of N ausigenes, p ro b a b ly tow ard s th e end of the year,
i. e. in F e b ru a ry 367 (see C lin to n ’s F a sti H ell, under 367), and A risto tle
m a y h a v e arrived in M a y or J u n e th e sam e year, sh o rtly a fter P la to ’s
departure. F o r som e reason or oth er A pollodoru s preferred to d a te his
arrival in i I7 o Av £ t}A o v , and his d atin g w as accep ted b y D ion ysiu s of
H alicarnassus (and o n ly b y him ). I fin d it extrem ely im probable th a t
th e late P tolem y-el-G arib , w ho is th e u ltim ate source of th e V ita M ar-
ciana, ch eck ed th e L is t of A rch on s and in trod u ced N au sigen es in the
chronology of A risto tle ’s life. I t is m uch m ore p rob ab le th a t it was
done b y Philochorus. T h e frag m en t also contain s a v e r y precious
piece of in form ation , n ot know n from a n y oth er source and certain ly
d erived from Philochorus, n am ely th a t E u d o x u s of Cnidus d eputized
as head of th e A ca d em y in P la to ’s absence. A p ollod oru s used this
inform ation as a basis for defining the axfii) of E u d o xu s. P hilochorus
then refutes th e reproach o f a riv a l fou n d atio n b y th e d isloyal disciple
(as J a c o b y observes) “ b y ad du cin g o b je c tiv e considerations w hich show
th e ex p ert in co n stitu tion al la w and in po litical conditions. H e is
d istin ctly sp eakin g o f th e tim e w hen P la to ruled th e school: C habrias
died in 357 B . C., T im oth eu s sh o rtly after 354. T h ere is n o t th e le a s t
d oubt a b o u t what he polem izes against, even if w e can n o t te ll a ga in st
whom, and w h eth er he has a certain author in view a t all or on ly th e
m ass of w ritten a tta c k s and th e communis opinio
Goteb. U n iv . A rsskr. L X 111: 2 17
2^8 IN G E M AH D U R IN G
In m y opinion, then, th is fragm en t w ith its sound and clear argu m en t

is in su b stan ce ta k e n from P hilochorus via H eim ip p u s, b u t I agree w ith
J a c o b y th a t th e literal q u otation does n o t begin u n til ov xto & r to x o Q o g .
E sp ecia lly th e sentence ( n ) sm ells of th e late com pilator.
I f w e accep t th a t it w as P h iloch oru s w ho first assem bled th e ch rono
lo g ica l fa cts contain ed in th is frag m en t, w e are led to th e conclusion
th a t b oth H erm ip pu s and A p ollod oru s based th e ir ch ro n o lo g y on
Philochorus.
2 D IO N Y S I U S H A L IC A R N A S S E N S IS Ep. ad Am m aeum c.
7 ,73 3 . P 1 266 U s e n e r-R a d e rm a c h e r: . . . awrjv IlXdxm vi xa i dtexgiy>ev
ewg ex& v b ir d xa i rgidxovxa, ovxe oxokrjq rjyovfievog ovx idiav
7iEJroiT]xd>s algtaiv.
Comment. S tr ic tly speaking h e w as 36 w hen P la to died, if we assum e

th a t he w as b orn in J u ly - S e p t e m b e r 384. T h e sta te m en t is reliable
and th e opposite of w h a t H erm ip pu s says. T h e u ltim ate source is
p ro b a b ly Philochorus.
D . argues as follow s. In th e first book of his Rhetoric (1355 a 2 1 — 29,
1356 a 3 5 - b 21) A risto tle q uotes his Topics, A nalytics and M f.OoAm u .
C on seq u en tly he w ro te these w orks before th e Rhetoric (a questionable
m ethod, still m uch p ractised ). I t is n o t lik e ly th a t he w ro te all these
w orks, inclu d ing the Rhetoric, w hile he w as still a pupil of P la to (naidevo-
fiEvov nagd 77Adr<ovt); as a m a tter of fa ct, w h a t he sa ys a b o u t th e O lyn th i-
an w a r (II I 10, 1 4 1 1 a 1 - 8 ) proves th a t th e Rhetoric w as w ritten after
P la to ’s d eath O th e r passages from I I 2 3 — 24 p ro v e th e sam e thing.
M odern editors of th e Rhetoric gen erally a ccep t D .’s conclusions.
I t m a y be regarded as certain th a t A risto tle w ro te th e Topics before
th e Rhetoric; it is a t lea st p rob ab le th a t h e also h ad com pleted certain
p a rts of th e Analytics. T h e passages adduced b y D. in su p port of his
th eo ry are all found either in Rhet. I l l = IJegi tet-stog or in I I 23 — 24.
T h e tre a tise 77 ee 2 M & m did n ot b elong to th e origin al Rhetoric in tw o
books, k now n b y Cicero; it w as am alga m a ted w ith th e Rhetoric b y
A n dronicus, an d D . is a c tu a lly our first w itn ess of th e existence of
A n d ro n icu s’ edition. A s to th e chap ters I I 2 3 - 2 4 , th e y m a y w ell
be a la te r ad d itio n , an expan sion of th e th em e d ea lt w ith a t th e end
of ch ap ter 22. T h e final sen tence of ch. 22 corresponds w ell w ith the
opening sentence of ch. 25. I t m a y h a ve ex isted as a separate w ork,
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2$ g
listed b y D iogenes, In d . lib r. no. 86. D .’s argu m en t does not c arry m ore
w eigh t th a n sim ilar conclusions m ade b y m odern interpreters of A ristotle.
I f w e assum e th a t Rhet. I — II , w ith th e exclu sion of I I 23— 24 was
w ritten b etw een 360 an d 355, th is w ou ld exp lain w h y A risto tle did not
com m ent on an y passages from D em osthen es’ speeches. H is first
appearance in th e courts w as a t th e tria l of L ep tin es 354.
3 P H IL O C H O R U S F G r H i s t 328 F . 224 = Philodem us, In d. A c.

H erc^ 6.28,^ p. 37 M ekler: £ n e[4 a i7 Z 7 io s] juev ovv n a g a v r o v , d r 5 <bv
/JoTwv>j; v I oq , S ied eg a T o xi]v d ta rg iflrjv . [H jte v a ]tJ in o v S e ix o v a ; X a q i
ra w I t ov a a q d v a O e iv a i (prjat 0 d [ d Xo g o q , ijdrj x a r e ] Xov T a to M o v a e io v .
£<p alq e n i y e y Q a j iT a i -
rdade 8r.al.aL Osaq XagiTaq Movaaiq d v eO ijx r.v

^ -n e v a a u to q X o [ y i] c o v e lv E x a 8 a )g a te? m v.
x a l y g a ffE i S i o t i [ e o X f. v r,8r, r d f ie k r j S ia k v O e v r a ] x a r e a T Q E tp iv t irn

x a T o o X cov o x t w tov I h . q i n a T .o v o i 86 v e a v ia x o t S '
avTan r ,y V o e T a i z e v o x g a T r j v e U ovto tov K a X Xr j8 6 v io v , ' A q io t o t e I o v :

f iz v a jio S e S v / j.T jx d T o q e iq M a x r .8 0 v i.a v , M e v e d f a o v 86 t o 6 I l v g q a i o v xai
H g a x X e iS o v t o v ' H g a x X r & T O v n a g d liy a q y fo o v q ^ T T T jd ev rw v . 6 u 6 v

o i v ' H g a x X e i8 f ,g d jz fjg e v e iq tov H ovtov, 6 Sr. [M evd8 Vp )o q fr e o o v
n e g m a T o v x a i S ta T Q ifirjv x a T e a x e v a a a T o .
SUPP>' n « « p W . M e k le r || *■ d,v i Z o w i ^ M ;
Mekler T r 1‘ Buecheler || ijAi, xar/)*oiTa Jacoby : xai xari y d mn
t r , m p e rz : a ° * iriq B u c c h e le r W ila m o w it z || 8 u5 n -
r a B u e c h e le r, sed q u id le g e n d u m v a ld e m c e r tu m || [ M r r i 6 ,lf,\oq G o m p e rz ||
Comment. Ph. M erlan, “ T h e successor o f S p eu sip p u s” , in: Trans

of the Am erican P h ilo l. A ss. 77, 1946, p. 1 0 3 - m . M. b elieves th a t
H erim ppus and not P h ilochoru s w as th e source from w hich th e a u th o r
of he in d e x A cad em ico ru m d erived his m aterial. J a c o b y assigns to
P hflochorus o n ly th e in fo rm ation a b o u t th e d ed ication w ith th e t e x t
01 th e epigram .
T h e inform ation con tain ed in th is t e x t is v e r y valu ab le. W e can

p e rceiv e th e tend en cy: Speusippus w as elected “ b ecause clo sely akin
r , Wh" hC ^ A rist0 tle w as vei^ n ea^ b eing elected schol-

arC a lth ou gh he w as absent. J a c o b y concludes th a t Speu sippu s
succeeded w ith o u t a form al election. T h e t e x t p ro v es th a t, a t th e d eath
o f Speusippus, A n s to tle w as still regarded as a m em ber of th e A cad em y.
25 q in g e m a r d ü r in g
C icero Acad. I 4 ,17 = T 7 1 b, cum Speusippum , sorons filiu m ,

quasi heredem reliquisset, reflects th e sam e u ltim ate source A fte r
S p eu sip p u s’ d eath , h e proceeds, th e tw o m ost em inent of P la to s disciples
to o k ov er th e school, A risto tle teach in g in th e L y c e u m and X en o cra tes
in th e A ca d em y . H ere we can trace th e h arm on izing ten d en cy ty p ic a l
of Ä ntiochus. T h e late n eop laton ic com m en tators ad opted th is version:
th e V ita M arc, says th a t A risto tle and X en o cra tes succeeded to the
School atocpgoveaxaxa.
T h e earliest ex p licit reference to th e legen d th a t “ A risto tle founded
th e P erip a tetic School in th e L y c e u m ” is C L E M E N S A L E X A N D R I N U S
Strom. I 14 (p. 63.4): IJaoa m d x c o n ’ AgtaxoxiXr,? <pdooo<pr,aaQ pexeA-
8<bv e k ro A vxeiov xx i£ei xrp> UEQUiaxrinxrjv algeatv. In H ellen istic
tim e he is on ly referred to in such general term s as “ th e founder of the
P e rip a te tic p h ilo so p h y ” , e .g . D IO N Y S IU S H A L IC A R N A S S E N S IS
Ep ad. Am m ., prooem ium : x& xxiaavri raihrjv xVv ytXoaocpiav. See
m y note on D L V 2.
4 H E R A C L I D E S L E M B O S in epit. Sotionis, ap. D io g L a e rt. X 1:

(’ E nixovgov) S xrcxa td exerri ft iXdelv e k 'A O ^ a i , S evo xg d xo v , fisv
ev 1Axaörjfxta. ' A qioxoxeAovi; ft sv XaXxiöt diaxßtßovxo;.
Comment. T h is is p ro b a b ly tru e, for E p icu ru s w as born 341/0. see
S trab o n X 1 ,1 1 = T 46 b.
5 C Y R I L L U S A L E X A N D R I N U S Contra Iu lia n u m I, M igne 76,14,

p. 5 2 ! c: 'E x a x o o x fj r Qlrri oXvpncddt 'A g«sxoxiX W <paoiv dxgoaaQat
nXazayvoQ, ßoaxelav äyovxa xopidfj xr}v fjXixtav.
Comment. I t m a y b e ad ded th a t C yrillu s echoes the usual trad itio n
a b o u t A risto tle and P la to , dvxaviaxaxat m d x m i I I 4 7 . P- 573 c and
574 a, also I V , p. 1 1 5 B; th ere is n oth in g new or in terestin g in his
argum ents.
6 E U S E B I U S , Chron. II , M igne 19,^p. 4«6: 'A g ia x o x iX ^ IlXdxwvi

iftadrjXEVOEV äaiö ttj exovs xrjq avxov.
7 G E O R G IU S CED REN U S, H ist, comp., M igne 121 p. 818 A B :

A s x a x o i ’ AQioxoxeXrjQ. Ovxoq d xg o a x fc yevo/ievo; r oO IlXaxw vos « c
xlzv n v xrjV <ptXoao<piav vyayr. xa i X a y ^ xsQ O , eyevzxo, xa p tv
a xotxeia x,ov ndvxa>v i n o Q ^ v o ; , olov xr,v o im a v xat t o <yvußr.ßr,xt„
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2<1I
t rp> fiiiv ovaiav fiiav roïg nàaiv v 7coxEt/j.évrjv, r à <5 è avfiÊprjxàra èvvêa.
xai t rjv fXF.v ovaiav roiavrrjv tlv a i olov Ôeàv x a i âvdçwnov xai Çibov,
jieqi à xai rà av/xÊfir^xora dEcogeïrat (account of th e doctrine of
categories).
'0 am àg ’ AgtcnoréXrjç o%eÔov xà TiXslaxa ovfMpœvEÏ xâ) ITAâxowi
TtXrjv toü TiEQt ymxfjç ôây/zaxog (then follow th e usual argum ents).
"O zi en I ' A oTaÇÉçÇov xov "Q yov jjv n ’ AgioxoxiArjg, ÈxEÀevrrjaE ôè
jjtdiaag exrj o. èxXiidrjaav ôè oi fiè v âaià Zijviovoç àjto xrjg TioixiXrjç
axoâg E xm ixoi, o l ôè àjio r o i ' AgiaxoxèAavg à jto xov ëgyov IlEQunarr)Ti-
x o l• TiEQinaTotivTEç yàg èv x<b A vxsia i ÈTtoioüvxo xàç ÇrjtrjOEiç. Cf.
p. 301 A , 307 C on A risto tle as tu to r of A lexan d er.
Comment: R e m a rk a b ly good is th e ph rase slg té%vtjv rrjv tptko-
aoyiav tfy a y E v , cf. Greg. N az., T 55 d, and Cicero, T 71 b.
8 ROGER BACON Opus m ajus, ed. J. H. B ridges; I I 12, p. 53:

H ie Socrates dicitur pater philosophorum magnorum, quoniam Platonis
et Aristotelis magister fuit, a quibus omnes sectae philosophaniium descen-
derunt.
I I 13, p. 54: Ante vero mortem Socratis natus est Aristoieles, quottiam
Per tres annos auditor ejus fu it, sicut in vita Aristotelis legitur. E l secundum
Bedam natus est sub Artaxerxe, qui successit D ario Nolho. E t in decimo
anno vitae suae fu it auditor Socratis, et ipsum per tres annos audivit,
et post mortem Socratis faclus est auditor P latonis secundum Bedam, et
ipsum audivit viginti annis ut in vita sua legitur. E t post mortem Platonis
vixit quadraginta (legendum: viginti) tres annis, unde in universo non
vixit n isi sexaginta sex annis, sicut ex dictis patet. E t hoc sim iliter patet
in libro Censorini de die natali, quoniam ipse Censorinus refert contra
passionem mortalem per tres annos eum m agnitudine anim i magis quam
medicinae virtute luctatum fuisse.
H ic Aristoteles magister A lexandri magni effectus duo m illia hominum
m isit per m undi regiones ut naturas rerum exquirerent, sicut P lin iu s narrat
in Naturalibus octavo libro, et m ille libros composuit, ut in ejus vita legitur.
H ie enim precendentium philosophorum errores evacuavit et augm entant
philosophiam aspirans ad ejus complementum quod habuerint antiqui
patriarche, quamvis non potuit singula perficere. N am posteriores ipsum
in aliquibus correxerunt et multa ad ejus opera addiderunt, et adhuc adden-
tur usque ad finem m undi; quia n ih il est perfectum in hum anis inventioni-
bus, ut in prioribus est expositum.
2Ö2 IN G E M A K D Ü R IN G
H un c natura firm avit, ut dicit Averroes in tertio de anima, ut ultim am

perlectionem hom inis inveniret. H io om nium philosophorum magnorum
testimonio praeferlur phüosophis, et philosophiae ascnbendum e s tid
auod ipse affirmavit; unde nunc temporis antonomasice Philosophus
nominatur, in auctorttate philosophiae sicut P au lu s m docinna sapientiae
sacrae apostoli nomine intelligitur. (Cf. S alisb u ry, T 7 1 e.)
Ouievit autem et silm t philosophia Aristotelis, pro m ajon parte aut
propter occultationem exem plarium et rantatem aut propter difficultaiem
aut propter invidiam aut propter guerras Orientis usque P os^ m^ ra
Mahometi. quando Avicenna et Averroes et caeten revocaverunt phüosophi-
am Aristotelis in lucem plenam expositw m s.
E t licet alia logicalia et quaedam alia translata fuerunt per Boetium de
Graeco, tarnen tempore M ichael Scoti, qui annis D om ini 1230 transactis
apparuit deferens librorum Aristotelis partes aliquas de N atm ah b u s et
M etaphysicis cum expositoribus authenücis, m agm jicata est philosophia
Aristotelis apud Latinos.

Comment. “ V ita Aristotelis m u st refer to our V it a la t n a ‘ "
w h a t he sa ys a b o u t B ed e I conclu d e th a t B ed e k n ew th e G reek V it a
v u lg a ta . Censorinus = T 50 c, P lin y = T 26 a.
II. D E S C E N T A N D F A M IL Y
9 a. A risto tle ’s W ill, D iog. L a e rt. V 1 1 - 1 6 an d the A ra b ic version,

tran sm itted b y U sa ib ia and th e F ihrist.
A risto tle ’s W ill w as p ro b a b ly w ritte n in C halcis in 323/2. T og eth er
w ith th e W ills of T heo p h rastu s, S trato n and L y c o n , it w as included in
th e b io grap h ical w ork of A risto n of Ceos, D L V 64 = jr. 3 1 W eh rli,
D ie Schule des Aristoteles 6. D iogenes fou n d it eith er in H erm ip pu s or
in P h av o rin u s’ M iscellaneous History. T h e A ra b ic version is a tran sla
tion of th e G reek te x t of th e W ill in P to le m y ’s b o o k On the L ife of
Aristotle. A s I h a ve said (p. 240), w e can use it in discussing th e su b
stan ce of th e W ill b u t n o t in estab lish ing th e e x a c t G reek te x t. T h e W ill
contains the follow in g direct or in d irect inform ation on A risto tle s’ fam ily.
1) P y th ia s, his w ife, is dead. “ W h erever th e y b u ry m e, there the
bones of P y th ia s shall be laid , in accord an ce w ith her ow n in stru ction ” .
2) W h en he w rites his W ill, his d au gh ter P y th ia s (whose nam e is
not m entioned in th e W ill) is n o t of m arriageable age.
3) H is son N icom achu s is m entioned in such a w a y th a t w e conclude
th a t he w as of ten d er age. T h e A ra b ic version has an im p o rta n t sentence
w hich is m issing in th e G reek te x t: (2 a) “ A s to m y e state and m y
son th ere is no need to b e concerned a b ou t te sta m en ta ry provisions.
I t is h a rd ly perm issible to re je c t th is as an ad dition m ade b y th e tran s
lator. I f w e a ccep t it as genuine, w e m ust conclude th a t N . w as A risto tle s
leg itim ate son in his m arriage w ith P y th ia s.
4) H is m oth er w as dead; her sta tu e shall b e d ed icated to D em eter
a t N em ea. F ro m D L V 1 and th e n eop laton ic V ita e w e know her nam e,
Phaestis. A risto tle is liv in g in her house in C halcis (1 e).
5) N ica n o r’s sta tu s in th e fa m ily is q u ite clear. A fte r A risto tle ’s
d eath he is th e oldest m ale m em ber and th e head of th e fam ily; he is to
ta k e charge of th e tw o children “ as if he w ere fa th er and b ro th er” ;
w hen A risto tle w rites his W ill, N ican o r is on a m ission som ew here
(see T 13 a), p ro b ab ly of a dangerous n atu re (3 d), b u t as soon as he
arrives hom e h e is to ta k e possession of th e estate and m a rry P y th ia s
w h en she com es of age.
I conclu d e th a t he w as the son of A r is to tle ’s sister in her m arriage

w ith P roxen u s. T h e n eop laton ic V ita e (and p ro h a b ly P tolem y) assert
th a t he w as ad op ted son of A risto tle, b u t I regard this as an inference
from th e W ill.
6) P roxen u s is m entioned tog eth er w ith N ican o r (3 a). G ryllio n has
been com m issioned to m ake b u sts of them .
I conclude from (3 a) th a t he w as dead and th a t he w as th e fa th er
of N icanor. T h e n eop laton ic V ita e (and U saibia 3) te ll us th a t w hen
A r is to tle ’s fa th er w as dead, A risto tle w as ed u cated b y P roxen u s; it is
added th a t P roxen u s w as from A tarn eu s. A cco rd in g to th e V itae ,
N ican o r w as son of P roxenu s.
7) N ican o r's m oth er (3 a). H er n am e is n ot m entioned b u t H esych iu s
and th e n eop laton ic V ita e g iv e her nam e as A rim n este, if she (as I
conclude) w as A risto tle 's sister. See also m y note on U sa ib ia 3.
8) A risto tle ’s broth er A rim nestu s (3 a) died childless. A b u st of
him has been execu ted and is to be set up.
g) F irs t am ong th e provisions concerning A risto le ’s household and
serva n ts is a p arag rap h a b o u t H erp yllis. S h e is also m entioned is the
first sentence: “ th e children, H erp yllis, and th e e sta te ” . F ro m this
sentence it h as been inferred th a t she w as his legal w ife. In (1 e) the
G reek te x t sa y s “ 6 t i a n o v b a t a n e n i I f i i i y e v e r o ” . T h e A ra b ic version
differs: in (1 a) “ m y estate, m y se rv a n t H erp yllis, m y oth er fem ale
and m ale se r v a n ts ” ; in (1 e) “ T h e ex ecu to rs shall b ear m e in m ind when
th e y m ake arran gem en ts for H erp yllis. F o r ju d gin g from w h a t I saw
of her earnestness in rendering service to m e and her zeal for all th a t
w as b ecom in g for m e, she has d eserved w ell of m e.”
A s is fu rth er d eveloped in m y note on T 12, I conclude th a t she m an ag
ed his household as head of th e servan ts.
10) T w o of th e execu to rs c a rry nam es w hich in d icate kinship:
A ristom enes and D ioteles.
A s a resu lt of these conclusions w e g e t th e follow ing pedigree:
N icom achu s — P h aestis
A risto tle A rim n estu s A rim n este

m arried to P y th ia s m arried to P roxen u s
P y th ia s N ican o r
N icom achu s
Nicomachus, his father and his son.

9 b S U D A s. v. NtxofiaxoQ : Nixd/iayog, laxgog, x a l avxag U xayeigL-
xfjg, Ma%dovoQ xoH AaxXrjmoU viog' ov xaxrjyexo N ixdjm yog o Ttarrjg
AgiaxoxeXovg xnii (piXoooqiov. xa l nvrog iaxgog. iygayev iaxgixcbv fhfiXta
g xa l (pvaixcuv d.
NixofiaypQ, Zrayetgtxrjg, (piXoaoyog, vlog fiev ’ AgiaxoxeXovg to v (piXo-
ad<pov, fiaOfjxrjg de 0eo<pgaarov, dig de rives x a l nai&ixd. lygaipev
HOixdiv fiifiXia g ytai negl rfjg yvaixrjg dxgoaaeaig r o t naxgdq avTov.
9 c T IM A E U S (codd. T im otheos) ap. D iog. L a e rt. V i : ea%e 6e

xa l vlov N ixdpayov 'EgnvXXidog xfjg naXXaxfjg, dig q)Tjai Tipatog
= T 12 b. R e p ea te d b y H esych iu s 4 and Suda.
9 d A R I S T O C L E S ap. E u seb. Praep. ev. X V — T 58 m. T w o sta te

m ents from tw o d ifferen t sources. T h e firs t is an am p lification o f w h at
Tim aeus had said: N icom achu s w as A risto tle 's son b y H erp yllis. I
regard th is as a com bin ation of T im aeu s ( = T 12 b), and an inference
from th e W ill. T h e second sta tem en t (th at he w as ed u cated b y T h eo
ph rastus and died young) is n ot found in a n y oth er author; it is
consistent w ith oth er k now n fa cts and p ro b a b ly true.
9 e D I O G E N E S L A E R T I U S V I I I 88: <J>rjol 6’ avxdv (sc. E u doxu s)

Ntxopiayog o 'AgiaxoxeXovg xtfv rjdovrjv Xiyeiv to ayadov. R epeated
b y Stob aeus, E el. I I 74, p. II 52 W ach sm u th: 'AgiaxordXrjg ev x&
dexaxui xibv N ixa fia Xidiv (-ixdiv M eineke) Eiidoôv xov aaxgoXdyov
olexai t e Xoq doypiaxiCetv xrjv tf&ovriv = E N X 2, 1 17 2 b g.
Comment. T h e earliest w itn ess concern in g th e title of th e N E is
Cicero D e fin . \ 5 ,12 . L ik e Cicero D iogenes refers to th e w ork as
“T h e E th ics of N ico m a ch u s” ; th o u gh w rong, th is is a possible tran sla
tion, cf. A lex . A p hr. I n Top., C I A G I I 2, p. 1 3 1.15 — 16, on th e title
Evdr)[ieia avaXvxixa.
S u d a ’s n otice on th e yo u n ger N . is u n derstan d ab le on ly if we assum e
th a t it is com piled b y som e ignoram us. T h e last sentence is transferred
from a notice on E u d em u s, for he w as b elieved to h a v e w ritten th e E E
and he w rote on A r is to tle ’s Physics.
g f E P I P H A N I U S D e graec. sectis exc. 31, D iels D ox., p. 592: ’ A g i-

axoxttrjg o N ixo p d xo v xnxa f i h xivag M axedibv (bio Zxayeigaiv, dig
6 Ivtoi 0ga£ rfv t o yevog.
2g g in g e m a r d u r in g
Comment. W e do n ot know w ho in ven ted th e sto ry th a t A ristotle

w a s a “ h alf-G reek ” or even a barbarian . I t is curious th a t some mo ern
w riters h a v e been u n critical enough to a ccep t th is as true.
9 g IO A N N E S T Z E T Z E S , C h il., X I 849 (h- 39 °):
’ Afurrzoreh]; 0 oo<pos, o nalq rov N txop a xov,

i x rrje ZrayeiqriQ noAewc vnr}Q%ev ’ OkwGiaQ. —
X 727 (h. 349 ) :

O i iaZQoi &e U y ov xai x c n a x Q T ] ( r c ix a n io w < ;
’ AaxXrjntddat ovfinavres and rrjz TSjfVije roiaq,

xadwg x a l 6 N ixd fiaxoz, narrjO ' AoioroTekavq. -
Cf. also X I I 638.
Comment o n 9 b - g . M u lv a n y (Cl. Qu. 20, 1926, 1 5 5 - 1 6 7 ) m akes

th e follow in g ob servation s w ith w h ich I agree. N icom achu s is nam ed
a fte r his patern al grand father; th ere are no legacies for his m ain tenance
in th e W ill A s le g itim a te son h e inh erits e v e ry th in g ex cep t w h a t is
stip u la te d to th e co n tra ry . A fte r N ica n o r’s d ea th T h eo p h rastu s becam e
th e h eir’s gu ard ian , and on th e b o y ’s d ea th h im self in h erited A risto tle s
e sta te in S ta g ira (according to V 52 T h . le ft p ro p e rty there) an d also
A r isto tle ’s library.
T h e b o y a p p a re n tly died y o u n g ( T 9 d). I t is a n a ttr a c tiv e assum ption
(b u t no evid en ce can b e adduced) th a t th e N icom achean E thics was
ed ited b y T h eo p h rastu s a fter th e d ea th of A ris to tle and his son and
w n r f in m em ory of th e b oy. D irlm eier, in his com m en tary (Akadem ie-
V e rla g , B erlin 1956) h as show n th a t th e E N is a lecture-course from
th e la s t period of A r is to tle ’s life.
T h e W ill len ds no su p p o rt to th e co n ven tio n al sto ry th a t N icom achus
w a s o n ly h a lf-b ro th e r to th e girl. N o th in g in it p a rts t h e tw o children
fro m on e an other, or conn ects N ico m ach u s w ith H erp ylh s. T h ere is
n o h in t th a t h e w ill liv e w ith her. If w e h a d on ly th e W ill before us,
i t is h ig h ly im p rob ab le th a t an yon e w ou ld h a v e th o u g h t of m aking
N ico m ach u s h a lf-b ro th er to P y th ia s and A r is to tle ’s son b y l i e hand
m aid. H erm ip pu s, on th e a u th o rity of T im aeu s, and a fter him A n sto -
cles th e V it a H e sy ch ii and Suda, assert th a t N ico m ach u s w a s th e son
o f H erp yllis. T im aeu s is th u s th e o n ly source for th is statem ent.
seems lik e ly th a t T im aeus, as p a rt of his calu m n y, in ven ted the story

th a t A risto tle had a son b y H e rp yllis = T 12 b, and th a t later Her-
mippus, in good faith , su b stitu ted the n am e of N icom achus,
Suda sa y s th a t A r is to tle ’s fa th er w ro te bonks. In his frequent
com m ents on largoi A risto tle stresses, on th e one hand th a t nobody
can becom e a d o cto r b y readin g b ooks (E N X 9, 118 1 b 2), on the
oth er hand th a t go od doctors, <piAoao<pa)T£Qa>g fiETiovTsg rijv t exvrjv,
need deep k n ow led ge of n atu re and should be cpvaixoi, D e sensu 436 a
20, cf. 480 b 23— 27.
Phaestis, his mother.

H E R M IP P U S ap. D iog. L ae rt. V 1: (Paior'iQ ErayeigiTrig.
D IO N Y S IU S H A L IC A R N A S S E N S IS - Tid: ftrjTgdg de 0 aiariSog
dnoyovov Tivog rcbv ex XaAxtdog zr/v cmoixiav ayayovrcov elg E zayeioa.
P T O L E M Y e l-G A R IB . P ro b a b ly th e m ost fa ith fu l Teport in V ita
M arciana x: dfiqioiv ajid Mayaovog zov ’ AaxXrjm ov xarayofiEvcav.
V ita S y ria ca I 3: “ both his fa th e r’s and his m o th er’s fam ilies descended
from A sclep iu s” . E sse n tia lly th e sam e in F ih r ist 3, M ubashir 2, and
U sa ib ia 2.
Comment. T h u cy d id e s calls S ta g ira “ a colon y of A n d ria n s” , I V 88,2;
rep eated b y S trab o n V I I , jr. 35. T h e o n ly fa c t w hich rem ains certain
is th a t b o th his p aren ts w ere of noble G reek stock.
10. Pythias, his wife.

10 a A P E L L I C O N ap. A ristoclen ap. E useb. Praep. ev. X V = T 58 1.
Tedvewroq yag rEgfitov did r i j v nooc exeivov evvotnv eyrjfiev avzrpt,
aAAojg fj.ev acixpgova xa i ayaBrjv ovaav, a zv y o flo a v /xevzoi d id Tag
x a za X a fio va a g ov/itpogag t o v adeXrpov avTfjg.
10 b ps.-A ristip p u s ap. D iog. L a e rt. V 3 — 4.
10 c D E M E T R I U S M A G N E S ap. D iog. L a e rt. V 3.
10 d S T R A B O N X I I I 1,57 = T 19: tw <5’ ’AgiaTOTeXei xa i OvyaTiga

ddehpofi ovvioxiae.
10 e A R I S T O C L E S ap. E useb. Praep. ev. X V = T 5 8 j : 8vo de

xa vra d oxel ntaTeveadai di a yjeyovai Tiveg a vro v tv jitv o n tt)v
' Egjxiov yrjfiEie tpvoet [lev ddeAqjrjv, 6eti]v de dvyarega Ilvd iad a ,
xoAaxevmv amov.
20g IN G E M AH D tiR IN G
Comment. 10 b and c are of no v a lu e at all. T h e trea tise ’ Aqusxubioq

IJepl naXaidc, xgvcprjc; is cited o n ly b y D L , w ho th o u g h t th a t it w as
w ritte n b y A ristipp u s. I t is one of th e w orst p rod u cts of H ellen istic
c alu m n y from th e end of th e th ird cen tu ry B . C. i o e is d erived from
T im aeus. O n A pellicon, see m y com m ents on T 58 1, p. 3 9 2 - I can n o t
see an y real reason to re je c t it. I t is con sisten t w ith 10 d and in p rin
ciple also w ith 10 c. T h e ad dition xoXaxevcov avxov, on w hich A n sto cles
bases his v e rd ict, show s th a t he had allow ed him self to b e influenced
b y th e u n fav o u rab le trad itio n . P y th ia s th u s w as H erm ia s’ n iece and
ad o p ted d a u gh ter and A risto tle m arried her a fter H e r n ia s ’ d ea th in
341 -
11. P ythias, his daughter by P ythias.

1 1 a P L I N I U S N at. hist. X X I X 1: H orum placita Chrysippus ingenti
garrulitate mutavit piurimumque et ex Chrysippo discipulus etus E rasi-
stratus, Aristotelis filia genitus; hie Antiocho rege sanato C talentis donatus
est a rege Ptolemaeo filio eius.
11 b S E X T U S E M P I R I C U S Adv. math. I 258, p. 64.19 M au: H v Bh iq
Se ij ’ AgtaroxeXovQ dvydxr/g xgtaiv dvdgdotv e y a ^ G jj, ngwxov p h

N ixavogi xdi Zxayziqixri, olxeiw ovxi ’ AoktxoxeXovq- 6evx£qw 6e U g o x M
-dnuagcrrou xov xebv AaxEdatpoviajv paodeojQ dnoyovq,, 8q m i dvo i f
aikrjg xsxvotixat natdac, rfooy.U a xe xal A W dgaxov xovQ naga
GEoygdoxu) q>doao<pfiaavxac■rqixoi 6e Mr]X0odd,QV laxqQ , Xqvoujitiov
(tev xov KviSiov fiadrjxfj, ’ Egaotaxgdxov d’ txprjyqxfj- ft) yivexai nalq
' AQtaxoxekrjQ.
1 1 c V ita M aTciana 3, lat. 3, vu lg . 2.
11 d V ita H e sy ch ii 3 ngoExekEVxrjaev ' AgiaxaxeXav' xoti naxgoi;.
Comment. A p a r t from H esych iu s, th e evid en ce is consisten t w ith the

W ill. I t is presu m ab le th a t a t 1 8 - 2 0 years of age, sh o rtly a fte r A ris t
otle's d eath , P y th ia s m arried N ican or, as w as foreseen in th e W ill;
a few y ea rs la ter N ican o r died and she m arried P ro d e u s. H e too died
and she m arried for th e th ird tim e b efore 300. In T h eo p h rastu s' WW
w e find th e provision th a t “ A risto tle, th e son o f M etrodorus and
P y th ia s, shall also h a ve th e rig h t to s tu d y and a ssociate w ith them if
he so desire” . H e w a s to o y o u n g to b e m em ber of th e school, b u t his

half-brother D em a ra tu s is m en tion ed am ong th e m em bers. — The
notice in V ita H e sy ch ii is incon sistent w ith th e W ill and therefore
certain ly wrong; I h a v e no exp la n a tion to offer.
12. Herpyllis.
12 a A r isto tle ’s W ill, D L V 12 — 14. U saibia, section I.
12 b T IM A E U S F Gr H ist 566, F . 15 7 = P roclu s in H esiod. Opp.

403: Mdrrjv nnv Xdyovaiv 01 negi Tifiaiov 'H oiod w tov ’ AoiaroreXrjv
jteidofievov fierd rr]v rfjg yw atxoq TeXevrrjv ' EgnvXXidi ome.ivai rfj
Oeoajiatvr], f’( ^g avTov ayslv viov. Cf. DL, V I.
12 c H E R M I P P U S ap. A th en . X I I I 589 c: 5AgiarordXrjg <V 6 E ra-

ysighrjg ovx f.£ 'EgnvAAtdoq xrjg dxaigag enatdonotrjae N ixofiayov xa i
ow fjv TainTj jidyoi OavaTov, tog (prjotv "Egfim nog dv xfj Jleg i ’ A g iaro
te Xov ; Tj.QMT.m, dniftEXsiag cpaaxwv xrjq deovatjg xexv%r]xdvai dv r alg to v
q>iXoao<pov dtadijxatg. 6 dd >taXog rjfifiiv TJXdxuiv ovx ‘ Agysavaaaav xijv
KoXotpcovtav Ezatgav rjyajia]
S z a y E tg ir q Q M u s lim s : n m .v o in T t jq ACE || in a if> o n o { i) o < n o m a lu it M ein e k e ||
TjfAwv A : tffiiv U s e n e r vfiw v K a ib e l ||
Comment. T h e tw o rh etorical questions are not qu otation s from

H erm ip pus. W e do n ot k n o w w hether H erm ip pu s rea lly said th a t
N ico m ach u s w as A r is to tle ’s son b y H erp yllis; h e m a y h a ve said the
sam e as T im aeu s and “ N ico m a ch u s” m igh t be an in terpolation b y
A th en aeu s or his source. T h e ch ief va lu e of th is te stim o n y is th a t it
p roves th a t H erm ippus k new th e W ill; this again m akes it h ig h ly
prob ab le th a t th e W ill w as included in his L ife of A ristotle.
12 d A R I S T O C L E S ap. E u seb . Praep. ev. X V = T 58 m.
12 e V ita H esych ii 4: elyev Se xa i viov Ntxn/j.ayov ' EgrnXXidog

naXXaxfjQ rjv fif.Ta Ilvdtdda naoa 'E g fiiov tov evvovyov . . . eXaflev.
T h is com es from th e sam e source as D L V 1 = Tim aeus.
Comment on 12 . T h e evidence on H erp yllis is h ig h ly conflicting.

W h a t w as h er statu s in A risto tle ’s home? T h e question has been dealt
2j o IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
w ith b y C. M. M u lv a n y , in: Class. Quart. 20, 1926, pp. 1 5 5 - 1 6 7 ; A.

H u g , “ Z u den T estam en ten d. gr. P h ilo so p h en ", in: Zürich Universität
Festschrift 2. Begrüssung der X X X I X . Vers. d. P h ilo l., 1887, K . G.
B run s, “ D ie T est. d. gr. P h ilo sop h en ” , in: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stif-
iung, R om an. A b t. I, 1880, pp. 1 - 5 2 . B ru n s finds it p rob ab le th a t it
w as a legal m arriage, H u g com es to th e opposite conclusion; b o th of
th e m w ere ju rists. I t is o b viou s then th a t an ex a m in a tio n of th e W ill
from legal p o in ts of view can n o t y ield a d ecisive answ er to th e question.
In m y opinion, th e W ill lends no su p p ort to th e la ter tra d itio n th a t
H e rp yllis w as A r is to tle ’s second w ife.
Sh e is called deodmaiva, eraloa or naAAaxr) T h e nam e indicates
servile con d itio n and she w as p ro b a b ly a house-m aid. M u lv a n y and
oth er com m en tators h a v e rig h tly observed th a t th e d ire ctiv e to the
tru stees to ta k e care of her because of her good services to A risto tle is
n o t w h a t w e should ex p ec t in th e case of a relict of an ord inary m arriage.
A ccord in g to the V ita H esych ii (in th is respect consisten t w ith Apellicon
and A ristocles, T 58 lm ), A risto tle g o t her “ after P y th ia s from H er-
m ias” ; she m a y h a ve been P y th ia s ’s handm aid, as M u lv an y says. She
is to h a v e n a ld a rov IIvQQaiov, th e b o y from P y rrh a , a p lace in L esbos
w here is a lagoon on w hich th e Hist. an. has m uch to sa y (D A r c y
Thom pson, On Aristotle as a Biologist, p. 13). A ristocles sta tem en t th a t
she w as a S ta g irite is p ro b a b ly based on th e provision in th e W ill.
“ She m a y h a v e com e to A risto tle as P y th ia s ’s handm aid; slave she
c ertain ly w as once, and a t th e tim e of his d ea th his freedw om an, since
th e W ill shows her a lrea d y free.” S o fa r I agree w ith M u lv an y . H e is
less con vin cin g w h en he tries to p ro v e th a t she w ar his w ed d ed w ife.
T h e w ords “ if she desires to m arry, th e y shall see th a t she b e given
a w a y in a m anner n o t u n w o rth y of m e” seem to m e to im p ly th a t he
and H e rp y llis h ad n o t been le g a lly m arried. B u t th is is e x a c tly the
p o in t on w hich th e legal exp erts disagree*
13. N icanor.
M entioned in A risto tle ’s W ill and in th e n eop laton ic V itae .
13 a In scrip tion , found in E p h esu s and p u b lish ed b y R . H eberd ey,

Festschrift Theodor G om ferz, W ien 1902, p. 412 — 416, conferring the
privileges of a nQot-evoi; to Ntxavwg 'AqtaroreXovg ZrayeiQirt]Q.
13 b A ccord in g to th e n eop laton ic V ita e he w as th e son of P roxenu s

and A risto tle ad opted him as his ow n son.
13 c S T E P H A N U S B Y Z A N T I N U S s. v. M l g a : ncihg MaxeSoviag
eQvixov Mte£evq xa i M istalog- ovxmg yag '/orjfiariêi Nixavtoo,
. . . to
xada Aovxiog (X yla n d e r : xaQaXovfiiog codd.).
Comment. Zeller id en tified our N ican o r w ith th e one sent b y A le x a n

der to th e O lym p ic gam es of 324, D in arch. adv. Demosth. 81,103, D iodor.
X V I I I 8, of. Rhet. ad A lex. 1421 a 38. I t is how ever, u n lik ely th a t
A lexan d er had any relations w ith A risto tle a fter the a ffa ir w ith
Callisthenes. W e do n ot k n o w th e reasons w h y th e E ph esian s honoured
him w ith th e sta tu s of proxenus; accord in g to th e W ill h e w as on a
dangerous m ission sh o rtly before A risto tle 's death, and th is m a y h ave
som ething to do w ith his affairs in E phesus. O n 13 c, see J a c o b y F Gr
H ist 146, comm.
T h e sta tem en t in th e n eop laton ic V ita e th a t A risto tle ad opted N icanor
is, as M u lv an y says, p ro b a b ly an inference from th e W ill: "N ican or
shall h a ve care as b eing b o th fa th er and b ro th e r” . H e w as perhaps
first cousin, son o f A r is to tle ’s sister and her h u sb an d P roxenu s. I
th in k M u lv an y has given good reasons for th is conclusion. I f w e suppose
A rim neste to h a v e been N ica n o r’s m other, th en A risto tle ’s choice of
N icanor as h usb an d of his d a u gh ter and gu ard ian of the estate, and
also, if a fa ct, A risto tle s ow n p u p illage u nder P roxen u s becom e easy
to understand.
14, From. Theophrastus' W ill.
D IO G E N E S L A E R T I U S , V 5 1 — 5 3 : Tlgrnxov /xev %a negi to M ovaelov

xa i rag deag ovvxEXeaQrjvai, y.dv xi alXo i.csyyrj tieqL avxag etiixo-
a/LiTjdrjvai ngog t o xaXXtov
enEira tfjv AgiarordXovg eixova xedfpat eig to lf.gov xa i to Xoina
uvadrj/iaxa, oaa Ttgoxsgov imfjgx ev ev wji isgti)-
ska to OTonbiov oixoSofj.Ôrjvai to ngog xip M ovaeiw /irj ytlgov fj
JIQOTEQOV
avadeivai S e xa i xovg m vaxag, iv oig a i xfjg yfjg nsgioSol eiai.v, sig

rrjv xaxa) a xo a v
emaxevaadrjvai de xa i xov flat/iov, onajg e y jj x 0 xeXeiov xa i to Evaxrjfiov.
Bovin/im ds xa i xi)v Ntxo/j.axov eixova avvxeXEadfjvai io tjv to fxiv
2?2 IN G E M A R D U R IN G
T/J? nXdozOQ l% u n q a ^ x iX rj?, t o 6’ &XXo dvdXco/ia and xovxov yeveadco.

oxadrjvai 8e onov av doxfj xolq xa i xcbv aXXcov empeXovfiEvoig xcov ev
xfj diaOfixrj yeyga/x/j.evaiv.
T a 8e fitfiXia navxa NrjXeV
i£eivat 8b jiovXofievM tpdoaoyslv xa i ’ A g ia xo xiX si, xw Mr,xQo8(aQov

xa i IlvBiddoQ via), xa i fisxexeiv xovxcov xa i avxofi ndaav inifiiX eiav
notelaBai xovq TieeofivxaxovQ, Snoig 8xi /.idXiaxa nooayjifj xaxa yiXoao-
(piav.
Comment. See K . O. B rin k ’s v a lu a b le article, in: R E S u p p l. V I I ,

col. gog, w ith com m en ts on th e M ouseion and th e P erip atos.
T h e sta tu e of A risto tle w as p ro b a b ly m ade du rin g his lifetim e, th en
placed in T h eo p h rastu s’ stu d y; th e W ill now prescribes th a t it is to
be placed in th e sa n ctu a ry of th e Muses. I t is n atu ral th a t w e should
ask ourselves if th e b u st th a t w e possess (see T 4g) w as m ade after
th e sta tu e m entioned here. (O ther sta tu e s of A risto tle are m entioned
t y Cic. ad Alt. I V lO .i; P au s. V I 4,8). O n th e you n ger P ra x iteles w ho
had received m on ey for th e life-size sta tu e of N ico m ach u s, see G. L ip -
pold, in R E X X I I , col. 1808. If, as I h a v e assum ed in accordance
w ith T 58 m , N ico m ach u s died as a child, it is easier to un derstan d
th e provision of th e W ill. T h e sta tu e w as there becau se of T h eo p h rastu s’
close relations w ith th e fa m ily; w h en he w as dead and N eleu s had
gone hom e to Skepsis, th e sta tu e w as to be rem oved from th e room
of th e h ead of th e school, and th e execu tors of th e W ill w ere to find
a su ita b le p lace for it.
I t is m ovin g to see in th e la s t p a rag ra p h an expression of T h eo p h ras
tu s ’ th o u g h tfu l care for th e yo u n g grand-son of his friend an d m aster.
III. H Ë R M IA S O F A T A R N E U S
ig . D I D Y M U S I n Demosth. comm., edd. H . D iels e t W . S ch u bart,

Berliner K lassikertexte I 1904, p . 17 ff., ed. m inor ig c 4 p. 8 - 1 3 :
T h e t e x t t r e a t e d b y C r ö n e rt, “ N e u e L e s u n g e n d es D id y m u s p a p y r u s ,” in : R h ein .
M us 62 190 7, 380— 389; G r e n fe ll- H u n t, in : H elle n . O xy rrh ., O x fo r d 1909, § 242
(w ith n e w re a d in g s b y S c h u b a r t) ; M . P . F o u c a r t, “ É t u d e s u r D id y m e ," in: A ca d ,
des in scr . M ém o ires 3 8 :1, P a r is 190 g, p p . 2 7 — 218 , o f lit t le v a lu e ; J . B id e z , " H e r m ia s
d 'A ta r n d e ” , in: A c . B elg . B u ll, de la classe des lettres 4, 194 3 , pp . 1 — 5; J a c o b y ,

F G r H is t I I B , 1 1 5 F 250; V o n d er M iih ll, R E S u p p l. I l l 1226 w it h b ib lio g r a p h y ;
a v e r y g o a d a r tic le b y D . E . W . W o rm e ll, “ H e r m ia s o f A t a r n e u s ” , in : Y a le Class.
S tudies 5, 1935. PP- 57— 92.
T h e fo llo w in g t e x t sh o u ld n o t be re g a rd e d as an e d itio n ; fo r fu r th e r in fo r m a tio n
o n th e t e x t u a l p r o b le m s I re fe r t o t h e p u b lic a tio n s lis te d a b o v e .
a ) 4.59 ’ E n e l 8' f.Iq jUF.yiarrjv 8ta<pogav rjxovaiv oi xa n eql to v 'E g/iiar

nagadedcoxoTEQ, rfjg q>iXr\xotag iv ex a xdiv x a i vvv (piAongayftovovvxcov xa
roinftra in i nXsov 8oxu> ftoi negi t o u t cov e in e lv avxixa yog oi fiev
in i xai jHeXxiaxq) fivrj/iovevovai xavdgdg, oi 8e ndXtv in i xcb <pavXoxdxw‘
b) d)v F.iaiv aXXoi re xa i Qednofinog iv xfj ex xrj xai xexxagaxoaxfj
xcov n e g l & iX m n o v ovxw al yag ygatpei- . . .
F G r H is t 1 1 5 F 2 9 1 , o m it te d h ere. “ T h e w h o le e x t r a c t fro m t h e P h ilip p ic s
is a tissu e o f m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n a n d fa ls e h o o d " , W o r m e ll 73.
c) 5,21 = T H E O P O M P U S , F Gr H ist 1 15 F 250:

o 8' a[vx6g iv rfj ng]og <t>i[Xmnov in ]ta xo -
Xfj xa i tjv n[agEaxEva<no (sc. H erm ias) jr]ag[a xolg\ "EXXrjat
8d£av iaxog e[l■olog xa i o 'EgfiLag aX]Xcog 8e
■yaoLEi.g x a i <piX\ofiova]og yEyovdtq- x a i [fidgj3]agoQ
ftEv div fiEXa xwv nAaxcovEiwv <piXooocpEi, 8ov-
Xog de yevoftEvag dfirj<payoig Cevysmv iv xalg
navfjyvgeaiv aya)vi£Exat. (The rest om itted here.)
d) 5,51: (probably) H E R M IP P U S .
.......................................... XEXoivajVTjxoxa
xrjg nXdx(x>\yog....................................] a [.] n ig it i -
nexgdxrja[E, cplXovq S' inoirjaaxo Koqlo\x\o\v xa i “E -
oaaxov x a i 5AgiaxoxeX[r}v xa i Eevoxgdxrjv]- 8to xa i
navr[eg ov\xoi naga [raj ' E g fiia n ]a g fja a v voxe-
gov [de, inet\ rjxo[v n\X\elovg xExXr}\fiiv\oi\, idcoxev
avx[olg <3] c o p e d [ v ] to . [ .......................... inl]xr)8eg de xijv
xvgavvida fiexEaxtjaEV slg ngaoxegav 8v-
vaaxeLav <5td x a i naa\r}q xijg av]veyyvg infjg-
£ev ecog ’ A a a ov, oxe (odev m alim ) <5[ij xa i vnegayaa]6Eig xolg
elgrjpievotg cpiXoodtpoig cat[£vetpev\ xfjv 3Aaaiw v
noXiv, fiaXiaxa 8’ a w T [< o v anoS]E^d/iEvog ’ A g i-
axoxeXrjv oixeioxaxa [diexetxo ng]og xoHrov.
Goteb. U n iv . A rsskr. L X 1I I :2 18
e) 5,64: C A E L I S T H E N E S , E n com iu m H erm iae.
àXAà yàq xa i K a U ta d év fy ç èyx(ôfiio]v r i a w -
râÇaç nsgi avxoti n \ o lh i re Xéyet àV\).a xa i [xav-]
r i- ov fiovov xoi[ovxoç èyivero èxxàg] xiv-
ôvvojv, aAXà xa i nXrjotov [yEvôfiEVoç âei 8]/uuoç
&v ôuréX ei, xa i fièyio\rov ôynov x exfir}Qto]v ë- ^
ÔÙ3XE tt}ç âgexfj ç èv av ro ï[g r o i ; xeXevxà]ioiç. 01
uèv yàq pâqPaQQi 6eœgoüvt e ; [àyôfiEvov èênXyrxovr]o rr,v
àvÔgeiav, ô ôè fia a d e[vç nagà r& v <pikmv ovô ev àva\xq\_i-\
vofievog ërtqov âAX’ y xovç avxovç Xôyovç âxovœv,
âyaoQeiç rr)v àvôqetav xa i xrjv flepaiàxtjxa r&v
xgôncov, Ôievorfit) f*èv avxov SXœç à yelva i vofiiÇwv
y e v o fiE v o v avrâ) <piXov n àvxmv f.oEoOai x Q ^ a i-
[Morarov àvtuim xôvxœ v 6 e Baycôov xai

Mévxogoç ôià ro <}oQoveIv xa i (pofciadai, firj ngm-
xevat) fxâXXov 80’ avxwv à<pe6£Îç, xavxyv fxèv
nâXiv fiereficdero xr]V y v à firjv ôtxàaw v <5i
xwv yiyvofiévcov n aq ' avxâ> xaxonaüeubv àfioi-
gov avrov ènotrjOE ôià xr)v agexyv. r> fièv o * xoiavry
/J.EXOIOXTH inijqÇ e nagà x&v f.%Qq& v naqa-
ôoioxdxr) x a i n[oXv nagà x\àn> x<bv /Sagpâgvv
rgo\nov. ô ô' o w ] fiéU m v <Mh-
a[xov ngoç £avr\àv [ElaxaX]eadfievoQ âA/.o fièv
[ovôèv ebiEV, ên]êoxii[ii>e ô’ a]vxâ) n g o ç x o v ç <pi
[Xovç xa i roi)}; éxaigovç [èm ]a xéU eiv wç ovôev
a[vâ£iov eïrj] <pdooo<pta[ç ovô’ S ] o x W 0V ôiajiEnoa-
f) D id ym u s continues his n arra tive w ith e x tr a c ts irom HER
n in honour of H erm ias, also from H E R M IP P U S .

ôè Aéyerai ’ AqiaxoxéXrjç avr à) eiç Aehpovç àva-
6.36: K a i uvrjfie.îov ôè .
.............................. xa i avTÔç èyyéygaipe xà
Beïvat S ôr\ x e l x a i ..............
listed in th e c ritical a p p aratu s D L V b.)
x o i o v Ô e ■ (the readings are
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 27g
h) B R Y O N ’s IlfQ i S eo xo ixo v . also from H E R M IP P U S

6.43: ITooç ov <pr,<n B q{>(ov êv rcb H epi O soxgixov ên iygapuâ n
tfeoxoiTov xov X lo v xoiovôe àvxm oifjoa r
'ËQtxiov EWOVXOV TE xa i EvfiovXov t 6Ôe ôovXov

afjfia y.evov xevoygav Ôrjxev ’ AgtoxoxéXyç,
3ç yaoxgoç t ifi&v Svo/iov cpvaiv eIXeto vaieiv
àvT AxaôrjfiEiaç pogfiogov èv ngoXoalç.
(the readings are listed in th e critical apparatu s, D L V n . )
i) D id ym u s con tin u es 6,50: ’ AXXà y à y Stc ôtaXXâxTovot xa i neoi

rrjv avXXVy>iv avroU xa i xov ddvaxov. "E gp m n og yàg èv Tq> IJegi
AgtaxoxsXovç ft èv xolç ôeofioiç ^ m v avrov reXevrijaai, o i V vno
(jaotXeœç p a oa vio & b xa àvaoxavgœdijvat, xadàjteç ngoéxxEtxac o i ô’
avTov t eXevrffaac m ôèv t ù v Q d m n c o aweyvcoapévœv ôMoXoyrjaavTa
xadaxeg o KaXXcadévVç- stl ô* a i ,ü-v êv xfj AioXiôt KaTdvr, <paolv
avTov ovXXr}<p6fjvai, oi tf exéoœÔi.
j) A N A X I M E N E S ’ ITeoi b iX m nov. 6,5g: A6£eie ô’ àv èvxeXàj; rà
negi a m ov ôiaxedeïadai ’ AvaÇi/iévrjç èv r fj extt) xcüv I7Egi 0 ÎXutnov
taxogtœv, ov rrjv exXoyrp> nagirjfu• ov yàg ôyeXoç.
T h é section o f the co m m en ta ry to th e Fourth P h ilip p ic

, d " £QL E W lov T0" ’ Axagveixov rt Xéyovotv o i xà negi avxàv
avaygaipavxsç.
1 en tirely agree w ith W o rm ell’s conclusion, p. 82: “ The evidence

seems su fficien t to establish th e p ro b a b ility th a t H erm ip pu s w as a
c ef source fo r D id ym u s th rou gh ou t th e w h ole of the episode dealing
wi H erm ias. I t is alm o st certain th a t all au thors quoted in th is
section includ ing A n axim en es, w ere q u oted b y H erm ip pu s in his L ife
of A ristotle. I h a v e o n ly a few rem arks to m ake and refer fo r th e rest
to W orm ell.
a) I t is not lik e ly th a t th e H erm ias ep isod e w as m uch discussed

in a d y m u s tim e. T h e w ords x&v vm Tzohmoayjuovowxcov are m ore
un derstan d able if H erm ip pu s w ro te them . I assum e, then, th a t this is
th e opening sentence of his accou n t and th a t th e conclusion in (i) and
(J) are th e w ords w ith w hich H erm ippus rounded it off
b) Theopom p us’ w ords col. 5,ï8 àvâoxaoxoç fta a d éa yevàuEvoç

recur ,n pp. i \ I39 ovxoç avâanaaxoç yéyove xxX. A s W orm ell
says t h e Fourth P h ilip p ic m u s t h a v e b e e n c o m p o s e d a f t e r H e r m ia s

c a p t u r e 3 4 1 B . C . a n d b e f o r e t h e n e w s o f h is d e a t h r e a c h e d A t h e n s .
c) Cf P la to E p ist. 6 hxncov nXrjBoç. T h eo p om p u s’ sta tem en t th a t
he w as M qP oqoç and ÔoMaç is sheer calu m n y; a fterw ard s sv v o ^ o ç
w a s added; M u lv a n y saw th a t these th ree d etails w ere borrow ed from
H ero d o tu s V I I I 1 0 4 - 1 0 6 (abou t H erm otim us) a n d tran sferred to Hfir-
H erm ias m u st h a v e been of G reek origin. A risto tle ’s H y m n tog eth er

w ith the fa c t th a t th e E le an s p roclaim ed th e sacred tru ce to H erm ias
m a k e s t h i s c e r t a i n ( W o r m e ll p . 7 3 ).
d) T h e t e x t is b a d l y d a m a g e d . T h e n am es of E ra s tu s an d C o n scu s
are p re tty certain , b u t xal S evoxq ^tyjv is m erely a guess; C ronert reads
«5otov. A risto tle had m et H erm ias in A then s. L ik e so m a n y other
distin guish ed G reeks from th e p rovinces he had visited th e A ca d em y .
H e m ade friends w ith A risto tle , a friend sh ip w hich, as W orm ell rig h tly
says, b ecam e a determ ining fa cto r in A risto tle s career.
T h e f a l l o f O l y n t h u s a n d t h e f a t e t h a t b e f e ll i t s in h a b i t a n t s s h o c k e d
t h e A t h e n ia n s ; in t h e e a r l y p a r t o f 347 D e m o s t h e n e s b e g a n t o b e a c k
n o w le d g e d a s a p o l i t i c a l le a d e r ; i n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r ( A e s c h in e s , In
Ctes. 62) h e s u c c e e d e d in b e c o m in g a m e m b e r o f t h e C o u n c il a n d v e r y
s o o n t h e d o m in a n t f ig u r e . The a t m o s p h e r e in A th e n s w a s v io le n t y
a n t i - M a c e d o n ia n . A r i s t o t l e f o llo w e d t h e i n v i t a t i o n o f h is f r ie n d a n d
w i t h d r e w t o A t a r n e u s , s h o r t l y b e f o r e P l a t o d ie d ( T 58 f). ^
A f t e r t h e w o r d ôœQsàv C r o n e r t p r o p o s e s t o r e a d t o 'A a a iœ v noha/xa,
h u t t h i s is i n c o m p a t ib le w i t h t h e n e x t s e n t e n c e Ô6ev àjtEVEtpEV TVv
’ Aaoicov n à h v , w h i c h a g a in is s u p p o r t e d b y T 1 6 nàXtv èôwxev otxeiv
jm *A o o à v . W i l a m o w i t z , A rist. u. Aihen, p . I 334 i n t e r p r e t e d ôojqeov
a s “ d a s S c h u lg r u n d s t i i c k in A s s o s ” , b u t w e a r e o n ly t o l d t h a t “ h e a s s ig n e d
t o t h e m a p la c e o f l i v i n g ” . T h a t t h e y w e n t o n w it h t h e i r s t u d ie s a n d
d is c u s s io n s t h e r e is a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e , b u t I t h i n k w e s h o u ld r e s is t t h e
t e m p t a t i o n t o s p e a k o f a n o r g a n iz e d s c h o o l in A s s o s . In T 1 6 w e a re
t o l d t h a t eiç eva nEoinm ov elatàvrEÇ, “ t h e y m e t a t j o i n t d is c u s s io n s ;
nepbzaTOç is not “ th e b u ild in g ” , se e T 68 c. E o u c a r t r e a d s S t s dr)
U ycov xooeoOek toTq xtX ., t h i n k i n g th a t H e r m ia s th e ty ra n t w as
fe d up w ith th e p h ilo s o p h e r s : “ lu i- m ê m e il éch appe, san s ru p tu re
v io le n te , à le u r s q u e r e lle s et le u r s d is c u s s io n s p h il o s o p h iq u e s ,” an
a m u s in g d i s t o r t io n of th e e v id e n c e . 1m egayaadelç is b e tte r th a n
vneQTjaÔElç, c f. (e) âyaadeiç tŸ)v àvdgeiav.

T h e chan ge of go vern m en t is attested b y his T r e a ty w ith E ryth raea,

D itt. Syll.3 229 E ofiiag x a i o i exalgoi.
e) W ith W ilam o w itz and W orm ell I assum e th a t (W orm ell 76)
“ A ristotle in stitu ted a m em orial cerem on y in hon our o f his dead friend,
a t w hich th e H y m n w as sung. I t w as th is service to H erm ia s’ m em ory
which was la te r used as evid ence of im p iety b y A r isto tle ’s enemies.
W ritin g some ten years before th e reco v e ry of th e p a p y ru s contain ing
D id ym u s’ com m en tary, W ilam o w itz, w ith e x tra o rd in ary insigh t,
ad van ced th e suggestion th a t th e H ym n w as preceded b y an encom ium .
T h ere can b e no d o u b t th a t C allisthenes’ Encom ium w as w ritten for
th is occasion .”
h) On B ry o n (Cronert reads Bgvawv), see L aq u eu r s. v. T heokritos,
R E V A , col. 2025. T h e w ords ngog 8v in d icate th a t T h eo critu s w rote
his epigram as a sarcastic com m ent on A risto tle ’s h ym n and epigram ,
and B ry o n s p am p h let is p ro b a b ly n ot m uch later. Cf. n ote on T 58 k
and 6g a. Since w e possess th e t e x t of th is epigram in fou r versions (D id y
mus, P lu tarch , A ristocles-E u seb iu s, D iogenes), it m u st h a v e been one
of the b est k now n of its kind. T h rou gh th is epigram the lab el e t w ^ o ;
xa i SofiXoq becam e a tta ch e d to H e rm ia s’ nam e. T here is no reason to
see a n y hidden sense in the w ords used. T h e XEvdygcov 'AgcaxoxeXrjg
is a pun on ofj/ia xevov and fiogfiogov iv Ttgoy_oalg is a m etaph or for
“ the sham eful and d irty relationship w ith H e rm ia s” as opposed to th e
serene atm osphere of th e A cad em y.
This con tem p o rary evid ence is ex trem e ly valu ab le, not only on accou n t
of the fa ctu al know ledge it affords, b u t also because it proves th a t the un
favourable b iographical trad itio n was alread y stron g in A ris to tle ’s lifetim e.
16 P H IL O D E M U S Academicorum philosophorum index Herculanen-

sis, ed. S. M ekler, 1902, p 22, col. V: . . . n g d g 'E g p ia v p e x a p d v x a g (je-
r a jtE fiy ia fie v o v avxovg xa i jig d x E g o v r o t ’ E o p ia e v v o v o x a x a , roxe S e xa i
fj.a A t.a xa <5l a xrjv flXdxmvog xeXevxrjv i n t a n E v a a v x o g n a g a y e v E o B a t . 6 <5’
a v x o lg x 6. re a lk a n d v r a enorjoe xotvct xa i noXiv eScoxfv oIxeTv xtjv

Aaaov i v fj ixelvo t xe d t a x g t f o v x e q i<ptXoo6<pow e lg S v a n e g b z a x o v
avviovxeg. xai ndvxa xd dsovW 'E g p lag a v x o lg nageriOr), xd>v vno
q>iAoao<piaq ivxExaXfievoiv vo/iiCoiv xeXog . . .
C o m w n t. M ekler a ttrib u te d this to D icaearchu s, b u t W orm ell (op
cit. p. 82) expressed doubts and W eh rli (D ie Schule des Aristoteles. D ika i-
archos, p. 50) rig h tly rejected this assum ption as a rb itra ry.
2 ^g IN G E M A E D Ü R IN G
T h e w ords supplied b y M ekler after riXog are certa in ly w rong, those

sup plied b y D iels ( B K T I, p. 1 9 ) are n o t convincing. T h e sub seq u en t
lines are too fra g m en ta ry to y ield an y info rm ation of valu e.
p ie zia (H erm ippi vita Aristotelis, cited p. 352) suggests th a t this
inform ation w as d erived from H e rm ip p u s’ V ita A risto telis or A p ellico n s
b ook on th e relations betw een A risto tle and H erm ias = T 58 1. C om par
ed w ith th e later trad itio n th is n otice is rem ark ab ly unbiassed; H erm ias
is not called “ the eu n u ch ” , as is a lw a y s th e case in la ter trad itio n .
17 H E R M I P P U S ap. A then. XV 696 af: Tovtojv Ae%Bevto)v 6

Arjfiöxgirog i<prf ’ A M a ,i>)v x a i to vno rov noXv/AaBearAtov ygacpev
zA giaroriX ovg sig 'E g /u a v rov ’ A ra g v sa ov n aiav ia r iv , cog o rrjv rfjg
äaeßeiag x a r ä rov q>dooo<pov yga<pi)v <biEveyxdfiEvog Arj/xocpdog eioeÖm x e ,
nagaoxEvaoÖEig i n Evgv/iedovrog, wg aoEßovrtog x ai ädovrog ev rolg
av'aairiotg oan /iig at sig rov 'E g p ia v n aiäv a. öxt Öe j i aiävog ovÖefiiav
ipapaaiv nagEXEt to ä o fia , ä t ä ä töjv axokicov ev n x a i avro Etdng eon v
e l avrfjg ri]g Asgewg qjavtgnv v/uiv noiyam - (The H y m n D L V 7; th e
readings are listed in th e c ritical apparatu s.)
' E y a j fiEV o v x o ld a ft r ig r 1 x a n h E .lv iv r o v r o tg b v v a r a i n c u a v ix o v
id iw fia , oacpM g o fio lo y o ß v r o g rov y e y g a q jo r o g r E T E te v r y x e v a i rov

' E g ju ia v öi <bv e i q ^ x e v 'o ä g yog < p d io v fio g ip a g ’ A ragveog evrgo<pog
?jeSLioo x m w a E v a v y d g ’ . o v x X ov 6 e t o n a ia v ix o v im g g r jfia , x a O d n sg
o Elg AvaavSgov rov Z n a g n a rriv ygaipEig dvrcog T ia ta v <pr]oiv

"Egfitnnog ev rto TtptbtM Ileg i AgiaroriX ov
dTaqviav A : c o n . C E || eiodficoxe G .ilic k : r.k alöco r e A rig ö O S to xe B o e c k h ||
n in ijg C asaub on u s : d ß X fc A || nauavvxhv A c o r t. C E i| o u ie E : ovte A ||
ziodiTfp : ß v e l y P ie z ia ||
Comment. T h e o b je c t of th e a u th or of th is e x tr a c t is to a d vo ca te
th a t A r is to tle ’s poem is a skolion and n ot a paean. T h e au th or ind icates
th a t he has ta k e n his m aterial from H erm ip p u s’ L ife of A ristotle.
A c c o rd in g to D id ym u s, H erm ip pu s h ad d ealt w ith H erm ias in th e second
b ook of his w ork, and he described th e poem as a paean. I t is therefore
possible, as P ie zia argues, th a t b> rw ä IJsgl ’ AgtaroreAovg is w rong and
th a t w e sh ould read ß or y. B u t we kn ow fa r too little a b ou t H erm ippus
w ork to he able to m ake o u t w h ether he follow ed a chronological disposition.
Im m e d ia te ly a fter th is e x tra ct, 697 ab, follow s th e n otice on A risto tle s
a p o lo g y . I f w e com pare D iogenes, w e find th a t in V 5 he refers to
A r is to tle in th e b io g r a p h ic a l t r a d it io n m
'£ £ : £ £ £ £ r r 11 - ^ *»
S ' “
from H cJ^“Z: ; : ; : : n r ? ~ * m emrot
“* M te “ “ « « «
18 A P E L L IC O N ap. A r is t o c le n ap. E n seb . = 58 I.
Z '& ° t C A a m l' - ) ’ E ™ * da «
y x Q o a o a r o x a i m & r r n v o c y .a i ' A n . n r ^ j J ? .
ovvervgavvr/oe, n Qlb r o v in tO ^ o r o i- W ' T\ f? * »
* “ « *» **« » * » lw « oi / ^ v W o T ? ( • •“ f r
7 ' ? ^ *a‘ a« W rd3 A- VfcLrarifci Z T Z ^
t s x s z “ c : : 'T dura
eaviw M , « 5„ a , ai ^ Z J tZ ^ Z ^
’ Z T ^ “f " '; ’'«
d v in e u w e v (b e t o v B n m l / n -» - ' ul X a Qlv , ovX X a ftcbv S ’
'Z ttX T S F js x r ■* '
■0 ,rfal; ' n k " ~ * ' " “ » » • » « « * ■» A m ,o ,.
A ristotle. B r t w e o b se ree V « t ^ r (t ,S m a° , ? l “ ! ' ° l t ° f

w a s in f lu e n c e d b y t h e u n f a v o u r a b le t r a d it io n - w m m e d la t e S0U rce)
r x i * “ —
lectures in th eP T AriSt° t le ’S
<?aa HYpiQ} avyyeyovon, do n o t co n tra d ict this- T l a t o 322 6
th a t he had n ot associated w ith him M a friend ’ y sta tes
b eginning of th e letter ( J W cf Th he ^ y s in th e
£ 2 r ^ * «* - « , roj z t i r z ;
f“ ‘ S A m to U c
w h eth er he sta y ed there until h C ” 0t f ° r Certain
0 « « , 0 , SPe„ , u z t l j z r r cd • ? '
to M ieza, a„ d tw o ,a t„ H e m ia s 343/2 “ * «
2gQ in g e m a r d u r in g
A t th e end of an accou n t like this, ta k en from a good source, Strahon

often adds som eth ing in order to im prove upon his source, cf. T 66 b.
This b ad h a b it has in v a lid a ted his a u th o rity , b u t as a m a tter of fact
it is often ea sy to d etect the jo in t b etw een his source and his own
additions.
20 H E S Y C H I U S s. v. Tagvr) : Tdovrj (A tarne, Atarneus) mXtg

iv A v S iq , oi de iv M vata (Steph. B y z . pera£v M voia? x a l Avdtag),
60sv 7jv 'E g fiia g 6 ’ A q lo to tM o v q to v cpdoaocpov yvwqifiog.
Comment. W ith o u t th e ad dition “ eu n u ch ” , w hich is rem arkable in
th is late author.
2 i. Hermias the Eunuch.

21 a D E M E T R I U S De elocutione 293: 'E qpiai; 8’ o tov A tciq-
vicoQ a tfa g , xa iro i T&XXa nqdog, uq Xeyerai, o i x dv yveaxero qadiaQ
rtvds fiaxaiqiov SvofidCovTOQ H t opip> V i x r o r f v Sea t o evvovXog slvai.
21 b L U C l A N U S Eunuch. 9: * 0 ’ AqiaToreXijg . . . *k vn EqfioXfy

davfidoaQ 'E q p ia v tov evvovXov tov ex toU ’ ATaqvecog t vqavvov a XQi
xal Ove.iv a m o > x t n a T a v rca r oiq Ge o l q .
21 c T E R T U L L I A N U S Apologeticum 4 6 ,1 5 : Aristoieles familiarem

suum Hermiam turpiter loco excedere fecit.
21 d H E L L A D I U S B E S A N T IN O O S ap. P h ot. B ib l. cod. 279, p.

533 b 15 B ekker: ’ Exiofxiaq, ojv x a l dovAot; rfq£ev Eq/xiag. A lso in
P h ot. Lex. s. v., S u d a and Etym. Magnum , s. v. ' E g fifjc. E rom Hella-
dius th e verse is qu oted b y L ib a n iu s, Contra Severum 52.
21 e D iogenes L a e rt. V 3: natdLxa rEg/iiov { = V ita H esychii,

Sud a, Etym. M agn.), p ro b ab ly from T h eo critu s of Chius.
21 f H A R P O C R A T I O N s. v. 'E q /ita g : ” Ovo/xa xv q iov , 6 Ewottyo;

6 TQbiqaTOi;■ olxeiooQ de S iexelto nqog !A qioroT eX rjv, x a i ttjv Oerrjv
avToti d v y a zeq a M orxe rw yiAoooqxp.
21 g V ita H e sy ch ii 2: 'EQ fiiov to v evvovXov o$ xa i 0/.i[haQ^&v

a w y v eaneiqe. (4) aQ%u>v \Araovecoc, EvftovXov de t o * Bidw oV SovXog
ysyovd)Q.
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2^1
Comment on 21. T here are four notes on H erm ias in D L V 3 — 4,

prob ab ly excerp ted from differen t sources: (a) in e tr a — rvgawov.
V e r y sim ilar, b u t “ th e s la v e ” in stead of “ the eu n u ch ” , P to le m y ap.
M ubashir 17 and U saibia 5. I assum e th a t th is is w h a t H erm ippus
said, (b) Sv oi fiev <paot n atSixa yeveoOai avTov, u ltim a te ly from
T heocritus of Chius, see T 21 e. (c) oi de xrjdevoai — aveXovra, from
D em etrius, repeated b y T ertu llian , u ltim a te ly from Theopom pus, (d)
ps.-A ristippus, tran sferred on A risto tle from T im aeu s' slander on
Theophrastus, F Gr H ist 566 F. 158 b, see T 51 a. T h en follow s (e)
an addition b y D iogenes him self, referring to th e H ym n .
(21 a) is a ty p ic a l H ellen istic fa b rica tion . (21 b) is w h a t we exp ect

from this scurrilous slanderer. (21 c) “ A. sham elessly m ade h is friend
H erm ias relinquish his p o sition ” (W orm ell) is a v a r ia n t of th e com m on
place th a t the ty r a n t’s clo sest friends b e tr a y him . L . A lfon si discusses
th e passage in: Hommage d J . B idez el d F . Cumont, Latomus II, B ru xelles
s. a., h e tran slates A. lascio tu rpem en te decadere E rm ia ” , im plyin g
th a t A risto tle fled ( = th e la s t sentence of T 19, Strabon ); Alfonsi
concludes th a t T ertu llia n g o t th is piece of inform ation from T heopom
pus. I t is h ow ever m ore lik e ly th a t T e rtu llia n ’s venom ous rem ark is
derived from th e slander cu rren t in his tim e; it is n othin g bu t a va ria n t
of D iogenes (c). — (21 d) See R. F o rster in: Philologus 35, 1876, pp.
7 1 0 — 11, and Hermes 14, 1879, p. 469. — (21 f) r gmgarog, E u sta th iu s
I n Odyss. I, p. 1403. Cf. schol. in D em osth., D in d orf V I I I , p. 207.27,
schol. in A esch in ., G aisford, p. 132.
22 [P H A Y O R IN U S ] ap. A th en . 697 ab: 'AAXa firjv x a l auro? o

AgiaToreXrjQ ev xfj *AnoXoyia rrji; aoe/Jetae, ei fit) xareyiEvorai a XoyoQ,
(prjaw O v yaq av store rEg/iia 6veiv me. <iQavarm ngoatgovfievoQ <bg
OvrjTdi (ivfjfia xareaxevaCov xa l aBavaxl& iv rrjv cpvciLv fiovAofievot; b it-
ra<plotq Sv r ifiatg exoa/irjaa avrov.
I x 6 o fii)o a avTov D iir in g : ixoa/iijaaTo A ixoa/iovv C E Exoafitjaa to a ti/ ia

K a ib e l ||
Comment: T h e argu m en t is w ea k and th e passage an ob viou s forger}’ .

T h e v a lu e of the qu otation lies in its testim o n y to the p revailin g in terest
in A risto tle s life and to th e d evelopm en t in th e tra d itio n w hich th a t
in terest evoked (W orm ell). I agree. See T 43.
28 2 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
23 H I M E R I U S Or. VI 6 (X L 46 Colonna): <5e ooytoTov

vdficp x a i nottjrov [Xdyq>] to ygdfx/xa yfxlv xsxvgcuTai, (pege xai ryv ipijyov
Trjv ex ipiXoaoiptag JigoaXdjimfXEV.
rH v ' E g fx lag ’ AragvEvg ysvog- o 8e 'ATagvsvg Mvadiv noXig, uf.ytBog
/xev ov fisydXtj, Xafxngd 8e rr/v Bsav, M v a a v {iaatMmg incbvvfiog. yvcogi-
[xog ovv ' Eg/x tag iv roig ftdkiaTa to v ExayEigiTov yevo/ievo:, ex fxsayg
xagdiag ey eavTov agETfj n da y to v xadyys/xova iÊ/xyvE. TtoXXa fxiv
ovv x a i aXXa tmv eti avTw tc68(dv i 7isdEi!;aTo AgiOToTsXyg, d>g eotiv
axovEiv, yvcogio/xaTa. x a i yag Xoyovg avrov i^yaxyae x a i ageTyv e£e-
jmtdevoE x a i eXeyEtqi tov BavaTov, /.tovov tcov yvcogifxwv, sxoafxyOEv.
drag dy x a i t o 8e 01)% rjxiara ty g nEgi ixslvov anovSfjg 0 Exaysigixyg
inEdeiâro tex/xygiov. exvxe [xev yag sig ttjv ’ A a ia v xrn AXeâvdgov
xaXovfxsvoQ, iva xfjgvk ofxoH x a i Bsaxyg t tiiv IlEgatxaiv Tgonauav yb>y-
x a r ejiel 8e JiogEvd/xEVOQ xaxa tov ’ A xa g v sa Eyevero, ld(bv noXtv oXiyyv
dgETyg x a i aoipiag Styxiiaav anaoav, ov jzagyXBs atyfj, f}ga%Ei 8e fiifiAiu)
xyv t e noXtv xai tov ‘ Eg/xtav yondCexo.
Aayq> r e c te s e c lu s it W e r n s d o r f |j davarov / / m o W ila m o w it z : OaXafiov fiova)

c o d d .. C o lo n n a , R o s e P s e u d e p . p . 602 || dliyrpi C a s tig lio n i : <Wt)v co d d . ' F A h y
vixrji W e m a d o r f ||
Comment. T h is is n o t so m uch a rom an ticising of h isto ry as sheer

fiction . P ro b a b ly m ost of th e statem en ts origin ate w ith H im eriu s him
self, b u t even so th e y a tte s t th e general id ealization of H erm ias as the
p h ilosoph er-kin g in th e fo u rth c e n tu ry A . D . (W orm ell). W ith ixoa/xyaE
cf. ix d o fiy o a enna^ptoig t tfialg in T 22. OXadtag w o u ld b e ou t of
p lace here. W ith Xoyovg am ov i£ y oxyoev cf. S u d a T 24 aoxyBsig
natdsiav.
24 S U D A s. v. ' Egfxiac, : 'Eg/xlag 6 f.vvovyog ’ ATagvsvg. %d>ga S'

la r i Mvaiag xyg iv ’ A a la xyg ngog xai 'EXXyanovxtp, i j s xa i tfgys
PaaiAstog to v IlEga& v vnyxoog. F.vvovyog xa i dovXog yEvdfievog E vfiovlov
BiBvvoO dw aoTov xa i tpiAoaoipov, daxydsig 71atdsiav naga AgioTOTsXsi
iygayiE tteq'i ipvxyQ, ore adavaTog.
O ir o g eo tiv o F.vvovyog 6 Tgingaxog. olxEuag 8e 8iexeito n gog 'A g i-
GToTsXyv xa i ttjv dETyv avTov dvyaTega sdcoxs Tip ipiXoaoipcp ( = H ar-
pocration, T 21 f).
T ovtov 8e tov 'E g fiia v fxdvov ygaipovai 81a roH r iv yag r olg tov
' iTincovaxTog csTiyaiq ia/xf)ixolg evgyTai tnlyog ovto g. Evvnvyog wv

xa i dovZo5 j e x ev 'E m ia;. (A ttrib u ted to A risto tle b y Choeroboscus
T , y? ' m P ' 376 25 G a isfo rd ’ T h e ° * ‘ X°S ' I n n c o v d x or

choham b = H elladius, T 21 d )
( h i r i n g , xavtoi eXadiag wv, ecmeiQe rVv iavroC y w a lx a xa i h a te »
tC avrfjg r Vv IJvdtaSa Ovyartga avrov, C f a i nzoi rofacov iv t & ’ A w -
^ /neoov NlXO/ldX0V- a^ eUt>aal ™ <pt*ooo<pia; elg rvqaw lda
Comment. T h e u n fa v o u ra b le trad itio n is w ell represented in this

sum m ary. H is so-called “ b ook on th e soul th a t it is im m o rtal” can.
as M u lv a n y says, h a rd ly b e oth er th an a replica of th e asseveration of
e soul s im m o rta lity , qu oted from D am ascius, Suda s. v E ou elac
th a t H erm ias of A le x a n d ria m ad e to th e d y in g A e g v p tu s. T h e last
sentence of th e la s t p a rag ra p h show s us one o f th e channels of the
trad ition a b ou t H erm ias.
IV . R E L A T IO N S W IT H P H IL IP A N D A L E X A N D E R
25. Alexander
A lexa n d erss lutur.
tutor.
25 a P L U T A R C H U S V ita Alexandri 7 — 8, p . 6 6 7 f: (1) K a oQÛv
Ai Tm w iaiv a m o v ôvaxívrjrov fièv oia a v , igíaavxoç fit) ßiaadrjvai,
áaôkoç &’ àyofiévrjv in ò U y o v ngòç rò óf.ov, avróç xe netBetv e n c a r o
uãXXov fj ngoaxáxxeiv, x a l r o lç n sg l fiovatx^v x a l ra eyxvxXia m u-
ÔEMaZç o i n á w xt m oreicov xfjv tm a ra a ía v avrov x a ix a r a g x io iv ,
á ç fieíÇovoç o io a v ngayfiareíaç x a l x a rà xov ZocpoxXea {{r. 7 8 5 .)•
noXXãv zaXiv&v êgyov oláxmv 0’ ãfia,
(2) u e x s n è ^ a x o rû v <pdooó<po>v ròv êvôoÇáxarov xal Xoyubraxov

'ApiororéXrjv, xaXà xa l nqênovxa òiòaoxáXia reXeoaç avrcp. rrjv yaq
Exayetgirãtv nóXcv, # r,ç fjv ’AqtaroxéXnç, àváoxarov v n avrov ysye-
vrjfJvrjv a w ú x ia e náXtv, xal roòç ôtayvyóvraç fj ôovXevovraç rcov no t-
xcòv òjtoxaxéarrjae.
(*) ZroAirv uèv otiv a ir o lç x a l ôiaxqißijv xò n eq l MíeÇav N v/upauv
J L f r , ônov péxqc vto ’ Am ororêAovç iôqa ç re XcBívaç x a i vnoaxíovç
neqtnáxovç ôetxviovacv. êotxe í* 'AXéSavòqoç o i povov r o v ^ x o v x a t
noXixixòv nagaXaßelv Xóyov, àX m x a l rd>v ânoqqrjrœv xa t ßa8vreqo>v
ÒvbaaxaXmv aç o i àvÔgsç lôiœç à x g o a n x à ^ xa i è n o n n x a ç nqoaayo
QEVOYXCÇ o i x èttyeqo v elç noXXovç, fiexaaXeiv.
(4) m yàfi e k *A a la v ö iaß eß rjxäs x a l nvBófievoç Xóyovç n v a ç sv
ßißXtoLS n eq l xovxœv i n ’ AqioxoxèXovç èxôeôóoBai, ygácpei nqoç avxov
vjièq tpáoaocpíaç naqqrjaiaÇófievoç êmaxoXfjv, f r avxiygacpov ecxtv
(O ’ AXéÇavâqoç ’ AgioroxéXEi e i nqárreiv. ( (

O i x ôgB&ç ènoírjaaç ê x ò o iç r o iç â xg o a n x ov ç rã>v Xoycov x m y a g
Sn W t l í «<Sv M t o , d * a» ' o tç h , ^ M n r X o y o v i.fr »
návxwv èaovxai xotvoí, ê y ò ôè ßovXolm v äv x a i ç negi r a aqiaxa E fin et-
gíaiç fj r a tç òw á fiea i ô ta çé g E tv . êggcoao.
(6) Tavrrjv / t h o iv rf]V y ã o x ifiía v a i xov naqafivBovpevoç ’ A g ia xo -
t éXrjç ànoXoyEÏxai tif.qi x& v Xoywv èxetvcov, caç x a l èxôeôofiévcov xai

fir) èxÔEÔofiévuiv. âXt]6û>ç yàg rj M er à rà tpvatxà ngay/iaxEia, non;
ôiôaoxaXtav x a l /jnOâtv ovôèv êyovaa xçrjoifiov, vnobeiyfia rolç Tienat-
SevfiévotQ cm à gx’fjç yéygajixai.
(7) A o x e l ôé fiai xai xo quXtaxgeïv ’ AXeÇdvôgco ngoaxgitpaaüai fxâXXov
èxégœv ’ AgiaxoxéXrjç. ov yàg fxdvov ri]v 0 ecugiav rjyariqoev, àXXà xai
vcHTotiaiv eßorjQet ro îç (pHoiç, xa i avvèxaxxE degcoTEiaç xivaç xal ôiaixaç,
<bç èx xôiv F.TT.tarnXœv Xaßeiv èaxtv.
(8) rH v ôè x a l qrvaet (piXoXoyoç xa l (piXavayvùiaxr]ç. xai T 17» fièv
’ IXiàôa xrjç noXe/xixfjç âgerriç è<pdôiov x a l vofilÇcov xa i ovo/iàÇcov, iXaße
fièv ’ AgiaroxéXovç ôtogQwaavxoç fjv èx xov vdgBrjxoç xaXovaiv, e\%e
<55 âel fiExà r ov èyxEigiôiov xeifiévrjv vno rô ngoaxeipâXatov, (bç ’ Ovij-
oixgtxoç iaxogrjxe (F Gr H ist 13 4 :3 8 , I I 736). (g) xeüv ô’ aXXcov
ßißXicuv ovx evTtnntüv èv xoïç âvco xén o iç, "AgnaXov ÈxéXevae nêfiipai,
xàxEÎvaç Ê7iEfiy>EV avrài rdç xe (fiiAlarov ßlßXovg x a l rotv Evgtnlôov
xa l ZoipoxXéovç x a l AiayvXov xgaycoÔtâtv avyvâç, x a l TeXêaxov xa l
0tXo^évov öiövgdfißovg.
(10) *AgiaxoxéXr)v ôè davftàÇùiv èv âg%fj x a l àyanmv ov% fjxrov, â>ç
avxoç ’éXsys, r ov na xg oç, œç ôi èxeïvov fièv £â>v, ôià xoûxov ôè xaXà)ç
Cdiv, vaxEgov v7iojixnrF.gov ëo %ev, ovx 0JCTTe noirjaai xi xaxov, àXX' a i
<piXoq)goovvai xo aipoôgov êxeïvo x a l otEQxxtxov ovx Ixovaat ngoç avxôv,
âXXoxgioxrjxoç èyévovxo XEXfirjQiov. (11) o [lévx01 ngoç (ptXoaoqilav
è/ine<pvx(bç x a l avvxeQgafifiévoç oui àgxtfç avxâ) CtfXoç x a l nôQoç ovx
èêggWj xfjç y vxfjç, (bç rj tif.oÎ ’ AvàÇagxdv xe xi/nq xa i xà n£[i<pdévxa
SevoxgdxEi nEvxrjxovxa xdXavxa xa i Aavôajuiç x a l KaXavoç ovxco anov-
ôaoôévxEÇ fiagrvgovai.
(1) ôvavlxTjTOV R e is k e || âyàfievov F || xa rdg T tja iv L ' H || (2) ô iô a axa X eîa

co d d . p ra e te r L " || àjiexa zéaT rjae L* || (3) XtBlvovç a n te ra s. P , V u lc o b iu a ||
ßagvrtgcov : co rr. C o r s e s || ibcQtia/iaxtxàç c o d d . (et Z o n a ra s ) p r a e te r L 1 || fieza -
ßeßrjxcoQ P p (5) àxgo aT ixov ç L 1 e t G e ll. : d xço a /u a n xo v ç c e tt. || ôr] om . C
Zon. Il xtov âXÀiûv âtalaoftev (om . rjfiEÎç) Z o n a r a s |] (6) x a i a n te èxôeâofievoiv1
om . A Z o n a ra s || àXrfitbç yàg o m . P || M er à : ne.gl X y la n d e r || r d am . P ||
toïç nenaiâ£v/iêvoiç H o lz a p fe l |] (7) x a t toj P || ngoTgetpaoßai V u lc o b iu s ||
(8) x a l (pûoftaOrjÇ p o s t (piXoXoyoç in s. S te p h a n u s " e x v e t u s t is c o d ic ib u s ” , e t
edd. Il ngoxEtpâXa 10V A C e t a n te c o r ï. H || dvrjaixgcÎTtjç co d d ., co rr. S o la n u s ||
(io ) âgiaroréXt]v Q : -réXrj H , e co rr. L -tiX et P , a n te corr. L 1 | im m o rîid to ü to »
f iiv . . ., S i' èxeïvov ôè Z ie g le r | r i om . Q || (11) f) rw v Tiegi R e is k e || 'A v d £ a g xo v
fo r ta s s e s c rib e n d n m ‘ A ra ft/iiv rjv, c l D L V 10 || xdXavoç co d d ., co rr. S in te n is
Comment. P lu ta r c h ’s accou n t is based on th e sam e ty p e of H ellen istic

sources as th o se used b y P tolem y: th e so-called en terta in m en t-litera tu ie
and th e ep istolograph ic literatu re , see p. 235. W e recogn ize some
them es fu rth er d evelop ed b y P to lem y : (a) rot èyxvxXia. In P to le m y ’s
accou n t th is is tran sferred to A ristotle. V M 4, M ubashir 3 — 4. (b)
tw v (ptAoaóçicúv tov ivòo£óraxov, fu rth er d eveloped b y P to lem y to
átoç 1AgiatoTeXrjç. F ih rist 7. (c) fisTEnéfiiparo, V M 14, M ubashir 18.
(d) R estoration of S ta gira, V M 17, V S I 7, M ubashir 27. (e) a jio xa xi-
arrjae. F u rth er d eveloped in th e accou n ts of A risto tle as an eveQyéTrjç,
V M 20, M ubashir 25 — 26. (f) 5A qiototé Àovç éÔçaç. F u rth e r developed
in th e accou n t of th e ’ A qiotote Xe Iov, V M 18, M u b ash ir 29 — 30. (g)
r(bv ÒJtoggíjTtüv óiòaaxaAiwv and th e faked letters, see p. 433, and
M ubashir 37. (h) (ptXtargelv, V M 2. W e m a y ob serve th e reference
to A risto tle ’s letters, so com m on in P to le m y too. (i) tijv ’ lÃidâa,
V M 4. A few parallel passages can b e traced in Diogenes: (j) âi èxe Ivov
fiEv Çtòv, cf. the apop hthegm in D L 19. (k) A le x a n d e r’s generosity,
cf. D L 10.
T h e m ost in terestin g passage in this accou n t is P lu ta r c h ’s rem ark
in (6) concern in g th e M etaphysics, cf. T 76 d. I find it d ifficu lt to
b elieve th a t th is o b servation is based on first-h an d k n ow led ge of the
M etaphysics. I t seem s to m e m ore prob ab le th a t P lu ta rch found the
w hole accou n t, i. e. th e tw o letters and th e appended exem p lification
w ith th e M etaphysics in his source. T h e idiom v n ó Ò E iy fia ro lç <m’
à ç x fji nenaiôev/xévoiç, “ a m em orandum fo r th o se a lrea d y tra in e d ” ,
in d icates th a t th e source w as late H ellenistic.
T h e tw o letters w ere p ro b a b ly fa k e d b y A ndronicus; if he did not
a c tu a lly fa b rica te th e letters, he c e rta in ly m ad e use of th em in his
in trod u ction (see p. 424) for th e purpose of en forcin g his d istin ction
betw een ex o teric and acroatic, elem en tary and a d va n ced courses. He
m igh t h a v e m entioned th e M etaphysics, a w o rk w hich he him self had
created from scattered fragm en ts and to w hich he had g iv en th e title,
as an exam ple of an ad van ced course. T h ere is, h o w ever, in P lu ta r c h ’s
w ord s a h in t of disdain, w hich is suspicious. I w ould h esitate to use
th is passage as evid en ce for th e opinion th a t P lu ta rch had first-h an d
know ledge o f A n d ro n icu s’ edition or of his w o rk on A r is to tle ’s w ritings.
H e m ig h t as w ell h a v e found th is accou n t in som e w riter of V aria his
toria from th e first c e n tu ry A . D .
W e m a y fu rth er ob serve th a t P lu tarch , unlike P to lem y , does not a t
all m ention C allisthenes in th is accou n t, althou gh he later on in the

same b io grap h y has m uch to sa y a b o u t h im .
25 b P L U T A R C H U S De Alexandri virtute I 4, 327 f: . . . xat nXeto-

vag nag ' Aoim.oTeXov; t ofi xaO tjyijrof rj naoa. 0iX inn ov tov nargog
acpogfiag e%<uv dieficuvev i n i H igaag.
25 c PLUTARCH US D e exilio 12, 604 d: To to v Atoyepovg. 'A o i-

aroTeXrjQ agiord orav doxfj 0 iXijina>, Aioydvrjg orav Atoyevsi. C f. T h e o
c r i t u s ’ s t in g in g e p ig r a m D L V 1 1 a n d T 58 k.
25 d Q U I N T I L I A N U S Institutio Oratoria I I, 23: A n P h ilip p u s M a

cedonian rex Alexandra filio suo prim a litter arum elementa tradi ab
Aristotele, summo eius aetatis philosopko, voluisset, aut ille suscepisset
hoc officium , si non studiorum initia et a perfectissimo quoque optime
tractari et pertinere ad summam credidisset?
25 e D IO C H R Y S O S T O M U S Or. 49,4: 0 lXmnog d i 05 do xei detvo-

Taroq yeveaOai tcov fiaaiXt.cnv 'A giororeX qv enrjydyero ra> v ie l 'AXeâv-
Sgw dtdaaxaXov y.al ao%ovza, cog avTog ov% ixavog cltv 7T.nidf.vaat rtjv
PaaiXixrjv EmoTTjfiTjv . . . nfyrv ol./uat noXv diijveyxEV 0 0 LXamog rcbv
TtQOTSoov ev M axedovia fiaaiXuvdvTcov.
25 i I U S T I N U S Epitom e Trogi X I I 1 6 : . . . exacta pueritia per quin

quennium sub Aristotele doctore inclyto om nium philosophorum.
25 g D E M O C H A R E S ap. A risto clen ap. E u seb . = T 58 g.
25 h E R A T O S T H E N E S ap. P lu tarch u m et Strab on em = jr. 658

Rose, p. 168 B erger.
Comment on 25. A lrea d y in late a n tiq u ity it w as assum ed th a t A r is t

otle had inspired and guided A lex a n d er, th e fu tu re conqueror of th e
w orld. T h e tru th , h ow ever, differs som ew hat from th e legends and has
been w ell sum m arized b y W W . T arn , Alexander the Great I, 194S,
p. 2; see also the im p o rta n t note, I I p. 3 9 9 — 449. W hen A risto tle w en t
to M ieza, he w as n o t m ore fam ous in th e G reek w orld th a n m a n y other
con tem p o rary sophists and w riters; the relations of his fa m ily w ith th e
M acedonian co u rt w ere p ro b a b ly m ore d ecisive th an his fam e as p h ilo
sopher. T h e influence of M acedonian p olitics on h is p o litical th in kin g
w a s f a in t ; h e n e v e r f r e e d h i m s e lf f r o m t h e n a t io n a l G r e e k p r e j u d ic e
a g a i n s t t h e b a r b a r ia n s ; h is s o c ia l a n d p o l i t i c a l o u t lo o k w a s d e t e r m in e d
b y t h e c o n d it i o n s p r e v a i li n g in t h e s m a ll c i t y - s t a t e . (I. D iir in g , “ A r i s
t o t l e t h e S c h o l a r ” , in : Arctos, N o v a S e r ie s I , H e ls in k i 1 9 5 4 , P- 6 7 ,)
26. Aristotle's zoological investigations financially sup-ported, by P h ilip

and Alexander.
26 a P L I N I U S Hist. nat. V I I I 16, 44: Aristoteles diversa tradit, vir
quem in his magna secuturus ex parte praefandum reor. Alexandra M agno
rege injlammato cupidine animalium naturas noscendi delegataque hac
commentatione Aristoteli, summo in omni doctrina viro, aliquot milia
kominum in totius A sia e Graeciaeque tractu parere iussa, omnium quos
venatus aucupia piscatusque alebant quibusque vivaria armenta alvaria
piscinae aviaria in cura erant, ne quid usquam genitum ignoraretur ab
eo. quos percunctando quinquaginta ferme volumina ilia praeclara de
anim alibus condidit. quae a me collecta in artum cum iis quae ignoraverat,
quaeso ut legentes boni consulant, in universis rerum naturae operibus
medioque clarissimi regum omnium desiderio cura nostra breviter peregri-
nantes.
Comment: H e itz, D ie verl. Schr. d. A rist., p. 223, com pared A n tigo-
n u s’ M irab. 60 tri yovv n âvra oêSov t^bofir\xavxa n eçl avrcuv xara^éfiXr)-
Tai fhflXia E v e n if w e co u n t th e Parva naturalia as nine books and
in clu d e th e Anatom ai, w e do n ot g e t m ore th a n a b o u t fo r ty books in
all. I t is fu tile to sp ecu la te on h ow P lin y and A n tigo n u s reached th e
figures th e y m ention. — T h e sense of parere m u st b e “ to be a t his
d isp o sal” . T h e m ilia hominum is of course a gross ex aggeratio n . We
k n ow from th e History of A n im a ls th a t, to a certain degree, A risto tle
referred to in fo rm ation from â liE iç èfin ziQ ix o l, fiovxoXoi, Br]Q£vxai,
jjEXiTTovgyol, âgviôoBfjgai, and oî ifin E ig o i in general (for evidence,

see these w ords in B o n itz, and m y co m m en ta ry on D e part, an., p.
29 ff.). In an oth er conn exion he sa y s th a t it is im p ortan t to listen
to “ th e u n d em on strated sa y in gs and opinions of exp erienced and
old er people or of people of p ra ctic a l w isd om n o t less th a n to dem on
stration s; for b ecau se exp erien ce has g iv en th em an eye th e y see
a rig h t.” W e should h ow ever not ex a g g erate A r is to tle ’s em piricism ; no
d o u b t he w as a k een ob server of fa cts, b u t fo r th e m ost p a rt h e relied
on w ritten sources, ol jie o i r a m a n ga y/xm evo fiFvo i, as h e so often says.
T h eo p h rastu s’ em piricism w as con sid erably m ore advanced.
A risto tle of course received a su b sta n tia l rem uneration for his services
to th e ro y al fa m ily; th e W ill te stifies to th e fa c t th a t he w as rich, and
so does L y c o n ’s calu m n y, T 58 i. Sen eca h ad read a b o u t A risto tle’s
w ealth, D ia l. V I I 27,5 obicite Aristoteli quod acceperit pecuniam , and
A then aeus m entions a fa n ta stic sum . U n d o u b ted ly he received reports
from Callisthenes, e. g. a b ou t B ab y lo n ia n astronom ical observation s. B u t
the b u lk of his b io logical w ritings m u st h a v e b een com pleted long
before A le x a n d e r’s cam paign. D ’ A r c y T hom pson ob served th e n um ber
o f L esb ian and M acedonian place-nam es in th e Hist. an. A ccord in g to
H . D . P. L ee, “ Place-nam es and the d a te of A r is to tle ’s biological
w o rk s” , in: Proc. of the Cambridge P hilol. Society 179, 1948, pp. 7 — g,
there are in th e H ist. an. 20 references to 12 d ifferen t places in M ace
donia and T h race, and 38 references to place-nam es in N W A sia M inor,
six of w hich to th e lagoon of P y rrh a . H is in v estig a tio n s in m arine
b io logy w ere fa vo u red b y the good n atu ra l conditions in th e lagoon of
P y rrh a and th u s co n cen trated to his s ta y in L esbos. I t is th u s h ig h ly
prob ab le th a t th e m aterial on w hich his b iologic w orks are based was
collected durin g his s ta y in L esb os and M acedonia; it tallies w ell w ith
other k n ow n fa cts if w e assum e th a t m ost of th e b io lo gical w orks were
w ritten in th e ‘forties. T h e assistance th a t he m ig h t h a ve had from
fisherm en, hun ters, and oth er “ people of p ra ctica l w isd om ” w as of
m oderate proportions; his ch ief assista n t in th is w ork w as Theophrastus.
T h e m ilia hominum m u st b e regarded as H ellen istic fabrication , m ore
m aterialistic, b u t oth erw ise on a par w ith th e concep tion of him as
yga/i/xarevi qrúaeayç.
26 b A E L L A N U S Var. h is t. I V 19: €>íXmnoç á M axe ò m v ov /j q v o v
èXéyEt o rd noXÉfiia s lv a i àyadàç x a i e b z e iv ÒEivàç, àXXà x a l n a i& E ia v
â v ô g e iÓ T a r a èrífia. ’ A q lo to tcX ei yotiv %°QijyTiaaç nXovrov à vE vô efj,
a h io ç yéyove noXXfjç x a i ãXXrjç noXvnetQÍaç, áraç ovv xal rrjç yvá-
csecüq T fjç x a r á TÓ £<ua- xai t t jv iatoQÍav a vrw v á r ov N ixo /iá xo i1 &ià

TTjv èx 0 iXbinov neçLovoíav ÈxaQTtcúoaro. xal IlX áriova ôè ÈTijn\aE
x a i Qeóq>QaaTOV.
Comment. I t m u st h ave been an accep ted opinion th a t A ris to tle ’s
biological in vestig ation s w ere m ain ly carried ou t during his s ta y in
M acedonia. T h e glo rification of P h ilip ’s in terest in general ed u ca
tion served as a foil to th e P erip a tetic d efam ation of A lex a n d er, cf.
T 30 a.
Goteb, U n i v . A t s s h r . L X I I I : 2 19
^ IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
* , c .y iW N A E I T S 1X 398 «: (L m ensius s p a k s ah^ttta w ord

r W N o u l t o ,, u *«i *"e» '* A em ouU , m
sL £ ri «*»• t " r»
j Za ,e o , > ,» > t t m * * ™ » F i e " * « ™ w ”“
27 su p « . « 348 by P h i , i t ‘ “ " ta i'‘ ^ ‘4 r i!“ ' ,! " * °

also drew u f « M * »/ <■
>“ I0’ lhe
2 7 a D I n O O R U S X V I 52,9 : W “ * *
p a r fjtàv ipQOVoiov Exnoh oQ K rjaaç mut ’

ev ia xa r y«eav B e lo c h G r . = m p . 3 3 , H e n se ; d u b it a t
U c m ^ t k t m , 11* p- «54 S to ■ _ ? R y pM Z £â P Z e ig d X
M u lv a n y C I. Q u . * 0 ,1 9 2 6 , p . 3- ^ D e m o c h a re s = T 58 g d e h a c re
d e S te p h . B y z . c o g it a t W e sse lin g .
eg isse v id e t u r .
a 7 b V A L E IIIU S M A X I M ir S V 6 ,5 : lu v e m li * T . jT .
ä . ~ - “ H S S r ;:
E S S S = — f = : = ;
notum est opus. C f S a l i s b u r y , Polier. V I I 6 — 7 * ^
e««ta.f * * ** ** ^ u6M,'tL^ H^ S^ T | 'i m s awtacfc:

Î T s lb ^ a h n 1 ^ Aldus- I ,A Salisbury II * 0» /»*» om. I « A ||
strata atque: S ta gira P ig h i il
C o m m e * n n n e c e s s a r y . T h is b w b a t w e o fte n fin d in V a le r iu s , c f. T * 3-
P T I N I U S H ist nat. V I I 10 9 : ( A le x a n d e r ) Aristotelis philosophi
t Z i - condidit ( » « < « ,„ « rerum e U M *m t a * * » testimonium
tn is c u it.
2 7 A P L U T A R C H U S , N o n posse suav vivi sec.

A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2g i
7ioX u td ç,, T t v a ç S e &EO(pQQGTQi) m u & a v io v (& £ i d lo v f e r t u r ) Tovç rrjç

naxgíôoç èx xo y á vza>v zvgáwovç; — A dv. Coloten 33, p. 1126 F : TL ovv
et t i xo lovxov ènèngaxxo a m o ïç (sc. E p icu ra s and his followers),
olov AgiaxozèXet, xr]v nazgíôa xxla at ôieipBagfiêvrjv vnó &iXLnnov,
&£0<pgáarq> ôè ôtç EXevdr.gdsaai zvgavvov/nevTjv, Cf. V it. A lex . 7 =
T 25 a. T h eo p h rastu s and P h an ias also in V M 17, V L 18.
27 e D IO CH RYSO STO M U S Or. I I 79: T avza ôè àxoúoaç 6

€>(Xu ijio ç rjadeiç, O v fiazrjv, e Ij ie v , sAXéÇavôge, negi tio XXov tioiov /i e Bo
zov AgtazozéXrj, x a i zrjv na zg íôa avztp avvexmgrjaa/iev ãvaxzíÇetv,

Ezáyetga zrjç OXwBiaç ovaav. ó yâg àvrjg ã$ioç noXXüjv xa i /neyáXcov
ôcogeœv, ei xotatizá oe ôtòáaxei n e g i ze àgxijç xa i (iaoiXeíaç s h e
Ofirjgov èÇrjyovfievoç e iz e SXXov zgónov.
Eráyetga. rrjç ’ OXwdiaç ovaav secl. Reiske et Emperius.
27 £ D IO CH RYSO STO M U S, Or. 47,8 = fr. 657 Rose: (1) K a l

zóv ’ A g ia zo zé X tjv êvíoze èfia x á g tÇ o v , ò a z tç Z x a y e tg íx rjç à>v zà ôè
E x á y e tg a xcofirj zrjç O X w d ia ç /jv aXovorjç ôè ’ OXvvBov avyyEvó/ievoç
A X e £ôvôqù ) x a i tXLnji(tí ôiETzgáÇaxo o lx io d ijv a t náXtv r ó xcogiov x a i
fióvov a vzov ücpaaxov e v zv x rja a t zrjv e v z v x ía v zavxrjv côo z e xrjç n a x g íô o ç
oixioxrjv yevéoBat.
(2) MezaÇv ôè ngmrjv êvéxvxov êmaxoXfj xi.vt, èv fj èaxt fiexavoãv

xa i óôvgófiEvoç x a i Xéycov oxt “ zovxmv zivèç xa i xòv fiaatXéa xa i zo vç
âtpixvovfiévovç aazgájiaç òia<pBeiaovaiv, w ore firjôèv âyadàv yevéaôai
f/r]Ôè ôXwç xaxotxioBfjvat zrjv noXtv.”
( 3 ) 'H n o v ôè [zà xazoixtaBfjvai xoíç êxiceaovai] x a i xoúto êXrmet

ztváçj Et ( p v y á Ô E Ç õ r a ç x a 't Òj i ÓXiÔeç n a z g íô a êÇovot x a i noX izE vaovxai
xaxà vá/iovç e.v èXEVÕegía, /iãXXov <á’ > fjçotivxo ô twxíaBai xa zà xó / ia ç
r o lç PagPágotç ó/ioíwç rj o Xrjfia noXewç x a i Svofia êXEtv; rpiov ngoarjxE
davfiáÇeiv x a i ei âXXo xt Xvíi e i x tv a ç ;
(4) 0 6 ovv AgiazozéXrjç èmaxèXXwv yéygatpev <bç za lç ngáyfiaatv

âjiEigrjxáQ- tptjai yàg algetv zovç ôaxztX ovç, [xovç *lô a ío v ç ] xáfiè
vo/iiCetê xai et xivéç eiatv Ixeqoi. xa i yàg ôrj nXelov taxvaev r) xmv
âvBgámcov èxeívcov xaxaãai./Ltnvla xfjç zov ' A oiazoréXovç onovôrjç, & oxe
ovx etaaav ngo^rjvat zá xco/iíov eiç ãÇíw/ia jtóXecoç- x a i vvv êxi âoíxrjxóv
èaxtv.
IN G E M A S D t?R IN G
2g
92 n / '
„ -iu r * * - -
x t& p p xoA«S rrjv n o f o v x a v rj . » ei ^ vfM e l XE t o ZaAxeiov
« J t» - * - r t :
(9, TOtirtov d e fe n d it B m p c r i « .^
cod d. II [r o - d ^ e a o v m ] s e e l.. * t a * ^ ^ gch o, v e t u s in Km t o . ™
m o w it z t o M t r o t x ia e p a t, sc . .} - c o (ld , <fi’ > E tn p e riu s || fiia jx m flai
in te x tu r u i n e p s i t |1 i A im « R c “ ' ‘ ' J^ p t u S e ld e n || (4) « <5* E m P e‘
R e ls k e : a w w e la fla £ c o d d . I '/ . m a n ii. seel. E m p e r iu s , c f . S u d a
r iu s : d 4 ' o J i c o d d . || to v g / a a ^ u tg lo ^ ^ ^ ^ ](
(g 3) = ymxpotis (sic). A t h e n . I 5
27 g w o n v» , m x . i 54 .
w ™ M le & M M » (’ . . V ita e M arc. vu lg . l a t
r r i s r ^ s * s i = i . u — •
. , t ■1 TTT t«; ’ PwoltTE-uoavro ou»> x a t y d a a o y o i

„ h a f x ia n u s V « ,. « t V W <
f»l«’ < * * T O * « / "< * " ^ in ch ro n ological order.) M « m t o -
x a .n f m c a v . (N um erous e * ^ ^ ir / i/ u y o r &} t o « « *C V °™
n fto iv r i tpdotjoip&v '/>■ ^ W ' - -
; oi » „ .» U N « * . “ “ D W
C— . P ersaeu s » r o te a A a x o ir m ) m b * . ™ *• ^
926.
2? j P U T T A R C H U S C o lo te n ^ : 112*i c ■. • M n m h a r M
fc im < n L> a x r ; o i x a i ^ x l c u y r ; (S ^ ^ ^ Z tto ix a i-, in d x o v o ;

. . . E M o io s di k v iM o is xai A e*x - d T W - > ,W t« ^ (? o i
*«« H h x . i * ar r "
w r o 0 ^ a ? fjxrjO E n e o i p a o d e i a g . ,
j r r Mr r ^ * - *
H erm ip pu s, see D L V 4.
27 j IO A N N E S T Z E T Z E S Chil. V I I 441 (h. 140):

H Ird y e ig a r&v jroXecov fiia zcbv zffi 'OXvvQov,
r o-O <piXoaoq>ov Sè n arqiç ’ AqkjtotéXovç, avrtj.
Karéaxayie ôè (PiXurmot;, èydoàv ovoav crov âXXatç-
A qiotot £Xt] ç ô vareoov ’AXéÇavôgov a h e lra t,
xal nâXiv âvaxTÎÇovoiv mç ôl avrov rfjv nôXiv.
27 k M andeville’ s Travels (T exts and tran slation s b y M. L etters,

Works issued by The H akluyt Society, Second Series N o. C II L ondon
1950 .)
T h e P aris T e x t, p. 236.
. . .e t le pays de Trachie et M achedoine, dont Alixandre fut Roy. E n

ce pays fu Aristocles nez en vne cite que on appelle Strageres, assez pres
de la cite de Trachie; et a Strageres gist il, et y a vn autel sur sa tumbe,
et fait on grant feste de li tous les ans, aussi comme i l fust saint. E t sur
son autel i l vont tenir les grans conseulz ensemble, et leur semble que par
tnspiracion diuine i l leur vient au deuant le m eilleur conseil.
T h e B od leian te x t, p. 423.
There is a rewme that is callid Macedonya. I n that rename was king

Alizaundre the conqueroure born. A n d ther was also A ristotil born in a
citee that men calle Strageres. A n d in that cite is a sepulture of Aristotil,
and above the grave is a awtir made, vpon the wiche folke of the citee weren
wont to holde customably her counceille, whenne any gret thing was forto
doen; supposinge that thoru3 inspiracion of the H oly Goost and cause of
Aristotil, Crist wolde sende hem heelful and profitable conseille. I n that
citee also they doo and dide gret worshippe vnto A ristotille, as to a seynt
for p r o f ile that they of him hadde.
Comment on 27. W e do n ot k n ow th e u ltim ate source of th e sto ry

th a t, during his s ta y in M acedonia, A risto tle should h a v e induced
P hilip to refound S tagira and restore its buildings. T h e passage in
D iodorus is corru p t and does not seem to h a v e d ealt w ith S ta gira
F rom w h a t w e k n ow it seem s prob ab le th a t H erm ip pu s sta rted the
story. F rom the num erous testim om a it appears th a t th e trad itio n is
uniform in H erm ippus, D iogenes and P to lem y , w ith the usual H e lle
nistic expansions in (27 f), from a faked letter. T h e n otoriou sly inac-
IU G E M A R D U R IN G
294
V a leriu s m i.
~ ~ ta ^ *
28. Callisthenes and Aristotle.
28 a H E R M I P P U S a p . D io g. L a e rt. 4 -5 ^ tradi.
Com
ment. See m y n otes on th ^se Pa®S ‘
tio n sta rted w ith T inm ens, see F Gr H ist 566 F . 155 *
w ith Jaco by’s
notes.
TAVTA/rrKi VTT 2 i i - Aristoleles autem Callisthe-
2 s b V A L E R IU S m “ A 2 “ '(ir„ „ » » » » •'
« » “ “ “ a i A! " , „ , u„ H u r . quo scilicet a fu d u g ia s w e t
„egferfi cowstZu tentiamegxt. * * * * * —

paem *—
^ fins e ’ . x a i to» ^4 Ae-

2 8 c H - U T A R C H U S r t o A I * J 3 - S 5 ’ J- ^ +
£avbqov einstv, a>Q °v \ TaiT a fiiv o iv o Eqfxvn-

^ „ „ a ; J fa » « » .r "V KJ1mW ■ iV ooii«-
•i>k T O " (d T O 1 l ”! jT iC a ijU o W n r r < m c n a rijr d M o te o in jT a
« * •** * * : r ,o7)-
„W ore xal JM tso*»«. «*> >“ 'Uro
f M o u n o r i i u c , ^Tt KaXhaBbn<; Myco
o* t a t t a « 0 * d w * * e0I^ _
/iev d w a ro s x a i fieyae, vow <n ^ ^ KaAAioQ m jv
<55-696 d> * « « «
ow ejH U Tiao^M voe, “ 0 t A ^ x a i T0* e “***
W b j a a r , to v 5 e ^ . i ^ o v h v o v r a - ’ , dvnxQV?
x a i r o t e fa o d e Xo/*erovs r a h n i * * * * a i y do W 9 i««»
K a l b * * « *«<? ^ • ^ f d r d e o t . x p e /ia a flM «

• J & n d k K M » * • v o ^ a a v x a , A 'd ^ C * (F Gr
£ T S .« ; = S J * oiWw"’ *"* '* * “

A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2Ç 5
ôeÔe/af.vov, ùiç èv zip oweôqico xoiOdrj nagovzoç ’ AgiozozéXovç- èv aiç <5

fj/iéçaiç ’ AXéÇavôgoç [èv M aÎX olç ’ OÇvôgdxaiç] èzQÛBr) negi zr)v ’ Ivôlav,
<moQavEtv vn èg n a xw yevo/ievov xa't (pBsigtdaavra.
[év M a U o iç *O ivôeâxaiç ] d e l. S c h a e f e r , s o lm n ’ OÇvSçdxaiç d e l. C o r a e s
28 d T A T I A N U S Or. adv. graecos 2, p. 2.23 S ch w artz (Migne 6, p.

808): K a i ’ AgiOTOZÉXrjç à/iaBrjç ôgov zfj ngovotq Be î ç xa i zrjv e v &a i p o -
viav èv oïç fjgéaxezo negiygdipaç, Xtav ànatôevzcoç ’ AXégavôgov zà

fie/j.rjvàç /xeigdxiov èxoXàxevev, ô o ziç àçiozozeXtxàiç n d w t o v ÉamoG
tptXov (sc. Callisthenes) ôià ro /irj fiovXeaBai ngoaxwBÏv avzàv xaBeigÇaç
woneg âgxzov f\ ndgôaXiv negietpege. n d w yoûv ê n E id e z o zo iç zov ôida-
axdXov ôôy/iaaiv zi)v âvôgeiav xa i rrjv àneT.rjv <eV> ovfm ooioiç è m Ô E i-
x v v fiE v o ç xa i t ov o ix E to v xa i n d w rpiXzarov (sc. C leitus) ôiajiElgoiv

Teh ôogazi x a i ndXiv xXaiœv x a i dnoxagzsgw v ngocpdoei Xvnrjç, tv
vnà zœv o ix s iœ v fif} fiiorjBfj. yEXdaaifii 6' àv xa i tovç fi£%Qt vvv roiç
âàyfiaatv avrov xaraxQMftévovç (the usual list of opinions, offensive to
the C hristian F ath ers: denial of providence, no happiness w ith o u t
extern al good; th e im m o rta lity of th e soul com es p. 27.2).
28 e A R R I A N U S , A nabasis I V g, 10: KaXXiaBévrjv ôè zov ’ OXwBiov

’ AgtozozéXovç te tcüv Xàyiov ôtaxrjxoôra x a i zov zgonov ôvxa vnaygoi-
xôzEgav ovx ènaivEÎv z a v z a .----------
(12,7) O ü xo w àneixàzcoç ôi àneydF.iaç yEvéoBat 'AXF.Çdviïptu K a l-
XtaBévrjV ziÔEfiai êni zfj àxaigw ze n aggrjata xa i vnsgdyxco à peizegia .
(14,1) ’ AgiordflovXog fièv XèyEi Szi xa i KaXXioBèvrjv ènâgat nrpâç
ètpaaav èç ro zoX/j.t)fiaxa i IJroXefiaïoç w aavzœ ç Xéyei. oi ôe noXXoi
ov ravrrj Xéyovaiv, àlX à Ôtà fila o ç yàg zo jjôr) ôv ngoç KaXXioôévrjv r;
'AXzÇdvÔgov xa i ô zi 6 3Eg/i6Xaoç èç z à fidXiaza êmzrjôeioç f y zw
KaXXioBevEi, ov %aXeu & ç mazEÜaai rà %dom vnèg KaXXtoBévovç 5AXé£-
avôgov. tfôr) ôè ziveq xa i rdÔE àvéygayiav zov 'Eg/ioXaov ngaaxBèvxa
èç zovç MaxEÔovaç ôfioXoyeïv ze èm fiovX eëa ai.-----------
KaXXiaBévrjv ôè ’ AgioropovXoç fièv Xf.yzi ÔEÔefiévov èv néôatç £v/i-
jiEQidyEodai zfj o zg aziâ, ÈnEixa vdoai rsXEVTTjoai, llzoX e/iauiç ôe o
A dyov ozgEfiXtoÔEvza x a i xgE/iaaBévta anodavelv.
28 f T H E M I S T I U S Or. 10,130 a, p. 155.6 D indorf: KalXia6evrp> /iev

yàg ’ AXétavôgoç ôzi nagf[VEi zo îç vo/itfioiç èfifiévEiv zffjv MaxeÔàvav
— Or. 7.94 a - P- I I 2 -I 3 D indorf.
rijv naçQTjcriav ovx êvEyxwv àjieoeiaaro. ■
IJgoç 5AXéÇavôgov ô' vnèg KaXXtoQévovç I n xa i vvv àyavaxzoVfiev.
2 g£ in g e m a h d Dr in g
2 8 g S E N E C A N at. quaest. V I 2 3 , p . 1 2 a . 1 1 G erck e -. A U x a n M a im t n

aeternum quod nulla virtus nulla bellorum fehcitas redm et. CU ■
V I I I 8 .2 2 : N u lliu s caedes maiorem apud Graecos Alexandra exatavtt
invidiam . S i m i la r ly , C I C E R O D e off. I 2 6 , 90.
Comment. T a r n Alexander the Great, I I 1 3 1 : “ T h e P e r i p a t e t i c s , f r ie n d s

a n d a llie d o f C a s s a n d e r w h i l e h e li v e d , h a t e d A l e x a n d e r w h o le h e a r te d ly
f o r C a ll is t h e n e s ’ d e a t h , a n d t o so m e e x te n t e a r n e d A le x a n d r ia w it
th e m .”
28 h SU D A s.v. KaXhoQtvriC K a U iod err)? Arjftcntfiov ol 8b

KoJlAioObvovs’ ’ OMvBiog, fiaBt)rfc ’ AgcffroreAov; xal a v efia d o v ?
Bcoxev m soda c ’ A te d v d g c o ra> M axed tvi. 6 6’ h yaAeayg? o * m
BoJm v dvslXev d/m N boqx V ™ rgayixip, S u f n a v v r fio v h v i m ^ n ^ v
i n o ’ AOrjvauDV xaXelodcu be.onox^. n v k « o f ir 6* ®s im povAevovra
’A te d v d g co dvr}Ql}odal <paaiv &/ua N td g x y . » 6 * T° ^ ° f X^

didZziv x a l f a n noAAfj <pteeadai. x a i cpegsrai Aoyog, ® s 0 KaMiodsvr,*;
vno tpdeigia>v v m g ^ v a e co g x a l ixfigdoBcoQ rov ^ « araarp ^ « . »a.
HaQXVQsl 6 la tfo q o t f r o r x a l cpdstgidyaav, <bg o jiqiv KaUiaOf.niQ.
29. Alexander poisoned by Aristotle.

20 a P L I N I U S H ist. nat. X X X 1 6 ,5 3 : U ngulas tantum mularum
repertas neque aliam ullam materiam quae non perroderetur a veneno
Stygis aquae, cum id dandum Alexandra M agno AnUpater mitteret,
dignum memoria est, magna Aristotelis infam ia ia m
C U R T I R U F I H ist. X 1 0 , p . 3 8 8 . 1 8 - 3 8 9 . 6 H e d ie k e ; D I O D O R I Bibl.
hist. X V I I 1 1 8 .
20 b P U J T A R C H I J S V ita A lex. 7 7 : 0 agfiaxEÍaç 8' in o y la v nagav-

r Lxa fièv ovÔElç êoXev, êxrco <5’ h n <paol ^ r v c e a i ç yevo,xevrjQ Tr}v
’O hu w áôa n o U o v ç pèv â v etev , êxgty at ôè rà ™ ^
TEdvTjxÓTOç, á)C rovrov ró tpdg/iaxov èyxéavroç. 01 punot .
„ á o x o v reç ’ A v rm d rg a , cv a ß o v lo v yeyevfjodac r rjç ngaiecoç xac óAcoç
ÒC èxsívov xoiuaOfjvat rò ydgp a xov 'AyvóOe/dv n v a ôirjyelodat Aeyovatv
wç ’ Avrtyóvov rov ß aodécoç áxovaavra.
a irUa A II pt* o m . P II loUov C || ixyjavxoç V c I ^m orêXr, P H L *

-X fi L 1 II nogtadfjvai Q 11
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2g?
29c A R R IA N U S Anabasis V II 27: TloXXd 6k xai SlXa olSa
S 5 S S 3 r 3 X " s « a s £
29 d D IO C A S S IU S 77,7, p. i n 380 B oissevaiu : (CaracaUa) x a i

1 Kilt Tovg <piXo<JO(pOVC TOt)c *AnifTTnTc7c/ 9 t
&XXa * m S c ^ W O / ia W ™ «
^ raovooâaevrfj
. • ,
* * * * *
p ip h a a i’ ccov xa.Taxa.voai fOrXfinm
^ T£ ^
* a e exag n ow ro a 'p ed szo , e y x a U a a s arpioiv 8 u a w a h io , rco ' A h ‘ 6v-

* P too OavdTov ’ A ^ o T e X v y ey ov ^ s ta te . (Cf. R W d ^ t
in. £Va«os 3, 1898/99, p. 162 ) g g’
29 e J O H A N N E S Z O N A R A S I V i 4, M igne 134 p , , 6 C-
iT J : - Z » •**- * «
, , / , A vT cn a x g o j o v tfo v X o v yeveodat TfjC npdSecoc
61 ix E lv ™ * OfiiaBrjvat t o cpde[ia x o v .
Comment on 29. T h e evid en ce exam ined b y M P le zia “ A r v .tn t.1

trucicielem A lek sa n d ra W ie lk ie e o ” fArictn+le • ’ rystoteles
th e G r e ^ in- M j fg (A nSt0t,e as POJsoner of A lex a n d er
th e G reat) in M eander 3, 1948, p p . 492_ 5 0 I. T h e sto ry w as feab
p rop agan d a he, in v en ted to be used in th e fig h ts <5f th e diadochs and
spread m a p a m p h le t w ritte n b y a certain H agn oth em is T h is is a
pseudonym , like T hem istogenes, used b y X en op h o n w hen h e published
Ins earliest versio n of th e E xpedition , selected in order to i n s ^ e ^
- I fa DOt ^ th a t A r is to tle ’s n am e w as connected w ith th e
^ o r y m lts o n g lnal form ; h e is n o t m entioned b y D iodorus or C ^
loone
n e ttoo "C'allisthenes
C S S a n d did neVCT
th eir f b° est
rgiVe
to AbleX and erhis
la cken f ° rc hWhat her had
a r a c te th e
opponents answ ered b y in v en tin g th e in f ami a Aristotelis.
30. Other remains of H ellenistic fabrication.
r e b L * w s t i f f ? ° i f ~ 1 Z6’9° : Pkilipp U m <luidem Macedonum regem

s u Z io 1 , ' r SUperatUm a m ° ' faciUtate « humanitate J d eo
fm sse. Itaque a lter semper magnus, alter saefie turpissim us.
2g8 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
Comment. A n echo of th e sam e tra d itio n as in T 26 h and 28 ef.

Cicero m a y h a v e read it or, w h ich seem s m ore lik e ly , im bib ed th is
p e rip a te tic tra d itio n w hen listen in g to A n tio ch u s of A scalon. —
30 b P L U T A R C H U S V ita A lexan dri 74, 706 a: (in a row w ith Cas-

sander, son of A n tip a ter) ’ AvaysXaoag 6 ’ AXé$avâgoç, T a m a è x E Ïv a ,
ê<p7), acxpiafiaxa r û>v ’ AoiaxoxéXovç elg éxâxEgov xov Xoyov, olfim$o-

fzévcov, âv xa i /iixgôv àèixovvxEÇ xovg avBgibnovg <pavrjxe.
30 c PLUTARCH US De tranquillitate 13, 472 e = fr. 664 Rose:

’ AgiaxoréXrjg ôè ngàg ’ Avxinaxgov ygâqxnv, O v x ’ AXeÇàvôgœ fiovov,
ëqrr], ngoarjUEi ptéya tpgovslv ôxi xgaxEÏ noXXinv avBgœnœv, àXX oi>%
■fjxxov oig vnâgxEi negl 8ed>v â ô eï âoÇâÇsiv.
Comment. E s se n tia lly th e sam e: P lu t. D e se ipsum sine invidia laud.
16,544 f; D e prof. in virt, 6, 78 d: J U L I A N U S , in epistula ad T hem is-
tiu m 265 a, p. I I 230 W rig h t. T h ere is som ething d efin itely A risto telian
in th is a ttitu d e , and it m a y b e tru e th a t A risto tle w rote this in one
of his letters to A n tip a te r, suaviter in modo criticizin g A le x a n d e r’s
conceit.
30 d P L U T A R C H U S Return et imperatorum apophthegmata, P hilip pu s

22, 178 e: IT v O o /x e v o ç ô' (s c . P hilip ) iyxaX eïv am w xov ’ AXêÇavâgov
Sri Tiaïôaç èx tzXelôvcüv noiEÏxat yw aixm v, O vxoûv, ë<pt], noXXovç
£%aiv JiEgl rrjg (iaoiXelaç âvxaymviaxàg ycvoti xaXàç xâyaOàç, ïva
fifl ôi EftÈ xrjç fiaatXetaç xvxfjg, àlX à àtà OEamâv. êxéXeve â’ am ov
'A çtaroxéX ei ngooéxEiv xa i (piXoaotpEtv, ’ Onaig, ê<pr], fjij 1wXXà xaiavxa
nga^Tjg, ê<p’ olg èym TtEngay/iÉvoig fiExafj.lXofj.ai.
30 e D IO CH RYSO STO M U S Or 64,20: IJoXXà yovv ’ AXÉÇavôgog

xoX(j,r)gà ëngaooEv. — oütêxxeivEV ôè x a i KX elxov xov avvxgoyov xal
&iX{bxav xov xaXàv x a l xov yégovxa Ilagfj.£viœva x a l xov ôtôâoxaXov
KaXXtaôévrjv x a l ’ AgtaxoréXrjv èfièXXrjoe x a l 'A v xb ia xg ov èfiovXEvaaxo.
ovvTQotpav W ila m o w ît z : ao(pev co d d .
30 f A U L U S G E L L IU S N od. att. I X 3: . . . Feruntur adeo libri

epistularum eius (sc. P h ilip p i), m unditiae et venustatis et prudentiae
plenarum : velut sunt illae litterae quibus Aristoteli philosopho natum esse
sibi Alexandrum nuntiavit. ea epistula quoniam curae diligentiaeque in
A R IS T O T L E IN TH E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 2gg
liberorum disciplinas e„ cribmJa visa * « commonen
'IPhilififius
U l i Z Z ATn sto
'T teli
Î 'r Tsalulem
* “ *“ “
dicit * **» « » (M i« » -
ç l ü<z r * ï z u: s" '° ' 7 " ^ * *■** ^ * » .*«*■*

?r f ?MÆWÎ “ qU0d eum na™ c°ntigit temporibus vitae tuae
spero emm fore ut eductus eruditusque a U dignus existât et n ob it et rerum
istarum susceptione.’ m
ip s m s autem P h ilip p i verba haec sunt ( = E p . 7, H erch er p. 466):

'P ih n jio ç ' A qlcttoteXei XaiQEiv.
Vofc uot yeyovóza vlóv. noXX,^. ofo rolç deoïç ëXco yápcv oùr oB m c
lé w è Z Y œ v Z ' — (LÇ è7li T* Xarà Xi}v a ¥ rlhHÍaV a*Tàv Y W

J €™ l^ r ° e ™ ao* raacpévTa xai ncuôevOévra ãÇtov èoeodat
xai r)pã>v xai rrjç r ã v m ja yMárcnv 6iaôoXfjç.
. 30 g AKIvTANTJS V a r - hist. X I I 5 4 : 'AXéÇavÔQov ’A ptaroréX nc o W

êvov ngavvai (iovX ó>uro; xai navaa t XaXenaívovra noXXolr rà v rl
2 r Q ÈriT T ova
TOI , X yeyear
ç y i v E x a t r°
■ a o*i *
Óe *o vxaí *
ô e i ç ïa o ç .
^
30 h P H IL O P O N U S I n meteor C l A C vrv T
« B a f v i y o ç <vç « , „o ^ J „8 « » °2
S- 1C« ? « Tf c JT o vT '*v c ’-•*

ro w o o v vaf
i v e*ro i tc 5 „ * * * k J * Ío Mre f cw ‘
V. A R IS T O T L E AND IS O C R A T E S .
X L V I I I ^ 6 'í c f ' 'f f a ! U S m VoL rheL 1 1 P . 50 S u d h a u s , c o l.

3 ( - R hem . M u s. 48,1893, pp. 5 5 2 — 558):
a) N to a- è n ê x e i v o õ neol ’A eiarozé)Xovç àvavyéX

jiv , õ n rrjç ôeíXrjç Èyv/xvaÇev èauptmâaç- 'A ia Xçóv aiconãv ’Iao
ZM Í* T ? m T* xi"
7 ^ Z t ^ : sy Ct‘ * ■ * " " * * • * — ** f r * *
,) T,ijv/ (3 7 ) /r.ijí t iï' ji t í í * ; ovftjíariHÍntov ovirév ètni
h»- M tá ^ i^ Z z ,
xgrjorrjç noXtreíaç- t q í t o v ô’ àyavaxzrjoavra èni t olç nXetoroiç t ô j v

iw tò noXiTixà ngaTTÓvToiv, c&ç âvTEgeíôovTeç o i fièv ãoynvatv, 01 6
änyßiv âÇiofíoLV.
c) 'E xn eo ò iv /j,èv yàg ê Iç âvOçúnovç < r iç èÇevTeXíÇovráç Te, (co l.
X L IX ) Soa rjfilv yaoí&.Tai <pdo)oo<pía, x a l <bç svegyeriv rrjv qtjto-
gtxrjv OavfiáÇovtaç, êrt <5’ &v T&v âvayxaúov èvôerjç, èxcov ôè noorjv
Tgißrp èv toíç grjrogixotç ôiá t ivaç èn i vEÓrrjTa enavaßeßrjxvtag aíríaç,
laajç nv naiç èn òXtyov xçóvov ôiôáaxmv t ivàç evnogúr] râ>v êneiyóvrcov,
êcoç ãv eíç tovç <pdooo<píaç oíxelovç ènavéXÔT] t ónovç, c&ç xâv ygáfifiaTa
x a l TiaXaiaTOtxrjv x a í ti t C
dv è/j, naiaiv Òià rrjv tôjv yovécov ènifieXeiav
âvaXr]q>dév[T(av (ôiôáoxojvy.
d) *E v r jfiE T É g o tç ô è r ánoiç x a r a ( y i v w o x £ i v ôel to v g r jto g e v E iv ã t e
tovtm v n á v T co v v n s g y x E i f i é v o í ç , (3 8 ) ev o lç o í ngoEigrjfisvoi disTgißov,
x a l n g o a iQ E T t x ã iç x a í n o X v v y p ó v o v o v y v n o fiÈ v E tv to v to n o iE Í v fiã X X o v
jjj ti tâ )v à n g e n e a T a T w v s lv a t ô o x o v v tc o v . (The follow in g severe d en u n
c iatio n of rh eto ric is om itted.)
e) (Col. L I . 40) < T oiyàg ovyô' ’ AgioToTéArjç <pdooó<pcoç àv eorgá-
<pr] t o nagaôeôofiévov noirjoaç utJ.ci t j J ç èntggTjOEcuç. T i y ag fiãXXov
alnxQÒv jJv (JUDTcavj looxgaTTjv ò èav XEyEiv, 7] xaTÒ. noXiv £fjvt AÍqvtjv
ôè axajtavEveiv èãv, xâv rfj yfj öiaTgißeiv, èntxvfiaTiCeoÔat ôè tov
CDoívixa x a l tov BogvadmÍTrjv, x a l Aa(paX/.(nm a fièv òXov (col. L II)
to v ßlov iÔKOTEveiv, &Efj.iOTOxUa ôè orgareveiv èãv, ov t e y àg aígETcÓTega
r a v r a raiv ngoeigrjjuèvwv êgycov, ovte XvoíTsXÈaTEga rrjç <pdooo<píaç
io r i- ôiò d TO ’ IaoxgáT ovç âvaxpeAáç Tt -Pjv, rò Uyt.iv èãv ngoorjXEi
fiêv, eí S‘ Ègyw awÉtpeçev, x a l fj.rjô1' vnágyovzoç èxeívov Xéyetv el ò'
ovôéregov p.r]òÈ fxvgioiv õvrutv grjTogevEiv, Iva [ir\ (paivrjzai ô ià tóv
yôóvov x a l TTjv Èxeívov xaraßoXtfv èvioiç noz aôvvaroç x a i /j,rjte yivá>a-
(xrjT ai (p d an ex 6ri/u(ov ã v fir /f ijt t c Ó jM s t o ç . )
aÍQEzéTega r a v r a róiv nQoetgijfíévcov Igyaiv D ü r in g |]

ávwqjeXéç r i D ü r in g ||
(4 1) ( E l á ’ aio')xQ(õ ÔMÓgiÇe to j n a g à t o i ç noXAoiç t ò pr) Xèyeiv,

èxeIvov ô’ èã v, àXX' ov%l t o í ç <pvotxoíç tè X e o i v eí ôè t o v t o i ç , n ôíç ov
x a r à <pvoiv aioxQÒv ÈvóutÇe to X.éyeiv è n i fitj/iaToç t a t o íç (iia B a g v o ta i
tõ )v grjtóofov n a g a n X tfo ta fiãXXov fj Ta t o íç íoodÈotç tã>v <pdooó<pa>v,
f) T í ôè ôr} fiE T È n eae r r jç <<pdooo<píaç x a l t rjç n n g )g w (col. L H I)

n g o T g a n rjç r ójv vew TÈgojv x a l Ôetvrjç ên eig ã T O ve /i Èo s i uç x a í ôvO fiE vsiaç
e h e xwv a y ’ Iaoxgaxovg e h ' evicov aXXwv aotptmmv] naK t ^ oi%i

Bavuaaudv iviqmije fieyav xrjQ dwd/iewg, e | o « r.e dnenfjda x t}q oixetac,
noayuaxeiaQ x a l 6td xavr i<pwQäxo xovg re vdfiovg aw ayw v afia x<b
uaQnxfj x a l rag xooavxag noXtxeiag x a l rä negl xwv xonwv dtxaiw paxa
x a l xd nq<k t <wq xatgovq x a l näv öoov xfjg xotavxvs eaxi (ngaypaxetag,
xa l noXvuadyq x a l noXvngdypiwv ( 4 2 ) <p)aivea6at ngoaigov/ievoq xat
yivcbaxeiv xa l StddaxEiv <piX6ao<pa, grjxogtxd, noXixtxa, yEwgytxa,
uvgem xd, fiExaXXtxd, /jovovovXl x a l xd xwv a la Xw ofiivw v 8 xt noto-öat
xa l i« ’ dvdyxrjv imxrjdEvetv Xeydvxmv, xa xd 8e xovxo xa t n o X v x w v
onxogwv dyeviaXEQoq, 6x1 oi gyxogeq i n t XEtgotiot hiva,u v n y E ^ E iv
x a l nagadtdovai) (col. L I V ) xdq grjxogixdq vnodiaetq ov fiovov xrjq
xa xd v < * ¥ k x*Q"> ^ * ai w ^ iEiav rf a(^ m0Q

evxgaaiaq, d fii, xa l xwv xadoXov xf,v grjxogixfy emxrjdevovxwv xiq
x a l xd g ddaeiQ doyftaxiCovxwv. xa66Xov S i yaXenmxf.ooq eytvexo xa xa
xov ’ Enixovgov d vxa yw v ta x^ xfj xov ß'iov owxrjgia xwv ävxixgvg Ent
xfjv noXtxixfjv aywviav aXe.ixpovx.mv.
tv&qnryt " s i p e r it o " B ig n o n e , h a u d r e c te ||
noi.vjiQay/uav D iir in g navovgyog S u d h a u s ]|
e) ’ EXjiidt <M ) xt}q dXrjßeiaQ odrjyovfievoQ d fir] x a l ZrjTrjOei <xwv

xvgimxdxwv ngoaxagXEgmv n w , Xov xi,v) (4 3) d oxotoav 6/xotav
' Iaoxgaxet grjxogixfjv, i\v dte/iwxrjaaxo noixiXwc,, aXX oi)Xi xrjv 710x1x1
xfiv rlv hdg av ixetvrjQ iv o p t t ^ . d ydg avroc xatxrjv lyvfivatEr, ov xtjv
M a x x fiv , yeXoiwg xov ’ laoxgdxrjv la v Xiyf.iv a lo Xgov ty a o xev , ov
uiXXmv ofioLmg avxw Xiyetv.
‘ Ztw nm ydg Sxi xmv nag avxw xd grjxogixd xaxapiaQovrwv ( c o l. L V )
ovx idvvax ovdetQ ev ovdexega xaxevxvXfjaat x&v xeXvw v xat naga
xiat dLÖdaxEiv, ’ IooxgaxovQ x a l Ttov rolg Xg6votg 7igox6y>avxoQ- waxe
xdv, d ngoxegov eSlSaaxev a ixfjv , i n i xijv y o v Xtw xigaV xat SaifiovtmxE-
gav, wotieq Eine, q>tXoaocpiav aJioXwß£iv. , ,
' A xotiwc, de x a l tiqoq xi)v noXtxtxfjv Tiagwgfia x a l bia yeXotaq aixiaQ-
xo u h Tigwxov oxt TiEgtTieJiotrj/iF.voi fikv xi]V qiTif.miav, wax' zvbvQ
noXiXEvaeaOat, 6id xrjv daXoXtav xrjV lv a ixfj xaOaigEioxegoiq emxrj-
Sevuaatv aizgoaohoi dvteg ovx) {44) ogdcbg &v i<f>dvr,oav 7iE<ptXoao<pj -
x 6xeq- d 6' mix kaXr]x6xEQ, ovx &v iövvavxo noXLXevEoGai M napnoX w
ygdvov xfj yvmof.i TigooedgEvaavXEQ, x a l Stdxt TtgoaedgEvaavxeg a Xgi xov
xvv axa£iav Ttavaat x a l Xgr,<Txijv noXtxdav xa xa a xf^ a t noXv xr,c snavo-
&ov xfjQ i n i xijv Tj<rvXiav dfpEiaxrjxEcrav. (The rest u m n telh gib le).
h) (Col. L V I . 6) . . . ov /tovov ovx ovgavicov siStjaiv aXX' ovSe

avOgconivcov ngayfiarcov em/xiXetav, ovSe y w a lx a rchv norjrdtv ipa-
axovrmv ovtojq ayaOov vov xaOvatEgelv, rd>g to jf.q flo v eXeadat afiEivo-
teqojv nageovtcov’ • xa i Start aytbnv ex (3a.oiXei.aQ nagexaXet <filXtnnov
r o te xa i rrjg IlEgaixfjg StaSo^fjg- (in th e follow in g sentence th e c o n tex t
is destroyed).
i) (45) . . . T&v Se alrtdbv St' 3g exsXevev 'og/nfjaai Selv ngog rag

ngd£eig fjtev deovra rfjv noXiv 8loixf.lv Svvdfievov' (col. L V I I ) ) rfjv
ngdirrjv eig eavrov era ser /.taXXov ft x a r ’ avdgamov firjBev (pgovriôvrog
rcbv xoivwv. et yan ivofitaev afiotgrjaavri r& v e x e i avfifiatvovTcov ovx
eaeaQat iavrdi cptXov, ovQeig eyevero rovrq> ovde yevofjevag en i noXvv
diifietvEv xqovov. (piXoaorpLa Se rfjv naoav F.niSoaiv Xafielv ovx exwXvero
x a i ra v ra yeveoQat olov ’ AgiaroreXr/v ov xexcoXvxvla' xojXvo/ievt) Se
Xafislv vno nvog, aXX’ iôvQevcoatv ovx av n o r iXafie dia ro rrjv v r i
avra>v StatpvXarro/uevr/v (avragxetav rrjg (irjQevog ngoodeioOat fiorlOeiag.')
( 45) " O n S' ayavaxretv eItiev, ov vilv riXX' i n i rofl Kgovov f\v in a yeiv
iv flga%Ei fiF.iôvg nagaXXayag in i ro firXnov, xa i ro %gvaavv Xsyofievov
yevog naga norjratv inaycov x&v dvvnagxra e ln a i xa i xevovg Sid)£eiev
vnvovg r& v naXaunv . . .
Comment. A fte r S udhaus, v . A rn im , C ronert, an d G om perz little

has b een done to th e te x t. T h e te x t I h a v e g iv en is m a in ly th a t of
S ud haus b u t n ecessarily eclectic; I h a v e a n n o ta ted on ly one or tw o
suggestions of m y ow n, an d in order to m ake th e t e x t m ore readable
I h a ve in d icated o n ly m a jo r restoration s, n ea rly all of w h ich w ere
m ade b y Su d hau s, v. A rnim or C ronert. T h e literatu re up to 1920 is
listed b y H . M. H u b b ell, “ T h e R h e to rica of P h ilo d em u s” , N ew H a v e n
1920, in; Transactions oj the Connecticut Academ y oj A rts and Sciences,
vo l. 23, pp. 243— 382. I h a ve p ro fited from his tran slation an d also
used his v a lu a b le article “ Iso cra tes and th e E p icu re a n s ” , in: Class.
P h ilol. 1 1 , 1916, pp. 40 5— 418. See also R . P h ilip pson , in: R E X I X
col. 24 53— 55; B ign one, L 'A r is t. perd. I 125 — 127; I I 9 7 — 10 1.
T h e Rhetorica w a s w ritte n in th e lifetim e o f th e E p icu rea n Zeno,
th u s n o t la te r th a n 75 (Philippson, col. 2445). T h e section reproduced
here is, as H u b b ell says, a p relu d e to an a tta c k on A risto tle for deserting
p h ilosop h y and im ita tin g Iso crates b y te a ch in g rh eto ric w h en he m ight
h a ve chosen p o litica l science (see section g) or h a v e en gaged in p ractical
politics, b o th of w h ich , P hilodem u s says, w ould h a v e been preferable to

teaching rhetoric a fter th e m anner of Isocrates.
a) “ N ow let us ta k e up th e sto ry a b o u t A risto tle , th a t he ta u gh t
rhetoric in th e afternoon, sayin g, “ 'T is a sham e to b e silent and allow
Isocrates to sp e a k ” . H e also show ed his opinion cle arly enough by
w ritin g treatises on th e a rt of rh etoric and b y sta tin g th a t politics is
a branch of ph ilosoph y, sp eakin g in d istin c tly a b o u t th e difference
betw een rhetoric and p olitics . .
On xJjc SeiXrjg eyvfivaêv see m y n o te on T 76 f. T h e E uripides-
pa ro d y (fr. 796 N a u c k 2) is qu oted as a d ictu m of A risto tle b y Her-
m ippus, Cicero, Q u in tilian , S yrian u s, and (w rongly transferred to
X en ocrates) b y D iogenes; it is also qu oted w ith o u t connection w ith
A risto tle b y P lu ta rch Adv. Col. 3, 1x08 b, and Cic. ad A il. \ I 8,5. I t
is tru e th a t A risto tle regarded p o litics as a b ran ch of philosophy,
(pdoaocpia ngaxxixr\ M etaph. V I 1, 1025 b 22 — 23; rj negl xa avQgwmva
tpikoaofpta E N X io , 1 1 8 1 b 15.
b) “ <He alleged v a rio u s reasons fo r en gagin g in politics, firs t) th a t
one w ho lack s experience of cu rren t even ts in p o litics finds everyth in g
unfriendly to him ; secon d ly th a t ph ilosophy w ill m ake great progress
in a c ity w h ich is w ell governed; th ird ly th a t he w as disgusted w ith
m ost of th e co n tem p o ra ry p o litician s w ho w ere con sisten tly in volved
in p a rty strife .” Cf. I I 102.9 S u d h au s = T 1 b.
T h is m ust be a rep o rt of reasons alleged b y A risto tle fo r th e stu d y
of rhetoric and p h ilosop h y (philosophy in th e Iso cratean sense = a
broad general ed u cation). I t m u st eith er b e a fa k e (which seems un
likely) or based on som e of A r is to tle ’s dialogues (the Statesman?). In
the last p a rag ra p h o f (g) and in (i) th ese argum en ts are refuted b y
Philodem us; th ere too he p ro b a b ly uses A ris to tle ’s ow n w ords. B u t if
this is ta k e n fro m a dialogue, it need n ot represent A risto tle ’s own
opinions; w e k n o w th a t from th e frag m en ts of th e Eudem us. See B ig-
none, L ’Arislotele perduto, I I 249.
c) “ O ne w ho m akes him self a p o pu lar figu re am ong people who
despise th e g ifts w h ich p h ilosop h y so graciou sly bestow s and ex a lt
rhetoric as th eir b en efacto r; w ho m oreover lacks the bare necessities
of life and, for reasons w h ich u ltim a tely m a y be referred to you th fu l
folly, keeps up a k in d of school in rhetoric; such a person m igh t for
a short tim e ob ta in a n um ber of pupils, until he returns to th e realm s
of ph ilosophy, ju s t as if he h a d been a teach er in reading, a th letics or
3°4
a n y o f th o se su b jects w h ich a te included in th e cu rricu lu m accordin g
to th e w ishes of p a re n ts.” .
If th is t e x t h a d b een fo u n d isolated from its c o n te x t, w e m ig h t h a v e
con jectu red th a t it w a s an echo of a n a tta c k b y A risto tle o n ls o c n U e s .
B u t, firstly , su ch an a tta c k of a m ore personal n atu re is u n th in k a b le
for in sp ite of th e ir d ifference of opinion, A risto tle held Iso cra tes in
h igh esteem . S eco n d ly th e c o n te x t tells us th a t i t is a con tin u ation
of P h ilo dem u s’ a tta c k on A risto tle , h ow ever a b su rd its con ten tion s
might seem to us. _ _

Sudhaus (Rh. M u s. 1893, P- 562) observed the similarity betw «-..
th e insinuations in th is section and th e gross c alu m n y in th e fragm en ts
o f th e le tte r IJ EQi k u x r f i e v ^ . A risto tle h a d sq u an d ered his inh erited
fortu n e, T 58 b and 59 . a n d w a s ob liged to earn b is livin g . S ec B ig -
n on e’s com m en ts and tran slation , L ’ A n stotele perdulo I I . p p . 89 9 _
H a rd ly a n y d octrin e of A risto tle has b een so ru th lessly d isto rte d and
op posed as his opinion th a t a certain am ou n t of r a i x r os a y a O a i s
desirable, if n o t n ecessary, fo r a h a p p y life and th u s ev en for a pbdo-
sopher: »to b e a ph ilosopher is b e tte r th a n to m ake m on ey, b u t It is
n o t m ore desirable for a m an w h o la ck s th e b are n cc essitu s o f life
T o * H I 2 118 a 10. T h is v e r y sensible d octrin e w a s d isto rted b ey o n d
recognition, esp ecially b y E p icu ru s, and I th in k t h a t tiie calu m n y
a gain st A risto tle as a m an w orkin g for sordid gain and rolling in w ea lth
sp ran g fro m th e co n v ictio n t h a t th is d octrin e w as u n w o rth y o f a phüo-
sopher. I t m igh t b e a ccid en tal t h a t th e exp ression M n j ; royv a v a y x m c o v
ITo-b 118 a 11) is used also in th is p o lem ical passage, b u t it is n everth e
less n o tew o rth y . S u d h au s r ig h tly says: “ F a lls n ich t ^ e k t E p urs
A u sfü h ru n gen unserer S te lle zu G ru nd e Hegen, so is t d och die L ehre
des M eisters in der vo rsich tig sten W eise resp e ctirt.”
d) “ In our field of stu d y ( = th e E p icu rea n stan dp oint) it behoves
us to despise rhetoric, fo r our studies are raised a b o v e ev eryth in g
w h ich people of th e k in d ju s t m en tion ed u se to d eal w ith , w e w ould
n o t endure to d ev o te ourselves to rh eto ric m ore th a n to oth er things
w h ich are th o u g h t u n w o rth y <of a p h ilosop h er). (T hen follow s
v io le n t d en u n ciation of rhetoric, o m itted here.)
T h e E p icu rea n s rejected a ll rh eto ric as useless. I t w a s P hilodem us,
or perhaps a lrea d y Zenon in h is o ra l in stru ction , w h o lau n ched the
id ea th a t a c e rta in ty p e of rh etoric w h ich h e called “ sop histic w as an
a r t and a prop er su b je c t fo r stu d y ; it m ean t to h im th e a rt of prose
w riting. T h e s tiff d en u n ciation of rhetoric as a w hole in th is paragraph

is therefore m ore influ enced b y old E p icu rea n view s th a n b y Philo-
dem us’ ow n opinion, as sta te d in oth er p a rts of th e Rhetorica. I t is
in this c o n te x t a lin k in his bu ild in g u p a c o n tra st b etw een Isocrates
and A ristotle, b o th of w hom he disliked. In th e section w h ich I h ave
om itted w e fin d th e
rare w ord negtodia ( = /ie Oo Soq in Aristotle),
w hich is used tw ic e in E p . ad Herod. 36 and 83.
e) “ A risto tle therefore did n o t b eh a ve as a tru e philosopher when
he did w h at is said in th e line w e h a v e q uoted. F o r w h y should it h a ve
been m ore d isgracefu l to be silen t and p erm it Iso cra tes to speak, than
to liv e in th e c ity and allow th e sla v e M anes to dig, or to s ta y on land
and allow th e P h oen ician or B o ry sth en ite trad er to b e tossed on the
w aves, carry in g on his oversea business, or to pass on e’s life in sa fety
as a p riv a te citizen and allow T h em istocles to en jo y th e perils of a
general? F o r these occu p ation s are in th em selves n o t superior to those
ju st m entioned, nor are th e y m ore p ro fita b le th a n ph ilosophy.
If, then, Iso cra te s’ occu p ation w as of no use, th e proper th in g to
do w as to le t him go on w ith it; if it w as useful to speak, A risto tle
ought to h a v e done it w h eth er Iso crates existed or not; if, fin ally, it
was neither of th e tw o , A risto tle sh ould n ot h a v e d evoted him self to
rhetoric in order th a t he m igh t n ot seem in com p eten t in th e eyes of
some people or to b e a ctin g from e n v y <and be regarded as quarrelsom e
or as d efeated b y Iso cra te s).
(41) I f on th e oth er h an d he allow ed h im self to b e gu id ed b y the
popular m isconcep tion th a t it w as b ase to keep silent and le t Isocrates
speak, he c e rta in ly did n o t ob serve th e n atu ra l purpose of o ratory. If
how ever he had th is purpose in m ind, w h y did h e n ot fin d it b y nature
disgraceful to sp eak (th ro u g h th e m ou th s of his p u p ils) in th e law cou rts
words resem bling th e u ttera n ces of hired rhetors rath er th a n to speak
like th e d ivin e philosophers?”
This exam ple of E p icu rea n d ialectic is, indeed, an am using persiflage
of A risto tle 's ow n m ethod, lik e k illin g him w ith his ow n syllogistic. W e
shall see th a t th is m ethod of using p o la r syllogism s is applied throughout
this section. T h e expression rez fpvaixa refo] is E picu rean , cf. E p. ad
Herod. 78, p. 24 .10 — 11 V o n der M iihll, and E p . ad Pyth. 86, p. 28.18
— 19; w e m a y com pare E p . ad M en. 1 1 7 and Sent. 31.
f) A n d w h y did h e fa ll a w a y from (p h ilosop h y and from ) th e
urging on w ards (col. L I I I ) of th e y o u n ger m en (exhorting th em to
Goteb. U n iv . A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 ,a
306 in g e m a r d ü r in g
ph ilosoph y, as he h a d done in th e Protrefticu s), exp osin g him self to

d read fu l resen tm en t and h atred w h eth er on the p a r t of th e follow ers
of Iso crates or of som e oth er professors?
A n d su rely he im plan ted in his p u p ils g re a t adm iration of his genius,
from th e m om ent he abandoned his proper su b ject, and for th e reasons
g iv e n w as fou n d collecting along w ith th e disciple (Theophrastus) the
law s, th e pleas of th e cities concerning their te rrito ry , th e m an y polities,
and th e law s en acted a t critical tim es, and e v e ry th in g th a t belongs to
such a su bject.
P referring to show off as a person of m uch learn in g and a b u sy b o d y ,
h e stu d ied and ta u g h t ph ilosop h y, rhetoric, po litics, a gricu ltu re, the
a rt of cosm etic, th e art of m ining, and — still w orse — th e variou s
a p h io d isia ca and w h a t is done b y those w h o profess to w ork for sordid
gain. In th is respect he w a s in fa c t less n oble th a n th e teach ers of
rhetoric, for th e y t r y to im p a rt a certain a b ility an d to h an d dow n
th e principles of rh etoric (col. L IV ) , not m erely for th e calm of the
soul b u t also for th e h ea lth of th e b o d y , ex cep t of course those few
w h o p ra ctise rhetoric for its ow n sake and ta k e d eligh t in declaim ing
theses. In short, accord in g to E p icu ru s, he b ecam e a m ore severe
op pon en t of a q u iet life th a t those w h ose profession it is to train y o u n g
m en for en gagin g in p o litic s.”
See M u lv a n y , in: C l. Qu. 20, 1926, pp. 1 5 5 - 1 6 7 . T h e w ord fiereneoe
recalls C icero’ s mutavit repente, see m y n o te on T 32. If, as I assum e
w ith S u d h au s an d oth ers, th is is b ased on E p icu rea n polem ic, Philo-
dem us (or, m ore p ro b a b ly , his source) p a id no h eed to chronology.
H is m ain pu rpose w ith his criticism of A risto tle is this: w h en A risto tle
q u oted th a t verse and to o k to rhetoric, h e becam e a d eserter from
p h ilosoph y in its E p icu rea n sense of a q u ie t co n tem p la tiv e life. The
riv a lr y w ith Iso crates b egan a b o u t 360, see m y n ote on Cephisodorus,
p. 389. T h e n e x t accu sation applies to th e fa c t th a t, a fte r he had
w ritten th e Protrepticus (which w as a b o u t 3 5 3 ) , h e d ev o te d him self
to w h a t w as later called his noXvptaBia. T h e w o rk on th e collections
m en tion ed in th e second sentence w as h a rd ly b egu n b efore 340. We
kn ow th a t th e A t x a u b fic iT a 'EU.rjvidcov tcoXewv (fr . 6 1 2 — 14 Rose) w ere
co llected fo r P h ilip and used b y h im in his a ttem p ts to regu late the
boundaries of th e G reek c ity -sta te s, see M. P oh len z, in: Hermes 64,
1929, p- 5 5 - W e do n ot k n o w w h en th e oth er collections w ere made:
th e law s (see th e catalo g u e of A r is to tle ’s w ritin gs n. 140, Theophr.
V 44), th e IIqoq to v c xaioovg (Theophr. V 45), and th e pohties. T h e

words [iVQEipixd xxX.1) are a m alicious echo of (pag/xaxoncjXetv in T 5 g h ,
ju s t as the davfiaofioc fidyag xrjg dwa/ietDg is a d istortion of ovx wv arpvrjQ.
A n d then com es th e d irect referen ce to E p icu ru s, w hose m ain argu m en t
shim m ers through : th is noXvfiaBia en tirely d estroyed th e go al of life,
tjjv xa ra ywxVv yaXrjvtjv. T h is fra g m en t of E p icu ru s' polem ic again st
A ristotle w as n o t k n o w n to U sen et and should be added to th e fragm en ts.
g) “ I f he w as searchin g for tr u th — ev en if h e w as n ot b e n t on
reaching th e h igh est tru th s — w h y did he choose Iso cra tea n rhetoric
w hich he rid iculed in variou s w a ys, rath er th a n p o litica l rhetoric w h ich
he considered d ifferen t from th a t of Isocrates? I f it w as th e p o litica l
and n ot th e d id actic rhetoric he w as p ractisin g, it w as ridiculous for
him to sa y t h a t it w as a d isgrace to allow Iso cra tes to sp eak, if he did
not in ten d to sp eak lik e him .
I do n ot m en tion th e fa c t th a t none of his pu p ils cou ld succeed in
either a it and b ecom e teach ers of oth er m en, w hereas Isocrates, as
tim e w en t on, a d va n ced (to th e opposite standpoint) an d h a vin g
previously ta u g h t rh etoric retu rn ed to th e quieter, and, as A risto tle
him self said, “ m ore d ivin e s tu d y ” , philosophy.
H e had stran g e reasons too for u rging you n g m en to po litical rhetoric.
F irst, if th e y acquired exp erience and u n d ertook a p o litica l career
im m ediately, th e y w ou ld b e b arre d from pursuin g disinterested studies
and w ou ld ap p ear lack in g in a proper ph ilosophical train in g. O n th e
other hand, if th e y h a d no exp erience, th e y could n o t b e statesm en
unless th e y stud ied a v e r y lon g tim e, an d if th e y w a ite d for th e sta te
to becom e o rd erly, th e y w o u ld be n eglectin g th e m eans of m akin g it
ord erly.”
A gain w e ob serve th e m eth od of u sin g po lar syllo gism s leading up
to the sam e conclusions: a con d em n ation of A risto tle s inten tions and
activities. O n dt£fj.a>xrjaa.To see T 50 a. ’ E y v / z v a C e v recalls D L V 3.
The sta tem en t in th e second p a rag ra p h is alm ost incredible and can
on ly be un derstood as a m alicious ex a gg eratio n in th e ea rly E p icu rean
polem ic; b u t E p icu ru s and his follow ers cou ld n ot h a ve been unaw are
of th e fa c t th a t m ore pu p ils flo ck e d aroun d T heoph rastu s in th e P eri-
patos th a n aroun d a n y o th er G reek h ead of a school; th is perhaps m ade
them even m ore furious. T h e conten tion th a t Iso crates to o k th e
opposite course an d tu rn e d from rhetoric to ph ilosophy is, as Sudhaus
') K . v. F r it z , RE X V I , c o l. 2024, m is t a k e n ly re fe rs t h is to N a a sip h a n e s.
IN G E M A R D tiR IN G
has sh ow n (Rhein. M us. 4 8 , 1 8 9 3 , P - S 6 1 ). a d e lib e r a te m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n
d e s ig n e d to b e little A r is to tle b y m a k in g h im in fe r io r to Iso c ra te s.
“ W h ile A r is to tle descen ded fr o m p h ilo s o p h y to r h e to r ic , Iso c r a te s r o *
R h e to r ic .0 philosophy." I . is. as H ubbell says, not due to any

lo v e of Iso c r a te s, b n t to a d e s ir e to h a ve a flin g a t A r is to tle , a n d .
does n o t im p ly th a t th e E p ic u r e a n a u th o r of th is passage, or
dem us w h o q u o te s h im , c o n s id e r e d Iso c ra te s’ te a c h in g as p h ilo s o p h y
in th e E p icu rea n sense of th e w ord. „

T h e w ords sm rrjv tfavXicoreQav xai daôvu,neQav W d n t.
aiXoaofplav r a is e an in te r e s tin g p r o b le m . T h is * *
a r h e to r ic a l c lim a x , an d coaneg sine in d ic a te s th a t Philodemus c ite s a
fa m o u s d e fin itio n o f p h ilo s o p h y . E ro m th e p o in t o f gram m ar, it w o d
b e m ost n a tu r a l to assu m e th a t Iso c r a te s is th e s u b je c t <

of e te e b u t
a ch an ge of s u b je c t is n o t e x c lu d e d , an d th e n th e s u b je c t m u st b e
A r is to tle . In th e tw e n ty sp e e c h e s w h ic h h a ve s u r v iv e d Iso c r a te s n ever
sp eak s o f p h ilo s o p h y as r,ovX«or£Qa xai datpovwrtQa. S u ch del
X n of p h ilo s o p h y is q u ite c o n tr a r y to h is o p in io n , see th e m a te r ia l
collected b y E . Mikkola, Isokrates, Helsinki 1 9 5 4 , P P - I 9 3-

" • s "Protrepticus is an eloquent plea for the contem plative life
of a philosopher. “ T h e acquisition of wisdom is pleasant, all men
a t hom e in p h ilosop h y and w ish to spend th e ir h v e s m .h e p n rsm t of
i t lea vin g a ll o th er cares; ph ilosophers need no too ls or p la ce s fo r t h a t
^ r « h « r e v e r in th e » hole w orld on e * « “ 7 t r a t h ^ (P ro * T ^ S
it is su rroun d ed on a ll s id e s b y th e p resen ce of tr u th . (Protr. / _ ,
R o s s ) A lth o u g h w e ca n n o t tra c e a n y d e fin itio n of p h ilo s o p h y sim il
to th e one g iv e n b y P h ilo d e m u s , in our fr a g m e n ts of th z Protrepticus,

L ^ S y m u st b e le ft open th a t t h , a u th or h a s tin s celeb ra ted
e x h o rta tio n to p h ilo so p h y in m in d . S till th e re Unger « u ! d o u b t .
A r is to tle is v e ry c a r e fu l in h is u se of datfiovio? an d deiog. an d th e se
w ord s are r e s e ^ e d fo r th e i, p ro p er spheres; th e re is n o t th e a m test

tr a c e of m y s tic is m in A r i s t o t l e ’s th in k in g (Ja eg er, Ar p. 256, D i -
m e ie r N ik. Ethik, p. 552 ) . P h ilo s o p h y w as to h im th e h ig h e s t
of th e biQ yeta o f th e h u m an m in d , s o m e th in g av6ewmvov an d
d e c id e d ly n o t d a t^ n o v . B u t th e a u th o r o f De mundo in tr o d u c e s
subject w ith the following words, 391 a P ^
da^vw Svrcos XQf r a . * ’ A W a v d g e, V

I t is tem pting to surmise th at these are the words which ’ M o * » »
h as in mind. T h e point a t which Philodemus is driving is exactly th ,
th a t Iso crates did w h a t A risto tle o u g h t to h a v e done: he chose th e

w a y of life w h ich he, n am ely A ristotle, h a d characterized as
“ d ivin e” . I t w ou ld ta k e off th e edge to in terp ret eb ie as ap p lyin g to
Isocrates. A g a in st th e assu m ption th a t th is is a q u otation from D e
M undo m a y be o b jected th a t th e com bin ation tfov%ia)TEQav x a l Saifio-
vuotEQav fo rm ally does n o t agree w ith Belov rt x a l dat/ioviov Svtwq
XQfj/xa. T h e sole a rgu m en t in fa v o u r of this in terp reta tio n is, in fact,
th a t it w ould ad d an e x tra fla v o u r to th e rh eto rical clim ax if th e author
m ockin gly quoted th e fam ou s in tro d u cto ry w ords of a trea tise w hich
w as com m only h eld to b e a genuine w o rk of A risto tle. T h e question
m ust b e le ft open, w h eth er th e q u o ta tio n is fa k e d or real; I w ou ld
how ever m ain tain th a t th e a u th o r w ishes th e reader to b elieve th a t
he cites a fam ous d efin ition of ph ilosoph y, fo rm u lated b y A ristotle.
W ith th e la s t w ords, “ th e y w ou ld b e n eglectin g th e p h ilosoph y of
p o litics” , w e m a y com pare E th. N ic. X io , 1180 b 29 and 118 1 a 12 —
b 12, recap itu late d from th e Proirefiticus; see O. Im m isch, in: Rhein.
M us. 84, ig 3 5 , pp. 54— 6 1, an d D irlm eier’s co m m en ta ry pp. 604— 5.
h) T h e c o n te x t is b a d ly dam aged. O b v io u sly P hilodem u s reproaches
A risto tle for h a v in g n eglected b oth n a tu ra l science and ethics. T h is
charge could n o t h a v e been m ad e in 75 B . C., b u t is c le a rly a frag m en t
of the sam e ea rly E p icu rea n polem ic as in th e previou s sections. T h e
E picu rean a u th o r cites w ith m alicious pleasure a proverb w hich is also
quoted b y A risto tle in D e philosophia, fr. 21 R ose, p. 37.12, in a passage
in w hich he polem izes a ga in st th e d octrin e th a t th e w orld is perishable,
a doctrine w h ich f ifty yea rs la te r w a s a corner-stone in E p icu ru s’
philosophy. T h is p ro v erb is q u oted o n ly in these tw o passages, and its
occurrence in th e polem ic a gain st A risto tle can h a rd ly be inciden tal.
This is an oth er a rgu m en t for ou r opinion th a t th is w h ole section is
tran scribed from an e a r ly E p icu rea n source, if n ot from E p icu ru s
him self, as B ig n on e b elieved , L ’ Aristotele -perduto I 129.
T h e second ch arge is h igh ly in terestin g and n o t k n ow n from any
other source. B u t th e sto ry in V ita M arc. 23 th a t A risto tle w arned
A lexan d er m ig h t be d erived from th e sam e source; V M is an epitom e
of P to le m y ’s V ita , and it can b e show n th a t P to le m y has m ade several
sim ilar tran sfers from one person to another, see p . 236. fiaoiAelai;
and dtadoxfjc form a k in d of h en d iad yoin . T h e historians fin d i t
probable th a t A risto tle dissuaded P h ilip from his plans to a tta c k P ersia,
see U . K a e rst, H ell. Is, p . 273, and F . H am pl, D ie gr. Siaatsvertrage des
4. Jahrh. v. Chr., L eip zig 1938, p. 96. I f P hilodem u s (t. e. E picu ru s)

follow ed th e m ethod used in th e previou s sections, he m ig h t h ave
m en tion ed Iso cra tes' co n tra ry a d vice in the P h ilip p u s as a co n tra st,
in th e subsequen t sentence now lost. I t m ust h a v e been in th e la te
‘forties th a t A risto tle ta lk e d w ith P h ilip (or w ro te to him ) a b o u t his
p lan s to a tta c k Persia.
i) “ O f th e reasons w h y h e urges th a t one w ho h as th e a b ility to
govern should h u rry to en gage in p o litics (col. L V I I ) th e first applies
to him self rath er th a n to one w ho ta k e s no th o u g h t for th e com m u nity.
F o r if he th o u g h t th a t one w ho to o k no p a rt in cu rren t p o litics w ould
h a ve no friend, th e plain tru th is th a t he h a d none, or if he had a friend
he could n o t keep him a n y len gth of tim e.
(The second reason.) P h ilo so p h y w as n ot p rev en ted from m akin g
g rea t progress, ju s t as it did n o t p rev en t A ristotle; if p rev en ted b y
a n y b o d y from m akin g progress, p h ilosoph y w ou ld still n ever h a v e been
b ro u g h t in to con tem pt, becau se it is ind epen d en t and needs no help
from a n y m an.
1^2 T h e th ird reason.) H e also said th a t h e w as dissatisfied w ith th e
presen t conditions; b u t w e can n o t now, as in th e golden age, ex p ec t
sudden im provem en ts, and if w e do refer to this golden age of w h ich
th e poets sp eak, w e w o u ld deal w ith n on -existen t th in gs and hu n t
th e em p ty dream s of th e an cien ts . .
“The con d itio n s did n ot p rev en t A risto tle fro m ” eXQe Zv ct? Tf]v
dewQovfievtjv e £iv , T 59 b . I f I am n ot m istak en , th e avT an xsta of
p h ilosoph y is an E p icu rea n argu m en t, too.
L e t m e add som e final rem arks on th e section as a w hole. I th in k
it is fu tile to a sk e x a c t ly w h ich source P h ilo d em u s used; I refer to
B ig n o n e’s com bin ation s w hich are a ttr a c tiv e b u t u n provable. C ertain
it is, how ever, th a t m ost of w h a t he says in th is section is m ore or
less lite r a lly ta k e n from an ea riy E p icu rea n w riter, perhaps from
E p icu ru s him self; th is early E p icu rea n source u ltim a tely relied on
m a terial from th e a ctu a l discussion b etw een A risto tle and th e Iso cratean
school. S ectio n (b) con tain s a frag m en t from one of A risto tle 's dialogues,
sectio n (e) is a v io le n t a tta c k on A risto tle ’s ed u cation al ph ilosophy, in
(f) A risto tle is criticized for h a vin g d eserted th e ideals of th e A ca d em y ,
in b oth (f) and (g) th ere m a y b e echoes from th e Protrepticus, in (h)
a q u o ta tio n from th e D e philosophia.
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 3 ir
W e know from frs. 1 7 1 , 235 and 237 U . th a t b o th E p icu ru s and

M etrodorus a tta c k e d A risto tle , and from DL, X 25 th a t H enn archu s
w rote a p am p h let Ugoc; ’ AgiaroreXrjv. In his criticism of N ausiphanes
Philodem us q uotes M etro d oru s’ IIqoq to v q duo qmaioXoyia; Xeyovrag
ayadovg elvai grjrogai;. E p icu ru s ’ nam e is m en tion ed in section (f).
There is a curious likeness b etw een P h ilo d em u s’ discussion of rhetoric
com bined w ith p h ilosop h y and C icero’s tre a tm e n t of th e sam e su b ject
in D e or. I l l 138 — 142 = T 32. T h e to p ic as such is as old as G reek
literature, cf. 11. I X 443 /xvdwv re orjr/jo' efievai Tigrjxrfjga re egyatv.
T h e ten d en cy in Cicero is d iam e trica lly op posite to th a t of P h ilo
demus. In I I I 60— 64 and 7 2 — 73 Cicero argues as follow s: before
th e tim e of S ocrates th e philosopher and th e orator w ere u n ited in one
person to form th e p erfect statesm an ; S ocrates and his successors m ade
an u n n atu ral d ivision b etw een p h ilosoph y an d rh eto ric (statesm anship);
“ th e tw o groups of stu d en ts w ere sep arated from each oth er b y Socrates,
and th e philosophers looked dow n on eloquence and th e orators on
w isdom ” . B u t I I I 13 8 — 142 (see m y note) he follow s an oth er source,
p ro b ab ly H erm ip pu s, w h o w a n ted to show th a t A risto tle h a d criticized
Isocrates and th a t it w as he w h o had u n ited th e tw o disciplines, w ith
rhetoric servin g as th e id eal hand m aid of p h ilosop h y in the train in g of
th e ideal statesm an . C icero th u s reflects a source w ith an apologetic
tend en cy, P hilodem u s a source stro n g ly biassed again st A ristotle.
32 a C IC E R O D e or. I l l 35, 141: Itaque ipse Aristoteles cum florere

Isocratem nobilitate discipulorum videret, quod suas disputationes a
causis forensihus et civilibus ad inanem sermonis elegantiam transtulisset,
mutavit repente totam jormam prope disciplinae suae versumque quendam
Philoctetae paullo secus dixit. Ille enim t u r p e sibi ait e s s e t a c e r e
cum barbaros hie autem c u m Isocratem pateretur
d i c e r e. Itaque ornavit et illustravit doctrinam illam omnem rerumque
cognitionem cum orationis exercitatione coniunxit.
Neque vero hoc fugit sapientissim um regem P h ilip p u m , qui hunc
Alexandro jilio doctorem accierit, a quo eodem ille et agendi acciperet
praecepta et eloquendi.
32 b C IC E R O Tusc. I 4,7: Sed ut Aristoteles, vir summo ingenio

scientia copia, cum motus esset Isocratis rhetoris gloria, dicere etiam coepit
adolescentes docere et prudentiam cum eloquentia iungere. — M A R IU S
3 I2 IN G E M A R D tiR IN G
V I C T O R I N U S I n Rhet. Ciceronis: Gloria Xenocratis philosophi motus

Aristoteles philosophiam exercuii, gloria Isoeratis motus rheloricae praecepta
conscripsit.
32 c C IC E R O Orator X I V 46: Haec igitur quaestio a p ro p n is per-

sonis et temporibus ad universi generis orationem traducta appellatur
deaig. in hac Aristoteles adulescentes non ad philosophorum morem
tenuiter disserendi, sed ad cofiam rheiorum, in utramque partem ut orna-
tius et uberius d id posset, exercuit idemque locos - sic emtn appellat
quasi argumentorum notas tradidii unde omnis in utramque partem tra-
heretur oratio. . ,
Comment. Cicero sp eaks of th e © t o and th e d ifferen b ook s of
th e Topics; b o th ty p e s of w ritin gs are represented in th e A lex a n d rian
catalo g u e of A risto tle ’s w ritings. H e m akes th e sam e referen ce to
Toi> V III (de singulis rebus in utramque partem dicendi exercitatio)
in D e fin . V 4.10 = T 76 b. See A rist. T op. I n . and T h rom , D ie
T h esis” , in: Rhet. Studien 17, I 93 2i P- I 77 -
32 d Q U I N T I L IA N U S Institutio oratoria I I I 1: N am et Isoeratis

praestantissimi d iscipu li fuerunt in omni studiorum genere eo q u e ia m
seniore (octavum em m et nonagesimum im p la nt annum) postm endianis
scholis Aristoteles praecipere artem oratoriam caeptt, noto qutdem illo
ut traditur, versu ex Philocteta frequenter usus: turpe esse tacere et
Isocratem pati dicere.
32 e S T R A B O N X I V 1,48, p. 650: (Aristodem us) M o a%o\a<; aw si% e

nooil p b rrp> & xoq ^ v, S etti p di y Q a ^ a rt^ v a Xo X j . _
Comment: Cf. also P lu tarch , Quom. adul. 3 1 , p . 70 E ev dethvy
dtaXQiPfj. The ph rase is th u s com m on. O n A ris to tle 's tim e-ta >le,
see also T 31 a and T 76 f.
Comment on 32. D e or. I l l 1 3 8 - 1 4 2 m u st b e considered as a w hole,

a) P ericles (138) w a s an em in en t orator. H is te ach er w as n o t an
u n kn ow n declamator, b u t th e g rea t A n a x a g o ra s of C lazom enae. O w ing
to th is fin e ed u cation h e co u ld ru le A th en s th ro u g h a p e n o d of fo rty
y ea rs, ric h ly en dow ed w ith doctrina consilio eloquentia. C n tia s (139)
and A lcib iad es ow ed th e ir train in g to th e discussions of S ocrates. D ion
of S y ra cu se w as inspired b y P la to , T im oth eu s, C on on ’s distinguished
son, b y Iso crates. (O ther sim ilar exam ples). T h erefo re (140) it is
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 31:3
clear th a t doctrina is n ecessary for those w h o desire to becom e great

statesm en. T hose w h o h a v e acq u ired learn in g and a t th e sam e tim e
possess th e ta le n t en ab lin g th em to express it in w ords are lik e ly to
becom e th e grea te st orators and statesm en.
bl A , i - ..,t,c to o u n derstood this. A cco rd in g ly , w hen he observed
th a t th e school of Iso crates w as a success b ecause Iso crates abandoned
ega su b jects and “ d ev o te d h is discourses to em p ty elegance of s ty le ”
,Uf ^ n0t fUm i hiS d u ty aS ed u cator p ro sp ective statesm en

- he su d d en ly a ltered alm ost th e w h ole o f his ow n system of train ing
(He h a d p re v io sn ly im p arted learn in g o n ly, nOW he w a n te d to im part
b oth learn ing and eloquence.) H e ad ded rh etoric to his oth er su b jects
m g th e scien tific stu d y w ith p ra ctic e in o ra to ry (sapientiam cum
eloquentia miscere m stituit, sa y s L eon ard o, p. 175)
e) This did n ot escape P h ilip , w ho sum m oned A risto tle to be the
tu to r of his son A lex a n d e r, as being a b le to teach him n ot o n ly how
to a ct b u t also h o w to speak.
T h e sentence quod - transtulisset fa lls o u t of th e co n tex t. T h e mss
read quod tfise, b y som e ed ito rs silen tly ch an ged to ille, b y oth ers to
ts w hereas W ilk in s (righ tly, I believe) rem oved th is gloss. S till. I th in k
there is som ething w ron g w ith th is clause, perhaps because C icero ha.s
tam pered w ith th e te x t, w hen tran scrib in g his source. I t w ou ld h a v e
been log ical to s a y a) th a t A . im ita te d I. becau se h e fou n d I . ’s m ethods
sound, or 1.) A . criticized I. an d tried to im p rove his m eth od I t is
v e ry unlike Cicero to c riticize Isocrates.
I f h ow ever w e assu m e th a t th is passage as a w hole w a s inspired b y
erm ippus b io grap h y o f A risto tle , th is w ill exp lain th e a m b ig u ity
H erm ippus m a y h a v e q u oted th e w ell-kn ow n h isto rical exam ples
“ ,'a j:, Cr m a y t}; erl h a v e proceeded to s a y th a t Iso cra tes tried to u p
hold th is fin e tra d itio n b u t th a t his tra in in g degen erated in to “ em p ty
elegance of s ty le ” . A risto tle saw th is an d decid ed to enter into competi^
m e th o d atCS' ^ WaS th e reaS° n Why h e su d d en ly changed his
T h is is also e x a c tly w h a t C icero sa ys in T 32 b. W h a t h e sa y s in T ^ c

a out OtoeiQ an d r 6noi tallies w ell w ith D L V 3, I n oth er passages
1 . 5 I ’ 17 2 ' I9 ’62; D e 1 I *4 * h e sP eaks of th e w ell-know n r iv a lry
betw een A risto tle and Iso crates = D ion . H al. D e Isocr. c. x8, jr. 140 R ose.
does n o t seem to m e to o ven tu resom e to assum e th a t th e u ltim ate
source o f a ll th is m a terial w a s H erm ip p u s’ V ita A ristotelis.
314 IN G E M A S D Ü R IN G
A r is to tle ’s d ictu m is coined on O d ysseu s’ w ord s in E u rip id es’ P h ilo cte-

tes cY jtig ye fisvroi TiavTog 'EXXrjvtov axgaroi i, nlaygov auonav, fiap-
ftagovg <53 env Xeyeiv, q u oted also b y C icero, ad A tt. V I 8 and P lu t.
A dv. Coloten 1108 B. D iogenes — or, w h ich seems m ore lik e ly , his
im m ed iate source — tran sferred it to th e alleged r iv a lr y b etw een
X en o cra tes an d A risto tle . A cco rd in g to D L A risto tle an d X en o cra tes
w ere riv a ls b efore th eir d ep artu re to A ta ra e u s, w hich is absurd.
I f th e assum ption m ade here, w h ich agrees w ith w h a t M u lv a n y and
P le zia p rev io u sly concluded, is accep ted , A risto tle m u st h a ve “ sudden ly
chan ged his m eth od of tra in in g ” som e tim e b etw een 360 and 355'
33 S Y R I A N U S Scholia in Hermogenem I V 297 W a lz = I I 59 .21

R ab e: "Odev xal ’ AgiaroTdXrjg ev xalg deiXivatg 71egiodoig ru>v erai-
qcov qrjTonixa noofiXrumTa {ieXet&v amove, nageox£va£e <5vo xeyyag
tpaoxcov elvai r ov iteideiv ev Xoyoig, grjTogixrjv x a i diaXexxixrjV, rf}V
fikv ev td) Xdyeiv darozddrp, xrjv d ‘ ev r & fttaXeyeaQar x a l ovve%o.)g
inefida rolQ tcatgoiq xivd>v avxovg ngog tt) v xov Xeysiv jiE.XcxYjV
alaygov atconav, 5Iooxgdxrjv <5’ e.av Xeyeiv.
o i 1tev ot)v tmv detXivcbv axgowjuevoi ow odw v, at Jigog rovg noXixixovg

eyv/iva£ov <Xoyovg) , Eûtxegixol sxaXovvxo, oi 8e x&v eaidtvuiv negi
(piXoootpiag Xoywv axgoajuaxixoi.
ziegiodou; P le z ia : TigoodoiQ c o d d . n goaod ois W a lz , R a b e || ( A o y o u ;) W a lz |]
Comment. T h e old sto ry in a new disguise. T h a t th e disciples w ere

called ex o teric is S y ria n ’s special tap; th e idea w as n ot ad o p ted b y any
of his successors.
VI. ARISTO TLE AND PLATO
34. H is friendship with Plato.
W e possess tw o p o sitive expressions of A risto tle ’s feelings tow ards

Plato: (a) H is n oble and alm ost sh y confession E N 1096 a 12 — 17,
p ro b ab ly w ritten in th is form som e tw e n ty y ea rs a fter P la to ’s death,
(b) T h e frag m en t of his elegy, addressed to E u d em u s of R hodes and
p ro b ab ly w ritten w hen in 334 A risto tle retu rned to A then s. T h e elegy
is quoted b y O ly m p io d o n is in a passage in w hich his aim is to prove
th a t th ere n eve r w as a n y differen ce of opinion betw een P la to and
A ristotle. On th e elegy, see A . J. F estu gière, L a révélation d'Hermes
Trismégiste II, 1948, pp. 2 1 9 — 20, w ith references to previou s literature,
esp. W . Jaeger, C l. Quart. 2 1, 1937, pp. 13 — 17.
In E N 116 4 b 2 — 6 A risto tle has som e v e r y fine w ords to s a y abou t
th e friendship b etw een disciple and m aster in P la to ’s school. T he
eulogy of E u d o x u s, E N 1 17 2 b 1 5 - 1 6 , is in itself rem arkable and also
im portant for th e lig h t it sheds on A risto tle ’s ch aracter.
34 a Eth. N ie. I X 1, 116 4 a 33— b 6: Toiavrrj yog xar’ âgs-
t i)v <pdia . rrjv a / io t^ v re noirjréov xa rà rrp> nqoaÎQeaiv avrr) yaq rov
(piXov xat rrjç a o F T ijg . ovrco i e o ix e xa i r o lç (pdooo<p£aç xoivcovfjaaaiv
m ' y °e X Q m aO ' n à Ç i a /u e t q e ï t c l i , rifirj r ÎoÔQçonoç ovx âv yévotro,
â U ’ ïocoç ixavov, xaQwieg ngàç Oe o v ç x a l tiqoç yoveïç, rà ivôexôfievov.
34 b Eth. N ie. X 2, 1 17 2 b 15 — 18: "Em arevovro ô’ o i Xoyoi ôià
trjv rov fjOovç àgErfjv p n U o v fj S i' avrovç- Ôioçibqovtwç yàg êôàxei
oojcpQcov elv a r ov ô r) wç ipiAoç rrjç fjôovrjç iô ôxet r a in a Xéysiv d l l '
ovrmç ë%£iv x a r âXrjdEiav.
34 c O L Y M P IO D O R U S 7 « P latonis Gorgiam 41,3, pp. 19 2 — ig 7 N o r v in :

IJgàç Sè ro v ro iç xai n e ç l ' A Q ia to rêlov ç Àéyovatv 3 n xal avtàç
ôi£<pwvt]ae Ttoàç IlX ârm va, Sdev tftovb fîr,, <3ç cprjatv ' A n i a r ^ ç , xal
EniTEixtoai rà A vxeiov xal ëreça ôoy/j,ara eioayayeïv- rafirâ èa n rà
àjioQovfieva' ÈTTtXvadifieôa <5’ êxaarov aùrwv.
o l a n te Jiegi \ A g ia z o x llo v ; non r e c te in s e ru it N o r v in || im T E iXla a i c l A e l.

A t is t . I I 325 i n n d x t o f i a . In V i t a M a te . g e t 25 àvrwxoôo/irjoEv ||
3 i6 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
(19 6 .3 0 ) IJegl 6e ’ AgtaxoxdXovg Xexxeov oxi 7ig<Z>xov fiev ovSev

5’ el xa i
dta<pan>el ngdg IlXdxw va, aXXa xa zd to yaivofiEvav Sevxeqov <
daiptDvei, naXiv dxpeXrjBeig ex IJXdxmvog' (prjol yag ev ’ AXxifiiadr) ( 1 1 4 E )
OTt, E l f if j aii aavrofi Xeyovxog axovarjg, aXXw Xeyovxi fir\bEHOXE m a x E v -
OTjQ- x a l naXiv £v xq> &aidcovi (prjotv dxi, Eojxqaxovq fiev oXlyov v/ilv
fiEXdxco, xrjg (5’ aXrjdeLat1 710X& uioxe avxog o IJXaxtnv xeXevei fir] n e lBe-
oBat avxtii ajtXd>g x a l d)g ixvyzv d/.Xd £qxeiv . dftdXet tprjalv o (piXaaoipog
’ Afifiaiviog o n , E l x a l xax& g inotrjaa, aXX' ovv noxs Xdycov x i xivi
x a l cpdaxatv 6 x 1 ITXaxcov eiprj' (e i yag 6 TlXatw e ) eIjiev ox 1, O vx e<pt)
fiev ovxcog, ofioiQ IXrjxoL fiat o IlXaxcav eI x a l eIjiev ovxcoq- O v nsiBofiai,
bI fir] fiEx' djiofieiÊCtiQ.
"O xi Se x a l ' AgiaxoxeXrjQ aejiei avxov dig 8tMaxaXov, dfjXog daxi
ygaxpag oXov Xoyov iy x w fiia a x tx o v ixxiB exai yag xov fitov avxov xal
vJtEgeTtatvel■ov fiovov S' syxcbfiiov noirjaag avxoH enaivEi avxov, aXXa
xa l ev xolg eXEyeioig xolg jt.qoq Evdrjftov avxov inaiv& v IlX axcjva iyxco-
fiidêi ygaqxov ovxcog-
iXBcbv (5’ ig xXetvov KExgonir/g danetiov

evOEfidwg af.ftvrjg 0 iXtrjg Idgvaaxo (lio/iov
di^goc ov 013<5’ alvEiv x o la i x a x o la i Bdfiig’
8g fiovog r\ ngu>xog 8vr]xd>v xaxddziiev ivagydig
oIxelco te /9/oj x a l fieBoSoiai Xdycov,
d»g dyaOog xe x a l Evdalficov dfia yiyvsrai dvrjg-
ov vvv S' ia x i Xafisiv ovdevl xaifra noxs.
Aeycov r l xivt x a t tpamtcov D u r in g : le y o v r l TIVI x a l tp a a x o m co d d . | (fi! yag

o ID .' ttojv ) D u r in g ][ 1 7 c f a p p . c r it . a p . E . D ie h l, A n lh . lyr. g r. |]
Comment. T h e f a c t u a l m a t e r i a l u s e d h y O ly m p io d o r u s in t h is p a s s a g e
m u s t b e d e r iv e d fro m P t o l e m y 's V i t a A r is to te lis . I h a v e fo u n d no
e v i d e n c e t h a t O ly m p io d o r u s u s e d a n y o t h e r s o u r c e f o r h i s b io g r a p h ic a l
n o te s o n A r is to tle . T h e s t o r y a b o u t t h e a lle g e d b r e a k w i t h P l a t o is
f o u n d i n V i t a M a r c . 2 5 , t h e a r g u m e n t xa xa to yaivofievav in 2 6 , in c lu d in g
s o m e o f t h e q u o t a t i o n s f r o m P l a t o ’s d ia lo g u e s . B u t t h e “ e n c o m iu m in
p r a is e o f P l a t o ” , i n c lu d in g a L i f e o f P l a t o , is n o t m e n t io n e d b y a n y
o t h e r w r it e r . I t is t h e r e f o r e im p o s s ib le t o s a y w h e t h e r t h is , t o o , c o m e s
fro m P to le m y , o r w a s in v e n te d by O ly m p io d o r u s . V a r i o u s syxcbfiia
a ie m e n t io n e d am ong th e p s e u d e p ig r a p h a in H e s y c h iu s ' c a t a lo g u e ;
P to le m y m ig h t h a v e b u i l t h is s t o r y on su ch title s . H is b io g r a p h y
ap p aren tly contain ed m uch fictitio u s stu ff: th e adoption of N icanor,

th e fanciful description of A risto tle ’s y o u th , th e s to ry th a t he joined
P la to ’s school becau se of a reve la tio n in th e O racle in D elph i, etc. I t
is also possible th a t he tran sferred C allisth enes’ encom ium in praise of
H erm ias (T 15 e) to A risto tle — P la to .
O lym piodorus conn ects th e sto ry a b o u t th e encom ium w ith th e elegy.
F ragm ents of th e elegy are fou n d in V ita M arc. 26, connected w ith
th e sto ry a b ou t th e 8ia<pwvia. N o oth er an cien t w riter h as preserved
any fragm en t of th e elegy; Im m isch (P h ilo l. 65, 1910, p. 11) assum ed
th a t A ristocles qu oted th e elegy a fter th e w ords tfyao Icrcrjae ITXdruivi,
T 58 j; this is “ in cred ib le” , sa y s J aco b y , F Gr H ist I I I B 2, p. 482;
in any case w e can n o t p ro v e it. T h e evidence, as w e h a ve it before us,
justifies th e inference th a t O lym piod oru s to o k his m aterial from P to lem y ;
the Siatptovia, th e argu m en t Kara to (paivo/ievov, th e inform ation a b o u t
th e encom ium , th e frag m en t he quotes of th e elegy.
A fte r all th a t has been w ritten on th e eleg y , its in terp retation is
quite clear, b u t for one point: w ho is th e su b ject of eWcovl A ccord in g
to Jaeger, he is an u n kn ow n disciple of P la to : “ clearly he w as n ot an
A th en ian , b u t cam e from elsew here” . I fail to un derstan d w h y it can not
b e A risto tle him self, w h o a fter his lon g exile in A sia M inor and M ace
donia return ed to “ K e k ro p ia ’s fam ous soil” . T h e argu m en t adduced
against th is is th a t A risto tle cou ld n ot speak a b o u t h im self in th e th ird
person, a h a b it n ot fou n d u n til in H ellen istic p o e try . B u t w e h a v e v e r y
little m aterial on w h ich to base such a conclusion; I can n o t see th a t
this fo rm alistic arg u m en t ou tw eigh s th e reasons w h ich so stro n gly
speak for A risto tle as th e m an w h o "p io u sly founded an a ltar of au gu st
P h ilia ” in honour of P la to . T h e proper tim e fo r him to do th is w as
w hen in 334 he retu rn ed to A th en s.
I t is com m on ly agreed th a t th e fam ous lin e “ w ho sole or first am ong

m ortals revealed it clear to sigh t, th a t m an becom es h a p p y if he becom es
go od ” (Jaeger) con tain s a v e r y fine form u latio n o f th e fu n dam en tal
principle on w h ich P la to b u ilt his eth ical philosophy. P la to h im self
uses sim ilar w ords, referrin g to an old D orian poem , Law s II, 660 E
(I)£ 6 fiiv ayadog avrjg acixpgwv G>v nal dixatog evSalficov earl xai fiaxagiog.
B oth in his p riv a te life and in his discourses P la to liv ed up to th is
exalted ideal, b u t “ in these presen t d ays, am ong us of th e n e x t gen era
tion, none can ever a tta in to th is” (Jaeger). F ra n k ly confessing his
a d m iration for P la to ’s h igh ideal, A risto tle can n o t agree: even a w ise
and p e rfe ctly good m an needs a m inim um of ra dxrög ntyada. We
fin d th e sam e com bin ation of deepest ven eration for h is old friend and
teach er and scrupulous respect fo r th e tru th in his w ell-kn ow n w ords
i n i awrrjgiq rrjg äXydeiag, E th. N ie . I 6, 1096 a 1 4 - 1 6 .
3 5 - I n philosophy Aristotle and Plato disagreed while Plato still was

alive, (diatpoga ’ AgtaroreXovg ngi 5? IlXartova, c f . D I, V 2 ajidart]
TlXdrmvog Er 1 negiovrog.)
35 a A R I S T O X E N U S ap. A risto clen ap. E u seb . P E X V 2 = T 58 d.
35 b P H II^ O C H O R U S F Gr H ist 328 F 223 = V ita M arc 8 — 12

cf T 1 f.
35 c A E L I U S A R I S T I D E S Or. 46. I I 324 D iu d o rf = T 6 1 a.
35 d A R I S T O C L E S ap. E u seb . P E X V 2 Sri rjxaglarrioE IJXarcavi =

Ts8j.
35 e O R I G E N E S Contra Celsum I I 397, M igne i i , p. 817 A B : ’E n el

<5e <pdooo<piav ngoßdXXerai 6 KeXaog, nvBoifieQ' dv avrov, e l n äga
IlXazojvog fjv x a r y o g ta to fie r eixoatv err] zt}q nag' avz q> dxgodaeeog
ajiotpaiTrjoavra. rov ’AgiarordXrj xarrjyogrjxdvat pev rov negi rrjg ddava-
aiag rrjg yw/ijg Xoyov, IJXdzcavog de reger iapara (An. post. I 22, 83 a 33)
Taj ideag divofiaxdvav,
" E r i 6e ngoaajiogovvreg xa i roia v ra Xdyoifiev ä v äga TlXdrmv ovxdn
byvarag rtv ev biaXexrixfj, ovd’ ixavog nagaarfjaai ra vevorjfidva, in e l
ajie<poirT)0£v avrov ' AgtaroreXrjg, xa i nagd rov ro tpevSrj ra IlXdrcovog
i a r i ödyfiara: y U v a r a i xai äXrjQovg Svrog IlXdrw vog, ojg äv Xeyotev o i
x a r’ avrov (pdoaotpovvreg, ’ A gtaroreXVg novqgdg xai dXdgiarog ngdg
t dv did&oxcOlqv yeyovevat;
AXXa xa i o Xgvatnnog noX layov rwv ovyygafj./ndzmv avzofl tpaiverai
xaQanroftevog KXedvdovg, xaivaro/iwv nagä rä dxeivm öedoyfieva,
yevofidvm a v ro t didaoxdXcp i n veov xa i Agyag i Xovrog ydooocplag. x a i
rotye 5AgtarozeXrjg pev eixoatv irea t Xeyezat netpotrrjxevai W .drm vv
ovx oXiyov 8d ygdvov x a i 6 X g ia m n o g nagä r& KXedvBet nenoir,aBat
rag öiargtßdg. (p. 956 b) ’ AXXä xa i IlXdraivog iyxaXdaat dv rig rolg
boy/xaai b 1 ‘ AgtorordXriv, djioqôinjaavra rfjg diaTQt^rjg avToi tv «at-

vorojiLat;, negl ov x a i iv roig dvcordgu) eigrixafiev.
Comment: W e observe th a t th e argu m en t axagiarog jtgog rov bibd-
axaXov yeyovdvat is fou n d in th ree q u ite d ifferen t sources: A risto d es,
Origen and A elia n = T 37 a. In A elia n it is conn ected w ith th e sto ry
“ he kicks m e” , fou n d also in D L V 2 from H erm ippus. I t is possible
th a t th e w hole a rgu m en t of d%a(>Lazia is d erived from H erm ippus.
T h e gossip a b o u t A ris to tle ’s u n frien d ly and u n becom in g b eh a vio u r as a
disciple of P la to w as read ily b elieved ; from th e m anifest disagreem ent
in opinions it w as inferred th a t there m u st h a v e been a certain personal
tension b etw een th e tw o philosophers.
36 A E Iy lA N U S Var. hist. I l l 19: A d y eza i zrjv biacpogav ' A g ia r o -

rdXovg ngog TD.dzaiva z:t)v ngdjrrjv £x rovrcov yevdadai. ovx fjgeaxezo
Z(b filqj avrov a IJXaTMV ovbs rfj xazaoxEvfj zfj ne.gi t o aajfia. xa l
yag iaOrjTi d’/QYjra nsQidgya) o ’ AgiazoTeXrjQ xa i vnobdoE i, xa l xovgav
be exeiQETO x a i ravrtjv atjdt] IlXdzcovi, xa i S axrvX iovg bd jloXXovg
qpogr'iv e x o XXv v eto in i zo vzoj- xa i fioixia bd Tig »Jr avroU negi to
ngoaamov, xa i axaigog orwfivXia XaXovvrog xarqyogei x a i avrrj tov

rgonov avzofi. navra be zaifra (be eaziv aXXorgia q>iXoaoq>ov, dfjXov.
dneg ovv oqwv o IJXdzmv ov ngoaiEZo rov avbga, ngoErifia be avzofl
Sevoxgazrjv xa i E nevotnn ov x a i ’ A/ivxXav x a i aXXovq, rfj t e Xotnfj
be£tovfievog avrovg TLjj.fi xa i ovv x a i zfj xoivaiviq zcov Xaymv.
' Anobrjfiiag be yevofidvrjQ nord tm S svo xg a rei eg zrjv nargiba, dneBero
rq> ITXdzojvt o ’ AgiarordXtjg, x ° qov n v a rmv 6fiiXr]ra>v ra>v davroti
7iegtaTr]odfXEvoQ, <hv fjv Mvdatnv t e o @a)xevg xa i aXXoi toio C to l. dvoaei
be t o t e 6 E neva m nog , x a i bid zafiza abvvazog tfv av/j,âbiCeiv r<b
nXarcovi. 0 be IlX drw v oyborfxovra err] eyeyovei, x a i o fio t t l bid zrjv
riXixiav F.jiF.XeXoijcEi za rrjg fivrjfir]g avrov. dniOd/tevog ovv avzcb x a i
dmôvXevmv 6 ’ AgiorordXrjg, x a i qpiXozlficog n dvv Tag dgcurijoEig noiov-
fitvog xa i rgonov n v a x a l eXeyxrixutg, abixutv a/ia x a l ayvco/xovcbv
rfv bfjXog- x a i bid r a ih a djioorag o ITXaTcov rov e£a> nsginarov evbov
efiabiCe ovv zoig dxaigoig.
Tgiatv be firjvmv SiayEvofidvmv o Ssvoxgdzrjg d<piXEZO dx rfjg djiobrj-
filag, x a l xaraXafifidvEL rov 'AgtaroreXrj fiabiôvra ov xardXme rov
nXarm va. ogdiv bd avrov fiera rwv yvwgi/iwv ov ngog IlX droiva dva%oj-
govvza i x zov negm d zov, aXXa xafi’ davrov daiiovra £g rijv 71oXiv, ^jgero
Tiva t aiv iv rth jt£oljtqtco onov tiote Eirj o IlX d rcov vTtdmreve ydg
avTÓv fiaÀaxtêaôat. ó ôè àjiE X Q ÍvaTo' ’ E xslv o ç fièv ov v o o e í , kvoylCúv

ôè avtó v ’ A q io t o t é Àtjç nanayuM'qam HEJioír)XE to ü tie q u ió to v , xa i
ávaxwqrjaaç êv t w xrjTiw t w éavTov (ptXoooqpeV 6 <5á S e v o x g á T r j ç àxov-
aaç naqa%çfjfia tfxe nqàç nX àrw va xa i xarékafje ôiaXeyò/iEvov to iç
avv èavrúr rfoav ôè fiáXa avyvoi xa i ãÇtoi Xóyov xai oí fiáXiara ôoxoüv-
tê ç r w v véwv è n u p a v E iç . è n e i ô è Ènavaaro t fjç ófiikíaç, fjanáaaró t e
(bç t ó e i x ó ç t ó v S e v o x q Ú TYjV (piXavOgwTiwç x a i av náXtv ó S E V o x Q Ú T rjç
èx e Iv o v áfj.oUüç. òiakvÔeíorjç <5s t í jç aw ovaiaç ovòèv o v t e Euncbv tíq ó q t ó v
IJXárwva ó E e v o x q & i t i q o v t e à x o v a a ç , aw ayaym v t o v ç éraíoovç t w
Xjiet)aLnncü n á w íayvqíõç ÈTtènkriÊ n a q n y w q f ja n v T i to v n equiárov
' A q i o t o t 6 X e i , a in ó ç t e è t i e B e t o t w Z r a y E iq ir r j x a rá t ó xaqTsqòv, xa i
èç roaoUrov ngofjXÔE quXoTijuíaç, wç ÈÇEXáaai avróv x a i ánoôovvai rà
o v v tjQ e ç %a>qiov t & n X á ia tv i.
Comment. See m y note on T I f. In T 35 e th e w ord à%áqiaToi; is
an echo of T 35 d. T h e sto ry in A elia n is a good exam ple of H ellen istic
rom ance, sty lis tic a lly w ell b u ilt u p from th e in tro d u cto ry r f jv n q w ttjv
to th e fine c lim a x in th e la s t sentence. W e m a y ob serve th e rare p article
xai ovv x a i. T h e w ords o v n g o a iE T O tòv ãvôqa b e tr a y th e ten d en cy:
th is is e x a c tly th e op posite of w h a t w e learn from P to lem y-el-G arib
in th e V it a M arc. 6 — 7 and M u bashir 1 0 — 1 1 .
37 a A E L I A N U S Var. hist. I V 9: 'O IJXáTwv tov ’ Agiororekt]

exaXei IIwXov. t L ô è ÈjlovX.ETO av t w tó õvojia è x e iv o ', ôrjXovóTi WfioXó-
y r jT a t t ó v nwXov, Õ T a v xoqEoOf) tov /u t j t q w o v yáXax t o ç , XaxTÍÇeiv rr/v
firjTÉga. f}vít t e t o o m xa i ó IlXárcov ày^nqtxrr.lav r ivà r o í ’ A q i o t o t é Xo v ç .
x a i yàq è x e ív o ç /néyiara è ç çpiXoaofpLav n a q à IJkáTwvoç Xafiwv anéq/j,ara

x a i È<póôia, e It o vnonkrjoQíiç. rdtv à g ía T w v x a i àiprjviáaaç, àvTMXoÔáurj-
oev avrw ô ia T q tfír jv x a i ãvrinaQE$riyayEv, èv rd> neqtná t w É T a lg o v ç
ê%wv x a i ô / J tk r jT n ç , x a i è y k íx E T O àvTínaXoç e Iv o i IJXáTWVi. — A E L I U S

A R I S T I D E S , Or. 46, p. I I 328 D in d orf, com m en tin g on his sto ry from
A risto x en u s, T 61 a, m akes a passin g reference to th is story.
37 b H E L L A D IU S B E S A N T IN O U S ap. P h o tiu m in Biblioth.

cod. 279, p. 533 b 15 B ekker: ’ AqHTTOTEkqç ó rov IlEqaiáTov nqooTarrjQ
vnó IJkáTwvoç "Ijtn oç ÈnwvofiáÇsTo, èvavrtoüoôai òoxwv tw 0i 0aoxdkw-
x a i y à g ó Innoç tòv éovtov JiaTÉoa ôáxvsi.
38 a D IO N Y S IU S H A U C A R N A S S E N S IS Ep. ad Pom p. c. 1
= T 63 a.
38 b D IO N Y S I U S H A L IC A R N A S S E N S IS De Thucydide 3 , p. I
328.24 U se n er-R a d erm a ch er (D ionysius is an xiou s to stress th a t his
purpose is n ot to w rite a xaraögo/j,rj of T h u cyd id es. H e is not
ficov, b u t since in m an y respects he has opinions w h ich differ from those
o f T h u cyd id es, he feels him self ju stified in p u ttin g forw ard his criticism
in pursuance of tru th . A s a ty p ic a l exam ple of a sim ilar a ttitu d e he
cites A risto tle ’s criticism of P la to .) ’ AgiaTOTÉXrjç te y à g o vy ã n a v r a
xm n to x g à rto T o v eigrjaOai n eiQ sT a i t w xadr]yr]Tfj n X ã r o a v f w v èaTi

tà n sg l Tf]ç lò éa ç x a l r à n s g t r â y a d o t x a l r à tieql t fjç n o X n e ía ç .
39. “ W hile Plato was still alive” . Late echoes of this tradition.
39 a A E L I A N U S Var. hist. I V 9 = T 37 a iyXiyexo à v rk ia lo ç eivai.
39 b T H E O D O R E T U S Graec. aff. cur. I V 46, p. 136 Raeder: 'O ÔÈ

'AgiaTOTéXrjç eti £còvrt tcü TT/Atoivi ngotpavãç àvTEXáâTO xa i tòv
xara Trjç ’ A xaôr]píaç àvr.òéÇmo tióXe/iov , x a l ovte trjv òiòaaxaXíav
(.TijirjOEV fjç <piXoTÍ(ia>ç (htrßaiiaev, ovte to èv r o lç Xóyoiç xoiiroç
èôeiaev, àXX àvéòr)v tiooç av tòv nanExà^tno, ovx àjusívoatv exeívov
(Èxe Ívo)v Raeder) áXXà noXlib ys yt.ÍQonL yorjaá/jtevoç òóypaai. x a l yàg
òi] Trjv ipvyrjv èxeÍvov q>ávToç âõávaTov, ovtoç éçr] 6vr)Tijv x a l tov Beòv
eigrjxoToç èxelvov Tigo/iijÔEÍoÚm r ã v návTíúV, om oç T?jv yf\v oaov fjxev
elç Xóyovç rfjç xrjÔEfiovíaç ÈaTÈgrjaE. rà yàg átj Juéygi asXijvrjç IBvveiv
êqirj tòv Beov, r à Òe y£ àXXa vnò ttjv Eiuaguéviqv Tsraydar x a l àXXa
ôè ná/xnoXXa Èveàyjimae.v â XêyEiv ènl tov nagóvToç nagéXxov im£ÍXr]<pa.
39 c A U G U S T IN U S D e civ. dei V I I I 12: Ideo quippe hos potissim um

elegi, quoniam de uno Deo qui fecit caelum et terram, quanto m elius sen-
serunt, tanto ceteris gloriosiores et illustriores habentur, in tantum aliis
praelati iudicio posterorum, ut, cum Aristoteles P latonis discipulus, vir
excellentis ingenii et eloquio P la io n i quidem impar, sed muitos facile
superans, cum sectam Peripateticam condidisset, quod deambulans disputa-
re consueverat, plurimosque discípulos praeclara fama excellens vivo
adhuc praeceptore in suam haeresim congregasset, post mortem vero Platonis
Speusippus, sororis eius filiu s, et Xenocrates, düectus eius discipulus,
in scholam eius quae Academ ia vocabatur, eidem successissent atque ob
hoc et ip si et eorum successores Academ ici appellarentur, recentiores tarnen
philosophi nobilissim i, quibus Plato sectandus placuit, noluerint se d id
Göleb. U n iv . A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 21
Peripateticos aid Acadêm icos, sed Platonicos. Ex quibus sunt valde

nobililati Graeci P lotin u s, Iam blichus, P orphyrius; in utraque autem
lingua, id est et Graeca et Latina, A p u lein s A fer extitit P latonicus nobilts.
39 d P H IL O P O N U S I n Analyt. post 77 a 5, C l A G X I I I 3, p. 133,30:

Kal axónet ojiojç w iagêaxerat r fj n e o i t& v íòewv ôóÇy, w ar b x a l
õjieç ãv Ttç vnovorjor.te tõjv nao am ov elgrj/xévwv rr,v negl rwv iôeãiv
eiaáyetv évvoiav, Tom o noohi(]ò>v avxòç àjioxgoverat. x a l ècpeljfjç òè
TSQETtOflCLTa TO? ÍÔÁíIÇ À~T,l,ClXOmT(ÜV ájlOXaAel. --- (2 4 2 ,14 ) TEQETÍOfiaTa
òè x a lo v v T a i rà 7iQoôtay)t]Xaiprj/j,aTa tw v xiÕaoa)ôwv rà ã vagdga <5o-
x t/ia a ía ç êvexev T íjç ânrjxâEWÇ tw v x ° Q ^ v ytvó/xeva. — ( 2 4 3 ,1 8 )

t-paívccai à ei ã vT ixgvç rã ò ó y / ia n /j.ayó/uF.voç, ov to Iç x a x õ jç avTÒ
v o o v o tv èv y à g t o lç M e r à rà tpvo ixà x a l noXXai)ç x a l jia x g o v ç x a r a -
te Iv e l t o v Ô óy fia zoç iX k y y o v '.

'IoTogeiTat Òè x a l £âh»roç to v flXárcovoç xagregcóraTa negl to v to v
tov ôóyftaToç èvarf/vai a v r ã tòv ’ AgioTOTéArjv.
40. Aristotle opposed P la to, especially in questions concerning the nature

of the intelligible (the theory of ideas) and the nature of the good.
40 a C IC E R O Acadêm ica I 9, 33, p. 14.21 P lasberg: Aristóteles
prim us species quas paulo ante d ixi labefactavit quas m irifice Plato
erat amplexatus, ut in his quiddam divinum esse diceret.
Comment: P ro b a b ly from A n tio ch u s of A scalon. Cicero kn ew A r i
s to tle ’s dialogues an d th e P rolrepticus; he did n ot k n o w th a t A risto tle
h a d defended th e th e o ry o f id eas in his ea rly w ritin gs and la ter changed
his opinion. Cf. D e Or. I l l 18,67.
40 b P L U T A R C H U S Adv. Coloten 14, 1 1 1 5 A : K a l n ç w tóv y e rrjv

êjtifiéXeiav x a l noXv/idQetav tov <p iA o o ó tp o v (sc. Colotes) axE xpw /iE B a,
A éyovroç õr1 t q v t o iç to lç ô ó y fia a i tov H X aTw voç E T itjx o A o v O tjx a o iv
5A g t o T o r é h r j ç xal S e v o x g á x r / ç x a l O f.á q > g a < n o ç x a l n á v T e ç o i I I e q i -
T ia tr jT ix o L . I I oS yàg ãv r r jç â o ix ijr o v tò fiifiXlov &yga<pEç\ ha
rafira o v v t i Qe I ç rà êyx/.rjjiaTa, fir\ z o i ç ê x s í v m v a v v r á y f i a a i v è v T v f f l ç ,
firjô’ â v a X á fir jç e i ç ^ e é g a e ’ A g i a r o r é X o v ç r à I le g l ovgavoü x a l r à TIeqI
yrv%rjç, 0 Eo<pQáaTov ôè rà í l g à ç tovç ç à n o g o v / ié v w v ,

A tx a iá çx o v ô è r à I le g l y>v%fjç, èv o lç n g o ç r à x v g i w T a x a x a l [ lè y i a T a
tw v t p v o ix ô jv v n e v a v T to v fiE v o i rr íj J I/ á t i ú v i x a l /iay_ó/ir.voi ô in r f.X o v o c ,
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E E IO G R A F H IC A I, T R A D IT IO N 323
K a i f tt ]v t o j v (i}./.üjv Ile Q iz m T T jT tx w v n x o g v t p a io r a T o g Z t o o t c o v om
A q i o t o t e X e i x a x a yroXXa o v / iq je g e T a i, x a i IJ X a T c o v i r a ? s v a v r ia g io%T]XE
d o£ a g 1ie q 'l x iv ijo s w g , TiEgi v o v , xai nsgi y)v%r)Q xai tie q 'i ysvE oecug'
tf.X e v to iv < t c > t6 v x o o f io v a v r o v o v £ (b o v r i v a l <pr]ot, t o b i x a r a tpvaiv

EHEoOai t c 5 y.a xa T v y r/ v a g x fjv y ä g e v d id o v a i t o a v x d / ia r o v , e h a ovt o
TcsgaiveaO at t m v (p v a ix u iv jia O d iv s x a o x o v .
Tag yr u fj v tdiag jt e g i cov syxji/x I xto IlXdTojvi n a v T a y o v x iv w v

Agt(JTOTE?.t]Q x a i naoav E7taya>v cuiogiav avraig, i v tchq r jß tx o lq in o -
fivi)fiaoiv , ev T o lg (pvoixoiQ, bid tm v e £( u t Eg ix d iv öiaXoycuv, (piXoveixo-
t Egov sviotg £6 o £ e v t) <pdooo<pd>TEgov <x a r a x e g T o / u e lv ) r w v doyudnaiv
t o v t q iv , ngoQefievog T t)v IJXartüvog vnsQidelv <pdaoo<plav o v to j
fiaxgav f)v t o v axoXovQelv.

P o h le n z <<5e ) W y t t e n b a c h ]|
iv rnlg {M e.rn r a tpvaixa, ip -rot?) y v o ix o ig B ern ays Jaeger W a lz e r R o ss
P o h le n z i v TOl- Q.ayuxolo., iv t o /;> tpvaixolg B ig n o n e W e s tm a n || ( x a r a x e g r o n e lv ),
D ü rin g : r.x e o d d . ix ^ n o te lv £ a u T o » )B ig n o n e e x (x g o u stv rrjv n ia n v ') P o h le n z
vncoi6f.lv : v n eg cm eiv R e is k e vnF.Qet7it.iv P o h le n z |j
Comment. O n th is passage see I. D üring, in: Eranos 35, 1937, pp.

1 2 0 - 1 4 5 ; R . W estm an , “ P lu ta rch gegen K o lo te s ,” in: Acta philos.
F en iiica , fase. V I I , H elsin k i 1955, p. 6g and 278.
T h e discussion of w h ich out passage is p a rt begins ch. 13,8: “ P la to
and Socrates distin gu ished b etw een öoâoTOv an d votjtov. K o lo tes
assailed th is opinion, ad du cing again st it th e opinion of P arm en id es.”
A fter h a v in g show n th a t K o lo te s w as w rong in his in terp reta tio n of
Parm enides, P lu ta rch says: ' H v o m 6 jr.egi tov ovrog dig ev eh] Xoyog
ovx dvatgeatg rw v noXXwv xai alodrjTdbv, äXXn dtjXcDotg a i x & v Trjg
Jigog to vorjrov öiacpogclg, rjv eti /xäXXov ivdsixvv/iEVog IJAdrcDV t fj
n eg i ra eidrj jtg a y /ia T eia xai avxog avrlXrjiptv T<p K oXcutt) n a g e o x e .

I t is th u s P lu ta rch and n ot K o lo te s w h o speaks a b o u t th e “ th eory of
id eas” , b u t it is q u ite clear from th e preced in g discussion th a t K o lo tes
aims a t th is fam ou s doctrine. A n d im m ed iately a fter th e passage
quoted as T 40 b P lu ta rch alleges a v e rb a l q u o ta tio n from K olotes:
AUa di) nXaTM v (prjoi Tovg b u to v g v<p fjpithv [la ra u o g h u in vg slv a i
vofiiCeaßai x a i r o i g avOgdm ovg avBgdinovg. F ro m a form al p o in t of
v ie w W estm an is rig h t w hen he sa y s th a t w e do not k n ow w h eth er
K o lo tes “ diese L eh re expresses verb is gen a n n t h a t ” . B u t w e can n o t
rea lly d ou b t th a t K o lo te s ’ argu m en t applies to th e th e o ry of ideas, and
th a t b y th e w ords TovTotg ro ig do y /ia o t P lu ta rch m ean t this doctrine.
This frag m en t is ge n e ra lly in terp reted as su p p lyin g a piece of ex tern al

evid en ce fo r th e fa c t th a t, a t a certain period of his life; A risto tle a d
hered to and defended P la to ’s tw o-w o rld d octrin e. Serious ob jections
can h o w ever b e ad du ced a gain st such an interp retation .
F irs t of all w e should ob serve th a t K o lo tes refers n o t o n ly to A risto tle
b u t to X e n o cra tes, T h eo p h rastu s and “ all th e P e rip a te tic s” as w ell.
P lu ta r c h is q u ite u pset a t th e ign oran ce b e tra y e d b y K o lo tes. But
it is, as W estm a n says, n o t a t all certain th a t K o lo te s k n e w e x a c tly
w h a t P la to ’s th e o ry of ideas (in its o rth o d o x form ) im plied; he m a y
w ell h a v e th o u g h t of it in m ore gen eral term s, as a th e o ry im p ly in g a
d istin ctio n b etw een S o i a a r o v and v o ijr o v . In a passage in Adv. math
2 1 6 — 2 17 , S ex tu s ascribes such a d istin ctio n (betw een aioOrjTa and
votjra) to th e P erip a tetics, ju s t to q u ote an oth er instan ce. A second
lin e of a rgu m en t w ould b e this: in th e v u lg a r polem ic carried on b y
th e E p icu rean s ev ery th in g seem ed to b e allow ed; it can n o t be ruled
o u t th a t K o lo te s m ade th is absurd charge w ith fu ll k n ow led ge of the
fa cts. W h ic h e v e r line of arg u m en t w e a d op t, i t seem s to m e clear th a t
our frag m en t has little , if i? .y , v a lu e as e x te rn al evid ence for the fa c t
th a t A risto tle ad hered to th e th e o ry of ideas. T h e second a lte rn a tiv e
is in m y opinion m ore probable, T h a t such an absurd ch arge could
b e m ade gives us in d irect evid ence of th e fa c t th a t A risto tle s scholarly
trea tises an d opinions w ere little know n ou tside th e inner circles of th e
P erip atos.
W e a n n o ta te th a t th e frag m en t provides us w ith one of our earliest
exam ples of th e use of th e w ord oi TJEQuidxyjtixoi.
F a r m ore in terestin g is th e reto rt th a t P lu ta rch flings b a c k on K olotes.
F ir s t som e w ord s on th e t e x t of th e la s t p a rag ra p h , w h ich is fu rth er
discussed in m y n ote on T 40 1. B ignone, L ’ Aristotele perduto I I 107,
n. I , ju s tly criticized th e co n jectu re proposed b y B e rn a y s an d ad opted
b y b o th W a lzer and R oss. If th e M etaphysics h a d been m entioned, it
w ou ld h a v e com e a fter th e P hysics. W e k n ow from T 25 a th a t P lu tarch
k n e w th e title of th is w ork, b u t his w ord s in d icate th a t he did not
un derstan d it; it seem s to m e v e r y u n lik ely th a t he had read it. B ig n on e’s
c o n je ctu re is in itself good, b u t i t rests on th e assum ption th a t P lu tarch
used th e sam e source as P roclu s in T 40 1; b y a ccep tin g it we run th e
risk of a d ju stin g th e evid ence to su it our in terp retation ; th e w ell-know n
viciou s circle. I t is w ell a tte ste d th a t P lu ta rch kn ew th e eth ical and
p h y sic a l treatises and th a t he w as v e ry fam iliar w ith th e dialogues. If
w e lea v e th e te x t as it stands, P lu ta rch could w ell h a ve adduced these

exam ples from his ow n reading. F o r th e m issing in fin itive I have
suggested x a ra x sQ T O fitlv , b u t a n y ve rb w ith a sim ilar m eaning would
do; P s.-P hilo, D e aetern. m undi = fr. 18 D e Philasophia says e h y e
xa ra xeQ T ofi& v . IV estm an, w ho h as inspected th e m anu scrip t, says:
“ D ie B u ch stab en ex sind gan z d eutlich m it einem gew issen Zögern
geschrieben, also gab es hier schon in der V o rla ge vo n cod. E eine
K o rru p te l” .
P lu tarch first refers to seven d ifferen t books w hich he o b vio u sly knew
first-han d , for he has quoted them in oth er w orks too. I t is, then, n atu ral
to assum e th a t th e la s t p arag rap h also reflects his ow n reading. H e knew
th a t th e dialogues w ere called ‘ e x o teric ’ ; th is becam e h a b itu al a fter
A n tioch u s of A scalon, see T 76 b. T h e w ords (pi7.oveix 6 Tt.oov rj <piXoooqja>-
teqov seem to in d icate th a t he is th in k in g of e x a c tly th e sam e passage
as th a t quoted b y P roclu s, T 40 1. J a e g e r ’s opinion th a t it is a passage
from D e Philosophia is v e r y a ttra c tiv e ; it is h a rd ly possible to find
another w ork in w h ich it w ou ld fit so w ell. I f w e assum e th a t A risto tle
introd uced h im self as a sp eaker, he m igh t h a v e u ttered these w ords in
th e second b ook, in th e discussion of th e th e o ry of ideas. I t is tem ptin g
to go a step fu rth er and assum e th a t this som ew h at irrita ted form ulation
represents th e cu lm in ation po in t in his criticism of P la to ’s tw o-w orld
doctrine. In la te r w orks his to n e is m ore con ciliatory; as for him , th e
m atter is d efin itely settled .
L ik e Jaeger, A ristotle p. 128, I do n ot th in k th a t w e should press th e
plural diakoyw v. I t m igh t w ell be an exam p le of th e plu ral in ex em p lify
ing enum erations. T h e use of d id in q u otin g or referring to books
seems to b e H ellen istic usage; it is n o t com m on, b u t I h a v e found five
instan ces in A th en aeu s (V I 2 7 1 c, X 438 b, X I I 528 c, X I I I 606 f,
X V 687 a), and D id ym u s ap. M acr. S at. V 18, 10.
I regard this passage and C icero T 40 a as v e r y im p o rta n t pieces of
extern al evidence. B o th C icero and P lu ta rch kn ew m ore a b ou t A risto tle ’s
dialogues th a n w e do, and th e y assure us th a t A risto tle h a d consisten tly
opposed P la to ’s th e o ry of ideas.
40 cde. A T T I C U S ap. E useb. Praep. ev. X V .

The general te n d en cy is th a t A risto tle fia X ta ra evavTiov/xsvo;
(pavelTai. P la to and A risto tle had fu n d a m en ta lly differen t opinions ou
the goal o f p h ilosoph y (798 a) and th e n a tu re of happiness (798 b).
a) 794 d, p. 4 B a u d ry: ’ E x e ï v o ô ’ o lp a i ngà ôi'jiov, oxt xo v a x o n o fi

x a i xrjg evdai/xoviag o v x lautv ovtcuv ovô è xojv a v x & v x a x à 11 /Sir cuva
x a i x a r ' ’ A çia x o x é À rjv , aAAot roH [isv fiocovTog éx à a x o x E x a i x y g v x x o v x o ç
o x t e v ô a ifio v é a ta x o ç 6 ô ix a to x a x o ç , r o v ôè fir) èn tx g én o v x o ç ênEoOai xfj

a gexfj TTjv Evôai/Âoviav, àv fxi't x a i yévoç Evxir/jjar) x a i xdAAog, àAAà x a i
Xgvaov,
ôç xai y o n n n v Hy/nv n â ?.E /iâ v â ' ïe v , t/v x e xo v g r],
àvdyxrj xa xà xrjv ôiacpogàv xov xéAovg xa i x?)v ên i xovxo ayovaav

cpi).oaocpLav ôtâtpogov slvai.
/S) P la to c o n s ta n tly stro v e to im p la n t in th e y o u n g m en a desire

for th e divine. A ttic u s exclaim s: Y o u w h o are a P e rip a te tic philosopher,
795 d, p.5 B a u d ry: Tig ovv rj n aoà aoû noog xaüxa xolg véoig
fio/jOeia; x a i nodev xig o rfjg ùqexijç avvaywviaxijç Aoyog; êx noicov
ygapfiàxœ v ’ AoiaxoréAovg] xivog xcôv a n ' avxoti', ex noicov ùygatpojv;
dtÔœ/ii aoi xâv ipevôeodai BéAqç, jxàvov xt veavixov. àAAà yàg ovr'
ty e iç em elv, ovx' âv èmxgètpai aoi xcuv tjyEfiâvcov xfjg aigéaeœg ovôeig.
a i yovv ’ A oioxoxéAovç negi xavxa Tinay/iaxetai, E vô tffisio i xe xa i
Nixofid%Etoi xa i MsyâAcov ’ HBixcov èmygacpofiEvai, [iiy.gov xi xa i xa n ei-
vov x a i ÔTjfiàiÔEQ TtEgi xfjg agExijg ynovovai, xa i xoaoüxov ôaov âv xig
x a i lôiœXTjç xa i êuiaiÔEVXog xa i fiEigdxtov xa i ywt}.
magà a o l E l 11 x a i o m , E O F || i x nolcuv fié B || ’ AgiaTOTéXqs E l || n a g ' av-
to û Z iiji a v ro ü CFG ôIôcd/u yàg B D E I O : tpsvaaoOai C F G ]| x o n v r t vea-
ria xo v F ||
Comment: V e r y sim ilar, John S alisb u ry, M etalogicus I V 27, p. 932 a.
y) T h e fu n d am en tal opposition in doctrin e did not exclu d e th a t th e y

w ere friends.
798 a, p. g B au d ry: Ovxcag ovx ëaxi ITAdxcovt xa i 1AgiaxoxÉAst
cptAia nEgi xov xogvtpaioxaxov xa i xvoicoxaxov rr]g Evôatfioviaç Soy/naxog.
ôta/UTEgèç yàg , et [irj x a xà cpgovéovaiv àAAr/Aotg, t a ye imevavxLa negi
tœ v eiç xovxo âta<pegovxcov cpaivovxai Aêyovxeg.
ovx ëxi D II e î fifj x a i x a x à F G I O ||
H e w ho denies th e im m o rta lity of the soul destroys, en tirely and

u tte rly , P la to ’s philosophy.
A R IS T O T L E IN TH E U IO G R A P H IC A L TR A D ITIO N ' 327
_8 ° 9. C ’ p 26 B a u d ry: H á vT fn v o vi> rn tf m á ro iv o ç ò o y f iá x o v Òt e v -
vw q e ir jg r r jf ié v o jv xai è x x g e .f i a f i é v m v r f jç xa rà r i,v xpvX t )v O e w r r jr ó ç te
x a t a d a v a a ia ç , ó /ir , a v y X c o g ã v rovro r r jv n á a a v à va rosn ei < p d o o o < p ía v
m aTCüvoç. t iç O fo eanv 6 T iQ Õ n o - è y x E t g r ja a ; á v T ir á Ç a a O a i à c m S e iíe a i
T à <p eÀ éa 6 a i T f ,; à O a v a a ía ç x a i r y ç á U V ; á n á a ^ ô v v á a e ^
TIÇ ò êregaç ngo 'A qiototéXov- ----------(8oq d) O i y à g yruxfK ratirá

ç fia t r a xivrjftara o r rj; <piaeoK , ÕK tpam,
Comment Suda s. ' AgicfroreXVç (3931), probably from the same
source.^ n ÂgtaroTEÀTj; r rjz yvoeoK y n a u /ia r evç fjV; Tov xáXauov
ojio P qeXuv e i ; vovv ov ovòev lato ; èXgf,v rcôv xgrjaíftcov, ei x a i teyvi-
ZWTEQOV EOTI x a t TifQiTTÓTeçov è^ igy aafiév o v , nagaiTElaQat. Zeno ap.
S tob . F lor. 36,23 èàv fii) T ip yXõjTTav elç vovv f b io flg ^ a ; M yn -=
à A 7l ir 3°-*- A lso without pejorative sense, Plut. Vita Phoc
5 - A late echo, Isidorus Orig. 2,27,1.Joannes Valensis (see p 164)
ascnbes this dictum to Porphyry.
e) Aristotle beheved th a t the Mind was divine and imperishable,

but he never clearly defined his opinion in this respect.
J ! 10 P „ 28 B au d ry: T i; !*** ™ v T,'lv °vaíav xa i rr)v <pvaiv 6

votç^ôQev tov xat nódev êTietoxgcvófievo; r o lç àvQgtóxotç xa i n o t n á h v
anallaTTOfiEvo:- am òç âv eióeírj (sc. d ’ A g ta r o r é k ^ ), eí yé n
a v r ^ v w v U y e t negi tov vov, x a i a i} rò ãnogov r o t n a á y ^ r o ; rã,
aoacpel Tov Zoyov ttfomttêXfatinr èH ararat ròv ê le y Xov, tooneg a í oW íat
õvadrjQev tov ex tov oxoteivov TtogtÇófievoç. n áv rto ; ôè x a i êv r ovrotç
òia<pEQErai JlX árow i.
0 W orst of all, A ristotle denied the existence of Ideas, such as

n a t o conceived them.
815 a ’„ P ' 31 Baudrj-: To Óè x ry á lm o v x a i rò xvooç rfjç ITXárw-

voç atgEoeco;, 7) negi n bv voVrã>v ô i á r a ^ , r ) r ^ a a r a i x a i noonenn-
M x ia r m x a t n u r r o u » : r á y ê$óv à i 'AotOToréket n e g ^ g i a r a t . <yò yào
óvva/ievoç sw arjoac ô tó n r à MeyâXa x a i Oela x a i n e g a r á r ã v noay-
ftarcov n y w t í q o io v n v ò ; Òvváftetoç eiç êmyvcooiv ô e lrai, rfj ò ’ avrov
M m r, xat r a w v f j ÒQtfivrnr i m orctcov, ijn ç òraftimu ,,.h ròjv èn i yfr
n gay fiarw v x a t rr,v ev ro v ro t; àbjOf.tav iòelv êòvvaro, rf,ç ò' âvrcoç
uyO E iaç rn o x rrv o a i r à jteòÍov ovX o lá te y]v, avrcõ xavóvt x a i xm rij
royv vrtEQ" av rov xgrjoáuEvo;, àjreyvco rtvàç eivai iÒíaç 'púoetç o laç
arcov eyvw, h,oov-, òe x a i re g e rla fta ra x a i (pXvagía; ÈrÓXuvaev
ElTZEtV T Q TOJV Ò V T 0 )V ávüJTClTCt.
T h e w ord s 808 a, p. 24 B a u d ry , ipaivf.zai tpdoveixcuv ’ AgiaxoxiX i);

fit) r d avxa tey siv FFXdxwvi can h a rd ly he regarded as referring to th e
fam ous passage in D e philosophia, T 40 b and 1.
Comment on 40 cde. T h e fragm en ts in J. B a u d r y ’s edition w ith in tro

d u ction an d notes, P aris 19 3 1 (Bude*). T h e period a fte r A n tio ch u s of
A scalon is th e era of syn cretism P la to -A risto tle -S to a. A lb in u s epitom e
is coloured b y A ristotelian ism , th e anon ym ou s co m m en ta ry on th e
Theaetetus, too . W ith T au ru s and A ttic u s , a b o u t 150, th ere is a reaction
a ga in st th is eclecticism . T a u ru s w ro te Ileg c xfjg ra)v doyfidxcov dtafog&Q
m d rcovog x a l ’ Agioxoxeliovi;, and A ttic u s polem ized 7iq6q xovg did
T&v ' A otarn relavg xd m dxcov oq vTtiaxvovfievovg, N ico stra tu s against
A risto tle ’s influence in logic, see K . P ra ech ter, in: Hermes 57, 1922, p.
496. T h e early polem ic is lim ited to differences of opinion; w ith A ttic u s
a personal ton e is introd u ced , an d th e in v ectiv e s becom e h ab itu al.
40 f ps. — G A L E N U S H ist. phil. 3, D iels Doxogr. p. 600.19: ' Aoiaxoxe-

Se IJXazcnvi jtavv n o lv v yoovov awStayeyovih; doyfiaatv ettyoiq
eavxdv nooavEVEfj.'rjxev.
40 g J U S T I N U S M ARTYR Cohortatio ad Graecos c. 5, M igue 6,

p. 249: . . . eiaofieda ydo d m x a l rovxcov ExdregoQ xdvavxla daxegu)
tpayâexai Xeywv. T h e g ist of th e follow in g argu m en t (which is based
on th e De mundo) is th a t A risto tle xdc m d xm v o g 86£<zq dvaigelv M etei.
— (253 B) 'AgtaxoxeXrjg xo$ fiiv eldovc, djg dgx^Q ov&andtq fte/ivr]xai
T h en follow s th e u sual arg u m en t a b o u t th e im m o rta lity of th e soul
w hich show s th a t J u stin kn ew th e d efin ition D e an. I I 1, 412 a 27.
40 h D I O G E N E S L A E R T IU S I I I 37- ? A q io x o x eX ^ xtjv
rd)v l.dycov ideav avxov (sc. P lato) /x£xa£v nonqfiaxo; elvat xa l ne£ov
Xoyov. I t w ou ld b e in terestin g to kn ow th e c o n te x t in w h ich A risto tle
let fa ll th is rem ark on th e sty le of P la to s dialogues. R ose fr. 73.
40 i H E R M I A S Irrisio gentil. p h il. 1 1 , D iels Doxogr. p. 653: K axo-

Tiiv 65 avxoH fiaGrjT)); 'A g ia x o x eln q eaxrfxe tyXoxvTiibv xov tiddaxaXov
xr\q dofiaxoTioiiaq.
40 j IS I D O R U S P E L U S IO T A Ep. I I 3, M igne 78, P- 45« D:

3AqioxoxeXt]; f i e v y a o E T ia v e a x r ) IlXdxow i. — E p . I V 91, p. H 53 A -
IJ 6 a a ovvEygayiev ’ AgtoroTeXrjg ivavnovfievog II M tio v i xa i ra öoy/iaza

am ov x a j p c p d w v ; aXX' ovö’ a v T o g xi cbvrjoe nXrjv to ü fiaxrjv Xöywv
tw ß Up yevvfjaai. — S im ila rly E p . I V 55.
40 k C \ R lly lv U S A L E X A N D R I N U S Contra J u lia n u m I I 47, M igne

P- 573 C and 574 A : T h e u su al sto ry a b o u t differen ce of opinion.
4 0 ! P R O C L U S ap. P hilopon u m , D e aeternitate m undi I I 2, p. 3 1.7

R abe. K a i avxög de 6 IJgoxXog ev noXXolg te äXXoig rrjv r cbv cptXoao-
tpajv dtaqxuvtav diatpFQÖvTcag rfj negi rrtiv Iöeüjv vjio Beoei (ftXaXrßuj-
dt/ioXdyrjXEv iv yotiv tg> Xoyco öv ineygaipev ’ Eniaxexpig tojv ngög zov
nXarcovog Tifiaiov im ' AoinroreXovg avTsigr]fiev(ov ev toj ngdoTip
HEfpaXauo ravza (prjoiv im Xdl-ecjQ'
0 öe A g ia r o T e X r jg xai jz g d g avzö to o v o fia d v o j^ e g a lv e t t o v jz q q q
d e iy fia z o g fie r a q jo g ix o v avro X eyw v (M e ta p h . I g, g g i a 22) x a i noX X qj
H & X X ov ngog to d o y fia fid x e r a i xai ä jiX a x g ro Tag iS e a g e ia d y o v x a i
ö ia t p e g o v r c o g ngög tö a v r o trp o v (M e ta p h . V I I 16, 1040 b 32), (L g iv
tfj M e to , rä ip v o tx ä yeygaqpev xai x iv d w e v e i ftr jd e v ovTw g o d w jg
ix s lv o g C u io jto itfa a a O a i to jv IJX a T C ü v o g d ig t?)v t (f;v I S e ö j v v T iö O e a iv o v
fto v o v iv X o y ix o Z g T e g e T L O fia r a Ta s id r j xaX äv (A n a l, p o st, 1 22 , 83 a

33) aX kd xai ev fjd ix o ig n g o g ro a v T o a y a d o v d ia / ia x d fie v o g (E th . Eud.
1 8 , 12 17 b 2 1 — 26: E th . N ie. I 4) xai iv (p v a ix o lg ovx d £ iä ) v ta g
y s v e a e ig e lg Tag IS ea g d v a < p ig e iv (D e gen. et corr. I l g , 335 b 10),

a iq iv tm IT eg i y e v e o E a jg X syet xai (p d o g ä g , xai iv r?; M erä rd
( p v a ix d noX X ü nX eov ü te t i e q 'l to jv dgx& v n g a y fia T e v d fiE v o g xai xa-
T a r e iv ü jv fia x o a g x a T r jy o g ia g to jv i Ö e q jv iv r o lg r c o d u T o ig , iv T o lg
fiia o tg , iv t o lg T e X e v r a io tg T?]g n g a y fia x s ia g ix e iv r jg xai iv r o ig
S ta X o y o ig oacpeaxaTa xE xgayd> g 'firj ä v v a o Q a i t w 6 6 y /u a t 1

t 0v t oi a v fi 71 a O e Iv, x ä v t 1 g a v r ö v o Ir] r a 1 ö 1 a (p 1-
X o v e 1x i a v ä v t 1X e y e 1 v .’
OvTut xa i 6 / 7|oöxXog Xafingä. r fj cpajvfj T))v 6ia(pojviav tojv (piXoaö<pu)v
(üfioXoyrjxEv, ftäXXov de e£ avtdjv rd)v ’ AgtaTozeXovg djT0ÖEÖ£i%Ev e f
d>v BavfidaEii Ttg ti )v vTiEgßoXrjv rfjg dvai&Eiag rdjv 01 u<pojvovg xdv
rovTip öetxvvvai neigaOivrcov ’ A qiotote Xi) xa i IIXaTcova.
P h ilopon us’ ow n opinion is q u ite clear:

(II 2, 29.2) 'E £ (bv e o t iv fid lia r a avviSelv d>g oi xa ra nXdrow og
Aqiototf.Xovq iXeyxot ov itgög rovg xaxä>g rd IlXaTiovog itjeiXrjyoTag
ivLaxavrai, wg nveg t o jv v b m t e q o jv ( sc. A m m on iu s and O lym piodorus)

e/ivBoloytjaav rt)v t o jv (piXoaoipojv öiatpwriav aiösadevre;, äXXä tcqöq
Tilg nXaTutvog avrov vnovolag tfjv ävTiXoyiav nenoirjVTai.
Comment. See W . Jaeger, Aristoteles, p 127, and R . W estm an , op.
cit. T 40 b, pp. 280— 282. A cco rd in g to J aeger P lu ta rch and F roclu s
used th e sam e source for th eir sta tem en t a b ou t A r isto tle ’s criticism
of P la to ’s th e o ry of ideas. “ D ie a lte Q u elle, die beide folgen und die
der jü n gere, P roklos, am gen au esten w ied ergib t, zä h lte a l l e Stellen
d er aristo telisch en W erk e, w o die Ideenlehre b ek ä m p ft w ar, einzeln auf.
— D er K a ta lo g ist also ein d irek ter B ew eis, dass diese P o lem ik in den
D ialogen gan z v e re in ze lt d a sta n d .” (Aristoteles, p. 36) P ra ech ter (in:
U e b e n v e g ’s Grundriss F s, p. 366) and W estm an a ccep t th is in terp retation .
F irst: it is im p o rta n t to recall th a t P roclu s was a m an of v a s t learning,
b y fa r th e m ost scholarly-m in d ed am ong th e la te com m en tators. W h a t
he says is u su ally based on his ow n reading; it w ou ld be in su ltin g to
p u t him on a p a r w ith m en lik e O lym piod oru s and E lia s. In m y n ote
o n T 40 b I h a v e tried to show th a t it is q u ite possible th a t P lu ta r c h ’s
w ords a b o u t A r is to tle ’s a ttitu d e to th e th e o ry of id eas are based on
his ow n reading. P lu ta rch and P roclu s h a v e tw o fea tu res in com m on:
a) in b oth passages w e fin d an enum eration o f w orks co n tain in g criticism
o f th e th e o ry o f ideas; b) b o th a u th ors p ro b a b ly allude to th e same
p assage in D e philosophia. B u t th ere is a m ark ed d ifference: P lu tarch
first m entions seven d ifferen t w orks b y d ifferen t w riters, th en adds a
general conclusion , citin g th e eth ical and p h ysica l w orks and th e d ia
logues. P ro c lu s’ en u m eration is m ore specific, and w hereas P lu tarch
o n ly alludes to th e passage in D e philosophia, P roclu s quotes A risto tle ’s
ipsissim a verba. W e m a y fu rth er ask when th is b ook “ in w hich a 11
passages in A r is to tle ’s w orks, in w hich th e th e o ry of ideas w as criticized ,
w ere en u m erated ” w as w ritten . T h e first generation o f com m entators,
begin n in g w ith B o eth u s of S idon, w as m a in ly in terested in m aking
p arap h rases of A r is to tle ’s w orks, w h ich h a d becom e know n th rou gh
A n d ro n icu s' edition. T h e reactio n a ga in st th e eclecticism and syncretism ,
w hich w as cu rren t opinion du rin g th e first cen tu ries B . C. and A. D .,
set in w ith T a u ru s and A ttic u s in th e second c e n tu ry A. D ., see 40 e.
I f w e lo o k a t T 40 e, section £, w e fin d a c o n te x t in w h ich w e could
ex p ec t m ore d efin ite sta tem en ts a b o u t p assages con tain in g criticism
o f th e th e o ry of ideas. B u t th e frag m en ts of A ttic u s ’ w ork, preserved
b y E useb iu s, g iv e no ex a m p le of an en u m eratio n of th e k in d we h ave
A R IS T O T L E I N T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 3 3 !
in P roclus. I th in k tve m ust m ain tain on th e h » « .
r Ä r r L r t r r r r
lü T b i to " y' a gencration or two aftcr
ST£ Ï Ï T ” h" ' h0 “ ys “■

**« — * Ä
M . . ,.j ' Æ 4 ; ': “ d .t “ , ; r i z « ;
£ r ^ - Ä Ä
ta th e o „ the oth er h an d « c a „ „ „ , n „,| 5ingle
Wh0 ^ «■»' A r i s t o * ev er deten(Iecl th e * 4 '“ “ “
» . com e to th e d is c ip le , „ , A m m o n ira H erm eiu T 4 c a n d ,^ h,
: : ™ ~ t by Aristotie’ <iiraca5’ or M ' U ' t , a» s ^ , r

, ^ r,n US ,n u n am b igu ou s w ord s th a t he b elieved in P la to ’s
tw o-w o rld d o c ta n e . A , a m a tte , o f ta c t „ „ on e o f ^
contem poraries in th e A c a d c m v iM.Hmr,,«, v s -1
£ - Ä Ä Ä 5
40 m A M M O N IU S I n P o r fA . , „ s .. C U G I V 3. p . 4 * » 7 »«W
" ■ t,5;* * • « / / « L
* z : ‘j :j z z r z t t j z * £ r r z ■!- r*<w
or at Uieal etc tv vorjrat avrai y.aff ia vra g vyearcooat, a ; xa i < W
Q Km ” SC° Tag 0VaiaS * * * >5 oi, ojg xnl 'A oio rorih i doxel
h o £ ? T v v«itaa M a ' c30.

M arc. ' l r i The
h e "vagu
' “ to
eness m a y be due a ,nthe
P k fa c t that
~
th e co m m en ta ry is djco <pcovfjg. i t js neverth eless n otew o rth y th a t
m m om us does n o t h arm on ize P la to and A ristotle. H e qu ite correctly
p asizes th a t A n s to tle n ever accep ted yojQtara etSrj. T h is is e x a c tly
th e p o in t w here A n s to tle disagreed c o m p letely w ith P la to B oth
m his e a rly d ialogu es and in th e Protrepticus, and in la te scholarly
trea tises lik e D e generatione and th e N icom ackean Ethics, h e sp eaks o f

stan d ard s or norm s, b u t he th in k s of th em as ewXa, as b eing in n atu re
or in m an. A n d w hen, in his co sm o lo g y and p sych o lo g y, he fin d s th a t
h e can n o t do w ith o u t m eta p h ysica l aq-yai, th e solutions h e offers h a v e
n oth in g to do w ith th e th e o ry of tran scen d en t form s.
40 n A N O N Y M I V ita P la ton is 198, p. 395 W esterm ann: M /J.d A?]

xa't QeoXoyixa evnev, olov to i d ; idtaq elvat iv xo> nagadetyfiaxuew,
ovy 6x1 xat u?.?.ot jigo avxov iyivcaaxov 6xt ela'tv avxat. IIvQayogag
yog fJ.Eyev avxag iv xa> notrjxtxo) etvar xa't 'AgiaxoxeAqg ye /hex’ avxov
iv xti> Ttoirjxixtiy avxoq <5’ coc eigrjxat ev xm Tiagadety/iaxixip avxag
etprjaev elvat, abteg a lxlat x a l agyai. elat xov noirjxtxov.
Comment. I f w e assum e th a t O lym p iod oru s is th e u ltim ate source
of th is V ita , w e m a y conclude th a t he did n ot k n ow an y w o rk of A ris to tle
in w hich A risto tle a ccep ted or defended th e th e o ry of Ideas.
40 o B A R - H E B R A E U S Chronicon syriacum, ed. B ed ja n , p. 33:

(In th e tim e of A rses of Persia) “ A t th is tim e w ere k n ow n S ocrates,
P la to and A risto tle , th e philosopher. P la to died 82 y e a r old, and he
w as follow ed b y his n ephew S peusippus and n ot b y A ristotle, fo r a l
th o u g h A risto tle w as his disciple, he disagreed w ith his sch ool.”
4 1. T he harm onizing of Plato and Aristotle.

See K . P raech ter, articles S im p liciu s, R E I I I A , and Syrianos, R E
I V A , and R . B eu tler, articles Olympiodorus, R E X V I I I : I, and Proklos,
R E X X I I I : 1, w ith b ib liographies. T h e m ain rep resen ta tiv es of th e
A th en ia n school in th e fifth c e n tu ry w ere S y ria n u s and P roclu s (died
485). T h e A lex a n d ria n school h ad an en tirely d ifferen t approach , es
p e cia lly to th e m etap h ysica l problem s; w ith in th is school A m m on ius
and his disciples and follow ers O lym piod oru s, E lia s and D a v id form a
group; th e ir com m en taries are con sid erably inferior in q u a lity , w ith
endless re-ch ew ing of th e sam e m aterial. H ierocles, an A lex a n d rian b y
b irth b u t residing in A then s, is less k n ow n as a ph ilosopher, b u t his
approach to m etap h ysics is o f th e A lex a n d ria n ty p e . P hilopon us and
Sim plicius, fin a lly, b o th w ritin g a b o u t and a fte r 525, can b e ch ara cteri
zed as com pilators. S im pliciu s is th e m ore conscien tious, and w e
ow e to him num erous good q u otation s from a n cien t sources n ow lost.
P hilopon u s is a q u ib b ler, inferior to Sim plicius, b u t b y no m eans
negligible; o n ly it ta k es som e patien ce to w ash ou t th e grains of gold

in his endless sp ate of words.
4 1 a T H E M I S T I U S , Or. V I I I , 107 c, p. 128.19 D indorf: ''Ayaodat

6 \ ^ lov 'AgioxoxdXrjv o ti ftixQov r d IlXdxtovog g^juaxa fiExadsiq xov
Xoyov nm oirixEv dXrjOeoxEgov. — Or. X X X I V p. 448.16 D indorf: TA g '
IJXdxmv p iv toV tov, ’ AgiaxoxEXVg 8’ ixeqov; x a ix o i nXeiwv fiev
rov avdgog rj noXvTigayfioavvrj xa i rj Xenxovgyia, 6fi(og 8' avxov rj
avfinaoa ngayfiaxeia x a i 6 noXvg xvxXog ovx exvevevxe to dvdgwntvov
ayaBov, a l l tiq xovxo avvxexaxat x a i dvrjgxijxai. — Or. X X , 235 C
p . ^288.13 D in d orf (abou t his fa th er E ugenios): Td fiev ydg IlXdxwvog
xov fieydXov ayyjOvgd xe oei inedeixvvE x a i iv x(p n i x 01 nsoijidXa,
x a i ovde /xexw <pievwxo x?)v oxoXrjv fiexafiaivcov tig xtfv 'Axadrj/itav
EX Xoti A v x eio v , aXXa noXXdxig ' A q io x o x e Xei ngoQvoag eig xrjv H Xnxta-
1«off eXr,yEv hgovgyiav. yaXenwg 5 ’ elysv del r o k dtoixodo/isiv em X£i-
g o ta i xa i 8ta<pgdxxetv aXEXvd)g xavxi rd egxia. sh a t ydg 8rj xrjg
ilXaxojvog fSaxXsiag xrtv AgiaxoxeXovg <ptXooo<plav aua fiev ysw alov
tiqoteXeiov, dfia 8e Ogiyxov xe xa i (pvXaxxrjgiov. Evftaxov r s ydg ovorjg
ext xa i Evemdgo/iov xolg aocpioxalg XEiyiaat xe ’ AqioxoxeX ei xa i nsgi-
<pgd£aa6at navxaXo8Ev xa i djtoxXeloat r d ff EmpovXdg x&v doyfidxwv,
xovg 8e tt.oV.ovq V7t oxvov x a i gadv/ulag dcpgdxxovg eBeXeiv xa i dvaXei-
<povg 8iaya>vlt,Eo6ai- S6ev noXXdxig ysvvaiq 8o fy xai iayvoa vn doBe-
votig xa i (pavXrjg vjioaxt-XitofXEvy xe xa i ocpaXXoftivrj naoov d/ivv£iv
firj dvvaadat ina/ivvEtv. ngog fiev drj nXdxcova xov oocpov ovxe a ixo q
n oxe F.oxaoiaof.v ovx" ' AgiaxoxeXr] gadiaig wexo.
Comment. T h em istiu s professes him self to be a tru e follow er of the
L y c e u m and is on th e w hole rem ark ab ly free from n eop laton ic influence.
L iv in g one gen eration a fter Iam blichu s, he is th e la s t offsh oot of the
H ellen istic syn cretism w h ich b egan w ith Poseidon ius and A n tio ch u s of
A scalon. In his p arap h rases he shows m uch com m on sense and is on
th e w hole a reliab le interpreter. In th e discourses his sty le is v e ry
d ifferen t and fu ll of rhetorical bathos. P la to ’s p h ilosoph y is accordin g
to him d ivin e, A risto tle s is xolg noXXolg dxpeXtfMoxega. In the words
qu oted here he sp eaks of P la to ’s $ a xXd a (it is d ifficu lt to understand
why D in d o rf ad opted th e false readin g xaxia), con trastin g it w ith
A risto tle s com m on-sense philosophy. T h e last sen tence is interesting:
lik e his fa th er E u gen iu s, h e closed his eyes to th e fa c t th a t A risto tle
ia ra a ia a e ngog TlXaxoiva.
334 IN G E M A R D Ü R IX G
41 b J U L I A N U S Or. V 162 c: ... tòç ’ A gtaroreX txàç vnoôéaeiç

èvôr.F.<JzcQmç ÊyEiv vnoXafifiávm, ei ut] rtç a m à ç èç r a m ò t o íç HXároi-
voç ãyoi, f iã llo v òk y.ai ta v r a r a lç èx Oemv ÒEÔofièvaiç -.TQoqirjreíaiç.
Comment: "J u lia n here sum s u p th e te n d en cy of th e ph ilosop h y of

his a g e ” (W right). T h e in flu en ce from Ia m b lich u s and his school is
apparen t.
41 c H I E R O C L E S ap. P h o tiu m , in Bibliolheca p. 173 a 25, p. 461 a

24 B ek ker, proves th a t A m m on ius S accas h arm on ized P la to and
A ristotle: rH 6’ ènayyeXia xfjç nagovarjç axéipecoç n eoi nnovoiaç e a ii
òiaXafíEiv rfj nX árw voç âó£t] y.al ’ AgtaToréXovç avvòianQEfiévqf avvá-
jiTEtv yàg flovXeTai r o iç ãvôçaç ta tç òóÇaiç ov x a r á tovç Xóyovç tfjç
ngovotaç fióvov, âXXà x a l õaot t?)v ipvyjjv cpqovoiaiv áôávazov, x a i ei
ti 71EQÍ ovoavov x a i xóofiov to v to iq 7te<piXooóipr)Tat. oaoi ôe r ovç àvôgaç
eÍç ôia<pcúvtav ÈOTrjaav, to v to v ç eç t á fià k im a nETtXavrjadaí t e tijç row
ávô/jmv Tioodêaeooç xai to v àXrjOovç èxtieoeív àjioTEtvETat, tovç fièv éxóv-
ta ç êgiôi x a i ànovoia oipãç avTovç nooaavaOêvTaç, to v ç ôè xai TionXrjipei
x a l â/iaOta ÔEÔovXca/iÉvovç. T h e follow in g acco u n t of his S ev en th B o o k
inform s us th a t h e d eclared spurious all w orks of P la to and A risto tle
w hich d id n ot ta lly w ith his theories.
41 d S Y R I A N U S , th e teach er of P roclu s, does n ot harm on ize P la to

an d A risto tle o u trigh t; his a rgu m en t is m ore d iversified and gen erally
based on th e assum ption th a t A risto tle m isun derstood P la to , I n M etaph.,
C l A G V I i , p. 80.18 — 81.6. T 40 1 show s th a t his pupil P roclu s w ith o u t
reserva tio n d eclared th a t P la to ’s and A risto tle ’s vie w s cou ld n ot be
reconciled w ith o u t v io la tin g th e tru th . In th e A lex a n d ria n school on ly
P h ilopon u s follow ed Syrianus.
41 e — j Am m onius H erm eiu and his disciples.

41 e A M M O N IU S I n Porph. Is ., C l A G I V 3, p. 42.22: 'Io réo v ôè art
7ieq Í T a lh a ôoxoSaiv Ôta<pa>VEÍv ’ A okttotéX^ç x a l n X á r to v ó fiiv yào
3AgtOTOTEÃTjç à%á)çioTa avTÒ eiva i tprjat t rjç vXrjç, ó áe IlXáTOJv ytüQtaTá.
O n several occasions A m m on iu s fra n k ly ad m its th e differen ce of opinion
betw een P la to and A risto tle. B u t a ten d en cy to harm on ize is discern
ible, an d his disciples follow ed th is line. T y p ic a l is th e follow ing
argum en t, O L Y M P IO D O R U S In Cat., C I A G X I I i , p. 68.34— 40:
artsto tle in th e b io g r a p h ic a l t r a d it io n 33S
'A m hm pw cvytv ivrav&i oi xoev<paioi rcbv cpdoooyayv 'AptozoUXn-
S T Ä - - * — * - ^
41 f ASCLEPIUS In MtUt './j m r v T o
ideas which h« 11 7 1 - / ’ p ' 44 *3 5 : (P lato po stu lated
d a s . f a c h h e called ; ^ o « t o o « „„J ^
^ A.'/<™ (M etaph. X I I 10. , 0 « a ft, „ .f I® /
d . S T ^ T — r a i , ° '‘ d ” " * *-» -w
i J - 69« j f “ T " .W *? °c /n* “ ~ “ * ■ « * m * «S ,

T * roS A e ^ o , a m i m<!i
a? tor., » ,» t , llu ji nqayjiateia (m 4 42ga 27i
• 4 ^ 2 -
< s :. u * r „ .* 2 * .?
2 J W - « ? w 4
^JM r ^ 1 !l<il" Xal * * * * X& h « * " 0VT1

la y a m ^ e r « , r o t? vnori 6£lievotg r d ? T a iiT a g a ^ . ^
w ra; vTiaoynvaag xa t ovaag Xfytom atiiva * roß »«.' " .

flß lv yeyovfv r, Mr, gVV0(a T0,t ’ An, „ r ' A , , WaT£ VÊQa
P Ti.fi « . ’ /I ' T „ m w TÄV Wetwv.
w w » rd* rot* TT1 ° ” i>'? r ° T£^ c <>«¥«**«« to te *a*eör ^ a ^ S d -
w h a t th e V t , “ r<° W ?- E a rh e r arSu m en ts repeated. T his is e x a c tly
^ n a t th e \ ita M a rcia n a 29 tells us.
41 g O L Y M P I O D O R U S / „ C / ^ S X I I 2, p . 0 . .,
c * mdtaZafzßdvovatv.
Aeyöfieva t “ ,£ T h u s V itaÄ M arc. r
29. r r j s
41 h E L IA S In Cal. j>rooemium, C I A G X V III i , p . 1 2 r i ; j e .~
tiYoc- otfr, TOV &£,r/'>r^V) M w p r i a z w a fy ia u n v l S nenovQw 'Id Mß -

,, x \ 7°’ , ^ x e o n b z « » xco n u r m v i avvdidcoat toj ’ A o H n o z i L
o n a m ar U y £l Ttp n M w v i dl6 T , f ^ a£i ■ d L d a y t
«««» ^ ^ Zp m a v z z * ™
VVXVS rrjç Xoytxfjç . . . neiQãrat nàaav axootprjv ju e u n Q & p a » .-

A e I avxòv Tiávxa eiÔévai xà ’ AçioxoxéX ovç, Iva av/i<pcovov ÔeiÇaç xov
’ AgiaxoxéXrjv êavxd> xà ' A & oxoxé> ovç ôta xœ v'A g io xo xéko v ç e ^ e e x a ,
4 1 i A lth o u gh P h ilo p on u s to o w a s a pu p il of A m m onius, he polem ized

a g a in st A sclep iu s and Sim p liciu s and follow ed P ro clu s = T 40 1 cf.
D e aetem. m undi I I 2, P- 3» - » : da^ áaeié T ,ç * * * ■ * * » *

xrjç àvaiÔeiaç x ã v a v ^ œ v o v ç xàv xovxco ôeixvvvac nzioadevxœv A ql-
a xoxéh ] y.ai IlXáxcova. B u t Sim phcius is im pertu rb ab le.
41 j S IM P L IC IU S In D e caelo, C I A G V I I , p. 640.27^ (in 306 a i):

"O n to òè n o U á x tç £Îo>Qa x a l vvv s b itlv xatQÓç, 8x1 ov Tigaypar
X k èaxt x& v <pdooó<pwv 7? ôia<pcovía, â U à ngòç xò ^ to .
U y o v x a l òvváfievov x a l XeiqÓvo>ç voeíoQai noXXáxiç v n a vxà v 0 A q l-
oxoxéXrjç y u ò o í xâ>v sm n oX aioç àxovóvxcov xo* m á x co v o ç avxdeyetv
ôoxEÏ 7ZOÒÇ avxóv, oTiEQ xal èv xa rta olpac o a y éç eo xl CWLÔelv.
S im ila rly p. 2 9 6 .2 6 -3 0 and 377 -2 0 - 379 -I 7 - M oerbeke tran slates
(V en etiis ap. H . S co tu m f. I l l 6 i v): non realis ahqua discórdia sed orf
atparenliam sermonis quae possunt prave intelligi, cf. V it a la t. 29 b . -
I n P h y s., C I A G X , p. I 33 6 -3 5 - ’ E m o x fjo a t Ô’ <$|lov 5xi. xavxaitia
Tiáhv ó A Qiaxoxélr]c, èv ôia<póooiç ôvó/iaai xàç avxàç svvoiaç xw
0<p£T£OCÜ HdßyjySßOVt 7CQOvßäÄ.£TO.
V II. AR ISTO TLE ’S L IB R A R Y
42 a S T R A B O N X I I I 1,54 = T 66 b: nnwroq wv la/iev ovvayaydtv

ßtßXla x a l dtda£ag r ovg ev A iy v m io ßaaiXeag ßißXiodtjxyg ovvra£iv.
42 b G E L L I U S Noct. A lt. I l l 17: M em oriae mandatum eat Platonem

phtlosophum tenui admodum pecunia fam iliari fuisse atque eum tameji
tn s Philolat Pythagonci libros decern m ilibus denarium mercatum. I d ei
pretium donasse quidem seripserunt amicum eins D ionem Syracusanum.
Aristotelem quoque traditum libros pauculos S p eu sip p i philosophi post
mortem eins emisse talentis A tticis tribus; ea summa fit num m i nostri
sestertiis duo et septuaginta m ilia.
42 c D IO G E N E S L A E R T IU S I V 5. 4>w i ö i x a l Üaßconivog iv
dentiQcp' Anofxvr\fiovEVfiduav dig 'AQtarnTeXrjg avrov (sc. Speusippus)
rä ß iß h 'a taicijv raXavraiv ibvtjaaro.
42 d A T H E N A E U S 1 3 a: rH v M q:r}ai (sc. Athenaeus) x a l ßißXiwv

XTijcnq avrw (sc. Larensis) doxaiaiv 'EXX^vixcbv Tooavrr) dig vjisq-
ßaXXeiv' 3xdvrag toi,g i n i avvaymyfj TeQavpaapivovg, noXvxfidrrjv re
rov Zdfitov xal IJeiaiarnarov r 6v ’ AQrjvaicov r VQavrfaavta, Ev-
xXeidrp re tov x a l a ird v ’ AQrjvalov x a l Ntxoxgdrrjv to v K v n q i’ov, i n
te r ovg fle g y d fio v ß a o d ia q , EvQtnidijv re rov noirjrijv 'A q kjto teX tjv re
rov (piXoaotfov ( x a l GeotpqaaTov add. W ila m o w itz ) xa l tov zd to v to jv
d l a r ^ a a v r a ßißX ia N nXia- nag ou n dvra, <f rto i, noidpevog 6 f r E-
oajiclg ßaoiXsv g IJ ro X ^ a lo g , 0 d d 6 eX<pog V in ixX Vv, p er a r<bv 'A O r ,^ -
Oev x a l rojv and ' Podov elg rr,v xaXrjv ’ AXe^dvögEtav fier^ yaye.
Comment. T o collect books and read them in p riv a te did n ot becom e

h a b itu al b efore th e tim e of A ristotle. E u rip id es is a possible exception-
A ristop h an es sneers a t his h a b it o f co llectin g books and qu otin g them
in his tragedies. B ook s w ere p u b licized and becam e k n ow n b y being
read b y an dvayvcbaryg before a sm all circle of listeners. Socrates says,
Göteb. U n iv . A r ssk r . L X 1I I : 2
IN G E M AR D U R IN G
P W . 97 b : *U - M * * * * " fc W "”
E u rip id es Is cited o ' » " '• " ■ » * " « • *
Cf Ir QIC N a a c k W e are to ld th a t A risto tle ■house w as called th .
read er's h o u se” : he inform s us a b o u t his sy ste m a tic readm g, T o f .
105 b 12; his su rv e y s o f th e opinions of his predecessors show us th e
P - i S « « k t A « t o t l e b o u g h t S p eu sip p u s’ b o d » a fte r H s
d eath . A risto tle ’s lib ra ry w a , h is ow n perso n al p r o p e r ty It ■
w as
c e r t a id y n o t stored in th e L y c e u m , a p u b h c g y m u a s.u m b u t m th e
house wh
house w h ere
ere he
he liv
lived
ed. C f. I. D u rin g, “ A risto u o r H e n m p p u s; , in.
Class, et M ed. 17 , 1956, P- I 2 -

V III. A R IS T O T L E HONOURED BY THE D E L P H IC
A M P H IC T Y O N S
43 D itten b erger SylP , 275. A risto telem et C allisthenem A m ph ic-

tyon es D elp h ici la u d a n t a. 334/2.
. . . e8 o$e t o l g i e o o n v t jfio a iv End ’ A g io T o r ^ r jg N ix o ju a y o v Z r a y i -
g h r jg x a i K a ).h a O tv r]Q A a fio z ifio v 'O X v v O lo q T zagaxA q O ev re; im o t & v
’ A fitfLX T vovm v w h a ta v n iv a x a rdtv d/jtp oxep a VE vixrjxoxaiv x d T Iv B ia
x a i x(ov H d o y fjg r o v d y w v a x a x a o x e v a o d v x w v , e n a t v l a a i ’ A g t a x o x s ^ v
x a i K a X h a d s v r jv x a i (fx efp a v a io a i' a v a d E iv a t 8e x o v T tiva xn t o v q x a fiia g
iv xcp If.q(T> fiE x a y o s y o a fiiiE v o v d; axfjkn Q XiOLvag- d vayodrp ai <5e x a i
to 8oy/j.a rode . . .
<T><w aft(q)6rega w j» > t * ) j * o W z a m O t a c o m W it k o w s k i : row an d r vU Sa

vevixqxdTwv r a I lv O ia P o m tm v :|
Comment. P u b lish ed b y E . H om olle, in: B u ll. Hell. 22,1898, p. 251

— 270; n ote b y W itk o w sk i, ibidem p. 59S; discussed b y H . P om tow ,
in: Berl. P h il. Woch. 19, i8 g g , p. 2 5 1 - 2 5 6 , and W itk o w sk i, ibidem
p. 1 1 1 6 — 18. Cf. also D itt. S y ll.3 I 252, line 42. 5AfupoTEoa r a 1166ia
= b oth th e p en ta-eteric and th e sm all an n u al gam es.
T h e three w orks m entioned b y D L V 26, n. 13 1 — 134, are also
m entioned by P lu ta rch , Solon 11, under th e com prehensive title
IlvQiovix&v dvaygacpij. T h e origin al w o rk, referred to in this in scrip
tion , was the UvOiovixcbv eXeyyoi. I assum e w ith W itk o w sk i th a t the
Ilvd tovtxai povoixijQ w a s an e x tr a c t listin g th e victors in th e m usical
contests, and th a t th e IlvO ixog Aoyog w as a historical w ork from w hich
P lu tarch to o k th e fa cts m entioned in Solon 1 1 .
T h e letter to A n tip a te r, A el. Var. hist. X I V I = T 67 c, could be
genuine; the a ttitu d e, metuit secundis alteram sortem bene praeparaiutn
pectus, is tru ly A ristotelian and goes w ell w ith Eth. N ic . I V 7, 1124 a
15 ovx £vtv Xu,v 7iEQixaofiQ i<\Tat. ov t <iTv.ya>v tieoih m o z. A lexan d er
died in M ay J u n e 323. T o w a rd s th e end of O ctob er 323 th e tr e a ty
betw een the P hocian s and A th en ian s w as concluded {C I A I I 182). T h e
anti-M aced on ian riots sta rted , and A ris to tle fled to Chalcis. I t is
p rob ab le th a t th e D elp h ian s to o k p a rt in th e anti-M aced on ian d e
m on strations; th is cou ld w ell b e th e m om en t w hen th e inscription w as
dem olished and th ro w n in th e w ell near house 291, som e th ir ty feet
w est of th e tem ple. T h e letter to A n tip a te r cou ld h a v e been w ritte n
la te in 323 or ea rly in 322.
A ll th is is of course m ere con jectu re. N o th in g tells us th a t th e
in scription w as a c tu a lly d estroyed , and th e letter to A n tip a te r m ight
be fictitio u s — if so, a v e r y cle v e r fictio n indeed.
W e do n o t k n o w w h en th e a ctu a l w ork on com pilin g th e lists of
P y th ia n v ic to rs w as done, b u t it is reasonable to assum e th a t it w as
betw een 340 and A risto tle 's retu rn to A th en s in 334. A lex a n d e r becam e
regent du rin g P h ilip ’s cam p aig n a ga in st B y z a n tio n in 340. A risto tle
co u ld tr a v e l m ore and en gage him self in research. E a r ly in 334
C allisthenes accom p an ied A lex a n d e r to A sia M inor, and A risto tle settled
dow n in A thens.
IX. ARISTOTLE'S DICTA ON LEAVING ATHENS
44 a A E L I A N U S Var. hist. I l l 36: ’ AQiaroreXrjg ore aniX m e rag

’ AQfyaq dest rfjg xq I.ofmq , ngog rov igö/ievov avrov Tic, ia r iv r) r&v
’ AQrjvaioov ndXig; etpr] IlayxdArj- dXX' iv ain fj
oyyvrj i n ' (>yxvfi ytjgdaxei, atixov <5’ i n i ovxq>,
rovg ovxotpavrag Xeycav. xa i ngog rov igofiEvov did r i dneXine rag

‘ Aßrjvag ansxgtvaro o n ov ßovXerai 1AQrjvaiovg die dfiagrelv ig iptXoao-
tpiav, to negl Ecoxgar^v nadog aivirrofiEvog xa i rov x a ff f.avrov xivöwov.
44 b O R I G E N E S Contra Celsum I 380 = T 45 c.
44 c E L I A S I n Cat. prooetnium, C I A G X V I I I i , p. 123.15: Tlav-

roiutv yao noayfidriav uxpdfievog o AgiororiX ijg navag/ioviov stdog
Xoyrov intTridtvae, avfifiEraftogtpwv a d rovq Xdyovg rolg ngayfiaai.
610 iv fiev rolg fiegixolq, tprjfii d i ralg im aroX alg, ic n l avvxofiog, xoivog
ä[ia xa i idtog- xoivog fiev inEtbr) ovdiv diayiget intaroX ifialog x aß(mTVß
Ttjc xotvrjg diaXexrov >] t <0 iyygacpov elvai xa i ngog dndvrag, idiog 6e
Iva fir] eig idiconofiov ifineawfiEv. did xa i o ' Egfioyivqg iv rfj Prjrogixf]
TE%vt) <ft]ai (non in v en itu r, cf. p. 445-20 R abe) za xotvd xaivotg
xa i rd xaiva xoivutg'. rä yag xoivdrega ivOv/itffiara ö f i gevongenioi
X i& a i (pgdCsiv, iva fir) xaraqigovcovrai bin t o %afiait,r)Xov Trjg Xeêwg,
rd de xaivd naXiv xa i ÊVongEneaTega nov iv O v ^ fia ro iv d el xotvord-
gaig Xs£eoi (pgdCstv, Iva ßaO ia dvr a vof/rai.
’ AXXa xa i Sgifivg i o n v on. yag dgifivg drjXot avroti fila im aroXiy
fiETa. (xara B asse) y a p davarov Ernxgarovg inetjeXQcov Adrjv&v xa i
öiargißcov iv X aX xidi dvexaXelro v n ‘ AGrjvaiiov inaveXOelv x a i fit)
neiadeig ävreygatpev ovrcog’ O v fii] id o a i AOrjvaiovg dig dfiagretv eig
<piXoao<piav, n a g ' olg
oyyvi] i n ' oyxvrj yrjgdoxei, atixov ft i n i avxep.
<5ici <5e rov 'atixov i n i o v x q >' fjvi£aro T o v g avxotpdvtag noXXovg Svrag

’ A6?jv?]Ot xa i del dexofiivovg a v T o v g xa i fi f j d i n o T E Xtfyovrag.
Comment. H a ix g a T o v ; is a curious m ista k e for ’ A X e t d v d g o v . D id

E lia s re a lly sa y ‘S o cra tes', or is th is m erely an error m ade b y th e stu
d en t w ho to o k notes of his lectures? B ed e k n ew th is trad itio n , T 8.
44 d E U S T A T H I U S I n Odyss. rj 120 — 121: To 6e 'aflxov in i avxo)'

oaieXQi]ae n o n . tu> £ t ayetgoOev aoq>a> eig axaififia tcov 'AQtjvaicov ib;
%atgovrcov avxo<pavTeia ore EcoxQaTijv vTie^f/yayov xcoveiai r o t (jl.ov.
jueXeTtjoa; yag v7io%(»m)a<it to r e o UrayeiQtrrji; einev e£ ’ O jiijnov
rgvyf/aa; rrjv ondigav Tfjq ev Xdyqi xagtrot;, an; ovx dv /xeivrj naga
Toiavrrj noXet ev f\ yrjgdaxei avr.ov i n i avxa), tovteotiv dnov r a TrjQ
avxotpavriaQ diijvexf] x a l ddidf>o%a x a i r<u fiaxgti) to U %qovov avfjtne-
gi£XT£ivo/ieva.
44 e S E N E C A Dialog. V I I I 8,1: Intcrrogo ad quam rem pttblicam

sapiens sit accessurus. ad Atheniensium in qua Socrates damnatur,
Aristoteles ne damnelur fugit?
Comment: T h e nucleus of th e sto ry m a y w ell be tru e. A risto tle m a y

h a ve w ritte n to A n tip a te r w hen he le ft A th en s, tellin g him th a t he
did n o t w a n t to see th e A th en ia n s “ tw ice o u tra g e p h ilo so p h y ” and
q u o tin g th e verse from th e O d y ssey as an allusion to th e sycop h an ts.
H erm ip pu s m a y h a v e to ld this sto ry in his b io grap h y.
T h e rest is fab rication . P h av o rin u s, D L V g, com bines th e dictum
w ith th e fictitio u s Apology. A e lia n tran form s it into a sto ry of th e
qu estion -an sw er p a ttern . E lia s m entions th e letter, b u t it is now a
le tte r to th e A th en ia n s ju s t as in V ita M arc. 41; th e anachronism con
cerning S ocrates is also found in th e n eop laton ic V ita e , a lth ou gh not
e x a c tly in th is form . A n o th e r v e rb a l sim ilarity is V ita M arc. 41 r i]V
diadoxrjv = E lia s aei Seyofiivov; amovi;. A s fa r as w e know , E lia s
had o n ly one source fo r his b io grap h ical n otes on A ristotle, n am ely
th e n eop laton ic sum m aries of P to le m y ’s V ita . H is q u otation , m uddled
as it is, and U sa ib ia 10 = T 45 d, p ro v e th a t P to le m y m entioned th e
sto ry.
X. AR ISTO TLE’S APOLOGY
45 a P H A V O R I N U S ap. A tlie n . 6g7 ab = T 22.
45 b P H A V O R I N U S a p . D iog. L ae rt. V g. See m y com m ents.
45 c O R I G E N E S Contra Celsum I 380, M igne n , p. 781 B:
" Ojioiov M fj TiEnotrjrai x a r à ' h jo o v x a i row juaô?]Tà>v ÔtafloÀf) yrjao-

fiev elvai x a i to negi A qiototéA ovç taTonov/j.p.vov ovtoç y à g iôwv
ovyxgoTeïoOat fiéXXov xa(F avTov ôixaonqgiov, wç xœcà àaefiotiç, ôtâ
Ttvn ôoyfiaTa Trjç <ptXooo(piaç avToü, â èvôfiiaav eîvai àaf.fiij ’A dtjvaîot,
a v a ‘/ û>nfjaaç àiio t w v Adrjvùtv, ev X aÀ xiôi r à ç ôictTQtfîàç ÈTioirjaaTO,
ajioXoyrjoa/iEvoç to ïç yvwgi/ioiç x a i eb u û v ’AniwfiEv a n à tm v ’ Aôrjv&v
ïva /if] nnriqiaatv ôcô/iev A8t]vaioiç toi5 ôevteqov âyoç âvaXafieïv jia g a -
nb'jaiov r w y.axh U ojxgdtovç x a l ïva firt ôevteqov eîç <ptXoao<ptav àas-
firjoojoiv. — F rom V I I 6g5, p . 1424 B w e learn th a t A risto tle had w rit
ten c ritically on P y th ia and th e oracles; I I 3 9 9 * P- 8 ig C J O rigen says
a b ou t the P erip atetics in general: firjôèv 9id oxovraç àvveiv e v y à ' x a i
rà ç <Lç Tzgoç to Ôeïov Qvaiaç.
45 d IB N ABI U S A I B I A T ran slatio n of V ita P tolem aei 10. See

p. 214.
Comment. A risto tle ’s ap ology is a H ellen istic fab rication , p ro b ab ly
m ade in im itation of T h eo p h rastu s’ ap o lo g y a ga in st H agnonides; see
E . D érenne, “ L es procès d ’im piété in ten tés a u x philosophes à A thènes
au V m e et a u IV m e siècles a v a n t J .-C .” , in: B il l. fac. de Lettres Ltege,
fasc. 95,1930; th is action w as con d u cted sh o rtly a fter A n tip a te r ’s death
319, and T heophrastu s w as acq u itted. A elian Var. H ist. V I I I 12 tells
us a b ou t his fine speech for the defence: èÇéiieaE yàg x a i o v t o ç ijci
r r jç è£ Agetov nàyov fio v X r jç Myœv, x a l r a v T r jv c u i o X o y i a v 7igoE<j>ÉQETo
ÔTi x a T E j i X a y r j t o aûo/ia t o $ o v v e ô q ( o v . n i x g o T a T a ovv à ju j v T i q o e x a i
É T o if io T a T a 7CQ0Q T o v T o v a v T o f i t o v J . à y o v 6 A r j f i o x à g r j ç e l n d i v ~Q 0 e o -
(pgaars, 'AQrjvaïot î/oav à M ’ oi>% oi ôœôexa B e o i o i ôixàÇov t e ç . F rom
w h a t A ristid es sa y s. Or 46, 252.15, p. I I 328 D in d orf, w e can see

th a t D em ochares' w ords w ere supposed to refer to A risto tle. A n oth er
possible source is th e speech held b y P h ilon, 6 ’ A o c o to t& o v ; yvdioi/ioQ,
w hen in 306 D em ochares and Sophocles expelled the ph ilosophers"from
A th en s, see O. R egen bogen, in: R E S u p p l. V II, col. 1360 and A th en
X I I I 610 f.
O ur sources m ention three en tirely d ifferen t reasons for th e action

ta k en a ga in st A risto tle in 323:
a) H is cu lt of H erm ias, D L V 5. A n unscrupulous sy co p h a n t could
ea sily m isrepresent th e w ords of th e H ym n , alleging th a t A risto tle had
d eclared H erm ias laaBavanoQ. I t is p rob ab le th a t th e yoatpr/ dosfiEia;
w as based on a rgu m en ts of th is kind.
h) H is relations w ith th e M acedonian co u rt and w ith A n tip a te r.
The anti-M aced on ian p a r ty m u st h a v e regarded A risto tle as a tra ito r,
and th is w as of course th e real reason fo r th e prosecution, cf. T 58 g.
c) O n ly O rigen speaks of rd doytiara rfjg fpdoacxpiaQ a m ov and of
his con tem p t of th e oracles (but see e. g. P olit. V I I 9, 1329 a 2 9 - 3 9 ,
Resp. Ath. L I V 6). T h is is p ro b a b ly a late com bin ation, w ith th e p ro
secution of S ocrates as a p a ttern . M u bashir 20 is d erived from P to lem y ;
i t is th erefore p rob ab le th a t P to lem y , lik e O rigen, spoke of “ a d istorted
a cco u n t of his p h ilo so p h y ” .
X I. AR ISTO TLE’S DEATH
46 a E U M E L U S ap. D iog. L a e rt. V 5 — 6 = F Gr H ist 77 F 1; still

more confused in V ita H e sy ch ii and S u d a s. v. 'AQtaToreXt];. E u m elu s
(se e m y n ote on T 1 f) tran sferred S o cra tes’ age and th e m ann er of
his death to A risto tle, p ro b a b ly in order to glo rify th e h ead of his
school, as J a c o b y says. I t is possible th a t H erm ip pu s tran sm itted th is
notice.
46 b S T R A B O N X 1 ,1 1 , p. 448: C halcis w as fam ous, also for peacefu l

achievem ents, too tf, y.ai <piloo6<poiz dvSnnm TiaoaayEiv diaycoyfjv fjdeiai’
xai dOogvfiov. (.laoTvoei S’ 1) t e rwv ‘ Eqetqixcdv cpiXoaotpUiV axo).r, ziov
rreo t M eveS iijiov f.v rfj ’ EoETgia yevofisvr] y.ai e n jiqoteqov ?} ’ A qioto -
teXovq ev XaXy.LSi S ia io iflrf oj> y s Hat xaTeXvctE top fiiov.
os y e x a i K r a m e r o g y e x a x e l M ein e k e .
T h e w ord StaTQifirj here does not m ean '“school b u t “sojou rn \
46 c A U L U S G E L L I U S N o d . ait. X V I I 21.25 and 34: Eoque ipso

anno, qui erat post recuperatam urbem seplim us, Aristotelem pkilosophum
natum esse memoriae mandatum est.
Postea M acedo Alexander, pleraque parte oricntali subada cum annos
undccim regnavisset, obiit mortis diem. Neqtte hand longe post A n sloteles
philosophus et post aliquanto Demosthenes vita fu n d i sunt.
Comment. A cco rd in g to P lu ta rch , V ita Dcm. 30, D em osth en es died
16 P ya n ep sio n = 14 O cto b er 322. I t is assum ed th a t G ellius has his
inform ation from V arro .
47 A U L U S G E L L I U S N o d . att. X I I I 5: Aristoteles philosophus, annos

iam fere natus duo et et sexaginta, corpore aegro affedoque ac spe vitae
tenui fuit. T un c omnis eius sedatorum cohors ad eum accedit, orantes
obsecrantesque ut ipse deligeret loci su i et magisterii successorem, quo post
summum eius diem proinde ut ipso uterentur ad studia dodrinarum
complenda excolendaque quibus ah eo imbuti fuissent. Erant tunc in eius
ludo boni m ulti, sed praecipui duo, Theophrastus et Eudem us. Ingenio
hi atque doctrinis ceteros praestabant; alter ex insula Lesbo ju it, Eudem us
aulem Rhodo. Aristoteles respondit facturum esse quod vellent, cum id
sibi foret tempestivum.
Postea brevi tempore, cum iidem illi qui de magistro destinando petierant
praesentes essent, vinum ait quod turn biberet non esse ex valetudine sua,
sed insalubre esse atque asperum ac propterea quaeri debere exoticum, vel
Rhodium aliquod vel Lesbium . I d sibi utrumque ut curarent petivit,
usurumque eo d ixit quod sese magis iuvisset. E u n t quaerunt inveniunt
afferunt. T u m Aristoteles Rhodium petit, degustat: “ F irm u m ” , inquit,
“ hercle vinum et iucundum " . P etit mox Lesbium . Quo item degustato,
“ U trum que” , inquit, “ oppido bonum, sed rjduav 6 Aeaßtog. Id ubi
dixit, nem ini ju it dubium quin lepide sim ul et verecunde successorem ilia
voce sibi, non vinum delegisset. I s erat e Lesbo Theophrastus, suavitate
homo insign i linguae pariter atque vitae, lia q u e non diu post Aristotele
vita defuncto, ad Theophrastum omnes concesserunt.
Comment. I t has been su ggested th a t th is is th e k in d of sto ry w e

w ould ex p ec t to fin d in th e bio grap h ies of A risto n of Ceos. W eh rli
(Eudemos fr. 5) observes th a t th is fragm en t “ h a t im m er den historischen
W ert, E :s S tellu n g neben T h eo p h rast und d am it einen gew issen A n
spruch auf das S ch o la rch a t zu b eleu ch ten ” . H o w ever, I stro n g ly dou bt
th a t A risto n is th e a u th o r of th is sto ry. A risto tle w as n ever h ead of
a school in th e legal sense. I t w as T h eo p h rastu s w h o fou n d ed the
P erip ato s and w as its first scholarch. In th is school A risto tle w as of
course a lw a y s h on oured as T h e M aster, and rig h tly so, fo r u n d o u b ted ly
he h a d g iv en rise to th e school. G ra d u a lly i t becam e an established
opinion th a t h e “ h ad fou n d ed a school in th e L y c e u m ” . O u r earliest
evid en ce for th is is H erm ip pu s, and I th in k it w as h e w ho created the
legend of A r isto tle ’s “ head ship of th e L y c e u m ” . T h e sto ry to ld b y
G ellius is o b v io u sly m od elled on sim ilar stories a b o u t P la to and Speu-
sippus. I t w ould h a v e su ited H e rm ip p u s’ purpose w ell to ad d an
an ecd ote a b o u t A risto tle selectin g his successor. G elliu s' sto ry, then,
is a la te H ellen istic version of th is anecdote. H e m igh t h a v e found it
in P h av o rin u s, and P h avo rin u s w as w ell a cq u ain ted w ith H erm ippus.
48. H ellenistic fabrication.

C f. Phaed. go c 4, E th. N ie. I X 6, 116 7 b 7.
347
48 a J U S T IN U S M ARTYR Cohortatio ad graecos 34 b, M igne 6,

P - 3 °5 ^ K al Trent t o v t c d v m a r e v e a B a i ea vrov <5ta S o x i f i o T r j r a (fo d n e o sq
a ^ tw v o v d e tt)v tov E v q It io v tp v o iv r a t i o v t o q ev XaX xidi y v & v a i S w t] -
OeiQ, 81a noXXijv a d o ^ ta v x a i a i a y v v j p Xvn^Qeiq p e r e a r i ] tov f ii o v .
48 b G R E G O R I U S N A Z I A N Z E N U S , Or. I V 72, M igne 35, p. 597 a:

. . . TTjv ’ Agtxrcore/.ovq <piXoao(piav xa i nnoosdaiav i n i Talc, to$ E voutov
[lETaflaXalq v<p <bv TEdvrjxaai.
Comment. H o w p o p u lar tb is th em e w as in late a n tiq u ity and the
M iddle A g es is show n b y th is flourish from E lia s C retensis (Ed. Colon.
I I 5 ° 7 ): “ A risto teles . . . rerum om nium u t v id e tu r n atu ram perscru tatu s
E u rip i quoque n atu ram in d agare et cognoscere v o lu it. Q u am cum asse-
qui non potu isset, in b a n c m aris p artem se praecip item d ed it a tq u e
interiit, his ve rb is utens: O u on iam A ristoteles E u rip u m m inim e cepit,
A ristotelem E u rip u s h a b e a t.”
48 c P R O C O P I U S V I I I 6,20, p. 513 H au ry: 5AXXa x a i o UTayEigtTTjq

’AqiototeXyjq, aatpoq dvTja ev tole, fid X im a , ev XaX xidi rfj tt\q Evfiotat;
to v to v dr] ivsxa ysyovwg (sc. to in v estig a te th e tid a l currents) x a r a -
vocov t e tov T a v T t] nogdfiov ovnsg Evginov ovofidôvai xa i Xdyov tov
tp v a ix o v iq t o axgifHq diEQevvaoQat [iovXofiEvoq, ojicng 8fj xa i S v T iv a
TQ0710V EVLOTE flEV TO. TOV j CGo O/IOV TOVTOV Q E V U aTfl EX SvO U W V (fEQETtai,
evlote Se ?)Xlov avaToXaiv, x a i x a r a rav T a tiXeIv r a nX ola £v fin av ra
Evravda Ivufiaivet, fjv 8e tiote to v qov dvtayovrnq i)Xiov lovroq, dglja-
fidvojv te Totv vavT&v evQevSe £vv Tf] to v godtov Entggofj vavT iXXsaQai,
jjneg eIcoOei, a n ivavTiaq avToil to q tv ft a lr\, otieq noXXdxiq ivTatida
tpiXei yiveadai, dvaaroEfpEl /iev to. nX ola r a v r a evBvq evOev w gprjrai,
r a 86 dXXa ex dva/ubv in i Oarr.fja jiXeI, x a in sg am o lq tojv avificov
Ttvoq (Lq 'rjxiaTa ininvEvoavToq aXXa yaXr}vr}q te fiaBsiaq Tivog x a i
vrjvs/iiaq ivTavda ovorjq- Tavra o ZTayeiQLTTjq ivvomv te x a i avaxvxXdtv
in i xqovov /urjxoq, SvoOavardhv in i £vvvoia ayixETo eg to jietqov to v fttov.
48 d E U S T A T H I U S In D ionys. Perieget. v. 473, Geographi minores

ed. B ern h a rd y p. 189: ' E m a x iq 8e (/.lErafiaXXei) t o oXov rnxBrj/uegov
o nsg i E vjioiav Evginog, 7tE.nl ov cpaai diarqiipavTa tov ’ A q io to teX tp
xaraXvaai tov fii.av.
Comment. T h e V ita S y ria ca I I 7 and M ubashir 22 relate th is sto ry ,

b u t lik e E u sta th iu s w ith o u t com bining it w ith th e sto ry a b o u t his
348
suicide, cf. m y com m en ts on M u b ashir 22. T h e u ltim ate source is

H erm ippus.
A s so o ften in th is b ook, it is possible to argu e in utramque partem.
H erm ip pu s had a m orbid p red ilection for tellin g a b o u t suicides o cca
sioned b y depression, ddvfiia, cf. Cronert, Kolotes und, Menedemos, 1906,
p. 3. H e m igh t h a ve fa b rica te d th e sto ry , and P to lem y , w ith his
ten d en cy to glo rify A risto tle , m igh t h a ve o m itted th e suicide. B u t it
eq u a lly possible th a t H erm ip p u s too h a d th e version w ith o u t suicide,
and th a t th e suicide is an ad dition m ade in th e a n ti-A risto telian
tra d itio n of w hich T 3b is a good exam ple.
X II. A P P E A R A N C E A N D P E R S O N A L Q U A L IT IE S
49. Appearance.
T h e bust of A risto tle is k now n in eleven certain and th ree un certain

replicas, see F . S tu d n iczk a, D as B ild n is des Aristoteles, L e ip z ig 1908,
a n d J a e g e r ’s fin e com m ents, Aristotle, p. 330. K . Schefold, D ie B ild
nisse der antiken Dichter Redner und Denker, B asel 1943, p, 96. I t is
g e n e ra lly assum ed th a t th e head in th e possession of th e W ien er K u n st-
historisches M useum is a co p y m ad e in th e tim e of E m p eror Claudius,
and th a t th e origin al w as th e sta tu e set up b y A lex a n d e r in honour of
A risto tle . B y perm ission o f th e D irector of th e m useum I am able to
pub lish a new ph otograp h of th is b ea u tifu l head.
49 a laxvooxEhjg, fiixgd /i/iarog, H erm ip pu s ap. D iog. L ae rt. V 1.
49 b rgavXÖQ ri)v qxavqv, H erm ip pu s ap. D iog. L a e rt. V i , V ita
H es. 1, P lu t. D e and. poet. 8, D e adul. et amico g — T 49 b. T ran sferred
from A risto tle of C yren e, H erod. I V 155.
49 c eaOrjrt Entarjfioi yoMurrvoc, xa i daxrvXioiQ xa i xovga, H erm ippus
ap. D iog. L a e rt. V 1, A el. Var. hist. I l l l g = T 36.
49 d C H R I S T O D O R U S C O P T I T E S , Anthol. P al. I I 16: ',Ex<pgaaig
tm v dyaXßdrcov rtbv sit; to drj/ioaiov yv/nvaatov tov im xaXovfievov
Z e v & j z j io v .
ä y y j b' exsivov
7jEv A qkjtote Xi^q aoqjifjg ngo/iog- laTdfievoQ de
Xe Zqe TiegmUydrjv avveegyaQev, ovtf evi yaXxoj
atpdöyyct) ipgEvag e IXev äegyeag, d l ) ' i n ßovtyv
axEjzTofiEva) fiEv EixTo- avvtardfiEvai be, n a g e iai
avegoQ d/z<pte?.taaav e/iavTsvovTo /xevotvfjv
x a i TgayaX ai aij/j.ivov doXXea fifjriv dnum ai.
50. Personal qualities.
50 a [im xia A el. Var. hist. I l l 19 = T 36, P hilodem us Vol. rhet.

I I 59 S u d h au s = T 31 g. I t is possible th a t E p icu ru s E p . ad Menoec.
126, also q u oted b y W alzer, A rist. dial. fr. p. 14 n. i , ei 6 i ftaixdi/ievoQ,
refers to A ristotle. B u t B ign on e (Arislolele perduto I 113 — 115 ; 225)

has d raw n too far-reach in g conclusions. A s exem p les o f th is ty p e of
iro n y cou ld be m entioned: Rhet. I l l 2, 1405 b 2 4 — 28; P ol. V I I I 6,
1340 b 30 t) naiôeta nX m ayt) t o lç fieiÇoai tüjv vécov (inane cymbalon
iuventutis, ^ erg. Cat. 7); E th. N ie. V I I I 8, 1158 a 24 ovô’ avro to dyaOov',
he calls H erodotu s 0 [ivQoldyoç on ly w h en he criticizes him , Gen. an.
756 b 6; m a n y of th e anecdotes D L V 1 7 — 21, also P lu t. D e and. poet.
32 F; am ong th e apop hth egm s Stob . Flor. I V 87 = T 67 f, E lia s =
= T 67 g.
50 b /.lETQtoTijç, V ita M arc. 31 cum testim oniis.

V A L E R I U S M A X IM U S V I I 2 ,11: Idem Aristoteles de semet ipsos in
neutram partem loqui debere praedicabat, quoniam laudare se va ni, vitupera
te stulti esset, eiusdem est u tilissim um praeceptum ut voluptates abeuntes
consider emus, quas quidem sic osiendendo m inuit: fessis enim paeniten-
tiaque p lenis anim is nostris subicit, quo m inus cupide repetantur. Cf.
e. g. D e caelo I I 12, 291 b 2 4 — 28; I 3, 270 b 1 9 — 21; Meteor. I 1, 339 b
27 — E th. N ie. X 9, 1180 b 2 3 — 29; see also Id eler's com m en ts in
his Meteor. I 322 and 421.
50 c C E N S O R IN U S D e die natali 14, in fine: (Aristotelem ) ferunt

naturalem stomachi infirm itatem crebrasque morbidi corporis offensiones
adeo virtute anim i diu sustentasse, ut magis mirum sit ad annos L X I I I
eum vitam pertulisse quam ultra non protulisse. T h e u ltim ate source
is p ro b a b ly H erm ippus; D L V 11 quotes A p ollod oru s, TsAevTrjaat vdacp,
w h o also used H erm ippus. T h e sto ry to ld b y L y c o n , D L V 16, is a
distortion of th e fa c t th a t A risto tle used a pad filled w ith h o t oil to
a lle v ia te his pains, T h is stom ach disease, p erhaps g a stric u lcer or
can cer, ended his life.
50 d fiovwrfjg, D em etriu s, De eloc. 144 = fr. 668 Rose: xal

iôiw Tixov âè nvöuaTo; ytyvetat (yàaiç), d)ç à ’ A oiaroréA tjç, "Oacp y dp
(prjoi, fiovcoTTjg eifii, <pikofj.v66reQoç yévova■x a l i x nenoirjßEvov, (bç ô
avroç êv tîù avT(p (prob ab ly in a le tte r to A n tip a te r), " Oaco yào
avTiTTjç x a i fiovd)Tt]ç Etfil, (pilofivOdtEQOç yéyova. to fièv yào /lovd) T7]ç
lôtXDTixaitenov iÔov: rjârj êari, ro âè avrirrjç nenoiriuévov èx t oû o vtôç
(cf. 97 x a i AoiaTOTéÀTjç rov avrirrjv oîov rov /itovov avrov orra).
Comment. See J. B id ez, “ A propos d ’une m anière n ou velle de lire
A risto te ’ , in: A c. Belg. B u ll, classe des lettres 5 : 3 0 1944, pp. 4 3 — 55;
Di-rlmeier’s com m en tary on E N I X 10, 1 1 7 1 a 20, p. 559 - Eth. N ic.

I X g, 1170 a 5 — 6 fiovdiTr) fisv 01» âA£7toe 0 • ov yaa gadtov xaB
avrov evegyelv avveyjbc,, /ieO' tregaiv <5e x a i tiqoq aAAou? g&ov. And
1 1 7 1 a 20 dyanrjxov de x a i SAiyovg evgelv tov to v q (s c . <pi).ovQ). JA y a -
nr/trip w ith th e in fin itive , exp ressing an a ttitu d e of philosophic
resignation, is com m on in P la to , b u t in A risto tle it is on ly found in
his late w orks: fiv e tim es in th e E N , once in th e G A , 731 b 2; w ith
ei . . . Xeyoi E N X 10, 11 7 9 b 18, and Meta-ph. X I I I 2, 1076 a 15.
I t is tem ptin g to con jectu re th a t A risto tle w ro te th is letter to A n tip a te r
from Chalcis, d urin g th e la s t m on ths of his life, and th a t h e h as in m ind
w h a t he h a d said E N 1170 a 5. T h e w ord q>iXo/xvd6reQog gives evidence
of his increasing rap proch em en t to P la to ; in his old age he rem em bers
again th a t q>M/j,vOot; o <pik6ooq>6g ncbc eo tw , M elaph. I 2, 982 b 18,
and realizes th a t m y th s are ex cellen t veh icles fo r b rin gin g hom e essential
philosophic tru th s.
50 e Self-assertion, assurance, am bition s. P lu ta rch = jr. 664 R ose

= T 30 c; V al. M ax. V I I I 14,2 laudis avidissim us. T h e w ords from
the letter to A n tip a te r are p ro b a b ly genuine; w e fin d th e sam e a ttitu d e
in th e Protrepticus and in th e discussion a b o u t avragxeia in th e N ico-
machean E thics: “ no d ou b t a m an w ill stu d y b e tte r w ith th e aid of
fellow -students, b u t w h en all com es to all h e is th e m ost self-sufficient
of m en” , 1 1 7 7 a 34. T h e sto ry qu oted b y V aleriu s is p a r t of the com m on
obtredatio and is of no valu e.
In his sty le A risto tle follow s th e b est Io n ic trad itio n , using num erous
expressions to ton e dow n his assertions, cf. I. D u rin g, “ A risto tle ’s D e
p artibu s an im aliu m ,” Goleborgs K . Velenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhalles
Handl. V I A: 2, G o teb o rg 1943, p. 136. H e v e ry seldom speaks osten ta
tio u sly in th e first person; Xeyoj Se and ’kiyatxEV etc. is u su a lly epexe-
getic (cf. D irlm eier’s co m m en ta ry on th e N E , p. 3 ° 9 )i on Tare occasions
we en counter an en ergetic de <pa/iev, e. g. A n . post. 72 b 18,
Phys. 19 1 a 34 and b 13, and w e can th en b e sure th a t h e says som ething
w hich in his eyes w a s im p o rta n t and new.
50 f P ersu asiv e pow er. P lu t. Vita A le. 42 (Comp. 3), p. 234 d:

5AvxLnaxgoc, (iev o iv iv sm atokf] n v i ygaqxov tieq'i rfj$ 'AntaroxeXovQ
t ov (piXoaoffov te Xevx ijQ, Tloog rot? aXAoiq , qirjaiv, o xa i t o jis CBeiv
t llE . V ita Catonis 29, 354 a: M eya yao x a i 'A g im o xeX ei n o (piAoo6<po>
tovto n o o o E fia o T v m jo E v ’ Avxinaxgog ygacpcjv n r.ql avxov fiE x a r ijv

xeAevxi]v o xr F fgoj Toig aXXoig o avrjo x a l t o ntOavov (jielBeiv fortase
scribendum ) eI'/j.v. I can see no reason w h y this e x tr a c t should not
b e genuine; if genuine, it is a rem arkab le piece o f ex te rn al evidence.
I f A risto tle had been a closet-scholar, he w ou ld never h a v e w on th is
praise from a m an lik e A n tip a te r.
51. Obtrectatio varia.
P lu ta rch , V ita P ericlis 35: xaCxa iv t (ilq ayoXulg Xsyexai rmv

(fiAoa6<pa>v. P o ly b iu s I I I 20: xovgeaxi) xn l ndvdrjfiog XaXta.
5 1 a aaioxta, E p icu ru s fr. 17 1 — T 59 a. — oipi/xaOrjQ (dips t fjQ

fjXtxiaQ T 58 c), T im aeu s fr. 156 = T 60 a; TQtaxovxovxrjv TTkaxtovi
avcnfjvai, D L V 6, P to lem y -el-G arib V ita S yr. I 6, F ih rist 6, U saibia
12; TEaaaQaxovTovrr]Q V it a M arc. 1 1 . — Onaavg evxegrjg TtgoncT^Q
yaaxgijiagyoQ oyianxvxijQ, T im aeu s fr. 156, = T 60 a. — xsvdrjq t gtxpEQOQ,
Cephisodorus = T 58 h (doubtful). — oipoqxiyot;, T im aeu s ap. A th en .
V III 34 2 c = T 60 d. — vnEQxaLQOiv rat yvvaiui, p s.-A ristip p u s ap.
D L V7 3 — 4, tran sferred from T im ae u s’ slander on T h eo p h rastu s =
F Gr H ist 566 F . 158 b. — axaioog oxca/ivkia AaAovvxoq, A elian Var.
H ist. I l l i g = T 36. — A foreigner from S ta gira, T h eo d oretu s Graec.
aff. cur. I 50; J. B ern a ys, D ia l. d. A rist., p. 134, “ A risto teles H alb-
g riec h e” ; an en tirely u n founded conclusion.
Comment. See m y n otes on T 58— 66, ch. X V . W e can see th a t the
ea rly u n fav o u rab le tra d itio n is co n cen trated to th ree m ain sources:
Tim aeus, T h eo critu s of Chios, and th e E picu rean s.
5 1 b Tlaibixa. ' Eg/xiov, D L V 3, B ry o n ap. D L V 1 1 , V ita H esych ii

4. n a ib ixd O sobexxov, A th en . X III 566 de. Ttatbixd Aia%QLmvoq.
S u d a s. 11. AlaxQicov. n a ib ixa TlaXaufdxov, S u d a s. v. TlaXaicpaxoq. The
silly s to ry a b o u t A risto tle and X en o cra tes, A th en . X I I 530 d. A ll
th is is ty p ic a l xovgeaxr) XaXtd. (M. P lezia, “ D e H erm ip p i v it a A ristelis” ,
in: Charisteria T h. Sin ko, W a rsza w 19 5 1, p. 257, ascribes th e sto ry abou t
A risto tle and X en o cra tes to H erm ippus.)
X III SOME ANCIENT VERDICTS
52. W illingness to revise his opinions.

P L U T A R C H U S D e virtute morali 3 et 7, 442 a e t 448 a: Tavraig
iXQijaaTo t aig dgXalg (sc. th a t th e soul of m an is d ivid ed in Xoyixov,
imdv/xotiv, Ovfiovjuevov) in i nXeov 'AgiaxoxdXrjg, cog SrjXov ia x tv e£
ihv sygay>EV vcrxsgov 8e xd jir.v OvfioEiSsg to j imöv/irjTixä) n.goae-
veifiEV, u>g emBvfitav zivn tdv dv/xov övxa xa i öge£iv dvxiXvnrjasaig.
id ) /J.EVT01 nadrjxixd) xai aXdya) fiexgt navxog dig SiatpsgovTi rov Xoyi-
axixov xQo'j/Ltevog dtereXeoev, ov% öx 1 izavreXcbg aXoyov iaxiv, dianf.g t o
aiaörjxtxöv fj t o dgsnxixdv xa i cpvxixov xrjg y)v%fjg fiigog- dXXa xavxa
/XEv dXcog dviqxoa Xdyov x a i xaxpa xgonov n v d rfjg aaoxog ixßeßXacnrjxe
xa i neg't to o & fia navxeX&g xaTajiEtpvxs ■ t o Sk jtaörjxixdv oIxeiov
Xöyov OTEQETai xai &/j.oigov eo tiv , aXXcag 6 i tofi XoyiCofidvov xa i
ipgovovvTog siaaxovEiv, x a i TgsnsaQat nodg ixelv o x a i vneixsiv xa i
xaTaaxrifiaTiCEaOai nscpvxev, ear nr\ te Xeov j) SiECpdag/iEvov vcp' TjSovrjg
äjuaOovg x a i dxoXdoxov diaixrjg.
(7) ’ E n el did xt xoig ev cptXoaocpla axefijxaaiv ov ngdaEOxi to fiExa
Xvm/g vno xdjv Iteqcdv in a yead a i x a i fisxaxidEaQai noXXaxig, dXX
avxog te ’ AgioxoxeXr/g, Arj/idxgixdg t e x a i X gvam nog evia xwv ngoaBsv
avxolg dgsaxdvxaiv dQogvßmg x a i dSrjxxcog xa i /ie6’ rjSovfjg dcpeioav;
6 t 1 tw Qsutgr}Tixd) xa i f/aÖq/xaTixqj tfjg y>vXi}g nddog ovSev dvÖEOxrjxev,
dXX' dxge/nel xa i ov noXvngay/iovel t o aXoyov iv xovxoig. Sio ngog to
aXrjOsg 6 Xoyiafiog chav rpavfj ngodfievog to yieHSog dopevwg ansxXivev.
indyeoOai D ü rin g ' äyeodc11 c o d d .
Comment. P la t o ’s trip a rtitio n of th e soul is m entioned b y A risto tle

in the Topics (frequ en tly, see H . v. A rnim , “ D as E th isch e in A risto teles’
T o p ik ” , in: Sb A k W ien 205: 4, 1927), and in th e spurious De virtute.
In E N I 13, 1102 a 2 6 — 28, A risto tle refers to Xoyoi e£wxegtxoi for
the division in ratio n al and irrational; th is m igh t b e in terpreted as a
reference to th e Protrepticus, w here, in jr. 6 W a lzer he seem s to h a v e
th is b ip a rtitio n in m ind. O n the w hole question, see D . A . Rees, “ B ip ar-
Goteb. U n iv . ArssAr. L X I I I : 2 23
titio n of th e Soul in th e E a r ly A c a d e m y ” , in: J H S 77, 1957, pp. 112

118 , and D irlm eier’s n ote on E N 1098 a 3 ~ 4 > PP an(^ 2 92 3>
w ith b ib lio g ra p h y an d references to N u yens.
P lu ta r c h ’s lan gu ag e em Jikiov — v o t e q o v de raises a sm all po in t of
in terpretation . W h a t does em nXeov mean? I do n o t th in k th a t it
n ecessarily im plies a c o n tra st to v o x e q o v Se, and th e tran slation s
“ p leru m q u e” o r “ fo r a long tim e ” seem to m e question able. A s early
as in P o lyb iu s w e fin d ejtl 7iXeov used in a rath er w ea k sense, sim ilar
in sense to th e conn ectin g or tran sitio n al p a rticle n tyv . In our passage
I am inclined to u n derstan d it thus: “ W e m a y fu rth er ob serve th a t
A risto tle too used th is trip a rtitio n ” . H e then refers to D e an. I 1,
403 a 30.
P lu ta rch m a y w ell h a v e read th e T opics or p a rts of it m pre-Androrti-
cean editions; it is m entioned Quaest. conv. I 3, 616 e. F ro m th e fa ct,
ob served b y him , th a t A risto tle h a d m en tion ed the trip a rtitio n in the
Topics, w hereas in oth er w orks he spoke of tw o parts, the ratio n al and
irration al, P lu ta rch concluded th a t th ese w orks w ere w ritten “ la te r ” .
S u ch o b servation s on changes of opinion are n ot uncom m on; a ty p ic a l
ex a m p le is G alen ’s discussion of H ip p ocrates. S u ch ob servation s h a v e
nothin g to do w ith m odern conception s of a d evelop m en t of A risto tle ’s
th in kin g.
H ere in th is c o n te x t his o b serva tio n of a ch an ge in opinion is th e b a c k
groun d to w h a t he says a b o u t D em ocritu s, A risto tle and C h rysip pu s
in ch. 7. I t arouses suspicions th a t he m entions D em ocritu s; he certain ly
had no first-h an d know ledge of th is philosopher. T h is su ggests th a t the
w hole passage is one of his usual loci communes, and th a t co n sequ en tly
it is not based on his ow n reading. T h e gist of his a rgu m en t is this:
reason is free from em otion; c o n sta n tly seeking th e tr u th th e philosopher
th erefore does n ot h es ita te to m o d ify his earlier opinions. In terp reted
in th is w a y th e passage has a v e ry general b earin g on th e top ic he is
discussing.
A s is w ell k now n this passage has freq u e n tly been qu oted as evidence
fo r th e opinion th a t u n til a b o u t 347 A risto tle follow ed P la to v e r y closely;
th u s W . J ae ge r, in: Hermes 64, 1929, p . 22: “ F reilich w ird ja w ohl
au ch eine H a n d v o ll antikeT Zeugnisse n ich t die U n en tw egen erschü ttern
die a priori wissen, dass A risto teles in seiner F rü h z e it nich P la to m k er
gew esen sein kan n, und die deshalb die platon ischen Stellen der frühen
S ch riften lieb er w eg in terp retiren .”
On the question w hich of A ris to tle ’s sch o la rly treatises P lu tarch

knew, see m y “ N otes on th e H is to ry of th e Transm ission of A risto tle ’s
W ritin gs” , in: Acta univ. Gothob. 56, 1950: 3, p. 40. I h a ve collected
and studied his qu otation s from A risto tle , b u t there are m an y “ hidden”
quotations, w ith o u t th e ad dition of A r is to tle ’s nam e, w h ich com plicate
the problem , and I can n o t sa y th a t I h a v e reach ed a fin al opinion. W e
cannot d oubt th a t h e k n e w th e dialogues and th e Protreplicus; of the
treatises he kn ew th e P hysics, D e caelo, D e anim a; e x a c tly w hich parts
of th e ethical trea tises and th e P o litics he k n e w first-h an d is m ore
doubtful; he had seen sev eral of th e P o liteia i and q uotes a n um ber of
A ristotelian w ritings now lo st or regarded as spurious. H e ob viou sly
regarded th e D e virtutibus et vitiis and D e mundo as genuine w orks of
A ristotle. W h a t he says, T 25 a, a b o u t A r is to tle ’s “ published and
unpublished” w orks in d icates th a t he o n ly had second-hand kn ow ledge
of A n d ro n icu s’ edition and of the conten ts and pu rport of th e M etaphy
sics.
53. Aristotle in the eyes of his contemporaries.
53 a. T he A ca d em y , the L y c e u m and oth er p u b lic gy m n asia and

halls where th e sop hists ta u g h t w ere open to th e public. W e m a y be
sure th a t the m an in th e stree t listen ed to th e quibbles of th e philosophers
w ith th e sam e b ew ild erm en t as his m odern cou n terp a rt feels w hen
listening to a logistic ph ilosopher of th e C am brid ge school. T h e frag
m ents of th e M iddle com ed y g iv e us som e glim pses of th e pu blic reaction.
(See R . F en k , Adversarii Platonis quomodo de indole ac moribus eius
iudicaverint, Diss. J en a 1913, and m y Herodicus the Cratctean, S to c k
holm 1941). T h e m ost sk ilfu l p a ro d y is found in a fragm en t of th e
Cleophanes b y A n tip h an es, preserved b y A th en aeu s I I I g8 f:
To ôè t vgavvslv Èaxtv;
r) t i noxE to p (m ovôalov àxoAovdeïv èoeIç
Èv to) A vxeiqi fiExà aorpt.az&v, vrj A ia,
Aeuxw v à a lx w v a vx tva iv, AsyovG’ o r 1
xà n ç â y f ia x o v r ’ o v x ia x iv e îjie q y iy v e x a r
ovâ' ÈOTi yâç nu> y i y v o f t e v o v ô y i y v E x a i,
o v ô ' e i nQÔTEçov ijv, êartv ô y e vvv y ly v e x a c

ë a r iv yào ovx ôv ovôév ô ô è fit] y é y o v ê n co
ovx êœ anEo yéyovEV ô ye firj y é y o v é na>.

IN G Ë M A R D Ü R IN G
356
Fx rov y àg elvai yéyovsv, ei Ö" ovx r/v ÔOev,

nm ç èyévET è f ovx S vtoq; ov% olov t s y àg .
e ï è' noBév not yèyovev, ovx ë ara t.
xeb io i ôé n o rè n ç ■et nodev yevyjoeTai
t o v k ôv e'iç o v x Ôv; eIq o w ôv y àg ov ôvvrjaerai.
r a v r l ô’ S r i èariv ovô’ av ' AnoM cov /iàdot.
cus
W e cannot date this comedy. When commenting on it in m y Herodi-
I connected it with the discussions of being and becoming in the
Parm enides; this is also W ebster’s opinion, Studies tn Later Greek
Comedy, 1950. p. 52 - 53- B u t Antiphanes mentions th e Lyceum
eixam
aw
r)
not the Academ y and it is equally possible th at his mockery is aimed
at Aristotle in the 330’s. W hen Tim on spoke of Aristotle s
âXeyetm and Theocritus of Chios m ockingly called him xevoygœv (D L
V 11) th ey appealed to the general opinion of the philosophers as idle
talkers, b ut there is a new unfriendly accent unknown to the com ed y
In the com edy the criticism chiefly concerns the portly bearingan
somewhat strange manners of Plato and the Academics. In spite of
the fact th at Plato was a thorough-bred Atheman, the people of Athens
seem to have regarded the philosophers of the Academ y as strangers.
B u t there are no derogatory or contemptuous insinuations about P lato s
person apart from the harmless mockery on the subject of his ae/xvorrig.
The banquets were dignified: &nXà w r, «5 d e c e it t f m t t o v eK t j
vareoaiav f, rijv n a g ota av fa é g a v (Hegesander ap. Athen^ X 419 d).
The common view in Athens probably corresponded with the proverb,
Paroemiogr. Gr. I I p. 265: ’ A x a ô W ir)dEV 1)xei;. *>01 ao<poç x a i onov-
ô a ïo; v n à ey tiç. There are several allusions in the comedy to the fact
th at P la to preferred v e g e ta b les and fru g a l meals. The young men in
the Academ y dressed well; Antiphanes ap. Athen. X I I 545 a and
Ephippus ap. Athen. X I 509 c: àvaaràç ev oroxoç veaviaç riov * :
’ A x a ô W iaç t tç - we know th at Aristotle was mocked at because
of the elegance of his clothes, his rings and well-dressed hair, ev fxev
uaraipa £vor' Ey<1)V rgiyuftcna.
Panath FünfAbhandlungenzurGeschichte
T he philosophers in the L yceum are also mentioned b y Isocrates
derPhilosophie,
X I I 18,33. Th. Bergk (in:
Leipzig 1883) thought th at Isocrates gibed at Aristotle,
b u t a t the time when this was written, c. 340, A nstotle was not in
Athens and there was no reason to connect the Lyceum speciflca y
A R IS T O T L E IN T H Ë B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 357
w ith A ristotle. I t was and rem ained a p u b lic gym n asiu m and m eeting-
place of th e com m on sophists.
An interesting notice, preserved b y S tob aeu s (IV , p. 785.15 H ense =
fr. 1 W alzer of th e Protrepticus) tells us th a t A risto tle ’s Prolrepiicus
was so popular th a t Crates, th e C y n ic ph ilosopher, read it "as he sat
in a shoem aker’s w ork sh o p ” , p ro b a b ly n ot long a fter it w as published.
W e are told th a t P la to called A r is to tle ’s house xov avayvaioxov
o ix ia v (V ita M arc. 6, see m y com m ents), and th a t he regarded him as a
som ew hat cn eek y you n g m an: “ he k ick s m e lik e a c o lt” (DL, V 2).
This rings true, b u t can of course n ot b e p roved . W e are also told th a t
P la to called A risto tle votiq xrjq diaxgtfirjq (V ita M arc. 6, M ubashir 12,
U saibia 29, Philoponu-s, all from P tolem y-el-G arib ), b u t as I h a ve said
in my com m ents on th e passage, I regard th is anecd ote as la te fiction.
In the Parm enides P la to in trod u ces th e y o u n g A th en ia n A ristotle.
“ W h y did P la to , w ho a lw a y s sets his scene and chooses his actors and
speakers w ith a rtistic art an d a certain purpose, fall upon th e idea to
introduce this yo u n g m an A ristotle? E v en if w e m igh t be prejudiced
in in terp retin g th is nam e, w e m u st ad m it th a t, at the tim e when
P lato finished th e Parm enides, he m u st h a v e m et in the A ca d em y an
inq uisitive you n g m an w ith this nam e. A t a p u b lic recitation of th e
Parmenides in the A ca d em y in th e ‘sixties — for th a t w as p ro b ab ly the
manner in w hich a new dialogue of P la to w as “ pu b lish ed ” — th e you n g
interlocutor in the dialogu e m u st h a ve been id en tified w ith th e prom is
ing you n g m an presen t in th e au d ien ce.” (D uring, “ A risto tle and
P la to in th e m id -F o u rth C e n tu ry ” , in: Eranos 54, 1956, p. 112.)
T he reader w ill no d o u b t see fo r h im self how fragile the m aterial
adduced in th is p a rag ra p h is. T h e early “ u n fav o u rab le tr a d itio n ” is
collected in T 58.
53 b A R I S T O X E N U S Elem enla harmonices I I 1, p. 30.10 Meibom:

B iX n o v laaiQ ecn l to ngoSieXOslv xov xgonov xf]g ngayfiaxeiat; t.lq
nor' Ear tv, Iva ngoyiyvdiaxovxEQ wanEQ odov fj fiafitertEov gadiov
noQEvdifiEda sidoTEQ xe xa xa x i jnegog eofiev avxfjq xa i [it] XaQoifiev
rjfidg avxovg nagvnoXafijJavovxeg xo ngny/i.n.
KoBojieq *AgtoxoxeXrjg del fit.rjyf.lxn xovq rr.Xf.larovg x(hv axovaavxwv
naga IJXdxuivoq xrjv nsgi xayaBov dxgoaot,v nnOE.lv. ngoatevni ju v yag
ixaaxov vnoXafijidvovxa X?jy>Eodai xi xojv vo/iiCojueva)v xo v xc d v avOgoj-
nivoDv nyaftojv oiov nXovxov vyieiriv iayvv xo oXov EvSaifiovtav rtva
358 IN G E M A R D tT SIN G
O avfia a x-qv o re 6e (pavEirjoav o i Xoyot n e g i fiaBrj/idraiv x a l doiO/iMv x a l

y E aipergiag x a l dargoX oytag x a l t o n eg ag o n dyaOov e o n v ev, navxeXOit;
oificit Tiagadotov n etpaivEXO avxolg" eld oi f ii v vTzoxarstpgdvovv xov
n gdy /xarog o l de xaT£/iEfi(povro.

T i ovv t o a h to v ; ov ngorjdEOav, dXX' (oojieq oi eq ia n x o i node, xovvofia
avxo vnoxexfjvdreg 71Qoafjeaav ei 6e ye rig olfiat 71qoe£exi6ei to oXov,
djieyivcooxev dv o fieXXow axovEiv fj eitieq rjgeoxEV avxu) SiefiEvev dv
ev xfj elQT}fiEV7] vnoXrfyjei.

IJgodXEye fie v ovv x a l a vrog ’ A q io x o t e Xt); 8i a v ra g r a v r a g rag a ir tag,
a>g f.tprj, ro lg fiEXXovtriv a x g o a a d a i n a g avxoH, n eqi xivojv t eo x iv r\

TiQ ayfiaxsia x a l xig . — U sed as rh eto rical exam ple b y T H E M I S T I U S ,
O r. X X I , 2 4 5 d.
Comment. T h is rem ark ab le passage has been m uch discussed, m ost
recen tly b y H . Cherniss in: The Riddle of the E arly Academ y, B erkeley
1 9 4 5 , and S it D a v id R oss in: Plato's Theory of Ideas, O x fo rd I 9 5 1 -
A risto x e n u s first em phasizes th e v a lu e of a certain ped agogical
m ethod: before en terin g upon his su b ject a lectu rer should introd u ce
his audience to it in a proper w a y “ and so ligh ten th e to il of th e
jo u rn e y ” .
I f w e com pare th e lectu res in th e Corpus H ippocralicum w ith A rist
o tle ’s lectu res w e can cle a rly see th e difference. T h e E udem ian E thics
has a pream ble d ivid ed in fou r parts, com prising chs. 1 — 6; th e lectu rer
th e n says nengoot/iiaafiEvmv 8e xa l xovxcov Xiyoifiev ag^dfiEvoi ngwxov
0710 TUiv 7iQ(OT(j)v. In th e Nicomachean E thics he concludes th e pream ble,
chs. 1 — 3, as follow s: xa l neqI /u e v axgoaroiS x a l nwg ajiodexxEov xa l
r i ngoriQe/ieQa Ttr.tpnoi/jidadoj roiavra. I t is th is A risto telian m ethod
A risto x e n u s has in m ind.
A risto x e n u s th en says th a t, as an exam ple of w h a t th e resu lt can he
if th is elem en tary p ed agogical principle is n eglected , A risto tle used to
rela te som ething w hich happ ened to “ th o se w ho cam e to hear P la to
sp ea k on th e G oo d ” .
W e are th u s inform ed th a t A risto tle to ld th is sto ry as a stan dard
exam p le, and it is fa ir to in fer th a t he did so in order to set off his
ow n m eth od a ga in st th a t of his predecessors. T h e w ord axgoaaig is
am biguous. I t is fa irly com m on in its origin al sense, “ th e a ct of liste
n in g” , and axgnaaiv noteladat m eans “ listen to . W e fin d it in th e
Corp. H ip p . in th e sense of “ p u b lic lectu re” , b u t n ever in such a c o n tex t
th a t w e can sa y w h eth er it m eans “ one lectu re , a course of lectu re
or “lectu rin g’’ . E v e n in la te r literatu re th e sense is am biguous Andro-

nicus g a v e th e title 0 v<Jtxr, dxgoam g to A r is to tle ’s course of lectures
» e *. <PV<JB<OS and n eQL x m « . I do not th in k th a t for A risto tle and
>s fellow -students th e tim e-elem en t en tered into th e ir definition of an
" ['! th ey CVet thouRht of ^ f in in g it). I assum e th a t this word
m eant to them 'th e continuous exp osition of a certain th e m e” , or “ the
listening to su ch an exposition ; w h eth er it w as sh o rt or lon g inter
rupted a t in terva ls or not, w a s irrelevan t. Cherniss holds th a t A ris-
toxenus speaks of one sin gle le c tu re ” ; th e n eop laton ic com m entators
thin kin g of th e ir ow n classes a t regu lar hours, used th e plural Aoyol
or aW 0W ta, L ik e R oss I am inclined to b elieve th a t it w as a course
erf lectures o r m a n y case a rath er lon g exp osition , becau se this is w hat
the general p rob ab ilities po in t to.
A risto x en u s goes on to sa y th a t, to m a n y of th e y o u n g m en in the
^ * ^ 0'S leCtUre " aS 3 Sh° Ck; “ their E n c h a n t m e n t 1

com plete . Cherniss n g h tly rem arks th a t th is is th e m ost curious fa c t
th a t F Ia t° f d t ’ 38 th e aUth° r ° f th e Sevenih * * * *
h a t his d octrin e w a s incom m u n icab le in w ord s,’ ) w h y is it th a t on
e one occasion w hich he is supposed to h a v e chosen for an exp osition
of it m a ll its tech n ical p ro fu n d ity w as precisely a lectu re given to a
p o b b c . « t a n * w h ich h a d no p relim in ary experience o f th e sort of
th in g he w as lik e ly to s a y ? ” (Cherniss, pp. n - l 2 .)
E v e r y a tte m p t a t ex p la in in g th is fa c t m u st in v o lve c o n je ctu re
i . ,1WUn; V A n sto x e n u s ’ accou n t is som ew h at exaggerated - our
now ledge of h im as a w rite r ju stifie s th is assum ption. S e c o n d ly I
assum e th a t this lectu re (or lectures) w as held som e tim e in th e ‘fifties
Lid” £ath Washivery SmmT maninAtl,cns- Thelecture was certaialy

held in th e p u b h c g ym n asiu m (the E p icra tes-frag m en t speaks of b
yvftvaatoig A xa d r}^ , A th . I I 59 d, la te r it w as called d U fa
A cackm " W* ^ ^ d istin e uished m em bers of th e

h b nTt T ? Pr6Sent aDd ^ t W t0° k DOteS ° f th e ,e c tu ^ But
it is n atu ra l to assum e th a t P la to ’s audience a t this unique occasion
so in clu d ed people from o u tsid e th e A ca d em y , y o u n g m en w ho w ere
accustom ed to listen to th e A th en ia n rhetors and so p h ist,, enticed
th ith er b j^ th e rum our th a t th e celeb rated philosopher was to m ake
J J U Z S " t0 fi” d t,,a‘ W‘ ttSe,“ tf,n - thc of the TracMu,

c Z L r Z ■Sa•V’, r “ Ct,y the - 1 • « « « « r rrJ.
36o IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
a pu blic appearan ce.1) T h e y w ere shocked, says A ristoxen u s, for “ th e y

had n o t w a ited to inform th em selves of th e n atu re of th e su b ject, b u t
a fter th e m anner of w ran glin g sophists had flocked round open-
m ou th ed , a ttra c te d b y th e m ere title “ g o o d ” in itse lf” (M acran).
A risto x e n u s’ sto ry gives us a glim pse of th e d ifference w hich rea lly
ex isted betw een th e discourses of th e com m on sophists and th e h ig h ly
tech n ical discussions in th e A c a d e m y .2) I t w as du rin g these years th a t
the b reak occurred betw een general ed u cation and scien tific know ledge,
and a new m ode of expression, scien tific prose, too k shape. A risto tle
kn ew th is w hen he w rote th e lectu re w h ich A n dronicus ed ited as the
first ch ap ter of D e partibus anitnalium ; see m y Aristotle's D e part. an.
(full title T 50 e), pp. 30— 36.
53 c. In his R iddle of the Early Academ y C herniss discusses th e

e x te rn a l evid ence for th e n ature of th e A ca d em y . I t w as a religious
fra te rn ity . “ P la to ’s rôle appears to h a v e b een n ot th a t of a ‘m a ste r ’
or even of a sem inar d irector d istrib u tin g su b jects fo r research reports
or p rize essays, b u t th a t of an in d ivid u al th in k e r w hose in sigh t and
skill in th e form u latio n o f a problem enables him to offer gen eral a d vice
and m eth od ical criticism to oth er in d ivid u al th in kers w h o respect his
w isdom and w ho m a y be d om in ated b y his p e rso n a lity b u t w ho consider
th em selves a t least as com p eten t as th e y consider him in d ealin g w ith
th e d etails of sp ecial su b je c ts.”
“ H e regarded m a th em a tics as a prop aed eu tic fo r p h ilosop h y and
b elieved th a t th e s tu d y of th is science is th e b est m eans of train in g
th e m ind for a b stra ct th in kin g. — O ne should, then, suppose th a t if
stu d en ts w ere ta u g h t a n y th in g in th e A ca d em y , th e y w ould certa in ly
b e ta u g h t m ath em atics; th is inference is su p ported b y th e dialogues.
— T h e p relim in a ry cu rricu lu m of th e A c a d e m y w ou ld consist o n ly of
p lan e and solid g e o m etry and n u m ber-theory, for arith m etic in our sense
of th e w ord th e stu d en ts en tering th e school w ou ld a lrea d y know . —
A risto tle , referrin g to th e Republic in th e ton e of a disappoin ted g ra d u ate
ch argin g th e college cata lo g u e w ith frau d u len t a d vertisin g, com plains
th a t m ath em atics has b ecom e p h ilosoph y fo r m odern th in k ers tho u gh
th e y sa y th a t it should b e stu d ied fo r th e sa k e of oth er th in gs (M etaph.
J) W e m a y c o m p a r e T h e m is t iu s X X I 245 c, e v e n if w e a ssu m e t h a t h is s to r y
a b o u t P la t o 's le c tu r e in P ir a e u s is p u re fic tio n .
2) F o r e x a m p le s in P la t o 's d ia lo g u e s , see m y co m m e n ts on T 76, ite m b).
I 9, 992 a 32 y s y o v e rri fia O ^ a r a r o k v&v rj tpdoootpia, <paaxovT(ov

r(I>v ( t U d iv y d o iv aw ä ö e lv 7 to a y / n a T E v e a 0 a i, I assum e this to reflect
his opinion in th e 'fifties). H a v in g en tered th e A c a d e m y in his eig h t
eenth year, and h a vin g con tin u ed his association w ith it until P la to
died tw e n ty yea rs later, A risto tle had p resu m a b ly gone through w h a t
ever form al course of stu d y m a y h ave been p rescribed .”
C herniss’ an alysis of th e evid ence for th e n atu re of th e A ca d em y —
from w hich I h ave here p erm itted m y self to q u ote som e passages —
seems to me essen tially true. O n one p oint, how ever, I th in k he has
gone too far in n ega tiv e in terp retation , n am ely in rejectin g th e evidence
for P la to ’s oral teaching. T h e evidence is a d m itte d ly m eagre, b u t it
is of good q u a lity . In a c h a p te r on P la to ’s “ u n w ritten d o ctrin es” Ross
has exam ined th e evid en ce afresh, and I feel th a t on th is po in t he has
com e nearer to th e tru th th an Cherniss.
F o r th e general assu m ption th a t A risto tle “ founded a school in the
L y c e u m ” w e h a v e no an cien t evid en ce a t all, see K . O. B rin k, art.
P erip atos, R E Su pp l. V II, col. 905: “ D er M einung, dass auch er
schon au f dem sp äter der Schule gehörigen G ru n d stü ck geleh rt und dort
seine B ib lio th e k und andere L eh rm ittel geborgen h abe (Jaeger A r. 335)
steh t die N a ch rich t entgegen, dass erst T h eo p h rast einen eigenen
xfjnog, zu dem ihm D em etrios von P haleron verh alf, n ach A risto teles’
T od erhalten h a b e .”
T h e L y c eu m w as a p u b lic gym n asiu m , open to sophists and rhetors.
T he nucleus of th e la te r legend is fou n d in H erm ip pu s’ w ords, D L V 2,
ikeadai n E g i n a x o v t o v e v A vxeim .
54. Cicero and D ion ysiu s on Aristotle.
54 a C I C E R O De fin . V 3,7: Perifiatetici veteres quorum princeps

Aristoteles quem excepto Platone haud scio an recte dixerim principem
philosophorum.
54 b C IC E R O {Acad, pr.) L u cu llu s 43, 132: Aristotelem meo iudicio

in philosophia prope singulärem. — Sim. 46, 143.
54 c C IC E R O Orator 5 1, 172: Sed quis omnium doctior, quis acutior,
quis in rebus vel inveniendis vel iudicandis acrior Aristotele fuit?
54 d D I O N Y S I U S H A L I C A R N A S S E N S I S D e compos, verb. 24. p.
I I 189 U sener-R aderm acher: . . . fieXonotwv jiev Hrrjaixogog r e xai
AXxaloQ, rgayq)doTiotcov de Xoq)oxXrjQ, avyygatpEojv Se ' Hgodorog,
eyzÖQwv de Arj/xoaßevrji;, (pdoooymv de x a x ' ifirjv dö£av Arj/iöxgixöi;

r e x a l Tfkdr.Mv x a l ’ AgiaxoxdXrji;.
Comment. A com prehensive m odern w ork on C icero’s relation to his
G reek sources in his ph ilosophic w ritin gs is m issing. A good su rv e y
b y K . B ü ch n er, in: R E V I I A , col. 1 10 4 — 1190, b ib liograp h y in U eb er-
w eg-P raech ter12, 1926, p. 143. F . G ed ik e’s Historia philosophiae and
A . S ta h r ’s Aristoteles, bei den Römern are still v e ry useful.
C icero had u n d o u b ted ly read A r is to tle ’s th ree m ost fam ou s w orks,
th e Protrepticus and the dialogues On Philosophy and Eudem us. W h e th er
he had rad a n y o f th e sch olarly w orks su ch as th e Nicom achean Ethics
or th e P o litics rem ains an open q u estion , see m y p ap er Notes on the
Transm ission, referred to a b o v e T 52, pp. 3 7 — 3 9 - M o st of his kn ow ledge
ab o u t A risto tle seem s to be d erived from H ellen istic hand b ooks and
from w h a t he learned during his personal in tercou rse w ith G reek ph ilo
sophers, scholars and librarians: ego hoc tempore (». e. w hen he w as
a b o u t tw e n ty y ea rs of age) omni nodes et dies in omnium dodrinarum
meditatione versabar (Brut. 308). H is h igh regard fo r A risto tle is
rem arkable; th e la ter schoolm en ad op ted his expression princeps philo-
sophorum as a title o f honour.
D io n y siu s’ lite ra ry trea tises w ere w ritten a fter a b o u t 20 B. C. As
fa r as I kn ow , th e passage q u oted in 54 d is our earliest evid ence for
th e fa c t th a t A risto tle , ou tside his ow n school, w as nam ed one of the
th ree grea te st ph ilosophers of a n tiq u ity ; th e w ords xa x' efirjv öo£av
seem to in d icate th a t th e philosophers are an ad dition of his ow n to
an old stan dard list of au thorities.
54 e C IC E R O D e fin . V 4 — 5 (te x t and com m ents T 76 b) contains

an in terestin g su rv e y of th e doctrin es an d m ethod s of th e P erip atetic
school, sh ow in g w h a t Cicero k n e w and did n ot know . I t should be
com pared w ith th e sm all com pendium in D iog. L a e rt. V 28— 34.
E st forma eius disciplinae sicut fere ceterarum triplex, una pars est
naturae, disserendi altera, vivendi tertia. T h is is w h a t he says Acad.
I 19 a b o u t P lato: una de vita et moribus, altera de natura et rebus occultis,
tertia de disserendo et quid verum et quid falsum . (Pvaixov Xoytxov
TjdlXOV.
H e th en goes on to sa y th a t A risto tle h as stu d ied anim antium omnium
ortus victus figuras, w h ich m igh t b e ta k en as a description of th e H is
toria A nim alium .
T h e ’ ’art of sp ea k in g” com bined d ialectic and rhetoric (cf. Rhet. I 2,

1356 a 25 and I 35 g b i l — 12). E th ic s included praecepta ad rerum
publicarum rectionem relata.
T hen follow s w h a t seem s to be a d irect reference to th e Protrepticus:
Vitae autem degendae ratio m axim e quidem illis placuit quieta, in con-
templatione et cognitione posita rerum, quae quia deorum erat vitae sim il-
lim a (Protr. fr. 10 c W alzer; E th. N ic. X 7, 1 1 7 7 b 27 — 28), sapiente visa
est dignissima, atque his de rebus et splendida est enrum et illustris crratio.
The n ote on the tw o kinds of books w hich n ow follow s, exoteric and
limatius, is com m ented on in T 76 b.
H e then m entions th e Nicom achean E thics, w ith an absurd m istake
w hich m akes it hard to b elieve th a t he ev er had th a t b ook in his hand.
In these tw o ch ap ters h e has com bined rem iniscences from P h ilo and
A n tioch u s w ith in fo rm ation gain ed from a su p erficial stu d y of H elle
nistic handbooks.
55. Aristotle's style.
55 a C IC E R O (Acad, pr.) L u cu llu s 38,119: . . . cum enim tuus isle

Stoicus sapiens syllabatim tibi ista dixerit, veniet flam en orationis aureum
fundens Aristóteles — P L T J T A R C H U S Vita C ic. 24 TTo/./.a <V avrov xat
àTtofivrj/ÀOVEvavaiv, olov Tiegi ' AqicrcoréXovg, õ n yovoiov nm a/ióç elt]
QÉOVTOÇ.
Comment. T h is of course refers to A ris to tle ’s dialogues. W hen Cicero
in his Topica 1,3 speaks of dicendi quoque incredibili quadam cum copia
turn etiam suavitate, he has A risto tle 's dialogues in m ind; he has not
read his Topics, a lth o u g h he m a y h a ve seen a co p y of it in T y ra n n io n ’s
library. A lso D e inv. 2,2 = fr. 136 suavitas et brevitas dicendi.
W e can fin d good exam ples of th e A risto telian s ty le w hich Cicero
admired: D e caelo I 9, 279 a 1 7 — b 3; D e part. an. I 5, 644 b 2 2 — 645 a
34; Pol. V I I 14, 1333 b 26— 34 a 10; Eth. N ic. X 7, 1 1 7 7 b 2 6 — 78 a 8.
B u t Cicero also had exp erienced h ow d ifficu lt A risto tle can be in his
argu m en tative and sy llo gistic sty le. B rutus 3 1 ,1 2 1 he contrasts P la to ,
A risto tle and T heophrastus: quis enim uberior in dicendo Platone?
lovem sic aiunt philosophi si Graece loquatur loqui. quis Aristotele ner-
vosior, Theophrasto dulciorp A n d in a fragm en t, p. 289 K lo tz , h e con
fesses: magna etiam anim i contentio adhibenda est explicando Aristoteli,
si leges.
364 IN G E M A K D tiH IN G
In som e of his dialogues (most p ro b a b ly in th e th ird book of the

IJegi <ptXoaoq>taQ) A risto tle had in trod u ced him self as speaker, and
Cicero im ita ted this tnos Aristotelius (A d jam. I 9,23; ad Att. X I I I 19,4).
See K . B uchner, R E V I I A , col. 118 7. H e also k new A risto tle 's
ornam en ts of sty le, Aristotelia pigmenta (ad Att. I I i , i ) , ornamenta
orationis (De fin . I 5, 14).
I t is probable th a t Q u in tilian m erely tran scrib ed Cicero, Inst. or.
X 1, 83: Q uid Aristotelem? quetn dubito scientia rerum an scriptorum
copia an eloquendi suavitate an inventionum acumine an varietate operum
clariorem putem? A sim ilar ju d gm en t X I I 11,22.
55 b D IO N Y S I U S H A L I C A R N A S S E N S I S D e im it. I I 4, p. I I 2 1 1
U sener-R aderm acher: IIagaXT]jiTEov &e xa i 5AgtOTOTeArjv eiq fiifirjatv
TfjQ te 3zegi TTjv egfirjvEiav S e i v o T T jr o g xai r rjg aatprjveiag xa i to v rjSeog
x a i noXvfiaQoi>£■tov ro yao i o n f i a h a r a n a g a t o v d v S g o g t o v t o v XaflEiv.
Comment. T h e essay On Im itation is a p ractical hand b ook for use

in th e rhetorical schools; its close affinities w ith th e te n th b ook of
Q uin tilian (I 4 6 — 84) h a v e long since b een observed. See S. F . B onn er,
The literary treatises of D io n ysiu s, C am bridge 1939, p. 39.
55 c T h e ve rd icts on A risto tle ’s ep isto la ry sty le are collected b y

R ose in his in trod u ction to th e fragm en ts, p. 4 11, to w h ich m a y be
ad ded S IM P L IC IU S I n Cat., C I A G V I I I , p. 7,14. T h e evid ence on the
s ty le of his dialogues is collected b y W a lzer, in h is Aristotelis dialogorum
fragmenta, under th e title T estim onia.
55 d T h e com m en tators o ften stress th a t, unlike P la to , A risto tle

often preferred sim ple and com m on w ord s and th a t he in trod u ced his
discussions of d ifficu lt problem s b y referring to com m on and well-
k n ow n conceptions.
ALEXANDER In M etaph., C I A G I, p. 9.19: ev naatv S6og del

A q io to teA ei rale, xoivalq xai tpvoixaig r cbv dvdgwTiwv 7igoAfjyieaiv
a gxa h UQ t d Setxvvfieva ngoQ a m o v xgrjaBat. — A S C L E P IU S In
M etaph., C I A G V I 2, p. 40.10 a ’ AgiaTOTekrjQ Tolvw jiavraxoH aarpq-
velaQ dvTtnoiEiTat tojv boy jj. dr tov xa i (prjaiv o t i • ''E Sei vfidQ SirjgQga}-
ftdvtog fin eIv o n vBv avfifioXtxioQ Xsyovrat, o n ovtwq sdei v/jleIq eIjzeIv
(Lg eym key<o. — E L I A S = T 44 c.
S IM P L IC IU S In I. D e caelo, C l A G V II, p. 69.13: rtf owrjBeta XQWfiEvoc;

rrbv ovofiaTaiv, cf. p. 103.19 and 679.28.
W riters who prefer P la to and th e grand sty le fin d A ristotle too
trivial: G R E G O R I U S N A Z I A N Z E N U S Or. X X V I I 10, M igne 36, p.
24 c: 'AgtaToriXovg zijv [iixgoXoyov ngovotav (restricted to th e celestial
spheres) xat t o b n e Xvov (logical quibble) xa i rovq d v r jt^ (6vVto Zq
codd.) negl yrvxtfz Xoyovi; xat to avdgontxov tcbv Soyftarcov (e . g. E N
1155 b 9). Cf. Or. X X X I I , p. 202 c TE%vr)v — xa xotexviav.
O n th e other h and th e an cien t com m en tators often com plained a b ou t
his obscuritas (Cic. Toj>. I 3) or aadcpeia (standing th em e in th e neo-
platonic prolegom ena. Cf. also the fam ou s m etap h or maneg at arjniat,
T 40 cde, section e).
55 e S U D A s. v. AioyevtjQ : T i X'J’ i avdofiaQ AtoyevavQ

XeyEiv, trjQ ngaorrjrog S e v o x o a n o v T r jt; ’ A qiotote Aovq Evpovoiag, xrjg
Oeofpodatov pagvrrjrog, Ztyfovog x&v nvarrto<hv xai ysw aiajv tgonmv,
ITMxtovoQ aefivoxrjxo; . . .
55 f dgioroxeU frtv, S T R A B O N X I I I 1,54 = T 66 b. m eans “ c a rry

on research and w rite sch olarly treatises” . A lth o u gh w e h a v e v e r y few
d irect references to A ris to tle ’s w ritin gs from th e H ellen istic period
before th e edition of A n d ronicu s, w e h a ve evid ence of th e im m ense
influence of his teaching: his m ethods, his style, his opinions and m an y
of his doctrin es rap id ly spread and becam e com m on prop erty.
X IV. IND IRECT EVIDENCE FROM AR ISTO TLE’S OWN
W R IT IN G S
56 a T h e v a s t litera tu re on A risto tle is rich in a ttem p ts to ch aracterize

his p erso n a lity. I am g u ilty of such an attem p t: “ A risto tle th e S ch o lar,”
in: Arctos, Acta Philologica F en nica N . S. I, 1954, pp. 6 1 — 77. In
ad d itio n to th e w orks listed in U eb erw eg-P raech ter, D ie P hilosophie
des Altertum s, 1926, B ib liogr. p. 102, I should lik e to m en tion E . Z eller’s
a rticle in Hermes 1 1 , 1876, pp. 84— 96; H . J ack so n , “ A risto tle ’s lecture-
room ” , in: Journ. of Philology 35, 1920, pp. 1 9 1 — 200; E . B ark er, “ T h e
L ife of A risto tle and th e P o litics” , C l. Rev. 45, 19 3 1, pp. 162 — 72; tw o
articles on A risto tle as a H istorian b y M. Meier, in: P hilosophia perennis,
R egen sb u rg 1930, and b y R . Me K eon , in: E thics 1940/41, pp. 66 — 101;
P . W ilp ert, “ D ie w issen schaftliche P ersö n lich k eit des A .,” in: Blätter
für deutsche P hilosophie 12, 1938, pp. 293— 303; useful as su p plem en tin g
J a e g e r’s Aristotle are his paper “ A risto tle ’s V erses in P raise of P la to ” ,
in: C l. Qu. 2 1, 19 17, pp. 1 3 — 17, and C. M. B ow ra, “ A r is to tle ’s H y m n
to V irtu e ,” C l. Qu. 32, 1938, pp. 182 — 189. A s exam ples of grotesq u e
m isrepresentation s can b e m entioned: K . R . Popper, The Open Society
and its E n em ies, L on d on 1945; R . A llen d y, Aristote ou le complexe de
trahison (Coll. A ctio n et P ensée 9), G en ève 1943; J. Zürcher, Aristoteles'
Werk und G eist, P ad erb o rn 1952.
F . D irlm eier, in his co m m en ta ry on E N 115 9 a 28, p. 522, gives som e
exam ples of d o u b tfu l conclusions concern in g P la to ’s and A r is to tle ’s
characters, based on in terp reta tio n s of passages in th eir w ritings. I t is
th u s w ith all proper reserve th a t I g iv e th e follow in g exam ples.
I t is a w ell-kn ow n psych ological fa c t th a t w e are disposed to appreciate
such q u alities in oth er persons as w e lik e to fin d in ourselves. P ol.
I I 6, 1265 a io , A risto tle says a b o u t S o cra tes th a t his discourses w ere
m arked b y origin ality, perh aps even a to u ch of eccen tricity , b y elegance
and cleverness, b y fresh th in k in g and b y keenness of in q u iry — to
71£ q itt 6 v xofiipov xatvozo/Ltov ÇrjTrjTtxov. Etk. N ie. X 2, 1172 b 16

abou t E udoxus: “ H is argu m en ts ow ed their accep tan ce m ore to th e

excellence of his ch ara cter th a n to th eir ow n m erits. H e had the rep u ta
tion of being a m an of ex cep tio n a l tem perance, and hence he w as not
suspected of uph oldin g th is v ie w (sc. on th e n atu re of pleasure) because
he w as a lo ve r of pleasure, b u t because people th o u g h t it m ust rea lly
be true (R ackham ). T hese w ords, th e H y m n to H erm ias and th e elegy
on P lato show “ dass der ‘tro ck e n e’ A ristoteles ein R ü hm end er gewesen
ist" (Dirlm eier, Comm, on N E , p. 291).
H is life s w ork proves th a t he w as an in d efatig a b le w orker; his view s
on the ideal life confirm th a t he liked to w ork: »7 evSatfiovia nqaîQ
e o t iv , Pol. V I I 3, 1325 a 21 and 32; life is in tellectu al a c tiv ity , rj vov
ivsQyeia £wij, M etaph. X I I 7, 1072 b 27.

To him a scholar's q u iet life was th e grea test happiness: fied' tfSovijc
jj 71qooeSqeio. yiyverai, Protr. jr. 5 a W alzer. — xa i to fj.av86.vEiv xai
to davfid^nv fjhv d)Q i n i to n ah ), Rhet. I n , 1 3 7 1 a 3 1 ; to /invBdvnv
qadiat; ijdi) cpvGEL näaiv c o ti, 1 4 1 0 b 10 . — ä o x s l yovv r\ <pdooo<pia
Qavfiaarag rjöovaQ Zxetv xadagEtÖTTjTi x a i to) ß eß alto, Eth. N ie. X 7, 1 1 7 7 a
2 5 - — “ P erfec t and unim peded iv ig y eia con tain s in itself delight;
only philosophers can fu lly e n jo y life .” Protr. jr. 14 W alzer. — “ T h e
life of a c tiv e v ir tu e is essen tially pleasant, for th e feeling of pleasure
is an exp erien ce of th e soul. L ife has no need of pleasure as a sort of
ornam ental pend ant, b u t con tain s its pleasure in itse lf.” Eth. N ie.
I 9. 1099 a 7 *6. H app iness, if n ot god-sent, com es as a result
of virtu e, s tu d y and e ffo rt.” ib. 1099 b 15. — “ T h e end of hum an
life being know ledge, it is a log ical a b su rd ity to ask w h a t know ledge
in itself is good fo r .” Protr. jr. n W alzer.
H is religious sta n d p o in t is clear from w h a t he says in th e D e philo-
sophia, jr. 12 a W alzer: “ S eein g b y d a y th e sun runn ing his circu lar
course, and b y n ig h t th e w ell-ordered m o vem en t of th e oth er stars,
men cam e to th in k th a t there is a G od w ho is th e cause of such m ovem en t
and order. T h ose w ho first looked up to th e h ea ven and sa w th e sun
race from its risin g to its settin g and th e ord erly dances of th e stars,
looked for th e C raftsm an of th is lo v e ly design, and surm ised th a t it
cam e a b o u t n ot b y chan ce b u t b y th e a gen cy of som e m ightier and
im perishable n ature, w hich w as G od ” (Ross) — jr. 14: “ W e should
now here b e m ore m od est th a n in m atters of religion ” . —
B e a u ty w as to him th e u ltim ate end of n atu re and of hum an a c tiv ity .
Th e id ea is found fo r th e first tim e in D iogenes of A p ollonia, jr. B 3
368 IN G E M A R D tJR IN G
D iels; it is a corner-stone in P la to ’s view of th e world; in A risto tle we

find i t as a principle of b iology and a sy stem atized doctrine. " B e a u tj'
is tru th , tru th b e a u ty ” , th e form u latio n is K e a ts ’ , b u t A risto tle says
essen tially th e sam e Protr.jr. II, p. 48.21 W alzer. T o him th e law
xakov Decaelo diaXafinsi

of fin a lity im plied th a t n atu re a lw a y s produces th e b est result possible,
y.akov, Eth.Nic.
and th a t to is th e go al of nature, I I 5, 288 a 2;
to even th o u gh th in gs lo o t glo om y, I I I , 1100 b 30;
Eth.Nic. Part. an.

and “ perhaps even in inferior creatu res th e re is som e n atu ra l g o o d ” ,
X 2, 1 1 7 3 a 4. — I 5 is v ir tu a lly a prose h y m n to
n a tu re ’s b e a u ty : “ O ur grasp of th e etern al th in gs is b u t sligh t, n eve r
theless th e jo y w hich it brin gs us, b y reason of their excellen ce and
w orth , is g rea te r th a n th a t of k n ow in g all th in gs th a t are here below ;
ju s t as th e jo y of a fleetin g and p a rtia l glim pse of th o se w hom w e love
is greater th a n th a t of an accu rate v ie w of oth er thin gs. — T here are
anim als w hich h a v e no a ttractive n e ss fo r th e senses, y e t for th e ey e of
science, for th e stu d e n t w ho is n a tu ra lly of a ph ilosophic sp irit and
can discern th e causes of thin gs, N atu re w hich fashioned them provides
jo y s w hich can n o t b e m easured. — In all n atu ral thin gs th ere is som e
w h a t o f the m a rv ello u s” , ev n a a i yag role, qwaixolg eveoti t 1 Bavfiaarov,
ev ajiaaiv ovtoq xtvog qmmxov xa i xaXov.
M ethodsofw orks. His'personalityasascholar.

Top. e ex
56 b
I 14, 105 b 12: ex tey eiv 8 %qt) xa i t cbv yeyga/j.fi£vojv Xoyoiv,
rag e 6 noteladattieqiexacrcovyhiovg
negi f) egiCo)ov tieqi navTog dyaBov
dtaygaipag vjtoTidevrag xoygig,
olov ayadov n xai ayaOov (the last
exaaroivSdl-ag, onEfine&oxhjg acojudrcov

is p o ssib ly a gloss) ag^dfievov ajto tow t l ear tv nagaarjfiaiveadai de xai
rag olov ' TETxaoa etprjae tmv
Betrjyag to
a ro ix e ia elvai av Tig evSoôv. GA
vno nvog elgrj/ievov Cf.
I I I 10,761 a 10.
T h is passage shows us th e m o tiv e behind A risto tle ’s iarogiat and
vnofivrj/iaTa. H is collection of notes w as th e b egin nin g of th e H ellenistic
d o x o g ra p h y w h ich soon p u t an end to origin al thin kin g: it w as replaced
b y com pilation s o f d o xograp h ic notes. H ere again w e h a v e a seem ingly
in sig n ifica n t tr a it sh ow in g th a t, as to m ethods, procedure and approach
to studies, A r isto tle liv ed in a w orld v e r y d ifferen t from P la to ’s.
yv(bfxat
A risto tle also co llected p roverbs, D L cat. title 138, and p ro b ab ly
also of w h ich he m ade freq u en t use in his w ritings. E v id en ce
th a t such collections ex iste d is p rovid ed b y Iso crates Or. I I 44 elrig
£x ?.f.£eie tojv jiqoexovtojv (cf. ivdo go v tivoq above) rag xaXov/iEva;

yvo)/j.ag, and A r. R het. I I 2 1, 1394 a i g — 26.
T he shortest and clearest accou n t of his th e o ry of science is found in
Eth. N ic. V I 6, 1140 b 31 — 41 a 8. In all essentials it is alm ost identical
w ith A n . post. I I ig . I assum e w ith D irim eier th a t th e N E was w ritten
(in th e form w e possess it) du rin g th e last fiv e or ten y ea rs of his life,
and I th in k it is gen era lly a d m itted th a t A n . post. I I is th e earliest p a rt
of th e present A n a ly tics, p ro b a b ly w ritten in th e m iddle 'fifties. The
groundw ork of his th in k in g rem ained unchanged.
A sim ilar u n ity of th o u g h t m arks w h a t he sa ys abou t th e ad van cem en t
of science, e. g. M e ta p h . I I 993 a 30— b 4 and E th . N i c . I 7, 1098 a
23— 25. “ T h e stu d y of th e tru th is d ifficu lt in th a t no one can h it
w ith precision th e p a rt he w a n ts to hit, easy in th a t th e ta rg et is too
big to be en tirely m issed. T h e sm all results a tta in ed b y each th in ker
m ake togeth er a considerable to ta l. In th is w orkin g o u t of th e detail
T im e seems to be a good in ven tor and coadju to r. IlavToc, ya p 7iq o o 8 e iv <i i
to eAAe Itiov ." S im ila rly M eteor. I 14, 351 b 25: x a r a fitx o o v ev jtoAAw
yiyvErai %q o v m rj in id o a ig .
A n ob servation th a t d erived from his own experience and w hich he

often em phasizes is th a t opinions m a tu re and develop: T o p . V I 14,
151 b 12: “ J u st as in th e assem blies th e o rd in ary p ractice is to m ove
an am endm ent of th e ex istin g law , and if th e am endm ent is b etter,
th ey repeal the existin g law , so one o u gh t to do in the case of definitions
as w e ll.” — S o p h . el. 1 8 3 b 17: “ F o r in th e case of all discoveries
th e results of previou s lab ou rs th a t h a v e been handed dow n from others
h ave been ad van ced b it b y b it b y th ose w h o h a v e taken them on,
whereas the origin al discoveries ge n e ra lly m a k e an ad van ce th a t is
sm all a t first th o u gh m uch m ore useful than th e d evelopm ent w hich
later springs o u t of them , gaov to ngoartOf.vrn x a i o w a v l -E i v to Xoutov.
H e kn ow s th a t n oth in g is new u n der th e sun, n a v t a y a g ctxeS ov
E’SgrjTai, P o l. I I 2, 1264 a 3, and th a t th e era of th e pioneers of th o u gh t

is over: These and m a n y oth er th in gs h a v e been in v en ted several
tim es over in th e course of ages, tim es w ith o u t num ber; for n ecessity
is the m oth er of in v en tio n s” , P o l. V I I 10, 1329 b 25; M e ta p h . X I I 8,
1074 b 10; D e caelo I 3, 270 b 19; M eteor. I 3, 339 b 29.
Theory and practice. “ T o th e philosopher alone belong law s th a t

are durable and a ctio n s th a t are rig h t and noble. H e alone lives w ith
Goteb. U n iv . A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 24
INGEMAR DÜRING
370
his eye on n atu re and th e divine, and lik e a good steersm an d irects
his life in dependence on w h a t is etern al and u n ch an ging, and lives
his ow n m aster. T h is know ledge is th eo retical indeed, b u t it enables
us to fram e a ll our p ra ctice in accord an ce w ith i t ” (Ross). Protr. jr. 13
W a lzer. — “ T ru e argu m en ts seem , th en , m ost useful, n o t on ly w ith
a view to know ledge, b u t w ith a view to life also; for since th e y harm onize
w ith the facts th e y are b elieved , and so th e y stim u la te those w ho under
stan d them to liv e accord in g to th e m ” (Ross). Eth. N ic. X I, 1172 b
3. Jaeger, Cl. Qu. 21, 1927, p. 16 ob serves th a t th is is e x a c tly w h a t
A risto tle said of P la to in th e elegy: his Xoyog w as tr u ly ovvrnfiog zo lq
EQyotg. Cf. T 67 h.
H is passion fo r tr u th is legen d ary. “ T hose w ho g a in say tr u th should

be pu n ish ed ” . Top. I 1 1 , 105 a 7. “ Men h a v e a su fficien t n atu ra l in stin ct
for w h a t is true; th in gs th a t are tru e and th in gs th a t are ju s t h a v e a
n atu ra l ten d en cy to p rev ail o v er their o p p osites.” Rhet. I 1, 1355 a 16.
— “ T h eo retical sp ecu lation m u st be based on fa cts gain ed b y experience;
so for in stan ce in astronom y; once th e phenom ena w ere a d eq u a tely
apprehended, th e d em on stration s of astron o m y w ere d isco vered .”
A nalyt. pr. I 30, 46 a 17. — In his su rve ys of th e doctrin es of his
predecessors he c o n s ta n tly retu rns to th is top ic: “th e y did n ot seek
ex p la n a tio n s in c o n fo rm ity w ith th e ap p earan ces” ; of E m p ed ocles,
P hys. V I I I 1, 252 a 23; of th e P yth a g o rea n s, D e caelo I I 13, 293 a
25; of P la to , De caelo I V 2, 308 b 13; of th e P la to n ists, De gen. et corr.
I 2, 316 a 5; of P arm en id es and th e E le a tic s he says: “ a lth ou gh those
opinions appear to follow lo g ic a lly in a d ialectical discussion, y e t to
b elieve th em seem s n e x t door to m adness w hen one considers th e fa c ts” ,
ibid. I 8, 325 a 18; “ w e should o n ly ta k e fo r our h yp o th eses w h a t w e
see to b e gen era lly or u n iv ersa lly tr u e ” , D e caelo I 10, 279 b 18. T h is
does of course n ot im p ly th a t A risto tle w as infallible; on th e con trary,
he m akes m an y m istak es and often goes w ron g in his ju d gm en t abou t
his predecessors; n everth eless his ap p roach is rem a rk a b ly sound, and
no oth er an cien t philosopher has so scru p u lou sly and w ith such consisten t
purpose tried to free him self from preju d ices and reach th e tru th . —
T h e follow in g passage is often qu oted as te stify in g to his open mind:
“ S u ch appears to b e th e tr u th a b o u t th e generation of bees, ju d gin g
from th eo ry and from w h a t are b elieved to b e th e fa cts a b o u t them ;
th e fa cts, h ow ever, h a v e not y e t b een su ffic ien tly grasped; if ever th e y
are, then credit m u st b e given rath er to ob servation th an to theories,

and to theories o n ly if w h a t th e y affirm agrees w ith the observed fa cts”
(Platt), Gen. an. I l l io , 760 b 2 7 - 3 3 . A c tu a lly A risto tle ’s account,
although b rillian t, is fu ll of m istakes. - “It is b y the practical
experience of life and con d u ct th a t th e tru th is rea lly te ste d ” , Eth.
N ic. X 8, 1179 a 1 6 — 22. H is eth ical ph ilosophy, from th e rem arks in
the Rhetoric to the Nicom achean E thics, is based on his experience of
hum an life, n ot on ideas.
H e is toleran t (avyyvdifirj is th e key-w ord ), and he know s th a t m an is

a w eak vessel. "W e can n o t overstrain m a n ’s n a tu re ” , E th. N ic. I l l 1
m o a 24. “ F o r th e ord in ary m an in tellectu al life is restricted to
w h at is n ecessary for his life. T h e m a jo rity of m ankind m ay w ell be
pardoned for doing as th e y do; w hile th e y p r a y for happiness th e y are
conten t if th e y can liv e .” Protr. jr. 9 W alzer. - “ T h e m an w ho deviates
little from goodness is n o t blam ed; it is o ften necessary to choose the
second b est” , r ov devreoov Eth. N ic. I I 9, 1109 a 35, and “ good
ness is rare” .
H is lecture-room in the Academy. I t is the m erit of H . J ack son (Journ.

of Philology 35, 1920, pp. 1 9 1 — 200) to h a v e draw n atten tio n to passages
w hich giv e us som e inform ation abou t A risto tle ’s lecture-room and
lectures.
A ssum ing th a t the stan d ard exam ples w ith w h ich he illu strated his
lectures w ere freq u e n tly su ggested b y o b jects w hich he saw before him .
there w ere in his room a sofa (or sofas) m ade of w ood (xMvrj), a three-
l®S§ed ta b le (TQtJiovq), a b ron ze sta tu e (avdQiac,) and a bronze globe
(%ciXxrj aipalga).
H e m ade use of d iagram s w ritte n n ot on a b lackb oard b u t on a w hite

one (AeiJjtco/j,a). T h e y w ere called diaygatpai or vnoyqatpaL: of th e virtu es
and vices, E N I I 7, 110 7 a 33 and E E I I 3, 1220 b 37; of certain logical
propositions, D e int. 13, 22 a 22; of anim al and v e g e ta b le species, P A
I 2, 642 b 12 ysyga/ifiEvai diaigeosiq; of an atom ical diagram s, H A
II I 1, 510 a 30, w here th e ad ded pronoun shows th a t he pointed w ith
his finger tow ard s th e Xt/inuafia. See also D irlm eier’s n ote in his com m en t
a ry on th e N E , pp. 3 1 2 - 3 1 3 , “ S ch u lp ra x is”
He som etim es m entions m em bers of his class: v e r y often Coriscus;

B e an. I I 6, 418 a 20 D iares’ son, and I I I 1, 425 a 25 C leon ’s son, both
INGEMAR DURING
blon d an d dressed in w hite; M d a fih . V I I 15 . 1040 a 12 “ if y o u there

w ere to b e defined, w e w ou ld s a y 'a lean, fa ir anim al'.
T h e nam es of S ocrates and C allias are freq u e n tly used as illustration s.
A n pr. I 27, 43 a 35 is especially interesting: “ W e say th a t th a t fair-faced
th in g (cf. 17 b 28) is S ocrates, and th a t th a t w hich approaches him is
C allias." T h is is e x a c tly th e scene in Protagoras 335 c. In oth er exam ples
A risto tle uses x a d rjo d a i or xaOfifievoQ or Xs v x o q , ta lk in g of Socrates,
recalling th e scene in th e proem of th e Phaedo, S ocrates jz o u d v x a i
egyaôfxevoQ juovatxrjv. A s J ack so n p o in ts ou t, A risto tle in som e of
th ese ex a m p les sp eaks as if po in tin g w ith his finger tow ard s some
rep resen tation on th e w all. W a s it a p ain tin g, w ith th e cen tral figure
in w hite? D oes it n ot in fa c t seem v e ry n atu ra l th a t th e m am lecture-
room of th e A ca d em y w as d ecorated w ith w all-p ain tin gs representing
tw o fam ou s scenes: S o cra tes a t th e m eeting of th e sophists in Callias'
house, and S ocrates sittin g on his b ed in th e ja il on th e d a y of his death,
ta lk in g w ith his friends?
XV. E A R L Y INVECTIVES AGAINST ARISTOTLE
O i jcQcbrat diaßaXnvzEg ' AgtazozeXrjv.
57 E U S E B I U S Praeparatio evangelica X IV , 718 a: 'H yotipat de

delv ngdjxioxa ndvxojv avuidev and xrjg ngdirrjg xazaßoXfjg zwv nag’
EAXqoi (piXoadqxuv anan£aodai. — a vzixa yovv jidXa 8eaac!)fj,E6a
önojg fiev o TTXdzwv zovg ngo avxov ngdixovg la x m n t e v , dnojg d i xoig
IJXaxwvog oixsiovg xe x a i diado%ovg dXXoi’ xai av ndXiv oncag o i
ITXaxcovog ix a lg o i z a ao<pa zrjg AgtozoxeAovg noXw o[qc djirjXeyxov
03icog 6 oi zov A niazaziX tjv xa i zov IJeglnaxov avôUvreg rd doxovvra
t olg zfjv ivavztav J iQ E a ß e v o v a t to /it j Qe v ovxa nagiazoiv.
58 A R IS T O C L E S ap. E u seb . Praep. ev. X V 13 — 15, 7 9 1 3 — 79 30 =

fr. 2 H eilan d, p. 34:
a (Eusebius) "Aggoftai d’ (bid x(bv ’ AgiaroxeXovg. aXAoi p h ovv xdv
ßiov xävdgög diaßeßXrjxaai, (piXoao(poi ds xa i riXXatg ovx aqiavEig riveg
t]aav xai ovzoi. Efiot (5 ov (ptXov zov avdga ow 5’ avxalg axoaig avE%eaOai
xaxwg ngog zwv oIxeuov ayogevopevov. dioneg rag vneg avxov fidXAov
ExQrjoofiai dnoXoytag djto x&v A giazoxX iovg xov U egm a ztjzixoti, Sg
ev xft) Eßädfiw IJ eq I (piXoaoqiiaQ xdds negt avxov ygd(f£i-
b (Epicurus) IJ & q yag o io v xe, x a O c b i.r n (p r ja iv ’ E n ix o v g o g ev zfj
he gi zw v e m x ijd e v / id r a iv im a r o X fj ( jr . 171 U sener) v f.o v pev ovxa
x a x a y a y e iv avxov z r jv n a x g d ia v o v a la v , sn e tx a d' in i xo oxgaxevE oO ai
d g ft r ja a i, x a x d j g d e n g a x x o v x a ev x o v x o ig i n i x d ( p a g / i a x o n a t X ^ iv i X B e i v ,
E n s ix a a v a jiE n r a fie v o v z o v IT X d x w v o g n e g in d x o v n ä a i n a g a ß a A e lv a v x o v ;
ößfitfoat U se n e r : aim ltaa t c o d d . o w e w o d a i ( c o a c tu m esse) G iffo r d ]|
c (Tim aeus, F Gr H ist 566, F. 156) *H nd>g &v xig dnodeiaixo

Tipaiov xov Tavgofievixov Xiyovxog iv xalg 'lazgogtaig ddo£ov Ovgag
aüx6v iaxgelov xai xdg rvxovaag otps xrjg rjXixiag xXeloai;
d (A R IS T O X E N U S , fr. 64 W ehrli) Tig d’ av neiaBEirj xoig vn
' Agiaro£ivov xov povaixov Aeyopevoig iv rm ßtw xov ITXdxayvog) iv
yag x fj nAdvy xai z f j ajtodrjfiia (prjoiv inavtoxaaQai xai avxoixodofielv
INGKMAK DURING
a v r ã Tiva; negútaxov Çévovç Svxaç■oiovxai ovv èvioi xatixa negi A q l-

axoxéXovç Xéyetv avxòv ' A qioxo & vov òià navxóç eò(pr,fioüvxoç ’ Agtoxo-
xf.Xrjv.
C f. P la t . E p . V I I , 345 e /ÀEfiiatjxàiç n )v j ifq í I à x e M ov 7i?.ávi]v x a í õ t u %iav.
e (A lexinus, th e generation a fter A ristotle) K arayéX aaxa S' eixó-^

x (o; elvat (paírj xiç âv xa i xà ÒJionvrj/xovevfiaxa xà 'AXe£ívov^ xov
èqloxixov . n o te i yàg ‘ AXéÇavôgov n a lS a ôtaleyópcvov xw na xg i O á ín n co
x a í ôiojixvovxa fièv xovç xoü ’ AgiaxoxéXovç Xáyovç, ãnoÔEXófi£vov ôe
NtxayÓQav xóv 'E çfirjv èmxXrjdévxa.
i ( E u b o u l i d e s , c o n t e m p o r a r y ) K a i Evfiov/.ÍSr); òe ngoòrjXwç ev xq>
xa x avxoü fitfiXlw y/evôexai, ng& xov /xèv 7ioir)fiaxa ywXgà nQoq>EQó/iEvoç
ú ; <’ AgiaxoxéXovç>, yEygatpáxwv ãXXmv, negi xoü yá/iov x a í xrjQ ngoç
'E o fiía v olxEtóxrjxog avi w y ey ow ía ç, ênetxa &iXm no) yaaxojv avxov
Tiçooxóipat, x a í xeXevxãvxi ID.áxmvi firj nagaycvéoOai, xà xe piftXía
avxoü Statpdetgai.
^’A Q iaro T É lov ç') M u lv a n y ]|
g (D em ochares, 306 B . C.) Trjv (ièv yàg A Vfio Xágovg xaxrôgiav

x a xà x ü v (fiXoaáqmv xt Xgr} Xêyeiv; ov yàg ' AgtaxoxéXrjv fióvov aXXa
x a í xoòç ãXXovç xa x& g elgrjxev. êxi y£ /xrjv avr ò ; t u ; ôiapoXà; oxonw v
ãv Tt; Xrjgelv avxòv cpalt], XéyEt yàg ÈmaxoXàg ’ AgiaxoxeXovç aXotvat
y.axà xfj; tióXeok xrjç 'Ad^vaícov, xa í Z xá y eig a xi]v naxgiÒa ngoSotivai^
MaxEÔóaiv a v ró v êxi Sè xaraaxacpeiarji; 'OXvvBov /irjvvetv em xov
XatpvgojtcjXíov &iXbinu> xovq nXovauuxáxovç x o jv 'OXvvQlwv.
h (C e p h is o d o r u s , 'H XíQia Sè ôtaj}éf}Xi]X£V avxov xa i
co n te m p o ra ry )
KrfíiioóSmgo-, ò ’ laoxgáxovç [laQ^xf^, xgvcpegòv xa i xévOrjv xat nXXa

xà xoiavxa Xèyaiv avxòv eivai.
i ( L y c o n t h e P y t h a g o r e a n , p r o b a b l y in t h e g e n e r a t i o n a f t e r A r i s t o t l e )
IJávxa S' vnsgnaíei ficogía xà vnò Avxtovog eigrjfiEva, r o í Xeyovxoç

eivai Ilv d a yo çixàv èavxúv. (prjol yàg Omtv ' AgiaxoxéXijv Qvaíav tê té -
Xevxrjxvta xfj yvvaixi xoiavxrjv ónoíav 'Adr/vatoi xfj Arjfir^xgv xai
ev èXaÍM O e q w XovófiEVOv xo fko òi] ningáaxeiv. fjvíxa ò' eíç XaXxíôa
à jifjei, xovzxeX m va ç evgelv èv xco nXoím XonáSia XaXxã xèxxaga xai
É^Sofirjxovxa.
j (Aristocles) K a i aXF.Sòv oi fièv n g& xoi StajiaXovxeç AgiaxoxEÀrjv
xoaovxoi y syova otv wv oi fiEv xaxa xovg avxovç tfoav Xgovovç, ot ôe
fiixgòv vaxsQov êyévovxo- nâvxe? ôe aocpiaxai xa i ègioxixoi xa i gfjXOOEç,
tov xa l rd dvo/iaxa x a l xa fitftXia xeOvrjxs xwv atofiaxcov fiaXXov. xovg

fiiv yag fif:rn xavxa yeyovdxag, elxa Se x a vn ixeivcov Eigrjfieva Xeyovxag,
navxdnaatv eav S e I yaigeiv, x a l /idXiara rovg ur/S' F.vxuxvyjqxoxac, xolg
pifiXioig avrcbv aXX' avroayEStdôvxag, onolot elo i x a l oi Xiyovreg
roiaxoaiag e -/_eiv XonaSag avxov- ovSslg yag av tvoF.Oeirj negl avxofi
xotovxov ovdev sigrjxcog xwv xoxe. ovxmv oxi firj A v xco v ovxog fifaxoi,
xaOanEQ Ifprjv, elgrjxev EvgrjaOai XonaSta xlxxa g a (nevxe codd.) xa l
i/iSofitjxovxa.
O v fiovov S i x a l £x xa>v %gdrcov x a l ex xibv SiapEfiXijxdrcov rexfirj-
gairo xig av 8ri ipsvSfj navra r a eigrjfieva ia x iv , dXXa x d x rov fir]
ndvxag xa avxd SiafiaXXeiv, aAA’ Ixaoxov tbid xiva X iy etv riiv sinEg ijv
fa onotiv aXtjOeg, ixQVv Sijnov fivgiaxtg aXX’ m)% ajza£ avxov vno xd>v
xoxe anoXcoXevat.
0 avegov ovv o n xaBdnen noXXolg xa l aXXotg, ovxta x a l 'AqigxoxeXei
ovvefir], did xe rag ngog xniig fiaoiXetg qtiXiag x a l Sta xrjv ev xolg
Xdyotg vnegoyijv vno xwv xoxe aoytoxcbv (p6ovela8ai. d el Se xovg ev
(pgovoi\vrag fir] tig rovg StapdXXovrag anofiXineiv fiovov, aXXa x a l eig
xovg InatvoUvxag x a l £rjXofivxag a v xo v fiaxgtp yag nXeiovg x a l fieXrtovg
Evnedeiev av ovrot y e. r a fiiv ovv aXXa ngoSr]X(ag n sn X a orar Svo Si
xavxa Soxet ntaxeveaBai S i a ipeyovoi xtveg a v xo v fa fiiv oxi xijv
'E gfiiov yijfieie (pvoei fiiv ddEX(prtv, Oexijv Se Qvyaxega IIvQidSa, xo-
XaxEvcov a v xo v
k (T H E O C R IT U S of Chios, D ieh l I 2 p. 127) ©eoxgirog yotiv o

Xlog inohjoev eniygafifia xotovxov
’ Eg/iiov evvovxov re xal EvflovXov rods SovXov

fiv rjfia xevov XEvdfpgatv BrjxEV ’ AgiorozeXrjg-
og Sta xijv a x g a rf] yaoxgog <pvaiv e lX e x o v a i s iv
d vr’ ’ AxaSrjfieiag (iogfidgov ev ngoyoalg.
j (conclusion) exeqov <Y oxi tjxagioxijoe TTXaxcovt.

1 (Apellicon, c. go B. C.) IlE gi fiiv o'ov ’ E gfiiov xa l xijg ’ A qioxo -
xeXovg ngog avxov (ptXiag aXXot xe noXXol avyyeygacpaoi x a l 61) xa l
’ AneXXix&v, ov xolg fiijiXioig 6 evxvx&v nE navostat (}Xao<prjfiu>v avrovg.
negl S e xov ydfiov xov TIvQiaSog dnoxgwvxcog avxog ev xalg ngog
5Avx'maxgov smaxoXalg djioXeXdytjxat. reBvsoixog yag ' E gfiiov Sta rrjv
ngog ixelvov Evvoiav eyrjfiev avxrjv, aXXoig fiiv adxpgova xa i dyaOyv ovoav,
axvxoflaav fievxoi Sta rag xaraXafiovoag avficpogag xov dSsXipdv avxfjg.
376 INGEMAR DÜRING
m (Aristocles) E W éÇfjç q>r}Oi■ /ierà ôè x fy IJvdtáôoç xijç 'E g fiíov

TF.Xf.vTrjv 'AgioxoxéXrjç èyrj/iEV 'EgnvXXíôa X ray etQ la v, f f rjç vióç aihcõ
N ixó/iaXoç èyêvexo. xofixov ôè cpaaiv óg<pavàv xgaipévxa nagà & eo-
(pgácrcqi xa i firj /xeigaxíaxov õvxa anoBavslv èv noXéfiq>.
aAXXà x a ix a (ièv èx xrjç ÔrjXa)6eíot]ç 5AgioxoxXéovç èxxEtaÔai yga<pfjç.
59. E picurus.
59 a E P I C U R U S jr. 1 7 1 U sener = D iog. L a e rt. X 8: K a i ’ A q ia xo-
T e ' V (sc- è x á h i ’ E m xovgoç) ãaaixov, <Sv) xaxaqiayôvra xr/v naxgcóav
ovoíav oxgaxEveaBai xa i <pag(iaxona>XEiv.
H erm an n ||
59 b E P I C U R U S ap. A th en . V I I I 352 d — 354 e: (The speaker is

C yn ulcus.) Tov ô' ' AgiaxoxèXovç xeBav/iaxa, ôv noXvÔgvXrjxov nEnoirj-
xaaiv o i o o y o l ovxoi (leferrin g to th e sophists p resen t a t th e dinner),
xaXê fiov A rjfiá xgn e, ( x a i av xã v Xáywv avxoö ngeaßevett; á)ç xa i xcüv
ä U c jv <piXoao<pa)v xe xai grjxogwv xrjç ä x g iß E ta ç ) , Jinx f. jiaOoiv f,
naga xívoç àveXdóvxoç è x xov ßvBov IJgcoxèwç fj Nrjgéíoç, xi noiovaiv
o i íxOveç fj n<7>ç xoifiü)vxai fj nw ç ôiatxãivxai. xoiatixa yàg aw e-
ygatpev áiç elvat xa xà xòv xojfiioôonoióv (III 548 K ) Bavfiaxa /líogolç .
tprjoiv yàg õxt (here follow s a curious m ix tu re of m iscellaneous ex tra cts
from v a rio u s A risto telian an d p seu d o-A ristotelian sources, see m y
“ N o te s” (full title , T 52), pp. 4 5 - 4 7 -)
(354 b = jr. 1 7 1 U senet)
IJoXXà ôè l x MV êrl kéyeiv neoi <Lv sXfjgTjoev á (pagfiaxonõiXrjç navofiai,^
xatxoi FÍÒà)ç x a i ' E níxovgov xòv cpãaXrjOèaxaxov xavx' fijióvxa jifqÍ
avxov (s c . A ristotle) èv xfj f le g i èmxT}ôevfiáxv ènioxoXfj, òxi xaxa-
<payà)v TÒ Tiaxoõia èn i axgaxeíav wg/irjoe xa i oxt ev xavxr) xaxw ç
ngáxxojv èn i xò tpagfiaxonfoXelv ijXBev elxa àvanenxa/iévov xov TlXáxoi-
voç neguiáxov n ã a i nagaßaXd)v éavxàv ngooExaBioe xo lç Xóyoiç ovx
ò v âqrofjç xa i xa xà fiixgòv eiç xfjv Beújgov/iévrjv eftv ^XQev.
O lô a ôè õxt xaifxn fióvoç ’ E m xovgoç elgrjxe jtax' avxov, ov ôe y
EvßovXlSr)/;, ãXX" ovôè Kr)<piaóôwçoç xotovróv x 1 èxóXfir^F.v euieiv xaxa
xov HxayEiglxov, xaíxot x a i ovyygáfifiaxa èxôóvxeç xa xà xàvôgóç.
ndoi ex A iis t o c le ap. E u s e b iu m r e s t it u i : 9»)a t c o d d . || êÇiv i)X6ev U sen e r :
cod d. II ov Sé ■/ C r o n e r t oürr. ôè c o d d . ||
59 c E P I C U R U S ap. A elian . Var. H ist. V 9: ’ AoioxoxéXrjç âaaixev-

oá/ÁEVoç xà èx xov naxgòç XQ W a za m titja ev èn i axgaxeíav, Eixa a n a l-
Àárrcuv xaxtTiq Èv rovrw <pagfiaxoncíikr]ç ãvEtpávrj. naçEogvEÍç Ôè eiç

xàv negm azov xai nagaxgovojv zthv Xóycjv, àfieívutv neqwxwç noXXãv,
slxa ê£iv nEniEfiáXf.zo rjv fiexà xavxa èxxrjoaxo.
59 d E P I C U R U S ap. S ex t. E m p ir. Adv. math. I i — fr. 227

Usener: Tijv ngòç xovç ànò x ã v [laBrjfiáxcdv ãvxíggrjotv xotvóxegov fièv
StaxeOelaBat ôoxovatv o í negi ' E níxovgov . . . oòç x ã v fiaBrjfiáxatv /xrjôèv
owegyovvxaiv ngòç aa<ptaç reXeimaiv, tf (òç xtveç eixáÇovai, xovxo
ngoxáXvfifia xfjç éavxãv ànaiôevoiaç sívai vofiíÇovxeç (ev noXXolç yàg
âfiaBrjç 'E n íxovg o ç ÈXéyxExai. . xáya ôè. x a i ôià t t jv ngòç rovç
negi ÍIXáxcjva xa i ’ AgiaroxéXrj x a i rovç ófiolovç ÔvajuÉvetav noXvfiaÚE.lç
yeyovóxaç.
59 e C IC E R O D e nat. deorutn I 33, 93 = fr. 235 U sener: E picu ru s

Aristotelem vexarit contum eliosissim e . . . tota commenticia, vix digna
lucubratione anictãarum . . .
60. Timaeus.
60 a T IM A E U S ap. P o ly b . X II8 = F Gr H ht 566, F. 156:
. . . ófioXoyrjxéov àyvoeiv xa i naganaíetv rovç xoiavxy xgatjxèvoruç òjiex ~
BeÍol xa i m xg ía xa rà x ã v néXaç o ia xé%gr)rai T ífiaioç x a r ’A g ia r o -
xéXovç. tprjai yàg avxòv eivai Bgaavv evxsgrj ngonexfj, ngòç ôè xovxoiç
y.azazEXoX/xrjy.evai rfjç r ã v A o x g ã v tcÓXeojç, ebióvxa rrjv ibtotxíav avxãv
elvat ògoTiEzmv o ix er ã v /uoi%ãv âvôganoôiaxwv. x a i xavxa XéyEiv
avróv qirjaiv ovzmç à£ioniax<oç more ôoxelv iva r ã v êaxgaxrjyrjxóxajv
rmág%£iv xa i rovç ITégaaç êv r a lç K iX ixia iç niíXaiç ãgxt nagaxáÇei
vevixrjxóra ôià rijç avzaü ôwáfiEwç, âXX' ov ao<piazrjv òrptfiaBrj xa i
fiiorjtòv vnágxovra xa i rò noXvxífitjxov iaxgelov àgxíajç caioxExXstxoxa,
7tgòç Ôè xovroiç elç nãaav avXrjv xa i axrjvrjv £fmejir]òr]xóza, ngòç Sè
yaargí/xagyov, òy>agxvxr]v, èn i a rófia tpegófiEvov 1lv n ã a i. ô o xei ôrj fiot
r à zoiavra fiáXiç (a » ) ãvBgtanoç âyvçzrjç xa i ngonexrjç èni ôtxaaxtjgiov
giipoXoyãv âvexròç tpavrjvat. /.léxgioç fièv yàg ov ôoxel.
60 b S U D A s. v. ’ AgiaxoxéArjç: (3930) ’ AgtaxoxéXrjç. Tífiaióç qnyai

xaxà 'AgtaxoxéÀovç eivai avxàv Evyf.grj, Bgaavv, jtgajiExrj- aÀX' ov
aotpioxrjv ôtpiftaBrj, fiiarjxòv vnágxovxa, xa i xó Tiohnífirjxov iaxgelov
anoxexXeixóxa, x a i ngàç nãaav avArjv x a i axr]v)]v è/j.nenr]ôr]xóxa. ngòç
ôè yaaxglfiagyov, óipagxvxrjv, èn i a rófia çiegóftEvov èv n ã oi. ô o x s l ô?j juoi
378 INGEMAR DÜRING
r à zoiavxa pôAiç (â v ) avdgwnoç âyvgxr/ç x a l jiqotietïjç èm bixacmqgiov

giipoXoywv â v E x x à ç <pavfjvai.
Comment: A com parison w ith th e origin al te x t shows th a t th e epito-
m ator h as forgo tten to chan ge dAA’ ov.
60 c P L U T A R C H U S Vita N ie. i , in his in tro d u cto ry com m en ts on

th e m ethods of th e h isto rian T im aeus: ’ /I/Ad zovzoj fièv ïaeoç cm0 r rjç
avzfjç èîiL/jF.lda- (scripsi: è/x/ieXEiaç codd.) xaüxà ze ygàcpEiv EnfjEi xa l
zfjv OiXiaxov ôidXsxzov evÔvveiv xa i zo ïç jieqi IJXazcova xa i A g io zo-
xéXtjv XoiôooElaOai.
60 d T IM A E U S ap. A th en . V I I I 342 e: Tl/xaioç ô' 6 Tavgofi£vizr]ç

x a i ’ AgcaxoxéXi] rov <ptX6aocpov dtpocpàyov cprjoi yEyovevai.
6 1. Aristoxenus.
61 a [ A R IS T O X E N U S ] ap. A E L I U M A R I S T I D E N Or. 46, 249.10,
p. I I 324 D indorf: A o x e l àé /101 xa i IlXaxcova öixifi /iexeXQeiv xov
Xoyov x a i xrjç £7itxLftï]ô£(oç. nagaixoQ/tai 6 evfievfj xa i ÎXeoiv eivat
x o lç Xeyo/j.évoig, et xiç laxiv aïodrjoiç. x a l ovx èqôj Aiovvaiov ovxe xov
' En/ioy.gâxovç ovze zov Aiovvaiov ovze zojv ev HixeXta fiEZ Exetvov
avvôiaxgiifidvxcuv ovôéva, dAA’ elaiv oi Xéyovaiv, ézeqoi <5 a i ipaaiv
à/.rfiij UyEiv xovxovç, d>ç 8xe xrjv xoixrjv ànoôrj/xiav elç ZtxeXiav âjieôfj-
fir)0£, xôxe tùjv ÉzaÎQcov xivèç ctôxov xa i tùjv eiç zà /idXiata d)/iiXrjxàxwv
(scholion: rov ’ AgioxoxéXrj M y et, Sç XéyEzai xa l x ëzt} 6/xiXfjaai zm
IJXaxmvi) vnoXei<p6Évxeç oîxot vsœxega ißovXevaavzo xat xoiiç Aôrj-
valovç è/xi/xrjoavrn, uàXXov à' ov xovç ' Adrjvaicrvç dAAa xovç AOt/vatcov
vnrjxoovç Xéyco zovç âcpiaxapiêvovç, xa izo t zà y èxdvtov enavaaxdcJEt
nçoaeotxoç rjv oi ôè ötazgißäQ ze àvxixaxaaxEvâÎEiv avxolç f^Lovv
nXrjotov xrjç êxeivov x a l coxoSàjuovv km xfj Axaôrj/iia, xo xe csv/xîtnv
vTtEQcpoovEÏv èxé Xevov Sxov ôrj — ov yàg ëycoy âv ÈcpE^rjç ovxcoa't ngo-
nOEtrjv x ovvofia — cpdaxovxoç yégovxâ xe sivat jioXXov xa i naoacpgovEÏv
rjôrj. œaxe, cl) (piXe TlXdxcav, àxnyycTtç xo xov IlEQixXéovç avvißrj aoi.
xa i cûGTtEo âgxicoç MiXztdôov xa't 0 E/xiaxoxXèovç xa i Kifia)voç éxàazov
xe xrjç zt>xi)ç ècpaivov [i£xé%cov, oiizco aoi xa i 6 xèxaozoç Xouioç Èvza'èOa
azirpvxT/XE. oaepeoç, yàg ovzcogî tco U eçix Xe ï xavxov fttaiOf ~ ètii xeXevxt]
xov ßiov, x a l jtgoaèxi êv zw ytjoa av y£ xa i JioAXm jigEnßvrEnoc, zfjç
èxeivov z ô ff r/Xixtaç xoiavd' vß gta d ek, d OÉ/uç d n e lv . x a i d /xi] Xaßgiac,
x a l ’ l<pixqdxr]z, àvàgEQ xrjç TÎEgixXèovç xa i 6E/xiazoxXéovç iôéaç xai
xd£ea>g slg oaov ia x i xovxovg ixeivoig s ix a a a t, aiaödfiEvot to. yiyvdfisva

rjyavdxxrjoav x a i t o in ixeiyiafxa öieon aoav x a i xov Xotnofi n g o aix a^ av
auxpQovelv avxoig, ndvx' dv f.xe Iva fie o r a xgaytpdlag ijv.
rpdaxovTOQ D ü r in g : <pd<Movteq.
61 b SU DA s. v. 5Agiaxo£evog: . . . dxovaxrjg . . . xal xiXog ' A g i-

axoxsXovg- elg or (broBavdvra vßgias, diori xaxehns xr/g o%oX//g Stadoxov
Qsotpgaaxov, a v xoi dotjav fisydXtjv ev xolg axgoaxalg xolg ' AgioxoxeXovg
e%ovxog.
62. Eubulides.
62 a D IO G E N E S L A E R T IU S I I 109: ' 0 6' EvßovXiärjg x a l ngog
' AgioxoxiXrjv diegjegexo x a l noXXa avxov diaßeßXrjxe. = S U D A s. v.
gofißoaxa>fivXt]6ga.
62 b T H E M I S T I U S Or. 23, p. 285 c = T 63 e.
63. Cephisodortis.
63 a D I O N Y S I U S H A L IC A R N A S S E N S IS , E p. ad Pom p, i, p.
II 226 U sener-R aderm acher: TT0XX0I yäg evgedrjaovxai ngo e/uov toöto
nE7ioii]x6xeg (sc. criticize P la to ), oi fiiv xa xa xov exeivov yEvdfisvai

yoovov, 01 ÖE Xiav vaxEgov enaxfidoavxsg. x a l yäg xa doy/uaxa äießa-
Xov avxoti xivsg x a l xoiig Xoyovg efiEfiyiavxo Jig&xov fxev 6 yvjjaudxa-
xo- avxoü ftaOrjxrjg 'AgioxoxEXrjg, EjiEtra oi nsgl Krjyiioddwgdv xe xai
deojioftnov xa i ZcaiXov xa i ' Innoddfiavxa xat Arjfitfxgiov x a l äXXot
ov%voi, ov did tpOovov fj 61a q>iXaJiExQrj/j.oavvi]v xtofiwdovvxeg dXXd xijv
dArjdsiav eêxa£ovxsg. — Isaeus 19, p. I 122 U .-R .: Cephisodorus is
one of the u n im p ortan t im ita to rs of Isocrates.
63 b D IO N Y S I U S H A L IC A R N A S S E N S IS Isocrates 18, p. I 85
U sener-R aderm acher: Mrjdslg d’ ayvoetv ( ft”) vnoXdßrj fti]8' öxt ’ A<pa-
oevg o ngdyovog xe xa i Eianoirjxog ’ laoxgdxEi yevdfievog b> xqj ngog
MeyaxXsidrjv tieqI xi)g avxiddociog Xoyco diogiCExat firjdefiiav vno xov
naxgog v-rddeatv slg dixaaxrjgiov yeyodtpOai, jir ß ’ öxt äsojuag n d w
noXXdg dixavixiLp Xoycov ' laoxgaxEiwv nsgupegEadai (pr/oiv vno xdtv
ßvßXioTtcoXojv 'AgiaxoxEXrjg. em axa/iai ydg xafixa vno xcbv avdg&v
ixetvoiv Xe.y6j.iEva, x a l ovxe aAgtaxoxsXei nEtOofim gvnaiveiv xov ävdga
ßovkofiEvqj ovx' ’ Aipagsi xovxov y svsxa Xoyov svngEnfj nXaxxo/ievq>
ovvxidsfiat. ixavov <5’ ijyrjodfievog F.lvai xrjg dXrfifing ßEßaiwxijv xöv
380 INGEMAR DÜRING
*AQrjvaiovKijcpiaáôcogov, xaiavvefiícoosv’Inoxnáxf.ixaiyvrjoicoxaxoç
àxovcrxfjçeyévexoxaixfjvãnoXoylavxfjvvnègavrotitrjvnávvôavfiaarrjv
ôç
êvtatçngóç'AqlcjtotèX^vàvrtygacpatçênoirjaaTO,m arevcayeyçáqidat
Xóyovçrivàçvnò àvôgàçstçòixaaT^gia,ovfiévroínoXXovç.
toO
x
63 c N TJM EN IU S IJegl TlXáx
fjç x ã v ’ A x aôrjfx iax ãv ngòç cova ôta-
axáoecoç, ap. E u seb. Praep. ev. X I V 6, p. 732 b = p. 120 Leem ans:
"Oç ât) á KrjcpioóôajgoQ, êneiôf] vn ' AgtoxnxéXovç (SaAlófievov èav xcõ
tóv ôiôdaxaXov ’Iaoxgáxrjv túiga. avTov fièv AgiaTOTÉXovç 1)v âfiadrjç
xa i ãjieigoç, vno ôè to ü xadogáv ivôo£a t à IIXótcovo; vjiág%ovra,
oít}6eíç xa xà IlXárcova tóv ’ AçioxoxÉXtjv cpiXooocpeZv, ènoXe/iei fiév
’A çicttoxéXe i , àfiaAXf. ôè ÜXáxcova xa i xaTrjyógei àç£á/if.vnç ànò rtüv
lôecõv, xeXevxwv eiç xá
ãXXa, â oi>ò' avxòç fjÔEi, àXXá xà vopiiCõjueva
àjxff' a vrá v fj Xéyexai vnovoãv. nXfjv ovxoç fièv ó Krj<piaóôa)goç rn
ènóXéfiei fii] /iaxó/jievoç, èfiáyuxo ài /xi] noXefiElv e^ ovXexo .
a v r ó j I O N : a v x á B ( B e r n a y s , L e e m a n s, B ig n o n e ) se d B o m is it d ?J.a — vnovotòv |
63 d A T H E N A E U S I I 60 de: 'O t i Krjcpioóôcogoç á 'Iooxgá xovç

ftaÕTjxrjç ív Toiç xa rá 'A gioxoxèXovç, réaaaga ò’ ècrti xa vra fitp/.ía,
èm xifiâ xá> cpiXoaócpco ó»; ov notfjaavxt Xoyov â£iov tò nagoiflíaç âdgol-
aat. — I I I I22b Krjq>ioóôa)çoç yovv á ’ Iaoxgáxovç xov gijxogoç /xaOrj-
tt)ç èv xcb rgÍTcp tcòv IIqòq ’ AgiaxoxéXr]v XèyEt âri evgot xtç âv vnò
T<õv âXXcov noLTjxãv fj xa i aocptax&v êv fj àvo yovv novijgâtç f.igrjfiÉva
(some exam ples follow ). — V I I I 354 be = T 59 b.
63 e T H E M I S T I U S Or. X X I I I 285 a, p 345 D indorf: £ ocpía ôè

õaca fieíÇov x a i te Xecótegov àyaôóv, tocjovtcü nXeíovç êyEÍgei te x a i
âv íarrjai ngóç tóv Èyavxa fj Ôoxovvxa. x a i xovxo âvcoôev àgl-áfiEvov
f.x IIv6ayógov . . . . xà ô' àficpi XciixgáTovç ti ãv 6gvX ono‘, è/jnénXrjaTai
yàg xà cbxa xoti MeXfjxov xa i ’ A vvxov x a i Avxcuvoç. JlXáxctívoç ô' ov
tiÉxçt vvv xaxafio& aiv t&ç tqlq nXf.voavxoç, e Íç EixtAl.av èn i xqfj/iaai
x a i TçanéCfl; Krjipiaoôdigovç ôè x a i EvfiovXíôaç x a i Ti/xaíovç, A ixa iá g -
%ovç x a i (TTQazòv òXov xã>v êmOefiévcov ' A çioxoxêXei xcò ExayEigixr}
n ox’ ãv xaxaX díaifii evnET&ç, wv xa i Xóyot èîxvoüvxai EÍç xóvôe xóv
Xçávov ôtaxTjgotivxEç rfjv ànéyOfAav x a i cpiXovEixíav,
A tx a tá ç x o v ç : A T]/in-/jÍQfiç L u z a c re c te , se d u tru m s c r ib a an T h e m is t iu s e rra -
v e r it n e scim u s II
64. Lycon.
64 a P L I N I U S N at. hist. X X X V 162: I n A risiolelis heredum auctione

I X X patinae venisse traditur.
64 b T H E O D O R E T U S Graec. aff. cur. V I I I 34, p. 116, 45 Gaisford:

AgiaxoxXijg yàg 6 IlE gm axrjtixà ç A vxw va ipavai xov IlvQayogEiov
i<fij cbç ' AqtmnTF.).rjg 6 Nixojid%ov Ova lav xexeX evx rjxvla xfj y w a tx i
zotavTTjv eIü)6ei ngoaçÉgsiv ônoiav ’ AOrjvaloi rfj Avurjxgi.
64 c T H E O D O R E T U S Graec. aff. cur. X I I 50— 5 1, p. 173 ,10 G ais-

ford: K a i oi 77Èguiaxrjxixoi ôè ?.oyq> jitv eviprjfiovv xrjv àgextjv, èxv-
ôaivov ô’ ëgyco xrjv ijôovrjv x a l r a m a a vxâv ovx àXXoi xaxrjyogovatv,
âXX' avxoi negl xofi o<pâ>v âiôaaxdXov £vyygâq>ovoiv. ’ AgtaxoxXfjz yâg
nov 6 I 7 £ginaTT]Ttxàç Avxatva è<pr] rov IJvdayogEtov tieqI ’ AgiaxoxÉXovç
tpàvai ôxi èv éXaiw Xovo/ievog iaxegov àjiEÔtôoxo- xa i rjvixa eiç XaXxlôa
àurjEi, tov ç reXâivaç èqtrj ôiegewofièvovg x0 nXoiov evqeîv èv omjtÆ
Xondôia %aAxà xéxxaga xa i éfiôofirjxovxa- àXXovç dé xivaç sigrjxévai
xçiaxoataç avxov Èo%TjX£vai XonàÔaç. xa i olfiat avxovç /lit] navxânaai
ipevÔEodar Èv xovxoiç yàg ôrj èxeïvoç xrjv Evôai/ioviav wgiÇEXO' firiiOu
yag Xéyeiv ovx âXXcoç Evôat/iovd riva yiyvsaQai fj ôtà xrjç xov aœ/iaxog
evnaQeiaç xa i xrjç xmv èxxoç TiEQtovnlaç- ù v ùvev fitjôèv xijv àgExijv œcpE-
Xeïv. xa i xotixo ôrj oa<pü>g 'A xxtxà g à IlX axaivixoç Èv oîç nooç ’ A g i-
oxoxeAt]v ygdcpF.i. ÔeÔijXcdxe.
65. Theocritus.
65 a T H E O C R I T U S C H IU S ap. D id ym u m = T i g b.
65 b P L U T A R C H U S D e exilio io , p. 603 c: ’AgtaxoxeXijv ÔÈ x a i

XEXotôogrjXE 0 £oxgixoç 6 X ïo ; o n xt)v nagà 0iXln7iü) x a l ' AXF.Çrivôgw
ôiaixav àyajii)oag
e ï Xexo vainv
àvx' 'AxadrjfiEta; Bogfiàgov èv ngo%oaiç.
êaxi yàg noxa/zàç n eqI IléXXrjv ôv MaXEÔoveç Bàgfiogov xaXovai.
Comment. T h e river B orboru s owes its existence to th e fertile im agina

tion of th e a u th or of th is ad hoc in terpretation .
3^2 INGEMAR DÜRING
66. A pellicon.
66 a P O S I D O N I U S ap. A then . V 214 dl ’ ExJtéfiipaçyotiv (sc. A thenion)

eiç rfjv vtjoov (sc. Delos) ‘ AneXXixwvxa xov Trjiov, noXixtjv ôè ' A 617-
vaunv yevoftevov, noixtXœxaxôv xtva x a l ätpixonov £tjoavxa ß io v äxe
fièv yàg ÉytXooàfpei xà TIeqm a xrjxixd, x a l zfjv ’ AoiaxoxéX ovç ßißXio-
6fjxr)v xa i âXXaç ovvrjyâgaÇe ov%vàç (fjv yàg noXvxgfjfiaxoç) xà x’
ex xov Mt]xg<i)ov xœv naXatmv avxoyoatpa tpr]q>iafidxa>v v(patgov[ievoç
exxâxo x a i êx zœv aXXa>v jioXeœv e ï xt naÀatov f ît] xa i ànôdexov. èrp' o lç
çxtiQaOeiç ev x a lç 'Adrjvaiç èxivôvvevoev âv el fi-t) ëqwyEv. x a l fiex’ ov
TtoXv ndXiv xaxfjXQe OnnajiF.vaaç tioXXovç' x a l owajiEygdçEXO xoj ’ A Q tj-
viœvt œç âv àjiù xrjç avxijç Ôrj aigéoeœç ovzi.
x a i p o s t i(pt7.oaotpet A , d el. K a ib e l || y>rj(pi(jfiaTa A co rr. K a ib e l || ö rj aÏQéo£(oç

M u su r u s : ôtatQéoewç A ||
66 b S T R A B O N X I I I 1,54. P- 608: ’ E x <5è x rjç SxfjxpEœç o î xe

Z œ xg a xtx o l yeyovaoiv “E gaoxaç x a l K o g io xo ç x a l ô xov K ogtoxov vloç
NrjXevç, àvfjg x a i ' AgtoxoxéXovç fjxgoa/iévoç xa l 0 EO(pgdoxov, ôiaôeôey-
fiévoç ôè xfjv ßißXioOfjxr^v xov 0 EO(pçâoxov, êv r\ rjv x a i r) xov ’ A g ia xo xé-
Xovç. ô yoüv *AgiaxoxÉXrjç xfjv éavxov 0 eo<pgâaxœ Ttagéôœxev, üjtifq
x a l xf]v axoX-ijv àjiéXute, 7igœxoç œv ïafiev avvayaythv ßißXia x a l ôtôàÇaç
xovç ev A ly v n xœ ßaoiXeag ßißXioOrjxrjq ovvxaÇiv. 0 eoqigaaxoç ôè
NrjXeï n agéôoixev 6 ô’ eiç E xfjy iv xo/jtaaç xo lç (ie t avxov 7tagèô(oxEv>
ïôuoxaiç âvQgdmoiç, oî xaxàxXEiaxa eîxov xà ßißXia ovô' èmfiEXœç
XEifieva• èjieiôfj ôè fioßovxo xfjv onovôfjv xœv 'A zxaX ixœ v ß a a ü A n v v(p'
olç fjv fj TtoXiç Çrjxoévxojv ßißXia eiç xfjv xaxaaxevfjv xrjç êv IJegydfiw
ßtßXioOrjxrjg, xa xà yfjç ëxgvyiav èv ôiœ gvyl xivr vnà ôè voxiaç xa i
orjxâiv xaxœOévxa àrpé tioxe ajiéôovxo oi àno xov yévovç ' AneXXixâivx 1
xœ Trjiut 71oXXœv âgyvgiœv xà xe ’ AgtoxoxéXovç x a l xà xov 0 Eo<pgâaxov
ßißX ia■fjv ôè 6 AjieXXixùjv tpiXößtßXoc fiàXXov fj <piX6ao<poç‘ ôto xa l
Çtjxœv ÈJiavogQœaiv xœv öiaßgtüfidxaiv eIç âvxtygatpa xaivà (lExfjVEyxe
xrjv ygatprjv àvajiXrjgûv ovx ev, xa l è£éâù>X£v àfiagxdôœv TtXfjgrj xà
ßißXLa.
Zvvlßrj ôè xolç èx xœv TiegtTraxœv xolç fièv nnXai x o lç fir.xà 0 EO(pga-
axov ovx F-xovaiv oXœç xa ßißXia 7tXr)v oXiyœv, x a l fidXioxa xdiv e^mxegi-
xcbv, ftrjôèv êxetv quXoootpelv Ttgaypaxtxwç, àXXà Béoetç XrjxvdtÇeiv
xoîç ô v(TXF.gov, dtp' ov zà ßißXia xavxa ngorjXQev, â/ieivov fièv êxeivmv
(piXoaoqjElv xa i âotaxoxeXiÇetv, âvayxàÇeaOai fxévxoi xà TtoXXà eîxôxa
XéyEiv Âtà xo nXfjBoç xœv âfiagxiûv. tioXv ôè eiç xovxo x a l fj ' Pdim]
ngoaeXdßero• evdvg yag /tera rfjv ’ AnsXXixwvrog rej.e.vrrjv EvAXag r)ge

rfjv ’ AneAXix&vrog ßiß).LobrjXi]v o r a ; ’ ABrjvag eXdjv, detigo de y.oniaÜF.l-
aav T vg aw iov re 6 yga/i/ianxog diEyeiaiaaro qnXagicrtoreXrjg a>v,
Beganevoag rov en l rrjg ßißXtoBrjxrjg, xa l ßißXionojXal nveg ygatpeöoi
<pai>Xotg ygwfievoi x a l ovx dvrtßdXXovreg, öneg y.ai i n i r&v aXXaiv
avfißalvet rwv tig ngäaiv ygaqpo/ievwv ßtßAUov x a l ivBade x a l ev ’ AXe£-
avdgeia. negl (lev o w tovtcdv dndygrj.
r o ic ex rov I le g m d x o v s c iih e n d u m || p r o fuEyeioirrnro a ffe r tu r v a r ia le c tio
IvExtiQ ioaro j|
66 c P L U T A R C H U S V ita Sullae 26, p. 468 a: ’ AvayBelg i s naaatg

ralg vavatv t c ’ Efpeaov, rgiralog ev IlE ig a iei xaBcogfiloBrj' x a l /ivrj-
OeiQ eêiXev eavro) rrjv ’ AnsXXixdjvrog rov Trjtov ßtßXioBrjxrjv, ev fj
ra nXelora rwv ’ AgtaroreXovg xal 0 eorpgdarov ßißXicov t}v, ovneu
to r e oatpwg yvwgi^d/ieva rolg noXXolg. Xeyerai de xofiiaBeiarjg avrijg
elg ’ Priifirjv, Tvgavviwva rov ygafifiartxov ivaxevaaaaBai ra noXXa,
x a l nag’ avrov rov ' Podiov 5Avdgovixov evnogrjaavra r& v avriygdcpwv,
elg jiF.aov Belvat x a l dvaygatpai rovg vvv cpegofiivovg nivaxag.
O l de ngeaßvregoi Ileg in a rrjrixa i tpatvovrat [iiv xaQ’ iavrovg yevd-
juevot yagievreg x a l ipiXoXoyoi, rwv ft 'AgtaroreXovg x a l 6 eoqjgdarov
avyygafi/idrwv ovte noXXolg ovr' axgißwg (yeygafifjiivotg) evrervyrr
xoreg ötä (r o ) rov Nt]Xecog roß Hxrjipiov xXrjgo\vofio'\v (w ra ßtßXia
xariXtne Qc6(pgaarog) elg aipiXort/xovg x a l idtcorag avBgwnovg negiye-
veaBai. ZvXXa de . . . (prjalv 6 Zrgdßw v.
fivrjdeii in su sp ic io n e m v o e a t L a t t e , s c rih e n d u m EXJiheiv og/irjde'n; v e l sim ilite r ||
&ieXtx<bvTog G ant.X/lxw vnq L ! e t sic B e c h te l, H ist. P e rs . 6 1,2 7 2 || avyyga/i/iariav
R o b b e : y ga fifid riov c o d d || ( yeyga fi/iE voii) R e i s t e R o b b e , üxaißEOtv C o ra e s |
<to> M u su ru s || xXijgov R e is k e R obbe, x).rjQovo/iov G L xhjoovcifiia v M u slim s,
A nonym us | nagayeveaG ai : co rr. R e is k e |
66 d B O E T I U S D e divisione, M igne 64, p. 892 b: Posterior quidcm

Peripatetica secta prudentiae dif/erentias divisionum diligentissima
ratione perspexit et per se divisionem ab ea quae est secundum accidens
ipsasque inter se d isiu n xit ac distribuit. Antiquiores autem indifferenter
et accidente pro genere et accidentibus pro speciebus aut differentiis ute-
bantur. Unde nobis peropportuna utilitas visa est et cotnmuniones harum
rerum prodere et eas propriis differentiis disgregare.
Comment: I h a v e filed th is passage h e ie (instead of adding it to T
75 q), because I agree w ith P le zia th a t it is a la te echo of A n dronicus'
38 4 INGEMAR DURING
polem ic a gain st o i ngeofivTEgot IleQtnarrjTixoi. A s he has shown,

D e A n d ronici studiis Aristotelicis pp. 13 — 15, B oetiu s tran slates P o r
p h y r y ’s com m en tary in P la to ’s Sophistes, and P o rp h y ry used A n d ro n i-
cu s’ I le g l 61a10e.fsf.mc, as his source. P le z ia 's conclusion seem s to me
b o th a ttr a c tiv e and convincing: “ V a ld e prob ab ile est scripsisse A n droni-
cum q uondam in lib ri sui fine veteres illos P erip atetico s, A risto telis et
T h eo p h rasti discipulos, rerum ordinem , q u i logicae artis regulis congruus
esset, TeUgiose in d isp u tatio n ib u s tenuisse, q u ae cum ars a posteribu s
plus iu sto n eglecta ac d erelicta esset, sib i d iscip u lom m anim os ad earn
revo care p eropportu n u m visu m esse. P o rp h yriu s au tem cu m A n d ronici
verb a ad com m en tariu m suum a tq u e a eta tem , q u ae trecen tis annis
posterior erat, a p ta re t, pro veterib u s P erip a teticis A n d ronici successores
su b stitu it ob litu s hoc m odo sen tentiaru m ordinem tu rb ari. Q uae vero
ille posu it, pau cis m u ta tis rep e tiv it B o e tiu s .”
66 e STTDA s. v. ZvAAag: ZvAAag . . . aaiagag ’ E<peoov ngoaaxv

te raiq 'AQrjvaig evdie.TQiy>£ rfj tioAei xgovov tivoq xai rrjv 'A tzeA-
Aix & vxoq roC Trjiov xaxaAapthv ivxavda PtftAmOijxrjv dve.iAe.To ev fj
nAslaxa r&v ’ AgiaxoxeAov5 xat Qeocpgaarov ftifiALuw tfv, oimai tote
to Zq noAAolg, fj qirjai IIAovxagxog, yvwgi^d/xeva, aAA' evtevOev eq tt>
v
tojv avdgdiTtcov Extfoixrjoavxa yvdioiv.
Comments on Ch. X V .
Cicero says, De fin . I I 23, 80, sit ista in Graecorum levitate perversitas qui
maledictis insectantur eos a quibus de veritate dissentiunt. A n d T atian u s,
him self one of th e m ost b itte r calu m n iato rs, says, Or. adv. Gr. 6,
noAAa n a g ’ avxoZg e o x i nooaxgov/iaxa- fu o e l per yag Exegog xov
E regnv avTtdoSofiaiv 6' eclvxoZq did xrjv aAaôvEiav xonovQ emAe.yofxE-
voi to v q 7tgovxovraQ. J. L u z a c in his Lectiones Atticae, L eid en 1809,
pp. 101 — 318, has collected a v a s t am ou n t of m aterial illu stratin g this
odium philosophorum.
A risto cles w as a rep u tab le philosopher, teach er of A lex a n d e r of
A p hrod isias, see H , H eilan d, Aristoclis M essen ii reliquiae, D iss. Giessen
1925. W h a t he says, T 5 8 ] , is on th e w hole sensible and convincing,
and it giv es us reason to tr u s t him . H is ch ap ter on A risto tle is, as
J a c o b y sa y s, F Gr H ist I I I b 2, p. 482, “ a k in d of plea w hich tried to
d iscred it th e slander b y show in g up th e n a tu re of its authors instead
of a c tu a lly d isprovin g it. H e h a rd ly prod u ced “ p rim a ry ” m aterial;
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION -585
w hat he quotes is p a r tly late and p a r tly trad itio n al, h u t nevertheless
ve ry v a lu a b le.”
Epicurus. E . B ign one d ev o te d a g rea t p a rt of his L'Aristotele
perduto, F loren ce 1936, to a discussion of E p icu ru s’ polem ic against
A ristotle, esp ecially th e conn exion w ith A risto tle ’s dialogues. H is
investigations h a v e con sid erably increased ou r know ledge of E p icu ru s’
relations to A ristotle, b u t it m u st be said th a t his su b jectiv e in terp re ta
tions and a certain d isrespect for philologie m in u tiae som ew hat reduce
th e value of his conclusions.
The m am reasons behind E p ic u ru s ’ sallies a ga in st A risto tle and th e
P erip atetics are: (a) d ifferen ce of opinion and approach to ph ilosophy
and a d ifferen t concep tion of naideia; (b) personal h o s tility b etw een
E picurus and his follow ers, and th e P erip atetics of th e second and th ird
generation; (c) th e AacoroSiSaaxaAog (and sim ilar p o p u la r criticism )
provoked a co u n ter-a ttack , w hich, in order to increase its force, he
m ain ly d irected a gain st the founder of th e school.
T 58 b and 59 a d are all from th e sam e source, and as to their
va lu e Cicero has said th e fin a l w ord , T 59 e. T h e tru e fa cts behind th e
abuse are th a t A risto tle w as th e son of a ph ysician and had inh erited
a certain w ea lth from his father; th e rest is pure inven tion ; I do n ot
think Id eler w as rig h t w hen he th o u g h t o f Meteor. I V 3, 381 a 3 - 4 as
a possible source of th e slander; w e h a v e no evidence th a t th is trea tise
(which does not belon g to th e Meteorologica) w as k now n u n til a fter
Andronicus, see I. D u rin g, “ A r isto tle ’s C hem ical T rea tise” , Acta univ.
Gothob. 50, 1944: 2, p. g. I t is to be ob served th a t th e w ord T iE Q tn a ro q
means j ‘sch o o l” (not th e building), ju s t as in XnEvavnnoq xardoTQErpev
T« rj £TTj n a r a a x d i v t o v n s Q u i a z o v , In d . Here. V I 39, p. 38 M ekler.
See A . B usse, in: Hermes 6 1, 1926, pp. 3 3 5 - 3 4 2 . I t is in terestin g to
observe th a t E p icu ru s ad m its th a t A risto tle had a n atu ra l ta len t and
q u ick ly m ade a career in th e A ca d em y ; fu rth er th a t A elia n renders
o v x cuv a<pvr)q w ith a p E iv o v n e tp v x a ig n a M w v and su b stitu tes another
phrase fo r ttjv O E w g o v fisv r/v ££tv. H is ph rase n a g a x Q o v a y v r a iv A o y cu v is
a plam d istortion o f 7z g o a E x d 6ia E r o l g A o y o ig . P hilodem us w ho in T 3 1 f
tran scribes an E p icu rea n source ad m its too th a t A risto tle w as h igh ly
gifted, b u t u n fo rtu n a tely he a jiE n r j& a t f j g a i x e i a g n q a y / x a r e i a g .
W h y did E p icu ru s lau n ch th e vio len t and en tirely unfounded a tta c k
on A risto tle as an aonwroc? T h e answ er is th a t it is a co u n ter-a ttack ,
certain ly a b lo w b elow th e b elt, b u t u n derstan d ab le as a desperate
Coleb. U n iv . A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2
386 INGEMAR DURING
defence. T h e con tem p o rary com ed y p ictu red E p icu ru s as d ev o te d to

pleasure (see W eb ster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy, p. 1 1 1 ) . A le x is
presented in th e 3AowxodtddaxaAog a c arica tu re of E p icu ru s 71QOXQE716-
fievov sm rjdvnaOeiav. E p icu ru s’ Letter to M enoeceus is a Aoyog tiqoxqeti-
xtxog, closely con n ected w ith A risto tle s Proirepticus. E p icu ru s could
n ever un derstan d A risto tle ’s b roadm inded a ttitu d e to pleasure as a
prereq u isite of tru e evSatfiovla. A r is to tle ’s ph ilosop h y in th e Protrep-
ticus culm in ates in th e w ords, jr. 14, p. 5 8 2 2 W alzer: to £ijr ana r/Seag
xa't to %atQ£iv <hg dXtjdcbg r)x01 fiovotg ij fiaXiaxa vnd gxei xolg <ptXoad<poig
(very sim ilar E N X 7, 1 1 7 7 a 2 5 - 2 7 ) . B ign on e has m ade it q u ite clear
th a t E p icu ru s cond u cted a continuous and stu b b orn fig h t against
A risto tle ’s concep tion of rjdovr) (cf. e. g. D L X 136), b u t from our sta n d
p o in t w e m u st say th a t E p icu ru s com es v e ry close to A risto tle in his
E p . ad M en. 132. I th in k th a t B ign one w as rig h t w hen (L'Aristotele
perduto I I , pp. 5 7 — 58 and 22S— 230) he exp lain ed E p ic u ru s ’ v io le n t
personal a tta c k on A risto tle ’s m em ory as an over-h asty counter-charge,
provok ed b y th e 'AacoxoStdaaxaXog.
A m o n g E p icu ru s ’ disciples C olotes is esp ecially fam ou s for his a tta c k
on A risto tle and th e A ca d em y . Y e t P lu ta rch says, N on posse suavitcr
vivi sec. E picu ru m 2, 1086 E , th a t in com parison w ith th e m ean and
scurrilous calu m n y of E p icu ru s and M etrod oru s a ga in st A risto tle and
a ll ph ilosophers b efore E p icu ru s, C olotes w as m odest; E p icu ru s and
M etrodorus xa £V avdgcbnoig ala%taxa g>j/xaxa . . . ovvayayovxeg A q l-
el%
ev jion
(rcoxeXovg x a i Zcoxgaxovg . . . xaxeaxedaaav, (bax'ei x a i xa. aXXa navxa
ao<pd>g avxoig, did xag fiXaoiprj/Aiag xavxag xa i xaxijyogiag -
Qcaxdxu) aoipiag &v eigyEaOai. See C rdnert, Kolotes u. Menedemos,
1906, pp. 1 7 — 19.
T i m a e u s w as a generation you n ger th a n A risto tle, anti-M ace
donian, co n serv a tiv e in his ideas and ideals. R . L aq u eu r, R E V I A ,
c. 119 5 , points to th ree reasons for his h ostile a ttitu d e to A ristotle.
H e w as a pu p il of P hiliscus, and th e yo u n ger m em bers of th e Iso cratean
school w ere tra d itio n a lly u n frien d ly to w a rd s A risto tle ever since the
open fig h t in th e ‘ fifties. A risto tle h ad id ealized th e co n stitu tio n of
C arth age, a c ity w h ich T im aeu s regarded as th e h ered ita ry foe of Greek
civ iliza tio n . A n d , w orst of all, A risto tle had ch ara cterized th e in h ab itan ts
of L o cri as descen d an ts of slaves and rascals (we can fin d m odern parallels
in accou n ts of th e h isto ry o f A u stralia). T im aeu s feels him self to b e a
defender of old, fine trad itions; A risto tle is to him a ao(piaxr)g oipi/iaQrjg,
one of those rad ical in tellectu als w hom he detests C a ll« « ,

intellectual, deserved his fa te (T 28) Calhsthenes, another
^ W h a t he sa y s in 5 S c . 6 o a _ d „ d raw n f r o n ^ ^
this fraKnu,!/f'roxn A r f e t o L u V '/ , ^ / V , I t o , ‘ ''1 of
, K„, . wacning Anstoxenus must have told a

about some stransen v h n < ■- Mon
Plato was in SiriK t, ■ ‘ «aching in the Academy while
, M 111 fcraly It is impossible to sav whether ,1,;. 1 ,
during his second or third visit to Sv,-. „ happened
- T , T r a,'e the 'vidence has 8°"' <*
• :S M S S i
5
£V7i7::rz rhe
definitely that i i ™ ^ “ T ^ ^ k“° " s
name of Aristot e “ , ; ” h , U° ” '“ ” g “ ”Wn’i° » “ *
% .«id„y
derived fm m "n
refersto,h*
a nd to a sti^rv u ltu a ^ M v
d e r iv e d fro m D em o ch a res and tr a n sfe rre d to A r is to tle see T /<
I t is am using to see h o w i, ■ 45 d
,, 5. n o w f l i g h t e d h e is to D a l m n f f th is r m c « ™ a „ A
at the sam e tim e h ow carefu l n ot to on lh e t< f
and his idols P la to and A r i .t n t l . n , . , ” >■ “ audiencc
Mate. M a „ d 2 , W e m eet "■« * » 7 »gain in V ita
^ h as often been said th a t j »
zztjz*“ s^r“ *?.“j-*

* W if tn ip „ *
elected successor to th e h e a d ^
? C WOrds Eiç Sv àjtoûavovra
o T ^ jT jt T h n ” “ bd”S
understandable in a m an of hits nha racter and not TeaCtl011,
w ith his ad m iration his lriend a „ „ ^
■ E ^ Z r b ^ ™ d“ >"« n ick n a m e
388
Eubulides, th e philosopher of th e M egarian school (D L I I 168),

■wrote a b ook a gain st A risto tle in w hich he said th a t “ the frigid poem s
concern in g his m arriage and his relationsh ip w ith H erm ias w ere w ritten
b y A risto tle (when in r e a lity th e y are b y oth er h an d s)” (W orm ell, in:
Y a le C l. St. 5, 1935, p. 86). T h e w ords ngodijXcoQ yiEvderai in d icate
th a t E u b u lid es h a d qu oted forged poem s. T h e second charge is in
prin ciple th e sam e as th a t m ade a gain st P la to ; w e h a ve an e x tra ct
from a le tte r from Speusippus to P h ilip , A th en . X I 506 e HjievamTiog
71 wdavofiEvoQ 0iXt7i7iov filantprjfiEtv neqi nXarcovoQ etc., and this
le tte r can b e d a ted to th e w in ter of 343/2, see E . B ick erm an n and J.
S y k u tris, in: Ber. Sachs. A k . P kil.-h ist. K l. 80, 1928: 3. T h e in tellectu al
elite in A th en s, Isocrates, P la to , Speusippus, A risto tle , w a s pro-M ace
donian. E u b u lid es tran sferred to A risto tle th e charge th a t Theopornpns
h ad m ade a ga in st P la to . T h e th ird charge: it m a y w ell b e tru e th a t
A risto tle a lrea d y h ad le ft A th en s w h en P la to died (T 13 d); th e anti-
M acedon ian riots in A th en s du rin g th e w in ter-m on th s 348/47 a fter the
fa ll of O ly n th u s m a y h a v e caused him to le a v e th e c ity in spring 347.
T h e fo u rth a ccu sation show s th a t E u b u lid es k n e w th a t A risto tle had
criticized P la to ’s doctrines in som e of his books; E . h a d p ro b a b ly read
th e IJsgi cpiXoaoqjtaQ
.
I f E u b u lid e s’ book w as a co n trib u tio n to th e cu rren t slander, w hich
seem s lik e ly , it m u st h a v e been pu b lish ed during A r isto tle ’s lifetim e.
Demochares. O n his action a ga in st th e philosophers, in spring
306, an d his speech vtif.o £o<poxXea 7io 6 q &iA(ova, se m y Herodicus the
Cratetean, S to ck h o lm 194 1, p. 14 9 — 15 1. T h is speech w as, as appears from
T 58 g, an im p o rta n t source for th e la te r d efam ation of th e philosophers,
esp ecially for th e gossip on A risto tle . H ere w e h a v e th ree charges:
(a) certain letters h ad been found; (b) A risto tle had b e tra y e d S ta g ira to
th e M acedonians; (c) a fter th e dem olition of O ly n th u s he had denounced
th e w ea lth iest men of O ly n th u s a t th e p lace w h ere th e b o o ty w as sold.
M u lv a n y rem arked d ry ly th a t in anti-M acedonian lan gu age cities
o n ly join P h ilip b ecau se th e y are b etrayed ; S ta g ira join ed P hilip, and
i t w as ea sy to nam e th e tra ito r and to produce letters; th e th ird charge
is so m on stru ou s th a t it is d ifficu lt to see h ow it cou ld b e believed,
ev en in A then s.
In 63 c th e m an u scrip ts read AixatagxovQ, an o b viou s error. I have
how ever h esitated to p u t L u z a c ’s em end ation in th e te x t , for it is quite
possible th a t it w as T h em istiu s him self w ho m ade th e m istake.
A R IS T O T L E IN TH E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 389
Cephisodorus, one of Iso cra tes' pupils, w ro te a w ork in fou r

books against A risto tle, p ro b a b ly a b o u t 360 or n o t m uch later. A good
article b y G erth, in: R E X I , c. 227. F u rth er: W . Jaeger, in: Hermes 64,
192g, p. 22; E . A . L eem ans, “ N um en iu s v a n A p a m e ia ” , in: Acad. Belg.
Cl. des lettres, M em . 37: 2, B ru x elles 1937; E . B ignone, L ’ A rist. perduto,
I P- 58 — 61; P . M o ran s, Listen anciennes, p. 334— 6; W a lzer, A t . dialog,
f r - , P- 5 -
I f we look a t th e fragm en ts (T 58 h, 59 b, 63 a — e), w e fin d th ree
contentions: (a) A risto tle had com e forw ard to oppose Iso crates and
criticized his m ethod s and his ed u cation al ph ilosophy; C. refuted his
argum ent; (b) C .’s b ook also con tain ed personal gossip, 58 h; (c) B eliev
ing th a t A risto tle w as a d ev o u t ad herent of P la to ’ s ph ilosophy, including
th e th eo ry of ideas, C. h a d lau n ch ed an a tta c k on A risto tle b u t w as
really ge ttin g a t P la to (eâXXe lIAdroiva).
a) The evidence is u nanim ous on th is point. S h o rtly a fter th e death
of X en ophon 's son G rylos in 362 A risto tle pu blished his dialogue Grylos.
W e know n e x t to n othin g a b o u t th is w ork, b u t it is p ro b ab le th a t
A ristotle discussed th e principles on w hich Iso crates based his rhetoric;
the evidence afford ed b y T 3 1 — 33 g iv es us reason to assum e th a t he
pursued his criticism in his oral in stru ction and ea rly rhetorical w orks,
now lost (Cic. B rutus 12 = jr. 137 Rose). A ris to tle ’s e x ta n t Rhetoric
proves, how ever, th a t he had a h igh opinion of Isocrates; his ow n sty le
b etrays a m arked influence from Isocrates; he has m uch in com m on
w ith him in his social and h isto rical outlook; in short, there is no reason
to suppose th a t A risto tle had m ade a n y personal a tta c k s on Isocrates,
even if he had sp oken iro n ically (Siefxajxiiaaro) of his philosophy, as
Philodem us asserts. O u r m ost tru stw o rth y w itn ess (63 a) says th a t
Cephisodorus had w ritten his book n ot in order to s ta r t a quarrel b u t
to seek th e tru th .
b) T 58 h is th erefore b afflin g. T h e rare w o rd rsv6rjg does n ot
occur in th e list of E p icu rea n in v e c tiv e s recorded b y T im aeus, T 60 a.
I t is reasonable to assum e th a t th e a tta c k on A risto tle becau se of his
supposed aocDTta w as lau n ch ed b y E p icu ru s in his Letter to M enoecus;
I can not fin d a n y traces of it earlier. I therefore assum e th a t eith er
A ristocles or his source m ade a m istak e in a ttrib u tin g th is gossip to
Cephisodorus.
c) T 63 b (tran slated b y R oss, p . 4) has led B ign one to conclusions
w hich can n o t b e accep ted . H e assum ed th a t Cephisodorus w rote his
39 ° IN G E M A R d u r i n g
b o o k as an answ er to A risto tle 's Protrepticus (thus a fter 353 )- He

b elieved th a t th e Protrepticus w as w ritten in defence of P la to ’s th e o ry
of ideas, and th a t co n sequ en tly Cephisodorus w as rig h t in ta k in g
A risto tle as his ta rg et. H e th o u g h t th a t N um en ius, w ho based his
kn ow led ge of A risto tle on th e sch o la rly treatises, did not k n ow th a t
A risto tle had b een a d e v o u t ad herent of P la to up to P la to ’s death,
an d th a t this exp lains his exasperation . A lo n g th e sam e lines B ignone
exp lains C o lo tes’ w ords, T 40 b.
T h e m eagre evid en ce can be sum m ed up thus: C. w ro te a treatise
a gain st A risto tle in fo u r books. “ H is criticism b egan w ith th e Ideas
an d finished w ith th e oth er d octrin es — th in gs w h ich he him self did
n o t know ; he w as o n ly guessing a t th e m eaning of th e opinions held
a b o u t th e m ” (Ross). T h e o b je c t of his b ook w as not to deal w ith
ph ilosophical topics; w h a t he said a b o u t th e th e o ry of ideas m ay well
h a v e b een m erely an in tro d u cto ry rem ark.
I h a v e d iscussed th e question w h eth er A risto tle ever accep ted P la to ’s
th e o ry of ideas in Eranos 35, 1938, pp. 120 — 145; 52, I 954 i PP-
17 1; 54, 1956, pp. 10 9 — 120. T hose w h o follow J a e g e r’s vie w find
su p p ort for th e ir opinion in th e tw o passages b y N um en iu s and Colotes.
F o r m y p a rt I fin d it d ifficu lt to accep t J a e g e r’s an d B ig n o n e’s in ter
pretation.
N u m en iu s should n o t b e placed on a p ar w ith Colotes. W h a t Colotes
sa y s is p a r t of th e v u lg a r E p icu rea n polem ic and can n o t be taken
seriou sly a t all. N u m en iu s (c. 160 — 200 A . D .), on the oth er hand, was
a philosopher held in h igh esteem b y O rigen and P roclus; he m ight
h a v e m ade a m istak e, b u t w e can n o t n eglect his opinion. I t appears
from his w ord s 6 yag Zrjvcov <5ij rt zjj ftnyji oefivov x a i fiagv xai
KrjqiiaoddiQov roiJ g j j r oqoq o v x dfistvov th a t he k n e w som ething about
Cephisodorus, his p e rso n a lity and his trea tise. I th erefore th in k th a t
w e should ta k e N u m en iu s’ sta tem en t a t its fa ce va lu e.
I f w e assum e th a t Cephisodorus w rote h is b o o k as a co m p a ra tiv ely
y o u n g m an, aroun d 360, w ith th e purpose of defending his respected
m aster a n d his ed u cation al p h ilosop h y, it w ou ld h a ve seem ed to him
q u ite n a tu ra l to d irect his a tta c k a ga in st A risto tle . H e m igh t h ave
read th e Grylos; perhaps som e oth er ea rly w orks of A risto tle , am ong
th em his co llectio n of p roverbs. B u t h e did n o t k n ow a n y th in g of the
interior discussions in th e A c a d e m y w hich soon a fterw ard s led A ristotle
to w rite his IJ eg 'lidecbv. H e w as ju stified in regardin g A risto tle as a
prom inent represen tative of th e A ca d em y , and he m igh t w ell h ave

included som e rem arks of th e k in d N um en iu s m entions. T h is would
have been im possible three or fou r y e a rs later, w hen A risto tle ’s position
was better know n through th e w orks he had then published. N um enius'
words, then, can be exp lain ed sa tisfa cto rily , if w e (a) regard them as
a correct report of w h a t Cephisodorus said, (b) agree th a t Cephisodorus
w rote his book w hen A risto tle w as old enough to be k n ow n as a m em ber
of the A ca d em y, b u t still so y o u n g th a t his ph ilosophic a ttitu d e was
unknow n outside th e A ca d em y.
Lycon. I q u ote W orm ell, Y a le Cl. St. 5,1935. p. 87: “ A ccord in g
to him A risto tle offered sacrifice to his w ife 011 her d ea th in th e sam e
w a y as the A th en ian s o ffer sacrifice to D em eter. I t is probable th a t
A ristotle did hold a fu n eral cerem on y of u nusual splendour in honour
of P yth ias, ju s t as he did a t H erm ias' d eath, and th a t th is w as used
as evidence of im p ie ty b y his p o litica l opponents. T h e m ention of
D em eter in th is charge and th e fa ct th a t th e a tta ck on A risto tle was
led b y the hierop h an t E u rym ed o n m ake it possible th a t this accusation
was a ctu a lly a d va n ced b y D em ophilus. T h e charge is borrow ed and
changed fo r th e w orse b y pseu d o-A ristipp u s, D L V 4. In his version
“A ristotle b ecam e enam oured of a m istress of H erm ias, and, w ith his
consent, m arried her and in his d eligh t sacrificed to her as the A th en ian s
do to th e E leu sin ian D em eter". T h e d eterioration in th e trad itio n is
interesting. P y th ia s h as n ow becom e th e m istress of H erm ias, and
A ristotle is m ade to sacrifice to her du rin g her lifetim e - his offence
becom ing alm ost p arallel to th a t of H a rp a lu s .” In th e le tte r to A le x a n
der, Athen. 595 ac, T heopom p u s says th a t H a rp a lu s set up a tem ple
to his dead m istress P yth io n ice. M u lv a n y suggested th a t L y c o n ’s sto ry
m ight be a tran sfer to A risto tle and P y th ia s of th a t of H arpalu s and
P ythionice, w ith D em eter instead of A p h rod ite.
T h e tru th behind L y c o n ’s second charge is p ro b a b ly th a t A risto tle
suffered from a sto m ach disease, T 50 c; Celsus I I 17, in his enum era
tion of cahda fomenta, says: q uin ctiam calido oleo replentur u lricu li
turn super id mcmbrum quod fovendum est collocavtur. T h is is w hat
“ some re la te ” D L V 16.
Theocritus 0f C h i os. In his careful stu d y of th e trad itio n
on A risto tle ’s relations w ith H erm ias W orm ell has d ea lt a t len gth w ith
the political b ack grou n d of th e charges p u t forw ard b y T h eopom pus
in his P h ilip p ica and b y T h eo critu s in his epigram . T h e interven tion
392 INGEM A S DÜRTNG
o f H erm ias in C hian affairs exp lains th e ir h atred. T h eo critu s w as a

rab id en em y of M acedon; his epigram a tta c k s A risto tle rath er than
H erm ias; W orm ell suggests th a t it is aim ed a t A lex a n d er and te n ta tiv e ly
assum es it to h a v e b een com posed som e tim e a fter th e M acedonian
o ccu p ation o f Chios in 332. In an y case it is w ritten du rin g A r is to tle ’s
life-tim e and a fter P la to ’s d eath. T h e tw o la s t lines c o n tra st th e d ign i
fied life in th e A c a d e m y and th e conditions under w h ich A risto tle w as
supposed to live a fter he had le ft th e A ca d em y , p ro b a b ly w h en he
sta y e d w ith H erm ias in A tarn e u s and Assos. I t is to b e observed th a t
T heo critu s, lik e T heopom pus, calls H erm ias a eunuch and a slave.
(WoTmell, pp. 7 4 - 7 5 .)
T 58 j. êteqov à’ ÔTi fj% aQÎcnriciE IlX arojvi. In A risto c le s’ opinion
th ere are tw o charges w hich are to b e ta k e n seriously. T o th e first
ch arge he opposes an e x tr a c t from A p ellico n ’s b ook on A risto tle. The
second ch arge is not fu rth er d ealt w ith ; it is possible th a t A ristocles
tried to show th a t A risto tle had not been âxâÿicrroç. O. Im m isch,
“ E in G ed ich t des A risto teles” , in: Philologus 65, 1906, pp. 1 — 23,
con jectu red th a t th e fam ous eleg y on P la to , addressed to E u d em u s of
R hod es, w as a d d u ced b y A risto cles and th a t it reached O lym piodorus
th ro u g h P o rp h y ry . Im m isch ’s pu p il, H . H eilan d, therefore included
th e elegy in his edition, (Aristoclis M essen ii reliquiae, G iessen 1925,
pp. 4 2 — 43). I t is an a ttr a c tiv e h ypoth esis, b u t n othin g more, and
I agree w ith J a c o b y F Gr H ist I I I B 2, p. 482.
Apellicon. See J. B id e z, U n singulier naufrage littéraire dans
Vantiquité, B ru x elles 1943. T h e m ost th o rou gh tre a tm e n t of th e w hole
evid en ce is fou n d in A . S ta h r's Aristotelia, 1830; th en b y Zeller I I 3: 2,
pp. 13 8 — 154; Susem ihl, Gesch. d. alex. L it., I I , pp. 2 9 7— 301. I h a ve
tou ch ed upon th e qu estion in m y Transm ission of A ristotle's writings
(cited T 52), pp. 6 4 — 70. T h e essential fa cts in D z ia tz k o ’s article, in:
R E I, col. 2693.
(58 1) M u lv a n y regarded th is le tte r as a fa k e to refu te th e hostile
version of th e m arriage. “ T h e w h ole sto ry of th e relationship b etw een
P y th ia s and H erm ias m a y h a v e h a d no oth er fou n d atio n th a n th a t
A risto tle h a d com e to A th en s w ith a w ife w ho w as k n ow n to b e from
A sia M in or.” C erta in ly, b u t o n ly if w e d iscard a ll evid ence and build
up a s to ry w hich is agreeab le to us.
T h ere is no real reason to re je c t th e evid en ce based on ex tra cts from
A r isto tle ’s correspondence w ith A n tip a te r, as lon g as it is consistent
with other know n fa cts and w ith A r is to tle ’s W ill. A ccord in g to th e

W ill th e you n ger P y th ia s w as not of m arriageable age w hen A risto tle
died, b u t this of course does not ju s tify an assum ption th a t A ristotle
did not m a rry u n til he settled dow n in 334. I f w e a ccep t A p ellico n ’s
statem ent, A risto tle m arried som e tim e a fter H erm ias w a s ousted
342/1. W e h a ve no in fo rm ation as to w hen th e y o u n ger P y th ia s was
born.
On T 58 m, see th e note on T 12.
(66 a) T h e expression q>iAooo<pelv r d IJsQinarriTtxd is found only
here; sim ilarly S tra b o X V I 2, 24, p. 757, says: a> aweyiAoaaqrfjaa-
ji£v . . . t a ' AgiaxoreXeia = T 75 b.
(66 b) R e ce n tly d ea lt w ith b y F . G ray eff, "T h e P rob lem of th e
Genesis of A r is to tle ’s T e x t ” , in: Phronesis 1, 1956, pp. 105 — 108.
G rayeff bases his h yp o th eses on an in correct tran slatio n , or rather
paraphrasis of 66 be, w h ich in v a lid a tes his conclusions.
E v e r y sta te m en t u n til toiq (ie t avrov nagedcoxev can b e checked b y
other evidence as b eing in accord w ith k n o w n facts. T h e rest is p rob ab ly
som ew hat rom an ticized , b u t th e m ain fa c ts are w ell a ttested . A p ellicon
w as a w ell-know n p o litic a l figu re, a b ib liop h ile an d collector, and there
is absolutely no reason to d isb elieve th e sto ry th a t he b o u gh t th e hooks
(or w h at w as le ft of them ) from N eleu s’ offspring. B ein g a p h il-aristote-
lian he w ould n a tu ra lly t r y to d ecipher th e te x ts and con sequ en tly m ade
avrlygatpa, b u t o f course w e should n ot sp eak of th is as an “ edition of
A ristotle’s w ritin g s” . E v e r y b o d y fam iliar w ith S trab o n know s th a t,
at the end of n arra tive s lik e this, he alw a y s adds som ething from his
own liv e ly im agin ation , and I ta k e th e w ord s iiedatxev d/iagrdSmv
itXtjgt] rd fiifiXia as su ch an ex a gg eratio n of th e tru th .
W e can see w h y S tra b o n w as w ell inform ed a b o u t A p ellicon . In the
passage ju s t q u oted h e m entions th a t b e tog eth er w ith B oeth u s of
Sidon listen ed to lectu res in A risto telia n ph ilosophy. B oeth u s w as
th e m ost n otab le discip le of A n d ro n icu s and pursued his m a ster’s
work. I t is p rob ab le th a t S trab o n and B oeth u s h eard A n dronicus
lecture in Rom e, an d perhaps th e three of th em tog eth er h eard T y ra n -
nion; S trab o n sa y s X I I 3 ,16 ynafifiazt.xnc, <5s Tvgawi/nv ov rjfielg
r iX Q o a o d f ie d a , and th is m u st h a v e happ en ed c. 30 B. C. (see m y Trans
mission, c ited T 52, p. 67).
T h e follow ing p a rag ra p h Zw efir] — anoxgrj is p ro b a b ly a rep o rt of
w h at he had h eard from A n dronicus, p a r tly coloured b y his ow n v iv id
394 INGEMAR DURING
im agin ation . T h e firs t sta te m en t is w ell a ttested ; a lrea d y S trato n had

g r a v e forebodings in his w ill, D L V 62: e j ie i S i ) tm v dXkcov ot f ii v eia i
TtQEcrfivTEQoi, o i 3’ aayaXai. In d eed , w ith these w ords S tra to n pronoun
ced th e sentence of d eath upon his school. I t is n o t m erely ex aggeratio n ,
w hen Cicero sa y s, D e jin . V 5 ,13 ita degenerant tit ip s i ex se nati esse
viderentur; th eir teach in g consisted of endless repetition s of th eir
m a ste r’s w ords, ju s t as in th e school of A m m on iu s seven hu n d red yea rs
later. I t seem s to m e p rob ab le th a t it w as A n tioch u s w ho ch aracterized
th e P erip a tetics of th e th ird an d second c e n tu ry as a d egen erated school,
and th a t C icero ’s w ord s reflect his opinion. T h e to p ic w as fu rth er
d evelop ed b y A n d ro n icu s and m ade one of th e leading th o u g h ts in
his book on A risto tle , see T 66 b and p. 423.
On Bcoeiq kr)xvOl£etv, see T 32 c and R E S u p p l. V I I , col. 907.
In ste ad of dtEXEtgiaaro som e m anu scrip ts are reported to read rve.ye.i-
gtaaro, cj. ivoxEvaoaadat T 66 c. I t is a m a tter for regret th a t th e
m an u scrip ts disagree on th is point; w h a t did T y ra n n io n do? AtE%etQi-
aaro im plies th a t T y ra n n io n “ w orked on, revised, d ealt w ith ” A r is to tle ’s
books, and b ecau se of P lu ta r c h ’s in terp re ta tio n I prefer th is reading.
I t tallies w ell, too, w ith w h a t w e k n ow a b o u t T y ra n n io n , see T 74,
and it is a ccep ta b le as a d escrip tion of w h a t " th e b ooksellers” did.
’ EvEXEiQLoaro w ou ld m ean th a t “he w as p erm itted (b y th e custodian)
to h a n d le” th e m anu scrip ts. 'EvE axevaaaro m eans “ h e repaired, p u t
in order, rea rran ged ” th e m anu scrip ts, and th is w as th e ta sk for w hich
Cicero o b tain ed h is services. T h e co n ven tio n al s to ry a b ou t T y ra n n io n ’s
so-called ed ition is based on th is passage. W en d el, R E V I I A , col.
18 12, is la u d a b ly cau tio u s. I th in k i t is safe to s a y th a t T y ra n n io n ’s
co n trib u tio n w as rath er lim ited; he to o k care of th e rolls w hich were
p ro b a b ly in a v e r y b ad sta te, classified them and p u t th em in good
order; he th en hand ed th e m a terial ov er to A n d ro n icu s w ho pursued
h is w ork and fin a lly com p leted th e edition.
T h e w ords a b o u t th e î^X iondiX ai lo o k to m e lik e one of S tra b o n ’ s
h a b itu a l em bellishm en ts (see T 19); w e m a y com pare T 58 1 w hich
is in accord w ith k n o w n fa cts, ex c ep t th e la s t sen tence w h ich is an
ob viou s ad d itio n to m a k e th e s to ry m ore rom an tic. T h a t th is is not
m erely a con jectu re ad hoc, appears from th e w ords th a t “ this is w h at
u su ally h app ens b o th here in R o m e and in A le x a n d ria ” .
P lu ta rc h 's versio n o f th e sto ry is p ro b a b ly ta k e n from S tra b o n ’s
lost w ork r Y i7.Q u v > ]u n zn i a r o Q i x d w hich related ev en ts w hich occurred
AHISTOTIE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAI. TRADITION 395
in 27 B. C. I t w as p ro b ab ly pu blish ed before his Geography, w hich

was not finished before 18 B. C. I t is on th is terminus ante quem w e
m ust base our d atin g of A n d ronicu s H is edition w as n ot k n ow n to
Cicero. I t m u st h a v e been m ade p u b licly k now n in th e yea rs betw een
40 and 30 B . C.
(66 c) The w ord fivrjQei^ com es too a b ru p tly and is un acceptab le.
X V I. C H A R A C T E R IS T IC S A Y IN G S . B O N -M O T S . ANECDOTES
A t firs t sig h t it m igh t seem extran eo u s to th e su b ject of this h ook

to presen t a selection of A risto telia n set phrases and q u o ta tio n s from
his w ritings. B u t a m an 's sty le and tu rn s of expression are, as a lrea d y
th e ancien ts k n e w b efore B u ffon , dmixv/xa A second reason to
in clu d e such a selection is th a t th e q u o ta tio n s of u n certain origin in
T 67 m u st b e ju d ged w ith th e genuine A risto telia n expressions as b a c k
ground. I am fu lly aw are th a t m y selection is su b jective, b u t how
could it b e otherwise?
Nature.
G od and n atu re create n oth in g th a t does n o t fu lfil a purpose. De

caelo 1 4 , 271 a 33.
A r t im ita te s n atu re. Protr. jr. 1 1 W ., M eteor. I V 3, 381 b 6, and
often . — C raftsm en im ita te n atu re and th e b est in stru m en ts are
b orrow ed from n ature; sim ilarly th e statesm an and th e philosopher
m u st b orrow from n atu re an d tr u th itself certa in lim its b y reference to
w hich he w ill ju d g e w h a t is ju st. Protr. jr. 13 W ., D e caelo 1 1, 268 a 13.
A ll th in gs h a v e b y n atu re som eth ing d ivin e in them . Eth. N ic. V I I
1 3 . T I53 b 32. — T h ere can n o t b e a n y th in g prior to th a t w h ich is
etern a lly b ea u tifu l an d tr u ly and p rim arily good. D e inc. an. b, 700 b
33. — T h a t w h ich com es in to b ein g b e a u tifu lly com es in to being
rig h tly . Protr. jr. 1 1 W .
N a tu re passes in a continu ou s gra d a tio n from lifeless th in gs to anim als
(the scala naturae, often q u oted in th e form natura non jacit saltus, not
fou n d A r is to tle ’s e x ta n t w ritings). Protr. jr. 1 1 — 12 W ., Part. an.
I V 5, 681 a 12, M etaph. X I I I io , 1075 a 16, and often. — N oth in g
com es in to b ein g a t random . N a tu re m akes n oth in g in vain . Protr.
jr. 1 1 W , D e caelo I 4, 271 a 33, and often.
N a tu re is n ot a series of episodes, lik e a b a d trag ed y . Metaph. X I V ,
lo g o b i g .
Fishes feed d evou rin g one another, th e larger catch and d evour the
smaller. H ist. an. V I I I 2, 59 1 ^ 15 -
T h e w hole is m ore th a n its co n stitu en t parts. M elaph. V u , i o i g a
9 and 26; 1023 b 26 ff. (P hilosoph y of organism .)
T h a t w hich com es in to b ein g la s t fails first, and th e first last, n atu re
running a double course, so to sa y , and tu rn in g b a c k to th e po in t from
whence she started . D e gen. an. I I 6, 741 b 21.
N ature, like a go od householder, is n o t in th e h a b it of th row in g a w a y
anythin g from w h ich it is possible to m ake a n y th in g useful. D e gen.
an. I I 6, 744 b 16.
M an. Society.
Man is b y n atu re a poU tical anim al; social in s tin ct is im planted in
all men b y n ature. P ol. I 2, 1253 a 7.
Man is equipped a t b irth w ith arm s m eant to be used b y intelbgence
and virtu e, w hich he m a y use for th e w o rst ends (arma virtutis). P ol.
I 2, 1253 a 34.
E v e r y m an should be responsible to others, nor should an yon e be
allowed to do ju s t as he pleases; fo r w h ere ab so lu te freedom is allow ed
there is n othin g to restrain th e e v il w hich is inh erent in e v e ry m an.
Pol. V I 4, 1318 b 38.
H e w ho bids m an rule adds an elem ent of th e beast; fo r desire is a
wild beast, and passion p erv erts th e m inds of rulers, even w hen th e y
are the best of m en. P o l. I l l 16, 1287 a 30.
Men cling to life even a t th e cost of enduring m uch suffering, seem ing
to find in life a n atu ra l sw eetness. P o l. I l l 6, 1278 b 29.
L ife is b y n atu re good. Eth. N ic. I X 9, 1170 b 1.
It is p leasan t to help on e's neighbour. Rhet. I 2, 13 71 b 3.
H ow im m easu rab ly greater is th e pleasu re w hen a m an feels a th in g
to be his own. P o l. I I 5, 1263 a 40.
Possessions w ith o u t discipline breed fo lly . Protr. jr. 3 W alzer.
Man, a m icrocosm os. (P ossib ly from D em ocritus). P hys. V I I I 2,
252 b 26.
V ision of th e rob o t so ciety: P o l. I 4, 1253 b 3 3 : T ile sh u ttle w ould
w eave and th e p lectru m to u ch th e ly re w ith o u t a h and to gu id e them ;
chief w orkm en w ou ld n o t w a n t servan ts, nor m asters slaves.
I t is not th e possessions b u t th e desires of m ankind th a t require to
be equalized. Pol. I I 6, 1265 a 38.
1NGEMAR D tiRIXG
E v e r y b o d y ’s d u ty is n o b o d y's d u ty . P o l. I I 3, 1261 b 33: T h a t

w h ich is a resp o n sib ility to m a n y has th e least care b esto w ed upon it.
P o litics — an eternal qu arrel b etw een th e poor and th e rich. P ol.
I V 2, 1296 a 28.
T h e h o t blood of th e you n g. Rhet. I I 12, 1389 a 19.

T h e y o u n g gu ide th eir liv e s b y em otion. E th. N ic. V I I I 3, 115 6 a 33.
T h e y o u n g are in a cond ition resem bling in to x ica tio n , and y o u th
is pleasan t. Eth. N ic. V I I 1 4 , 115 4 b 9.
F o r you n g people cu ltu re is a r a ttle or to y . P ol. V I I I 6, 1340 b 30.
W a n t of cu ltu re is an in a b ility to d istin guish reasonings app rop riate

to th e su b ject from those foreign to it. E th. E nd. I 7, 12 17 a 7.
A ll m en lo v e th in k in g and k n ow in g m ost of all. Prolr. /r. 7 W a lzer.
A ll m en b y n atu re desire to know . M etaph. I 1, 980 a 24.
T o dem and th a t kn ow ledge m ust b e useful is th e a c t of one co m p letely
ign oran t of th e d istance th a t sep arates th in gs good from th in gs necessary.
Protr. fr. 12 W .
I t is in co n ceiva b le th a t a person should, w h ile p erceivin g him self
or a u g h t else in a continu ou s tim e, be a t a n y in s ta n t u naw are of his
ow n existen ce. D e sensu 448 a 27. (alm ost = Cogito ergo sum.).
In tellige n ce is a gift of nature, b u t no one is a w ise m an b y nature.
Eth. N ic. V I 1 1 , 114 3 b 6.
T h e b o d y is th e in stru m en t of our soul (hence “ o rg a n ic ” ). De an.
I I 1 , 412 b 12; E th. E nd. V I I 9, 1241 b 23.
T h e d octrin e of th e accu m u lated good ju d gm en t. P ol. I l l 2, 1281 b

1. T h e m a n y, of w hom each in d iv id u a l is b u t an o rd in a ry m an, w hen
th e y m eet to g eth er m a y v e ry lik e ly b e b ette r th a n th e few good, if
regarded c o lle ctiv e ly . F o r each in d iv id u a l am ong th e m a n y has a
share of v irtu e and prudence, and w h en th e y m eet to g eth er, th e y
b ecom e in a m anner one m an w ho has m an y feet and h an d s and senses;
th a t is one p erso n a lity, as regards th e ir m ind and disposition. H ence
th e m a n y are b e tte r ju d ges th an a single m an of m usic and poetry;
for som e un derstan d one p art, and som e another, and am ong th em th e y
un derstan d th e w hole. — P o l. I l l 2, 1281 b 34: W h en m en com e
to g eth er th eir percep tion s are q u ite good enough, b u t each m an le ft
to him self form s an im p erfect ju d gm en t. — T h is is th e principle of
d em ocracy.
AEJSTOTI.E IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION 399
A n evil m an is not one b u t m a n y , in th e sam e d a y oth er th an him self

and fickle. Eth. E nd. V I I 6, 1240 b 16.
Pol.Men do not becom e ty r a n ts in order th a t th e y m a y not suffer cold

II 7, 1267 a 13.
M ost men o b ey n ecessity rath er th a n argu m en t, and punishm ents

rather th an th e sense of w h a t is noble. E th. N ic . X 9, 1180 a 4.
M ost men, w h ile th e y w ish for w h a t is noble, choose w h a t is ad van -
ta g e o u ^ E ,h. N ic . V I I I r 3 . , i 6 2 b 3 5 - - O p e n ly t h e y p r a is e ja r t ic e
and nobleness, i n t b e i r h e a r t s t h e y p r e f e r t h e i r o w n a d v a n t a g e . Ilk a
I I 23, 1399 a 29.
T h e a v a r i c e o f m a n k i n d is u n s a t ia b le ; m e n a l w a y s w a n t m o r e a n d
more w i t h o u t e n d . P ol. I I 7, 1 2 6 7 a 4 1 .
. A11 the thinS s m en th in k g « a t are m ere scene-painting; w hence it is

n g h tly said th a t m an is n othin g, and n oth in g hum an is stab le Protr
lr. 10 a W alzer.
In the household are th e origins and springs of friendship, of p o litica l

organization, and of ju stice. Eth. E nd. V I I 10, 1242 b 1.
Friendship is based on eq u a lity . E th. E nd. V I I 9, 1241 b 12.
Y o u don t k n o w a m an u n til yo u h a ve consum ed a peck of s a lt w ith
him. Eth. N ic. V I I I 3, 1156 b 28.
A friend loves m ore to g iv e th an to ta k e. Eth. N ic. X 8, 116 9 b 11.
W ithout friends no one w ou ld choose to live, th o u gh he had all oth er
goods. E ih. N ic. V I I I 1, 115 5 a 5.
H e who has m an y friends has no friend. Eth. End. V I I 12, 1245 b 20.
V aria.
T he m id d le-w ay is praised and co n stitu tes success. E th. N ic. I I 6,

1106 b 26. (aurea mediocriias).
H a b it is h ard to chan ge becau se it is a sort of nature. E th N ic
V I I 10, 1152 a 31; X 9 , 1 1 7 9 b 17.
A h u n gry and th ir s ty m an a t an equal distance from food and drink
remains w here he is. D e caelo I I 13, 295 b 33. (B u rid a n ’s ass).
W e do n ot see m en becom ing good ph ysician s from a stu d y of t e x t
books. Eth. N ic. X 9, 11 8 1 b 2.
W e all share th e h a b it of relatin g an en qu iry n ot to th e su b ject-
m atter itself, b u t to our op pon en t in argum ent. D e caelo I I 13, 294 b 8
(Argumentum ad hominem.)
G ou rm an d s p r a y for th e gu llet of a crane. Eth. E u d . I l l 2, 1231 a 15.

H ap p in ess depends on leisure. Eth. N ie. X 7, 1 1 7 7 b 4.
I f it is allow ed to com pare g rea t thin gs w ith sm all. Meteor. I I 8,
366 h 2g.
T h e m a ster’s eye fa tten s a horse. Oec. I 6, 1345 a 3.
F a c ts prove. Meteor. I 14, 352 b 19.
Children and fools a sk questions w hich no sensible m an bothers to
discuss. E th. E u d . I 3, 12 14 b 28; T op. I 1 1 , 105 a 5.
Spoken w ord s are th e sym bols of m en tal experience. De interpr.
16 a 3.
67. B on-m ots and anecdotes in w orks of u n certain origin. See E .

H e itz, D ie verlorenen Schrijten des Aristoteles, p. ig g , V . R ose, Aristoteles
pseudepigraphus, pp. 606— 6 11. T h is is o n ly a selection; p arallels to
th e apop hthegm s D L V 1 7 — 22 are a n n otated in the edition.
67 a D E M E T R I U S D e elocutione 29 e t 154 = fr. 619 Rose: r iv e r a i

fisvrot ye xQ7]Oifià nore, â>ç ’ A çia ro réA q ç (prjaiv, “ ’ Eyà> ex fièv 3Adrj-
vcôv £tç Z râ y eig a 1jXdov ôià rov fiaaiXéa tov fiéyav, èx ôè Erayeigatv
e îç ' AOrjvnç <5tà rov xei/iâiva rôv fié y a v ” e ’i yovv d<péXoiç to êregov
fiéyav avva<paiQT]ar) x a l rijv yjwi.v rfj yào fieyaXrjyogia avvegyot âv
rà rotaUra xwXa, o iio ïa r& v T ogyiov r à TioXXà âvriOera x a l rmv ’ la o -
xgârovç.
Comment. T h e w ords rov %£ifiâ>va rov fiéyav m ean “ th e hard cli

m a te ” , cf. T hem ist. Or. X X V I , p. 376 D in d o rf (on th e m ig rato ry birds)
olov ‘Oftrjçoç elvai Xéyei to fiagfiagixov ercgaroTiEÔov ajieixâÇmv avrov
rrjv fiotjv ôgviaiv âfia xXayyfj nerofiévoiç ê n l NeïXov rov norafiov <5là
rov fiéyav %£i/j,wva (II. r 2). T h e pu n is b u ilt on th e c o n tra st A then s-
S ta g ira and on th e d ifferen t m eanings of fiéyav. S tr ic tly speaking,
A risto tle did n o t go from A th en s to S ta gira, b u t from M ytilene; b u t
i t w o u ld be ridiculous to m ake th is an a rgu m en t for declaring th e pun
to be spurious; A risto tle p ro b a b ly w rote th is jo k in g ly in a le tte r to
A n tip a te r w h en in 335 h e d efin itely le ft S ta g ira fo r A then s. — O ther
exp lan ation s, see N ew m a n ’s note, T he P o litics of Aristotle, I, p. 468.
67 b A E L I A N U S Var. hist. I X 23: ' AgiaroréXrjQ êvàaei noré. ngo-

oéraÇe S' avrcb à iargoç Ttgoorayfià r r x a l e x e îv o ç , Mr\re d)ç f}ot]Xdrrjv
fie, etpri, degäneve, prjre eûj axcm avéa, àXXà ôiôàÇaç TigoxEçov xtjv
a h lav, 0710} ç êI-eiç êxoifiov ngoç to jid Q ead ar ôiôàaxœ v èx tovtcuv
/urjôèv x wS lQ olxiaç ngoo<pêçEiv.
Sntaç Düiing : ovzqjç codd. |
Comment. A risto tle was alxioXoyœxaxoç, D L V 32, and th e story

was fabricated b y H erm ip pu s or som eb o d y else in order to illu strate
this well-know n fa ct.
67 c A E L I A N U S Var. hist. X I V 1: ' AgiaxoxEXrjç à N ixo/iàyov,

aofpÔQ âvfjQ x a l &v x a l elvat âoxcôv, èn ei tiç avxofi atpstiero xàç xpr)cpi-
adïinaç avroj èv AeXtpoïç xifià ç, êmoxéXXmv jtgoç ’ Avxinargov negl
tovtojv cprjaiv.
'Y n èq tojv èv AsXcpoïç y)7]<piaOÉvxcov fini x a l <bv âtpjjorîai m ovxcoç

êXaj wç (irjTE fio i acpoèoa [ié Xeiv vnèg avxœv fitjre fioi /irjôèv [ie Xeiv.
Ovx av f) EÏrj cpiXoôo&a Tafixa, ovô’ âv xaTayvoiijv ëyojye Totovxôv t t
A qioxotéXovç, àXX' ev cpgovûv ùjexo /j.rj opioiov elvai âçytjv tt pii]
Xaßelv x a l Xaßovxa àgiatgsBrjvai. to pièv y à g ovôèv piéya, to pirj tv xeïv
to ô' âXysivov, xo xvxovxa s h a änoffTEQrjdrjvai.
T i D ü r in g : r iv a c o d d . (àQ%rp> is a d v e r b ia l) ||
Comment. O n th e inscription in D elphi, see T 43. I f once w e a ccep t

as a fa ct th a t p a rts of A r isto tle ’s correspondence w ith A n tip a te r w ere
published, there is no reason to re je c t th is e x tra c t as spurious. I t goes
well w ith E N I V 7, 112 4 a 15 ovx' nvxvy/hv nEoiyanifi f.axai ovx’
axvycov nEgiXvnoç, m ore k n o w n th rou gh H o ra ce’s bene praeparatum
pectus, Carm. I I 10.
67 d E L I A S P rol. philos., C I A G X V I I I i , p . 21.6: . . . xa ïç âXXaiç

xéXvaiç xogrjyEÏ xàç âgXàç r\ ytXoaoyiœ (priai yàg 'AgtaxoxÉX^ç èv
AnotpÔEyfiaotv o xr âaoi xa ïç âXXaiç rèxvatç x a i èm axtifiaiç 0^0-
M Çovteç rrjç <piXoao<ptaç âptEXovaiv, èoixa ai rotç pivrjarfjgai xotç ürjve-
Xônrjç oîxiveç avxfj avyyEvéodai pir) ômàfiEvoi rjyàncov xâv xa lç Beqcl-
naivaiç avxrjç avyyiveadai.’ (See N orden, A n t. K unstpr. I I 673.)
Comment: I f genuine, th is is a good exam ple of A r is to tle ’s pimxia.
67 e S E N E C A Dialog. I X (De tranqu.) 17,10 : N u llu m magnum inge-

nium sine mixtura dementiae fuit. P ro b a b ly an in terp reta tio n of Probl.
3 0. 1 . 953 a ! 0 nàvTEÇ 8aoi tieqixxoi yeyovaoi nvôpEç . . . (palvovTai
fiEXayxoXixol ovteç, (955 a 39) ov ôià voaov àX/.à ôià <pvoiv.
Gôieb. Univ. A rsshr. L X I I I : 2 26
67 f STOBAEUS.
1) E el. 1 1 3 1 , p. I I 209 W .: (’ AgtaxoxsXrjg) 6veidi£djuevog vno xivog

oTi ßagßagi£oi, i<pr]- 'E yth fxev ttii Xoyo), vfielg 6e xto xgornp.
2) E el. I I 33, p. I I 256 W .: "O aneg o olvog xLgvaxai xolg xwv
JllVOVXÜiV XQOTCOig, 0VX0) Xal fj (ptXta XOIQ xcüv yqojjutvoiv rjOsot.
3) Flor. 3, 53, p. I l l 10 H .: ’ AgiaxoxeXrjg e h ie v inEidi] firj ylvexai
xd ngdyfiaxa cue ßovXöfieQa, d el ßovXeodai u>; yivExai.
4) Flor. 4,87, p. I l l 239 H .: 5AgiaxoxeXrjg xovg xä svagyfj ngdy-
ftaxa 7ieiga>fiEvovQ deixvvvai o/uoiov iq)t] noielv xolq did Xvyvov xov
fjXiov (ptXoxifiovfiivotQ ösixvvvat. Cf. Top. 105 a 3 — 9.
5) Flor. 20, 47, p. I l l 548 H . = fr. 661 Rose: H ovx 6gag 6x1 rw v
£v ogyfj dtajigaxxopthcov djidvrmv 6 Xoyia/uog anodrffiel, fpevyojv xov
dvfiov wg nixgdv xvgawov,
B u t S E N E C A Dialog. I l l (De Ira I), 9: Ir a , inquit Aristoteles, neces-
saria est, nec quicquam sine ilia expugnari potest, n isi ilia implet anim um
et spiritum accend.it; utendum autem ilia est non ut duce sed ut m ilite.
— I l l 9: Aristoteles ait affectus quosdam, si quis M is bene utatur, pro
armis esse (unde arma virtutis). Cf. E th. N ie. I V 1 1 , 1126 b 4 — 9; P o l.
I 2 1253 a 34.
6) F lor. 20,55, P- H I 550 H . = F h ilod . D e Ira p. 78 W ilk e = fr. 660

Rose: Q aneg 6 xcmvdg im Sdxvutv xdg oipeig a m ea ßXsnEiv xo
xsifiEvov iv xolq noatv, ovxcog 6 Ovfidg inatgo/ievog xqj Xoyia/xqi e.m-
a xoxel, x a l t o avftßi]a6/u£vov e f avxov axonov (ita M axim us c. ig :
cbiovov S tob.) ovx atpirjat xfj dtavoia nnoXaßtiv.
7) Flor. 20, 65, p. I l l 553 H .: rO Ovfiog Eoxi TtaQoq Qt]gia>öeg fiev
xfj StaOeaei, avvEye.g S e xfj X/jyjEi, axXrjgov <5e x a l ßlaiov xfj dvvdfiEi,
tpovojv aixtov, av/mpogäg nvjijiayov, ßXaßtjg avvegyov, xa t drifilag
XQTffidxaiv ajiaiXeiag ix i 8e x a l tpQogaq dgxyyov.
8) Flor. 41,8, p. I l l 7 5 9 H .: ’ AgiaxaxiXrjg EgaixrjOslg x I dvoxoXwxa-
xov Eoxiv ev tw ßt.m, sine- To atainäv a fit] 8eI XaXelv.
9) Flor. 45,18, p. IV : 1, 189 H . = P s -A rist. E p . ad P h ilip p u m 1,
p. 172 H ercher: A e I xovg vovv E%ovxag xmv öwaaxevövxcuv fifj did
xdg agydg aXXa 81a xdg dgsxaq OavjudCeodai, tva xfjg xvyrjg ßExajts-
aovarjg xa>v avx&v eyxojpiiajv d£ia>vxat.
10) F lor. 94,16, p. IV : 2, p. 773 H : K gelxxov ngog svSaipioviav sXax-
xa> xExxijoOai 7} no/.Xa fiexa tpOovov x a l ydg xaXXicav x a l ijdiojv
ovxcog (ovxog codd.) o ßtog.
A R IS T O T L E I N T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N
403
11) Flor. 98,60, p. IV : 2, 843 H .: T i ydg ea n v dv0ga>7iog\ dode-

veiag vnodetyfia, y.atgov Aaipvqov, rv%i]g natyviov, fiETcundioecDg r.ixwv,
<p6ovov xal avfupogag nXaariy£, to <5e Xoijiov tpXdy/na xa l £o/Uj.
12) Flor. 118,22, p. IV : 2, 1070 H .: ”A<pvxx6v eoti to t rjg nejtga)-
fiivrjg xaxov.
Comment. On th e gnom ologic literatu re, see K . H orn a: in: R E Suppl.
V I, c. 74 — 87, w ith b ib lio gra p h y. A lth o u g h w e can n o t exclu d e the
possibility th a t som e of th ese apop h thegm s and m axim s are genuine
(e - K- 3 . 4 . 5 . 6), oth ers are o b vio u sly spurious: n. 1 w as fab ricated b y
someone who th o u g h t th a t A risto tle w as a b arb arian , n. 7 and 1 1 are
of a ty p e also represented D L V i g and u tte rly u n -A ristotelian .
67 g E L I A S In Porph. I sag., C I A G X V I I I i , p. 43.27: IJa aa yd o

yvcoaig xahr}, xaOa yqotv o ’ AgioTOTEArjg, x a l avr>) rj iw v xaxwv
yvcoaig x a h j, h a firj Si ayvoiav jgtfatufuO a avrolg. x a l oi Ian go i Atdd-
axovat Ta drjArjxtjgta, ov% iva %gr]adfi£6a, dXX’ iva <pvya>fiev.
Comment. T h is m a y w ell b e a genuine frag m en t from one of A ris
totle's dialogues or from th e Protrepticus. T h is m etap hor w as often
used b y th e com m en tators to ch aracterize th e Soph, el., e. g. AM M O-
N IU S I n Cat., C I A G I V 4, p. 5. 1 7 — 22. See T 76 i.
67 h S U D A s. v. oaxpgoovvT): " O cprjoiv 'AgicnoTiX^g- d ydg noiovv-

Teg fiavOdvofXEV, xavra pavQavovreg noiovfisv. rjyovv to xgaxstv tjdovwv
fiavQavovxeg acxxpgoveg yiyvo/iEda, x a l yevOfievoi adxpgoveg xgaxofi/iev xd>v
rjdovcov.
Comment. T h is is a corner-stone in A r is to tle ’s ethics. Eth. N ic. I I i ,
n °3 a 3 I ; d’ ao£Ta? AafifldvofiEV ivEgyrjaavxEg ngoxsgov, axniEg x a l
£ jii t ( 9v dXXcnv xr.yvdiv a yao 8eI (laOovxag noiEtv, x av xa notoihnr.g
(lavOdvofiev. Protr. jr. 5 W .: iv xcu ygr^Bni x a l ngdrreiv dXX' ovx iv
rw yivdtaxEiv povov. Cf. T 56 b, on th e o ry and practice.
X V II. T H E W O R D S I 7E P I J 1A T O Z , I T E P I I I A T E I N ,
IJ E P IIIA T H T IK O Z
68. Tieginmog — school. Selected examples.

68 a A ristoxen u s = T g8 d: dvtotnoSo/islv amen negbiarov, in order
to com pete w ith P la to som e strangers h ad , in his absence, sta rted a
school.
68 b E P I C U R U S = T 58 b: avanem afiEvov r o t IlXdrcovog negm drov,
w hen P la to h a d opened his school.
68 c P H IL O D E M U S = T 16 (from old E p icu rea n sources): (X eno-
crates and A ristotle) eepiAoooepow rig iv a negm arov avviovrsg, of
th e ir school in Assos, p. 276. — In th e sam e sense T 3.
69. m gbiaxoc, in a more general sense = teaching, lectures.

69 a D I C A E A R C H U S ap. P lu t. A n seni resp. ger. 26, 796 d = fr. 29
W eh rli: (Socrates) om ' eig Ogovov xaBioag ov8’ dinar SiaTQtfiiig rj
Tteguidrov ro iq yveagifioig reray/xevr]v epvXd-creov.
Comment: T h is is a p arap hrase of D ica ea rch u s’ words; th e phrase
elg Ogovov xaOiocu is la te and reflects conditions p revailin g in P lu ta rch ’s
ow n tim e; th e eralgal or epLXai w ere h a rd ly called yvehgifioi b y D i
caearchus.
69 b P I/ U T A R C H U S D e A lex . fort. 4, p. 328 a: (A lexander) 015(5’
«1 Avxf.iqj n e g h t a r a v o w e a % E v .
69 c Q U I N T I L I A N U S In st. or. I l l I , 14 = T 32 d: postmeridianae
scholae. F ro m th e sam e source G E L D IU S N o d . alt. X X 5 = T 76 f:
eeodivog, beiXivog neginarog.
69 d H E S Y C H I U S : n eg ln a ro r a i iarogiai x a l a i Xoyoi rj ronot
dtaxivrjoeeov.
Comment. T h is n ote show s th a t th e w ord a lw a y s retain ed its old
m eaning: discussions w hile w a lk in g around. T h is is v e r y clear if we
lo o k a t P lu t. N o n posse etc. 1, p. 1086 c: rrjg axoXr\g diaXvddarig
iyEvovTO Xoyot 71Xstoveg ev rep negmarep, w h ere w e m a y understand
“ th e co ve re d w a lk ” or “ th e fo llo w in g discussion in th e covered w a lk .”
Dicaearchus fr. 29 W eh rli shows th a t th e v e rb negm axelv w as used in
this tranferred sense: x a i xovç fv xa lç axoaZç àvaxáfinxovxaç n.F.gina-
xeZv <paaiv, coç ekeye A ixa ía g xo ç, ovxèxi òè xovç eZ ç áygàv rj ngóç (pttov
fiaôtÇovxaç. (B ut in L X X , Gen. 3,8 neguiaxovvxoç èv xã> nagaôeíaai.)
Cf. Diog. L aert. V I I 109 xà ègcoxAv x a i ànoxgívEodai xa i nsgutaxelv.
70. oi êx (ànà) xov Ileg tn á xo v , o l I I eQUiaxrycixol.

70 a T H E O P H R A S T U S ’ W ill = T 14. T h e house w hich T h eo p h ras
tus b u ilt for th e school w as an o rd in a ry neçína xoç, b u t ow in g to th e
great p o p u la rity his school en joyed th e a p p e lla tiv e d eveloped in to a
proper noun, o' rFegtnaxoç, ju s t as E p icu ru s’ school b ecam e k now n as
The Garden. T h e rig h t ex p la n a tio n is found in th e V ita H e sy ch ii 5
( = S U D A 3929): á ià rò èv negmdxci) rjxoi xijníp òiòá£ai\ it is im p licit
in the first exp lan ation g iv en b y H erm ip pu s, D L V 2, and in C IC E R O
De or. I l l 28, 109: M i qui ex partícula parva urbis ac loci nomen habent
et ‘P eripaletici’ philosophi aut ‘A cadem ici’ nominantur. B u t in Acad.
I 4.T7 = T 7 1 b (where he reports w h a t he has learn t from Antiochus)
he has forgo tten this sim ple exp lan ation . T h e earliest qu otation s for
o' H eginaxoç are P h ilo ch o m s = T 3 (abou t 300 B. C.), A n tigo n u s
Carystius ap. A th en . X I I 547 d, and Colotes = T 4c b.
70 b C O L O T E S ap. P lu t. Adv. Colot. 14, 1 1 1 5 A = T 40 b is am ong

our earliest q u otation s for th e w ord oi IlEginaxrjXixoi. T h is w ord is
alw ays used as a p rop er noun, d erived from ol èx (òjiò) xo v Ileg in á xo v,
see R E Sufipl. V I I , col. 901. P O S I D O N I U S ap. A th en . = T 66 a says
tpdoaocpElv rà IJeginaxi]xtxá. STRABO N X I V 2, 13 = T 75 a o èx
xâ)v negtnãxwv is p ro b a b ly a te x tu a l corru ption fo r á èx xoft Tlegindxov.
B u t it is possible th a t he used th e w ord as an a p p ella tiv e, as in ps.-
G alenus’ H ist. phil. 4, p. 602 D iels: xóv yàg ’ AgiaxoxèXt] xa xà xovç
negináxovç a w ovaíaç ngóç ó/tiArjxàç notovftsvov xxX.
71. The aetiological legend.

71 a H E R M I P P U S ap. D io g. L ae rt. V 2: ngEo(Í£Vovxoç avxov ngóç
Q íhnnov vnèg ’ Aôrjvaícjv oxoAágxyç èyèvExo xfjç èv ’ Axaôrj/xEta ayoXfjç
ZEvoxçáxrjç- êW óvxa ôrj avxóv x a i ÔEaaáfievov vn ãÃÃa) xr/v <j%oÀr/v
ÈÀÉoOui nFQtnaxov xóv èv A vxf Íúi x a i jiF.ygi fièv àXEÍ/t/uaxoç àvaxáfm xovxa
roíç fiadtjxalç avfi(piXoaoq>Elv, õOev IlEçtnaxrjXLxovç lIJEgm axrjxtxòv
codd.) ngoaayogevQfjvai.
406 IN G E H A R D tjR I K G
Comment. I t was p ro b a b ly H erm ip pu s him self w ho concocted this

sto ry . T h e te n d en cy of his b io grap h y is to ex to l A ristotle: “ althou gh
he w a s a b ette r m an th a n X en o cra tes, he w as n ot elected to th e h ea d
sh ip of th e school becau se he w as on a m ission to P h ilip on b eh a lf of
th e A th en ia n s” ; H erm ippus also created th e legen d th a t A risto tle
“ foun d ed a school in th e L y c e u m ” ; he did n ot k n o w th a t th e L y c e u m
w as a pubh'c gym n asiu m . T h e etym o lo gical ex p la n a tio n of th e nam e
is in line w ith old G reek trad itio n .
I t w as perhaps A n tio ch u s of A scalon w ho cam e upon th e idea of
sy ste m atizin g th e nam es of th e d ifferen t schools accord in g to a certain
scheme: ana tojzcov — and a v[xn xa }fj.a T u > v — and ax(i)/ufidTCDV etc., cf.
D iog. L a e rt. I 17, ps.-G alenus H ist. phil. 4. T h e earliest evid en ce for
th is system is fou n d in Cicero. In fu lly d eveloped form w e fin d it in
th e n eop laton ic prolegom ena.
71 b C IC E R O Academ ica 1 4, 17: Platonis autem auctoritate, qui varius

et m ultiplex et copiosus fuit, una et consentiens duobus vocabulis philo-
sophiae forma instituta est Academ icorum et Peripateticorum , qui rebus
congruentes nom inibus di/ferebant. nam cum Speusip pum sororis filiu m
Plato philosophiae quasi keredem reliquisset, duo autem praestantissimo
studio atque doctrina, Xenocratem Chalcedonium et Aristotelem Stagiritem,
qui erant cum Aristotele Peripatetici dicti sunt, quia disputabant inambu-
lantes in Lycio, illi autem, quia P la ton is instituto in Academ ia, quod est
alterum gym nasium , coetus erant et sermones habere soliti, e loci vocabulo
nomen habuerunt.
Sed utrique P la ton is ubertate completi certam quandam disciplinae
form ulam composuerunt et earn quidem plenum ac refertam, M am autem
Socraticam dubitanter de omnibus rebus et nulla affirm atione adhibita
consuetudinem disserendi reliquerunt. ita facta est quod m inim e Socrates
probabat, ars quaedam philosophiae et rerum ordo et descriptio disciplinae.
(18) Quae quidem erat primo duobus ut d ix i nom inibus una; nih il
enim inter Peripateticos et illam veterem Academ iam differehat. abundantia
quadam ingenii praestabat, ut m ihi quidem videtur, Aristoteles, sed idem
fons erat utrisque et eadem rerum expetendarum fugiendarumque partitio.
(19 — 2 I ) F u it ergo iam accepta a Platone philosophandi ratio triplex:
una de vita et moribus, altera de natura et rebus occultis, tertia de disse-
rendo el quid verum quid falsum quid rectum in oratione pravumve quid
consentiens quid repngnet iudicando.
(22) Iia tripertita ab his m ducitur ratio bonorum, atquc haec ilia sunt
tria genera quae putant pierique Peripateticos dicere. id quidem non falsa:
est enim haec partitio illorum ; illu d imprudenter, si alios esse Academicos
qui turn appellarentur alios Peripateticos arbitrantur. communis haec
ratio, et utnsque hie bonorum fin is videbatur, adipisci quae essent prima
m natura quaeque ipsa per sese expetenda aut omnia aut m axim a; ea
sunt autem m axima quae in ipso animo atque in ipsa virtute versantur.
itaque omms ilia antiqua philosophia sensit in una virtute esse positam
beatam vitam, nec tamen beatissimam n isi adiungerentur etiam corporis
et cetera quae supra dicta sunt ad virtutis usum idonea.
Comment. T h e n eop laton ic trad itio n in th e P rolegom ena (see T 72 a
and Ch. X X ) and in th e V ita e (VM 24) are based on th is legend, w hich
is som etim es slig h tly tran sform ed. A m m on iu s and O lym piodorus
om itted Speusippus en tirely, and th e A ra b s and one bran ch of the
Syriac trad itio n inh erited this m istake. T h e V ita e (which in th e m ain
are based on A n d ronicu s and P to lem y ), E lia s and th e so-called Pseudo-
Elias retain Speusippus. B u t in all th ese sources w e are told th a t
P lato s school, a fte r his d eath , w as d ivid ed in tw o branches, th e
Academ ic and th e P erip atetic, and th a t th eir doctrin es w ere essen tially
th e same.
71 c A U G U S T IN U S D e civ. D ei V I I 12 = T 39 c.
71 d J O H N S A L I S B U R Y M etalogicus I I 17, M igne 199, p. 875 D:

Sed sicut Boetm s et a lii m ulti testantur auctores a sententia Aristotelis
penitus alienum est. N am et ipse huic sententiae (sc. P la to 's th eo ry of
ideas), sicut evidens est in libris eius, saepius adversatur. Egerunt B er
n a r d s Carnotensis et eius sectatores ut componerent inter Aristotelem et
Platonem, sed eos tarde venisse arbitror et laborasse in vanum ut recon-
ciliarent mortuos qui, quamdiu in vita licuit, dissenserunt.
(878 C) Quare ab Aristotele recedendum est, concedendo ut universalia
sint, aut refragandum opinionibus quae eadem vocibus sermonibus sensibi-
hbus rebus ideis form is naturis collectionibus aggregant, cum singula
horum esse non dubitentur. Q ui autem ea esse statuit, Aristoteli adversatur.
H ie est cuius disputationibus efjectus est ut Academ ia moveatur magis
rahonum quam collisione ventorum. Licet enim Peripateticus non Acade-
mtcus censeatur, eo tamen sollicitante de singulis m axime coeperunt P la -
tomci qui rehcti erant fere de omnibus dubitare. Siquidem post mortem
Platonis S p eu sip pu s {Chrysippus codd.) sororis eius ftliu s et Xenocrates

dilectus eius discipulus in scholam quae Academ ia vocatur eidetn successe-
runt, et ob hoc ip si et successores eorum Academ ici vocabantur a loco,
sicut P la ton ici a magistro. E x quibus valde nobilitati sunt Graeci P lotin us
lam blichu s et Porphyrins, catholicae veritatis, ut dicitur, pessim us im-
pugnator. I n utraque vero lingua Graeca scilicet et Latina nobilis exstitit
A p u leiu s A fe r , vir magnus in prim is ( = A u gu stin u s, D e C iv. D ei V I I I
12 = T 39 c).
71 e J O H N S A L I S B U R Y P olicraticus V I I 6, M igne 199, p. 647 C:

S o l e coelo visus est cecidisse, qua die philosophorum princeps Plato rebus
excessit hum anis, et quasi lucernam m undi existinctam defleverunt qui
ad thronum sapientiae cui ille diu praesederat sua arbitrabantur studia
praeferenda.
Sed cum ei Aristoteles discipulus, vir excellentis ingenii et P latoni
im par eloquio ( = A u g u stin u s, T 39 c), sed multos facile superans, in
docendi officium successisset, quasi matutinum sidus effulsit hom inibus,
et quibusdam m ultiplicis philosophiae praeceptis, velut variis sapientiae
radiis illustravit orbem, et tamquam oculorum detersa caligine ad contuen-
dam veritatis speciem mentes hominum reparavit.
Sectam hie Peripateticam condidit, sic utique dictam quod deambulans
disputare consueverat, plurimosque discipulos praeclara fama excellens
et arte suadendi, vivo adhuc praeceptore, in suam haeresin congregavit.
Tractavit quidern omnes philosophiae partes, et praecepta dedit in singulas,
sed prae ceteris sic rationalem redegit in iu s suum, ut a possessione illiu s
videatur omnes alios exclusisse. Ita tamen in a liis viguit, ut commune
nomen omnium philosophorum antonomasice, id est excellenter sibi proprium
esse, meruerit. S icu t enim u r b s Romam, Maronem p 0 e t a exprimit,
sic et philosophi nomen circa Aristotelem utentium placito contractum est.
F u it autem facundus eloquio sed uberior sensibus et doctus omnium
sententiis obviare. H ie est qui prim us studiorum genera in acroaticum
et exotericum dicitur distinxisse. N am et fam iliares et quasi domestici
admittebantur in acroatica; exoterica vero non modo extraneis sed hospitibus
patebant et peregrinis.
Fuerunt qui eum In cu b i daemonis filiu m crederent propter agilitatem
corporis, perspicaciam ingenii et gloriae appetitum , quam m ultiplici
industria omnibus praeripere consueverat. Testatur de eo Valerius M a xi
mus, quia supremae vitae ( = V a l. M ax. V 6,5; T 27 b.)
Licet autem nom inum et verborum turbator habeatur, non modo subtilitate
qua cunctis Celebris est, sed mira suavilate dicendi evaluit, adeo quidem
ut Platoni merito firaximus fuisse videatur. E u m laudis fuisse avidissi-
mum vel ex eo constat quod cum Theodecti ( = V a l. M as. V I I I 14,3; T 50 e).
Ceterum gloria ( = V a l. M ax. V I I I 14,3).
Comment. Fuerunt — consueverat. T h is is n o t fou n d in a n y other
source. I t is possible th a t som e C hristian obtrectator Aristotelis in ven ted
this sto ry a b ou t his dem onic origin. See W e b b ’s fo o tn o te in his edition
of the Policraticus II , p. 112 .
72. Am m onius Herm eiu and his followers.

See K . P raechter, review of B u sse’s ed ition of O lym piod oru s I n
Cat., C IA G X I I I, in: Gott. gel. A n z. 1904, pp. 3 7 4 — 3 9 7 .
72 a A M M O N IU S I n Cat. fir., C I A G I V 4, p. 3.8: ' Ovofidôvxai

Si xal ano xivoq av/iÊfirjxdxog, <hq oi and roti IlE g u td xo v ineiSr]
yag 0 if).draw F.£rjy0VjiEV0Q ifiaSi^z QeXwv to iavxoti atbfia yvfivaCeiv,
diQ Sv fir] daOeviaxEgov ysyovot; ifinoSw v yivoixo xaiq, yrvyixaii; ive.o-
y Eiaiq, oi SiaSE^dftEvoi avxov, rjyovv 0 SEVoxgdxrjQ x a l 6 ’ AgiaxoxEXtjc,
d>vofiaodr]oav oiixiOQ, oi and xov TlEqmdxov, <Lv o )xev ’ AgirrcoTflr^ iv
Avxeico inaiSsvaev, o S i SEvoxgaxrjQ iv ' AxaSrjfiia- vaxsgov Se xoTq
fiiv o xonog eêXuie x a l cbvofidadrjaav and xijc ivegyeiag xov SiSaoxaAov
IlEginaxrjxixoi, xoh; Se rj ivigyr.ia x a l (bvofidoQrjoav and xov xonov
’ AxaSrifjitaxoL — R ep eated In Porph. Is ., C I A G I V 3, p. 46 .4— 17.
Comment. In th is exp an d ed version of th e aetiological legend w e can
still perceive som e of th e origin al elem ents. A m m on iu s’ description
of the aetiology of th e nam es of th e d ifferen t schools, p. 1 .2 7 — 3.19,
takes a b ou t 50 lines, O lym p iod oru s ( X I I i , p. 3 .8 — 6.4) tw ice as m uch,
and E lia s ( X V I I I 1, p. 108.1 — 113.4) h as exp an d ed th e description to
150 lines. A cco rd in g to P ra e c h te r’s opinion, A m m on iu s’ origin al w as
much broader th a n th e t e x t w e possess, and he is inclined to ascribe to
Am m onius m ost of th e additions in O lym piod oru s and E lia s. The
texts th a t w e possess of these prolegom en a and lectures are all and
qxovrjQ, i. e. notes ta k en dow n b y anon ym ou s pupils of th e lecturer.
P ia ech te r’s assum ption is a ttr a c tiv e , b u t E lia s h as added so m uch
and so co n sid erably ch an ged th e sto ry b y ad d in g Speusippus to th e
list th a t w e m u st assum e th a t he had access to P to le m y ’s V ita and used
this as source besides Am m onius.
4 io IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
72 b 0 L Y M P I 0 D 0 R U S Prol. et in Cat., CIAG X I I 1, p. 5.18:

’ A n d fie avfipEf}r)x6xog (pa/xEv ovafiateadat xag aiQEaeig, mg n e g tn a -
xr/ztxovg (pafiev. IlE gm azrjzixoi f)f. mvofidoOrjoav duo zivog a h tag
xoioUxov sxovarjg rov xganov o delot; IJXdzmv otdfievog P.ye id ( 8 eIv
P ra e c h te r) to am ua vyieg x a l avE/inodtazov ngog rag xfjg yruyjjg
EVEgyeiag, xivov/uevog zt]v noog ravg exaigovg InotElzo avvovatav. tf./.ev-
TqaavTog 8e xovzov diedkgavTo rfjv diazgifirjv avzov SEvoxgazr/g x a l
'AgtazoziXyjg, ol zovzov fj.aOrjzaL x a l o fiiv Eevoxgdzrjg inatdEVEV ev
’ A xadrjfiia xa l ikiyEZo fisra. z& v avv avzm ’ AxaSrjjuiaxog IJEgm axijzi-
xdg, o S i 'AgiozozEkrjg ev to) Avxeio) xa l e.Myexn /urra zmv avv avxq>
Avxeiog neom a xrjzixo g . vazegov xolg /iev SEvoxgdzovg ekr.tyiF.v rj eveq-
yEta x a l ExkrjOrjaav /Lovmg ’ Axadrjfiiaxot, xolg 8e ’ A g io zoztko v g o
zonog, x a l ixkrjdrjaav /idvtag IJEgtnaxtjrtxoi.
K a l slxoxatg ovx IkenpEV r\ h/lgyEia xovxoig- ehqehev ydg ’ A g ta xo -
x £Xel xd)v doy/iazmv xov StSaaxakov dvankea) ovzi x a l rfjg ngoarjyo-
giag avrov xv%siv. x a l ev xovxoig nkrjgovxat x a l r\ inrnvvpLa zmv tpiko-
aotpatv algdoEcov inzaym g krj^dslaa.
Comment. T h e un conscious flash of w it in th e last p arag rap h is irresist

ible. — T h e e x p la n a tio n g iv en here b y O lym piod oru s is found alm ost
e x a c tly in th is form in th e A ra b ic sources: M ubashir 14, V ita S y ria ca
I I 5. and p a r tly U sa ib ia 4; B ar-H eb raeu s ( = A b u -l-F a ra g ), w ho
reports th a t he has his in fo rm ation from Ish a q ibn H u n ayn ; al-Q ifti;
Sh arastan i. Speusippus is en tirely forgotten .
72 c E L I A S I n Cat., C I A G X V I I I I, p. 112 .18 — 20, abrid ged to

one sentence, see T 77 a.
72 d P H I L O P O N U S In Cat. f r ., C IA G X I I I 1, p. 3.4: 01
IlEQUiazrjTixol 81a xotavxr)v alziav ovzmg ekr.ynvxo- IlX azoiv ydg
yvfivaaiag EVExa negtnazm v in o te lz o rag 1igdg zovg Izaigovg avv ova tag,
Sv o ’ Agiaxoxdkrjg diadE^dfisvog £a%E xfjv ex zijg tvr.oyeiag fjzot zoti
avfifisfjrjxozog ETtcovv/iiav.
Comment. P h ilo p on u s th u s did n ot a tta c h m uch im p ortan ce to th e

legend. Sim pliciu s ignored it co m p letely. In his rem arks, C I A G V I I I ,
P- 3 -3 ° — 4 -9 . he follow s th e earlier tra d itio n = D iog. L a e rt. I 17. D avid ,
again, brin gs new m aterial, fo r a discussion o f w h ich I refer to th e notes
on the V ita M arciana.
72 e D A V ID I n Porpk. I s ., C l A G X V I I I 2, p. 121.8: “ A£iov <5e

IJEQinarrjrixoi xaXotvTai ’AgiaTOTEXt-
IlEQinaTrjnxdgixaXetTo
CrjTrjoecog vnagyE i Sia Tt oi
TagavvovaiaginoielTO dtdaaxaXovaidol.
x o i ■ (p a o lv or1 81a to A to o 'A g io T O T e X r jg ,
EToXfiayao neguovTogiv noiEiaBai ovvov-

ETtEidrj n E Q in a x & v x f] ngog to v
ovx IIAdzonog xaBibga rag

oiag. de<paaiv yievSigIan-rovvavriovyagrjvavrtovTOaina»'
ToXfidxn XiyEiv(tpeyeiv ovdsyagrjvavnovro
aXXoi on
oi
aitto), ’ eaeÊvavTov SrjXoi TaipovIIXdTw
vog
i5e to io v to i B u sse ).
aXX a si, <hg sig
1AgiaroTEXovgIm ygapjia-
to to v
fitofiov ' AgiaroTe?.Tjg idgvoaro tov S e nXaTcovog

avdgog ov ovd' (Cramer: ou t’ codd.) aivelv rola t x a x o la i Qd/itg.
Comment. T h e sam e te x t is found in th e fragm en ts, w ron gly ascribed

to Philoponus, edited b y B ran d is, A rist. op. I V p. 1 1 b 20— 31 w ith
some va ria n t readings.
W ith this nice little sto ry a b o u t A ris to tle ’s aid dig the aetiological
legend culm in ates. I t foreshadow s th e ex u b eran t flora of legends in
the A ra b ic and th e L a tin m ed ieval trad ition.
73 S U D A s. v. Z(DxgaxT}g\ &t).oa 6<povg <5e slgydoaTo TIXdTatva,

oc xaraXinajv to A v x e io v , Tonog 6e ovrog ’ Adrjvdiv, fiexriyayE rfjv
axoX?)v iv ngoaoreiw , tfj ’ A xadrjfiiq jigoaayogEvofievtj, x a i oi an avrov
' Axadijftiaxoi ngoorjyoQEvdrjoav fiE%gt ’ AgiaroTeXovg- am og yag ax-
goaTTjg Tofi nXaTCjrog yEvo/isvog, slg xfjnov t iva ngo rfjg noXsaig Tag
diaTQij3dg notrjodfievog ex rod x a r avrov nsgm dTov IlegtjiaTrjTixovg
(bvofiaoe rovg an" avroti.
Comment. A s is show n b y th e d escrip tion of th e schools, to w hich
this fragm en t belongs, th e w h ole section is a m uddled report of th e
fam iliar tra d itio n on the nam es of th e schools.
X V III. TH E ROMAN E D ITIO N OF AR ISTO TLE ’S WORKS
74. Tyrannion.
74 a S T R A B O N X I I I i , 24 = T 66 b: Öevqo &i x o ß ia d E ia a v Tvgav-

viatv re o yga/i/zanxdi; äiEyetgiaaTo (pdagioTOTikrjQ dtv, depcmsvoas
tov i n i tt\q ßißAtoörjXTji;.
74 b P L U T A R C H U S V ita Sullae 26 = T 66 c: Xeyerai 6 i xofitaQet-

arjc avjfjQ elg 'Pd)fir]v Tvgavvlcova tov ygaju/zarcxov ivaxevdaaaBai
xd TtoXXa, xa i nag dvTov tov Podiov ’ Avdgovixov e v t io q fjc i clvtcl tcü v
dvriygd< pa>v e I q fiia o v Oelvai xa l avaygaxpai tovq vvv ipegofievovg nivaxag.

Comment. See m y n o te on T 66 b, p. 393. C. A . B ra n d is’ carefu l
exam in ation of th e evidence, in: “ U eb er die S ch ick sale der A risto te li
schen B u ch e r” , Rhein. M us. fü r P h il. Gesch. u. gr. Philosophie, 1, 1827,
pp. 23 6 — 254, is still w o rth reading; Stah r, S h u te and Z eller b u ilt on
his conclusions.
74 c C IC E R O A d A lt. I I 6, 1 (from th e y e a r 59 or 58): Cicero is

occupied w ith stu d ies in ge o g ra p h y and finds E ra to sth en es d ifficu lt
to u n derstan d . Q uid censes si Tyrannio accesseril? O b vio u sly T . w as
th en w ith A tticu s . F ar-reach in g, rath er d o u b tfu l conclusions h a v e been
d raw n from th is passage, see E . H onigm an n, in: R E I V A , col. 80.
A d Qu. it. I I 4,2 (from 56): H oc nunc rnagis anim um adverto quod
Tyrannio docel apud me. T . h a d now been persuaded to com e to Cicero
in ord er to ivaxEvaaaadai his lib rary. T h e sam e y e a r h e w rites to
A ttic u s , I V 4 b, 1, Offendes designatione Tyrannionis m irificam librorum
meorum bibliothecam, quorum reliquiae multo meliores sunt quam putaram.
A n d w hen T y ra n n io had finished his jo b , he is v e r y h a p p y, ad Att. I V 8 a, 2:
Postea vero quam Tyrannio m ihi libros disposuit, mens addita videtur
meis aedibus. A little la ter, in 54 - w rites to his b ro th er Q uintus,
H I 4 -5 ^ D e bibliotheca tua Graeca supplenda, libris commutandis, L atin is
comparandis, valde velim ista confici . . . Chrysippo imperabo et cum
Tyrannione loquar. I t is clear th a t T y ra n n io n is an independent m an,
not easy to persuade, I I I 5 — 6, 6: De libris Tyrannio est cessator: Chry-

sippo dicam, sed res operosa est et hom inis perdiligentis. Som e ten y ea rs
later, Cicero is in Tusculum ; ad Ait. X I I 6, A ttic u s h as asked Cicero if
he wants a certain b ook b y T yran n ion , A n d th is is th e la s t tim e he is
mentioned in C icero’s correspondence, for ad A il. X I I 2,2 is p ro b a b ly
earlier.
In S U D A s. v. it is said th a t he died oXv/umadi Qit] iv x<p xgixcp Ixei
■which of course is corrupt; th e co n jectu re QTirj is com m on ly accep ted ,
see C. W endel, in: R E V I I A , col. 1814. H e th u s died as an old m an
26/25 B. C. in Rome.
There is no oth er evid en ce on th e alleged edition of A risto tle m ade
b y Tyrannion.
74 d S T R A E O N X I I 3,16, p. 548: (Amisene) "Avdgeg de yeyovaatv

aljtoi xa xa natdeiav ivxaUBa . . . yganfiaxixdq de Tvoawtwv
ov rjjxeiQ rjxgoaadfiEQa.
Comment. A cco rd in g to H onigm an n, in: R E I V A , col. 8o, S trab on
came to R om e som e tim e before 40 B. C. T o g eth e r w ith A n dronicus
and B oeth us he h eard T y ra n n io , and th rou gh A n d ronicu s h e becam e
interested in A r isto tle ’s w orks; on th e w hole question of T y ra n n io n 's
alleged edition of A r is to tle ’s w ritings, see m y note on 66 b.
75. Andronicus.
75 a S T R A B O N X I V 2, 13, p. 655: "AvdQEs <5J eyevovxo fivrjfiriQ
a£ioi jiolA oi (sc. in Rhodes) . . . xwv negl Adyovc x a l <piXoao(pLav 6 xe
LlavaLrioQ avxog x a l £xgaxoxXrjQ x a V Av&govixoq o i x xu>v nEgutaxuyv . . .
T he expression 6 i x xwv negtndxuiv (sim ilarly T 66 b) is su sp ect and
probably corrupt, see T 70 b. B u t th e sam e reading X I I I 2,4.
75 b S T R A B O N X V I 2, 24, p. 757: T a fiev oiJv n a la ia ia o B w

xad’ rjfiaQ fie i x HiddivoQ fiiv £vdo£oi cpiXoaotpoi yeyovaai Bor/dog xe
qj avveq>iXoao(prjaa[iev rjfiEic; xa ’AgicrxoxeAeia, x a l Aiodoxog ddeXyoQ
avxov.
75 c S cholion T h eo p h rasti M etaphysicis subscriptum : T o v to to
fiifiA io v ’ A v S q o v ix o q f i i v x a i " E g f i m n o g a y v o o v a t v o v d e y a g f iv e ia v a v x o v
8Xa)Q 7iE7i0LT)vxai i v x f j d va y n av ’ A q io x o x e Xovq M e x a x a ip v a ix a fiv r jfio v e v e t a v x o v

4 i4 1N G E M A R D Ü R IN G
teytov elvai 0 Eoq>gdaTov. elai <5« iv avTio olov n g o d ian o g iai tiveq d liy a i
Tvjc öXrjQ naayiia.zr.la~.
C od ex S. Crucis, p lu t. X I I sin. 7, f. 3 a (at th e begin nin g of th e te x t
o f A rist. Meta-ph. in th e n ova tran slatio): H u n c librum prim um ’Omnes
homines natura scire' A n dronicus (et~) H erm ippus ignorant; neque enim
ip siu s memoriam faciunt om nino in enumeratione librorum A ristotilis.
N icholaus autem in theorica M etaphysice A ristotilis mentoralur ipsius,
dicens eum esse Theophrasti; et stilus eius in greco non assim ilatur stilo
A risto tilis. quia tarnen vulgus habet eum pro libro A ristotilis, et Olympio-
dorus in commento super Gorgiam P la ton is inducit quaedam verba ipsiu s
tamquam sint A ristotilis, nolum us eum a metaphisica A risto tilis hie
deesse.
Comment: O n N icolau s of D am ascu s and his parap hrasis, see T h.
R oeper, Lectiones Abulpharagianae I, G ed ani 1844, p. 42. O n th e w hole
q uestion see H . U sener, Analecta Theophrastea p. 23 = K l. Sehr. I ,
p. 69, and O. R egenbogen, in: R E Supp l. 7, col. 1389 (1940), w ith fu rth er
literatu re, esp. th e su m m ary of J a e g e r ’s conclusions, in: Gnomon 8,
1932, p. 290.
75 d Scholion T h eo p h rasti H ist, plant. 1. V I I subscriptum : Q eo-

<pqdaTOV negi tpvTwv ioTogtac to rj. 'EqfiutnoQ S e tieqi tpgvyavixcbv xa i
noicodd)v, ’ AvSpovixog de tieqi qwrcbv iaTogiaq.
Comment. See J. G. S ch n eid er’s com m en tary, V 54; U sener, op. cit.,
p. 23; R egen b ogen, col. 1367 and 1451.
75 e G A L E N U S A n im i mores 4, p. I V 782 K ü h n , 44.9 Müller:

AvSgovtxov Se töv IleQ U iarijrinov, o n fikv nXcot; iroXfirjaev anoqirjvanOm
t t }v ovaiav rfjg ipvxfjz d)g efavdeooQ ävrjg ävsv to-ö negtnkexEiv aaa<p&
inaiviii r e Tidvv x a i imnbp.youat rrjv tpgaotv tow dvdgdi;- evgicrxco yan
avröv x a i x a t ' äXXa jr o ^ a roio&tov.
75 f A U L U S G E L L I U S N o d . A lt. X X 5 = T 76 f: Exem pla utrarum-

que litter arum sumpta ex A n d ronici philosophi libro subdidi. See m y
n ote on T 76 f.
75 g P O R P H Y R I U S Vita P lo tin i, c. 24: 'E n s i Se avrdg (sc. Plotinus)

r r jv 8idra£tv x a i t rjv SiogBtoaiv tm v ßißXLmv notclaOat rjfilv en E Tgeyiev,
iyä) Öe xaxslvq) £wvrt vnEayofiYjv xa i rotg (T/J.oiq iratgoig EnrjyyEiM(ir]v
n o ir ja a t t o v t o , j iq w x o v f ie v xa jiifiXia ov x a x a xgovovz e a a a i <pvg8r/v

ixdeSofieva edixaitoaa, fii/ir]aa/iEvoq S’ ’ AnoAAodcogov xov ’ AOrjvaiov
xal ' Avdgovixov xov negiâxTjxtxov a>v 6 fiev ’ Enixao/xov xov xcofieo-
d io y o a ip o v bIq 8 e x a xofiovQ <pdgwv a w ijyayev, o 8 e xa ' A oiaxoxiX ov;
xai Qeoipoaaxov f.i~ zioayfiaxeias 8ie IX e xatQ o I x e u iq imoOeoeti; e Iq xavxov
aw ay ay mv ovxoi hr] x a l sydi nevxrixovxa xeaaaoa ovxa lyw v xa row
n it m h o v fit fiA ia S istlav fiev f.Iq eweddaQ xfj xeXetoxrjxt x oC i$
d g iB u o v xa l rat; evveaaiv d a fie v w Q em xvxw v, ixd a x j) 8 i evveadi xa
o ix e ia <peqcov avvstpoorjoa 5ov; x a l xa£iv Ttndjrtjv x o l; iXatpooxegoig
T ig o fib ju a r jtv .
Comment. On th is passage, see H .-R . S ch w yzer, in R E X X I , col.

486. “H a vin g p u t to g eth er treatises on th e sam e su b ject in one w ork,
Andronicus d ivid ed A risto tle ’s and T h eo p h ra s tu s’ w ritin g s in to prag-
m aties,” T h is straig h tfo rw a rd inform ation is th e b ackbon e in our
evidence on the R o m a n ed ition of A risto tle.
W e do not know e x a c tly w h a t P ro p h y ry understood b y ngayfiaxela
in this con text. H e com pares A n d ro n icu s’ arrangem ent of A risto tle ’s
works w ith his ow n arran gem en t of Plotinus:
1. Treatises of a m ore eth ical ten d en cy.

2. P hysical w orks, on th e w orld and all th a t belongs to th e w orld.
3. The ph ilosophical im plication s of th e opinions set fo rth in th e
second Ennead.
4. On th e soul.
5. On th e in tellectu al prin ciple in th e soul and on th e ideas.
6. On the A u th e n tic-E x is te n t, on th e G ood or T h e One.
This is e x a c tly to avvayeiv xaQ o ix eia ; w iodioeig ei; xavxov.

I assum e th a t to him each o f these sections co n stitu ted a Ttoay/iareia,
a scholarly discussion of a coheren t co m p lex of problem s. I f w e ta k e
the ovxw 81) literally , w e are inform ed th a t A n dronicus d ivid ed A risto tle ’s
w ritings into certain groups: ethical, p h ysical, p sych ological, m eta
physical works. H e h im self arran ged P lo tin u s’ w orks in "asce n d in g”
order, m an-nature-sou l-G od, b u t he does n ot sa y a n y th in g a b o u t th e
fact th a t A n d ronicu s a pplied th e “ d escen d ing’’ order: first principles
— God — th e w orld and th e celestial phenom ena — th e soul — n atu re
and the n atu ra l (zoological, b o ta n ical etc.) phenom ena. (The evidence
for this is found in T 75 n.)
4 i6
T h a t P o rp h y ry k n e w oth er w orks b y A n d ro n icu s an d h a d discussed

his opinions in his ow n w orks is confirm ed b y T h em istiu s C I A G V 3
P- 31-2, an d Sim plicius, C l A G V I I I , p. I5 4 .3 {et p assim y H e w as ^
well a cq u ain ted w ith A d rastu s, an d it is q u ite possible th a t it w as
th ro u g h him th a t h e h a d his k n ow led g e o f th e ed ito rial w o rk o f A n d ro n i
cus.
75 h A L E X A N D E R m en tion s A n d ro n icu s by n am e o n ly once

n A n a l j r . , C l A G I I i, p. 160.32, an d n o t in conn ection w ith his
ed ito rial w ork. I t is, h ow ever, cle a r th a t h e has A n d ro n icu s in m ind
w hen, In . I. D e sensu, C l A G I I I 1, p. 5 . 1 - 1 9 , he defends his disposition
o f th e p sych o lo g ica l an d b io lo gical w ritings. A lso in oth er co n tex ts
w ere he deals w ith prob lem s o f disposition (w hich is n ot often) and
sp eaks o f nveg, h e m a y h a v e relied on A n d ronicu s. B u t lik e P o rp h y ry
he m a y h a v e d raw n his k n ow led g e a b o u t th e d ifferen t arran gem en ts of
risto tle s w orks from his c o u n try m a n and predecessor, A d ra stu s (see
A . G ercke, in: R E I, col. 416).
75 i D E X I P P U S , I n Cat., C l A G I V 2, p. 21.18: . . . ovx iv a n a m

roig avriyqacpoig t o '6 de Xdyog rfjg ovaiag U Q oaxenai, &g x a l BdrjOog
(ivrinovEVEi x a l ’ Avdgovixog.
Comment I t m ay be noted here th a t Aspasius mentions Andronicus,
n t ., I A G X I X 1, p. 44.21, and Them istius, I n D e an., C I A G
V 3, P- 31-2 and 32.4, referring not to his work on A ristotle’s writings
but to his commentaries.
75 j A M M O N IU S I n I. D e in terfr. f r . , C I A G I V 5, p. 5.24 = S ch o lia

P ‘ 9 7 a I 3 - 2 0 : Hodg de rd yvijmov elvat rov cpdooocpov
to pipAiov ovdstg ^ U o o e raw nepi r d a v y y o d ^ a r a rov ’ A m a ro-
° Vg ™ ™ ^ ax< ho> v d ^ a X e l v etg re rd ntdavdv d n o ^ ln a w rrig
(m a y y sh a g x a l elg rrjv evreyvov x a l rep cpdooocpcp avvrjdrj rebv ev
avrcp^ nagadidoftevcDv Oemorj/xdraw d td d E m v x a l rrjv nqdg rag aXXag
avrov ngay/xarelag 6/ioXoyiav nXrjv ’ Avdqovtxov rov ' P od io v, og h t e -
xarog fiev fjv and rov ’ AtuororeXovg . . .
Comment. ^ H e re w e are to ld th a t A n d ro n icu s used certain criteria
m a scertain in g w h eth er a trea tise w as gen u in e o r n ot, n a m e ly (a)
d iction , (b) m ethod s o f exp osition , an d (c) relation ship w ith oth er
gen uin e treatises.
75 k AM M ONIUS I n A n a l, fir., C l A G I V 6, p. 3 1.11: . . . o de

BorjOog evdexaxog and ’ AgioxoxeXovg yevofievog evavxuog rep ’ A qiotote -
Xet neql xovxov edogaaev . . . tovtoj rjxoXovdrjaev IIoQipvQiog x a i ’ Ia/i-
fSXiyo;, Sxi [xevxoi x a i o Mat-i/iog.
Comment: Elias, relying on Ammonius, tells us tw ice (T 75 p) that

Andronicus was the eleventh successor of Aristotle. U ittig attached
great importance to this statem ent, using it as a foundation for his
hypothesis th a t Andronicus was head of the Peripatetic school in
Athens. To suit his hypothesis he emended the evdexaxog in this
passage to dcodexaxog. H owever, the ancient V itae w ith their apocryphal
list of diadochs show th a t we cannot attach any im portance a t all to this
late tradition (see the synopsis in B rinck’s article, R E Suppl. 7, col
910). Lacking factual information, later biographers substituted names
quite arbitrarily.
75 1 O I/Y M P IO D O R U S Prol. in Cat., C l A G X I I 1, p . 6.12: . . . a t

em axoXal daxivag ’ Avdgovixog xa i ’ A qxe/hcov aw ijyayov.
Comment. Cf T 77 a. Artem on (//. about 100 B. C) edited A ristotle’s
correspondence in eight books, Elias, I n Cat. fir., C l A G X V I I I 1, p.
113.24; Demetrius D e eloc. 223; Cat. Ptolem aei n. 87. Since this edition
was included in Andronicus’ niva f , w e m ust assume th at he re-edited
it under Artem on’s name.
75 m S IM P L IC IU S In P hys., C l A G X , p . 923.7: E lqrjxai de tiqo-

xeqov oxi xa fJih nevxe fiiflkia xa jiqo xovxov 0 va ixa xaXovaiv, xa
de evxevdev xoia F leg l Xivrjaecug- ovxco yar> x a i ’ Avdoovtxog ev xa> xoixo)
xaiv ’ AgiaxoxeXovg fhpXUov diaxaxxexai, /laoxvoovvxog n eol xojv tzqcoxcov
x a i OeocpQaaxov yodipavxog Evdrj/iov neol, xivog avxco xwv rj/j.apxrj/ievcov
avxiygdtpcjv xa xa to tie [mix ov fiifiUov xxk.
Comment. It is superfluous to reprint the whole passage 923.7—

924.20, so well known after D iels’ treatm ent in Abh. Berl. A kad. 1882,
and the subsequent discussion. I agree w ith Plezia, D e A n d ronici studiis
A ristotelicis p. 34, th at this passage as a whole is taken from Andronicus’
work. I t gives us a ve ry valuable insight in his methods of working.
Simplicius has preserved for us numerous quotations from rare books
th at were afterwards lost; it is not impossible th at he knew Andronicus’
work first-hand.
Goteb. U n iv . A rssk r. L X I I I : 2 27
4i8 IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G
Plezia, pp. 3 7 — 42, deals w ith some tw en ty passages in which Sim plicius
cites or refers to passages in Andronicus’ commentaries on A ristotle.
75 n P H IL O P O N U S I n Cat. f r . , C l A G X I I I 1, p. 5.16: BôrjOoç

pièv ovv cprjoiv ô Ziôœ vioç ôeïv ân o x fjç yvoixrjç â o y E o O a i nQay/xaxeiaç
ax e rj[xlv avvrjdeoxéqaç x a i yvoiQifiov, ôeïv ôè âe l ân o xœv awpeoxeomv
aQxeoOat, x a i yvmQÎfxœv. ô ô è xovxov ô iô â o x a lo ç ’ A vôqovixoç 0 'P ô ô io ç
âxQifiéoxeQOV èljexâÇœv eley e ynfjvai nnoxenov ân o xfjç Xoyixfjç aQxeoOat,
rjxiç neqi xfjv ânôôeiÇiv x axaytvexai.
Comment. The same discussion, w ith more details, in Elias, C I A G
X V I I I 1, p. 117. Andronicus thus followed the old Peripatetic arrange
ment, well known from Theophrastus’ doxographical work: â o y a i Oe o ;
xôopioç fiexécoQa ipvyj] <pvcnç cpvacoXoyLa, his m ain innovation being th at
he placed the logical works as ” Oqyavov èniaxfjpitjç first in the series.
Boethus no doubt adduced m any of those well-known passages in
w hich A ristotle says th a t it is fitting to proceed “ from known things
to unknow n” .
7 5 0 P H IL O P O N U S I n de an., C I A G X V , p. 27.21: ’ E x xov

%cdqÎov ôè xovxov è?iéyyo/xev xov 5A vôqovixov xov Poôiov vodevaavxa
x o FFeQl êo/irjveiaç' elnôvxoç yào è x e l xov ’ AqiaxoxéXovç oxi x a vorj-
fi a x a naQrj[xaxâ èaxi xfjç ipvyfjç, wonsQ eigr/xai èv roi I le p i ipvxfjç,
(prjalv ô ’ A vôqovixoç oxl xovxo ovôapiov eÏQTjxai, êv xw H eo l rpvyfjç,
œaxe âvayxrj r) xrjv IleQi yrvxfjç vodevaai rj xà TI eqI éQ/irjveiaç■à V .à
[xrjv rj TIeql ipvxfjç oô /.oy rjxai xov ’ A o ia x o x êlo v ç e lv a r voOov aQa xà
üeQ i éofirjVEiaç.
Comment. This quotation from Andronicus’ w ork gives us an idea
of its character; it was a “catalogue raisonné” , discussing questions
of authenticity, composition and arrangement. I t is unlikely th a t
Philoponus knew Andronicus’ w ork first-hand, bu t this does not
seriously affect the value of this testim ony.
75 p 1 E L IA S (olim David) I n Cat., C I A G X V I I I 1, p. 113 .17:

A bvxsqov fjv X E (p d ).a io v xœv nQoxeOévxœv x o elneïv xfjv ôiaïQeaiv xœv
’ AqiaxoxeXrxœv avyygafipiâxœv yiÂiwv ôvxœv xov ùpiO/iov, œç A vôqovi
xoç nagaôiôœ aiv ô 'P ô ô io ç êvôéxaxoç yevôpievoç ôiâôoxoç ( = Scholia
Brandis, p. 24 a 18.)
' P ôôloç D u r in g : n o ix o v c o d d . x o v xo v B r a n d is 24 a 20 â n o xo v xo v I à t t i g
a n IleQ U id xo v } B u s s e H
2 ibidem, p. 117.22: ’ AvSgovixog de o 'P odiog o IJsQLjiarrjrixog o

Evdsxarog diadoxog rfjg ’ AQiororsXovg a/o2.fjg and Xoyixrjg eXeye (delv
ag£aodai).
3 ibidem, p. 107.11 = Scholia Brandis p. 22 a 10 — 13: Aevregov rig
fj 6 l a in e a ig r w v ’ AqiororeXixw v avyyQa/i/iaratv noXXcov dvrmv, yjXiojv
rov dniO/iov, & g (pr\ai T[roXe/j,alog o 0 iXd6eX(pog <o) dvayoacprjv avrcov
non'jaa.fjiEvog x a i rov ftlov avrov x a l rrjv diadrjxrjv.
(pdoaotpog n o n s c r ib e n d u m c u m R o se ; E l i a m r e v e r a P h ila d e lp h u m re g e m in
anim o h a b u isse a p p a r e t e x eo q u o d p . 128 .6 le g im u s || SiaOr'ixr/v R o s e : diddsaiv
codd. || (Exdovgy a d d . C h a t z is p o s t Sladr/xrjv ||
Comment. See T 75 k. Elias inherited from Ammonius, possibly

through his own teacher Olympiodorus, the inform ation th a t Androni-
cus was the eleventh successor of Aristotle. H e probably knew Andro-
nicus’ name only through the ancient V ita which we know as Marciana
and Vulgata, see p. 115. On Ptolem y-el-Garib, see p. 209. The statem ent
th at Andronicus was “the eleventh successor” is an invention, either
of Ptolem y in his V ita (not ve ry likely), or b y Ammonius-Olympiodorus.
The title of P tolem y’s book, as given b y Elias in (3), is almost identical
w ith the title given b y the three Arabic sources, see p. 208.
75 q B O E T IU S I n Aristotelis D e interpr. II, p. 11.16 = Scholia

Brandis p. 97: Andronicus librum hunc Aristotelis esse non putat, quem
Alexander vere fortiterque redarguit; quem cum exactum diligentemque
Aristotelis librorum et iudicem et repertorem iudicarit antiquitas, cur in
huius libri iudicio sit falsus, prorsus est magna admiratione dignissim um .
— D e divisione, Migne 64, p. 875 d: Quam magnos studiosis afferat
fructus scientia dividendi, quamque apud Peripateticam disciplinam
semper haec fuerit in honore notitia, docet et A n d ronici diligentissim i senis
de divisione liber editus et hie idem a P lotin o gravissimo philosopho
comprobatus et in libri P la ton is qui Sophistes inscribitur commentariis a
Porphyrio repetitus.
Comment. Plezia, D e A n d ronici R ho d ii studiis A ristotelicis p. 10 and
passim, has shown convincingly th at Boetius took his m aterial from
Porphyry and th a t a t least parts of his w ork are translated from
P orph yry’s com m entary on the Sophistes, cf. T 66 d. The words
exactum— repertorem are therefore to Ije regarded as P orp h yry’s. Iyittig
grossly misinterpreted the words senex diligentissim us, taking them as
evidence th a t Andronicus was “ve ry old” when he com pleted his

edition, and th at he was born 125 B . C.; Susemihl and others accepted
this argument. Boetius is of course sim ply speaking about a scholar
of by-gone days whom he respected bu t about whom he knew nothing
apart from w h at he found in Porphyry.
Comment on 75.
Most inform ation on Andronicus in current handbooks is based on
F . I/ittig’s dissertation Andronikos von Rhodos. I. D as Leben des Andro-
nikos und seine Anordnung der aristotelischen Schriften, München 1890,
followed b y tw o additional parts, E rlangen 1894— 95 - K . O. Brink, in.
R E S u p p l. 7, s. v. Peripatos, expresses some doubt as to the va lid ity of
L ittig ’s conclusions. A s I said in m y Notes (full title T 52), Iyittig s
argum entation does not stand confrontation w ith the ancient evidence.
V ery useful is M. Plezia, “ De Andronici Rhodii studiis Aristotelicis” ,
P olska A k . Archiw um filologiczne, N. 20, K rakow 1946- A lthough I do
not agree w ith some of his conclusions, his treatm ent of the subject
has considerably advanced our knowledge.
There is no ancient evidence th at Andronicus ever was head of the
Peripatetic school in Athens, apart from T 75 p, which I regard as
entirely untrustw orthy. Cratippus is mentioned as scholarch in 46 by
Cicero; when Cicero was in Athens in 78, he m et no Peripatetic philo
sopher of im portance except Antiochus, germanissimus Stoicus, as he
m ockingly calls him, seeing th a t he was in fa ct more of a Stoic than
Aristotelian. N either before nor after Cratippus is there any room
for Andronicus as scholarch. To L ittig the solution was simple; “ W ahr
scheinlich dass Andronikos in aller Stille Vorstand der Schule geworden
w ar.”
In our evidence there is universal agreement on one point: Andronicus
was highly respected as a conscientious scholar. H e was educated in
Rhodes, an old centre of Aristotelian studies, and it is not unlikely
th a t he pre'served the traditions of Eudem us and his school, see T 75 m
and Diels in: Abh. A k . B erlin, 1882, p. 40. I t was one of those rare
and happy coincidences of history th a t this scholar, educated in a
good Aristotelian tradition, happened to find in Rom e a library rich
in m anuscripts of A ristotle’s writings. The find from Scepsis was prob
ably not unim portant, bu t of much greater im portance was the large-
scale influx of books to the private libraries in Rom e after about 60
B. C. Lucullus, the great philhellene, brought w ith him from Asia

Minor not only Tyrannion and other learned scholars, bu t books in
great quantities, too, bought or taken from old Hellenistic libraries.
W e are told th a t Tyrannion collected a library of his own, comprising
30,000 rolls; from Cicero’s correspondence we m ay conclude th a t he
acted as literary adviser to Atticus. Sulla’s son was killed in 46, and
after this tim e his library was in Tyrannion’s charge. In the circle of
men of letters th a t we get to know through Cicero’s correspondence,
Aristotle was admired as one of the greatest minds of the past. A tticus
had a bust of him in his library, and Orsini believed th at the replica
he had bought actually was th a t same bust (see Studniczka p. 17). It
is against this background of a general awakening of interest in Aristotle
that we should see Andronicus’ achievement.
Cicero knows nothing about Andronicus or his edition. The evidence,
especially T 66 c, 74 d and 75 b, suggests th a t Andronicus was younger
than Tyrannion and th at he came to Rom e some tim e between 50 and
40 B . C. In m y Notes (full title T 52) I suggested th at his work on
Aristotle’s writings and his edition of the Organon and the other prag-
maties were accomplished between 40 and 20 B. C. Dionysius of H ali
carnassus, D e compos, c. 25, 198 and E p . ad Am m . 8 sv xfj rphrj fMfttcp
t w v rs '/ v d jv are the earliest references to Andronicus’ edition known to
me. These works were w ritten after 30 B. C. W hen speaking of his

“edition” , exdocng, w e should take care not to th in k in m odem terms.
Horace’s poems and literary works of the same kind m ight have been
produced com mercially, although we should be on our guard against
too exaggerated accounts of ancient book-production. A scholarly work
like Andronicus’ edition, was produced only for use in the school, and
certainly only a few copies were m ade for his collaborators and
disciples.
The only w ork of Andronicus which concerns us in this connexion is
his book on A ristotle’s writings. W e do not know the title, bu t we
know th at it served as an introduction to his edition of the scholarly
writings of Aristotle; we are entitled to conclude th a t his work had
a somewhat propagandistic tendency. Dike all innovators he was full
of enthusiasm for his great enterprise, and righ tly so. Porphyry men
tions his book as A ia ig s a ig za>v *A q u jt o t e Aix w v avyyQa/ifxaxcov
Simplicius as ( I I eq I) ’ A Q ia ro xeA o v g fh fillo w , Gellius m erely says Liber
Andronici philosophi. P tolem y mentions Andronicus’ book in title 97,
retranslated b y Baum stark êv n é f i m c p ’ A v ò q o v Íx o v U e q I n í v a x o ç r w v

’ Agicfrorékovç a v y y Q a fi/ x d x c o v . If we stick to this information, the title
of his book m ust h ave been On A ristotle’s writings, bu t the exact Greek
title cannot be ascertained. I t was a w ork in at least five books; in
the third book Andronicus dealt w ith the physical treatises.
W e h ave three fairly extensive fragm ents of the te x t, T 75 m and o,
T 76 f, and several short indications of the contents, as in T 75 g,
j , n and q. According to VM 43 it included the te x t of A ristotle’s
W ill. W e h ave no evidence w hatever th at his book contained a
biography of Aristotle. The story presented b y Gellius T 76 f is an
extract from a chapter in which Andronicus developed his ideas about
the difference between “ exoteric” and “ acroatic” writings.
Iyittig, B aum stark and Plezia take for granted th a t Andronicus’ work
contained a biography of Aristotle. B aum stark’s and P lezia’s reconstruc
tion of the w ork is interesting. Plezia thinks th a t the first book was
devoted to the biography, including the W ill; the second dealt w ith
the dialogues, the third (cited b y Simplicius) w ith the a v v T a y / u n i x d ,
the fourth w ith the v n o f i v r j / ia r a , the fifth finally w ith the ip e v ô e m y g a c p a
(this he infers from the note in P tolem y’s catalogue). H e then re
constructs Andronicus’ biography b y picking out from the V ita M ar
ciana and the A rab ic tradition all objective inform ation on A ristotle
and excluding all those small details w hich are so characteristic of
P tolem y’s V ita. The result is, as he himself says, rigida atque ieiuna
de v ita philosophi narratio. Q uite consistently he concludes th at such
a biography is entirely different from the anecdotic V ita of Hermippus
and th e neoplatonic eulogy of P tolem y, and consequently m ust have
been w ritten b y a scholar who seriously tried to apply th e principles
stated b y Dionysius, D e Dinarcho 2. This is all v e ry attractive, but
P lezia has fin ally to adm it th a t not a single fragm ent of this Ivife of
A ristotle has reached us; no ancient writer mentions the name of
Andronicus in connexion w ith a single biographic detail, apart from
the W ill. W ith this the whole structure falls to the ground. U ntil
new evidence is produced, I think we m ust rest content w ith w hat
, we really know, nam ely th a t P tolem y relied on Andronicus for his
In dex librorum and for the te x t of the W ill.
In his w ork on A ristotle’s writings Andronicus was inspired b y some
typ ica lly H ellenistic bu t ve ry un-aristotelian ideas. H e believed th at
A ristotle had w ritten his scholarly treatises as p art of a philosophic
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A PH IC A L, T R A D IT IO N 423
system; he tried to arrange the writings according to this idea. The

arrangement was based on his ideas of the subject-m atter treated;
rather artificially he created a departm ent of knowledge which he
called “m etaphysics” , corresponding to A ristotle’s noojTtjtpdoaocpia.
The chemical treatise was collocated as the fourth book of the Meteoro
logy,
the treatise On diction and style as the third book of the Rhetoric.
He paid no respect to the chronology of the various treatises; the
whole corpus was to him a closed system of knowledge. H e accepted
and developed further the idea th at A ristotle had expounded certain
advanced doctrines in his lectures and pragm aties which differred from
the opinions set forth in th e dialogues and other popular writings.
He identified “exoteric” w ith the popular writings, and held th a t the
“acroatic” writings were more im portant and in reality the only true
expression of A ristotle’s philosophy. H is third idea is perhaps not
entirely un-aristotelian, bu t mentioned only in passing b y Aristotle,
namely th at logic and dialectics are the instrum ents of philosophy.
Andronicus was so impressed b y this idea th a t he bu ilt a system on it
and arranged all the logical writings in a corpus to which he gave the
title Organon. F inally, he had a high opinion of himself: as a result
of his work on A ristotle and his investigations, he arrived a t the con
viction (which certainly was true), th a t he and the circle of scholars
around him were fellow actors in a great revival of Aristotelian studies.
He believed th a t he was following up the great tradition from Theo
phrastus and Eudem us, whereas the Peripatetics of the third and second
century had degenerated (see T 66 b, 66 d and 76 b). H is book as
a whole was a vigorous plea for a new approach to Aristotelian
studies.
None of his basic ideas was in itself new; no doubt Antiochus of
Ascalon has a great share in propagating them (T 76 b). B u t it was
Andronicus who fused these ideas into a kind of philosophy and soon
became celebrated as the m an who had given new im petus to A ristote
lian studies. H e gave rise to a school of com m entators whose main
a ctiv ity aimed a t m aking the learned writings of A ristotle more
intelligible b y means of paraphrases and commentaries: among them
m ay be mentioned his contem porary Ariston of Alexandria, disciple of
Antiochus; his own collaborator Boethus of Sidon; Eudorus, Xenarchus,
Athenodorus and, most famous of these early commentators, Nicolaus
of Damascus.
Plezia believed th at the first book of his work contained a biography

of Aristotle; I am more inclined to believe th at it was a general intro
duction, developing the ideas which I have outlined here. It is under
standable th at his introduction should have aimed a t arousing great
interest in his edition; the extract preserved b y Gellius is a good exam ple
of his style in this introduction. I t is interesting to see th a t he did not
abstain from using spurious letters as evidence; I have offered a
possible explanation in m y note on T 76 f. From P tolem y’s catalogue
we can gather th a t he included Artem on’s collection of letters in his
“ catalogue raisonné” and th a t he himself had collected no less than
tw en ty books of letters. H is interest in this kind of literature is thus
well attested. In his introduction he also m ade as much as he could of
the find from Scepsis.
T h e W ill is a special problem. T o Iîttig, Baum stark and P lezia the
solution was simple: it formed part of his biography. B u t if he did not
include a biography, w h y did he find it appropriate to present th e te x t
of th e W ill, which was well known through Hermippus? In m y notes
on P tolem y, p. 239, I have offered a possible explanation. H e m ight
have found in the papers from Scepsis a better te x t th an th a t given b y
Herm ippus and added it as an appendix to his In dex librorum.
H is catalogue was a thoroughly revised edition of the old Alexandrian
JJivaÇ, transm itted b y Hermippus; in this he included his own rearrange
m ent of th e scholarly treatises. In P tolem y’s catalogue we possess a
transcript of his index which gives us a fairly good idea of the original.
The reconstructions m ade b y T ittig , Baum stark and Plezia are interest
ing b u t seem to me too sophisticated and speculative. W e have not
the slightest evidence th at Andronicus divided the dialogues in tetralo
gies. M uch more interesting is th at we know a good deal about his
methods in discussing the titles; the extract in T 75 m is especially
valuable. Plezia righ tly says: “E x hoc fragm ento facile colligi potest
Andronicum imprimis Aristotelis ipsius testim oniis colligendis operam
dedisse, quibus usus scripta eius in ordinem quendam redigeret, qui
ipsius auctoris consiliis ei respondere videretur. Quibus u t hunc ad
modum u ti liceat, probandum est prius Aristotelem omnia opera sua
uno eodemque exam inato consilio conscripsisse; nobis id parum proba-
bile videtur, sed Andronicus rem ita se habere certe persuasum h abu it.”
— “A t in solis locis non acquievit, qui in ipsis Aristotelis scriptis
haererent, sed etiam extrinsecus testim onia quaerebat.” H is methods
A R IS T O T E E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 425
were thus in principle the same as those followed b y modern scholars

before W . Jaeger. H is system atic discussion was a “ catalogue rai
sonné” in which he applied th e leading ideas which I have outlined;
scraps of the discussion concerning the composition, arrangement and
authenticity of individual writings are found in great number in
Simplicius (see Plezia, pp. 7 — 10) and other commentators; in this
connexion he also made observations on philosophic questions. He had
an open mind and did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle. Owing to the
immense influence of his edition and its leading idea th at all the
writings contained in it are parts of a closed philosophic system he
has been called “the first school-man” , bu t this is quite inappropriate.
He was a fine scholar and in certain respects an innovator; a good
example of H ellenistic erudition and scholarship, w ith the imperfections
and merits of his age.
XIX. EEQTEPIKOI A O W I
76 a C IC E R O A d A tt. IV 16,2 (54 B. C.): Itaque cogitabam, quoniam

in singulis libris utor prooemiis, ut Aristoteles in Us quos s ^mtsqikovq
vocat, aliquid efficere ut non sine causa istum appellarem: id quod in -
telligo tibi placere.
Comment. This is the earliest reference to the “ exoteric” writings,
and we cannot doubt th a t Cicero had A ristotle’s dialogues in mind
when speaking of libri s ^ c o t s q i x o i . H e hopes to please A tticu s who was
a great admirer of Aristotle. I t is interesting to compare w hat he says
about Philo of Larisaea, L u cu llu s 18,6o, and his mysterium, probably
from Antiochus.
76 b C IC E R O D e fin . V 4,10 (45 B. C.): Persecutus est Aristoteles

anim antium om nium ortus victus figuras, Theophrastus autem stirpium
naturas omniumque fere rerum quae e terra gignerentur causas atque
rationes, qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultis-
simarum. disserendique ab iisdem non dialectice solum sed etiam oratorie
praecepta sunt tradita, ab Aristoteleque princip e de singulis rebus in
utramque partem dicendi exercitatio est instituta, ut non contra omnia
semper sicut Arcesilas diceret, et tamen ut in omnibus rebus quidquid ex
utraque parte d i d posset expromeret.
(11) C um autem tertia pars bene vivendi praecepta quaereret, ea quoque
est ab iisdem non solum ad privatae vitae rationem sed etiam ad rerum
publicarum rectionem relata. om nium fere civitatum non Graeciae solum
sed etiam barbariae ab Aristotele mores instituta disciplinas, a Theophrasto
leges etiam cognovimus. cumque uterque eorum docuisset qualem in re
publica principem (essey conveniret, pluribus praeter ea conscripsisset,
qui esset optim us rei publicae status, hoc am plius Theophrastus, quae
essent in re publica rerum inclinationes et momenta temporum, quibus esset
moderandum, utcumque res postularet. V itae autem degendae ratio maxime
illis quidem placuit quieta, in contemplatione et cognitione posita rerum,
quae, quia deorum vitae erat sim illim a, sapiente visa est dignissima.
A tque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio.
(12) D e siimmo autem bono quia duo genera librorum sunt, unrnn
populariter scriptum quod êio n e g ix o v appellabant, alterum lim atius,
quod in commentariis reliquerunt, non semper idem dicere videntur, nec
in summa tarnen ipsa aut varietas est ulla apud hos quidem quos nominavi,
aut inter ipsos dissensio.
Sed cum beata vita quaeratur idque sit unum , quod philosophia spectare
et sequi debeat, sitne ea tota sita in potestate sapientis an possit aut labe-
factari aut eripi rebus adversis, in eo nonnum quam variari inter eos et
dubitari videtur. Quod m axim e efficit Theophrasti de beata vita liber,
in quo m ultum admodum fortunae datur. Quod si ita se habeat, non possit
beatam vitam praestare sapientia. H aec m ihi videtur delicatior, ut ita
dicam, molliorque ratio quam virtutis vis grdvitasque postulat.
Quare teneamus Aristotelem et eius /iliu m N icom achum , cuius accurate
scripti de moribus libri dicuntur illi quidem esse Aristoteli, sed non
video cur non potuerit patri sim ilis esse filiu s.
Theophrastum tamen adhibeamus ad pleraque, dummodo p lu s in virtute
teneamus quam ille tenuit firm itatis et roboris.
(1 3 ) S im u s igitur contenti his. namque horum posteri meliores illi
quidem, mea sententia, quam reliquarum philosophi disciplinarum , sed
ita dégénérant ut ip s i ex se nati esse videantur.
P rim um Theophrasti Strato physicum se voluit; in quo etsi est magnus,
tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus. huius Lyco oratione locuples,
rebus ip sis ieiu n io r, concinnus deinde et elegans h uius Aristo, sed ea quae
desideratur a magno philosopho gravitas in eo non fu it: scripta sane et
multa et polita, sed nescio quo pacto auctoritatem oratio non habet.
(J4 ) Praetereo multos, in his doctum hominem et suavem, Hieronymum,
quem iam cur Peripateticum appellem nescio. Sum m um enim bonum
exposuit vacuitatem doloris. qui autem de summo bono dissentit, de tota
philosophiae ratione dissentit. Critolaus im itari voluit antiquos, et quidem
est gravitate proxim us et redundat oratio. A c tamen <ne > is quidem in
patriis institutis manet. D iodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem
vacuitatem doloris. H ic quoque suus est de summoque bono dissentiens
d id vere P eripateticus non potest, antiquorum autem sententiam A n tio-
chus noster m ih i videtur persequi diligentissim e, quam eandem Aristotelis
fuisse et P olem onis docet.
Comment. Cicero’s source is Antiochus of Ascalon. H e first tells
us th at the P eripatetic philosophy is triplex, one part dealing w ith nature,
another w ith discourse, a third w ith living. An im antium om nium
ortus victus figuras refers to a) D e gener. an., b) H ist. an. V I I I rgocprj,

fiioq, c) D e fa r t. an. I I — I V fionqir), oxfj/j,a. T h e disserendi -praecepta
were tau gh t a) dialectice, b) oratorie, which corresponds to the distinc
tion et-coTSQixol Xoyoi — lim atius. I t is possible to understand (a)
as referring to some part of the present T opics, and (b) to Rhet. I — II.
B u t oratorie m ay also refer to the dialogue Grylos; in this case dialectice
w ould refer to Rhet. I — II. The words ab Aristotele princip e — exercitatio
refer to Top. V I I I — T 32 c.
The n ext paragraph refers to ethical and political works: om nium
civitatum mores instituta disciplinae = th e P o lities, qualem in re publica
principem esse conveniret = the dialogue T he Statesman, qui esset opti-
m us rei publicae status = P o lit. V I I — V I I I . H ere are also mentioned
in re publica inclinationes et momenta temporum = T T o ln ix a jiqoq tovq
xaiQovg. The following tw o sentences V itae degendae ratio — illustris
oratio refers to the Protrepticus. T h e word eorum is characteristic; the
writings of A ristotle and Theophrastus were transm itted together,
and in speaking of their works, Cicero often says “ A ristotle and Theo
phrastus” . In spite of the som ewhat diffuse character of this enumera
tion, it is clear th a t Antichous knew quite a few of A ristotle’s writings.
“There are tw o sorts of books about th e highest good” . There are
six passages, tw o in E N , tw o in E E , and tw o in the P o litics, from which
Antiochus m ay h ave inferred this interpretation. “ One w ritten in
popular style, the other more concisely and to the point” (cf. D e off.
I I 10,35 cum veritas ip sa lim atur in disputatione). This corresponds
well w ith th e distinction m ade E E 1217 b 22 sv r o l; e^corsQixotg —
ev Tolg Kara (piloaocpiav.
The following survey of the Peripatetic school is interesting because
it reflects not only Cicero’s b u t also A ntiochus’ opinion; cf. m y note on
T 66 b. Degenerant should not be unduly pressed: it means th at, in
Cicero’s opinion, these philosophers were of minor im portance in compa
rison w ith the great generation, represented b y Plato, A ristotle and
Theophrastus, and he is quite right. H e grudgingly adm its th a t Straton
was magnus, bu t v e ry few H ellenistic scholars and philosophers betray
any real interest in physical science: perpauca de moribus.
76 c S T R A B O N X I I I 1, ov%eyovaiv
54, p. 608 = T 66 b: oXoj;
Ta(hfiXianXrjvoXiycov,y.aifiaXiaxarcoveijcoxEQ
ixcbv.
Comment. This clearly refers to dialogues and other works of a more
popular nature. I t is probably w ritten about 25 B. C. Strabon knew

Andronicus and was acquainted w ith his edition and the introduction
to this edition, in which Andronicus established the terminological
use of etjwTSQixoi as distinguished from a x q o a n x o l Xoyoi.
VitaAlexandri
76 d P L U T A R C H U S Eoixe ’AAsSav-
7 = T 25 a: ” d’
bqogov[iovovrovrjdixovxalnoAirixovnaoafjaXeivX.oyov,dXXdxalrow
<
m anorjTotvxalfiaO
vTEQCovSidaaxaXioovagoiavdijegIdiw gaxgoarixag
xal ETtonxixagTcnoaayoQevovregovxitjecpeQ
ovelgnoXXovg/lexaa/elv.
Comment. A s exam ples of “secret” and more profound teachings
Plutarch mentions the M etaphysics: “for in tru th his treatise on m eta
physics is of no use for those who would either teach or learn the science,
but is w ritten as a memorandum for those already trained” (Perrin).
The distinction he has in mind, then, is th a t between elem entary and
advanced courses. The reading M e t a r d cpvaixd is confirmed b y Sim pli
cius, I n P h y s., C l A G IX , p. 8.30 = T 76 o.
The use of sn o n reia and enonxixog for m etaphysical discussions goes
back to P lato Sym p. 2x0 A r d riX sa x a l s n o m ix d , cf. Phaedr. 250 C,
Atticus ap. Euseb. Praep. ev. X V , 815 a xfjg ovxojg aXrjdeiag snojixsvaai
Jiediov.
PI/U TAR CH U S D e Is . et Os. 77, p. 382 E: A id x a l IJXarcov x a l
’ AQiaxoxeXrjg en o n n xd v xovxo to fiEQog xfjg cpiAoaocpiag xaXovaiv, d>g
ol xa doijaaxa x a l [isix rd x a l navxodana xavxa n a n a / iE iy d / ie v o i xq> Xoyoj,
TiQog xo jiQcoxov sxelvo x a l duiXovv x a l dvXov sl-aAXovxai, x a l diyovxsg
anXmg xfjg tieqI avxo xaOapdg aXrjdeiag, olov iv xsAsxfj reXog e%eiv cpiXo-
a o f la g vo/nZovai. Sim ilarly Quaest. conv. V I I I 2, 1, p. 718 D. The word
is not found in any w ork of A ristotle now extant, bu t dXrjdeiav edog
avxw Xeyeiv xrjv OecoQrjxixrjv cpiXoaoyiav, as Alexander observes, I n
Metaph., C I A G I, p. 60.29.
SCH O LJA in Hesiod. Theog. 12: ’ Eneidrj rig xo ovrcog xaXov dva-
dQd[xrj, tote i n i ra rfjg cpvoioloyiag nooxoipag rd xaXov/ueva fxsra ra
cpvoixa, en o n n x o g yivsrai. W hen the scholiast wrote this, the title
M etaphysics was new and unfamiliar.
CLE M E N S A lyE X A N D R IN U S Strom. I 28 (p. 176.2): K a l xeranxov
ejiI n a a i xo OeoAoyixov eldog, r) in o n r e ia , fjv (pr/aiv o IJXdrcov rcov
fisyaXcov dvrcog slvai /ivarr/piow, yAoiaroxeXrjg de rd eldog rovro
fiExa rd cpvaixd xaAel. The usage is now established and the originator,
Andronicus, forgotten.
G R E G O R IU S N A Z IA N Z E N U S Or. 10, p. n o D: A v r fj nrpyfj rov

xaXov ivrvyot/iev av y.aOagqj vu> xaOaodv rfjv dXrjOeiav enonrevovreg,
ojisq dij rfjg r/fiersQag reXog pivaraycoyiag.
T o th e neoplatonists th e notion was fam iliar, e. g. H IE R O C X E S,
F P h G M ullach I 408 ij diaXexrixrj xtov ovrcov enonreia.
IO A N N E S Z O N A R A S, Epitom e historiarum IV 8, p. 286.19 Dindorf
(Migne 134, p. 337 A) is a paraphrase of T 76 d.
T h e right explanation of the word M etaphysics is still found in Ascle-
pius, I n M etaph., C I A G V I 2, pr. 3.27 (probably from Alexander); the
later, wrong explanation is found for the first tim e in Philoponus, In
Cat. pr., C I A G X I I I 1, p. 5.2.
76 e L U C IA N U S V itarum a u d io 26:
Z E Y S . Mr] diazntfle- aXXov xdXei rov IleQiJiarririxov.
EPM . He (prjfii, rov xaXov, rov nXovaiov. aye drj, dtvrjoaoOe rov
avvercorarov, rov anavra oXoog emarapievov.
AFO. IloXog de rig ea r i,
EPM . M erqiog, emeixf/g, dopiodiog ra> fiioj, to <3e pieyiarov, dmXovg.
A rO . I I tig Xeyeig;
EPM . ” AXXog [lev o exroaOev (paivo/nevog, aXXog be o evroadev elvai
doxeZ■w are rjv ngir] avrov, /li/ivr/ao rov fxev iaojreoixov, rov de encore-
qixov xaXeZv.
A rO . T i de yiyvcoaxe piaXiara;
EPM . T ola elvai rayaOd, ev ev acopian, ev rolq exrog.
A rO . ’ Avdgcomva (ppovel. noaov de eariv,
EPM . E ’i xo ai fivmv.
A rO . IIoXv Xeyeig.
EPM . O v x , d> /my. do is. x a l ydo avrog e%eiv n dgyvgiov doxel,
w ore ovx av (pOdvoig dtvrjoapievog. e n de eiarj a v rixa pidXa nao avrov
noaov ju,ev o xdrvcoy) fiio l rov %qovov, ecp’ onoaov de fidOog fj OdXarra
vno rov rjXiov xaraXapinerai, x a l onoia rig eariv i] ipvyjj row oorgecov.
A rO . 'H gaxX eig rfjg dxoi,f>oXoyiag.
EPM . T i dai, ei dxovaeiag aXXa noXXco rovratv d^vdeoxearena,
yovfjg re neqi x a l yeveaeojg x a i rfjg ev ralg fxrptgaig raw e/.ifiovojv
nXaarixfjg, x a i mg dvOgomog piev yeXaorixov, ovog de ov yeXaany.ov
ovde rexraivopievov ovde nXcoiôpievov.
AFO. Ildvae/jLva cpfjg x a i ovijoi<p6qa ra piaOrjfiara w are (bvov/iai
avrov elxoaiv.
Scholia, ed. Rabe, p. 131.

Tov [lev eiojxeQixov: did xovg Xoyovg cprjaiv, ovg ’ AgiaxoxeXrjg ovxcog
xaXel, eawxeqixovg xovg diaXexxixovg, eicoxegixovg xovg QrjxoQixovg. xd
de sm xovxoig . . . xavxa ndvxa diaavQcov eiQr/xe xag noay/iarelag
' AoiaxoxeXovg xag 'QqmXoyixdg, xag avaxofiixdg, xag /uexecoQoXoyixag
xa l e l xig a’M r] xavxaig e£fjg.
Comment. Lucian was of course fam iliar w ith the calum niatory
tradition: xaXov, n lo v o io v , TioXv/uaOla. O f Aristotelian doctrines he
knows the /ieooxrjg and the rota ay add. H e also refers to the H ist, an.,
De gener. an., ve ry definitely to Part. an. I l l 10, 673 a 8, and to Probl.
23, 6— 9. Here and in Galen we m eet for the first tim e the word eacoxe-
qixov in the sense of “ esoteric doctrines” .
76 f A U IvU S G E I / H U S Noct. att. X X 5: Commentationum suarum

artiumque quas d iscipu lis tradebat Aristoteles philosophus, regis A lexandri
magister, duas species habuisse dicitur. A lia erant quae nominabant
e^coxeqixa, alia quae appellabat axQoaxixa. ’ Et-coxegixd dicebantur quae
ad rhetoricas meditationes facultatemque argutiarum civilium que rerum
notitiam conducebant, dxQ oaxixa autem vocabantur, in quibus philosophia
remotior subtiliorque agitabatur quaeque ad naturae contemplationes
disceptationesve dialecticas pertinebant. H u ic disciplinae, quam d ixi,
dxqoaxixfj tempus exercendae dabat in Lycio m atutinum nec ad earn
quemquam temere admittebat, n isi quorum ante ingenium et eruditionis
elementa atque in discendo studium laboremque explorasset. Illa s vero
exotericas auditiones exercitiumque dicendi eodem in loco vesperi faciebat
easque vulgo iuvenibus sine dilectu praebebat, atque eum deiXuvov neQinaxov
appellabat, ilium alterum supra eojdivov; utroque enim tempore ambulans
disserebat. Libros quoque suos, earum om nium rerum commentarios,
seorsum divisit, ut a lii exoterici dicerentur, partim acroatici.
E os libros generis acroatici cum in vulgus ab eo editos rex Alexander
cognovisset atque ea temp estate armis exercitam omnem prope A sia m
teneret regemque ipsum D arium proeliis et victoriis urgeret, in illis tamen
tantis negotiis litteras ad Aristotelem m isit, non eum recte fecisse, quod
disciplinas acroaticas, quibus ab eo ipse eruditus foret, libris foras editis
involgasset: “ N am qua” , inquit, “ alia re praestare ceteris poterimus, si
ea quae ex te accepimus om nium prosus fient communia? Q uippe ego
doctrina anteire m alim quam copiis atque opulentiis.”
432
R escripsit ei Aristoteles ad hanc sententiam: “ Acroaticos libros, quos

editos quereris ct non proinde ut arcana absconditos, neque editos scito
esse neque non editos, quoniam his solis cognobiles erunt, <qui nos audi-
verunty.”
E xem pla utrarumque litter arum sumpta ex A n d ron ici philosophi
libro subdidi. A m avi prosus in utriusque epistula brevitatis elegantissimae
filu m tenuissim um .
’ AAetjavdQog ’ AgiaxoreX ei e$ nndxxEiv.
O v x oqOcoq inoirjoag, exdovg xovg axqoaxixovg row Xoyw v xivi yap
drj dioioofiEV rj/islg xcbv aXXcov, e l y.a.0 ovg ejiaidevdr]fj,ev Xoyovg, ovxoi
ndvTcov eaovrai xoivoi', eyd> de flovXoL/xrjv av ta lg tieqi xa agiaxa efinei-
QiaiQ rj xalg dvvd/j,eoiv diacpegeiv. eoqojoo. ( = E p . I H ercher = jr.
662 Rose.)
5AgiaxoxeXrjg fiaaiXet ' AXe^dvbocp ev nodxxEiv.
vEygarpag [xoi jibql xojv axgoaxixw v Xoycov, oio/xevog delv avrovg
(fvXdxxew ev duzooorjxoig. IcsOi ovv avxovg xa i exdedofievovg xa i fir)
exdedofievovg' £vvexol ydg eioiv fiovoig xolg tju o tv axovoaoiv. e q q g jg o ,
’ AXetjavdQe fiaaiXsv. ( = E p . 6 Hercher = fr. 662 Rose.)

exercita m C a r r io exercitu m codd. || ( q u i nos a u d iveru n t') H e rtz |1 am avi
R o lf e : am avi autem en autem .R o se ||
Comment. T h i s is p r o b a b l y a m o r e o r le s s v e r b a l q u o t a t i o n f r o m
liber A n d ronici philosophi. T 76 a p ro ves th a t th e d is t i n c t i o n m ade
h e r e b e t w e e n e x o t e r i c a n d a c r o a t i c w r i t i n g s is e a r lie r t h a n A n d r o n ic u s ,
C ic e r o r e la t e s w h a t h e h a s h e a r d w h e n h e a t t e n d e d A n t i o c h u s le c t u r e s .
T 3 1 a p r o v e s t h a t t h e s t o r y a b o u t A r i s t o t l e s m o r n in g a n d a f t e r n o o n
le c t u r e s w a s c u r r e n t b e fo r e 75 B . C. F ro m D L V 2 I c o n c lu d e t h a t i t
w as to ld by H e r m ip p u s ; D io g e n e s has a b r id g e d th e a cco u n t. The
c o m b i n a t io n , n a m e l y t h a t t h e a f t e r n o o n l e c t u r e s w e r e “ e x o t e r i c ” a n d
t h e m o r n in g l e c t u r e s “ a c r o a t i c ” , is n o t f o u n d u n t i l a f t e r A n d r o n ic u s
a n d is p r o b a b l y h is id e a . H i s d e s c r i p t io n o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e
t w o t y p e s o f w r i t i n g s is s i m ila r t o t h a t g i v e n b y C ic e r o . I t is n o t t h e
q u e s tio n of “ se c re t” d o c t r in e s , a s o f t e n in th e la te r tr a d itio n . The
e x o t e r i c w r i t i n g s ( a n d le c t u r e s , c f. D L V 3) g i v e t r a i n i n g i n r h e t o r ic a l
e x e r c is e s ; t h e y a r e w r i t t e n i n g o o d l i t e r a r y s t y l e (facultas argutiarum
is a m b ig u o u s , b u t h a r d l y m e a n s “ l o g i c a l s u b t l e t y , a s R o l f e s u g g e s t e d ) ,
th e y p r o v id e a c q u a in ta n c e w ith e t h i c a l a n d p o l i t i c a l q u e s t io n s . The
t e r m is a p p a r e n t l y n o t y e t u s e d a s i d e n t i c a l w i t h “ t h e d ia lo g u e s , b u t
i t is c le a r t h a t i t is t h i s t y p e o f l i t e r a t u r e A n d r o n i c u s h a s i n m in d .
T h e a c r o a t i c w r i t i n g s c o n t a i n “ a m o r e r e c o n d it e a n d s u b t l e p h i l o s o p h y ” ;
t h e y d e a l w i t h c o n t e m p la t i o n o f n a t u r e a n d w i t h d i a l e c t i c d is c u s s io n s .
F o r t h e l a t e r c o m m e n t a t o r s i t w a s e a s y t o s p in o u t t h i s d e f in it io n a n d
in t r o d u c e t h e c o n c e p t io n o f “ s e c r e t d o c t r i n e s ” .
A n d r o n ic u s ’ a c c o u n t o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n e x o t e r i c a n d a c r o a t i c
(la te r: a c r o a m a t i c ) w r it in g s , w i t h o r w i t h o u t t h e l e t t e r s , is q u o t e d o r
u s e d b y t h e f o l l o w in g w r it e r s : S t r a b o n = T 76 c, P lu ta r c h = T 76 d,
T h e m is t iu s = T 7 6 i ( a n d h i n t e d t o i n T 4 1 a ) , A m m o n i u s = T 76 k,
O ly m p i o d o r u s = T 7 6 1 , S im p lic iu s = T 76 o, E lia s = T 7 7 a , p p . 1 1 4 .3 2
— t h e l e t t e r s a r e m e n t io n e d b y h i m p . 1 2 5 . 1 0 — 1 2 ( b r a c k e t e d b y
B u sse fo r re a so n s w h ic h I d o n o t u n d e r sta n d ); fin a lly , in t h e A r a b ic
t r a d i t i o n , b y M u b a s h ir 3 7 . M u b a s h ir c a n o n l y h a v e f o u n d t h e l e t t e r s
in h is s o u r c e , I s h a q ib n H u n a y n ’s t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e L i f e o f A r i s t o t l e
o f P to le m y - e l- G a r ib .
I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o s e e t h a t a l - F a r a b i ( a n d a f t e r h i m a l- M u b a s h ir 3 7 )
tr a n s fe rre d th e w h o le sto ry , s lig h tly m o d if ie d , to th e r e la t io n s h ip
b e t w e e n P l a t o a n d A r i s t o t l e ( a n o t h e r t r a n s f e r o f t h i s k i n d is A m m ia n u s
M a r c . X V I 4 ,5 = D L V 16 ). P la t o in a le t t e r re p ro a c h e s A r is to tle fo r
p u b lis h in g t o o m a n y b o o k s ; A r i s t o t l e r e p lie s t h a t t h e s e b o o k s a r e o n l y
m ean t fo r t h e avveroi. S e e F . D i e t e r i c i , A l-F a ra b is philos. Abhandl.,
p. 11.
T h e t w o l e t t e r s a d d u c e d b y A n d r o n ic u s a r e o b v i o u s l y f i c t i t i o u s , a n d
t h e i r p u r p o s e is t o b r i n g h o m e a p o in t : t o j u s t i f y t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f
th e te rm s e x o te r ic a n d a c r o a t ic (se e K . P r a e c h t e r in : Philologus 8 5 ,
I 93° , PP - 9 7 — 10 0 ). A r t e m o n e d i t e d A r i s t o t l e ’s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e i n e i g h t
b o o k s , a n d A n d r o n i c u s i n c lu d e d t h i s e d it io n i n h is “ c a t a l o g u e r a is o n n é ”
o f A r i s t o t l e ’s w r i t in g s ; O ly m p io d o r u s , Prol. et in Cat., C l A G X I I 1 ,
p . 6 .1 2 a t em aroXal aoxivaç ’ A.vôoovixoç te x a l ’ Aqte/ucdv avv'rjyayov.
O l y m p i o d o r u s ’ r e m a r k is a c o m m e n t o n t h e l i s t o f A r i s t o t l e ’ s w r it in g s
w h ic h h e h a s b e f o r e h im ; h e f o u n d t h i s l i s t i n P t o l e m y ’s V i t a ; i t w a s
p r o b a b l y a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e o r ig in a l l i s t o f A n d r o n ic u s , a n d t h e
tit le re fe rre d t o b y O ly m p io d o r u s is f o u n d i n t h e A r a b i c c a t a lo g u e ,
t it le N o . 93. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s a m e l is t , A n d r o n ic u s h i m s e lf e d it e d
a g r e a t n u m b e r o f l e t t e r s i n n o le s s t h a n t w e n t y b o o k s .
H e l le n i s t i c c o l l e c t io n s o f l e t t e r s a r e e it h e r e n t i r e l y fa k e d o r b u ilt
u p a r o u n d a k e r n e l o f g e n u in e l e t t e r s , s e e J . S y k u t r i s , in : R E S u p p l.
V , 1 9 3 1 , c o l. 1 8 5 ; I . D iir in g , “ C h io n o f H e r a c l e a ” . Acta univ. Gothob.
Gôteb. Univ. Ârsskr. L X I I I : 2 28
^24 INGEMAR DURING
57 , 1951: 5, P- 19 - It is t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s ib le t h a t t h e tw o le tte r s
a d d u c e d b y A n d r o n i c u s w e r e f a k e d b y A r t e m o n , b u t h a r d l y b y C a llis -
th e n e s, a s P le z ia assu m es. If w e a p p ly th e c la s s ic c r i t e r i a m o t i v e -
m e a n s - o p p o r t u n i t y , w e a r e l e d t o t h e c o n c lu s io n t h a t i t w a s A n d r o n ic u s
w h o f a b r i c a t e d t h e s e l e t t e r s i n o r d e r t o m a k e h is s t o r y m o r e a t t r a c t i v e
a n d i n v e s t i t w i t h t h e h a lo o f a v e n e r a b l e t r a d i t i o n . T h is m ig h t se e m
i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e v i e w t h a t A n d r o n i c u s w a s a c o n s c ie n t io u s s c h o la r
( a b o v e p . 4 2 0 ), a n d u n d o u b t e d l y i t is , f r o m o u r p o in t o f v ie w ; b u t
e v e r y s c h o la r is a c h i l d o f h i s t i m e , a n d A n d r o n ic u s l i v e d i n a p e r io d
w h e n i t w a s a c o m m o n h a b i t t o u s e a lle g e d l e t t e r s a s e v id e n c e . I t w as
p r o b a b l y r e g a r d e d a s a r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e , c o m p a r a b le t o t h e a g e - o ld
h a b i t o f p o e t s a n d h i s t o r ia n s t o c o m p o s e s p e e c h e s a n d p u t t h e m m t h e
m o u th o f fa m o u s h is to r ic a l p e rso n s. The sam e w ay o f th in k in g is
b e h i n d t h e H e l l e n i s t i c c o lle c t io n s o f a p o p h t h e g m s , a p o p u la r f o r m o
t h e m o r e s e r io u s d o x o g r a p h y .
76 g GALENUS De subst. fac. nat., I V 7 5 8 Kuhn: UXaxmv yorv

avzog e/iyvxa piev del Xeyei r d £<uet, rovg XiOovg de x a l rag noag^ y.ai
rd £vXa x a l xaOoXov cpdvai r d <pvrd ndvra r& v dipvyojv ompiarwv
elva i cpr}csiv. dAA’ chav ev Ti\iai(o rrtv <pvoixfjv Oewqiav oXiyiaxoig
dxQoaralg xaraxoXovdelv im a rrj/ionxolg lo y o ig dvvafievoig, a7Toyojorr
aag rcov rolg n o lh n g doxovvrcov, elg SXov rov xoofxov ix rerd a d a i Xeyri
rrtv ipvyj)v avrov, dievpcoviav ov ynrj rovro v o ^ e i v elvai, rdvdqog eavrcp
rdvavria Xeyovrog, & aneq ovd ’ ’ AgiaroreXovg r) Oeocpndarov rd /n:v
rolg noXXolg yeyom pdrov rag «5s dxqodaeig rolg eratooig. I f y o u en ter
u p o n a d e t a i l e d d is c u s s io n o f a c o m p li c a t e d p r o b le m b e f o r e a n u n p r e p a r e d
a u d ie n c e , you w ill p r o b a b ly o ffe n d (nooaxoovetv) y o u r lis t e n e r s . If
P l a t o h a d d o n e t h a t , xareyivw axov av oi naoovreg avrov navreg.
Comment. I t is c le a r t h a t G a l e n h a d t h e t e r m s e x o t e r i c a n d a c r o a t i c
i n m in d a n d t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e m a s i n d i c a t i n g d e g r e e s o f d i f f i c u l t y .
T h e l a s t s e n t e n c e m i g h t b e m e r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l , b u t i t is p o s s ib le t h a t
G a le n (w h o w a s w e ll re a d ) k n e w t h e s t o r y t o ld b y A r is to x e n u s = T 53 b.
7 6 h C L E M E N S A L E X A N D R I N U S Strom. V 9 (p. 58 -3 ) : ° v jiovoi^

Hoa o i IlvO ayooeioi x a l HXdraw r d noXXd eTtexovnrovro, dXXd xa l
oi 5E m x o v o e io i cpaoi n v a x a l nao avrov dnooo^ra elvai xa i ^
ndoiv em rg in eiv evrvyydveiv rovroig rolg y8d ^ a a i v . dXXd x a i oi
E ro u x o l Xeyovai Z i ’jvmvi ra> ngcbrq) yeyndcpdai n v a a fir] qadimg em -
rgenovai rolg /MiOrjralg avayivcboxeiv, pirj ov’/ i nelgav dedcoxooi noore-

gov si yvrjoicog cpiXocrocpolev.
A eyovoi de x a i o i ’ AgiororeXovg r a piev eacoregixa e h a i ra>v avy -
yga/j,/idrwv avrov, rd (5e xoivd x a i etjioregixd.
Comment. T h e r e is n o g r e a t s p a n o f t i m e b e t w e e n G a le n a n d C le m e n t
b u t t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a t m o s p h e r e is e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t i n C le m e n t . He
m a rk s th e d a w n o f s c h o la s t ic is m : yvrjoiatg cpiXooocpelv m e a n s t o h im
t o f o llo w t h e a c k n o w le d g e d a u t h o r it ie s .
A s f a r a s I k n o w , t h i s is t h e e a r l i e s t t e s t i m o n y t o t h e le g e n d o f s e c r e t
d o c tr in e s .
7 6 i T H E M I S T I U S Oratio 26, p . 3 8 5 D in d o r f : Avxog de dr) eqf dnaaiv

’ AgioxoxeXrjg dga anogog re x a i a/urjxavog ecpavr] rov xatvov x 1 n oo-
oavrovgyfjoai, x a i ov noanog fd v diexa£e yjogig rovg Xdyovg x a ra
<pvXa exaoxovg elvai, 0001 xe ngog eva aycova ogcoai x a i 0001 ngog
emaxri/xrjv xmv ovxoov x a i oaoi ngog dgerrjv itjrjyovvrar, ngiv yag ava/ii£
anavxa rjv ovpinecpvgpieva coaneg rj Mrjdojv o r g a n a , ngiv 'lj Kva£agr)v
diaxa£ai rov Arjioxeoj.
' Idiov d ’ AgioxoreXovg x a i rd piyj rovg avrovg olrjOfjvai Xdyovg rolg
re noXXolg dxpsXifiovg elvai x a i rolg cpiXoadcpoig, & oneg ovde (pdo/uaxa
ovde o iria rolg re eig axgov vyiaivovai x a i rolg axgoocpaXcog diaxei-
[xevoig, dXXd rolg pxev r d dvr mg vyieivd, rolg de r a ag/ioôvra rfj ngo-
aovorj e£ei rov aoj/iarog. did x a i rovg pxev dvgaiovg wvo/iaoe xa i
dverovg enoir\aaro, rovg d’ elooo re dnexXeiae x a i /ueredidov oXiyoig
ovv darpaXeia. xa xXelOga de r d dvaneravvvvra x a i anoxXeiovra oa<prj-
veia e o n xa i aadcpeia, alg en irerg a n ra i ngog rovg axgocopievovg d)g
",Qgaig avoiyeiv re rrjv vecpeXrpv x a i av naXiv emrtOevai (II. 5, 749— 51).
xa i dfjra avrmv o i piev drj/uaxpeXelg x a i ngog rd nXfjOog ioxevaofievoi.
cpcorog re eiaiv avanXem x a i diavyelg x a i rd uxpeXipxov avrmv ov n avrd-
naoiv aregneg x a i dvr/dovov, dXX en ixey yra i ’ Arpgodirrj x a i Xdpireg
enavdovoi rov eqpoXxov elv a i • oi d’ a i / iv a n x o i re x a i ev <5 rd reXrj.
rovro d’ e/j,r}%avr)oaro oncog x a i e%ovteg pirj e/m aiv o i dpivrjxot. did
rovro ev n o o i xvXivdovpievoi ovroi o i Xoyoi nXeiooi ne<pgaypievoi eio i
neoifioXoig r) rd ev ’ E xfiaravoig [iaaiXeui.
Kaivov de dr/ x a i rovro ’ AgiororeXovg o n ogyava dedcoxev olov
axdd/lag en i rolg Xoyoig oig rd re ovrmg aXrjdeg xgivov/isv x a i rd
cpavra^dfievov di opioidrr/ra.
436 INGEM AR DÜRING
Comment. T h i s s e e m s t o r e f le c t , in t h e p r o f u s e l a n g u a g e o f a f o u r t h
c e n t u r y r h e t o r , t h e o p in io n p u t f o r w a r d b y A n d r o n ic u s i n t h e i n t r o
d u c t i o n t o h i s e d it io n . S e e E . d e S t r y c k e r S . J . , “ T h e m i s t i u s g e t u ig e n is
o v e r d e e x o t . e n a k r . w e r k e n v a n A r i s t o t e l e s ” , in : K a t. univ. te Leuwen,
philol. Studien, 7 , 1 9 3 6 , p p . 1 0 0 — 1 2 1 .
A r is to tle d iv id e d p h ilo s o p h y in to d iffe r e n t b r a n c h e s; c f. o n A n d r o
n ic u s T 7 5 g eig ngay/xaxeiag b ie lle . T h e f i r s t s e t o f w o r k s a r e t h o s e
o'ffot nnog eva aywva ogwai. T h e aycov is t h e d i a l e c t i c s e r ie s o f d e m o n
s tr a tio n s , evOa nagdyei öl iv a o y öjv ajtodeigecov o evdeixvv/uevog o n
alrjdsvei. The fir s t b ran ch th e n , is lo g ic , th e secon d p h y s ic s and
m e t a p h y s i c s , t h e t h i r d e t h i c s a n d p o l it ic s .
T h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h d e a ls w i t h t h e e x o t e r i c a n d a c r o a t i c w o r k s ,
a n d i t a p p e a r s t h a t h e t h i n k s o f t h e l a t t e r a s m o r e o r le s s s e c r e t d o c t r in e s .
T h e s t y l e i n t h e e x o t e r i c w o r k s is s a id t o b e l u c i d a n d a g r e e a b le w i t h
a to u c h o f g r a c e a n d w it; t h e o th e r s a re o b s c u r e , a n d d e lib e r a te ly so,
in c a s e t h e y s h o u ld f a l l i n t h e h a n d s o f t h o s e n o t i n i t i a t e d . I n xai
exovreg /xfj e%a>aiv w e i n t e r c e p t a n e c h o o f t h e s p u r io u s l e t t e r T 7 6 f
exdedo/nevovg x a i [ir] sxdedo/ievovg.
T h ir d ly , T h e m is tiu s stre ss e s t h a t A r is to tle c r e a te d a n I n s tr u m e n t o f
s c ie n c e : t h e f i n a l w o r d s o f t h e p a s s a g e q u o t e d h e r e a r e : ngcoxog ’ A g i-
axoxslrjg ’’ Ogyavov efirjxo-vrjoaxo.
T h e r e is n o t h i n g s i m ila r t o t h i s i n h is e x t a n t p a r a p h r a s e s . I n th e
o p e n in g w o rd s of h is p a r a p h r a s e o f D e anima, C I A G V 1, h e says:
H o l l a f x h ovv eoixe xa>v ’ A q ia x o x slo v g ß iß lio jv eig enixQvyiv [isfir]-
XavfjoOai, b u t t h i s is n o th in g but th e u su al c o m p la in t about h is
o b s c u r ity . In P hys. 2 1 7 b 3 1 h e e x p la i n s et-wxegixajv b y xa>v encoder
löycov.
T h e m i s t i u s ’ s t y l e is q u i t e d i f f e r e n t in h is s p e e c h e s a n d i n h i s p a r a
p h rases. T h e s p e e c h e s h a v e t h e j o u r n a l i s t i c s t y l e o f t h e p e r io d ; t h e
la n g u a g e is s w o lle n a n d b o m b a s t i c , s t r i v i n g a f t e r e f f e c t . T h is m ig h t
e x p la in w h y , c o n t r a r y t o h is r a th e r so b e r p r e s e n ta tio n in t h e p a r a
p h r a s e s , h e s e r v e s u p th is p r e te n tio u s n o n se n se .
I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o o b s e r v e c e r t a i n s i m ila r it ie s b e t w e e n t h i s p a s s a g e
a n d t h e n e o p l a t o n i c p r o le g o m e n a . I f , a s I a s s u m e , t h e s e p r o le g o m e n a
a r e t h e r e s u l t o f a l o n g d e v e lo p m e n t , T h e m i s t i u s ’ p l a c e is s o m e w h e r e
i n t h e b e g in n in g . H i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e e x o t e r i c w r i t i n g s is in
p r i n c i p l e t h e s a m e a s i n t h e p r o le g o m e n a . T w o r h e t o r i c a l f lo u r is h e s
r e a p p e a r i n t h e p r o le g o m e n a : t h e c o m p a r is o n w i t h (pao/iaxa, c f. O ly m -
ARISTOTLE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL TR AD ITIO N 437
piodorus, C l A G X I I I, p . 8 . 2 1 — 2 6 , A m m o n iu s , C l A G I V 4 , p . 5 . 1 7
— 22, and E l i a s = T 6 7 e; ’ Acpqodirrj, c f . E l i a s , C l A G X V I I I 1 , p .
12 4 .5 . D e S t r y c k e r c o m m e n t s o n t h e s e p a r a ll e ls i n h i s a r t i c l e c i t e d
above.
76 j S Y R I A N U S Schol. in Hermogenem = T 33.
76 k A M M O N IU S I n Cat. pr., C l A G I V 4, p . 4.18: K aX elxai de

xa [ikv diaXoyixa x a i eijonsorxd, xa ft avxonQoaoma x a i dîwfiaxixa
rjxoi dxQoafiaxLxa. x a i a£iov f rjxrjaecog x i drjnoxe ovrojg cbvo/udadrjoav.
xiveg fxev ovv Xeyovaiv oxi xa diaXoyixa x a i e^coxsQixa exaXeaav, eneidi)
xov idiov axojiov ovx ixxiO exai ev avxoig aXX’ dig e | aXAcov nQoadmojv
avajiAaxxei xa xvyovxa. xovro ds ipsvdeg e a x iv iicoxeQ ixa ydq wvdfjia-
axai, ineidr) Tiqog rovg emnoXaicog avvisvxag yeyqanxaL emxrjdevciavxog
xov cpiAooocpov ev avxoig cpodaiv re oacpeoreQav x a i rag dnodeiêig
ovx djiodeixrixdg dXXd [xaXXov mOavdg ei; evdo^cov, xa de dxooa/iarixd
d>g av deov avxcov dxnodaaaOai xdv anovdaiov re x a i rep o v n yvrjaiov
EQaarrjv rfjg cpiXoaocpiag.
Comment. F r o m t h e e x p a n d e d v e r s i o n o f t h i s n o t e i n O ly m p io d o r u s
a n d E l i a s w e c a n g a t h e r t h a t A l e x a n d e r h a d t o u c h e d u p o n t h e q u e s t io n
o f t h e “ e x o t e r i c ” w o r k s o f A r i s t o t l e a n d t h e i r s p e c ia l c h a r a c t e r , p r o b a b l y
in h is c o m m e n t a r y o n D e A n im a , n o w lo s t . H e h a d s a id , q u i t e c o r r e c t l y ,
t h a t in t h e d ia lo g u e s A r is t o t le p r e s e n te d d i f f e r e n t o p in io n s t h r o u g h
d if fe r e n t s p e a k e r s . I n e. g. t h e Eudem us t h e r e is m u c h t a l k a b o u t t h e
im m o r ta lity of th e s o u l; th is ( A le x a n d e r p r o b a b ly s a id ) does not
n e c e s s a r ily r e p r e s e n t A r i s t o t l e ’ s idiov axonov. A le x a n d e r , th e n , q u ite
c o r r e c t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e c h ie f d if f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e d ia lo g u e s
a n d t h e p r a g m a t i e s w a s t h a t , i n t h e f o r m e r A r i s t o t l e p r e s e n t e d d if f e r e n t
v ie w s , i n t h e l a t t e r h is o w n o p in io n s a n d d o c t r in e s .
A m m o n iu s w a s n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h A l e x a n d e r ’s e x p la n a t io n : “ t h is is
not c o rre c t” . In s te a d he a cc e p te d th e e x p la n a t io n o r ig in a lly put
f o r w a r d b y A n d r o n ic u s : “ t h e d if f e r e n c e lie s i n t h e d e g r e e o f d i f f i c u l t y
a n d in t h e s t y l e ” .
W h e n O ly m p io d o r u s le c t u r e s o n t h e s a m e s u b je c t (T 76 1), h e f o llo w s
f a i r l y c lo s e ly h i s m a s t e r ’ s t e x t . B u t a f t e r exriOerai h e a d d s h is o w n
i n t e r p r e t a t io n w i t h t h e s i g n i f i c a n t w o r d s r a fir] doxovvra avrcp Xeyei.
H is d is c ip l e E l i a s g o e s s t i l l a s t e p f u r t h e r in h is m is r e p r e s e n t a t io n o f
w h a t A l e x a n d e r h a d s a id (T 7 6 m ). M o d e r n s c h o la r s t o o h a v e f a lle n
in th is tr a p a n d ascrib ed to A le x a n d e r th is gross m isin terp retation .

W e m a y a n n o ta te th a t to A m m on iu s a n d his d isciples th e Xóyot
èÇojregixoí sim p ly m ean “ th e d ialogu es” .
7 6 1 O l/ Y M P IO D O R U S , P rol. et in Cat., C l A G X I I 1, p. 7.5:

A laXoyixà ôè õaa ôgapiancoôcóç ê a n xareaxevaapiéva x a rá nevaiv rs
xal ãnóxgiaiv nXeióvcov ngoaáncov. Ò.XX êneiòfj rà òiaXoyixà xal
êÇcoregixà ovoptáÇerai rà á’ avrongóacona xal áxQoa/iarrxá, <pége
evXóya>ç Çr]TT]0(0[/,ev nóõev rfjv roíavrrjv ngoarjyogíav èxrfjoavro. n v èç
pièv ovv Xéyovaiv õrt r à òiaXoyixà x a l êÇooregixà âvopiáadrj ô ió n rà
fu j ngénovra rcp êavrov axonco êv rovroiç êxríOerai. aõxcoç D.eye x a l
’ AXéÇavògoç ôià rà //?) ftovXeaOai avròv Xéyeiv rr/v ipvyfjv ãOávarov,
x a l r a m a ’ AgiaroréX ovç êx ela e [ioãivroç rfjv âOavaaíav rfjç ipv/fjç.
& ç ovv Eigrjrai h a pirj âvayxaadfj ’ AXéÇavôgoç Xéyeiv rr/v fv y jjv àOá-
varov, JiosafSevcDv avrrjv eivai dvrjrrjv, èÇcoregixà êxelva eXeyev ò v o -
fiáÇeoOai, êv o lç fifj r à Òoxovvra avrâj Xéyei ó ’ AgiaroréXrjç. x a l ravra
/lèv êxelvoi.
'H p ielç <Y êXéyopiev õrt, êtjcoregixà ra v ra (bvópiaarai, õaa ngòç rovç
ênmoXaía>ç y fy g a n xa i x a l fxi) yvrjoícoç (piXoaotpovvraç. roíavra ô* êa rl
r à ê%ovra o a c p E o r é g a v rr/v ipgáaiv, rà pifj êm ô six r ix fj Emorijpir] vno-
fíaXXópiEva, áXXà /uãXXov niOavolç Xóyoiç xexaXXcomapiéva, x a l ngòç ên l
rovroiç rrjv âváraaiv eyovra ngòç êvôoÇa ngóacona. x a l ravra /uèv
ixavà negl rfjç xXfjaEojç rcõv òiaXoyixôív, Òià r í êÇcoregixà xaXovvrai.
Comment. T h e w ord s ’ AgiaroréX ovç êx ela e (sc. in th e Eudem us)
fjovjvroç rfjv àOavaaíav rfjç ipv%fjç h a v e b een ta k e n a t th e ir fa ce v a lu e
b y m od ern co m m en ta to rs (e. g. J aeger, Aristotle, p. 40). B u t th e y are
n oth in g b u t a re fle x of O ly m p io d o ru s’ ow n opinion. T h em istiu s, De
anima, C l A G V 3, p. 106.29 = E udem us fr. 2 W a lzer, g iv es a b e tte r
in terp retation .
76 m E L I A S I n Cat. pr., C l A G X V I I I 1, p. 1 1 4 .3 2 — 1 1 5 .1 3 = T 77 a,
fu rth e r d ev elo p s th e sam e th em e. H e ad du ces D e an. 408 b 18 as
ev id en ce fo r th e fa c t th a t A risto tle in th e a cro a tic w orks defended th e
d octrin e of th e im m o rta lity of th e soul, and a passage from th e Eudem us
( = jr. 3 W a lzer) w h ich in his opinion p ro v es th a t A risto tle b elieved
in th is d octrin e. T h e passage m a y w ell b e ta k e n from a discussion of
xoival Evvoiai. W e do n o t k n o w th e sp eaker or th e c o n tex t, an d w e are
n o t ju stifie d in ta k in g th ese w ords as representin g A r isto tle ’s ow n opinion.
The com m ents on A lex a n d e r, too, are a d evelop m en t of w h a t O lym -

piodorus h a d said. W e are n ow in fo rm ed th a t A le x a n d e r held th e
following opinion on th e d ifferen ce b etw e en th e tw o ty p e s of works: in
the exoteric-dialogic w o rk s A risto tle exp ou n d ed r a aXXoig doxovvra
(this is correct, an d A lex a n d e r m ig h t h a v e sa id this), n am ely ra ipevdfj
(this is E lia s ’ ow n in terp re ta tio n , o b v io u sly incorrect). See D urin g,
in: Gnomon 29, 1957» P- *85. T h e su b seq u en t tira d e d irected again st
A lexand er speaks for itself. T h e w ords /idXiara xrjgvrreiv correspond
to (lomvrog in O lym piodorus.
76 n P H IL O P O N U S In Cat. pr., C lAG X I I I 1, p. 3.16 et 4.12:

Tcov de a w rayfiarixatv ra piev avronooaom a, a x a l axgoapianxa
xaXeIrai, ra de diaXoyixa x a l e^mregixa.
. . . a xg o a fia n xa yjtXovai did t o nnog yvrjaiovg axgoarag noieloO ai
rov Xoyov, diaXoyixa de oaa fir] e£ olxelov nqoodm ov avveygacpev, dXX’
woneg o ITXarcov vnoxgivdfievog eregwv ngoaw na- aneg x a l e^coregixa
exaXovv did t o noog rr/v rcbv noXXmv yeygacpOai dxpeXeiav, f\ x a l biacpegei
ye nXelarov r a diaXoyixa rcbv avrongoacbncov ev piev ydn roig avrongo-
acbnoig are ngog yvrjaiovg dxnoardg rov Xoyov noiovfievog ra doxovvra
re avrcb Xeyei x a l 61 eni%eiqr)//,dTcov axgif}ear draw x a l olg ov% o lo i
re elaiv o l noXXol nagaxoXovdfjaai, ev de rolg diaXoyixolg a re ngdg
xowrjv x a l rrjv rcbv noXXcov axpeXeiav yeygapi/ievoig x a x e l fiev ra do
xovvra avrcb Xeyei, dXX ov di a n o d eix n x & v enixeigi)fiarcov, dXXd di
anXovaregcov x a l olg o lo i re elaiv oi noXXol nagaxoXovdelv.
Comment. P hilopon u s, th en , did n o t a cc e p t th e d isto rted in terp reta
tion of A m m on iu s’ school, b u t follow ed A lex a n d e r. T h e w ords x a x e l
fiev ra doxovvra avra> Xeyei im p ly a silen t criticism of his colleagues.
H e repeats his opinion, I n P h y s., C I A G X V I — X V I I , p. 705.20, w ith
a reference to th is passage.
76 o S I M P L IC IU S I n P hys., C I A G I X , p. 8.16: A iXfj de dirjgr)-

fievcov avr ov rcbv avyygapifiarcov eig re ra e£coregixd o la r a iorogixa
x a l ra diaXoyixa x a l SXcog ra. fir] dxgag axgifieiag (pgovri'Qovra, x a l eig
ra dxgoa/iarixd cov x a l avrrj earlv f) ngaypiareia, ev rolg dxqoapiari-
xolg aaacpeiav enerr/devae, did ravrrjg rovg gaOvpioregovg anoxgovopievog
cog nag’ exeivoig firjde yeyodcpdai doxelv. T h e n follow (from P lu ta rch
= T 25 a n d 76 d) th e tw o spurious letters; h e ends u p w ith th e fo l
low ing rem ark: FlXovragxog 6' o Xaigcovevg ev rq> ’ AXe£avdgov film
in i rfl ix d o a e i rfjg M erd rd <pvoixd ra v ra yeygdcpdai (prjoiv. ( T h is

is not e x a c tly w h a t P lu ta r c h says; in p a s s in g w e le a r n t h e le s s o n
t h a t a l l is n o t g o l d t h a t t h e c o m m e n t a t o r s r e p o r t .)
Comment. I n h is c o m m e n t a r y o n D e caelo, C l A G V I I , p . 288, s p e a k in g
o f r d iyy.vy.Xia q>iXoaocprj[iara, h e r e p e a t s h i s e x p la n a t io n ; t h e e x o t e r ic
w r i t i n g s a r e m o r e p o p u la r i n s t y l e a n d c o n t e n t .
I n P h y s., C l A G I X , p . 83.27 h e h a s a n in t e r e s t i n g n o t e o n E u d e m u s
o f R h o d e s , w h o c a lle d a c e r t a i n p r o b le m oucoQia i^mregixr), a lt h o u g h
a c c o r d i n g t o S im p lic iu s i t s h o u ld r a t h e r b e c la s s e d a s d ia le c t ic . And
p . 86.1 h e a d d s t h a t r)v dnogiav ovrog fi£v iôjreoiy.rjv x a le l , o ’ Apiaro-
reXrjg ’ ovdev noog rov Xoyov q>r}oi. A g a in we fin d th a t e x o t e r ic
= ( r o u g h ly s p e a k in g ) “ p o p u l a r ” , a s o p p o s e d t o “ s c i e n t i f i c ” . I n h i s n o t e
o n P hys. 2 17 b 31, p . 695.28, h e s a y s b r i e f l y : “ T h e e x o t e r i c a r e t h e
c o m m o n a n d g e n e r a lly a d m i t t e d o p in io n s , ra xoivd x a l di evdogcov
jiS Q a iv o f ie v a , n e it h e r a p o d e i c t i c n o r a c r o a m a t i c .
76 p E U S T R A T I U S In E th. N ic ., C lAG X X , p. 1 1 1 .2 1 — 32,

d is t in g u is h e s b e t w e e n g e n e r a l l e c t u r e s a n d a n s w e r s t o s p e c ia l q u e s t io n s .
d xo oa fia rixd ovo/idterai, sjiel tiqoq tovq xoivcbg dxooojfievovg y eyhrj-
r a i, ra v ra 5 H o jrep ixd , d io n rovrcov exaarov nqog n v a fyrr/aavra
< ’
y ey oa n ra i etjco rfjg xoivfjg axQoaaemg. T h i s s e e m s t o b e i n v e n t e d ad

hoc, f o r p . 298.30 h e a d d u c e s t h e h a b i t u a l e x p l a n a t i o n p o p u la r .
Comment on 7 6 . R e c e n t li t e r a t u r e : G . B o a s , “ A n c i e n t T e s t i m o n y t o
S e c r e t D o c t r i n e s ” , in : T he P hilo s. Review 6 2 , 1 9 5 3 , p p . 79 “ 9 2 ) A .
I a n n o n e , “ I lo g o i e s s o t e r ic i d i A r i s t o t e l e ” , in : A tli delV Istituto Veneto
di scienze lettere ed arti 1 1 3 , 1 9 5 5 . P P - D ir lm e ie r , N ik . E th ik,
1 9 5 6 , p . 2 7 4 (cf. m y r e v ie w , Gnomon 2 9 , i 957 > P- J 85 )-
T h e le g e n d t h a t t h e a n c i e n t p h ilo s o p h e r s h a d s e c r e t d o c t r in e s h a s
a lo n g h is to r y . I t is e a s y t o s e e h o w i t d e v e lo p e d :
a) The p r o v e r b ia l vagdrjxocpoQOi ftev noXXoi, ($ax%oi de re navQOi,
Phaedo 6 9 c , 1) a n d t h e i r o n ic a l anoQQrjra Phaedo 62 b , aXrjdeia aJioy.e-
XQV[i[ievr] Theaet. 1 5 5 e , fivaxrtoia 1 5 6 a . T h a t t h e m y s t e r i e s in c lu d e d
“ h i d d e n d o c t r i n e s ” w a s a f a m i l i a r n o t io n .
i) W e ll p a r a p h r a s e d b y G e o r g iu s C e d re n u s, H is t, com p., M ig n e 1 2 1 , p . 396 A :

’ E ix o tc o s otiv o W .d x o iv v n ^ p a L v o jv to jv t e A s U o v t o o n dviov ecpa oxev ^
O v fio i fio x e i dw aT ov dvOoojTioig [xuxaoloic; r e x a l e v d a lp o o i yeveaO ai Ji/.fjv o liy io v
fj,£x e i n e e av to jfiev r o v r o S ioq ^ o/i b v vaQOrptotpoQoi fiev y d o jio A A o i, tpdoaoipoi
<5e a n d v io i x a l S U y o i. xaM ] 6 e f, n q d ^ x a l T ita n s r e le v r ^ a a v r a r v Xetv andvrm v.
b) T h e distin ction m ade b etw een w h a t cou ld b e said to oi noXXoi

and to oi fiadrjrai, before a p u b lic au d ience an d in th e p riv a te avvovaia
with fellow stud ents, cf. Parm . 136 de, Theaet. 152 c, P hileb. 19 c, E f .
V II, p. 341 e. T h is of course has n oth in g to do w ith secret doctrines,
b u t refers to th e degree o f d ifficu lty .
c) T h e form al d istin ctio n b etw een Xoyoi w ritte n in a m ore elaborate
style and inten ded to b e circu lated , bsbrj/xoauo/ieva, Soph. 232 d, and
inform al discourses an d discussions. T h e aim of th e form er ty p e of
koyog is naibsia, o f th e la tte r dr/uiovoyixri b ib a o x a lia = specialized
know ledge, Soph. 229 d, cf. th e open in g w ord s o f Part. an. I.
W hen A risto tle refers to el-coreQixoi Xoyoi, h e p ro b a b ly m eans th e
same as P la to does w h en h e speaks of bsbqpioaimfieva yeyoafifiEva.
The ex a ct m eanin g m a y v a r y ; in s ix of th e e ig h t passages it is a t least
possible th a t h e refers to his ow n w orks; in M etaph. 1076 a 28 he m a y
refer to gen era lly k n o w n w orks; in P hys. 2 17 b 3 1 x a l bid r o w etjcoregixcbv
Aoycov h e m a y refer to “th e reflection s o f a m ore gen eral or popu lar
n ature” w h ich fo llo w im m ed iately (Diels). B u t, again, th is la s t reference
m a y b e a t th e sam e tim e a referen ce to “ w ell-kn ow n w o rk s” , his ow n
or those of oth er people, an d a b rief su m m ary of opinions sta te d in
these w orks. O n bid = sv in referrin g to books, see m y com m ents on
T 40 b.
S ta rtin g from D ie ls’ in terp re ta tio n of th is la s t passage Ian non e
contends th a t a ll occurrences of iôn sQ ixol Aoyoi should b e in terp reted
as references to th e “ p relim in a ry discussions con tain ed in th e first
book of each w o rk ” . T h e evid en ce how ever, does n o t b ear o u t th is
hypothesis, an d it is d ifficu lt to see h o w eôneoixog cou ld h a v e th a t sense.
T h e d istin ctio n is m ost cle a rly b ro u g h t o u t Eth. E u d . 12 17 b 20
“ b o th in m ore p o p u lar, w id ely circu lated w o rk s” an d “ in our philosophic
discussion, in ten d ed fo r a sm all grou p of sp ecialists” . I t is n o t sim p ly
th e d istin ctio n b etw een “ p u b lish ed ” an d “ u n pu b lish ed ” books. We
m ust h a v e in m in d w h a t w ord s lik e “ p u b lish ” or “ p u b licize” , brjfiooiovv,
in r e a lity m ea n t in th e m id -fou rth cen tu ry . T h e p u b lic to w h ich th e
G reek philosophers b efore 300 B . C. p rim a rily appealed w as th e sm all
circle of th e ir disciples. W h en P la to read, or h ad an avayvcoorfjg read a
new d ialogu e in th e h alls o f th e A c a d e m y b efore an audience of his
disciples an d follow ers, it w as “ pu b lish ed ” . In I/ycon’s W ill such books
are called ra avsyvcoa/ieva, in S tr a to n ’s W ill th e un publish ed books
are called a avrol yeyQacpa/jiEv. B o o k s of certain k ind s w ere n ot “ p u b
lish ed ” a t a ll an d n o t ev en p u b licly read to an audience: as exam ples

fro m A r is to tle ’s w orksh op w e m a y th in k of his iarooiai, v7iofivrj/j,ara,
nfjofiPityMira, an d his la rg e collections of dsaeig. A n o th e r t y p e again
w ere “ p apers read to a grou p o f sp ecia lists” . M a n y of A risto tle ’s prag-
m aties b elon g to th is ty p e , a n d w h en h e refers to oi Kara tpiXoaocpiav
Xoyoc h e p resu m a b ly h a d th a t k in d of lite ra tu re in m ind.
T h e iio n eQ iK o t Xoyoi are n o t id en tica l w ith th e dialogues. The
id ea th a t th e dialogues qua dialogues are m ore P la to n ic in ch ara cter
th a n e. g. th e Nicom achean E thics or o th er sch o la rly w orks is a m odern
in v en tio n , b ased on th e n eop laton ic com m en tators. I f A risto tle in
his e a rly y e a rs w a s m ore “ P la to n ic ” th a n in la te r life, a ll w orks w ritten
d u rin g t h a t p erio d m u st h a v e b een “ P la to n ic ” . (A fter J ae g e r and
B ig n o n e th is w ord , u sed o f A risto tle , im plies th a t A risto tle a ccep ted
an d e v en d efend ed P la to ’s th e o ry of ideas u n til, a fte r P la to ’s death,
he ch an ge d his m ind.) A risto tle som etim es refers to , or ev en q uotes
(y/jrjareov avrolg), his dialogues, an d th e re is n o t a h in t th a t h e m ade
a n y oth er d istin ctio n th a n th e n a tu ra l one: th e dialogues an d oth er
“ e x o te ric ” w o rk s w ere w ritte n in a lite r a r y form accep ted b y tra d itio n
and m ore ela b o ra ted in p o in t of s ty le th a n his lectures; th e y w ere
in ten d ed fo r th e general p u b lic ou tsid e th e school, and th e y w ere perhaps
circ u la te d in one or tw o d ozen copies. B ro a d ly sp eakin g, w e m a y th e re
fore s a y th a t th e “ e x o te r ic ” w orks w ere p o p u la r b ook s accessible o u t
side th e school, as op posed to th e sch o la rly an d scien tific trea tises and
lectu res w h ich w ere u sed w ith in th e school an d la te r used in th e sam e
w a y as a b asis fo r com m en ts a n d te a c h in g in th e P erip atos.
E u d e m u s of R h o d es sp eaks of “ ex o teric p rob lem s” as opposed to
"d ia le c tic prob lem s” , T 76 o. T h is p roves th a t th e w o rd w a s a liv e in
its A risto telia n sense a b o u t 300 B . C.
T h e n e x t tim e w e m eet th e w ord , T 76 a, it h as acq u ired th e sense
“ A r is to tle ’s d ialogu es” , as op posed to th e “ com m en tarii” , T 76 b,
an d th e d istin ctio n is said to a p p ly o n ly to “ b ook s a b o u t th e h igh est
g o o d ” . I t is clear th a t th is is an in terp reta tio n b ased on E E 1 2 17 b
20; its o rigin ato r w as p ro b a b ly A n tio ch u s of A scalon . In c id e n ta lly
th is p ro v es t h a t th e Eudem ean E thics w as k n o w n d u rin g th a t period.
A n tio ch u s a p p a re n tly did n o t k n o w th a t th e expression w as used in
oth er w orks too. T h is m ig h t b e a d d u ced as an ex-silen tio argu m en t
for th e opinion th a t th e oth er w orks in w h ich th e expression occurs
w ere u n kn ow n to A n tioch u s.
In th e in trod u ction to his ed ition A n d ro n icu s m ade a g rea t featu re

of the d istin ction b etw een e x o teric a n d a cro a tic (this seem s to b e th e
earlier form) w orks, using th e tw o fa k e d letters to secure th e su p port
of a venerable trad itio n , T . 76 f. I t is n o t p ro b ab le th a t h e id en tified
the exoteric w orks w ith th e dialogues, b u t his in terp reta tio n of th e
term “ exoteric” fa vo u red su ch a conception.
The notion of “secret d octrin es” appears fo r th e first tim e in P lu tarch ,
T 76 d; it is w ell tre a te d and disposed of b y B oas. B u t it is n o te w o rth y
th a t Galen, T 76 g, o n ly sp eaks of degrees of d ifficu lty . T h e w ord
“esoteric” appears for th e firs t tim e in L u c ia n an d Galen.
The school represented b y A m m on iu s and his disciples offered an
explanation w h ich w ell su ited th e ir desire to harm on ize P la to ’s and
A ristotle’s opinions. N eith e r P hilopon u s nor Sim plicius a ccep ted th is
interpretation.
XX. T H E N E O P L A T O N I C IN T R O D U C T IO N S T O T H E S T U D Y
O F A R IS T O T L E
L itera tu re: A . B usse, D ie neuplatonischen Ausleger der Isagoge des

Porphyrius, B erlin 1892; also in: Hermes 28, 1893, pp. 25 2 — 276; K .
P ra ech ter, in: Byz. Zeitschrift 18, 1909, pp. 526, a v a lu a b le su rv e y
of th e fiv e prolegom ena; F . L ittig , Andronikos v. Rhodos, II , E rlan g en
1891, w ith e x tra cts , his conclusions are u n satisfacto ry ; on P roclu s, R .
B e u tle r in: R E X X I I I : 1; on th e p reh isto ry of th e prolegom en a P.
M orau x, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d ’Aristote, 19 5 1, pp. 145 — 150;
on th e A ra b ic a d a p ta tio n s o f th e prolegom ena, F . D ieterici, A l-F ara bis
philos. Abhandlungen, L eid en 1892; M. G u id i an d R . W a lzer, “ S tu d i
su a l-K in d i I. U n o sc ritto in tro d u ttiv o alio stu d io d i A ris to te le ” . In:
M em . della R . A cc. N az. dei L in cei. 336. Ser. V I . V o l. V I . F asc. V .
R o m a 1940.
T h e fiv e in tro d u ctio n s to th e s tu d y of A risto tle b y A m m onius,
O lym p iod oru s, E lia s, P h ilo p on u s an d S im pliciu s g iv e u s a v e r y good
id ea o f th e o rg a n iza tio n o f th e n eop laton ic exegesis. T h e elaborated
plan , an d th e lo n g lis t o f predecessors w h ich Sim pliciu s gives, m ake it
certa in th a t th e fiv e e x ta n t prolegom en a are th e resu lt of a lo n g d evel
opm ent. P a r t of th e m a terial used in th e prolegom en a is old, esp ecially
th e fa c ts p resen ted in th e ch ap ter on th e nam es of th e d ifferen t ph ilo
sophic schools (see D iels, Doxographi p. 246). B u t th e sch olastic approach
an d o u tlo o k is so a p p a ren t ev en in th e earliest o f th ese prolegom ena,
th a t of A m m on iu s, th a t w e can n o t go to o fa r b ack . P o rp h y ry , Iam blichus,
S y ria n an d P roclu s w ere g re a t in d iv id u a lists, com pared to Am m onius
an d his disciples, an d th e ir prolegom en a h a v e a d ifferen t character.
Sim pliciu s sa y s, C l A G V I I I , p. 3.3, th a t h e has fre e ly u sed and tran scrib ed
Ia m b lic h u s’ co m m en ta ry, an d it is possible th a t Ia m b lich u s added
prolegom en a o f th e la te r ty p e , b u t on th e w h ole I am m ore inclined to
regard A m m on iu s as th e real o rigin ato r of th is sch olastic ty p e of in
tro d u ctio n . L it t ig and, m ore recen tly , M o ra u x are c e rta in ly w rong in
assum ing th a t th e elab o rate n eop laton ic classification o f A risto tle ’s
writings goes b a c k to A n d ronicu s. F ir s tly , th e re is no an cien t evidence

at all for th is h ypoth esis, and th a t in itse lf o u g h t to b e enough; secondly,
the prolegom ena are th ro u g h o u t colou red b y n eop laton ic conceptions
and doctrines; th ird ly , th e y are in tim a te ly con n ected w ith a ty p e of
scholastic and profession al s tu d y of A risto tle w h ich can n o t h a v e existed
earlier th a n in th e fo u rth or fifth cen tu ry; th e y are also so clo sely
connected w ith P o r p h y r y ’s fam ou s Isagoge th a t, as P ra ech ter says,
the w hole course cou ld b e en titled “ E rk lä ru n g v o n P o rp h y riu s’ E isagoge
m it E in leitu n g in die P h ilo so p h ie” . G en erally sp eakin g, th e h ig h ly
speculative ch ara cte r o f th is classification is in com p atib le w ith w h a t
we know of A n d ro n icu s an d his period. W e m a y com pare th e A lex a n d rian
and H ellenistic a p p roach in th e e x tra cts p reserved b y D iogenes I I I 65.
Th e ed ition o f A r is to tle ’s w orks used in th e n eop laton ic school in
Athens a b ou t 500 A . D . w a s th e sam e as th a t w e possess, i. e., in p rin
ciple, A n d ro n icu s’ ed ition . I t w as in trod u ced b y th e Categories, preceded
b y a short b io g ra p h y of A risto tle , la te copies o f w h ich w e possess in
the V ita e M arcian a an d v u lg a ta . T h is b io g rap h y , w h ich inclu d ed a
list of A risto tle ’s w ritin g s, w a s an ep itom e o f P to le m y ’s V ita . The
three p a rts of th e prolegom ena, r d tzqoq m iaav cpdoocxpiav aw rsivovra,
Ta ngog näaav avvreivovra xrjv ’ A o ia ro x sh x rjv <piXoaoq>iav, o axonog
rov 7 iq o x e li m : v o v ßißXlov, refer d ire ctly to th is edition, an d w e m ust
presume th a t th e professor an d th e stu d en ts h a d th is t e x t before th em
in the class.
T h e second p a rt, th e sp ecial in tro d u ctio n to A risto tle ’s ph ilosophy,
is arranged in te n chapters:
(1) K a r a noaovg roonovg ovo/iaCovrai a i rwv <piXooo<pwv aigsaeig.
T h e o b je c t of th is ch ap ter w as to ex p la in th e nam e “ P e rip a te tic ” .
T h e m aterial is p a r tly old, see D iels Doxogr. p. 246.
(2) IIeq i rfjg diaigeoewg rwv ’ AgiarorsX ixw v crvyyga/ijudrwv.
A s P ra e c h te r sa y s, w e m u st presum e t h a t th e professor h a d before
him a lis t o f A risto le ’s w ritin g s, p ro b a b ly A n d ro n icu s’ c a talo g u e tran s
m itte d to us th ro u g h P to lem y -el-G arib an d th e A ra b ic trad itio n . H is
com m ents refer d ire ctly to th is list.
A risto tle ’s w ritin gs are firs t d ivid ed in to fiEQixd, xadoXov and fiera£v.
T h e [ X E Q L x d are le tte rs to in d ivid u als or open letters, e. g. da a E g o n r f l e i g
vjid ’ AAsSavdgov n sg i te ß a a d sla g x a l onmg d s l rag dnoixiag n o isl-
adai y E y g d ( p r ) X E V , b u t E lia s m ain tain s th a t D e M undo, addressed to
K in g A lex a n d e r, belon gs to th e general w orks. T h e xaOoXov are ch ar
a cterize d as sy ste m a tic trea tises d ev o te d to a th o rou g h discussion of

one su b ject; as exam ples are m en tion ed th e p h ysica l w orks an d De
anima. T h e fisxa£v are d escrip tive w orks, su ch as th e P olities, the
History of A n im a ls or On plants.
T h e gen eral w orks are fu rth e r su b d ivid ed in vno/.ivrj/xaxixa and
avvxay/xaxixa. T h e h y p o m n em a tic w orks m a y b e /.wvosidfj, dealing
o n ly w ith a sin gle top ic, or noixiXa; as an exam p le of th e la tte r ty p e
is m en tion ed rd Tznog Evy.aioov avx<x> yeyoajUfieva £$bofir\xovxa (iifSMa
I J sq I avu/uxxoiv £rjxrjfxaxmv. R e ferrin g to A lex a n d er, Sim plicius says
th a t th e h y p o m n em a tic w orks are o f a m ix ed ch ara cter and n o t alw ays
serious: did ovde m o xo vxa i ait avxcdv xa xov (piXoaocpov doyfiaxa.
T h e avvxay/xaxiy.d are ch ara cterized b y x a iig an d EQ/xrjveiag xa/.Xo;
an d are fu rth e r su b d ivid ed in to tw o groups, one called avxonQoacona,
axQ oaftaxixd, or (only b y A m m onius) agicofiaxixd, lectu res d elivered
to stu d e n ts train ed in ph ilosop h y, an d diaXoyixa a x a l etjcoxsQixd
xaX slxai. T h e descriptions of th e e x o teric w orks are reported as T 76
k — o.
T h e professorial w orks are d ivid ed in to th ree (b y Sim pliciu s alone in
four) groups. T h e decoQrjxixd are inquiries in to a certain problem , into
w h a t is tru e or false, a n d th e y are su b d ivid ed in to cpvaioloyixa (as
exam ples are m en tion ed th e p h y sic a l and b io logic treatises), [xaOrjfiaxixa
(as exam p les are m en tion ed geom etric, o p tic and m echanical problem s),
OeoXoyixa (only one exam p le, th e M etaphysics). In th is conn ection w e
m eet, for th e firs t tim e as fa r as I kn ow , th e n eop laton ic exp la n a tion
o f th e w ord: P h ilo p on u s I n Cat. prooem., C I A G X I I I 1, p. 5 -2 ra
[xsxa xrjv (pvaixr}v Jtoay/iaxeiav avxco xexay/xeva, dneo oiixco M exa xa
(pvoixa TCQoarjydQevas (xa ydn vjisq xrjv tpvaiv navxa didaaxeiv Oeo-
Xoyiaq idiov). S im pliciu s alone, C I A G I X , p. 1.21, m entions a fou rth
group d ealin g w ith th in gs p a r tly tran scen d en t an d p a r tly n ot tran s
cen dent, n am ely m a th em a tics and p sych o lo g y . P sy c h o lo g y is recorded
as a sep a ra te su b d ivision b y a l-Y a q u b i an d a l-K in d i. G u id i an d W a lzer
th erefo re assum e th a t S im p liciu s an d a l-K in d i follow ed th e sam e source,
h ith e rto u n kn ow n to us. I h a v e n o t seen th e co m m en ta ry on th e
Categories b y th e A rm en ian Ioan nes V o ro tn e ci, recen tly p u b lished b y
V . K . C a lo ja n , “ S ocin en ija Io an n a V o ro tn e c i” , in: Izd-vo Akadem ii
nauk A rm ja n sk o j S S S R , 13: 1, 1956.
T h e n o a x x ix d , inquiries in to w h a t is go od or b a d and recom m en da
tio n s for a certain course of actions, are su b d ivid ed in to th e rjQixa (as
A R IS T O T L E I N T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N
447
e x a m p le s are c ite d th e th re e e th ic a l w o rk s), O ixovofxixa ( t o oixovo-

fiixov avvrayfxa or O ixovofiixog, IJ sqi <7t'ufhdoGscog avdgog x a l yv-
vaixog ), noA irixa ( t h e P o litics, t h e d i a l o g u e The Statesman, a n d t h e
Polities).
T h e Xoyixa r) ooyavixd deal w ith th e elem ents an d m ethods of logic
and how to distin gu ish w h a t is tru e or false in an argum ent. T h e y are
subdivided in t a jzqo t fjg ajcodeiêcog rjroi /u e Oo S o v , p rop aed eu tic
w orks (exam ples: th e Categories, D e interpr., A n a l. pr. an d th e FIoo-
raasig), ra Big avrrjv rrjv ajiodeiijiv, th e a d va n ced course (exam ples:
7] AnodeixTLxrj, also called Ycrrsga*A va A v rixa ); th e th ird grou p is som e
w hat d ifferen tly trea ted . A m m on iu s sa y s th a t w orks of th is ty p e deal
w ith w h a t k in d of a rgu m en t w e should a vo id , citin g th e Soph. E l.
as sole exam ple; he adds a note, in h erited in th e tra d itio n (cf. T 67 e,
76 i): as a w ise p h ysician A risto tle also ad m in istered poison in order
to cure. O lym piod oru s describes th is grou p o f w orks as exxaO aioov rf/v
Hedodov, listin g th e Topics, Rhetoric, Poetics an d th e Soph. E l. Sim plicius,
citing th e sam e fo u r w orks, describes th e grou p as r d n eo i tojv rrjv
anodsiiiv vnodvo/ievcov. The A ra b ic tra d itio n follow ed Sim plicius
in grouping th e Rhetoric and th e Poetics to g eth er w ith th e log ical w orks.
T h e ex tre m e ly sch o la stic ch ara cte r o f th is cla ssification is obvious.
In th e A lex a n d ria n b ook -list and in th e catalogu es of A n d ro n icu s and
P to lem y th e b ook s are arran ged , a t lea st rou gh ly, accord in g to su b jects
and form ; here, th e arran gem en t is sp ecu la tiv e and an end in itself.
T he book-lists serve a p ra ctic a l purpose; th is cla ssification is m erely
an in tellectu al p la y . I t s conn ection w ith A lb in u s and earlier sp ecu lation
is traced b y M orau x, L es L istes anciennes, pp. 18 2 — 185.
(3 ) n o d e v agxreov tcov ’ A qu jtotsA ixcov avyyQa.fi/Lid.Tojv. T h is is a
discussion of w h eth er w e o u g h t to b egin w ith th e p h ysica l treatises, as
B oethus recom m ended, w ith th e lo g ica l w ritings, as A n d ro n icu s recom
mended, w ith th e eth ical, as som e P la to n ists preferred, or th e m ath e
m atical w ritings, as “ o th e r” P la to n ists preferred. T h e n atu ra l order
was, accord in g to A risto tle an d th e old P e rip a te tic doctrine, to proceed
from th e w ell-kn ow n to th e unknow n: en i rag doyag, E N I 2, 1095 a
32. P la to ta u g h t th a t tj x a ra Ttaidsvoiv odog {Tim . 53 c) w as to proceed
in th e opposite direction [Rep. 510 b).
I t is p rob ab le th a t th e section in E lia s [ C lA G X V I I I 1, p. 118 .2 0 —
119.12) on th e Organon as a general p rop aed eu tic course is d erived from
A n d ronicus’ introd u ction .
in g e m a r d u r in g
(4) TL t o xeXog xfjg ’ AQiaroreXixfjg (pdoaocpiag. T h e o b ject of th is

sectio n is to reinforce th e n eop laton ic thesis th a t A risto tle s philosophy
w a s a closed system , cu lm in atin g in pita doy/i. ’ Iaxeov ft oxi aei Oeo-
Xoymv 6 ’ AfjtoxoxeXrjg cpvatoXoyel, & an eQ 6 UXdxow del cpvaioXoyolv
OeoXoyel. T h ere is a k ern el of tr u th in th is sta tem en t, and it w o u ld b e
in terestin g to in q u ire in to th e stages b y w h ich th e neop laton ists a r
riv e d a t th is conclusion.
(5) Tig rj obog fj en l t o xeXog dyovaa. T h ere are fiv e steps to ph ilo
sophy: Xoyrnfi fjdixfj ipvatxf] piafhjpiaxixf) dsoXoyia. B y these steps th e
a p p ren tice ascends to th e h igh est realm s of ph ilosophy. A cco rd in g to
P la to , R ep. 534 e, d ialectic is ojojieq Ogtyxog rolg piaOrj/iaoiv, and
p ro b a b ly th e com m en tators m ean th e sam e w h en th e y s a y fj Xoyixfj
t Qiy%ov bixrpv (poovgel.
(6) TL to eldog t fjg ’ AqioxoxeX ixfjg anayyeXlag. A ris to tle ’s lan gu age
an d sty le are n o t u n iform b u t a lw a y s a d ap ted to th e su bject: avpipiera-
pioQ<pa>v del Tovg Xoyovg Tolg nodyfiam . H is lan gu a g e is su ccin ct, avv-
Topiog, a t th e sam e tim e com m on, xoivog, and speciahzed, lb log. A
sp ecial fe a tu re is h is bo^vTrjg. I n th e d escrip tive w ritin gs, su ch as th e
H istoriai, his s ty le is dy.Qififjg y.ai birjoQoojpievog, in th e dialogues,
w h ich are also called e x o teric w ritin g s, h e is oatpfjg mg noog rovg e£m
(piXoaocpiag biaXeyopievog, ’ AcpQobixrpg ye/tmv x a l yaoLxow dvdfxeaxog
(cf. T h em istiu s T 76 i). O n th e oth er h an d , his professorial lectu res are
fu ll of d ifficu lties an d x a xa rfjv Xe£iv daarpelg.
(7) Aid. Tt t fjv dodrpeiav enexrjbevaev. EHas presents on th is to p ic
a n ex te n siv e lectu re, fu ll of in terestin g m a teria l a d d u ced from differen t
sources; it fa lls o u tsid e m y scope h ere to com m en t on these details.
T h e m ain arg u m en t is th is. A r is to tle is n o t in ten tio n a lly obscure,
dXXd cpvaei mv oatpfjg enexfjbevae xf\v daacpeiav. T h ree exp lanation s
are possible: xompemg ydoiv fj boxi/xaaiag fj yv/xvaoiag. H e w an ted
perhaps, as th e O rph ic prop h ets, aeibeiv £vvexoloi, or p u t his disciples
to th e te s t as P la to in th e E pin om is 992 a eixe yaXena eixe gabia xavxrj
nOQSVTEOV.
(8) n o lo v be 1 elvai xdv dxQoaxfjv a n d 9) xov ifyyovfievov te stify
to th e fin e sp irit of th e n eop laton ic school. EHas p o in ts o u t th a t the
d iscip le sh ou ld b e xa xd Cmfjv xexayfievog x a i piixodg xoa/xog (cf. Diels-
K r a n z , F o r s.6, D em ocr. jr. 34, p. I I 153 )- H e q u otes th e w ell-know n
am icus vir, magis arnica veritas, a n d A r is to tle ’s sh arp ad m onition Top.
I 1 1 , 105 a 4. T h e professor sh ould n o t a c t as an a cto r on th e scene, in
449
explaining A risto tle he should b e a tru e A risto telian , fu ll of ad m iration

and enthusiasm , an d in th e sam e w a y a P la to n ist w h en he d ealt w ith
Plato. H e should n o t ov/atdoxeiv aiqeaei n v i, as Iam b lich u s did
when he m ain tain ed th a t A ris to tle b elieve d in th e th e o ry of ideas, or
A lexander w h en he denied th e im m o rta lity of th e soul. H e m u st h a ve
a thorough know ledge of A r is to tle ’s w ritin gs, h a ov/upoDvov dei£ag rov
AQiaroreArjv eclvtco to. A qigtote Aovs dto. xcov ’ A qiotote Aovq B^Tjyrjorjxcn.
(10 ) Tloaa d e l nooM yeiv ey.daxrjg ’ A Q ia ro reh xfjg noa yjm xd a g y.e-
cpaAaia. H ere to o w e m eet a disposition w h ich m u st b e fa irly old and
well established: th e aim o f th e p a rticu la r trea tise (axonog), its usefulness
(to xeyon/iov), w h eth er it is regarded as genu in e or n o t {Sid r l evoOsvovro),
its place in th e course of s tu d y (f\ ra£ig rfjg dvayvu>aecog), its
disposition (fj eig xecpaXaia diacQeaig), to w h ich b ra n ch of p h ilosoph y
the treatise belon gs (xrno no lo v jueoog avaysrai to Tzagov avyyga/i/ia).
The com m entaries in w h ich th e prolegom en a are preserved are all
a?id (pcovfjg, i. e. th e y are based on notes ta k e n dow n b y a person atten d in g
the lecture. I f w e com pare A m m on iu s, O lym p iod oru s an d E lia s, w e
shall find a gra d u al increase of m aterial; it is, h ow ever, im possible to
say w hether th is is d u e to th e fa c t th a t th e professor w as m ore profuse
in his com m ents, or th a t th e stu d e n t w as q u ick er an d m ore d iligen t in
takin g dow n notes. W e can n o t th erefore k n o w for certain th a t th is or
th a t is th e in tellectu al p ro p e rty o f one of these professors. T h e versions
given b y P h ilopon u s an d S im pliciu s are sh o rter an d m ore concise; it
is probable th a t th e ir prolegom en a are w ritte n b y them selves; Sim plicius
w rote his co m m en ta ry a fte r h a v in g retu rn ed from P ersia, w hen th e
A then ian school w a s closed, a n d h e w rites fo r readers.
T h e e x ta n t prolegom en a are th e follow ing:
I. G en eral in tro d u ctio n ngog naaav <pdooo<piav.
Am m onius, I n Porph. I s ., C l A G I V 3, pp. 1 — 24.
E lias, I n Porph. Is . et Cat., C I A G X V I I I 1, pp. 1 — 34.
Philoponus refers C I A G X I I I 1, p. 1 .1 to h is in trod u ction w hich
preceded his co m m en ta ry on P o rp h y ry , n ow lost.
Sim plicius, C I A G V I I I , pp. 1 — 3 h as a v a lu a b le h isto rical in tro
duction, en tirely d ifferen t from th e prolegom ena.
O lym piodorus, C I A G X I I 1, pp. 1 4 — 18, an in trod u ction nQog tt ] v
/isdodov XoyixrjV, on th e p la ce o f lo g ic in th e sy ste m of ph ilosoph y.

D av id , Prol. philos., C I A G X V I I I 2, p. 1 — 79, profu se an d loquacious.
P seud o-E lias, cod. M onac. 399, see B usse, C I A G X V I I I 2, p. X I X .
Goteb. U niv. A rsskr. L X I I I : 2 2Q
2. G en eral in tro d u ctio n to A risto tle , tiqo; näaav rrjv ’ A qiototb-

h x tjv <pi?.oao(piav w ith th e te n points.
A m m on iu s, I n Cat. pr., C I A G I V 4, pp. 1 — 8.
O lytnpiodorus, Prol. et in Cat., C I A G X I I I, pp. 1 — 14-
E lia s, I n Cat., C I A G X V I I I 1, pp. 10 7 — 129.

P hilopon u s, (olim: A m m on iu s), I n Cat., C I A G X I I I 1, pp. 1 — 6.
Sim pliciu s, I n Cat pr., C I A G V I I I pp. 3 — 9.
3. S p ecial in tro d u ctio n to th e Categories, uqoq to ovyyga/u/j,a.

A m m on iu s, I V 4, pp. 8 — 15.
O lym piod oru s, X I I 1, pp. 1 8 — 25.

E lia s, X V I I I 1, pp. 12 9 — 134.
P hilopon u s, X I I I 1, pp. 7 — 13-
Sim plicius, V I I I , pp. 9 — 20.
The S y ria c co m m en ta ry on P o r p h y r y ’s Isagoge has, according to

E . R en a n , D e philosophia perip. apud Syros, p. 4 1, seven sections:
scopus, u tilita s, ordo, cau sa scribendi, divisio, au ctor, de quo agat.
S im p liciu s’ prolegom en a are w ell k n ow n and im ita ted in th e Arabic
tra d itio n , see F . A . M üller, D ie griech. Philosophen in der arab. Über
lieferung, H a lle 1873, p. 13. A l- K in d i’s in tro d u ctio n to th e stu d y of
A risto tle is a b rief su m m a ry b u t follow s th e gen eral p attern ; it is either
a co m p ila tio n from d ifferen t sources or d erived from a six th century
G reek co m m en ta to r u n kn ow n to us. T h e te n po in ts are faithfully
reproduced, p ro b a b ly a fte r E lia s, b y a l-F a ra b i in his Introduction to the
study of philosophy. Schm ölders, Documenta philosophiae Arabum, Bonn
1936, pp. 6 1 — 7 1 , an n o ta tes p a ra llel passages from A m m onius, Elias
(he sa y s D a v id ), P h ilo p on u s a n d Sim plicius. G erm an tran slation by
F . D iete rici, L eid en 1892.
T h is ty p e of in trod u ction , w ith th e sam e disposition, w as also used
w ith o u t con n ection w ith A risto tle , e. g. b y Ib n R id w a n in his preface
to P to le m y ’s Quadripartitum, see B ro ck elm an n I p. 484. O n th e Syrian
school trad itio n , see J . R u sk a , D a s Quadrivium aus Severus B ar Sakkus
B u ch der Dialoge, L e ip zig 1896.
T h e follow in g e x tra c ts h a v e b een selected on accou n t of their close
con n exion w ith th e an cien t V ita e an d th e b io grap h ical tradition.
77 a E L I A S (B randis sub nom ine D a v id ), I n Porph. Is . et Cat.,

C I A G X V I I I 1, p. 107:
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D IT IO N 4 SI
(107.8) A éx a ôs ria i xscpaXaíoiç nsqixXeiopiev rfjv avrov cpdoaocpiav.
xal nqwróv sa ri rã>v ô sxa ôià r í ovrw ç wvopiáaOrj r) ’ AqiarorsX ovç
cpiXoaocpía, IIsqinarrpiixr\.
(107.11) Asvrsqov r íç r) ôiaíqeaiç rwv ’ A qiororsX ixw v ovyyqaptpiárwv
= T 75 p.
(107.24) Tavra návra rov FfqoxXov Xéyovroç d e l nqoXa/ifíáveiv.
This is a va lu a b le h in t show in g th a t th e m a terial is inh erited.
(112.17) "EfSôopioç rqónoç rfjç s n wvvpiíaç rwv x a r á cpiXoaocpíav a i-
oéasojv ô òvopiaaOsiç ãjió n v o ç avpifls(irpxóroç, wç oi Tlsqinarrptixol
ànò rov IlXárw voç x a r á n sqínarov ràç o w o v o ía ç noiovpisvov òià rò
ã/ia rfj ywxfj rò awpia yvpiváÇsiv. x a l rwv ávOqojmvcov âvaxwqrfoavroç
ôiaôsxsrai rrpv aXoX^v avrov Z n s v o m n o ç ó viòç rfjç IJorwvrjç (Ilnm roj-
vrjç codd.) âôsXcpfjç rov TlX ixw voç' ovx srvyxave yào rr/vixavra rniotov
ó ' AqiaroréXrjç- pieraaraXeiç yào rjv vnò O d ín n o v sv M axsôovía è n l
ríõ naiôsvaai ròv viòv avrov ’ AXél-avôqov, ôv naqaXafiwv ovrcoç sm pis-
Xwç snaíôsvas rf/v jia a d ix fjv smarrjpirjv wç sm Xéysiv ròv ’ AXéÇavôqov,
rjvíxa pirjôsva âxpéXrjasv õ n 'Zfjpisqov ovx êftaoíÀevoa- ovôsva yào svsqyé-
rrjoa . xa i n o re rov ’ A qiarorsX ovç slnóvroç or 1 ànsiqoi xóapioi xa rà
Arjpióxqirov, sn iôa xq v a a í cpaai ròv ’ AXéÇavôqov, o n ovô’ svòç ohm xóapiov
rjôvvrjdr) èm xQarfjaai. sxslQsv ôè vnoarqétpaç ó ’ AqiarorsXrjç ôiaôéxsrai
rfjv axokrjv rov E n sv a ín n o v avv S sv o x q á r si, x a l àficpórsqoi sXéyovro
Ilsq in a rrjrixol r o lç rón oiç ôiacpéqovrsç • o i pièv yào èxaXovvro A v x s io i
TIeqinarr\rixoí, wç o i ’ A q io roreX ixo í, o i ôè ãXXoi ’ Axaôrjpiaixol lle q in a -
rrjnxoí, wç o i rov S svoxq árovç. rw /qóvcp ôs, o la ovpijiaívsi, èÇêXme (rw v )
fisv rò õvopia rov rónov x a l èxa lo vv ro Ilsq in a rrp tixo l xcoqlç rov A v x s io i,
rwv ôè E svoxqarsíw v rò rfjç svsqysíaç òvopia èÇêXins x a l èxaXovvro
5Axaôrjpiaixoí. ITeqinarrjrtxoi ovv èxaXovvro, ov x ° Tl x a rà nsqínarov
êtjrjyovvro, àXX õ n ôisôéÇavro rrpv aXoXr]v rov IlX árw voç, ôià pisaov
E nsvaín nov, x a r à n sqínarov noiov/iévov rà ç ê£r/yfjoeiç.
( t w v ) B u s s e |] x a r à TicotJiarov B u s s e x a rà nequidrcov v e l n eg m d rov g co d d . ||
(I I 3»I 7) A svrsqov tjv xscpáXaiov rwv nqorsOévrwv rò sln slv rfpv

òiaíqsaiv rwv ’ A qiarorsX ixw v avyyqapijuárwv xiXíwv ovrwv ròv àqidpióv,
wç ’ Avôqóvixoç naqaÔÍSmaiv ó 'P ó ô io ç êvÒéxaroç ysvópisvoç ôiáôoXoç.
( = T 75 p) rwv roívvv ’ A qiarorsX ixw v avyyqa/upiárwv r à pisv sia i
pisqixà rà ôè xadóXov rà ôè pisraíjv. pisqixà ôè Xsyovrai ovx ánXcõç rà
nqòç sva ysyqapipiéva (ôvvaròv yàq x a l xaOoXixòv nqãypia nqòç sva
yqárpar ovrw yovv fj F lsq l xóapiov nqaypiarsía xaOoXixri ovoa nqoans-
(fdwrßai ’ AAef-dvöga) reo ß aa iX el), äXXä /xegixä Xeyco öaa negl evdg xa l
/xegixov x a l ngog eva, & aneg a i emcrtoXal avrov- a l yäg emaxoXal
nodg eva slo l yeyga/u/uevai, d g ev oxxco ßißXioig awrjyayev ’ Agxe/xcov
xig fisr ä ’ AgiaroreXr/v yevo/ievog. x a l xaOöXov de Xeyovrai öaa negl
ndvrojv rcöv /xovoeiöcöv öiaXa/xßavei, (hg f) 0 vaixrj dxgdaaig (pvoixcöv
navreav x a l r\ ITegl ovgavov x a l xd ITegl yeveaemg x a l (pOooäg x a l xä
Mexecoga ndvxcov rcöv ev xä» fiexaoaiu) ronep iaxa/xevojv. rä öe /xera^v
öa a /ir/re negl navreov /xr/re negl evdg dXXd negl nXeiövcov buxXeyerai,
d>g r/ iarogia. öirxrj de avxrj, rj /i e v noXirtxrj (hg a l I io X a e ia i, dg iaxogtj-
aev i x xov noXXr/v yrjv negieXOeZv ä/xa ’ AXe£avögcp xä> ßaoiX sl, dg
exöeöcoxe x a xd aroiyelov öiaxoaiag nevrrjxovra ovaag röv dgiß/xov, rj
öe cpvaixr/ d>g f/ II s o l cpvxcöv x a l Cqmv laxogia.
(114) T a öe xaOoAov rä fiev elaiv vno/xvrj/xarixä rä öe ovvray/ianxd.
x a l vno/xvrj/xaxixä /xev Xeyovxai ev olg /xova xä xeyaXaia aaieygäcpr}oav
öiya jiQooijiiojv x a l eniXdycov x a l xrjg ngenovarjg exödaeaiv änayyeXtag.
xd öe xov vno/xvrj/xaxog övo/xa n agä ÜXdxcovi xeZxai ev rfj ’ Enivo/xlöi,
avvdipei ovarj xcöv vö / m o v (pr/al yäg exeZ negl rwv vö/xeov ävexöorojv
/xeivdvrcov (hg aoa (pdavovoi nveg vno/xvrj/xara avrcöv elXrj(pdreg (980 D).
öid o v ö e ö e l e x rcöv vnofxvrj/xanxööv n iarovadai xäg *AgiaroreXovg
öoâg cbg öidgOcooiv vno/xeivavrmv. xwv öe vno/xvr/fxarixwv xä /xev
fiovoeiöfj xä öe noixiX a, /lovoeiöfj /xev cbg evo/xiaOrj xd I le g l eg/xr/vetag
vno/xvrj/xanxdv öiä xrjv dodipeiav, nglv yodipai xov cpiXoaocpov 'A/x/xmviov
elg avxo vno/xvrj/xa x a l öeZ£ai öxi x a l ngooi/xiov eyei x a l imXdyovg xa l
xr/v ngenovaav xfj exöoaei änayyeXiav, r ä öe noixiXa (hg rä 710dg
E vxaig ov avxcö yeyga/x/xeva eßöo/xijxovxa ßißXia IJegl av/x/xixxmv
Crjxrjjudxcov %coglg ngooi/xicov x a l emXoyov x a l xrjg öiaigeaecog.
(114.15) T& v öe aw ray/xanxcöv r ä /xev elaiv avxongdaom a, ä xa l
äxqoa/xaxixä Xeyovxai, xä öe öiaXoyixa, ä x a l H coxsgixä Xeyovxai. xal
(hg /xev avxongdacona ävxixeivrai roZg öiaXoyixoZg, (hg öe äxgoa/xanxä
ä vrixeivrai rolg eôjreoixoig- nävxag yäg dvQgdmovg wcpsXeZv ßovXö/xe-
vog ö ’ AgiororeXr/g eygaipe x a l ngog rovg emxrjöeiovg xrjg cpiXoaoqiiag
e£ oixeiov ngoodm ov (öio x a l äxgoa/xaxixä Xeyovxai, (hg öeov avxwv
ndvxcog dxgoaaaaOar öOev x a l P va ixrj äxgöaoig, eneiöi] evöoxi/xelv
öoxei o ’ AgiaxoxeXrjg /xdXiara ev avrfj x a l öeov avxfjg ndvxcog dxgoa-
aaaOai rovg eyovxag e n l (piXoaocpiav)• eygarpe öe x a l ngog xovg ävsnixrj-
ösiovg ngog (piXoaocpiav xä öiaXoyixa. x a l ev /xev xolg äxgoa/xaxixolg
ä xe ör] ngog ävögag /xeXXovrag cpiXoaocpelv öiaXeyö/xevog (d v a y x a a n -
xoZg, ev öe roZg ötaXoyixoZg} niOavoZg xeyorjrai Xdyoig. xaxaaxevaCcov
A R IS T O T L E IN T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D I T I O N 453
öe rr/v ddavaaiav rfjg ywXfjg xdv roZg dxgoapianxoZg di dva yxa onxw v
Xoywv xaraaxevaC ei, ev de rolg diaXoyixoZg did mdavwv elxdrcov- (prjoi yap
iv rolg I le a l rpvXfjg dxgoapianxoZg o n fj yw/fj mpQagrog (40 8b 18 ). el yag
rjv tpOagrfj, edei pidXiara avrf/v cpOeigeaOai vno rfjg iv rw yfjga dpiavgcb-
aecog- r öre de dx/idCet rov owpiarog nagaxpidoavrog, maneg ovv nagax-
fid£ei öre rd owpia dxpid£er ro de Sre d e l cpOeigeadai dxpidCov wpQagrov
ft tpvx?) äga SxpQagrog i o n . x a l ovrcog pxev ev ro lg dxgoapianxoZg.
EvxaiQ ov c l I n d . lib r . H e s. t i t . 168 ev xa lg io v c o d d . || ( d v a y x a o r ix o ls — ö ia -

?iOyixolsy B u s s e e x B r a n d is ii c o n ie c t u r a ||
f ’ E v de rolg dialoyixoZg cprjoiv ovrcog• (Eudem us, fr. 3 W alzer) o n

fj fv x i] aOdvarog, eneidij avrocpvwg (115) ndvreg o l cM oam oi x a l
onevdopiev Xodg roZg xaror/ojuevoig x a l dpivvpiev x a r avrwv, ovdelg de
rw firjdapifj pirjdapiwg o v n onevdei n o re fj opivvai x a r ’ avrov. o de
AXegavdgog aXXrjv diatpogav Xeyei raw dxgoa/iarixcov ngog r d diaXo-
yixa, o n ev piev raZg dxgoapianxoZg r d doxovvra avrcp Xeyei x a l rd
aXrjdfj, ev de roZg diaXoyixoZg ra äXXoig doxovvra, r d rpevdfj. atIX’ , w
Aleâvdge, e o n v emeZv ngog avrov, o n o vx e o n v rovro cpiXoaocpov
ro yag fevdog piev eXeodai, dcpavioai de rd dXrjOeg, ovXl Oepiirov
ejfigog yag pioi xeZvog avfjg opiwg ’ A id a o nvXrjoiv,

og x eregov piev xevdfj evl (pgeolv dXXo d' evianrj.
rovro de elnev o 'AXeijavdoog, ineidf] rrjv Xoyixfjv ywxfjv ßovXerai

•pOagrfjv elvat, o de ’ AgiororeXrjg ev roZg diaXoyixoZg pidXiara d o x e l
xrjgvrreiv rr/v ddavaaiav rfjg ywXfjg- Iva oxh pifj oxfj eXeyXovra rov
AgiororeXrjv, did rovro e in e rrjv roiavrrjv diacpogav. ( = T 76 m.)
i i 5 -i 4 ) H diaigeoig row am ongoaom aw x a r d rfjv diaigeoiv yiverai
rfjg (ptXoaocpiag ngoortdepievov rov Xoyixov fjroi ogyavixov- rfjg yag
cpdoaocpiag eig dvo diaigovpievrjg rd avrongooam a elg rgia diaigeZrar
rovrcov yag rd piev elo i decogrjrixd rd de n g a x n x d r d de Xoyixd fjroi
ogyavixa. x a i exaarov rovrcov elg rgia diaigeZrar r a yag Oewgrjrixa
eig rgia diaigovvrai, elg cpvaioXoyixov piadrjpianxov deoXoyixov, ra de
n g a x n x a eig r/Oixa oixovopiixa n o X m x a , r a de Xoyixa eig ra ngo rfjg
piedodov eig avrrjv rrjv piedodov x a l elg r d vnodvopieva rr/v piedodov.
(I I 5-2i) T a ovv cpvoixa rov AgiororeXovg fj negl rwv ow pianxwv
eo n v r] negi rwv aawpiarwv, x a l e l piev negl docoptdrcov, fj negl rcöv
Xeigovcov rcJw oco/idrmv fj negl rwv xgeirrovcov. x a l el piev negl rwv
xgeirrovcov rwv owpiarwv, wg fj l le g l rfjg rpvxfjg avrov ngaypiareia
(fj yào ywyfj xgsíxxw v xov aw/iaroç nécpvxev eiva i), ei ôè neoi yeigóvwv
xov aw fiaxoç, wç r à I le g l xwv ygw/iáxwv avxov Çrjxj/una- r à yàg
yoojfiaxa yeigw xôjv owfiáxwv xadeaxrjxe, xaOoxi ev a vxolç êyei xo
eivai, fj ôè n egi xà aw/iaxa avxov tpvaioAoyía rj n sg i xa vneg xrjv o e b j-
vrjv, d»? xà ovgávia aw/uaxa x a i fj negi xovxwv Çfjxrjoiç, tisqi yaAaÇíov
negi aaxgwv negi fjAiov x a i oeAfjvrjç, fj n eo i xwv vnò aãijvriv, xa i
xovxwv fj negi xà xadóAov xfjç xã>v aco/iárcov cpvascoç, wç xà I le g i
yevéaewç x a i <p6ogãç Çrjxfjuaxa, fj negi xã>v fiegixw v. x a i £Í fièv [isgixwv,
fj èfiyvyojv fj âyvyojv. x a i s i (ièv èfitpvywv, fj aioOrjxixwv fj âvaioOfjXwv.
x a i eí [ièv negi âvaiaOfjXOJV ejiipvyojv, wç xa TIeqi <pvxãv avxov Crjxtj-^
[iaxa, s i ôè aioOrjxixwv, x a i xovxcov náAiv fj negi xwv xadóAov, có ç a i
IJ eqí xôjv Çww v avxov iaxogiai, M a ôiaAéyexai n eo i xwv êv x o lç Çwoiç
naQrj[iáx(ov,* n eo i yfjgovç x a i (116) veóxrjxoç, negi avÇfjoewç x a i jueiw-
aewç (xavxa yào xadóAov bícsí x a i n ã a i xo ïç Çwoiç vnaoyet.), fj av xa x
iôíav, wç I I eqí xfjç xaQ’ vnvov piavxixfjç- avxrj yàg [lóvoiç xo lç âvdgw-
n o i ç ’ vnágXei. eí ôè náAiv n sg i xwv vnò aeAfjvrjv avxov (pvmoAoyixÕJV
Çrjxijiiáxwv, xà [ièv vnèg xfjv yfjv èaxi xà ôe èv rfj yfj xà ôè vno xrjv
y fjv x a i eí fièv vnèg rfjv yfjv, wç xà M exew goAoyixà avxov , M a ôiaAé-
yexa i n sg i xfjç xanvw ôovç ãxjuôoç x a i avyjirjgóiòovç, nEgi ßgovxfjs xe
x a i âoxganfjç x a i vexpõjv x a i nEgi xwv ôiaxxóvxwv xopxrjxwv, ôaAwv xe
x a i alywv x a i xwv ãAXoJv eiôwv, ei ôè êv xfj yfj, wç fj I le g i OaAaoowv
x a i noxapiwv x a i nrjywv ngaypiaxeía, ei ôe negi xwv vno xrjv yfjv coç
fj I le g i xwv oeiapiwv x a i yaopiáxwv avxov ÇfjxrjOiç. x a i xavxa fièv negi
xfjç (pvaioAoyixfjç xov ’ AgiaxoxeAovç.
T à ôè fiadrjfiaxixà avxov wç xà ’ O n x ix à x a i M rjyavixà avxov ßißAia
yeygapipiéva, deoAoyixà ôè wç xà M exà xà tpvaixà negi àgyfjç Çrjxfinaxa.
avxrj [ièv fj ôiaigeaiç xwv Oewgrjxixwv.
(116 .15) T à v ô è n g a x x i x w v x à piév e ío iv fjd i x à x à ô è o ix o v o p iix à x à
ô è n o A ix ix á . fjfh x à /xèv w ç x à E v ó r j p ie ia x a i N i x o j i á y e i a xá xe /uxgà
x a i xà n sy á A a • xà pèv y àg xw n a x g i n g o a c p w v sl N r x o fiá y q ) x a i U y o v -
Xa i N ix o / L tá y e ia j x e y á l a , x à ô è x w v i w ó ftw v v / j.w x w n a x g i x a i U y o v x a i
N ix o / iá x e t a /M xgá. n o A ix ix à ô è w ç x à ü o h x i x ò v o v v x a y / ia , èv ô iô á -
a x e i n w ç ô e l n o h x s v E o d a i. x ã v x w ôsvxég w A ó y w x o v l l o h x i x o v ^ â v x i-
M y e i x fj I l o h x e í a IIA á x w v o ç á r e ó / u o a x o íy m o v a r ) x f j n o h x s í a - ê v y à g
x a lç I Io h x E Ía iç ov ô iô á o x e i n w ç ô e l n o h x e v e a d a i, à ? là nw ç o i ngò
avxov ê n o A ix e v a a v x o ã v Q o c o n o i. à A A à f ir jv xai o ix o v o / z i x a e io iv avxõj
y e y p a ix / x é v a ß i ß A ia , wç xò O íx o v o fx ix ò v a v v x a y fx a xai n egi a v / iß iw -
a e w ç à v ô g ò ç x a i y w a i x ó ç , èv w A ê y s i è x x s a a á g w v o y é o e w v o v y x e x g o x fj-
oQai rov ev ëyovxa olxov, narQoç n ço ç réxv a, âvôgôç ngoç y w a îx a , ôeono-

rov ngoç ôovXovç, elaidvxcov ngoç èÇiovxa x a i djç eîgrjxai fjpiîv êv ro ïç xfjç
IJoofpvotov E ia ay œ yfjç ngoXeyopiévoiç. atirrj f) rov n g a xxixov ôiaigeaiç.
J 1 16 .2 9 ) To ôè Xoyixov x a i avxô elç xgia ôiaigeîxai, eiç xà ngo
xfjç anoôeiÇeœç rjyovv pieOoôov x a ï elç avxfjv xf/v ânoôeiÇiv x a i eiç xà
vnoôvopieva xfjv à n o ô eiiiv. x a i xà pièv noo xfjç pieOoôov x a i xfjç dno-
ôeiÇeœç eîaiv a ï xe Kaxr/yooiai x a i xo Etegi 'Egpirjveiaç x a i xà ü g o xeg a
’ AvaXvxixà, xà ôè avxfjv xfjv juéOoôov xfjç ânoôei£eœç ôiôdaxovxd eloi xà
Aevxega ’ AvaX vxixd, xà ôè vnoôvofieva avxfjv xrjv àndôeiÇiv elo i xà T om xà ,
ai P rjxoqixai xeyvai, 01 Hocpiaxixoi ëXeyyoi x a i xo IJ eo i Tioirjxix fjç’ nèvxe
ydg elaiv eïôrj xœv avXXoyiOfiœv (1 1 7 ,1 1 ) ovxoj x a i r) Xoyixfj ogya-
vov ovaa xfjç cpiXoaocpiaç Ôiaxgivei xo âXrjOèç x a i xo ipevôo; x a i xo âyadov
xa i xo xa xôv, îva /if] xpevôfj ôoÇdoœpiev pirjôè x a x à ôiangaÇdjpteda.
(I I 7 -I 5 ) Eneiôrj noXXa ovxa xa A qiaxoxeX ixà ßißXia ëyvojptev ôià
xfjç Ôiaïoeaeojç x a i ôià xovxo ovx Laptev x i pièv ngœxov x i ôè piexéneixa
xi ôè vaxarov pierayeiQiaâ)/j,eOa, cpége rgia xivà Çrjxfjoœptev, xiç fj dgyfj
xœv ’ AgiaroxeXixœ v ovyyga/ipiàxœv, x i xo xéXoç, xiç fj piexagv ôôoç.
xavxa ôe Çrjxovpiev ov piovov ôià xo nXfjdoç avxojv âXXà x a i ôià xfjv
ôiacpœviav xœv àgyaiœv. o i pièv yàg ëXeyov oxi Ôeï ano xfjç cpvaixfjç
àoÇaoOai, 01 ôe ajio xfjç Xoyixfjç, aXXoi ôè àno xrjç fjOixfjç, ëxsgoi ôè
ano xfjç piadrj/xaxixfjç- BorjOoç yàg o Zùôœvioç àno xfjç cpvoixfjç Xéyei,
A vôqovixoç ôè o cP o ôio ç o Tleginaxrjxixoç ô êvôéxaxoç ôiaôoxoç xfjç
’ AgiaxoxéXovç ayoXfjç àno xfjç Xoyixfjç ëXeye ( = T 75 p ), xœv ôè
nX axœ vixœ v o i pièv and xfjç fjOixfjç o i ôè ano xœv piadrjpiaxixœv. xa i
nâvxeç xàç oîxeiaç ôoÇaç xaxeoxevaÇov.
77 b O ly Y M P IO D O RU vS P rol. et in Cat., C I A G X I I 1, p. 13.7:

’ Evoßevovxo xoivvv xà ßißXia xo naXaiov x a xà xgeïç xgônovç ■ f j ôià cpiXo-
xipiiav xœv ßaolXéœv f j ôi evvoiav xœv piaOrjxœv f j ôià ôpiœvvpiiav. x a i ôi
ôfiœwpiiav xgiydjç- f j ovyygacpéœç f j avyygapi/udxœv f j vnopivrjpidxœv.
AXX ei ô oxei piadœpiev nâjç xo xœv ßaaiXecov cpiXoxipiov aïxiov fjv
xov xàç ßißXov- vodeveaOai. loxéov xoivvv oxi o i naXaioi ßamXelg èga-
axai ôvxeç Xoyœv èanevôov ôià cpiXoxipiiaç avvayayelv xà xœv dgyaiojv
avyygdpifiaxa. o v x o jç oSv ’ IoßdxrjQ 6 rfjç A ^ Vç ßaaiXei)ç êgaaxfjç
eyévexo xœv üvdayoQ ixœ v ovyygapipidxœv x a i üxoX epiaïoç 6 ènixXrjv
<PiXdôeXcpoç xœv ' AgiaxoxeXvxûiv x a i IleioioxQ axoç ô xœv ’ AOrjvaiwv
xvgavvo; xœv Opir/gixwv <x a i ) ygrjfidxojv ôœ geaïç ëanevôov xavxa
avvayayelv. noXXoi ovv ygrjfidxojv ôgeyopievoi ëanevôov fj avyygàyaaOai
fjyovv x a l r à rvxóvra avvayayelv x a l êmyçácpeiv r o lç r ã v âQxaioxéncav

ôvópiaai y.al ngoacpÉQeiv x a l xagnovoOai ôcogsàç ôià xovxov [ivrjaxevó-
/xevoi. x a l ovvéftaivev cbç ngoeínopiev vodeveadai r à fiiflXía (ea(? ore}
ôià (piXoxipiíav fiaoiXéajv.
A ià ôè ó/Müw/uíav avyyQCupéoyv èvodevovxo êaú' õxe xà (iifiXía, ô ió n
/ifj e lç x a l juóvoç ’ AoioxoxéXrjç 6 UxayeiQÍxrjç syévsxo, àXXà x a l ó
êmxXrjv M vdoç, àXXà ôfj x a l ó xaXovjuevoç llaiÒoxgífirjç. Òi ópicowpiíav
às avyynapipiáxMV èvodsvovro 'r à ftifíXta, ô ió x i pifj pióvoç ’ A q io x o -
réXrjç êynarps K axrjyooíaç àXXà x a l ©eócpQaaroi; x a l EvÒrjfioç, o i rovrov
fiaOriraí. noXXáxiç ovv n ç nsQirv%<bv r a lç Kaxrjyoníaiç Oeocpqáoxov, sí
rv x o i, èvópiiaev a vràç eivai ’ AniaroréX ovç. êad’ ôre ôè ovôè ôià ópicovv-
piíav avyyna<péo)v èvodsvovro r à flifiXía ovôè òià ó/jicowfiíav ovyyça/z-
fiárcov, ãXXà ôià ófiUDWfiíav vnofivrjfiárcov, ô ió n noXXáxiç V7iófirjpiá n ç
êjiolrjasv elç 6/m>jvv/iov jcqaypiareíav x a l èvofiiaOr) ãXXfjç e i v a r & ansq
ovv x a l Qsócpnaaroç ènoírjasv vnópivrjfia elç xà ç o lxeía ç Karrjyogíaç,
x a l JioXXáxiç n ç àjionXavãxai ô n xwv ’ AgiaxoxéXovç èaxl xò v7iópivrj/j,a.
fj noXXáxiç svxvyxávcov xiç r ã vnoptvfjfiaxi ’ AXeÇávôgov xov ’ Acpgoôi-
aiécoç eiç rà ç KarrjyoQÍaç êvópiiCev avrò návrcoç eivai rcóv "A n ia ro ré
Xovç, Xavdávov õ n ov fióvov yéyga nra i avrãt elç rà ç ’ AnioroxéXovg
àXXà x a l elç rà ç Qeocpgáarov.
77 c P H IL O P O N U S In Cat. pr., C lAG X III i, p. 7.16 : T oslç

yàg ãipoofial rov voOeveadai r à avyyoáfi/uara rov ’ A q io to téX o v ç, pila
fièv ófiojvv/uía rwv avyyqacpécüv yeyóvaai yàg x a l êregoi ’ A giaroréX siç,
wv r à ovyygá/ifiara ôià rfjv ôpicovvpiíav n v è ç svófiiaav rov ’ A niaxoxé-
Xovç- ôsvréoa ôè fj r ã v avyygapifiáxcúv ó/xcovvpiía- o i yàg fiadrjxal
avrov Evôrj/ioç x a l & avía ç x a l OeócpQaaroç x a r à ÇfjXov rov ôiôaaxáXov
yeyoátpaai KarrjyoQÍaç x a l F fe çi êo/urjveíaç x a l ’ A v a X v n xá ' fj ôè roírrj
roiavrrj e a r r IlroXepialov ròv 0 iXáôeXcpov jiávv èanovôaxévai cpaal
n eq i r a ’ AniaxoxéXovç avyyQÚpijxaxa, ojç x a l n sg l r à Xovná, x a l xQfjftara
ôiôóvai r o lç nooarpéQovaiv avrcõ fiífiXovç rov (piXoaórpov. ôdev nvèç
XQrjpiaríoaadai jíovXófievoi èmynácpovreç avyygápipiara rã> rov <piXoaó<pov
ôvó/ian nQoorjyov àpiéXsi (paalv sv rfj fieyáXr] jjifjXiodfjxrj evgfjadai
’ AvaX vnxcõv pièv reaaagáxovra fiífiXovç, Karrjyoniõjv ôè ôvo. èxníOfj
ôè vnò rwv ê^rjyrjrmv Karrjyoniojv pièv rovro slvat yvfjaiov rov ’ A q i-
arorsXovç, ’ AvaXvnxcõv ôè réaoaga• sxQÍdrj ôè ê x r s r ã v vorj/uáxow
x a l rfjç (poáaeojç x a l rã> à el èv r a lç ãXXaiç noaypiareíaiç fiepivfjadai
rovrov rov fiifiXíov ròv cpiXóaocpov.
PA R T IV
FROM H ERM IPPUS TO PTO LEM Y
A BRIEF SUMMARY
OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

FROM HERMIPPUS TO PTOLEMY
A B R I E F S U M M A R Y O F R E S U L T S A N D C O N C L U S IO N S
W h en P la to died a fte r fo r ty y ea rs as h ead of his school, th e A ca d em y

w a s a firm ly estab lished in stitu tion . H is ow n fam e w as g rea t and
un disputed; his d ea th w as fe lt as su ch im p o rta n t an e v e n t th a t E u d o xu s
used th e y e a r of his d ea th as a n ep och al y e a r in d a tin g Zoroaster. P la to
b eq u eath ed th e A c a d e m y in to th e h and s o f h is n ephew an d oth er d evoted
pu p ils u n ited b y a feelin g o f a ffin ity an d id e n tify in g them selves w ith
th e school. T h e y revered th e m em ory o f th e ir M aster and w ere in ten t
on sed u lou sly up h old in g th e fin e trad itio n s o f th e school. T h e dialogues
w h ich P la to h a d w ritte n and m ad e p u b lic ly k n o w n b y recitatio n in th e
A c a d e m y w ere c a re fu lly k e p t an d n o t m uch la te r u n ited in to a Corpus,
to g eth er w ith a selection of his letters. P la to ’s m em ory w as celeb rated
in p a m p h lets and biographies. I f h e h a d a n y enem ies, th e y w ere too
un im p o rtan t fo r th e ir v o ice to b e heard. W e can n o t sp eak o f an an ti-
P la to n ic tra d itio n u n til m ore th a n a hu n d red y ea rs a fte r P la to ’s death.
W ith A risto tle m a tters are en tirely d ifferen t. A t th e age of seven teen
he cam e as a stra n g er to A th en s. H e w as look ed u pon as a stran ger
th ro u g h o u t his life. H is fa th e r ’s esta te w a s in S ta gira, his m o th er’s
in C halcis, his w ife w as from A s ia M inor. A s a non-citizen he w as n ot
a llo w ed to possess real e state in A th en s. W e learn from a le tte r to
A n tip a te r, w ritte n sh o rtly b efore his d eath, th a t he fe lt th e in con ven ien c
es o f th is situ ation : “ I n A th e n s th e sam e th in gs are n o t prop er fo r a
stra n g er as fo r a citizen ; it is d ifficu lt to s ta y in A th e n s.” H is relations
w ith th e M aced on ian co u rt d id n o t m a k e th in gs easier fo r him . A fte r
th e fa ll o f O ly n th u s th e anti-M aced on ian feelin gs grew in stren gth.
In th e e a rly p a r t of 347 D em osth en es b egan to b e ackn ow led ged as a
p o litic a l lead er an d soon b ecam e th e d om inan t figu re in A then s. T h e
c it y w a s g e ttin g to o h o t fo r A risto tle; h e follow ed th e in v ita tio n of his
frien d H erm ias an d w ith d rew to A tarn eu s, sh o rtly before P la to ’s d eath.
T w e n ty -fiv e y e a rs la te r th e situ a tio n w a s repeated: h e w as accused
of im p ie ty th e o n ly hon our th e c ity of A th en s ev er bestow ed upon
h im — and m ade a h a s ty retrea t to C halcis, “ becau se he did n o t w a n t

th e A th en ia n s to sin tw ic e a ga in st p h ilo so p h y ” , as h e is repo rted to
h a v e said.
I n A th en s he h a d no school o f his ow n. H e w as one o f th e yo u n g
foreigners in th e A ca d em y , little k n o w n ou tsid e th e circle o f fellow -
stu d e n ts an d scholars. H e w as an assiduous w orker, reading, an n o ta tin g
a n d w ritin g , and did n o t a p p ear m u ch in p u b lic. G ra d u a lly he m a y
h a v e becom e m ore know n , esp ecially a fte r he h a d com e fo rw ard as an
op p on en t of Iso cra tes’ ed u cation al ph ilosop h y. B u t sca rcely h a d he
w on a certa in p o sition as a te ach er an d philosopher, w h en he h a d to
le a v e A th en s. H e s ta y e d ab ro a d tw e lv e yea rs, sp end in g h is tim e in
A ta rn e u s an d Assos, M ytilen e, and fin a lly in M acedonia, d ev o tin g his
tim e to research an d in vestig a tion s, in short, to th e life of a scholar.
W h e n in 334, a fte r th e d estru ction of T h eb es, h e retu rn ed to A th en s
in order to s ta y there, he d id n o t com e as a celeb rated philosopher,
k n o w n to e v e ry b o d y as A le x a n d e r’s tu to r, as h as som etim es b een said.
H e w a s m erely one of th e old dons o f th e A c a d e m y w h o returned, a
professor am ong m a n y oth er foreign professors in A th en s. I t is ju stifia b le
to assum e th a t he en jo y ed a certain rep u tatio n am ong his colleagues,
frien d s an d rivals; c e rta in ly h e w a s a su sp ect figu re in th e eyes of th e
M acedon ian p a r ty in A th en s b ecau se of his relations w ith P hilip,
A le x a n d e r an d A n tip a te r. M u ch gossip w a s cu rren t a b o u t h is relations
w ith H erm ias. T h e a v era g e A th e n ia n w a s b ig o ted , co n serv a tive, and
a n ti-in tellectu al; it w as ea sy to stir u p h a tred a ga in st a rad ical in tellectu al
w h o m oreover w as a non-citizen.
A risto tle an d T h eo p h rastu s soon ga th ered arou n d th e m a n um ber of
fellow -stu d en ts and disciples, b u t th e y d id n o t estab lish a school sim ilar
to th e A ca d em y . P la to ’s school w as a sm all c o m m u n ity of friends,
cen tered aroun d a g re a t p erso n ality, fo rm a lly organized as a Oiaoog,
a religious gu ild. N eith e r in its organ ization , n or in its aim s or m ethods
or in th e sp irit b y w h ich it w as p e rv a d e d did it resem ble w h a t w e call
a S ch ool of a d va n ced stu d y , le t alone a u n iv ersity . T o P la to know ledge
an d in sig h t w ere p rofou n d th in gs, o b ta in ed d u rin g a lo n g process of
m a tu rin g, m ed itation , discussion an d intercom m u n ication o f minds;
he describes th is alm o st m y stica l process of a cq u irin g in sigh t an d w isdom
in celeb rated passages in th e Phaedrus an d th e Seventh Letter. A ristotle,
on th e o th er h an d , follow ed u p th e Io n ic trad itio n . In his approach to
k n ow ledge, science, an d p h ilosop h y h e w as m ore lik e D em ocritus,
H ip p ocrates, E u d o x u s, an d P h ilistion . H is concep tion of know ledge

w as m ore rational; h e w as a born sch olar an d professor. H is passion
w a s to co lle ct fa cts, to sift an d a rran ge th em , to ex p la in them and
fin d w hat he called “ th e cau ses” , tpvaei (piXoootpog dwd/tevog rag
airiag yvrnqiûv. I f he h a d h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity to fou n d a school,
it w ou ld h a v e h a d th e ch a ra cte r w e la te r fin d in A lex a n d ria. B u t th e
tim e w a s n o t ripe fo r th a t y e t; in short, h e w a s to o fa r ad van ced from
P la to to estab lish an im ita tio n of h is school, and to o fa r ahead of his
tim e in his ideas o f w h a t m eth od s should b e used in order to ad van ce
kn ow ledge an d learning; th e e x te rn al cond itions w ere e x trem e ly u n
favou rable.
A risto tle and T h eo p h rastu s and th e circle of scholars and stu d ents
aroun d th em m et an d lectu red in th e L y c e u m , a p u b lic gym n asiu m open
to e v e ry b o d y , since lo n g ago w ell k n o w n as a p la ce w here foreign
sophists an d teach ers g a v e lectu res. A s th e y ea rs passed th e circle
of co llab orato rs an d stu d en ts p ro b a b ly b ecam e m ore clo sely united,
b u t th e P erip ato s as a school in th e sam e sense as th e A ca d em y w as
n o t estab lished u n til a fte r A risto tle ’s d eath.
L e t us n ow retu rn to th e com parison w ith P la to , w hich is m y ch ief
o b je c t now. A risto tle b egan p u b lish in g b ooks a b o u t 360. H e follow ed
th e h a b it of his tim e, w ro te dialogues and “ log oi” , n o t b y fa r so a rtistic
as P la to ’s. T h ere w ere no fa ith fu l disciples w ho collected them in to a
Corpus an d h a d copies m ade. O n ly tw o or th ree becam e m ore w id elv
know n , an d co m p a ra tiv e ly few su rvived . T o d a y o n ly scattered fra g
m en ts are left.
U n lik e P la to A risto tle w ro te num erous sch olarly lectu res and treatises;
h e ga th e re d to g eth er a v a s t am ou n t o f w ritte n m aterial as fru its of
his read in g and th in kin g. I f w e ta k e in to consideration th e hu ge
d ifferen ce b etw een h is tim e and ours in m aterial and tech n ica l things,
w h ich I need n o t sp ecify , w e m u st ad m it th a t of a ll g rea t scholars and
philosophers A risto tle is one of th e m ost assiduous w orkers and w riters.
I t is, how ever, n o t m y in ten tio n to discuss here th e fa te th a t befell
his sch o la rly w ritings. I o n ly w ish to stress th e fu n dam en tal difference
b etw een him an d P la to in th is respect, too. P la to ’s sp iritu al h eritage
w a s h an d ed dow n th ro u g h th e cen turies in an u nbroken sequence. H is
m ain ideas cou ld n o t b e too m uch distorted, for his w ritin gs w ere a l
w a y s accessible, m uch read and m uch adm ired, n o t o n ly b y scholars
an d philosophers b u t th e general p u b lic, too. I f w e tu rn our eyes to
A risto tle , th e p ictu re is en tirely d ifferen t. T h e old P erip ato s died w ith
S trato n . H e h a d g r a v e forebod ings w h en h e w ro te in his W ill: “ I
le a v e th e school to L y c o n , since of th e rest som e are to o old, th e oth ers
to o b u sy w ith oth er thin gs. ” T h e P erip a tetics d egenerated, as A n tio ch u s,
C icero, S tra b o n an d A n d ro n icu s said; th e la te r h isto ry of th e school
can b e described as a series o f su ccessive rev iv a ls, each w ith its p ecu liar
ch aracter. B y th e philosophers o f th e gen eration a fte r A ris to tle his
m ain d octrin es w ere a lre a d y in cred ib ly distorted; his op pon en ts had
an e a sy ta sk , fo r e x c e p t a fe w d ialogu es an d th e Protrepticus copies
o f A r is to tle ’s w ritin g s w ere rare an d no C orpus ex iste d u n til a fte r
A n d ronicu s.
A risto tle le ft A th en s in th e m id st o f a p o litica l tu rm o il an d died th e
sam e y ea r, a lo n ely m an. H e h a d fe w real friends an d num erous enem ies.
Som e of th ese w ere inspired b y p o litica l hatred . I t is tru e th a t th e
w h ole in tellectu a l elite in A th en s in th e m iddle of th e fo u rth cen tu ry
w as pro-M acedonian, b u t ow in g to his p a ren tag e and his close relations
w ith th e M acedon ian co u rt an d his sta tu s as a n on-citizen it w as A risto tle
w h o b ecam e th e ch ief ta rg e t of th e anti-M aced on ian p a r ty . T h e y seem
to h a v e c o n cen trated a ll th e ir h a tred an d p e t t y sland er on him . T h is
p o litica lly -in sp ire d h a tred has le ft its tra ces in th e b io grap h ica l trad ition:
it is su fficien t to m en tion th e nam es of T h eopom p u s an d T h eo critu s
o f Chios, w h o h a te d H erm ias b ecau se h e h a d in terfered in C h ian affairs
a n d tran sferred th e ir h a tred to A risto tle; D em ochares, w h o in his
speech 306 used a ll th e accu sation s d irected a ga in st A risto tle du rin g his
life-tim e b y th e anti-M aced on ian p a rty ; an d fin a lly T im aeu s, w hose
h o stile a ttitu d e h as m ore c o m p lex reasons.
O th ers w ere inspired b y d octrin a l antagonism . A lr e a d y as a com pa
r a tiv e ly y o u n g m a n A risto tle w as in v o lv e d in a d ispu te a b o u t th e aim s
of rh eto ric w ith Cephisodorus, a follow er of Isocrates. Iso crates an d
th e m em bers of his school w ere in flu e n tia l in A th en s, an d th e la s tin g
feu d b etw een th e m an d A risto tle has le ft its traces in th e b io grap h ical
trad itio n . E p icu ru s an d his d isciples used m a terial fro m th is feu d in
th e ir polem ics a g a in st A risto tle . Som e m em bers of th e A ca d em y , too,
b ore a gru d ge a ga in st A risto tle; A risto tle h a d n ever sy m p a th ized w ith
H eraclid es of P o n tu s, a m an of eccen tric id eas an d p assin g fancies,
nor w ith Speu sippu s w h ose som ew h at sch o la stic opinions he often
criticized ; Speu sippu s an d his follow ers, on th e oth er hand, regarded
A risto tle as a renegade b ecau se of his p ersisten t an d stu b b o rn opposi
tio n to th e m ain d octrin e o f th e A c a d e m y , th e th e o ry o f ideas. The

M egarian school w a s an oth er cen tre o f an tagon ism , represented in
th e b io grap h ica l tra d itio n b y E u b u lid es; th e eristics are represented
b y A lex in u s, th e so-called P y th a g o re a n s b y L y c o n . In T im o n ’s Silloi
w e fin d a lite r a r y exp ression o f th is antagonism .
H is m ost b itte r enem ies, how ever, are fou n d am on g th e E picu rean s.
T h is is v e r y curious, fo r as a m a tte r o f fa c t E p icu ru s follow ed A risto tle
clo sely in m a n y o f his p rin cip a l doctrines. B u t h is con cep tion of ph ilo
so p h y an d , a b o v e all, his tem p eram en t w as a b so lu te ly d ifferen t. He
p osed as an en em y o f na id eia an d TioXv/iaOla an d regarded A risto tle
as a w isea cre a n d b u sy b o d y , xaksncbrarog dvraym narrjg rfj rov fiiov
craiTrjQiq. P erson al h o s tility b etw een his d isciples and th e P erip atetics
o f th e second an d th ird gen eration increased th e ten sion b etw een th e
tw o schools. C olotes, M etrodorus, an d H erm arch u s pursued his cam p aign
a g a in st A risto tle , w h ich h as le ft deep traces in th e b io grap h ical trad itio n
rig h t d ow n to al-M ubash ir. H is accu sation s h a v e been re v iv e d m a n y tim es ]
th e y w ere v e r y p o p u la r d u rin g th e R en aissan ce in w riters lik e G assendi
a n d P a trizzi; m ore re c e n tly th e y h a v e b een resu scitated b y Popper.
T h e a n ti-A risto telia n trad itio n , th en , is stron g an d persisten t; it
w a s vig o ro u s in A r is to tle ’s life-tim e. A risto cles o f M essina has tra n s
m itte d to us a v e r y v a lu a b le s u rv e y of th e e a rly u n fav o u rab le trad itio n .
T h e earliest rea ctio n k n o w n to us a g a in st th e m alicious gossip spread
d u rin g A r is to tle ’s life-tim e an d im m ed iately a fte r his d ea th is fou n d in
P hilo ch o ru s. I n his A tthis P h ilo ch o ru s d e a lt w ith th e ev en ts of 306
B . C., w h en S oph ocles carried his la w d irected a ga in st th e P erip atos.
T h is g a v e h im an o p p o rtu n ity to d eal retro sp e ctiv ely an d a t som e
le n g th w ith th e relations of th e P erip ato s to th e A ca d em y . T h e carefu l
a cc o u n t o f th e ch ro n olog y o f A r is to tle ’s life, w h ich w e possess in th ree
d ifferen t versions, is u ltim a te ly d erived from Philochorus. H e also
refu te d som e o f th e accu sation s b ro u g h t fo rw ard a ga in st A ristotle: it
w a s n o t tru e th a t A r is to tle w a s a n oyi/xaOrjQ, an d h e h a d n ot seceded
fro m th e A c a d e m y o r opened a school riv a llin g th a t of P la to . T h e va lu e
o f th is e a rly refu ta tio n is apparen t. A n o th e r e a rly w riter w hose w ork
m u st h a v e h a d a n ap o lo g etic te n d en cy is E u m elu s, b u t u n fo rtu n a tely he
is oth erw ise un kn ow n , an d th e sm all frag m en t w e possess is u n im portan t.
T h e n o f course w e m u st assum e th a t th e inner circle o f th e P erip atos
d id w h a t th e y cou ld to lessen th e effe ct of th e u n fav o u rab le trad itio n .
U n fo rtu n a te ly w e m u st rest co n ten t w ith a general assum ption; w e
possess a few frag m en ts of D icaearch u s an d A risto x en u s, b u t u n d o u b ted ly

m u ch o f th e m a terial used b y la te r w riters m u st b e d erived fro m ea rly
P e rip a te tic sources, n ow lost. T o w a rd s th e en d o f th e th ird cen tu ry
A risto n , th e n h ead o f th e P erip a to s, pu b lish ed a k in d o f b io grap h y.
N o frag m en ts h a v e su r v iv e d u n d er his n am e e x c e p t th e im p o rta n t
n o te in D iogenes th a t S tr a to n ’s W ill w as tra n sm itte d “ in th e C ollections
of A risto n o f C eos” . F ro m th is it has b een in ferred th a t A risto n ’s
w o rk w as b ased on th e a rch ive s of th e P erip ato s an d th e oral trad itio n ,
an d th a t it c o n tain ed th e fo u r W ills w h ich w e n ow possess. I t is also
p ro b ab le t h a t H erm ip p u s, w h o fo u n d th e t e x t o f A r is to tle ’s W ill in
A risto n an d in clu d ed it in h is b io g ra p h y , d erived oth er m a terial from
th e sam e w ork.
T h e th ir d c e n tu ry sa w th e rise o f a n ew k in d o f lite ra tu re w hose aim
w a s to en tertain . E a r ly rep rese n ta tiv es are A n tigo n u s o f C ary stu s
an d H iero n ym u s of R hod es. W e k n o w th e nam es o f num erous la te r
H ellen istic w riters w h o w ro te b elletristic books on lo cal h isto ry , in clu d in g
b io grap h ic m a terial, an ecd otes a b o u t fam ou s p ersonalities o f th e p a st
an d stories on oth er to p ics w h ich cou ld arouse th e cu rio sity of th e reader.
Som e o f th e m a terial fou n d in th e la te r b io grap h ic tr a d itio n m u st b e
d erived from th is k in d o f literatu re , th e rem ains o f w h ich are now
fo u n d in th e florilegia o f G ellius, A e lia n , A th en ae u s an d S tob aeu s, and
in th e digressions o f w riters lik e S trab o n , P lin y an d P au san ias. Our
th ree b iograp hers, H erm ip pu s, D iogen es a n d P to le m y , o f course also
used th is m a terial. W e recogn ize i t b y its ten d en cy: th e o b je c t o f th e
w riter is to en tertain ; h e is in prin cip le u n biassed, an d w e can n o t th ere
fo re sp ea k o f a n “ u n fa v o u ra b le” o r “ fa v o u ra b le ” trad itio n . T hese
w riters w ere th e jo u rn a lists o f a n tiq u ity , an d th is a ttitu d e ch aracterizes
th e ir con trib u tion s to th e b io grap h ical trad itio n .
T h e earliest b io g ra p h y o f A r is to tle o f w h ich w e can ob ta in som e idea

w as w ritte n b y H erm ip p u s to w a r d s th e en d o f th e th ird cen tu ry.
H erm ip p u s called h im self a P e rip a te tic . H is b io g ra p h y is con sequ en tly
ch ara cte rize d b y a fa v o u ra b le d isposition to w a rd s A risto tle , th e fou n d er
of his school. B u t it is n eith er a eu lo g y , n or a p ro d u c t o f c ritic a l scholar
ship. H erm ip p u s w a s a ty p ic a l re p re se n ta tiv e of his age, fo n d o f an ec
d otes an d gossip. T h e frag m en ts p r o v e th a t h e d id n o t a b sta in from
tra n sm ittin g slanderous m a terial fro m th e u n fav o u rab le trad ition ;
w ith th is h e h oped to en terta in his readers.
I n one respect, h ow ever, he has h a d a g re a t in flu en ce on th e biograp hic
trad itio n : h e w a n te d to e x to l A risto tle as th e fou n d er o f th e P erip atetic
school in th e L y c e u m . In th e b io grap h ica l m a terial h e h a d found
a s to ry to ld b y A ristoxen u s: w h en in 361/360 P la to w as in S icily som e
y o u n g m en h a d sta rted a school in r iv a lr y o f th e A ca d em y ; la te r calu m
n iato rs h a d su b stitu te d th e n am e of A risto tle; a legen d w as in th e m aking.
T h is legen d su ited H erm ip pu s w ell; h e w a n te d to show th a t a lrea d y
a s a y o u n g m an A ris to tle h ad been a ph ilosopher in his ow n right;
“ h e seceded from th e A c a d e m y , w h ile P la to w a s still a liv e ” , ansarr]
IJkarcovog e n nsgiovTog. W h en S p eu sippu s died, A risto tle o u g h t to
h a v e b een elected h ead o f th e school “ b u t he w a s a b se n t on a m ission
to P h ilip on b e h a lf o f th e A th e n ia n s” . W h en h e retu rn ed from M ace
donia, he “ foun d ed his ow n school in th e L y c e u m ” . T h is legend, tog eth er
w ith th e aetiolog ical ex p la n a tio n o f th e n am e “ P e rip a te tic s” , is H er
m ip p u s’ ch ief co n trib u tio n to th e b io grap h ical trad itio n .
A ll a tte m p ts to recon stru ct his b io g ra p h y m u st b e h ig h ly conjectural;
I am m y self in prin ciple scep tica l to w a rd s reconstru ction s o f th is kind;
in p a rticu la r w e k n o w n oth in g a b o u t th e disposition o f his w ork. It
is m ore essen tial fo r us to determ in e th e te n d en cy an d general ch ara cter
of a w ork. N everth eless I v e n tu re to presen t th e follow in g sk etch as a
su m m a ry o f conclusions d raw n in m y com m en ts on th e disiecta membra
o f th e b io grap h ica l trad itio n . I o m it references to la te echoes in P to le m y ’s
b io g ra p h y a n d in clu d e o n ly a few references to oth er la te w riters. T h e
evid en ce is fou n d in m y com m ents on th e passages referred to.
1. D escen t, fa m ily , D L 1. P la to ’s m ost genuine disciple, D L 1.

N o te s on his personal appearance, D L 1 , T 49 b. N icom achu s w as
A risto tle ’s son b y H e rp yllis, T 9 b d, T 12 c.
2. A risto tle seceded from th e A ca d em y , w h ile P la to w as still alive,
D L 2, T 37 ab. A n ecd ote, “ h e k ick e d m e” , D L 2, T 37 ab. H e w as
u n gratefu l, (un certain origin), T 35, T 37 a, T 58 j.
3. Speusippus successor o f P la to , T 3.
4. X e n o cra te s elected h ead o f th e A c a d e m y w hile A risto tle w as
in M acedon ia, D L 2, T 7 1 a. F o u n d ed h is school in th e L yceu m , D L 2.
“M o rn in g-lectu res” , ex p la n a tio n o f th e nam e of th e school, D L 2,
T 7 1 a, T 76 f. “A ftern o o n -lectu res” , he b egan te a ch in g rhetoric,
D L 2, n o te on T 32. R iv a lr y w ith Iso crates (m isunderstood b y D iogenes),
D L 3, T 32 a.
Goteb. Univ. A r s s k r . L X I I I : 2 ,0
5. H e w en t to H erm ias in A tarn eu s, D L 4. H is friendship w ith

H erm ias, s ta y in Assos, T 15 cd f, T 16. H e rm ia s’ d eath , T 15 ei. Cal-
listh en es’ E n co m io n on H erm ias, T 15 e. A ris to tle ’s ep igram , DL, 6,
T 15 g. T h e H y m n , D L 7, T 15 f, T 17. T h a n k s to D id ym u s, th is is
b y fa r th e b est a tte ste d p a r t of H e rm ip p u s’ b io grap h y.
6. A risto tle sum m oned to M aced on ia as A le x a n d e r’s tu to r, D L 4.
A sk e d P h ilip to reb u ild S ta g ira , D L 4, T 27. L a w s fo r S ta g ira , D L 4,
T 2 7 i.
7. R e tu rn ed to A th en s, le a v in g C allisthenes in M aced on ia as his
successor, D L 4 — 5, T 28 a. S ta y e d in A th en s 12 y ea rs as h ead of his
school D L 5-
8. A c cu sed b y E u ry m ed o n h e fled to C halcis, D L 5 - D ic ta on lea vin g
A th en s, “ d ifficu lt to b e a n on -citizen ” , P h ilo ch o ru s V M 12, 4 1 — 42;
T 1 f, T 44.
9. D ifferen t opinions a b o u t th e causes of his d eath . A cco rd in g to
E u m elu s h e died lik e S o cra tes b y d rin k in g aco n ite, D L 5 — 6, T 46 a.
H e d ied w a tch in g th e tid a l cu rren ts in th e E u rip u s, T 48, or, as oth ers
said, from a sto m ach disease, T 50 c. — H e reached th e age o f 63 an d
w a s 1 7 w h en h e jo in e d P la to D L 9 — 10, V M 9 — 12. C h ro n ology of
his life, n o te on T 1 e.
10. T h e sto ry a b o u t his selection o f a successor, T 47.
11. T h e ep igram of T h eo critu s of Chios, D L n , T 15 h, T 58 k,
T 65. T im on , D L 1 1 .
12. T h e W ill, D L , T 12 c.
13. A n ecd o tes fro m L y c o n , D L 16, T 58 i, T 64.
14. T h e In d e x libroru m , D L .
15. A p oph thegm s? I t is im possible to a scertain w h eth er H erm ip pu s
in clu d ed som e of th e an ecd otes and apop hthegm s reported b y D iogenes
an d la te r authors.
H erm ip pu s refers b y nam e to th e follow in g w riters: E u m elu s, B ry o n
(from w hom he q uotes T h eo critu s of Chios), T im aeu s, T im oth eu s,
L y c o n , T im on I t is a w ell-kn ow n fa c t th a t m a n y a n cien t w riters like
to q u o te th e ir su b sid iary sources b u t k eep silen t a b o u t th e ir p rin cip al
sources. H erm ip p u s w o rk ed in th e lib r a r y of A le x a n d ria an d w a s a
d ilig en t com pilator. I t is reasonable to assum e th a t he h a d access to a
rich m a terial, n o t o n ly of b ook s p u b lish ed in th e u su al m anner, b u t
also of records an d oth er u n pu blish ed m aterial w h ich h a d reached th e
A R IS T O T L E I N T H E B IO G R A P H IC A L T R A D I T I O N 467
lib r a r y from th e arch ives o f th e P erip atos. T h e C atalo g u e of A risto tle ’s

w ritin g s w h ich he in clu d ed in his b io g r a p h y is b est exp lain ed as an
in v e n to r y o f th e b ooks in th e possession of th e A lex a n d ria n library.
T h e H ellen istic b io grap h ic litera tu re in th e tw o cen tu ries a fte r H er

m ipp us w as v e r y rich, b u t in m ost cases o n ly th e title s of th ese w orks
a re know n . I t is lik e ly th a t a sm all sta n d a rd b io g ra p h y of A risto tle
c ry sta llize d in w h a t w e use to call th e xoivf] iarogia, corresponding to
ou r en cyclopaed ias. D io n ysiu s of H alicarn assu s refers in general w ords
to th e xoivrj laroQia and to “ th ose w h o h a v e w ritte n a b o u t th e life
o f A r is to tle ” . N o certain frag m en ts o f th e se b iograp hies are know n.
S om e frag m en ts of o th er H ellen istic lite ra tu re g iv e us glim pses of
w h a t w e h a v e lost. A v a lu a b le fra g m en t o f A p o llo d o ru s’ Chronica
on th e ch ro n olog y of A r is to tle ’s life is p reserved b y D ion ysiu s and
D iogenes. A risto cles tells us th a t A p ellico n w ro te a b o o k on A risto tle ’s
relations w ith H erm ias. I t is te m p tin g to assum e th a t A rtem o n used
som e o f th e letters w h ich A p ellico n h a d b o u g h t from A risto tle ’s heirs
in Scepsis in his collection o f A r is to tle ’s correspon dence (in no less
th a n e ig h t books). B u t m ost o f th e letters in his collection w ere p ro b a b ly
fa k e d , w h ich did n o t p re v e n t la te r w riters from q u otin g th em as genuine.
P hilodem us is ge n e ra lly held to b e th e a u th o r of th e In d ex Academicorutn
philosophorum Herculanensis, con tain in g preciou s in fo rm ation from old
reliab le sources. In his Volutnina Rhetorica, w ritte n a b o u t 75 B. C.,
h e deals a t le n g th w ith th e E p icu rea n a tta c k s on A risto tle .
A t a b o u t th is tim e Cicero w as in A th en s, listen in g to lectu res held
b y A n tio ch u s o f A sca lo n and oth er rep u ted professors. C icero’s letters
an d ph ilosophic treatises te s tify to his g rea t in terest in A risto tle , and
I do n o t d o u b t th a t it w as A n tio ch u s w h o stim u la ted th is interest.
W ith A n tio ch u s begin s th e r e v iv a l of A risto tle ; accord in g to him the
P erip ato s a fte r S tra to n h a d d egenerated; it w as his am bition to resu scita
te th e old P e rip a te tic trad itio n . T h e fin a l resu lt o f th is re v iv a l is
A n d ro n icu s ed ition of A r is to tle ’s sch o la rly w orks.
A s an in tro d u ctio n to his ed ition A n d ro n icu s w rote a book On Aristotle's
writings w h ich I h a v e ch ara cterized as a “ catalo g u e raisonné” . I t is
su p erfluous to rep eat here w h a t I h a v e said in th e ch ap ter on th e R om an
ed ition o f A r isto tle ’s w orks a b o u t th e ideas w h ich inspired A ndronicus.
I t is n ow here a tte s te d th a t his b ook con tain ed a b io grap h y of A ristotle.
H erm ip p u s L ife o f A risto tle rem ained th e stan d ard w ork.
W e are n ow in th e p erio d of th e /xeya fhfiMa, com m en taries, en cyclo

p a ed ic le x ica , an d th e en terta in m en t-litera tu re called noixiXrj iarogia.
D id y m u s’ co m m en ta ry o n D em osthen es h as preserved e x tra c ts from
H erm ip p u s on A r is to tle ’s relatio n w ith H erm ias. S trab o n w as p erso n ally
a cq u a in ted w ith A n d ro n icu s a n d B o eth u s an d tran sm its som e v a lu a b le
b io grap h ica l m a terial in his digressions. S im ilar digressions are fou n d
in P lin y ’s N atural H istory. T h e earliest ex a m p le of a la rg e collection
o f th e t y p e V aria historia is P a m p h ila ’s w ork, w ritte n in th e m id d le
o f th e c e n tu ry , an d a lm o st c o n tem p o ra ry is P am p h ilo s’ en cyclopaed ia.
N e ith e r of th e se w o rk s fig u res in m y testim on ia, b u t th e y w ere used b y
la te r w riters, su ch as P h a v o rin u s, G ellius, A e lia n an d A th en aeu s, and
also b y th e rh eto r D io n C hrysostom u s, a ll of w h om p ro v id e a rich h a rv e s t
o f b io g rap h ica l n otices, a n ecd otes and q u o ta tio n s from H ellen istic
w riters. I h e s ita te to m en tion P lu ta r c h ’s n am e in th is conn exion , a
w rite r in fin ite ly su p erior to th o se ju s t m en tion ed in eru d ition , general
cu ltu re an d in sty le . B u t m u ch o f th e m a terial w h ich h e con trib u tes
to th e b io grap h ica l tra d itio n on A risto tle is of th e sam e k in d as th e
frag m en ts h an d ed dow n in th e varia historia, a m ix tu re o f fictio n an d
fa cts, o ften p u zzlin g, som etim es fascin atin g . M a n y of th ese fragm en ts
are a n ecd o tic a n d of little v a lu e , figu rin g u n der th e head in g “ H ellen istic
fa b rica tio n ” , b u t h e h as also p reserved som e preciou s frag m en ts from
go o d old sources. I t h a s b een one o f m y aim s in th is b o o k to in v estig a te
th is rich m a teria l an d s ift th e w h e a t from th e ch aff.
T h e sch o la rly a n d o fte n p o lem ical litera tu re of th e ph ilosophic schools
in th e secon d c e n tu ry h as co n trib u ted som e v e r y v a lu a b le testim on ia.
A ttic u s is a r e p re se n ta tiv e o f th e re v o lt a ga in st th e la te H ellen istic
sy n cretism o f P la to , A r is to tle an d th e S toa. N u m en iu s in cid en ta lly
p ro vid es u s w ith a v a lu a b le fra g m en t sheddin g m ore lig h t on A ris to tle ’s
co n tro v e rsy w ith C ephisodorus. A ristocles, fin a lly , c o n trib u tes a
h ig h ly in terestin g s u r v e y o f th e e a rly in v e c tiv e s a g a in st A risto tle .
A m o n g th e rh e to rs a n d jo u rn a lists o f th e period, m en tion sh o u ld b e
m a d e o f A e liu s A ris tid e s an d L u cia n . L u c ia n ’s scurrilous b u t w itty
s to ry in P hilosophers for Sale show s t h a t th e con cep tion of th e tw o
A risto tle s, one e x o teric in th e d ialogu es an d one esoteric in th e sch olarly
treatises, is n ow c u rre n t opinion. W e are n ow on th e th resh old of th e
second r e v iv a l o f A r isto te lia n stu d ies in th e tim e o f A d ra s tu s and A le x a n
d er o f A p hrod isias.
D iogenes L a e rtiu s stan d s q u ite a p a rt fro m th is d evelopm ent. H is

b ook has n o th in g to do w ith th e gen re c a lle d jioixiXrj iaronia, n or is
it a w o rk of c ritic a l scholarship. S ch w a rtz r ig h tly ch ara cterized it as
H ellenistic, o n ly less refined. I t is rem ark ab le th a t it h as le ft no traces
w h a te v e r in th e e x ta n t com m en taries on A risto tle 1) or in P to le m y ’s
b io grap h y. T h is confirm s th e conclusion d raw n from its general ch arac
ter, n am ely th a t it is th e w o rk of an eru d ite a m ateu r, isolated an d w ith o u t
personal conn ection s w ith th e co n tem p o ra ry schools of learn ing. I t is
a m iracle th a t i t h as su rvived . I need n o t rep e at h ere w h a t I h a v e said
in m y com m en ts on its m erits an d deficiencies.
T h e L ife of Aristotle cu rren t in th e n eo p la to n ic schools w as w ritten

b y a certain P to le m y . T h e id en tifica tio n o f th is P to le m y , th e ch ara cter
and scope of his b io g rap h y , th e relatio n sh ip of th e num erous la te epitom es
to th e origin al w ork: a ll th is is v e r y p rob lem atic.
W e possess th ree n eop laton ic ep itom es, a ll from th e fifth cen tu ry,
V it a M arciana, V it a v u lg a ta , and V ita L a tin a ; th e tw o S y ria c V ita e
a re p ro b a b ly from th e sam e period; th e A r a b ic tra d itio n is represented
b y a n -N ad im ’s F ih rist, tran scrib ed b y a l-Q ifti, and b y th e e x tra cts
in al-M ubashir a n d U saibia; th ere are also som e scattered fragm en ts
o f oth er w riters; th e en tire A ra b ic tra d itio n goes b a c k to a tran slatio n
(or epitom e) o f P to le m y ’s L ife of A risto tle , p resu m a b ly m ade b y Ish aq
ib n H u n a y n to w a rd s th e end of th e n in th cen tu ry .
A ll th e m aterial handed d ow n to us in th e se n in e V ita e is v e r y u n iform
in its general ch aracter, in sp ite of differen ces in d etails. B u t som etim es,
ev en in sm all details, th e ir agreem en t is com p lete, as I h a v e show n
in m y com m ents. I do n o t fo r a m om en t d o u b t t h a t th ese nine V ita e
u ltim a te ly are d erived from th e sam e com m on sou rce, P to le m y ’s L ife
o f A risto tle . I h a v e fou n d no ve stig es of a n y o th er in d epen d en t source.
T h is conclusion is confirm ed b y th e n eop laton ic prolegom ena. The
b io grap h ica l m a terial in th e se p rolegom en a (and in c id e n ta lly in th e
com m entaries) show s su ch close relatio n sh ip w ith t h e V ita e and w ith
P to le m y ’s C atalo g u e o f A risto tle ’s w ritin g s th a t th e re is no room for
d ou b t.
*) I c a n n o t se e t h a t th e r e is a n y e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g B ie d l’s a ssu m p tio n , S tu d i

e T e s ti 18 4 , p . 44, a n d I d o n o t t h in k t h a t h e h a s in t e r p r e t e d c o r r e c tly w h a t
A . A d le r s a y s in h e r a r tic le S u id a s , R E I V A , c o l. 7 1 0 . I n a fe w ca se s t h e c o m
m e n t a to r s h a v e u s e d t h e sa m e so u rc e s a s D io g e n e s, t h a t is a ll.
T h e ex a m in a tio n of th e th ree G reek and L a tin V ita e has led to th e

resu lt th a t th e y are th ree in d epen d en t versions of th e sam e origin al
ep itom e. T h is ep itom e w as used as th e b asis of oral in stru ctio n in th e
school of A m m on iu s H erm eiu an d b y his d isciples O lym piod oru s, D a v id
a n d E lia s. I t w a s also used b y P h ilo p on u s an d Sim plicius, an d a fter
th e tim e of E lia s an d D a v id b y th e an on ym ou s professor called Pseudo-
E lia s: th u s b y th re e generation s of stu d en ts from a b o u t 480 A . D .
u n til th e m id d le o f th e follow in g cen tu ry.
T h e S y ria c V ita e are v e r y m eagre in co n ten t an d n o t d erived d ire ctly
fro m a n y of th e e x istin g epitom es; th e y to o m u st b e regarded as in d e
p e n d e n t ve rsio n s o f th e sam e original. T h e y m a y h a v e b een curren t
in th e school o f Ib a s o f E d essa, b u t it is also possible t h a t th e y are
p ro d u cts o f th e se v e n th c e n tu ry used in th e schools o f B ish op Seb och t
of Q ennesrin or J a co b of E dessa.
T h e A ra b ic tr a d itio n is rich in fa cts w h ich a re n o t fou n d a t a ll in th e
G reek an d S y ria c V ita e , an d in m a n y cases w hen th e G reek V ita e
m erely co n tain a h in t or a sim ple fa ct, w e fin d a m ore elabo rate accou n t
in th e A ra b ic trad itio n . T h e A ra b ic tra d itio n h as b een u n d u ly neglected;
as I h a v e show n in m y com m en ts, it con tain s m uch v a lu a b le m aterial
of u n d o u b ted ly G reek origin; th e A ra b ic elaboration s, d istortion s and
em b ellishm en ts sta n d o u t cle a rly, an d in m ost cases w e can easily
d e ta c h th em . T h e A r a b ic t e x t of A r is to tle ’s W ill a fford s an excellen t
criterion , sin ce w e can d ire ctly com pare th e G reek an d th e A ra b ic
t e x t p a rag ra p h b y p a rag ra p h . T h e resu lt is t h a t th e re is a rem arkable
a greem en t b etw een D iogen es’ t e x t (derived fro m H erm ip pu s, p ro b a b ly
via P h avorin u s), an d th e A ra b ic t e x t (d erived from A n d ronicu s, via
P to le m y , via Is h a q ’s tran slatio n and oth er possible in term ed iate sources).
A s a m a tte r o f fa c t, th e A ra b ic t e x t o f th e W ill is in certain respects
sup erior to th a t g iv en b y D iogenes. T h is should w arn us n o t to b e too
suspicious of th e A ra b ic trad itio n . T h e c rite ria th a t I h a v e used in m y
sc ru tin y of th e A ra b ic sources are these: agreem en t in su b stan ce w ith
G reek sources, agreem en t in lan gu age of such a k in d th a t it is possible
to recogn ize ty p ic a lly G reek idiom s b eh in d th e A ra b ic te x t , and fin ally,
a greem en t in ten d en cy.
P to le m y ’s b io g ra p h y h a s a clear ten d en cy: i t is a glo rification of
A risto tle , b ased on som e ty p ic a lly n eop laton ic conception s. A risto tle
is 6 log ’ AQiOTOTekrjg. H e w a s en tru sted to P la to in com pliance w ith
a n oracle of th e G o d in D elph i. H e m ad e an ex tra o rd in a ry im pression
on P la to , and w hen P la to w en t on his secon d v is it to S icily , he d ep u tized

as h ead of th e school. H e w as h eld in g rea t h on our b y P h ilip and A lex a n
der an d w as v e r y in flu e n tia l in p o litica l affairs, “ using p h ilosoph y as an
in stru m e n t” . H e dissuaded A le x a n d e r from a tta c k in g P ersia, tellin g
him th a t th e om in a w ere u n fav o u rab le. H e w a s g rea t as a b enefactor,
b o th to w a rd s in d iv id u a ls and cities. T h e in h a b ita n ts o f S ta g ira honoured
him in m a n y w a y s a fte r his d eath . T h e y b eliev e d th a t “ th e ir com ing
to th e p lace w h ere A r is to tle ’s rem ains w ere b u ried w o u ld p u rify th eir
m in d s” . I t is said th a t a sw arm o f bees w as fou n d arou n d th e urn
c o n tain in g his ashes. A n d so forth.
I t is fu rth er ch ara cteristic of P to le m y ’s b io g ra p h y th a t he freq u en tly
refers to A r is to tle ’s correspondence as evid ence. I t is p rob ab le th a t
h e used A rte m o n ’s collection of le tte rs an d th e ad d itio n a l collection
m a d e b y A n d ro n icu s as p rin cip a l sources. T h e section on chronology
is p ro b a b ly ta k e n from H erm ippus; th e fa c t th a t A risto tle w as n o t
elected h ead o f th e A c a d e m y a fte r P la to ’s d ea th is exp lain ed in e x a c tly
th e sam e w a y as b y H erm ippus: “ A risto tle w as on a m ission to M ace
d o n ia ” . O th e r fa cts are o f su ch a n atu re th a t it is im possible to d eter
m ine w h eth er he h as ta k e n th e m from H erm ip pu s or from th e xoivfj
iarogia. A lth o u g h his te n d en cy to g lo rify A risto tle forbids us to sp eak
o f c ritical scholarship, it can n o t b e denied th a t his b io grap h y is a scholarly
w o rk, b ased on ex te n siv e in v estig a tio n s an d a th o rou g h kn ow ledge
o f th e b io grap h ica l trad itio n . H e w a n te d to fin d m a terial lik e ly to
e x to l A risto tle and presen t him as an alm ost d ivin e p erso n ality, and
h e fou n d it. I f su ita b le fo r his purpose, he tran sferred to A risto tle
q u alities, honours, and actio n s o rigin ally ascribed to oth er persons.
P h ilip , A lex a n d e r an d A n tip a te r w ere honoured b y th e A th en ian s a fter
th e b a ttle of Chaeronea w ith sta tu e s 011 th e A cropolis and th e sta tu s of
firoxenoi — P to le m y fe lt no scruples in tran sferrin g th is to A risto tle ,
p erhaps u sin g fa k e d letters as evidence; oth er exam ples of sim ilar
tran sfers are cite d in m y com m en ts. T h e h a b it as su ch is old; a short
tim e a fte r A r is to tle ’s d ea th th e h isto rian E u m elu s is a lrea d y describing
A risto tle as a second S ocrates. P to le m y is rea lly critical o n ly w hen
h e refutes stories w hich, if believed , cou ld d am age th e m em ory of his idol.
•. T h e gen eral ch a ra cte r of P to le m y ’s b io grap h y, as described here,
im plies th a t w e can n ever tr u st him . W e m u st a lw a y s suspect th a t his
sta te m en ts are biassed b y his a pologetic zeal. B u t it w ou ld b e u n ju st
to o v erlo o k th e fa c t th a t in cid en ta lly he tran sm its fa cts w hich are
472 INGEM AR DÜRING
v a lu a b le a d d itio n s to th e b io grap h ica l tra d itio n . P iecin g to g eth er

th e in fo rm a tion con tain ed in th e nine ep itom es of his w o rk w e g e t
th e follo w in g pictu re. T h e disposition is a rb itra ry.
T he title is rep o rted b y E lia s (T 75 P 3 ). th e F ih rist 19, a l-Q ifti (p.

208), an d U sa ib ia 1, w ith sm all v a r ia n t readings. T h e e x a c t title can n o t
b e d eterm in ed , b u t i t m u st h a v e b een som ething lik e “ On the L ife of
Aristotle, his W ill, and, A Catalogue of his W r i t i n g s O n th e possible
d ed icatio n to G allu s, see m y com m ents, p. 210.
1. D escen t an d fa m ily . A ll sources agree. N ew in com parison w ith
H erm ip p u s an d D iogen es is th e epigram .
2. P ro x en u s, V M , W , V L , U sa ib ia 3.
3. A r isto tle ’s e a rly yea rs, V M , W , V L ; curious elab o ration in M ubashir
3 — 4; eAevOeqojv n a id sia V M 4, W , V L ; eyy.vxXiog n a ihzia M ubashir 4.
4. ’ S ev en teen y e a rs old , V M , W , V V ; V S II ; M u b ash ir 9. O racle
in D elp h i, V M , W , V L ; V S I 41 C h r is t 4; U sa ib ia 3 - H e jo in e d th e
A c a d e m y w h en E u d o x u s w a s scholarch, V M 1 1 , V L . T w e n ty y ea rs
w ith Plato, all agree.
5. F rien d sh ip w ith P la to , V M 6 - 7 , W , V L ; M u bash ir 10. A va-
yvcbarrjg V M 6, W , V L - Novg rfjg diarQißrjg V M 7, V L ; V S 1 5; M ubashir
1 1 ; U sa ib ia 29. A risto tle d ep u tized as h ead of th e A c a d e m y du rin g P la to
second v is it to S icily , F ih r ist 5, M u b ashir 13, U sa ib ia 4, cf. V S I I 5 -
6. C h ro n ology of A r is to tle ’s life, u ltim a te ly from P hilochorus; V M ,
p a r tly in W , V L . F ro m H erm ippus?
7. C alu m n iators, V M 1 1 , V L ; d f if ia d ^ V S I 6, F ih rist 6, U sa ib ia
12. E p icu ru s, L y c o n , M u b ash ir 5 > tran scrib ed b y U saibia.
8. Speu sippu s, P la to ’s successor, V M , W , V L ; V S I I 4. O m itte d b y
A m m on iu s a n d O lym p iod oru s in th e ir oral in stru ction . N o t fou n d in
V S I an d th e A ra b ic trad itio n .
9. A risto tle w a s in M aced on ia an d cou ld n o t b e elected , V M 14,
V V , V L . F ro m H erm ippus?
10. H on ou red b y P h ilip w ith a statu e; u sed p h ilosop h y as an in stru
m en t, V M 15 an d 46, V V , V L .
1 1 . B en e fa c to r to w a rd s in d ivid u a ls, V M 1 5 — 16, W , V L ; F ih rist
12, M ub ashir 26, U sa ib ia 24, ela b o ra ted in th e A r a b ic trad itio n .
12. B e n e fa c to r to w a rd s cities. S ta g ira reb u ilt, V M 17 , W , VL;
F ih rist 13, M ubashir 27, U sa ib ia 25. M o n th IrayeiQ irrjg, festiv a l
’ AotaroTeXeia, V M 17, W , V L . D re w u p a cod e of law s fo r S ta gira,
(not in th e G reek V ita e , b u t in D L 4, from H erm ippus); V S I 7, M ubashir

27, U sa ib ia 14.
13. H is ashes b ro u g h t from C halcis to S ta gira, V M 18, V L , (not in
W ) ; V S I 10, M ubashir 29, U sa ib ia 13, 30— 3 1. T h e p lace called
5AQiarorekeiov V M 18, V L ; V S I 10, M ubash ir 29 — 30, U sa ib ia 13.
14. E ressus rescued, V M 19, W , V L .
15. B en e facto r to w a rd s th e A th en ia n s, V M 20, V L , (not in W ) ;
m uch m ore in U sa ib ia 1 7 — 20, on his sta tu e on th e A cropolis, inscription,
decree o f p ro x en y , H im eraeu s, S tep h an u s.
16. B en e facto r to w a rd s m an k in d , V M 2 1, VV, VL; F ih rist 12,
M ubashir 25 — 26, U sa ib ia 16 and 24. H is b o o k to A lex a n d e r O n kingship
V M 2 1, V L , V V 22; F ih r ist 9 is a n ela b o ra tio n o f this.
17. A fte r P la to ’s d e a th A ris to tle w e n t to H erm ias, M ubashir 17,
U saibia 5. N eith e r th e G reek V ita e , nor th e prolegom en a co n tain a
w ord a b o u t H erm ias.
18. P h ilip sum m oned h im to b e A le x a n d e r ’s tu to r, V M 14, W , V L ;
M ubashir 18, U sa ib ia 6.
19. A ra b ic trad itio n : W h e n A le x a n d e r b ecam e k in g, A risto tle
retu rn ed to A th en s, F ih r ist 10, M u b ashir 19 an d 24, U sa ib ia 6 an d 23.
H e le ft C allisthenes w ith A le x a n d e r as his successor, M u bashir 19 (from
H erm ip pu s or th e xoivrj iaroQia). T h e G reek tra d itio n is d ifferent:
H e accom p an ied A lex a n d e r to P ersia, V M 23, V L , W 23. H e dissuaded
h im from a tta c k in g P ersia, th e om in a b ein g u n favou rab le, o n ly in V M
23. A fte r th e w a r h e retu rn ed to A th en s, V M , W , V L , a fte r A lex a n d e r
w a s dead, V M , W . T h e G reek sources, reflectin g th e oral instru ction ,
are con fu sed in com parison w ith th e A ra b ic trad itio n . I assum e th a t
P to le m y ’s origin al co n tain ed this: (a) W h e n A lex a n d e r b ecam e k in g,
h e d ecid ed to a tta c k P ersia, (b) A risto tle dissuaded him , th e om ina,
(c) le ft C allisthenes, (d) retu rn ed to A th en s.
20. A risto tle w a s h eld in h igh h on ou r b y k in g s and princes, V M 23,
V L , V V 21; F ih r ist 8, M ubashir 28, U sa ib ia 15.
2 1. A risto tle an d X en o cra tes su cceed ed Speu sippu s in th e A ca d em y
a n d th e L y c e u m resp e ctiv ely , V M ,W , V L . The A ra b ic trad itio n
m erely says: A risto tle fou n d ed his ow n school in th e L y c e u m , o m ittin g
X en o cra tes as th e y h a d o m itted Speusippus, V S I I 5, F ih rist 1 1 ,
M ubashir 14 and 25, U sa ib ia 4 an d 23. E x p la n a tio n of th e nam e P e ri
p a te tics, V S I I 5, F ih rist 1 1 , M ubashir 14, U sa ib ia 23. N o t in th e
G reek v ita e , b u t v e r y w ell elab o rated in th e n eop laton ic prolegom ena.
22. A risto tle and P la to , th e a lta r w ith inscription , V M 26, V V , V L

I n m y com m en ts on T 34 c I h a v e ve n tu red th e hyp o th esis th a t P to lem y
q u o ted th e frag m en t o f th e E le g y , w h ich O lym piod oru s has preserved
to us, and th a t th e p assage in th e G reek V ita e is a b lu rred epitom e.
N o th in g in th e S y ria c or A ra b ic tra d itio n a b o u t this.
23. A risto tle praises P la to in his letters, too; o n ly in V M 27. L ette rs
o f in trod u ction , V M 16, W , VL. Correspondence w ith A lexan d er,
F ih rist 9, cf. M u bash ir 37.
24. I t is d o u b tfu l w h eth er P to le m y ’s b io g ra p h y co n tain ed a n yth in g
lik e a d o x o g ra p h y . T h e d oxograph ies in th e G reek V ita e are a ll derived
from th e oral in stru ctio n in th e n eop laton ic schools. P ossib le traces
o f an origin al d o x o g ra p h y in M u b ash ir 6 — 9, U sa ib ia 28.
25. A r is to tle ’s /ie T Q io r r ]i; , V M 3 1 , W , V L ; U sa ib ia 26. P la to ’s
y v r / a io jr a r o g fia d r jr r ji;, th e g rea te st of a ll G reek philosophers, VTtEQfiefh?}-
y.sv a v d Q c o m v a f i e x q a , V L 4 1, W 25; F ih r ist 7.
26. R e v o lt in A th en s a ga in st A risto tle , h e w a s accu sed of im p iety
b y E u ry m ed o n , V M 40, W , V L , M u b ashir 20, U sa ib ia 7 — 9 - H is
re tre a t to C halcis, V M , V V , V L , M u b ash ir 20, U sa ib ia 8. “ b eing frig h ten
ed of th e fa te t h a t b efell S o cra tes” , V V 19, V S I I 3, M ubashir 20.
D ic ta on le a v in g A th en s, V M , W , V L , “ d ifficu lt to b e a stran ger in
A th e n s” , V M 42. N o t tru e th a t h e w ro te a n a p o lo g y, U sa ib ia 10.
27. H is d ea th in C halcis, V M , W , V L , V S I I 7, M ubashir 23, U saibia
1 1 , “ w a tch in g th e E u rip u s ” , V S I I 7, M u bashir 22, “ during th e reign
o f P to le m y , son o f L a g o s ” , F ih r ist 15. “ A sw arm o f b ees” , o n ly in
V S I 9.
28. P erson al appearan ce, M u b ash ir 38, U sa ib ia 36, m o stly A ra b ic
elaboration .
29. H is W ill, V M , V L , V S I 1 1 , F ih rist (the w hole te x t , tran scribed
b y al-Q ifti), M u b ash ir 3 3 — 34, U sa ib ia (the w h ole te x t).
30. C hildren, disciples, V M , V L ; V S I I 6, M u bashir 3 1 — 32, tran scrib
ed b y U sa ib ia 3 3 — 34. H erm ip p u s an d A n d ro n icu s (m y conjecture),
M u b ash ir 3 1 an d U sa ib ia 33. T h eo p h rastu s his successor, M ubashir
32, U sa ib ia 34, also F ih r ist 16.
3 1. N u m b er o f his w ritin g s, V M , V L . In d e x librorum , al-Q ifti and
U saib ia. M ub ashir’s a cco u n t is based on th e prolegom ena.
I do n o t w a n t th is to b e regarded as a “ recon stru ction ” of P to le m y ’s

L ife of A risto tle . I t is m erely a collection o f fa cts, tran sm itte d to us
in th e nine ep itom es and p ro b a b ly a ll d erived from P to le m y ’s bio grap h y.

B u t w e m u st rem em ber th a t each o f th ese ep itom es contain s a selection
o n ly of these fa cts. T h e th ree G reek V ita e (I in clu d e th e G reek original
o f th e V ita latin a) w ere ep itom es in ten ded fo r a v e r y sp ecial purpose,
n am ely to serve as in trod u ction s to school-editions of A r is to tle ’s O rganon
in th e schools of A m m on iu s an d his disciples. T h is determ in ed th e
selection of fa cts from th e origin al b io grap h y . T h e A ra b ic w riters, on
th e oth er hand, w ere n o t in terested in Speu sippu s and X en ocrates;
th e y also o m itted th e la s t sectio n of th e W ill w ith th e provisions con
cerning statu es. B o th th e G reek an d th e A r a b ic ep itom ators m igh t
h a v e o m itted p a rts o f th e b io grap h y.
W h o w as th is P to le m y an d w h en did h e live? T h e id en tification
w ith P tolem aios C hennos shou ld in m y opinion b e discarded. The
general ch ara cte r o f th e V it a te lls us th a t th e a u th o r w as a n eoplaton ist,
w ritin g a fte r P o r p h y r y ’s tim e. A n ep la to n ist n am ed P to le m y is m en
tion ed as disciple o f P o rp h y ry an d Iam b lich u s, S tob aeu s I 378 W ach s-
m uth; h e m ig h t w ell b e ou r P to le m y . B u t th e n am e w a s indeed v e r y
com m on, esp ecially in A lex a n d ria. A curious d eta il in F ih rist 15 is
th e d a tin g o f A risto tle ’s d ea th to “ th e b egin n in g o f th e reign o f P to lem y ,
son of L a g o s” . A n A ra b ic w riter can h a rd ly h a v e in v en ted this; it m u st
b e d erived from P tolem y; it w ou ld b e n atu ra l for an A lex a n d rian scholar
to use th e A lex a n d ria n L is t of K in g s in stead of or parallel w ith th e
A th en ia n L is t of A rchons. T h is is a d m itte d ly a w ea k argum en t, b u t
it po in ts to A lex a n d ria. So does th e sch o la rly ch ara cter of th e b io grap h y.
M y conclusion, th en , is th a t P to le m y w a s a m em ber o f P o rp h y ry ’s
and Ia m b lich u s’ school and th a t he w ro te his L ife of A risto tle in th e
first h a lf o f th e fo u rth cen tu ry . I b ase th is conclusion m a in ly on th e
gen eral te n d e n c y of th e b io grap h y.
T w o problem s, in th em selves o f little im portan ce, m u st b e le ft open:
th e alleged d ed icatio n of th e b io g ra p h y to a certain G allu s, and th e
nam e P tolem y-el-G arib . T h e sim plest solu tio n is to a ccep t b o th fa cts
as tru e. D ed icatio n s of b ook s to R o m an noblem en w as a com m on habit;
P o rp h y ry is a go od exam ple. I t is possible to tra n sla te el-G arib w ith
“ th e u n k n o w n ” , and exp lain it as a surnam e g iv en to him b y Ish aq
to distin guish h im from th e w ell-kn ow n P to lem y , th e a u th or o f A l-
M agest. O th er possible exp la n a tion s are discussed in m y com m ents
on al-Q ifti.
W ith th is m y b rie f su rv e y com es to an end. A fte r P to le m y no ancient
w rite r is k n o w n w h o has m ad e an in d epen d en t or origin al con trib u tion

to th e b io grap h ica l trad itio n .
T h e b io grap h ica l tr a d itio n on A risto tle is in terestin g from tw o q u ite
d ifferen t p o in ts o f view . P a r t o f th is m a terial is im p o rta n t because
i t is tr u e an d g iv e s us k n ow led g e a b o u t th e histo rical A risto tle , a b ou t
th e ev en ts o f his life and a b o u t his p erso n ality. H is W ill is one of th e
m o st precious docu m en ts th a t a n tiq u ity h as p reserved to us. A n oth er
p a r t o f th e frag m en ts an d th e b iograp h ies is in terestin g b ecau se it
p ro vid es u s w ith m a terial fo r a h isto ry o f A ristotelian ism . B u t it is
n o t m y o b je c t in th is b o ok , eith er to w rite a Ivife o f A risto tle or a h isto ry
o f th e ch an ges in th e con cep tion of his p e rso n a lity an d im portance
as a ph ilosopher an d scholar, b u t rath er to p ro v id e a source-book for
su ch w ork.
ST U D IA GRAECA ET L A T IN A G O T H O B U R G E N SIA
P U B L IS H E D B Y T H E IN S T IT U T E O F C L A S S IC A L S T U D IE S
OF TH E U N IV E R S IT Y OF GÖTEBORG
E D IT E D B Y IN G E M A R D Ü R IN G A N D H A R A L D H A G E N D A H L
T h e series in c lu d es th e ses a n d o th e r stu d ie s b y m em b ers o f th e

I n s titu t e o f C la ssic a l S tu d ie s. S u b s c rip tio n s to th e series a n d ord ers
fo r sin g le v o lu m e s sh o u ld b e a d d re ss e d to M essrs. A lm q v is t & W ik s e ll,
P . O . B . 9 6 , S to c k h o lm , S w ed en .
V o lu m e s p u b lish e d :
I. A c h ille s T a tiu s. L e u c ip p e and C lito p h o n . E d ite d b y E b b e V i l -
borg. S to c k h o lm 1 9 5 5 . X C I I - f -191 p p. Price S w . K r . 2 5 .
II. À k e J : s o n F r id h . T erm inologie et fo rm u les dans les V ariae de
Cassiodore. É tu d es sur le développem ent d u style a d m in istra tif
a u x derniers siècles de V an tiquité. S to c k h o lm 1 9 5 6 . X II-} -
2 00 .p p. P ric e S w . K r . 2 0 .
III. S v e n E r ik s s o n . Wochentagsgötter, M o n d und T ierkreis. L a ie n
astrologie in der röm ischen K a ise rzeit. Stockholm 1 9 5 6 . 128 p p .
Price Sw . K r . 1 2 .
IV . E r ik W i s t r a n d . D ie Chronologie der P u n ic a des S iliu s Ita licu s.
B eiträge zur Interpretation der fla visch en L iteratur. G ö te b o rg
1 9 5 6 . (A c ta U n iv . Gothob. L X I I 9 .) 65 p p . P ric e S w . K r . 8.
V. I n g e m a r D ü r i n g . A risto tle in the A n cie n t B io g ra p h ica l T ra d i
tion . G ö te b o rg 1 9 5 7 . (A c ta U n iv . Gothob. L X I I I 2 .) 4 9 0 p p .
P ric e S w . K r . 3 2 .
V I. H a r a l d H a g e n d a h l . L a tin F athers and the C la ssics. G ö teb o rg
1 9 5 3 . (A c ta U n iv . Gothob. L X I V 2 .) P ric e S w . K r . 2 8 .
I n P re p a ra tio n :
K r is t e r JTa n e l l . D ie Sen atssitzu ng am 5. D ezem ber 63 v. Chr.
O s c a r L anjj .i ü , M y ken isch -G riechisch e E ig en na m en.
A c h ille s T a tiu s. L e u c ip p e and C litop hon. A C o m m e n ta ry b y E b b e
V il b o r g .
D is tr .:
A L M Q V IS T & W IK S E L L
STO CK H O LM
P r ic e S w . K r. —
Printed in Sweden
GÖTEBORG 1957
ELANDERS BOKTRYCKERI AKT1EB0LAG

Aristoteles in The Ancient

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Aristoteles in The Ancient

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

T v •

STUDIA CRAECA E T xW.ÄXM'WW

GOTIIOBURGENSIA 4*. >

P a r t I. E ditions oj the A n cien t Vitae Aristotelis

5. V ita L a s c a r is ............................................................................................... I4o

6. V ita l a t i n a .................................................................................................. 142

7. M edieval V ita e A r i s t o t e l i s .................................................................. 164

P art II. The Syriac and Arabic Tradition on Aristotle's L ife

T h e S yriac t r a d i t i o n .............................................................................. 184

P art III. Fragm ents of the A n cien t Biographical Tradition

II. D escen t and F a m i l y ................................................................... 263

III. H erm ias of A t a r n e u s .................................................................. 272

IV . R e la tio n s w ith P h ilip and A le x a n d e r ...................................... 284

V. A risto tle and I s o c r a t e s .............................................................. 299

V I. A risto tle and P l a t o ..................................................................... 315

V II A risto tle ’s l i b r a r y ......................................................................... 337

V III. A risto tle honoured b y th e D elph ic A m p h ictyo n s . . . . 339

X. A r is to tle ’s A p o l o g y ...................................................................... 343

X I. A r is to tle ’s d e a t h ............................................................................. 345

X II. A p p earan ce and personal q u a l i t i e s ...................................... 34g

X III. Som e an cien t v e r d i c t s ............................................................... 353

X IV . In d ire ct evid ence from A risto tle 's ow n w ritin gs . . . . 366

XV. E a r ly in v ective s a ga in st A r i s t o t le .......................................... 373

C om m ents on ch. X V ................................................................... 384

X V I. C h aracteristic sayin gs. B on-m ots. A n e c d o t e s ................. 396

X V II. T h e w ords nEQÎnazoç, 71LO171(11FIv, [Ieo (7Z (iti]tlxo ç.......................... 404

X V III. T h e R om an ed ition of A r is to tle ’s w o r k s ........................... 412

X IX . ’EÇaneQixoi Xoyoi................................................................................ 426

XX. T h e n eop laton ic in trod u ction s to th e stu d y of A risto tle 444

P a r t IV . From H erm ippus to Ptolem y

In dex testim o n io n im ........................................................................................ 47g

others cited or referred to in m y notes and com m ents. M y separate

G öteb o rg U n iv e rs ity A p ril 1957.

EDITIONS OF THE A N CIEN T VITAE

A fte r all th a t h as been w ritten on th e m anu scrip t trad itio n of th e

T h e b est three m anuscripts of D iogenes are th e follow ing:

*) C, W a c h s m u th , Sillograp horum gr. reliqu iae. L e ip z ig 1885. P . 5 1 — 54.

To these m a y b e added tw o old good copies of P:

Co = C on stan tin opolitan u s V eteris Serail 48, s. X I V in.1)

A ll oth er m anuscripts, e x c e p t th e E x c e rp ta , present a te x t w hich is

V = V a tic a n u s gr. 1302, s. X I V .

I) = B orbon icu s N e a p o lit a n s I I I B 28 (olim 252), s. X V .

Z = L obkow icen sis V I f. c. 38, s. X V .

M =-- M arcianus gr. 896 (olim 393), s. X I V (Biedl X V ).

The so-called Excerpta Vaticana.

T h ere are fu rth er m an y m anu scrip ts contain ing excerpts, b u t as th e y

(31) dvr Lot go<pov

T h e errors are m ore freq u e n t in th e la s t page of th e m anuscripts than

(18) /zerecogioat; (fieTECogTjaag B )

B alone gives us a t e x t w ith o u t em endations and serious corruptions.

’ ) (8) n o r l/ieXXev, (13) n a iö lo v (also W ), C a t . 24 a , (34) firrrov, tj x afl' e£iv.

th e v a ria n t readings in B P F can b e b est exp lain ed b y assum ing th a t

Cat. 35 evardastg, evaraaig

In other cases it seem s m ore lik e ly th a t th e readings in P and F are

T h e critical a pparatu s lists a b o u t tw e n ty readings (m arked P vulg.)

(2) xa ante TiwAdota om.

(9) qitjai om.

(13) negi om.

(29) de post xQitrjQiov

A curious error in (32) p roves b eyon d d ou b t th a t Co is a co p y of P

I t is p re tty safe to conclude th a t all the m an u scrip ts of th e fam ilies

W ach sm uth D iels U sener M artini

T h e m ain d ifference is th a t W a ch sm u th regarded B P F as three

superest in stitu i et graeca recudi longe em endatius p o ssin t.” T h e tra n s