Aëtiana V: An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts, Part 2. Book 2 Text and Commentary, Book 3 Text and Commentary 9789004428355

Table of contents :
‎Contents
‎Sigla and Abbreviations
‎User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary
‎Aetius Placita Book 2 Cosmology: Text and Commentary
‎Introduction to Book 2
‎Liber 2 Titulus et index
‎Liber 2 ⟨Proœmium⟩
‎Liber 2 Caput 1
‎Liber 2 Caput 2
‎Liber 2 Caput 3
‎Liber 2 Caput 4
‎Liber 2 Caput 5
‎Liber 2 Caput 5a
‎Liber 2 Caput 6
‎Liber 2 Caput 7
‎Liber 2 Caput 8
‎Liber 2 Caput 9
‎Liber 2 Caput 10
‎Liber 2 Caput 11
‎Liber 2 Caput 12
‎Liber 2 Caput 13
‎Liber 2 Caput 14
‎Liber 2 Caput 15
‎Liber 2 Caput 16
‎Liber 2 Caput 17
‎Liber 2 Caput 18
‎Liber 2 Caput 19
‎Liber 2 Caput 20
‎Liber 2 Caput 21
‎Liber 2 Caput 22
‎Liber 2 Caput 23
‎Liber 2 Caput 24
‎Liber 2 Caput 25
‎Liber 2 Caput 26
‎Liber 2 Caput 27
‎Liber 2 Caput 28
‎Liber 2 Caput 29
‎Liber 2 Caput 30
‎Liber 2 Caput 31
‎Liber 2 Caput 32
‎Aetius Placita Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth: Text and Commentary
‎Introduction to Book 3
‎Liber 3 Titulus et index
‎Liber 3 ⟨Proœmium⟩
‎Liber 3 Caput 1
‎Liber 3 Caput 2
‎Liber 3 Caput 3
‎Liber 3 Caput 4
‎Liber 3 Caput 5
‎Liber 3 Caput 5a (olim 18)
‎Liber 3 Caput 6
‎Liber 3 Caput 7
‎Liber 3 Caput 8
‎Liber 3 Caput 9
‎Liber 3 Caput 10
‎Liber 3 Caput 11
‎Liber 3 Caput 12
‎Liber 3 Caput 13
‎Liber 3 Caput 14
‎Liber 3 Caput 15
‎Liber 3 Caput 16
‎Liber 3 Caput 17

Citation preview

PART 2

Aëtiana V Part 2

Philosophia Antiqua A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy

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

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

volume 153/2

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

Aëtiana V An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts part 2 Book 2 Text and Commentary Book 3 Text and Commentary

Edited by

Jaap Mansfeld David T. Runia

LEIDEN | BOSTON

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

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

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

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

Contents Part 1 Preface ix Sigla and Abbreviations General Introduction

xii 1

Book 1 The Principles of Nature: Text and Commentary

101

Part 2 Sigla and Abbreviations

ix

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary

719

Book 2 Cosmology: Text and Commentary 727 Introduction to Book 2 729 Title and Index 739 Proœmium 743 1 On the Cosmos 746 2 On the Shape of the Cosmos 768 3 Whether the Cosmos Is Ensouled and Administered by Providence 780 4 Whether the Cosmos is Indestructible 794 5 Where the Cosmos Obtains Its Nourishment From 816 5a Where the Cosmos Has Its Regent Part 826 6 From What Kind of First Element the God Began to Make the Cosmos 833 7 On the Order of the Cosmos 845 8 What the Cause of the Cosmos Having Been Tilted Is 858 9 On What is Outside the Cosmos, Whether There Is a Void 864 10 What the Right Parts of the Cosmos Are and What the Left 876 11 On the Heaven, What Its Substance Is 883 12 On the Division of Heaven, into How Many Circles It Is Divided 896 13 What the Substance of the Heavenly Bodies Is, Both Planets and Fixed Stars 903

vi 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

contents

On the Shapes of the Stars 920 On the Ordering of the Heavenly Bodies 927 On the Conveyance and Movement of the Heavenly Bodies 938 From Where the Heavenly Bodies Obtain Their Illumination 949 On the Stars Called the Dioscuri 957 On Signs of the Seasons Produced by the Heavenly Bodies 962 On the Substance of the Sun 970 On the Size of the Sun 992 On the Shape of the Sun 1005 On the Turnings of the Sun 1012 On the Eclipse of the Sun 1024 On the Substance of the Moon 1034 On the Size of the Moon 1049 On the Shape of the Moon 1056 On the Illuminations of the Moon 1065 On the Eclipse of the Moon 1078 On Its Appearance and Why It Appears to Be Earthy 1090 On the Distances of the Moon 1103 On the Year, How Great the Time of the Revolution of Each of the Planets Is, and What the Great Year Is 1113

Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth: Text and Commentary 1129 Introduction to Book 3 1131 Title and Index 1140 Proœmium 1144 1 On the Circle of the Milky Way 1149 2 On Comets and Shooting Stars and Beams 1168 3 On Thunders, Lightnings, Thunderbolts, Firewinds and Typhoons 4 On Clouds, Mist, Rains, Dew, Snow, Hoar-Frost, Hail 1203 5 On the Rainbow 1214 5a (Formerly 18) On the Halo 1235 6 On Rods 1241 7 On Winds 1245 8 On Winter and Summer 1254 9 On the Earth, and What Its Substance Is and How Many There Are 1259 10 On the Shape of the Earth 1265 11 On the Location of the Earth 1272 12 On the Inclination of the Earth 1280 13 Whether the Earth Is at Rest or Moves 1283

1182

vii

contents

14 15 16 17

On the Division of the Earth, How Many Zones There Are 1292 On Earthquakes 1300 On the Sea, How It Came to Be and How Bitter It Is 1320 How Low and High Tides Occur 1330

Part 3 Sigla and Abbreviations

ix

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary

1347

Book 4 Psychology: Text and Commentary

1355

Book 5 Physiology: Text and Commentary

1739

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

Sigla and Abbreviations 1

Abbreviations Relating to Aëtius and His Tradition

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

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

2

Sigla Relating to the Apparatus Criticus of the Edition

a

Primary Witnesses

P PP PB

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

x PB

PPh

PAth PE PG

PG(Nic) PJ

PJln PC PL PQ

PSch PPs

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

sigla and abbreviations

xi

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

xii

sigla and abbreviations

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

Secondary Witnesses

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

sigla and abbreviations

3

Latin Abbreviations in the Apparatus Criticus (and Elsewhere)

⟨⟩ {} x] y ][ ̣ (sub lineam) *** ~ ♦

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

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

xiii

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

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

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

4

xv

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

Works Frequently Cited

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

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

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

xvi

sigla and abbreviations

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

sigla and abbreviations Reiske

Vítek Vors. Wachsmuth Westerink Wyttenbach Xylander

5

xvii

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

Further Abbreviations

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

xviii LSJ MPG MPL OLD PGL RE SC SVF TLG

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

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary 1

Introduction

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

2

The Division into Four Parts

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

3

The Edition

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

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_037

720

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

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

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

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

721

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

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

722

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

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

4

The Commentary

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

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

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

723

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

724

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

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

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

725

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

5

Further Related Texts

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

Aetius Placita Book 2 Cosmology: Text and Commentary

∵

Introduction to Book 2 1

Transmission

Book 2 is the best attested part of A’s compendium. P, whose abridged version best preserves the work’s original structure, has 32 chapters. It is almost certain that he coalesces two original chapters into a single chapter (2.5 and 2.5a), so there will have been 33 in all. S, using the different method of the anthologist, takes up most of the book in his cosmological chapters 21–27, although he also includes some material in the chapters on first principles (11–20, see A 2.7–8). T in his paraphrasing way uses material from 14 of the chapters (2.1–5, 13–14, 20–22, 26–27, 29, 31), most valuably confirming that there must be a common source behind the three witnesses. However, to our knowledge, he does not in this book bear witness to any doxai not preserved by P or S (with the exception of some stray doxai of which it is not wholly certain that they originally derived from A, see ch. 2.2 Appendix). The reason that this book is so well attested is that S is best preserved for the material of this book and he appears to have been very thorough in his excerpting. Of the 217 doxai in the book,1 as far as we can tell, he records all but 18 of them (= 91%), of which 5 are Platonic or Aristotelian doxai replaced by excerpts from AD and a further 6 are anonymous doxai that do not fit well into his schemes of coalescence. In contrast P retains 148 doxai (= 69%), while T draws on only 46 (= 21%). At this point we can add the conclusions drawn by Edward Jeremiah on the basis of his statistical analysis of the Placita. If all the chapters are taken individually (with the exceptions noted above), since they are all witnessed by both P and S, they would be ‘most likely complete’ (M–R 4.286, 373). However, if we aim to determine the maximum likelihood size for the work as a whole and the conclusion is reached that there are ‘in the order of 42 doxai missing from chapters where we have multiple witnesses’ (M–R 4.295), then it is likely that there may be a very small number of doxai that are missing entirely. It may be concluded, therefore, that the book is as good as complete and it was for this reason that in a previous volume we chose this book for our specimen reconstructionis in order to see whether a single-column edition of A was feasible and justifiable (M–R 2.295–654). The transmission of P is also excellent for this book. Aside from PB and Q, which are complete (except one chapter missing through haplography in Q, 2.27), there are many other partial witnesses. The oldest, the Antinoopolis

1 For these statistics see Appendix 3 to the General Introduction in Part One.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_038

730

introduction to book 2

papyrus, has only two snippets (2.23, 2.25), but E faithfully copies out 26 of the 32 chapters, while G is generous in his epitomisation, reducing P to 112 doxai which amount to 75% of the total (though some lemmata are reduced further). Evidence is also supplied by Cyril (chs. 1–4), Lydus (chs. 25, 28, 31) and a group of other witnesses (chs. 11, 12, 22, 24, 31). Finally, Psellus and Symeon Seth utilise the majority of the book’s chapter headings (23 and 22 respectively), but almost none of the contents of the doxai. The secondary witnesses—‘cousin writings’ that share the same narrower doxographical tradition—also provide valuable evidence. Chs. 4–23 of the manual of Ach cover exactly the same ground as Book 2 and provide comparative material for no less than 22 chapters. The doxai it contains are particularly valuable for chapters on the substance, shape and size of the various cosmic bodies, but also for other topics. On Achilles and the Placita see further M–R 2.126–134. The various Aratean prolegomena and scholia also contribute material, including an important diaphonia on the substance of the sun (ch. 2.20).

2

Subject Matter and Macrostructure

The subject matter of the book is indicated prospectively in its Preface (ch. 2.proœm.) and retrospectively in the Preface to Book 3 (ch. 3.proœm.). Moving from the principles and the elements (i.e. Book 1), it turns to the ‘products’ (ἀποτελέσματα), beginning with the most comprehensive, i.e. the cosmos. Looking back (ch. 3.proœm.), the compiler refers to the book as ‘the account of the things in the heavens’ (ὁ περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων λόγος). The book thus focuses on cosmology as it relates to the cosmos as a whole and to its heavenly realm. In most Greek philosophical systems there is a strong connection between cosmology and cosmogony (and sometimes also cosmophthory), but there is surprisingly little evidence of this in our book. Cosmogony predominates in chs. 1.4, 2.4 and 2.6, but occurs elsewhere in this book only in order to explain the origin of certain cosmological phenomena (e.g. ch. 2.8 on how the cosmos came to be tilted). The structure of the book’s subject matter treated in its 33 chapters is straightforward and clear. Its contents are divided into five clusters of subjects, with a final chapter connecting some of the clusters at the end. The first cluster focuses on the cosmos as a totality (chs. 1–10), the second and briefest on the heaven (chs. 11–12), the remainder on parts of the heaven (chs. 13–19 on the heavenly bodies, chs. 20–24 on the sun, 25–31 on the moon) and a final chapter (ch. 32) on the lengths of time of the heavenly bodies’ movements.

introduction to book 2

731

This sequence moves from the whole to the parts, and from the outside of the cosmos to the inside, a process that is germane to the work as a whole (see M–R 2.1.40–41, 50–59 and passim), and will be continued in Book 3 (see its Introductory remarks). The clusters follow a recurrent pattern in the way they treat their subjects which is adapted to suit the particular features of each. The treatment involves answering topics relating to the question types of substance (chs. 1, 3, 11, 13, 20, 25) and of quality (chs. 2, 4, 14, 22, 27), and then further in the categories of quantity (chs. 1, 12, 21, 26, 31, 32), of relative position (chs. 7, 15, cf. 10), of place (ch. 9) and—relating to all the categories—on motion (chs. 16, 23, perhaps also a missing chapter on the cosmos, see the appendix to ch. 2). In addition, there are question-types on cause or origin (chs. 4, 6, 8, cf. 5, 17, 23, 28, 30), as well as a number of chapters linked to individual aspects of the subjects treated, such as the Dioscuri (ch. 18), heavenly signs (ch. 19) and eclipses (chs. 24, 29). The subjects treated are generally well indicated in the chapter headings. The vast majority of these follow the umbrella type Περί x (25 out of 33), which sometimes explicitly indicates the category involved (e.g. οὐσία, μέγεθος, σχῆμα, τάξις, κίνησις), but also can conceal it (e.g. περὶ τροπῶν, περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός). But other formulas are also used involving interrogatives (τίς, πόθεν), conjunctions (εἰ) and other prepositions (ἀπό), all of which follow the familiar patterns of the Placita.

3

Name-Labels

The vast majority of the name-labels, which are an intrinsic component of every doxa, refer to philosophers in the ancient sense of the term, in this context philosophers engaged in physics or natural philosophy. A number of other thinkers and writers are mentioned—scientists (Aristarchus ch. 2.24, Eratosthenes 2.31, Eudoxus 2.19, Seleucus 2.1), a scholar (Apollodorus of Athens ch. 2.16), a geographer (Seleucus ch. 2.1), a poet (Aratus ch. 2.19)—but their number is very restricted. No doctors are included (Alcmaeon is clearly regarded as a natural philosopher for the purposes of this book). Book 2 also has a number of interesting indefinite group names (the physicists ch. 2.6, the astronomers chs. 2.15, 2.16, 2.29, 2.31). There are also more wholly anonymous name-labels than in any other book (15 out of 37; see the listing at M–R 4.359). In Book 2 the name-labels extend from Thales in the sixth century to the late Hellenistic Stoic Posidonius who is the most recent philosopher to be referred to (died ca. 50 bce). An impressive range of 53 thinkers and groups are considered to have had opinions worth recording on cosmological subjects (see

732

introduction to book 2

Jeremiah’s table at M–R 4.307 and listing at 4.354–361). The philosophers most often cited are the κορυφαῖοι of the classical age, Plato and Aristotle, both with 18 doxai, together with the Presocratic Empedocles (also 18), closely followed by the Stoics (17 doxai, but 30 in total if we add all the individuals). For the top 15 philosophers see the table at M–R 4.327. However, a closer examination of the name-labels will show that there is a predominance of names from the early Presocratic period of Greek philosophy. This is a feature of the entire work, with the exception of Book 1, as can be seen in the graph at M–R 4.324. But it is especially pronounced in Book 2. The reason is hardly surprising: not only is the history of the earliest period of Greek philosophy dominated by natural philosophy, but there was also a strong diversity of opinions on cosmological subjects, a matter of considerable interest to our doxographer, who throughout Book 2 shows a marked penchant for unusual views. Interestingly, however, Jeremiah has shown that this book shows less diversity of name-labels in relation to its doxai than the others, for which he gives the credible explanation that the standard cosmological model developed in the fourth century superseded the variety of views explored by the Presocratics in the preceding centuries (M– R 4.309). A feature of Book 2 that strikes the eye is the prevalence of multiple namelabels. In actual fact, when all such name-labels are taken into account, it does not have proportionately more than other books, as shown in the table at M– R 4.329 (about 19% of the whole). But it has a disproportionate number of long strings of name-labels. Thus the very first doxa on the unicity or plurality of the cosmos illustrates the main diaphonia with strings of 11 and 9 namelabels respectively (2.1.2–3). Of the 14 doxai in the work with four name-labels or more, 7 are found in Book 2 (also 2.3.2, 2.4.7, 2.11.4, 2.28.6, 2.29.7). There are also 8 cases of triple name-labels, which too is more than elsewhere (13). On the other hand, we also find in Book 2 the practice of using representative name-labels, particularly in the case of the Stoics, who in chs. 2.2, 14, 22, 26–27 are selected to represent views on the size and shape of heavenly bodies that were generally accepted in Greek philosophy from Plato and Aristotle onwards. These features of the use of name-labels have to do with the method used by the doxographer.

4

Method and Micro-structure

The individual chapters of the book range from three very long chapters on the substance of the three main heavenly bodies (2.13 stars: 16 doxai; 2.20 sun: 15 doxai; 2.25 moon: 15 doxai) to a number of chapters with two lemmata only (2.8,

introduction to book 2

733

2.10, 2.12). The majority of chapter are between 4 and 8 lemmata in length, and there are no monolemmatic chapters. The basic order of the lemmata within chapters is seldom in dispute, with those doxai retained by P usually a sound guide. The fullest material, however, is found in S and his particular methods of anthologising sometimes make it difficult to be wholly certain of A’s original order (e.g. in chs. 2.4, 2.20, 2.25). But in the case of five chapters we are fortunate that S appears to simply write out a stretch of A’s original text (chs. 2.28–32). See further the discussion on his methods in the General Introduction, section 2.4. Speaking in general terms, the contents of all the chapters in Book 2 are systematically structured. This is achieved by the consistent use of the characteristic dialectical method of the Placita, involving extensive use of the techniques of diaphonia (two opposed views) and diaeresis (two views with often a compromise view in between, or an organised list of differing views). These basic structural schemes, which underlie the ordering of the lemmata, are analysed and set out in section D(c) of our Commentary on each chapter. On these strategies of presentation see further M–R 2.3–10. They are present in virtually every chapter, often intelligently and flexibly applied, though it is true that some chapters are less systematic and their rationale is not so easily discernible (e.g. chs. 2.24, 2.30). (In contrast to the analyses in our previous reconstruction of this book in M–R vol. 2 part 2, we have not tried to illustrate them with schematic diagrams, which may have had the danger of making the structures appear too rigid and sometimes a little forced.) But it would be wrong to conclude that the systematic nature of the presentation of doxai leaves no room for historiographical considerations. Our author has already made it quite clear in Book 1 that he is sensitive to chronology and to the importance of the key successions and sects of philosophers. At the outset of the book (ch. 2.1), he introduces Pythagoras as the one who first used the term κόσμος for that which contains all things, followed by two long lists of philosophers espousing the view of a single cosmos and multiple kosmoi respectively, the one starting with Thales and Pythagoras, archegetes of the Ionian and Italian successions respectively, opposed to another list commencing with Thales’ pupil Anaximander and containing a bevy of Eleatics and atomists. It is also no coincidence that the two lists end with the four founders of the Hellenistic schools (with the addition of Epicurus’ teacher Metrodorus). On 19 occasions, as can be seen at M–R 2.95, chapters display foundational name-labels (from the historical point of view) in their first lemmata. Moreover, key early figures are frequently associated with key doxai in the systematic structures mentioned above. In all three elaborate diaereses on the substance of the stars, sun and the moon, Thales represents the main view that they are ‘earthy’ (2.13.1, 2.20.9, 2.25.9). Examples could be multiplied. There

734

introduction to book 2

is indubitably a tension between the two approaches, systematic and historical. An important result of Jeremiah’s research is that, when all five books are compared, Book 2 is the most dialectical and the least historical in its ordering of the doxai. See his analyses at M–R 4.310–319. Not only does Book 2 have the most chapters (33) and lemmata (217) of any of the books. It is also marked by the brevity of many of its doxai, some of which are so short that they have single word predicates (e.g. A 2.2.2–3, 2.20.9, 2.25.9, 2.27.3–6). On average its doxai are the shortest of any of the five books (16.9 words, compared to the overall average of 25.8). There are only two long descriptive doxai in the book, both on the ordering of the cosmos, attributed to Parmenides (2.7.1) and Philolaus (2.7.6) respectively (cf. also 2.20.12–13). These two important passages give rise to many textual and interpretative problems. Contributing to the brevity of the doxai in Book 2 is a further feature of the Placita method. The compiler makes consistent and heavy use of ellipsis at the beginning of the lemmata, i.e. the suppression of verbs of saying or thinking, often together with the subject and the question being asked (which is assumed from the chapter heading). This practice poses difficulties for the reconstruction of the text, for quite often our witnesses (esp. S) reinsert such verbs and subjects in their excerpts. Research has shown that the first two books are most elliptical, but that Book 2 comes out on top in this regard. No less than 196 of the 214 labelled lemmata have initial elliptical predicates, i.e. 92 %. See further Jeremiah’s analyses at M–R 4.319–323. For a further conclusion that might be drawn from these analyses, see the next section below ad finem.

5

Sources: Proximate Tradition

There is a surfeit of evidence to show that the doxai which A has collected in this book stand for the most part in a long doxographical tradition which we have labelled ‘proximate’. Perhaps the most valuable witness to this tradition for Book 2 is a number of passages in Philo De somniis (and also the previous treatise De mutatione nominum). Though containing no name-labels, when describing the heavens they use many of the same diaereses and doxai that appear in A (esp. chs. 2.11, 2.13, 2.15, 2.21, 2.28). In preparing for the writing of these treatises Philo must have had at his disposal a doxographical handbook very similar to that of A. At least seven other authors reveal similar doxai on cosmological themes, also containing many of the name-labels that are common in Book 2: aside from Achilles and Arius Didymus, there are the brief doxographies on the Presocratics in Hippolytus Refutatio and ps.Plutarch Stromateis, important parallels in Cicero Lucullus and De natura deorum,

introduction to book 2

735

copious doxographical material in Diogenes Laertius, and some valuable evidence found in authors that have made use of source material from Varro (chs. 2.4, 2.32). In some cases the questions and the diaereses have been preserved, in others the doxai have been wrenched, it would appear, from their doxographical contexts and reassembled in order to make author-based rather than topic-based compilations. A striking example of how close this narrow proximate tradition can be is found in doxai on the substance of the moon. Both Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus attribute to Anaxagoras the view that the moon has an irregular surface, on each occasion using the same uncommon word φάραγγες (ravines) as A does in 2.25.10 (cf. also 2.30.3 ταπεινά). Moreover, Cicero Luc. 123 attributes lunar plains and mountains to Xenophanes, again in the same terms as we find in A. In Philo Somn. 1.22 there is talk of ἄγκεα καί νάπας (dells and vales) on the heavenly bodies, exactly the same words used of Democritus’ view in 2.30.4. It can hardly be doubted that these views all go back to a very specific common tradition. Other, mostly later authors also offer many further parallels to the doxai in this book, notably Plutarch (esp. in his work De facie), Sextus Empiricus, Censorinus, Macrobius and the Patristic authors Tertullian, Basil, Isidore of Pelusium, Augustine and Isidore of Seville. It shows that they utilise the same traditions, though not always at first hand. Of special interest are the texts in Galen and Seneca, showing how the quaestiones and diaeretic schemata fundamental to the Placita were widely known and utilised (see on chs. 2.1, 2.4, 2.13, 2.15). Further information on the background to A’s use of quaestiones or θέσεις is provided by texts in the rhetors Hermagoras, Theon, Quintilian and Marius Victorinus (see on chs. 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.21, 2.27). These texts show that certain cosmological topics were not just of scientific interest, but had a wider dissemination, if only as illustrations. A special case is formed by the philosopher Epicurus (341–271), founder of one of the main Hellenistic schools of thought. Epicurus’ views are quite well represented in Book 2, with ten doxai to his credit. But what is particularly interesting in the present context is that he demonstrably has used collections of placita to illustrate possible views on questions that he regards as beyond scientific certainty. On five topics—the turnings of the sun (ch. 2.23), the eclipses of the sun and moon (chs. 2.24, 2.29), the illumination of the moon (ch. 2.28) and the face of the moon (ch. 2.30) he includes among his explanations doxai that are the same as or similar to what we find in A. Further convergences occur in his treatment of meteorological subjects set out in Book 3. In a detailed analysis (M–R 4.406–413) we have concluded (p. 413) that ‘Epicurus in drawing up his treatment of cosmology, and in particular his listings of multiple explanations, made use of doxographical material that was taken up into the tradition

736

introduction to book 2

of the Placita and three centuries later had found its way into the distillation of this tradition in Aëtius’ compendium’. His pupil Lucretius in the first cent. bce continues the practice of using doxographical material, which leads to deviations from the narrow example of the master (M–R 4.399). What, then, can be said about the nature and origin of this anterior proximate tradition as evidenced by the contents of Book 2? There is a uniformity of method and content which encouraged Diels, though unaware of the Philonic texts, to postulate a work called the Vetusta placita to be dated to the early first century bce which organised material going back to Theophrastus and the Peripatos. But the evidence for this kind of work goes back earlier, at least to the time of Chrysippus; see M–R 3.125–157. It is more likely that there were a plurality of doxographical works in circulation by A’s time (M– R 2.35). Two significant clues are found in Book 2 through rare references to the sources of A’s information. Both refer to Theophrastus, in the former case (2.20.4, Xenophanes on the sun’s οὐσία) to what he wrote ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς, in the latter case (2.29.8, Anaxagoras on lunar eclipses) without specific reference to a work. But we cannot even be sure which work is being referred to here. It is also possible, based on the contents of ch. 2.31, to consider Eudemus’ account of astronomical researches as a source for some of A’s material (cf. M–R 3.473). Jeremiah on the basis of his analyses of style and method concludes that in comparison with other books Book 2 has features—more diaereses, less historical ordering—which make it likely that ‘its contents underwent a greater degree of reorganisation and compression in the course of its transmission’ (M–R 4.316). We can be certain that much of the often bizarre cosmological material from early Greek philosophy found in Book 2 has been sluiced through the researches of Peripatos, and that the method of dealing with this material owes much to methods developed by Aristotle and his successors. But precise details on how these processes took place are simply not available. On the question of A’s sources see further the General Introduction, section 5.

6

Other Source Material

For the Presocratic lemmata, which form the bulk of the book’s material, we do not have access to any of the original texts. This includes the case for the poems of Parmenides and Empedocles, of which we have reasonably extensive remains—a clear indication that their doxai have been well worked over by intermediate sources (an exception is the reference to the δαίμων at 2.7.1 drawn from fr. 28B12 DK). The first philosopher for whom we can examine the original source is Plato. Given the book’s cosmological contents, the chief

introduction to book 2

737

source for his 18 doxai would be expected to be the Timaeus. But the doxai are clearly not taken from it directly. In almost all cases they have passed through an early Middle Platonist or Neopythagorean filter prevalent throughout the entire work (cf. M–R 2.51). This is most obvious in ch. 2.6, starting with its title ‘From what kind of first element did the god make the cosmos’ which hints at the Platonic demiurge, then using the non-Platonic term νοητὸς κόσμος in relation to the model, and ending with a comment that for the elemental shapes Plato is ‘Pythagorising’. Plato’s association with Pythagoras (also in 2.10.1, 2.23.8) is also a Middle Platonist trait. But also in most other Platonic doxai modifications and additions to the Timaeus are made, and in some cases there is no precedent for the view at all, e.g. on the five regions of the cosmos in 2.7.4 and the lunar eclipse in 2.29.7. Exceptionally a Stoic filter is visible in 2.5a.1, where the cosmological use of the term ἡγεμονικόν is neither Platonic nor Platonist (unless this expression had entered into the philosophical koine by A’s time). Middle Platonist handbook writers such as Alcinous and Apuleius offer insight into these adaptations, but by the time of the commentator Proclus in the fifth century the amount that we can learn about the doxographical tradition is restricted. Aristotle plays a significant role in Book 2, though less than in Books 3–5. The structure of his cosmology in De caelo exerts a general influence in chs. 1–17 (as does the Timaeus), but there is an important difference in that the Stagirite hardly pays any attention to the sun and the moon, in contrast to A who devotes 12 of his 33 chapters to them. Although the number of doxai attributed to Aristotle is large, they are almost all very short (only 2.3.4 is a little longer) and rather uninformative. There is some evidence of the use of works that are no longer extant (e.g. 2.5.1 on the cosmos’ (lack of) nourishment) or of later interpretations (e.g. 2.3.4 on restricted providence). But for some doxai there is no evidence at all (e.g. 2.26.3, 2.28.2, both on the moon). Later commentators such as Alexander and Simplicius offer many general parallels, but do not appear to make use of the Placita tradition themselves. In an important text in his commentary on the Posterior Analytics John Philoponus shows how the kinds of questions asked in the Placita relate to the categories (see on chs. 2.1–4, 2.9, 2.11), but he too does not make direct use of the doxographical tradition. For Epicurus we are fortunate to have more original writings, both complete and fragmentary, than for any other Hellenistic philosopher and the first two of his extant letters in Diogenes Laertius have substantial sections on cosmogony and cosmology. Summaries of doctrine such as these letters were attractive for doxographers when formulating their doxai. In one case, A 2.7.3 on the boundaries of kosmoi, it is possible that A has drawn directly on the Letter to Pythocles (M–R 4.395); in another case there is a strong convergence with a

738

introduction to book 2

scholion preserved by Diogenes (2.2.5). In three doxai A includes the key model term ἐνδέχεσθαι, which will certainly have been derived from Epicurus himself, either directly or indirectly (2.2.5, 2.13.15, 2.22.4, cf. 2.4.13). In other cases the doxai are closer to texts in later sources, notably Lucretius and Diogenes of Oenoanda (see 2.20.14 on the sun, M–R 4.398). There will be some filtering here that occurred via either scholastic or doxographical traditions in the Hellenistic period, about which we do not know a great deal (Philodemus is as good as silent on cosmology except in his doxography on theology, on which see ch. 1.7). The Stoa is the youngest school to be explicitly included in the Placita and it is heavily represented in Book 2. The subject-matter of the book is identified as part of the Stoic φυσικὸς λόγος as set out in the Stoic doxography at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133. As already noted, there are no less than 17 doxai with the school name-label, as well as five members mentioned by name (Zeno 2×, Cleanthes 7×, Diogenes 1×, Boethus 1×, Posidonius 2×, but not Chrysippus). These 30 doxai are uniformly very brief. The impression gained, also when comparing them with the extensive doxography in Diogenes Laertius, is that their contents are derived from earlier doxographies rather from original writings, but we have no way of checking. Later evidence on Stoic cosmological views, such as we find in Cicero, Seneca and Cleomedes, offers useful parallels, but is generally more discursive and presents the arguments that are missing in A. It would be gratifying to have access to source material which would allow us to explain how such odd views have been attributed to Cleanthes in A 2.14.2 and 2.27.4.

Liber 2 Titulus et index Τ: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 Raeder, cf. 2.95, 5.16 (titulus)—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 885E–886A; p. 268 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā p. 139 Daiber (titulus), pinax in ms. Damascenus fol. 7v (ineditus)—PE: Eusebius PE 15.32.8, p. 406.6– 18 Mras—PC: Cyrillus. Juln. 2.14, p. 105.10–12 Riedweg—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN praef., p. 18.10–12 Delatte

Titulus ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΕΣΚΟΝΤΩΝ ΤΟ Βʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε· Index αʹ. Περὶ κόσμου βʹ. Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου γʹ. Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος δʹ. Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος εʹ. Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος ⟨ε+ʹ. Ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὁ κόσμος⟩ ϛʹ. Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν ζʹ. Περὶ τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου ηʹ. Tίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι θʹ. Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, εἰ ἔστι κενόν ιʹ. Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά ιαʹ. Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία ιβʹ. Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ, εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται ιγʹ. Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἄστρων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν ιδʹ. Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων titulus : scripsimus, cf. T 4.31 et M–R 1.326 : Πλουτάρχου φιλοσόφου Περί τῶν ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν δογμάτων ἐπιτομῆς τὸ βʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(I) : Περί τῶν ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν ἐπιτομῆς βιβλίον βʹ PB(III:E) : βιβλίον δεύτερον PB(II): deest in PB(III: α) qui hab. pro titulo Περὶ τῶν ἀποτελεσματικῶν : ἐν … τάδε om. PB(III:E) : Die zweite Abhandlung aus dem Buch des Plutarchos Q index : indicem totum om. PB(III:α) : exstat in PQ ms. Ẓ sed hactenus ineditus (habemus versionem Daiberi; vid. append. infra t. 4) [5] Εἰ … διοικούμενος PB(I,II)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.3 : καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος om. PB(III) ‖ [7] πόθεν PB(I,III)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.4 : εἰ PB(II) ‖ [8] coniecimus; vid. c. 2.5a infra ‖ [9] Ἀπὸ … κοσμοποιεῖν tit. c. 2.6 : πρώτου om. PB(III) : ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν PB ‖ [10] τοῦ κόσμου PB(II–III)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.6 : τοῦ om. PB(I) ‖ [11] Τίς … ἐγκλιθῆναι PB(IIΙ)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.8 : Περὶ τοῦ ante τίς PB(I–II) : om. τοῦ PB(I–II) ‖ [12] Περὶ … κενόν PB, cf. tit. c. 2.9 : Gibt es ausserhalb ein Vakuum Q‖ [14] Περὶ … οὐσία PB, cf. tit. c. 2.11 : Über die Substanz des Himmels Q ‖ [15] Περὶ … διαιρεῖται PB, cf. tit. c. 2.12 : Über die Einteilung des Himmels Q ‖ [16] Τίς ἡ οὐσία … ἀπλανῶν tit. c. 2.13 : om. ἡ PB(I–II) : πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν om. PB(III) : post ἀπλανῶν add. καὶ πῶς συνέστη PB(I–II) : συνεστήκασι PB(III) : Was ist die Substanz der Sterne Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_039

5

10

15

740 ιεʹ. ιϛʹ. ιζʹ. ιηʹ. ιθʹ. κʹ. καʹ. κβʹ. κγʹ. κδʹ. κεʹ. κϛʹ. κζʹ. κηʹ. κθʹ. λʹ. λαʹ. λβʹ.

liber 2 titulus et index

Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες Περὶ τῶν ἄστρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης Περὶ ἐμφάσεως σελήνης καὶ διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται Περὶ τῶν ἀποστημάτων τῆς σελήνης Περὶ ἐνιαυτοῦ, πόσος ἑκάστου τῶν πλανητῶν χρόνος, καὶ τίς ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτός

[19] Περὶ … κινήσεως PB, cf. tit. 2.16 : Über die Fortbewegung der Sterne Q ‖ [21] Περὶ … Διοσκούρων PB(I,II) : τῶν1 om. PB(III) ‖ [22] Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων tit. c. 2.19 et cf. Über die (Wetter-) Konstellationen der Jahreszeiten Q : καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος add. PB ‖ [23] Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου PB(III)Q : καὶ ὅτι δύο καὶ τρεῖς εἰσίν add. PB(I,II) ‖ [30] Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης PB, cf. tit. c. 2.27 : Über die Gestalt und die Erleuchtung des Mondes Q (conflat c. 27 et 28) ‖ [32] Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης PB(I,III), cf. tit. 2.29 : ἐγκλίσεως sive ἐγκλείψεως PB(II) ‖ [33] Περὶ … φαίνεται cf. tit. c. 2.30 : αὐτῆς pro σελήνης PB(I,II)Q : καὶ om. PB(III) ‖ [34] Περὶ … σελήνης tit. c. 2.31 : post σελήνης add. πόσον (ὃ PB(III)) ἀφέστηκε τοῦ ἡλίου PBQ ‖ [35–36] Περὶ … ἐνιαυτός PB(I,II), cf. tit. c. 2.32 : πλανητῶν PB(I,II) : πλανωμένων PB(III) : χρόνος καὶ τίς om. PB(III) : καὶ τίς ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτός om. PQ

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Eusebius PE 15.32.8 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Cyrillus Juln. 2.14 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Symeon Seth CRN Praef. p. 18.10–12 Delatte vid. lib. 1. titulus et index

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

20

25

30

35

liber 2 titulus et index

741

Commentary A Witnesses As discussed in the equivalent chapter of Book 1, for the title of the entire work and its individual books we must rely on the evidence of T, the only witness to cite the title of the original work and give the name of its author. The titles in P and those witnesses dependent on its tradition are expanded versions of the original title. For the title at the head of P’s Book 2 only the evidence in PB is available, supplemented by a reference to the book’s title in Cyril’s extracts from it. Q does not appear to have translated the title, but only indicated the number of the book and its author. On these titles see further Book 1.titulus et index Commentary C. For the index of chapters PB is the chief witness, though not all mss. contain it. One of the mss. of Q, Ẓāhirīya (Damascenus) 4871 contains a translation of the list and thus provides valuable additional evidence on the manuscript tradition. Daiber did not include it in his edition, but he has kindly provided the editors with a translation (see Appendix in vol. 4). On this translation and its source see further the Book 1.titulus et index Commentary A. Eusebius provides us with two pieces of evidence. The chapters that he writes out from P Book 2 are all in Book 15 of his Praeparatio Evangelica. This book, following his usual practice, has itself a pinax which contains the headings of all the chapters he quotes. In addition, he gives a summary of some of the chapters he is going to quote at 15.32.8–10, including most of the chapter headings of chs. 2.1–11. It cannot be considered certain that this represents the pinax of his copy of P, since he might also have based it on the chapters he had written out. But there is likely to have been very little difference. Similarly Symeon Seth in his Preface gives a summary of the headings of many of the chapters in his compendium. This takes the place, as it were, of a pinax. Texts above under testes primi. C Book Title As emphasised in our discussion in Book 1.titulus et index Commentary A, the title for the entire work and each of its books must be based on the evidence of T. The titles in the tradition of P are secondary. P’s title in the ms. Mosquensis for Book 2 is very full and uniquely speaks of ἐπιτομή in the genitive, i.e. as if it was part of the title in the nominative (Books 3 and 5 have ἐν ἐπιτομῇ, which must qualify τῶν ἀρεσκόντων). On how this title relates to the title of the original work see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary C.

742

liber 2 titulus et index

D Analysis of the Index (1) For a discussion giving the reasons why we are convinced that A’s original compendium contained these indices at the beginning of each book, see M– R 2.196–204 and Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(6) and D(e). (2) For the methodology of the reconstruction of the index see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(3). We argue that priority must be given to the chapter headings in the text of the chapters themselves, since A will have based his index on these when he compiled the work. It is thus to be assumed that the list of chapter headings in the index accurately reflects the chapter headings in the text of the Book. In the index of this book the discrepancies between the pinax and the headings transmitted in within the book itself is greater than elsewhere, there being no less than five chapters where they diverge: chs. 2.5a (not in P), 2.6, 2.13, 2.19, 2.30. In the remaining cases the intra-textual chapter heading has differing degrees of support in the Index list in the manuscripts. The reader is advised to study the apparatus criticus both to the above list and to the headings of individual chapters. (3) For discussion of chapter headings in PB, who often opts for the longer variants, see the comments in our Commentary on individual chapters below (section C). It is interesting to note that in the case of eight chapters (9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 32) Q records a shorter chapter title compared with what is found in PB. He has also conflated the titles of chs. 27 and 28, caused by the omission of the contents of ch. 27 (but not its title) in the main body of the book. This may suggest that he derived his list from the contents of the book rather than translating the index in the ms. he was translating (which would make it less valuable from the textual point of view), but this cannot be considered certain. After all, the mistake may have been in the text on which he based his translation (and so also in its pinax). D(e) Other Evidence For further discussion on the use of pinakes (tables of contents) in ancient works see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(e). E Further Related Texts For an extensive list of parallel texts relating to the compilation and use of pinakes (tables of contents) or indices of chapter headings, see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary E.

Liber 2 ⟨Proœmium⟩ PB: Plutarchus 886B; p. 327a2–6 Diels—PQ: pp. 138–139 Daiber

τετελεκὼς τοίνυν τὸν περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων καὶ τῶν συνεδρευόντων αὐτοῖς λόγον τρέψομαι πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων, ἀπὸ τοῦ περιεκτικωτάτου πάντων ἐνστησάμενος. (P) proœmium non hab. S ‖ [2] ἐπὶ : περὶ coni. corrector ms. Vossiani, Diels

Loci Aetiani: A 1.2 tit. Τίνι διαφέρει ἀρχὴ καὶ στοιχεῖα. A 1.2.2 τὰ μὲν γὰρ στοιχεῖά ἐστι σύνθετα, τὰς δ᾽ ἀρχάς φαμεν εἶναι οὔτε συνθέτους οὔτ᾽ ἀποτελέσματα. A 1.3 tit. Περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν τί εἰσιν. A 1.5.4 ὅπου γὰρ ἀπέραντα τὰ αἴτια, ἐκεῖ καὶ τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. A 1.11.1 αἴτιόν ἐστι δι᾽ ὃ τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα κτλ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The brief introductory authorial statement preceding the chapters of Book 2 is only found in PB and the translation of the closely related PQ. This is also the case for the similar comments at the beginning of Books 1, 3, 4 and at 3.8.2. B Proximate Tradition and Sources The distinction between principles and effects goes back at least as far as Plato’s Timaeus (cf. 27a, 27d–29d, 47e), without using the same terminology as our text (cf. also the summary of early Pythagorean accounts of the derivation of the cosmos from higher principles at D.L. 8.25). Aristotle also clearly distinguishes between the two in his opening remarks in the De caelo and the Meteorology (texts below section E(a)). Here too there are no verbal similarities with A. The Stoic distinction between an eidetic and a generic list of topics in the φυσικὸς λόγος at D.L. 7.132 also shows some resemblances to the difference in contents between Books 1 and 2. Evidence for the specific distinction between principle/cause/element and resultant product first appears in Philo of Alexandria and Plutarch (texts below section E(a)). It occurs a number of times in G in the first part of the work

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_040

744

liber 2 ⟨proœmium⟩

not derived from A, where it is related to the thought of Plato and Aristotle. In the Middle Platonist tradition the transition from principles to the genesis of the cosmos occurs very clearly in paraphrases or summaries of the Timaeus at Tim.Locr. 7 and Alcinous Did. 8 (texts below), but the term ἀποτέλεσμα is not used. It would appear that the movement from principles to effects has a Platonic background, but that the terminology used is likely to have been derived from the Stoa. C Chapter Heading The introductory remarks have no title but are placed under the general title of the Book, as is the case for the other four passages noted above. D Analysis a Context and Rationale The sentence effectuates the transition from Book 1 on the principia to the remaining books on the realia of the cosmos and its contents. Further transitions are made at the beginning of Book 3, at 3.8.2 and at the beginning of Book 4. Although these passages are only found in P, it can be considered virtually certain that they were originally present in its source, A. The words περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων recall the prefatory chapter 1.2, Τίνι διαφέρει ἀρχὴ καὶ στοιχεῖα, most of which is taken up by S in his chapter 1.10 entitled Περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων τοῦ παντός. On the authorial comments in A see further M–R 2.43–59, on this passage 2.52. In chapter 1.2 which has as its purpose the distinguishing marks between principles and elements, ἀποτελέσματα are distinguished from ἀρχαί (A 1.2.2), but no explanation is given of how this is the case. b Further Comments General Points: (1) As noted in M–R 2.52, συνεδρευόντων can also be translated ‘what belongs to the same company as,’ ‘is attendant upon’. It implies a group of topics subordinate, or at least consequent upon the principles and elements, i.e. the topics treated in chs. 1.11 to 1.29. (2) In the phrase πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων Diels replaces ἐπί with πρός, taking over the emendation of the corrector of the Leiden ms. Vossianus Q 2 (a copy in the Planudean tradition, i.e. family III), but this move is unnecessary and has been rejected by subsequent editors. ἐπί here literally means ‘in the case of’; cf. Smyth (1956) §1689c. Its use is prompted by the wish to vary the expression used in the previous clause.

liber 2 ⟨proœmium⟩

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo Opif. 28 τάξις δ᾽ ἀκολουθία καὶ εἱρμός ἐστι προηγουμένων τινῶν καὶ ἑπομένων, εἰ καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἀποτελέσμασιν, ἀλλά τοι ταῖς τῶν τεκταινομένων ἐπινοίαις. Opif. 129 ἆρ᾽ οὐκ ἐμφανῶς τὰς ἀσωμάτους καὶ νοητὰς ἰδέας παρίστησιν, ἃς τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων σφραγῖδας εἶναι συμβέβηκε; Her. 209 καὶ τἄλλα δὲ ἐναντία προῦπτα, σώματα ἀσώματα, ἔμψυχα ἄψυχα, λογικὰ ἄλογα, θνητὰ ἀθάνατα, αἰσθητὰ νοητά, καταληπτὰ ἀκατάληπτα, στοιχεῖα ἀποτελέσματα … Fug. 133 ἰδοὺ τὸ δρῶν αἴτιον, τὸ πῦρ· ἰδοὺ καὶ τὸ πάσχον, ἡ ὕλη, τὰ ξύλα· ποῦ τὸ τρίτον, τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα; οἷον ἰδοὺ ὁ νοῦς, ἔνθερμον καὶ πεπυρωμένον πνεῦμα. ps.Galen HPh ch. 17, p. 610.3–6 Diels Πλάτων δὲ καὶ τὰς ἰδέας εἰσήγαγεν, αἷς ἴσα μὲν ἀπεργάσασθαι δύναται· εἰσάγουσι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἄποιον ὕλην, ὅσοι οὐκ ἂν ἴσα τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα συντελεῖσθαι διδόασιν, ἀλλὰ † ταύτης τε ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τὰ ἀποτελέσματα γίγνεσθαι. HPh ch. 19, p. 611.5–7 ἀρχὴν δὲ καὶ αἰτίαν τινὲς μὲν ᾠήθησαν μηδὲν ἀλλήλων διαφέρειν, τινὲς δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν καθηγητικὴν πάντων εἶναι νομίζουσιν οὐκ αἰτίαν οὖσαν τοῦ παντὸς ἀποτελέσματος. Plutarch Anim.Procr. 1023C ὁ θεὸς τῆς μὲν ἰδέας ὡς παραδείγματος γέγονε μιμητής, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ὥσπερ ἀποτελέσματος δημιουργός.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 1.1 268a1–6 ἡ περὶ φύσεως ἐπιστήμη σχεδὸν ἡ πλείστη φαίνεται περί τε σώματα καὶ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ τούτων οὖσα πάθη καὶ τὰς κινήσεις, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, ὅσαι τῆς τοιαύτης οὐσίας εἰσίν· τῶν γὰρ φύσει συνεστώτων τὰ μέν ἐστι σώματα καὶ μεγέθη, τὰ δ᾽ ἔχει σῶμα καὶ μέγεθος, τὰ δ’ ἀρχαὶ τῶν ἐχόντων εἰσίν. Mete. 1.1 338a20–25 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πρώτων αἰτίων τῆς φύσεως καὶ περὶ πάσης κινήσεως φυσικῆς, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄνω φορὰν διακεκοσμημένων ἄστρων καὶ περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τῶν σωματικῶν … εἴρηται πρότερον. Stoics ap. D.L. 7.132 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν εἴς τε τὸν περὶ σωμάτων τόπον καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων καὶ θεῶν καὶ περάτων καὶ τόπου καὶ κενοῦ. καὶ οὕτω μὲν εἰδικῶς, γενικῶς δ᾽ εἰς τρεῖς τόπους, τόν τε περὶ κόσμου καὶ τὸν περὶ τῶν στοιχείων καὶ τρίτον τὸν αἰτιολογικόν … Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.27.2 (attributed to Chrysippus, SVF 2.347) τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ ἄρα αἴτιον καὶ ποιητικὸν καὶ δι᾽ ὅ. καὶ εἰ μὲν τί ἐστιν αἴτιον καὶ ποιητικόν, τοῦτο πάντως ἐστὶ καὶ δι᾽ ὅ, εἰ δέ τι ἐστὶ δι᾽ ὅ, οὐ πάντως τοῦτο καὶ αἴτιον. πολλὰ γοῦν ἐφ᾽ ἓν ἀποτέλεσμα συντρέχει, δι᾽ ἃ γίνεται τὸ τέλος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι πάντα αἴτια. Timaeus Locrus ch. 7 πρὶν ὦν ὠρανὸν λόγῳ γενέσθαι ἤστην ἰδέα τε καὶ ὕλα καὶ ὁ θεός … Alcinous Did. 8, p. p. 162.24–28 H. μετὰ δὲ τοῦτα ἑπομένως περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν τε καὶ τῶν θεολογικῶν λέγωμεν θεωρημάτων, ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων ἀρχόμενοι καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν κατιόντες καὶ ἐπισκοποῦντες τὴν τοῦ κόσμου γένεσιν, τελευτῶντες δὲ εἰς ἀνθρώπων γένεσιν καὶ φύσιν. Simplicius in Phys. 285.5 Diels ἀλλὰ πῶς τὸ σύνθετον ἀρχὴ ἂν εἴη καὶ αἰτία ἀποτέλεσμα μόνον ὑπάρχον;

745

Liber 2 Caput 1 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 886B–C; pp. 327a7–328a11 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 44; p. 621.1–8 Diels; pp. 138–148 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 138–139 Daiber—PC: Cyrillus Juln. 2.14.10–22, p. 105, cf. 2.16, 5–6, p. 107 Riedweg— PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.27, p. 35.7–10 Delatte—PAth : Athenagoras Leg. 7.2.13–14 Marcovich (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.21, p. 181.16 (tit.) + 1.21.3ab, p. 182.17–183.1 + 6c, p. 186.15–16 + 1.22.3bcd, p. 199.10–22 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b5 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.15, p. 104.8–15; cf. 4.8, p. 102.14–17 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 5, pp. 15.10–13, 16.8–9; c. 8, cf. p. 17.21–22 Di Maria; Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, pp. 92.34–93.2 Maass; Hermias Irr. 18, p. 118.1–4 Hanson

Titulus αʹ. Περὶ κόσμου (P,S) §1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. (P1,S5) §2 Θαλῆς Πυθαγόρας Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἔκφαντος Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος Ἡράκλειτος Ἀναξαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης Ζήνων ἕνα τὸν κόσμον. (P2,S6,T1) §3 Ἀναξίμανδρος Ἀναξιμένης Ἀρχέλαος Ξενοφάνης Διογένης Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος, Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὁ τούτου καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν. (P3,S7,T2) §1 Pythagoras 14.21 DK; §2 Thales 11A13b DK; Pythagoras —; Empedocles —; Ecphantus 51.3 DK; Parmenides 28A36 DK; Melissus 30A9 DK; Heraclitus 22A10 DK; Anaxagoras 59A63 DK; Plato cf. Tim. 31a; Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.8; Zeno SVF 1.97; §3 Anaximander 12A17 DK; Anaximenes 13A10 DK; Archelaus 60A13 DK; Xenophanes 21A37 DK; Diogenes 64A10 DK; Leucippus —; Democritus fr. 352 Luria; Epicurus fr. 301 Usener; Metrodorus 70A7 DK titulus Περὶ κόσμου S vid. infra c. 2.2 §1 [2] post κόσμον add. Q Ihr Sinn ist in der Sprache der Griechen ‘Ordnung’ ‖ [2–3] ἐν αὐτῷ] ἐν αὐτῇ PB(III:Laur.31,37) §2 [4–5] Θαλῆς … Ζήνων S : Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PBCQ : Θαλῆς PG ‖ Θαλῆς μὲν καὶ Πυθαγόρας καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Παρμενίδης καὶ Μέλισσος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ζήνων T §3 [7– 8] Ἀναξίμανδρος … Ἐπίκουρος S : Ἀναξίμανδρος δὲ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Ἀρχέλαος καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ Διογένης καὶ Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος T : Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος P ‖ [8] post Ἐπίκουρος add. PC Wyttenbach Diels καὶ ὁ τούτου καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος (cf. Ach. 5, 16.9 καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ Μητρόδωρος) : ὁ τούτων μαθητής Μητρόδωρος PB Beck : ὁ τούτων καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος PQ : ὁ τούτων καθηγητὴς Λεύκιππος PG : om. ST, ut additamentum P ex 1.5.5 haustum secl. Diels ‖ [8–9] ἀπείρους κόσμους PBCGS : πολλοὺς εἶναι καὶ ἀπείρους T : daß die Welt ein Unendliches ist Q ‖ [9] κατὰ τὴν περίστασιν PBCQ : κατὰ τὴν περιαγωγήν S : om. PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_041

5

liber 2 caput 1

§4 §5 §6 §7 §8 §9

τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς ἀπέχειν ἀλλήλων, (S8) Ἐπίκουρος ἄνισον εἶναι τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν κόσμων διάστημα. (S9) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου περίδρομον εἶναι περιγραφὴν τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου. (P4,S1) Σέλευκος ὁ Ἐρυθραῖος καὶ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς ἄπειρον τὸν κόσμον. (P5,S2) Διογένης καὶ Μέλισσος τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρον, τὸν δὲ κόσμον πεπεράνθαι. (P6,S3) οἱ Στωικοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· πᾶν μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ τὸν κόσμον· ὥστε τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸν κόσμον. (P7,S4)

§4 Anaximander 12A17 DK; §5 Epicurus fr. 301a Usener; §6 Empedocles 31A50 DK; §7 Seleucus Babylonius test. 5 Russo; Heraclides fr. 112 Wehrli, fr. 74 Schütrumpf; §8 Diogenes 64A10 DK; Melissus —; §9 Stoici SVF 2.522 §§4–5 non hab. P, §§6–7 non hab. G §6 [13] τὸν … περίδρομον PB(I,II)Q(ut vid.)C : τὴν … περίδρομὴν PΒ(III) : δρόμον PG ‖ [13–14] τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου PQGCST Diels : τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ πέρατος αὐτοῦ PB(I,II) : τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦτο πέρας αὐτοῦ PB(III) §7 [15] Σέλευκος … Ποντικὸς S ‖ Σέλευκος PBCQ (add. δέ PB(II)) ‖ de additamentis Rhazis de Seleuco vid. comm. infra §8 [17] Διογένης καὶ Μέλισσος S : Διογένης PBCQ §9 [19] τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον PBGS, cf. Ach. c. 5 15.11 : τὸν κόσμον καὶ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον PC1, τὸ ὅλον καὶ πρὸς τὸν κόσμον PC2, emend. edd. : τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν PQ ‖ πᾶν (ἅπαν PC) μὲν γάρ PBQS : τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἅπαν PG ‖ [19–20] τὸ σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ PCS Diels (τὸ om. S) : σὺν τῷ κενῷ ἀπείρῳ PG : τὸ σὺν κενῷ ἄπειρον PBQ ‖ [20] τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι PG (quod fort. lac. antecedit) ‖ [20–21] ὥστε … κόσμον PB(I,III)CQ : τὸ ὅλον (πόλον mss., emend. Diels Jas) καὶ κόσμον PG : om. PB(II)S, ut additamentum P secl. Diels ‖ [20] ὥστε PCQ Reiske Mau Lachenaud : ὥστε οὐ PB(I,III) Diels ‖ [21] τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸν κόσμον PB(I,III)C, die Welt und das Ganze (τὸ πᾶν) Q

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.15 4.15 (quaestio) οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐν τούτοις διαφωνίᾳ γε πλείστῃ, ἀλλὰ κἀν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐχρήσαντο. 4.15.1 (~ §2) καὶ γὰρ δὴ τὸν κόσμον Θαλῆς μὲν καὶ Πυθαγόρας καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Παρμενίδης καὶ Μέλισσος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ζήνων ἕνα εἶναι ξυνωμολόγησαν· 4.15.2 (~ §3) Ἀναξίμανδρος δὲ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Ἀρχέλαος καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ Διογένης καὶ Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος πολλοὺς εἶναι καὶ ἀπείρους ἐδόξασαν. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Cyrillus Juln. 2.14 2.14 (quaestio) Πλούταρχος τοίνυν, ἀνὴρ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς οὐκ ἄσημος γεγονώς, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ βιβλίῳ τῆς τῶν Φυσικῶν δογμάτων συναγωγῆς, οὕτω φησὶ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου·

747 10

15

20

748

liber 2 caput 1

2.14.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. 2.14.2 (~ P2) Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἕνα τὸν κόσμον. 2.14.3 (~ P3) Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὁ τούτου καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν. 2.14.4 (~ P4) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου περίδρομον εἶναι περιγραφὴν τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου. 2.14.5 (~ P5) Σέλευκος ἄπειρον τὸν κόσμον· 2.14.6 (~ P6) Διογένης τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρον, τὸν δὲ κόσμον πεπεράνθαι. 2.14.7 (~ P7) οἱ Στωϊκοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· ἅπαν μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ τὸν κόσμον· ὥστε τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸν κόσμον. cf. 2.16 οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἕνα τὸν κόσμον, οἱ δὲ πολλούς (~ P2–3) ps.Galenus HPh c. 44 (~ tit.) Περὶ κόσμου (text Jas) 44.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. 44.2 (~ P2) Θαλῆς ἕνα τὸν κόσμον. 44.3 (~ P3) Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὁ τούτων καθηγητὴς Λεύκιππος ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κενῷ. 44.4 (~ P4) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου δρόμον εἶναι περιγραφὴν τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου. 44.5 (~ P7) οἱ Στωικοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἅπαν εἶναι σὺν τῷ κενῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ […] εἶναι τὸ ὅλον καὶ ⟨τὸν⟩ κόσμον. Symeon Seth CRN 3.27 (Λόγος τρίτος. Περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων.) Περὶ κόσμου (~ tit.) 3.27 (~ P3) Τινὲς τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐδόξασαν ἀπείρους εἶναι κόσμους … Testes secundi: Athenagoras Leg. 7.2.13–14 ἄλλος ἄλλως ἐδογμάτισεν αὐτῶν … καὶ περὶ κόσμου (~ tit.) Achilles Univ. c. 5 Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) 15.10–13 τὸ δὲ πᾶν κόσμον Πυθαγόρας ἐκάλεσεν ἐκ τῆς διακοσμήσεως, οὐδεὶς δὲ πρὸ αὐτοῦ (~ §1). τὸ δὲ πᾶν τοῦ ὅλου παρὰ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς (SVF 2.523) διαφέρει· ὅλον μὲν γὰρ λέγουσι τὸν κόσμον, πᾶν δὲ ⟨τὸ⟩ μετὰ τοῦ κενοῦ (~ §9). 16.8–9 Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 301 Usener) δὲ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑποτίθεται καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ Μητρόδωρος (~ §3). cf. c. 8 17.21–22 οἳ μὲν εἶναί τι ἐκτός φασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 301 Usener), ὃς καὶ ἀπείρους κόσμους ὑποτίθεται ἐν ἀπείρῷ κενῷ (~ §3). Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, p. 92.34–93.2 Maass εἰ δὲ ἔστί τι κενὸν ἔξωθεν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐ περίεργος ἡμῖν ἡ ζήτησις (cf. A 2.9). πλὴν οἱ Στωικοὶ λέγουσιν εἶναι (ταύτῃ γὰρ διαφέρειν τὸ ὅλον τοῦ παντός (~ §9)), ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄπειρον, ὡς Ἑπίκουρος καὶ οἱ λοιποί (cf. §3).

liber 2 caput 1

749

Hermias Irr. 18, p. 118.1–4 ἀμφὶ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα μέχρι νῦν ἐσπούδακεν ἡ ψυχή μου τῶν ὅλων ἄρχειν. προκύψας δέ μοί φησιν Ἐπίκουρος· σὺ μὲν δὴ κόσμον ἕνα μεμέτρηκας (§2), ὦ φιλότης, εἰσὶ δὲ κόσμοι πολλοὶ καὶ ἄπειροι (§3). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.proœm. ζητεῖται εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος, εἴ π⟨ῦ⟩ρ, ⟨εἴ τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος⟩ ὁρᾶται· ὁ τοῦτο δὲ ζητῶν θεωρητικός ἐστιν· οὐδὲ γάρ τι πλέον θεωρεῖται ἢ τὸ ὄν. ζητεῖται ὁμοίως εἰ ἄπειρος ὁ κόσμος ἐστὶ καὶ εἰ ἔξω τι τοῦ κόσμου ἔστι (~ A 2.9). A 1.5 Εἰ ἓν τὸ πᾶν §1 A 1.3.7 Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου Σάμιος, ὁ πρῶτος φιλοσοφίαν τούτῳ τῷ ῥήματι προσαγορεύσας … A 2.12.2 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου … §2 A 1.5.1 οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς ἕνα κόσμον ἀπεφήναντο, ὃν δὴ καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἔφασαν εἶναι τὸ σωματικόν. A 1.5.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ κόσμον μὲν ἕνα, οὐ μέντοι τὸ πᾶν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγον τι τοῦ παντὸς μέρος, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἀργὴν ὕλην. A 1.5.3 Ἵππασος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ἓν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν ἀ⟨ει⟩κίνητον καὶ πεπερασμένον. A 1.5.4 Πλάτων δὲ τεκμαίρεται τὸ δοκοῦν, ὅτι εἷς ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἓν τὸ πᾶν … §3 A 1.3.2 (de Anaximandro) διὸ καὶ γεννᾶσθαι ἀπείρους κόσμους (cf. 1.7.3). A 1.5.5 Μητρόδωρος ὁ καθηγητὴς Ἐπικούρου φησιν ἄτοπον εἶναι ἐν μεγάλῳ πεδίῳ ἕνα στάχυν γεννηθῆναι καὶ ἕνα κόσμον ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ. ὅτι δ᾽ ἄπειροι κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος, δῆλον … §6 A 2.23.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὑπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτὸν σφαίρας κωλυομενον ἄχρι παντὸς εὐθυπορεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων. A 2.23.8 ἄλλοι δὲ ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας αὐτὸν κινεῖσθαι τὴν ἕλικα οὐ περὶ σφαῖραν ποιοῦντα, περὶ δὲ κύλινδρον. §§8–9 vid. A 1.5.2, 1.5.4 ad §2 supra cit. 1.18.5 Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἔξω δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον. A 2.9.2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ εἶναι κενόν, εἰς ὃ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ἀναλύεται, ἄπειρον.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses For the opening chapter of Book 2 all three major witnesses provide evidence. (1) P is well-attested, with four witnesses, PB, C, G and Q. E does not include this chapter or the next because has an agenda of his own that he announces at PE 15.22.68. He first highlights the views on those parts of the cosmos regarded by the ancients as ‘visible gods’ before moving on to more religiously neutral cosmological subjects. Thus P chs. 2.20–22, 25–28 and 13–14 are cited first, followed by chs. 1.4–5 and 2.3–11. In this scheme the first two chapters of book 2

750

liber 2 caput 1

(and the preceding prefatory remark) are regarded as superfluous. E’s absence is compensated for by Cyril, who quotes the entire chapter verbatim. PBCQ retain seven lemmata, but G drops two of these (§5 Seleucus, §6 Diogenes). The early witness Athenagoras refers only to the title, which he may have derived from either A or P (or indeed elsewhere). (2) All seven of P’s lemmata can be located in S, spread out over two chapters. His procedure here is somewhat curious. In S 1.21, which combines material from A 2.1–6, he first writes out the final four lemmata in P (3ab), followed later by the first lemma in a cluster of material relating to Pythagoras (6c). In the following chapter S 1.22, after writing out A 2.7 (which gives the chapter its title), he recalls that there was a chapter in Book 1 which is relevant to the theme of the cosmos, namely A 1.5 Εἰ ἓν τὸ πᾶν. It is only after he has written out this chapter (without the lemma on Plato) that he returns to P’s second and third lemma, which he supplies in a much fuller form with no less than 11 and 8 namelabels respectively (3b). Thereafter he adds (3c) two more lemmata not in P which, given the subject matter, must belong to the present chapter (although presented as one sentence we prefer to divide it up into two separate lemmata, each with a name-label, because of the clear antithesis involved). In sequence the lemmata are thus: S1 at S 1.21.3a, Empedocles (= P4); S2 at 1.21.3a2, Seleucus (= P5); S3 at 1.21.3a3, Diogenes (= P6); S4 at 1.21.3b1, Stoics (= P7); S5 at 1.21.6c2, Pythagoras (= P1); S6 at 1.22.3b1, Thales etc. (= P2); S7 at 1.22.3b2, Anaximander etc. (≈ P3); S8 at 1.22.3c1, infinitists–Anaximander (not in P); S9 at 1.22.3c2, Epicurus (not in P). (3) T records only the main antithesis in P2–3 = S 1.22.3b1–2. The information he gives, with the copious supply of name-labels for both lemmata, stands much closer to S and confirms that P has drastically shortened his source in these two lemmata. It confirms that the source used by P and S and by T and S was the same document; see Mansfeld (2018a) 185–186. However, the earlier remark at T 4.8 about Melissus, namely that he holds that the cosmos is ἄπειρος, contradicts the statement in §8 and is most likely drawn from another tradition; see M–R 1.274 and above, ch. 1.3 Commentary D(b). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Numerous texts in both rhetorical and philosophical authors reveal that this chapter focuses on one of most popular dialectical quaestiones in the φυσικὸς λόγος. See the lengthy list of texts cited below in section E(a). The most instructive texts are those in Philo (Abr. 162), Lucian (Icar. 8) and Galen (Loc.Aff. 3.5 8.159.5–6 Kühn, HVA 1.12), which show that A in this chapter is in fact combining two related but separate θέσεις, (a) whether there is a single cosmos or there are infinite kosmoi, and (b) whether the universe

751

liber 2 caput 1

encompassing the whole of physical reality is limited or infinite. The dialectical possibilities of the interaction of these two questions can be shown in at least two ways: cosmos single limited

infinite

unlimited

cosmos { } universe limited or unlimited

single or infinite single limited single unlimited

infinite unlimited

The left diagram shows the diaeretic structure that is used in the chapter; the right diagram with its grid shows how one of the theoretical possibilities (infinite kosmoi and limited universe) is not represented since it does not make sense. A further complication is the link to the question of the void, introduced in §§3 and 9, which can coexist with both a single cosmos and an infinite universe. This theme is also treated in chs. 1.18 and 2.9. Against this background the material on these questions preserved in the proximate tradition is extremely rich, with many of the doxai in this chapter (esp. in §§1–3) paralleled elsewhere. (2) Sources. The question of whether there is a single cosmos or infinite kosmoi is first explicitly stated in Plato’s Timaeus and further developed in Aristotle’s Physics and De caelo. But it is implicit in much Presocratic cosmology and can also be connected with the questions of unity and plurality (see the texts of Gorgias and Xenophon cited below in section E(b)) and also the more general question of whether the cosmos is the result of intelligent design or simply part of a larger universe that is subject to physical necessity; see the studies of Furley (1987), Graham (2006), and Sedley (2007). By the Hellenistic period the opposition between the closed cosmos and the open universe, represented by Plato–Aristotle–Stoa on the one side and atomists–Epicurus on the other becomes quite standard and is found in numerous doxographical summaries. It is then projected back to earlier Presocratic authors such as the Milesians and Pythagoreans (see below section D(d)§4). It should be noted that the systematic connections between the questions treated in this chapter were already convincingly set out by Aristotle in Cael. 1.8–9, to which in the following chapter he adds the question of the destructibility or indestructibility of the single cosmos. In a note at the end of 1.10 (280a23– 28) he adds that the answer would change if (successive) infinite kosmoi were admitted, a position against which he has already argued in preceding chapters.

752

liber 2 caput 1

This possibility is not taken into account in the present chapter. He does not refer to any predecessors by name in the discussions on unicity and infinity in 1.8–9. It is only when he starts to discuss the question of destructibility at 1.10 279b12 that names are mentioned. In the later tradition the questions of unicity/infinity and destructibility/indestructibility are often linked and names added. See the detailed doxographies of Philo and Alexander of Aphrodisias discussed in our analysis of ch. 2.4. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is of the most common umbrella type Περὶ x, already used in the earlier tradition by philosophers such as the Stoics Chrysippus and Posidonius (but not by Zeno who wrote a work Περὶ ὅλου) and ps.Aristotle (but not Aristotle, whose title is Περὶ οὐρανοῦ; as argued by Johnson (2019) 79 this should be taken to refer to the ‘heaven’, i.e. the universe, rather than to ‘the heavens’ as usually translated); on the history of this title see further Mansfeld (1992c). The question type ‘what is it’ in the category of substance is treated in §1 and §9, ‘how is it’ in §§2–8. The category of place is touched on in §§3–5. But the most prominent place is taken up in the chapter by the category of quantity, being referred to in §§2–3 with regard to number and in §§4–9 with regard to size (§§4–5 equal–unequal, §§6–7 limited–unlimited, §§8–9 unlimited–limited). We note that Philoponus, in outlining the questions related to the various categories, explicitly uses the pair unlimited vs. limited as applied to the cosmos to illustrate the category of quantity (τὸ ποσόν); text below in section E(a) General texts. There are no variants on the chapter heading as confirmed by PBGQS (but note περὶ τοῦ κόσμου in C’s introductory words). S gives the chapter’s heading as part of the longer heading of S 1.21 which combines the headings of chs. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5a and 2.5: Περὶ κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται. D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on from the authorial comment in the Preface to Book 2, where its subject matter is announced (περιοχήν in §1 picks up περιεκτικωτάτου in 2.proœm.). Much mention has been made of the cosmos in Book 1, particularly in the initial chapters chs. 3–5 and 7. Indeed, as S saw, the subject matter of this chapter overlaps considerably with ch. 1.5 Εἰ ἕν τὸ πᾶν. The doxai in A 1.5.1–2, discussing the extent of the cosmos in relation to the universe, are close to 2.1.9 in subject matter. For A 1.5.3 see 2.1.2 (but without mentioning that the single cosmos is finite). The final two lemmata A 1.5.4–5 introduce

liber 2 caput 1

753

argumentation that is wholly missing in ch. 2.1 and is typical of the opening chapters of the work. On these chapters and the overlap between Books 1 & 2 see above on ch. 1.5 and also M–R 2.1.22–24, 52–54. Only in Book 2 does A begin to treat the subject of the cosmos both as a whole and as having constituent parts. b Number–Order of Lemmata There are two tell-tale blocks where P and S correspond: P2–3 = S 1.22.3b1–2, P4–7 = S 1.21.3a1–3 & b1. The remaining lemma P1 is separated in the cluster of tenets attributed to Pythagoras at S1.21.6c2. It is natural to follow P and take it as the opening lemma, since it introduces and quasi-defines, by means of the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif, the chapter’s subject (cf. the definitions in chs. 1.9–12). On this motif see section D(d) §1 below. But the initial position cannot be confirmed from S. There remain the two lemmata found only in S, §§4–5. Diels’ reconstruction places them at the end of the chapter for reasons he does not explain. In S they follow on directly from the small block of two lemmata at S 1.22.3b1–2. This encourages the view that they followed on from these same lemmata in A. But the internal logic of the chapter must also be taken into account. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter As the numerous doxographical and dialectical parallels demonstrate (see texts cited below), the simple chapter heading is deceptive. It was already noted in section B above that the chapter combines two fundamental questions relating to the cosmos (or universe) as a whole: (1) whether there is but a single cosmos or whether there are infinite kosmoi, and (2) whether the universe (whether to be identified with the cosmos or not) is limited or infinite in extent. It is important to note that the latter is given as a question of physics according to Aristotle and his school in 1.proœm. 3. The first lemma attributed to Pythagoras, as already remarked, serves to introduce the cosmos, presenting for the purpose a nominal definition. On this see further below section D(d) General points. Next §§2–3 give a diaeresis on whether the cosmos is single or infinite in number. For the former view S gives a long list of eleven name-labels, nine of which reappear in T (missing are Empedocles and Ecphantus; Anaxagoras has been placed third in the list, whereas in S he is eighth). T thus confirms that P has abridged his source with the common formula καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (also found in P 2.28.2, 3.9.1, 3.10.1, 4.16.4, as well as at S 1.17.1a, 1.18.1d1, where in both cases P preserves a different name-label; see the comment on A 1.17.1 at ch. 1.17 Commentary D(d)§1). G has abridged even further to the name-label Thales only. A occasionally uses such long lists

754

liber 2 caput 1

of name-labels to emphasise widely held points of view (cf. chs. 2.4.7, 2.11.4, 4.5a.1). For the infinitist point of view S gives eight name-labels beginning with the two Milesians Anaximander and Anaximenes (standing in contrast to their archegete Thales who heads the other list). Exactly the same list is found in T. P retains only two of these names, Democritus and Epicurus, but also adds Metrodorus (of Chius). On this name-label and whether it should be retained see section D(d) §3 below. In principle the expression ἄπειροι κόσμοι on its own is ambiguous, since it could refer unlimited successive worlds or unlimited coexisting worlds. The addition of the words ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν makes it quite clear that the second alternative is meant, i.e. the atomist position. See further comments at section D(d)§§3–4. It is noteworthy that with his diaeresis A has not taken into account a third possibility, namely that there are a finite number of multiple kosmoi. Plato toys with the possibility of five kosmoi at Tim. 55c–d and Plutarch records the view of a certain Petron of Himera that there are 183 arranged in a triangle (on this ‘curious doctrine’ see West (1992) and Zhmud (2015), who argues that the doctrine is Platonizing and its author probably fictional). The three theoretical possibilities are outlined by Philo and Dionysius of Alexandria (cf. also Hermias on Epicurus and Augustine). A then adds the obvious point that an infinite number of kosmoi entails an infinite amount of space in which they are located. The next two lemmata §§4–5 (found only in S), if placed here as proposed above, expand the second half of the diaeresis and introduce a further distinction among the infinitists, i.e. whether the infinite worlds are equidistant from each other or not. There are no parallels in A for a genitive plural phrase to pick up a previous position, so the initial words τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους may be an addition of S. But in the absence of further evidence they must be retained. Elsewhere A also shows interest in questions involving symmetry and stereometrical location, e.g. at 2.15.1–2. The information provided on Anaximander’s view is not found elsewhere. The next two lemmata §§6–7 also form an obvious pair. They introduce a further division between a limited and an unlimited single cosmos. The structure is thus chiastic, returning to the position of §2 after the treatment of the infinitists in §3 and §§4–5. The name-label Empedocles already occurred in the list in §2. Those of Seleucus (only here and at A 3.17.9 where he is called ὁ μαθηματικός) and Heraclides are new. P has abridged here too, deleting Seleucus’ epithet and the name of Heraclides. The doxa of Empedocles is surprising in that it has the revolution of the sun, and not the sphere of the fixed stars as the cosmos’ outer limit. A has a fondness for such exotic Presocratic views; cf. also 2.15.6 attributed to Anaximander–Metrodorus–Crates, where the sun is ἀνωτάτω πάντων τετάχθαι. See further section D(d)§6.

liber 2 caput 1

755

The final two lemmata import a new element of terminological precision by introducing the new terms τὸ πᾶν (the universe) and το ὅλον which have so far not occurred in the chapter (but the former is found in the earlier chapter 1.5). §8 follows on from §7 by splitting its two terms, taking ἄπειρος now with the universe, while κόσμος is regarded as limited, as implied in §2 and made explicit in §6. The distinction between πᾶν and ὅλον in §9 turns on the additional factor of the void, which was already briefly introduced as part of the infinitist position in §3. The void has already been introduced in ch. 1.18 and its cosmological role will be further explored in ch. 2.9. The structure of the chapter is complex not only because it combines two questions and does not treat just one (the same will occur in ch. 2.4), but also because it combines two ways of working with doxai. The three chiastically arranged diaereses (A–B, B1–B2, A1–2) clearly play a central role. The final two lemmata do not form a diaeresis, but add terminological precision to what has preceded. At the same time there are linkages between the doxai that move the chapter along: §1 §2 §3 §§4–5 §6 §7 §8 §9

sets the scene by introducing the concept of cosmos. develops this in terms of a single cosmos. introduces the alternative of infinite kosmoi. adds a further distinction in the views of the infinitists. by adding the aspect of limit qualifies the position in §2. gives the opposed alternative to §6. introduces the notion of the universe, which allows a fresh distinction. develops the previous view into a more sophisticated position.

The chapter thus has a progressive movement through its doxai that André Laks has aptly called ‘vectorisation’ (cf. M–R 2.317 n. 84 and also the arrows at Laks 1997a, 258). The final words which emphasise the cosmos as a whole also return the chapter to its beginning where it was described as the ‘container’ of all things. Leszl (2002) 176 (taken over by Bottler (2014) 280) argues on the basis of a comparison with Galenic texts that ‘even an ancient author would have recognized that the organisation of the material in the Epitomé is unsound on various points.’ This conclusion is quite erroneous. There is admittedly some overlap between chs. 1.5 and 2.1, but the contexts differ. The former chapter is part of the section introducing the φυσικὸς λόγος. The latter introduces the cosmos as the sum total of physical reality in our world, but allows for the possibility that there are more worlds than ours and that it can be surrounded by a void. The combination of questions goes back to Aristotle and is confirmed by texts such

756

liber 2 caput 1

as those of Philo and Alexander. Bottler (2014) 280 points to the summary of E at PE 15.32.8 from which she draws the drastic and wholly unjustified conclusion that E’s Vorlage here does not correspond to the version of the text in the mss. of P. In fact E shows that he understands the connection between chs. 1.5 and 2.1. E has altered the diaeresis from one vs. infinite to one vs. many, but this alteration is basically trivial, since it does not imply a second diaeresis between multiple and infinite kosmoi recognized by the authors cited above in our discussion of §§2–3. Similarly the phrase πολλοὺς … καὶ ἀπείρους at T 4.15 gives an expansion of A’s text rather than evidence of a different structure. It would not have been different if he had written ἤ instead of καί, since T is not a slavish copier of A’s text. It is worth noting that Ach on successive pages ascribes to Epicurus the view that many kosmoi and that infinitely many kosmoi exist (§5, p. 16.11; §8, p. 17.21 Di Maria). Strictly speaking only the latter is correct. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The book opens with the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif already used at A 1.3.7 (Pythagoras) and 1.3.17 (Ecphantus); see above on ch. 1.3 Commentary D(d)§7. It recurs in Book 2 at 2.12.2 (Pythagoras), 2.24.1, 2.28.5 (both Thales). A text at D.L. 8.48 (text below section E(a)) shows that the attribution was disputed, with Theophrastus giving the honour to Parmenides, but Zeno the Stoic to the poet Hesiod. Ach records the same tradition as A. See further A 2.12 Commentary B. This doxa gives a nominal definition of the term κόσμος, the purpose of which is to present a preliminary notion of the subject on which the chapter will focus. Such definitions occur regularly in Book 1. See further the discussion at the Commentary on ch. 1.9, D(d) General points. For περιοχή used in definitions of the cosmos see esp. Epicurus’ definition of κόσμος in Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 (text below section E(a)§1), a text with a likely doxographical background (see further on ch. 2.2). The term later yields ground to σύστημα, but the phrase κατὰ περιοχήν or the verb περιέχω often still forms part of the definition; for examples in ps.Aristotle and Philo see section E(a)§1 below. On the various meanings of the terms κόσμος and οὐρανός see also the discussion above on §1[7–25] and §1[14–16] in our Commentary on ch. 1.6 D(d). Sprache der Griechen (app. crit.): Q explains the connotation of the Greek word κόσμος as indicating order (Ordnung), which he deems necessary because this connotation is not present in the Arabic term used to translate it. The same phrase is used for similar cases at chs. 3.7.2[6], 4.11.1[17], 4.12.1[9], and 4.19.3[7];

liber 2 caput 1

757

cf. also his adaptation of the chapter heading of 1.8 Über die hohen Kräfte, welche die Griechen ‘Daimones’ und ‘Heroes’ nennen. §3 P’s addition of the name-label Metrodorus, not found in S or T, gives rise to problems. All four witnesses have a different reading (see apparatus above): PB ‘and their (i.e. Democritus’ and Epicurus’) pupil Metrodorus (of Lampsacus)’ C ‘and his (i.e. Epicurus’) teacher Metrodorus (of Chius)’ Q ‘and their teacher Metrodorus’ B ‘and their teacher Leucippus’ Additionally Ach, who follows the same tradition here, supports C (using the word διδάσκαλος instead of καθηγητὴς). C’s reading must be the right one. PB appears to have confused the two homonymic philosophers. It is worth noting that in his recent edition of C Riedweg records that the lost ms. Capnioneus used by Oecolampadius in his 1528 Latin translation must have read μαθητής just like PB (did contamination occur from PB to C?), which may explain Diels’ reading in the apparatus of DG ad loc. The question remains: was this additional phrase originally present in A? There are arguments pro et contra. Arguments for its absence: (i) it is found in neither S nor T; (ii) P could have added it from A 1.5.4 (= S 1.22.3a3); (iii) it interrupts both the list of unadorned names and the chronological sequence. Arguments for its presence: (i) it is not to be expected that P as epitomator would leave it out at 1.5.4 only to insert it here (as suggested by Diels DG 62); (ii) it is, on the other hand, quite possible that S moved the phrase to the earlier passage in ch. 1.5 when he cites it in S 1.22.3a3, especially since the two texts are juxtaposed in 1.22.3ab; (iii) the similar phrase in Ach, who reflects the same tradition (and is not directly dependent on the tradition of P). The matter cannot be definitively resolved and it is safest to preserve P’s evidence. It is difficult to choose which of the readings should be followed for the final phrase. S’s alternative reading κατὰ πᾶσαν περιαγωγήν (‘throughout the entire revolution’) appears to make less sense cosmologically than P’s κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν (‘throughout the entire surrounding area’) since there is no general revolutionary movement in an infinite universe. But, as Alex Mourelatos has reminded us, the turning here could refer to the movement of the head, i.e. in whichever direction one turns one’s head. On T’s alternative reading πολλοὺς … καὶ ἀπείρους see the comment above under section C.

758

liber 2 caput 1

Anaximander’s prominent position at the head of the list of ‘infinitists’ is likely to derive from Theophrastus’ report cited by Simplicius, fr. 12A9 DK and especially the phrase (not part of the famous quotation) ἐξ ἧς (sc. ἑτέρα τις φύσις as ἀρχή) ἅπαντας γίνεσθαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς κόσμους. Kahn (1960) 46–48 plausibly argues that the ascription of ‘infinite kosmoi’ to Anaximander may be the result of an assimilation of Milesian cosmology to the later cosmology of the atomists. This was already argued by Cornford (1934), whose argument against Burnet—though based on a now wholly outdated interpretation of the doxographical evidence—that this doctrine commenced with the atomists has been generally accepted. However, the latest examination of Theophrastus’ evidence is more cautious: Mansfeld (2011a, 25) ‘As to “all the worldsystems” I do not know how one is to decide between successive ones on the one hand and contemporaneous ones as well as successive ones on the other.’ The other non-atomists on the list are Anaximenes, Archelaus, Xenophanes and Diogenes. Anaximenes and Diogenes are reported by Simplicius as among those who regard the cosmos as subject to genesis and destruction, but in an eternalist sense in terms of successive worlds. Such a view may lie behind the attribution of the doctrine of κόσμοι ἄπειροι to Xenophanes and Diogenes in Diogenes Laertius 9.19 and 9.57 respectively; cf. on Diogenes Laks (2008) 200. On Simplicius’ text see further Section D(e) below. It is very unlikely that Archelaus has a rightful place in the list, given that he was a follower of Anaxagoras in his cosmogonical thought. It may be suggested that A or his source wished to balance out the two lists and so placed as many names as he could justify on whatever grounds to the second list. §4 It is possible that Cicero’s phrase longis intervallis in relation to Anaximander at ND 1.25 reflects the doxa on distance between kosmoi in §4 as suggested by Heath (1913) 29. §6 Couprie (2020) links this cryptic lemma up with information about the sun’s movement at A 2.23.4. In this doxa the sun at the solstices bumps into the crystalline heaven and can go no further. Thus its revolution is equivalent to the circumference of the heaven, and so is the same as that of the entire cosmos. See further ch. 2.23 Commentary D(c)(2). §7 On this lemma Russo (1995) 148 rightly notes that its doctrine is consistent with the heliocentric theory attributed to Seleucus by Plutarch at QPlat. 8.1 1006C and perhaps implied by the doxa at A 3.17.9. But consistent with the method of the Placita, the argument underlying the position is not given. Daiber ad loc. notes additional material on Seleucus furnished by Abū Bakr ar-Rāzī (Rhazes): ‘Er (sc. Plutarch who has just been cited with a quote from A 1.5.4) berichtet von Seleukos, er habe bei seiner Behauptung, diese Welt sei unendlich, damit argumentiert, daß er sagte: Wenn die Welt begrenzt ist, wird

liber 2 caput 1

759

sie dann durch etwas oder durch nichts begrenzt? Falls sie nun durch etwas begrenzt wird, entspricht das meiner Behauptung. Wenn sie aber durch nichts (begrenzt wird), ist es möglich, daß sie sich dem Nichts anpaßt und daß sie das Nichts berührt, ebenso wie sie durch Nichts begrenzt wird.’ The source of this material is unclear. The presentation of an argument is foreign to the rest of what we find in 2.1, so pace Bottler (2014) 288 it is not so likely to derive from a richer version of either A or P. §8 Here S reveals that P has removed the additional name-label of Melissus. Both here and in §2 Diogenes is most likely the Presocratic, not the Stoic. It is to be noted that Diogenes’ name occurs in §3 (infinitists), Melissus’ name in §2 (unicists). But κόσμος here refers only to ‘this cosmos in which we live’ (and so introduces a new distinction which is further developed in §9). Therefore there does not need to be a contradiction with §3 (and it is the doxa that counts). §9 S leaves out the final phrase for which there is ample evidence in P. The right reading without οὐ is preserved by C and Q. G has a lacuna at this point; the transmitted πόλον conceals the original τὸ ὅλον, as argued by Jas ad loc. e Other Evidence A special case in the proximate tradition is Achilles. Although his chapter on the being of the heaven (where οὐρανός is taken for the most part as equivalent to κόσμος) is in general quite different from A 2.1 (and also contains material parallel to chs. 2.5–6 and 2.11), it does include three brief sections which are closely parallel to §§1, 3 and 9. These sections must derive from a doxographical tradition much closer to A than in other parallel texts. We can speak of a traditio proxissima (on Ach as a cousin-text of A see M–R 1.305). Verbal equivalences are, however, limited. Quite recently Rashed (2011) 487 has published an important scholion (no. 539) from the lost Commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotle’s Physics (text below section E(a) General texts). It comments on 250b18 and demonstrates that the well-known text in Simplicius’ Commentary 1121.5–1122.1 derives essentially from the earlier commentary. The doxographical schema set out in this text combines the question of the number of kosmoi, whether single or unlimited, and the question of its/their coming into being and destructibility. It thus combines the treatment of questions that A separates into chs. 2.1 and 2.4 and shows a clear resemblance to the schema in Philo Aet. 7–19, though including more complexity and more name-labels. The main discussion of this text must be reserved for the Commentary on 2.4. But at this point a comparison can be made with the name-labels listed by A in §§2–3. We can set out the differences as follows, making reference to the five groups into which the scholiast’s schema is divided:

760

liber 2 caput 1

(1) In group 1 the scholiast agrees with A §3 that Democritus, Anaximander and Epicurus (in that order!) posit infinite kosmoi; (2) The scholiast’s group 2, consisting of those who posit a single cosmos that undergoes cyclical generation and destruction, has five members; of these (a) Anaximenes and Diogenes are located among the infinitists in A §3, whereas (b) Empedocles, Heraclitus, and the Stoa have a place among the unicist group in §2 (but with the name-label Zeno instead of the Stoa). (3) But two of A’s infinitists are included by the scholiast among the unequivocal unicists; (a) Archelaus is placed with Anaxagoras in group 3, and (b) Xenophanes is placed in group 5. (4) Metrodorus in A is the atomist from Chios, whereas—as noted by Rashed (2011) 490, who corrects Diels 70A5 DK on this point—the one to whom the scholiast refers in group 3 as a unicist must be the follower of Anaxagoras from Lampsacus. This comparison shows that Alexander’s schema as preserved by the scholiast reaches a quite different result than A’s diaeresis in ch. 2.1. The reason for this is that its main focus is on the question of the coming into being and destruction of the cosmos/kosmoi, which A will treat in ch. 2.4, whereas A concentrates on the opposition between one and infinitely many. See further our discussion in the Commentary on that chapter, section D(e). The comparison also reinforces our suggestion above at section D(d)§3 that A wished to shift as many names to §3 in order to balance out the multiple listing of name-labels. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.45 Dorandi ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ κόσμοι ἄπειροί εἰσιν, οἵ θ᾽ ὅμοιοι τούτῳ καὶ ἀνόμοιοι. αἵ τε γὰρ ἄτομοι ἄπειροι οὖσαι, ὡς ἄρτι ἀπεδείχθη, φέρονται καὶ πορρωτάτω. οὐ γὰρ κατανήλωνται αἱ τοιαῦται ἄτομοι ἐξ ὧν ἂν γένοιτο κόσμος ἢ ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἂν ποιηθείη, oὔτ᾽ εἰς ἕνα (sc. κόσμον) οὔτ᾽ εἰς πεπερασμένους οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι τοιοῦτοι οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι διάφοροι τούτοις. ὥστε οὐδὲν τὸ ἐμποδοστατῆσόν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων. Ep.Pyth. 10.89 ὅτι δὲ καὶ τοιοῦτοι κόσμοι εἰσὶν ἄπειροι τὸ πλῆθος ἔστι καταλαβεῖν … Lucretius DRN 2.1048–1057 principio nobis in cunctas undique partis / et latere ex utroque supra subterque per omne / nulla est finis; uti docui, res ipsaque per se / vociferatur, et elucet natura profundi. / nullo iam pacto veri simile esse putandumst, / undique cum vorsum spatium vacet infinitum / seminaque innumero numero summaque profunda / multimodis volitent aeterno percita motu, / hunc unum terrarum orbem caelumque creatum, / nil agere illa foris tot corpora materiai. Cicero Ac. 2.12 cuique adsentiar deligam—quem potissimum? … et cum in uno mundo ornatus hic tam sit mirabilis, innumerabilis supra infra, dextra sinistra, ante post, alios dissimiles, alios eiusdem modi mundos esse? Div. 2.11, quae a dialecticis aut

liber 2 caput 1 a physicis tractantur, num quid eorum divinari potest? unusne mundus sit an plures … Ep. ad. fam. 9.26.3 te quaesiturum unum caelum esset an innumerabilia. Philo of Alexandria Abr. 162, ἡ δὲ (sc. διάνοια) … εἰς σκέψιν ἦλθε … καὶ πότερον ἄπειρα ἢ πεπερασμένα καὶ πότερον εἷς ἢ πλείονές εἰσι κόσμοι … (cf. also Spec. 3.189 ὁ δὲ (sc. νοῦς) λογισμὸν εἰκότα ἐλάμβανεν … ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄπειρα, πεπέρασται δὲ ἑνὸς κόσμου περιγραφῇ …). Ebr. 199 οἱ γὰρ ἄπειρον τὸ πᾶν εἰσηγούμενοι τοῖς πεπερασμένον εἶναι λέγουσιν. Opif. 171 τέταρτον δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος … εἰσὶ γὰρ οἱ πλείους ὑπολαμβάνοντες εἶναι κόσμους, οἱ δὲ καὶ ἀπείρους … Aet. 8 Δημόκριτος (fr. 351 Luria) μὲν οὖν καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 304 Usener) καὶ ὁ πολὺς ὅμιλος τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλοσόφων γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν ἀπολείπουσι τοῦ κόσμου, πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑπογράφουσιν … οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.620) κόσμον μὲν ἕνα … (see further on 2.4). Seneca Dial. 8.4.2, ut quaeramus … unum sit hoc, quod maria terrasque et mari ac terris inserta complectitur, an multa eiusmodi corpora deus sparserit. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 11.1–6 (table of contents) Libro II. continentur: an finitus sit mundus et an unus. de forma eius. de motu eius. cur mundus dicatur. Nat. 2.1, furor est … alios innumerabiles tradidisse mundos … aut, si una omnes incubaret, totidem tamen soles totidemque lunas … ps.Plutarch Hom. 2.103 Kindstrand ἐκ δὲ τῶν προειρημένων ἅμα καὶ τοῦτο ὑποδεικνὺς Ὅμηρος φαίνεται, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος καὶ πεπερασμένος. εἰ γὰρ ἄπειρος ἦν, οὐκ ἂν εἰς ἀριθμὸν πέρας ἔχοντα ⟨τὰ πάντα⟩ διῃρεῖτο. Quintilian Inst. 7.2.6 (on general questions) quaeritur per coniecturam et qualitatem circa modum speciem numerum: ‘an sol maior quam terra, luna globosa an plana an acuta, unus mundus an plures’. see also Inst. 7.4.1. Lucian Icar. 8 καὶ γὰρ αὖ καὶ αὕτη νεανικὴ αὐτοῖς ἡ μάχη, τοῖς μὲν τέλει τὸ πᾶν περιγράφουσιν, τοῖς δὲ ἀτελὲς τοῦτο εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνουσιν; οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ παμπόλλους τινὰς εἶναι τοὺς κόσμους ἀπεφαίνοντο καὶ τῶν ὡς περὶ ἑνὸς αὐτῶν διαλεγομένων κατεγίνωσκον. Par. 11 (on Epicurus), ὁ γὰρ ζητῶν περὶ σχήματος γῆς καὶ κόσμων ἀπειρίας καὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ ἀποστημάτων καὶ πρώτων στοιχείων καὶ περὶ θεῶν, εἴτε εἰσὶν εἴτε οὐκ εἰσί … οὐ μόνον ἐν ἀνθρωπίναις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν κοσμικαῖς ἐστιν ὀχλήσεσιν. Galen Loc.Aff. 3.5, p. 8.159.5–6 Kühn ἄπειρόν τε τὸ πᾶν ἢ πεπερασμένον, ἤ πολλοὺς εἶναι κόσμους ἢ ἀπεριλήπτους κατὰ τόν ἀριθμὸν ἢ ἕνα μόνον. HVA 1.12, p. 125.12 Helmreich οὔτ᾽ εἰ ἄπειρος οὔτ᾽ εἰ μόνος οὗτος εἷς ἐστιν οὔτ᾽ εἰ πλείους οὔτ᾽ πόσοι τὸν ἀριθμόν, εἴπερ πλείους, οὔτ᾽ εἰ πλῆθος ἀπερίληπτον ἢ ἄπειρον αὐτῶν. Aff.Dig. 3.4, p. 46.24 De Boer οὐδὲ εἰ πεπερασμένον ἢ ἄπειρον τὸ πᾶν. PHP 9.7.9 De Lacy καὶ εἰ ὁ κόσμος οὗτος ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχεται καὶ εἰ πλείους ἑνὸς καὶ εἰ πάμπολύ τι πλῆθος. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 171.15–16 ὁ δὲ περὶ τοῦ ἢ ἕνα ἢ πολλοὺς εἶναι τοὺς κόσμους διαλέγοιτο. In Phys. lib. 8 schol. 539 Rashed (on 250b18) ἀπείρους κόσμους γενητοὺς καὶ φθαρτούς· Δημόκριτος, Ἀναξίμανδρος, Ἐπίκουρος.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν ἄλλον καὶ ἄλλον· Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, Ἀναξιμένης, Διογένης, Ἡράκλειτος, ἡ Στοά.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν (emend. Rashed ἄφθαρτον) ἐξ ἡσυχίας· Ἀναξαγόρας, Ἀρχέλαος, Μητρόδωρος.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν (emend. Rashed ἄφθαρτον) ἐξ ἀταξίας· Πλάτων ὡς δοκεῖ.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητόν (ἀγένητον Rashed) καὶ ἄφθαρτον (φθαρτόν Rashed; Laks 2018, 418–419 retains the original

761

762

liber 2 caput 1

reading and adds the conjecture ⟨Πλάτων καθ᾽ ἀλήθειαν⟩ or ⟨Πλάτων⟩).—ἕνα κόσμον ἀγένητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον· Ξενοφάνης, Παρμενίδης. ps.Hermogenes Prog. 11.4.6 Patillon εἰ πολλοὶ κόσμοι (thesis). Aphthonius Prog. 13.1.2–9 Patillon τῶν δὲ θέσεων αἳ μέν εἰσι πολιτικαί, αἳ δὲ θεωρητικαί … θεωρητικαὶ δὲ αἱ μόνῳ τῷ νῷ θεωρούμεναι, οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ οὐρανός, εἰ κόσμοι πολλοί· ταῦτα γὰρ εἰς πεῖραν μὲν ἀνθρώποις οὐκ ἔρχεται, μόνῳ δὲ θεωρεῖται τῷ νῷ. Dionysius of Alexandria Περὶ φύσεως at Eus. PE 14.23.1 πότερον ἕν ἐστι συναφὲς τὸ πᾶν, ὡς ἡμῖν τε καὶ τοῖς σοφωτάτοις Ἑλλήνων Πλάτωνι καὶ Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς καὶ Ἡρακλείτῳ φαίνεται, ἢ δύο, ὡς ἴσως τις ὑπέλαβεν, ἢ καὶ πολλὰ καὶ ἄπειρα, ὥς τισιν ἄλλοις ἔδοξεν … Eusebius PE 15.32.8 τοιαύτη καὶ ἡ θαυμάσιος αὐτῶν κοσμογονία. συνῆπται ⟨δὲ⟩ τούτοις ἄλλη τις πλείστη λογομαχία, παντοίων πέρι προτάσεων ἀπορησάντων· εἰ χρὴ τὸ πᾶν ἓν ἢ πολλὰ ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ εἰ ἕνα τὸν κόσμον ἢ πλείους … Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 3.3, p. 41.7–21 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg δεύτερόν ἐστιν ἐξετάσαι, εἰ ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ πεποιημένον οὐρανὸν τὸ στερέωμα τοῦτο, ὃ καὶ αὐτὸ ἐπεκλήθη οὐρανὸς, καὶ εἰ ὅλως οὐρανοὶ δύο· ὅπερ οἱ τὰ περὶ οὐρανοῦ φιλοσοφήσαντες ἕλοιντ᾽ ἂν μᾶλλον τὰς γλώσσας προέσθαι, ἢ ὡς ἀληθὲς παραδέξασθαι. ἕνα γὰρ ὑποτίθενται οὐρανὸν, καὶ οὐκ ἔχειν αὐτῷ φύσιν, δεύτερον, ἢ τρίτον, ἢ πολλοστὸν προσγενέσθαι, πάσης τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ οὐρανίου σώματος εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς σύστασιν ἀπαναλωθείσης, ὡς οἴονται. … ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀξιοῦμεν τοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφοὺς, μὴ πρότερον ἡμᾶς καταχλευάζειν πρὶν τὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους διάθωνται. εἰσὶ γὰρ ἐν αὐτοῖς οἳ ἀπείρους οὐρανοὺς καὶ κόσμους εἶναί φασιν … Ambrose of Milan Hexaem. 1.1.4 … quamvis de ipso mundo non mediocris inter eos quaestio sit. nam Pythagoras (—) unum mundum adserit, alii innumerabiles dicunt esse mundos, ut scribit Democritus (fr. 358 Luria), cui plurimum de physicis auctoriatis vetustas detulit; see also Hexaem. 2.2.5, De fide 4.4.43, Ep. 45.15. Augustine Acad. 3.23 Jolivet quomodo enim inter Democritum et superiores physicos de uno mundo et innumerabilibus item diiudicabimus. … tamen ego qui longe adhuc absum vel a vicinitate sapientis, in istis physicis nonnihil scio. certum enim habeo, aut unum esse mundum, aut non unum; et si non unum, aut finiti numeri, aut infiniti. C.D. 12.12 Dombart– Kalb alii vero, qui mundum istum non existimant sempiternum, sive non eum solum, sed innumerabiles opinentur, sive solum quidem esse, sed certis saeculorum intervallis innumerabiliter oriri et occidere … C.D. 18.41 pro sua quisque opinione certabant, alii adserentes unum, alii innumerabiles mundos … Proclus in Tim. 1.437.25 περὶ δὲ τῆς λέξεως ἀμφισβητοῦσιν οἱ ἐξηγηταί· τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ δύο εἶναι τὰ διαιρούμενα νῦν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος (Tim. 31a), τό τε ἓν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος πᾶν, … τοῖς δὲ τρία εἶναι τὰ διαιρούμενα, καταφαίνεται τὸ ἓν τὸ πεπερασμένον πλῆθος καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον. John Philoponus in APo. 239.2 ὅταν δὲ ⟨πότερον⟩ ἄπειρος ἢ πεπερασμένος, τὸ ποσόν (ζητοῦμεν). Simplicius in Cael. 202.11–18 διὰ ταύτην γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἕνα κόσμον καὶ πεπερασμένον ἔλεγον, ὅσοι μὴ ἐδέχοντο τὸ ἄπειρον ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Πλάτων, οἱ δὲ ἕνα ἄπειρον, ὡς Ἀναξιμένης (—), ἀέρα ἄπειρον τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι λέγων, οἱ δὲ καὶ τῷ πλήθει ἀπείρους κόσμους, ὡς Ἀναξίμανδρος (—) μὲν ἄπειρον τῷ μεγέθει τὴν ἀρχὴν θέμενος ἀπείρους ἐξ αὐτοῦ τῷ πλήθει κόσμους ποιεῖν δοκεῖ, Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκρι-

liber 2 caput 1 τος (fr. 345 Luria) ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσμους ἐν ἀπείρῳ τῷ κενῷ καὶ ἐξ ἀπείρων τῷ πλήθει τῶν ἀτόμων συνίστασθαί φησι … in Phys. 1121.5–15 (from Alexander of Aphrodisias) οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσμους ὑποθέμενοι, ὡς οἱ περὶ Ἀναξίμανδρον (—) καὶ Λεύκιππον (—) καὶ Δημόκριτον (—) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον (fr. 306 Usener) γινομένους αὐτοὺς καὶ φθειρομένους ὑπέθεντο ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον ἄλλων μὲν ἀεὶ γινομένων ἄλλων δὲ φθειρομένων … τῶν δὲ ἕνα μόνον κόσμον λεγόντων … γενητὸν δὲ καὶ φθαρτὸν τὸν ἕνα κόσμον ποιοῦσιν, ὅσοι ἀεὶ μέν φασιν εἶναι κόσμον, οὐ μὴν τὸν αὐτὸν ἀεί, ἀλλὰ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον κατά τινας χρόνων περιόδους, ὡς Ἀναξιμένης (13A11 DK) τε καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (T 269 Mouraviev) καὶ Διογένης (fr. 23c Laks) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.576). also in Phys. 331.18 (fr. 345 Luria), 701.30 (fr. 346 Luria), and see further on A 2.4. Isidore of Seville Nat. 13 utrum enim unum sit caelum an plures contentio est. Symeon Seth CRN 3.27 τινὲς τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐδόξασαν ἀπείρους εἶναι κόσμους καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γῆν ὁμοίαν ταύτῃ καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ζῷα. Chapter heading: Philo of Alexandria Aet. 4 νῦν δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ σκέψις περὶ κόσμου τοῦ κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον σημαινόμενον, ὃς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ζῴων συνέστηκε. §1 Pythagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.48 (on Pythagoras) ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν πρῶτον ὀνομάσαι κόσμον καὶ τὴν γῆν στρογγύλην· ὡς δὲ Θεόφραστος (fr. 227E FHS&G), Παρμενίδην· ὡς δὲ Ζήνων (SVF 1.226), Ἡσίοδον. cf. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα … (see further on A 2.2). ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 391b9–10 κόσμος μὲν οὖν ἐστι σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις περιεχομένων φύσεων. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 4 λέγεται τοίνυν ὁ κόσμος καθ᾽ ἓν μὲν {πρῶτον} σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἄστρων κατὰ περιοχὴν ⟨καὶ⟩ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν. §2 Pythagoras: Ambrose of Milan Hexaem. 1.1.4 see General texts above. Empedocles: ps.Aristotle MXG 2 976b23–27 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς … λέγων (31B13 DK) ὡς ‘τοῦ παντός οὐδὲ κενεόν. πόθεν οὖν τί κ᾽ ἐπέλθοι’; ὅταν δὲ εἰς μίαν μορφὴν συγκριθῇ, ὡς ἓν εἶναι, οὐδέν φησι (31B14 DK) τό γε ‘κενεὸν πέλει οὐδὲ περισσόν’. Parmenides: Hippolytus Ref. 1.11.1 (28A23 DK) καὶ γὰρ καὶ Παρμενίδης ἓν μὲν τὸ πᾶν ὑποτίθεται ἀίδιόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον καὶ σφαιροειδές. Plato: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.71–72 κόσμον τε εἶναι ἕνα γεννητόν … ἕνα τε αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἄπειρον κατεσκεύασθαι. Zeno (and the Stoa): Arius Didymus fr. 29 Diels at Eus. PE 15.15.1 (SVF 2.528) ὅλον δὲ τὸν κόσμον σὺν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσι προσαγορεύουσι θεόν· τοῦτον δὲ ἕνα μόνον εἶναί φασι καὶ πεπερασμένον καὶ ζῷον καὶ ἀΐδιον καὶ θεόν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.140 ἕνα τὸν κόσμον εἶναι καὶ τοῦτον πεπερασμένον … καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν εʹ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου καὶ οἱ περὶ Ἀντίπατρον ἐν τοῖς περὶ κόσμου (Posidonius F 8 E.-K., 260 Theiler, SVF III Ant. 43). V.P. 7.143 ὅτι τε εἷς ἐστιν (sc. ὁ κόσμος) Ζήνων (SVF 1.97) φησὶν ἔνα τῷ περὶ τοῦ ὅλου. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.434 (on Chrysippus, SVF 3.657) εἰ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ᾔδει τὸ ὅτι πάντα ἀγνοεῖ, πῶς περὶ πολλῶν δογματίζει, τιθεὶς τὸ ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον (for continuation see on ch. 2.3).

763

764

liber 2 caput 1

§3 Anaximander: Cicero ND 1.25 Anaximandri (12A17 DK) autem opinio est nativos esse deos longis intervallis orientis occidentisque, eosque innumerabilis esse mundos. ps.Plutarch Strom. 2 (fr. 179 Sandbach) μεθ᾽ ὃν (sc. Thales) Ἀναξίμανδρον (12A10 DK) … τὸ ἄπειρον φάναι τὴν πᾶσαν αἰτίαν ἔχειν τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεώς τε καὶ φθορᾶς· ἐξ οὗ δή φησι τούς τε οὐρανοὺς ἀποκεκρίσθαι, καὶ καθόλου τοὺς ἅπαντας ἀπείρους ὄντας κόσμους. Irenaeus Haer. trans. Rufini 2.14.2 Rousseau–Doutreleau Anaximander autem hoc quod immensum est omnium initium subiecit, seminaliter habens in semetipso omnium genesim, ex quo immensos mundos constare ait … Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.1 Ἀναξίμανδρος Πραξιάδου Μιλήσιος (12A11 DK) οὗτος ἀρχὴν ἔφη τῶν ὄντων φύσιν τινὰ τοῦ ἀπείρου, ἐξ ἧς γίνεσθαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς κόσμους. ταύτην δὲ ἀίδιον εἶναι καὶ ἀγήρω, ἣν καὶ πάντας περιέχειν τοὺς κόσμους. Augustine C.D. 8.2 (12A17 DK) et innumerabiles mundo gignere et quaecumque in eis oriuntur. Anaximenes: see Simplicius in Cael. 202.13 cited above under General texts. Xenophanes: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.19 (21A1 DK) φησί … κόσμους δὲ ἀπείρους, οὐ παραλλακτοὺς δέ. Diogenes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 12 (fr. 179 Sandbach) Διογένης ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης (64A6 DK) ἀέρα ὑφίσταται στοιχεῖον· κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ πάντα ἀπείρους τ᾽ εἶναι τοὺς κόσμους. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.57 (64A1 DK) ἐδόκει δὲ αὐτῷ τάδε· στοιχεῖον εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, κόσμους ἀπείρους καὶ κενὸν ἄπειρον. Leucippus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.30–31 (67A1 DK) ἤρεσκε δ᾽ αὐτῷ ἄπειρα εἶναι τὰ πάντα καὶ εἰς ἄλληλα μεταβάλλειν, τό τε πᾶν εἶναι κενὸν καὶ πλῆρες σωμάτων. τούς τε κόσμους γίνεσθαι σωμάτων εἰς τὸ κενὸν ἐμπιπτόντων καὶ ἀλλήλοις περιπλεκομένων … τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρόν φησίν, ὡς προείρηται· τούτου δὲ τὸ μὲν πλῆρες εἶναι, τὸ δὲ κενόν, ⟨ἃ⟩ καὶ στοιχεῖά φησι. κόσμους τε ἐκ τούτων ἀπείρους εἶναι καὶ διαλύεσθαι εἰς ταῦτα. Democritus: Cicero Fin. 1.21 (fr. 350 Luria) innumerabiles mundi. Luc. 55 (fr. 350 Luria) et ais Democritum dicere innumerabiles esse mundo. Philo Aet. 8 (fr. 351 Luria) οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑπογράφουσιν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 (68A1 DK) δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ τάδε· … ἀπείρους τε εἶναι κόσμους καὶ γενητοὺς καὶ φθαρτούς. Hippolytus Ref. 1.13.2 (Democritus fr. 349 Luria) ἀπείρους δὲ εἶναι κόσμους καὶ μεγέθει διαφέροντας. Epicurus: Philo of Alexandria (fr. 304 Usener) see above under Democritus. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.45 and Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.89 cited above under General texts. Hermias Irr. 18 118.1–4 Hanson ἀμφὶ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα μέχρι νῦν ἐσπούδακεν ἡ ψυχή μου τῶν ὅλων ἄρχειν. προκύψας δέ μοί φησιν Ἐπίκουρος· σὺ μὲν δὴ κόσμον ἕνα μεμέτρηκας, ὦ φιλότης, εἰσὶ δὲ κόσμοι πολλοὶ καὶ ἄπειροι. Simplicius in Phys. 1121.5–15 cited above under General texts. §5 Epicurus: cf. Epicurus D.L. Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.89 (follows from text cited above under General texts) καὶ ὅτι καὶ ὁ τοιοῦτος δύναται κόσμος γίνεσθαι καὶ ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ μετακοσμίῳ ὃ λέγομεν μεταξὺ κόσμων διάστημα, ἐν πολυκένῳ τόπῳ καὶ οὐκ ἐν μεγάλῳ εἰλικρινεῖ καὶ κενῷ καθάπερ τινές φασιν … §8 Melissus: Theodoret CAG 4.8 Μέλισσος δὲ ὁ Ἰθαγένους ὁ Μιλήσιος τούτου μὲν ἑταῖρος ἐγένετο, τὴν δὲ παραδοθεῖσαν διδασκαλίαν κήρατον οὐκ ἐτήρησεν· ἄπειρον γὰρ οὗτος ἔφη τὸν κόσμον, ἐκείνων φάντων πεπερασμένον (~ §8). §9 Stoics: Sextus Empiricus P. 1.332–334 καὶ δὴ οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλόσοφοι (SVF 2.524) διαφέρειν ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν· ὅλον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι

liber 2 caput 1 λέγουσι τὸν κόσμον, πᾶν δὲ τὸ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ ἔξωθεν κενόν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸ μὲν ὅλον πεπερασμένον εἶναι (πεπέρασται γὰρ ὁ κόσμος), τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἄπειρον (τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου κενόν). ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος ἀδιαφόρως τήν τε τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τὴν τοῦ κενοῦ φύσιν ὅλον τε καὶ πᾶν προσαγορεύειν εἴωθεν· … οἱ δὲ φάμενοι μηδ᾽ ὅλως εἶναι κενόν, ὡς οἱ ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου, τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν τῶν σωμάτων μόνον, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦ κενοῦ ἐπικατηγοροῦσιν. cf. Ocellus Lucanus ch. 13 ἐκτὸς γὰρ τοῦ παντὸς οὐδέν, τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα ἐν τῷ παντί, καὶ τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν ὁ κόσμος.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Gorgias 82B3(73) DK καὶ ἄλλως, εἰ ἔστιν, ἤτοι ἕν ἐστιν ἢ πολλά· οὔτε δὲ ἕν ἐστιν οὔτε πολλά, ὡς παρασταθήσεται· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι τὸ ὄν. εἰ γὰρ ἕν ἐστιν, ἤτοι ποσόν ἐστιν ἢ συνεχές ἐστιν ἢ μέγεθός ἐστιν ἢ σῶμά ἐστιν. Plato Tim. 31a– b πότερον οὖν ὀρθῶς ἕνα οὐρανὸν προσειρήκαμεν, ἢ πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπείρους λέγειν ἦν ὀρθότερον; ἕνα, εἴπερ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα δεδημιουργημένος ἔσται. … ἵνα οὖν τόδε κατὰ τὴν μόνωσιν ὅμοιον ᾖ τῷ παντελεῖ ζῴῳ, διὰ ταῦτα οὔτε δύο οὔτ᾽ ἀπείρους ἐποίησεν ὁ ποιῶν κόσμους, ἀλλ᾽ εἷς ὅδε μονογενὴς οὐρανὸς γεγονὼς ἔστιν καὶ ἔτ᾽ ἔσται. 55c ἃ δή τις εἰ πάντα λογιζόμενος ἐμμελῶς ἀποροῖ πότερον ἀπείρους χρὴ κόσμους εἶναι λέγειν ἢ πέρας ἔχοντας, τὸ μὲν ἀπείρους ἡγήσαιτ᾽ ἂν ὄντως ἀπείρου τινὸς εἶναι δόγμα ὧν ἔμπειρον χρεὼν εἶναι, πότερον δὲ ἕνα ἢ πέντε αὐτοὺς ἀληθείᾳ πεφυκότας λέγειν ποτὲ προσήκει, μᾶλλον ἂν ταύτῃ στὰς εἰκότως διαπορήσαι. τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἕνα αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον πεφυκότα μηνύει θεόν, ἄλλος δὲ εἰς ἄλλα πῃ βλέψας ἕτερα δοξάσει. 92c8–9 γέγονεν εἷς οὐρανὸς ὅδε μονογενηὴς ὢν. Xenophon Mem. 1.1.14 τῶν τε περὶ τῆς τῶν πάντων φύσεως μεριμνώντων τοῖς μὲν δοκεῖν ἓν μόνον τὸ ὂν εἶναι, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄπειρα τὸ πλῆθος. Aristotle Phys. 8.1 250b18– 23 ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι μὲν ἀπείρους τε κόσμους εἶναί φασιν, καὶ τοὺς μὲν γίγνεσθαι τοὺς δὲ φθείρεσθαι τῶν κόσμων, ἀεί φασιν εἶναι κίνησιν (ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τὰς φθορὰς εἶναι μετὰ κινήσεως αὐτῶν)· ὅσοι δ᾽ ἕνα ⟨ἀεὶ⟩ ἢ μὴ ἀεί καὶ περὶ τῆς κινήσεως ὑποτίθενται κατὰ λόγον (goes on in 250b23–252b7 to discuss Anaxagoras and Empedocles as by implication belonging to the second group). Cael. 1.1 268b11–13 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσεως, εἴτ᾽ ἄπειρός κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος εἴτε πεπέρανται τὸν σύνολον ὄγκον, ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον. Cael. 1.5 271b2–4 καὶ πρῶτον πότερον ἔστι τι σῶμα ἄπειρον, ὥσπερ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀρχαίων φιλοσόφων ᾠήθησαν, ἢ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἕν τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων. Cael. 1.7 276a16–17 ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν οὐκ ἔστι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ παντὸς ἄπειρον, ἐκ τούτων φανερόν. Cael. 1.8 276a18–22 διότι δ᾽ οὐδὲ πλείους οἷόν τ᾽ οὐρανοὺς εἶναι, λέγωμεν· τοῦτο γὰρ ἔφαμεν ἐπισκεπτέον, εἴ τις μὴ νομίζει καθόλου δεδεῖχθαι περὶ τῶν σωμάτων ὅτι ἀδύνατον ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου τοῦδε ὁτιοῦν αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀορίστως κειμένων εἰρῆσθαι τὸν λόγον. Cael. 1.9 277b27–29 ὅτι δ᾽ οὐ μόνον εἷς ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδύνατον γενέσθαι πλείους, ἔτι δ᾽ ὡς ἀΐδιος ἄφθαρτος ὢν καὶ ἀγένητος, λέγωμεν, πρῶτον διαπορήσαντες περὶ αὐτοῦ. Cael. 1.9 278a21–23 ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων ὑπολάβοι τις ἂν καὶ εἶναι καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι πλείους εἶναι οὐρανούς. σκεπτέον δὲ πάλιν τί τούτων λέγεται καλῶς καὶ τί οὐ καλῶς. Cael. 1.10 280a23–27 τὸ δ᾽ ὅλως γενόμενον φθαρῆναι καὶ μὴ ἀνακάμπτειν ὄντος μὲν ἑνὸς ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν· πρὶν γὰρ γενέσθαι ἀεὶ ὑπῆρχεν ἡ πρὸ αὐτοῦ σύστασις, ἣν μὴ γενομένην οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναί φαμεν μεταβάλλειν· ἀπείρων δ᾽ ὄντων

765

766

liber 2 caput 1

ἐνδέχεται μᾶλλον. Divisiones Aristoteleae ch. 42, p. 56.1 Mutschmann φυσικὸν (sc. πρόβλημα) δέ, οἷον εἷς κόσμος ἐστὶν ἢ πλείους … Plutarch Def.Or. 421E– 423D τοῦ δ᾽ Ἡρακλέωνος πυθομένου πῆ ταῦτα προσήκει Πλάτωνι καὶ πῶς ἐκεῖνος τὸ ἐνδόσιμον τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ παρέσχεν, ὁ Κλεόμβροτος ‘εὖ μνημονεύεις’ εἶπεν ‘ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἀπειρίαν αὐτόθεν ἀπέγνω τῶν κόσμων, περὶ δὲ (422A) πλήθους ὡρισμένου διηπόρησε, καὶ μέχρι τῶν πέντε τοῖς ὑποτιθεμένοις κατὰ στοιχεῖον ἕνα κόσμον ἐπιχωρήσας τὸ εἰκὸς αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐτήρησεν. καὶ δοκεῖ τοῦτο Πλάτωνος ἴδιον εἶναι, τῶν ἄλλων σφόδρα φοβηθέντων τὸ πλῆθος, ὡς τοὺς ἑνὶ τὴν ὕλην μὴ ὁρίσαντας ἀλλ᾽ ἐκβάντας εὐθὺς ἀορίστου καὶ χαλεπῆς ἀπειρίας ὑπολαμβανούσης’. ‘ὁ δὲ ξένος’ ἔφην ἐγώ ‘περὶ πλήθους κόσμων ὥριζεν ᾗ Πλάτων ἤ, ὅτε συνεγένου τῷ ἀνδρὶ τούτῳ, οὐδὲ διεπειράθης;’ ‘ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔμελλον’ εἶπεν ὁ Κλεόμβροτος ‘εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο, τῶν περὶ ταῦτα λιπαρὴς εἶναι καὶ πρόθυμος ἀκροατὴς ἐνδιδόντος ἑαυτὸν ἵλεων καὶ παρέχοντος; ἔλεγε δὲ μήτ᾽ ἀπείρους μήθ᾽ ἕνα μήτε πέντε κόσμους, ἀλλὰ τρεῖς καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν εἶναι συντεταγμένους κατὰ σχῆμα τριγωνοειδές, οὗ πλευρὰν ἑκάστην ἑξήκοντα κόσμους ἔχειν· τριῶν δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἕκαστον ἱδρῦσθαι κατὰ γωνίαν, ἅπτεσθαι δὲ τοὺς ἐφεξῆς ἀλλήλων ἀτρέμα περιιόντας ὥσπερ ἐν χορείᾳ· …’ (423A) … καὶ ὁ Δημήτριος ‘Ὅμηρον’ ἔφη ‘τί κινοῦμεν ἐν τῷ παρόντι; μύθων γὰρ ἅλις. Πλάτων δὲ πολλοῦ δεῖ τὰς πέντε τοῦ κόσμου διαφορὰς πέντε κόσμους προσαγορεύειν, ἐν οἷς τε μάχεται τοῖς ἀπείρους κόσμους ὑποτιθεμένοις, αὐτὸς ἤδη φησὶ δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν, ἐκ τοῦ σωματοειδοῦς παντὸς ὅλον καὶ τέλειον καὶ αὐτάρκη γεγενημένον. ὅθεν ἄν τις καὶ θαυμάσειεν, ὅτι τἀληθὲς εἰπὼν αὐτὸς ἑτέροις ἀπιθάνου καὶ λόγον οὐκ ἐχούσης ἀρχὴν παρέσχε διανομῆς. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἕνα μὴ φυλάξαι κόσμον εἶχεν ἁμωσγέπως ὑπόθεσιν τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀπειρίαν, τὸ δ᾽ ἀφωρισμένως ποιῆσαι τοσούτους καὶ μήτε πλείους τῶν πέντε μήτ᾽ ἐλάττους κομιδῇ παράλογον καὶ πάσης πιθανότητος ἀπηρτημένον …’ Chapter heading: ps.Aristotle Περὶ κόσμου. Chrysippus at Alex.Aphr. in APr. 180.31 Wallies ὡς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ κόσμου Χρύσιππος (SVF 1.624) λέγει (see also Stob. Ecl. 1.5.15, p. 79.3, very likely from Arius Didymus). Antipater of Tyre at D.L. 7.139 ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ Περὶ κόσμου (also D.L. 7.142). Posidonius at D.L. 7.142 ἐν πρώτῳ Περὶ κόσμου. Sphaerus at D.L. 7.177 Περὶ κόσμου δύο. but cf. Plato Tim. 27c4 περὶ τοῦ παντός, Aristotle Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, Zeno Περὶ ὅλου (D.L. 7.142). §2 Empedocles: Empedocles fr. B26.8–12 (= B17.9–13) DK cited at Arist. Phys. 8.1 250b27–251a3 ἢ ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐν μέρει κινεῖσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἠρεμεῖν, κινεῖσθαι μὲν ὅταν ἡ φιλία ἐκ πολλῶν ποιῇ τὸ ἓν ἢ τὸ νεῖκος πολλὰ ἐξ ἑνός, ἠρεμεῖν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μεταξὺ χρόνοις, λέγων οὕτως, ‘ᾗ μὲν ἓν ἐκ πλεόνων μεμάθηκε φύεσθαι, / ἠδὲ πάλιν διαφύντος ἑνὸς πλέον’ ἐκτελέθουσιν, / τῇ μὲν γίγνονταί τε καὶ οὔ σφισιν ἔμπεδος αἰών· / ᾗ δὲ τάδ᾽ ἀλλάσσοντα διαμπερὲς οὐδαμὰ λήγει, ταύτῃ δ᾽ αἰὲν ἔασιν ἀκίνητοι κατὰ κύκλον’. Plato: Tim. 32a2–b3, 55d4–5, 92c8 see above under General texts. Aristotle: Cael. 1.7 276a18–19, 1.9 277b27–28 see above under General texts. §3 Anaximander: Simplicius in Phys. 24.13–18 = Theophrastus Phys.Op. fr. 2 Diels (226A FHS&G, 12A9 DK) λέγει δ᾽ αὐτὴν μήτε ὕδωρ μήτε ἄλλο τι τῶν καλουμένων εἶναι στοιχείων, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέραν τινὰ φύσιν ἄπειρον, ἐξ ἧς ἅπαντας γίνεσθαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς κόσμους. Xenophanes: Simplicius in Phys.

liber 2 caput 1 22.26 = Theophrastus Phys.op. fr. 5 Diels, fr. 224 FHS&G (different view, 21A31 DK) μίαν δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἤτοι ἓν τὸ ὂν καὶ πᾶν καὶ οὔτε πεπερασμένον οὔτε ἄπειρον οὔτε κινούμενον οὔτε ἠρεμοῦν Ξενοφάνην τὸν Κολοφώνιον τὸν Παρμενίδου διδάσκαλον ὑποτίθεσθαί φησιν ὁ Θεόφραστος ὁμολογῶν ἑτέρας εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίας τὴν μνήμην τῆς τούτου δόξης· …

767

Liber 2 Caput 2 PB : Plutarchus 886C–D; p. 329a1–8 Diels—PG : ps.Galenus HPh c. 45; p. 621.9–11 Diels;—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 140–141 Daiber—PC : Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.1–5, pp. 105–106 Riedweg—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.28, p. 36.1–2 Delatte S : Stobaeus Eclogae 1.15.6b, pp. 146.22–147.2 Wachsmuth; cf. 1.15, p. 1.144.16 (~ tit.) T : Theodoretus CAG 4.16, p. 104.16–17 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 6, p. 16.10–16 Di Maria; Scholia in Basilium I 23, p. 200.19–20 Pasquali

Titulus βʹ. Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου (P,cf.S) §1 οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, (P1,S1,T1) §2 ἄλλοι δὲ κωνοειδῆ, (P2,cf.T2) §3 οἱ δ᾽ ᾠοειδῆ. (P3,cf.T2) §4 Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, (S2,T2) §5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχήμασι κεχρῆσθαι. (P4) §1 Stoici SVF 2.547; §§2–3 anonymi —; §4 Leucippus–Democritus 67A22 DK, fr. 385 Luria; §5 Epicurus fr. 302 Usener titulus Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου PBQ, cf. PC : Περὶ σχήματος PG : Περὶ σχήματος οὐρανοῦ PSy : add. in marg. PB(III:α) εἰ σφαιροειδεὶς ὁ κόσμος ἢ κυμβοειδείς (sic) : cf. Περὶ σχήματων S (c. 1.15) §1 [2] οἱ μὲν P : μὲν om. S ‖ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον inv. PG ‖ post κόσμον add. S ἀπεφήναντο §2 lemma non hab. S ‖ [3] ἄλλοι δὲ PBCQ : δὲ om. PG §3 lemma non hab. S ‖ [4] οἱ δ᾽ ᾠοειδῆ PB(II,III)CQ, cf. Ach ᾠοειδές : οἱ δ᾽ ὠνοειδῆ PB(I) : ἄλλοι κυκλοειδῆ PG §5 [6–7] Ἐπίκουρος … κεχρῆσθαι] al. PG Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τούτων ἕκαστον (δὲ post Ἐπίκουρος Jas per litt. ex Nicolao) ‖ [7] σχήμασι PB : σχηματισμοῖς PC

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.16 4.16.1 (~ §1, §4) καὶ οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδῆ τοῦτον εἶναι, 4.16.2 (~ §§2–3) οἱ δὲ ἑτεροειδῆ. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Cyrillus Juln. 2.15 2.15 (quaestio) εἶτα περὶ τοῦ σχήματος τοῦ κόσμου ὧδε πάλιν φησίν· 2.15.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν στωϊκοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, 2.15.2 (~ P2) ἄλλοι δὲ κωνοειδῆ, 2.15.3 (~ P3) οἱ δὲ ᾠοειδῆ· 2.15.4 (~ P4) Ἐπίκουρος δὲ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχηματισμοῖς κεχρῆσθαι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_042

5

liber 2 caput 2

769

ps.Galenus HPh c. 45 (~ tit.) Περὶ σχήματος (text Diels) 45.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ τὸν κόσμον σφαιροειδῆ, 45.2 (~ P2) ἄλλοι κωνοειδῆ, 45.3 (~ P3) ἄλλοι κυκλοειδῆ. 45.4 (~ P4) Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τούτων ἕκαστον. Symeon Seth CRN 3.28 Περὶ σχήματος οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) 3.28 (~ P1) ὁ δὲ οὐρανός ἐστι σφαιροειδής … Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 6, p. 16.10 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου (tit.) p. 16.11–16 σχῆμα δὲ κόσμου οἳ μὲν κωνοειδές (§2), οἳ δὲ σφαιροειδές (§1), οἳ δὲ ᾠοειδές (§3), ἧς δόξης ἔχονται οἱ τὰ Ὀρφικὰ μυστήρια τελοῦντες. ἄμεινον δὲ σφαίρας ἐκδέχεσθαι σχῆμα ἔχειν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα, ὃς ἔφη οὕτως· ‘σφαῖρος κυκλοτερής, μονίηι περιηγέι χαίρων’. Scholia in Basilium I 26 σχῆμα οὐρανοῦ· οἳ μὲν σφαιροειδές (§1), οἳ δὲ κωνοειδές (§2), ⟨οἳ δὲ ᾠοειδές⟩ (§3), ἧς ἔχονται δόξης οἱ Ὀρφικοί. Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 1.14 Περὶ σχήματων; Α 2.14 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων; Α 2.22 Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου; Α 2.27 Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης; A 3.10 Περὶ σχήματος γῆς. §1 Α 1.4 [1] ὁ τοίνυν κόσμος συνέστη περικεκλασμένῳ σχήματι ἐσχηματισμένος τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον. A 1.6 [10] σφαιροειδὴς γὰρ ὁ κόσμος, ὃ πάντων σχημάτων πρωτεύει. A 2.14.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας, καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. A 2.22.3 οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ, ὡς τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα. A 2.27.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι ὡς τὸν ἥλιον. A 3.10.1 Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὴν γῆν. §3 A 2.31.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ ὕψους τοῦ ἀπὸ τὴς γὴς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀνάτασις, πλείονα εἶναι τὴν κατὰ τὸ πλάτος διάστασιν, κατὰ τοῦτο τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μᾶλλον ἀναπεπταμένου διὰ τὸ ᾠῷ παραπλησίως τὸν κόσμον κείσθαι. §4 A 1.7.7 Δημόκριτος νοῦν τὸν θεὸν ἐν πυρὶ σφαιροειδεῖ. §5 A 2.22.4 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα. cf. 2.13.15

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses All three major witnesses testify to this chapter. (1) P has the same four witnesses as in ch. 2.1, PB, C, G and Q, with E again omitting the chapter. All four preserve the same four lemmata, with G mak-

770

liber 2 caput 2

ing various abridgements (including the chapter heading) and alterations. On a possible fleeting reference to P’s text of this chapter in Julian the Arian see A 2.12 Commentary A. (2) S does not include material from this chapter in his cosmological chapters (1.21–26), but had earlier added it to his chapter 1.15 Περὶ σχημάτων, which is part of the section of his work dealing with principles and foundational physical concepts (1.10–20). P’s first lemma is located at 1.15.6b1, followed by another identical view but with the name-labels Leucippus–Democritus. The anonymous lemmata in P are left out. More surprisingly S also omits the Epicurean lemma in P, perhaps because it spoils the transition to the subject of the cosmos’ inclination (see M–R 1.219, 234). There is no more material in S’s chapter that can attributed to this chapter with any certainty (the brief introductory lemma on Plato at 1.15.4 is best regarded as S’s own addition). Thus S adds only one lemma to P, making five in total. (3) T reduces the chapter to a single diaeresis between two views, the former corresponding to P’s first lemma and the two in S, the other summarizing the remaining lemmata in P. Each view is represented by a single adjectival term, σφαιροειδής and ἑτεροειδής respectively. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. By the time that A compiled his work in the first cent. ce the standard cosmological model was completely dominant and the question of the shape of the cosmos (and the heaven) was regarded as proven; see for example Strabo 2.5.2 (cited below Section E(b) General texts). However, the question of the cosmos’ shape was retained as a standard quaestio infinita in the area of natural philosophy, as numerous dialectical and rhetorical texts listed below testify. Cicero develops the opposition as part of his argument between Epicurean and Stoic cosmo-theology in De natura deorum Books 1 and 2. In Patristic authors (including T) a sceptical position is adopted, since the Bible is not concerned with such matters. Views are recorded on this question for the atomists and Stoics, but not for other early Greek philosophers. For this chapter too the evidence in Ach forms a special case. He (and the paraphrase based on him in the Scholia in Basilium) records the same list of three options as in §§1–3 and must go back to a closely related Placita tradition. Of particular interest is his identification of the second lemma with the view of the Orphics. See further D(d) and (e) below. (2) Sources. The antithesis between the standard cosmological model, in which there is a single spherical cosmos, and the atomist model with an infinite diversity of kosmoi as was developed in the period up to the fourth century bce also forms the main background for this chapter. In the latter model a dis-

liber 2 caput 2

771

tinction is made between our cosmos and other kosmoi. Our cosmos, with its heavenly bodies apparently moving in circles, is regarded as basically spherical in shape; see the key text at Diogenes Laertius 9.31 cited below Section E(a)§4. The atomist description of the origin of the cosmos in ch. 1.4 also assumes sphericity, although it is not made explicit. Why this should be the case, given the atomist vortex model, is quite a puzzle (Furley (1987) 143). The earth is not regarded as spherical; cf. A 3.10.4–5. Other kosmoi can of course have all manner of possible shapes. But what are the sources for the alternative shapes of the cosmos given in §§2–3? Interestingly these are found in various texts which explore alternative shapes for the cosmos in order to demonstrate by a reductio ad absurdum that the shape of the cosmos must be spherical. This commences with Aristotle, who uses as alternatives the shapes ᾠοειδής and φακοειδής, while in Euclid we find κωνοειδής and κυλινδροειδής (also references to conic shape in Adrastus and the astronomers cited by Simplicius); for all these texts see below Section B(b) General texts. For Epicurus, however, these shapes are not just theoretical, but are actually likely to occur somewhere in the infinite space of the universe (see D.L. 10.74; he too suggests ‘egg-like’ kosmoi). We note here that A’s predilection for adjectives ending in -ειδής builds on terminology developed in these earlier texts. To express this terminology we have translated such terms literally in the translation above, including ‘like a ball’ for the key term σφαιροειδής (the Dutch term ‘balvormig’ is even better, but has no equivalent in English, cf. also ‘ballförmig’ in German). C Chapter Heading The heading of the standard umbrella type Περὶ x, as found in the majority of texts in the P tradition (and the index at the beginning of the Book), corresponds to parallel headings elsewhere in the work (see the list under loci Aetiani above). The quaestio involved belongs to the category of quality, as clearly formulated by Philoponus at in APo. 239.1, ὅταν δὲ πότερον σφαιροειδής (ὁ κόσμος) ἐστιν ἢ ποῖον ἕτερον ἔχει σχῆμα, τὸ ποιόν (ζητοῦμεν); cf. also Ambrose Hexaem. 1.6.21 de qualitate caeli. S alludes to the heading with his more general Περὶ σχήματων at Ecl. 1.15, where he combines doxai from this chapter with those from A 1.14. The abridged heading in PG reflects his occasional practice elsewhere, leaving the precise contents of the chapter unclear (cf. §§54, 57, 68). It certainly does not represent P’s original title. An interesting alternative heading is given in a marginal gloss in PB Ambrosianus C 126, εἰ σφαιροειδεὶς (sic) ὁ κόσμος ἢ κυμβοειδείς (sic). The second adjective (‘cup-shaped’) is likely a scribal error (it is not otherwise found in extant ancient Greek literature according to the TLG).

772

liber 2 caput 2

It may be a corruption of κυβοειδής (‘like a cube’), which is sometimes used of the earth, e.g. at Cleomedes 1.5.15 & 98, but suggested for the cosmos at Marius Victorinus in Rhet. 1.8, p. 31.20–24 Riesenweber (on Cic. Inv. 1.8 quae sit mundi forma?) ‘quae sit mundi facies’ … multi quadrata. This shape is not, however, used of the earth in A 3.10. Titles commencing with εἰ are quite common in A (cf. chs. 1.5, 2.3–4, 4.4–5 etc.), taking over the typical formulation of a θέσις (see, for example, Alex. Aphr. in Top. 40.19–23). But there are no examples containing alternative views in the actual title of a chapter. D Analysis a Context After introducing the cosmos and discussing its numerical and spatial aspects in ch. 2.1, the views on its shape are now presented. The same sequence is found at 2.13–14 on the stars, but not at 2.20–22 on the sun and 2.25–27 on the moon, where a chapter on size is interposed. The Aristotelian categories of essence and quality can be recognized. On this background see further M–R 2.1.10–14. b Number–Order of Lemmata As noted above, there are five lemmata in all. S has one lemma in addition to the four in P, so the question must be answered as to where it should be placed. As well seen by Diels, the only logical place is after the first three lemmata in P and preceding the Epicurean lemma at the chapter’s end. The particle δ(έ) in the final lemma thus forms an antithesis with the lemma that P omitted. It is to be noted that §4 is the only lemma without a connecting particle, but one may have been omitted by S (e.g. μέν). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first three lemmata explore the shape of a single cosmos by means of a diaeresis in the form of a list with three alternatives. The Stoics represent the spherical option. Interestingly they play the same role in subsequent chapters on the shape of various cosmic bodies, i.e. 2.14, 2.27 and 3.10 (but not 2.22). On the third option, an ‘egg-like’ shape, see further below (d). It may seem odd that §4 appears to repeat the same doxa as §1. The only plausible reason that can be given for this move is that it must be linked with the basic division between unicists and infinitists in 2.1. The Stoics represent the former, the two atomists Leucippus and Democritus the latter. Since the doxa speaks of the cosmos in the singular, they must be speaking about the cosmos we inhabit. In contrast to their view is the doxa attributed to Epicurus, which speaks of κόσμοι in the plural and emphasizes the possibility of other shapes. In total, therefore, the

liber 2 caput 2

773

chapter is structured through no less than four diaereses (see the diagram at M–R 2.327). We note that the final diaeresis introduces an additional element into the chapter which is not anticipated in its heading. The antithesis which it records is rather artificial or even unsatisfactory, since there is no evidence to suggest that the thought of Leucippus and Democritus on this matter differed from their later fellow-Atomist Epicurus. It cannot be agreed with Luria (2007) 1127 that Epicurus is polemicizing with his predecessors; it is the doxographer who establishes the contrast. It must be observed, however, that in the final doxa A indicates the possibility of multiple kosmoi with differing shapes with the term ἐνδέχεσθαι, used here for the first time in the work. In three other texts it is used of Epicurus (2.13.15, 2.22.4, 3.15.11), all in the final position as here; it is also attributed to Plato in 3.15.10 (not in final position) and to Diocles in 5.14.3. There can be no doubt that for A it is a vox Epicurea, taken by the doxographical tradition from texts such as Epicurus’Letters, where it is used very frequently to convey the doctrine of multiple explanations and/or causes. (The term is not recorded in the surviving fragments of Democritus or in reports of his doctrines.) The direct source of the doxa could be Ep.Pyth. 88, but it would then have to be an extrapolation since this text speaks of our cosmos and gives various shapes which are possible because there is no direct perception of its outer boundary. Earlier in the letter at §74 he speaks about multiple shapes of kosmoi, giving ball-like, egglike and ‘other-shaped’ as examples, but here the term ἐνδέχεσθαι is not used as it is in the subsequent text. Epicurus in fact occupies a special and almost unique place in the history of the Placita. His views are frequently recorded throughout the five books, often in combination with other members of the atomist tradition but also no less often on their own. However, a close study of his extant writings—especially the Letters—shows that he also made use of early literature related to the Placita in order to find examples of multiple explanations and/or causes as attributed to earlier philosophers and scientists. (The only other philosopher who occurs in the Placita but also made use of Placita material is Chrysippus; see below at ch. 4.5 Commentary D(e).) On Epicurus’ presence in the Placita and his use of the Placita tradition see further Introduction to Book 2 section 5, and also the detailed analysis in Runia (2018). On the connection between multiple explanations and doxography see ibid. 400–403, and also Bakker (2016) 58–62. d

Further Comments Individual Points §3 The additional comment given by Ach is of great interest: ἧς δόξης ἔχονται οἱ τὰ Ὀρφικὰ μυστήρια τελοῦντες. It could be the work of Ach himself. But the

774

liber 2 caput 2

Orphics are also mentioned at A 2.13.14, so the information here was probably present in the Placita tradition, but was left out by A. The reading of PG, κυκλοειδῆ, is best explained as a Verschlimmbesserung, the result of regarding the reading ᾠοειδῆ as implausible (he would thus be unaware of the tradition attributing this view to the Orphics). It is possible, however, that the doxa may implicitly refer to Empedocles, since at A 2.31.4 the cosmos is portrayed as lying on its side like an egg. On the translation of ὠοειδής see the comment ad loc., Commentary D(d)§4. §5 It is possibly that Cyril’s σχηματισμοῖς preserves an authentic reading since the term σχηματισμός is in general much rarer than the corresponding σχῆμα, but is used by A on four occasions (1.4.1[23], 1.15.6, 3.2.6, 5.13.1). e Other Evidence After citing the comment on the Orphics Ach continues as follows (§6, p. 16.12– 15): σαφηνείας δὲ ἕνεκα πιθανῆς παρελήφθη τοῦ ᾠοῦ ἡ εἰκών. ἄμεινον δὲ σφαίρας ἐκδέχεσθαι σχῆμα ἔχειν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα, ὃς ἔφη οὕτως: ‘σφαῖρος κυκλοτερὴς μονίῃ περιηγέι χαίρων’. The adjudication between doxai is unusual in the Placita (but see ch. 1.2.2, 1.3.1–2). The same verse of Empedocles (31B27.4, 28.2) is cited in S at 1.15.2b. Both S and Ach read χαίρων for the last word as against γαίων in the quote from Simplicius preferred by Diels VS (Wachsmuth wrongly emends). It is just possible that S derived the verse from A and that Ach reflects the same tradition. This would mean that the quote was given to illustrate the first doxa, a method also used in 1.18.2 (Empedocles again). Could the reading of PG in §3, κυκλοειδῆ, be a remnant of this verse? But such an inserted verse does not fit in well with the μέν … δέ construction in §§1– 3. The possibility is far too uncertain to warrant inclusion in the reconstruction of the text. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Hermagoras fr. 6a Matthes, T 14 Woerther at Cic. Inv. 1.6.8 quaestionem eam appellat quae habet in se controversiam in dicendo positam sine certarum personarum interpositione, ad hunc modum: ‘ecquid sit bonum praeter honestatem?’ ‘verine sint sensus?’ ‘quae sit mundi forma?’ ‘quae sit solis magnitudo?’ Cicero ND 2.48 (Balbus the Stoic) nec enim hunc ipsum mundum pro certo rotundum esse dicitis, nam posse fieri ut sit alia figura, innumerabilesque mundos alios aliarum esse formarum. cf. ND 1.24 (Velleius the Epicurean) at mihi vel cylindri vel quadrati vel coni vel puramidis videtur esse formosior (sc. forma conlata Platonis sphaera). ps.Hermogenes Prog. 11.4.5 Patillon (thesis) οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ κόσμος. Sceptics at D.L. 9.104 οὐ γὰρ εἰσιν (sc. αἱ φωναί) ὅμοιαι τῷ λέγειν ὅτι σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος. Demonax at Stob. Ecl.

liber 2 caput 2 2.1.11, p. 5.10–13 ἐξεταζόντων τινῶν, εἰ ὁ κόσμος ἔμψυχος, καὶ αὖθις εἰ σφαιροειδής, ὑμεῖς, ἔφη, περὶ μὲν τοῦ κόσμου πολυπραγμονεῖτε, περὶ δὲ τῆς αὑτῶν ἀκοσμησίας οὐ φροντίζετε. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 40.19–23 τῆς γὰρ ἀντιφάσεως ἂν μὲν τὸ ‘πότερον’ προτάξωμεν οἷον ‘πότερον ὁ κόσμος σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἢ οὔ;’, ἂν δὲ τὸ ‘ἆρα’, πρότασις, οἷον ‘ἆρά γε ὁ κόσμος σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἢ οὔ’; 76.10–15 (on dialectics), οἷον ὅτι ἀίδιος ὁ κόσμος ἢ ὅτι σφαιροειδής. ἐπιχειρήσαι γὰρ ἄν τις διαλεκτικῶς εἰς τοῦτο ὅτι τῷ τελειοτάτῳ τῶν σωμάτων οἰκεῖον τὸ τελειότατον σχῆμα, ὁ δὲ κόσμος τελειότατον τῶν σωμάτων· πάντα γὰρ τὰ ἄλλα ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχει· τῷ κόσμῳ ἄρα τὸ τελειότατον τῶν σχημάτων οἰκεῖον· ἀλλὰ μὴν τελειότατον ἡ σφαῖρα τῶν σχημάτων· οὔτε γὰρ προσθήκην οὔτε ἀφαίρεσιν δέχεται· οἰκεῖον ἄρα τὸ σφαιρικὸν σχῆμα τῷ κόσμῳ; cf. 171.15, 294.12 etc.; also at Simp. in Cael. 409.32–410.15. Tertullian ad Nat. 2.4.13–14 sed quid ego cum argumentationibus physiologicis? sursum mens ascendere debuit de statu mundi, non in incerta descendere. rotunda mundo Platonica forma; quadratum eum angulatumque commentum ab aliis, credo, circino rotundo ita collegit, quod sine capite solum credi laborat. Marius Victorinus in Rhet. 1.8, p. 31.20–24 Riesenweber (on Cic. Inv. 1.8 quae sit mundi forma?) ‘quae sit mundi facies’: multi dicunt mundum in modum sphaerae esse collectum, multi oblonga rotunditate esse formatum, multi plana facie, multi quadrata, multi in camerae modum (cf. Is. 40:22), scilicet ut sub terra non sit similis, ac supra caput est, mundi facies. Aphthonius Prog. 13.1.6–7 Patillon οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ οὐρανός (see further on ch. 2.1 Section E(a) General texts). Sopater Schol. ad Hermogenis Status 5.3.10–11 Walz φιλόσοφον οὖν τὸ ζήτημα, ζητοῦμεν γὰρ, εἰ κύκλος ὁ κόσμος … Proclus in Tim. 2.76.3 εἰ γὰρ μὴ σφαιροειδὴς ἦν ὁ οὐρανός, ἀλλὰ κύλινδρος ἤ τι ἄλλο σχῆμα τοιοῦτον … Nicolaus the Sophist Prog. 76.18–20 Felten τῶν δὲ θέσεων αἳ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ οὐρανός, ἢ εἴ τις ἑτέρα τοιαύτη θειοτέραν ἔχουσα ζήτησιν, αἳ δὲ πολιτικαί. John Philoponus in APo. 239.1 (on the cosmos) ὅταν δὲ πότερον σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἢ ποῖον ἕτερον ἔχει σχῆμα, τὸ ποιόν (ζητοῦμεν). Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1, p. 11 (table of contents) see on ch. 2.1. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 14.23 Amand de Mendieta-Rudberg καὶ περὶ τοῦ σχήματος δὲ ἱκανὰ ἡμῖν τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, εἰπόντος ἐν δοξολογίᾳ θεοῦ· ‘ὁ στήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσει καμάραν’ (Is. 40:22), translated by Ambrose of Milan Exam. 1.6.21, p. 17.15 Schenkl as de qualitate … et substantia caeli. §1 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.140 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.547) σχῆμα ἔχοντα (sc. τὸν κόσμον) σφαιροειδές … καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν εʹ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου καὶ οἱ περὶ Ἀντίπατρον ἐν τοῖς περὶ κόσμου (Posidonius F 8 E.-K., Theiler 260, SVF III Ant. 43). Cicero ND 2.45–48. §4 Leucippus Democritus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.31 (on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) ἰσορρόπων δὲ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος μηκέτι δυναμένων περιφέρεσθαι, τὰ μὲν λεπτὰ χωρεῖν εἰς τὸ ἔξω κενόν, ὥσπερ διαττώμενα· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ συμμένειν καὶ περιπλεκόμενα συγκατατρέχειν ἀλλήλοις καὶ ποιεῖν πρῶτόν τι σύστημα σφαιροειδές. cf. Lucretius DRN 5.510 magnus caeli … orbis. §5 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.74 (and scholion) (fr. 82 Usener) ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοῦς κόσμους οὔτε ἐξ ἀνάγκης δεῖ νομίζειν ἕνα σχηματισμὸν ἔχοντας ⟨

775

776

liber 2 caput 2

… ⟩ (†ἀλλὰ καὶ διαφόρους αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ιβʹ Περὶ αὐτοῦ φησιν· οὓς μὲν γὰρ σφαιροειδεῖς, καὶ ᾠοειδεῖς ἄλλους, καὶ ἀλλοιοσχήμονας ἑτέρους· οὐ μέντοι πᾶν σχῆμα ἔχειν …). also at Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 (on a single cosmos) κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα, οὗ λυομένου πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ σύγχυσιν λήψεται, ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου καὶ καταλήγουσα ἐν πέρατι ἢ ἀραιῷ ἢ πυκνῷ καὶ οὗ λυομένου πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ σύγχυσιν λήψεται—καὶ λήγουσαν ἢ ἐν περιαγομένῳ ἢ ἐν στάσιν ἔχοντι καὶ στρογγύλην ἢ τρίγωνον ἢ οἵαν δήποτε ἔχουσα περιγραφήν· πανταχῶς γὰρ ἐνδέχεται· τῶν γὰρ φαινομένων οὐδὲν ἀντιμαρτυρεῖ ⟨ἐν⟩ τῷδε τῷ κόσμῳ, ἐν ᾧ λῆγον οὐκ ἔστι καταλαβεῖν. Lucretius DRN 2.1052–1057, cited on ch. 2.1 under Section E(a) General texts.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Phys. 2.1 193b26–30 εἰ γὰρ τοῦ φυσικοῦ τὸ τί ἐστιν ἥλιος ἢ σελήνη εἰδέναι, τῶν δὲ συμβεβηκότων καθ᾽ αὑτὰ μηδέν, ἄτοπον, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι φαίνονται λέγοντες οἱ περὶ φύσεως καὶ περὶ σχήματος σελήνης καὶ ἡλίου, καὶ δὴ καὶ πότερον σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἢ οὔ. Cael. 2.4 286b10–12 σχῆμα δ᾽ ἀνάγκη σφαιροειδὲς ἔχειν τὸν οὐρανόν· τοῦτο γὰρ οἰκειότατόν τε τῇ οὐσίᾳ καὶ τῇ φύσει πρῶτον. εἴπωμεν δὲ καθόλου περὶ τῶν σχημάτων, τὸ ποῖόν ἐστι πρῶτον … Cael. 287a11–22 ἔτι δὲ ἐπεὶ φαίνεται καὶ ὑπόκειται κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι τὸ πᾶν, δέδεικται δ᾽ ὅτι τῆς ἐσχάτης περιφορᾶς οὔτε κενόν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν οὔτε τόπος, ἀνάγκη καὶ διὰ ταῦτα σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι αὐτόν. εἰ γὰρ ἔσται εὐθύγραμμος … ὁμοίως δὲ κἂν εἴ τι ἄλλο σχῆμα γένοιτο μὴ ἴσας ἔχον τὰς ἐκ τοῦ μέσου γραμμάς, οἷον φακοειδὲς ἢ ᾠοειδές· ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ συμβήσεται καὶ τόπον ἔξω καὶ κενὸν εἶναι τῆς φορᾶς, διὰ τὸ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν χώραν κατέχειν τὸ ὅλον. Euclid Phaen. pr. 50–51 διὰ δὴ τὰ προειρημένα πάντα ὁ κόσμος ὑποκείσθω σφαιροειδής· εἴτε γὰρ ἦν κυλινδροειδὴς ἢ κωνοειδής … Strabo 2.5.2 τὰ μὲν οὖν παρὰ τῶν φυσικῶν δεικνύμενα τοιαῦτά ἐστι· σφαιροειδὴς μὲν ὁ κόσμος καὶ ὁ οὐρανός … Adrastus in Theon Expos. 120.10–15, 23–27 ὅτι γὰρ σφαιρικὸς ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἡ γῆ σφαιρική … δῆλον … κωνικὸν γὰρ ἢ κυλινδρικὸν ἢ πυραμοειδὲς ἤ τι ἕτερον στερεὸν σχῆμα παρὰ τὸ σφαιρικὸν τοῦ παντὸς ἔχοντος, κατὰ τῆς γῆς οὐκ ἂν ταῦτα ἀπήντα … cf. Astronomers at Simp. in Cael. 410.25– 29 οἱ δὲ ἀστρονόμοι συγχωροῦντές τισι τῶν σχημάτων, οἷον κυλίνδρῳ καὶ κώνῳ καὶ τῷ φακοειδεῖ καὶ ᾠοειδεῖ καὶ τῷ ῥομβοειδεῖ καλουμένῳ στερεῷ, οὕτως ἔχειν τοὺς πόλους, ὡς ἀεὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κατέχειν τόπον, ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων δεικνύουσι μηδὲν ἄλλο σχῆμα τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔχειν δυνάμενον πλὴν τοῦ σφαιρικοῦ. Theophilus of Antioch ad Aut. 2.32 ταῦτα δὲ μὴ ἐπιστάμενοι οἱ συγγράφεις βούλονται τὸν κόσμον σφαιροειδῆ λέγειν καὶ ὡσπερεὶ κύβῳ συγκρίνειν αὐτόν. Chapter heading: — §1 Stoics: Plato Tim. 33b σχῆμα δὲ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ τὸ πρέπον καὶ τὸ συγγενές. τῷ δὲ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὑτῷ ζῷα περιέχειν μέλλοντι ζῴῳ πρέπον ἂν εἴη σχῆμα τὸ περιειληφὸς ἐν αὑτῷ πάντα ὁπόσα σχήματα· διὸ καὶ σφαιροειδές, ἐκ μέσου πάντῃ πρὸς τὰς τελευτὰς ἴσον ἀπέχον, κυκλοτερὲς αὐτὸ ἐτορνεύσατο, πάντων τελεώτατον ὁμοιότατόν τε αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ σχημάτων … Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.56 Aucher figura autem muni, sicut et mundus ipse … per providentiam globi in formam facta fuit. primum, quia omnia figura velocius mobilis est … occurrunt autem in Timaeo

liber 2 caput 2

777

Platonis (33b), qui mirifice laudent figuram perfecte sphaericam cum sua utilitate, atque commendent, ita ut nullo praeterea indigeat laudis additamento. Cleomedes Cael. 1.5.6–9 Todd ἂν τοίνυν ἐπιδείξωμεν ὅτι τὸ στερεώτατον αὐτοῦ (sc. ὁ κόσμος) καὶ πυκνότατον μέρος, ἡ γῆ, σφαιρικῷ κέχρηται τῷ σχήματι, ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἀπὸ τούτου ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ μετιόντες καταμάθοιμεν ὅτι πάντα σφαιρικά ἐστι καὶ οὕτως καὶ ὁ σύμπας τοιοῦτον ἔχει τὸ σχῆμα.

Appendix: A Missing Chapter Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου? At CAG 4.16 a section of T’s summary of A’s chapters on the cosmos reads (p. 104.15–20 Raeder): καὶ οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδῆ τοῦτον εἶναι, οἱ δὲ ἑτεροειδῆ· καὶ οἱ μὲν μυλοειδῶς, οἱ δὲ τροχοῦ δίκην περιδινεῖσθαι· καὶ οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ἔμπνουν, οἱ δὲ παντάπασιν ἄψυχον· καὶ οἱ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν γενητόν, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον, οἱ δὲ ἀγένητον παντελῶς καὶ ἀναίτιον· καὶ οὗτοι μὲν φθαρτόν, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἄφθαρτον. The summaries of A 2.2 and A 2.3–4 can immediately be recognised. But in between them are the words in italics which have no equivalent in the remains of A found in P or S. Undoubtedly what we have here is what we have called an Aëtian ‘enclave’ (see General Introduction, section 2.4–5). This was already recognized by Diels, who regarded them as derived from A and placed them (DG 329) beneath the text of 2.2, numbering them as 2.2.4. Four additional considerations point to the fact that Diels was on the right track. (1) It is apparent that in his chapters on the cosmos, the stars, the sun, the moon and the earth A follows a fixed sequence of topics, which we have argued go back to question-types first formulated by Aristotle and loosely based on his theory of the categories: cf. Mansfeld (1990a) 3193–3208; (1992a) 93; M– R 2.5–6, 112. For example for the earth we have in ch. 3.9–13 Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι (substance and quantity), Περὶ σχήματος γῆς (quality), Περὶ θέσεως γῆς and Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς (place), Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς (motion relating to all the categories). A chapter Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου would fit in very well in a parallel sequence of chapters on the cosmos. Similar chapters on other heavenly bodies are ch. 2.16 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως, 2.23 Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου, 2.24 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου, 2.27 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης, and 2.28 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης. In addition there is a chapter on motion in Book 1, 1.23 Περὶ κινήσεως, which precedes a chapter on generation and destruction, 1.24 Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς. A similar sequence would occur in Book 2 on the cosmos, if a chapter Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου preceded 2.4 Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος.

778

liber 2 caput 2

We may also compare the sequence in Book 4 on the soul: 4.6 Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς, 4.7 Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς. (2) The early chapters on the cosmos in Ach, a ‘cousin-writing’ of A, show a similar sequence: §5 Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (= κόσμου), §6 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου, §7 Περὶ περιφορᾶς. Since Ach and A share common earlier doxographical traditions, it is likely that A would have dealt with the subject of the cosmos’ revolution as well. (3) There is a fine parallel for alternative views on the motion of the cosmos in Epicurus Ep.Pyth at D.L. 10.88 (text above, section E(a)§5)), where the outer edge of the cosmos is described as either ‘in revolution or in rest’. It is very likely that Epicurus here made use of a very early doxographical tradition; cf. Runia (1997), Bakker (2016), Runia (2018) 406. (4) There is a striking linguistic parallel between T’s text which speaks of a whirling movement τροχοῦ δίκην and the description of the earth’s movement at A 3.13.3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν, οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς, τροχοῦ δίκην ἐνηξονισμένην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς περὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς κέντρον. Exactly the same phrase is used, which suggests that T will have derived it from A, but from another text than 3.13.3. The layout presented by Diels in the DG suggests that these doxai should be added to the present chapter. In our view, however, it is more likely that they point to the possibility of an additional chapter in A with the heading Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου that was passed over by P in the process of epitomisation and not utilised by S. If this is correct, it will be one of the very few chapters not included by P (see the discussion at M–R 1.186). S may have passed over the diaeresis because it is anonymous and he often leaves out such lemmata which are difficult to include in his coalesced clusters. Diels suggested that the two alternative kinds of motion—like a millstone and like a cartwheel—might go back to the thought of the Milesians Anaximenes and Anaximander respectively, his inspiration being the description of Anaximander’s view on the motion of the sun in terms of a cartwheel (referred to A 2.20.1, cf. 2.25.1 on the moon). He included the former in VS (3A12 = 13A12 DK), but not the latter. See now Anaximander fr. 135, Anaximenes fr. 112 Wöhrle. It is very difficult, however, to determine how the contrast between the two kinds of motion might be explained. For some suggestions see the discussion at M–R 2.334. Couprie (2018) 123 rightly notes that in this text it is the cosmos that is moving, not the heavenly bodies as in the reports on the Milesians. In a private communication he also points out that in the archaic period the millstone was not horizontal as it became later, but stood vertically. This makes the contrast between horizontal and vertical movement suggested at M–R 2.334 less persuasive.

liber 2 caput 2

779

Another fragment that might possibly be assigned to this missing chapter is found at S 1.21.3b. It is the second of a cluster of three Stoic doxai (p. 183.1– 2 Wachsmuth): μήτε αὔξεσθαι δὲ μήτε μειοῦσθαι κόσμον, τοῖς δὲ μέρεσιν ὁτὲ μὲν παρεκτείνεσθαι πρὸς πλείονα τόπον, ὁτὲ δὲ συστέλλεσθαι. Diels placed this as part of 2.4, but no reason can be given why it should be placed in a chapter on the cosmos’ genesis and destruction. On the other hand, increase and diminution are types of motion in the Aristotelian scheme (mentioned as such at S 1.19.1, almost certainly from AD). We think it possible that it derived from the chapter on the cosmos’ motion. On the Stoic doctrine involved (expansion and contraction, but no increase or diminution because the amount of matter remains the same) see Hahm (1977) 32 and n. 16. In our Specimen reconstructionis we included this postulated missing chapter with its three doxai as part of our reconstruction, naming it ch. 2.2a: see M–R 2.331–336. The matter remains speculative, however, and we have decided not to include hypothetical chapters of this kind in the present edition. See further General Introduction, section 2.8 and n. 83.

Liber 2 Caput 3 PB: ps.Plutarchus 886D–E; pp. 329a9–330a12 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.34, p. 408.14–20 Mras, cf. 7.11.13, pp. 385.24–386.3; 15.32.8, p. 406.8–9—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 46; p. 621.13–19 Diels; pp. 148–155 Jas—PC : Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.6–15, p. 106, cf. 2.16. 8–12 p. 107 Riedweg—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 140– 141 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 156, p. 80 Westerink (titulus solus)— PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.29, pp. 36.11–37.1 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.21, p. 181.16–17 (tit.) + 1.21.3c, p. 183.6–11 + 6ab, p. 186.1–11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b5–6 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.16, p. 104.17–18 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 5, p. 14.3–6 Di Maria

Titulus γʹ. Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (P,S) §1 οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχον τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος οὐδέτερα τούτων, φύσει δὲ ἀλόγῳ ἐκ τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστῶτα. (P2,S2,T2) §3 Ἔκφαντος ἐκ μὲν τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστάναι τὸν κόσμον, διοικεῖσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ προνοίας. (S3) §4 Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλου, οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν οὔτε λογικὸν οὔτε νοερὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτων πάντων κοινωνεῖν, σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς αὐτῶν, τῆς δ᾽ εὐταξίας κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὐ προηγουμένως μετέχειν. (P3,S4) §1 anonymi —; §2 Leucippus 67A22 DK; §2 Democritus fr. 23, 589 Luria; §2 Epicurus fr. 382 Usener; §3 Ecphantus 51.4 DK; §4 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 2.3 285a29, 286a9–12, AD fr. 9 Diels titulus Εἰ … διοικούμενος PB(I,II)EQSy : καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος om. PB(III)GPs, cf. PC 2.15 εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος ἢ μή : cf. S qui conflat tit. Περὶ κόσμου (2.1) καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (2.3) καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν (2.5a) καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται (2.5) §1 non hab. PE ‖ [2] post ἔμψυχον hab. τε PG ‖ καὶ ] om. S ins. Wachsmuth §2 [4] Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος S : Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος PBGC (δὲ om. PE, cf. Q) ‖ [4–5] οὐδέτερα … συνεστῶτα S : καὶ ὅσοι τὰ ἄτομα εἰσηγοῦνται καὶ τὸ κενὸν οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικεῖσθαι PBE1CQ (φύσει … ἀλόγῳ om. PE2) : al. PG ὅσοι τὸ αὐτόματον εἰσάγουσιν, οὐδέτερον τούτων συγχωροῦσι, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ διοικεῖσθαι §3 [7] ὑπὸ S corr. cod. Aug. Diels Wachsmuth : ἀπὸ SFP §4 [8] δι᾽ ὅλου PGS Diels : δι᾽ ὅλων PBEC ‖ post ἔμψυχον hab. εἶναι PG ‖ [8–9] οὔτε2 … νοερὸν PB : οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν om. PECS : οὔτε λογικὸν om. PQ ‖ οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν] ⟨οὔτε⟩ αἰσθητὸν PG (ins. οὔτε Diels) ‖ [10] κοινωνεῖν PBECSP2 : κοινωνεῖ SFP1 Diels Wachsmuth : μετέχειν PG ‖ [10–11] ζωτικάς PBCEGSP2 : ζωτικά SFP1 ‖ [11] αὐτῶν] τούτων μετειληφέναι PG ‖ [11–12] τῆς … μετέχειν] al. PG μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμβεβηκός

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_043

5

10

liber 2 caput 3 Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.16 4.16.1 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ἔμπνουν, 4.16.2 (~ §2) οἱ δὲ παντάπασιν ἄψυχον. cf. 1.63 καὶ οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχον εἶναι τὸ πᾶν (~ §1), οἱ δὲ ἄψυχον (~ §2). Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia Graeca, cf. c. 1.7) … καὶ τῶν μὲν μὴ προνοίᾳ θεοῦ διοικεῖσθαι τὸν κόσμον, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ, τῶν δὲ τὰ μὲν οὐράνια μόνα ὑπὸ θεοῦ διοικεῖσθαι, οὐ μὴν καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς, καὶ πάλιν ἀγένητον εἶναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ μήθ᾽ ὅλως ὑπὸ θεοῦ γενέσθαι, αὐτομάτως δὲ καὶ συντυχικῶς ὑφεστάναι, τῶν δὲ ἐξ ἀτόμων καὶ λεπτῶν σωμάτων ἀψύχων τινῶν καὶ ἀλόγων τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σύστασιν γεγονέναι; ps.Galenus HPh c. 46 (~ tit.) Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος (text Jas) 46.1 (~ P1) Οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχόν τε τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. 46.2 (~ P2) Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὅσοι τὸ αὐτόματον εἰσάγουσιν, οὐδέτερον τούτων συγχωροῦσι, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ διοικεῖσθαι. 46.3 (~ P3) Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτε ἔμψυχον εἶναι ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλου ⟨οὔτε⟩ αἰσθητὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτ(ων) πάντ(ων) μετέχειν. σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς τούτων μετειληφέναι μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμβεβηκός. Cyrillus Juln. 2.15–16 2.15 (quaestio) ἔφη δὲ πάλιν τὰς τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι φιλοσόφων δόξας εἰς ἐξήγησιν προτιθεὶς εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος ἢ μή, οὕτως· 2.15.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχον τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον εἶπον· 2.15.2 (~ P2) Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὅσοι τὰ ἄτομα εἰσηγοῦνται καὶ τὸ κενόν, οὔτε ἔμψυχον οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικεῖσθαι, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ· 2.15.3 (~ P3) Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλων οὔτε λογικὸν οὔτε νοερὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτων πάντων κοινωνεῖν· σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς αὐτῶν, τῆς δὲ εὐταξίας κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὐ προηγουμένως, μετέχειν. cf. 2.16 καὶ οἱ μὲν προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ διοικούμενον (P1), οἱ δὲ καὶ προνοίας δίχα καὶ τὴν τῶν στοιχείων εὔτακτον κίνησιν αὐτοματισμοῖς καὶ συμβεβηκόσιν ἐκνενεμήκασι (P2)· καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐψυχῶσθαί φασιν αὐτόν (P1), οἱ δὲ οὔτε ἔμψυχον οὔτε νοερόν (P2). Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 156 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.29 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (~ tit.) οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες τάς τε σφαίρας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐμψύχους ἐδόξαζον, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας, λέγοντες εἰ τὰ ἐνταῦθα γεώδη σώματα ψυχῆς οὐκ ἠμοίρησε, πόσῳ γε μᾶλλον τὰ οὐράνια. ἡμεῖς δὲ λέγομεν ὡς ἡ κίνησις τούτων φυσική ἐστι καὶ οὐ ψυχική … (cf. c. 2.16)

781

782

liber 2 caput 3

Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 5, p. 14.3–6 ζῷον δέ φασιν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον (§1)· τὸ γὰρ αὐτοκίνητον εἶναι αὐτὸν καὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ τὴν περιφορὰν ἀεὶ ποιεῖσθαι καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν σημείων ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ περιδινεῖσθαι νοῦν ἔχοντός ἐστι, φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ζῷον ζῳογονεῖ. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.4 Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. A 1.25 Περὶ ἀνάγκης (de necessitate et providentia). §1 A 1.7.2 Θαλῆς νοῦν τοῦ κόσμου τὸν θεόν, τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες. A 1.25.4 Πλάτων τὰ μὲν εἰς πρόνοιαν ἀνάγει, τὰ δ᾽ εἰς ἀνάγκην. A 1.26.4 Χρύσιππος δύναμιν πνευματικὴν τάξει τοῦ παντὸς διοικητικήν· καὶ πάλιν ἐν τοῖς Ὅροις ‘εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος· ἢ λόγος τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων. A 1.27.5 (de fato) Ζήνων ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν τῷ Περὶ φύσεως δύναμιν κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως, ἥντινα μὴ διαφέρειν πρόνοιαν καὶ φύσιν καλεῖν’. §2 A 1.25.3–4 Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην, τὴν αὐτὴν δ᾽ εἶναι εἱμαρμένην καὶ δαίμονα καὶ Δίκην καὶ πρόνοιαν καὶ κοσμοποιόν. Λεύκιππος πάντα κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην, τὴν δ᾽ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν εἱμαρμένην· λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ· ‘οὐδὲν χρῆμα μάτην γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης’. §3 A 1.3.17 Ἔκφαντος Συρακούσιος, εἷς τῶν Πυθαγορείων, πάντων τὰ ἀδιαίρετα σώματα καὶ τὸ κενόν. τὰς γὰρ Πυθαγορικὰς μονάδας οὗτος πρῶτος ἀπεφήνατο σωματικάς. §4 A 2.4.10 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος τοῦ κόσμου παθητικόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ περίγεια κηραίνεται. A 4.6.2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἀκίνητον τὴν ψυχὴν πάσης κινήσεως προηγουμένην, τῆς δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μετέχειν, καθάπερ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰ πέρατα καὶ καθάπαξ τὰ περὶ τοῖς σώμασιν εἴδη.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P is well attested, with seven witnesses in all. PBQC preserve three lemmata, with only minor differences. Oddly, E omits the first lemma, perhaps because of its similarity to the title (but he had referred to it earlier in Book 7 when in contrasting Hebrew and Greek theology he anticipated the contents of this chapter, as well as chs. 1.7, 2.4). G retains all three lemmata but introduces significant alterations (τὸ αὐτόματον instead of τὰ ἄτομα, μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμβεβηκός instead of κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὐ προηγουμένως). Ps retains only the title in the shorter form. Sy writes it out in full but in the chapter itself he

liber 2 caput 3

783

immediately turns to the question of whether the heavenly spheres are ensouled, which is not explictly broached in A or P; but see further on ch. 2.16. (2) S provides four lemmata that must be assigned to this chapter. They are all found in 1.21, the title of which alludes to the Aëtian source (see section C below). In 3c the first two lemmata in P are written out. The name-label of Leucippus added to the second and the wording of this doxa differs significantly from P. P’s third lemma is found at 6b. It is preceded by the Ecphantus lemma in 6a, which given its contents and wording must come from 2.3. (3) T paraphrases with extreme concision, so is of no value for the text. But he does retain the chapter’s main distinction, which he formulates with the terms ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ἔμπνουν and παντάπασιν ἄψυχον, and thus makes more explicit than does A. He gives an even briefer formulation of the same distinction at 1.63, οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχον …, οἱ δὲ ἄψυχον. For the evidence of Ach in the tradition close to A see section D(e) below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The subject of this chapter, with its antithesis between a teleological view of the cosmos’ formation and/or structure and the nonteleological view that it is the result of forces to be attributed to necessity or chance is very common in the anterior and later doxographical traditions, with numerous texts in Lucretius, Cicero, Philo, Plutarch, Galen, Plotinus, Augustine and others; see the texts cited below in Section B(a). A number of rhetorical texts show that the themes of the chapter are also used as illustrations of quaestiones generales or θέσεις. A text in Quintilian Inst. 5.7.35 is particularly revealing, formulating the quaestio in the form of the classic antithesis ‘whether the world is brought about through a coming together of atoms or is ruled by providence,’ reversing the order that we find in A. Sopater gives as a quaestio (ζήτημα) the other theme of the chapter, ‘whether the cosmos is living’. The same quaestio in the form found in A’s title is mentioned in a Stobaean excerpt from the Imperial Cynic philosopher Demonax when he is upbraiding certain people for inquiring about cosmological themes while ignoring their own indecorous behaviour (the subject of A 2.2 is also mentioned). The link with the theme of providence is made in numerous texts, nowhere more succinctly than in Marcus Aurelius 4.3.2 ἤτοι πρόνοια ἢ ἄτομοι. Many of these, however, have an explicit theological formulation wholly missing in A. A very full example is found at Epictetus 1.12.1–2, with five positions (denial of God’s existence, denial of providence tout court, providence only of the heavens (cf. §4 in our chapter), providence of earthly regions too, providence of individuals). On these doxographies see Runia (1996) 564 = M–R 3.362. In contrast A’s approach in this chapter is cosmological and not theological. The ques-

784

liber 2 caput 3

tion of providence is scarcely noted in the chapter on theology 1.7 (only briefly at A 1.7.1[35–41]); cf. also 1.25.5 (on Plato). There is no separate chapter Περὶ προνοίας. The theological formulation, as given for example in Theon rhetor, εἰ προνοοῦσι θεοὶ τοῦ κόσμου, was more common than the cosmological one found in Quintilian and discussed above. The formulation προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος in the chapter heading is plainly indebted to Stoic philosophy, in which it is a common phrase, attributed to Chrysippus for example by Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels and Sextus Empiricus M. 7.432 (the latter text plainly influenced by doxographical texts). (2) Sources. The view that the cosmos is animate and ensouled is by no means foreign to early Greek thought but not explicitly formulated (it is anachronistically attributed to Thales and Pythagoras in doxographies preserved in Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.27 and 8.25). Implicit is the macrocosm–microcosm relation first formulated by Democritus (68B34 DK, cf. also Arist. Phys. 8.2 254b24–28). But for the later tradition it is first placed on the map through Plato’s emphatic presentation of the cosmos as a ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τε which comes into being διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ … πρόνοιαν (Tim. 30b8–c1). This cosmobiology is taken over and developed further by the Stoa; see Hahm (1977) 57–90. In the important formulation of the topics of physics in D.L. 7.132–133 the subject of whether the cosmos is ensouled or not and whether it is administered by providence are joined together with the question of its destructibility (cf. ch. 2.4). The contrast of this teleological approach to the cosmos’ development with the non-teleological view of the atomist tradition was already emphasised by Plato in Book 10 of the Laws (esp. 889b–c; text below Section B(b) General texts). A special position is taken by Strato, who is not an atomist but is linked with them in denying that the cosmos is animate (Plu. Adv.Col. 1115B = fr. 35 Wehrli, 20 Sharples; cf. Lact. De ira Dei 10.1 = fr. 19C Sharples). He attributes the cosmos’ rational structure to the unconscious workings of nature. This subtlety is not picked up by A. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is composite, combining the two subjects dealt with in the chapter. It departs from the standard umbrella type used so far in the book and denotes the two quaestiones explicitly by commencing with the conjunction εἰ. The only previous instance has been at ch. 1.5 εἰ ἓν τὸ πᾶν, one of the three ‘cosmological’ chapters at 1.4–6. As noted above, these two quaestiones are common in rhetorical texts. They fall under the categories of substance and quality. Most witnesses agree on the longer heading, which combines the two subjects dealt with in the chapter. The exceptions are G, Ps and the Planudean

liber 2 caput 3

785

mss. of PB, who omit the second half. The longer title is also attested by S, who includes it in his composite heading for Ecl. 1.21, which combines the headings of chs. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5a and 2.5: Περί κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται. It must certainly be retained. D Analysis a Context The continuity of the themes relating to the cosmos is better preserved if indeed there was a chapter on the cosmos’ motion has fallen out or epitomised away after ch. 2.2 (see the Appendix to ch. 2.2 above). Implicit is the further question: how is that motion caused? The topic is approached through the question of whether the cosmos is ensouled, i.e. is it a living being or not. The question of its providential administration is linked in as a related theme. The connection derives from the implications of its having a soul, which given the cosmos’ regular movement and teleological structure, must be rational. The answers will have important implications for the following chs. 2.4–8. b Number–Order of Lemmata The witnesses yield four lemmata in total. There is no reason to conclude that the chapter is not complete. The order of the doxai in P and S correspond, with the doxa of Ecphantus added between the second and the third in P. It may be assumed that S preserves the original order, into which he has inserted additional material in his 1.21.4–5. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter As the title indicates, the chapter combines two separate subjects on the cosmos: A whether the cosmos is ensouled (A1) or not ensouled (A2); and B whether it is administered by providence (B1) or is constituted by a nonrational natural force (B2). In theory these can be combined to yield four doxai. The method is reminiscent of ch. 2.1, where two subjects are also combined. The first two doxai plainly form a strong diaphonia, giving opposed views on the two subjects of the chapter, i.e. A1–B1 and A2–B2. Both oppositions are well-attested in the doxographical, philosophical and rhetorical traditions (see above section B). The formula οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες … Λεύκιππος δέ κτλ indicates a majority–minority division of opinion (a similar method is found in ch. 1.14 Περὶ κενοῦ). The final two views are best seen as compromise views, rather than mechanically filling out the two remaining views of the grid (i.e. A1–B2 and A2–B1). Ecphantus is an atomist, just like the proponents of the second doxa, but he believes in the cosmic role of providence. It is to be noted that the doxa attrib-

786

liber 2 caput 3

uted to him does not explicitly state that the cosmos is not ensouled. The parallel text in Hippolytus (see below under Section E(a)§3) confirms that his atomic bodies ‘are moved by a divine force which he also calls intellect and soul’. The final doxa attributed to Aristotle is also a kind of compromise view. The heavens are ensouled and providentially administered (i.e. A1–A2), the earthly regions are not (A2–B2). This view is consistent with a doxographic tradition in which for Aristotle divine providence is exercised directly in the heavenly realm and only indirectly in the regions below the moon; see the collection of texts in listed in Moraux (1984) 571 n. 33 (who thinks the doctrine is a doxographical invention), Runia (1989) 27, and a selection below Section E(a)§4. The Aristotelian doxography in Diogenes Laertius is a good parallel, but with a more theological emphasis. It uses the Stoic (and nonAristotelian) term συμπάθεια to explain the rule of order on earth, for which A uses the more Aristotelian expression κατὰ συμβεβηκός. See also the related view in the next chapter, A 2.4.12. It differs from the classic Aristotelian position expounded in Met. Λ 7. Alexander Quaest. 2.21 argues that providence is not accidental (κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς) according to Aristotle, claiming at the end of the discussion that the subject is not easy and that none of his predecessors have developed an adequate analysis of it within the context of Aristotle’s doctrine. He also promises to argue against the Platonists, but his positive arguments are not preserved. On his likely views see Sharples (1994) 121 n. 119; on the controversy between Aristotelians and Platonists, Boys-Stones (2018) 325–326, 333. The structure of the chapter is thus a strong diaphonia followed by two compromise views, both closer to the first alternative than the second, but qualifying it in different ways. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 The texts in P and S cannot be reduced to each other. S adds the name-label of Leucippus, but does not read after the name-label Epicurus the words in P καὶ ὅσοι τὰ ἄτομα εἰσηγοῦνται καὶ τὸ κενὸν. Laks (forthcoming) suggests that this formula might have been introduced by P to cover up his shortening the list of name-labels and that it might also include the name of Ecphantus, who, as will be revealed in the next doxa, is an atomist (and then would have been left out by S in his list of names to avoid repetition). The difficulty with this suggestion is that it obscures the clear diaeretic structure, in which Ecphantus represents a compromise view between the two views in the diaphonia of §§1–2. A further difficulty occurs in the final phrase of §2. P’s words φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ must be in apposition to προνοίᾳ, but the retention of the verb διοικεῖσθαι is

liber 2 caput 3

787

then rather awkward. So there is something to be said for S’s version φύσει δὲ ἀλόγῳ ἐκ τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστῶτα, which describes the composition of the atomist cosmos rather than its administration. But then it might seem otiose that in the next doxa S repeats the phrase ἐκ μὲν τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστάναι. However, A might have done this on purpose to emphasise the partial agreement with the previous position. All in all we now agree with Laks that it is more likely that S preserves the original text in A. There is indeed very little reason why he should have changed it when inserting the material in his anthology. Our text therefore deviates from what we published in our specimen reconstructionis at M–R 2.344. We do not, however, agree with Laks’ suggestion that Ecphantus might have been included in the list of names in §2. A further point is that the words οὐδέτερα τούτων in S are very similar to G’s paraphrase οὐδέτερον τούτων συγχωροῦσι, but this must be a coincidence; cf. M–R 2.344, with which Jas (2018a) 149 is in agreement. See further Runia (2020). §3 On Ecphantus and the diaeresis with Epicurus see above A 1.3.16–17, where their views are also juxtaposed, and our Commentary ad loc. at section D(d)§§16–17. §4 The doxa begins with five phrases connected with οὔτε. Only PB has all five. E, C and S do not have οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν (G has αἰσθητόν), Q leaves out οὔτε λογικὸν. Diels DG 16 argued that the former deleted phrase was interpolated. However, the (near) convergence of PB, G and Q invalidate this conclusion. As Jas (2018a) 154 convincingly argues, the differing texts are the result of haplography caused by the sequence of multiple instances of οὔτε and adjectives ending in -ον. Moreover it is more likely that they were deleted by some sources than that they were added later. For the view that the cosmos as a whole is an οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητική see the Stoic doxography at D.L. 7.143. The Homeric verse Il. 3.277 (= Od. 11.109, 12.323) is cited in Arist. fr. 903 Gigon (= Procl. cited by Olymp. in Phd. 4.8–9, 85.1–20 Westerink) to show that the heavens have sight and hearing only (the same verse in Ach §5, p. 14.11 and ps.Plut. Vit.Hom. 105 is used of the sun). This view is too subtle for the doxographer. The final phrase of the doxa uses the appropriate Peripatetic (though not Aristotelian) terminology for this question, as is apparent from a text in the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) (2.21, cited below Section E(b)§4). Alexander argues that according to Aristotle divine providence does occur in relation to mortal beings, but it does so neither κατὰ συμβεβηκός nor προηγουμένως. This position is more subtle than that taken in A, who states that being providentially administered applies to the heavenly bodies, but not to the earthly realm that obtains its ordered state contingently rather than as a primary and direct result of (divine) providential activity. G may have been influenced by such a text when he writes μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμ-

788

liber 2 caput 3

βεβηκός, but this reading contradicts the earlier part of the doxa and does not make good sense, especially when the phrase τῆς δ᾽ εὐταξίας is omitted. e Other Evidence The ‘cousin-writing’ Ach very briefly states that the cosmos is a living being as part of his chapter on the substance of the heaven. He gives a Platonic doxa that differs from A. It draws attention to the self-moved nature of the cosmos (i.e. explicating that it is ἔμψυχος, though the term νοῦς is used rather than ψυχή). Of course it is possible that a similar doxa was originally present in A if there was a missing chapter on the cosmos’ motion; see the Appendix to ch. 2.2. But Ach returns to the narrower tradition when he discusses whether the cosmos requires food a few lines further (see on ch. 2.5). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero ND 1.18 (Velleius the Epicurean) audite … non futtilis commenticiasque sententias …, nec anum fatidicam Stoicorum Pronoeam, quam Latine licet Providentiam dicere, neque vero mundum ipsum animo et sensibus praeditum … ND 1.23 qui vero mundum ipsum animantem sapientemque esse dixerunt, nullo modo viderunt animi natura intellegentis in quam figuram cadere posset. ND 2.45 (Balbus the Stoic) hunc ipsum mundum … animantem esse et deum. Ac. 2.119–121 quamcumque vero sententiam probaverit eam sic animo comprensam habebit ut ea quae sensibus … quoniam Stoicus est, hunc mundum esse sapientem … Philo of Alexandria Prov. 1.22 Aucher nec tamen ut alii quidam sapientum, animal esse mundus censendus est. QG 4.188 itidem universum caelum et mundus, quoniam animal est et rationale et animans virtute praeditus et natura philosophus … Ebr. 199, οἱ χωρὶς ἐπιστάτου καὶ ἡγεμόνος ἀλόγου καὶ ἀπαυτοματιζούσης ἐξάψαντες φορᾶς τοῖς ὑπολαμβάνουσι πρόνοιαν καὶ ἐπιμέλειαν ὅλου καὶ τῶν μερῶν θαυμαστήν τιν᾽ εἶναι ἡνιοχοῦντος καὶ κυβερνῶντος ἀπταίστως καὶ σωτηρίως θεοῦ πῶς ἂν δύναιντο τὰς αὐτὰς καταλήψεις τῶν ὑποκειμένων ποιεῖσθαι πραγμάτων; Plutarch Isid. 369A οὔτε γὰρ ἐν ἀψύχοις σώμασι τὰς τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὰς θετέον, ὡς Δημόκριτος (—) καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—), οὔτ᾽ ἀποίου δημιουργὸν ὕλης ἕνα λόγον καὶ μίαν πρόνοιαν, ὡς οἱ Στωικοί (SVF 2.1108), περιγινομένην ἁπάντων καὶ κρατοῦσαν· ἀδύνατον γὰρ ἢ φλαῦρον ὁτιοῦν, ὅπου πάντων, ἢ χρηστόν, ὅπου μηδενὸς ὁ θεὸς αἴτιος, ἐγγενέσθαι. Galen Inst. log. 2.1, p. 5.1 Kalbfleisch ⟨τῶν δὲ προτάσεων⟩ ἔνιαι μὲν ὑπὲρ ἁπλῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀποφαίνονται, καθάπερ ὁπόταν εἴπῃς ‘πρόνοια ἔστιν· ἱπποκένταυρος οὐκ ἔστιν’. Inst.Log. 14.1, p. 32.6 Kalbfleisch ὃ δ᾽ ἐστὶ μέγιστόν τε καὶ πρῶτον ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῶν μὴ φαινομένων αἰσθήσει, τὸ κατὰ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἤτοι οὐσίαν † γίγνεται μὴ εἶναι ζήτημ᾽ ἐστίν, ἐν ᾧ γε τὰ τοιαῦτα προβάλλεται· … ἆρά γε πρόνοια ἔστιν. Med.Exp. 19.2–3 Walzer ‘The theory which holds it to be inacceptable that the substance should be dissolved and the separation of its parts brought about holds also that those who say that composite bodies are conjoined with each other by being placed

liber 2 caput 3 in juxtaposition must not be regarded as reliable. For the exponents of the former view assert that whoever says this must inevitably be led to deny the existence of God and His providence for His creation.’ ps.Galen An.Ut. 1.3–10 Wagner cited below on ch. 5.15 Section E(a) General texts (on whether cosmos is a living being or not); also An.Ut. 2.17–3.9 (SVF 2.638) ἴδωμεν οὖν εἰ ζῷόν ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος καὶ εἴτε τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγένετο εἴτ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τὴν ὁλόκληρον ἐπέσχε φύσιν. κόσμος τοίνυν ἐστὶ σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν μεταξὺ φύσεων καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος, καὶ τὸ διῆκον ⟨ἔχον⟩ διὰ πάντων αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸν καὶ πρωτόγονον πνεῦμα, ὅπερ καλοῦσι παῖδες φιλοσόφων ἢ ψυχὴν ἢ μονάδα ἢ ἄτομον ἢ πῦρ ἢ (3) ὁμωνύμως τῷ γένει πνεῦμα πρῶτον. … ἐξ ὅλων οὖν ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἥρμοσται καὶ ἐκ τελείων τέλειος καὶ ἐξ αὐτοτελῶν ἀνενδεής, καὶ ἦν καὶ ἔσται κινούμενον ζῷον. Lucian Icar. 9 εἶτα καὶ προνοεῖν τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς πραγμάτων οὐ πᾶσιν ἐδόκουν οἱ θεοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἦσάν τινες οἱ τῆς συμπάσης ἐπιμελείας αὐτοὺς ἀφιέντες … . ἔνιοι δὲ ταῦτα πάντα ὑπερβάντες οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι θεούς τινας ἐπίστευον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀδέσποτον καὶ ἀνηγεμόνευτον φέρεσθαι τὸν κόσμον ἀπελίμπανον; cf. Zeus trag. 17, 35. Aelius Theon Prog. 121.7–9 ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν θέσεων αἱ μέν εἰσι θεωρητικαί, ὅσα θεωρίας ἕνεκα καὶ γνώσεως μόνον ζητοῦνται, οἷον εἰ θεοὶ προνοοῦνται τοῦ κόσμου … Prog. 126.3– 4 ἔστω δ᾽ οὖν ἡμᾶς ζητεῖν, εἰ προνοοῦσι θεοὶ τοῦ κόσμου—followed by a long list of arguments pro and contra, including the following two pro, 126.16–20 ὅτι καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς δοκεῖ, οἷον Πλάτωνι Ἀριστοτέλει Ζήνωνι (—), εἶθ᾽ ὅτι τοῖς νομοθέταις· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἀσεβείας ἦσαν γραφαί. εἶθ᾽ ὅτι ἔνδοξοί εἰσι μάλιστα οἱ ἡγούμενοι προνοεῖν ἡμῶν τοὺς θεούς. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.151 δογματικὰς δὲ ὑπολήψεις ἀλλήλαις ἀντιτίθεμεν, ὅταν λέγωμεν … τοὺς μὲν προνοίᾳ θεῶν διοικεῖσθαι τὰ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, τοὺς δὲ ἀπρονοήτως; cf. 1.32, 222. P. 3.9 ἔτι καὶ τοῦτο λεκτέον. ὁ λέγων εἶναι θεὸν ἤτοι προνοεῖν αὐτὸν τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ φησὶν ἢ οὐ προνοεῖν, καὶ εἰ μὲν προνοεῖν, ἤτοι πάντων ἤ τινων. Origen Cels. 1.21, p. 22.21–26 Marcovich ὡς εἴθε καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ ὁ ἔλαττων αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν πρόνοιαν ἀσεβῶν Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ οἱ σῶμα εἰπόντες τὸν θεὸν Στωϊκοὶ (SVF 2.1053) τοῦ λόγου τούτου (sc. Moses) ἤκουσαν· ἵνα μὴ πληρωθῇ ὁ κόσμος λόγου ἀθετοῦντος πρόνοιαν ἢ διακόπτοντος αὐτὴν ἢ ἀρχὴν φθαρτὴν εἰσάγοντος τὴν σωματικήν, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἐστι σῶμα … Nemesius c. 43, pp. 125.19–127.19 (part of an extensive doxography) Περὶ τοῦ τίνων ἐστὶ πρόνοια. … ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔστι πρόνοια καὶ τί ἐστιν, εἴρηται· λείπεται δὲ εἰπεῖν, τίνων ἐστὶ πρόνοια, πότερον τῶν καθ᾽ ὅλου ἢ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ἢ καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ὅλου καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα. Πλάτων μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ καθ᾽ ὅλου καὶ τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα πρόνοιαν διοικεῖν βούλεται, διαιρῶν τὸν τῆς προνοίας λόγον εἰς τρία κτλ. (126) … οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ φιλόσοφοι τὴν εἱμαρμένην καὶ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν πρεσβεύοντες οὐδεμίαν χώραν τῇ προνοίᾳ καταλείπουσιν, ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἀληθείαις καὶ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναιροῦσιν. (127) Δημόκριτος (68A66 DK) δὲ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (22A30 DK) καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—) οὔτε τῶν καθ᾽ ὅλου οὔτε τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα πρόνοιαν εἶναι βούλονται· οὗτοι μὲν οὖν ἀκολουθοῦσι ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀρχαῖς· ἐξ αὐτομάτου γὰρ ἡγούμενοι τὸ πᾶν τοῦτο συστῆναι, εἰκότως ἀπρονόητα φάσκουσιν εἶναι τὰ πάντα· ὧν γὰρ οὐδείς ἐστι δημιουργός, τούτων τίς ἂν εἴη προνοητής; δῆλον γὰρ ὡς αὐτομάτως ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτομάτως γινόμενα. καὶ γὰρ Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως μόνης διοικεῖσθαι βούλεται τὰ κατὰ μέρος …· ταύτην γὰρ θείαν οὖσαν καὶ τοῖς γενητοῖς πᾶσιν

789

790

liber 2 caput 3

ἐνυπάρχουσαν ἑκάστῳ φυσικῶς ὑποτίθεσθαι τὴν τῶν συμφερόντων αἵρεσιν καὶ τὴν τῶν βλαπτόντων φυγήν. Sopater Schol. ad Hermogenis Status 5.3.10–12 Walz, φιλόσοφον οὖν τὸ ζήτημα, ζητοῦμεν γὰρ, εἰ κύκλος ὁ κόσμος, καὶ εἰ ὁ κόσμος ζῶν. Ambrose of Milan de Off. 1.13.47–48 Testard sed revertamur ad propositum … qua occurrimus opinioni eorum qui … putant vel nihil Deum curare de nobis, ut Epicurei dicunt, vel nescire actus hominum … (48) … proclive aestimo ut refellam cetera et primo eorum adsertionem, qui Deum putant curam mundi nequaquam habere, sicut Aristoteles adserit usque ad lunam eius descendere providentiam. cf. Lactantius Ir.D. 1.9–10 Ingremeau. Augustine Acad. 3.10.56–57 Green item scio mundum istum nostrum, aut natura corporum, aut aliqua providentia sic esse dispositum. C.D. 18.41.46 Dombart–Kalb alii (sc. mundum) mente divina, alii fortuito et casibus agi. Theodoret Prov. 1, PG 83.560B καὶ οἱ μέν, μηδὲ εἶναι παντελῶς τὸ θεῖον· οἱ δέ, εἶναι μέν, οὐδενὸς δὲ τῶν ὄντων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι· οἱ δέ, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι μὲν ἔφασαν, σμικρολόγως δὲ τοῦτο ποιεῖν, καὶ τῇ σελήνῃ περιορίζειν τὴν πρόνοιαν, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν τοῦ κόσμου μέρος ὡς ἔτυχε φέρεσθαι, τῇ τῆς εἱμαρμένης ἀνάγκῃ δουλεύειν ἠναγκασμένον. cf. also CAG 6.6–7. Chapter heading: Quintilian Inst. 5.7.35 generalem alterum (sc. tractatum), in quo inter Stoicos (SVF 2.1195) et Epicuri (—) sectam secutos pugna perpetua est, regaturne providentia mundus. Inst. 2.2 ut in generalibus ‘an atomorum concursu mundus sit effectus, an providentia regatur …’ Demonax at Stob. Ecl. 2.1.11, p. 5.10–13 ἐξεταζόντων τινῶν, εἰ ὁ κόσμος ἔμψυχος … (see rest of text at A 2.2 Section E(a) General texts). Eusebius PE 15.32.8 (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ εἴτε ἔμψυχος οὗτος καὶ προνοίᾳ τυγχάνει θεοῦ διοικούμενος εἴτε καὶ τἀναντία. §1 Others: Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.21.5, p. 185.4–8 (SVF 2.527 on Chrysippus on the heavens) τὸ δὲ περιφερόμενον αὐτῷ ἐγκυκλίως αἰθέρα εἶναι, ἐν ᾧ τὰ ἄστρα καθίδρυται, τά τε ἀπλανῆ καὶ τὰ πλανώμενα, θεῖα τὴν φύσιν ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχα καὶ διοικούμενα κατὰ τὴν πρόνοιαν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.27 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) ἀρχὴν δὲ τῶν πάντων ὕδωρ ὑπεστήσατο, καὶ τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη. V.P. 3.71 (on Plato) κόσμον … ἔμψυχόν τε εἶναι διὰ τὸ κρεῖττον εἶναι τοῦ ἀψύχου τὸ ἔμψυχον. V.P. 7.139 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.634) οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν. V.P. 7.142–143 (SVF 2.633, 3 Boeth. 6) ὅτι δὲ καὶ ζῷον ὁ κόσμος καὶ λογικὸν καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ νοερὸν καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν αʹ φησὶν Περὶ προνοίας (SVF 2.633) καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρός φησιν ἐν τῇ Φυσικῇ (SVF 3 Apoll. 10) καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 99A E.-K., 304 Theiler)· ζῷον μὲν οὕτως ὄντα, οὐσίαν ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικήν. τὸ γὰρ ζῷον τοῦ μὴ ζῴου κρεῖττον· οὐδὲν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου κρεῖττον· ζῷον ἄρα ὁ κόσμος. Βόηθος (SVF 3 Boethus 6) δέ φησι οὐκ εἶναι ζῷον τὸν κόσμον. V.P. 8.25 (on Pythagoras, 58B1 DK) καὶ γίνεσθαι ἐξ αὐτῶν (sc. στοιχείων) κόσμον ἔμψυχον, νοερόν. Philodemus Piet. (PHerc. 1428) col. iv.26–28 Henrichs (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.1076) τόν τε κόσμον | ἔμψ[υ]χον εἶναι καὶ | θεόν. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.434 (on Chrysippus, SVF 3.657) εἰ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ᾔδει τὸ ὅτι πάντα ἀγνοεῖ, πῶς περὶ πολλῶν δογματίζει, τιθεὶς τὸ ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ τοῦτον διοικεῖσθαι καὶ διόλου τρεπτὴν εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ ἄλλα παμπληθῆ; M. 9.104 (on Zeno, SVF 1.111) νοερὸς ἄρα καὶ ἔμψυχός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος. §2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Lucretius DRN 5.144 (on the parts of the world) haud igitur constant divino praedita sensu, / quandoquidem neque-

liber 2 caput 3 unt vitaliter esse animata. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1115B Στράτων (fr. 35 Wehrli, 20 Sharples) οὔτ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλει κατὰ πολλὰ συμφέρεται καὶ Πλάτωνι τὰς ἐναντίας ἔσχηκε δόξας περὶ κινήσεως … καὶ τελευτῶν τὸν κόσμον αὐτὸν οὐ ζῷον εἶναί φησι, τὸ δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἕπεσθαι τῷ κατὰ τύχην … Josephus Ant. 10.277 (on the reader of the book Daniel) καὶ τοὺς Ἐπικουρείους (—) ἐκ τούτων εὑρίσκειν πεπλανημένους, οἳ τήν τε πρόνοιαν ἐκβάλλουσι τοῦ βίου καὶ θεὸν οὐκ ἀξιοῦσιν ἐπιτροπεύειν τῶν πραγμάτων, οὐδ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς μακαρίας καὶ ἀφθάρτου πρὸς διαμονὴν τῶν ὅλων οὐσίας κυβερνᾶσθαι τὰ σύμπαντα, ἄμοιρον δὲ ἡνιόχου καὶ ἀφρόντιστον τὸν κόσμον αὐτομάτως φέρεσθαι λέγουσιν. Eusebius PE 15.5.7 (from Atticus the Platonist) see below §4. §3 Ecphantus: Hippolytus Ref. 1.15 Diels (51.1 DK) τὰ μὲν πρῶτα ἀδιαίρετα εἶναι σώματα καὶ παραλλαγὰς αὐτῶν τρεῖς ὑπάρχειν, μέγεθος σχῆμα δύναμιν, ἐξ ὧν τὰ αἰσθητὰ γίνεσθαι· εἶναι δὲ τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν, ὡρισμένων κατὰ τοῦτο, ἄπειρον. κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ σώματα μήτε ὑπὸ βάρους μήτε πληγῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ θείας δυνάμεως, ἣν νοῦν καὶ ψυχὴν προσαγορεύει. τούτου μὲν οὖν τὸν κόσμον εἶναι ἰδέαν, δι᾽ ὃ καὶ σφαιροειδῆ ὑπὸ θείας δυνάμεως γεγονέναι. τὴν δὲ γῆν μέσον κόσμου κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸ αὑτῆς κέντρον ὡς πρὸς ἀνατολήν. §4 Aristotle: Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c, latter part also cited at 1.23.2 (on Aristotle, AD fr. 9 Diels) περιέχεσθαι δὲ ταῦτα ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος, ἔνθα τὰ θεῖα διανενεμημένα κατὰ σφαίρας ἵδρυται τῶν λεγομένων ἀπλανῶν τε καὶ πλανωμένων ἀστέρων. ὅσας δὲ εἶναι τὰς σφαίρας, τοσούτους ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοὺς κινοῦντας θεοὺς ταύτας, ὧν μέγιστον τὸν πάσας περιέχοντα, ζῷον ὄντα λογικὸν καὶ μακάριον, συνεκτικὸν καὶ προνοητικὸν τῶν οὐρανίων. συνεστάναι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τοῦτον δὲ οὔτε βαρὺν οὔτε κοῦφον, οὔτε γενητὸν οὔτε φθαρτόν, οὔτε αὐξόμενον οὔτε μειούμενον ἐς ἀεὶ διαμένειν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον πεπερασμένον καὶ σφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἔμψυχον κινούμενον περὶ τὸ μέσον ἐγκυκλίως. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (on Aristotle) διατείνειν δὲ αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ θεοῦ) τὴν πρόνοιαν μέχρι τῶν οὐρανίων καὶ εἶναι ἀκίνητον αὐτόν· τὰ δ᾽ ἐπίγεια κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ταῦτα συμπάθειαν οἰκονομεῖσθαι. Athenagoras Leg. 25.18–20 Marcovich τοῦτο (i.e. the activities of demons) καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη ἀπρονόητα εἰπεῖν τὰ κατωτέρω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐποίησεν, καίτοι τῆς ἀϊδίου ἐπ᾽ ἴσης ἡμῖν μενούσης προνοίας τοῦ θεοῦ. Origen Sel. in Psalmos MPG 12.1316A ἐντεῦθέν τινες ἀπατηθέντες τὰ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην ἀπρονόητα ἀπεφήναντο εἶναι· ὧν ἐστι καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης. Eusebius PE 15.5.1 πάλιν Μωσέως καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ Ἑβραίοις προφητῶν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Πλάτωνος ἐν τούτοις συμφώνως τὸν περὶ τῆς τῶν ὅλων προνοίας λόγον εὐκρινῶς διατεθειμένων, ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης μέχρι σελήνης στήσας τὸ θεῖον τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ κόσμου μέρη περιγράφει τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ διοικήσεως. PE 15.5.7 (from Atticus, fr. 3 Des Places) τί οὖν, φήσαι τις ἄν, ἐν ταὐτῷ τάττεις Ἀριστοτέλην καὶ Ἐπίκουρον; … ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τοῦτον οὔτε ἐκεῖνον δίκαιον ἐν προνοίας ἀριθμεῖσθαι λόγῳ. εἴπερ γὰρ καὶ κατ᾽ Ἐπίκουρον τὸ τῆς προνοίας οἴχεται, καίτοι τῶν θεῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν πᾶσαν κηδεμονίαν ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας τῶν οἰκείων ἀγαθῶν εἰσφερομένων, οὕτως ἂν οἴχοιτο καὶ κατ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλην τὸ τῆς προνοίας, εἰ καὶ τὰ κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἐν τάξει τινὶ καὶ κόσμῳ διοικεῖται. πρόνοιαν γὰρ ζητοῦμεν ἡμῖν διαφέρουσαν, ἧς οὐ μέτεστι τῷ μήτε δαίμονας μήτε ἥρωας μήτε ὅλως ἐπιδιαμένειν δύνασθαι τὰς ψυχὰς συγκεχωρηκότι. Ambrose of Milan de Off. 1.13.48 see under

791

792

liber 2 caput 3

General texts above. Epiphanius Pan. 3.508.2–7 Holl Ἀριστοτέλης ὁ Νικομάχου … ἔλεγε δὲ δύο ἀρχὰς εἶναι, θεὸν καὶ ὕλην καὶ τὰ μὲν ὑπεράνω τῆς σελήνης θείας προνοίας τυγχάνειν, τὰ δὲ κάτωθεν τῆς σελήνης ἀπρονόητα ὑπάρχειν καὶ φορᾷ τινι ἀλόγῳ φέρεσθαι ὡς ἔτυχεν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Leg. 10.889b–c πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα φύσει πάντα εἶναι καὶ τύχῃ φασίν, τέχνῃ δὲ οὐδὲν τούτων, καὶ τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα αὖ σώματα, γῆς τε καὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἄστρων τε πέρι, διὰ τούτων γεγονέναι παντελῶς ὄντων ἀψύχων· τύχῃ δὲ φερόμενα τῇ τῆς δυνάμεως ἕκαστα ἑκάστων, ᾗ συμπέπτωκεν ἁρμόττοντα οἰκείως πως, θερμὰ ψυχροῖς ἢ ξηρὰ πρὸς ὑγρὰ καὶ μαλακὰ πρὸς σκληρά, καὶ πάντα ὁπόσα τῇ τῶν ἐναντίων κράσει κατὰ τύχην ἐξ ἀνάγκης συνεκεράσθη, ταύτῃ καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα οὕτως γεγεννηκέναι τόν τε οὐρανὸν ὅλον καὶ πάντα ὁπόσα κατ᾽ οὐρανόν, καὶ ζῷα αὖ καὶ φυτὰ σύμπαντα, ὡρῶν πασῶν ἐκ τούτων γενομένων, οὐ δὲ διὰ νοῦν, φασίν, οὐδὲ διά τινα θεὸν οὐδὲ διὰ τέχνην ἀλλά, ὃ λέγομεν, φύσει καὶ τύχῃ. Chapter heading: Stoics at D.L. 7.133 (not in SVF) ἑτέραν δ᾽ αὐτου (sc. κόσμου) σκέψιν εἶναι ἥτις μόνοις τοῖς φυσικοῖς ἐπιβάλλει, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητεῖται … καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος ἢ ἄψυχος … §1 Others: Plato Tim. 30b–c οὕτως οὖν δὴ κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα δεῖ λέγειν τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσθαι πρόνοιαν. Stoics (dialectics, SVF 2.221 at S.E. M. 8.244) ἀπὸ μὲν οὖν ἀληθοῦς ἀρχόμενον ἐπ᾽ ἀληθὲς λήγει τὸ ‘εἰ εἰσὶ θεοί, προνοίᾳ θεῶν διοικεῖται ὁ κόσμος’ Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.74 Aucher … ita movente providentia, quae, ut dicit Chrysippus (SVF 2.1150) et Cleanthes (SVF 1.548), nihil praetermisit pertinentium ad certiorem utilioremque dispensationem. Epictetus 1.12.1–2 περὶ θεῶν οἱ μέν τινές εἰσιν οἱ λέγοντες μηδ᾽ εἶναι τὸ θεῖον, οἱ δ᾽ εἶναι μέν, ἀργὸν δὲ καὶ ἀμελὲς καὶ μὴ προνοεῖν μηδενός, τρίτοι δ᾽ οἱ καὶ εἶναι καὶ προνοεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῶν μεγάλων καὶ οὐρανίων, τῶν δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς μηδενός· τέταρτοι δὲ οἱ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, εἰς κοινὸν δὲ μόνον καὶ οὐχὶ καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκάστου· πέμπτοι δ᾽, ὧν ἦν καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ Σωκράτης … Marcus Aurelius 4.3.2 ἀνανεωσάμενος τὸ διεζευγμένον τό· ἤτοι πρόνοια ἢ ἄτομοι. 6.10 ἤτοι κυκεὼν καὶ ἀντεμπλοκὴ καὶ σκεδασμὸς ἢ ἕνωσις καὶ τάξις καὶ πρόνοια. cf. 4.27, 9.28, 12.14. Plotinus Enn. 3.2[47].1.1–10 H.-S. τὸ μὲν τῷ αὐτομάτῳ καὶ τύχῃ διδόναι τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ σύστασιν ὡς ἄλογον καὶ ἀνδρὸς οὔτε νοῦν οὔτε αἴσθησιν κεκτημένου, δῆλόν που καὶ πρὸ λόγου καὶ πολλοὶ καὶ ἱκανοὶ καταβέβληνται δεικνύντες τοῦτο λόγοι· τὸ δὲ τίς ὁ τρόπος τοῦ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι ἕκαστα καὶ πεποιῆσθαι, ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἐνίων ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς γινομένων ἀπορεῖν περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς προνοίας συμβαίνει, καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἐπῆλθε μηδὲ εἶναι εἰπεῖν, τοῖς δὲ ὡς ὑπὸ κακοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐστι γεγενημένος, ἐπισκέψασθαι προσήκει ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὸν λόγον λαβόντας. §2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.76 καὶ μὴν ἐν τοῖς μετεώροις φορὰν καὶ τροπὴν καὶ ἔκλειψιν καὶ ἀνατολὴν καὶ δύσιν καὶ τὰ σύστοιχα τούτοις μήτε λειτουργοῦντός τινος νομίζειν δεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ διατάττοντος ἢ διατάξαντος καὶ ἅμα τὴν πᾶσαν μακαριότητα ἔχοντος μετὰ ἀφθαρσίας … Galen UP 11.8 ὃ δὲ δὴ πάντων μάλιστ᾽ ἄν τις θαυμάσειε καὶ συγχωρήσας ἅπασαν

liber 2 caput 3 ταῖς τ᾽ Ἐπικουρείοις (fr. 382 Usener) ἀτόμοις καὶ τοῖς Ἀσκληπιαδείοις (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 717) ὄγκοις τὴν ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένην εὐτυχίαν τοῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἔτι συγχωρήσειεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπιστήσειέ τε καί τινος ἐπιστάτου δικαίου μᾶλλον ἢ κινήσεως εὐτυχοῦς ἔργον εἶναι φήσειεν, ἡ τῶν ὀδόντων ἰσότης ἐστίν. Plotinus Enn. 2.9[33].15.8 ὁ Ἐπίκουρος τὴν πρόνοιαν ἀνελών. Lactantius Ir.D. 10.47 Ingremeau cum constet divina providentia mundum regi … nec ist quisquam, qui … Leucippi inane commentum, vel Democriti Epicurique levitatem praeferre audeat. §4 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 2.2 285a29–30 ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς ἔμψυχος καὶ ἔχει κινήσεως ἀρχήν. Cael. 2.3 286a9–12 θεοῦ δ᾽ ἐνέργεια ἀθανασία· τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ ζωὴ ἀΐδιος. ὥστ᾽ ἀνάγκη τῷ θεῷ κίνησιν ἀΐδιον ὑπάρχειν. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ὁ οὐρανὸς τοιοῦτος (σῶμα γάρ τι θεῖον), διὰ τοῦτο ἔχει τὸ ἐγκύκλιον σῶμα, ὃ φύσει κινεῖται κύκλῳ ἀεί. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) Quaest. 2.21, p. 65.17–25 Ὅτι μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἡ πρόνοια κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλη (tit.). πρῴην ἡμῖν γινομένων πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους περὶ προνοίας λόγων, καὶ πειρωμένου μου δεικνύναι, ὅτι τέ ἐστι κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλη ἀπὸ τῶν θείων τῶν θνητῶν ἐπιμέλειά τις καὶ πρόνοια, καὶ τίς, καὶ τίνα γινομένη τὸν τρόπον ὄντος ἑτοίμου λέγειν, εἶπέ τις τῶν παρόντων πρῶτον ἄξιον εἶναι μαθεῖν, πῶς ἀποκρίνασθαι δεῖ πρὸς τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας, πότερα χρὴ προηγουμένως λέγειν τὰ θεῖα τῶνδε προνοεῖσθαι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἢ κατὰ συμβεβηκός. οἱ γὰρ οὐ φάσκοντες εἶναι κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλη πρόνοιαν τὴν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγομένην γίνεσθαι, πρόνοιαν κατὰ συμβεβηκός φασι γίνεσθαι λέγεσθαι. Quaest. 2.21, p. 68.12–22 κἀγὼ πρὸς αὐτόν· δῆλον τοίνυν, εἶπον, ἐκ τῶν ὡμολογημένων, ὅτι καθ᾽ ὃν ἄν τις τῶν ὕστερον ῥηθέντων τρόπον τὴν πρόνοιαν γίνεσθαι λέγῃ, οὔτε προηγουμένως οὔτε κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἂν αὐτὴν γίνεσθαι λέγοι. … τούτου δήλου γεγονότος δῆλον, ὡς … οὔθ᾽ ὁ κατά τινα τούτων τῶν τρόπων τὴν πρόνοιαν γίνεσθαι λέγων ἀναιρεῖ τὴν πρόνοιαν, ὡς δοκεῖ ποιεῖν ὁ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς αὐτὴν γίνεσθαι λέγων. τὸ γὰρ ἀφεμένους τούτων τινὶ τῶν τρόπων ἀνατιθέναι τὴν ἐκ τῶν θείων τῶν ἐν γενέσει τε καὶ θνητῶν πρόνοιαν τοὺς θεοὺς λέγειν διὰ τὴν τῶν θνητῶν σωτηρίαν τὰς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας ἐνεργεῖν παντελῶς ἀλλότριον θεῶν. Quaest. 2.21, p. 70.24–71.2 ἔστι μέν, εἶπον, οὐ ῥᾴδιος ὁ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων λόγος, καὶ μάλιστ᾽ ἐπεὶ μὴ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἔργον τις ἐποιήσατο τοῦτο δεῖξαι· οὐδεὶς γοῦν δόξει, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι μὴ προηγουμένως, τῶν προαγόντων τὸν Ἀριστοτέλους λόγον περὶ τούτου τοῦ προβλήματος διειληφέναι, ὡς δεῖξαι τοῖς ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ λεγομένοις συνᾴδοντα ⟨τὰ⟩ ὑπ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλους εἰρημένα. … πειράσομαι δ᾽ ὁμοῦ τῷ περὶ τούτων λόγῳ καὶ τοὺς τὰ Πλάτωνος μὲν ὑπισχνουμένους, σφόδρα δὲ πεπεικότας ἑαυτοὺς ὡς μηδὲν Ἀριστοτέλους περὶ προνοίας εἰρηκότος, δεικνύναι ὅτι μηδὲν μετ᾽ ἐπιστάσεώς τε καὶ φροντίδος λέγουσιν.

793

Liber 2 Caput 4 PB: ps.Plutarchus 886E–F; pp. 330a13–332a5 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.35, p. 409.1–8 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.9–10, cf. 7.11.13, p. 386.1–3—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 47; p. 621.20–26 Diels; pp. 156–161 Jas—PC: Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.16– 25, 2.16.6–8, pp. 106–107 Riedweg—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 140–141, 143 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 157, p. 8 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.30, p. 37.7 Delatte (titulus solus) S : Stobaeus Ecl. 1.20.1c, p. 170.10–12 + 1.20.f, pp. 171.9–172.4 + 1.21.6c, p. 186.14–15 + 1.21.6f, p. 187.9–13 Wachsmuth T : Theodoretus CAG 4.16, p. 104.18–20; cf. 1.63, p. 21.5–6 Raeder

Titulus δʹ. Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (P) §1 Πυθαγόρας Ἡράκλειτος γενητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν κόσμον, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον. (S10–11,T1) §2 οἱ Στωικοὶ ὑπὸ θεοῦ ⟨γεγενῆσθαι τὸν κόσμον⟩. (P1) §3 Ἐπίδικος ὑπὸ φύσεως γεγενῆσθαι τὸν κόσμον. (S12) §4 Ἀρχέλαος ὑπὸ θερμοῦ καὶ ἐμψυχίας συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον. (S13) §5 Ξενοφάνης Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος ἀγένητον καὶ ἀίδιον καὶ ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον. (P3,S3,T2,4) §6 οἱ φάμενοι δὲ τὴν διακόσμησιν αἰώνιον ὑπάρχειν περιοδευτικοὺς εἶναί φασι χρόνους, καθ᾽ οὓς κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως γίγνεσθαι πάντα καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν διασῴζεσθαι τοῦ κόσμου διάταξίν τε καὶ διακόσμησιν. (S4) §1 Pythagoras —; Heraclitus 22A10 DK; §2 Stoici SVF 2.575; §3 Epidicus —; §4 Archelaus 60A14 DK; §5 Xenophanes 21A37 DK; Parmenides 28A36 DK; Melissus 30A9 DK; §6 anonymi cf. SVF 2.597 titulus εἰ … κόσμος PBEGQSy : εἰ γεννητὸς ὁ κόσμος ἢ ἀγένητος· εἰ φθαρτὸς ἢ ἄφθαρτος PB(III: α) in marg. : εἰ ἀγέννητος ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἄφθαρτος PPs : om. S, sed vid. tit. c. 1.21 Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς §1 [2–3] Πυθαγόρας … χρόνον scripsimus, cf. S 1.21.6cf, T; vid. §2[4] et comm. infra ‖ [2] Ἡράκλειτος] Ἡρακλείδης dub. Usener §2 [4] οἱ Στωικοὶ ὑπὸ θεοῦ ⟨γεγενῆσθαι τὸν κόσμον⟩ coniecimus e P : Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ γενητὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὸν κόσμον PBCQ (καί γεννητὸν leg. PC; post Πυθαγόρας coni. Diels DG Mau Lachenaud (et Riedweg in ed. Cyr.) καὶ Πλάτων ex E, cf. G) : Πυθαγόρας καὶ Πλάτων καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ γενητὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὸν κόσμον PE : al. PG τὸν Πυθαγόραν τε καὶ Πλάτωνα ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον {καὶ πάντας τοὺς διαδεδεγμένους τούτους} (del. Jas Nic secutus) ὑπολαμβάνειν εἰρήκασιν ‖ continuat P καὶ φθαρτὸν μὲν κτλ ex §9 §3 [5] Ἐπίδικος SF : Ἐπίδεκτος SP (et Ἐπιδίκτου in marg.) §4 [6] θεοῦ S, corr. Heeren Diels Wachsmuth, prob. Laks–Most ‖ ἐμψυχίας S, ἐμψυχρίας conj. Meineke, quem secuti Diels DG et Wachsmuth, reiecit VS, DK §5 non hab. PG ‖ [7] Ξενοφάνης Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος S : Ξενοφάνης PBECQ ‖ ἀγένητον PBE1 : ἀγέννητον PE2CSP, δὲ γέννητον SF ‖ καὶ ἀίδιον P : εἶναι ἀίδιον SFP ‖ [8] τὸν κόσμον PBCS : τὸν om. PE §6 [9] ante οἱ habet καὶ S, secl. Heeren Diels Wachsmuth ‖ [10] ταῦτα SFP, corr. Heeren ‖ [11] αὐτὴν : αὐτοῦ SFP, corr. Diels

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_044

5

10

liber 2 caput 4

§7 §8 §9

§10 §11 §12 §13

Ἀναξίμανδρος Ἀναξιμένης Ἀναξαγόρας Ἀρχέλαος Διογένης Λεύκιππος φθαρτὸν τὸν κόσμον. (S5,T3) καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ φθαρτὸν τὸν κόσμον, κατ᾽ ἐκπύρωσιν δέ. (S6,cf.P1) Πλάτων φθαρτὸν μὲν τόν κόσμον, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει, αἰσθητὸν γὰρ εἶναι, διότι καὶ σωματικόν, οὐ μὴν φθαρησόμενόν γε προνοίᾳ καὶ συνοχῇ θεοῦ. (P1,S1) Ἀριστοτέλης τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος τοῦ κόσμου παθητικόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ περίγεια κηραίνεται. (P4,S2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν κόσμον φθείρεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀντεπικράτειαν τοῦ Νείκους καὶ τῆς Φιλίας. (S7) Δημόκριτος φθείρεσθαι τὸν κόσμον τοῦ μείζονος τὸν μικρότερον νικῶντος. (S8) Ἐπίκουρος πλείστοις τρόποις τὸν κόσμον φθείρεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ ὡς ζῷον καὶ ὡς φυτὸν καὶ πολλαχῶς. (P2,S9)

§7 Anaximander 12A17 DK; Anaximenes fr. 121 Wöhrle; Anaxagoras 59A65 DK; Archelaus 60A14 DK; Diogenes 64A10 DK, T23d Laks; Leucippus 67A22 DK, fr. 353 Luria; §8 Stoici SVF 2.585; §9 Plato cf. Tim. 28b–c, 41a–b; §10 Aristoteles cf. ps.Arist. Mu. 2 392a32–35; §11 Empedocles 31A52 DK; §12 Democritus 68A84 DK; §13 Epicurus fr. 305 Usener §7 [12] post Λεύκιππος add. δὲ SF §8 [14] καὶ] secl. Diels §9 [15] Πλάτων ex PEGS : deest in PBCQ, vid. supra §§1[2], 2[4] ‖ ante nomen hab. PE καὶ ‖ φθαρτὸν … κόσμον] εἶναι μὲν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει φθαρτόν PG ‖ εἶναι PBEC : ὑπάρχειν PG ‖ [16] διότι καὶ σωματικόν S Diels : διότι καὶ σωματικός PC : διότι σωματικόν PB(I)EQ (σωματικός PB(III:Laur.31,37)) : διὰ τοῦτο καὶ σωματικόν PB(II) : διὰ τὸ σωματικόν PB(III) : om. PG §10 [18] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ μέρος τοῦ κόσμου PCQ(ut vid.)S Diels : τοῦ κόσμου μέρος PBE : τοῦ κόσμου om. PG ‖ παθητικὸν S : παθητὸν PBEC : παθητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν PG ‖ [19] κηραίνεται PBES (κορέννυται PB(III:Laur.31,37)) : κεράννυται PQ (nisi mendum interpr.) : περαίνεται PC : om. PG §11 [20] ⟨γίνεσθαι καὶ⟩ φθείρεσθαι perperam coni. Sturz, secuti Diels DG (sed om. in VS, DK) Wachsmuth ‖ ἀντεπικράτειαν SF : ἐπικράτειαν SP §13 [24–25] Ἐπίκουρος … πολλαχῶς S (τοὺς κόσμους coni. Meineke) : Ἐπίκουρος φθαρτόν, ὅτι καὶ (om. PEQ) γενητόν (γεννητός PC), ὡς ζῷον ὡς φυτόν PBECQ : al. PG Ἐπίκουρος δὲ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ φθαρτὸν νομίζουσιν εἶναι, ὅτι γενητόν

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.16 4.16.1 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν γενητόν, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον, 4.16.2 (~ §5) οἱ δὲ ἀγένητον παντελῶς καὶ ἀναίτιον· 4.16.3 (~ §7) καὶ οὗτοι μὲν φθαρτόν, 4.16.4 (~ §5) ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἄφθαρτον. cf. 1.63 καὶ τὰ ὁρώμενα οἱ μὲν ἀγένητα, οἱ δὲ γενητά. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia Graeca, cf. c. 1.7) καὶ πάλιν ἀγένητον εἶναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ μήθ᾽ ὅλως ὑπὸ θεοῦ γενέσθαι, αὐτομάτως δὲ καὶ συντυχικῶς ὑφεστά-

795

15

20

25

796

liber 2 caput 4 ναι, τῶν δὲ ἐξ ἀτόμων καὶ λεπτῶν σωμάτων ἀψύχων τινῶν καὶ ἀλόγων τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σύστασιν γεγονέναι.

ps.Galenus HPh c. 47 (~ tit.) Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (text Jas) 47.1 (~ P1) τὸν Πυθαγόραν τε καὶ Πλάτωνα ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον {καὶ πάντας τοὺς διαδεδεγμένους τούτους} ὑπολαμβάνει εἰρήκασιν. καὶ εἶναι μὲν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει φθαρτόν, αἰσθητὸν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν, οὐ μὴν φθαρησόμενον προνοίᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος. 47.2 (~ P2) Ἐπίκουρος δὲ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ φθαρτὸν νομίζουσιν {εἶναι}, ὅτι γενητόν. 47.3 (~ P4) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος παθητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ περίγεια. Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.16–25 2.15 (quaestio) ἐπειδὴ δὲ σκοπὸς ἦν αὐτοῖς βασανίσαι πάλιν τὸ πότερόν ποτε φθαρτὸς ἂν εἴη κατὰ φύσιν ὁ κόσμος ἢ μή, δεδοξάκασιν ὧδε καὶ περὶ τούτου· 2.15.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ γενητὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὸν κόσμον, καὶ φθαρτὸν μὲν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει· αἰσθητὸν γὰρ εἶναι διότι καὶ σωματικός, οὐ μὴν δὴ φθαρησόμενόν γε, προνοίᾳ καὶ συνοχῇ θεοῦ· 2.15.2 (~ P2) Ἐπίκουρος φθαρτὸν ὅτι καὶ γεννητός, ὡς ζῷον, ὡς φυτόν· 2.15.3 (~ P3) Ξενοφάνης ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀΐδιον καὶ ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον· 2.15.4 (~ P4) Ἀριστοτέλης τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος τοῦ κόσμου παθητόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια κηραίνεται. cf. 2.16.6–8 ἕτεροι δὲ γενητόν, εἰσὶ δὲ οἳ τούτοις εἰσάπαν ἀνθεστηκότες καὶ διάφοροι τὰς γνώμας ἄφθαρτόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον εἶναι λέγουσιν αὐτόν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 157 Εἰ ἀγέννητος ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἄφθαρτος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.30 Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 5.19 Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, πῶς ἐγένοντο ζῷα καὶ εἰ φθαρτά quaestio A 1.1.2 πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα, ὅσα μήτε ὑπὸ τύχης μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης μήτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῖα μήτε τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἔχει, φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· οἷον γῆ πῦρ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ φυτὰ ζῷα· ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα τὰ γινόμενα, ὄμβροι χάλαζαι κεραυνοὶ πρηστῆρες ἄνεμοι· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει ἀρχήν τινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἕκαστον τούτων ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς γίνεται· καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι, οἷον ζῷα φυτά, ἀρχὴν γενέσεως ἔχει. A 1.4 Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. A 1.24 Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς. A 4.7 Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς. §1 A 1.3.9 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Ἵππασος ὁ Μεταποντῖνος ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων τὸ πῦρ· ἐκ πυρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς πῦρ πάντα τελευτᾶν λέγουσι· τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. … πάλιν δὲ τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ σώματα ὑπὸ πυρὸς ἀναλοῦσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει. ἀρχὴ οὖν τὸ πῦρ, ὅτι ἐκ τούτου τὰ πάντα· τέλος δέ, ὅτι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἀναλύεται τὰ πάντα. A 1.22.8–

liber 2 caput 4

797

9 καὶ οἱ μὲν πλείους ἀγένητον τὸν χρόνον, Πλάτων δὲ γενητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν. A 1.23.3 Ἡράκλειτος … κίνησιν δ᾽ ἀίδιον μὲν τοῖς ἀιδίοις φθαρτὴν δὲ τοῖς φθαρτοῖς ἀπεδίδου. A 5.19.1 καθ᾽ οὓς μὲν γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος, γενητὰ τὰ ζῷα καὶ φθαρτά εἰσιν. §5 A 1.24.1 Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος Ζήνων ἀνῄρουν γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν διὰ τὸ νομίζειν τὸ πᾶν ἀκίνητον. §7 A 1.3.2 Ἀναξίμανδρος … φησι τῶν ὄντων τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τὸ ἄπειρον· ἐκ γὰρ τούτου πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο πάντα φθείρεσθαι· διὸ καὶ γεννᾶσθαι ἀπείρους κόσμους, καὶ πάλιν φθείρεσθαι εἰς τὸ ἐξ οὗ γίνονται. A 1.3.4 (de Anaxagora) ἄρχεται δ᾽ οὕτως ‘ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα ἦν, νοῦς δ᾽ αὐτὰ διῄρε καὶ διεκόσμησε’. §9 cf. A 1.5.4 Πλάτων δὲ τεκμαίρεται τὸ δοκοῦν … ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἔσεσθαι αὐτὸν ἄφθαρτον, ἐὰν ᾖ τι ἐξωτέρω αὐτοῦ. … ἄφθαρτος δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲ δύναται εἶναι, γενητὸς ὤν. A 1.22.8–9 cit. supra ad §1. §10 A 2.3.4 Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον (sc. τὸν κόσμον) ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλου, οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν οὔτε λογικὸν οὔτε νοερὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτων πάντων κοινωνεῖν, σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς αὐτῶν, τῆς δ᾽ εὐταξίας κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὐ προηγουμένως μετέχειν. A 2.17.5 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ δεῖσθαι τὰ οὐράνια τροφῆς· οὐ γὰρ φθαρτὰ ἀλλ᾽ ἀίδια. §11 A 1.3.19 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Μέτωνος Ἀκραγαντῖνος τέσσαρα μὲν λέγει στοιχεῖα, πῦρ ἀέρα ὕδωρ γῆν, δύο δ᾽ ἀρχικὰς δυνάμεις, φιλίαν τε καὶ νεῖκος.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses This chapter is unusual in the considerable discrepancies between the two main witnesses P and S. Its reconstruction is therefore difficult and the resultant text more speculative than one would wish. (1) The tradition of P is well represented with five witnesses. All of them record four doxai except G who has reduced them to three in his usual freer adaptation. In the first doxa PE has three name-labels (Pythagoras–Plato– Stoics), but Plato is missing in PBCQ. G has Pythagoras and Plato, but combines the Stoics with Epicurus in his second doxa. The first doxa begins by relating that the cosmos is γενητὸς ὑπὸ θεοῦ, which suggests that the subject of the chapter is broader than what the title suggests, i.e. dealing with both the createdness and the indestructibility of the cosmos. As it stands P’s chapter gives four coherent options on its subject, but comparison with S shows that the original in A has been reorganized and drastically reduced.

798

liber 2 caput 4

(2) S has divided the lemmata that relate to this subject between his chapters 1.20 and 1.21, combining them with material from A 1.24 and AD. They form four groups: (a) S1: 1.20.1c, name-label Plato = second half of lemma 1 in P, treating the cosmos’ destructibility only, not whether it is generated. (b) S2–9: 1.20.1f = a block of eight doxai including P’s lemmata 2–3–4 in places 1–2–8, mainly treating whether the cosmos is destructible or indestructible (but the question of its origin is brought in for the ‘eternalist’ view). (c) S10: 1.21.6c, name-label Pythagoras = first half of lemma 1 in P, describing the cosmos as γενητὸς κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, i.e. discussing whether it is generated. (d) S11–13: 1.21.6f = a block of three doxai, of which the first (name-label Heraclitus) is almost identical to the previous one (Pythagoras), i.e. continuing the discussion on whether it is generated. If these last-mentioned doxai of Pythagoras and Heraclitus are reduced to one, there are 12 doxai in all. As will emerge below, there are good grounds for thinking that one doxa originally present in A was not preserved by S. (3) T gives a very concise summary of the contents of the chapter through two sets of diaereses. In the first set the doxai of Pythagoras–Heraclitus in S can clearly be recognized in the first alternative, the doxa of Xenophanes in P (with more name-labels in S) less clearly in the second. In the second set the question of the cosmos’ destructibility or indestructibility is outlined. The order is thus: γενητός, ἀγένητος, φθαρτός, ἄφθαρτος. It is surprising that he does not mention the ‘mixed’ view of Plato (cf. P1 and S1). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The question of the cosmos’ generation and destructibility is frequently cited in both rhetorical and philosophical works as a quaestio generalis (e.g. Quintilian, Marius Victorinus) or key philosophical topic in the domain of physics (e.g. Philo, Galen, Tertullian). Standard doxographical schemata were developed on the basis of analyses of the question that go back to the Peripatetic tradition as will be discussed below. A fine example is found in the introductory section of Philo’s De aeternitate mundi (text below; on this text see the detailed analysis in Runia (1981), also (2008b) 35–37 = M–R 3.293– 296). It can be summarized as follows (cf. M–R 2.355): (1a) +A +B many kosmoi Democritus, Epicurus (1b) single cosmos Stoa (2) –A –B Aristotle, Ocellus (3) +A –B Plato, Hesiod, Moses where A = subject to γένεσις, B = subject to φθορά.

liber 2 caput 4

799

This is the same kind of schema that underlies the doxographies in chs. 2.1 and 2.3, where two questions are combined in a grid. Similar doxographies using this schema are found throughout antiquity, with early examples in Varro (preserved by Servius) and Cicero Luc. 118–119. Many of these texts must be regarded as proximate to the tradition of the Placita; see the listing in section E(a). On the rich continuation of the tradition in Christian texts see the overview by Pépin (1964) 79–100, taking the doxography in Ambrose’s Exameron as starting-point. Philo adds the distinction between pluralists and unicists (cf. ch. 2.1), which is already implicit in Aristotle and recurs in doxographies in Alexander, Augustine and Simplicius. He has also updated the name-labels so that Democritus is the only remaining Presocratic philosopher. This continues in most subsequent doxographies, unless they are commenting on earlier texts in Aristotle. On the highly interesting schema contained in the recently discovered scholion to Alexander’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics see further below at section D(e). (2) Sources. The question of the origin and ultimate destiny of the whole of the physical reality that we experience is one of the key questions of Greek philosophy and its discussion goes back to the very beginnings of the philosophical tradition, as famously stated by Aristotle in his overview in Met. A.2 982b12–17 (text below section E(b) General texts). The same author cites it twice as a key dialectical πρόβλημα in the domain of natural philosophy (Top. 1.11 104b8, 1.14 105a24) and presents key dialectical-doxographical passages in his Physics (8.1 250b11–251a8) and De caelo (1.10, 3.1 298b12–299a2) with numerous references to earlier thinkers. These include Plato (Cael. 1.10 280a29–32), whose account of the cosmos’ genesis in the Timaeus (explicit references to the question of whether the cosmos has come into being or not at 27c4–5 and 28b4–7) became a seminal text in the later tradition beginning already with Theophrastus; see the reference to his views in the discussion in the Platonist Taurus recorded by John Philoponus; text below in section E(a) General texts. Philo Aet. 117–149 also records four arguments of Theophrastus against those who posit that the cosmos has both a genesis and will perish, which could go back to his Φυσικαὶ δόξαι. This text has excited a vast amount of scholarly discussion; see Sharples (1998b) 131–136, (2008) 57–59; Sedley (1998a). It was also frequently discussed in atomistic sources as a key defining doctrine in their natural philosophy, as can be seen in the remains of Leucippus–Democritus and later Epicurus. See further our remarks above at ch. 2.1 Commentary B and the references to the studies of Furley (1987), Graham (2006) and Sedley (2007).

800

liber 2 caput 4

C Chapter Heading The heading reveals continuity with the previous chapter. It too has the form of the quaestio, commencing with the conjunction εἰ, and deals with the category of quality. Just as in ch. 2.3, the formulation of the quaestio invites a diaeresis giving a positive and a negative answer, with compromise positions always a possibility. §§2–4 also touch on the question of the cosmos’ cause or origin, which will be taken up again in §6. The heading represents the majority position in the tradition of P. (In S 1.20 it is subsumed under the more general heading taken from A 1.24, Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς. There is no reference to it in the heading of S 1.21.) A marginal note in a Planudean ms. of P (Ambr. 859) records: εἰ γεννητὸς ὁ κόσμος ἢ ἀγέννητος· εἰ φθαρτὸς ἢ ἄφθαρτος. The scribe has perceived that the title does not cover the chapter’s contents well (the same can be said for Ps who gives a less expanded version). The options he uncovers follow the same order as in T. A philosophical treatise by Philo of Alexandria is entitled Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου, but in the opening doxography he commences ἄξιον οὖν τοὺς ζητοῦντας εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (text below under section E(a) General texts), i.e. exactly the same formulation of the quaestio as in the heading of this chapter. The doxography in the chapter itself covers the questions related to both the cosmos’ generation and its destruction, but the treatise focuses mostly on the latter. In the absence of evidence from S, however, the title cannot be considered wholly certain. Like Philo, A may have chosen just one of the four options for his title. But it is possible that he may also have chosen two, e.g. Εἰ γενητὸς καὶ εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος. One might compare the title of ch. 5.19 Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, πῶς ἐγένοντο ζῷα, καὶ εἰ φθαρτά. In the absence of further evidence, however, P’s title must be retained. We note that a similarly incomplete title is found in the chapter on the indestructibility of the soul at A 4.7. D Analysis a Context The next question to be asked of the cosmos is its origin and its destiny. The question can be asked in terms of time, is it generated and will it come to an end, and in terms of causation, by whom or out of what was it generated, and how or by what will it be destroyed. Both approaches will be taken in this chapter. The question was already raised in the introductory chapter 1.4, Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. There is also a clear link with ch. 1.24, Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς, as de facto noted by S. As just noted above, there is also a parallel chapter for living beings as microcosms, ch. 5.19. This chapter refers explicitly to the views of philosophers (without name-labels) on the same questions relating to the cosmos.

liber 2 caput 4

801

b Number–Order of Lemmata The order of the lemmata in P and S does not correspond, as can be seen in the following table: P1 = S1 P2 = S9 P3 = S3 P4 = S2 Diels in his reconstruction gave priority to the order in P. However, it is very likely that S preserves the order in his two main blocks (see the examples given in M–R 1.226–231). Our reconstruction preserves the order of these two blocks with two exceptions: (i) the Aristotelian doxa at the beginning of the first block (S2, cf. P4) seems out of place; (ii) an explanation must be given for the namelabel of the Stoics in P1, which cannot be explained through its occurrence in S6 as part of the first block. It is important to recognize, as noted above in section B, that the subject of the chapter is exceedingly common in doxographical texts. Through his knowledge of this tradition P may have been encouraged to deviate from A in his abridgement. The attribution to the Stoics of a view on the cosmos’ destructibility that is patently Platonic gives rise to suspicions that P has joined together doxai that were originally separate. It is to be noted that G moves the namelabel of the Stoics to the next doxa of Epicurus, which, as the doxographies of Philo and Alexander show, is in fact more accurate (but incomplete since it does not take the difference between multiple kosmoi and a single cosmos into account). This too may have been an initiative of the epitomator based on knowledge of the doxographical tradition (there can no question of G deriving this insight from S). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The structure of the chapter can be understood as follows. (i) The first doxa presents the view that the cosmos is conceptually, not temporally generated (there does not appear to have been a doxa that it was generated in an unqualified sense). This doxa attributed to Heraclitus is the first of the three doxai in S’s second block. As we saw, it should be linked to the Pythagorean doxa cited just a little earlier. (ii) The next two doxai in S’s block move to the question of the cosmos’ causal origin. The two views are that it was caused by nature (attributed to the obscure Epidicus; see further under D(d)§3) and by heat and ensoulment (Archelaus). However, there is also a causal view in P’s first lemma that the cosmos is γενητὸς

802

liber 2 caput 4

ὑπὸ θεοῦ which is unaccounted for. We propose that it was linked to the namelabel of the Stoics preserved by P and represents a third view on the cosmos’ causal origin. It is logical to place it first as the overtly theological view, followed by two others that are more ‘physical’. P will have combined it with §1 and §9 in our reconstruction. S will have left it out because he thought the views of the Stoa had already been sufficiently accounted for at S 1.20.1e and 1.21.5 (both extracts from AD). (iii) A then turns to the view that the cosmos is everlasting a parte ante et post. S’s first block can be integrally taken over, except that its first lemma with the name-label Aristotle (last in P) does not appear to fit in well. It is better left to later in the chapter, where the cosmos’ passibility is discussed (S must have seen a link with the cosmic generation and decay taken from 1.24 and AD, and so brought it forward). The assignment of the view that the cosmos has no beginning or end to the Eleatic tradition goes back to Aristotle Cael. 3.1 (where only Melissus and Parmenides are mentioned, not Xenophanes), who accuses them of not speaking φυσικῶς (text below). In later tradition this view is associated with Aristotle himself; cf. Cic. Luc. 119 and Philo Aet. 10–11 (but the earlier view is still found at Prov. 2.48). The second view in §6 is not given a namelabel. The view of an eternal succession of kosmoi is outlined by Aristotle in Cael. 1.10 and 3.1 with reference to Empedocles and Heraclitus (texts below). But he does not specify the exact repetition of worlds, a doctrine which later comes to be associated with the Stoa (explicitly in Philo). Von Arnim includes this section as a Stoic fragment in his collection (SVF 2.597), but it is far from certain that A had the Stoics in mind, given their reappearance in §8. (iv) From the fourth doxa in S’s block onwards the subject of the cosmos’ destructibility is treated, beginning with the unqualified view. As in ch. 2.1, S reveals a lengthy list of Presocratic name-labels which are deleted by P and replaced by the name-label of Epicurus, which he takes over from the final doxa §13. Thereafter there are three views are given in which the destructibility of the cosmos is qualified: Stoics, Plato and then the Aristotelian doxa. The Stoic view is truncated because it does not mention the cyclical nature of the cosmos’ destruction (this also occurs in Cic. Luc. 119). The Platonic view is presented in the standard Middle Platonist formulation based ultimately on the Timaeus. See for example Philo Aet. 13, who cites Tim. 41a. This interpretation goes back to Aristotle. See further the texts cited in section E below. Aristotle is not given his usual role of defending the cosmos’ eternity (cf. Cic. Luc. 119, Philo Aet. 10– 11), but represents a third qualified view, admitting passibility for part of the cosmos (but presumably not the whole). (v) The last three doxai in S’s block treat the cosmos’ destruction from the causal viewpoint. Empedocles’ view is placed here, rather than with the eter-

liber 2 caput 4

803

nalists (as in Arist. Cael. 1.10). Democritus illustrates the atomist viewpoint (hence his name was left out in the list in §7). The final doxa with the namelabel Epicurus differs in that it emphasizes the various possibilities of cosmic destruction. On four other occasions Epicurus is placed last with a doxa emphasizing multiple possibilities (which we have called a ‘modal’ view, cf. M– R 2.326): see also chs. 2.2.5, 2.13.15, 2.22.4, 3.15.11. Unlike in these other texts, however, the key term ἐνδέχεσθαι is not used. For the divergence of the doxa attributed to Epicurus in P see below D(d)§13. If this reconstruction is accepted, it emerges that the chapter presents a symmetrical arrangement, as also suggested by T’s very brief summary. It can be summarised as follows (see also the diagram at M–R 2.362): A

B

C

cosmos γενητός 1 with regard to time a but not in time (= §1) 2 with regard to cause a by God (= §2) b by nature (= §3) c by heat/ensoulment (= §4) cosmos ἀίδιος 1 unconditionally (= §5) 2 conditionally, i.e. periodically (= §6) cosmos φθαρτός 1 unconditionally (= §7) 2 conditionally a in ἐκπύρωσις (= §8) b φθαρτόν/οὐ φθαρησόμενον (= §9) c partial γένεσις/φθορά (= §10) 3 with regard to cause a through νεῖκος/φιλία (= §11) b through collision (= §12) c through diverse ways (= §13)

The symmetry of the structure is very striking and must surely have been the result of deliberate planning. The result is that the chapter diverges quite markedly from other treatments of the subject. See further our remarks in B above and D(e) below.

804 d

liber 2 caput 4

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The two formulas at S 1.20.6c & 6f, γενητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν κόσμον, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον (Pythagoras) and οὐ κατὰ χρόνον εἶναι γενητὸν τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν (Heraclitus) amount to the same. Preference is to be given to the former on account of T’s evidence. The attribution of the view to Pythagoras can be understood through his connection to the later Platonic tradition, in which the interpretation of Plato’s presentation of the genesis of the cosmos was discussed from Aristotle onwards. See the discussion of this text in Burkert (1972) 71, Baltes (1976) 94–96. Both scholars see a significant role for the early Academy (Speusippus, Xenocrates) in this development. The phrase κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν occurs in various doxographical texts, including Stob. Ecl. 1.11.4, p. 132.10 (Arius Didymus on Aristotle), D.L. 7.135 (Posidonius), Alc. Did. 9.1 (Plato). It often introduces a contrast, the precise nature of which is determined by the context. Here the contrast is between ‘in thought’ and ‘in reality’ (cf. κατὰ ἀλήθειαν at Proclus in Tim. 1.290.7 cited below in section E(b)§1). In Tertullian Apol. 11.5 a contrast is made between Pythagoras for whom the cosmos is uncreated and Plato for whom it is created. The attribution to Heraclitus, on the other hand, is puzzling and runs counter to his usual place in the tradition, as indicated by texts commencing with Arist. Cael. 1.10 279b16. Usener’s suggestion that the name-label may have been Heraclides is thus understandable but far too risky to be taken over (it is considered plausible by Cherniss 1944, 423 n. 356). §2 The verb in the conjecture has to remain uncertain. From P the supplement ὑπὸ θεοῦ γενητὸν τὸν κόσμον is possible, but in the light of §§3–4 a verb is to be preferred above an adjective. §3 The name-label Epidicus is unknown from elsewhere and must be regarded as suspect. But it occurs in Photius’ list at Bibl. 167 155.35 Henry, so must have been present in his copy of S. This evidence confirms that the reading Ἐπίδικος in ms. F should be preferred above that of Ἐπέδεκτος in ms. P (and Ἐπιδίκτου in the margin). §4 The doxa has been theologized in the mss. of S. Our text follows Heeren in emending θεοῦ to θερμοῦ. But we do not make the further step of emending to ἐμψυχρίας, as conjectured by Meineke (and initially accepted by Diels and Wachsmuth) because this noun occurs nowhere in Greek literature. §5 The variants ἀγέννητον/γεννητόν in PC and S are not so likely in the light of §1. §7 Of the six name-labels here only one does not occur in the list of thinkers who subscribe to an infinite number of kosmoi in A 2.1.3. But no link is made with that question here. See the comment further below D(e).

liber 2 caput 4

805

It is not impossible that S preserves an additional name-label from this doxa at S 21.2, p. 172.9: Φιλόλαος ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. λέγει γοῦν οὕτως ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς κτλ. For this to be the case he must have deleted it when writing out the doxa earlier because he knew he would be citing a text from Philolaus a little later. However, it seems more likely that he writes out Philolaus’ view in the standard terminology of this question as an introduction to the text he is about to cite. §9 We note that at the end of A 1.5.4 in a Platonic doxa on the unicity of the universe, A himself presents the counter argument that the cosmos cannot be ἄφθαρτος because it is γενητός. §10 This doxa can be linked to Aristotle’s doctrine that natural catastrophes only occur in the sublunary realm; cf. Mete. 1.14, Met. Λ. 8 1074a38–b14, De philosophia fr. 8 Ross. §11 Sturz’s conjecture ⟨γίνεσθαι καὶ⟩ φθείρεσθαι must be rejected because he has not taken the structure of the chapter into account. The doxai in this final part of the chapter treat the aspect of destruction only. For other considerations against the conjecture see O’Brien (2000). §13 There is a considerable divergence between the formulation of the doxa attributed to Epicurus as found in P and in S. In S’s block of eight lemmata the doxa follows neatly from the previous one (in fact the words τὸν κόσμον φθείρεσθαι may have been added by S). The text in P, Ἐπίκουρος φθαρτόν, ὅτι καὶ γενητόν, ὡς ζῷον ὡς φυτόν, shares only the name-label and the two illustrations. On the basis of its content, which is perfectly acceptable, it would have to be placed after §7. However, a choice has to be made between the two and it would seem much easier to explain how P might have altered the original then how S did it. Because P has drastically reduced this chapter he needed a representative for the destructionist view and the fact that Epicurus held this view was well known. As noted above in section B, this doxography was among the best known in the entire φυσικὸς λόγος. It must be agreed with Bottler (2014) 307, however, that if we are correct, this chapter is a (rare) case where P has not just shortened his original but considerably reworded and restructured it. e Other Evidence It would not be difficult in the least to devote an entire monograph to the variations and vicissitudes of this doxography alone, particularly if the links with the related doxographies on the first principles (ch. 1.3), theology (ch. 1.7) and the number and extent of the cosmos (ch. 2.1) are further explored. A’s doxography stands squarely within a broad and complex tradition, but also reveals various particular features of its own. We have already mentioned above the symmetrical structure of the chapter. Two further aspects deserve comment.

806

liber 2 caput 4

(1) Unlike Alexander and Simplicius (and to a lesser extent Philo), A does not link up his treatment with the aspect of single and multiple worlds discussed in ch. 2.1. Though not made explicit, the term κόσμος clearly refers to the world we experience. Only the final Epicurean doxa appears to deviate from this (unless the verb φθείρεσθαι in §§12–13 is taken in a future sense). (2) A striking aspect of the chapter as we have reconstructed it is the inclusion of the aspect of causation for both the cosmos’ genesis and its destruction, which looks back to the chapters on principles, cosmology and theology in chs. 1.3–7, but also anticipates the theme of demiurgic creation in 2.6. Brief texts in Quintilian and Galen PHP 9.7.9 demonstrate that this aspect was seen as intrinsic to the quaestio, as is the aspect of time in other formulations. The theme of causation is also prominent in the Philonic doxography, as we might expect from such a theologically preoccupied thinker. We note that it is also prominent in G’s untitled chapter 17, which is not drawn directly from the Placita tradition, but shares many themes with it. Here it is the renewed cosmos after the ecpyrosis that occurs ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (p. 609.20 Diels, text below section B(a) General texts). It is also to be observed that Achilles and the other Aratea do not contain any traces of this doxography, only discussing the ἀρχαί in chs. 1 and 3. This is because the commentator regards Aratus’ cosmos as a given and is not concerned with its genesis or possible subsequent fate. One might compare the De mundo, but this work does refer to the difference between the supra-lunary and the sub-lunary world (text below section E(b)§10) and clearly assumes the Aristotelian doctrine of the everlasting cosmos. Of particular interest is the recently discovered fragment from Alexander’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (fr. 539 Rashed) which we have already discussed in relation to A 2.1.2–3; see ch. 2.1 Commentary D(e). The text consists of six different tenets involving both generation and destruction in combination with multiple kosmoi and a single cosmos. It has been thoroughly studied first by its editor Rashed (2011) 488–491 and very recently by Laks (2018). As can be seen from the text cited below in section E(a) General texts, they disagree markedly on its interpretation. Rashed wishes to emend the text in the third, fourth and fifth tenet. Laks shows that these emendations are based on a faulty understanding of its systematics, and argues convincingly that the fourth and fifth belong together as a single view if a second reference to Plato was added. The overlap of Alexander’s schema with A’s chapter is limited, primarily because it exclusively deals with the combination of generation and destruction, whereas A with the exception of §5 treats them separately (it is closer to, though richer than, Philo’s in Aet. 7–19). The one Eleatic tenet that they hold in common is in the middle of A 2.4 but occurs at the end of the scholion while

liber 2 caput 4

807

the atomist view of multiple kosmoi begins the scholion’s list but in A brings up the rear. Of most interest is the Platonic doxa at §9 where the double formulation (μὲν … οὐ μήν) sheds light on the difference between the fourth and fifth tenet—or as Laks argues, tenets 4a and 4b—and is used to justify his conjecture; see (2018) 414, 419. The overlap of name-labels is much greater: only Metrodorus is missing in A, Leucippus and Melissus in Alexander. Ultimately both doxographies derive from Aristotle, but take differing paths. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Varro see the text of Servius cited below. Cicero Luc. 118– 119 princeps Thales (fr. 71 Wöhrle) … ex aqua dixit constare omnia. at hoc Anaximander (12A9 DK) populari et sodali suo non persuasit; is enim infinitatem naturae dixit esse e qua omnia gignerentur. post eius auditor Anaximenes (13A9 DK) … Anaxagoras (59A49 DK) … Xenophanes (21A4 DK) paulo etiam antiquior unum esse omnia, neque id esse mutabile, et id esse dei neque natum umquam et sempiternum conglobata figura … Melissus (30A9 DK) hoc quod esset infinitum et immutabile et fuisse semper et fore. Plato ex materia in se omnia recipiente mundum factum esse censet a deo sempiternum. Pythagorei (—) ex numeris et mathematicorum initiis proficisci volunt omnia. … (119) erit ei (sc. the Stoic) persuasum … fore tamen aliquando ut omnis hic mundus ardore deflagret. … cum enim tuus iste Stoicus Pythagorei (—) sapiens syllabatim tibi ista dixerit, veniet flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles (de Phil. fr. 20 Ross) qui illum desipere dicat; neque enim ortum esse umquam mundum quod nulla fuerit novo consilio inito tam praeclari operis inceptio, et ita esse eum undique aptum ut nulla vis tanto queat motus mutationemque moliri, nulla senectus diuturnitate temporum exsistere ut hic ornatus umquam dilapsus occidat. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 3–19 ἄξιον οὖν τοὺς ζητοῦντας εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος … §7 τριτταὶ δὲ περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου γεγόνασι δόξαι, τῶν μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν κόσμον φαμένων, ἀγένητόν τε καὶ ἀνώλεθρον, τῶν δὲ ἐξ ἐναντίας γενητόν τε καὶ φθαρτόν· εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἳ παρ᾽ ἑκατέρων ἐκλαβόντες, τὸ μὲν γενητὸν παρὰ τῶν ὑστέρων παρὰ δὲ τῶν προτέρων τὸ ἄφθαρτον, μικτὴν δόξαν ἀπέλιπον, γενητὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον οἰηθέντες αὐτὸν εἶναι. (8) Δημόκριτος (fr. 351 Luria) μὲν οὖν καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 304 Usener) καὶ ὁ πολὺς ὅμιλος τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλοσόφων γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν ἀπολείπουσι τοῦ κόσμου, πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑπογράφουσιν, ὧν τὴν μὲν γένεσιν ἀλληλοτυπίαις καὶ ἐπιπλοκαῖς ἀτόμων ἀνατιθέασι, τὴν δὲ φθορὰν ἀντικοπαῖς καὶ προσράξεσι τῶν γεγονότων· οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.620) κόσμον μὲν ἕνα, γενέσεως δ᾽ αὐτοῦ θεὸν αἴτιον, φθορᾶς δὲ μηκέτι θεόν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι πυρὸς ἀκαμάτου δύναμιν χρόνων μακραῖς περιόδοις ἀναλύουσαν τὰ πάντα εἰς ἑαυτήν, ἐξ ἧς πάλιν ἀναγέννησιν κόσμου συνίστασθαι προμηθείᾳ τοῦ τεχνίτου. (9) δύναται δὲ κατὰ τούτους ὁ μέν τις κόσμος ἀίδιος, ὁ δέ τις φθαρτὸς λέγεσθαι, φθαρτὸς μὲν ὁ κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν, ἀίδιος δὲ ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν παλιγγενεσίαις καὶ περιόδοις

808

liber 2 caput 4

ἀθανατιζόμενος οὐδέποτε ληγούσαις. (10) Ἀριστοτέλης (de Phil. fr. 18 Ross) δὲ μήποτ᾽ εὐσεβῶς καὶ ὁσίως ἐνιστάμενος ἀγένητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον ἔφη τὸν κόσμον εἶναι … (12) ἔνιοι δ᾽ οὐκ Ἀριστοτέλην τῆς δόξης εὑρετὴν λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινάς … (13) γενητὸν δὲ καὶ ἄφθαρτόν φασιν ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος ἐν Τιμαίῳ δηλοῦσθαι … (17) πατέρα δὲ τοῦ Πλατωνείου δόγματος ἔνιοι νομίζουσι τὸν ποιητὴν Ἡσίοδον, γενητὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον οἰόμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου λέγεσθαι … (19) μακροῖς δὲ χρόνοις πρότερον ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νομοθέτης Μωϋσῆς γενητὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον ἔφη τὸν κόσμον ἐν ἱεραῖς βίβλοις. cf. Ebr. 199 οἱ τὸν κόσμον ἀγένητον τοῖς γενητὸν ἀποφαινομένοις. Her. 246 ὥσπερ οἱ ἀγένητον εἶναι λέγοντες τὸ πᾶν τοῖς γένεσιν εἰσηγουμένοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάλιν οἱ φθαρήσεσθαι τοῖς φθαρτὸν μὲν εἶναι φύσει, μηδέποτε δὲ φθαρησόμενον διὰ τὸ κραταιοτέρῳ δεσμῷ, τῇ τοῦ πεποιηκότος βουλήσει, συνέχεσθαι. Seneca De otio, Dial. 8.4.2 (quaeramus) … inmortalis sit mundus an inter caduca et ad tempus nata numerandus. Quintilian Inst. 7.2.2 ut in (sc. quaestionibus) generalibus ‘an atomorum concursu mundus sit effectus, an providentia regatur, an sit aliquando casurus’. Theophilus of Antioch ad Autol. 2.8 ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς κοσμογονίας ἀσύμφωνα ἀλλήλοις καὶ φαῦλα ἐξεῖπον. πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τινὲς ἀγένητον τὸν κόσμον ἀπεφήναντο, καθὼς καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐδηλώσαμεν, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀγένητον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀΐδιον φύσιν φάσκοντες οὐκ ἀκόλουθα εἶπον τοῖς γενητὸν αὐτὸν δογματίσασιν. εἰκασμῷ γὰρ ταῦτα καὶ ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ ἐφθέγξαντο, καὶ οὐ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν. Galen Propr.Plac. 2, p. 172.31–32 Boudon-Millot πότερον ἀγέννητός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος ἢ γεννητός … ⟨ἀγνοεῖν φημι⟩. Med.exper. 19.3 Walzer ‘Let us … reflect upon that which concerns the universe, and consider what may be said about it, whether it is originated or not originated.’ Loc.Aff. 3.5, p. 8.159.2–6 Kühn καὶ περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς ὁμοίως, ὥσπέρ γε καὶ περὶ … τοῦ γεννητὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, ἢ ἀγέννητον. Pecc.Dig. 3.4, p. 46.23 De Boer οὐ μὴν εἰ γέγονεν ἢ ἀγέννητος ὁ κόσμος ἐστί, δύναται τὸ πρᾶγμα αὐτὸ μαρτυρῆσαι. PHP 9.7.9 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰ γεννητὸς ἢ ἀγέννητος ὅδε ὁ κόσμος, ὥσπερ γε καὶ εἰ γεγονότος αὐτοῦ θεός τις ἐγένετο δημιουργὸς ἢ θεὸς μὲν οὐδείς, αἰτία δέ τις ἄλογός τε καὶ ἄτεχνος εἰργάσατο κατὰ τύχην οὕτως καλὸν αὐτόν. Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 293.10–23 (on Aristotle, cf. 279b12) καὶ γὰρ περὶ μὲν τὸ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον πάντας ὁμογνωμονεῖν φησι τούς τε θεολόγους καὶ τοὺς φυσικούς· τῶν δὲ γεγονέναι λεγόντων αὐτὸν οἱ μὲν ἀίδιον λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ Ὀρφεὺς καὶ Ἡσίοδος καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὁ Πλάτων, ὥς φησιν Ἀλέξανδρος· τινὲς δὲ τῶν γενητὸν λεγόντων φθαρτὸν λέγουσι, διχῶς δὲ τοῦτο· οἱ μὲν γὰρ οὕτως φθαρτόν, ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο τῶν συνισταμένων ἀτόμων, … οἱ δὲ ἐναλλὰξ γίνεσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ πάλιν γενόμενον πάλιν φθείρεσθαι λέγουσι, καὶ ἀίδιον εἶναι τὴν τοιαύτην διαδοχήν, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν Φιλίαν λέγων καὶ τὸ Νεῖκος παρὰ μέρος ἐπικρατοῦντα τὴν μὲν συνάγειν τὰ πάντα εἰς ἓν καὶ φθείρειν τὸν τοῦ Νείκους κόσμον καὶ ποιεῖν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸν σφαῖρον, τὸ δὲ Νεῖκος διακρίνειν πάλιν τὰ στοιχεῖα καὶ ποιεῖν τὸν τοιοῦτον κόσμον. In Phys. lib. 8 scholion 539 Rashed (on 250b18), see text above on ch. 2.1 section E(a) General texts. Tertullian Apol. 47.8 Dekkers sic et de ipso mundo, natus innatusve sit, decessurus mansurusve sit, variant. Minucius Felix Oct. 34.1–4 Kytzler ceterum de incendio mundi aut

liber 2 caput 4 improvisum ignem cadere aut diffindi caelum non credere vulgaris erroris est. (2) quis enim sapientium dubitat, quis ignorat omnia, quae orta sunt, occidere, quae facta sunt, interire? caelum quoque cum omnibus quae caelo continentur, ita ut coepisse desinere fontium dulcis aqua maria nutrire, in vim ignis abiturum Stoicis (SVF 2.595) constans opinio est, quod consumpto umore mundus hic omnis ignescat; (3) et Epicureis (—) de elementorum conflagratione et mundi ruina eadem ipsa sententia est. (4) ⟨…⟩ loquitur Plato: partes orbis nunc inundare, dicit nunc alternis vicibus ardescere et, cum ipsum mundum perpetuum et insolubilem diceret esse fabricatum, addit tamen ipsi artifici deo soli et solubilem et esse mortalem. ita nihil mirum est, si ista moles ab eo, quo exstructa est, destruatur. ps.Galen HPh ch. 17, pp. 609.12–610.1 Diels τὸν κόσμον οἱ μὲν γενητὸν εἶναι νομίσαντες τὸν θεὸν ἔφασαν γενονέναι τούτου δημιουργόν. ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν γενητὸν εἶναι συγκεχωρηκότες οὐχ ὁμοίως περὶ τοῦ τέλους κεκρίκασιν. ἀλλὰ Πλάτων μὲν ἀνώλεθρον εἶναι νομίζει καὶ ἀθάνατον διὰ τὴν εὐτεχνίαν τοῦ πεποιηκότος. Στωικοὶ (—) δὲ φθορᾶς ἐπιδεκτικὸν εἶναι ⟨καὶ⟩ διὰ πυρὸς γίνεσθαι τούτου τὴν μεταβολὴν εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον χεομένου κατά τινα χρόνον τῆς ὕλης ἀναπαυομένης καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας λῆξιν λαμβανούσης. αὖθις δὲ τῶν ὄντων ἀνανεουμένων ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ μεταβαλλόντων κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς εἰς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων φύσιν καὶ πάλιν συγκρινομένων καὶ σωματοποιουμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν πάντων ἐκ νέας κοσμοποιουμένων. Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 220 Usener (on Phars. 7.1) potest secundum Platonem intellegi qui natum quidem tradit esse mundum, sed non interiturum. diverse Stoici (SVF 2.586) et Epicurei (fr. 304 Usener), qui et natum esse et periturum afirmant. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.56, p. 131.16–24 Marchesi mundum quidam ex sapientibus aestimant neque esse natum neque ullo esse in tempore periturum; immortalem nonnulli, quamvis eum conscribant esse gnatum et genitum; tertiis vero conlibitum dicere est, et esse natum et genitum et ordinaria necessitate periturum. et cum ex istis opinionibus trinis unam esse necesse sit veram, cunctis tamen argumenta non desunt quibus et sua decreta confirment et aliorum subripiant et labefaciant scita. Lactantius Inst. 2.10.17–25 Monat Aristoteles autem labore se ac molestia liberavit dicens semper fuisse mundum: itaque et humanum genus et cetera quae in eo sunt initium non habere, sed fuisse semper ac semper fore … (25) quae si vera sunt, non poterit defendere Aristoteles (?) quominus habuerit et mundus ipse principium. quod si Aristoteli Plato et Epicurus (fr. 304 Usener) extorquent, et Platoni et Aristoteli qui semper fore mundum putaverunt, licet sint eloquentes, ingratis tamen idem Epicurus eripiet quia sequitur ut habeat et finem. Inst. 7.1.7–10 Brandt nam Aristoteles (de Phil. fr. 20 Ross) … semper ait fuisse mundum ac semper futurum … (9) sed et omne quod sub visum oculorum venit, et corporale, ut ait Plato, et solubile sit necesse est. (10) unus igitur Epicurus (fr. 304 Usener) auctore Democrito veridicus in hac re fuit, qui ait et ortum aliquando et aliquando esse periturum. Marius Victorinus 1.46, p. 114.22–28 Riesenweber ergo … ex his, quae in opinione sunt posita, probabile colligitur argumentum, si dicas … mundum natum, mundum non esse natum. {istae opiniones δόγματα dicuntur; δοκῶ

809

810

liber 2 caput 4

enim Graece opinor et δόγμα opinio nuncupatur}[del. Orelli Riesenweber, perhaps wrongly]. adeo manifestum est omnia, quae in mundo aguntur, argumentis probabilibus persuaderi, quando etiam philosophorum professionibus ex opinione nomen inpositum est, ut δόγματα dicantur. Scholia in Basilium I 15 Pasquali Πυθαγορικοὶ Πλατωνικοὶ Ἀριστοτελικοὶ μάλιστα· οὗτοι γὰρ πάντες οὐ φθείρουσι κόσμον· οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—), φθείροντες ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει τὴν διακόσμησιν (καθάπερ πρότερον καὶ ὁ σκοτεινὸς Ἡράκλειτος (—)), οὐκ ἂν ἡμᾶς διασύροιεν· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι (—)· καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι λύεσθαί φασι τὸν κόσμον, τῆς τῶν ἀτόμων ἀντεμπλοκῆς τῷ χρόνῳ διάστασιν δεχομένης. Anon. (Porphyry?) in Categorias, Archimedes-palimps. fol. 78v + 75r10–18 ἢ γὰρ γενητός ἐστι καὶ φθαρτὸς ὡς τοῖς ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος (—) ἐδόκει, ἢ οὔτε γενητὸς οὔτε φθαρτὸς ὡς τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει ἔδοξεν, καὶ τῷ Πλάτωνι ὥς τινες οἴονται, ἢ γενητὸς μὲν ἄφθαρτος δέ, ὤς ἔνιοι τῶν Πυθαγορείων, καὶ Πλάτωνα δέ τινες οὕτω φέρερσθαι νομίζουσιν, ἢ ἀγένητος ἐστι φθαρτὸς δέ. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μηδεὶς ταύτης προέστη τῆς αἱρέσεως, αλλ᾽ ἥ γε πρότασις ἔστιν, ὥστε εἶναι ἁπάσας τέσσαρας. Ambrose of Milan Exam. 1.1.3–4 Schenkl ipsumque mundum semper fuisse et fore Aristoteles usurpat dicere: contra autem Plato non semper fuisse et semper fore praesumit adstruere, plurimi vero non fuisse semper nec semper fore scriptis suis testificantur. inter has dissensiones eorum quae potest veri esse aestimatio … Augustine Acad. 3.10.56– 58 Green, item scio mundum istum nostrum … aut semper fuisse et fore, aut coepisse esse minime desiturum; aut ortum ex tempore non habere, sed habiturum esse finem; aut et manere coepisse et non perpetuo esse mansurum. C.D. 12.12.1–4 Dombart–Kalb alii vero, qui mundum istum non existimant sempiternum, sive non eum solum, sed innumerabiles opinentur, sive solum quidem esse, sed certis saeculorum intervallis innumerabiliter oriri et occidere … cf. C.D. 18.41.42–46 pro sua quisque opinione certabant, … ipsum autem unum (sc. mundum) alii ortum esse, alii vero initium non habere; alii interiturum, alii semper futurum. Servius auctus in Georg. 2.336, p. 3.1.248 Thilo si crescit (sc. mundus), deficit: in quo videtur secutus Epicurum, qui ait: omnia, quae orta, occidunt et aucta senescunt. Varro autem in satura quae scribitur de salute (Sat.Menipp. fr. 84 Astbury) ait mundum haud natum esse neque mori. Plato autem non natum aut mori. Metrodorus (—) autem neque natum neque mori. Zenon (—) ex hoc mundo quamvis aliqua intereant, tamen ipsum perpetuo manere quia inhaereant ei elementa e quibus generantur materiae ut dixit crescere quidem sed ad interitum non pervenire manentibus elementis a quibus revalescant. John Philoponus in APo. 238.28 οἷον ὅταν μὲν ζητῶμεν, εἰ τύχοι, περὶ οὐρανοῦ … ὅταν δὲ πότερον ἀίδιος ἢ οὔ, τὸ ποτέ. Simplicius in Phys. 1121.2–1122.3 (on Phys. 8.1 250b18–23 doxography on motion and cosmology; from Alexander of Aphrodisias) πάλιν ὅτι ἀναγκαία ἡ περὶ τῆς ἀιδιότητος ζήτησις παραδείκνυσι λέγων, τίνες μὲν τῶν φυσικῶν ἀίδιον ὑπέθεντο τὴν κίνησιν, τίνες δὲ οὐκ ἀίδιον, πρὸς τὰς περὶ τῶν κόσμων ὑποθέσεις καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς κινήσεως προσαρμόσαντες. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσμους ὑποθέμενοι, ὡς οἱ περὶ Ἀναξίμανδρον (12A17 DK) καὶ Λεύκιππον (—) καὶ Δημόκριτον (fr. 300 Luria) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον (fr. 306 Usener) γινομένους αὐτοὺς καὶ φθειρομένους ὑπέθεντο ἐπ᾽ ἄπει-

liber 2 caput 4 ρον ἄλλων μὲν ἀεὶ γινομένων ἄλλων δὲ φθειρομένων, καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ἀίδιον ἔλεγον· ἄνευ γὰρ κινήσεως οὐκ ἔστι γένεσις ἢ φθορά. τῶν δὲ ἕνα μόνον κόσμον λεγόντων οἱ μὲν ἀγένητόν τε ἀπὸ χρόνου καὶ ἄφθαρτον αὐτὸν λέγοντες ἀίδιον καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ὑπετίθεντο, ὥσπερ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης· γενητὸν δὲ καὶ φθαρτὸν τὸν ἕνα κόσμον ποιοῦσιν, ὅσοι ἀεὶ μέν φασιν εἶναι κόσμον, οὐ μὴν τὸν αὐτὸν ἀεί, ἀλλὰ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον κατά τινας χρόνων περιόδους, ὡς Ἀναξιμένης (13A11 DK) τε καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (T 269 Mouraviev) καὶ Διογένης (fr. 23c Laks) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.576). καὶ δῆλον ὅτι καὶ περὶ κινήσεως οὗτοι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι δόξαν· ὅτε γὰρ κόσμος ἦν, τότε κίνησιν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) δέ, εἰ μὲν κατὰ τὸ σχῆμά τις ἀκούοι τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ποτὲ μὲν σφαῖρον ποτὲ δὲ κόσμον λέγοντος, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ἐν τῇ γενέσει τοῦ κόσμου θεωρῶν γινομένην καὶ φθειρομένην ὑπετίθετο ἀεί, εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸν σφαῖρον εἶναι βούλεται καὶ τὸν κόσμον ἀεί, καὶ κίνησιν ἐνόμιζεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ⟨ἀεί⟩ εἶναι. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς δὲ χρόνου δοκοῦσι λέγειν γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον Ἀναξαγόρας (59A64 DK)) τε καὶ Ἀρχέλαος (—) καὶ Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος (70A5 DK)· οὗτοι δὲ καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ἄρξασθαί φασιν· ἠρεμούντων γὰρ τὸν πρὸ τοῦ χρόνον τῶν ὄντων κίνησιν ἐγγενέσθαι φασὶν ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ, ὑφ᾽ ἧς γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον. φαίνονται δὲ καὶ οὗτοι τάξεως ἕνεκα διδασκαλικῆς ἀρχὴν τῆς κοσμοποιίας ὑποθέμενοι. καὶ ὅ γε Ἀναξαγόρας σαφῶς ἀπὸ τῆς νοητῆς ἑνώσεως, ἐφ᾽ ἧς ἦν ‘ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα’, ὥς φησι, τὴν κοσμικὴν διάκρισιν ὑποστῆσαι τὸν νοῦν λέγει. ὁ μέντοι Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ τὸν Πλάτωνά φησιν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς χρόνου τὸν κόσμον ὑφιστάνειν, πλὴν ὅτι καὶ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως κίνησιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι πλημμελῆ καὶ ἄτακτον (1122) ἔλεγε. ‘παραλαβὼν γάρ, φησίν, ὁ θεὸς πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν οὐχ ἡσυχίαν ἔχον, ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας.’ see also the similar passage at in Cael. 293.11–295.29. Symeon Seth CRN 3.30, p. 37.8–9 ὁ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν κόσμον δοξάζει ἀγέννητόν τε καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων γεννητὸν μέν, ἄφθαρτον δέ. ἡμεῖς δὲ λέγομεν … Chapter heading: Philo of Alexandria Aet. 3, ἄξιον οὖν τοὺς ζητοῦντας εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος. Eusebius PE 15.32.8 (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ εἰ ἄφθαρτος ἢ φθαρτός. §1 Pythagoras Heraclitus: Tertullian Apol. 11.5 totum enim hoc mundi corpus sive innatum et infactum secundum Pythagoram, sive natum et factum secundum Platonem, semel utique in ipsa conceptione dispositum et instructum et ordinatum cum omnis rationis gubernaculo inventum est. On Heraclitus see below on §6. §2 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.142 (SVF 2.581) γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα … περὶ δὴ οὖν τῆς γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς τοῦ κόσμου φησὶ Ζήνων (SVF 1.102) μὲν ἐν τῷ Περὶ ὅλου, Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.581) δ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 13 E.-K., 304 Theiler) ἐν πρώτῳ Περὶ κόσμου καὶ Κλεάνθης (—) καὶ Ἀντίπατρος (SVF 3 Ant. 45) ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ Περὶ κόσμου. Παναίτιος (fr. 132 Alesse) δ᾽ ἄφθαρτον ἀπεφήνατο τὸν κόσμον. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.92.4 γενητὸν δὲ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.574) τίθενται τὸν κόσμον. see also on §8 below. §5 Xenophanes Parmenides Melissus: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.48 Aucher age, interim ponamus inter nos universum ingenitum ac sempiternum,

811

812

liber 2 caput 4

iuxta illud quod suggerit sermo celeberrimorum philosophantium, sicut conscribunt Parmenides (—), Empedocles (—), Zeno (—), Cleanthes (SVF 1.509) aliique divi homines, ac velut verus quidam proprieque sacer coetus. ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach) Ξενοφάνης (21A32 DK) … οὔτε γένεσιν οὔτε φθορὰν ἀπολείπει, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι λέγει τὸ οὔτε γένεσιν οὔτε φθορὰν ἀπολείπει, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι λέγει τὸ πᾶν ἀεὶ ὅμοιον· εἰ γὰρ γίγνοιτο τοῦτο, φησίν, ἀναγκαῖον πρὸ τούτου μὴ εἶναι· τὸ μὴ ὂν δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὸ μὴ ὂν ποιῆσαί τι οὔτε ὑπὸ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γένοιτ᾽ ἄν τι. also Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.2 (21A33 DK); Cicero Luc. 118 (21A34 DK) cited above. ps.Plutarch Strom. 5 (fr. 179 Sandbach) Παρμενίδης (28A22 DK) … ἀίδιον μὲν γὰρ τὸ πᾶν καὶ ἀκίνητον ἀποφαίνεται. Hippolytus Ref. 11 καὶ γὰρ καὶ Παρμενίδης (28A23 DK) ἓν μὲν τὸ πᾶν ὑποτίθεται ἀίδιόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον. Cicero Luc. 118 (30A9 DK) cited above (on Melissus). §6 Anonymi: Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 293.18–23 cited above General texts. also 294.4–23 καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (22A10 DK) δὲ ποτὲ μὲν ἐκπυροῦσθαι λέγει τὸν κόσμον, ποτὲ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς συνίστασθαι πάλιν αὐτὸν κατά τινας χρόνων περιόδους, ἐν οἷς φησι· ‘μέτρα ἁπτόμενος καὶ μέτρα σβεννύμενος.’ ταύτης δὲ τῆς δόξης ὕστερον ἐγένοντο καὶ οἱ Στωικοί (SVF 2.617). ἀλλ᾽ οὗτοι μὲν ἐάσθωσαν· … πλὴν ὅτι ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος βουλόμενος τὸν Ἡράκλειτον (T 555 Mouraviev) γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν λέγειν τὸν κόσμον ἄλλως ἀκούει τοῦ κόσμου νῦν. ‘οὐ γὰρ μαχόμενα, φησί, λέγει ὡς ἄν τῳ δόξαι· κόσμον γάρ, φησίν, ἐνταῦθα οὐ τήνδε λέγει τὴν διακόσμησιν, ἀλλὰ καθόλου τὰ ὄντα καὶ τὴν τούτων διάταξιν, καθ᾽ ἣν εἰς ἑκάτερον ἐν μέρει ἡ μεταβολὴ τοῦ παντός, ποτὲ μὲν εἰς πῦρ, ποτὲ δὲ εἰς τὸν τοιόνδε κόσμον· ἡ γὰρ τοιαύτη τούτων ἐν μέρει μεταβολὴ καὶ ὁ τοιοῦτος κόσμος οὐκ ἤρξατό ποτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεί.’ Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.104.1–105.1 σαφέστατα ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (T 642 Mouraviev) ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δόξης, τὸν μέν τινα κόσμον ἀίδιον εἶναι δοκιμάσας, τὸν δέ τινα φθειρόμενον, τὸν κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν εἰδὼς οὐχ ἕτερον ὄντα ἐκείνου πως ἔχοντος. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιὸν κόσμον ᾔδει, φανερὸν ποιεῖ λέγων οὕτως (22B30 DK) … ὅτι δὲ καὶ γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐδογμάτιζεν, μηνύει τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα (fr. 22B31 DK) … ὅπως δὲ πάλιν ἀναλαμβάνεται καὶ ἐκπυροῦται, σαφῶς διὰ τούτων δηλοῖ (ibid.) … ὁμοίως καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων τὰ αὐτά. παραπλήσια τούτῳ καὶ οἱ ἐλλογιμώτατοι τῶν Στωϊκῶν (SVF 2.590) δογματίζουσι περί τε ἐκπυρώσεως διαλαμβάνοντες καὶ κόσμου διοικήσεως … cf. also Philo of Alexandria Aet. 8–9 cited above under General texts. §7 Anaximander Anaximenes Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes Leucippus: Simplicius in Phys. 1121.5–8 Diels (on Anaximander, Leucippus, 12A17 DK, cited above); 1121.14–15 (on Anaximenes, Diogenes, cited above). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.31 (on Leucippus = 67A1 DK) κόσμους τε ἐκ τούτων (sc. τὸ πλῆρες καὶ τὸ κενόν) ἀπείρους εἶναι καὶ διαλύεσθαι εἰς ταῦτα. §8 Stoics: Philo Aet. 8–9, Prov. 2.48 cited above General texts. Scholia in Basilii Hexaemeron I 15 cited above General texts. §9 Plato: Cicero ND 1.20 (on Plato) sed illa palmaris, quod, qui non modo natum mundum introduxerit sed etiam manu paene factu, is eum dixerit fore sempiternum. Philo Aet. 13 cited above General texts. Alexander of Aphro-

liber 2 caput 4 disias at Simp. in Cael. 293.13 cited above General texts. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.72 (on Plato) ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἄφθαρτον διαμένειν τὸν κόσμον διὰ τὸ μὴ διαλύεσθαι εἰς τὸν θεόν. Plutarch QPlat. 3 1002C (Platonic doctrine) διὸ καὶ φθαρτὸς ἡμῶν εἷς ἕκαστός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ κόσμος οὐ φθαρησόμενος· ἡμῶν μὲν γὰρ ἑκάστου τὴν ζωτικὴν δύναμιν ἐντὸς περιέχει τὸ θνητοειδὲς καὶ διαλυτόν, ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τοὐναντίον ὑπὸ τῆς κυριωτέρας ἀρχῆς καὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἐχούσης ἀεὶ σῴζεται τὸ σωματικὸν ἐν μέσῳ περιεχόμενον. Apuleius Plat. 1.8, p. 97.8–12 Moreschini et hunc quidem mundum nunc sine initio esse dicit, alias originem habere natumque esse: nullum autem eius exordium atque initium esse ideo quod semper fuerit; nativum vero videri, quod ex his rebus substantia eius et natura constet, quae nascendi sortitae sunt qualitatem. hinc et tangitur et videtur sensibusque corporeis est obvius. sed quod ei nascendi causam deus praestitit, ideo immortali perseverantia est semper futurus. Tertullian see above on §1. Contrast Epiphanius Haer. 3.2.22, p. 507.3 Holl Πλάτων Ἀθηναῖος … τὸν κόσμον δὲ γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν ὑπάρχειν. §10 Aristotle: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (on Aristotle) τὰ δ᾽ ἐπίγεια κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ταῦτα συμπάθειαν οἰκονομεῖσθαι. §11 Empedocles: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.48 cited above §5. Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 293.20–23 cited above. cf. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.103.6 οὐ παραπέμπομαι καὶ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα (—), ὃς φυσικῶς οὕτως τῆς τῶν πάντων ἀναλήψεως μέμνηται, ὡς ἐσομένης ποτὲ εἰς τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς οὐσίαν μεταβολῆς (for continuation see above §6). §12 Democritus: Lucretius DRN 5.92–96 principio maria ac terras caelumque tuere: / quorum naturam triplicem, tria corpora, Memmi, / tris species tam dissimilis, tria talia texta, / una dies dabit exitio, multosque per annos / sustentata ruet moles et machina mundi. §13 Epicurus: Scholia in Epicurum Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.74 (scholion) Dorandi δῆλον οὖν ὡς καὶ φθαρτούς φησι τοὺς κόσμους, μεταβαλλόντων τῶν μερῶν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Gorgias fr. 82B3(68) DK καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸ ὂν ἔστιν. εἰ γὰρ τὸ ὂν ἔστιν, ἤτοι ἀίδιόν ἐστιν ἢ γενητὸν ἢ ἀίδιον ἅμα καὶ γενητόν· οὔτε δὲ ἀίδιόν ἐστιν οὔτε γενητὸν οὔτε ἀμφότερα, ὡς δείξομεν … Plato Tim. 27c4–5 ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς περὶ τοῦ παντὸς λόγους ποιεῖσθαί πῇ μέλλοντας, εἰ γέγονεν ἢ καὶ ἀγενές ἐστιν. Tim. 28b4– 7 σκεπτέον δ᾽ οὖν περὶ αὐτοῦ (sc. κόσμου) … πότερον ἦν ἀεί, γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχων οὐδεμίαν, ἢ γέγονεν, ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τινος ἀρξάμενος. Aristotle Met. A.2 982b12–17 διὰ γὰρ τὸ θαυμάζειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξαντο φιλοσοφεῖν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀτόπων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον … περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως. Top. 1.11 104b7–8 ἔνια (sc. τῶν προβλημάτων) δὲ πρὸς τὸ εἰδέναι μόνον, οἷον πότερον ὁ κόσμος ἀίδιος ἢ οὔ. Top. 1.14 105b24–25 φυσικαὶ (sc. προτάσεις) δὲ οἷον πότερον ὁ κόσμος ἀίδιος ἢ οὔ. Phys. 8.1 250b11–251a8 (dialectical overview on motion). Cael. 1.10 279b4–17 λέγωμεν … πότερον ἀγένητος ἢ γενητὸς καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἢ φθαρτός, διεξελθόντες πρότερον τὰς τῶν ἄλλων ὑπολήψεις … γενόμενον μὲν οὖν ἅπαντες

813

814

liber 2 caput 4

εἶναί φασιν, ἀλλὰ γενόμενον οἱ μὲν ἀίδιον, οἱ δὲ φθαρτὸν ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο τῶν φύσει συνισταμένων, οἱ δ᾽ ἐναλλὰξ ὁτὲ μὲν οὕτως ὁτὲ δὲ ἄλλως ἔχειν φθειρόμενον, καὶ τοῦτο ἀεὶ διατελεῖν οὕτως, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁ Ἀκραγαντῖνος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (22A10 DK). cf. Cael. 2.1 283b31–32, καὶ διὰ τῆς δόξης τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἄλλως λεγόντων καὶ γεννώντων αὐτόν. also Phys.1.10 280a23–27 cited above on ch. 2.1 section E(b) General texts. Theophrastus at Philoponus Aet. 6.8, p. 145.6–25 αὐτὰ τὰ τοῦ Πλατωνικοῦ Ταύρου (fr. 22B Lakmann) παραθήσομαι ῥήματα· πλεῖστα γὰρ οὗτος ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ γενητοῦ ἐπινενόηκε σημαινόμενα· λέγει γοῦν ἐν τοῖς εἰς τὸν Τίμαιον ὑπομνήμασιν ἐπὶ λέξεως ταῦτα ‘ζητουμένου δέ, εἰ κατὰ Πλάτωνα ἀγένητός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος, διαφόρως περὶ τούτου οἱ φιλόσοφοι ἠνέχθησαν. Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν οὖν φησιν λέγειν τὸν Τίμαιον γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, τοῦ Τιμαίου λέγοντος γεγονέναι· καὶ γὰρ φέρεται αὐτοῦ σύγγραμμα περὶ τοῦ παντὸς ὡς γενητοῦ. ἴσως δὲ τοιοῦτόν τι λέγων ὁ Πλάτωνος Τίμαιος γενητόν φησιν τὸν κόσμον. καὶ Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 11 Diels, 241A FHS&G) μέντοι ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν δοξῶν κατὰ Πλάτωνά φησιν γενητὸν τὸν κόσμον καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖται τὰς ἐνστάσεις, παρεμφαίνει δέ, ὅτι ἴσως σαφηνείας χάριν γενητὸν αὐτὸν ὑποτίθεται. καὶ ἄλλοι δέ τινες οὕτως ἠνέχθησαν, ὅτι κατὰ Πλάτωνα γενητός, οἱ δέ, ὅτι ἀγένητος …’ cf. Aet. 6.21, p. 188.9–13. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 117 Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 12 Diels, 184 FHS&G) μέντοι φησὶ τοὺς γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου κατηγοροῦντας ὑπὸ τεττάρων ἀπατηθῆναι τῶν μεγίστων, γῆς ἀνωμαλίας, θαλάττης ἀναχωρήσεως, ἑκάστου τῶν τοῦ ὅλου μερῶν διαλύσεως, χερσαίων φθορᾶς κατὰ γένη ζῴων (arguments presented and refuted in §§118–149). Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 279b4, λέγωμεν … πότερον ἀγένητος ἢ γενητὸς καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἢ φθαρτός. Stoics at D.L. 7.133, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητεῖται ἥ τ᾽ οὐσία αὐτοῦ (sc. κόσμου) … καὶ εἰ γενητὸς ἢ ἀγένητος … καὶ εἰ φθαρτὸς ἢ ἄφθαρτος … §1 Pythagoras Heraclitus: Proclus in Tim. 1.290.3–7 οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖναι (sc. ἐξηγήσεις) χώραν ἔχουσιν, ὅσαι λογικώτερον ἀποδίδονται, οἷον ὅτι κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν μόνην ἡ γένεσις ἐπὶ τοῦ κόσμου λέγεται—οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὅτι δημιουργός ἐστι τοῦ παντὸς κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν συλλογισαίμεθα καὶ οὐ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν. but cf. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.104.1–3 σαφέστατα ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (fr. 22B30 DK) ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δόξης, τὸν μέν τινα κόσμον ἀίδιον εἶναι δοκιμάσας, τὸν δέ τινα φθειρόμενον, τὸν κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν εἰδὼς οὐχ ἕτερον ὄντα ἐκείνου πως ἔχοντος. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιὸν κόσμον ᾔδει, φανερὸν ποιεῖ λέγων οὕτως· ‘κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.’ ὅτι δὲ καὶ γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐδογμάτιζεν, μηνύει τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα· (fr. 22B31 DK) ‘πυρὸς τροπαὶ πρῶτον θάλασσα, θαλάσσης δὲ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ γῆ, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ πρηστήρ’ … §5 Xenophanes Parmenides Melissus: Aristotle Cael. 3.1 298b14–18 (28A25 DK) οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ὅλως ἀνεῖλον γένεσιν καὶ φθοράν· οὐθὲν γὰρ οὔτε γίγνεσθαί φασιν οὔτε φθείρεσθαι τῶν ὄντων, ἀλλὰ μόνον δοκεῖν ἡμῖν, οἷον οἱ περὶ Μέλισσόν (—) τε καὶ Παρμενίδην (28A25 DK), οὕς, εἰ καὶ τἆλλα λέγουσι καλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ φυσικῶς γε δεῖ νομίσαι λέγειν.

liber 2 caput 4 §6 Anonymi: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 279b14–16 cited above General texts. Cael. 3.1 298b30–33 οἱ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα γίνεσθαί φασι καὶ ῥεῖν, εἶναι δὲ παγίως οὐθέν, ἓν δέ τι μόνον ὑπομένειν, ἐξ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα μετασχηματίζεσθαι πέφυκεν· ὅπερ ἐοίκασι βούλεσθαι λέγειν ἄλλοι τε πολλοὶ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (22A10 DK). §7 Anaximander Anaximenes Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes Leucippus: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 280a23–27 τὸ δ᾽ ὅλως γενόμενον φθαρῆναι καὶ μὴ ἀνακάμπτειν ὄντος μὲν ἑνὸς ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν· πρὶν γὰρ γενέσθαι ἀεὶ ὑπῆρχεν ἡ πρὸ αὐτοῦ σύστασις, ἣν μὴ γενομένην οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναί φαμεν μεταβάλλειν· ἀπείρων δ᾽ ὄντων ἐνδέχεται μᾶλλον. §9 Plato: Plato Tim. 28b–d ὁ δὴ πᾶς οὐρανὸς—ἢ κόσμος ἢ καὶ ἄλλο ὅτι ποτὲ ὀνομαζόμενος μάλιστ᾽ ἂν δέχοιτο, τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν ὠνομάσθω—σκεπτέον δ᾽ οὖν περὶ αὐτοῦ πρῶτον, ὅπερ ὑπόκειται περὶ παντὸς ἐν ἀρχῇ δεῖν σκοπεῖν, πότερον ἦν ἀεί, γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχων οὐδεμίαν, ἢ γέγονεν, ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τινος ἀρξάμενος. γέγονεν· ὁρατὸς γὰρ ἁπτός τέ ἐστιν καὶ σῶμα ἔχων, πάντα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα αἰσθητά, τὰ δ᾽ αἰσθητά, δόξῃ περιληπτὰ μετ᾽ αἰσθήσεως, γιγνόμενα καὶ γεννητὰ ἐφάνη. Tim. 41a–b θεοὶ θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, δι᾽ ἐμοῦγενόμενα ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ γε μὴ ἐθέλοντος. τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν, τό γε μὴν καλῶς ἁρμοσθὲν καὶ ἔχον εὖ λύειν ἐθέλειν κακοῦ· δι᾽ ἃ καὶ ἐπείπερ γεγένησθε, ἀθάνατοι μὲν οὐκ ἐστὲ οὐδ᾽ ἄλυτοι τὸ πάμπαν, οὔτι μὲν δὴ λυθήσεσθέ γε οὐδὲ τεύξεσθε θανάτου μοίρας, τῆς ἐμῆς βουλήσεως μείζονος ἔτι δεσμοῦ καὶ κυριωτέρου λαχόντες ἐκείνων οἷς ὅτ᾽ ἐγίγνεσθε συνεδεῖσθε. Aristotle Cael. 1.10 280a28–32 εἰσὶ γάρ τινες οἷς ἐνδέχεσθαι δοκεῖ καὶ ἀγένητόν τι ὂν φθαρῆναι καὶ γενόμενον ἄφθαρτον διατελεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ· ἐκεῖ γάρ φησι τὸν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι μέν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἔσεσθαί γε τὸν λοιπὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον. §10 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 1.2 339a19–21 ὁ δὴ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὅλος κόσμος ἐκ τούτων συνέστηκε τῶν σωμάτων· περὶ οὗ τὰ συμβαίνοντα πάθη φαμὲν εἶναι ληπτέον. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392a31–34 μετὰ δὲ τὴν αἰθέριον καὶ θείαν φύσιν, ἥντινα τεταγμένην ἀποφαίνομεν, ἔτι δὲ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀνετεροίωτον καὶ ἀπαθῆ, συνεχής ἐστιν ἡ δι᾽ ὅλων παθητή τε καὶ τρεπτή, καί, τὸ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, φθαρτή τε καὶ ἐπίκηρος. §12 Democritus: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 279b13–14 οἱ δὲ φθαρτὸν ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο τῶν φύσει συνισταμένων.

815

Liber 2 Caput 5 PB: Plutarch 886F–887A; pp. 332a6–333a12 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.36, p. 409.9–16 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.10—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 48; p. 622.1– 6 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 142–143 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 158, p. 81 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.31, p. 37.17 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.20.1g, p. 172.6–8 + 1.21.6b, p. 186.10–11 + 1.21.6d, p. 186.24– 26 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b7 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles c. 5, p. 14.13–15 Di Maria

Titulus εʹ. Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος (P,S) §1 Ἀριστοτέλης· εἰ τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος, καὶ φθαρήσεται· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιδεῖται τροφῆς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀίδιος. (P1,S2) §2 Πλάτων αὐτὸν αὑτῷ τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ φθίνοντος κατὰ μεταβολὴν τὸ τρέφον παρέχεσθαι. (P2) §3 Φιλόλαος διττὴν εἶναι τὴν φθοράν, τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανίου πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δ᾽ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀστέρος ἀποχυθέντος· καὶ τούτων εἶναι τὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις τροφὰς τοῦ κόσμου. (P3,S1,3) §1 Aristoteles —; §2 Plato cf. Tim. 33c–d; §3 Philolaus 44A18 DK titulus πόθεν PB(I,III)EGQPsS : εἰ PB(II)PsSy ‖ κόσμος PBEQPs : οὐρανός PSy : cf. S qui ap. c. 1.21 conflat tit. Περὶ κόσμου (2.1) καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (2.3) καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν (2.5a) καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται (2.5) §1 [2] εἰ P : δέ S ‖ ὁ κόσμος] om. PG ‖ οὐδεμιᾶς PES Diels : add. τινός PB ‖ [2–3] καὶ … ἀίδιος] al. PG φθαρήσεσθαι νενόμικεν, οὐδέτερον δὲ τούτων τῷ κόσμῳ συμβεβηκέναι (καὶ ante φθαρήσεσθαι PG(O) sec. Jas per litt.) ‖ [3] ἐπιδεῖται PB : ἐπιδέεται PE : δεῖται S §2 lemma non hab. S ‖ [4] αὐτὸν … κόσμον] om. PG ‖ κατὰ μεταβολήν PBEG : om. PQ ‖ [4–5] τὸ τρέφον παρέχεσθαι PBE : τρέφεσθαι τοῦτόν φησιν PG, cf. sich von dem ernährt Q §3 [6–8] lemma S insolenter bis scripsit : 1.20g = S1, 1.21d = S2 ‖ [6] Φιλόλαος] Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος PG ‖ post nomen add. S2 ἔφησε ‖ διττὴν … φθοράν om. S2 ‖ τὴν φθοράν PBE : τὴν τροφήν PG Reiske : τὴν φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου S1PQ(ut vid.) ‖ οὐρανίου coni. Corsinus : οὐρανοῦ PS2 edd. Laks–Most : ὑγροῦ S1 ‖ [6–7] τὸ μὲν … τὸ δὲ PGS2 Diels Wachsmuth Huffman Laks– Most : τότε μὲν … τότε δὲ PBEQS1 Mau Lachenaud ‖ [7] ἐξ ὕδατος] ἐξ del. Usener dub. Diels ‖ περιστροφῇ … ἀποχυθέντος] al. PG περὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἀποχεομένου ‖ ἀστέρος PB(II), cf. ἀστέρος ῥυέντος S1, infolge des Mondwechsels Q, prob. Burkert : ἀέρος PB(I,III)ES2 edd. ‖ [7–8] καὶ … κόσμου PBEQS2 (καὶ τούτων om. S2, τούτων om. PQ, τούτου coni. Capelle) : om. PGS1

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 48 (~ tit.) Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος (text Diels) 48.1 (~ P1) Ἀριστοτέλης· εἰ τρέφεται, φθαρήσεσθαι νενόμικεν, οὐδέτερον δὲ τούτων τῷ κόσμῳ συμβεβηκέναι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_045

5

liber 2 caput 5

817

48.2 (~ P2) Πλάτων ἐκ τοῦ φθίνοντος κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφεσθαι τοῦτόν φησιν. 48.2 (~ P3) Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος διττὴν εἶναι τὴν τροφὴν ὑπέλαβεν· τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δ᾽ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἀποχεομένου. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 158 Εἰ τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.31 Εἰ τρέφεται ὁ οὐρανός (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 5, p. 14.13–15 τροφῇ δὲ χρῆται, ὡς μέν τινες, παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (§2), ἄλλοι δὲ ἀναθυμιάσει τῇ περὶ αὐτόν, τινὲς δὲ τῇ τοῦ ὕδατος σφαίρᾳ (cf. §1). Ἀριστοτέλης (—) δὲ μὴ δεῖσθαι τροφῆς αὐτὸν λέγει (τὸ γὰρ δεόμενον φθαρτόν), ἀίδιος δέ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτόν (§1). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 5.27 Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως. titulus cf. A 5.16 Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα. cf. A 2.17 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες. §1 A 2.17.5 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ δεῖσθαι τὰ οὐράνια τροφῆς· οὐ γὰρ φθαρτὰ ἀλλ᾽ ἀίδια. §2 A 2.17.6 Πλάτων κοινῶς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐξ αὑτῶν τρέφεσθαι. §3 A 1.3.1 (de Thalete) ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων ταῖς τῶν ὑδάτων ἀναθυμιάσεσι τρέφεται καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος. A 1.3.9[1–4] Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Ἵππασος ὁ Μεταποντῖνος ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων τὸ πῦρ· ἐκ πυρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς πῦρ πάντα τελευτᾶν λέγουσι· τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. A 2.6.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ πῦρ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἄγαν περισφιγγομένης τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς ἀναβλύσαι τὸ ὕδωρ· ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα καὶ γενέσθαι τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος … A 2.17.4 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ τῆς ἐπιγείου ἀναθυμιάσεως. A 2.20.5 Ξενοφάνης, ⟨ὡς⟩ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν, ἐκ πυριδίων τῶν συναθροιζομένων μὲν ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως συναθροιζόντων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.23.6 οἱ Στωικοὶ κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς διέρχεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον· ὠκεανὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ γῆ, ἧς τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐπινέμεται.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P is attested by the four main witnesses, each recording the same three doxai. G as so often paraphrases, resulting in various alterations.

818

liber 2 caput 5

(2) As in ch. 2.4, S divides the material between his chapters 1.20 and 1.21. His treatment shows some unusual and interesting features. (a) The Aristotelian doxa is grouped with the doxa from ch. 2.3 in a small cluster at S 1.21.6c. (b) The Platonic doxa is not copied out, but replaced at S 1.21.1 by a brief summary of this doxa and two others from chs. 2.3 and 2.5a, followed by the quotation of Tim. 30a2–c1. Then immediately following at S 1.21.2 he cites the text on which A’s doxa in this chapter is based, Tim. 33c6–d1. (c) The Philolaus doxa is cited in both S 1.20 and 1.21, the only time that he copies out a doxa twice (see M–R 1.223, 2.2.369). The reason for this is because its contents relate to the subject-matter of both chapters. The two texts can be compared as follows:

S 1.20.1g, p. 172.6–8

S 1.21.6d, p. 186.24–26

Φιλόλαος διττὴν εἶναι τὴν φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου, τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀποχυθέντος.

Φιλόλαος ἔφησε τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀποχυθέντος εἶναι τὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις τροφὰς τοῦ κόσμου.

It is apparent that there is considerable divergence between the text of the two citations. Details will be discussed below in section D(d). (3) For the first time in his use of Book 2 in CAG Book 4, T does not use the material provided in this chapter. (4) The evidence in Ach is important for it clearly comes from the same doxographical tradition but is configured differently. He does not devote a separate chapter to this question, but includes it in a chapter entitled Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (i.e. κόσμου). There are four doxai, i.e. one more than in A: (1) the same as Plato in A but presented anonymously; (2) an anonymous view that the cosmos has an external source of nourishment (this option missing in A, but it recalls the Pythagorean doxa in A 1.18.6); (3) an example of internal nourishment that is reminiscent of the Philolaic doxa in A; (4) the Aristotelian doxa in A, again presented in the form of an argument. We discuss this evidence further below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The evidence of Ach demonstrates that the subject of this chapter belonged to the proximate tradition on which A depends. However, apart from A and Ach there is very little evidence to show that it was discussed

liber 2 caput 5

819

in a dialectical or doxographical context. We have found no texts in which it is presented as a quaestio in the realm of physics. (2) Sources. The absence in the doxographical tradition is surprising given that the question was certainly raised in earlier Greek sources. Plato’s emphatically mentions the theme when discussing the body of the cosmos in the Timaeus, to which Aristotle may have responded in one of his lost works (see below section D(d)§1). References to the doctrine of exhalations in earlier philosophers, e.g. the attribution to Heraclitus at D.L. 9.9, refer to the (feeding of the) stars and not the cosmos as a whole (on this subject in the context of the treatment of the heavenly bodies Heraclitus is aligned with the Stoa at A 2.17.4). In the background there is also the extensive debate on the Stoic theory of ἐκπύρωσις, in which exhalations play a key role. Plutarch accuses Chrysippus of contradiction in taking over Plato’s language of the self-sufficiency of the cosmos and still speaking of the cosmos’ growth (as occurs in the ἐκπὺρωσις); text below in section E(b)§2, and see also the polemical discussions in Philo Aet. 85–103. But the Stoics are conspicuously absent in this chapter. It is also worth noting that, unlike all the chapters in Book 2 so far, there is no reference to philosophers who have a non-teleological conception of the universe. But this is to be expected, since the whole idea of the cosmos feeding itself only makes sense in the teleological framework of the macrocosm–microcosm relation. C Chapter Heading This is the first heading in Book 2 that asks the question ‘whence’ (πόθεν, unde). The only previous example was a ch. 1.6. Others will follow at chs. 2.17 (where does light of the stars come from), 4.21, 5.11 and 5.28. On the question unde see the note at ch. 1.6 Commentary C. The quaestio at 2.17 on the light of the stars implictly involves nourishment, since light very often entails fire, which needs to be fed; cf. doxai at A 2.17.4–6 and our comments ad loc. The nourishment of the microcosm is dealt with in Book 5: chs. 5.16 (the embryo) and 5.27 (in general). The heading is almost wholly undisputed in the main P tradition (the variant in a ms. of PB is clearly drawn from the Aristotelian doxa that immediately follows and the same may have influenced Ps). The exception is Symeon Seth, who changes the title to refer to the heaven because he focusses his attention on the heavenly bodies and adopts the viewpoint that they are only subject to locomotive change and do not undergo the change involved in nourishment. S refers to the heading in an abridged form in the composite title he devises for his ch. 1.21, Περὶ κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται.

820

liber 2 caput 5

D Analysis a Context The chapter’s theme follows on directly from the theme of ch. 2.3: if the cosmos is a living being, then it must need some kind of nourishment. But the subject discussed in ch. 2.4 adds complications. If it is subject to generation, one may assume nourishment and growth, followed by decline. But if it is everlasting, then nourishment must be combined with a homeostatic equilibrium. The stage is thus set for the answers given in the present chapter. There are parallels with the subject of the source of food for the heavenly bodies, ch. 2.17, and for the microcosm when it starts its life, ch. 5.17 Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα. b Number and Order of Lemmata There is evidence for only three doxai in the tradition of A and there is no reason to think that these were in a different sequence from that found in P. There may, however, have originally been more lemmata, such as the one preserved by Ach or the one that is obviously missing, on which see the following sub-section. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first doxa, which unusually takes the form of an argument in the form of a hypothetical syllogism rather than the usual bald assertion, represents the view that the cosmos needs no food at all. The argument is imperfectly expressed. It would be more persuasive to argue that because it is everlasting, it therefore needs no nourishment. But this leaves open the possibility that it does have nourishment, but this is internal to itself. This is the second option attributed to Plato and clearly based on Tim. 33c4–d1 (esp. c7, αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν φθίσιν παρέχον). The third doxa also focuses on internal sources, but this time it is specified as provided by a double source food supply provided through destruction (φθορά), one from heavenly fire, the other from lunar water. The chapter is thus structured by means of a diaphonia between no nourishment and nourishment, and the latter is divided into two kinds of internal nournishment based on decay, the one general, the other more specified. It is surprising that the possibility of external nourishment is not explored, as occurs in Ach (see below D(e)). If it was originally present in A, it must have not only been epitomized away by P, but also overlooked by S. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The form of the doxa, starting with the name-label followed by a separate sentence in oratio recta, is quite unusual. It is found elsewhere only at

liber 2 caput 5

821

A 1.25.1 (Thales) and 4.8.2 (Epicurus), if we exclude definitions such as at 1.23.1 (Pythagoras and Plato) and 5.3.1 (also Aristotle). It is also unusual to have a compact argument in the form of a syllogism. However, the argument should have been presented: if the cosmos obtains nourishment, it will also be destructible; but it is everlasting, therefore it does not obtain nourishment. Then it would have been logically valid. G impressively avoids the fallacy by paraphrasing the second part and stating that nothing of this kind happens to the cosmos. He thus leaves it to his reader to draw the conclusion that the cosmos does not undergo nourishment. No argument like this is found in Aristotle’s extant works. It is not present in the De Caelo, though it might be felt that the arguments against the cosmos’s generation and destruction in Cael. 1.10–11 prepare the ground for it. The present passage has been claimed for his lost De philosophia; see Effe (1970) 19. It is indeed similar to Peripatetic arguments in favour of the eternity of the cosmos in Philo Aet. 20–44, which have often been thought ultimately to derive from that work (= fr. 19 Ross). Effe also notes the analogous argument attributed to Critolaus at Philo Aet. 74 on the self-sufficiency of the cosmos: it is subject to neither κένωσις or πλήρωσις, both of which are intrinsic to the process of nourishment (despite the explicit attribution to Critolaus, the text is omitted in Wehrli’s edition, whose treatment of the entire section Aet. 55–75 is unsatisfactory; see further Mansfeld (1979) 186, Sharples (2008) 59–61). However, Effe himself goes far beyond the evidence when he claims: ‘Aetios und Kritolaus schöpfen aus dem Aristotelische dialog.’ Aristotle himself has a theory of exhalations in his extant works. It plays a key role in his Meteorology, see 1.4 341b6–12 and passim; Wilson (2013) 51–72. They are of two kinds and relate to the sub-lunary world only, so are not discussed in relation to the nourishment of the cosmos as a whole. He is highly critical of predecessors who extend the theory of exhalation to the heavens; see his excursus at Mete. 2.2 354b33–355a32. §2 The doxa’s formulation is clearly based on the wording of Tim. 33c7–8 αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον. But the phrase κατὰ μεταβολὴν is a Peripatetic addition; cf. AD at Stob. Ecl. 1.19.1, p. 163.1–2 (not A as printed by Diels DG 319 with reservations), where it represents qualitative change. §3 For this doxa there are three differing versions, P 2.5.3 & S1 at 1.20.1g and S2 in 1.21.6b. On the basis of the evidence it is not easy to determine exactly what stood in A. In determining our text we have benefited from the excellent discussion of Huffman (1993) 261–266. S has clearly adapted his two citations to their anthological context. In general the readings of P and S2 are to be preferred. We note the following problematical aspects of the text.

822

liber 2 caput 5

(a) The addition of τοῦ κόσμου at the beginning of S1 is caused by the anthological context, since he has decided to add the lemma to his citations from chs. 1.24 and 2.4 on genesis and destruction in general and of the cosmos. It is out of place in the present chapter, where φθορά is linked to φθίσις, i.e. as a kind of cosmic digestion. It might also be possible to take τὴν φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου as meaning ‘the perishing that takes place in the cosmos’. That S took it to mean this might be deduced from the fact that straight after this doxa he writes out another doxa of ‘Philolaus the Pythagorean’ purportedly taken from his work Περὶ ψυχᾶς (44A21 DK) which he precedes with the words Φιλόλαος ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. He then quotes a text which ascribes eternity to the cosmos with the same argument found at Philo Aet. 20–24 (both Diels ad loc. and Huffman 1993, 343 regard this text as spurious). It is to be agreed with Huffman (1993) 262–265 that Philolaus is best taken to be referring to major cosmic cataclysms, but not to universal destruction such as in the later Stoic doctrine of ἐκπύρωσις, hence supporting the reading of P as against S1; see also Mansfeld 2020c (n. 27). (b) It is difficult to choose between τότε μέν … τότε δέ and τὸ μέν … τὸ δέ which are about equally represented in the tradition. In the doxographic context, however, an emphasis on classification is more likely than on temporality, so it is best to follow Diels and Huffman and opt for the readings τὸ μέν … τὸ δέ. (c) Stylistically it is preferable to have a similar grammatical construction in both the clauses introduced by τὸ μέν … τὸ δέ (contra Huffman). We therefore accept Corsinus’ conjecture ἐξ οὐρανίου πυρὸς. (d) The reading περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος is better attested in the mss. but, as pointed out by Burkert (1983) 242 n. 23, the variant ἀστέρος makes better sense, i.e. the destruction being caused by the revolution of the moon itself as heavenly body. Burkert also claims that the reading of G περὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἀποχεομένου supports this preference for ἀστέρος, but this must be considered doubtful. He notes that the doxa appears to formulate in a naïve way the general assumption of early thinkers such as Anaximander, Heraclitus and Empedocles, namely that cosmic destruction occurs through both fire and water, but that there is also a process of self-renewal. (e) Capelle’s emendation of τούτων to τούτου (cf. Vors. 1.404.3) is motivated by the difficulty that fire rushing down from heaven can hardly be an exhalation. Huffman (1993) 265 suggests that, ‘the exhalations need not be directly from heavenly fire and lunar water, but more probably arise from the earth as a result of their destructive effect’, but the formulation remains odd.

liber 2 caput 5

823

e Other Evidence It is to be agreed with Huffman (1993) 265–266 that the attribution of a theory of exhalations to Philolaus is plausible. As he notes, other Presocratics had developed similar theories: Heraclitus at D.L. 9.9 (= 22A1, from the earth and the sea); Xenophanes at A 2.20.5 (formation of the sun); Hippocrates of Chios at Alex.Aphr. in Mete. 38.28–32 (42A6 DK, on the origin of the Milky Way). The doxa is also reminiscent of the theory of periodic natural disasters developed by Plato in Tim. 22c–d (note φθοραί at 22c1), who relates it to ancient myths. As already noted above on §1, the theory of dry and wet exhalations is further developed by Aristotle, but he confines it to the sublunary world and vigorously denies any interaction with the heavenly realm (as in Philolaus). For the connection of the moon with moisture Huffman cites Plutarch Fac.Lun. 940A–B, but it is doubtful whether the doxai on Xenophanes at A 2.25.3 and Empedocles A 2.25.6 (cf. also ps.Plu. Strom. 10 = 31A30 DK) can help us understand Philolaus’ view of the role of air. The additional doxa in Ach indicating the possible ingestion of nourishment by the cosmos through ‘the exhalation that surrounds it’ can be linked to the doxa at A 2.9.1 οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν, εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖ ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐξ οὗ (cf. also A 1.18.6). The analogy is with a living being who breathes and thus takes in air or πνεῦμα from the outside, which can be regarded as a kind of nourishment. It may have been omitted in A (if indeed it was) because there was already a Pythagorean view via Philolaus. But the omission remains surprising. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Aet. 74 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις φησὶ (sc. Critolaus, not in Wehrli) τριττὰς αἰτίας δίχα τῶν ἔξωθεν ὑποβεβλῆσθαι ζῴοις τελευτῆς, νόσον, γῆρας, ἔνδειαν, ὧν οὐδεμιᾷ τὸν κόσμον ἁλωτὸν εἶναι … αὐταρκέστατόν τε αὐτὸν αὑτῷ καὶ ἀνεπιδεᾶ παντὸς γεγονέναι, μηδενὸς τῶν εἰς διαμονὴν ὑστερίζοντα, τὰς κενώσεως καὶ πληρώσεως ἐν μέρει διαδοχὰς ἀπωσάμενον, αἷς διὰ τὴν ἄμουσον ἀπληστίαν τὰ ζῷα χρῆσθαι … cf. Aet. 85–103 (against the Stoics), esp. 85 ἐκεῖνο δ᾽ οὐκ ἀνάξιον διαπορῆσαι, τίνα τρόπον ἔσται παλιγγενεσία, πάντων εἰς πῦρ ἀναλυθέντων· ἐξαναλωθείσης γὰρ τῆς οὐσίας ὑπὸ πυρός, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐκέτ᾽ ἔχον τροφὴν ἀποσβεσθῆναι. μένοντος μὲν οὖν, ὁ σπερματικὸς τῆς διακοσμήσεως ἐσῴζετ᾽ ⟨ἂν⟩ λόγος, ἀναιρεθέντος δὲ συνανῄρηται. τὸ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἔκθεσμον καὶ ἀσέβημα ἤδη διπλοῦν, μὴ μόνον φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου κατηγορεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ παλιγγενεσίαν ἀναιρεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἀκοσμίᾳ καὶ ἀπραξίᾳ καὶ τοῖς πλημμελέσι πᾶσι χαίροντος θεοῦ. Aet. 91 (against Chrysippus) ἀλλ᾽ εἴ γε φλὸξ γίνεται, τραπομένη πρὸς σβέσιν ἅπαξ οὐκ ἐκ μέρους ἀλλ᾽ ἀθρόα σβεσθήσεται· συνυπάρχει γὰρ τῇ τροφῇ· διὸ πολλῆς μὲν οὔσης ἐπιδίδωσι καὶ χεῖται, στελλομένης δὲ μειοῦται. τεκμηριώσαιτο δ᾽ ἄν τις ἀπὸ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τὸ γινόμενον.

824

liber 2 caput 5

Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται. §1 Aristotle: see above under General texts. §3 Philolaus: cf. Heraclitus at D.L. 9.9 (22A1 DK) γίνεσθαι δ᾽ ἀναθυμιάσεις ἀπό τε γῆς καὶ θαλάττης, ἃς μὲν λαμπρὰς καὶ καθαράς, ἃς δὲ σκοτεινάς. αὔξεσθαι δὲ τὸ μὲν πῦρ ὑπὸ τῶν λαμπρῶν, τὸ δὲ ὑγρὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων …

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Cleomedes Cael. 1.8.79–82 Todd (Stoic doctrine = SVF 2.572, Posidonius fr. 289 Theiler) οὐ χρὴ δὲ ἀπορεῖν ἐνταῦθα, πῶς ἡ γῆ στιγμιαία οὖσα πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ κόσμου ἀναπέμπει τροφὴν τῷ τε οὐρανῷ καὶ τοῖς ἐμπεριεχομένοις ἐν αὐτῷ ἄστροις, τοσούτοις καὶ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος οὖσι. Chapter heading: — §1 Aristotle: cf. Ocellus Lucanus ch. 1.10, p. 12.23–13.4 Harder, 127.17–24 Thesleff τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐμπεριεχόμενα τῷ κόσμῳ πρὸς τὸν κόσμον ἔχει τὴν συναρμογήν, ὁ δὲ κόσμος πρὸς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτόν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα τὴν φύσιν οὐκ αὐτοτελῆ ἔχοντα συνέστηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιδεῖται τῆς πρὸς τὰ {ἐκτὸς} ἐχόμενα συναρμογῆς, ζῷα μὲν πρὸς ἀναπνοήν, ὄψις δὲ πρὸς τὸ φῶς, αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι αἰσθήσεις πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον αἰσθητόν, τὰ δὲ φυτὰ πρὸς τὸ φύεσθαι, ἥλιος δὲ καὶ σελήνη καὶ οἱ πλάνητες καὶ οἱ ἀπλανεῖς κατὰ τὸ μέρος μὲν τῆς κοινῆς διακοσμήσεως· αὐτὸς δὲ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτόν. §2 Plato: Plato Tim. 33c–d οὐδ᾽ αὖ τινος ἐπιδεὲς ἦν ὀργάνου σχεῖν ᾧ τὴν μὲν εἰς ἑαυτὸ τροφὴν δέξοιτο, τὴν δὲ πρότερον ἐξικμασμένην ἀποπέμψοι πάλιν. ἀπῄει τε γὰρ οὐδὲν οὐδὲ προσῄειν αὐτῷ ποθεν—οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν—αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον καὶ πάντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πάσχον καὶ δρῶν ἐκ τέχνης γέγονεν· ἡγήσατο γὰρ αὐτὸ ὁ συνθεὶς αὔταρκες ὂν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων. Plutarch SR 1052C–E (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.604) τίς ἂν οὖν ἐναντιώτερα λέγων ἑαυτῷ φανείη τοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν νῦν μὲν αὔξεσθαι νῦν δὲ μὴ τρέφεσθαι λέγοντος; καὶ τοῦτ᾽ οὐ δεῖ συλλογίζεσθαι· σαφῶς γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γέγραφεν· ‘αὐτάρκης δ᾽ εἶναι λέγεται μόνος ὁ κόσμος διὰ τὸ μόνος ἐν αὑτῷ πάντ᾽ ἔχειν ὧν δεῖται, καὶ τρέφεται ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ αὔξεται, τῶν ἄλλων μορίων εἰς ἄλληλα καταλλαττομένων.’ οὐ μόνον οὖν ἐν ἐκείνοις τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς ἀποφαίνων τρεφομένους πλὴν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ Διός ἐν τούτοις δὲ καὶ τὸν κόσμον λέγων τρέφεσθαι μάχεται πρὸς αὑτόν ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὅτι τὸν κόσμον αὔξεσθαί φησιν ἐξ αὑτοῦ τρεφόμενον. τοὐναντίον δ᾽ εἰκὸς ἦν τοῦτον μόνον μὴ αὔξεσθαι τὴν αὑτοῦ φθίσιν ἔχοντα τροφήν τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις θεοῖς ἔξωθεν τρεφομένοις ἐπίδοσιν γίνεσθαι καὶ αὔξησιν καὶ μᾶλλον εἰς τούτους καταναλίσκεσθαι τὸν κόσμον, εἴ γ᾽ ἐκείνῳ μὲν ἐξ αὑτοῦ τούτοις δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου λαμβάνειν ἀεί τι καὶ τρέφεσθαι συμβέβηκε. Galen HNH 50.6 Mewaldt ⟨δῆλον οὖν ὅτι⟩ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου στοιχεῖα τὴν τροφὴν ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἔχοντά ἐστι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Πλάτων εἶπεν· ‘αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον καὶ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάσχον καὶ δρῶν ἐκ τέχνης γέγονεν.’ Epictetus fr. 13 Oldfather (= Stob. Ecl. 1.3.50), καὶ τίς, ὦ κακόδαιμον, αὐτὸς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τρέφεται ἄλλος γε ἢ ὁ κόσμος; Proclus in Tim. 2.87.17–23 Diehl (commenting on Tim. 33c–d) ὁ δὲ κόσμος οὐ δεῖται τροφῆς ἔξωθεν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ παρέχεται τροφὴν καὶ αὔξων ἑαυτὸν καὶ φθίσιν ἑαυτῷ παρέχων· πρῶτον μέν, εἰ βού-

liber 2 caput 5 λει, κατὰ τὴν εἰς δύο διαίρεσιν, αὔξοντος μὲν πάντα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ μεταβάλλοντος, αὐξομένων δὲ καὶ φθινόντων τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην· ἡ γὰρ ἄλλου γένεσις ἄλλου φθορά ἐστιν, ἑκατέρας δέ ἐστι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κίνησις αἰτία. §3 Philolaus: Plato Tim. 55c–d πολλαὶ κατὰ πολλὰ φθοραὶ γεγόνασιν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἔσονται, πυρὶ μὲν καὶ ὕδατι μέγισται, μυρίοις δὲ ἄλλοις ἕτεραι βραχύτεραι. τὸ γὰρ οὖν καὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν λεγόμενον, ὥς ποτε Φαέθων Ἡλίου παῖς τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἅρμα ζεύξας διὰ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸς εἶναι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ὁδὸν ἐλαύνειν τά τ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς συνέκαυσεν καὶ αὐτὸς κεραυνωθεὶς διεφθάρη, τοῦτο μύθου μὲν σχῆμα ἔχον λέγεται, τὸ δὲ ἀληθές ἐστι τῶν περὶ γῆν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἰόντων παράλλαξις καὶ διὰ μακρῶν χρόνων γιγνομένη τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς πυρὶ πολλῷ φθορά. … ὅταν δ᾽ αὖ θεοὶ τὴν γῆν ὕδασιν καθαίροντες κατακλύζωσιν … Aristotle Mete. 1.4 341b6–12 θερμαινομένης γὰρ τῆς γῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἀναγκαῖον γίγνεσθαι μὴ ἁπλῆν, ὥς τινες οἴονται, ἀλλὰ διπλῆν, τὴν μὲν ἀτμιδωδεστέραν τὴν δὲ πνευματωδεστέραν, τὴν μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ γῇ ὑγροῦ ἀτμίδα, τὴν δ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς γῆς οὔσης ξηρᾶς καπνώδη· καὶ τούτων τὴν μὲν πνευματώδη ἐπιπολάζειν διὰ τὸ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ὑγροτέραν ὑφίστασθαι διὰ τὸ βάρος. Mete. 2.4 354b33–355a1 διὸ καὶ γελοῖοι πάντες ὅσοι τῶν πρότερον ὑπέλαβον τὸν ἥλιον τρέφεσθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ· καὶ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔνιοί γέ φασιν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς τροπὰς αὐτόν … Plutarch Fac.Lun. 940A–B κινδυνεύει γάρ … πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀντιπαθῆ φύσιν ἔχειν, εἴγε μὴ μόνον, ὅσα πυκνοῦν καὶ ξηραίνειν ἐκεῖνος, αὕτη μαλάσσειν καὶ διαχεῖν πέφυκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου θερμότητα καθυγραίνειν καὶ καταψύχειν προσπίπτουσαν αὐτῇ καὶ συμμιγνυμένην. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 38.28–32 (on 1.8 345a11) τρίτην δέ φησι δόξαν (Hippocrates of Chios 42A6 DK) εἶναι περὶ τοῦ γάλακτος τὴν λέγουσαν ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι τὸ γάλα τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως ἀπό τινος ἀναθυμιάσεως, ἥ τις εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ γάλα, ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον, ἔνοπτρον γινόμενον τῇ ὄψει τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ὁρωμένῳ φωτί, ὡς ἔλεγον οἱ περὶ Ἱπποκράτην καὶ τὸν κομήτην γίνεσθαι.

825

Liber 2 Caput 5a S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.21.1, p. 181.21–22 + 1.21. 6de, pp. 186.27–187.7 Wachsmuth; Diels DG 332b18–27; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b6 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus ⟨ε+ʹ. Ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὁ κόσμος⟩ (S) §1 Πλάτων τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου ἐν οὐρανῷ. (S1) §2 Κλέανθης ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν ἡλίῳ. (S3) §3 Ἀρχέδημος ἐν γῇ. (S4) §4 Φιλόλαος ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ πυρί, ὅπερ τρόπεως δίκην προυπεβάλλετο τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρας⟩ ὁ δημιουργὸς θεός. (S2)

5

§1 Plato Tim. 36e–37c; §2 Cleanthes SVF 1.499; §3 Archedemus SVF fr. 15; §4 Philolaus 44A17 DK lemmata non hab. P titulum addidimus ex tit. Stob. c. 1.21 et ap. Phot. qui legunt καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν (vid. supra cc. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5) ‖ ὁ κόσμος add. Diels §1 [2] Πλάτων … οὐρανῷ coniecimus ex S §2 [3] Κλέανθης ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν ἡλίῳ scripsimus ex S : ἔφησεν εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου add. S §3 [4] Ἀρχέδημος ἐν γῇ scripsimus ex S : τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου ὑπάρχειν ἀπεφήνατο add. S §4 [5] post Φιλόλαος hab. τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν S ‖ [6] τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρας⟩ Diels VS Huffman : τῆς τοῦ παντὸς S : τῇ τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρᾳ⟩ Heeren Diels DG Wachsmuth ‖ θεός om. SP

loci Aetiani: titulus A 4.5 Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν. A 4.21 Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. quaestio A 4.21.5 (de Stoicis) αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὥσπερ ἐν κόσμῳ ⟨ὁ θεὸς⟩ κατοικεῖ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σφαιροειδεῖ κεφαλῇ. §4 A 1.7.23 … τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός … A 3.14.1 … τῇ τοῦ παντὸς {οὐρανοῦ} σφαίρᾳ … A 5.17.1–3 τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν τῇ γαστρί. οἱ Στωικοὶ ἅμα ὅλον γίνεσθαι. Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον τὴν ὀσφὺν ὡς τρόπιν νεώς. Ἀλκμαίων τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐν ᾗ ἔστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The only witness for this chapter is S. Both in the heading of ch. 1.21 and in its contents he records material on the question of the cosmos’ ruling part which can come from nowhere else other than A. Diels DG 62 rightly observed that P

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_046

liber 2 caput 5a

827

in the process of epitomization must have skipped a chapter originally present in A. See further M–R 1.186. But he did not wish to introduce a separate chapter in his reconstruction, and so misleadingly placed the material at the end of ch. 2.4. This move was no doubt motivated by the placement of its heading in the title of S 1.21 (see next section). In his apparatus at 333b19, however, he recognizes that it comes after ch. 2.5. The three doxai at S 1.21.6de, in all of which the term τὸ ἡγεμονικόν occurs, clearly should be assigned to this chapter. We should note, however, that the term and the topic also occur at the beginning of S 1.21, when S gives a summary of Platonic doctrine. It is highly probable that this refers to another doxa in the original chapter, particularly since it covers an important option that is otherwise unrepresented. There is a parallel chapter for the ἡγεμονικόν of the microcosm and its location at ch. 4.5. Remarkably P also deleted a subsequent chapter on the νοῦς and where it comes from; see below ch. 4.7a. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The reports on the question of the cosmos’ ruling part in doxographical texts are more or less confined to reports of divergences in Stoic views: see Cicero ND 1.39, Luc. 126, Arius Didymus fr. 29 Diels at Eus. PE 15.15.7–8 and D.L. 7.139 (texts below section E(a) General texts). The question is then retrospectively applied to the cosmology of Plato’s Timaeus; see texts in Theon of Smyrna and Proclus cited below in section E(b§1). As in ch. 2.3, the question is not relevant for atomist cosmology. (2) Sources. The question dealt with in this chapter has a double origin. Firstly it follows on from the view that the cosmos is animate and ensouled (cf. ch. 2.3). This allows the analogy between macrocosm and microcosm, which is central to Plato’s cosmology in the Timaeus and finds its focus especially in the conception of the World Soul. (As we saw, this analogy is also the basis for the question posed in ch. 2.5.) The second step is when the Stoics develop a psychology in which the νοῦς is called τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν, and this notion is then also applied to the cosmos; cf. Hahm (1977) 150. The precise location of this cosmic ‘ruling part’ then became a source of controversy. Not surprisingly there is no mention of the ‘ruling part’ in Presocratic texts (except the Philolaus text here, on which see below D(c) below). But the question is raised by Aristotle in a discussion on what is the ‘centre’ (τὸ μέσον) of the universe, which according to his report the Pythagoreans regarded as the dominant part (τὸ κυριώτατον, Cael. 2.13 293b3). This led them to posit their doctrine of a central fire, as outlined in A 2.7.6 (Philolaus). In his own cosmology the Unmoved mover may be regarded as having the role of the ‘ruling part’. It

828

liber 2 caput 5a

is mentioned A 1.7.23 as the ‘highest god’ and a ‘separate form’, which based on the account in Met. Λ.7, but there is no mention of it in Cael. and also not here. C Chapter Heading The chapter’s heading, missing of course in P’s pinax, can be derived from the heading S gives to 1.21, namely Περὶ κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται (confirmed by Photius). In reconstructing the title Diels was right to add the words ὁ κόσμος, as the formulation of the headings in chs. 2.3–5 show. This is the only chapter heading to use the formula ποῦ ἔχει in asking the question of location. The parallel chapter for the microcosm is A 4.7 Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν. On headings that use prepositions or phrases to ask questions see ch. 1.1. Commentary C. D Analysis a Context If the cosmos is a living being, as is assumed in the questions asked in chs. 2.3– 5 (even if the option that it is not is also taken into account in ch. 2.3), then it is logical to ask where the source of its rational motions is. The analogy between macrocosm and microcosm, which goes back to Plato’s Timaeus and even earlier in Greek philosophy, is crucial to the way the Placita are organized (cf. M–R 2.1.40). The same subject is examined in relation to the microcosm at A 4.5 Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν and 4.21 Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. b Number–Order of Lemmata It is likely that the Platonic lemma, which gives the most general and commonly held view on the subject, would be presented first. It is equivalent to the view attributed to Chrysippus in the doxographies noted above, in which the ‘ruling part’ is the aether. The other three doxai do not necessarily have to follow the order found in S, because the first (Philolaus) has been clustered with an earlier doxa (A 2.5.3). As the most unusual doxa, it most likely came last. See the next section. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Of the four doxai the first two place the cosmos’ ruling part at the periphery of the cosmos, either in the heaven (aether) or more specifically in the sun. The second two place it in the centre, either in the earth or in the Pythagorean central fire. The chapter thus consists of a main diaeresis, with each of the options again divided into two. In addition there is a movement from the outer peri-

liber 2 caput 5a

829

meter to the very centre of the cosmos. In the Philolaic cosmology recorded in the final doxa the central fire is even more central than the earth. However, it is unlikely that the specific statement in terms of a ‘ruling part’ (as distinct from the cosmology that lies behind it) is derived from Philolaus himself. We agree with the conclusion of Huffman (1993) 401: ‘the whole testimonium is not so much a report of Philolaus’ views as a description of the role of the central fire in terms of later philosophical conceptions’. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 As argued above, the Platonic doxa in the summary of doctrine at ch. 1.21.1 replaces the doxa in A. Its wording may be close to what stood in A, but there can be no certainty. We assume that the question asked in the chapter’s heading is understood in the first and subsequent doxai. Plato nowhere speaks of a cosmic ‘ruling part’, but its existence could be deduced from Tim. 36e–37c where the intellective powers of the World Soul are concentrated in the heavens and it is credited with both δόξαι καὶ πίστεις βέβαιοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς and νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε (37b8–c2). By implication the location of the World Soul is stated to be the heaven in 36e5. An example of how the Stoics equated the soul of the cosmos and its ἡγεμονικόν is found in a quote from Chrysippus in Plu. SR 1053B (but it is corporeal in agreement with Stoic materialism); see Reydams-Schils (1999) 59, who argues that ‘as to corporeality, the Timaeus itself has given some impetus to the development of subsequent views on this question’. §2 It is probable that the verb of saying and the repetition of the chapter’s subject were added by S in accordance with his usual practice (cf. M–R 1.231). If these are removed, the resultant ‘bald’ style is similar to what is found in chapters such as 2.2, 2.22, 2.27, and also tellingly in the parallel chapter on the human ἡγεμονικόν, 4.5. §3 Here too the additional phraseology will have been added by S. It seems odd, given the assumptions on which the doctrine is based, that the ‘ruling part’ should be ‘in the earth’. But Archedemus may have pointed out that volcanic activity shows that there is fire inside the earth and so at the very centre of the universe. This minor Stoic is not mentioned anywhere else in the Placita. The view is reported anonymously by AD at Eus. PE 15.15.8, so it is definitely not just made up by A. §4 The phrase τῆς (or τῇ) τοῦ παντὸς needs a noun that is missing in the mss. Since it seems that the verb προϋποβάλλω can take either the genitive or the dative it is preferable to retain τῆς as transmitted and supply σφαίρας as the missing noun (with Huffman, contra M–R 2.2.379). Remarkably, as Diels DG 186 noted,

830

liber 2 caput 5a

the same image of the keel of a ship is found in Arist. Met. Δ.1 1013a5, where it is followed by the example of the human heart, i.e. the ἡγεμονικόν in later Hellenistic terminology. This will not be a coincidence. The image reappears in ch. 5.17, where the view is attributed to Aristotle that the loins are the first part of the embryo to be formed (5.17.2). See further our discussion there, Commentary B. e Other Evidence This brief chapter is an excellent example of how the Placita tradition underwent various phases. The general schema of macrocosm and microcosm goes back to early Greek philosophy and exerts an influence on Plato (and also on Aristotle, but more on the structure of his writings than his actual doctrine; see M–R 2.1.40). There is a Stoic overlay which imports some specific Stoic terminology, which is then retroactively applied to Plato and a Pythagorean thinker such as Philolaus. Finally, it is worth noting that the concept of the cosmos’ ἡγεμονικόν is absent in Achilles or the Aratea. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Stoics at D.L. 7.139 (SVF 2.644) οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν, ἔχειν ἡγεμονικὸν μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, καθά φησιν Ἀντὶπατρος ὁ Τύριος ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ Περὶ κόσμου (—). Χρύσιππος δ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ προνοίας καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ Περὶ θεῶν (F 39 E.-K., 347 Theiler) τὸν οὐρανόν φασι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου, Κλεάνθης δὲ τὸν ἥλιον (SVF 1.499). ὁ μέντοι Χρύσιππος διαφορώτερον πάλιν τὸ καθαρώτερον τοῦ αἰθέρος ἐν ταὐτῷ, ὃ καὶ πρῶτον θεὸν λέγει … cf. Philodemus Piet. 545.27–28 Diels and ed. Schober CronErc 18 (1988) 118 ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.1076) … ἐν μὲν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ θεῶν … φησὶν … τόν τε κόσμον ἔμψυχον εἶναι καὶ θεὸν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ τὴν ὅλην ψυχήν. Cicero ND 1.39 (Velleius the Epicurean speaking) Chrysippus (SVF 2.1077) … ait … vim divinam in ratione esse positam et in universae naturae animo atque mente, ipsumque mundum deum dicit esse et eius animi fusionem universam, tum eius ipsius principatum qui in mente et ratione versetur … Luc. 126 an Stoicis ipsis inter se disceptare, cum iis non licebit? Zenoni (SVF 1.154) et reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur summus deus, mente preaeditus qua omnia regantur, Cleanthes (SVF 1.499), qui quasi maiorum est gentium Stoicus, Zenonis auditor, solem dominari et rerum potiri putat; ita cogimur dissensione sapientium dominum nostrum ignorare, quippe qui nesciamus soli an aetheri serviamus. Arius Didymus at Eus. PE 15.15.7–8 (= Diels fr. 29) ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου Κλεάνθει (SVF 1.499) μὲν ἤρεσε τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι διὰ τὸ μέγιστον τῶν ἄστρων ὑπάρχειν … τισὶ δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως ἔδοξε γῆν τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου, Χρυσίππῳ (SVF 2.642) δὲ τὸν αἰθέρα τὸν καθαρώτατον καὶ εἰλικρινέστατον, ἅτε πάντων εὐκινητότατον ὄντα καὶ τὴν ὅλην περιάγοντα τοῦ κόσμου φοράν. Cornutus Comp. 20, pp. 29.17–30.2 Torres γενέσθαι (sc. Ἀθηνᾶ) δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Διὸς κεφαλῆς λέγεται,

liber 2 caput 5a τάχα μὲν τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑπολαβόντων τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν ἐνταῦθ᾽ εἶναι, καθάπερ καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα ἐδόξασαν, τάχα δ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦ μὲν ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἀνωτάτω μέρος τοῦ σώματος ἡ κεφαλή ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ κόσμου ὁ αἰθήρ, ὅπου τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν αὐτοῦ ἐστι καὶ ἡ τῆς φρονήσεως οὐσία (see also ch. 27, p. 41.11). Simplicius in Cael. 513.7–9 see below under §3. Chapter heading: — §2 Cleanthes: See the Stoic doxographies cited above under General texts. ps.Censorinus Epit.disc. 1.4, p. 61.13 Sallmann et constat quidem (sc. mundus) quattuor elementis terra aqua igne aere. cuius principalem solem quidam putant, ut Cleanthes (SVF 1.499), et Chrysippus (—) aethera. §3 Archedemus: See the text of Arius Didymus cited above under General texts. Simplicius in Cael. 512.28–513.9 καὶ γὰρ δυνατὸν πιθανῶς κατασκευάζειν, ὅτι τὸ πῦρ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡ γῆ· καὶ λοιπὸν ἐκτίθεται πιθανὸν λόγον ἀξίωμα προλαμβάνων, ὅτι τῷ τιμιωτάτῳ τῶν σωμάτων τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην ἡ τιμιωτάτη τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην προσήκει χώρα, καὶ συλλογιζόμενος ἐν πρώτῳ σχήματι οὕτω· τὸ πῦρ τῶν σωμάτων τιμιώτατον, τοῦ τιμιωτάτου τῶν σωμάτων οἰκεῖος ὁ τιμιώτατος τόπος·καὶ συμπέρασμα, ὅτι τοῦ πυρὸς οἰκεῖος τόπος ὁ τιμιώτατος· ἀλλὰ μὴν τιμιώτατος τῶν τόπων ὁ μέσος· τὸ γὰρ πέρας τιμιώτατον, ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τὸ ἔσχατόν τε καὶ τὸ μέσον πέρατα· ὥστε καὶ τόπος ὑπὸ σελήνην ὁ μέσος τόπος· τοῦ πυρὸς ἄρα οἰκεῖος τόπος ὁ μέσος. ταύτης δὲ τῆς δόξης νεώτερος μὲν τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους Ἀρχέδημος (SVF Arch. fr. 16) γέγονε, πρὸ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλους τίνες οὕτως ἐδόξασαν, ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας, φησὶν Ἀλέξανδρος, ζητητέον.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b1–11 ἔτι δ᾽ οἵ γε Πυθαγόρειοι (58B37 DK) καὶ διὰ τὸ μάλιστα προσήκειν φυλάττεσθαι τοῦ παντός, τὸ δὲ μέσον εἶναι τοιοῦτον, Διὸς φυλακὴν ὀνομάζουσι τὸ ταύτην ἔχον τὴν χώραν πῦρ, ὥσπερ τὸ μέσον ἁπλῶς λεγόμενον, καὶ τὸ τοῦ μεγέθους μέσον καὶ τοῦ πράγματος ὂν μέσον καὶ τῆς φύσεως. καίτοι καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις οὐ ταὐτὸν τοῦ ζῴου καὶ τοῦ σώματος μέσον, οὕτως ὑποληπτέον μᾶλλον καὶ περὶ τὸν ὅλον οὐρανόν. διὰ μὲν οὖν ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν οὐθὲν αὐτοὺς δεῖ θορυβεῖσθαι περὶ τὸ πᾶν, οὐδ᾽ εἰσάγειν φυλακὴν ἐπὶ τὸ κέντρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο ζητεῖν τὸ μέσον, ποῖόν τι καὶ ποῦ πέφυκεν. Chrysippus at Plu. SR 1053B (SVF 2.605) λέγει δ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ Προνοίας· ‘διόλου μὲν γὰρ ὢν ὁ κόσμος πυρώδης εὐθὺς καὶ ψυχή ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικόν.’ Proclus in Tim. 2.104.23 Diehl (commenting on Tim. 34b3 τὸ μέσον) καὶ οἳ μὲν ἐν τῷ κέντρῳ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἀποτίθενται τοῦ παντός, οἳ δὲ ἐν σελήνῃ, οἳ δὲ ἐν ἡλίῳ, οἳ δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰσημερινῷ, οἳ δὲ ἐν τῷ ζῳδιακῷ. Chapter heading: — §1 Plato: Plato cf. Tim. 36e–37c καὶ τὸ μὲν δὴ σῶμα ὁρατὸν οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, αὐτὴ δὲ ἀόρατος μέν, λογισμοῦ δὲ μετέχουσα καὶ ἁρμονίας ψυχή, τῶν νοητῶν ἀεί τε ὄντων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀρίστη γενομένη τῶν γεννηθέντων. … λόγος δὲ ὁ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἀληθὴς γιγνόμενος περί τε θάτερον ὂν καὶ περὶ τὸ ταὐτόν, ἐν τῷ κινουμένῳ ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ φερόμενος ἄνευ φθόγγου καὶ ἠχῆς, ὅταν μὲν περὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν γίγνηται καὶ ὁ τοῦ θατέρου κύκλος ὀρθὸς ἰὼν εἰς πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν διαγγείλῃ, δόξαι

831

832

liber 2 caput 5a

καὶ πίστεις γίγνονται βέβαιοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς, ὅταν δὲ αὖ περὶ τὸ λογιστικὸν ᾖ καὶ ὁ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ κύκλος εὔτροχος ὢν αὐτὰ μηνύσῃ, νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτελεῖται. Theo of Smyrna Exp. pp. 187.20–188.7 Hiller ἄλλο γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐμψύχοις τὸ μέσον τοῦ πράγματος, τουτέστι τοῦ ζῴου ᾗ ζῴου, καὶ ἄλλο τοῦ μεγέθους· οἷον, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἄλλο μέν, ὡς ἀνθρώπων καὶ ζῴων, τῆς ἐμψυχίας μέσον τὸ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν … τοῦ δὲ μεγέθους ἡμῶν ἕτερον μέσον, οἷον τὸ περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλόν. ὁμοίως δὴ καὶ τοῦ κόσμου παντός … τοῦ μεγέθους μέσον τὸ περὶ τὴν γῆν κατεψυγμένον καὶ ἀκίνητον· ὡς κόσμου δὲ καὶ ᾗ κόσμος καὶ ζῷον τῆς ἐμψυχίας μέσον τὸ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον, οἱονεὶ καρδίαν ὄντα τοῦ παντός … cf. 138.10–19 τὴν δὲ κατὰ τόπον τῶν σφαιρῶν ⟨ἢ⟩ κύκλων θέσιν τε καὶ τάξιν, ἐν οἷς κείμενα φέρεται τὰ πλανώμενα, τινὲς μὲν τῶν Πυθαγορείων τοιάνδε νομίζουσι· προσγειότατον μὲν εἶναι τὸν τῆς σελήνης κύκλον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον ⟨τὸν τοῦ⟩ Ἑρμοῦ, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ φωσφόρου, καὶ τέταρτον ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, εἶτα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεως, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ Διός, τελευταῖον δὲ καὶ σύνεγγυς τοῖς ἀπλανέσι τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου· μέσον εἶναι βουλόμενοι τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου τῶν πλανωμένων ὡς ἡγεμονικώτατον καὶ οἷον καρδίαν τοῦ παντός. μηνύει δὲ ταῦτα καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Αἰτωλός. §4 Philolaus: On the Pythagoreans see Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b1–11, cited above under General texts.

Liber 2 Caput 6 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887A–C; pp. 333a13–335a4 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.37, pp. 409.17–410.10 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.10–11—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 49; p. 622.7–19 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 142–145 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 18.1–5, p. 25 Westerink S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.21.3b, p. 183.3–5 + 1.21.6c, p. 186.16–21 + 1.22.1f, p. 197.12–15 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. cc. 6–7, p. 17.10–19 Di Maria

Titulus ϛʹ. Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν (P) §1 οἱ φυσικοὶ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρξασθαί φασι τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ κόσμου καθάπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου· ἀρχὴ δὲ σφαίρας τὸ κέντρον. (P1,S1) §2 Πυθαγόρας ἀπὸ πυρὸς καὶ τοῦ πέμπτου στοιχείου. (P2,S2) §3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ πῦρ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἄγαν περισφιγγομένης τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς ἀναβλύσαι τὸ ὕδωρ· ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα καὶ γενέσθαι τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιον ἐκ τοῦ πυρός, πιληθῆναι δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων τὰ περίγεια. (P3) §4 Πλάτων τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον γεγονέναι πρὸς παράδειγμα τοῦ νοητοῦ κόσμου· τοῦ δ᾽ ὁρατοῦ κόσμου προτέραν μὲν τὴν ψυχήν, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην §1 physici —; Stoici SVF 2.581; §2 Pythagoras —; §3 Empedocles 31A49 DK; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 28a–b, 31b–32c, 34b–c titulus Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου PB(I,II)QPs, cf. SL-ind ex P : πρώτου om. PB(III:Laur.31,37)G, SL ex P : στοιχείου om. PE ‖ ἤρξατο] ἦρκται PG ‖ ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν PEG : κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός PBSLind ex P : τὸν κόσμον ποιεῖν ὁ θεός PPs ‖ pro tit. hab. in marg. PB(III:α) πόθεν ἄρχεται ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐκ ποίων στοιχείων §1 [2] οἱ φυσικοὶ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ scripsimus dubitanter : οἱ φυσικοὶ P Diels, οἱ Στωικοὶ S cf. Ach ‖ post ἀπὸ γῆς add. δὲ S ‖ ἄρξασθαί] ἦρχθαι PG ‖ φασι] om. S (λέγουσιν PG) ‖ [2–3] τὴν … κόσμου] αὐτὸν PG ‖ [3] ἀρχὴ … κέντρον] om. PG §2 [4] Πυθαγόρας] add. δὲ PG ‖ ante ἀπὸ habet S ἄρξασθαι δὲ τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ κόσμου ‖ καὶ … στοιχείου om. PG §3 non hab. S ‖ [5] Ἐμπεδοκλῆς PBEQ : Διοκλῆς PG ‖ post διακριθῆναι add. PG φησί ‖ δὲ] om. PE ‖ [6] post γῆν hab. PG ἐξενηνέχθαι ‖ [6–7] ἐξ ἧς … τὸ ὕδωρ PB : ἄγαν, τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς om. PQ : ἐξ ἧς … ἀναβλύσαι om. PG qui add. εἶτα ‖ [6] περιφορᾶς PB : σφαίρας PE ‖ [7] ἀναθυμιαθῆναι PG prob. Reiske Diels Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most, leg. et PQ ut vid. (verdampft Q) : θυμιαθῆναι PB(I,III)E prob. Vítek : θυμιασθῆναι PB(II) : ἀναθυμιαθῆναι PG ‖ καὶ γενέσθαι] γενέσθαι δὲ PG ‖ [8] ἀιθέρος PBEG : ἀέρος PΒ(III:Laur.31,37)Q ‖ [8–9] πιληθῆναι … περίγεια om. PG ‖ [8] πιληθῆναι PΒQ : εἱληθῆναι PE §4 [10] Πλάτων] add. δὲ PG ‖ τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον PBS : ὁρατὸν τὸν κόσμον PEG Diels (γεγονέναι ante τὸν κόσμον pos. PG) ‖ ante πρὸς (om. S) add. PG ὃς γίγνεσθαι (v.l. γίγνεται sec. Jas per litt.) ‖ [11] κόσμου1] om. PG ‖ τοῦ δ᾽ ὁρατοῦ PEGS Diels : post ὁρατοῦ add. κόσμου PBQ ‖ μὲν PEGQ(ut vid.)S Diels : μὲν εἶναι PB ‖ μετὰ δὲ ταύτην PBQ : μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα PE : μετ᾽ αὐτὴν δὲ PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_047

5

10

834

§5

§6

liber 2 caput 6

τὸ σωματοειδὲς τὸ ἐκ πυρὸς μὲν καὶ γῆς πρῶτον, ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος δεύτερον. (P4,S4) Πυθαγόρας πέντε σχημάτων ὄντων στερεῶν, ἅπερ καλεῖται καὶ μαθηματικά, ἐκ μὲν τοῦ κύβου φησὶ γεγονέναι τὴν γῆν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς πυραμίδος τὸ πῦρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὀκταέδρου τὸν ἀέρα, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ εἰκοσαέδρου τὸ ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δωδεκαέδρου τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σφαῖραν. (P5,S3) Πλάτων δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις πυθαγορίζει. (P6)

§5 Pythagoras 44A15 DK (= Philolaus); §6 Plato cf. Tim. 53e–55c [12] τὸ1 … πυρὸς] τοῦ σώματος τὸ εἶδος γεγονέναι ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς PG ‖ τὸ2] om. PE ‖ γῆς PB(I,II)EG : τῆς γῆς PB(III) ‖ [12–13] πρῶτον, δεύτερον PB(III)GQ : πρώτων, δευτέρων PΒ(I,II)E §5 [14] πέντε … στερεῶν PBES : στερεῶν om. PQ : σώματα τῶν στερεῶν ᾠήθη PG ‖ καλεῖται καὶ] καλεῖ PG ‖ post καλεῖται hab. σώματα PQ ‖ [15] τοῦ κύβου PB(II,III)EGQS : τοῦ κόσμου PB(I) : τοῦ κύκλου PΒ(III:Laur.31,37) ‖ [16] inter ὀκταέδρου et τὸ hab. lac. PG ‖ [16–17] τὸ ὕδωρ … δωδεκαέδρου PBGQ : om. PES §6 non hab. S ‖ [18] post δὲ add. συμφέρεται PG ‖ πυθαγορίζει PBEQ(ut vid.) : τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 49 (~ tit.) Ἀπὸ ποίου στοιχείου ἦρκται ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν (text Diels) 49.1 (~ P1) οἱ φυσικοὶ ἀπὸ γῆς ἦρχθαι λέγουσιν αὐτὸν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου. 49.2 (~ P2) Πυθαγόρας δὲ ἀπὸ πυρός. 49.3 (~ P3) Διοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναί φησι, δεύτερον δὲ πῦρ, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γῆν ἐξενηνέχθαι, εἶτα ὕδωρ, ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα. γενέσθαι δὲ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τὸν δὲ ἥλίον ἐκ τοῦ πυρός. 49.4 (~ P4) Πλάτων δὲ ὁρατὸν γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον, ὃς γίγνεσθαι πρὸς παράδειγμα τοῦ νοητοῦ. τοῦ δὲ ὁρατοῦ πρότεραν μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν, μετ᾽ αὐτὴν δὲ τὸ σώματοειδὲς γεγονέναι ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς μὲν καὶ γῆς πρῶτον, ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος δεύτερον. 49.5 (~ P5) Πυθαγόρας σώματα τῶν στερεῶν ᾠήθη, ἅπερ καλεῖ μαθηματικά. ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ κύβου γεγονέναι τὴν γῆν φησιν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς πυραμίδος τὸ πῦρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὀκταέδρου […] τὸ ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δωδεκαέδρου τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σφαῖραν. 49.6 (~ P6) Πλάτων δὲ συμφέρεται καὶ ἐν τούτοις τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 18.1–12 Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο τὸν κόσμον ποιεῖν ὁ θεός (~ tit.) Μωϋσῆς μὲν ὁ θεόπτης οὐρανῷ ἅμα καὶ γῇ τὰ πρεσβεῖα δίδωσι τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως. τῶν δὲ παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι σοφῶν ἄλλοι ἄλλως ᾠήθησαν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὴν γῆν πρῶτον παράγουσιν ὡς κέντρον τοῦ οὐρανίου κύκλου, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦ ἐπιπέδου κύκλου τὸ κέντρον πρεσβύτερον (~ P1). ἕτεροι δὲ εἰς τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα καὶ τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα τὸ αἰθέριον τὸν σύμπαντα διαιροῦντες κόσμον καὶ τὸ τετράστοιχον ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος διοικεῖσθαι νομίζοντες, τὸ κάλλιστον δὲ τοῦ αἰθέρος ὁ οὐρανός, πρῶτον τοῦτον γεγενῆσθαι φασίν (cf. P3). ὅσοι δὲ ἀγέννητον τὸν κόσμον σαφῶς ἀπεφή-

15

liber 2 caput 6

835

ναντο ὁμοῦ τὸ πᾶν εἶναι ἀκολούθως ἑαυτοῖς λέγουσι. δεῖ δὲ μᾶλλον οἴεσθαι τὸν οὐρανὸν πρῶτον γεγενῆσθαι, ὡς καὶ κρεῖττον σῶμα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων περιληπτικόν. Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 6 p. 17.10–13 οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι, ἐπεὶ πάντα ἐξ ἀριθμῶν καὶ γραμμῶν συνεστάναι θέλουσι, τὴν μὲν γῆν φασιν ἔχειν σχῆμα κυβικόν, τὸ δὲ πῦρ πυραμοειδές, τὸν δ᾽ ἀέρα ὀκτάεδρον, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ εἰκοσάεδρον, τὴν δὲ τῶν ὅλων σύστασιν δωδεκάεδρον (~ §5). c. 7, p. 17.14–19 οἱ Στωϊκοί φασιν ἐκ τῆς γῆς τὴν ἔξωθεν γίνεσθαι πρῶτον περιφοράν· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡ γῆ κέντρου τάξιν ἐπέχει, ὅπωσπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου κύκλος γίνεται, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς εἰκὸς ἔξω περιφέρειαν γεγονέναι. οἳ δέ φασι τὸ πῦρ ⟨διὰ τὸ⟩ ἀνωφερὲς εἶναι καὶ τὴν κύκλῳ φορὰν εἰωθὸς ποιεῖσθαι τὴν σύστασιν τῆς τῶν ὅλων περιφορᾶς πεποιῆσθαι (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί. A 5.23 Πότε καὶ πῶς ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. quaestio A 1.4 Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. A 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί. A 5.22 Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων. A 1.3.9 (de Heraclito et Hippaso) ἐκ πυρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς πῦρ πάντα τελευτᾶν λέγουσι· τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ τὸ παχυμερέστατον αὐτοῦ εἰς αὑτὸ συστελλόμενον γῆ γίγνεται, ἔπειτ᾽ ἀναχαλωμένην τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς φύσει ὕδωρ ἀποτελεῖσθαι, ἀναθυμιώμενον δ᾽ ἀέρα γίνεσθαι. A 1.7.6 Ἀναξαγόρας νοῦν κοσμοποιὸν τὸν θεόν. §1 A 2.7.6 (de Philolao) πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσει τὸ μέσον. §3 A 2.7.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἑστῶτας εἶναι μηδ᾽ ὡρισμένους τοὺς τόπους τῶν στοιχείων, ἀλλὰ πάντα τοὺς ἀλλήλων μεταλαμβάνειν. §4 A 1.7.22 (de Platone) τούτου δὲ πατρὸς καὶ ποιητοῦ τὰ ἄλλα θεῖα ἔγγονα νοητὰ μέν (ὅ τε νοητὸς λεγόμενος κόσμος), παραδείγματα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τοῦ ὁρατοῦ κόσμου.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The evidence for this chapter is solid. (1) P is again attested by the four main witnesses PBEGQ, who all record the same six doxai. Ps takes over the title and briefly alludes to the first and third doxai. (2) S’s evidence is less straightforward. Despite its theological and Platonicsounding title, he seemingly does not find the subject important, not including its title in any of his chapter titles and scattering the doxai, of which he retains

836

liber 2 caput 6

only four, to various locations. The first doxa in P is included as part of a cluster of Stoic views (on the name-label see below section D(d)§1) in S 1.21. The two doxai with the name-label Pythagoras in P are included in another cluster in the same chapter. The first Platonic doxa is included in S 1.22 on the cosmos’ τάξις, where it is followed by a quote from Tim. 32c5–33a2. But the appended doxa at the end (P6) is left out. The Empedoclean doxa (P3) is also omitted, probably through an oversight. No other material in S is likely to have originated in this chapter. (3) Ach records differing versions of the first two doxai (the former with the name-label Stoics) and the fifth spread out over chapters on the cosmos’ shape and its revolution. For these passages the theme of cosmogenesis is lacking. His earlier chapter §4 Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων contains similar doxographical material, which we shall discuss in relation to A 2.7. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The scattered material in Ach shows that A’s chapter had a predecessor in the earlier tradition. There is, however, no further evidence in the proximate tradition. The question is not formulated elsewhere as such and does not appear to have been prominent in the broader doxographical tradition as far as we can tell from the surviving evidence. The parallel texts that we have collected discuss the subject of this chapter, but do not treat it dialectically. (2) Sources. Given the large number of philosophers in the tradition who affirm that the cosmos had an origin (cf. ch. 2.4), it is an obvious question as to how that process of genesis took place. There are various texts in Aristotle (see section E(b) General texts) which refer to the views of earlier philosophers on this question. Implicit in his treatment is a distinction between those who begin the process at the physical level, whether from an earlier state of motion (Empedocles) or one of quietude (Anaxagoras), and those who begin it from higher principles of a non-physical kind (Pythagoreans). This opposition returns in our chapter. On a number of occasions he uses the key term κοσμοποιεῖν, which occurs in the title of A’s chapter. We return to this term below in section D(e). In Cael. 2.13 more specifically the genesis and place of the earth is discussed. The view that it appeared first returns as the first doxa in A’s chapter. C Chapter Heading For the heading we have only the tradition in P. (The heading preserved in SL and recorded at Diels DG 271 is drawn from P through contamination, as demonstrated by Elter (1880) 72; cf. Wachsmuth (1882) 74.) E leaves out the word στοιχείου, a not unintelligent move, since §§4–6 do not begin with any

liber 2 caput 6

837

of the elements. The alternative title written in the margin of Ambrosianus 859 is no doubt inspired by the observation that the chapter does not in fact make mention of any creating god. There are reasons for thinking that earlier in the tradition the title may originally have not contained a reference to God, e.g. Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα, but was altered— i.e. Platonised—by A (or perhaps P); see further section D(e) below. Such a title brings the heading much closer to a parallel chapter for the microcosm (relating to the embryonic living being) ch. 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί. But for an even closer parallel see the alternative title found in table of contents of ms. L, as discussed below in ch. 5.17 Commentary C. See further below section D(e). D Analysis a Context The chapter’s subject follows on from ch. 2.4: if the cosmos had a genesis, how did this genesis take place? As in previous chapters, there is a rather precisely parallel chapter in relation to the microcosm, but without reference to a creating deity: 5.22 Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων; cf. also ch. 5.23 Πότε καὶ πῶς ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. The subject of how the cosmos came to be composed has already been discussed at the outset in ch. 1.4, Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. The atomist position outlined there is not taken up in the present chapter, which is wholly devoted to teleological versions of cosmogony. b Number–Order of Lemmata As far as the evidence goes, P has transmitted the chapter in a complete form. There can be no grounds for altering the order of the doxai. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Five answers are given to the question posed in the title. (a) The first two form a deliberate contrast between genesis starting at the centre of the cosmos and at the periphery. This diaeresis continues a similar opposition in the previous chapter 2.5a. (b) The third lemma gives a variation on the previous one: instead of fire and the fifth element, the process begins with aether, followed by fire and the other elements. The description of the cosmogonic process here giving the view of Empedocles gives more information than is required by the question posed in the chapter’s title. It anticipates the long description of the cosmos’ structure ascribed to Parmenides in the following chapter, A 2.7.1. (c) The fourth Platonic doxa adds a new aspect by having the process begin with a non-physical entity, the noetic cosmos, followed by soul and body. It is rather

838

liber 2 caput 6

surprising that the demiurgic god of the chapter’s title is not mentioned here. (d) The fifth doxa develops the non-physical approach further by taking the incorporeal mathematical realm as starting-point, i.e. the five primary geometrical solids taken again from Plato’s Timaeus (53c–55c) but attributed in the first instance to Pythagoras. (e) The Platonic provenance is indicated in the final doxa, which is really an appendix to the previous one rather than a separate doxa in its own right. The first three and the last three doxai can also be seen as presenting a further diaeresis between a physical and a non-physical starting-point for corporeal reality. Such a division is implicit in Aristotle’s criticism of philosophers such as the Pythagoreans (and also Plato and his successors) who move from abstract principles to physical bodies in the generation of the cosmos; see for example Met. N.3 1091a13–22 (text below section E(b) General texts). We return to the disconnect between the chapter’s theologizing title and the contents of its doxai below in Commentary D(e). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The name-label for the first doxa is problematic. P unanimously records οἱ φυσικοί, but S, supported by Ach, places it in a cluster of Stoic doxai. The Stoic name-label is retained by Von Arnim SVF 2.582. This can be reconciled with other evidence because for the Stoics, although the process of world-formation does not begin with the earth, it is the first part of the cosmos to be formed (see the comment at M–R 2.123). However, it is also cavalier to dismiss P’s reading out of hand. Lachenaud in a note ad loc. observes that it could refer to early Presocratics: doxai such as 12A10 on Anaximander and 13A6 DK on Anaximenes bear the same interpretation, i.e. the earth as the first part of the cosmos to be formed. Moreover the diaphonia of the first two doxai becomes more significant if they represent the two main Diadochai of the early Greek philosophical tradition, as already introduced at A 1.3.1 & 8. Mau in his apparatus testimoniorum appears to suggest that P might have referred to the Stoics under this name-label or included them in it. So, were it not for the evidence of Ach, it would be tempting to opt for the reading in P and surmise that S added it to the other Stoic doxai because he recognised (perhaps through reading AD) that the doxa was compatible with Stoic doctrine. But the evidence of Ach makes this solution less likely. A third solution is to retain both in the form οἱ φυσικοὶ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ. This is what we opted for in our earlier publication (M–R 2.123 n. 266, 2.385–386). At A 1.18.1 the name-label reads οἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω φυσικοὶ πάντες μέχρι Πλάτωνος, which G has altered to οἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου φυσικοὶ πάντες μέχρι Πλάτωνος (cf. also

liber 2 caput 6

839

οἱ φυσικοὶ in G §18 on the active cause, used to introduce a long list of doxai on a material ἀρχή). For a double name-label with the Stoics in second place joined by καί it is possible to adduce an example at A 5.23.1, Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ, but this name-label is of course not strictly parallel. In the present text we have with some hesitation retained this solution, which presumes that S could not easily use the first part in the context of his chapter and that P regarded the reference to the Stoics as sufficient for his purpose. Bottler (2014) 318 comments on this conundrum: ‘An dieser Stelle zeigt sich die methodische Schwäche der Aëtios-Rekonstruktion: Wenn Stobaios durch Achilles bestätigt wird, dann is die Ps.Plut. Version erklärungsbedürftig, da Ps.Plutarch lediglich als Epitomator gilt … Ps.Plutarch hatte entweder eine andere Version vor Augen oder wurde nachträglich bearbeitet.’ It would be more accurate and fairer to say that it demonstrates the difficulties inherent in the reconstruction of the original source of P and S. It is not correct to say that P is only a (mechanical) epitomator. Whenever he manipulates name-labels, as he does frequently, he is more or less creatively intervening in the tradition. The difficulty here is that we cannot obtain certainty about what stood in A, i.e. the texts are ‘irreconcilable’ in the terminology of Runia (2020). But this is only an extreme case of what textual critics face very frequently when they have to judge between divergent readings. §2 The attribution to Pythagoras of a ‘fifth element’ would appear to be quite anachronistic, since it is a distinctively Aristotelian concept. But here there is no mention of its circular motion and it may well stand for what in the next doxa is called αἰθήρ. On this text Guthrie (1962–1981) 1.272 denies that it is ‘wholly anachronistic’, because he argues for a gradual emergence of the doctrine in early Greek thought, in which Pythagoreanism may have played a role. In addition, from the ps.Platonic Epinomis onwards Academics and Platonists toyed with the idea when it suited them. See for example Dillon (1977) 33 (Xenocrates), 169 (Philo), 286 (Alcinous); for a comprehensive treatment of the doctrine’s reception see Moraux (1963), and also below on A 2.7.4–5 Commentary D(d), 2.11.5 Commentary D(d). §3 The name-label in G, Diocles, is a mistake, perhaps caused by the falling away of some letters, i.e. [Ἐμπε]δοκλῆς. We note that the doxa carefully distinguishes between elements which are separated out (διακριθῆναι) and cosmic regions which come into being (γενέσθαι). A different approach is shown at D.L. 7.142 on the Stoics: γͅίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον, ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα … §4 A neat and compact summary of cosmogenesis in the Timaeus as interpreted in Middle Platonism. The second half of the doxa is a very compact précis of Tim. 34c4 (note προτέραν) and 31b4–7 (note σωματοειδές) with 32b3–

840

liber 2 caput 6

4. The first half departs further from the Platonic text. The terms ὁρατὸς κόσμος and νοητὸς κόσμος are not found there and are the result of Middle Platonic systematization. Similar terminology is found in A 1.7.22[111–112] and our comments ad loc. at Commentary D(e)§22. These texts represent two of the very earliest instances of the term νοητὸς κόσμος; cf. also Philo Opif. 16 and discussion at Runia (1999) 158–160, and also Baltes (1972) 105–106 on Tim.Locr. 30. As we might expect, Philo’s account is strongly theologized, whereas in A the demiurge is conspicuous by his absence. A similar but much expanded summary of the Timaeus is given by Alcinous Did. 13–14. The summary at D.L. 3.71–73— part of what is likely to be quite an early doxographical account—mentions the model (called ὑπόδειγμα) and the four elements, but not the World Soul. §5 The doctrine attributed to Pythagoras here obviously goes back to Plato’s Timaeus, but the tradition connecting it to the Pythagorean tradition is ancient, already present in the Old Academy; see Burkert (1972) 70–71 with reference to ps.Iambl. Theol.Ar. 82.10–18 (text below section E(b)§5). Diels’ attribution of the report to Philolaus in VS and its retention at 44A15 DK is highly questionable; see Huffman (1993) 393. It should also be noted that fr. 44B12 of Philolaus speaks of five elements. If the proposal to read in its final phrase ⟨τ⟩ὸ τᾶς σφαίρας ὅλ{κ}ας is accepted (Mansfeld 2016b), then a reference to the Platonic theory of the five regular solids may be detected, as in A’s text, incidentally making it even more probable that the fragment is not authentic. e Other Evidence The striking term κοσμοποιεῖν in the chapter heading (but not used in the chapter itself) occurs elsewhere in the Placita six times: 1.3.9 (Heraclitus– Hippasus), 1.7.5 (Archelaus), 1.7.6 (Anaxagoras), 1.24.2 (Empedocles and other corporealists), 1.25.3 (Parmenides–Democritus), 2.13.14 (Orphic writings). We note that in the first of these texts it is said that ‘all things originate from fire and all things terminate in fire; and when it is quenched, all things are formed into the cosmos (κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα); first its densest part is concentrated and becomes earth; then the earth is loosened by fire and naturally produces water, which (in turn) evaporates and become air’. This is precisely the subject of our chapter and similar to the Stoic view discussed above in section D(d) §1. It should further be noted that the term itself goes back to Aristotle, who uses it on four occasions not of a deity or another efficient cause, but for philosophers who put forward cosmogonic theories; texts below at section E(b). In particular the words at Cael. 3.2 301a13, where it is said of Anaxagoras ἐξ ἀκινήτων γὰρ ἄρχεται κοσμοποιεῖν, are reminiscent of the heading of the present chapter. (On the importance of the term in Aristotle’s treatment of his cosmological predecessors see Johnson 2019, 74, 107.) Against this background, and

liber 2 caput 6

841

taking into account the fact that there is no reference to a creating deity in the body of the chapter, it might be surmised that in the earlier tradition the title was Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. As noted above in section C, this would bring it closer to the parallel heading of ch. 5.17 and esp. the alternative title in SL. The current heading is exceptional because it goes against the grain of what we have called the ‘detheologizing tendency’ of the Placita; see Mansfeld (2013a) 330–331. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.60 Aucher (Alexander speaking) quam ob rem vasto in medio universorum conditam erexit terram, supra se habentem maria: et concedens terrae spatium secundum (?), aerem super aquas elevans, eum sursum delatum usque ad aetherem extendit? quod vero a nobis ( fortasse) audire vultis, praesto est responsum; necessitate videlicet quadam naturae leviora a gravioribus sursum pelli contigit … eodem modo et mundi partes affici videntur, ut dicit Empedocles (31A49 DK). discedentibus enim ab aether vento et igne atque volantibus, tum caelo latissime expanso ac desuper circumducto, ignis qui paulo inferior caelo manserat, ipse quoque in radios solis adauctus est: terra vero concurrens in unum spatium et necessario condensata apparens, in medio stat. porro circa eam undique, quoniam nimis levior erat, volvitur absque dimotione aether. quietis autem exinde ratio datur per Deum, non vero per sphaeras multas super se invicem positas … Prov. 2.62 (Philo replying) perpende, quod dicis, a gravioribus sursum agi leviora … fuit autem elementorum extensio per providentiam opus creatoris patrisque. et terra occupavit medium … ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (fr. 179 Sandbach: on Empedocles, 31A30 DK) ἐκ πρώτης φησὶ τῆς τῶν στοιχείων κράσεως ἀποκριθέντα τὸν ἀέρα περιχυθῆναι κύκλῳ, μετὰ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα τὸ πῦρ ἐκδραμὸν καὶ οὐκ ἔχον ἑτέραν χώραν ἄνω ἐκτρέχειν ὑπὸ τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα πάγου. … τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν τῆς κινήσεως συμβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ τετυχηκέναι κατὰ τὸν ἀθροισμὸν ἐπιβρίσαντος τοῦ πυρός. cf. §12 (on Diogenes of Apollonia, 64A6 DK) κοσμοποιεῖ δὲ οὕτως … Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 καὶ ἀπὸ ποίου ἤρξατο ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν. §1 Physicists Stoics: Plutarch SR 1053A (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.579) λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ Φύσεως· ‘ἡ δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη· δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ τρέπεται· κἀκ τούτου γῆς ὑφισταμένης ἀὴρ ἀναθυμιᾶται· λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ· οἱ δ᾽ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνάπτονται.’ Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.142 (SVF 2.581) γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα, εἶτα τὸ παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ, τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς ἐξαραιωθῇ, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ πλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ. εἶτα κατὰ μίξιν ἐκ τούτων φυτά τε καὶ ζῷα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα γένη. §3 Empedocles: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.60 (on Empedocles) see above.

842

liber 2 caput 6

§4 Plato: Philo of Alexandria Opif. 16 προλαβὼν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἅτε θεὸς ὅτι μίμημα καλὸν οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο δίχα καλοῦ παραδείγματος οὐδέ τι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀνυπαίτιον, ὃ μὴ πρὸς ἀρχέτυπον καὶ νοητὴν ἰδέαν ἀπεικονίσθη, βουληθεὶς τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον τουτονὶ δημιουργῆσαι προεξετύπου τὸν νοητόν … cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.71 (on the created cosmos) ἕνα τε αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἄπειρον κατεσκευάσθαι, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ὑπόδειγμα ἓν ἦν ἀφ᾽ οὗ αὐτὸν ἐδημιούργησε. V.P. 3.73 συνεστάναι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ἐκ πυρός, ὕδατος, ἀέρος, γῆς. ἐκ πυρὸς μέν, ὅπως ὁρατὸς ᾖ· ἐκ γῆς δέ, ὅπως στερεός· ἐξ ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος, ὅπως ἀνάλογος—αἱ γὰρ τῶν στερεῶν δυνάμεις δύο μεσότησιν ἀναλογοῦσιν ὡς ἓν γενέσθαι τὸ πᾶν—ἐξ ἁπάντων δέ, ἵνα τέλειος καὶ ἄφθαρτος ᾖ. Alcinous Did. 13, p. 168.8–16 H. ἐξ ὧν δὲ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, δύο ὑπαρχόντων, σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν ὁρατὸν καὶ ἁπτόν, ἡ δὲ ἀόρατός τε καὶ ἀναφής, ἑκατέρου ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ σύστασις διάφορος οὖσα τυγχάνει. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐκ πυρὸς γέγονε καὶ γῆς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος· ταῦτα δὴ τὰ τέτταρα συλλαβὼν ὁ δημιουργὸς τοῦ κόσμου οὐ μὰ Δία στοιχείων τάξιν ἐπέχοντα διεσχημάτισε πυραμίδι καὶ κύβῳ καὶ ὀκταέδρῳ καὶ εἰκοσαέδρῳ καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι δωδεκαέδρῳ … §5 Pythagoras: Sextus Empiricus M. 10.283 (on the Pythagoreans) πλὴν οὕτω μὲν ἀποτελεῖται τὰ στερεὰ σώματα ἡγουμένων τῶν ἀριθμῶν· ἀφ᾽ ὧν λοιπὸν καὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ συνίσταται, γῆ τε καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ πῦρ, καὶ καθόλου ὁ κόσμος. cf. also Hermias Irr. 161.1–26 Hanson ἄλλοι τοίνυν ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς φυλῆς Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ τούτου συμφυλέται σεμνοὶ καὶ σιωπηλοὶ παραδιδόασιν ἄλλα μοι δόγματα ὥσπερ μυστήρια, καὶ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ μέγα καὶ ἀπόρρητον αὐτὸς ἔφα· ἀρχὴ τῶν πάντων ἡ μονάς. ἐκ δὲ τῶν σχημάτων αὐτῆς καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀριθμῶν τὰ στοιχεῖα γίνεται. καὶ τούτων ἑκάστου τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα καὶ τὸ μέτρον οὕτω πως ἀποφαίνεται· τὸ μὲν πῦρ …

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Leg. 10. 889b cited above ch. 2.3 section E(b) General texts. Aristotle Phys. 8.1 250b15–17 εἶναι μὲν οὖν κίνησιν πάντες φασὶν οἱ περὶ φύσεώς τι λέγοντες διὰ τὸ κοσμοποιεῖν καὶ περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς εἶναι τὴν θεωρίαν πᾶσαν αὐτοῖς … (cf. also Phys. 1.4 187a11–b6). Cael. 2.13 295a13–19 διὸ δὴ τὴν γῆν πάντες ὅσοι τὸν οὐρανὸν γεννῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον συνελθεῖν φασίν· ὅτι δὲ μένει, ζητοῦσι τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὅτι τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς αἴτιον, οἱ δ᾽ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A67 DK), τὴν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ φορὰν κύκλῳ περιθέουσαν καὶ θᾶττον φερομένην ἢ τὴν τῆς γῆς φορὰν κωλύειν, καθάπερ τὸ ἐν τοῖς κυάθοις ὕδωρ. Cael. 3.2 301a11–20, ἔοικε δὲ τοῦτό γε αὐτὸ καλῶς Ἀναξαγόρας λαβεῖν· ἐξ ἀκινήτων γὰρ ἄρχεται κοσμοποιεῖν. πειρῶνται δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι συγκρίνοντές πως πάλιν κινεῖν καὶ διακρίνειν. ἐκ διεστώτων δὲ καὶ κινουμένων οὐκ εὔλογον ποιεῖν τὴν γένεσιν. διὸ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A42 DK) παραλείπει τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς φιλότητος· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἠδύνατο συστῆσαι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ κεχωρισμένων μὲν κατασκευάζων, σύγκρισιν δὲ ποιῶν διὰ τὴν φιλότητα· ἐκ διακεκριμένων γὰρ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος τῶν στοιχείων· ὥστ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον γίνεσθαι ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ συγκεκριμένου. Met. A.4 985a18–23 Ἀναξαγόρας (59A47 DK) τε γὰρ μηχανῇ χρῆται τῷ νῷ πρὸς τὴν κοσμοποιίαν, καὶ ὅταν ἀπορήσῃ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστί, τότε παρέλκει αὐτόν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις πάντα μᾶλλον αἰτιᾶται τῶν γιγνομένων ἢ

liber 2 caput 6 νοῦν, καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A37 DK) ἐπὶ πλέον μὲν τούτου χρῆται τοῖς αἰτίοις, οὐ μὴν οὔθ᾽ ἱκανῶς, οὔτ᾽ ἐν τούτοις εὑρίσκει τὸ ὁμολογούμενον. Met. N.3 1091a13–22 οἱ μὲν οὖν Πυθαγόρειοι (58B26 DK) πότερον οὐ ποιοῦσιν ἢ ποιοῦσι γένεσιν οὐδὲν δεῖ διστάζειν· φανερῶς γὰρ λέγουσιν ὡς τοῦ ἑνὸς συσταθέντος, εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ἐπιπέδων εἴτ᾽ ἐκ χροιᾶς εἴτ᾽ ἐκ σπέρματος εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ὧν ἀποροῦσιν εἰπεῖν, εὐθὺς τὸ ἔγγιστα τοῦ ἀπείρου ὅτι εἵλκετο καὶ ἐπεραίνετο ὑπὸ τοῦ πέρατος. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ κοσμοποιοῦσι καὶ φυσικῶς βούλονται λέγειν, δίκαιον αὐτοὺς ἐξετάζειν τι περὶ φύσεως, ἐκ δὲ τῆς νῦν ἀφεῖναι μεθόδου· τὰς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἀκινήτοις ζητοῦμεν ἀρχάς, ὥστε καὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν τῶν τοιούτων ἐπισκεπτέον τὴν γένεσιν. Nicomachus Intr.Arith. 2.18.4 τῇ δὲ ἄρα διχοστατεῖ καὶ διανενέμηται καὶ ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις φαίνεται τά τε τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ πάντα καὶ τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀποτελεσθέντα καὶ καλῶς οἱ παλαιοὶ φυσιολογεῖν ἀρχόμενοι τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν τῆς κοσμοποιίας ταύτῃ ποιοῦνται· Πλάτων μὲν τῆς ταυτοῦ φύσεως καὶ τῆς θατέρου ὀνομάζων καὶ πάλιν τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐχούσης οὐσίας τῆς τε αὖ μεριστῆς γινομένης, Φιλόλαος (cf. 44B2 DK) δὲ ἀναγκαῖον τὰ ἐόντα πάντα εἶμεν ἤτοι ἄπειρα ἢ περαίνοντα ἢ περαίνοντα ἅμα καὶ ἄπειρα, ὅπερ μᾶλλον συγκατατίθεται εἶναι, ἐκ περαινόντων ἅμα καὶ ἀπείρων συνεστάναι τὸν κόσμον, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα δηλονότι τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ … Poimandres (= Corpus Hermeticum 1) ch. 8, τὰ οὖν, ἐγώ φημι, στοιχεῖα τῆς φύσεως πόθεν ὑπέστη;—πάλιν ἐκεῖνος πρὸς ταῦτα, ἐκ βουλῆς θεοῦ, ἥτις λαβοῦσα τὸν Λόγον καὶ ἰδοῦσα τὸν καλὸν κόσμον ἐμιμήσατο, κοσμοποιηθεῖσα διὰ τῶν ἑαυτῆς στοιχείων καὶ γεννημάτων ψυχῶν. Simplicius in Ph. 1120.21 (commenting on Phys. 8.2 250b15) οὕτω γὰρ καὶ Δημόκριτος κοσμοποιεῖ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας, οἱ μὲν συγκρίνεσθαι καὶ διακρίνεσθαι τὰ ἄτομα σώματα καὶ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα λέγοντες, Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ ἐκκρίνεσθαι τὰς ὁμοιομερείας ἀπὸ τοῦ μίγματος λέγων· καὶ ἡ σύγκρισις δὲ καὶ ἡ διάκρισις καὶ ἡ ἔκκρισις κινήσεις τινές εἰσι. καὶ περὶ γενέσεως δὲ καὶ φθορᾶς διαλέγονται πάντες … Chapter heading: — §4 Plato: Plato Tim. 28a–b ὅτου μὲν οὖν ἂν ὁ δημιουργὸς πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον βλέπων ἀεί, τοιούτῳ τινὶ προσχρώμενος παραδείγματι, τὴν ἰδέαν καὶ δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ἀπεργάζηται, καλὸν ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὕτως ἀποτελεῖσθαι πᾶν· οὗ δ᾽ ἂν εἰς γεγονός, γεννητῷ παραδείγματι προσχρώμενος, οὐ καλόν. Tim. 31b–32c σωματοειδὲς δὲ δὴ καὶ ὁρατὸν ἁπτόν τε δεῖ τὸ γενόμενον εἶναι, χωρισθὲν δὲ πυρὸς οὐδὲν ἄν ποτε ὁρατὸν γένοιτο, οὐδὲ ἁπτὸν ἄνευ τινὸς στερεοῦ, στερεὸν δὲ οὐκ ἄνευ γῆς· ὅθεν ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ γῆς τὸ τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχόμενος συνιστάναι σῶμα ὁ θεὸς ἐποίει. δύο δὲ μόνω καλῶς συνίστασθαι τρίτου χωρὶς οὐ δυνατόν· δεσμὸν γὰρ ἐν μέσῳ δεῖ τινα ἀμφοῖν συναγωγὸν γίγνεσθαι. … (32b) οὕτω δὴ πυρός τε καὶ γῆς ὕδωρ ἀέρα τε ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ θείς, καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα καθ᾽ ὅσον ἦν δυνατὸν ἀνὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ἀπεργασάμενος, ὅτιπερ πῦρ πρὸς ἀέρα, τοῦτο ἀέρα πρὸς ὕδωρ, καὶ ὅτι ἀὴρ πρὸς ὕδωρ, ὕδωρ πρὸς γῆν, συνέδησεν καὶ συνεστήσατο οὐρανὸν ὁρατὸν καὶ ἁπτόν. … τῶν δὲ δὴ τεττάρων ἓν ὅλον ἕκαστον εἴληφεν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου σύστασις. ἐκ γὰρ πυρὸς παντὸς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος καὶ γῆς συνέστησεν αὐτὸν ὁ συνιστάς … Tim. 34a–35a ψυχὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ θεὶς διὰ παντός τε ἔτεινεν καὶ ἔτι ἔξωθεν τὸ σῶμα αὐτῇ περιεκάλυψεν, καὶ κύκλῳ δὴ κύκλον στρεφόμενον οὐρανὸν ἕνα μόνον ἔρημον κατέστησεν, δι᾽ ἀρετὴν δὲ αὐτὸν αὑτῷ δυνάμενον συγγίγνεσθαι καὶ οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου προσδεόμενον, γνώριμον

843

844

liber 2 caput 6

δὲ καὶ φίλον ἱκανῶς αὐτὸν αὑτῷ. διὰ πάντα δὴ ταῦτα εὐδαίμονα θεὸν αὐτὸν ἐγεννήσατο. τὴν δὲ δὴ ψυχὴν οὐχ ὡς νῦν ὑστέραν ἐπιχειροῦμεν λέγειν, οὕτως ἐμηχανήσατο καὶ ὁ θεὸς νεωτέραν … ὁ δὲ καὶ γενέσει καὶ ἀρετῇ προτέραν καὶ πρεσβυτέραν ψυχὴν σώματος ὡς δεσπότιν καὶ ἄρξουσαν ἀρξομένου συνεστήσατο ἐκ τῶνδέ τε καὶ τοιῷδε τρόπῳ. §5 Pythagoras: Plato cf. Tim. 53e–c. Speusippus at ps.Iambl. Theol.Ar. 82.10–18 ὅτι καὶ Σπεύσιππος (fr. 4 Lang, 122 Isnardi Parente, F28 Tarán) ὁ Πωτώνης μὲν υἱὸς τῆς τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἀδελφῆς, διάδοχος δὲ Ἀκαδημίας πρὸ Ξενοκράτου, ἐκ τῶν ἐξαιρέτως σπουδασθεισῶν ἀεὶ Πυθαγορικῶν ἀκροάσεων, μάλιστα δὲ τῶν Φιλολάου συγγραμμάτων, βιβλίδιόν τι συντάξας γλαφυρὸν ἐπέγραψε μὲν αὐτὸ Περὶ Πυθαγορικῶν ἀριθμῶν (44A13 DK), ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς δὲ μέχρι ἡμίσους περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς γραμμικῶν ἐμμελέστατα διεξελθὼν πολυγωνίων τε καὶ παντοίων τῶν ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ἐπιπέδων ἅμα καὶ στερεῶν περί τε τῶν πέντε σχημάτων, ἃ τοῖς κοσμικοῖς ἀποδίδοται στοιχείοις … Proclus in Eucl. 65.20 (on Pythagoras) καὶ τὴν τῶν κοσμικῶν σχημάτων σύστασιν ἀνεῦρεν.

Liber 2 Caput 7 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887C–F; pp. 335a5–336a23 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.38, pp. 410.11–411.4 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.11—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 50; p. 622.20–25 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 144–145 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 159, p. 81 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.32, p. 38.8 Delatte (titulus solus)— S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.22.1ab, pp. 195.2–196.2 + 1.22.1de, pp. 196.18–197.10 + 15.6d, p. 147.11–13 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b7 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles c. 4, pp. 12.6–19, 13.12–14 Di Maria

Titulus ζʹ. Περὶ τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου (P,S) §1 Παρμενίδης στεφάνας εἶναι περιπεπλεγμένας ἐπαλλήλους, τὴν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ τὴν δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ πυκνοῦ, μικτὰς δ᾽ ἄλλας ἐκ φωτὸς καὶ σκότους μεταξὺ τούτων· καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ πάσας τείχους δίκην στερεὸν ὑπάρχειν, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ πυρώδης στεφάνη· καὶ τὸ μεσαίτατον πασῶν περὶ ὃ πάλιν πυρώδης· τῶν δε συμμιγῶν τὴν μεσαιτάτην ἁπάσαις ⟨ἀρχήν⟩ τε καὶ ⟨αἰτίαν⟩ πάσης κινήσεως καὶ γενέσεως ὑπάρχειν, ἥντινα καὶ δαίμονα κυβερνῆτιν καὶ κλῃροῦχον ἐπονομάζει, δίκην τε καὶ ἀνάγκην. καὶ τῆς μὲν γῆς ἀπόκρισιν εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, διὰ τὴν βιαιοτέραν αὐτῆς ἐξατμισθέντα πίλησιν, τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς ἀναπνοὴν τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν γαλαξίαν κύκλον· συμμιγῆ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην, τοῦ τ᾽ ἀέρος καὶ τοῦ πυρός. περιστάντος δ᾽ ἀνωτάτω πάντων τοῦ αἰθέρος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῷ τὸ πυρῶδες ὑποταγῆναι τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ κεκλήκαμεν οὐρανόν, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ ἤδη τὰ περίγεια. (P1,S2) §1 Parmenides 28A37 DK, cf. 28B12.3, 28B1.14, 28B8.30 DK titulus τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου PB(III)EGQS Diels : om. τοῦ PB(I,II)PsSy Mau Lachenaud : τῆς τοῦ κόσμου τάξεως PB(III:Laur.31,37), cf. E 15.32.8 §1 [2] ἐπαλλήλους PB(I,III)S (-λας PB(II), -λαις PB(III: Laur.31,37)) : ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλοις (et -λαις) PE : πρὸς ἀλλήλους PG ‖ [2–3] στεφάνας … πυκνοῦ] στεφάνους … πεπλεγμένους … τὸν μὲν … τὸν δὲ … PG ‖ [3–4] μικτὰς … τούτων] om. PG ‖ [3] ἐκ φωτὸς : ἐκ om. S ‖ [4–5] καὶ … ὑπάρχειν] al. PG καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ τὸ πᾶν στοιχεῖον δίκην στεφάνου στερεοῦ εἶναι ‖ [5–§4[19]] ὑφ᾽ ᾧ … Πλάτων om. PG (lacuna?) ‖ [5–14] ὑφ᾽ ᾧ … περίγεια om. P ‖ [5] post πασῶν conj. στερεόν DK ‖ περι ὃ corr. Boekh Wachsmuth : περὶ ὃν SF, περὶ ὧν SP ‖ [6–7] ⟨ἀρχήν⟩ τε καὶ ⟨αἰτίαν⟩ coni. Diels VS ex Simp. (⟨ἀρχήν τόκου⟩ τε καὶ Zeller), prob. DK, Mansfeld R2 : τε καὶ S : τοκέα coni. Davis Diels DG, αἰτίαν coni. Krische Wachsmuth, crucif. Laks–Most ‖ post δαίμονα add. καὶ SP ‖ [8] κληροῦχον S Mansfeld R2, Laks–Most : κλῃδοῦχον Fülleborn Diels Wachsmuth conl. 28B1.14 DK ‖ [13] ὑφ᾽ ᾧ Krische Diels Wachsmuth : ὑφ᾽ οὗ S

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_048

5

10

846 §2 §3 §4 §5

§6

liber 2 caput 7

Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος χιτῶνα κύκλῳ καὶ ὑμένα περιτείνουσι τῷ κόσμῳ, διὰ τῶν ἀγκιστροειδῶν ἀτόμων συμπεπλεγμένον. (P2,S5) Ἐπίκουρος ἐνίων μὲν κόσμων ἀραιὸν τὸ πέρας ἐνίων δὲ πυκνόν, καὶ τούτων τὰ μέν τινα κινούμενα τὰ δ᾽ ἀκίνητα. (P3,S6) Πλάτων πῦρ πρῶτον εἶτ᾽ αἰθέρα μεθ᾽ ὃν ἀέρα ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ὕδωρ, τελευταίαν δὲ γῆν· ἐνίοτε δὲ τὸν αἰθέρα τῷ πυρὶ συνάπτει. (P4) Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον μὲν αἰθέρα ἀπαθῆ, πέμπτον δή τι σῶμα· μεθ᾽ ὃν παθητὰ πῦρ ἀέρα ὕδωρ· τελευταίαν δὲ γῆν. τούτων δὲ τοῖς μὲν οὐρανίοις ἀποδεδόσθαι τὴν κυκλικὴν κίνησιν, τῶν δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα τεταγμένων τοῖς μὲν κούφοις τὴν ἄνω τοῖς δὲ βαρέσι τὴν κάτω. (P5,S3) Φιλόλαος πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον, ὅπερ ἑστίαν τοῦ παντὸς καλεῖ καὶ Διὸς οἶκον καὶ μητέρα θεῶν, βωμόν τε καὶ συνοχὴν καὶ μέτρον φύσεως· καὶ πάλιν πῦρ ἕτερον ἀνωτάτω, τὸ περιέχον. πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσει τὸ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τοῦτο δέκα σώματα θεῖα χορεύειν, οὐρανόν, ⟨πέν⟩τε πλανήτας, μεθ᾽ οὓς ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ σελήνην, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν γῆν, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, μεθ᾽ ἃ σύμπαντα τὸ πῦρ ἑστίας περὶ τὰ κέντρα τάξιν ἐπέχον. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀνωτάτω μέρος τοῦ περιέχοντος, ἐν ᾧ τὴν εἰλικρίνειαν εἶναι τῶν στοιχείων, Ὄλυμπον καλεῖ· τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ Ὀλύμπου φοράν, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς πέντε πλανήτας μεθ᾽ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης τετάχθαι, κόσμον. τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τούτοις ὑποσέληνόν τε καὶ περίγειον μέρος, ἐν ᾧ τὰ τῆς φιλομεταβόλου γενέσεως, Οὐρανόν. καὶ περὶ μὲν τὰ τεταγμένα τῶν μετεώρων γίνεσθαι τὴν σοφίαν, περὶ δὲ τῶν γινομένων τῆν ἀταξίαν τὴν ἀρετήν, τελείαν μὲν ἐκείνην, ἀτελῆ δὲ ταύτην. (S4)

§2 Leucippus–Democritus 67A23 DK, fr. 386 Luria; §3 Epicurus fr. 303 Usener; §4 Plato—; §5 cf. Aristoteles Cael. 1.3 270b22, ps.Arist. Mu. 2 392a5–b17392a5–b17; §6 Philolaus 44A16 DK §2 non hab. G ‖ [15] κύκλῳ PBEQSP2 : κύκλου SFP1 ‖ περιτείνουσι] περιζώννουσι PB(III:Laur.31,37) ‖ [16] διὰ … συμπεπλεγμένον om. P §3 non hab. G ‖ [17] Ἐπίκουρος ἐνίων μὲν κόσμων om. PE ‖ κόσμων PB : κόσμον S ‖ ἐνίων δὲ PBQS : ἔνια δὲ πυκνά PE ‖ [18] τινα om. PB(III:Laur.31,37) §4 [19] πῦρ πρῶτον] πρῶτον πῦρ PG lemma Parmenidis continuans ‖ [20] ἐνίοτε … τῷ πυρὶ συνάπτει PB : ἐνίοτε … συνάπτει τῷ πυρί PE : al. PG εἶτα αἰθέρα, μεθ᾽ ὃν ἀέρα μεθ᾽ ὃν ὕδωρ §5 non hab. G ‖ [21] μὲν om. S ‖ αἰθέρα PEQ S : ἀέρα PB, sed add. τὸν αἰθέρα post ἀπαθῆ PB(III) ‖ δή τι corr. Duebner : δέ τι PB : δὲ PE : δή om. S ‖ μεθ᾽ ὃν PB(I)ES : μεθ᾽ ὃ PB(II,III) ‖ [22] ἀέρα ὕδωρ PBES : ὕδωρ ἀέρα PQ ‖ [22–24] τούτων … κάτω om. S ‖ [23] ἀποδεδόσθαι PB(I,II)E ἀποδιδόναι PB(III) ‖ ὑπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα PB(I,III)EQ : ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα PB(II) §6 non hab. P ‖ [28–29] οὐρανόν, πέντε coniecimus, cf. Primavesi R2 166 : οὐρανόν τε S : τοὺς εʹ conj. Diels, quem sec. Wachsmuth, Laks–Most : τε om. Huffman ‖ [30] περὶ Meineke edd. : ἐπὶ S ‖ [36] τῶν γινομένων corr. Usener : τὰ γενόμενα S ‖ [37] τὴν ἀταξίαν SF : τῆς ἀταξίας SP

15

20

25

30

35

liber 2 caput 7

§7

Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἑστῶτας εἶναι μηδ᾽ ὡρισμένους τοὺς τόπους τῶν στοιχείων, ἀλλὰ πάντα τοὺς ἀλλήλων μεταλαμβάνειν. (P6,S1)

§7 Empedocles 31A35 DK §7 [38] post Ἐμπεδοκλῆς hab. δὲ PG ‖ ἑστῶτας PBEG : ἑστῶτα (sc. στοιχεῖα) PQ ‖ τοὺς] om. PG ‖ post στοιχείων add. PG ὑπείληφεν ‖ [39] πάντα … μεταλαμβάνειν (locus corruptus sec. edd., sed sanus, πάντα sc. τὰ στοιχεῖα cf. PG et Plato Prot. 329e3) : πάντα τούς PBQ (πάντη τοῦ PB(III:Laur.31,37)) : πάντα πως PE : πάντας τοὺς S : πανταχοῦ coni. Diels DG, πανταχῶς Wachsmuth : al. PG πάντα τῶν ἄλλων ἀντιλαμβάνειν

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 50 (~ tit.) Περὶ τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου (text Diels) 50.1 (~ P1,4) Παρμενίδης στεφάνους εἶναι πεπλεγμένους πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὸν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ, τὸν δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πυκνοῦ· καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ τὸ πᾶν στοιχεῖον δίκην στεφάνου στερεοῦ εἶναι, πρῶτον πῦρ, εἶτα αἰθέρα, μεθ᾽ ὃν ἀέρα μεθ᾽ ὃν ὕδωρ. 50.2 (~ P7) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἑστῶτας μηδὲ ὡρισμένους τόπους τῶν στοιχείων ὑπείληφεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα τῶν ἄλλων ἀντιλαμβάνειν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 159 Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.32 Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 4, p. 10.18 Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων (~ tit.) p. 12.6–19 τὴν δὲ τάξιν, ἣν δεδώκαμεν τῷ σφαιρώματι, οἱ Ὀρφικοὶ λέγουσι παραπλησίαν εἶναι τῇ ἐν τοῖς ᾠοῖς· ὃν γὰρ ἔχει λόγον τὸ λέπυρον ἐν τῷ ᾠῷ, τοῦτον ἐν τῷ παντὶ ὁ οὐρανός, καὶ ὡς ἐξήρτηται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κυκλοτερῶς ὁ αἰθήρ, οὕτω τοῦ λεπύρου ὁ ὑμήν. κατὰ δέ τινας, ἐπειδὴ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ὁ αἰθὴρ εἷς ἐστι, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ὁ ἀήρ, ἔσται ἐν τοῖς ὠιοῖς ὁ ὑμὴν τοῦ ἀέρος τάξιν ἐπέχων. ἡ δὲ λευκὴ σὰρξ ἡ ἐν τῷ ᾠῷ ἐὰν τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος τάξιν ἐπέχηι, ἔσται ἡ λέκιθος τοῦ ᾠοῦ τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος τάξιν ἐπέχουσα, τὸ δὲ ἐνδότατον καὶ μεσαίτατον τῆς λεκίθου τὴν τάξιν ἔχον τῆς γῆς. εἰ δὲ ὑμένα τὸν ἐν τῷ ᾠῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰθέρος λάβωμεν, τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γάλα ἀντ᾽ ἀέρος ἔσται καὶ ἡ ἔξωθεν περιφορὰ τῆς λεκίθου ἀντὶ ὕδατος, τὸ δὲ ἐνδότατον καὶ μεσαίτατον ἀντὶ τῆς γῆς. καθόλου δέ, ἐὰν πέντε σφαίρας εἴπωμεν κατὰ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην, τὸ ἐνδότατον τῆς λεκίθου ἀντὶ τῆς γῆς παραληφθήσεται, ἐὰν δὲ τέσσαρας κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους, ὅλη ἡ λέκιθος ἀντὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται, οὐ κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν. p. 13.12–14 ὁ δὲ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οὐ δίδωσι τοῖς στοιχείοις ὡρισμένους τόπους, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντιπαραχωρεῖν ἀλλήλοις φησίν, ὥστε καὶ τὴν γῆν μετέωρον φέρεσθαι καὶ τὸ πῦρ ταπεινότερον (~ §7). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.15 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων. quaestio A 2.1.1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς

847

848

liber 2 caput 7

ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. A 3.proœm. τρέψομαι ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ πρὸς τὰ μετάρσια· ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ κύκλου τῆς σελήνης καθήκοντα μέχρι πρὸς τὴν θέσιν τῆς γῆς, ἥντινα κέντρου τάξιν ἐπέχειν τῇ περιοχῇ τῆς σφαίρας νενομίκασιν. §1 A 1.25.3 Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην· τὴν αὐτὴν δ᾽ εἶναι εἱμαρμένην καὶ δαίμονα καὶ δίκην καὶ πρόνοιαν καὶ κοσμοποιόν (cf. ll. 8–9). A 2.11.1 Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Παρμενίδης τὴν περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτω γῆς εἶναι. A 3.1.6 Παρμενίδης τὸ τοῦ πυκνοῦ καὶ ἀραιοῦ μῖγμα γαλακτοειδὲς ἀποτελέσαι χρῶμα. A 2.11.4 Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος Στράτων Ζήνων πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν. §2 A 1.4.1 ὁ τοίνυν κόσμος συνέστη περικεκλασμένῳ σχήματι ἐσχηματισμένος τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον κτλ. §3 A 2.1.3 … Ἐπίκουρος … ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν. A 2.2.5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχήμασι κεχρῆσθαι. §4 A 2.6.4 Πλάτων τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον γεγονέναι πρὸς παράδειγμα τοῦ νοητοῦ κόσμου· τοῦ δ᾽ ὁρατοῦ κόσμου προτέραν μὲν τὴν ψυχήν, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην τὸ σωματοειδὲς τὸ ἐκ πυρὸς μὲν καὶ γῆς πρῶτον, ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος δεύτερον. §5 A 1.3.21 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ Νικομάχου Σταγειρίτης ἀρχὰς μὲν ἐντελέχειαν ἤτοι εἶδος ὕλην στέρησιν· στοιχεῖα δὲ τέσσαρα, πέμπτον δέ τι σῶμα αἰθέριον ἀμετάβλητον. A 1.12.3 Ἀριστοτέλης βαρύτατον μὲν εἶναι τὴν γῆν ἁπλῶς, κουφότατον δὲ τὸ πῦρ· ἀέρα δὲ καὶ ὕδωρ ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλως. μηδὲν δὲ πῦρ κυκλοτερῶς φύσει κινεῖσθαι, μόνον δὲ τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα. A 2.11.5 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος et vid. text. cit. ad loc. §6 A 3.11.3 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος τὸ μὲν πῦρ μέσον (τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς ἑστίαν), δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, τρίτην δ᾽ ἣν οἰκοῦμεν γῆν … A 3.13.2 Φιλόλαος δ᾽ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύκλον λοξὸν ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ. §7 cf. A 2.6.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι … A 2.11.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς στερέμνιον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The P tradition is again represented by the four main witnesses. In PBEQ there are the same six doxai. G has radically shortened the chapter, preserving only two lemmata, of which the former as transmitted is a combination of the Parmenidean and Platonic doxai. This is clearly meant to represent the standard cosmology where elements have their fixed place, which is then followed by the final Empedoclean lemma in which the elements do not have a fixed

liber 2 caput 7

849

place. So in spite of his brevity G still uses the diaeresis which is the hallmark of the method of the Placita! (2) The chapter’s contents become more complex when the evidence of S is taken into account. Five of P’s six lemmata are found. The location of P6 = S1 (Empedocles) in S 1.15 Περὶ σχημάτων is surprising: it seems that after quoting the first doxa of A 2.8 (Diogenes–Anaxagoras), before writing out the second, Empedoclean doxa in that chapter, the anthologist decided first to write out the previous final doxa (as we believe) in A 2.7. Presumably he marked his text, because he does not repeat this doxa when he writes out the others in S 1.22. The evidence in S 1.22 is complicated. It can be analysed as follows. (a) He uses A’s title for his chapter. (b) He then begins by presenting P1 = S2 (Parmenides) in a much longer version, which in all likelihood is the original prior to P’s excision of its latter part. (c) It is followed by S3 = P5 (Aristotle), whose mention of αἰθήρ links up well with the conclusion of the first doxa. But here he copies out on the first part of the doxa and replaces the rest with an extract from AD. The Platonic doxa P4 is thus left out (it is replaced by material from A 2.6). (d) He follows (= S4) with a long account of Philolaus’ cosmology missing in P, but certainly belonging to this chapter (note how it is linked up with the AD quote through the role of τὸ μέσον). (e) Finally he writes out the two atomist doxai P2–3 = S5–6, followed by the inserted Platonic material. (3) T again passes over this chapter, no doubt because it does not illustrate the diaphonia of the philosophers sufficiently clearly. (4) A small amount of parallel material is found in Ach in his §4 Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων. On Ach’s evidence see further below section D(e). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Various parallels show that the chapter’s contents share common elements with earlier doxographic traditions. For the account of Parmenides’ cosmology there is a briefer parallel text in Cicero’s theological doxography at ND 1.28; we return to this text below at D(d)§1. The doxa of Leucippus and Democritus shares the interesting feature of a membrane holding together the contents of the cosmos with the atomist account of its origin in D.L. 9.32. In the case of Epicurus’ doxa it is possible that we have its direct source in Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88; we return to this text too below at D(d)§3. The Philolaus doxa shares some features with Aristotle’s discussion of the early Pythagoreans in Cael. 2.13, but it is difficult to determine where much of its unparalleled content derives from (see the discussion at Huffman 1993, 395–400). In general, descriptions of the cosmos’ final structure are not a common feature in doxographies of individual philosophers in the proximate tradition such as we find Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus. The emphasis there is on the ele-

850

liber 2 caput 7

ments as principles (or derived from them) and on descriptions of the genesis of the cosmos. See for example ps.Plutarch Strom. 5 on Parmenides (text section E(a)§1 below). Another example is the very brief account of the cosmos in Hippolytus’ doxography on Plato (text section E(a)§4 below), which follows the reference to matter as one of the three principles. The four elements there follow the Timaeus and differ from the five elements in the present chapter. (2) Sources. The contents of the chapter, which record Presocratic views on the structure of the cosmos of varying length (§§1,2,6,7, i.e. two long and two short), is clearly based on original sources, as is evident in the Parmenides doxa with its reference to the δαίμων in fr. 28B12 DK. But it is not likely that it occurred at first hand. These summaries most likely go back to the Peripatos, possibly but by no means necessarily going back at least in part to the labours of Theophrastus. The brief summary of Plato’s cosmology is not directly based on the Timaeus and perhaps shows Academic features. The Aristotelian cosmology lacks the theology of A 1.7.23 and, though very brief, describes the sub-lunary elements. There is little verbal resemblance to the extended description of the Aristotelian universe in the De mundo. C Chapter Heading After a number of chapters with different kinds of headings, the heading here returns to the common umbrella type Περὶ x and is paralleled at ch. 2.15 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων. The quaestio is in the category of relative position (category of place, ποῦ). Ach has a chapter with a parallel heading, Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων, where σύστασις means ‘composition’; cf. the regular use of σύστημα in definitions of the cosmos, e.g. at ps.Arist. Mu. 2 392b9 (Aristotle), D.L. 7.138 (Stoa). There is no parallel chapter for the microcosm. Ch. 5.22, with the heading Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων, asks a different question, i.e. quality rather than relative place. Two of the mss. of PB support the shorter version of the title, Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου, parallel to the titles of chs. 2.1–2 and 2.15. But the longer version with τοῦ κόσμου is found in E and G, and is also supported by S, so it must be retained. D Analysis a Context After the (limited) discussion of cosmogonic processes has been set out in ch. 2.6, attention now turns to the result of that process, i.e. the structure of the physical world as it now exists. The subject is parallel to that of ch. 2.15, Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων, which goes into further detail on the arrangement of the heavenly bodies. The similarity lies in the notion of the ordering of separate elements. As we just saw, the chapter thus falls under the Aristotelian category of

liber 2 caput 7

851

(relative) position (κεῖσθαι). Ch. 2.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς may be seen as another parallel, but there is no equivalent chapter for the microcosm or the animal realm. b Number–Order of Lemmata The evidence points to seven doxai, all but one at least partially present in P. Nothing in S contradicts the order found in P. But the doxa of Philolaus deleted by P must be given a place. Diels placed it at the end. This position is not persuasive, however, if the chapter’s structure is taken into account. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The final place of the Empedoclean doxa in the chapter should be preserved. As already observed on G’s abridgement of the chapter (see above section A(1)), the main diaeresis in the chapter is between the cosmologies in which the elements have a fixed location and the view attributed to Empedocles that they are not fixed. This final position is often taken by doxai of Epicurus in other chapters (e.g. chs. 2.2, 2.13 etc.) It is more difficult to determine the rationale for the remaining six doxai. The first doxa is very long by the standards of the Placita. Its first half gives a highly exotic Presocratic cosmology that bears little relation to the standard cosmological model that by A’s time was wholly dominant. The second half reads much more conventionally with references to the elements and various heavenly bodies. Each half has its own causative factors, the former formulated in theological terms, the latter emphasizing the role of condensation and exhalation. The next two lemmata P2–3 = S5–6 are much briefer and link up with Parmenides’ view of the solidity of the extreme limit of the cosmos. The atomists differ by having a thin membrane around the cosmos, while Epicurus represents a compromise view in which both possibilities are entertained. The Platonic and Aristotelian doxai P4–5 (= S3 only) more closely approximate the standard cosmological model and are clearly formulated in such a way as to form a contrasting pair, the key difference being the role of aether. It is possible that the Platonic doxa was originally longer, since we cannot draw on S to check what P did with it. There remains the doxa of Philolaus (= S4), who as in chs. 2.5 and 2.5a is seen as having a distinctive cosmological doctrine. The doxa is even longer than that of Parmenides and can also be divided in two parts. The first gives the distinctive cosmic order reported by Aristotle in Cael. 2.13 (see also A 3.11.3). The second divides the cosmos into three regions each with their own distinctive names. Both Burkert (1972) 243–246 and Huffman (1993) 395–400 regard this second part as inauthentic. The doxa will have to be placed either before the Plato–Aristotle pair or after it (not in the final place, as

852

liber 2 caput 7

done by Diels, for reasons given above). The cosmology of the first part, apart from the distinctive doctrines of the central fire and the counter-earth, is reasonably similar to the Platonic and Aristotelian views. So the doxa could come in between Epicurus and Plato as a transitional view. But it seems more probable that it follows the Platonic-Aristotelian pair, with the start of the doxa πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον placed in deliberate contrast to Plato’s view which starts with fire at the periphery. The contrast between centre and periphery recalls the similar diaeresis in ch. 2.6. It might further be argued that the three doxai stand as rational–teleological views in implicit contrast to the mechanistic– atomistic emphasis of the first three (in the case of Parmenides especially the second half). This antithesis has been recognized as fundamental to the development of early Greek cosmology; see Furley (1987), Sedley (2007), and also our comments above at chs. 2.1 Commentary B and 2.4 Commentary B. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This account is an important witness to Parmenides’ cosmology because it is presumably derived from his poem, but we do not possess the lines on which it is primarily based. There are two significant parallel texts which place more emphasis on the theological aspects of the cosmos’ genesis and structure than A does. Cicero ND 1.28 specifically mentions the role of ‘something resembling a crown which he gives the name στεφάνη, a continous circle of glowing lights’. The term στεφάνη occurs in lines 1 and 5 of A’s doxa. The earlier text of Philodemus Piet. col. 324 Vassallo (= fr. 13 Schober) is very fragmentary and appears to show less resemblance to A’s text; it is partly cited on ch. 1.7 section E(a)§17. For a detailed comparison of all three texts see now Vassallo (2016b). Further discussions of the cosmology latent in A’s text in Morrison (1955) 60–61; Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.61–63; Tarán (1965) 232–250; Finkelberg (1986). On Diels’ interpretation of the text as an excerpt from Theophrastus see Mansfeld (2011c), 395–396, who concludes (396): ‘The derivational hypothesis of the DG tends to confirm itself’. §1[6–7] The text here must remain uncertain. We print Diels’ text at VS 1.114 (also in DK), which takes its cue from conjectures by Krische and Wachsmuth. It retains the conjunction τε καί and so must find two nouns, which it draws from Simplicius in Phys. 34.14–16 καὶ ποιητικὸν αἴτιον ἐκεῖνος (sc. Παρμενίδης) μὲν ἓν κοινὸν τὴν ἐν μέσῳ πάντων ἱδρυμένην καὶ πάσης γενέσεως αἰτίαν δαίμονα τίθησιν (but note that there is no reference to ἀρχή in this passage). The other strategy is to emend τε καί, as Diels for example did in DG by taking over Davis’ conjecture τοκέα. For want of better, the commentators generally accept the text in DK (also Mansfeld-Primavesi fr. 14; but Laks–Most fr. D15 vol. 5 p. 58 obelize the original text).

liber 2 caput 7

853

§1[8] The emendation to κλῃδοῦχον accepted by most editors is based on the reference to Justice holding the ‘alternating keys (κληῖδας)’ in l. 14 of the Proœmium (28B1). But the text in S κληροῦχον, ‘holder of the lots’, also makes excellent sense, as observed by Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.62, who refers to the role of Lachesis in Plato’s myth of Er (Resp. 617e). It is retained by Mansfeld– Primavesi and Laks–Most in their recent editions. §3 As noted in section B above, we may have the source of this doxa in Epicurus’ Letter to Pythocles preserved at D.L. 10.88 (and also perhaps the mother work On nature on which it is based). The doxographer has simplified the text by deleting the reference to multiple possibility based on lack of sensory evidence. The mention of multiple kosmoi places the doxa outside the scope of the chapter in the strict sense, but allows the contrast with the previous view. The juxtaposition of the early Atomists and Epicurus is parallel to what we find in A 2.2.4–5. §§4–5 Both doxai have five elements, but in different configurations. There is no text in the Timaeus from which the former doxa can easily be derived. At Tim. 58d αἰθήρ is regarded as a form of air. In Epin. 984b aether follows fire. Xenocrates, however, in his life of Plato as cited by Simplicius relates αἰθήρ and the four elements to the five perfect geometrical figures of Tim. 53–55 and his view may be reflected in this doxa (text below section E(b)§4). Whether Plato espoused a four- or five-element cosmology was a matter of dispute in Middle Platonism, no doubt due to Aristotelian and Stoic influence; see the comments of Dillon (1977) 49. At Alcinous Did. 15.4 αἰθήρ seems to replace fire as the substance of the heavenly bodies rather than be placed next to it as in A. On the expression πέμπτον σῶμα see further A 2.11 Commentary D(d)§5. §6 As noted above in section D(c), Burkert and Huffman regard the first part as based on authentic material (particularly fr. 7 preserved by S at 1.21.8), but argue that the second part contains elements that are contradictory to the system described in the first half and so should not be regarded as genuine. The doxa is extraordinarily long for the Placita, no doubt reflecting an earlier more expansive phase of the tradition. The epistemological turn at the end is remarkable. §6[29] Huffman omits ⟨πέν⟩τε (or εʹ) in his text, presumably because he thinks two references to five planets in a single doxa is unlikely. The likelihood is increased if the doxa itself is composite. See further on the Democritus lemma at ch. 2.15.3. §7 The doxa appears to go back to a criticism that Aristotle brings against Empedocles that his elements do not move in fixed directions but change their direction of movement (and their location?) through chance: see Phys. 2.4 196a19–23, GC 2.6 334a1–5 (where the lines 31B53 & 54 DK are cited) and a brief discussion in O’Brien (1969) 147–148.

854

liber 2 caput 7

e Other Evidence The evidence in Ach is intriguing. The final doxa with the name-label Empedocles is parallel to the final doxa in A, though presented in a slightly longer and clearer form. He adds an illustration missing in A involving earth and fire (the same elements as in Aristotle GC 2.6 333b28 & 31). The doxa clearly comes from the same tradition as A. Other doxai differ, with different name-labels. The reference to the Aristotelian cosmos is only used to explicate the Orphic doctrine. This lengthy doxa compares the structure of the cosmos to an egg. Nevertheless its treatment of the parts of the cosmos is reminiscent of the content and method of this chapter. It may have come from the earlier doxographical tradition used by A; see ch. 2.2 Commentary D(e). There is no parallel in A for the doxa on Xenophanes with a quote from his poem. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Stoic doxography at D.L. V.P. 7.138 (on the cosmos) σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν 4εν τούτοις φύσεων. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 4 λέγεται τοίνυν ὁ κόσμος καθ᾽ ἓν μὲν [πρῶτον] σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἄστρων κατὰ περιοχὴν ⟨καὶ⟩ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν … Aet. 32 (= Arist. de Phil. fr. 19b Ross) ὁ δὲ κόσμος ἀμέτοχος τῆς ἐν τοῖς λεχθεῖσιν ἀταξίας ἐστίν. ἐπεί, φέρε, θεασώμεθα· φθειρομένου τὰ μέρη νυνὶ μὲν ἀνάγκη τετάχθαι τὴν παρὰ φύσιν ἕκαστα χώραν· τοῦτο δὲ ὑπονοεῖν οὐκ εὐαγές· ἀρίστην γὰρ θέσιν καὶ τάξιν ἐναρμόνιον τὰ τοῦ κόσμου μέρη πάντα εἴληχεν, ὡς ἕκαστον καθάπερ πατρίδι φιλοχωροῦν μὴ ζητεῖν ἀμείνω μεταβολήν. διὰ τοῦτο γῇ μὲν ὁ μεσαίτατος ἀπενεμήθη τόπος … Congr. 103– 104 ἔμαθον γὰρ τὸν ἔνατον ὑπερβαίνοντες αἰσθητὸν δοκήσει θεὸν τὸν δέκατον καὶ μόνον ὄντα ἀψευδῶς προσκυνεῖν. ἐννέα γὰρ ὁ κόσμος ἔλαχε μοίρας, ἐν οὐρανῷ μὲν ὀκτώ, τήν τε ἀπλανῆ καὶ ἑπτὰ τὰς πεπλανημένας ἐν τάξεσι φερομένας ταῖς αὐταῖς, ἐνάτην δὲ γῆν σὺν ὕδατι καὶ ἀέρι· τούτων γὰρ μία συγγένεια τροπὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς παντοίας δεχομένων … Pliny Nat. 2.4.10–12. Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 περί τε τῆς τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου. §1 Parmenides: Cicero ND 1.28 nam Parmenides (28A37 DK) quidem commenticium quiddam: coronae similem efficit (στεφάνην appellat) continentem ardorum lucis orbem, qui cingit caelum, quem appellat deum; in quo neque figuram divinam neque sensum quisquam suspicari potest. multaque eiusdem monstra, quippe qui bellum qui discordiam qui cupiditatem ceteraque generis eiusdem ad deum revocet, quae vel morbo vel somno vel oblivione vel vetustate delentur; eademque de sideribus, quae reprehensa in alio iam in hoc omittantur. cf. Luc. 118 (on the principia rerum of which the universe consists) Parmenides (28A35 DK) ignem qui moveat terram quae ab eo formetur. ps.Plutarch Strom. 5 (fr. 179 Sandbach, 28A22 DK) λέγει δὲ τὴν γῆν τοῦ πυκνοῦ καταρρυέντος ἀέρος γεγονέναι. §2 Leucippus Democritus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.32 (on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) τοῦτο δ᾽ οἷον ὑμένα ἀφίστασθαι, περιέχοντ᾽ ἐν ἑαυτῷ παντοῖα σώματα·

liber 2 caput 7 ὧν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μέσου ἀντέρεισιν περιδινουμένων λεπτὸν γενέσθαι τὸν πέριξ ὑμένα, συρρεόντων ἀεὶ τῶν συνεχῶν κατ᾽ ἐπίψαυσιν τῆς δίνης. καὶ οὕτω γενέσθαι τὴν γῆν, συμμενόντων τῶν ἐνεχθέντων ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον. Hippolytus Ref. 1.13.4 (on Democritus, 68A40 DK) τοῦ δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κόσμου πρότερον τὴν γῆν τῶν ἄστρων γενέσθαι. εἶναι δὲ τὴν μὲν σελήνην κάτω, ἔπειτα τὸν ἥλιον, εἶτα τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας. §4 Plato: Hippolytus Ref. 1.19.1 (on Plato) ἀρχὰς εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς θεὸν καὶ ὕλην καὶ παράδειγμα· θεὸν μὲν τὸν ποιητὴν καὶ διακοσμήσαντα τόδε τὸ πᾶν καὶ προνοούμενον αὐτοῦ· ὕλην δὲ τὴν πᾶσιν ὑποκειμένην, ἣν καὶ δεξαμενὴν καὶ τιθήνην καλεῖ. ἐξ ἧς διακοσμηθείσης γενέσθαι τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, πυρὸς ἀέρος γῆς ὕδατος, ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα συγκρίματα καλούμενα, ζῷά τε καὶ φυτά, συνεστηκέναι. §5 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 9 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c, p. 196.5, 11–12 (Ἀριστοτέλους) περιέχεσθαι δὲ ταῦτα ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος … συνεστάναι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τοῦτον δὲ οὔτε βαρὺν οὔτε κοῦφον … Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (on Aristotle) εἶναι δὲ παρὰ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα καὶ ἄλλο πέμπτον, ἐξ οὗ τὰ αἰθέρια συνεστάναι. §6 Philolaus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.85 δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ (Philolaus 44A1 DK) … καὶ τὴν γῆν κινεῖσθαι κατὰ κύκλον πρῶτον εἰπεῖν· οἱ δ᾽ Ἱκέταν ⟨τὸν⟩ Συρακόσιόν (cf. on 50.1 DK) φασιν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.2 285b33–286a2 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν κατὰ τὰς διαστάσεις τῶν μορίων καὶ τῶν κατὰ τόπον ὡρισμένων τοσαῦτα εἰρήσθω. also Cael. 2.3 286a10–21 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ὁ οὐρανὸς τοιοῦτος (σῶμα γάρ τι θεῖον), διὰ τοῦτο ἔχει τὸ ἐγκύκλιον σῶμα, ὃ φύσει κινεῖται κύκλῳ ἀεί … ἀνάγκη τοίνυν γῆν εἶναι· τοῦτο γὰρ ἠρεμεῖ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου. Corpus Hippocraticum Sept. 1.2.1–2.1.1 West μίαν μὲν ⟨ἐν⟩ πᾶσι τάξιν τὴν τοῦ ἀκρίτου κόσμου ⟨δι⟩εξ⟨όδους⟩ ἔχοντος θέρεος καὶ χειμῶνος. δευτέρην δὲ [τάξιν] τὴν τῶν ἄστρων ἀνταυγείαν καὶ μάνωσιν [οὖσαν θερμοτάτην] καὶ ἀραιοτέρην τῆς φύσιος λαμπηδόνα. τρίτην ἡλίου δίοδον θερμασ⟨ίην⟩ ἔχοντ⟨ος⟩· τετάρτην σελήνης ἀνιούσης καὶ τελειούσης προσθέσει καὶ μειούσης ἀφαί⟨ρεσιν⟩. πέμπτη μοῖρα ἡ τοῦ ἠέρος σύστασις [καὶ] κόσμου, παρέχουσα ὑετοὺς καὶ ἀστραπὰς, β⟨ροντάς τε⟩ καὶ χίονας ⟨καὶ χαλάζας καὶ τἆλλα τοιαῦτα⟩· ἔκτον τὸ τῆς θαλάττης ὑγρὸν μέρος καὶ ποταμῶν καὶ κρηνέων καὶ πηγέων καὶ λιμνέων, ⟨καὶ τὸ ἄποτον καὶ τὸ πότιμον⟩, καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ ἐν τούτοισι θερμὸν, ὃ ἀγωγὴ καὶ ἄρδευσίς ἐστι τῆς ἰκμάδος. ἕβδομον αὐτὴ ἡ γῆ, ἐφ᾽ ᾗ τά τε ζῶα καὶ τὰ ⟨φυ⟩όμενα ⟨…⟩ καὶ ἔστὶ πάντων τροφος, [ἐξ ὕδατος ἐοῦσα] ⟨διὰ τὸ περιέχειν αὐτὴν τὰ ὑγρά⟩. οὕτως οἱ τῶν ξυμπάντων κόσμοι ἑπταμερέα ἔχουσι τὴν τάξιν. ps.Eudoxus Papyrus Parisinus 1, col. 7.5 Blass (not in Lasserre) Οὐρανίου κόσμου τάξις. κόσμος νοεῖται ἔκ τε γῆς καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἡλίου καὶ πέντε πλανητῶν ἀστέρων καὶ ἀπλανῶν καὶ τοῦ περιέχοντος τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἀέρος. Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.1–15 Todd τοῦ κόσμου πολλαχῶς λεγομένου, ὁ νῦν ἡμῖν λόγος ἐνεστηκὼς περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησίν ἐστιν, ὃν ὁρίζονται οὕτως· κόσμος ἐστὶ σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεων. οὗτος δὲ πάντα μὲν τὰ σώματα ἐμπεριέχει … ὅτι δὲ φύσιν ἔχει τὴν διοικοῦσαν αὐτόν, γνώριμον πρῶτον μὲν ἐκ τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ μερῶν, ἔπειτα ἐκ τῆς τῶν γινομένων τάξεως …

855

856

liber 2 caput 7

Chapter heading: cf. ps.Eudoxus Papyrus Parisinus 1, col. 7.5 Blass, Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.11–12 both cited above. §1 Parmenides: Parmenides fr. 28B12 DK at Simp. in Phys. 39,12–19 μετ᾽ ὀλίγα δὲ πάλιν περὶ τῶν δυεῖν στοιχείων εἰπὼν ἐπάγει καὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν λέγων οὕτως ‘αἱ γὰρ στεινότεραι πλῆντο πυρὸς ἀκρήτοιο, / αἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταῖς νυκτός, μετὰ δὲ φλογὸς ἵεται αἶσα. / ἐν δὲ μέσῳ τούτων δαίμων ἣ πάντα κυβερνᾷ. ταύτην καὶ θεῶν αἰτίαν εἶναί φησι λέγων ‘πρώτιστον μὲν Ἔρωτα θεῶν μητίσσατο πάντων’ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Aristotle Met. A.5 986b31–987a2 (on Parmenides, 28A24 DK) καὶ τὸ ἓν μὲν κατὰ τὸν λόγον πλείω δὲ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ὑπολαμβάνων εἶναι, δύο τὰς αἰτίας καὶ δύο τὰς ἀρχὰς πάλιν τίθησι, θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρόν, οἷον πῦρ καὶ γῆν λέγων· τούτων δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὸ ὂν τὸ θερμὸν τάττει θάτερον δὲ κατὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν. GC 2.3 330b13–15 οἱ δ᾽ εὐθὺς δύο ποιοῦντες, ὥσπερ Παρμενίδης (28A35 DK) πῦρ καὶ γῆν, τὰ μεταξὺ μίγματα ποιοῦσι τούτων, οἷον ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ. also GC 2.9 336a3–6 (28A35 DK) ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πέφυκεν, ὥς φασι, τὸ μὲν θερμὸν διακρίνειν τὸ δὲ ψυχρὸν συνιστάναι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον τὸ μὲν ποιεῖν τὸ δὲ πάσχειν, ἐκ τούτων λέγουσι καὶ διὰ τούτων ἅπαντα τἆλλα γίνεσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι. §3 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα, ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου καὶ καταλήγουσα ἐν πέρατι ἢ ἀραιῷ ἢ πυκνῷ καὶ οὗ λυομένου πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ σύγχυσιν λήψεται—καὶ λήγουσαν ἢ ἐν περιαγομένῳ ἢ ἐν στάσιν ἔχοντι καὶ στρογγύλην ἢ τρίγωνον ἢ οἵαν δήποτε περιγραφήν. πανταχῶς γὰρ ἐνδέχεται. cf. Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.74 (scholion) οὖν ὡς καὶ φθαρτούς φησι τοὺς κόσμους, μεταβαλλόντων τῶν μερῶν. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τὴν γῆν τῷ ἀέρι ἐποχεῖσθαι. §4 Plato: Xenocrates (fr. 53 Heinze, fr. 183 Isnardi Parente2) at Simp. in Cael. 12.21–26 αὶ ὅτι καὶ Πλάτων πέντε εἶναι τὰ ἁπλᾶ σώματα νομίζει κατὰ τὰ πέντε σχήματα, ἀρκεῖ Ξενοκράτης ὁ γνησιώτατος αὐτοῦ τῶν ἀκροατῶν ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ Πλάτωνος βίου τάδε γράφων· ‘τὰ μὲν οὖν ζῷα οὕτω διῃρεῖτο εἰς ἰδέας τε καὶ μέρη πάντα τρόπον διαιρῶν, ἕως εἰς τὰ πέντε στοιχεῖα ἀφίκετο τῶν ζῴων, ἃ δὴ πέντε σχήματα καὶ σώματα ὠνόμαζεν, εἰς αἰθέρα καὶ πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα’. Same quote at ibid. 87.23 (fr. 53 Heinze, fr. 184 Isnardi Parente2). cf. Alcinous Did. 15, p. 171.34–37 H. ὁ δὲ αἰθὴρ ἐξωτάτω διῃρημένος εἴς τε τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαίραν καὶ εἰς τὴν τῶν πλανωμένων· μεθ᾽ ἃς ἡ τοῦ ἀέρος ὑπάρχει, καὶ ἐν μέσῳ ἡ γῆ σὺν τῷ ἑαυτῆς ὑγρῷ. §5 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.3 270b20–24 διόπερ ὡς ἑτέρου τινὸς ὄντος τοῦ πρώτου σώματος παρὰ γῆν καὶ πῦρ καὶ ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ, αἰθέρα προσωνόμασαν τὸν ἀνωτάτω τόπον, ἀπὸ τοῦ θεῖν ἀεὶ τὸν ἀΐδιον χρόνον θέμενοι τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν αὐτῷ. ps.Aristotle Μu. 2 391b9–16 κόσμος μὲν οὖν ἐστι σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις περιεχομένων φύσεων. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως κόσμος ἡ τῶν ὅλων τάξις τε καὶ διακόσμησις, ὑπὸ θεοῦ τε καὶ διὰ θεὸν φυλαττομένη. ταύτης δὲ τὸ μὲν μέσον, ἀκίνητόν τε καὶ ἑδραῖον ὄν, ἡ φερέσβιος εἴληχε γῆ, παντοδαπῶν ζῴων ἑστία τε οὖσα καὶ μήτηρ. τὸ δὲ ὕπερθεν αὐτῆς, πᾶν τε καὶ πάντῃ πεπερατωμένον εἰς τὸ ἀνωτάτω, θεῶν οἰκητήριον, οὐρανὸς ὠνόμασται. Mu. 2 392a5–9 οὐρανοῦ δὲ καὶ ἄστρων οὐσίαν μὲν αἰθέρα καλοῦμεν, οὐχ, ὥς τινες, διὰ τὸ πυρώδη οὖσαν αἴθεσθαι, πλημμελοῦντες περὶ τὴν πλεῖστον πυρὸς ἀπηλλαγμένην δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ θεῖν

liber 2 caput 7 κυκλοφορουμένην, στοιχεῖον οὖσαν ἕτερον τῶν τεττάρων, ἀκήρατόν τε καὶ θεῖον. Mu. 2 392a31–b6 μετὰ δὲ τὴν αἰθέριον καὶ θείαν φύσιν, ἥντινα τεταγμένην ἀποφαίνομεν, ἔτι δὲ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀνετεροίωτον καὶ ἀπαθῆ, συνεχής ἐστιν ἡ δι᾽ ὅλων παθητή τε καὶ τρεπτή, καί, τὸ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, φθαρτή τε καὶ ἐπίκηρος. ταύτης δὲ αὐτῆς πρώτη μέν ἐστιν ἡ λεπτομερὴς καὶ φλογώδης οὐσία … ἑξῆς δὲ ταύτης ὁ ἀὴρ ὑποκέχυται. Mu. 3 392b14–17 ἑξῆς δὲ τῆς ἀερίου φύσεως γῆ καὶ θάλασσα ἐρήρεισται, φυτοῖς βρύουσα καὶ ζῴοις πηγαῖς τε καὶ ποταμοῖς, τοῖς μὲν ἐν γῇ ἀναλισκομένοις, τοῖς δὲ ἀνερευγομένοις εἰς θάλασσαν … §6 Philolaus: Philolaus at Stob. Ecl. 1.21.8 (44B7 DK) τὸ πρᾶτον ἁρμοσθέν, τὸ ἕν, ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τᾶς σφαίρας ἑστία καλεῖται. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293a17–27 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς θέσεως οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἅπαντες ἔχουσι δόξαν, ἀλλὰ τῶν πλείστων ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαι λεγόντων, ὅσοι τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν πεπερασμένον εἶναί φασιν, ἐναντίως οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, καλούμενοι δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι λέγουσιν· ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ μέσου πῦρ εἶναί φασι, τὴν δὲ γῆν, ἓν τῶν ἄστρων οὖσαν, κύκλῳ φερομένην περὶ τὸ μέσον νύκτα τε καὶ ἡμέραν ποιεῖν. ἔτι δ᾽ ἐναντίαν ἄλλην ταύτῃ κατασκευάζουσι γῆν, ἣν ἀντίχθονα ὄνομα καλοῦσιν, οὐ πρὸς τὰ φαινόμενα τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ζητοῦντες, ἀλλὰ πρός τινας λόγους καὶ δόξας αὑτῶν τὰ φαινόμενα προσέλκοντες καὶ πειρώμενοι συγκοσμεῖν. cf. Simplicius in Cael. 511.23–512.20. Simplicius in Phys. 1355.3–11 εἰ δὲ οἱ μὲν Πυθαγόρειοι (—) ἐν τῷ κέντρῳ λέγουσιν ἱδρῦσθαι, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ ἀπλανεῖ σφαίρᾳ φησὶν εἶναι, ἐκεῖνοι μὲν τὸ κέντρον ἐπιτηδειότερον τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ παντὸς μερῶν νομίζουσι πρὸς μέθεξιν τῆς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ συνοχικῆς καὶ ἑδραστικῆς ἀγαθότητος, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν ἀπλανῆ πρώτως ἀπολαύειν τῆς δημιουργικῆς νομίζει κινήσεως. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οἱ μὲν Πυθαγόρειοι Ἑστίας τόπον καὶ Ζανὸς πύργον ἐκάλουν τὸ κέντρον, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης μέτρον τῶν ἄλλων κινήσεων τὴν τῆς ἀπλανοῦς ἔλεγεν ὡς πρώτην καὶ συνῃρημένην, καὶ τὸ τοῦ κινοῦντος ἀμερὲς διὰ τῆς ταχυτῆτος ἐνεικονιζομένην. §7 Empedocles: Aristotle Phys. 2.4 196a19–24 ἄτοπον οὖν εἴτε μὴ ὑπελάμβανον εἶναι εἴτε οἰόμενοι παρέλειπον, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐνίοτε χρώμενοι, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B53 DK) οὐκ ἀεὶ τὸν ἀέρα ἀνωτάτω ἀποκρίνεσθαί φησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως ἂν τύχῃ. λέγει γοῦν ἐν τῇ κοσμοποιίᾳ ὡς ‘οὕτω συνέκυρσε θέων τοτέ, πολλάκι δ᾽ ἄλλως’· καὶ τὰ μόρια τῶν ζῴων ἀπὸ τύχης γενέσθαι τὰ πλεῖστά φησιν. GC 2.6 334a1–5 (on Empedocles, 31B53–54 DK) διέκρινε μὲν γὰρ τὸ νεῖκος, ἠνέχθη δ᾽ ἄνω ὁ αἰθὴρ οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ νείκους, ἀλλ᾽ ὁτὲ μέν φησιν ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τύχης (‘οὕτω γὰρ συνέκυρσε θέων τοτέ, πολλάκι δ᾽ ἄλλως’), ὁτὲ δέ φησι πεφυκέναι τὸ πῦρ ἄνω φέρεσθαι, ὁ δ᾽ αἰθήρ, φησί, ‘⟨δ᾽ αὖ⟩ μακρῇσι κατὰ χθόνα δύετο ῥίζαις’.

857

Liber 2 Caput 8 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887E–F; pp. 337a1–338a9 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.39, p. 411.5–12 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.11–12—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 51; p. 623.1– 7 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 144–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 160.1–6, p. 82 Westerink—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.33, p. 39.3 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.15.6c, p. 147.4–9 + 1.15.6d, p. 141.14–17 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach.: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.13–16 Di Maria

Titulus ηʹ. Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι (P) §1 Διογένης Ἀναξαγόρας μετὰ τὸ συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐγκλιθῆναί πως τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου εἰς τὸ μεσημηβρινὸν αὑτοῦ μέρος· ἴσως ὑπὸ προνοίας, ἵν᾽ ἃ μὲν ἀοίκητα γένηται ἃ δ᾽ οἰκητὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν. (P1,S1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ ἀέρος εἴξαντος τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου ὁρμῇ, ἐπικλιθῆναι τὰς ἄρκτους, καὶ τὰ μὲν βόρεια ὑψωθῆναι τὰ δὲ νότια ταπεινωθῆναι, καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον. (P2,S2) §1 Diogenes 64A11; Anaxagoras 59A67; §2 Empedocles 31A58 titulus Τίς ἡ αἰτία PB(I,III)EGQ, SL-ind ex P : Περὶ τοῦ τίς … PB(II), cf. index libri secundi : al. PSy Περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ἐγκλίσεως ‖ ἐγκλιθῆναι PB(I,II)E : ἐγκεκλίσθαι PB(III) : κλιθῆναι PG §1 [2] Διογένης Ἀναξαγόρας PBE : Διογένης καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας PGS (ἔφησαν add. S) ‖ [2–3] καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐξαγαγεῖν om. PQ ‖ [3] ἐξαγαγεῖν] συμφῦναι PG ‖ [4] αὑτοῦ corr. Meineke Diels : αὐτοῦ PBES : om. Q (αὑτοῦ μέρος om. PG) ‖ [4–5] ἃ μὲν … ἃ δ᾽ S : ἃ μέν τινα … ἃ δ᾽ PB (τινα secl. Diels Mau Lachenaud) : τὰ μὲν … τὰ δὲ PE : τινὰ μὲν … τινὰ δὲ PG ‖ [5] οἰκητὰ … ἀοίκητα ord. inv. PQ ‖ [5–6] κατὰ ψῦξιν … εὐκρασίαν PBQS : κατὰ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν καὶ ψῦξιν PE : κατὰ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ ψῦξιν PG §2 [7] ἀέρος PBEQ S : πυρὸς PG ‖ ἐπικλιθῆναι PB(II)ES Diels Wachsmuth Vítek : ἐγκλιθῆναι PB(I,III) Mau Lachenaud Laks-Most : ἐπικλῖναι PG ‖ [7–8] ἐπικλιθῆναι τὰς ἄρκτους om. PQ ‖ τὰς ἄρκτους PB(III)E S, τοὺς ἄρκτους PB(I) : τὸν κόσμον PB(II) ‖ [8] μέν] om. PE ‖ [8–9] καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον om. PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 51 (~ tit.) Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον κλιθῆναι (text Diels) 51.1 (~ P1) Διογένης καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας μετὰ τὸ συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς συμφῦναι, τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου εἰς τὸ μεσημβρινὸν κλιθῆναι ἴσως ὑπὸ προνοίας, ἵνα τινὰ μὲν ἀοίκητα γένηται, τινὰ δὲ οἰκητὰ κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν. 51.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ πυρὸς εἴξαντος τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου ὁρμῇ ἐπικλῖναι τὰς ἄρκτους καὶ τὰ μὲν βόρεια ὑψωθῆναι, τὰ δὲ νότια ταπεινωθῆναι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_049

5

liber 2 caput 8

859

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 160.1–6 Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι (~ tit.) θαυμάζω τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐνίων μεταπεσεῖν τὸν κόσμον μετὰ τὴν πρώτην οἰομένων δημιουργίαν ὥσπερ ἐξολισθήσαντα τῆς οἰκείας τάξεως, καὶ τὸν μὲν βόρειον πόλον μετεωρισθῆναι, ὑπόγειον δὲ γενέσθαι τὸν νότιον, καὶ τὴν ἰσημερινὴν ζώνην ἐπὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν μετακλιθῆναι (~ P2). τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἠγνοήκασιν ὅτι … Symeon Seth CRN 3.33 Περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ἐγκλίσεως (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.13–16 κλίματα δὲ εἴρηται διὰ τὸ τὴν γῆν μὴ εἶναι ὁμαλήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχειν οἷον ἐγκλίματά τινα ὑψηλοτέρων ὄντων καὶ ταπεινοτέρων τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἄλλας ἀλλαχοῦ εἶναι (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς. quaestio cf. A 2.23 Περὶ τρόπων ἥλιου. A 2.12.1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἥντινα Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν σφετερίζεται. A 2.24.7 Ἀρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖ περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον καὶ κατὰ τὰς ταύτης ἐγκλίσεις σκιάζεσθαι. A 3.12.1 Λεύκιππος παρεκπεσεῖν τὴν γῆν εἰς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ μέρη διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μεσημβρινοῖς ἀραιότητα, ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δ᾽ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων. A 3.12.2 Δημόκριτος διὰ τὸ ἀσθενέστερον εἶναι τὸ μεσημβρινὸν τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐξομένην τὴν γῆν κατὰ τοῦτο ἐγκλιθῆναι· τὰ γὰρ βόρεια ἄκρατα τὰ δὲ μεσημβρινὰ κέκραται· ὅθεν κατὰ τοῦτο βεβάρηται, ὅπου περισσή ἐστι τοῖς καρποῖς καὶ τῇ αὔξῃ. §1 A 2.24.8 Ξενοφάνης πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ σελήνας κατὰ τὰ κλίματα τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας· κατά τινα δὲ καιρὸν ἐμπίπτειν τὸν δίσκον εἴς τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἰκουμένην ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ οὕτως ὥσπερ κενεμβατοῦντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνειν. ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἄπειρον μὲν προιέναι, δοκεῖν δὲ κυκλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν. A 3.14.1 Πυθαγόρας τὴν γῆν ἀναλόγως τῇ τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαίρᾳ διῃρῆσθαι εἰς πέντε ζώνας, ἀρκτικὴν ἀνταρκτικὴν θερινὴν χειμερινὴν ἰσημερινήν, ὧν ἡ μέση ⟨τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς⟩ τὸ μέσον τῆς γῆς ὁρίζει, παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο διακεκαυμένη καλουμένη· ἡ δ᾽ οἰκητή ἐστιν ἡ {μέση τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς} ⟨θερινή⟩, εὔκρατός τις οὖσα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the P tradition the chapter is again well-attested, with all four main witnesses retaining it and recording just the two doxai. G has paraphrased away

860

liber 2 caput 8

very little, though he leaves out the important final phrase of P2. Q leaves out a number of phrases. Ps remarkably includes this chapter’s title and uses it as an opportunity to express surprise at the wayward ideas of philosophers who do not understand the cosmos’ structure (he uses some words from the text to paraphrase their views). (2) Both lemmata are copied out by S close together in 1.15 Περὶ σχημάτων. The former (Diogenes–Anaxagoras = S1) follows doxai on the cosmos’ shape (see A 2.2); the latter (Empedocles = S2) is the second doxa in a cluster of three combining doxai from A 2.7, 8 & 10. This has the effect of separating the two doxai which are clearly meant as a contrasting pair. (3) There is no trace of this chapter in T or any other related doxographical texts. Ach has a chapter entitled Εἰ ἕστηκεν ὁ κόσμος (§9). But it discusses Stoic and Epicurean cosmology, in which the cosmos is surrounded by the void, and does not touch on Presocratic cosmogonic theories. On the mention of κλίματα in §19 see section D(e) below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are faint traces of the same topic in individual doxographies of Presocratic philosophers: cf. D.L. 2.9 (Anaxagoras), Hippolytus Ref. 1.9 (Archelaus); texts cited in section E(a) below. It is likely, therefore, that the subject was included in the earlier doxographical tradition. It is noteworthy that the opening scene of the ps.Platonic Erastai appears to allude to a dispute on this topic. The philosophers mentioned are Anaxagoras (as in this chapter and also at D.L. 2.9) and Oenopides (also mentioned on the zodiac inclination at A 2.12.2). If this work is to be dated to the early Hellenistic period (cf. Erler 2007, 297), it may reflect early doxographical summaries. Perhaps it is meant to reflect the preoccupations of an earlier time. (2) Sources. The evidence of our chapter shows that its subject was discussed in Presocratic texts. But it receives no attention in later sources such as Aristotle’s De caelo, no doubt because such speculations lost relevance when the vortex model fell out of favour and the standard cosmological model became dominant in the fourth cent. bce; on this controversy between two cosmological paradigms see Furley (1987) 160–161, 193. C Chapter Heading The quaestio posed by the chapter, like its predecessor, falls under the category of position (κεῖσθαι). However, the formulation of the heading clearly indicates that the chapter also poses the question of the cause. Though there are a number of chapter headings inquiring about the cause(s) of phenomena (cf. 5.9, 14, 18, all starting with Διὰ τί) and many starting with Πῶς (e.g. 1.4, 4.11, 5.6–

liber 2 caput 8

861

8 etc.), this is the only one using the formulation Τίς ἡ αἰτία. Some mss. of PB have a longer heading commencing with Περὶ τοῦ (also found in the index at the beginning of the Book), but the combined weight of PEGQ weighs against it. S does not refer to the chapter heading. Diels DG 337 erroneously thinks it formed part of his ch. 1.22 (and so prints it at 337.25). But the very long chapter heading drawn from the Laurentianus ms. (see Wachsmuth 1882, 32, 74) which he prints at DG 271 is patently contaminated from P; see above on ch. 2.6 Commentary C. and further M–R 1.267. D Analysis a Context The purported tilt of the cosmos is a sub-topic of the theme of the cosmos’ τάξις discussed in the previous chapter and is somewhat surprisingly appended to it as a separate chapter. But it is important to note that there is a chapter in Book 3 on the subject of the earth’s tilt, 3.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς. This parallelism will have appealed to our doxographer and may have even motivated its inclusion. In fact the focus on the earth’s tilt occurs in this chapter as well. Both chapters (as also chs. 2.7, 3.11) can be subsumed under the Aristotelian category of ‘being in a certain position’ (κεῖσθαι). We should note, however, that the explanations given relate to cosmogony (i.e. ch. 2.6) rather than cosmology (ch. 2.7). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no evidence that points to the chapter having any more than the two doxai preserved by the two main witnesses. The extent of the doxai in these witnesses also coincides, so it seems likely that exceptionally P simply wrote out what he found in A in full. The order is also hardly in doubt, given that S confirms P on this aspect too. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The problem raised in this chapter is not raised by the standard Platonic– Aristotelian cosmological model that became dominant in antiquity from the fourth cent. bce onwards. In this model both the celestial and the earthly pole are on the same axis and neither the cosmos nor the earth are tilted. But not all ancient cosmologies posited a spherical earth and a spherical cosmos. Since the celestial North Pole does not appear directly overhead to an observer on earth, the question can be asked why the heaven is tilted in relation to the earth and the earth in relation to the heaven. The cosmologies in this chapter (and in its parallel ch. 3.12) antedate the standard model. Both appear to assume a flat or cylindrical earth (cf. the options in ch. 3.10). It would appear that the account assumes that both the earth and the cosmos are tilted (cf. also ch. 3.12 focused

862

liber 2 caput 8

on the earth). We shall not enter into the details of the cosmology involved. See the discussion at Couprie (2011) 69–78, (2018) 27–28, who argues that in recording both here and in ch. 3.12 a dip of the earth the doxographers misunderstood the original theories which posited only a tilting of the heavens to the north (and not the south). Since there are only two doxai (infrequent in the Placita when the evidence of S is available, but cf. chs. 1.20, 2.10, 2.12, 2.18, 4.7a, 4.17), they can either be a list of random views or form an antithesis. In the light of A’s general practice the latter is much more likely. The first doxa attributed to Diogenes of Apollonia and Anaxagoras in effect gives a cause that is no cause. The tilt happens ‘somehow of its own accord’ or spontaneously. The further comment ἴσως ὑπὸ προνοίας is best seen as an addition by the doxographer or his tradition under the influence of Stoic philosophy (cf. Laks 2008, 215). One might compare the discussion in Philo Prov. 2.60 between Alexander defending a mechanistic view of cosmology and Philo arguing that cosmic order is the result of divine providence; see text cited at A 2.6 section E(a) General texts. The suggestion introduces a teleological element into the explanation which can explain why some parts of the earth are habitable and others not. The Empedoclean doxa in contrast gives a specific cause—air yielding to the onrush of the sun—, which must be seen as a purely mechanical cause involving elemental movement (cf. A 2.7.7). The antithesis can thus be interpreted as a division between a second-order (or non-physical) cause (whether chance or providence) and a physical–mechanistic cause; cf. M–R 2.2.412. It cannot be agreed with Bottler (2014) 335 that the contents of the first doxa do not correspond to the search for a cause as indicated in the title, but (only) intend to explain the habitability of the world. The cause of spontaneous occurrence is given and then a teleological aspect is added. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 Laks (2008) 216 points out that the term κόσμος in the phrase μέρη τοῦ κόσμου is not used loosely for the earth, but reflects the projection of the zones of the earth on the cosmos as a whole; see the doxa attributed to Pythagoras at A 3.14.1. §2 In the final clause the reading of PB, κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν, links up with ἀοίκητα (too cold or too hot) and οἰκητὰ (in between). E has reversed the last two nouns so that the sequence reflects the sequence on earth from north to south. The preference should be given to PB.

liber 2 caput 8

863

e Other Evidence Ach in his chapter on the sun (§19) in an aside explains that the term κλίματα (latitude, region) refers to high and low points of the earth’s surface resulting in differing habitations of nations. This explanation differs from what is found in the current chapter, but does bring to mind the odd doxa on the eclipses of sun and moon attributed to Xenophanes at A. 2.24.8. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) τὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν θολοειδῶς ἐνεχθῆναι, ὥστε κατὰ κορυφὴν τῆς γῆς τὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον εἶναι πόλον, ὕστερον δὲ τὴν ἔγκλισιν λαβεῖν. Hippolytus Ref. 1.9 (on Archelaus, 60A4 DK) ἐπικλιθῆναι δὲ τὸν οὐρανόν φησι καὶ οὕτως τὸν ἥλιον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι φῶς, καὶ τόν τε ἀέρα ποιῆσαι διαφανῆ καὶ τὴν γῆν ξηράν. Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 καὶ τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν κόσμον) ἐγκλιθῆναι. §1 Diogenes Anaxagoras: ps.Plato Erastai 132a4–b3 ἐτυγχανέτην οὖν δύο τῶν μειρακίων ἐρίζοντε, περὶ ὅτου δέ, οὐ σφόδρα κατήκουον. ἐφαινέσθην μέντοι ἢ περὶ Ἀναξαγόρου (—) ἢ περὶ Οἰνοπίδου (41.2 DK) ἐρίζειν· κύκλους γοῦν γράφειν ἐφαινέσθην καὶ ἐγκλίσεις τινὰς ἐμιμοῦντο τοῖν χεροῖν ἐπικλίνοντε καὶ μάλ᾽ ἐσπουδακότε. §2 Empedocles: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.60 cited above on ch. 2.6 (citing Empedocles, 31A49 DK).

Liber 2 Caput 9 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887F–888A; p. 338a10–21 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.40, p. 411.13–18 Mras, cf. 15.32.8; PG: ps.Galenus HPh 52; p. 623.8–11 Diels; pp. 161– 167 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 146–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 120, p. 64 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.34, p. 39.10 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.18.4b, p. 160.9–14 + 1.18.4c, p. 160.19–20 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 8, pp. 17.20–18.7 Di Maria—Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, pp. 92.34–93.2 Maass

Titulus θʹ. Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, εἰ ἔστι κενόν (P) §1 οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν, εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖ ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐξ οὗ. (P1,S1) §2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ εἶναι κενόν, εἰς ὃ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ἀναλύεται, ἄπειρον. (P2,S2) §3 Ποσειδώνιος οὐκ ἄπειρον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον αὔταρκες εἰς τὴν διάλυσιν. (P3,S3) §4 Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης μήτ᾽ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου μήτ᾽ ἐντὸς μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν. (PEQ4,S4) §1 Pythagorei —; §2 Stoici SVF 2.609; §3 Posidonius F 84, 97 E.-K., 302 Theiler; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 33c, 58a; Aristoteles Cael. 1.9 278b23–24, 279a6–7 titulus Περὶ … κενόν PBQ1 (εἰ ἔστι κενὸν ante ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου PSy) : Περὶ … κόσμου PG1Q2 : Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός PEG2 : Εἰ ἔστι κενόν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου SL-ind ex P, PQ(ind.) (cf. Ach) : al. PPs Εἰ ἔστι τὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ §1 [2] οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου PBEQ : οἱ Πυθαγόρου S, ⟨ἀπὸ⟩ add. Wachsmuth : verba desunt in PG ‖ post εἰς ὃ hab. τι PG §2 [4] δὲ om. S ‖ εἶναι κενόν S : om. PBEG : ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν PQ ut vid. ‖ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν PBS : καὶ τῇ ἐκπυρώσει PE : om. PQ ‖ εἰς ὃ … ἄπειρον] al. PG εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν μόνον ‖ ἀναλύεται PBE : ἀναλύεται ὁ κόσμος S ‖ ἄπειρον PE : τὸ ἄπειρον PB : ἄπειρος ὤν S Diels, ἄπειρον ὄν Heeren Wachsmuth : ἄπειρον leg. PG(Nic), om. PG(mss.) §3 [6] οὐκ ἄπειρον PBE : ἔφησε τὸ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ ἄπειρον S ‖ ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον PS : καθ᾽ ὅσον dub. Kidd E.-K. p. 393 ‖ διάλυσιν PBQS : διάβασιν PE §4 [7] Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης PEQ Diels Lachenaud : Πλάτων PG, cf. S : ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ κενοῦ Ἀριστοτέλης ἔλεγεν εἶναι κενὸν Πλάτων PB ‖ [7–8] μήτ᾽ … κενόν PB : μήτ᾽ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου διάκενον εἶναι μήτ᾽ ἐντὸς PE : κενὸν δὲ μὴ εἶναι μήτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου μήτε ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ S, cf. weder außerhalb noch innerhalb der Welt Q (sed fort. legit ἐντὸς pro ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ) : μηδὲν εἶναι om. PG ‖ [8] post κενόν hab. mss. PG ἐκτὸς δὲ μικρόν τι εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν, quae secl. Jas Nic. secuta

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 52 (~ tit.) Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός τοῦ κόσμου (text Jas) 52.1 (~ P1) […] ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν, εἰς ὃ τι ἀναπνεῖν τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐξ οὗ. 52.2 (~ P2) οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν μόνον […] ἄπειρον.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_050

5

liber 2 caput 9 52.3 (~ P4) Πλάτων δὲ μήτε ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου μήτε ἐντὸς κενόν {ἐκτὸς δὲ μικρόν τι εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν}. Symeon Seth CRN 3.34 Περὶ τοῦ εἰ ἔστι κενὸν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου (~ tit.) cf. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 120 Eἰ ἔστι τὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 8, 17.20 Εἰ ἔστι τι ἐκτὸς κενόν (~ tit.) pp. 17.21–18.7 οἳ μὲν εἶναί τι ἐκτός φασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 301 Usener) (ὃς καὶ ἀπείρους κόσμους ὑποτίθεται ἐν ἀπείρῷ τῷ κενῷ). οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ (SVF 2.610) ἐκπύρωσιν λέγοντες κόσμου κατά τινας ὡρισμένους χρόνους εἶναι κενὸν μέν, οὐ μὴν ἄπειρόν φασιν, ἀλλὰ τοσοῦτον ὅσον χωρῆσαι λυθὲν τὸ πᾶν (~ §2). οἱ δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι λέγοντες (~ §4) χρῶνται λόγῷ τοιούτῷ· τοῦ οὐρανοῦ σφαιρικῶς κινουμένου, εἰ ἔστι τι ἐκτὸς κενόν, συμβήσεται τὴν σφαῖραν παρεγκλίσεις τινὰς ὑπομένειν ἐξολισθαίνουσαν τῇδε κἀκεῖ· τοῦτο δὲ οὐ γίνεται· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι κενόν· ἀεὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ὁρῶμεν τὰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις. Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, p. 91.26 Maass (~ tit.) Εἰ ἕστηκεν ἡ γῆ ἢ κινεῖται pp. 92.34–93.2 εἰ δὲ ἔστί τι κενὸν ἔξωθεν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐ περίεργος ἡμῖν ἡ ζήτησις. πλὴν οἱ Στωικοὶ λέγουσιν εἶναι (ταύτῃ γὰρ διαφέρειν τὸ ὅλον τοῦ παντός), ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄπειρον (~ §2), ὡς Ἑπίκουρος καὶ οἱ λοιποί. Loci Aetiani: titulus A 1.18 Περὶ κενοῦ quaestio A 1 Praef. ζητεῖ τις εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος, τοῦτο δὲ ζητῶν θεωρητικός ἐστιν· οὐδὲ γάρ τι πλέον θεωρεῖται ἢ τὸ ὄν. ζητεῖται ὁμοίως εἰ ἄπειρος ὁ κόσμος ἐστὶ καὶ εἰ ἔξω τι τοῦ κόσμου ἔστι· ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα θεωρητικά. A 1.3.16 (de atomis Epicuri) ταῦτα μέντοι κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῷ κενῷ καὶ διὰ τοῦ κενοῦ· εἶναι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον καὶ τὰ σώματα ἄπειρα (et cf. A 1.7.25, 1.9.3, 2.3.2). §1 A 1.18.6 Ἀριστοτέλης τοσοῦτον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, ὥστ᾽ ἀναπνεῖν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· ἔνδοθεν γὰρ εἶναι τόπον πύρινον. §2 A 1.18.5 Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἔξω δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον. A 1.20.1 Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ διαφέρειν κενόν, τόπον, χώραν· καὶ τὸ μὲν κενὸν εἶναι ἐρημίαν σώματος. A 2.1.9 οἱ Στωικοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· πᾶν μὲν γὰρ εἶναι σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ τὸν κόσμον. A 4.19.4 οἱ δὲ Στωικοί φασι τὸν ἀέρα μὴ συγκεῖσθαι ἐκ θραυσμάτων, ἀλλὰ συνεχῆ δι᾽ ὅλου μηδὲν κενὸν ἔχοντα. §4 A 1.18.1 oἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω φυσικοὶ πάντες μέχρι Πλάτωνος τὸ κενὸν ὡς ὄντως κενὸν ἀπέγνωσαν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

865

866

liber 2 caput 9

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The attestation of the chapter in the P tradition is the same as in the previous three chapters, with all the four main witnesses available. For this chapter, however, the divergences between them are greater than usual. (a) The most straightforward text is presented by E with four doxai. (b) Q’s text appears to be rather similar, but with a slightly longer version of the fourth lemma as found in PE. (c) The transmitted text of G is extremely problematic and is of no use for reconstructing the text of A. There are three doxai, of which the first and third doxai correspond to the first and last in PE, but with—it seems—imperfectly preserved name-labels. The second links the Stoic doxa to the first with reference to cosmic ‘inbreathing’. Jas (2018a) 165 rightly follows Nicolaus in leaving out the final phrase of the third lemma present in all the Greek manuscripts. It has obviously been misplaced. (d) The mss. of PB deviate from E’s text by splitting up the fourth lemma with separate doxai for Aristotle and Plato. Instead of the name-label Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης as in PEQ the transmitted text reads ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ κενοῦ Ἀριστοτέλης ἔλεγεν εἶναι κενὸν Πλάτων μήτ᾽ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου μήτ᾽ ἐντὸς μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν. There has been much discussion on this text. Should the reference to a work On the void go with the previous Posidonian doxa or is it a mistaken reference to Aristotle’s De caelo? The most elegant solution is to see the comment as a marginal gloss pointing out that in Book I of A (not Aristotle), i.e. 1.18.6, the epitomator (wrongly) credits Aristotle with this view; see further A 1.18 above and M–R 2.2.416–418 (we revise our earlier suggestion reported by Algra 1993, 480). Once these words are excised PB reduces to a text very similar to PEQ, though with some minor variations. Diels and Lachenaud sensibly emend the text in conformity with PE. Mau retains the separate doxai for Plato and Aristotle. This is a striking example of the methodological deficiencies of his edition. (2) S coalesces this chapter with A 1.18–20 in his chapter 18 Περὶ κενοῦ καὶ τόπου καὶ χώρας. He records the same four doxai as P, the first three in a block (= S1–3), the fourth (= S4) in a small cluster with A 1.19.1 followed by a quote from Tim. 32c–33c. In the process the Aristotelian name-label in P4 is dropped. (3) T does not exploit this chapter, having cited extensively from the parallel chapter 1.18 at CAG 4.14. (4) The two texts in Ach ch. 8 and Commentaria in Aratum I §3 share so many characteristics with A that they must belong to the same doxographical tradi-

liber 2 caput 9

867

tion. Both texts use the method of the diaeresis. Both refer to the atomist view of an infinite void populated by infinite kosmoi, which A must have left out (but did include in 1.18). In addition the Stoic view is prominent in both and there are overlaps in vocabulary. The texts are of limited use for the reconstruction of the text, but of great interest for its larger context. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There can be no doubt that the subject of this chapter was regarded as a standard quaestio in the domain of the φυσικὸς λόγος, for A himself gives it as an example in the preface to his compendium (text above Loci Aëtiani). A very similar formulation is found in Commentaria in Aratum I ch. 3 (note that ζήτησις corresponds to ζητεῖ and ζητεῖται in A). The quaestio is mentioned in numerous texts drawing on the proximate tradition (see the listings below in section E(a) General texts), some of which are of considerable interest. We note first Galen PHP 9.6.21–22, who gives it as an example of where philosophers disagree and provides the basic positions of the diaeresis without name-labels (a discussion of this text is given at M–R 3.69). Even more interesting perhaps is the version in the recently discovered Archimedes palimpsest already discussed at ch. 1.18. Here four logically possible positions are distinguished (κατὰ διαίρεσιν) as follows (text below section E(a) General texts): question: is there a void inside or outside the cosmos? position I there a void both inside and outside. position II there is neither a void inside nor outside. position III there is a void outside, but not inside. position IV there is a void inside, but no void outside. Representatives of each position appear to be given, although the text is defective and it must be surmised that the Stoics represented the third view. The method here is reminiscent of A’s approach in chs. 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4. In each case a quaestio with two parts allows a matrix of four views. In this particular case all four positions can be represented and if we take chs. 1.18 and 2.9 together each of them occurs in A with very similar name-labels. See further discussion in Mansfeld (2014), and also below section D(e). In Pecc.Dig. 7.8–9 Galen probably has similar doxographical material in mind when he opposes and aligns together three different views (Academic, Stoic, Epicurean), concluding that none of them can be regarded as demonstratively proven. In the doxographies of the earlier philosophers, however, the question is seldom touched upon in a cosmological context.

868

liber 2 caput 9

(2) Sources. The subject of the void was raised in two different contexts, as appears in A’s two chapters devoted to it. In ch. 1.18 entitled Περὶ κενοῦ the discussion focuses on the void as a feature of physical reality. The source for this approach is Aristotle’s analysis in Phys. 4.6, where he gives a classic example of the use of the dialectical method. In this analysis, when discussing the views of Melissus and the Pythagoreans, he does briefly mention the cosmos, but the cosmological aspects of the question receive little emphasis. In the cosmological context of the De caelo it is only lightly touched on at 1.9 279a6–17. See the texts cited below in section E(b) General texts. The void is also prominent as one of the principles of the atomists, as amply indicated in ch. 1.7.13–16 as well as in ch. 1.8. It would appear that the cosmological aspects of the theme came into greater prominence through the contribution of the Stoics, whose theory of the conflagration opposed both the views of Plato and Aristotle and the atomist tradition and incidentally raised interesting philosophical questions in relation to the existence of an extra-cosmic void, which in turn may have drawn renewed attention to earlier Pythagorean views. Numerous texts discuss the Stoic position. In addition our chapter records disagreement within the Stoic school, a common occurrence in Book 2; cf. chs. 2.5a, 2.14, 25, 27. We note, finally, that from the third century ce onwards the question is raised less often because of the growing dominance of the Platonic–Aristotelian world view. Proclus does not ask εἰ οὐδὲν ἐστιν ἔξω, but rather πῶς οὐδὲν ἐστιν ἔξω (text below section E(b)§4). Consistent with this development is the fact that the question occurs on a number of occasions in Philo of Alexandria writing at the beginning of our era, but is seldom alluded to by later Christian authors. C Chapter Heading The long double heading Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, εἰ ἔστι κενόν, combining an umbrella heading Περὶ x in the category of place with the question of existence already posed earlier in ch. 1, is found only in PB and one of the main mss. of PQ (K). PEG have the shorter title Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός, as do the other two main mss. of PQ (P, Z) and also the index to Book 2. S does not use the chapter heading at Ecl. 1.18, where he cites material from this chapter. SL has a longer version that combines the two parts of the title in PB, Εἰ ἔστι κενόν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, but this is contaminated from PB; see text at Wachsmuth (1882) 32 and comments at ibid. 55; it is erroneously attributed to S by Diels DG 271. A somewhat similar variant is found in Ps Εἰ ἔστι τὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, no doubt due to the Byzantine scholar’s own intervention. The long heading should be retained. Many of A’s titles retain the formulation with εἰ, asking the question of existence which goes back to Aristotle’s

liber 2 caput 9

869

formulation of the primary questions of science in APo. 2.1 and plays an important role in the Placita; cf. chs. 1.5, 2.3–4, 4.3 etc. and M–R 2.1.171. A himself uses the formulation with εἰ when giving the topic of this chapter as an example of a physical quaestio in Book 1.proœm. For examples of double headings combining περί and εἰ see 4.23, 5.29 (but in these headings there are two subjects linked with καί). The shorter heading also obscures the important link to ch. 1.18 Περὶ κενοῦ. D Analysis a Context Assuming a single cosmos as in the previous chapters 2.6–8, A now asks whether or not it is surrounded by empty space. The subject has already been touched on in chs. 1.5 and 2.1, but most significantly in ch. 1.18 Περὶ κενοῦ, which reveals a substantial overlap with the present chapter. b Number–Order of Lemmata The witnesses point to four doxai and there is no evidence to suggest that A’s chapter contained more. Since the tradition of P preserves all four, the order is also not in doubt. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Just as was the case in ch. 1.18, the chapter is organized along systematic lines. There is a main diaphonia between two opposed positions, (a) that there is an extra-cosmic void and (b) that there is not. The former view is represented by three successive doxai: (i) there is a void sufficient for cosmic-inbreathing attributed to the Pythagoreans (= P1–S1); (ii) there is a void which is infinite, allowing the cosmos to be dissolved in the conflagration, attributed to the Stoic school (= P2–S2); (iii) there is a void so that the cosmos can perish, but it is finite, attributed to the Stoic philosopher Posidonius (= P3–S3). The last two of these doxai also very clearly form an antithetical pair. The second position, that there is no extra-cosmic view, is represented by the philosophers Plato and Aristotle (= P4–S4). As already noted above, there is considerable overlap with the structure and contents of ch. 1.18. In that chapter the first group of three lemmata deals with the existence of the void in general. The second group of three then discusses the question of the void in relation to the cosmos. The two chapters can thus be compared as follows:

870

liber 2 caput 9

A 1.18

A 2.9

§§1–2 existence of void denied

§1 external void for respiration (~ 1.18.6) §2 unlimited external void for conflagration (~ 1.18.4) §3 limited external void for conflagration §4 no internal or external void (~ 1.18.1–2)

§3 unlimited void §4 internal but no external void §5 no internal but unlimited external void §6 limited external void for respiration

It can be seen that the two chapters complement each other, with neither possessing all the elements for a complete treatment of their subjects. We note the following. (1) Ch. 1.18 starts with the issue of the void’s existence, which is denied (same procedure in chs. 1.7 (gods), 1.23 (generation/destruction), 1.30 (nature)). Ch. 2.9 raises the question of existence in its chapter heading, but starts with a positive answer and ends with denial of its existence. (2) Ch. 1.18 includes the atomist position, which was a standard component of the doxography, but does not relate it to the cosmological position of multiple kosmoi separated by the (external) void. Ch. 2.9 omits this view entirely, even though it is very relevant to its topic. This view is more clearly articulated in Ach. (3) The mention of a void internal to the cosmos in the last doxa of ch. 2.9 does not cohere with its title. Moreover the view of Strato that there is internal but no external void (i.e. 1.18.4) is not included. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This doxa is clearly the same as the one attributed to Aristotle at A 1.18.6. See our comments there (Commentary D(d)§6), where we argue that the doxographer has presented the Stagirite as a kind of Pythagorean. §2 The reading of PE and S, ἄπειρον, is clearly to be preferred to that of PB, τὸ ἄπειρον, both because of the contrast with the next lemma, and because the Anaximandrean concept of the infinite (A 1.3.2) is not relevant here (in A it is found elsewhere only at 1.3.9, Epicurus). See also Algra (1993) 481–482, who suggests the article was inserted when ἄπειρον was wrongly taken to be the subject of the sentence. We note also Ach §8.2 18.1 οὐ μὴν ἄπειρόν φασιν and Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I, p. 93.1 Maass ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄπειρον, both in Stoic doxai.

liber 2 caput 9

871

§3 This lemma has given rise to much discussion. All our sources with one exception state that the orthodox Stoic view was that the extra-cosmic void was infinite in extent (see texts below section E(a)§2). The one exception is Ach, but he appears to have mistakenly taken the exceptional view as the orthodox one. The doxa attributed to Posidonius thus records a deviation from orthodoxy. Many scholars, including Kidd (1988) 393, consider this position unlikely. In a full discussion, however, Algra argues that Posidonius may well have been dissatisfied with the Chrysippean argument for the existence of an infinite void, postulating (perhaps) that, just as place (τόπος) obtains its limit from the occupying body, so the void is limited by the maximum extent of its one-time occupant, i.e. the cosmos at the time of its conflagration. See Algra (1993) 495– 504 and for a different view Primavesi (2018) 116. §4 We have opted for the retention of the double name-label Plato–Aristotle as found in PEQ. It should be noted, however, that it is not supported by S who only ascribes the doxa to Plato in a coalesced cluster, but also not by G, who in his final doxa also has only the name-label Plato. Jas in an unpublished review of Bottler (2014) suggests that S and G may independently have the original reading, and that a gloss may have entered the tradition in two stages, first as the name-label in E and Q, and then later the longer description with the false reference in PB. In our view this hypothesis is not compelling. It is simpler to assume that S considered that the Aristotelian viewpoint was sufficiently covered at 1.18.1c (from 1.18.5 and AD). As for G, he could have easily dropped the name-label in his epitomising. There are no other examples of this particular double name-label in P, but for the triple name-label Pythagoras–Plato–Aristotle see A 2.10.1, 4.29.1, 5.4.2. A generally connects two name-labels with καί, so we might perhaps conjecture Πλάτων ⟨καὶ⟩ Ἀριστοτέλης here. But there are exceptions, e.g. at A 1.11.3, 1.23.1, 2.8.1 etc., so it is not justified to alter the text. e Other Evidence The text in the recently discovered fragment of a Commentary on the Categories of Aristotle (perhaps to be attributed to Porphryry) is of great interest. As noted above in ch. 1.18 Commentary B(1), the text appears in a logical context and thus speaks of προτάσεις rather than δόξαι. But the method of division that it uses and the coupling of name-labels with philosophical positions is exactly the method so often used in the Placita. It would not surprise if the contents are traditional and that Porphyry (if indeed he is the author) took them over from an earlier commentary which had in turn made use of the doxographical tradition. The name-labels are exactly those of the tradition in which A stands, as the combined evidence of chs. 1.18 and 2.9 clearly shows.

872

liber 2 caput 9

The texts in Ach and Aratea I also stand in this tradition and verbally are even closer to A. It is to be noted how the text in Ach refers to ‘unlimited kosmoi’ and the text in the Aratea to the distinction between ‘the whole’ and ‘the universe’. Both of these themes occur in ch. 2.1. There is in fact a strong degree of interconnection between all the chapters in chs. 2.1–10, both in A and in closely related sources. As noted above in section D(c), the presence of the atomist doxa in Ach is a strong indication that it was also originally present in earlier versions of this chapter in the anterior doxographical tradition. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: (For this chapter see also the texts cited on ch. 1.18.) Philo of Alexandria Plant. 7 ἀνάγκη τοίνυν ἐκτὸς ἢ κενὸν ἢ μηδὲν εἶναι. εἰ μὲν δὴ κενόν, πῶς τὸ πλῆρες καὶ ναστὸν καὶ τῶν ὄντων βαρύτατον οὐ βρίθει ταλαντεῦον στερεοῦ μηδενὸς ἀπερείδοντος; cf. Somn. 1.184 cited on A 1.20 section E(a) General texts. Galen PHP 9.6.21 De Lacy ἐν μὲν γὰρ φιλοσοφίᾳ μὴ πεπαῦσθαι τὰς πλείστας τῶν διαφωνιῶν οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν … ὥσπερ γε καὶ τινῶν μὲν οὐδὲν ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ κόσμου) περιέχον εἶναι, τινῶν δὲ εἶναι λεγόντων καὶ τούτων αὐτῶν ἐνίων μὲν κενὸν ἀποφηναμένων εἶναι τοῦτο μηδεμίαν οὐσίαν ἔχον ἐν αὐτῷ, τινῶν δὲ κόσμους ἄλλους ἀριθμῷ ἀπεριλήπτους, ὡς εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκτετάσθαι πλῆθος. PHP 9.7.9 μόνοις οὖν ἐκείνοις τοῖς φιλοσόφοις καὶ τὸ μηδὲν εἰς ἦθός τε καὶ τὰς πολιτικὰς πράξεις χρήσιμον ζητεῖν ἀκόλουθόν ἐστιν, ὅσοι τὴν θεωρητικὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἵλοντο, καθάπερ γε καὶ εἰ μετὰ ⟨τὸν⟩ κόσμον τοῦτόν ἐστί τι, καὶ εἰ ἔστιν, ὁποῖόν τι τοῦτο. HVA 1.12, p. 125.9 Helmreich τῆς μὲν τῶν φιλοσόφων διαφωνίας οὐδὲν ἔχομεν ἐμφανὲς τεκμήριον· οὔτε γὰρ εἰ γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος οὔτ᾽ εἰ φθαρτὸς οὔτ᾽εἰ μὴ κενόν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν οὐτ᾽ εἰ ἄπειρος οὔτ᾽ εἰ μόνος οὗτος εἷς ἐστιν … Pecc.Dig. 7.8–9, p. 67.7 De Boer καὶ πρῶτόν γε τοῦτο λέγω, μάλιστ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ⟨τῶνδε⟩ τῶν Περιπατητικῶν τις ἀφῖκται {τῶν} φιλοσόφων ἕνα τε τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον εἶναι πεπεισμένων ἔξωθέν τ᾽ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ ἔνδον. διαφέρει γε μήν, ἔφην, τῶνδε τῶν φιλοσόφων διττὴν διαφορὰν ἑκάτερος τούτων (ἐδείκνυον δὲ τόν τε Στωϊκὸν καὶ τὸν Ἐπικούρειον), ὁ μὲν γὰρ Στωϊκὸς (SVF 2.542) οὐκ ἔνδον εἶναί τι κενὸν ⟨λέγων⟩, ἔξωθεν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου ὑπάρχειν αὐτό. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἄμφω συγχωρῶν ὁ Ἐπικούρειος ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ διαφέρεται πρὸς αὐτούς· οὐ γὰρ ⟨ἕνα⟩ ὁμολογεῖ ⟨τὸν⟩ κόσμον εἶναι τόνδε, καθάπερ ὁ Στωϊκὸς οἴεται, κατά γε τοῦτο τοῖς Περιπατητικοῖς ὁμοδοξῶν, ἀλλ᾽, ὥσπερ γε καὶ τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον τῷ μεγέθει φησὶν ὑπάρχειν, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ κόσμους ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἤκουσα μέν, ἃ λέγουσιν οἱ τρεῖς συναγορεύειν βουλόμενοι τοῖς ἰδίοις ὀνείροις, ἀκριβῶς δ᾽ οἶδα μηδένα λόγον ἀποδεικτικὸν ἔχοντας αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδεχομένους τε καὶ εἰκότας … Propr.Plac. c. 2, p. 172.31–32 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli πότερον ἀγέννητός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος ἢ γεννητός, εἴτε τι μετ᾽ αὐτὸ ἔξωθεν, εἴτε μηδέν ⟨ἀγνοεῖν φημι⟩. Sextus Empiricus M. 8.146 φύσει δὲ ἦν ἄδηλα τὰ δι᾽ αἰῶνος ἀποκεκρυμμένα καὶ μὴ δυνάμενα ὑπὸ τὴν ἡμετέραν πεσεῖν ἐνάργειαν, καθάπερ … τὸ ἀξιούμενον ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου τισὶ φυσικοῖς ἄπειρον κενόν. Anon. (Porphyry?) in Categorias, Archimedespalimps. fol. 78v + 75r20–28 τοῦ γὰρ κε|[νοῦ] δοκοῦντος εἶναι τόπος (our con-

liber 2 caput 9 jecture, codex appears to read τόπου) ἐστερημένος σώματος, | λάβοντες τὸ ἐντὸς καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου ὡς δύο, | [φήσομεν, τ]οῦ κενοῦ ἑνὸς κατὰ δυεῖν φερομένου, τέσ|[σα]ρας γενέσθαι κατὰ διαίρεσιν προτάσεις, ἢ | ἐκτὸς (καὶ) ἐντὸς τοῦ κόσμου εἷναι κενόν ὡς Δημο-|κρίτῳ τε καὶ Ἐπικοὺρῳ ἢρεσκεν, ἢ οὔτ᾽ ἐντὸς | οὔτε ἐκτὸς ὡς Ἀριστοτέλει καὶ Πλάτωνι, ἢ ἐκτὸς μὲν | ἐντὸς δὲ οὐ, ⟨καθάπερ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος, ἢ ἐντὸς μὲν ἐκτὸς δὲ οὐ⟩ καθάπερ Στράτωνι (fr. 26C Sharples) ἔδοξεν. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58, p. 133.3–5 Marchesi locus ipse ac spatium, in quo situs est (sc. mundus) ac volutatur, quid sit? infinitus, finitus inanis an solidus? Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 περί τε τοῦ ἐκτὸς τῆς τοῦ κόσμου περιφερείας. §1 Pythagoreans: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.18c, p. 156.8–25 = Aristotle Phys. 4.6 213b22–27 + fr. 201 R3 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τετάρτῳ Φυσικῆς γράφει· ‘εἶναι δέ φασιν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B30 DK) κενὸν καὶ ἐπεισιέναι αὐτὸ τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου πνεύματος ὡς ἀναπνέοντι.’ ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ τῆς Πυθαγόρου φιλοσοφίας γράφει τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν εἶναι ἕνα, ἐπεισάγεσθαι δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνον τε καὶ πνοὴν καὶ τὸ κενόν, ὃ διορίζει ἑκάστων τὰς χώρας ἀεί. §2 Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Her. 228 ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανός … ἀπειρομεγέθης ἐστί. περιέχεται γὰρ ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς σώματος, οὔτε ἰσομεγέθους αὐτῷ οὔτε ἀπείρου, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὑπὸ κενοῦ κατὰ Μωυσῆν διὰ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει μυθευομένην τερατολογίαν. cf. also Aet. 101–103 (= SVF 2.619). Arius Didymus fr. 25 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.18.4d, p. 161.17–26 (SVF 2.503) (on Chrysippus) τὸ μὲν οὖν κενὸν ἄπειρον εἶναι λέγεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου τοιοῦτ᾽ εἶναι, τὸν δὲ τόπον πεπερασμένον διὰ τὸ μηδὲν σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι. καθάπερ δὲ τὸ σωματικὸν πεπερασμένον εἶναι, οὕτως τὸ ἀσώματον ἄπειρον, ὅ τε γὰρ χρόνος ἄπειρος καὶ τὸ κενόν. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ μηδὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πέρας, οὕτως οὐδὲ τοῦ μηδενός, οἷόν ἐστι τὸ κενόν. κατὰ γὰρ τὴν αὑτοῦ ὑπόστασιν ἄπειρόν ἐστι· περατοῦται δ᾽ αὖ τοῦτο ἐκπληρούμενον· τοῦ δὲ πληροῦντος ἀρθέντος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ νοῆσαι πέρας. fr. 26 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.8.42a, p. 106.11 (SVF 2.509) (on Chrysippus) τὸ κενὸν πᾶν ἄπειρον εἶναι πάντῃ. Plutarchus SR 1054B (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.539) ὅτι τοῦ κόσμου κενὸν ἐκτὸς ἄπειρόν ἐστι, τὸ δ᾽ ἄπειρον οὔτ᾽ ἀρχὴν οὔτε μέσον οὔτε τελευτὴν ἔχει, πολλάκις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγεται. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.140 (on the Stoics, SVF 1.95, 2.543) ἔξωθεν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ περικεχυμένον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, ὅπερ ἀσώματον εἶναι· ἀσώματον δὲ τὸ οἷόν τε κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ σωμάτων οὐ κατεχόμενον· ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡνῶσθαι αὐτόν· τοῦτο γὰρ ἀναγκάζειν τὴν τῶν οὐρανίων πρὸς τὰ ἐπίγεια σύμπνοιαν καὶ συντονίαν. φησὶ δὲ περὶ τοῦ κενοῦ Χρύσιππος μὲν ἐν τῷ Περὶ κενοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν Φυσικῶν τεχνῶν καὶ Ἀπολλοφάνης (SVF 1a. Apoll. 404) ἐν τῇ Φυσικῇ καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος (SVF 3. Apoll. 5) καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν δευτέρῳ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου (F 6 E.-K., 260 Theiler). Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 284.30 οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.535) ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κενὸν εἶναι βουλόμενοι διὰ τοιαύτης αὐτὸ κατασκευάζουσιν ὑποθέσεως. in Cael. 285.27–32 καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ δέ, φησὶν Ἀλέξανδρος, οὗ ὑποτίθενται κενοῦ, ἀναιροῦσι τὸ εἶναι κενόν. ἔστω γάρ, εἰ δυνατόν, ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου κενόν· τοῦτο δὴ ἤτοι πεπερασμένον ἐστὶν ἢ ἄπειρον. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν πεπερασμένον, ὑπό τινος περατοῦται, καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κενοῦ ὁ αὐτὸς

873

874

liber 2 caput 9

ἐρωτηθήσεται λόγος, καὶ ἐκτενεῖ τις τὴν χεῖρα ἢ οὐκ ἐκτενεῖ· τί γὰρ φήσουσιν; εἰ δὲ ἄπειρον εἴη, ὥσπερ Χρυσίππῳ δοκεῖ … cf. at Simp. in Phys. 671.4–7 cited on A 1.18. §3 Posidonius: cf. D.L. 7.140 cited above on §2. Also texts cited above under Testes secundi. §4 Plato Aristotle: Sextus Empiricus M. 9.334 οἱ δὲ φάμενοι μηδ᾽ ὅλως εἶναι κενόν, ὡς οἱ ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου, τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν τῶν σωμάτων μόνον, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦ κενοῦ ἐπικατηγοροῦσιν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Phys. 3.6 206b23–24 ὥσπερ φασὶν οἱ φυσιολόγοι τὸ ἔξω σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου, οὗ ἡ οὐσία ἢ ἀὴρ ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον, ἄπειρον εἶναι. Phys. 4.6 213a12–b29, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ὑποληπτέον εἶναι τοῦ φυσικοῦ θεωρῆσαι καὶ περὶ κενοῦ, εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μή, καὶ πῶς ἔστι, καὶ τί ἐστιν … . ἄρξασθαι δὲ δεῖ τῆς σκέψεως λαβοῦσιν ἅ τε λέγουσιν οἱ φάσκοντες εἶναι καὶ πάλιν ἃ λέγουσιν οἱ μὴ φάσκοντες, καὶ τρίτον τὰς κοινὰς περὶ αὐτῶν δόξας. οἱ μὲν οὖν δεικνύναι πειρώμενοι ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐχ ὃ βούλονται λέγειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι κενόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐξελέγχουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ⟨ὃ⟩ ἁμαρτάνοντες λέγουσιν. ὥσπερ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐλέγχοντες … οὔκουν τοῦτο δεῖ δεικνύναι, ὅτι ἐστί τι ὁ ἀήρ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι διάστημα ἕτερον τῶν σωμάτων, οὔτε χωριστὸν οὔτε ἐνεργείᾳ ὄν, ὃ διαλαμβάνει τὸ πᾶν σῶμα ὥστε εἶναι μὴ συνεχές, καθάπερ λέγουσιν Δημόκριτος καὶ Λεύκιππος καὶ (213) ἕτεροι πολλοὶ τῶν φυσιολόγων (67A19 DK), ἢ καὶ εἴ τι ἔξω τοῦ παντὸς σώματός ἐστιν ὄντος συνεχοῦς. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οὐ κατὰ θύρας πρὸς τὸ πρόβλημα ἀπαντῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ φάσκοντες εἶναι μᾶλλον. λέγουσιν δ᾽ ἓν μὲν … Μέλισσος (30A8 DK) μὲν οὖν καὶ δείκνυσιν ὅτι τὸ πᾶν ἀκίνητον ἐκ τούτων …· εἶναι δ᾽ ἔφασαν καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B30 DK) κενόν, καὶ ἐπεισιέναι αὐτὸ τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου πνεύματος ὡς ἀναπνέοντι καὶ τὸ κενόν … ἐξ ὧν μὲν οὖν οἱ μέν φασιν εἶναι οἱ δ᾽ οὔ φασι, σχεδὸν τοιαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτά ἐστιν. Phys 4.7 213b30 πρὸς δὲ τὸ ποτέρως ἔχει δεῖ λαβεῖν τί σημαίνει τοὔνομα … Phys. 4.8 214b12 ὅτι δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν κενὸν οὕτω κεχωρισμένον, ὡς ἔνιοί φασι, λέγωμεν πάλιν … Seneca Dial. 5.5.6 scrutor quod ultra mundum iacet, utrumne profunda vastitas sit an et hoc ipsum terminis suis cludatur. Heron Mechanicus Pneum. 1 Pr. 17–23 πρὸ δὲ τῶν λέγεσθαι μελλόντων πρῶτον περὶ κενοῦ διαληπτέον. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὸ καθόλου μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ⟨διατείνονται⟩, οἱ δὲ ἄθρουν μὲν κατὰ φύσιν μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, παρεσπαρμένον δὲ κατὰ μικρὰ μόρια τῷ ἀέρι καὶ τῷ ὑγρῷ καὶ ⟨τῷ⟩ πυρὶ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις σώμασιν. Themistius in Ph. 67.16 τὸ κενὸν δὲ οἱ φυσικοὶ νομίζουσι. σκεπτέον οὖν, εἴτε ὀρθῶς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν εἴτε μή. John Philoponus in APo 239.2 ὅταν δὲ πότερον πάντα τὰ ὄντα ἐντὸς αὑτοῦ περιέχει ἢ οὔ, τὸ πρός τι ⟨ζητοῦμεν⟩. in Ph. 610.23–25 (on 213a13) Πῶς μὲν ἔστι, πότερον ἔξω ἐστὶ τοῦ κόσμου αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἄπειρόν τι κενόν, ἢ ἐγκατέσπαρται τοῖς σώμασιν, ὥσπερ ἔλεγον οἱ τὰς ἀτόμους δοξάζοντες. Chapter heading: cf. John Philoponus in Ph. 610.23 cited above. §2 Stoics: Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.43–48 Todd (SVF 2.537) εἰ δὲ καὶ εἰς πῦρ ἀναλύεται ἡ πᾶσα οὐσία, ὡς τοῖς χαριεστάτοις τῶν φυσικῶν δοκεῖ, ἀνάγκη πλέον ἢ μυριοπλασίονα τόπον αὐτὴν καταλαμβάνειν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ εἰς ἀτμὸν ἐκθυμιώμενα

liber 2 caput 9 τῶν στερεῶν σωμάτων. ὁ τοίνυν ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει ὑπὸ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκχεομένης καταλαμβανόμενος τόπος νῦν κενός ἐστιν, οὐδενός γε σώματος αὐτὸν πεπληρωκότος … Cael. 1.1. 55 ὅθεν οἱ λέγοντες ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι φλυαροῦσιν … Cael. 1.1.81 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως οὐδ᾽ ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου κενὸν ἀπολείπουσι … Cael. 1.1.104, εὔηθες δὲ καὶ τὸ λὲγειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι, εἴπερ ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου κενόν ἐστι, τοῦτο ἄπειρον εἶναι δεήσει … §4 Plato Aristotle: Plato Tim. 32c6–8 ἐκ γὰρ πυρὸς παντὸς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος καὶ γῆς συνέστησεν αὐτὸν ὁ συνιστάς, μέρος οὐδὲν οὐδενὸς οὐδὲ δύναμιν ἔξωθεν ὑπολιπών. Tim. 33c3–4 πνεῦμά τε οὐκ ἦν περιεστὸς δεόμενον ἀναπνοῆς. Tim. 58a7, σφίγγει πάντα καὶ κενὴν χώραν οὐδεμίαν ἐᾷ λείπεσθαι. 59a1 τοῦ πυρός, ἅτε οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἐξιόντος. Aristotle Cael. 1.9 278b21–24 τριχῶς δὴ λεγομένου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὸ ὅλον τὸ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐσχάτης περιεχόμενον περιφορᾶς ἐξ ἅπαντος ἀνάγκη συνεστάναι τοῦ φυσικοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ σώματος διὰ τὸ μήτ᾽ εἶναι μηδὲν ἔξω σῶμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μήτ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι γενέσθαι. Cael. 1.9 279a6–17 φανερὸν τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν ἔξω οὔτ᾽ ἐγχωρεῖ γενέσθαι σώματος ὄγκον οὐθενός· … ἅμα δὲ δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ τόπος οὐδὲ κενὸν οὐδὲ χρόνος ἐστὶν ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. … ἔξω δὲ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δέδεικται ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν οὔτ᾽ ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι σῶμα. φανερὸν ἄρα ὅτι οὔτε τόπος οὔτε κενὸν οὔτε χρόνος ἐστὶν ἔξω. Proclus in Tim. 2.65.14 αὐτὸ δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ σκεπτέον, πῶς οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξω τοῦ παντός.

875

Liber 2 Caput 10 PB: Plutarch 888A–B; p. 339a1–10 Diels—PE: PE 15.41, p. 411.19–23 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 53; p. 623.12–16 Diels; pp. 167–169 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 146–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 162, p. 83 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.34, p. 40.4–6 Delatte S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.15.6de, pp. 147.17–148.3 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 28, p. 44.14–18; c. 35, pp. 54.25–55.6 Di Maria

Titulus ιʹ. Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά (P) §1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά. {οὔθ᾽ ὕψος δέ φασιν οὔτε βάθος ἔχειν τὸν κόσμον, καθ᾽ ὃν λόγον ὕψος μὲν λέγεται τὸ κάτωθεν ἄνω διάστημα, βάθος δὲ τὸ ἄνωθεν κάτω. μηδὲν γὰρ εἶναι τῶν οὕτως διαστημάτων λεγομένων περὶ τὸν κόσμον διὰ τὸ περὶ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ μέσον αὐτὸν συνεστάναι, ἀφ᾽ οὗ πρὸς ἅπαν ἐστι καὶ πρὸς ὃ πανταχόθεν ταὐτό.} (P1,S2) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ κατὰ τὸν θερινὸν τροπικόν, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν χειμερινόν. (P2,S1) §1 Pythagoras —; Plato —; Aristoteles cf. Cael. 2.2; §2 Empedocles 31A50 DK titulus τίνα … ἀριστερά PEQB, SL-ind ex P : τίνα2 om. PG sec. Jas (τοῦ κόσμου om. Nic, καὶ ἀριστερά om. mss.) §1 [2] post Πυθαγόρας et Πλάτων add. καὶ PG ‖ post Ἀριστοτέλης add. ἔφασαν PG ‖ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη] ἑῷα PG ‖ [3] ἡ ἀρχὴ] ἀρχὴν εἶναι PG ‖ post κινήσεως add. S διὰ τὰς ἀνατολάς, secl. ut glossema Heeren Diels ‖ δυτικά] ἑσπέρια PG ‖ post τὰ δυτικά iterant SFP verba Ζήνων ἔφασκε τὸ πῦρ κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν κινεῖσθαι ex 146.21 Wachsmuth ‖ [3–8] de verbis a S additis οὔθ᾽ ὕψος … ταὐτό vid. comm. infra ‖ [7] ὃ] τὸ S, emend. Diels ‖ [8] ταὐτό] τοῦτο S, emend. Heeren §2 [9] post Ἐμπεδοκλῆς add. δὲ PG, ante nomen add. καὶ S ‖ post μὲν add. S αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ κόσμου) ‖ [9–10] τὸν θερινὸν τροπικόν, τὸν χειμερινόν PBEQS : τῶν θερινῶν τροπικῶν, τῶν χειμερινῶν PG

Testes prim: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 53 (~ tit.) Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἀριστερά (text Jas) 53.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου ἔφασαν εἶναι τὰ ἑῷα, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ ἑσπέρια. 53.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ δεξιὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ κατὰ τῶν θερινῶν τροπικῶν, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ κατὰ τῶν χειμερινῶν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 162 Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.35 Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά (~ tit.)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_051

5

10

liber 2 caput 10

877

δεξιὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά (~ P1). Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 28, p. 44.14–18 οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ βόρεια, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ νότια καλοῦσιν. Ὅμηρος δεξιὰ μὲν καλεῖ τὰ ἀνατολικά, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικὰ διὰ τούτων (Il. 12.239–240)· ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα.’ c. 35, pp. 54.25–55.6 τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐξηγουμένων βούλονται ἔμπροσθεν μὲν τὰς Ἄρκτους, ὀπίσω δὲ τὸν νότον, δεξιὰ⟨ς⟩ δὲ τὰς ἀνατολάς, ἀριστερὰ⟨ν⟩ δὲ τὴν δύσιν ἔχειν, ἴσως ἀπὸ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν ἐπῶν κινηθέντες (Il. 12.239–240) ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε / εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα’, οὐκ εἰδότες, ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς πρὸς τὴν τῶν τόπων ἐκείνων θέσιν δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικὰ εἶπεν. Loci Aetiani: cf. A 5.7.4–5 (de partu sexus virilis et muliebris) Ἀναξαγόρας Παρμενίδης τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν καταβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τῆς μήτρας, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά· εἰ δ᾽ ἐναλλαγείη τὰ τῆς καταβολῆς, γίνεσθαι θήλεα. Λεωφάνης, οὗ μέμνηται Ἀριστοτέλης, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ δεξιοῦ διδύμου τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ. A 5.11.2 (de similitudine ad patrem aut matrem) Παρμενίδης, ὅταν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους τῆς μήτρας ὁ γόνος ἀποκριθῇ, τοῖς πατράσιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ, ταῖς μητράσιν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the P tradition, as for chs. 2.6–9, the chapter is represented by the four main witnesses. There is very little variation between them. All have just the two doxai (P1, P2). G, clearly striving for variation, replaces τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη with τὰ ἑῷα and τὰ δυτικά with τὰ ἑσπέρια. The evidence of Nicolaus’ translation shows that the chapter heading in his Greek text referred to both the right and the left, but without mentioning the cosmos. In the Byzantine mss. it is the other way around, with mention of the cosmos but not the left parts. Jas rightly restores the longer title, though without a second τίνα. As at A 2.8. it is a surprise to see that Psellus retains the title, though not the contents. (2) Both P’s lemmata can be located in S’s chapter 15 Περὶ σχημάτων. He sees a link between the chapter’s subject and the mainstream view that the cosmos is spherical. The second Empedoclean doxa is written out first in a cluster of

878

liber 2 caput 10

three, in which it occurs last (= S1). It is immediately followed by the other doxa attributed to Pythagoras–Plato–Aristotle (= S2). This lemma is much longer than the corresponding one in P (P1). (3) Predictably there is no trace of this chapter in T. (4) Two texts in the later chapters of Ach’s compendium briefly touch on the left and right sides of the cosmos, both with reference to the Pythagoreans (one anonymously) and the poet Homer. We discuss these texts in the following section. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Like ch. 2.8 this chapter asks a quite specific question about the cosmos. The texts in Philo and Ach with the tell-tale Homeric quotation lead to the surmisal that this question was present in the proximate tradition. The specific question, however, appears nowhere in writings belonging to this tradition. (2) Sources. The original source of the question posed in this chapter may well have been a discussion in Aristotle’s De caelo 2.2, where at the beginning of the chapter he notes that some people ask whether there is a left and a right (τι δέξιον καὶ ἀρίστερον) part of the heaven (note how a clear echo of Aristotle’s formulation survives in the heading of A’s chapter). He then mentions the Pythagoreans and criticizes them for only speaking of left and right, and not of above and below and back and front. He then gives his own view in which surprisingly the southern hemisphere is the upper part. Aristotle is also recorded as having discussed these matters in a separate treatise on the Pythagoreans (fr. 205 Rose, fr. 15 Ross). There are three further entwined traditions that have to be taken into account. (1) In his description of the World Soul at Tim. 36c Plato says that the movement of the Same revolves to the right by way of the side, that of the Different to the left by way of the diagonal. Various commentators (Calcidius, Proclus, Philoponus) claim that this is consistent either with Aristotle or Homer or both (see texts below section E). (2) In addition, Philo, Calcidius, Philoponus and Simplicius all join Ach in citing the Homeric verses at Il. 12.239–240 and deducing from them that for Homer, as for Plato and Aristotle, the eastern regions are on the right and the western regions on the left. (3) At the same time Ach records the view, which he attributes to the Pythagoreans, that the north is on the right and the south on the left. This is similar to the view of the Stoics in Cleomedes, which is based on the cosmos moving forward from east to west, and of course differs from the view attributed to Pythagoras in A.

liber 2 caput 10

879

C Chapter Heading The title is preserved only in the tradition of P. It is not referred to by S in his heading for Ecl. 1.15, which includes material from this chapter. It is found in the index in SL, but this is contaminated from PB; see above ch. 2.5 Commentary C. The chapter heading asks questions in the category of relative position (κεῖσθαι, cf. ch. 2.7). There is agreement on the heading in PBEQPsSy. As we have seen, G has abridged it only very slightly. The same title is found in SL, where it has been introduced from P. The only other chapter heading in Book 2 starting with the interrogative τίς is 2.13, but there are a number of examples elsewhere (κεῖσθαι e.g. chs. 1.1–2, 1.7, 2.13, 4.3, 4.5, 5.3, 5.17), mostly seeking to answer the quaestio of existence or essence, which is not the case here. As noted above, the formulation of the chapter heading goes back to Aristotle’s Cael. 2.2 284b6–7. D Analysis a Context This chapter is the final one asking questions of the cosmos as a whole. It follows on quite naturally from chapters on the cosmos’ motion, order and location, but is nevertheless somewhat of an oddity. There is an implicit analogy with a living being (one of the options laid out in ch. 2.3) such as a human being. See chs. 5.7 and 5.11 where aspects of human life are related to the right and left parts of the womb. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no evidence that there are more than the two lemmata found in P and S. Since the epitomator P preserves the order of doxai much more faithfully than the anthologist S and S’s procedure can easily be reconstructed, P’s order should be retained. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In both Aristotelian (cf. Cael. 2.2) and Stoic (cf. Cleom. Cael. 1.1.150–157) cosmology it is assumed, since the cosmos is a living body with its own motion, that it is legitimate to ascribe directions to it. The first doxa is given the authoritative name-labels of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, and represents the majority view of the standard cosmological model. It assumes that the cosmos makes a daily rotation around a fixed north-south axis and takes the perspective of an observer in the northern hemisphere facing north. The second doxa is an earlier Presocratic view that, given the lack of explanation, is not easy to understand. It may presume a vortex model of the cosmos, but could also be based on the movement of the sun from north to south along the ecliptic in the northern

880

liber 2 caput 10

hemisphere (as suggested by Bollack 1965–1977, 3.277). In this case it would be closer to the Stoic view put forward in Cleomedes, in which the observer faces west. The two doxai naturally form a diaeresis, but what is the opposition between them? Perhaps it might be between east and west on the one hand and north and south on the other. It could also be between the standard orthodox view and a more exotic view belonging to the earlier history of cosmology. This would continue the opposition prominent in ch. 2.7. The multiple name-label of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle occurs elsewhere only on three occasions in the Placita: 2.23.8 (on the solar solstices, with Plato preceding Pythagoras), 4.20.1 (on whether the voice is incorporeal), and 5.4.2 (on whether semen is a body). The reason for Pythagoras’ presence can only be guessed at. It is possible that it happened because his followers are mentioned in the discussion in Aristotle, or he may stand for the Pythagorean tradition embodied in the Timaeus. At any rate, it would appear that an opportunity has been missed to contrast the mainstream view with the differing view of the Stoics. As for the chapter’s second doxa attributed to Empedocles, there are no parallels for it in the remains of his poems or the reports based upon them. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The text of the first doxa as found in S has three additions when compared with the P tradition. (1) The words διὰ τὰς ἀνατολάς are quite superfluous and should be regarded as a gloss, as seen by Heeren and followed by all subsequent editors. (2) A lemma with a doxa attributed to Zeno is repeated from S 1.14.6a and has no place here. It most likely derives from AD; see further on ch. 1.14 Commentary A.2(d). (3) The remaining part of the doxa not found in P is much more problematic. It is argued that there is no height or depth in the cosmos because it is uniformly centred on itself, the view expressed by Plato in Tim. 62c–d, but later rejected by Aristotle and the Stoa. Diels and Wachsmuth retain the passage, but the way it is connected to the remainder of the doxa with the vague verb φασί is unusual and suspicious. Stylistically the passage could derive from AD, but would then have to come from his treatment of Plato, almost none of which survives; cf. M–R 1.256, 3.322, 331. The topic is only marginally related to that of the rest of the chapter. We place the text in braces to indicate that its place in A must be considered uncertain (as we now think, pace M–R 2.2.432). Bottler (2014) 348 suggests it may be assigned to another chapter and that 1.12 Περὶ σωμάτων might be suitable. The application to the cosmos, however, speaks against this possibility.

liber 2 caput 10

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria QG 1.7 tr. Marcus (exegesis of Gen 2:8) ‘Why is He said to have planted Paradise in Eden towards the East? In the first place, because the movement of the world is from East to West; and that from which movement starts is first. Second, that which is in the region of the East is said to be the right side of the world, while that in the region of the West is the left. And so the poet (sc. Homer) testifies (Il. 12.239–240), calling the birds in the region of the East ‘right’, and those which are in the region of the West ‘on the left side’.’

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Tim. 36c (on the World Soul) τὴν μὲν οὖν ἔξω φορὰν ἐπεφήμισεν εἶναι τῆς ταὐτοῦ φύσεως, τὴν δ᾽ ἐντὸς τῆς θατέρου. τὴν μὲν δὴ ταὐτοῦ κατὰ πλευρὰν ἐπὶ δεξιὰ περιήγαγεν, τὴν δὲ θατέρου κατὰ διάμετρον ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά, κράτος δ᾽ ἔδωκεν τῇ ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίου περιφορᾷ. Leg. 6.760d2 τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ γιγνέσθω τὸ πρὸς ἕω. Aristotle Cael. 2.2 284b6–10 ἐπειδὴ δέ τινές εἰσιν οἵ φασιν εἶναί τι δεξιὸν καὶ ἀριστερὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καθάπερ οἱ καλούμενοι Πυθαγόρειοι (58B30 DK) (ἐκείνων γὰρ οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἐστίν), σκεπτέον πότερον τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον ὡς ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν, ἢ μᾶλλον ἑτέρως, εἴπερ δεῖ προσάπτειν τῷ τοῦ παντὸς σώματι ταύτας τὰς ἀρχάς. Cael. 2.2 285a25–31 διά τε δὴ τὸ παραλείπειν τὰς κυριωτέρας ἀρχὰς δίκαιον αὐτοῖς ἐπιτιμᾶν, καὶ διότι ταύτας ἐν ἅπασιν ὁμοίως ἐνόμιζον ὑπάρχειν. ἡμῖν δ᾽ ἐπεὶ διώρισται πρότερον ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ἔχουσιν ἀρχὴν κινήσεως αἱ τοιαῦται δυνάμεις ἐνυπάρχουσιν, ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς ἔμψυχος καὶ ἔχει κινήσεως ἀρχήν, δῆλον ὅτι ἔχει καὶ τὸ ἄνω καὶ τὸ κάτω καὶ τὸ δεξιὸν καὶ τὸ ἀριστερόν. Cael. 2.2 285b22–286a2 δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι ὁ ἀφανὴς πόλος ἐστὶ τὸ ἄνω. καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκεῖ οἰκοῦντες ἐν τῷ ἄνω εἰσὶν ἡμισφαιρίῳ καὶ πρὸς τοῖς δεξιοῖς, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἐν τῷ κάτω καὶ πρὸς τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς, ἐναντίως ἢ ὡς οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι λέγουσιν· ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἄνω ποιοῦσι καὶ ἐν τῷ δεξιῷ μέρει, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐκεῖ κάτω καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀριστερῷ. συμβαίνει δὲ τοὐναντίον. ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν δευτέρας περιφορᾶς, οἷον τῆς τῶν πλανήτων, ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἄνω καὶ ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς ἐσμεν, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐν τοῖς κάτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς· ἀνάπαλιν γὰρ τούτοις ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεώς ἐστι διὰ τὸ ἐναντίας εἶναι τὰς φοράς, ὥστε συμβαίνειν ἡμᾶς μὲν εἶναι πρὸς τῇ ἀρχῇ, ἐκείνους δὲ πρὸς τῷ τέλει. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν κατὰ τὰς διαστάσεις τῶν μορίων καὶ τῶν κατὰ τόπον ὡρισμένων τοσαῦτα εἰρήσθω. De Pythagoreis fr. 205 Rose, fr. 15 Ross. Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.155–158 Todd (SVF 2.557) ἐμπρόσθια μὲν οὖν τὰ πρὸς τῇ δύσει φασὶν εἶναι αὐτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ ὡς ἐπὶ δύσιν ἔχει τὴν ὁρμήν, ὀπίσθια δὲ τὰ πρὸς τῇ ἀνατολῇ· ἀπὸ τούτων γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔμπροσθεν πρόεισιν. ὅθεν δεξιὰ μὲν αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ἄρκτον, εὐώνυμα δὲ τὰ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν γενήσεται. Calcidius in Tim. c. 93 (on Tim. 36c4–7) quia tamen idem mundus animal est et animal intellegens, dextras partes habebit profecto eas in quibus est initium motus et ex qua parte perinde ut cetera animalia mouentur primitus. haec porro mundi pars in eois est proptereaque Homerum puto lapsum alitis augurantem dixisse (Il. 12.239) ‘dexter ad eoum uolitans solemque diemque’. John Philoponus Aet. 193.19–23 φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων, τὸν μὲν ἐκτὸς ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ ὁ θεὸς ἐκίνησε, τουτέστιν τὴν

881

882

liber 2 caput 10

ἀπλανῆ, τὸν δὲ ἐντὸς ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά, τὰς πλανωμένας δηλονότι, δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικὰ προσαγορεύων Ὁμηρικῶς, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά· φησὶ γοῦν κἀκεῖνος ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα’. in Phys. 454.9–15 καὶ ἐν τῷ παντὶ δὲ δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά, ὡς ἄρχοντα τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ ἐναντία. οὕτω καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς αὐτὰ καλεῖ· φησὶ γὰρ ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε, | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα.’ ταῦτα μὲν οὖν δεξιὰ καὶ ἀριστερά, κατ᾽ ἀναλογίαν δὲ ἔμπροσθεν μὲν τὰ βόρεια, ὄπισθεν δὲ τὰ νότια. Simplicius in Cael. 392.5–8 (commenting on 2.2 285b8–27) ὅτι δὲ τὰ δεξιὰ τοῦ παντὸς τὰ ἀνατολικά ἐστι καὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ τὰ δυτικά, καὶ Ὅμηρος ὁ σοφώτατος μαρτυρεῖ λέγων ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιά ἐστι πρὸς Ἠῶ τ᾽ Ἠέλιόν τε, | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ τοίγε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα.’ Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle Cael. 2.2 284b6–7 cited above under General texts. §1 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle: Proclus in Tim. 2.258.27–259.1 (on Tim. 36c6–8) οἶδα μὲν οὖν, ὅτι καὶ ὁ δαιμόνιος Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὸν μὲν τὸ ἀνατολικόν, ἀριστερὸν δὲ καλεῖ τὸ δυτικόν, ἐπειδήπερ ἡ μὲν πρώτη κίνησις ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ μετὰ ταύτην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν, ἀρχὴ δὲ κινήσεως ἐν πᾶσι ζῴοις τὸ δεξιόν. καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτό γε τοῦτο συμφωνεῖ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Πλάτωνος παράδοσιν.

Liber 2 Caput 11 PB : ps.Plutarchus Plac. 888B; pp. 339a11–340a5 Diels—PE : PE 15.42, p. 412.1–5 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.13—PG : ps.Galenus HPh c. 54; p. 623.17–22 Diels— PQ : Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 146–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 121.1, 7–11, p. 65 Westerink—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.35, p. 41.1 Delatte (titulus solus)—ps.Aristoteles Erotoapokriseis ed. V. Rose Hermes 9 (1875) 119 n. 1 S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.23, p. 200.13 (tit.) + 1.23.1–2, p. 200.15–25 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 5, pp. 13.15–14.2 Di Maria; Scholia in Basilium I 22, p. 200.13–17 Pasquali; Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A

Titulus ιαʹ. Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία (P,S) §1 Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Παρμενίδης τὴν περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτω γῆς εἶναι. (P1,S1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς στερέμνιον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα. (P2,S2) §3 Ἀναξίμανδρος ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος. (P3,S3) §4 Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος Στράτων Ζήνων πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν. (P3,S4) §5 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος. (P3,S5) §1 Anaximenes 13A13 DK, cf. Parmenides 28A38 DK; §2 Empedocles 31A51 DK; §3 Anaximander 12A17a DK; §4 Parmenides 28A38 DK; Heraclitus 22A10 DK; Strato fr. 84 Wehrli, fr. 42 Sharples; Zeno SVF 1.116; §5 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.2 269a31 titulus Περὶ … οὐσία PB : Περὶ οὐρανοῦ PEG : περὶ τῆς (τοῦ add. PPs) οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας PQ(ut vid.)PsS : cf. τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ Ach, τίς ἡ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐσία PSy §1 [2] Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Παρμενίδης S : Ἀναξιμένης P ‖ ἐξωτάτω γῆς εἶναι Diels DG : ἐξωτάτω τῆς γῆς εἶναι S Diels VS DK Laks–Most : ἐξωτάτω γηίνην PB, cf. Ach γήινον (mss. πτηνὸν, coni. Maass) : τῆς ἔξω ζωνῆς εἶναι PE : ἐξωτάτην γῆν εἶναι PG : al. Q daß die Substanz des Himmels dampfartig und die außerhalb von ihm (den Himmel) verlaufende Bewegung an seiner äußersten Grenze ist (ἔξω τούτου ἐξωτάτω εἶναι per dittographiam scripsisse videtur PQ) §2 [4] post nomen hab. PG δὲ ‖ εἶναι] ὑπάρχειν PG ‖ ἐξ ἀέρος] om. PQ ‖ συμπαγέντος PBE ps.Arist. : παγέντος PGS : συμπαγέντα (sc. τὸν οὐρανόν) PQ(ut vid.) ‖ τοῦ add. post ὑπὸ PE ‖ [5] κρυσταλλοειδῶς PB(I,III)EG1S ps.Arist. : κρυσταλλοειδοῦς PB(II)G2 ‖ post τὸ2 add. τε PG ‖ τὸ ἀερῶδες PGS : ἀερῶδες PBE ps.Arist. ‖ [5– 6] ἐν … περιέχοντα] ἑκάτερα τὰ ἡμισφαίρια περιέχειν PG §§3–5 non hab. PE ‖ text. S : PB non sanus, legit Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος πυρὸς ἢ ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος, cf. PQ, pro πυρὸς hab. PG πύρινον εἷναι, vid. comm. infra §4 [8] πύρινον SPG, fort. leg. PQ : πυρὸς PB §5 post lemma add. S λέγει γοῦν ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως καὶ οὐρανοῦ λόγοις οὕτως; vid. comm. infra

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_052

5

10

884

liber 2 caput 11

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 54 (~ tit.) Περὶ οὐρανοῦ (text Diels) 54.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξιμένης τὴν περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτην γῆν εἶναι. 54.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ στερέμνιον ὑπάρχειν τὸν οὐρανὸν οἴεται ἐξ ἀέρος παγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τό τε πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἑκάτερα τὰ ἡμισφαίρια περιέχειν. 54.3 (~ P5) Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ συνεστῶτα. fragmentum ap. ps.Arist. Erotoapokrisis ed. Rose Τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους ἐρώτησις. Τί ἐστιν οὐρανός; ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος, πυρός ἢ ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος (~ P3). ἀπολογία. οὐρανός ἐστι στερέμνιος ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα (sic) (~ P2). Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 121.1 Περὶ τῆς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας (~ tit.) c. 121.7–11 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τὰ μὲν τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν κινεῖσθαι λαβών, τὸν δὲ οὐρανὸν κύκλῳ φέρεσθαι, ἀπὸ τῆς διαφόρου κινήσεως διάφορον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν πρὸς τὰ στοιχεῖα δίδωσι, καὶ τόν τε οὐρανὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀστέρας καὶ μέχρι σελήνης αἰθέρα καλεῖ καὶ πέμπτον σῶμα κατονομάζει (cf. P3). Symeon Seth CRN 3.36 Τίς ἡ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐσία (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles c. 5 p. 13.15. Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) pp. 13.16–14.2 τὸν δὲ οὐρανὸν οἳ μὲν πυρώδη εἶναι καὶ στερέμνιον, ἐντὸς δὲ αὐτοῦ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὴν σφαῖραν ἐχομένην ὥσπερ δαλόν, διαφέρειν δὲ ταύτῃ, ᾗ ὁ μὲν δαλὸς ἀνωφερὲς ἔχει τὸ πῦρ, ὁ δὲ αἰθὴρ κατωφερές, καὶ τῷ τὸ μὲν θεῖον εἶναι καὶ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀμετάληπτον, τὸ δὲ φθαρτόν· Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ (31Α51 DK) κρυσταλλώδη τοῦτον εἶναί φησιν ἐκ τοῦ παγετώδους συλλεγέντα, Ἀναξίμανδρος (12A17n. DK) δὲ πτηνὸν (γήινον coni. Maass) πυρὸς μετέχοντα, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ σῶμα ἐκ ψυχροῦ καὶ θερμοῦ. etiam p. 15.19–21 Ζήνων γοῦν ὁ Κιτιεὺς (SVF 1.115) οὕτως αὐτὸν ὡρίσατο· ‘οὐρανός ἐστιν αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι πάντα ἐμφανῶς …’ Scholia in Basilium I 22, p. 200.13–17 τῶν οὐρανῶν οἱ μὲν πυρώδη τὴν οὐσίαν εἰπον· Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A51 DK) δὲ ὑδροπαγῆ τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ οἱονεὶ κρυσταλλῶδες πίλημα· ἄλλοι δὲ κρᾶμα ἐκ τῶν δʹ στοιχείων· ἕτεροι δὲ τοῦ εʹ στοιχείου· εἰκότως οὖν παραπέμπεται (sc. Basilius) τὴν περὶ οὐσίας σκέψιν ὡς διάφωνον καὶ ἄχρηστον. Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273 σκοπήσωμεν οὖν, τί ἡμῖν λυσιτελεῖ εἰς μακαριότητα, τί δ᾽ οὔ· καὶ οὕτως βασανίσωμεν τὰ λεγόμενα. τὸ λέγειν ἢ σφαῖραν εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν, ἢ ἡμισφαίριον· …

liber 2 caput 11

885

Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.13 Τίς οὐσία τῶν ἀστέρων πλανητῶν τε καὶ ἀπλανῶν καὶ πῶς συνέστη; A 2.20 Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου; A 2.25 Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης; A 3.9 Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι; A 4.3 Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς. §1 A 2.14.2 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. A 2.7.1 (de Parmenide) καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ πάσας τείχους δίκην στερεὸν ὑπάρχειν, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ πυρώδης στεφάνη. §2 A 2.13.2 & 11 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πύρινα ἐκ τοῦ πυρώδους … τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. §3 A 2.20.15 Παρμενίδης τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι, τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀραιοτέρου μίγματος, ὃ δὴ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυκνοτέρου, ὅπερ ψυχρόν. §4 A 1.18.4 Ἀριστοτέλης τοσοῦτον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, ὥστ᾽ ἀναπνεῖν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· ἔνδοθεν γὰρ εἶναι τόπον πύρινον. A 2.13.2 vid. ad §2. A 2.13.3 Ἀναξαγόρας τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα πύρινον μὲν εἶναι κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν … A 2.13.9 Ἀναξιμένης πυρίνην μὲν τὴν φύσιν τῶν ἄστρων … A 2.20.3 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης πύρινον ὑπάρχειν τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.25.2 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος πυρίνην. §5 A 1.3.21 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ Νικομάχου Σταγειρίτης ἀρχὰς μὲν ἐντελέχειαν ἤτοι εἶδος ὕλην στέρησιν· στοιχεῖα δὲ τέσσαρα, πέμπτον δέ τι σῶμα αἰθέριον ἀμετάβλητον. A 1.7.23 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν μὲν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν εἶδος χωριστόν, ἐπιβεβηκότα τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰθέριον σῶμα, τὸ πέμπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καλούμενον. A 1.12.3 Ἀριστοτέλης μηδὲν δὲ πῦρ κυκλοτερῶς φύσει κινεῖσθαι, μόνον δὲ τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα. A 2.7.5 Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον μὲν αἰθέρα ἀπαθῆ, πέμπτον δή τι σῶμα. A 2.13.12 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. A 2.20.11 Ἀριστοτέλης σφαῖραν ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. A 2.25.8 Ἀριστοτέλης ⟨ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος⟩. A 2.30.7 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα διὰ τὰ πρόσγεια ἀερώματα τοῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει σῶμα πέμπτον.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The chapter is found in a direct transmission only in the family of P and in S. The former has three lemmata, representing the views of Anaximenes–Parmenides (P1), Empedocles (P2) and Aristotle (P3). In the Byzantine mss. this final lemma is garbled. It is slightly better preserved in G and Q, but still makes very little sense. The absence of the lemma in E is perhaps an indication that the end of the chapter was corrupted early. Most of the chapter as found in P is utilised by

886

liber 2 caput 11

a Byzantine school teacher in a document edited by Rose (1875). Unfortunately he only published excerpts and he erred when he surmised that the source was S. The situation in P is immediately clarified when S is adduced. He preserves a block of five lemmata, the first two of which correspond to the doxai in P (S1, S2; on the double name-label in S1 see D(d) below). The remaining three correspond to the defective version in PBG as follows: P3 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος † πυρὸς ἢ † (G πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν, Q feurigen) ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος.

= S5 (Aristotle) cf. S4 πύρινον (Parmenides etc.) = S3 ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος, but with the name-label of Anaximander

We note the order of the three doxai in P is the reverse of what we find in S. How this might have occurred is discussed below in section D(c). For the further evidence in Ach and the Scholion on Basil see below section D(e). On a possible fleeting reference to P’s text of this chapter in Julian the Arian see ch. 2.12 Commentary A. The Aristotelian doxa in S is followed by another seven lines of text that are very unlikely to be derived from A. He first writes λέγει γοῦν ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως καὶ οὐρανοῦ (mss. αὐτοῦ, emend. Spengel) λόγοις οὕτως and then follows these words with a quote from AD (fr. 9 Diels) which speaks of both the stars and the heaven and had already been quoted earlier at 1.21.1c. The word οὕτως can look both forwards and backwards, but the former is much more likely than the latter, especially when a quote or excerpt follows: cf. 1.8.45, 1.18.4c, 1.20.6, 1.22.1f etc. Diels DG 216 persuasively argued that the words had been added by S and that he had amplified the Aëtian doxa ‘ex scholastica memoria’. As Mansfeld (2016a) 301 observes, ‘the formula γοῦν + title is regularly used to introduce S’s verbatim quotations from a Platonic dialogue’, though here he refers to a summary by AD of his doctrines in Phys. and Cael. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. For this chapter and a number of others in the remainder of the book a text at Philo Somn. 1.21, overlooked by Diels, is of great interest. It was discovered by Wendland, who concluded that it (and the longer section 21–32 which it commences) was dependent on Diels’ postulated Vetusta placita; see Wendland (1897) 1075. In illustrating the unknowability of both the heavens and the soul, Philo clearly draws on a doxographical compendium similar to that of A but anterior to him. On this and related texts in

liber 2 caput 11

887

Philo’s Allegorical Commentary see Runia (2008b) 24–29. On the doxai relating to the soul see further Mansfeld (1990a) 3117–3122 and below on ch. 4.2–7. Philo does not use any name-labels at all in his excerpts but doxai can easily be recognised. In the case of this chapter three of A’s doxai appear (Empedocles, Parmenides etc., Aristotle) in an order which agrees with S against P (the phrase μηδενὸς τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων μετέχον may conceal a reference to the Platonic view utilised for the stars at 2.13.11). Further texts in Lactantius and Arnobius may also have distant links with the Placita tradition. The former preserves a reference to Empedocles’ ‘congealed air’. Texts in Basil and Gregory of Nyssa link the doxography to biblical material, with the same pronounced sceptical emphasis already present in Philo. Similarly Isidore of Pelusium raises the question of whether the heaven is a sphere or a hemi-sphere, perhaps a distant reflection of §2. All these parallels show that on this subject A stands in a broader doxographical tradition. In later philosophical texts (Alexander, Philoponus, Simplicius) the focus narrows to the difference between Platonic and Aristotelian views (we note that Philoponus uses the topic to illustrate a question of essence or substance, τό τί ἐστιν). In general, it must be noted that the quaestio of the heaven’s οὐσία is not often posed, as distinct from that of the heavenly bodies within it. An exception is Seneca who explicitly mentions the topic as part of the investigation of the caelestia and illustrates it with the interesting diaeresis between a solid and a tenuous substance (he favours the latter view as the polemic in Nat. 7.13–14 against a certain Artemidorus of Parium shows). This diaeresis is also found in an earlier text in Epicurus. Texts cited below in section E(a,b). As we shall see below, it is implicit in the structure of A’s chapter. (2) Sources. The material on this question as treated by Presocratic authors will have been derived from original works and later summaries (probably in the Peripatos). As the lack of parallels shows, none of this evidence appears to have been preserved outside the Placita tradition. For later authors (Plato, Aristotle, Stoics) there was sufficient material that could be adapted, but A refers only to Aristotle’s famed quintessence. One might have expected a Platonic view, but in the Timaeus Plato speaks only of the substance of the heavenly bodies in general (cf. ch. 2.13). An extrapolation could of course have been made, as occurs in the Scholion on Basil, on which see further below Commentary D(e). The only authors of which a work with the title Περὶ οὐρανοῦ has been recorded are Aristotle (extant) and his followers Theophrastus and Strato (for references see section E(a) Chapter heading). In Aristotle, as cogently argued by Johnson (2019), the term οὐρανός refers to the whole of physical reality, i.e. the universe, rather than to the heavens as part thereof; see further ch. 2.1 Commentary C.

888

liber 2 caput 11

C Chapter Heading The witnesses reveal a wide variety of headings for the chapter. They can be summarised as follows: short: Περὶ οὐρανοῦ—E and G longer: Περὶ τῆς (τοῦ) οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας—Q, Ps and S elaborate: Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία—PB, cf. Ach and Sy The short version simply gives a general umbrella heading of the Περὶ x type, comparable to the heading of ch. 2.1 Περὶ κόσμου. The longer one includes the specification that the chapter treats the category of substance, and this is emphasised even more in the elaborate version that actually poses the question of the substance. It is impossible to determine with certainty which heading originally stood in A. The oldest witness E has the short version, supported by G (they also contain a similar short title for the chapters on the sun, A 2.20, and the moon, A 2.25). A similar divergence between short titles without the term οὐσία and longer titles with the term is found in the case of other chapters which discuss the substance of various physical entities: 2.13 on the heavenly bodies: no short titles (but cf. Ach §10) 2.20 on the sun: short title EGPB (ms. Marc. 521), longer title PB (other mss.) QS 2.25 on the moon: short title EG, longer title PBQS 3.9 on the earth: short title EGQ, longer title PBS (but without οὐσία) 4.2–3 on the soul: 4.2 has shorter title, 4.3 longer title with οὐσία (on corporeal soul) 5.3 on semen: no short titles, longer title PBGQ The conclusion to be drawn from this astounding variety is that the tradition of chapter headings was fluid and that ‘the length and precise wording of the chapter headings were not a matter of rigorous discipline, but rather of convenience’ (M–R 2.197). It seems to us very likely that the original heading contained a reference to the subject of οὐσία, but whether we opt for the longer or the elaborate title is quite arbitrary. We have decided on the elaborate title, which has a fine early parallel in Ach. But certainty cannot be attained. D Analysis a Context Having completed his chapters on the cosmos as a whole (chs. 2.1–10) A now turns to its most eminent part, the heaven. The οὐρανός has already been extens-

liber 2 caput 11

889

ively mentioned in chs. 2.5–7 (and also in 1.4 and 1.6), but now it is the main subject. This chapter is the first of five devoted to the οὐσία of parts of the cosmos (cf. chs. 2.13, 2.20, 2.25, 3.9). In the case of the heaven only two chapters discuss its features, many fewer than in the case of the other phenomena (stars 7, sun 5, moon 7, earth 7). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no evidence to suggest that the chapter had more than the five lemmata preserved in S, all of which are also—even if sometimes imperfectly— witnessed by P. As already noted, however, the order of the final three lemmata is problematic. Normally P is a more reliable guide to lemmatic order than S. In addition, S has a reason for placing the Aristotelian doxa last, because he wishes to add a quote from AD (on which see further D(d) below). But we also need to take the overall structure of the chapter into account before making a decision. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The term οὐρανός can have various meanings in early Greek thought. As Aristotle sets out very clearly in Cael. 1.9 278b9–21, it has at least three: (1) the outer periphery of the world; (2) the region which contains the planets; and (3) the world as a whole (cf. Plato’s usage at Tim. 28b2; see further on κόσμος and οὐρανός the note at ch. 1.6 Commentary D(d) on §1[7–25] and §1[14–16]). The first lemma clearly indicates that the first meaning is meant, and the second follows on well from it. These two doxai regard the heaven’s nature as solid, whether of earth or congealed air. For the remaining three the meaning is less clear. Both the first and second meaning would appear to be relevant. Those views attributed to Parmenides etc. and to Aristotle also form a plausible pair. The doxa that the heaven is fiery is the most common, as is perhaps indicated by the multiple name-labels. Aristotle’s view is in contrast because his special element, though also called αἰθήρ, is not fiery. In chs. 2.13 and 2.25 (but not in 2.20) this view is contrasted with that of Plato, but as already noted no mention is made of the Platonic view, unlike in all the other chapters on the οὐσία of the cosmos’ parts. This leaves us with the remaining doxa of Anaximander. It would seem to be a Fremdkörper in the chapter. What does it mean that the heaven is ‘from the hot and cold mixture’? Does this mean that it consists of a mixture with these two qualities? This is not so easy to place, although it is possible that A saw a link with Empedocles’ view of air (cold) being congealed by fire (hot). However, a text in ps.Plutarch Stromateis may give us a clue (text cited below in section E(a)§2). It speaks of a ‘part of the everlasting (i.e. the ἄπειρον) that was generative of hot and cold separated off at the genesis of this cosmos’, i.e.

890

liber 2 caput 11

the hot and cold mixture was the source of the heaven, not what it consisted of (an earlier text in Aristotle speaks allusively of the same mixture; text ibid.). This is likely to have been the origin of A’s doxa, but that does not mean that he intends it to be understood in the same way. It was noted above (Commentary B) that two of the infrequent doxographical parallels cast the question of the heaven’s nature in terms of a diaeresis between a solid and a tenuous composition. It is possible to interpret the structure of A’s chapter in these terms. The first two doxai present the heaven as consisting of a dense compacted substance (i.e. earth or crystalline), the final two (in S) as of a light substance (i.e. fire or the quintessence). The remaining doxa of Anaximander remains difficult from the Aëtian perspective, but might be taken as a compromise view, if a similar text at A 2.20.15 is adduced. This doxa, attributed to Empedocles, states that ‘the sun and the moon have been separated off from the Milky circle, the former from the more rarefied mixture which is hot, the latter from the denser (mixture) which is cold,’ i.e. the hot is explicitly identified with the rare, the cold with the dense. In terms of Anaximander’s cosmology one might see a connection with the revolving circles of fire and mist. The structure of the chapter can thus be interpreted in terms of a main diaeresis between two positions, each with two doxai, and a compromise view in between. A’s love of symmetrical structures has been amply demonstrated: see the remarks at M–R 2.657. Another possibility might be to see the chapter as moving through the various elements—earth, crystallized air, mixture of hot and cold, fire, quintessence. But this must be considered less likely, especially in light of the doxographical parallels. In whichever way it is interpreted, it is plain that the order in S makes more sense than that in P. The Aristotelian doxa can be read as trailing the others because it an exceptional view (as in chs. 2.13 and 2.25). If this is right, it remains difficult to see how the reversal of the order occurred in the tradition of P, except through the fact that the text became defective. Further evidence is found in both Ach and the scholion to Basil, both of which corroborate the order in S rather than that in A. They both end with a reference to Aristotle, the former using the name-label (but with an erroneous doctrine), the latter with the reference to the fifth element (but anonymously). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This brief doxa gives rise to numerous textual and interpretative issues. (1) The double name-label Anaximenes and Parmenides in S is dubious, since Parmenides recurs as the first name in §4. Although it often occurs in A that a name-label is repeated within a chapter (already pointed out in Runia

liber 2 caput 11

891

1992, 133, see also M–R 2.461, 523), this would be a particularly bold case. However, it is much easier for P to drop the name-label than for S to add it. At M–R 2.436 we suggested that the wrong name was written out or that the doxa was inspired by the description of the cosmos at A 2.7.1, and we deleted it from our reconstructed text. It is safest, we think now, to retain it. (2) The text is difficult, with each of the five witnesses offering a different version for its final words. The main question is whether the sentence states the nature of the periphery of the cosmos (with γῆς as a genitive of quality), as we have translated it above, or whether it merely offers a description of what the heaven is (somewhat like the nominal definitions in Book 1 and the opening definition on the cosmos in A 2.1.1). It has been understood in the latter sense by Wöhrle (2012) 267, who translates (accepting Diels’ emendation) ‘Anaximenes [sagt, dass der Himmel] der äußerste Umkreis der Erde sei.’ This is doubtless the way that S and E (but with a corrupt text) understood the doxa. PB, however, probably understood it as in our translation, altering the genitive to the adjective γηίνην (pace Jas, who thinks it is a corruption of γῆς εἶναι). The same is probably the case for G. The fact that §2 repeats the heaven as subject is an argument for it not being understood in §1. As noted in the textual apparatus, the variant translation in Q is best explained through dittography. The doxa that the outer edge of the cosmos is earthy is of course quite odd, but it seems the doxographer envisages a solid edge (but not crystalline, which is not earthy, cf. §2 and the scholion no. 22 in Pasquali’s collection). §4 It might be thought that the words εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν were added by S, since they are otiose in relation to the chapter’s title. But their inclusion by G militates against this view. §5 A uses the term πέμπτον σῶμα for the Aristotelian quintessence six times (seven if the conjecture at 2.25.8 is accepted), beginning at 1.3.21; see the loci Aëtiani above. As noted by Moraux (1963) 1226 in his magisterial article on the quinta essentia, although Aristotle himself calls the element the πρῶτον σῶμα, in the doxographical tradition there is a strong preference for terms involving the term ‘fifth’, which never occur in the corpus of Aristotle’s writings. The earliest use of the term used here appears to be at Philo Somn. 1.21, cited below in section E(a) General texts as evidence of the Placita tradition prior to A. Thereafter it is found in Taurus, Sextus Empiricus, ps.Justin etc. Plutarch speaks of a πέμπτη οὐσία at De E 390A (also at Philo QG 4.8 Petit). The validity of Aristotle’s doctrine was a hot topic in the first century bce and ce. The last philosopher to be mentioned in the Placita, the Peripatetic Xenarchus of Seleucia wrote a work Πρὸς τὴν πέμπτην οὐσίαν and argued against it; see Falcon (2011) 25–32. Psellus, who wrongly says that Aristotle names it a πέμπτον σῶμα, does not necessarily derive the term from P, for he uses it on a number of occasions elsewhere, e.g. in

892

liber 2 caput 11

his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 4.7. On the doctrine in the doxographical tradition see further Moraux (1963) 1226–1228. e Other Evidence Some further evidence is supplied by Achilles and a scholion to Basil. The former text, with the related title Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ, plainly stands in the same tradition as A, but its transmitted state is quite confused. Three of the namelabels coincide, but only one of the accompanying doxai (Empedocles). Yet here too there is a significant difference: heaven’s solidity appears to be divided between the first anonymous doxa (it is—rather oddly—both fiery and στερέμνιος, the same term in A’s Empedocles doxa) and the second doxa attributed to Empedocles (heaven is crystalline and compacted). If Maass’ conjecture is accepted, then the doxa of Anaximander has an affinity with the one of Anaximenes in A, while the (obviously erroneous) final Aristotelian doxa is reminiscent of Anaximander in A. See further M–R 2.2.437. The doxography in the scholion to Basil is much clearer in the way it sets out four positions, three of which are parallel to what we find in A (but only one with a name-label, Empedocles again). Interestingly the scholion contains the (unattributed) Platonic view that heaven consists of a mixture of the four elements (actually the heavenly bodies) which is missing in A and Ach. As noted above, the order of the doxai supports the sequence in S over against that in P, with the Aristotelian view coming last in both texts. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.21, τούτων μὲν δὴ πάντων αἰσθανόμεθα, ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς ἀκατάληπτον ἔχει τὴν φύσιν, οὐδὲν ἑαυτοῦ σαφὲς γνώρισμα πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀποστείλας. τί γὰρ ἂν εἴποιμεν; ὅτι πεπηγώς ἐστι κρύσταλλος, ὡς ἠξίωσάν τινες; ἢ ὅτι πῦρ τὸ καθαρώτατον; ἢ ὅτι πέμπτον κυκλοφορικὸν σῶμα, μηδενὸς τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων μετέχον; Her. 247 καὶ ἥλιος μέντοι καὶ σελήνη καὶ ὁ σύμπας οὐρανός, γῆ τε καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ ὕδωρ, τά τε ἐξ αὐτῶν σχεδὸν πάντα τοῖς σκεπτικοῖς ἔριδας καὶ φιλονεικίας παρεσχήκασιν, οὐσίας καὶ ποιότητας, μεταβολάς τε αὖ καὶ τροπὰς καὶ γενέσεις, ἔτι δὲ φθορὰς αὐτῶν ἀναζητοῦσιν· μεγέθους τε πέρι καὶ κινήσεως τῶν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν οὐ πάρεργον ποιούμενοι τὴν ἔρευναν ἑτεροδοξοῦσιν οὐ συμφερόμενοι … Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 omnis de universo quaestio in caelestia, sublimia, terrena dividitur. prima pars naturam siderum scrutatur et magnitudinem et formam ignium, quibus mundus includitur, solidumne sit caelum ac firmae concretaeque materiae an ex subtili tenuique nexum … cf. Nat. 7.13.2 (on Artemidorus of Parium) nam si illi credimus, summa caeli ora solidissima est, in modum tecti durata et alti crassique corporis, quod atomi congestae coacervataeque fecerunt, huic proxima superficies ignea est, ita compacta ut solvi vitiarique non possit

liber 2 caput 11 … Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 3.17 Marchesi ut enim, si vitreus esse dicatur mundus, si argenteus, ferreus vel ex fragili conglobatus et fabricatus testa, non dubitemus falsum esse contendere, quamvis quae sit eius materia nesciamus, ita cum de specie agatur dei … Lactantius Op.D. 17.6 Perrin haec apertissime falsa sunt. neque enim tam obscuram nobis huiusmodi rerum dico esse rationem, ut ne hoc quidem intellegamus, quid verum esse non possit. an si mihi quispiam dixerit aeneum esse caelum aut vitreum aut, ut Empedocles (31A51 DK) ait, ‘aerem glaciatum’, statimne adsentiar, quia caelum ex qua materia sit ignorem? sicut enim hoc nescio, ita illud scio. Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8, p. 409.13 Mras περί τε οὐρανοῦ. §2 Empedocles: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.77 (Empedocles 31A1 DK) καὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιόν φησι πυρὸς ἄθροισμα μέγα καὶ τῆς σελήνης μείζω· τὴν δὲ σελήνην δισκοειδῆ, αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν οὐρανὸν κρυσταλλοειδῆ. See also Lactantius cited above. §3 Anaximander: ps.Plutarch Strom. 2 (fr. 179 Sandbach, Anaximander 12A10 DK) φησὶ δὲ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀιδίου γόνιμον θερμοῦ τε καὶ ψυχροῦ κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου ἀποκριθῆναι, καί τινα ἐκ τούτου φλογὸς σφαῖραν περιφυῆναι τῷ περὶ τὴν γῆν ἀέρι ὡς τῷ δένδρῳ φλοιόν, ἧς ἀπορραγείσης καὶ εἴς τινας ἀποκλεισθείσης κύκλους, ὑποστῆναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας. cf. Aristotle Phys. 1.4 187a20–23 οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐνούσας τὰς ἐναντιότητας ἐκκρίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ Ἀναξίμανδρός (12A9 DK) φησι, καὶ ὅσοι δ᾽ ἓν καὶ πολλά φασιν εἶναι, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A46 DK) καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (—)· ἐκ τοῦ μίγματος γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι ἐκκρίνουσι τἆλλα. §4 Parmenides Heraclitus Strato Zeno: On Zeno see Achilles p. 15.19–21 cited above under Testes secundi. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 928D (on the Stoics, SVF 2.668) λέγουσι δὲ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὸ μὲν αὐγοειδὲς καὶ λεπτὸν ὑπὸ μανότητος οὐρανὸν γεγονέναι, τὸ δὲ πυκνωθὲν καὶ συνειληθὲν ἄστρα· τούτων δὲ τὸ νωθρότατον εἶναι τὴν σελήνην καὶ θολερώτατον. §5 Aristotle: Philo see above General texts; cf. QG 4.8 Petit δεύτερον δὲ μέτρον, καθ᾽ ὃ ἐπάγη ὁ αἰσθητὸς οὐρανός, πέμπτην λαχὼν καὶ θειοτέραν οὐσίαν, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀμετάβολον. Taurus fr. 25a Lakmann at Philop. Aet. 13.15, p. 481.13–17 Rabe Χρήσεις Ταύρου τοῦ Πλατωνικοῦ, Πορφυρίου, Πρόκλου, Πλωτίνου, ὅτι ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων καὶ μόνον στοιχείων συνεστάναι τὸν κόσμον βούλεται Πλάτων ἀγνοῶν τὸ παρὰ Ἀριστοτέλει πέμπτον καλούμενον σῶμα, ἐξ οὗ φησιν εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκεῖνος. fr. 25b Lakmann at Philop. Aet. 13.15, p. 520.18–21 Θεόφραστός (fr. 161A FSH&G) φησιν ‘εἰ τὸ ὁρατὸν καὶ τὸ ἁπτὸν ἐκ γῆς καὶ πυρός ἐστιν, τὰ ἄστρα καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἔσται ἐκ τούτων· οὐκ ἔστιν δέ.’ ταῦτα λέγει εἰσάγων τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα τὸ κυκλοφορητικόν. Sextus Empiricus M. 10.316 ἐκ πέντε δὲ Ὄκκελος ὁ Λευκανὸς καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης· συμπαρέλαβον γὰρ τοῖς τέσσαρσι στοιχείοις τὸ πέμπτον καὶ κυκλοφορητικὸν σῶμα, ἐξ οὗ λέγουσιν εἶναι τὰ οὐράνια. ps.Justin Coh.Gr. 5.2 Ἀριστοτέλης δέ, ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Μακεδόνα λόγῳ σύντομόν τινα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φιλοσοφίας ἐκτιθέμενος ὅρον (Mu. 2 392a5–9), σαφῶς καὶ φανερῶς τὴν Πλάτωνος ἀναιρεῖ δόξαν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ πυρώδει οὐσίᾳ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι λέγων· ἀλλά, πέμπτον αἰθέριόν τι καὶ ἀμετάβλητον ἀναπλάττων σῶμα …

893

894 b

liber 2 caput 11

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Posidonius F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler at Simp. in Phys. 291.24–292.9 τῆς μὲν φυσικῆς θεωρίας ἐστι τὸ σκοπεῖν περί τε οὐσίας οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἄστρων καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ ποιότητος γενέσεώς τε καὶ φθορᾶς καὶ νὴ Δία τούτων περὶ μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος καὶ τάξεως ἀποδείκνυναι δύναται. ἡ δὲ ἀστρολογία περὶ τοιούτου μὲν οὐδενὸς ἐπιχειρεῖ λέγειν, ἀποδείκνυσι δὲ τὴν τάξιν τῶν οὐρανίων κόσμον ὄντως ἀποφήνασα τὸν οὐρανόν, περί τε σχημάτων λέγει καὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων γῆς τε καὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ περὶ ἐκλείψεων καὶ συνάψεων τῶν ἄστρων καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς φοραῖς αὐτῶν ποιότητος καὶ ποσότητος. ὅθεν ἐπειδὴ τῆς περὶ ποσὸν καὶ πηλίκον καὶ ποιὸν κατὰ σχῆμα (292) θεωρίας ἐφάπτεται, εἰκότως ἀριθμητικῆς τε καὶ γεωμετρίας ἐδεήθη ταύτῃ. καὶ περὶ τούτων, ὧν ὑπισχνεῖτο μόνων λόγον ἀποδώσειν, δι᾽ ἀριθμητικῆς τε καὶ γεωμετρίας συμβιβάζειν ἰσχύει. πολλαχοῦ τοίνυν ταὐτὸν κεφάλαιον ἀποδεῖξαι προθήσεται ὅ τε ἀστρολόγος καὶ ὁ φυσικός, οἷον ὅτι μέγας ὁ ἥλιος, ὅτι σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ, οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὰς αὐτὰς ὁδοὺς βαδιοῦνται. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας ἢ τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ ἄμεινον οὕτως ἔχειν ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς ἕκαστα ἀποδείξει, ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν συμβεβηκότων τοῖς σχήμασιν ἢ μεγέθεσιν ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ποσότητος τῆς κινήσεως καὶ τοῦ ἐφαρμόττοντος αὐτῇ χρόνου. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα … καταλήγουσα ἐν πέρατι ἢ ἀραιῷ ἢ πυκνῷ … Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 436.4–8 ἀπορεῖ δὲ καλῶς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, πῶς ἁπλῆς οὔσης τῆς πέμπτης λεγομένης οὐσίας τοῦ κυκλοφορητικοῦ σώματος τοσαύτη φαίνεται διαφορὰ τοῦ τῶν ἄστρων σώματος πρὸς τὸ οὐράνιον· εἰ δὲ διαφέρει ὅλως πυκνότησιν ἢ μανότησιν ἢ κατὰ χρώματα ἢ κατά τινα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα εἴδη, πῶς ἁπλᾶ λέγεται ἢ πῶς ἀπαθῆ … Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 14.19–23 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀρκούμεθα τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Ἠσαΐου εἰρημένοις· ὃς ἐν ἰδιωτικοῖς ῥήμασιν ἱκανὴν ἡμῖν τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐνεποίησεν, εἰπών· ὁ στερεώσας τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ καπνόν (Is. 51:6)· τουτέστι, λεπτὴν φύσιν καὶ οὐ στερεάν οὐδὲ παχεῖαν εἰς τὴν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ σύστασιν οὐσιώσας. in Hexaem. 1.11, 18.12–19 τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ περὶ οὐρανοῦ εἴποιμεν, ὅτι πολυφωνότατοι πραγματεῖαι τοῖς σοφοῖς τοῦ κόσμου περὶ τῆς οὐρανίου φύσεως καταβέβληνται. καὶ οἱ μὲν σύνθετον αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων εἰρήκασιν, ὡς ἁπτὸν ὄντα καὶ ὁρατὸν, καὶ μετέχοντα γῆς μὲν διὰ τὴν ἀντιτυπίαν, πυρὸς δὲ, διὰ τὸ καθορᾶσθαι, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν, διὰ τὴν μίξιν. οἱ δὲ τοῦτον ὡς ἀπίθανον παρωσάμενοι τὸν λόγον, πέμπτην τινὰ σώματος φύσιν εἰς οὐρανοῦ σύστασιν οἴκοθεν καὶ παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἀποσχεδιάσαντες ἐπεισήγαγον. καὶ ἔστι τι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὸ αἰθέριον σῶμα … Gregory of Nyssa C.Eun. 1.1.435 Jaeger ζητείσθω δὲ καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν τούτων ἑνὸς ἡ οὐσία, καὶ ἔστω οὐρανὸς τῇ θεωρίᾳ τοῦ λόγου προκείμενος. ἀμφιβαλλομένης τοίνυν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῆς οὐσίας διὰ τὰς ποικίλας ἐπὶ τούτῳ δόξας τῶν διαφόρως κατὰ τὸ φανὲν ἑκάστῳ περὶ αὐτοῦ φυσιολογούντων. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle Cael. Περὶ οὐρανοῦ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.50 (works of Theophrastus) Περὶ οὐρανοῦ αʹ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.59 (works of Strato) Περὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Posidonius see above under General texts. Flavius Philostratus Ep. 1.56.6–9 Kayser καὶ περὶ τὰ κάλλιστα ἐσπουδάκει φιλοσοφοῦσα (sc. ἡ ψυχή), καὶ ἦν αὐτῆς ὁ ἔρως τὰ οὐρανοῦ νῶτα ὁρᾶν καὶ περὶ τῆς κατὰ

liber 2 caput 11 ταῦτα οὔσης οὐσίας πολυπραγμονεῖν … Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 14.19 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ … (see further above) John Philoponus in APo. 238.26 Wallies οἷον ὅταν μὲν ζητῶμεν, εἰ τύχοι, περὶ οὐρανοῦ, πότερον ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων συνέστηκεν ἢ ἑτέρας τινός ἐστιν οὐσίας, τό τί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ζητοῦμεν. §1 Anaximenes Parmenides: Parmenides Παρμενίδης (28B11 DK at Simp. in Cael. 559.20–25) δὲ περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἄρξασθαί φησι λέγειν· ‘πῶς γαῖα καὶ ἥλιος ἠδὲ σελήνη / αἰθήρ τε ξυνὸς γάλα τ᾽ οὐράνιον καὶ ὄλυμπος / ἔσχατος ἠδ᾽ ἄστρων θερμὸν μένος ὡρμήθησαν / γίγνεσθαι’. §5 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.2 269a30–32 ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι πέφυκέ τις οὐσία σώματος ἄλλη παρὰ τὰς ἐνταῦθα συστάσεις, θειοτέρα καὶ προτέρα τούτων ἁπάντων etc. cf. ps.Plato (Philip of Opus) Epin. 981c πέντε οὖν ὄντων τῶν σωμάτων, πῦρ χρὴ φάναι καὶ ὕδωρ εἶναι καὶ τρίτον ἀέρα, τέταρτον δὲ γῆν, πέμπτον δὲ αἰθέρα. Xenarchus at Simp. in Cael. 13.22–23 (perhaps from Alexander, cf. 23.22) ὄ δὲ Ξέναρχος πρὸς πολλὰ τῶν ἐνταῦθα λεγομένων ἀντειπὼν ἐν τοῖς πρὸς τὴν πέμπτην οὐσίαν αὐτῷ γεγραμμένοις ἀντεῖπε … John Philoponus in Phys. 219.19–21 (on Aristotle) αὐτὸς γοῦν ἐν τῇ Περὶ οὐρανοῦ οὐ μόνον περὶ τῆς οὐσίας τῶν οὐρανίων ἀπέδειξεν, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἑτέρας τινὸς παρὰ τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα …

895

Liber 2 Caput 12 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 888C–D; pp. 340a6–341a2 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 55; pp. 623.23–624.4 Diels; pp. 169–176 Jas—PJln : Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job 37:37–38, pp. 273.18–274.13 Hagedorn (praesertim 274.7–11)— PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 148–149 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 122, p. 65 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.38, p. 42.8 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.23, p. 200.13 (tit.) + 1.23.3, p. 201.9–20 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 20, p. 29.4–7 Martin; Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 5, pp. 93.25, 94.6–8 Maass

Titulus ιβʹ. Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ, εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς Πυθαγόρας οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μεμερίσθαι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαῖραν εἰς κύκλους πέντε, οὕστινας προσαγορεύουσι ζώνας· καλεῖται δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν ἀρκτικός τε καὶ ἀειφανής, ὁ δὲ θερινὸς τροπικός, ὁ δ᾽ ἰσημερινός, ὁ δὲ χειμερινὸς τροπικός, ὁ δ᾽ ἀνταρκτικός τε καὶ ἀφανής· λοξὸς δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μέσοις ὁ καλούμενος ζῳδιακὸς ὑποβέβληται, παρεπιψαύων τῶν μέσων τριῶν· πάντας δ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὁ μεσημβρινὸς πρὸς ὀρθὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντίξουν τέμνει. (P1,S1) §2 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἥντινα Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν σφετερίζεται. (P2,S2) §1 Thales 11A13c DK; Pythagoras —; §2 Pythagoras —; Oenopides 41.7 DK titulus Περὶ … διαιρεῖται PB : Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ PGQ : S Περὶ τῆς οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας (2.10) καὶ διαιρέσεως (2.11) : al. PPs Εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται ὁ οὐρανός, PSy Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ νοουμένων κύκλων §1 [2] Πυθαγόρας] om. PG ‖ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PB : καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ S, om. PG ‖ ante μεμερίσθαι hab. PG2 τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐ, sed absunt in PG1 et Nic., secl. Diels ‖ οὐρανοῦ] om. PG ‖ [3] πέντε, … προσαγορεύουσι] τινὰς προσαγορευομένας PG ‖ [3–6] al. PG καλεῖσθαι δὲ … ὑποβεβλῆσθαι (oratio obliqua, vid. text. infra, cf. PJln) ‖ [3–4] καλεῖται δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν PB(I,II)S : καλεῖται δὲ ὁ μὲν αὐτῶν PB(III) ‖ [4–5] ὁ δ᾽ ἰσημερινός … τροπικός om. PB(II), ὁ δ᾽ χειμερινὸς τροπικός om. PQ ‖ [5] post ἀφανής hab. ἀεί PJln ‖ [6–7] al. Q die schiefe, sogenannte “Himmelssphäre der Tierkreiszeichen” umschließt nun die drei mittleren Himmelssphären und trennt sich somit von der mittleren unter ihnen, um die anderen beiden zu berühren ‖ [6] post λοξὸς hab. δὲ S, del. Diels ‖ μέσοις PB(I,III)JlnS : μέσος PB(II) : μέσον PG ‖ ὁ καλούμενος ζῳδιακὸς PB(I,III)S : ὁ ζῳδιακὸς καλούμενος PB(II)Jln : τὸν καλουμένον ζῳδιακὸν PG ‖ ὑποβέβληται PBJln, cf. PG ὑποβεβλῆσθαι : ὑποκέκληται SFP, ὑπεκέκλιται coni. Heeren, ὑποβέβληται SL e P (?) et emend. Wachsmuth ‖ [7–8] παρεπιψαύων … τέμνει] om. PG ‖ [7] παρεπιψαύων PBJln : παραψαύων SFP, παραψαύαν SL ‖ [8] ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων] om. PB(III:E) ‖ ἀντίξουν PB Jln : ἀντικρὺ S : al. Q Süden §2 [9] Πυθαγόρας : δὲ add. PG ‖ πρῶτος] πρῶτον PG Jas (πρῶτος Diels) ‖ [10] ἥντινα PBS : ἥν PG ‖ ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν PB : ἐπίνοιαν ὡς ἰδίαν S, ὡς ἐπίνοιαν ἰδίαν PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_053

5

10

liber 2 caput 12 Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 55 (~ tit.) Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ (text Jas) 55.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς {τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐ} μεμερίσθαι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σφαῖραν εἰς κύκλους τινὰς προσαγορευομένας ζώνας, καλεῖσθαι δὲ αὐτῶν τὸν μὲν ἀρκτικὸν καὶ ἀειφανῆ, τὸν δὲ τροπικὸν θερινόν, τὸν δὲ ἰσημερινὸν τροπικόν, τὸν δὲ χειμερινὸν τροπικόν, τὸν δὲ ἀνταρκτικὸν καὶ ἀφανῆ. λοξὸν δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μέσον τὸν καλουμένον ζῳδιακὸν ὑποβεβλῆσθαι. 55.2 (~ P2) Πυθαγόρας δὲ πρῶτον ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἣν Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἐπίνοιαν ἰδίαν σφετερίζεται. Julianus Arianista Comm. in Iob 38.37–38 Hagedorn τίς δὲ ὁ ἀριθμῶν νέφη σοφίᾳ, οὐρανὸν δὲ εἰς γῆν ἔκλινεν; κέχυται γὰρ ὡς γῆς κονία, κεκόλληκα δὲ αὐτὸν ὥσπερ κύβον λίθοις. εἰ γὰρ ἀριθμηταὶ αὐτῷ σταγόνες ὑετοῦ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ νέφη· ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμῶν πλήθη ἄστρων καὶ πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς ὀνόματα καλῶν, οὗτος καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξέτεινεν ὡς δέρριν (Septuaginta Ps 103:2) καὶ ἔπηξεν ὡς καμάραν (Is. 40:22), ἐν αὐτῷ ⟨…⟩ καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ γῆς τὴν οἰκουμένην κατεργασάμενος. ὥσπερ γῆς φησὶ κονία ἀντὶ τοῦ· λαμπρὸν καὶ κρυσταλλοειδῆ. διῄρηται δὲ ταῖς θέσεσιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ φύσει εἰς τὸ ἀρκτικὸν καὶ ἀειφανές, θερινόν τε τροπικόν, μεσημβρινόν τε καὶ ἰσημερινόν, πάλιν τε τροπικὸν χειμερινόν, ἀνταρκτικόν τε καὶ ἀφανῆ ἀεί· λοξὸς δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μέσοις ὁ ζῳδιακὸς καλούμενος ὑποβέβληται παρεπιψαύων τῶν μέσων τριῶν· πάντας δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ μεσημβρινὸς πρὸς ὀρθὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντίξουν τέμνει (~ P1). ὥσπερ δὲ κύβον λίθῳ ἐπιτεθεῖσθαι ἔφη, ὅν τινες κωνοειδῆ ἔλεξαν οὐ μόνον Ἑλλήνων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν τὰ λόγια ἑρμηνευσάντων. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 122 Εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται ὁ οὐρανός (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.37 Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ νοουμένων κύκλων (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 20, p. 29.4 Martin πόσοι κύκλοι τῆς σφαίρας; (~ tit.) p. 29.5–7 ἡ σφαῖρα ἔχει κύκλους πέντε, ὧν ὁ μὲν ἀρκτικὸς βόρειος, βʹ θερινὸς τροπικός, γʹ ἰσημερινὸς τροπικός, δʹ χειμερινὸς τροπικός, εʹ ἀνταρκτικός κτλ. Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 5, p. 93.25 Maass Περὶ κύκλων (~ tit.) p. 94.3–5 … εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι· ἀρκτικὸς θερινὸς τροπικὸς ἰσημερινὸς χειμερινὸς τροπικὸς ἀνταρκτικός. οὗτοι οἱ πέντε καλοῦνται παράλληλοι διὰ τὴν τάξιν τῆς θέσεως· κεῖνται γὰρ παραλλήλως ἐφεξῆς κτλ. cf. Achilles Univ. c. 22 Περὶ κύκλων καὶ ὄτι ιαʹ. c. 23 Πόσον τὸ πλάτος τοῦ ζωιδιακοῦ. c. 25 Περὶ τῶν πέντε παραλλήλων. Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.14, Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς καὶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αὐτῆς ζῶναι. cf. A 2.23 Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου.

897

898

liber 2 caput 12

§1 A 2.10.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ κατὰ τὸν θερινὸν τροπικόν, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν χειμερινόν. A 2.23.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὑπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν ἤλιον) σφαίρας κωλυομενον ἄχρι παντὸς εὐθυπορεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων. A 2.23.8 Πλάτων Πυθαγόρας Ἀριστοτέλης παρὰ τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, δι᾽ οὗ φέρεται λοξοπορῶν ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ κατὰ δορυφορίαν τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα καὶ ἡ σφαῖρα δείκνυσιν. A 3.14.1 Πυθαγόρας τὴν γῆν ἀναλόγως τῇ τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαίρᾳ διῃρῆσθαι εἰς πέντε ζώνας ἀρκτικὴν ἀνταρκτικὴν θερινὴν χειμερινὴν ἰσημερινήν … §2 A 1.3.7 Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου Σάμιος, ὁ πρῶτος φιλοσοφίαν τούτῳ τῷ ῥήματι προσαγορεύσας … A 2.1.1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. cf. A 2.25.1 (de luna) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς, ὅμοιον ἁρματείῳ ⟨τροχῷ⟩ κοίλην ἔχοντι τὴν ἁψῖδα καὶ πυρὸς πλήρη, καθάπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, κείμενον λοξόν, ὡς κἀκεῖνον, ἔχοντα μίαν ἐκπνοήν, οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν· ἐκλείπειν δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιστροφὰς τοῦ τροχοῦ. A 2.32.6 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἑξήκοντα ἑνὸς δέουσιν, ἐν οἷς Οἰνοπίδης καὶ Πυθαγόρας· A 3.13.2 Φιλόλαος δ᾽ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύκλον λοξὸν ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ. A 3.14.2 Παρμενίδης πρῶτος ἀφώρισε τῆς γῆς τοὺς οἰκουμένους τόπους ὑπὸ ταῖς δυσὶ ζώναις ταῖς τροπικαῖς.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses P and S have almost identical texts, consisting of two lemmata only. G includes both, but abridges and lightly paraphrases in his usual manner. The uncontroversial nature of the subject makes it of no interest to E. Remarkably a section from the first lemma is copied out by a certain Julian in a Commentary on the Old Testament book of Job. The first part is reproduced in a paraphrase, the second is cited in a verbatim quote. The author has been identified as a follower of Arius writing most likely in the fourth century (CPG 2075). The references to Books 2 and 3 were identified by the editor Hagedorn (1973); see further General Introduction, section 4.2.5. There may be fleeting references to P at p. 274.6 (κρυσταλλοειδῆ, cf. A 2.11.2) and p. 274.12 (κωνοειδῆ, cf. A 2.2.2). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The first mention of the question regarding heavenly zones in a doxographical source is found in the Stoic doxography in Diogenes Laertius (text below section E(a) General texts). The main interest from a doxographical viewpoint appears to have been the identity of the person who first

liber 2 caput 12

899

discovered (or postulated) the heavenly circles and in particular the tilting of the zodiac, with various contenders being put forward for the two roles (see texts below section E(a) General texts). This interest is reflected in our chapter. In general such identifications seem to have begun early (see the citation of Theophrastus at D.L. 8.48 = fr. 227E FHS&G discussed above on ch. 2.1 Commentary D(d)§1)). We note too that the subject is exploited by the arithmological tradition in relation to the number 5. On the discovery of the zones see A 3.14.1 and further Burkert (1972) 306. (2) Sources. The division of the cosmos by means of five great circles corresponding to the five zones of the earth was an uncontroversial feature of the geocentric hypothesis. However, it is not described in any surviving author until the Hellenistic period (no mention in Aristotle and not even in the De mundo). C Chapter Heading The heading is of the common Περὶ x type, with the additional phrase containing the term πόσος making it quite clear that its subject is posed in the category of quantity. PB has the longer heading, which is paralleled (as we shall see) by the longer heading in ch. 3.14. The shorter heading is supported by the other witnesses G, Q and S (Ps and Sy are clearly dependent on PB). Here too we opt for the longer title for the reasons set out in ch. 2.11 Commentary C. The heading with its reference to division and circles rather than zones, is not found outside Α and his tradition. D Analysis a Context After ch. 2.11 this is the only chapter specifically dedicated to the heaven before moving on to the heavenly bodies that populate it. There is a parallel chapter for the earth at 3.14 Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς καὶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αὐτῆς ζῶναι. In addition chs. 2.11 + 2.12 are closely parallel to chs. 3.9 (Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι) + 3.14 (with πόσαι in 3.9 also recalling 2.1). b Number–Order of Lemmata The number and order of the lemmata are not in doubt and there is no reason to suspect that lemmata have been lost. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Most unusually, indeed uniquely in Book 2, this chapter does not record a plurality of doxai on the subject in question. The standard view on the heavenly zones is attributed to Thales, Pythagoras and their followers. Since the two are founders of the Ionian and Italian successions respectively, the name-labels

900

liber 2 caput 12

effectively cover the entire philosophical tradition. The second doxa is merely an additional comment on the discovery of the zodiac circle in the tradition of the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif (on which see above ch. 1.3, Commentary D(d)§7[54– 55]). The formulation of the doctrine shows strong resemblances to brief reports elsewhere, both doxographical (see esp. the Stoic report in D.L. with its terms ἀρκτικὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον and ἀνταρκτικὸν ἀφανῆ) and arithmological (Plutarch, Anatolius). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1[6] There can be little doubt that λοξὸς … ὑποβέβληται in P is the correct reading. S’s combination of καλούμενος and ὑποκέκληται is unconvincing. Heeren’s conjecture ὑπεκέκλιται is brilliant (and may have been what S wrote), but does not weigh up against the combined weight of the P tradition. For the final phrase of the lemma there is no difference in meaning between P’s ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντίξουν and S’s ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντικρύ. The preference should be given to the former as the lectio difficilior, his adjective being far rarer than S’s adverb by a ratio of about 25 to 1. §2 According to Theon of Smyrna (and also Diodorus Siculus, texts below section E(a) General texts), Eudemus in his account of Greek astronomy recounts that Oenopides was the discoverer of the obliquity of the zodiac. This directly contradicts the claim of plagiarism by A. Theon’s statement goes back to an eminent source who is explicitly named, whereas A gives no authority for his claim. One must suspect that the tradition has been reworked in favour of a venerable school founder and is one more example of the tendency of the Placita to upgrade the role of Pythagoras (note also A 2.32.6, where the name-label Pythagoras follows that of Oenopides without further comment). See further the discussion at Abel (1974) 998, part of an exhaustive account of the ancient astronomical and geographical use of the concept ‘zone’. e Other Evidence The Aratean tradition includes various texts (see above Testes secundi) on the circles of the heavens, but all of them are purely descriptive, without any reference to philosophers or scientists, i.e. parallel to what we find in handbooks such as Geminus and Cleomedes. See also ch. 3.14 Commentary D(e) on the parallel terrestrial zones.

liber 2 caput 12

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Stoics at D.L. 7.155 (SVF 2.651) ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν διακόσμησιν ὧδε ἔχειν· … κύκλους δ᾽ εἶναι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πέντε, ὧν πρῶτον ἀρκτικὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον, δεύτερον τροπικὸν θερινόν, τρίτον ἰσημερινόν, τέταρτον χειμερινὸν τροπικόν, πέμπτον ἀνταρκτικὸν ἀφανῆ. Diodorus Siculus 1.98.2–3 Πυθαγόραν (—) τε τὰ κατὰ τὸν ἱερὸν λόγον καὶ τὰ κατὰ γεωμετρίαν θεωρήματα … μαθεῖν παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων … τόν τε Οἰνοπίδην (41.7 DK) ὁμοίως συνδιατρίψαντα τοῖς ἱερεῦσι καὶ ἀστρολόγοις μαθεῖν ἄλλα τε καὶ μάλιστα τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον ὡς λοξὴν μὲν ἔχει τὴν πορείαν, ἐναντίαν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄστροις τὴν φορὰν ποιεῖται. Philo of Alexandria Opif. 112 (arithmology) αὐτίκα τὸν οὐρανόν φασιν ἑπτὰ διεζῶσθαι κύκλοις, ὧν ὀνόματα εἶναι τάδε· ἀρκτικόν, ἀνταρκτικόν, θερινὸν τροπικόν, χειμερινὸν τροπικόν, ἰσημερινόν, ζῳδιακόν, καὶ προσέτι γαλαξίαν. Plutarch Def.Or. 429F ἐν δὲ τῷ παντὶ πέντε μὲν ζώναις ὁ περὶ γῆν τόπος, πέντε δὲ κύκλοις ὁ οὐρανὸς διώρισται, δυσὶν ἀρκτικοῖς καὶ δυσὶ τροπικοῖς καὶ μέσῳ τῷ ἰσημερινῷ. Theon of Smyrna Exp. 198.14–16 Hiller Εὔδημος (fr. 145 Wehrli) ἱστορεῖ ἐν ταῖς Ἀστρολογίαις, ὅτι Οἰνοπίδης (41.7 DK) εὗρε πρῶτος τὴν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ διάζωσιν [λόξωσιν conj. Zeller Diels] καὶ τὴν τοῦ μεγάλου ἐνιαυτοῦ περίστασιν. Anatolius de Dec. 9.16–17 HeibergTannery (arithmology) ἔτι οἱ γνώριμοι παράλληλοι κύκλοι ἐν τῇ σφαίρᾳ πέντε, ἰσημερινός, τροπικοὶ δύο, ἀρκτικὸς καὶ ἀνταρκτικός. ps.Iamblichus Theol.Ar. 32.20–33.4 De Falco (arithmology) πέντε δὲ καὶ οἱ παράλληλοι κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν κύκλοι, ἰσημερινὸς καὶ οἱ παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα τούτου τροπικοί, θερινὸς καὶ χειμερινός. ἀλλήλοις μὲν ἴσοι, δεύτεροι δὲ τῇ τοῦ μεγέθους συμμετρίᾳ, καὶ οἱ τούτων ἐφ᾽ ἑκατέρωθεν τὸ ἔξαρμα καὶ τὸ ἀντέξαρμα ὁρίζοντες, ἀρκτικός τε καὶ ἀνταρκτικός, μικρότατοι μὲν τῷ μεγέθει, ἀλλήλοις μέντοι καὶ αὐτοὶ ἴσοι. Ambrose of Milan Exp.Psalm. 118, p. 15.20–21 Petschenig at illi, qui de rerum natura disputant, caeli scrutantur plagas. cf. Eustathius Comm.Il. (allegorical interpretation of Achilles’ shield, Il. 18.481) 4.220.7 Van der Valk τὰς δὲ πέντε πτύχας τοῦ σάκους τοὺς παραλλήλους κύκλους νοεῖ, εἰς οὓς διαιρεῖται ὁ κόσμος, ἤγουν τὸν ἀρκτικόν, ὃς τῷ βορείῳ πόλῳ ἐγγίζει, καὶ τὸν τῷ Νότῳ προσκυροῦντα ἀνταρκτικόν, καὶ τοὺς δύο τροπικοὺς, ἤγουν τὸν πρὸς τῷ Βορρᾷ θερινὸν καὶ τὸν πρὸς τῷ Νότῳ χειμερινόν, καὶ πέμπτον τὸν μέσον αὐτῶν ἰσημερινόν, εἰς ὃν ἥλιος ἐλθὼν ἰσάζει τὰς ἡμέρας ταῖς νυξίν. Chapter heading: — §2 Pythagoras: cf. Pliny Nat. 2.31 obliquitatem eius (sc. heaven) intellexisse, hoc est rerum fores aperuisse, Anaximander (12A5 DK) Milesius traditur primus Olympiade quinquagesima octava … Apuleius Flor. 18, p. 37.10–17 Helm Thales Milesius (11A19 DK) ex septem illis sapientiae memoratis viris facile praecipuus—enim geometriae penes Graios primus repertor et naturae rerum certissimus explorator et astrorum peritissimus contemplator—maximas res parvis lineis repperit: temporum ambitus, ventorum flatus, stellarum meatus, tonitruum sonora miracula, siderum obliqua curricula, solis annua reverticula, itidem lunae vel nascentis incrementa vel senescentis dispendia vel delinquentis obstacula. Leucippus at D.L. 9.33 (67A1 DK, conjecture Diels, not included in

901

902

liber 2 caput 12

text by Dorandi) ἐκλείπειν δ᾽ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην ⟨*** τὴν δὲ λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ γενέσθαι⟩ τῷ κεκλίσθαι τὴν γῆν πρὸς μεσημβρίαν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Geminus Elem. 5.1, p. 21 Aujac παράλληλοι μὲν οἱ τοὺς αὐτοὺς πόλους ἔχοντες τῷ κόσμῳ. εἰσὶ δὲ παράλληλοι κύκλοι ε· ἀρκτικός, θερινὸς τροπικός, ἰσημερινός, χειμερινὸς τροπικός, ἀνταρκτικός κτλ. Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.193–198 Todd γράφονται δ᾽ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ κύκλοι παράλληλοι πέντε, εἷς μὲν ὁ εἰς δύο ἴσα τέμνων τὸν οὐρανόν, ὃν καλοῦμεν ἰσημερινόν, τούτου δ᾽ ἑκατέρωθεν δύο, αὐτοῦ μὲν μείονες, ἴσοι δ᾽ ἀλλήλοις· καλοῦνται δὲ τροπικοί, ἐπεὶ διὰ τῶν τροπικῶν τοῦ ἡλίου σημείων γράφομεν αὐτούς. καθ᾽ ἑκάτερον δὲ τούτων πάλιν ἕτεροι γράφονται δύο, ὧν ὁ μὲν βόρειος καλεῖται ἀρκτικός, ὁ δὲ ἐναντίος αὐτῷ ἀνταρκτικός. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. 2.5.3 μετεωρίζεται γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν βορείων μερῶν ὁ τοῦ ἄξονος πόλος, περὶ ὃν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου στροφὴ γίνεται, καὶ τῶν πέντε κύκλων τῶν διεζωκότων τὴν σφαῖραν ὁ καλούμενος ἀρκτικὸς ἀεὶ τῇδε φανερός· ταπεινοῦται δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν νοτίων ὁ καλούμενος ἀνταρκτικὸς κύκλος ἀφανὴς κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος. Suda s.v. K 2654, p. 3.208.25–28 Adler Κύκλοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πέντε· Ἀρκτικός, ὁ ἀεὶ φαινόμενος, Χειμερινός, Τροπικὸς θερινός, Ἰσημερινός, Ἀνταρκτικὸς ἀφανής. λέγονται δὲ παράλληλοι, καθότι οὐ συννεύουσιν εἰς ἀλλήλους· γράφονται μέντοι περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κέντρον. Chapter heading: —

Liber 2 Caput 13 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 888D–889A; pp. 341a3–343a15 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.30, pp. 403.18–404.18 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 56; p. 624.5–19 Diels, pp. 176–187 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 148–151 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 131, p. 69 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.39, p. 43.5 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.23 (tit.) + 1.24.1ab, pp. 201.25–202.3 + 1.24.1c, p. 202.7– 10 + 1.24.1d, p. 202.13–14 + 1.24.1e, p. 202.20 + 1.24.1f, p. 202.23–24 + 1.24.1g, p. 202.25–26 + 1.24.1i, p. 203.8–9 + 1.24.1k, p. 203. 13–15 + 1.24.1l, p. 203. 21–21 + 1.24.1m, p. 204.6–7+ 1.24.1n, p. 204.14–17 + 1.24.10, pp. 204.21–205.2 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8–9 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.17, pp. 104.21–105.15 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 11, pp. 19.22–20.10 Di Maria; Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 1435.68–86 Évieux

Titulus ιγʹ. Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἄστρων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς γεώδη μὲν, ἔμπυρα δὲ τὰ ἄστρα. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πύρινα ἐκ τοῦ πυρώδους, ὅπερ ὁ ἀὴρ ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχων ἐξανέθλιψε κατὰ τὴν πρώτην διάκρισιν. (P2,S2a) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα πύρινον μὲν εἶναι κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, τῇ δ᾽ εὐτονίᾳ τῆς περιδινήσεως ἀναρπάσαντα πέτρους ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ καταφλέξαντα τούτους ἠστερικέναι. (P3,S3,T2) §1 Thales 11A17a DK; §2 Empedocles 31A53 DK; §3 Anaxagoras 59A71 DK titulus Τίς … ἀπλανῶν PB(I,II)E : πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν desunt PB(III:AE) : Τίς οὐσία τῶν πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν PG : add. καὶ πῶς συνέστη PΒ(Ι,ΙΙ), καὶ πῶς συνεστήκασι PΒ(ΙΙI) : Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἀστέρων PQPs, cf. Τίς οὐσία ἀστέρων Ach : Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων SFP, Περὶ ἄστρων οὐσίας SL-ind §1 [2] post Θαλῆς add. PG ὑπολαμβάνει ‖ γεώδη … ἄστρα PBEQS : γεώδη μὲν εἶναι τὰ ἄστρα, ἔμπυρα δέ PG §2 [3] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ πύρινα] add. μόνον PG (μόνα Diels) ‖ ἀήρ PΒ(Ι,ΙΙ)Q S : αἰθήρ PΒ(IIΙ) Sturz ‖ [3–4] ἐκ … διάκρισιν] om. PG ‖ [3] ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχων om. PQ ‖ [4] ante ἐξανέθλιψε hab. S ἐξανέλαμψεν ἤτοι, del. Diels Wachsmuth ut ex dittographiis §3 [5] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα PBS : τὸν περικείμενον ἀέρα PE : τὸ περικείμενον PQ(ut vid.) (das Umgebende Q) : τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα ἀέρα PG ‖ post πύρινον add. ᾠήθη PG ‖ [6] περιδινήσεως] παραλύσεως PG ‖ ἀναρπάσαντα PΒ(Ι,ΙΙ)G : ἀναρπάζοντα PΒ(IIΙ) ‖ [6–7] πέτρους … τούτους] πέτραν … ταύτην PG ‖ [6] ἀπὸ PEGS : ἐκ PB ‖ [7] καὶ PBG : om. SPE, rest. Heeren Mras ‖ [7] ἠστερικέναι P : ἠστερωκέναι S

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_054

5

904 §4 §5 §6 §7 §8 §9 §10

§11 §12 §13

liber 2 caput 13

Διογένης κισηρώδη τὰ ἄστρα, διαπνοὰς δ᾽ αὐτὰ νομίζει τοῦ κόσμου· εἶναι δὲ διάπυρα. (P4a,S4a,T4) Δημόκριτος πέτρους. (S5,T3) Ἀρχέλαος μύδρους, διαπύρους δέ. (S6) Ἀναξίμανδρος πιλήματα ἀέρος τροχοειδῆ, πυρὸς ἔμπλεα, κατά τι μέρος ἀπὸ στομίων ἐκπνέοντα φλόγας. (S7,T5) Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος πιλήματα πυρός. (S8) Ἀναξιμένης πυρίνην μὲν τὴν φύσιν τῶν ἄστρων, περιέχειν δέ τινα καὶ γεώδη σώματα συμπεριφερόμενα τούτοις ἀόρατα. (S9) Διογένης δὲ συμπεριφέρεσθαι τοῖς φανεροῖς ἄστροις ἀφανεῖς λίθους καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ ἀνωνύμους, πίπτοντας δὲ πολλάκις ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν σβέννυσθαι, καθάπερ τὸν ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς πυροειδῶς κατενεχθέντα ἀστέρα πέτρινον. (P4b,S4b,T6) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. (P5,S2b) Πλάτων ἐκ μὲν τοῦ πλείστου μέρους πυρίνους, μετέχοντας δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων κόλλης δίκην. (P6,S10,T7) Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. (S11,T8)

§4 Diogenes 64A12 DK; §5 Democritus 68A85 DK; §6 Archelaus 60A15 DK; §7 Anaximander 12A18 DK; §8 Parmenides 28A39 DK; Heraclitus 22A11 DK; §9 Anaximenes 13A14 DK; §10 Diogenes 64A12 DK; §11 Empedocles 31A54 DK; §12 Plato cf. Tim. 40a; §13 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.2 269a31 §4 [8] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ κισηρώδη PB(Ι) : κισσηρώδη PΒ(ΙΙ–ΙΙΙ)E : κισηροειδῆ S, κισσηροειδῆ PG, cf. κισηροειδεῖς Τ1, κισηροειδεῖς T2 ‖ διαπνοὰς PBΤ : διαπνοίας PES, διαπνοίαν PG ‖ νομίζει] νοεῖται PG ‖ [9] εἶναι δὲ διάπυρα S : om. P §§5–9 om. P, qui duo Diogenis placita coniugit verbis πάλιν δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀφανεῖς (ἀφανεῖς PΒ(Ι,ΙΙI) : λέγει PΒ(ΙΙ)) μὲν λίθους πίπτοντας … §5 [10] πέτρους SF: om. SP §6 [11] post Ἀρχέλαος μύδρους add. S modo solito ἔφησεν εἶναι τοὺς ἀστέρας §7 [12] πιλήματα … τροχοειδῆ S : al. T ξυστήματα ἄττα τοῦ ἀέρος … τροχοειδῶς πεπιλημένα §8 [14] post πιλήματα πυρός add. S ipse verisimiliter τὰ ἄστρα §9 [15] περιέχειν : παρέχειν SF(?)P, corr. Meineke §10 om. PG ‖ [17] post nomen add. δὲ S, ut additamentum susp. Diels, sed cf. T ‖ συμπεριφέρεσθαι … λίθους S : P vid. supra ad §§5–9 ‖ [18] πίπτοντας P : πίπτοντα S, corr. Diels ‖ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν P, cf. εἰς τὴν γῆν T : ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς S ‖ [19] σβέννυσθαι PΒ(Ι,ΙΙI)S : σβέννυναι PΒ(ΙΙ) §11 [22] πλανήτας PBS : πλανώντας PE, πλάνους ὄντας coni. Mras §12 [23] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ Πλάτων ἐκ μὲν PΒ(Ι,ΙΙI)ES : Πλάτων εἶναι δὲ ἐκ PΒ(ΙΙ) (post πυρίνους hab. PG εἶναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ὑπολαμβάνει) ‖ [24] στοιχείων PBGQS : om. PE ‖ κόλλης δίκην PBEQ(ut vid.) : κόλλης τρόπον PG : om. S §13 om. P ‖ [25] post σώματος add. γεγενῆσθαι τὰ ἄστρα S ipse verisimiliter, cf. T

10

15

20

25

liber 2 caput 13

§14 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων, σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας· τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις. (P7,S12,T9) §15 Ἡρακλείδης καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον ὑπάρχειν, γῆν περιέχοντα ἀέρα τε καὶ αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ αἰθέρι· ταῦτα δὲ τὰ δόγματα ἐν τοῖς Ὀρφικοῖς φέρεται· κοσμοποιοῦσι γὰρ ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων. (P8,S13,T10) §16 Ἐπίκουρος οὐδὲν ἀπογινώσκει τούτων, ἐχόμενος τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου. (P9,S14) §14 Xenophanes 21A38 DK; §15 Heraclides fr. 113 Wehrli, fr. 75 Schütrumpf; Pythagorei cf. adn. 44A18 DK; Orphici fr. 30 F Bernabé; §16 Epicurus cf. adn. ad D.L. 10.90, p. 382.13 Usener §14 [26] Ξενοφάνης PBES : δὲ add. PGT ‖ μὲν PEST : om. PBG ‖ post πεπυρωμένων hab. PG συνεστάναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἡγεῖται (cf. Ach λέγει τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ νεφῶν συνεστάναι, T ξυνίστασθαι) ‖ [27] ἀναζωπυρεῖν] ἀναζωπυρεῖσθαι PG ‖ [27–28] τὰς … σβέσεις : al. Q welche sich (sc. die Kohle) entzündet und verlöscht : om. T ‖ [28] τὰς] om. PG §15 [29] post nomen primum hab. δὲ PG ‖ Ἡρακλείδης] Ἡράκλειτος PQ ‖ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι] ἄλλοι τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς T ‖ [29–30] ὑπάρχειν] εἶναι PG ‖ [30] γῆν … αἰθέρι PBQ : περιέχοντα αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ PE : γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ αέρι (sic) PG : γῆν περιέχοντα ἀέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ αἰθέρι S (⟨καὶ⟩ ante ἀέρα coni. Wachsmuth Diels secutus) : γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ ἀέρα T ‖ [31] τοῖς] ἐνίοις PG ‖ φέρεται· κοσμοποιοῦσι γὰρ PBS : ἐμφέρεται κοσμοποιοῦσιν (dat.) PE, cf. PG φέρεσθαι λέγουσι κοσμοποιοῦσι ‖ γὰρ PBQS : om. PEG ‖ [31–32] ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων PBES : τῶν ἀστέρων ἕκαστον PG, cf. jeder unter den Sternen im ganzen Q §16 [33] ἀπογινώσκει] ἀπογινώσκειν PG

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.17–20 4.17.1 (~ §1) καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας δὲ Θαλῆς μὲν γεώδεις καὶ ἐμπύρους ὠνόμασεν· 4.17.2 (~ §3) ὁ δέ γε Ἀναξαγόρας ἐκ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς περιδινήσεως πέτρους εἶπεν ἀνασπασθῆναι, καὶ τούτους ἐκπυρωθέντας τε καὶ ἄνω παγέντας ἀστέρας ὀνομασθῆναι. 4.17.3 (~ §5) καὶ Δημόκριτος δὲ τοῦτον κρατύνει τὸν λόγον· 4.17.4 (~ §4) ὁ δὲ Διογένης κισηροειδεῖς λέγει εἶναι τούτους, διαπνοάς τινας ἔχοντας· 4.17.5 (~ §7) ὁ δὲ Ἀναξίμανδρος ξυστήματα ἄττα τοῦ ἀέρος ἔφη, τροχοειδῶς πεπιλημένα, πυρὸς ἔμπλεα εἶναι, ἀπό τινων στομίων ἀφιέντα τὰς φλόγας. 4.18.1 (~ §10) Διογένης δὲ καὶ ἐμπίπτειν εἰς τὴν γῆν τινας τούτων ἔφησε καὶ σβεννυμένους ἐλέγχεσθαι, ὅτι λίθων ἔχουσι φύσιν, καὶ μάρτυρι χρῆται τῷ ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς πυροειδῶς κατενεχθέντι ποτέ. 4.18.2 (~ §12) ὁ δὲ Πλάτων ὡς ἐπίπαν μὲν τούτους ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς ξυνεστάναι, μετέχειν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων φησίν. 4.18.3 (~ §13) ὁ δέ γε Ἀριστοτέλης τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος εἴρηκε ξυγγενεῖς. 4.19.1 (~ §14) Ξενοφάνης δὲ ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν λέγει πεπυρωμένων ξυνίστασθαι, σβεννυμένους δὲ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν νύκτωρ πάλιν ἀναζωπυρεῖσθαι, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας. 4.20.1 (~ §15) Ἡρακλείδης δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον ὑπάρχειν φασί, γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ ἀέρα.

905

30

906

liber 2 caput 13

Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 56 (~ tit.) Τίς οὐσία τῶν πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν (text Jas) 56.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς ὑπολαμβάνει γεώδη μὲν εἶναι τὰ ἄστρα, ἔμπυρα δέ. 56.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ πύρινα μόνον. 56.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα ἀέρα πύρινον ᾠήθη, τῇ δὲ εὐτονίᾳ τῆς παραλύσεως ἀναρπάσαντα πέτραν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ καταφλέξαντα ταύτην ἠστερικέναι. 56.4 (~ P4) Διογένης δὲ κισηροειδῆ τὰ ἄστρα λέγει καὶ διάπνοιαν αὐτὰ νοεῖται κόσμου. 56.5 (~ P6) Πλάτων δὲ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ πλείστου μέρους πυρίνους εἶναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ὑπολαμβάνει, μετέχοντας δὲ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων κόλλης τρόπον. 56.6 (~ P7) Ξενοφάνης δὲ ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων συνεστάναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἡγεῖται, σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἡγεῖται ἀναζωπυρεῖσθαι νύκτωρ καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας. τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις. 56.7 (~ P8) Ἡρακλείδης δὲ καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον εἶναι νομίζουσι γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ ἀέρι. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ δόγματα ἐν ἐνίοις Ὀρφικοῖς φέρεσθαι λέγουσι κοσμοποιοῦσι τῶν ἀστέρων ἕκαστον. 56.8 (~ P9) Ἐπίκουρος οὐδὲν ἀπογιγνώσκει τούτων ἐχόμενος τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 131 Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἀστέρων (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.39 Τίς ἡ τῶν ἀστέρων οὐσία (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 11, p. 19.22 Τίς οὐσία ἀστέρων (~ tit.) pp. 19.23–20.10 Θαλῆς μὲν δὴ γηΐνην ἔμπυρον εἶπε τὴν τῶν ἀστέρων οὐσίαν (~ §1). Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ πυρίνους αὐτοὺς εἶπεν. τινὲς δὲ γεώδεις εἰπεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐτόλμησαν (~ §2), ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας· μετὰ γὰρ τὴν πρώτην φησὶ διάκρισιν τῶν στοιχείων τὸ πῦρ χωριζόμενον ἐπὶ τὴν ἰδίαν φύσιν ἀνασπάσαι καὶ διάπυρα ποιῆσαι καὶ τῆς γῆς μόριά τινα· ὅθεν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἔλεγεν εἶναι μύδρον (~ §3), ὡς ἑξῆς ἐροῦμεν. ἔνιοι δὲ κίσηριν πλαγίαν οὖσαν ὑπὸ τῆς θερμότητος τοῦ αἰθέρος ἀναπτομένην ὑπὸ τῶν τρυμαλιῶν τοὺς ἀστέρας φαίνειν (~ §4). Πλάτων δὲ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων, πλείστου δὲ πυρός (~ §12). Ξενοφάνης δὲ λέγει τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ νεφῶν συνεστάναι ἐμπύρων καὶ σβέννυσθαι καὶ ἀνάπτεσθαι ὡσανεὶ ἄνθρακας, καί, ὅτε μὲν ἅπτονται, φαντασίαν ἡμᾶς ἔχειν ἀνατολῆς, ὅτε δὲ σβέννυνται, δύσεως (~ §14). οἱ Στωϊκοὶ δὲ ἐκ πυρὸς λέγουσιν αὐτούς, πυρὸς δὲ τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀιδίου καὶ οὐ παραπλησίου τῷ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν· τοῦτο γὰρ φθαρτικὸν καὶ οὐ παμφαές (—). Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 1435.68–86 Évieux εἰ δὲ διὰ το εἰρῆσθαι· ‘τοῖς ἄστροις ἐνετειλάμην’, ζῶα λογικὰ αὐτὰ καὶ αὐτεξούσια ὁριοῦνταί τινες—οἶδα γάρ τινας οὐ μόνον τῶν ἔξω τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πεπιστευκότων τοῦτο δογματίσαντας—περιττὴν καὶ ἀνωφελῆ τὴν ζήτησιν ταὐτην εἶναι ἠγούμενος …, οὐτ᾽ ἐγκρίναιμι τοῦτο, οὔτ᾽ ἀποψηφίσαιμι … εἴτε οὖν λογικά ἐστι ζῶα, ὥς φασί τινες, εἴτε πύρινοι σφαῖραι, εἴτε δισκοειδῆ σώματα, ἐκ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς ἐξαφθέντα,

liber 2 caput 13

907

εἴτε σφαιροειδεῖς πυρὸς πιλήσεις, εἴτε μύδροι—τινὲς γὰρ τῶν φιλοσόφων τοῦτ᾽ ἐδογμάτισαν—εἴτε ὀχήματα δεκτικὰ τοῦ ἀΰλου καὶ ὑπερκοσμίου φωτός, οὐ σφόδρα ἰσχυρισαίμην—οὐδὲν γὰρ τοῦτο πρὸς ἀρίστην πολιτείαν συντείνειν ἡγοῦμαι. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.11 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία; vide porro textus citatos ad 2.11. A 2.14 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων; A 2.15 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων; A 2.16 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως; A 2.17 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες; A 2.18 Περὶ τῶν ἀστέρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων; A 2.19 Περὶ ἐπισημασίας τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος. §2 A 2.6.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ πῦρ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἄγαν περισφιγγομένης τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς ἀναβλύσαι τὸ ὕδωρ· ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα καὶ γενέσθαι τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιον ἐκ τοῦ πυρός, πιληθῆναι δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων τὰ περίγεια. 2.14.3 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. §4 cf. A 2.20.10 (de sole). 2.25.11 (de luna). §11 A 2.11.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς στερέμνιον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα. A 2.14.2 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. §12 cf. A 2.20.7 (de sole), 2.25.7 (de luna), 1.7.22 (de deis) αἰσθητὰ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου θεοῦ ἔγγονα ἥλιος, σελήνη, ἀστέρες, γῆ καὶ ὁ περιέχων πάντα κόσμος. §13 vid. textus citatos ad 2.11.5 (de caelo). §14 cf. A 2.20.2 (de sole), 2.25.3 (de luna). §16 cf. A 2.2.5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχήμασι κεχρῆσθαι. A 2.22.4 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα. A 3.15.11 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν … ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) This chapter, one of the longest in the Placita, is extremely well attested. In the case of P the four major witnesses testify to it and reveal nine doxai (G deletes only one, the second Empedoclean doxa). (2) These nine are all found in S, who combines what corresponds to ch. 13– 17 in P into a single chapter, using ch. 13 as his base (24.1), to which he appends as many doxai as he can, then adding doxai relating to ch. 15–17 (24.2–3), followed by a single doxa relating to ch. 19 (24.4) and finishing with some doxai from AD (24.5). For a detailed analysis of S’s systematic procedure in this chapter see M– R 1.220–222. There are another five doxai not preserved in P, making a total of

908

liber 2 caput 13

14 doxai in S. On the possibility that S replaced a Stoic doxa with material from AD see below at section D(e). (3) T has ten doxai, all of which can be found in S, but he divides up the single Diogenes doxa as found in P and S. It is important to note that three of these doxai are not in P, confirming that T used A independently from P; see Mansfeld (2018a) 182. (4) In addition, six of the doxai are also found in Ach; see below section D(e). On the six doxai in a letter of Isidore of Pelusium see the following section (a) B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. An important witness to doxographical traditions on this subject prior to A is Philo, who continues his section on the obscure nature of the heavens at Somn. 1.22 (on which see on A 2.11 Commentary B) with a set of six doxai which form three contrasted pairs (see section E(a) General texts). Only the first pair are directly parallel to A’s chapter and illustrate, as we shall see, the main diaeresis. But Philo places most emphasis on the implicit contrast between lifeless clumps (ὄγκοι, μύδροι) or beings with life (ἁρμονία). If they have life, then they will be ensouled (ἔμψυχοι) and move of their own volition. This may indicate an earlier doxographical tradition with a chapter on εἰ ἔμψυχα τὰ ἄστρα (parallel to ch. 2.3) which A did not utilize. Another brief reference to the subject of this chapter and following chapters is found at Somn. 1.53. For a further Philonic reference to the Anaxagorean doctrine see section D(e) below. A similar diaeresis is given by Seneca on the natura of the stars and planets. In addition a further text is found in the early fifth cent. ce Egyptian monk Isidore of Pelusium, a contemporary of S, T and Nem. This text has six doxai on the nature of the stars which perhaps stand closer to Philo than to A, but reflect the same doxographical tradition; see further M–R 1.311. A different approach is found in Hippolytus’ summary of the doctrines of individual philosophers; doxai on the subject are located in the sections devoted to Anaximander, Anaximenes and Anaxagoras in the Ionian tradition; see section E(a) below. These certainly derive from the proximate doxographical tradition. Standing much closer to A, however, is the chapter on the οὐσία of the heavenly bodies in Achilles. Indeed the correspondence to the doxai of this chapter in P is quite remarkable. See below section D(e) for a detailed analysis of this evidence. (2) Sources. The subjects of this chapter and the three that follow it are very clearly marked out by Aristotle in his treatment of the heavenly bodies. He introduces it at the beginning of Cael. 2.7 and rounds off his discussion at the end of 2.12 (texts below at section E(b) General texts). The introductory passage includes three of the topics (that of order, cf. A 2.15, is missing), the

liber 2 caput 13

909

concluding passage refers to all four. In his recapitulation of his treatment of the subject of physics at the beginning of the Meteorology he mentions only the movement of the heavenly bodies (1.1 338a21, cited on ch. 2.16). Aristotle’s treatment has very clearly determined the structure of the subsequent doxographical tradition. If, however, we turn to the specific subject of the substance of the heavenly bodies in general (as distinct from the planets and esp. the sun and the moon), we find that it is not extensively discussed. Aristotle himself, in Cael. 2.7, does not specifically engage with any of the philosophers mentioned in A, only arguing against the view that the heavenly bodies are fiery in very general terms (289a17). The sources for the doxai in extant authors can be traced to a greater or lesser extent for Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus, but in each case the doxographical tradition has introduced interesting changes. See further discussion and texts below. C Chapter Heading The chapter asks a question in the category of substance. Differently from the parallel chs. 2.11, 2.20 and 2.25, however, the heading appears to be not of the umbrella Περὶ x type, but uses the interrogative pronoun τίς with the noun in the nominative, which occurs rather infrequently elsewhere (note esp. ch. 5.3, but also chs. 1.1, 1.7, 2.10, 4.5, 5.17; in 2.11 the two types are both used). But there is a great diversity of formulations, with each of the five major witnesses presenting a different version (excluding T, who generally yields little evidence for this aspect). See our earlier discussion at M–R 1.180–181 (to which can be added the evidence of Ps). Short titles referring only to the stars in general are found in S (using the Περὶ x formula as part of a combined heading covering all seven chapters on the heavenly bodies) and Ach, and also in two later representatives of P, Q and Ps. PB has the fullest title. Not only it is specified that by the term ἄστρα both the fixed stars and the planetary bodies are meant (though missing in some manuscripts), but the question of how they came into existence is also added. However, the subject of this final addition, which is parallel to ch. 2.4 (and ch. 2.6) on the cosmos, only plays a minor role in the chapter. It is not a second question that allows contrasts between the major divisions of opinion, as in ch. 2.3. The preference should be given, we believe, to the heading in E without the final addition. The final part of PB’s heading may well have been added on the basis of some of the doxai’s contents (esp. P2–3–4–7). The heading itself poses the question in the category of substance. See our discussion on A 2.11 Commentary C, where we list the parallel headings in Book 2 and elsewhere.

910

liber 2 caput 13

D Analysis a Context The chapter on the nature of the stars is the second of the five major οὐσία chapters spread throughout chs. 2.11–32 and Book 3; see further above on ch. 2.11. The section 2.13–19 covers questions relating to the heavenly bodies. It should be noted that A appears to use the terms ἄστρον and ἀστήρ interchangeably (the former in chs. 2.13 and 18, the latter in chs. 2.14–17 and 19; but note how confused the witnesses are on the title of the present chapter). In this he differs from Ach who devotes a chapter to distinguishing between the two (§14, τί μὲν ἀστήρ, τί δὲ ἄστρον). To avoid ambiguity we shall translate ‘heavenly bodies’ when both stars and planets are meant (in the present chapter even meteorites are included). On the possibility that there may have been a lost chapter on the subject of whether the heavenly bodies are alive or not, as suggested by a quaestio given as an example in Book 1.proœm. 3[15], see the Commentary ad loc. A(3). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no material in P and T that is not found in the fullest source S. It is very likely therefore that the record of the chapter in S is complete. Given S’s method, using this chapter as his basis and adding material from the next six chapters, it is also probable that for the most part he accurately reflects the order of the lemmata in A. In attempting to determine the original form of the chapter, however, three problems arise. (1) For Empedocles P has two separate doxai (P2 and P5), which in S are kept together, joined by a simple καί (S2ab). As Bottler (2014) 368 rightly points out, the conjunction is an indicator of the process of coalescence. S more commonly uses the word δέ, but this was not possible here because of the μέν … δέ construction in the second doxa (another example of καί solving the same problem is found at in the same chapter at S 1.24.1e for the coalesced doxai of Democritus). It is of course not unusual in A to have two doxai with the same name-label in a single chapter (see the discussion at M–R 2.2.523). The second doxa in P admittedly does not have a close connection with the subject matter of the chapter. A more natural location would have been in ch. 2.15 on the ordering of the stars, but to move it there, given its presence in P 2.13, would be too radical a step. So, contrary to our view in M–R 2.460–461, we now believe that the separation of the two doxai, as set out in P, should be retained. As for the position of the second Empedocles doxa in the chapter, it is plausible to retain P’s order and so place it between Diogenes’ second doxa and Plato. We agree with Diels that, given the tight connection between Diogenes’ doxa and that of Anaximenes (both speak of invisible stones or bodies), it should be placed after the latter doxa, so immediately preceding the view of Plato.

liber 2 caput 13

911

(2) There is a small discrepancy in the order of the lemmata between S and T that needs to be resolved. The lemma recording the view of Democritus follows that of Diogenes in S, but in T the order is reversed. Here we do not follow Diels, who gives priority to T above S. It is true that both the previous lemma of Anaxagoras (§3) and that of Democritus speak of ‘rocks’. T recognises this link with his formula καὶ Δημόκριτος δὲ τοῦτον κρατύνει τὸν λόγον (A 4.17.3). But in our view it remains more likely that S followed his method consistently and so Diogenes would have preceded Democritus. There are other examples of T reversing the order of two doxai, e.g. at A 4.5.8–9. The difference between the two solutions. however, is not great. As we shall see, both doxai belong to the same group of thinkers on the question at issue. (3) In the case of Diogenes we also have two doxai connected to the same name-label. This time they are both joined together in S and P, but in T they are separate. The formula introducing the second doxa in P is striking. The words πάλιν δ᾽ ὁ αὐτός may be taken as an indication that the epitomator has linked up two originally separate lemmata (it is the only instance in P that this formula is used for a name-label; for πάλιν introducing an additional point cf. A 1.3.7[58]). Given S’s method in this chapter, it is likely that he too coalesces here. So we must conclude that in this case there were two Diogenes doxai in the chapter. But the location of the second still remains uncertain. From P and T we can deduce that it came after Anaximander and before Plato. Diels placed it after Parmenides–Heraclitus, but before Anaximenes. As will emerge below, it is more probable that it came after the Anaximenes doxa. As supporting evidence for the hypothesis that there were two Diogenes doxai in the chapter it should be noted that P skipped all the lemmata in A between the two. This was a very obvious and easy method of abridgement that was available to him. He simply linked up the two doxai, thereby leaving out the four or five lemmata in between. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Because of its length, the chapter’s structure is not as neat and clear-cut as that of many others. Nevertheless it is clear that its main contours are determined by a fundamental diaeresis between the view that the stars consist of a basically earthy, rock-like substance (which is enflamed so that they are mostly visible) and a purer fiery or ethereal substance. This division is not found in Aristotle in his discussion on the nature of the stars in Cael. 2.7, presumably because it was too far removed from his own view. But it is very clearly found as the basis of Seneca’s discussion of the subject in Nat. Book 7 (text below section E(a) General texts). The same diaeresis is also found in Philo, Achilles and Isidore of Pelusium (cf. section B above). The chapter also reveals a general movement

912

liber 2 caput 13

from the first to the second pole of the diaeresis. At the end, as often elsewhere, a number of additional themes are included. The chapter thus proceeds as follows. (1) The chapter begins with Thales, ἀρχηγέτης of the Italian succession, who represents the ‘earthy but inflamed’ view without further detail (§1). But he is immediately followed by Empedocles (§2), whose doxa belongs to the ‘fiery’ group (note that the verb ἐξαναθλίβω anticipates the πιλήματα introduced in §7). It may be surmised that A wishes to set out the basic antithesis at the outset (the same procedure, as we shall see below, in Ach). T prefers to retain continuity in his listing, and so passes over the Empedoclean lemma. (2) The next four doxai (§§3–6) revert to the ‘earthy’ view: the stars are lumps of red-hot rock or iron. In the case of Diogenes they are like sponges, not (presumably) because they are soft, but because they have openings that allow the fiery pneuma to circulate. (3) A continues with two doxai that regard the stars as ‘compressions’ of air and/of fire (§§7–8). (4) Diels now followed with the second Diogenean lemma, but the transition is needlessly harsh. If Anaximenes (§9) follows, as in S, then the sequence of fiery doxai is maintained. But an interesting addition is made: there are also invisible rocky bodies carried around with the heavenly bodies, i.e. meteorites. This view thus combines the two poles of the diaeresis. A then recalls that Diogenes also mentions such invisible bodies. This time, however, they are invisible when whirling in the heavens, but can be observed when they fall down to earth (§10). The double use of the verb συμπεριφέρω links up the two doxai, as Diels DG 67 saw, with a contrast between the two doxai introduced with δέ in the second part of the sentence. It is also to be agreed with Diels that the δέ after Diogenes’ name in S was probably introduced by the anthologist as often elsewhere; the same particle is found in T, but cannot tip the balance because he leaves out §§8–9. (5) There follows the second Empedocles lemma (§11) which distinguishes between the positioning of the fixed stars and the planets, the former having been fixed to the crystalline heaven, the latter free to move. As noted above, the view seems out of place here, but its position must be retained because of the location in P. (6) The next three views continue the ‘fiery’ group (§12–14). Plato’s view, based on Tim. 40a, is distinctive and by implication includes some earth in the stars’ composition. Aristotle’s theory of the quintessence is a reaction against it. Xenophanes’ fantastical theory comes last in the group, presumably because of its unusual nature.

liber 2 caput 13

913

(7) Two doxai remain. That of Heraclides and the Pythagoreans (§15) is also unusual and can be regarded as an additional ‘interesting’ view, but in a sense it continues the compromise between ‘earthy’ and ‘fiery’ views. The explicit reference to the Orphics is unique in the Placita, but see A 2.2 Commentary D(e) on additional material in Ach that is probably drawn from the Placita tradition. The final doxa (§16) is another affirmation of Epicurus’ ‘modal’ view, which rejects all diaereses in favour of τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον. The same view, terminology and final placement were found at 2.2.5; see further A 2.2 Commentary D(c). The term goes back to Epicurus himself (Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88). At D.L. 10.90, however, he indicates that the heavenly bodies may be pneumatic or fiery or both, but does not emphasize the ἐνδεχόμενον. It seems more likely that here it refers to all the various views represented in the chapter, rather than qualifying just the previous doxa, as suggested by Lachenaud (1993) 112 n. 4. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 In this and the following doxa cosmogonic elements are added to the cosmological theme of the chapter. Some details of Empedocles’ view recall the description of the cosmogonic process attributed to him in A 2.6.3. The further details in §11 may also originally be derived from a cosmogonic account. §3 Confusion between the terms ἀήρ and αἰθήρ in the various grammatical cases is frequent in the manuscripts of the P tradition and also in S. For other examples see §14 below, A 2.6.3, 2.7.5 etc. Here there can be little doubt that αἰθήρ is meant. Other texts do not mention that the stony heavenly bodies are swept up from the earth, as maintained here. §§9–10 The doxai attributed to Anaximenes and Diogenes share similarities with that of Anaxagoras, who was famous for his prediction of the fall of the meteorite at Aegospotami in 467BCE. In the case of Anaximenes there has been much discussion on how the various reports on the origin and nature of the heavenly body can be harmonised; cf. Wöhrle (1993) 70–72. The evidence of Hippolytus, however, throws interesting light on A’s doxai. The correspondences between his doxa on Anaxagoras and A’s on Anaximenes seem to be too great to be coincidental, so that there is much to be said for the view of Kirk-Raven-Schofield that Anaximenes’ doxa here is a case of ‘the inaccuracy of doxographical attributions’ (1983, 156). Since this is the only case in the testimonia to Diogenes that there is mention of the fall of the meteorite, there may have been transference in the case of his doxa too. But of course he may well have referred to it in his discussion of the nature of the heavenly bodies. §10 Laks (2008) 206 argues that πίπτοντα in S may well be deliberate, referring to the term ἄστρα and indicating that meteorites too are heavenly bodies.

914

liber 2 caput 13

He retains, however, the reading πίπτοντας for P. We have to choose. The proximity to λίθους makes the latter reading much more probable. §11 The description of the outer heaven as ‘crystalline’ is consistent with the Empedocles doxa at A 2.11.2. On the attribution of the same view to Anaximenes with the additional image of studs at 2.14.3 see our note at ch. 2.14 Commentary D(d). §12 The Platonic doxa is ultimately derived from Tim. 40a2–3, τοῦ μὲν οὖν θείου τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν ἐκ πυρὸς ἀπηργάζετο, as is the case for the parallel doxai at A 2.20.7 and 2.25.7. Plato’s statement covers the entire γένος of heavenly beings. The doxographical tradition has applied it to the various individual cases. The doxography at D.L. 3.74 follows the Platonic source more closely. Interestingly A adds an explanatory metaphor: the additional inclusion of the other elements binds together the heavenly bodies (as we may assume) in the manner of glue. Plato himself does not use the metaphor in this context, reserving it for aspects of human physiology (Tim. 43a, 75d, 82d). Aristotle Mete. 4.4 382a1 notes the role of glue in Empedocles’ physics (cf. 31A34 DK), but applies it to sublunary compounds, not the heavenly bodies. We note that both S and T leave out this extra information, perhaps independently recognising its non-Platonic nature. It is theoretically possible that it was added by P, but it would go against his usual practice as epitomator. §13 Translation and interpretation of this lemma is based on Mourelatos’ careful analysis in (2008) 139–146. He argues that πεπυρωμένον means ‘incandescent’ and not ‘ignited, enflamed’, i.e. does not necessarily imply that the composition of the stars is itself fire. §15 There is much variation in the witnesses with regard to the composition of the mini-worlds of each heavenly body (i.e. planet), exacerbated by the similarity of the terms ἀήρ and αἰθήρ. Given the correspondence of S and T, we think it best to follow the suggestion of Diels DG 343 in the apparatus that their readings best reflect the original in A, regardless of all the variation shown in the tradition of P. Though Heraclides and the Pythagoreans are not associated with the group of infinitists in A 2.1.3 (Pythagoras is regarded as a unicist in 2.1.2), the doxographer may assume that an infinite expanse of aether is implied by Heraclides’ hypothesis that the earth turns around its axis while the heaven remains at rest (3.13.3). Gottschalk (1980) 82–83 argues that Heraclides espouses the view that the cosmos is infinite in extent with the moon and the stars each forming a complete world. More recently Keyser (2009) 212 concurs, but in the view of Todd–Bowen (2009) 179 it cannot be proven. Note that at A 3.13.3 Heraclides is associated with Ecphantus ὁ Πυθαγόρειος (though with the Pythagorean Hicetas at Cicero Luc. 123). T’s formulation ἄλλοι τῶν Πυθαγο-

liber 2 caput 13

915

ρείων τινὲς may imply that he regards Heraclides as a Pythagorean, but does not necessarily do so (cf. Smyth 1956, §1272). In their recent edition Schütrumpf et al. (2008) laboriously treat PBEG, S and T in five separate lemmata (fr. 75A–E). But our method constrains us to make a choice for a single text. e Other Evidence Ach’s chapter (§11) entitled Τίς οὐσία ἀστέρων forms a remarkably close parallel to our chapter. Indeed it was the closeness to P in this case that was a prime reason for Diels to postulate (erroneously) that Ach had excerpted P (see the discussion with a useful comparison in two columns at DG 24). The first six lemmata correspond to P1–2–3–4–6–7; only the seventh with the name-label Stoics is not found in P or A. The first two doxai preserve the basic diaeresis just as in A, emphasizing it even more with a μέν … δέ construction. The Anaxagorean doxa is introduced by the word τινές … ἐτόλμησαν, which can have a neutral connotation (i.e. ‘claimed’), but in this context perhaps hints at a contrast with the Stoic view in the final lemma that the stars consist of divine fire. Such theological concerns are mostly foreign to the method of the Placita (compare also Philo Aet. 47 cited below, where the attitude towards Anaxagoras is openly hostile). The phrase μετὰ τὴν πρώτην διάκρισιν is almost the same as in A, but there it is part of the Empedoclean doxa. The fourth doxa is presented anonymously, but clearly corresponds to the first part of the Diogenean lemma in A. Nothing in our witnesses to A corresponds to the Stoic lemma. It may have been part of an earlier Placita tradition, but then it would be surprising that A did not include it in some form or other. It is possible that Ach imported it from another source. Another possibility, however, is that it does reflect a Stoic doxa that was present in A, but was omitted by P and T and not copied out by S because he replaced it with material from AD fr. 32 Diels at 1.24.5 (Posidonius, Chrysippus and Apollodorus). However this may be, it is certainly is remarkable that the first six doxai all correspond to those in P, without any of the extra material preserved by S or T. Nevertheless, as Diels later saw (see Pasquali 1910, 221), they cannot be viewed as derived from P. They represent the shared tradition of the Placita. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.22 τί δ᾽; οἱ ἀστέρες πότερον γῆς εἰσιν ὄγκοι πυρὸς πλήρεις—ἄγκεα γὰρ καὶ νάπας καὶ μύδρους διαπύρους εἶπον αὐτοὺς εἶναί τινες, αὐτοὶ δεσμωτηρίου καὶ μύλωνος, ἐν οἷς τὰ τοιαῦτά ἐστιν ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ τῶν ἀσεβῶν, ὄντες ἐπάξιοι—ἢ συνεχὴς καί, ὡς εἶπέ τις, πυκνὴ ἁρμονία, πιλήματα ἀδιάλυτα αἰθέρος; ἔμψυχοι δὲ καὶ νοεροὶ ἢ νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἀμέτοχοι; προαιρετικὰς δὲ

916

liber 2 caput 13

ἢ κατηναγκασμένας αὐτὸ μόνον κινήσεις ἔχοντες; Somn. 1.53, τί δὲ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων φύσεως ἢ περιφορᾶς ἢ συμπαθείας πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ τἀπίγεια; Seneca Nat. 7.1.6–7 at mehercules non aliud quis aut magnificientius quaesierit aut didicerit utilius quam de stellarum siderumque natura, utrum flamma contracta, quod et visus noster affirmat et ipsum ab illis fluens lumen et calor inde descendens, an non sint flammei orbes, sed solida quaedam terrenaque corpora, quae per igneos tractus labentia inde splendorem trahant caloremque, non de suo clara. in qua opinione magni fuerunt viri, qui sidera crediderunt ex duro concreta et ignem alienum pascentia. ‘nam per se’ inquiunt ‘flamma diffugeret, nisi aliquid haberet quod teneret et a quo teneretur, conglobatamque nec stabili inditam corpori profecto iam mundus turbine suo dissipasset.’ cf. Dial. 8.5.5 unde ista sidera exierint. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58, p. 133.13– 18 Marchesi quid sit luna? quid stellae? cur una specie aut illa non maneat, aut per omne mundi corpus frustilla haec ignea convenerit atque oportuerit figi? cur alia ex his parva, ampliora et maiora sint alia, obtunsi haec luminis, acutioris illa et fulgidae claritatis? John Chrysostom Cat.Illum. 3.4.1 Wenger πυρώδης τῶν ἄστρων ἐκείνων ἡ φύσις, πυρώδης καὶ τούτων τῶν ἄστρων ἡ οὐσία. Scholia in Aristophanem in Nubes 102c Holwerda, ἀλαζὼν λέγεται ὁ ἄλῃ καὶ πλάνῃ ζῶν καὶ βίῳ ἀστάτῳ, ὡς οἱ φιλόσοφοι περὶ ἡλίου, σελήνης, ἀστέρων τε τῶν λοιπῶν καὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς ψυχρομύθους λόγους πλατύνοντες ἐναντίους καὶ μαχομένους ἀλλήλοις καὶ αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς, μεγέθη τε τούτων καὶ ἀπὸ γῆς ἀποστάσεις καὶ οὐσίας καὶ φύσεις καὶ θέσεις καὶ σχήματα καὶ ἄλλα μυρία λαλοῦντες. Chapter heading: Posidonius see on ch. 2.11. Pliny Nat. Index lib. II, p. 11.9–10 De siderum errantium natura. Cf. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 prima pars (sc. de universo quaestio) naturam siderum scrutatur … also Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58 quid (sc. sint) stellae? (cited above). §1 Thales: Hippolytus Ref. 1.1.4 (Thales fr. 210 Wöhrle) οὗτος περὶ τὸν τῶν ἄστρων λόγον καὶ τὴν ζήτησιν ἀσχοληθεὶς Ἕλλησι ταύτης τῆς μαθήσεως αἴτιος πρῶτος γίνεται. ὃς ἀποβλέπων πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἄνω ἐπιμελῶς κατανοεῖν λέγων, εἰς φρέαρ ἐνέπεσεν … §3 Anaxagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (59A1 DK) τὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν θολοειδῶς ἐνεχθῆναι, ὥστε κατὰ κορυφὴν τῆς γῆς τὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον εἶναι πόλον, ὕστερον δὲ τὴν ἔγκλισιν λαβεῖν. 2.12 τὸν δὲ Ἀναξαγόραν εἰπεῖν ὡς ὅλος ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐκ λίθων συγκέοιτο· τῇ σφοδρᾷ δὲ περιδινήσει συνεστάναι καὶ ἀνεθέντα κατενεχθήσεσθαι. cf. Plutarch Lys. 12 (on Anaxagoras, 59A12 DK) οἱ δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ λίθου πτῶσιν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει τούτῳ σημεῖόν φασι γενέσθαι· κατηνέχθη γάρ, ὡς ἡ δόξα τῶν πολλῶν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ παμμεγέθης λίθος εἰς Αἰγὸς ποταμούς. …· λέγεται δὲ Ἀναξαγόραν προειπεῖν ὡς τῶν κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐνδεδεμένων σωμάτων, γενομένου τινὸς ὀλισθήματος ἢ σάλου, ῥῖψις ἔσται καὶ πτῶσις ἑνὸς ἀπορραγέντος· εἶναι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄστρων ἕκαστον οὐκ ἐν ᾗ πέφυκε χώρᾳ· λιθώδη γὰρ ὄντα καὶ βαρέα λάμπειν μὲν ἀντερείσει καὶ περικλάσει τοῦ αἰθέρος, ἕλκεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ βίας σφιγγόμενα δίνῃ καὶ τόνῳ τῆς περιφορᾶς, ὥς που καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἐκρατήθη μὴ πεσεῖν δεῦρο τῶν ψυχρῶν καὶ βαρέων ἀποκρινομένων τοῦ παντός … Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.2 (59A42 DK) καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν κεκοσμῆσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐγκυκλίου κινήσεως· τὸ μὲν

liber 2 caput 13 οὖν πυκνὸν καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ ὑγρὸν καὶ τὸ σκοτεινὸν καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ ψυχρὸν καὶ πάντα τὰ βαρέα συνελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον, ἐξ ὧν παγέντων τὴν γῆν ὑποστῆναι· τὰ δ᾽ ἀντικείμενα τούτοις, ⟨τὸ ἀραιὸν καὶ⟩ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τὸ κοῦφον, εἰς τὸ πρόσω τοῦ αἰθέρος ὁρμῆσαι. … Ref. 1.8.6 ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα λίθους εἶναι ἐμπύρους, συμπεριληφθέντας ὑπὸ τῆς ⟨τοῦ⟩ αἰθέρος περιφορᾶς. εἶναι δ᾽ ὑποκάτω τῶν ἄστρων ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ σώματά τινα συμπεριφερόμενα, ἡμῖν ἀόρατα. Origen Cels. 5.11 see on A 2.20.8. Achilles c. 13, p. 20.18–19 τοὺς ἀστέρας δὲ ζῷα εἶναι οὔτε Ἀναξαγόρᾳ (59A79 DK) οὔτε Δημοκρίτῳ (67B1 DK attributed to Leucippus, fr. 392 Luria) ἐν τῷ Μεγάλῳ διακόσμῳ δοκεῖ. §5 cf. on §3, Achilles. §7 Anaximander: Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.4 (12A11 DK) τὰ δὲ ἄστρα γίνεσθαι κύκλον πυρός, ἀποκριθέντα ⟨ἐκ⟩ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον πυρός, περιληφθέντα δ᾽ ὑπὸ ἀέρος. ἐκπνοὰς δ᾽ ὑπάρξαι, πόρους τινὰς αὐλώδεις, καθ᾽ οὓς φαίνεσθαι τὰ ἄστρα· διὸ καὶ ἐπιφρασσομένων τῶν ἐκπνοῶν τὰς ἐκλείψεις γίνεσθαι. §8 Parmenides Heraclitus: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.9–10 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) εἶναι μέντοι ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ περιέχοντι) σκάφας ἐπεστραμμένας κατὰ κοῖλον πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἐν αἷς ἀθροιζομένας τὰς λαμπρὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις ἀποτελεῖν φλόγας, ἃς εἶναι τὰ ἄστρα. λαμπροτάτην δὲ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου φλόγα καὶ θερμοτάτην. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα ἄστρα πλεῖον ἀπέχειν ἀπὸ γῆς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἧττον λάμπειν καὶ θάλπειν, τὴν δὲ σελήνην προσγειοτέραν οὖσαν μὴ διὰ τοῦ καθαροῦ φέρεσθαι τόπου. §9 Anaximenes: Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.4 (Anaximenes 13A7 DK) ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα πάντα γὰρ πύρινα ὄντα ἐποχεῖσθαι τῷ ἀέρι διὰ πλάτος. differently ps.Plutarch Strom. 3 (fr. 179 Sandbach, Anaximenes 13A6 DK) καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς γενέσεως ἐκ γῆς ἔχειν. §10 Empedocles: cf. Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok (general question) et stellae utrumne adhaereant caelo an per aerem libero cursu ferantur. §11 Plato: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.74 (Plato doxography) θεοὺς μὲν οὖν ἔχειν τὸ πολὺ πυρίνους. §12 Aristotle: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (Aristotle doxography) εἶναι δὲ παρὰ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα καὶ ἄλλο πέμπτον, ἐξ οὗ τὰ αἰθέρια συνεστάναι. ἀλλοίαν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν κίνησιν εἶναι· κυκλοφορητικὴν γάρ. §13 Xenophanes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach, 21A32 DK) τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιόν φησι καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐκ τῶν νεφῶν γίγνεσθαι. cf. also ps.Plutarch Strom. 11 on Metrodorus cited on A 2.20.15.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a11–13 περὶ δὲ τῶν καλουμένων ἄστρων ἑπόμενον ἄν εἴη λέγειν, ἐκ τίνων τε συνεστᾶσι καὶ ἐν ποίοις σχήμασι καὶ τίνες αἱ κινήσεις αὐτῶν (cited by ps.Justin Confut. 45, p. 152b Morel). Cael. 2.12 293a11– 14 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν τὴν ἐγκύκλιον φερομένων κίνησιν ἄστρων εἴρηται ποῖ᾽ ἄττα κατά τε τὴν οὐσίαν ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸ σχῆμα, περί τε τῆς φορᾶς καὶ τῆς τάξεως αὐτῶν. Cicero Tusc. 5.69 quo tandem igitur gaudio adfici necesse est sapientis animum cum his habitantem pernoctantemque curis! ut, cum totius mundi motus con-

917

918

liber 2 caput 13

versionesque perspexerit sideraque viderit innumerabilia caelo inhaerentia cum eius ipsius motu congruere certis infixa sedibus, septem alia suos quaeque tenere cursus multum inter se aut altitudine aut humilitate distantia, quorum vagi motus rata tamen et certa sui cursus spatia definiant … Philo of Alexandria Aet. 47 ἔδει γὰρ ἢ μύδρους διαπύρους ἀποφήνασθαι, κάθαπερ ἔνιοι τῶν οἷα περὶ δεσμωτηρίου φλυαρούντων τοῦ σύμπαντος οὐρανοῦ, ἢ θείας ἢ δαιμονίας φύσεις νομίζοντας τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν θεοῖς ἀφθαρσίαν προσομολογῆσαι. Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.5 = fr. 33 Diels Ζήνων (SVF 1.120) τὸν ἥλιόν φησι καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων ἕκαστον εἶναι νοερὸν καὶ φρόνιμον, πύρινον ⟨δὲ⟩ πυρὸς τεχνικοῦ. δύο γὰρ γένη πυρός, τὸ μὲν ἄτεχνον καὶ μεταβάλλον εἰς ἑαυτὸ τὴν τροφήν, τὸ δὲ τεχνικὸν αὐξητικόν τε καὶ τηρητικόν, οἷον ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἐστι καὶ ζῴοις, ὃ δὴ φύσις ἐστὶ καὶ ψυχή· τοιούτου δὴ πυρὸς εἶναι τὴν τῶν ἄστρων οὐσίαν. Chapter heading: Proclus in Tim. 3.112.26–27 δεῖ γὰρ πρῶτον ἡμᾶς περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ ἀπλανοῦς) διελθεῖν … Simplicius in Phys. 290.21–23 εἰ οὖν ὁ μὲν φυσικὸς καὶ περὶ οὐσίας τῶν ἄστρων καὶ περὶ τῶν συμβεβηκότων αὐτοῖς ἐπισκοπεῖ, ὁ δὲ ἀστρολόγος περὶ μόνων τῶν συμβεβηκότων … in Cael. 366.2–12 ἀρχὴν ἐποιήσατο τοῦ δευτέρου βιβλίου, ἐν ᾧ τὰ λοιπὰ περὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ προβλήματα διαρθροῖ· … καὶ ἕβδομον περὶ ἀστέρων οὐσίας τε αὐτῶν καὶ σχήματος καὶ τάξεως καὶ κινήσεως … in Cael. 452.9–14 (on 290a7) μετὰ τὴν ἐκ διαιρέσεως ἀπόδειξιν τὴν περὶ τῆς κινήσεως ἢ τῆς ἀκινησίας τῶν ἄστρων ἄλλον τρόπον ἀποδείξεως ἐπάγει περὶ τοῦ μὴ κινεῖσθαι τὰ ἄστρα ὑποθέμενος αὐτὰ σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι καὶ νῦν μὲν τὸ πιθανὸν τῆς ὑποθέσεως πιστούμενος ἔκ τε τῆς τῶν ἄλλων δόξης οὕτως οἰομένων περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ δεῖν τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὄντας αὐτοὺς τῷ οὐρανίῳ σώματι καὶ σχῆμα τὸ αὐτὸ ἔχειν … §2 Empedocles: cf. Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a16–19 ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ πύρινα φάσκοντες εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὅτι τὸ ἄνω σῶμα πῦρ εἶναί φασιν, ὡς εὔλογον ὂν ἕκαστον συνεστάναι ἐκ τούτων ἐν οἷς ἕκαστόν ἐστιν, ὁμοίως καὶ ἡμεῖς λέγομεν. §3 Anaxagoras: Olympiodorus in Mete. 17.19–21 μόνα δὲ τὰ ἄστρα πυρώδη εἰσίν, ὡς καὶ τὸν Ἀναξαγόραν (59A19 DK) μύδρον καλέσαι τὸν ἥλιον διὰ τὸ ἄμετρον τῆς πυρώσεως· μύδρος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ πεπυρακτωμένος σίδηρος. §8 Parmenides Heraclitus: see on A 2.11.1 (Parmenides). §12 Plato: Plato Tim. 40a τοῦ μὲν οὖν θείου τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν ἐκ πυρὸς ἀπηργάζετο (sc. ὁ θεός). cf. Alcinous Did. 14, p. 171.1–4 H. (planets only) ἑπτὰ σώματα ὁ θεὸς δημιουργήσας ὁρατὰ ἐκ πυρώδους τῆς πλείστης οὐσίας ἐφήρμοσε ταῖς σφαίραις ὑπαρχούσαις ἐκ τοῦ θατέρου κύκλου καὶ πλανωμένου. Apuleius Plat. 1.12, p. 71.6–9 Beaujeu iam ipsa animantium genera in quattuor species dividuntur, quarum una est ex natura ignis eiusmodi qualem solem ac lunam videmus ceterasque siderum stellas … Proclus in Tim. 3.112.23–113.17 πρῶτόν ἐστι τῶν μερικῶν ζῴων τὸ ἀπλανές, ὃ δὴ καὶ πρῶτον ὑφίστησιν ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐκ πυρὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν ἀπεργαζόμενος· δεῖ γὰρ πρῶτον ἡμᾶς περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ διελθεῖν, ἔπειτα περὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τρίτον περὶ τῆς θέσεως καὶ τέταρτον περὶ τῆς κινήσεως. ὁ δὲ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος πολλὴν ἐπεισκυκλεῖ τὴν τῶν ἐξηγητῶν διαφωνίαν· πῶς γὰρ ἐκ πυρὸς ἔχει τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν; πότερον οὕτως, ὥσπερ ἔνιοί φασιν, ὅτι συγκέκραται μὲν (113) ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν στοιχείων, τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς πλείστου μετείλη-

liber 2 caput 13 χεν, ἢ ὅτι πᾶν μὲν τὸ οὐράνιον γένος ἐκ πάντων ἐστί, τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον αὐτοῦ πύριόν ἐστι; … ἆρα μὴ οὕτως, ὥσπερ ὁ τῶν πραγμάτων θεατὴς ὄντως ἐξηγήσατο τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν τοῦ πυρός, ἀντὶ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος τὸ πῦρ ἀκουστέον πλείστην ἰδέαν ἔχον, ὡς πολλοὺς λόγους ὑποδεξάμενον, ὧν ἐστι πλῆρες ἕκαστον τῶν θείων σωμάτων; ἢ κατὰ τούτων μὲν οὐδένα τῶν τρόπων, ὡς δὲ ἔνιοι λέγουσιν, ὅτι τὰ θεῖα ζῷα συνέστηκε μὲν ἐκ πυρός, ἀλλὰ διαστατὴν ἔχει καὶ πεπληθυσμένην τὴν οὐσίαν (ἑνοειδὲς γὰρ τὸ νοητόν, πλεῖστον δὲ τὸ σωματικὸν ὡς μεριστόν, ὡς διαστατόν, ὡς ὄγκον ἔχον), ἤ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πάντων ἀληθέστατον, εἰς πάσας ἀποβλέψομεν τὰς ἐπιβολὰς καὶ μίαν ἀπὸ πασῶν ἀλήθειαν θεωρήσομεν; … in Tim. 3.114.8 καὶ οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα τοὺς δεινοὺς τῶν διαλεκτικῶν (sc. Aristotle and the Peripatetics), οἳ σμικρόν τι μόριον τῆς φύσεως ἰδόντες οἴονται τὸν Πλάτωνα διασύρειν τὸ πῦρ ἀνωφερὲς λέγοντες, τὰ δὲ ἄστρα κυκλοφορητικά· ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ ἔχει χώραν ἐπὶ τοῦ οὐρανίου πυρός §13 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.2 269a30–32 ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι πέφυκέ τις οὐσία σώματος ἄλλη παρὰ τὰς ἐνταῦθα συστάσεις, θειοτέρα καὶ προτέρα τούτων ἁπάντων … See also on A 2.11.5. §16 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.90 ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα … εὐθὺς διεπλάττετο καὶ αὔξησιν ἐλάμβανεν κατὰ προσκρίσεις καὶ δινήσεις λεπτομερῶν τινων φύσεων, ἤτοι πνευματικῶν ἢ πυροειδῶν ἢ συναμφοτέρων …

919

Liber 2 Caput 14 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889A; pp. 343a16–344a7 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.31, pp. 404.19–405.3 Mras, cf. 7.11.13 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 56a; p. 624.20–24 Diels; pp. 183–185 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 150–151 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 133, p. 70.8 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.40, p. 44.3 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.21 (tit.) + 1.24.1k, p. 203.15–16 + 2d, p. 205.25–26 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8–9 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theoderetus CAG 4.20, p. 105.15–16 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 12, p. 20.11–15; c. 15, p. 22.15–18 Di Maria

Titulus ιδʹ. Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας, καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην, (P1,S2,T1) §2 Κλεάνθης κωνοειδεῖς. (P2,S3,T2) §3 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. (P3,S1) §4 ἔνιοι δὲ πέταλα εἶναι πύρινα, ὥσπερ ζῳγραφήματα. (P4) §1 Stoici SVF 2.681; §2 Cleanthes SVF 1.508; §3 Anaximenes 13A14, B2a DK; §4 anonymi cf. 13A14 DK titulus σχημάτων PB(I–II)EQSyS (qui conflat tit. Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων (c. 2.13) καὶ σχημάτων (2.14), κινήσεώς (cf. 2.16) τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας (2.19)), cf. PPs : σχήματος PB(III)E, cf. Ach : al. PPs Ποταπὰ τῶν ἀστέρων τὰ σχήματα §1 [2] οἱ Στωικοὶ P : οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι S (cf. οἱ μὲν T), οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι ⟨Στωικοὶ⟩ coni. Heeren prob. Wachsmuth ‖ τοὺς ἀστέρας P : τούς SFP, αὐτούς SP(m.s.) Diels Wachsmuth ‖ post κόσμον add. οἴονται PG ‖ [2–3] καθάπερ … σελήνην PBGQ : καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον PE (cf. Ach καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν περιέχοντα οὐρανόν) : om. S §2 [4] om. PE ‖ post nomen add. δὲ verisimiliter S (cf. T) §3 [5] καταπεπηγέναι PB(I,III)G S : καταπεπηγμένους PE emend. Mras (mss. –μένων) : PQ καταπεπηγμένων (daß sie die Stelle der Nägel einnehmen, die in der eisartigen Substanz festgenagelt und befestigt sind Q) : καταπεπληγέναι PB(II) ‖ post καταπεπηγέναι add. τὰ ἄστρα S (ret. Diels VS, DK), καὶ PG §4 [6] ἔνιοι δὲ PB(Ι,ΙΙΙ)EQ, cf. Ach τινὲς δὲ : δὲ om. PG : καθάπερ PB(II) ‖ εἶναι πύρινα PB : inv. PE : om. πύρινα PQ : al. PG πύρινα νομίζουσιν εἶναι ‖ ζῳγραφήματα PB(I,III)EG : ἐζῳγραφημένα PB(II) ‖ post ζῳγραφήματα add. τοὺς ἀστέρας PG

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.20 4.20.2 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδεῖς τούτους εἰρήκασι, 4.20.3 (~ §2) κωνοειδεῖς δὲ Κλεάνθης ὁ Στωϊκός. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia Graeca, cf. c. 1.7) τῶν δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας εἶναι (sc. θεοὺς) φασκόντων, οὓς καὶ μύδρους τυγχάνειν διαπύρους ἥλων καὶ πετάλων δίκην ἐμπεπηγότας τῷ οὐρανῷ (cf. P3). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_055

5

liber 2 caput 14 ps.Galenus HPh c. 56a (titulus deest) (text Jas) 56a.1 (~ P1) οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον οἴονται καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. 56a.2 (~ P2) Κλεάνθης κωνοειδεῖς. 56a.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι καὶ ⟨τῷ⟩ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. 56a.4 (~ P4) ἔνιοι πέταλα πύρινα νομίζουσιν εἶναι ὥσπερ ζῳγραφήματα τοὺς ἀστέρας. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 133 Ποταπὰ τῶν ἀστέρων τὰ σχήματα (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.40 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 12, p. 20.11 Περὶ σχήματος ἀστέρων (~ tit.) p. 20.12–15 Κλεάνθης αὐτοὺς κωνοειδὲς ἔχειν σχῆμά φησι (~§2), τινὲς δὲ πετάλοις ἐοικέναι ἐκπύροις βάθος οὐκ ἔχοντας (~§4), ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ γραφὰς εἶναι, τινὲς δὲ πυραμίδας. οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ σφαιρικὸν ἔχειν σχῆμα λέγουσι, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν περιέχοντα οὐρανόν (§1). c. 15, p. 22.14. Περὶ πλανήτων (~ tit.) p. 22.15–19 ὁ Ἄρατος τῇ τῶν πολλῶν δόξῃ κατακολουθήσας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἐναρηρέναι (cf. §3) φησὶ (Phaen. 10) τῷ οὐρανῷ ‘αὐτὸς γὰρ τάδε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε’ παρὰ τὸ ‘ἐστήριξεν’ ἀστέρας αὐτοὺς παρετυμολογῶν. τὸν δὲ τῶν πλανήτων λόγον παρῃτήσατο ὁ Ἄρατος … Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 1.14 Περὶ σχήματων. A 2.2 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου; A 2.22 Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου; A 2.27 Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης; A 3.10. Περὶ σχήματος γῆς. §1 cf. A 2.22.3 (de sole) οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ, ὡς τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα. §2 A 1.14.5 (de figuris) Κλεάνθης μόνος τῶν Στωικῶν τὸ πῦρ ἀπεφήνατο κωνοειδές. A 2.2.1–2 οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, ἄλλοι δὲ κωνοειδῆ … A 2.27.4 (de luna) Κλεάνθης πιλοειδῆ. §3 A 2.22.1 Ἀναξιμένης Ἀλκμαίων πλατὺν ὡς πέταλον τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.13.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς … τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. §4 A 2.13.2 (de stellis) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πύρινα ἐκ τοῦ πυρώδους; A 2.13.9 Ἀναξιμένης πυρίνην μὲν τὴν φύσιν τῶν ἄστρων.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

921

922

liber 2 caput 14

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P and his tradition (including G) have four lemmata (the second is passed over by Eusebius). G does not include the chapter heading, so it seems that his four lemmata become part of the previous chapter. Jas argues (2018a, 183) that this may have been his intention and does not include these doxai as a separate chapter. However, for the sake of clarity we have retained the numbering of Diels (ch. 56a). (2) In the grand process of coalescence carried out by S (see above on ch. 2.13), three doxai are included, but the last anonymous lemma recorded by P finds no place, as occurs more often in S (see M–R 1.235). (3) T retains only the first two doxai with their clear antithesis. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are remarkably few references to this question in the proximate tradition. Philo does not include it in his long list of questions on the heaven and the heavenly bodies. It is briefly included in Diogenes Laertius’ doxography of the Stoa, but it is not found in the fragments of Arius Didymus. Many centuries later Isidore of Pelusium, in his text on the nature of the stars (discussed on ch. 2.13), includes three doxai that mention their shape—πύρινοι σφαῖραι, δισκοειδῆ σώματα, σφαιροειδεῖς πυρὸς πιλήσεις—, of which the second is not found in our chapter. Isidore must have had access to a doxographical tradition differing from but parallel to that utilised by A. Much closer to A, however, is the brief chapter in Achilles with the heading Περὶ σχήματος ἀστέρων, which will be analysed separately below in D(e). (2) Sources. In the Timaeus Plato does not mention the shape of the heavenly bodies, in contrast to the that of the universe as a whole. Aristotle, in his treatment of the stars in Cael. 2.8, states his view that they are σφαιροειδῆ (the usual term in A, cf. 2.2.1, 2.22.3 etc., but in this chapter the term used is σφαιρικός). He adds that this is also the view of others (text below section E(b) General texts). But, apart from this passage (and references to it in the commentators), the topic of the stars’ shape occurs but seldom. It not specifically mentioned in the cosmological treatise of the Stoic Cleomedes nor in Geminus’ handbook of astronomy. Clearly from the 4th century bce onwards the stars’ spherical shape was generally assumed, with as striking (and perhaps suspicious) exception Cleanthes. It might be expected that in the atomist tradition at least the possibility of different shapes would have been raised, but if so, we have not found any evidence of it.

liber 2 caput 14

923

C Chapter Heading The heading follows the predominant umbrella Περί x construction, reflecting a quaestio in the category of quality (well understood by Ps in using the unusual interrogative adjective ποταπός). The majority reading of the plural σχημάτων is to be preferred above the singular σχήματος in E and one ms. of PB (and Ach). The singular suits the cases of the cosmos (ch. 2.2), sun (2.22), moon (2.27) and earth (3.10) better, but the plural is clearly more suitable for the vast number of stars and planets. In his chapter 1.24 on the heavenly bodies S adroitly combines the headings of chs. 2.13, 2.14, 2.16 and 2.19. A consequence, however, is that he omits the headings of three chapters from which he does include excerpts, chs. 2.15 (on τάξις), 2.17 (on their illumination) and 2.18 (on the Dioscuri). D Analysis a Context The question of shape in the category of quality follows on from that of nature or essence, as in the case of the cosmos (ch. 2.2), sun (2.22), moon (2.27) and earth (3.10). A chooses not to pose the question of size in the case of the stars, in contrast to that of the sun (2.21) and moon (2.26). This would have been scarcely possible in the context of ancient astronomy. b Number–Order of Lemmata Among the witnesses for A there is no evidence for any more lemmata than are found in P, so the chapter may be regarded as complete (but see below D(e) on Ach). For the order of the doxai we can also rely on P, since the deviation in S is easily explained by the process of coalescence. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter as transmitted divides into two pairs of contrasting doxai, only the first of which is exploited by T. This first pair gives two different shapes. The Stoa is taken to represent the dominant view (implied in the comparison with other bodies; the same choice of name-label occurs in chs. 2.2, 2.27 and 3.10). The doxographer then points out a disagreement within the school itself (unlike in 2.2, where the cone-like option is kept anonymous, it is attributed here specifically to Cleanthes). The contrast involved in the second pair of doxai is less explicitly indicated. The stars are either stuck to the crystalline nature of the outer heaven (already ascribed to Empedocles, but here to the earlier Anaximenes) like studs (perhaps the image of a shield), or they are flat leaves like drawn or painted representation of living things (to draw out the full implication of the term ζωγράφημα). The parallel text in Ach suggests that the contrast

924

liber 2 caput 14

turns on the difference between two and three-dimensional shape, the studs having—we may surmise—a semi-circular shape. His second doxa states that ‘some thinkers say they (sc. the stars) resemble inflamed leaves having no depth but are like pictures’ (text Testes secundi above). A similar contrast is made at the beginning of the next ch. 2.15 on whether the stars are disposed on a flat surface or three-dimensionally with height or depth. The terminology of ‘being fixed to’ or ‘bound to’ the outer heaven used by A at §3 and previously 2.13.10 is found in numerous authors, examples of which are given below. In a much later text at Enn. 2.3.7.4 Plotinus uses the image of ‘pictures written in the heaven’ to describe the stars, but in this case he would not deny that the stars were spherical; they appear to be pictures in the form of the well-known constellations. d

Further Comments Individual Points §§1–2 There are divergences between P and ST in the first name-label and in the use of the μέν … δέ construction. The opposition between ‘the Stoics’ and Cleanthes (as in P) may seem strange, because Cleanthes is a Stoic himself (cf. the conjecture of Diels and Wachsmuth for the text in S, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι ⟨Στωικοί⟩). This may be the reason that both S and T dropped the reference to the Stoics. But we observe that the same kind of antithesis is made in ch. 2.9 (Stoics, Posidonius). And as noted above, the Stoics have the prime place in the equivalent chapters on shape at chs. 2.2, 2.27 and 3.10. The reading of P should be retained as the lectio difficilior. Similarly with regard to the use of the μέν … δέ construction we have chosen the more difficult reading. It is more likely that it was introduced by the paraphrasing activities of ST than that it was deleted by P. §2 Cleanthes’ idiosyncratic view that the stars have a cone-like shape will be linked to his view that it is the shape of the element fire (A 1.14.5), and may perhaps also be connected with the optical theory that the visual rays form a cone, attributed to Chrysippus at A 4.15.3. See further the discussion in the Commentary on ch. 1.14.5. Gilbert (1907) 691 cited by Lachenaud ad loc. surmises that the view is based on the fact that the appearance of fire in a flame is conical in shape. Von Arnim (1921) 565 appeals to his view of the moon’s hat-like shape in A 2.27.4 and suspects the influence of Heraclitus’ bowls (cf. the previous doxa in the same chapter 2.27.3, and also 2.28.7). §§3–4 There has been much speculation on this text, because elsewhere it is the second view that appears to correspond to Anaximenes’ view and not the first (note the reference to the sun as πέταλον at 2.22.1, which Diels VS 1.95 regarded as drawn from Anaximenes’ original text; Ach keeps the doxa

liber 2 caput 14

925

anonymous, so cannot help us). See discussions in Guthrie (1962–1981) 1.135, Lloyd (1966) 317, Kirk-Raven-Schofield (1983) 155; further references at Lachenaud (1993) 248. Brind’Amour (1969) somewhat naively suggests that the name-labels be reversed. Long ago Heath (1913) 41–43 proposed that ἔνιοι be emended to ἐνίους, so that the distinction would occur within the Anaximenean doxa (Guthrie’s grammatical objection to this only follows if the reading of S is preferred as in DK). Schwabl (1966), supported by Wöhrle (1993) 72, proposed that the words ἔνιοι δὲ πέταλα εἶναι πύρινα be regarded as a comment on the planets that has found its way into the text on the fixed stars. Recently too, Bottler (2014) 375 and Couprie (2018) 50 n. 16 agree that the second lemma fits in better with Anaximenes. It is true that a mix-up of name-labels or views may quite easily have occurred, e.g. if the Anaximenes doxa originally belonged to Empedocles (cf. his doxa at A 2.13.2) and the other doxa to Anaximenes (suggested by Lloyd and Kirk–Raven–Schofield). But it would go too far to emend the text as transmitted in our witnesses. e Other Evidence Ach has a chapter with an identical title. The similarities to A cannot be coincidental and point to a shared tradition. He and A are ‘cousin writings’, cf. M– R 1.305. Three of A’s doxai can be easily recognized, but in a different order: Ach1 = §2, Ach2 = §4, Ach4 = §1. Anaximenes’ doxa is not found and an additional pyramidal shape is included (reminiscent of the studs in A’s §3, since a body with pyramidal shape can be stuck onto a virtually flat surface). As noted above in section D(c), Ach’s reference to two-dimensional shape may give the clue to the second diaeresis in A. Ach’s chapter has a different organization, seeming to work towards the final view as definitive (the contrast within the Stoic school is thus not exploited). Isidore of Pelusium in his passage on the heavenly bodies discussed above on ch. 2.13 also mixes in the question of shape, but his ‘like a disc’ alternative does not occur in A or Ach (it is found in A 2.27.5 on the moon and 3.10.5 on the earth). His text, in referring to τὰ ἄστρα, may of course be referring to planets as well as fixed stars. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 prima pars (sc. de universo quaestionis) naturam siderum scrutatur et magnitudinem et formam ignium, quibus mundus includitur, solidumne sit caelum ac firmae concretaeque materiae an ex subtili tenuique nexum … et infra sese sidera habeat an in contextu sui fixa. Scholia in Basilium I 14, p. 198.14–16 Pasquali ἐοίκασιν οὖν οὗτοι μόνοι μὴ ἐμπεπῆχθαι τῷ οὐρανῷ καθάπερ οἱ ἀπλανεῖς λεγόμενοι.

926

liber 2 caput 14

Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 1435.68–86 Évieux εἴτε οὖν λογικά ἐστι ζῶα (sc. τὰ ἄστρα), ὥς φασί τινες, εἴτε πύρινοι σφαῖραι, εἴτε δισκοειδῆ σώματα, … εἴτε σφαιροειδεῖς πυρὸς πιλήσεις. see further on A 2.13. Chapter heading: cf. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 (cited above) formam ignium. §1 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.145 δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτοῖς σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι καὶ τὰ ἄστρα (SVF 2.650). §3 Anaximenes: Seneca Nat. 2.1.1, agatur an agat (sc. caelum), et infra sese sidera habeat an in contextu sui fixa. Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok (general question) et stellae utrumne adhaereant caelo an per aerem libero cursu ferantur.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 290a7–8 ἔτι δ᾽ ἐπεὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὰ ἄστρα, καθάπερ οἵ τ᾽ ἄλλοι φασὶ καὶ ἡμῖν ὁμολογούμενον εἰπεῖν … Cael. 2.8 291a26–28 ὅτι μὲν οὖν σφαιροειδῆ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ ὅτι οὐ κινεῖται δι᾽ αὑτῶν, εἴρηται. cf. John Philoponus in GC 3.14–16 (summarising Cael.) κατὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον περὶ τοῦ σχήματος τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀστέρων ὅτι σφαιροειδές ἐστι καὶ τῆς κινήσεως τῆς τούτων ὅτι κυκλοφορητική. Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a11–12, 2.12 293a12–14 cited on ch. 2.13. Posidonius see on ch. 2.11. John Philoponus in GC 3.14–16 see above. Simplicius in Cael. 366.11–12, p. 452.14 cited on ch. 2.13. §3 Anaximenes: cf. Cicero ND 2.54 nec habent (stellae) aetherios cursus neque caelo inhaerentes, ut plerique dicunt physicae rationis ignari … (see further on ch. 2.15). Further texts describing the stars as fixed to the heaven: Cicero Tusc 5.69 cum … viderit innumerabilia caelo inhaerentia cum eius ipsius motu congruere certis infixa sedibus. Resp. 6.17 (on the heaven) in quo sunt infixi illi qui volvuntur stellarum cursus sempiterni. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 544.15–16 οὐρανὸν λέγει (sc. Aristotle) τὸ κυκλοφορικὸν ἅπαν σῶμα, μόρια δὲ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ ἐμπεπηγμένους ἀστέρας etc. Athenaeus Deipn. 489D ἔχει γὰρ (sc. τὸ τοῦ Νέστορος ποτῆριον) καὶ ἀστέρας, οὓς ἥλοις ὁ ποιητὴς (Il. 11.633) ἀπεικάζει διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀστέρας περιφερεῖς εἶναι τοῖς ἥλοις ὁμοίως καὶ ὡς ⟨ἥλους⟩ ἐμπεπηγέναι τῷ οὐρανῷ, καθὼς καὶ Ἄρατός φησιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν (Phaen. 453)·‘οὐρανῷ αἰὲν ἄρηρεν ἀγάλματα νυκτὸς ἰούσης’. see also on ch. 2.15. §4 Anonymi: Plotinus Enn. 2.3[52].7.4 ἔστω (sc. τὰ ἄστρα) τοίνυν ὥσπερ γράμματα ἐν οὐρανῷ γραφόμενα ἀεὶ ἢ γεγραμμένα καὶ κινούμενα …

Liber 2 Caput 15 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889A–B; pp. 344a8–345a12 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.46, p. 413.10–21 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 57; pp. 624.25–625.7 Diels— PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 150–153 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 134.1–9, p. 70 Westerink S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24.1e, p. 202.20–21 + 1.24.1gh, p. 203.1–6 + 1.24.1l, pp. 203.23– 204.1 + 1.24.2ab, p. 205.4–12 + 1.24.2e, pp. 205.28–206.3 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 16, p. 23.6–17 Di Maria; Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A

Titulus ιεʹ. Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων (P) §1 Ξενοκράτης κατὰ μιᾶς ἐπιφανείας οἴεται κεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. (P1,S5) §2 οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι Στωικοὶ πρὸ τῶν ἑτέρων τοὺς ἑτέρους ἐν ὕψει καὶ βάθει. (P2,S6) §3 Δημόκριτος τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς πλανήτας, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον φωσφόρον σελήνην. (P3,S1) §4 Πλάτων μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν θέσιν πρῶτον φαίνωνα λεγόμενον τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου, δεύτερον φαέθοντα τὸν τοῦ Διός, τρίτον πυρόεντα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεος, τέταρτον ἑωσφόρον τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, πέμπτον στίλβοντα τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, ἕκτον ἥλιον, ἕβδομον σελήνην. (P4,S4) §5 τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινὲς μὲν ὡς Πλάτων, τινὲς δὲ μέσον πάντων τὸν ἥλιον. (P5,S7) §6 Ἀναξίμανδρος καὶ Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος καὶ Κράτης ἀνωτάτω μὲν πάντων τὸν ἥλιον τετάχθαι, μετ᾽ αὐτὸν δὲ τὴν σελήνην, ὑπὸ δ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ ἀπλανῆ τῶν ἄστρων καὶ τοὺς πλανήτας. (P6,S2–3) §1 Xenocrates fr. 57 Heinze, F82 Isnardi-Parenti2; §2 Stoici SVF 2.689; §3 Democritus 68A86 DK; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 38c–d; §5 mathematici —; §6 Anaximander 12A18 DK; Metrodorus cf. 70A9 DK; Crates Mallotes fr. F5a Mette titulus Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων PBEQPs : Περὶ τάξεως PG (deest in S in tit. c. 1.24 ubi conflat tit. 2.13, 2.14, 2.16 et 2.19) §1 [2] Ξενοκράτης PBEQS : Ξενοφάνης PG ‖ κατὰ μιᾶς ἐπιφανείας PBS : κατὰ μίαν ἐπιφανείαν PE : κατ᾽ ἐπιφανείαν PG ‖ κεῖσθαι S : κινεῖσθαι P §2 om. G ‖ [3] οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι Στωικοὶ PBSFP : δὲ om. PE : οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ SP(m.s.) ‖ πρὸ τῶν ἑτέρων τοὺς ἑτέρους om. PQ §3 [5] τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον P : πρῶτα μὲν τὰ ἀπλανῆ S ‖ μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα] εἶτα PB(III:Laur.31,37) ‖ [5–6] ἐφ᾽ οἷς … σελήνην PBEQ : ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην PG : om. S §4 [7] μετὰ … πρῶτον PB : πρῶτον om. PE : τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς πρῶτον PG : καὶ πρῶτον μετά γε τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν θέσιν S ‖ φαίνωνα PEQ(ut vid.)S Diels DG : φαίνοντα PB Mau Lachenaud : φαίνεσθαι PG ‖ λεγόμενον PB(I,III)EQ S : λέγει PB(II), PG (ante φαίνεσθαι) ‖ [9] ἑωσφόρον PBES : φωσφόρον PGQ ‖ στίλβοντα P : στίλβωνα S §5 [12] ἥλιον] μετὰ δ᾽ αὐτὸν σελήνην add. PG (ex §6) §6 [14] δὲ PBS : om. PEQ ‖ τὴν PB(I,III)EQ S : om. PB(II) ‖ [15] τὰ ἀπλανῆ … τοὺς πλανήτας : inv. ord. PQ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_056

5

10

15

928 §7

liber 2 caput 15

Παρμενίδης πρῶτον μὲν τάττει τὸν ἑῷον, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ νομιζόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕσπερον, ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι· μεθ᾽ ὃν τὸν ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ τοὺς ἐν τῷ πυρώδει ἀστέρας, ὅπερ οὐρανὸν καλεῖ. (S8)

§7 Parmenides 28A40 DK

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 57 (~ tit.) Περὶ τάξεως (text Diels) 57.1 (~ P1) Ξενοφάνης κατ᾽ ἐπιφάνειαν οἴεται κινεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. 57.2 (~ P3) Δημόκριτος τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς πλανήτας, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. 57.3 (~ P4) Πλάτων ⟨μετὰ⟩ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς πρῶτον λέγει φαίνεσθαι ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ Κρόνου, δεύτερον φαέθοντα ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ Διός, τρίτον πυρόεντα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεως, τέταρτον φωσφόρον τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, πέμπτον στίλβοντα τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, ἕκτον ἥλιον, ἕβδομον σελήνην. 57.4 (~ P5–6) τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινες μὲν ὡς Πλάτων, τινὲς δὲ μέσον πάντων τὸν ἥλιον, μετὰ δ᾽ αὐτὸν τὴν σελήνην. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 134.1–9 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων (~ tit.) Εἰς δύο μέρη τῶν ἀστέρων διαιρουμένων, εἰς τὸ ἀπλανὲς καὶ τὸ πλανώμενον, οἱ μὲν ἀπλανεῖς τὴν ὑψηλοτέραν τάξιν τῶν πλανήτων ἔχουσιν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τοῦ αἰθερίου σώματος κείμενοι καὶ φερόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ὑψηλότεροι αὐτῶν εἰσίν, οἱ δὲ ταπεινότεροι (~ P1–3). οἱ δὲ ἑπτὰ πλανῆται μετὰ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς τετάχαται· ὧν πρῶτος ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου λεγόμενος ἀστήρ, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτον ὁ τοῦ Διός, καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεος, εἶτα ἥλιος, μεθ᾽ ὃν Ἀφροδίτη, καὶ μετὰ ταύτην Ἑρμῆς, καὶ τελευταῖον ἡ σελήνη (~ §4) … Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 16, p. 23.6 Τάξις τῶν ζʹ σφαιρῶν p. 23.7–17 Οἱ περὶ τὰ μετέωρα δεινοί φασι ζώνας τινὰς εἶναι ἑπτά, δι᾽ ὧν φέρεσθαι τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας, καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ ὑψηλοτάτῃ φέρεσθαι τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου, ἐν δὲ τῇ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν τὸν τοῦ Διός, καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεος, ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου, ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἕκτῃ τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ τὸν τῆς σελήνης (~ §5). τινὲς δὲ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην λέγουσιν, ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ δὲ τὸν Ἑρμῆν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἕκτῃ τὸν ἥλιον (~ §4). ἄλλοι δὲ τέταρτον τὸν Ἑρμῆν, ἕκτην δὲ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην, μέσον δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. εἰσὶ δὲ οἳ πρῶτον τὸν ἥλιον λέγουσιν, δευτέραν δὲ τὴν σελήνην, τρίτον δὲ τὸν Κρόνον (~ §6). ἡ δὲ πλείων δόξα, καθ᾽ ἣν πρώτη ἡ σελήνη, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἀπόσπασμα τοῦ ἡλίου λέγουσιν αὐτήν, ὡς καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (B135 DK) ‘κυκλοτερὲς περὶ γαῖαν ἑλίσσεται ἀλλότριον φῶς.’ Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273 σκοπήσωμεν οὖν, τί ἡμῖν λυσιτελεῖ εἰς μακαριότητα, τί δ᾽ οὔ· … καὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν, … τῶν ἄστρων τὴν θέσιν· …

liber 2 caput 15

929

Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 2.7 Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου, A 3.11 Περὶ θέσεως γῆς. §§1–2 cf. A 2.13.2 τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. §§4–5 A 2.7.6 Φιλόλαος … τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ Ὀλύμπου φοράν, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς πέντε πλανήτας μεθ᾽ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης τετάχθαι … A 2.16.6 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ταὐτον πεπονθέναι τῷ ἑωσφόρῳ τὸν στίλβωνα ἰσοδραμεῖν δὲ αὐτοὺς τῷ ἡλίῳ καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ. cf. A 2.32.1 ἐνιαυτός ἐστι Κρόνου μὲν ἐνιαυτῶν περίοδος τριάκοντα, Διὸς δὲ δώδεκα, Ἄρεος δυεῖν, Ἡλίου δώδεκα μῆνες· οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀφροδίτης, ἰσόδρομοι γάρ· σελήνης ἡμέραι τριάκοντα· οὗτος γὰρ ὁ τέλειος μὴν ἀπὸ φάσεως εἰς σύνοδον. §7 A 2.16.7 Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ θεῶν Πυθαγορείαν εἶναι τὴν περὶ τοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι φωσφόρον τε καὶ ἕσπερον δόξαν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) Six doxai are preserved in the Byzantine mss. of P. The same six are found in E and Q with some interesting textual variants to be discussed below. G leaves out the second and last lemma in his adaptation. Some formulations in Ps recall the contents of this chapter, but they are of no textual significance. (2) S has retained all six of the doxai in P, but his preferred method scatters them to five different locations in his ch. 1.24 on the heavenly bodies (on the method used in this chapter see further M–R 1.220–223). He begins by placing doxai attributed to Democritus and Anaximander (cf. P3 & 6) in clusters based on the order of the lemmata in 2.13. This method constrains him to split up the equivalent of P6 into separate doxai for Anaximander and Metrodorus (while Crates falls away entirely), resulting in an additional lemma (24.1h): Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως περὶ σχήματος τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεφήνατο. The reference to the shape of the stars is of course a mistake (it should be their order), while the final three words are clearly added to facilitate the splitting up of the original doxa. Diels at first missed this and wrongly printed the lemma as part of ch. 2.14, but later he noted his error in the Addenda (DG 853). The Platonic doxa (cf. P4) is also part of a cluster, but thereafter three other doxai are written out separately once the name-labels in ch. 2.13 have been exhausted (cf. P1–2–5). A final lemma that remains is S8 attributed to Parmenides. There can be little doubt that it originally belonged to ch. 2.15 and its placement by S strongly suggests that it came last in the chapter. (3) This chapter is not utilised by T.

930

liber 2 caput 15

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The question of whether the outer heaven with its fixed stars has depth or is just a surface is raised by Philo at Somn. 1.21 as part of the extended doxographical passage already discussed on ch. 2.11. The view of Chrysippus on the subject is also given by AD in his Stoic doxography; see the comment below in section D(d) on §2. In the case of Democritus (§3), Anaximander (§6) and Parmenides (§7) information close to what we found in A is given by the proximate sources Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus (texts below section E(a)). The text on Anaximander at Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.5 even shows verbal parallels to A’s doxa (though the text is defective). This shows A’s dependence on the prior doxographical tradition, but its ultimate source cannot be determined. Many texts refer to the difference of opinion on the order of the planets below Mars, both in general treatments of physical astronomy and more specifically in comments on the Platonic texts. In a rare doxographical comment Ptolemy says that the matter remains unresolved (text below section E(a) General texts). In the proximate tradition the most important text is found in Ach, who gives more alternative orders than A. On this passage see below D(e). (2) Sources. Discussion of the ordering of the heavenly bodies, whether the fixed stars or the planets taken on their own, or all of them taken together, goes back to the earliest period of Greek philosophy. A few later texts refer to the question of how the fixed stars are placed in the outermost sphere of heaven, for example Cicero’s passage on the location of the ‘so-called fixed stars’ (stellae quae inerrantes vocantur) at ND 2.54–55 and some texts in the proximate tradition to be discussed below. However, from the time of Plato onwards most of the discussion focuses on the order of the seven planets. Plato in the Timaeus and more obliquely in the myth of Er in the Republic adopts the so-called Pythagorean order, but this loses favour from about 200 bce onwards (see the note on §§4–5 below). Aristotle in Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 mentions the question of the order of the heavenly bodies (i.e. planets) but does not treat it, stating that it can best be studied in writings on astronomy. In an important comment on Aristotle’s text Simplicius tells us that Eudemus in his work on astronomy—its title was probably Ἱστορία ἀστρολογική, best translated as Research on astronomy, see Mejer (2002) 245—stated that Anaximander was the first to make discoveries on the sizes and distances of the heavenly bodies (but no details given), but added that the Pythagoreans first established the order of their placement (text below section E(b) General texts). Views on the method used in this work differ: see Mejer cited above; Bowen (2002); Zhmud (2006) 228–276. In an examination of the evidence relating to cosmic distances, Mansfeld (2000b) 201 argues that the information in

liber 2 caput 15

931

the Placita may ultimately derive from Eudemus rather than Theophrastus, as postulated by Diels and since then followed by most scholars; see further on ch. 2.31 Commentary B. C Chapter Heading The chapter’s title is of the usual umbrella type Περὶ x, parallel to ch. 2.7 on the order (τάξις) of the cosmos and ch. 3.11 on the placement (θέσις) of the earth. As we shall see below, the text itself indicates that the subject falls under the Aristotelian category of relative position (κεῖσθαι). There can be no doubt that the heading of the Byzantine mss., supported by E and Q, is correct. G’s shorter heading is seemingly incomplete, the fact that the order concerned refers to the heavenly bodies only emerging from the context (the same occurs in §45 Περὶ σχήματος sc. κόσμου, and cf. also §54 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ sc. οὐσίας). It is possible that this rests on a mistake in transmission; cf. our remarks on the heading of G ch. 68 in the Commentary on ch. 2.27. S does not take up this heading in his chapter heading which combines the headings of chs. 2.13–19. The key term τάξις occurs in numerous texts from Aristotle onwards; see the texts cited below in section E(b). An alternative term indicating the question of position is θέσις, as in ps.Arist. De mundo and Theon of Smyrna cited below section E(b)§§4–5. D Analysis a Context The chapter occurs as third in the sequence of questions relating to the heavenly bodies, following on the chapter on their shapes. There are no chapters on their number or origin, i.e. parallel to chs. 2.1 and 2.6 on the cosmos, or on their size, i.e. parallel to chs. 2.21 on the sun and 2.26 on the moon. The first two might have been possible, the third was beyond the capability of ancient astronomy. Because of the heavenly bodies’ evident plurality, the way that they are ordered must be a question that has to be answered. b Number–Order of Lemmata Given the thoroughness of S’s excerpting in his ch. 1.24, there is no reason to think that the chapter as we have it with its seven doxai is not complete (S has eight because, as noted above, he splits one doxa into two). The order found in P can also be provisionally accepted, with the final doxa in S added at the end. But it has to be confirmed by an analysis of the chapter’s contents. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter very clearly falls into two distinct parts. In the first two doxai the disposition of the ἀστέρες is discussed. This subject follows on quite naturally

932

liber 2 caput 15

from ch. 2.13–14 and particularly from the distinctions already made in the Empedocles doxa at 2.13.10. The question is whether the fixed stars (this has to be meaning of ἀστέρες in the first doxa) are all situated in a single plane or whether they are situated in a three-dimensional array (a straightforward diaeresis). The extract from the Philonic doxography confirms this, even if it focuses on the outer sphere and not the stars in it (note the terms ἐπιφάνεια and βάθος). We may also compare the question raised by Seneca and Lactantius (texts below section E(a)§§1–2) in their set of quaestiones on the celestial realm as to whether the heavenly bodies were positioned below the outer sphere or fixed in it. There is also a more subtle link with the second diaeresis in A 2.14.3–4, where the studs need three planes but the pictures only two. But, it must be noted, in the first doxa there is a significant textual problem. Should the verb be κινεῖσθαι as in P or κεῖσθαι as in S? Preference must clearly be given to the latter. Movement is the subject of the following chapter 2.16, Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως. The present chapter discusses position or order. The verb κεῖσθαι points to one of the Aristotelian categories (in this case relative position), which are crucial for the way that A orders his material in this book. Interestingly exactly the same textual problem occurs in Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a30, where κεῖται is also to be preferred. Further support for this reading is the example of the order of the planets given by Alexander to illustrate the comparative question κατὰ τὸ κεῖσθαι (text below section E(b)§§4–5). The five remaining doxai that make up the rest of the chapter take as their starting point—clearly articulated in the third doxa—the distinction between fixed stars (τὰ ἀπλανῆ) and the planets (οἱ πλάνητες). The first three postulate that the fixed stars come first, i.e. placed on the outermost part of heaven, followed by the planets in three different sequences, with variations on the order of Venus and Mercury in relation to the sun. The second and third of these of course represent the two main views in ancient cosmology, with the first Democritean doxa as a strange variant (see below on §3). It is surprising that not more prominence is given to the so-called Chaldean order (on which see further the note below, section D(d)§§4–5) which by the time that A compiled his compendium was the majority view. It is presented as an alternative view of ‘some of the astronomers’. Finally, the last two doxai have some of the planets first, followed by the fixed stars and other planets. These two doxai, which can be taken to represent unusual or even ‘dissident’ views (cf. Laks 1997, 258), form an implicit diaeresis with the previous group.

liber 2 caput 15

d

933

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The name-label in G, Xenophanes, if not a mistake in transmission, is no doubt a Verschlimmbesserung, the epitomator having noticed that in this book A usually begins his chapters with one of the very ancient philosophers, e.g. Thales or Anaximander or Pythagoras. Xenophanes is placed first in chs. 2.18 and 2.28, second in ch. 2.20. His name-label occurs 12 times in Book 2, whereas that of Xenocrates occurs only here. The text at Geminus 1.23 may indicate that the question was still debated in the first cent. bce, although it remains controversial whether ἀστέρες refers to fixed stars or planets; see the note at Evans–Berggren (2006) 118. As Manitius (1898) ad loc. points out, the difference in height and depth is implied at Manilius 1.394 (but Goold 1977 ad loc. regards the view as foreign to the poet and, following Housman, rejects the line). §2 The phrase οἱ ἄλλοι Στωικοί does not have to imply that A thinks Xenocrates was a (proto-)Stoic (though it is implied at 1.7.21). As Mras notes at Eus. PE 15.46.2, it can be explained by the common Greek idiom used e.g. by Plato at Resp. 473d, εὐδαιμονιζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν πολίτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ξένων. The usage here, however, must be considered somewhat awkward when used for a contrastive rather than an appositive group (ἄλλοι in this idiom basically means ‘besides’; cf. Smyth 1956, §1272). The report on Chrysippus at AD fr. 31 states that the fixed stars (τὰ ἀπλανῆ) are all located on the same surface, in contrast to the planets (text below section E(a)§2). §3 Democritus’ view is oddly phrased. The impression is given that the sun, Venus and the moon are not planets. In addition the placement of Venus in between the sun and moon without Mercury hardly makes sense. Both S and G in different ways edit the text so that it presents a more conventional view. S simply omits the entire final phrase. G also adopts an easy solution by deleting the reference to Venus. Taking our cue from G we might indeed wonder whether the text originally read something like Δημόκριτος τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς ⟨εʹ⟩ πλανήτας, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον {φωσφόρον} σελήνην (the phrase ‘the five planets’ is very common, cf. ps.Eudoxus Papyrus Parisinus 1 col. 7.5 and our conjecture at A 2.7.6). It is, however, as Gerard Journée has reminded us, hard to imagine why anyone would introduce Venus into this list in between the sun and the moon. The reading of P (confirmed by the early witness E) is clearly the lectio difficilior. It should be noted that in the report of Alexander cited below the planets are listed as five in number in an order (if such is meant) that is also idiosyncratic (Saturn Jupiter Venus Mars Mercury). As in A, the sun and the moon are excluded from the list of planets, but Venus is included. §§4–5 These two doxai present the classic opposition between the Pythagorean–Platonic order of the planets (sun and moon second last and last) and

934

liber 2 caput 15

the Chaldean order (sun in the middle of the seven followed by Venus, Mercury and the moon). Plato’s view is given at Tim. 38d, but in less detail than we have here. Like other accounts in ps.Arist. De mundo, Geminus and Cleomedes, A is careful to give both the mythological and phenomenological names (the latter, i.e. Φαίνων, Φαέθων, Πυροείς and Στίλβων are post-Platonic). The μαθηματικοί (i.e. astronomers) are described as split between the two views. In fact from 200 bce the Chaldean view gradually takes over. The division of opinion is much more clearly presented by Macrobius and Proclus in their commentaries on Cicero and Plato (texts below, section E(b)§§4–5). The reading ἑωσφόρον for the planet Venus, which is found in PB, E and S, agrees with the Platonic text in Tim. 38d2 and must be preferred to the variant φωσφόρον in G and Q. It should be noted that the latter term was the more usual title and it has crept into the text of Middle Platonic writers such as Timaeus Locrus and Alcinous; see Dillon (1993) 131. §6 It is surprising to see Anaximander joined by two much later figures. Certainly in the case of Crates of Mallos, an important commentator on Homer (first half of second cent. BCE), it is likely that a report on Anaximander has been mistaken for his own view. e Other Evidence Ach’s chapter Τάξις τῶν ζʹ σφαιρῶν has a very different kind of title, but does show some similarities to A. The four doxai are presented anonymously and only consider the order of the planets, not the fixed stars. He appears to combine two sources, the first a straight handbook giving the generally accepted Chaldean order (for οἱ περὶ τὰ μετέωρα δεινοί cf. the μαθηματικοί in A). He then cites three doxai giving alternative views, with some resemblance to the doxai in A. After citing a famous Empedoclean verse on the moon not used by A, Ach links it to the subject of the planets’ motion, which A broaches in his next chapter 2.16. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo Somn. 1.21, τί δ᾽; ἡ ἀπλανὴς καὶ ἐξωτάτω σφαῖρα πρὸς τὸ ἄνω βάθος ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ μόνον ἐστὶν ἐπιφάνεια βάθους ἐρήμη, τοῖς ἐπιπέδοις σχήμασιν ἐοικυῖα; Chapter heading: — §§1–2 Xenocrates: Stoics Cicero ND 2.54–55 nec habent (sc. stellae) aetherios cursus neque caelo inhaerentes, ut plerique dicunt physicae rationis ignari; non est enim aetheris ea natura ut vi sua stellas conplexa contorqueat, nam tenuis ac perlucens et aequabili calore suffusus aether non satis aptus ad stellas continendas videtur; habent igitur suam sphaeram stellae inerrantes ab

liber 2 caput 15 aetheria coniunctione secretam et liberam. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 agatur an agat (sc. caelum), et infra sese sidera habeat an in contextu sui fixa (see above on A 2.11). Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok nam causas naturalium rerum disquirere aut scire velle … et stellae utrumne adhareant caelo an per aerem libero cursu ferantur … Macrobius in Somn. 1.17.16 reliquas omnes (sc. stellas) alii infixas caelo nec nisi cum caelo moveri, alii, quorum adsertio vero propior est, has quoque dixerunt suo motu praeter quod cum caeli conversione feruntur accedere … §1 Xenocrates: Clement of Alexandria Protr. 5 Ξενοκράτης (fr. 17 Heinze, 135 Isnardi Parente2) … ἑπτὰ μὲν θεοὺς τοὺς πλανήτας, ὄγδοον δὲ τὸν ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἀπλανῶν συνεστῶτα κόσμον αἰνίττεται. §2 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.144 (SVF 2.650) τῶν δ᾽ ἄστρων τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ συμπεριφέρεσθαι τῷ ὅλῳ οὐρανῷ, τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα κατ᾽ ἰδίας κινεῖσθαι κινήσεις. τὸν δ᾽ἥλιον λοξὴν τὴν πορείαν ποιεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου· ὁμοίως καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἑλικοειδῆ. Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.185.11–14 (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.527) τετάχθαι δὲ τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ ἐπὶ μιᾶς ἐπιφανείας, ὡς καὶ ὁρᾶται· τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα ἐπ᾽ ἄλλης καὶ ἄλλης σφαίρας· περιέχεσθαι δὲ πάσας τὰς τῶν πλανωμένων ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαίρας. §3 Democritus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.33 (Leucippus 67A1(33) DK) εἶναι δὲ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου κύκλον ἐξώτατον, τὸν δὲ τῆς σελήνης προσγειότατον, τῶν ἄλλων μεταξὺ τούτων ὄντων. Hippolytus Ref. 1.13.4 (on Democritus, 68A40 DK) τοῦ δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κόσμου πρότερον τὴν γῆν τῶν ἄστρων γενέσθαι. εἶναι δὲ τὴν μὲν σελήνην κάτω, ἔπειτα τὸν ἥλιον, εἶτα τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας· τοὺς δὲ πλάνητας οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἴσον ὕψος. Seneca Nat. 7.3.2 Democritus (68A92 DK) quoque, subtilissimus antiquorum omnium, suspicari se ait plures stellas esse quae currant, sed nec numerum illarum posuit nec nomina, nondum comprehensis quinque siderum cursibus. §§4–5 Plato Astronomers: Cicero ND 2.52–53 see below on A 2.32.1. Philo of Alexandria Her. 224, τὴν δὲ τῶν πλανήτων τάξιν ἄνθρωποι παγίως μὴ κατειληφότες—τί δ᾽ ἄλλο τῶν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἴσχυσαν κατανοῆσαι βεβαίως;—εἰκοτολογοῦσι, ἄριστα δ᾽ ἐμοὶ στοχάζεσθαι δοκοῦσιν οἱ τὴν μέσην ἀπονενεμηκότες ἡλίῳ τάξιν, τρεῖς μὲν ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τοὺς ἴσους εἶναι λέγοντες, ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν μὲν φαίνοντα, φαέθοντα, πυρόεντα, εἶθ᾽ ἥλιον, μετ᾽αὐτὸν δὲ στίλβοντα, φωσφόρον, τὴν ἀέρος γείτονα σελήνην. Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels (continues text cited on §2) τῶν δὲ πλανωμένων ὑψηλοτάτην εἶναι μετὰ τὴν ⟨τῶν⟩ ἀπλανῶν τὴν τοῦ Κρόνου, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην τὴν τοῦ Διός, εἶτα τὴν τοῦ Ἄρεος, ἐφεξῆς δὲ τὴν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, εἶτα τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τὴν τῆς σελήνης, πλησιάζουσαν τῷ ἀέρι. §6 Anaximander Metrodorus of Chios Crates: Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.5 (on Anaximander, 12A11 DK) καὶ ἀνωτάτω μὲν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, ⟨μετ᾽ αὐτὸν δὲ τὴν σελήνην (coni. Diels)⟩ κατωτάτω δὲ τοὺς τῶν ἀπλανῶν ⟨καὶ πλανήτων⟩ ἀστέρων κύκλους. §7 Parmenides: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.23 (on Parmenides, 28A1 DK) καὶ δοκεῖ πρῶτος πεφωρακέναι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον, ὥς φησι Φαβω-

935

936

liber 2 caput 15

ρῖνος ἐν πέμπτῳ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων (fr. 54 Amato)· οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν· Καλλίμαχος δέ (fr. 442 Pfeiffer) φησι μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ τὸ ποίημα. V.P. 8.14 (on Pythagoras) πρῶτόν τε Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον τὸν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ὥς φησι Παρμενίδης (cf. 28A40 DK).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Eudemus at Simp. in Cael. 471.2–9 (commenting on Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 = Eudemus fr. 146 Wehrli) καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ (sc. ἐν τῇ ἀστρολογίᾳ) περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν πλανωμένων καὶ περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἀποδέδεικται Ἀναξιμάνδρου (12A19 DK) πρώτου τὸν περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων λόγον εὑρηκότος, ὡς Εὔδημος ἱστορεῖ τὴν τῆς θέσεως τάξιν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους πρώτους ἀναφέρων. τὰ δὲ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ ἀποστήματα Ἡλίου καὶ Σελήνης μέχρι νῦν ἔγνωσται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκλείψεων τὴν ἀφορμὴν τῆς καταλήψεως λαβόντα, καὶ εἰκὸς ἦν ταῦτα καὶ τὸν Ἀναξίμανδρον εὑρηκέναι, καὶ Ἑρμοῦ δὲ καὶ Ἀφροδίτης ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς τούτους μεταπαραβολῆς. Ptolemy Synt.math. 9.1 see below on §§4–5. Simplicius in Cael. 470.29–471.2 τῷ περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων λέγοντι ἀναγκαῖον ἦν καὶ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν θέσιν τάξεως τῶν τε σφαιρῶν καὶ τῶν ἀστέρων εἰπεῖν, τίνα μὲν πρότερα καὶ τῇ ἀπλανεῖ προσεχέστερα, τίνα δὲ ὕστερα καὶ περιγειότερα … Scholia in Aristophanem in Nubes 102c Holwerda, see above on ch. 2.13. Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 περὶ δὲ τάξεως αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν ἄστρων) ὃν μὲν τρόπον ἕκαστον κεῖται (v.l. κινεῖται) τῷ τὰ μὲν εἶναι πρότερα τὰ δ᾽ ὕστερα, καὶ πῶς ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα τοῖς ἀποστήμασιν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ ἀστρολογίαν θεωρείσθω· λέγεται γὰρ ἱκανῶς. Cael. 2.12 293a12–14 cited on ch. 2.13. Posidonius see above on ch. 2.11 section E(b) General texts. §§1–2 Xenocrates Stoics: Geminus Elem. 1.23, p. 6 Aujac οὐ πάντας δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας ὑποληπτέον ὑπὸ ἐπιφάνειαν κεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὓς μὲν μετεωροτέρους ὑπάρχειν, οὓς δὲ ταπεινοτέρους. Manilius 1.394 non quod clara minus sed quod magis alta recedant. §3 Democritus: Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 26.11–14 περὶ δὲ τῶν κομητῶν Ἀναξαγόρας (—) μὲν καὶ Δημόκριτος (68A92 DK) λέγουσι τὸν κομήτην λεγόμενον ἀστέρα σύμφασιν εἶναι τῶν πλανήτων ἀστέρων· οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν ὅ τε τοῦ Κρόνου καὶ ὁ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεος καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ. §§4–5 Plato Astronomers: Plato Tim. 38c7–d6 σώματα δὲ αὐτῶν ἑκάστων ποιήσας ὁ θεὸς ἔθηκεν εἰς τὰς περιφορὰς ἃς ἡ θατέρου περίοδος ᾔειν, ἑπτὰ οὔσας ὄντα ἑπτά, σελήνην μὲν εἰς τὸν περὶ γῆν πρῶτον, ἥλιον δὲ εἰς τὸν δεύτερον ὑπὲρ γῆς, ἑωσφόρον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ λεγόμενον εἰς {τὸν} τάχει μὲν ἰσόδρομον ἡλίῳ κύκλον ἰόντας, τὴν δὲ ἐναντίαν εἰληχότας αὐτῷ δύναμιν· ὅθεν καταλαμβάνουσίν τε καὶ καταλαμβάνονται κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἥλιός τε καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ καὶ ἑωσφόρος. see also Resp. 616e–617b. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392a23–31 συνεχῆ δὲ ἔχει ἀεὶ τὴν θέσιν ταύτῃ ὁ τοῦ Φαίνοντος ἅμα καὶ Κρόνου καλούμενος κύκλος, ἐφεξῆς δὲ ὁ τοῦ Φαέθοντος καὶ Διὸς λεγόμενος, εἶθ᾽ ὁ Πυρόεις, Ἡρακλέους τε καὶ Ἄρεος προσαγορευόμενος, ἑξῆς δὲ ὁ Στίλβων, ὃν ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ καλοῦσιν ἔνιοι, τινὲς δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος· μεθ᾽ ὃν ὁ τοῦ Φωσφόρου, ὃν Ἀφροδίτης, οἱ δὲ Ἥρας προσαγορεύουσιν, εἶτα ὁ ἡλίου, καὶ τελευταῖος ὁ τῆς σελήνης, μέχρις ἧς ὁρίζεται ὁ αἰθήρ, τά τε

liber 2 caput 15 θεῖα ἐμπεριέχων σώματα καὶ τὴν τῆς κινήσεως τάξιν. Geminus Elem. 1.24–30 see below on A 2.32.1. Cleomedes 2.20–42 see below on A 2.32.1. Ptolemy Synt. 9.1, p. 1.2.206.14–207.7 Heiberg πρῶτον δὴ περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν σφαιρῶν αὐτῶν, αἵτινες καὶ αὐταὶ τὰς θέσεις ἔχουσιν ὡς περὶ τοὺς τοῦ λοξοῦ καὶ διὰ μέσων τῶν ζῳδίων κύκλου πόλους, τὸ μὲν πάσας τε περιγειοτέρας μὲν εἶναι τῆς τῶν ἀπλανῶν, ἀπογειοτέρας δὲ τῆς σεληνιακῆς, καὶ τὸ τὰς τρεῖς τήν τε τοῦ τοῦ Κρόνου μείζονα οὖσαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ τοῦ Διὸς ὡς ἐπὶ τὰ περιγειότερα δευτέραν καὶ τὴν τοῦ τοῦ Ἄρεως ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνην ἀπογειοτέρας εἶναι τῶν τε λοιπῶν καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου σχεδὸν παρὰ πᾶσι (207) τοῖς πρώτοις μαθηματικοῖς ὁρῶμεν συμπεφωνημένα, τὴν δὲ τοῦ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης καὶ τὴν τοῦ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ παρὰ μὲν τοῖς παλαιοτέροις ὑποκάτω τιθεμένας τῆς ἡλιακῆς, παρὰ δὲ ἐνίοις τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὰς ὑπερτιθεμένας ἕνεκεν τοῦ μηδ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπεσκοτῆσθαί ποτε τὸν ἥλιον. ἡμῖν δ᾽ ἡ μὲν τοιαύτη κρίσις ἀβέβαιον ἔχειν δοκεῖ … Alcinous Did. 14, p. 171.4–13 H. σελήνην μὲν δὴ τῷ μετὰ γῆν ἐπέθηκε κύκλῳ τῷ πρώτῳ, ἥλιον δὲ εἰς τὸν δεύτερον ἔταξε, φωσφόρον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ λεγόμενον ἀστέρα εἰς τὸν ἰσοταχῆ μὲν ἡλίῳ κύκλον ἰόντα, τούτου δὲ ἀφεστῶτα· ὕπερθεν δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους κατὰ σφαῖραν οἰκείαν, τὸν μὲν βραδύτατον αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τῇ τῶν ἀπλανῶν κείμενον σφαίρᾳ, ὃν Κρόνου τινὲς ἐπονομάζουσιν ἀστέρα, τὸν δὲ βραδυτῆτι δεύτερον μετὰ τοῦτον Διὸς ἐπώνυμον, ὑφ᾽ ὃν τὸν Ἄρεως· ὀγδόη δὲ πᾶσιν ἡ ἄνωθεν δύναμις περιβέβληται. Theon of Smyrna Exp. 138.9–142.10 Hiller τὴν δὲ κατὰ τόπον τῶν σφαιρῶν ⟨ἢ⟩ κύκλων θέσιν τε καὶ τάξιν, ἐν οἷς κείμενα φέρεται τὰ πλανώμενα, τινὲς μὲν τῶν Πυθαγορείων τοιάνδε νομίζουσι· προσγειότατον μὲν εἶναι τὸν τῆς σελήνης κύκλον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον ⟨τὸν τοῦ⟩ Ἑρμοῦ, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ φωσφόρου, καὶ τέταρτον ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, εἶτα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεως, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ Διός, τελευταῖον δὲ καὶ σύνεγγυς τοῖς ἀπλανέσι τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου· μέσον εἶναι βουλόμενοι τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου τῶν πλανωμένων ὡς ἡγεμονικώτατον καὶ οἷον καρδίαν τοῦ παντός. μηνύει δὲ ταῦτα καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Αἰτωλός, λέγων οὕτως· … (142) Ἐρατοσθένης (F. 13 Powell, pp. 116– 117 Geus) δὲ τὴν μὲν διὰ τῆς φορᾶς τῶν ἄστρων γινομένην ἁρμονίαν παραπλησίως ἐνδείκνυται, τὴν μέντοι τάξιν τῶν πλανωμένων οὐ τὴν αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ σελήνην ὑπὲρ γῆς δεύτερόν φησι φέρεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 218.8–19.1 Wallies κατὰ δὲ τὸ κεῖσθαι, ὅταν ζητῆται πότερος προσγειότερος, ὁ ἥλιος ἢ ὁ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἀστήρ. Macrobius in Somn. 1.19.1, p. 73.12–19 his adsertis de sphaerarum ordine pauca dicenda sunt, in quo dissentire a Platone Cicero videri potest … Ciceroni Archimedes et Chaldaeorum ratio consentit, Plato Aegyptios omnium philosophiae disciplinarum parentes secutus est … Proclus in Tim. 3.62.2–10 Diehl ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἡ τῶν παλαιῶν φήμη ταύτην ἐδίδου τῷ ἡλίῳ τὴν τάξιν· καὶ γὰρ Ἀριστοτέλης οὕτως ᾤετο καὶ οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Εὔδοξον (D9 Lasserre). εἰ δέ τινες ταῖς τῶν μαθηματικῶν ὑποθέσεσι χαίροντες μέσον τῶν ἑπτὰ πλανήτων τάττειν ἀξιοῖεν τὸν ἥλιον, συνάγοντα καὶ συνδέοντα τὰς ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα αὐτοῦ τριάδας, ἴστωσαν μηδὲν ἐχυρὸν μηδὲ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων λέγοντας. See also in Resp. 2.218.17–221.26. §6 Anaximander Metrodorus of Chios Crates: see Simplicius in Cael. 471.2–9 cited above General texts.

937

Liber 2 Caput 16 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889C; pp. 345a13–346a6 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.47, p. 414.1–10 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 58; p. 625.8–13 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 152–153 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 132, p. 69 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.41, p. 45.9 Delatte (titulus), cf. 3.29 36.11–37.1 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.22 (~ tit.) + 1.24.1c, p. 202.10–11 + 1.24.1k, p. 203.17–18 + 1.24.2bc, p. 205.12–23 + 1.24.5, p. 207.8–11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8–9 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 6, p. 97.30–33 Maass

Titulus ιϛʹ. Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως (P,cf.S) §1 Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Κλεάνθης ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἐπὶ δυσμὰς φέρεσθαι πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀλκμαίων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς πλανήτας τοῖς ἀπλανέσιν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς ἀντιφέρεσθαι. (P2,S4) §3 Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπὸ τῶν σφαιρῶν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστα συμβέβηκε, (S5) §4 Ἀναξίμανδρος ὑπὸ τῶν κύκλων καὶ τῶν σφαιρῶν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστος βέβηκε, φέρεσθαι. (P3,S6) §5 Ἀναξιμένης οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν περὶ αὐτὴν δὲ στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. (P4,S2) §1 Anaxagoras 59A78 DK; Democritus fr. 387 Luria; Cleanthes SVF 1.507; §2 Alcmaeon 24A4 DK; mathematici —; §3 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 2.8 289b30–34, Met. Λ.8; §4 Anaximander 12A18 DK; §5 Anaximenes 13A14 DK titulus Περὶ … κινήσεως PB(I,III)GQPs : τῆς τῶν om. PB(II) : ἀστέρων] ἄστρων PE, cf. S qui in tit. c. 1.24 conflat tit. Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων (c. 2.13) καὶ σχημάτων (2.14), κινήσεώς (2.16) τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας (2.19) : φορᾶς καὶ om. PG, cf. S : καὶ κινήσεως om. PSy §1 [2] Δημόκριτος Κλεάνθης om. S ‖ post Ἀναξαγόρας et Δημόκριτος add. PG bis καὶ ‖ post ἀνατολῶν add δὲ S ‖ ἐπὶ] εἰς PG ‖ [3] πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας] τοὺς ἀστέρας νομίζουσιν PG §2 [4] ante τοὺς πλανήτας hab. PG τοὺς ἀστέρας ‖ [4–5] τοὺς … ἀντιφέρεσθαι PES, cf. PQ : post τοῖς ἀπλανέσιν (non hab. PG) add. PB ἐναντίως (PB(III) ἐναντίους) et post ἀπὸ add. γὰρ, del. Diels (cf. PG), ret. Mau Lachenaud : daß die Bewegung der Planeten der Bewegung der Fixsterne entgegengestezt ist und ihre Bewegung von Westen nach Osten verlâuft Q ‖ [5] ἐπ᾽] εἰς PG ‖ ἀντιφέρεσθαι] ἀνταναφέρεσθαι mss. PG, qui add. τὸν ἥλιον πρῶτον (quae ut glossema del. Jas), coni. Diels ἀντιφέρεσθαι τῷ ἡλίῳ §3 [6] ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστα συμβέβηκε S : ἐφ᾽ ὧν scripsimus (cf. §4) : ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστος ἐμβέβηκε coni. Diels (sed non in textu pos.), prob. Wachsmuth §4 [7] ante nomen add. S καὶ §5 [9] οὐχ ὑπὸ … αὐτὴν δὲ PE Diels DG : δὲ ἀλλὰ post γῆν hab. S : ὁμοίως ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν PB : daß die Sterne sich oberhalb und unterhalb der Erde bewegen Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_057

5

10

liber 2 caput 16

§6

§7

Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ταὐτὸν πεπονθέναι τῷ ἑωσφόρῳ τὸν στίλβωνα ἰσοδραμεῖν δὲ αὐτοὺς τῷ ἡλίῳ καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ· καὶ τότε μὲν προανατέλλοντα ἑωσφόρον φαίνεσθαι, τότε δὲ ἐπικαταδυόμενον ἕσπερον καλεῖσθαι. (P5,S3) Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ θεῶν Πυθαγορείαν εἶναι τὴν περὶ τοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι φωσφόρον τε καὶ ἕσπερον δόξαν. (S7)

§6 Plato cf. Tim. 38c–d; mathematici—; §7 Apollodorus FGH 244 F91 Jacoby §6 [11] Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ PΒΕQ : cf. S τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινες μὲν ὡς Πλάτων = PS 2.15.5 : Πλάτων om. mss. PG et Nic, rest. Diels Jas (per litt.) ‖ [11–12] ταὐτὸν … αὐτῷ S, qui post ταὐτὸν add. δὲ : ἰσοδρόμους εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον τὸν ἑωσφόρον (φωσφόρον PEG) τὸν στίλβοντα P ‖ [13–14] καὶ … καλεῖσθαι desunt in P §7 [15] τὴν SP(m.s.) : τὸ SFP

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 58 (~ tit.) Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων κινήσεως (text Diels) 58.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Κλεάνθης ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν εἰς δυσμὰς φέρεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας νομίζουσιν. 58.2 (~ P2) Ἀλκμαίων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς πλανήτας ἀπὸ δυσμῶν εἰς ἀνατολὰς ἀντιφέρεσθαι τῷ ἡλίῳ. 58.3 (~ P6) Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ἰσοδρόμους εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, τὸν φωσφόρον, τὸν στίλβοντα. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 132 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.41 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς (~ tit.) cf. 3.29 supra citatum ad c. 2.3. Testes secundi: Commentaria in Aratum, Anonymus I, p. 97.30–33 Maass φέρεται δὲ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνατολῶν ἐπὶ τὰς δυσμάς, ὁ δὲ ἥλιος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ πλάνητες τὴν ἐναντίαν, τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τῶν δυσμῶν ἐπὶ τὰς ἀνατολάς, ὡς εἶναι διπλῆν κίνησιν αὐτῶν γε, τὴν μὲν ἐρχομένων, τὴν δὲ φερομένων … Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 1.23 Περὶ κινήσεως. A 3.13 Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς. A 4.6 Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς. §§1–2 A 2.10.1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά. cf. A 3.13.3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν, οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς, τροχοῦ δίκην ἐνηξονισμένην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς περὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς κέντρον. §3 A 1.7.21 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν μὲν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν εἶδος χωριστόν, ἐπιβεβηκότα τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰθέριον σῶμα, τὸ πέμπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καλούμενον.

939

15

940

liber 2 caput 16

διῃρημένου δὲ τούτου κατὰ σφαίρας, τῇ μὲν φύσει συναφεῖς τῷ λόγῳ δὲ κεχωρισμένας, ἑκάστην οἴεται τῶν σφαιρῶν ζῷον εἶναι σύνθετον ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν σῶμά ἐστιν αἰθέριον κινούμενον κυκλοφορικῶς, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ λόγος ἀκίνητος αἴτιος τῆς κινήσεως κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν. A 2.3.4 τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια … σφαίρας … περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς. §4 A 2.20.1 (de sole) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς … A 2.25.1 (de luna) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς … §7 cf. A 2.15.7 Παρμενίδης πρῶτον μὲν τάττει τὸν ἑῷον, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ νομιζόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕσπερον, ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the Byzantine mss. of P we find five lemmata, of which the first four clearly constitute two linked pairs. G omits the second pair, and so has only three doxai. In the case of P2 and P4 important variants in E (partially supported by G and Q) represent a superior tradition. These will be discussed below. (2) In S the process of coalescing chs. 2.13–19, though systematically and competently carried out (see above on ch. 2.13), starts to get more and more difficult as he moves through the chapters. We note the following: (a) When at S 1.24.1c he adds the Anaxagorean doxa (= P1) to the one by the same philosopher in 2.13, the other two name-labels recorded by P fall away. (b) S noted that there are two references to the μαθηματικοί in the chapter (both retained by P). The latter of these is linked to the name-label Plato, just as occurs in the previous chapter. So he coalescences these two doxai in S 1.24.2b. He then adds the former, even though this one does not include the Platonic name-label. But he has an additional problem, because the former lemma also has the name-label of Alcmaeon, so he solves the problem by adding the words τούτῳ δὲ συνομολογεῖ καὶ Ἀλκμαίων (of course it is also theoretically possible that P is the one who coalesced and that S preserves the original, but given the methods of the two witnesses this is much less likely). (c) The doxa of Anaximander was not included in the coalesced grouping at S 1.24.1g. The most likely and interesting reason for this is that he wanted to preserve the contrast with the preceding Aristotelian doxa and so wrote it out separately. (d) The final doxa preserved at S 1.25.5 is difficult and will be further discussed in the detailed notes below. (3) T does not make use of this chapter.

liber 2 caput 16

941

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is little parallel material in the proximate doxographical tradition. Ach’s chapters on the stars (§10) and the planets (§15) are wholly descriptive and not parallel to A, except for a reference to the Pythagoreans, who are said to wish both the planets and the fixed stars to have their own movements (cf. §2 in the present chapter). The Aratean scholia give a more detailed version of §2, but without a name-label. Philo refers to the subject as relevant for the ‘investigators of nature’ in two texts that very likely show the influence of earlier literature linked somehow to the Placita; see above on ch. 2.11 and Runia (2008b) 26. See the texts cited above under Testes secundi and below in section E(a). (2) Sources. On Aristotle’s references to the topic of the movement of the heavenly bodies as part of his organisation of the treatment of the heavens see our comments on A 2.13. There can be little doubt that the macro-structure of this section of the Placita ultimately derives from Aristotle and the Peripatetic school. More specifically in relation to the present chapter in Cael. 2.8 he gives a brief dialectical discussion of the different theoretical possibilities in relation to the movement of the whole heaven and the heavenly bodies (τὰ ἄστρα … καὶ ὅλος ὁ οὐρανός), but he does not refer to any names of predecessors. In a different context there is a report at Mete. 2.1 354a30 about the movement of the sun (not the heavenly bodies in general) that is attributed to the ἀρχαῖοι μετεωρολόγοι. The language is so similar to what we read in §5 on Anaximenes that it is difficult not to conclude that there is some connection between the two texts, i.e. that the Placita may be utilising a source which goes back to a fuller text with names of philosophers drawn up in the Peripatetic school or compiled even earlier than Aristotle. In addition similar versions of this doxa occur in Diogenes Laertius’ and Hippolytus’ accounts of Anaximenes’ doctrine, including the comparison with a felt hat (πιλίον). As we note below in section D(c), even the language of the doxai shows a link to the earlier Aristotelian treatment. A little later Epicurus in Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.92 gives a diaeresis of three positions on the movement of the heavenly bodies. As Mansfeld (1994b) notes, this suggests that he utilised a Peripatetic source (see discussion of this text at M– R 3.248–249). He may have even used inter alia a predecessor of the Placita, but it should be noted that he lists the various possible causes, which are not emphasized in A’s account. A similar diaeresis is given by Lucretius in DRN 5.509–533. The doctrine of §2 that the planets move from west to east along the zodiac circle (and by implication that the fixed stars move in the opposite direction

942

liber 2 caput 16

from east to west) becomes standard doctrine in astronomy from the fourth century bce onwards. It is much discussed by the astronomers, but not often referred to in philosophical texts. But see below in section E(b) General texts two texts in Alexander and ps.Alexander, the former of which asks for the cause of this phenomenon. C Chapter Heading The heading in the Byzantine mss. and Ps may be accepted. It uses the most common formula Περί x and in discussing the question of motion relates its contents to the categories in general (note that there is no separate Aristotelian category of movement; cf. ch. 1.23 Commentary C., where we cite Theophrastus fr. 153B FHS&G at Simp. in Phys. 413.5–7). The term φορά has been added to the standard κίνησις (cf. chs. 1.23, 3.13), most likely because of the prominence of the verb φέρεσθαι and its derivatives in the chapter. G removes φορά even though he retains two lemma containing φέρεσθαι and ἀντιφέρεσθαι respectively. E’s ἄστρων is the minority reading and should not be taken over (on A’s use of ἀστέρες and ἄστρα see above 2.13 Analysis (a)). In his chapter heading combining chs. 2.13–19 S retains only the noun κινήσεως, omitting the mention of φορά. He will have noted from chs. 1.23 and 3.13 (and perhaps from a chapter in Book 2 missing in P, cf. ch. 2.2 Appendix) that the former is the key term. D Analysis a Context The question of movement follows on naturally from the discussion of the heavenly bodies’ placement in ch. 2.15. Compare how ch. 3.13 on the movement of the earth follows ch. 3.11 on its nature (with a chapter on the earth’s inclination, cf. chs. 2.8, 2.23) in between. b Number–Order of Lemmata Although the methods of our two chief witnesses are very different, there is a good correspondence between their results in this chapter. All of P’s material can be found in S, while S has some additions that P has excerpted away. If we understand S’s method of coalescence (details discussed above under Witnesses, section A), we can see that P’s order can be retained, even though the order that S finishes up with is quite different. It is always possible that in the process of coalescence some unidentifiable material got lost (note what S did with the name-labels in P1), but it will not have been much.

liber 2 caput 16

943

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter appears to string together various subjects, using the doxographer’s usual diaeretical and antithetical approach, but in a not very tidy fashion. (i) The first two lemmata form a clear diaphonia, which in fact amounts to a division between the Presocratic vortex cosmology and the standard postPlatonic cosmology that uses concentric spheres. In the former both fixed stars and planets move in the same direction (but some slower than others), in the latter they have opposed motions. (ii) The next two doxai also clearly form a pair. As the text stands, the only difference between the two is that Aristotle’s heavenly bodies are carried along on the spheres to which they are attached, whereas those of Anaximander are also moved by their circles. This must be a reference to the celebrated circles of fire and their openings (cf. A 2.20.1). It has been claimed that the reference to spheres is out of place and that the doxa can be regarded as a repetition of the previous Aristotelian doxa; see Kahn (1960) 59, Guthrie (1962–1981) 1.93 n. 1. This is to ignore the method of the Placita and in any case, it would not have been difficult to envisage his system (anachronistically) in terms of spheres as well as circles; see for example the diagrams in Couprie (1995). (iii) The formulation οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν of the next Anaximenean doxa implies a correction of another view. This is best taken as a critical reference to his predecessor Anaximander. The same doxa is found in doxographical reports in Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus (texts below section E(a)§5). The verb στρέφεσθαι implies the whirl of the Presocratic vortex, as introduced in §1 (though this view cannot be attributed to Anaximander). This means that the preposition περί cannot mean ‘around’ in the usual sense of the cosmic revolutions (or for Anaximander circles of fire), but rather ‘around’ more or less in a plane parallel to the flat earth, dipping below the horizon but not going all the way below the earth. See further below section D(d)§5. (iv) The view of Plato and the astronomers on the concurrent motion of Venus and Mercury with the sun is a further refinement of the ‘modern’ view introduced in §2. It is better to place this doxa towards the end of the chapter as in P than link it to the other Platonic–astronomers view as in S. The comment on the identity of the morning and the evening star is to be seen as an appended thought. (v) The final view adds a comment that ascribes this doxa to the earlier Presocratic Pythagoras. On this lemma see the comments below. A striking feature of this chapter is the way that it uses verbs and verbal phrases to link up and articulate the various positions:

944

liber 2 caput 16

§1 §2 §3 §4 §5 §6

φέρεσθαι ἀντιφέρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν σφαιρῶν φέρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν κύκλων καὶ τῶν σφαιρῶν φέρεσθαι στρέφεσθαι συμπεριφέρεσθαι

The method gives the chapter a forward momentum, in which there is a combination of antithesis (through the use of the diaeresis) and development (through the use of association). It is worth noting that the key verbs that A uses are all prominent in Aristotle’s diaeretic account of heavenly movements in the De caelo with the exception of συμπεριφέρεσθαι (but cf. περιφέρεται at 2.2 285b20). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The addition of the Stoic Cleanthes to the two Presocratics is unexpected and can be linked to other doxai where an unorthodox view is ascribed to Cleanthes (A 2.14.2, 2.27.4). §2 The shorter version of the text in E, G and S is to be preferred above PBQ. ἐναντίως could easily have been added later and the inserted γάρ is rather awkward. Couprie (2011) 171 claims that Alcmaeon as a Pythagorean will have subscribed to the hypothesis of a central fire with the earth and the other planets revolving around it. So the present report ‘is usually, and perhaps already by its author Aëtius, misunderstood as a description of the contrary movement of the planets along the zodiac as is appropriate in the geocentric system.’ This is quite well possible, but we do not know the details of Alcmaeon’s cosmology, and anyway our task is to interpret A. See further Burkert (1972) 333–335. §5 The various textual traditions read as follows: PB Ἀναξιμένης ὁμοίως ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. E Ἀναξιμένης οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν περὶ αὐτὴν δὲ στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. S —οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ δὲ περὶ αὐτὴν στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. There can be little doubt that E and S preserve the right reading, particularly since as noted above the same doxa is already anonymously reported in almost exactly the same formulation in Aristotle’s Meteorology, though he uses the verb φέρεσθαι rather than στρέφεσθαι. In the text we have opted for E. In DG and VS Diels followed E, but the text in DK is closer to S (but omitting δέ).

liber 2 caput 16

945

Our interpretation of the text differs from that put forward by Couprie (2018) 114–119. He argues that Diels’ ‘emendations’ of the text of P have had a malign influence and that the correct text is that of the manuscripts of P. The implication that the original reading in P has some kind of special authority is beside the point, since in fact the evidence in E and S is older than that of the Byzantine mss. of P. Couprie argues (p. 117) the contrast between the two Milesians here is ‘that Anaximander regards the heavenly bodies as fixed places of turning wheels, while Anaximenes has in mind fiery bodies (or leaves) floating on air’ (the last statement is based on A 2.14.4, which he claims (p. 50) is the true view of Anaximenes and not the one reported with his name-label in 2.14.3). See further Couprie’s entire ch. 7 (pp. 99–129) which goes into much more detail than can be discussed in the present context. §6 P has abridged A, as witnessed by S. The text in S would read better as ἰσοδραμεῖν τῷ ἡλίῳ τὸν ἑωσφόρον καὶ τὸν στίλβοντα καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ, as printed at M–R 2.493, but this degree of intervention in the text is not justifiable in the present edition. §7 The ascription of this doxa is difficult. Formally it differs from most Aëtian lemmata since it reports on a doxa rather than attributing it directly to the philosopher concerned. The only parallel is at A 1.3.20, where Socrates and Plato are parenthetically said to have the same views on every subject. Diels ascribed it to AD, as is clearly the case for the two preceding lemmata in S, presumably on stylistic grounds. But the doxa with its reference to a Presocratic philosopher is more easily located in the Placita than in an account of Hellenistic philosophy. Moreover, the Apollodorus in question, as author of the Περὶ θεῶν, is the Athenian (DPhA A244, born c. 180BCE) and not the Stoic person of that name (of Seleucia, DPhA A250). The style remains difficult to rhyme with A’s usual practice, though the absence of a verbum dicendi speaks in favour of A. The adjective Πυθαγορείαν referring to Pythagoras (not his followers) is not used elsewhere in this manner in A. The same doxa is found in the previous chapter attributed to Parmenides as πρῶτος εὑρετής (A 2.15.7), but the ascription to Pythagoras is given at D.L. 8.14. There is no other reference to Apollodorus in the Placita. All in all, the provenance must be considered uncertain, but it would be rash to leave it out of our edition. e Other Evidence On the material in Ach, which is of little value for the understanding of the present chapter see above section B.

946 E a

liber 2 caput 16

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Achilles 10, pp. 18.21–19.21 Di Maria Περὶ ἀστέρος. Ἀστήρ ἐστι κατὰ Διόδωρον σῶμα θεῖον οὐράνιον τῆς αὐτῆς μετειληφὸς οὐσίας τῷ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι τόπῳ, σῶμά τι λαμπρὸν καὶ οὐδέποτε στάσιν ἔχον ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ φερόμενον κυκλικῶς. ὡσαύτως δὲ ὡρίσατο καὶ Ποσειδώνιος πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὁ Στωϊκός (F 128 E.-K., F271b Theiler). τὸ δὲ ‘οὐδέποτε στάσιν ἔχον’ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν πλανήτων οὕτως εἰρῆσθαι δοκεῖ, πλὴν κἀπὶ τῶν ἀπλανῶν πρὸς τοὺς ὡς ἔτυχεν αἰτιωμένους οὐ καλῶς ἔχειν τῆς αὐτῆς ἐννοίας ἔχεται· οὐδέποτε γὰρ στάσιν ἔχουσι τῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ κόσμου περιάγεσθαι, κἂν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μένωσιν· τῶν γὰρ ἀστέρων οἱ μὲν ἐμπεπηγότες τῷ οὐρανῷ ἀπλανεῖς λέγονται, οἱ δὲ τὴν ἐναντίαν φερόμενοι πλάνητες. αὐτοὶ δὲ ἑπτὰ ὄντες κατωτέρω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἰθέρος περιδινούμενοι τὸν ἐναντίον τῆν τοῦ κόσμου στροφῇ δρόμον τρέχουσιν … οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι οὐ μόνον τοὺς πλάνητας ἀστέρας βούλονται ἰδίαν κίνησιν ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς, οὕτω μέντοι κινεῖσθαι καὶ περὶ τὸν ἴδιον κυκλεῖσθαι κύκλον, ὥσπερ τοῦ παντὸς μὴ μεταβαίνοντος ἑτέρωθι, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον εἱλουμένου. Strabo 2.5.2 ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς περιφέρεται περί τε αὐτὴν καὶ περὶ τὸν ἄξονα ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς ἐπὶ δύσιν (cf. ch. 2.10), σὺν αὐτῷ δὲ οἱ ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρες ὁμοταχεῖς τῷ πόλῳ (cf. ch. 2.16). οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρες κατὰ παραλλήλων φέρονται κύκλων· παράλληλοι δ᾽ εἰσὶ γνωριμώτατοι ὅ τε ἰσημερινὸς καὶ οἱ τροπικοὶ δύο καὶ οἱ ἀρκτικοί (cf. ch. 2.16)· οἱ δὲ πλάνητες ἀστέρες καὶ ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη κατὰ λοξῶν τινων τῶν τεταγμένων ἐν τῷ ζωδιακῷ. Philo of Alexandria Her. 247 see on ch. 2.11. Arius Didymus fr. 32 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.24.5 ἄστρον δὲ εἶναί φησιν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F 127 E.-K., 271a Theiler) σῶμα θεῖον ἐξ αἰθέρος συνεστηκός, λαμπρὸν καὶ πυρῶδες, οὐδέποτε στάσιν ἔχον, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ φερόμενον ἐγκυκλίως· ἰδίως δὲ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἄστρα λέγεσθαι· διαφέρειν δὲ ἀστέρα ἄστρου· εἰ μὲν γάρ τίς ἐστιν ἀστήρ, καὶ ἄστρον ὀνομασθήσεται δεόντως, οὐ μὴν ἀνάπαλιν. Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.273, PG 78.704A, 773 Évieux καὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν … καὶ τῶν ἄστρων τὴν θέσιν … τί συμβάλλεται εἰς ἀρίστην πολιτείαν, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐ συνορῶ. Chapter heading: cf. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.53 τί δὲ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων φύσεως ἢ περιφορᾶς … Mut. 67 καὶ (sc. περὶ) τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων κινήσεως. §1 Anaxagoras Democritus Cleanthes: Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.6 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα λίθους εἶναι ἐμπύρους, συμπεριληφθέντας ὑπὸ τῆς ⟨τοῦ⟩ αἰθέρος περιφορᾶς. §3 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr.9 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c (on Aristotle) cited on A 2.3.4 §5 Anaximenes: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.3 (on Anaximenes, 13A1 DK) κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα οὐχ ὑπὸ γῆν, ἀλλὰ περὶ γῆν. Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.6 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) οὐ κινεῖσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ γῆν τὰ ἄστρα λέγει, καθὼς ἕτεροι ὑπειλήφασιν, ἀλλὰ περὶ γῆν, ὡσπερεὶ περὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν κεφαλὴν στρέφεται τὸ πιλίον. §7 Apollodorus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.23 (on Parmenides, 28A1 DK) καὶ δοκεῖ πρῶτος πεφωρακέναι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον, ὥς φησι Φαβωρῖνος ἐν πέμπτῳ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων· οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν. cf. Diogenes Laertius

liber 2 caput 16 V.P. 8.14 (on Pythagoras) πρῶτόν τε Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον τὸν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ὥς φησι Παρμενίδης (28A40a DK)

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 289b1–4 ἐπεὶ δὲ φαίνεται καὶ τὰ ἄστρα μεθιστάμενα καὶ ὅλος ὁ οὐρανός, ἀναγκαῖον ἤτοι ἠρεμούντων ἀμφοτέρων γίγνεσθαι τὴν μεταβολήν, ἢ κινουμένων, ἢ τοῦ μὲν ἠρεμοῦντος τοῦ δὲ κινουμένου. cf. Met. Α.2 982b12–17 διὰ γὰρ τὸ θαυμάζειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξαντο φιλοσοφεῖν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀτόπων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον περί τε τῶν τῆς σελήνης παθημάτων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.92, τάς τε κινήσεις αὐτῶν (sc. ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἄστρων) οὐκ ἀδύνατον μὲν γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ὅλου οὐρανοῦ δίνην, ἢ τούτου μὲν στάσιν, αὐτῶν δὲ δίνην αὐτῶν δὲ δίνην κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐν τῇ γενέσει τοῦ κόσμου ἀνάγκην ἀπογεννηθεῖσαν ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς, ἤτοι τῇ ⟨ἐντὸς⟩ θερμασίᾳ κατά τινα ἐπινέμησιν τοῦ πυρὸς ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑξῆς τόπους ἰόντος (as conjectured in M– R 3.249). cf. Lucretius DRN 5.509–532 motibus astrorum nunc quae sit causa canamus. / principio magnus caeli si vortitur orbis … (517) est etiam quoque uti possit caelum omne manere / in statione, tamen cum lucida signa ferantur … (526) nam quid in hoc mundo sit eorum ponere certum/ difficile est; sed quid possit fiatque per omne / in variis mundi varia ratione creatis, / id doceo, plurisque sequor disponere causas, / motibus astrorum quae possint esse per omne; / e quibus una tamen siet hic quoque causa necessest /quae vegeat motum signis. Stoics in D.L. 7.132 (—) καθ᾽ ἣν (sc. σκέψιν φιλοσοφίας) ζητοῦσι περί τε τῶν ἀπλανῶν καὶ τῶν πλανωμένων, οἷον … καὶ περὶ δινήσεως καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων τούτοις ζητημάτων. 7.144 (SVF 2.650) τῶν δ᾽ ἄστρων τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ συμπεριφέρεσθαι τῷ ὅλῳ οὐρανῷ, τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα κατ᾽ ἰδίας κινεῖσθαι κινήσεις. Cicero Tusc. 5.69 cited above at ch. 2.13 E(b) General texts. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 698.38 ἐπεὶ γὰρ δεῖ εἶναί τι ἀεί, ὡς δέδεικται, ἔδει τὴν αἰτίαν λέγειν δι᾽ ἣν ἡ μὲν ἀπλανὴς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἐπὶ δυσμὰς κινεῖται, αἱ δὲ πλανώμεναι ἀνάπαλιν. ps.Alexander Probl. lib. 3, p. 17.28 Usener ὡς δηλοῖ σελήνης τὰ φῶτα αὐξανόμενα καὶ μειούμενα καὶ ἡ σφαῖρα κινουμένη καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ἐπὶ δυσμάς, οἱ δὲ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἐναντίαν ὁδὸν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπὶ ἀνατολάς, ὡς δεικνῦσι τοῦτο πλέον τῇ ὄψει πάντων τῶν κινουμένων ἀστέρων. Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a11–12, 2.12 293a12–14 cited on A 2.13, also Mete. 1.1 338a21 ἔτι δὲ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄνω φορὰν διακεκοσμημένων ἄστρων. cf. Plato Symp. 188b4 ὧν ἐπιστήμη περὶ ἄστρων τε φορὰς καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν ὥρας ἀστρονομία καλεῖται. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.90.3 ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ ἀστρονομίας· αὕτη γάρ, μετὰ τὴν τῶν μεταρσίων ἱστορίαν περί τε σχήματος τοῦ παντὸς καὶ φορᾶς οὐρανοῦ τῆς τε τῶν ἄστρων κινήσεως πλησιαίτερον τῇ κτιζούσῃ δυνάμει προσάγουσα τὴν ψυχήν, εὐαισθήτως ἔχειν διδάσκει ὡρῶν ἐτείων, ἀέρων μεταβολῆς, ἐπιτολῶν ἄστρων. §3 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 289b30–34 ἐπεὶ τοίνυν οὔτ᾽ ἀμφότερα κινεῖσθαι εὔλογον οὔτε τὸ ἕτερον μόνον, λείπεται τοὺς μὲν κύκλους κινεῖσθαι, τὰ δὲ ἄστρα

947

948

liber 2 caput 16

ἠρεμεῖν καὶ ἐνδεδεμένα τοῖς κύκλοις φέρεσθαι· μόνως γὰρ οὕτως οὐθὲν ἄλογον συμβαίνει. Met. Λ.8 1073b1–5 ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἰσὶν οὐσίαι, καὶ τούτων τις πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τάξιν ταῖς φοραῖς τῶν ἄστρων, φανερόν· τὸ δὲ πλῆθος ἤδη τῶν φορῶν ἐκ τῆς οἰκειοτάτης φιλοσοφίᾳ τῶν μαθηματικῶν ἐπιστημῶν δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ἐκ τῆς ἀστρολογίας. §5 Anaximenes: cf. Aristotle Mete. 2.1 354a28–32 (on Anaximenes, 13A14 DK) περὶ δὲ τοῦ τὰ πρὸς ἄρκτον εἶναι τῆς γῆς ὑψηλὰ σημεῖόν τι καὶ τὸ πολλοὺς πεισθῆναι τῶν ἀρχαίων μετεωρολόγων τὸν ἥλιον μὴ φέρεσθαι ὑπὸ γῆν ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, ἀφανίζεσθαι δὲ καὶ ποιεῖν νύκτα διὰ τὸ ὑψηλὴν εἶναι πρὸς ἄρκτον τὴν γῆν. §6 Plato: Plato Tim. 38c–d cited above at ch. 2.15 section E(b)§§4–5.

Liber 2 Caput 17 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889D; pp. 346a11–25 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.48, p. 414.11–17 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 59; p. 625.14–16 Diels; pp. 187– 191 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 152–153 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 135, p. 70 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.44, p. 48.6 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24.1i, p. 203.9–10 + 1.24.l, p. 203.22–23 + 1.24.1m, p. 204.7–8 + 1.24.3, p. 206.5–10 Wachsmuth

Titulus ιζʹ. Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (P) §1 Μητρόδωρος ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου προσλάμπεσθαι. (P1,S4) §2 Στράτων καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἄστρα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. (S5) §3 Διότιμος Τύριος ὁ Δημοκρίτειος τὴν αὐτὴν τούτοις εἰσηνέγκατο γνώμην. (S6) §4 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ τῆς ἐπιγείου ἀναθυμιάσεως. (P2,S1) §5 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ δεῖσθαι τὰ οὐράνια τροφῆς· οὐ γὰρ φθαρτὰ ἀλλ᾽ ἀίδια. (P3,S3) §6 Πλάτων κοινῶς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐξ αὑτῶν τρέφεσθαι. (P4,S2) §1 Metrodorus 70A9 DK; §2 Strato fr. 85 Wehrli, 43 Sharples; §3 Diotimus Tyrius 76.1 DK; §4 Heraclitus 22A11 DK; Stoici SVF 2.690; §5 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.3 270b1–5, Met. Λ.8 1073a34; §6 Plato cf. Tim. 33c–d titulus ante §1 coni. M–R 2.503 ⟨οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι ἴδιον αὐτοὺς ἔχειν φῶς⟩ et caput dividunt in dua capitula cum titulo secundi Πόθεν τρέφονται οἱ ἀστέρες : deest in S §1 [2] ἅπαντας … ἀστέρας PEQS : ἀστέρας om. PB : ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς PG ‖ [2–3] προσλάμπεσθαι PB(I,III)QGS : καταλάμπεσθαι PE : λάμπεσθαι PB(II) §§2–3 non hab. PBEQ §§2–6 non hab. PG §3 [5] Δημοκρίτειος coni. Diels DG sed non in textu pos., prob. Wachsmuth Diels VS, DK : διοκριτιὸς S, διακριτικὸς Heeren, Διοκρίτου vel Διοκράτου Meineke §4 [7] καὶ PB : om. PE ‖ ἐπιγείου P : ἀπὸ γῆς S §5 [9] post ἀίδια add. S εἶναι §6 [11] Πλάτων κοινῶς PES Diels : Πλάτων οἱ Στωικοὶ PB : post κοινῶς add. S δὲ : al. Platon glaubte, daß Q ‖ ὅλον τὸν κόσμον PBS : τὸν κόσμον ὅλον PE ‖ αὑτῶν PB(III) Mau Lachenaud : αὐτῶν PB(I,II) : αὐτοῦ PEQ(ut vid.)S, αὑτοῦ Diels DG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 59 (~ tit.) Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (text Jas) 59.1 (~ P1) Μητρόδωρος ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου προσλάμπεσθαι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_058

5

10

950

liber 2 caput 17

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 135 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.44 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.5 Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος, A 2.28 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης. §§1–3 A 2.28.2–3 (de luna) Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. Πυθαγόρας Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως. Α 2.26.2 (de luna) Παρμενίδης ἴσην τῷ ἡλίῳ, καὶ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ φωτίζεσθαι. A 2.28.5–6 (de luna) Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. Πυθαγόρας Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως. A 3.2. §1 A 3.1.9 (de lacteo orbe) Μητρόδωρος διὰ τὴν πάροδον τοῦ ἡλίου· τοῦτον γὰρ εἶναι τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον. §3 Cf. A 3.1.8 (de lacteo orbe) Δημόκριτος πολλῶν καὶ μικρῶν καὶ συνεχῶν ἀστέρων συμφωτιζομένων ἀλλήλοις συναυγασμὸν διὰ τὴν πύκνωσιν. §4 A 1.3.1 (de Thalete) ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων ταῖς τῶν ὑδάτων ἀναθυμιάσεσι τρέφεται καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος. A 2.20.6 (de sole) Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάττης. §5 A 2.5.1 Ἀριστοτέλης· εἰ τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος, καὶ φθαρήσεται· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιδεῖται τροφῆς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀίδιος. cf. A 3.1.9 (de lacteo orbe) Ἀριστοτέλης ἀναθυμιάσεως ξηρᾶς ἔξαψιν πολλῆς τε καὶ συνεχοῦς· καὶ οὕτω κόμην πυρὸς ὑπὸ τὸν αἰθέρα κατωτέρω τῶν πλανητῶν. A 3.2.4 (de cometis). Ἀριστοτέλης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἐκ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως διάπυρον σύστασιν. §6 A 2.5.2 Πλάτων αὐτὸν αὑτῷ τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ φθίνοντος κατὰ μεταβολὴν τὸ τρέφον παρέχεσθαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P has four lemmata only, preserved in E and the Byzantine mss. and translated by Q. Only the first is retained in G. The first doxa addresses the question posed in the chapter’s heading. The remaining three patently focus on another question, the source of the heavenly bodies’ nourishment if they are to be regarded as living beings (which is not explicitly stated). There is an obvious strong link between illumination and sustenance, but this is not made explicit in the doxai. (2) Six lemmata are preserved by S, of which the first four correspond to those in P, but in a different sequence. But in order to get his grand scheme of coalescence in ch. 1.24 to work he has made various changes when com-

liber 2 caput 17

951

pared with P. In 1.24.1i the doxa is placed under 2.13.8 which has the name-labels Parmenides–Heraclitus. From P it is clear that the original names were Heraclitus and the Stoics, which makes much better sense. The second lemma supports the reading of the single name-label Plato in E, and not the composite Plato–the Stoics in PB. The final cluster of three doxai in 1.24.3 is important because it adds two doxai to P’s first doxa which he must have epitomized away. But these additional doxai give rise to various textual problems to be considered below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Since it was almost universally held that the stars produce their own light (see the main diaeresis in 2.13, where both alternatives assume that light is emitted), the specific topic of this chapter as indicated in its heading is seldom encountered. Symeon Seth tells us that there is much controversy on the subject, and indicates that the main division of opinion centres on whether the heavenly bodies are all illuminated by the sun or have their own light; text cited below under section E(a) General texts. The further details he gives show that he is probably thinking only of the planets, though the phrase περὶ πάντων τῶν ἀστέρων could refer to the stars as well. The question of the stars’ nourishment is also infrequently addressed. Ach’s chapter 13 asks the question εἰ ζῷα οἱ ἀστέρες and Philo in his list of doxographical questions on the stars asks whether they are ensouled (Somn. 1.22), but neither text reflects what their source of nourishment would be if they are living creatures. (2) Sources. Aristotle does not include the question of the source of the stars’ illumination in his outline of topics when beginning and ending his treatment of the heavenly bodies (Cael. 2.7 289a11, 2.12 293a12). But he briefly touches on the topic early in his discussion at 2.7 289a20–21, developing his strange theory that it is caused by friction with the underlying air (text below section E(b) General texts). The topic of the stars’ nourishment also does not arise in Aristotle’s De caelo, because his doctrine of the impassibility of the fifth element does not allow such a view (it is also not raised in Plato’s Timaeus, where the heavenly bodies consist mainly of fire). He does briefly refer at Mete. 2.2 355a18–20 to the view that the stars are nourished by the exhalations from the ocean as a reductio ad absurdum when arguing against the view of the sun being nourished in this way. The Stoics ignored this criticism and developed the view earlier attributed to Heraclitus that the heavenly bodies are nourished by moist exhalations from the earth. See various texts in Cicero, Cleomedes and Plutarch cited below in sections E(a) and (b). They have very limited doxographical elaboration. At Cicero ND 3.37 reference is made to Cleanthes (SVF 1.501), but in relation to

952

liber 2 caput 17

the sun only (cf. A 2.20.6), while in D.L. 7.144 the same doctrine is attributed to Posidonius in relation to the moon. The philosophers mentioned in a late text in Proclus are obscure and foreign to the doxographical tradition. The question of the source of the stars’ illumination is also relevant to the question on the nature of the Milky Way, e.g. the view of Democritus that its appearance is derived from the clustering of stars (A 3.1.8), but this is treated as part of meteorology; see Commentary on ch. 3.1. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is only preserved in the witnesses in the P tradition, where there is no variation. S does not include it in his heading for ch. 1.24, which combines topics from 2.13 to 2.19. There is no variation in any of the witnesses concerning the heading of this chapter. The verb φωτίζονται in the chapter heading corresponds to the noun in the chapter on the illuminations of the moon, 2.28 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης. For headings asking the question πόθεν (from where)—six in number in A, i.e. also chs. 1.6, 2.5, 4.21, 5.11, 5.28—see above ch. 1.6 Commentary C and 2.5 Commentary C. This chapter’s heading is strictly parallel to that of ch. 2.5, except that the verb is φωτίζω (illuminate) rather than τρέφω (nourish). It indicates that the question is one of source or origin. As the contents of the chapter reveal, illumination is, or rather can be, the result of nourishment. D Analysis a Context In ch. 2.13 it was already indicated that the heavenly bodies are all in some way or another fiery and so must gleam or shine. The source of their illumination is now explicitly addressed. The second half of the chapter then focuses on a different though related question which is exactly parallel to that treated in 2.5, Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος. b Number–Order of Lemmata The six lemmata fall into two distinct groups. Only the first doxa in P and the cluster of three in S address the chapter’s theme as indicated in its heading. The remaining three doxai in P and S answer the question on the provenance of the heavenly bodies’ nourishment. The basic order as found in P can be preserved. The cluster in S is thus a block and indicates that P has excised the two following doxai. It will emerge when the sequence of doxai is more closely examined that it is most unlikely that the chapter is complete as we now have it.

liber 2 caput 17

953

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first three doxai all record essentially the same doctrine. The view that the luminosity of the stars was due not to their own inherent nature but to the sun, on an analogy with the majority view on the moon’s light, is of course rather odd and scarcely attested elsewhere in ancient thought (in Boll’s survey, (1909) 2411–2412, this is the only evidence for it). Given the usual method of the Placita, it must be strongly suspected that originally there was an opposition between the view that the stars have their own light (the majority view) and the view that they are illuminated by the sun (minority view). This is the diaeresis that controls the structure of the parallel chapter on the moon (2.28). No examples of such a diaeresis have been found in ancient sources. Nevertheless Mansfeld–Runia in their reconstruction (M–R 2.2.502) decided that it was justified to conjecture a first most likely anonymously attributed doxa presenting the majority position that the heavenly bodies have their own light, which both P and S overlooked or which—more likely—fell out early in the tradition. The formula used, οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι ἴδιον αὐτοὺς ἕχειν φῶς, was based on similar doxai in 5.12.1 and 2.28.1. In the present edition, however, it is not appropriate to introduce such a massive intervention in the text. The name-labels of these three doxai also give rise to problems which will be further discussed in the detailed comments below. The remaining three doxai are more straightforward. They are largely parallel to the doxai in the related chapter on the cosmos’ nourishment in ch. 2.5, but in the case of the Aristotelian and Platonic doxai are presented in a more compact form. The argument in the Aristotelian doxa is also reversed: A now argues from the everlasting nature of the stars to the conclusion that they do not need nourishment, whereas in the earlier chapter he is recorded (less happily) as arguing the reverse. The Platonic doxa here does not indicate that the source of the food is internal decay. The third position of Heraclitus–the Stoics is also simplified compared to that of Philolaus in A 2.5.3. Is it likely, therefore, that these two subjects were treated together in the single chapter, or did A originally have two chapters which—perhaps again early on—were joined together? Certainly the parallel in the treatment of the cosmos suggests there were originally two chapters. At M–R 2.2.501 we took the bold step of introducing an extra chapter heading in our reconstruction with the conjectured formulation Πόθεν τρέφονται οἱ ἀστέρες, but once again this would be a step too far for the present edition.

954 d

liber 2 caput 17

Further Comments Individual Points §1 Metrodorus of Chios, the pupil of Democritus, is cited no less than 6 times in Book 2 and particularly often in the chapters on the heavenly bodies (also 18.2, 20.8, 28.5). The last doxa is exactly parallel to this one, but more plausibly relates to the moon’s illumination. The emphatic mention of all (ἅπαντας) the heavenly bodies perhaps implies a contrast with the view that only some of them are illumined, e.g. the moon or the Milky Way, which may have been exploited in an earlier fuller tradition. §2 The text shifts from τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας for Metrodorus to τὰ ἄστρα for Strato, but as Sharples (2011) 107 notes, in both cases the reference is most likely to be to the stars and not the planets. The only other doxa attributed to Strato the Peripatetic in Book 2 is at 2.11.4, where he is reported to hold that the heaven is πύρινος, a view which—as Wehrli (1969) 64 notes—does not agree very well with the present view, although it is possible that he held that the stars both had their own light and reflected that of the sun. As in the case of the Cleanthes doxa at 2.16.1 it must be suspected that this doxa is mistaken. The phrase καὶ αὐτός used for Strato is rare in the Placita. It does not occur linked to a namelabel in P and is elsewhere only found at S 1.24.1h, i.e. in this same chapter, where it is plainly added for the doxa of Metrodorus to cover up a difficulty in the grand scheme of coalescence; see above ch. 2.15, Commentary A(2). The same process of splitting up an original doxa with multiple name-labels may have happened here (but note that there is no need for S to make the change here). §3 The same argument can be made for this doxa. It may be an expansion of a name that was part of a list of name-labels such as we saw for example in A 2.16.1. On Diotimus of Tyre see Dorandi DPhA 2.886. He was a disciple of Democritus, as indicated in Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.130.6 and S.E. M. 7.140. The scanty references to him are collected in DK 76. Dorandi accepts the brilliant conjecture that Diels makes here, even though he did not include it in his text of DG (but did do so when he published the first edition of the VS many years later). The name-label occurs only here in A. He is thus one of the 36 unique name-labels found in A’s compendium; see Jeremiah (2018) 302. §5 This argument is not found in the extant writings of Aristotle, though it follows on from the characteristics of the ‘first body’ (i.e. fifth element) as outlined in Cael. 1.3 270b1, where it is said to possess neither increase nor diminution. Effe (1970) 19 argues speculatively that it was put forward in the dialogue De philosophia as witnessed by Philo Aet. 21–24 and 74 (Critolaus); see our comments above on ch. 2.5, Commentary D(d)§1. §6 The doctrine attributed to Plato is clearly based, just like at A 2.5.2, on the text of Tim. 33c6–7 (cf. Philo Aet. 25–27 who cites this text). Here it is extra-

liber 2 caput 17

955

polated from the cosmos as a whole to the heavenly bodies. In their case the question may be asked why the stars, which primarily consist of fire (Tim. 40a2, cf. A 2.13.11), can burn everlastingly without consuming their fuel. On the Stoic view that this cannot be the case see the argument at Cicero ND 2.118 (SVF 1.593, text cited below section E(b)§4). On the sun’s sustenance from the sea see further on A 2.20.6. e Other Evidence On the evidence in Ach and Philo on whether stars are ensouled see above section B. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: cf. Achilles 13, p. 20.16 (title) εἰ ζῷα οἱ ἀστέρες. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.22 (on the heavenly bodies) ἔμψυχοι δὲ καὶ νοεροὶ ἢ νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἀμέτοχοι; Symeon Seth CRN 3.44 περὶ τούτου πολλὴ ἀμφιβολία τοῖς πάλαι σοφοῖς ἐγένετο. τινὲς γὰρ ὁρῶντες τὴν σελήνην παρὰ τοῦ ἡλίου δεχομένην τὸ φῶς ἀπεφήναντο καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν ἀστέρων, ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζονται. ἕτεροι δὲ ὁρῶντες τήν τε Ἀφροδίτην καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον ὄντας καὶ μὴ πόρρωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀφισταμένους ὡς φωτίζεσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασαν ἔχειν τούτους τε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους οἰκεῖον φῶς. Chapter heading: see on ch. 2.28. §4 Heraclitus Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.144 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.650) τρέφεσθαι δὲ τὰ ἔμπυρα ταῦτα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα, τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης θαλάττης νοερὸν ὄντα ἄναμμα· τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ ποτίμων ὑδάτων …· τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. §5 Aristotle: Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c (on Aristotle = fr. 9 Diels, cf. Cael. 1.3 270b1–3) συνεστάναι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τοῦτον δὲ οὔτε βαρὺν οὔτε κοῦφον οὔτε γενητὸν οὔτε φθαρτὸν οὔτε αὐξόμενον οὔτε μειούμενον ἐς ἀεὶ διαμένειν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: §§1–3 Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a19–21 ἡ δὲ θερμότης ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν καλουμένων ἄστρων) καὶ τὸ φῶς γίνεται παρεκτριβομένου τοῦ ἀέρος ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκείνων φορᾶς. Isidore of Seville Nat. 24 stellas non habere proprium lumen sed a sole inluminari dicunt nec eas umquam de caelo abscedere sed veniente sole celari. omnia enim sidera obscurantur sole oriente, non cadunt. nam dum sol ortus sui signa praemiserit, omnis stellarum ignis sub eius luminis fulgore evanescunt. Chapter heading: see on ch. 2.28. General texts: §§4–6 Aristotle Mete. 2.2 354b33–34, 355a18–21 διὸ καὶ γελοῖοι πάντες ὅσοι τῶν πρότερον ὑπέλαβον τὸν ἥλιον τρέφεσθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ· … ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ μόνον φροντίσαι τοῦ ἡλίου, τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων ἄστρων αὐτοὺς παριδεῖν

956

liber 2 caput 17

τὴν σωτηρίαν, τοσούτων καὶ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ὄντων (and cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 73.9–13). Proclus in Tim. 2.87.23–88.13 οὐκ ἄρα δεῖ λέγειν τρέφεσθαι τὰ οὐράνια ἐκ τῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων, ὡς οἴονταί τινες· τὰ γὰρ δεόμενα τῆς ἔξωθεν ἐπιρροῆς καὶ προσθήκην δεχόμενα καὶ ἀφαίρεσιν οὐκ ἀλύτους ἔχει τοὺς δεσμούς. ἄτρεπτα ἄρα μένει τὰ οὐράνια, ὥσπερ δὴ τῶν μὲν ἀρχαίων Πρόκλος τε ὁ Μαλλώτης καὶ Φιλωνίδης εἰρήκασι, τῶν δὲ νεωτέρων οἱ ἀπὸ Πλωτίνου πάντες Πλατωνικοί. §4 Heraclitus Stoics: Cicero ND 2.83 (on the earth, not in SVF) eiusdem exspirationibus et aër alitur et aether et omnia supera. ND 2.118 (SVF 2.593) sunt autem stellae natura flammeae, quocirca terrae maris aquarum⟨que reliquarum⟩ aluntur is qui a sole ex agris tepefactis et ex aquis excitantur; quibus vaporibus altae renovataeque stellae atque omnis aither refundunt eadem et rursum trahunt indidem, nihil ut fere intereat aut admodum paululum, quod astrorum ignis et aetheris flamma consumat. ND 3.37 quid enim, non eisdem vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nec permanere ullo modo posse nisi alatur, ali autem solem, lunam, reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus, alia marinis; eamque causam Cleanthes (SVF 1.501) adfert cur se sol referat nec longius progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, ne longius discedat a cibo. Cleomedes Cael. 1.8.79–82 Todd οὐ χρὴ δὲ ἀπορεῖν ἐνταῦθα, πῶς ἡ γῆ στιγμιαία οὖσα πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ κόσμου ἀναπέμπει τροφὴν τῷ τε οὐρανῷ καὶ τοῖς ἐμπεριεχομένοις ἐν αὐτῷ ἄστροις, τοσούτοις καὶ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος οὖσι. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 940C (SVF 2.677) καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴν τὴν σελήνην, ὥσπερ τὸν ἥλιον ζῷον ὄντα πύρινον καὶ τῆς γῆς ὄντα πολλαπλάσιον, ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν φασι τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τρέφεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀστέρας ἀπείρους ὄντας. Stoic.Rep. 1053A (quoting Chrysippus, SVF 2.579) λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ Φύσεως· ‘ἡ δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη· δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ τρέπεται· κἀκ τούτου γῆς ὑφισταμένης ἀὴρ ἀναθυμιᾶται· λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ· οἱ δ᾽ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνάπτονται’. Porphyry Antr. 11 διαβεβαιοῦνται δέ τινες καὶ τὰ ἐν ἀέρι καὶ οὐρανῷ ἀτμοῖς τρέφεσθαι ἐκ ναμάτων καὶ ποταμῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀναθυμιάσεων· τοῖς δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἥλιον μὲν τρέφεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἀναθυμιάσεως ἐδόκει, σελήνην δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν πηγαίων καὶ ποταμίων ὑδάτων, τὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα ἐκ τῆς ἀπὸ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄναμμα μὲν νοερὸν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ θαλάσσης, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ ποταμίων ὑδάτων, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀστέρας ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. §5 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.3 270b1–4 διότι μὲν οὖν ἀΐδιον καὶ οὔτ᾽ αὔξησιν ἔχον οὔτε φθίσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγήρατον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον καὶ ἀπαθές ἐστι τὸ πρῶτον τῶν σωμάτων, εἴ τις τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πιστεύει, φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐστίν. Met. Λ.8 1073a34 ἥ τε γὰρ τῶν ἄστρων φύσις ἀίδιος οὐσία τις οὖσα. cf. de Phil. fr. 19a Ross (= Philo of Alexandria Aet. 20–24). §6 Plato: Plato Tim. 33c–d ἀπῄει τε γὰρ οὐδὲν οὐδὲ προσῄειν αὐτῷ ποθεν— οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν—αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον καὶ πάντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πάσχον καὶ δρῶν ἐκ τέχνης γέγονεν· ἡγήσατο γὰρ αὐτὸ ὁ συνθεὶς αὔταρκες ὂν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων.

Liber 2 Caput 18 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889D; p. 347a1–9 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.49, p. 414 .18–22 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 60; p. 625.17–20 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 154–155 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 138, p. 72 Westerink (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24.1n, p. 204.17–20 Wachsmuth

Titulus ιηʹ. Περὶ τῶν ἄστρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων (P) §1 Ξενοφάνης τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων φαινομένους οἷον ἀστέρας νεφέλια εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ποιὰν κίνησιν παραλάμποντα. (P1,S1) §2 Μητρόδωρος τῶν ὁρώντων ὀφθαλμῶν μετὰ δέους καὶ καταπλήξεως εἶναι στιλβηδόνας. (P2) §1 Xenophanes 21A39 DK; §2 Metrodorus 70A10 DK titulus Περί … Διοσκούρων PB(I)Q(ut vid.)Ps1 Mau Lachenaud : τῶν1 om. PB(II,III) : ἀστέρων PB(II,III)Ps2 : Περὶ τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων PE Diels : Περὶ τῶν Διοσκούρων PG §1 [2] τοὺς P : δὲ add. S ‖ ἀστέρας P : οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες add. S ‖ [3] παραλάμποντα PBQ(ut vid.)S : παραλάμποντας PEG2 (corr. Mras) : περιλάμποντα PG1 §2 non hab. S ‖ [5] δέους καὶ καταπλήξεως PBES : δέους PG : καταπλήξεως PQ

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus c. 60 (~ tit.) Περὶ τῶν Διοσκούρων (text Diels) 60.1 (~ P1) Ξενοφάνης τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων φαινομένους οἷον ἀστέρας νεφέλια εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ποιὰν κίνησιν περιλάμποντα. 60.2 (~ P2) Μητρόδωρος τῶν ὁρώντων ὀφθαλμῶν μετὰ δέους στιλβηδόνας εἶναι. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 138 Περὶ τῶν ἄστρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 3.4 Περὶ νεφῶν κτλ. §1 A 2.13.13 (de astris) Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων. A 2.20.2 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.25.3 (de luna) Ξενοφάνης νέφος εἶναι πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον. §2 A 4.9.1 Πυθαγόρας Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ξενοφάνης Παρμενίδης Ζήνων Μέλισσος Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Μητρόδωρος Πρωταγόρας Πλάτων ψευδεῖς εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_059

5

958

liber 2 caput 18

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the tradition of P all four witnesses agree that it has two lemmata only. The main point of textual interest is the variation among the witnesses between longer and shorter titles. (2) S writes out only one of the two doxai in P, attaching the view of Xenophanes to an earlier doxa in 2.13. The words οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες have clearly been added in order to compensate for the fact that the heading of the chapter which refers to the Dioscuri was not included in the composite chapter heading of Ecl. 1.24. The omission of the Metrodoran doxa is puzzling because it goes against S’s usual practice and the lemma could have easily been added to other doxai of the same philosopher cited at 1.24.1h or 1.24.3. It may have been the result of oversight or S may have felt that the psychological explanation given fitted in less well with his collection of physical doxai. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (a) Proximate tradition. There are no doxographical parallels for this chapter apart from the tradition of A, including ‘cousin writings’ such as Ach. (b) Sources. The meteorological phenomenon is not discussed by Aristotle in his Meteorology. But a remark on the cause of lightning at Mete. 2.9 370a12– 22 shows some similarities, namely the view attributed to Cleidemus (fr. 62.1 DK) that lightning does not have an objective existence but is no more than an appearance and can be compared to the sea being struck (e.g. by an oar) at night, causing the water to flash (ἀποστίλβον 370a14). On the key role of the concept of reflection (τὰ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν) in Aristotle and its influence on the Placita see below section D(c). Other parallel texts are also scarce. The allegorical explanation of the Dioscuri in terms of the two hemispheres above and below the earth, which is found in Philo, Sextus and Lydus, is foreign to the method of the Placita. Seneca argues that it is a meteorological and not a theological phenomenon, and that if it gives hope (the Dioscuri were known as ‘saviours’, cf. Strabo 5.3.5), this occurs because it indicates that the storm is losing its force. Sextus also cites it in an argument as evidence for the existence of divinities in the air. Lydus records an arithmological doctrine attributed—no doubt spuriously—to Epimenides (one of the seven sages) and his followers. The chapter is an example of the kind of esoteric material that A likes to include.

liber 2 caput 18

959

C Chapter Heading The heading is of the usual Περὶ x type, moving from general questions on the heavenly bodies to a particular constellation. The tradition of P records four different headings. Given that all the other headings in chs. 2.13–19 contain either the term ἀστέρες or in one case (ch. 2.13) ἄστρα, it is prudent to retain the reference to the heavenly bodies. There is little to choose between the different readings of PB. Mau and Lachenaud against Diels opt for the longer heading in PB, Q and Ps, and we follow their lead. But should we read ἄστρων or ἀστέρων? We retain the former in the oldest ms. (and supported by the majority of the mss. of Ps), but the fact that the first lemma reads τοὺς ἀστέρας and its predominance in the headings of chs. 2.14–17 might induce one to choose the latter (it is found in the other mss. of PB and a minority of the mss. of Ps). D Analysis a Context So far in the section of Book 2 on the stars, all the chapters have treated themes for which there are analogous chapters elsewhere, e.g. on the cosmos or on the earth. This chapter and the next treat themes that are peculiar to the stars. One can compare the section on the moon (2.25–29) and the earth (3.9–17), which also end with chapters that discuss themes peculiar to these two bodies. The chapter deals with the phenomenon of St. Elmo’s fire. It could have easily found a place in Book 3 on meteorology. It may have been placed here perhaps because the mythical figures of the Dioscuri are also associated with the constellation of the Gemini (a late development, see below section D(e)). Since the phenomenon generally occurs at sea and was often taken as a portent, it is neatly placed between 2.17 (stars fed by the ocean) and 2.19 (stars as signs). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is every reason to think that the chapter in A originally only had the two lemmata preserved in P, particularly when we take the diaeretic structure into account. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter With its two doxai the chapter records the minimum brevity of presentation in the Placita, a single diaeresis with two opposed points of view (cf. chs. 2.8 and 2.10; 2.12 is an exception). The doxa of Xenophanes gives a physical explanation of the phenomenon in terms of his fiery cloud(let) theory, which occurs four times in Book 2 (also at A 2.13.13, 20.2, 25.3). The view of Metrodorus, in

960

liber 2 caput 18

contrast, presents a psychological or epistemological explanation, i.e. from the viewpoint of the observer. As noted above, this different kind of explanation may have been the reason why S omitted it. It is also possible to relate the diaeresis to the antithesis between reality (κατ᾽ ὑπόστασιν) and appearance (κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν) that is dominant in the meteorological chapters 3.1–6 and derives fairly directly from Aristotle’s Meteorologica. See further Introduction to Book 3, section 2, ch. 3.5 Commentary D(d) General points, and also Mansfeld (2005a). From this viewpoint the attribution of the doxa to Metrodorus is surprising because in his many other doxai recorded in Book 3 (A 3.1.3, 3.2.10, 3.3.3, 3.4.3, 3.5.12, 3.7.3, 3.9.5, 3.15.6, 3.16.5) there is no evidence at all of non-substantial views. But, as Lachenaud notes ad loc., he is mentioned in A 4.9.1 as part of a long list of name-labels associated with the view that the senses are false. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 As Mourelatos (2008) 134 points out, Xenophanes was almost certainly the first to offer a naturalistic explanation of this unusual meteorological phenomenon. He notes the parallel with fr. B32 DK ἥν τ᾽ Ἶριν καλέουσι, νέφος καὶ τοῦτο πέφυκε, / πορφύρεον καὶ φοινίκεον καὶ χλωρὸν ἰδέσθαι, but recognises that the phrase οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες may be an addition of the doxographer (or S, as we think). Diels DG 220 n. 2 was struck by the facts that the term νεφέλια is used to describe Xenophanes’ doctrine, which could not have occurred in his poem because it cannot fit the metre, and that this term for a cloudlet occurs on a number of occasions in Theophrastus (fr. 6.11, 20, 23, 43 Wimmer) and also at Aristotle Mete. 2.8 367b10. (He might have added that the fairly rare word στιλβηδών also occurs in Theophrastus at Hist.plant. 5.4.2.) The language betrays its source, he states. Such arguments are ingenious but attempt to prove more than is possible from the nature of the evidence. e Other Evidence No trace of this subject is found in Ach or the Aratea. As scholars have noted— see Bethe (1905) 1097, Kraus (1957) 1128–1129; Mourelatos (2008) 160 n. 16—the connection of the Dioscuri both with St. Elmo’s fire and with the constellation of the Gemini are late developments. No mention of the two brothers is made in the poems of Aratus and Manilius, but there is a reference to constellation in ps.Eratosthenes Cat. 10, to be dated to about the time of A. It should be noted that the connection with the Dioscuri in our chapter only occurs in the chapter heading, and not in its doxai. Allusions to St. Elmo’s fire and the assistance given

liber 2 caput 18

961

by the Dioscuri to sailors at sea are found a century later in Lucian Navig. 9, Charidemus 3. E b

Further Related Texts Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: ps.Eratosthenes Cat. 10, p. 31.1–6 Pàmias I Massana–Zucker Διδύμων. οὗτοι λέγονται Διόσκουροι εἶναι· ἐν δὲ τῇ Λακωνικῇ τραφέντες ἐπιφάνειαν ἔσχον· φιλαδελφίᾳ δὲ ὑερήνεγκαν πάντας· οὔτε γὰρ περὶ ἀρχῆς οὔτε περὶ ἄλλου τινὸς ἤρισαν· μνήμην δὲ αὐτῶν Ζεὺς θέσθαι βουλόμενος τῆς κοινότητος, Διδύμους ὀνομάσας εἰς τὸ αὐτὸἀμφοτέρους ἔστησεν ἐν τοῖς ἄστροις. Strabo 3.5.3 καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ ἀγορᾷ Διοσκούρων ἱερὸν ἱδρυσαμένους τιμᾶν οὓς πάντες σωτῆρας ὀνομάζουσιν … Philo Decal. 56 τόν τε οὐρανὸν εἰς ἡμισφαίρια τῷ λόγῳ διχῇ διανείμαντες, τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ γῆς, τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆς, Διοσκόρους ἐκάλεσαν. Seneca Nat. 1.1.9–13, illud enim stultissimum, existimare aut decidere stellas aut transilire … argumentum tempestatis nautae putant, cum multae trasvolant stellae. quod si ventorum signum est, ibi est unde venti sunt, id est in aere, qui medius inter lunam terrasque est. in magna tempestate apparere quasi stellae solent velo insidentes; adiuvari se tunc periclitantes aestimant Pollucis et Castoris numine. causa autem melioris spei est quod iam apparet frangi tempestatem et desinere ventos … Sextus Empiricus M. 9.37 τὰ γὰρ δύο ἡμισφαίρια, τό τε ὑπὲρ γῆν καὶ τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν, Διοσκούρους οἱ σοφοὶ τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἔλεγον. M. 9.86 εἴπερ τε ἐν γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ πολλῆς οὔσης παχυμερείας ποικίλα συνίσταται ζῷα ψυχικῆς τε καὶ αἰσθητικῆς μετέχοντα δυνάμεως, πολλῷ πιθανώτερόν ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ἀέρι, πολὺ τὸ καθαρὸν καὶ εἰλικρινὲς ἔχοντι παρὰ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, ἔμψυχά τινα καὶ νοερὰ συνίστασθαι ζῷα. καὶ τούτῳ συμφωνεῖ τὸ τοὺς Διοσκούρους ἀγαθούς τινας εἶναι δαίμονας, σωτῆρας εὐσέλμων νεῶν. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.17 οἱ φιλόσοφοί φασι Διοσκόρους εἶναι τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν καὶ ὑπὲρ γῆν ἡμισφαίριον· τελευτῶσι δὲ ἀμοιβαδὸν μυθικῶς, οἱονεὶ ὑπὸ τοὺς ἀντίποδας ἐξ ἀμοιβῆς φερόμενοι. οἱ δὲ περὶ Ἐπιμενίδην (3B26 DK) ἄρρενα καὶ θήλειαν ἐμύθευσαν τοὺς Διοσκόρους, τὸν μὲν αἰῶνα, ὥσπερ μονάδα, τὴν δὲ φύσιν, ὡς δυάδα, καλέσαντες· ἐκ γὰρ μονάδος καὶ δυάδος ὁ πᾶς ζωογονικὸς καὶ ψυχογονικὸς ἐξεβλάστησεν ἀριθμός. Chapter heading: — §2 Metrodorus: cf. Aristotle Mete. 2.9 370a10–19 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ τὴν ἀστραπήν, ὥσπερ καὶ Κλείδημος (62.1 DK), οὐκ εἶναί φασιν ἀλλὰ φαίνεσθαι, παρεικάζοντες ὡς τὸ πάθος ὅμοιον ὂν καὶ ὅταν τὴν θάλαττάν τις ῥάβδῳ τύπτῃ· φαίνεται γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ ἀποστίλβον τῆς νυκτός· οὕτως ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ ῥαπιζομένου τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὴν φάντασιν τῆς λαμπρότητος εἶναι τὴν ἀστραπήν. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οὔπω συνήθεις ἦσαν ταῖς περὶ τῆς ἀνακλάσεως δόξαις, ὅπερ αἴτιον δοκεῖ τοῦ τοιούτου πάθους εἶναι· φαίνεται γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ στίλβειν τυπτόμενον ἀνακλωμένης ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς ὄψεως πρός τι τῶν λαμπρῶν.

Liber 2 Caput 19 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889E–F; p. 347a10–28 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 61; p. 625.21–23 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 154–155 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 136, p. 71 Westerink (titulus solus)—cf. PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.45, p. 48.15 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.23 + 1.24.1k p. 203.16–17 + 1.24.1l, p. 204.1–3 + 1.24.4, p. 206.12–17 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b9–10 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus ιθʹ. Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων (P,S) §1 Πλάτων τὰς ἐπισημασίας τάς τε χειμερινὰς καὶ τὰς θερινὰς κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἀστέρων ἐπιτολάς τε καὶ δυσμὰς γίνεσθαι, ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν. (P1,S2) §2 Ἀναξιμένης δὲ διὰ μὲν ταῦτα μηδὲν τούτων, διὰ δὲ τὸν ἥλιον μόνον. (P2,S1) §3 Εὔδοξος Ἄρατος κοινῶς διὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας, ἐν οἷς φησιν· αὐτὸς γὰρ τά γε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξεν, ἄστρα διακρίνας· ἐσκέψατο δ᾽ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν ἀστέρας, οἵ κε μάλιστα τετυγμένα σημαίνοιεν. (P3,S3) §1 Plato Tim. 40c–d; §2 Anaximenes 13A14 DK; §3 Eudoxus F 142 Lasserre; Aratus Phaen. 10–12. titulus Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων scripsimus, cf. Περὶ ἐπισημασίας PG, περὶ … ἀστέρων PB(I,III)Ps (τῶν ἀστέρων PB(II)) : καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος add. PBPs, cf. Über die (Wetter)Konstellationen der Jahreszeiten Q : al. PSy Πῶς γίνονται οἱ τέσσαρες καιροί : cf. S Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων … τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας (vid. app. ad 2.14) §1 [2] τάς τε χειμερινὰς … θερινὰς S (et PB(III:Laur.31.37)) PG (om. τε), cf. die winterlichen und sommerlichen Q : τάς τε θερινὰς καὶ τὰς χειμερινὰς PB ‖ post τάς1 add. δὲ S ‖ [3] ἀστέρων PBG, ἄστρων S ‖ τε καὶ δυσμὰς om. PG ‖ [3–4] ἡλίου … ἀπλανῶν PBQ : om. PGS et secl. Diels (πλανητῶν καὶ om. PQ) ‖ [4] πλανητῶν PB(I,III) : τε add. PB(II) ‖ καὶ PB(I,III) : τε καὶ PB(II) §§2–3 non hab. PG §2 [5] Ἀναξιμένης … μόνον PB : τὰς δὲ ἐπισημασίας γίγνεσθαι διὰ τὸν ἥλιον μόνον S ‖ δὲ PB(II), cf. S : om. PB(I,III) ‖ ταῦτα PB(II) : ταύτην (i.e. lunam?) PB(I,III) §3 [7] Εὔδοξος … φησιν PB : Εὔδοξος καὶ Ἄρατος τὰς ἐπισημασίας κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἄστρων ἐπιτολὰς γίνεσθαι. λέγει γοῦν Ἄρατος ἐν τοῖς Φαινομένοις οὕτως S ‖ [8] τά γε S Aratus : τάδε PB ‖ σήματ᾽ PBQSP : σώματ᾽ SF ‖ [10] οἵ κε PB Aratus : οἱ καὶ SP, οἳ SF, οἵ τε Meineke, οἵ κε prob. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ μάλιστα PB(I,III)S Aratus : μάλα PB(II) ‖ σημαίνοιεν PB Aratus : σημαίνουσιν S

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 61 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἐπισημασίας (text Diels) 61.1 (~ P1) Πλάτων τὰς ἐπισημασίας τὰς χειμερινὰς καὶ τὰς θερινὰς κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἀστέρων ἐπιτολὰς γίνεσθαι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_060

5

10

liber 2 caput 19

963

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 136 Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων, καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.45 Πῶς γίνονται οἱ τέσσαρες καιροί (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.8 Περὶ χειμῶνος καὶ θέρους. cf. S 1.25 (tit.) Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου καὶ μεγέθους σχήματός τε καὶ τροπῶν καὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ σημείων καὶ κινήσεως. 1.26 (tit.) Περὶ σελήνης οὐσίας καὶ μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος ⟨φωτισμῶν τε καὶ περὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ ἐμφάσεως καὶ περὶ ἀποστημάτων καὶ σημείων⟩ (suppl. e Phot.). §1 Cf. A 2.16.6 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ταὐτον πεπονθέναι τῷ ἑωσφόρῳ τὸν στίλβωνα ἰσοδραμεῖν δὲ αὐτοὺς τῷ ἡλίῳ καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ· καὶ τότε μὲν προανατέλλοντα ἑωσφόρον φαίνεσθαι, τότε δὲ ἐπικαταδυόμενον ἕσπερον καλεῖσθαι. §2 Cf. A 3.4.4 Ξενοφάνης ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητος ὡς ⟨προκατ⟩αρκτικῆς αἰτίας τἀν τοῖς μεταρσίοις συμβαίνειν. §3 A 5.18.6 (de in septimo et octavo mense partibus) οἱ δὲ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς ὀκτὼ μῆνας ἀσυνδέτους φασὶν εἶναι πάσης γενέσεως, τοὺς δ᾽ ἑπτὰ συνδετικούς· τὰ δ᾽ ἀσύνδετα ζῴδια ἐστιν, ἐὰν τῶν οἰκοδεσποτούντων ἀστέρων τυγχάνῃ· ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὸν βίον κληρώσηται, δυστυχεῖς καὶ ἀχρόνους σημαίνει …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) Three lemmata are preserved in the Byzantine mss. and in Q. G only has the title (in a shortened form) and an abridged version of the first doxa. E does not copy out this chapter, which hampers the determination of the text. (2) 2.19 is the final chapter that S absorbs into his grand scheme of coalescence in Ecl. 1.24. He writes out all three lemmata also found in P, making significant adaptations of the text in the first two. He also includes a reference to the chapter heading in his combined title for 1.24, Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων καὶ σχημάτων, κινήσεώς τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is no clear evidence of doxographical treatment of this theme in the proximate tradition comparable to what we find in this chapter. However, It is possible that Philo’s reference to the heavenly bodies’ συμπάθεια πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ ἐπίγεια at Somn. 1.53 is an allusion to the subject of our chapter. This text belongs to a cluster of Philonic texts dependent on

964

liber 2 caput 19

an earlier phase of the doxographical tradition; see further ch. 2.11 Commentary B, 2.13 Commentary B. We note also a scholion to the same lines from Aratus quoted by A, which gives a view on the subject that is formulated in a manner quite similar to that found in A (text below under section E(a)§3). The example of the Pleiades is the same as is found in the text in Pliny to be discussed below. (2) Sources. The general theme of the interaction between the movements of the heavenly bodies and the turning of the seasons goes back to Hesiod (Op. 414–419). The more specific theme of the signs of the seasons indicated by the heavenly bodies and in particular their risings and settings is perhaps alluded to by Plato in the Timaeus (hence the doxa in this chapter), but is absent in Aristotle. Theophrastus certainly wrote a book Περὶ σημείων. We know this from Diogenes’ lists and from a report in Proclus, who tells us that he discussed the Chaldeans in this work and made reference to their astrological doctrines (texts below under section E(b) General texts). See further Cronin (1992) 310, Sharples (1998b) 162. The surviving treatise under his name with that title is spurious (though Cronin 1992, 336 concludes that Theophrastus’ treatise may have been one of its sources). It prominently cites the theme in its opening section. Epicurus in his letter to Pythocles discusses the subject of weather signs and in fact uses the same term ἐπισημασία that we find in A, but in his listing of causes he makes no reference to the heavenly bodies. Later texts in Geminus, Vitruvius and Ptolemy make reference to astronomers or philosophers who have concerned themselves with seasonal signs, including Eudoxus and Aratus (and also Aristotle); see the texts cited below under section E(b) General texts and §3. The last-mentioned text belongs to the tradition of ‘Star calendars’ (παραπήγματα), to which Pliny refers at NH 18.213, giving as an instance of disagreement the different views on the morning setting of the Pleiades by Hesiod, Thales, Anaximander, Euctemon and Eudoxus. But this tradition differs from what we encounter in A. C Chapter Heading The heading in its fullest form combines the common Περὶ x formula with a question enquiring after the cause introduced as often by πῶς. All of the transmitted chapter headings, however, are problematic (the early evidence of E is sorely missed). PB supported by Ps has a double title. The first part covers the contents of the chapter well. The second part adds a subject that is not covered by the doxai themselves, which discuss not how winter and summer occur but what signs of their occurrence are given by the risings and settings of the heavenly bodies. It may, however, have been inspired by the first Platonic doxa which speaks of signs relating to winter and summer (note the same order of winter followed by summer in both heading and doxa). G’s heading is

liber 2 caput 19

965

greatly shortened. Since every other chapter heading in the section 2.13–19 has a reference to the heavenly bodies, it is not likely that it will be missing here. The heading preserved by Q appears to be based on the contents of the chapter rather than on the original Greek text (though the reference to the seasons may allude to the second half of the heading in P). The different heading in Sy is based on the second half in PB. A decision needs to be made between the shorter and longer versions of the heading. Given the evidence of G and the likelihood that the second part is a (superfluous) deduction from the first doxa, it is preferable to choose the shorter version, though of course including a reference to the heavenly bodies. This choice has the advantage of retaining consistency with the other chapter headings in 2.13–18. A similar dilemma occurs in the very next chapter 2.20 on the sun. The shorter version is also supported by S in his conflated heading of 2.13–19, but of course we need to take into account that he may have abridged a longer title present in his text of A. D Analysis a Context The final chapter on the heavenly bodies, just like the previous one, introduces a meteorological aspect, examining their role as purveyors of signs in relation to the seasons. It forms a good transition to the two groups of chapters on the sun and the moon, both of which have a more direct influence on the earth. b Number–Order of Lemmata It is very likely that our two main witnesses preserve all the doxai in this chapter. S reverses the sequence of the first two doxai, but this can be explained through the process of coalescence. There is thus no reason to suggest that the order differed from what is preserved in P. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The subject of the chapter is indicated by the relatively uncommon term ἐπισημασία in the chapter heading, which is repeated in the first and third doxa (in the second it has been added by S). The context makes clear that it refers to ‘indications of the (changes of the) seasons’. The theme itself goes back to Hesiod (cf. Op. 414–419, 546–548), but the poet scarcely makes an appearance in the Placita (he only occurs in 1.6, a chapter that to some extent differs from the usual method of the work). The first two doxai reveal a simple diaeresis: Plato regards the signs of seasonal change as occurring through the rising and setting of all the heavenly bodies, whereas Anaximenes attributes these signs to the sun only. The Platonic view is derived from Tim. 40c8–d2, where Plato says

966

liber 2 caput 19

that the movements of the heavenly bodies produce ‘fears and signs of events that will happen after these things to those who are unable to calculate’ (φόβους καὶ σημεῖα τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα γενησομένων τοῖς οὐ δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι). At some stage in the textual transmission of this sentence after Cicero the word οὐ fell away and so the pronouncement lost its negative force, as can be seen in the comments on the text by Proclus cited section E(b)§1 (on this text see further Taylor 1928, 244). The doxa is based on the occurrence of the term σημεῖα, but there is no specific reference to the seasons in the passage. The third lemma does not add a new view but amounts to an illustration of the Platonic view by means of a poetic quote. A similar technique is used in the case of Empedocles in Α 1.30.1 and for the anonymous doxa in Α 5.19.2. Both Eudoxus and Aratus wrote works with the title Φαινόμενα. Aratus is named only here, though his verses are also cited in ch. 1.6[20–24]. Eudoxus is credited with a view on the sources of the Nile at ch. 4.1.7. On the occurrence of poetic quotes in the Placita see M–R 2.1.207. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 We have not followed Diels in bracketing the words, ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν though they are missing in S and G (but not in Q). Though it is possible that they are a gloss, it is more likely that they were omitted from a fuller original than that they were added. The retention of the phrase heightens the antithesis with the next doxa. The adjectives χειμερινάς and θερινάς qualifying the noun ἐπισημασίας are unclear in their precise meaning: they could refer to signs relating to winter and summer or signs taking place during those seasons. The theme of the chapter makes the former meaning more likely. §2 The formulation is characteristically loose. τούτων must refer to σημεῖα, though the term has not been used so far in the chapter. ταῦτα (neuter) must refer to ἀστέρων (masculine), unless we read ἄστρων with S, and of course it does not include the sun. §3 Poetic quotations are rare in A, except in the opening chapters of Book 1 (there are eleven poetic quotes in chs. 1.1–7). This is the only example in Book 2. The text introducing the quote in S, which refers specifically to its author and location, is much clearer than in P, where it has to be deduced that Aratus is the author. The words λέγει οὖν, however, are a tell-tale sign of S’s intervention in the text; cf. M–R 1.233. For examples of poetic quotes introduced by the verb φησί see A 1.3.20, 1.6.1, 4.12.1 (in the last passage the subject is the character in the play, not the author). At A 1.25.4 a prose quote from Leucippus is introduced as λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ. In the absence of further evidence the formulation in P should be retained.

liber 2 caput 19

967

It is of interest to compare the quoted lines in A with the textual transmission of the Aratean text; see the edition of Kidd (1997) ad loc. There is some variation in the readings in the mss. of the witnesses (see the apparatus above). The temptation must be resisted to accommodate readings to the text transmitted in the Aratean tradition. Nevertheless in all cases the best reading is the same as found in the Aratean tradition. The only case where one might hesitate is in the first line, where P reads τάδε. Here S reads τά γε, which is the reading in the Aratean tradition. It is always possible that S might have introduced a correction, but in this case it is justified to print his text. The lines themselves were well-known and are cited twice by Ach in different contexts at ch. 1.7, p. 7.8–10 and in ch. 15 (first line only). e Other Evidence A very late text in the Arabic work Turba philosophorum (c. 900), later translated into Latin (no later than 13th cent.), preserves information on Anaximenes which shows how his ἀήρ doctrine could be adapted to explain the advent of the seasons. It is thus consistent with the doxa in A, but there is no contrast with other views. On this text see Rudolph (1990), Lacaze (2018) 52–57, 353–354, who argue that the doxographical source is to be identified with Hippolytus (cf. Ref. 1.7.3). It should be noted, however, that in that doxographical account there is no reference to the seasons. E a

Further related texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.53 τί δὲ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων φύσεως ἢ περιφορᾶς ἢ συμπαθείας πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ τἀπίγεια; cf. Opif. 58 (on heavenly bodies) γεγόνασι καὶ ὅπως σημεῖα μελλόντων προφαίνωσιν· ἢ γὰρ ἀνατολαῖς αὐτῶν ἢ δύσεσιν ἢ ἐκλείψεσιν ἢ πάλιν ἐπιτολαῖς ἢ ἀποκρύψεσιν ἢ ταῖς ἄλλαις περὶ τὰς κινήσεις διαφοραῖς ἄνθρωποι τὰ ἀποβησόμενα στοχάζονται, … ὡρῶν τῶν ἐτησίων ὑπαλλαγὰς ἢ θέρους χειμαίνοντος ἢ χειμῶνος φλέγοντος ἢ ἔαρος μετοπωρίζοντος ἢ μετοπώρου ἐαρίζοντος (cf. also Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 6.4). Schol. Arat. 10, p. 54.5 Martin (on Aratus) αὐτὸς γὰρ τῶν ὡρῶν σημεῖα ἐποιήσατο τοὺς ἀστέρας. ἐθέλει δὲ τὰς ἀνατολὰς αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς δύσεις δηλῶσαι, οἷον Πληιάδων ἑῴαν ἐπιτολὴν ἀρχῇ θέρους γίνεσθαι, δύσιν δὲ ἑῴαν ἀρχῇ χειμῶνος. Chapter heading: — §3 Eudoxus Aratus: Achilles 15, p. 22.14–18 Di Maria ὁ Ἄρατος (Phaen. 10) τῇ τῶν πολλῶν δόξῃ κατακολουθήσας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἐναρηρέναι φησὶ τῶι οὐρανῷ ‘αὐτὸς γὰρ τάδε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε’ παρὰ τὸ ‘ἐστήριξεν’ ἀστέρας αὐτοὺς παρετυμολογῶν.

968 b

liber 2 caput 19

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: ps.Eudoxus Χειμῶνος προγνωστικά (title), p. 183.1 Boll. Theophrastus fr. 194 FHS&G at Proclus in Tim. 3.151.1–9 θαυμασιωτάτην δὲ εἶναί φησιν ὁ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς κατ᾽ αὐτὸν χρόνοις τὴν τῶν Χαλδαίων περὶ ταῦτα θεωρίαν, τά τε ἄλλα προλέγουσαν καὶ τοὺς βίους ἑκάστων καὶ τοὺς θανάτους, καὶ οὐ τὰ κοινὰ μόνον, οἷον χειμῶνας καὶ εὐδίας, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ἀστέρα τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ χειμῶνος μὲν ἐκφανῆ γενόμενον ψύχη σημαίνειν, καύματα δὲ θέρους εἰς ἐκείνους ἀναπέμπει· πάντα δ᾽ οὖν αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ ἴδια καὶ τὰ κοινὰ προγινώσκειν ἀπὸ τῶν οὐρανίων ἐν τῇ Περὶ Σημείων βίβλῳ φησὶν ἐκεῖνος. ps.Theophrastus Sign. 1 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄστροις δυομένοις καὶ ἀνατέλλουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἀστρονομικῶν δεῖ λαμβάνειν. Sign. 5– 6 ἄλλα δέ ἐστι σημεῖα ἃ λαμβάνεται ἀπό τε ζώων τῶν κατ᾽ οἰκίαν καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν τόπων καὶ παθημάτων, μάλιστα δὲ κυριώτατα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης· ἡ γὰρ σελήνη νυκτὸς οἷον ἥλιός ἐστι· διὸ καὶ αἱ σύνοδοι τῶν μηνῶν χειμέριοί εἰσιν ὅτι ἀπολείπει τὸ φῶς τῆς σελήνης ἀπὸ τετράδος φθίνοντος μέχρι τετράδος ἱσταμένου. ὥσπερ οὖν ἡλίου ἀπόλειψις γίνεται κατὰ τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον καὶ τῆς σελήνης ἔκλειψις. (6) δεῖ οὖν προσέχειν μάλιστα ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς ταῖς τούτων καὶ ταῖς δύσεσιν ὁποίας ἂν ποιῶνται τὸν βουλόμενον προγινώσκειν. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.99 ἐπισημασίαι δύνανται γίνεσθαι καὶ κατὰ συγκυρήσεις καιρῶν, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἐμφανέσι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ζῴοις, καὶ παρ᾽ ἑτεροιώσεις ἀέρος καὶ μεταβολάς. ἀμφότερα γὰρ ταῦτα οὐ μάχεται τοῖς φαινομένοις· ἐπὶ δὲ ποίοις παρὰ τοῦτο ἢ τοῦτο τὸ αἴτιον γίνεται οὐκ ἔστι συνιδεῖν. Corpus Hippocraticum Hebd. 2.2.1–5 West τὰ τοίνυν ἄστρα τὰ οὐράνια ἑπτὰ ἐόντα τάξιν ἔχει τῶν ὡρέων ἐκδοχῆς, μεμ⟨ρτισ⟩μενην· ᾧ⟨ν ἐπ⟩ μιῆς μὲν ὁ ἥλιος, ἡλίῳ δὲ σελήνη ⟨ἀκουλουθέει⟩· ἀκολουθέει δὲ Ἄρκτος τῷ Ἀρκτούρῳ ἀκολουθίην ἴ⟨σην⟩ ὥσπερ ἡλίῳ σελήνη· αἱ δὲ Πλειάδες τῇ⟨σιν Ὑάσιν⟩ ἀκολουθέουσιν· τῷ δὲ Ὠρίωνι ὁ Κύων. Pliny Nat. 18.213, occasum matutinum vergiliarum (i.e. Pleiades) Hesiodus … tradidit fieri cum aequinoctium autumni conficeretur, Thales (fr. 116 Wöhrle) XXV die ab aequinoctio, Anaximander (fr. 44 Wöhrle) XXX, Euctemon XLIV, Eudoxus (F 192b Lasserre) XLVIII. nos sequimur observationem Caesaris maxime … Ptolemy Phas. 66–67 Heiberg καὶ τούτων ἀνέγραψα τὰς ἐπισημασίας καὶ κατέταξα κατά τε Αἰγυπτίους καὶ Δοσίθεον, Φίλιππον, Κάλλιππον, Εὐκτήμονα, Μέτωνα, Κόνωνα, Μητρόδωρον, Εὔδοξον (F 143 Lasserre), Καίσαρα, Δημόκριτον (68B14.7 DK), Ἵππαρχον. Chapter heading: cf. Theophrastus Περὶ σημείων (title recorded at D.L. 5.45); also spurious treatise preserved in corpus of Theophrastean works Περὶ σημείων ὑδάτων καὶ πνευμάτων καὶ χειμώνων καὶ εὐδιῶν. cf. Bolus at Suda s.v. B 482, p. 1.490.1–3 Adler Βῶλος, Μενδήσιος, Πυθαγόρειος (68B300.1 DK) … Περὶ σημείων τῶν ἐξ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄρκτου καὶ λύχνου καὶ ἴριδος. see also Ptolemy Phas. 66 cited above. §1 Plato: Plato Tim. 40c3–d2 χορείας δὲ τούτων αὐτῶν (sc. ἄστρων) καὶ παραβολὰς ἀλλήλων, καὶ {περὶ} τὰς τῶν κύκλων πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ἐπανακυκλήσεις καὶ προχωρήσεις, ἔν τε ταῖς συνάψεσιν ὁποῖοι τῶν θεῶν κατ᾽ ἀλλήλους γιγνόμενοι καὶ ὅσοι καταντικρύ, μεθ᾽ οὕστινάς τε ἐπίπροσθεν ἀλλήλοις ἡμῖν τε κατὰ χρόνους οὕστινας ἕκαστοι κατακαλύπτονται καὶ πάλιν ἀναφαινόμενοι φόβους καὶ σημεῖα τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα γενησομένων τοῖς οὐ δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι πέμπουσιν … Galen Di.Dec.

liber 2 caput 19 9.914.13 K. ἐν μὲν τοῖς ὀξέσι νοσήμασιν ἡ ἑβδομάς ἐστιν, ἐν δ᾽ αὖ τοῖς χρονίοις αἱ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων ἄστρων εἰσὶν ἐπισημασίαι, καθ᾽ ἃς ἔαρ καὶ θέρος καὶ χειμὼν καὶ φθινόπωρον ἀφορίζονται. Proclus in Tim. 3.149.16–20 (on Tim. 40c9–d1) τὰς δὲ ‘κατὰ χρόνους αὐτῶν κατακαλύψεις καὶ πάλιν ἐκφάνσεις’ οἰητέον τὰς κρύψεις τὰς ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὰς φάσεις, ἃς ἀμφοτέρας μεγάλων τινῶν εἶναι ποιητικὰς καὶ σημαντικὰς λέγουσιν οἱ ταῦτα δεινοί. in Tim. 3.150.28–151.1 ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰς κινήσεις τῶν οὐρανίων ‘φόβους’ εἶπε ‘καὶ σημεῖα τῶν γιγνομένων’ παρέχειν ‘τοῖς δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι’, τοσοῦτον ἰστέον, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἐκεῖνα σημαίνειν οἰητέον, ἀλλὰ σημεῖα γεγονότων ὄντα σημαντικά τινων. διὸ καὶ αὐτὸς τῶν σημαντικῶν ἑαυτοῖς ἐνεργειῶν προηγουμένως ἐμνήσθη (there follows the reference to Theophrastus cited under General texts above). §2 Anaximenes: Turba philosophorum 6.1–7, pp. 352.11–354.8 Lacaze (Latin version, original Arabic text is lost) ait Eximedrus (= Anaximenes, fr. 232 Wöhrle): magnifico aera et honorifico, ut Eximedri roborum sermonem, eo quod per ipsum opus emendatur, et conspissatur et rarescit, (354) et calefit et frigescit. (2) eius autem spissitudo fit, quando disiungitur propter solis elongationem. (3) eius vero raritas fit, quando in caelo exaltato sole calescit aer et rarescit. (4) similiter vero fit in veris complexione, in temporis nec calidi nec frigidi distinctione. (5) nam secundum alterationem dispositionis constitutae ad distinctiones anni alterandas, hyems alteratur. (6) aer igitur spissatur, cum ab eo sol elongatur, et tunc hominibus frigus pervenit. (7) aere vero rarescente prope fit sol, quo propinquo et aere rarescente calor pervenit hominibus. §3 Eudoxus Aratus: Geminus Elem. 17.46–49, pp. 92–93 Aujac (on Aratus) ὅθεν βελτίοσιν ἄν τις σημείοις χρήσαιτο τοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῖν διδομένοις, οἷς καὶ Ἄρατος κέχρηται. τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιτολῶν καὶ δύσεων τῶν ἄστρων γινομένας μεταβολὰς τοῦ ἀέρος ὡς διεψευσμένας παρέλιπε, τὰς δὲ φυσικῶς γινομένας καὶ μετά τινος αἰτίας κατεχώρισεν ἐν τῇ τῶν Φαινομένων πραγματείᾳ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τῆς ὅλης συντάξεως. (47) λαμβάνει γὰρ τὰς προγνώσεις ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατολῆς καὶ δύσεως, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς σελήνης ἀνατολῶν καὶ δύσεων, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἅλω τῆς γινομένης περὶ τὴν σελήνην, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν διαϊσσόντων ἀστέρων, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων. (48) αἱ γὰρ ἀπὸ τούτων προγνώσεις μετά τινος φυσικῆς αἰτίας γινόμεναι κατηναγκασμένα ἔχουσι τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. ὅθεν καὶ Βόηθος ὁ φιλόσοφος (—) ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ βιβλίῳ τῆς Ἀράτου ἐξηγήσεως φυσικὰς τὰς αἰτίας ἀποδέδωκε τῶν τε πνευμάτων καὶ ὄμβρων, ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων εἰδῶν τὰς προγνώσεις ἀποφαινόμενος. (49) τούτοις δὲ τοῖς σημείοις καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ὁ φιλόσοφος (ps.Aristotle or Theophrastus Περὶ σημείων, Arist. fr. 249 Rose3) κέχρηται καὶ Εὔδοξος (F 139 Lasserre) καὶ ἕτεροι πλείονες τῶν ἀστρολόγων. Vitruvius 9.6.3 quorum (sc. the natural philosophers) inventa secuti siderum et occasus tempestatumque significatus Eudoxus (F 138 Lasserre), Eudemus (—), Callippus, Meto, Philippus, Hipparchus, Aratus ceterique ex astrologia parapegmatorum disciplinis invenerunt et eas posteris explicatas reliquerunt.

969

Liber 2 Caput 20 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889F–890C; pp. 348a1–351a2 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.23, pp. 400.9–401.10, cf. 7.11.13, p. 385.21–22 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 62; DG pp. 625.24–626.12 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 154–157 Daiber— PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 126, p. 67 (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25, p. 207.13 (tit.) + 1.25.1a, p. 207.13–17 + 1.25.1bc, pp. 207.23– 208.8 + 1.25.1d, p. 208.15–16 + 1.25.1efg, pp. 208.20–209.6 + 1.25.3a, p. 209.22– 23 + 1.25.3b, p. 209.27 + 1.25.3c, p. 210.5–6 + 1.25.3de, pp. 210.9–211.1 + 1.25.3f, p. 211.4–6 + 1.25.3g, p. 211.9–14 + 1.25.3i, p. 211.18–19 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b10 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.21, p. 105.16–106.1 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 27.5–19; cf. c. 2, p. 9.5 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.18–20 Martin

Titulus κʹ. Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου (P,S) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, ἁρματείῳ τροχῷ παραπλήσιον τὴν ἁψῖδα ἔχοντα κοίλην, πλήρη πυρός, κατά τι μέρος ἐκφαίνουσαν διὰ στομίου τὸ πῦρ ὥσπερ διὰ πρηστῆρος αὐλοῦ· καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. (P1,S3) §2 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. (S1,T1,cf.P2b) §3 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης πύρινον ὑπάρχειν τὸν ἥλιον. (S4+5) §1 Anaximander 12A21 DK; §2 Xenophanes 21A40 DK; §3 Anaximenes 13A15 DK; Parmenides 28A41 DK titulus Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου PB(I,III)QS, cf. Ach : Περὶ ἡλίου PB(II)EG ‖ καὶ ὅτι δύο καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν add. PB(I,II) (καὶ ante δύο add. PB(II)), καὶ εἰ πολλοί εἰσιν ἥλιοι add. PPs : conflat S tit. cc. 2.20–24 Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου (2.20) καὶ μεγέθους (2.21) σχήματός (2.22) τε καὶ τροπῶν (2.23) καὶ ἐκλείψεως (2.24) καὶ σημείων (—) καὶ κινήσεως (—) §1 [2] κύκλον] τὸν κύκλον αὐτοῦ PG ‖ ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα PBEGS : ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλασίονα PQ(ut vid.) ‖ ἁρματείῳ PEGS : ἁρματίου PB ‖ [3] παραπλήσιον … κοίλην Diels Mau Lachenaud : παραπλήσιον post ἁψῖδα PBE (κοῖλον PE) : παραπλήσιον ἔχοντα κοίλην περιφέρειαν S : παραπλησίως ἔχοντα κοίλην (καὶ πλήρη πυρός) PG : cf. Ihre Rundung ist wie die Rundung des Himmelsphäre der Milchstraße. Sie is hohl … Q ‖ [3–4] κατά τι μέρος PE : ante κατά add. ἧς PB del. Diels Mau Lachenaud : κατὰ μέρος PGS : om. PQ ‖ [4] ἐκφαίνουσαν S : ἐκφαίνοντα PE1 Mras : ἐκφαίνουσης PBE2 corr. Diels ‖ στομίου] στενοῦ PG ‖ [4–5] ὥσπερ … ἥλιον PBE : αὐλοῦ … ἥλιον om. S : cf. wie die Blitze erscheinen. Das is bei der Form der Sonne (der Fall) Q : al. PG ὡς δι᾽ αὐλοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐκπέμπεσθαι §2 [6] εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον fort. add. S (sed cf. T) §3 [7] Ἀναξιμένης … ἥλιον ex S (vid. comm.) : ἀπεφήνατο add. S ipse verisimiliter

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_061

5

liber 2 caput 20

Ἀντιφῶν πῦρ ἐπινεμόμενον μὲν τὸν περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑγρὸν ἀέρα, ἀνατολὰς δὲ καὶ δύσεις ποιούμενον τῷ τὸν μὲν ἐπικαιόμενον αἰεὶ προλείπειν, τοῦ δ᾽ ὑπονοτιζομένου πάλιν ἀντέχεσθαι. (S6) §5 Ξενοφάνης, ⟨ὡς⟩ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν, ἐκ πυριδίων τῶν συναθροιζομένων μὲν ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως συναθροιζόντων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. (P2,S2) §6 Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάττης. (P3,S7 +16) §7 Πλάτων ἐκ πλείστου πυρός, μετέχειν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σωμάτων. (P4,T6) §8 Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Μητρόδωρος μύδρον ἢ πέτρον διάπυρον. (P5, S8+15(+4),T2) §9 Θαλῆς γεώδη. (S9,T3) §10 Διογένης κισηροειδῆ τὸν ἥλιον, εἰς ὃν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος ἀκτῖνες ἐναποστηρίζονται. (S10,T4) §11 Ἀριστοτέλης σφαῖραν ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. (P6,T5) §12 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ, δεχόμενον μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πυρὸς τὴν ἀνταύγειαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τό τε φῶς καὶ τὴν

971

§4

§4 Antiphon 87B26 DK, fr. F26 Pendrick; §5 Xenophanes 21A40 DK; Theophrastus fr. 232 FHS&G; §6 Heraclitus 22A12 DK; Hecataeus 73B9 DK; Cleanthes SVF 1.501; §7 Plato cf. Tim. 40a; §8 Anaxagoras 59A72 DK; Democritus 68A87 DK; Metrodorus 70A11 DK; §9 Thales 11A17a DK; §10 Diogenes 64A13 DK; §11 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.2 269a31; §12 Philolaus 44A19 DK §4 [9–10] ἐπικαιόμενον, ὑπονοτιζομένου S : ἐπικειόμενον, ὑποτονιζομένου v.l. (not. Wachsmuth ad p. 208.23) §5 non hab. G ‖ [11] ⟨ὡς⟩ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν S : ὡς addidimus (cf. Usener, qui in S ⟨ἢ ὡς⟩ coni. sine nomine Ξενοφάνης) : desunt in P ‖ post πυριδίων add. μὲν S, τῶν φαινομένων PE ‖ [12] μὲν ἐκ] om. S ‖ [13] post ἥλιον add. ex §2 ἢ νέφος πεπυρωμένον PB, ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων PE Diels, cf. entstehen die Sonne oder glühenden Wolken Q §6 [14] Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης scripsimus ex S, qui in duo lemmata dividit cum nominibus Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Ἑκαταῖος et Κλεάνθης : οἱ Στωικοὶ P ‖ ἄναμμα] ἄναλμα S bis, corr. Heeren ‖ ἐκ θαλάττης P : τὸ ἐκ θαλάττης εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον S bis (om. εἶναι secundo loco 211.18 Wachsmuth) §7 non hab. S ‖ [16] ἐκ πλείστου πυρός PBG : ἐκ om. PE : τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ πυρός T ‖ μετέχειν … σωμάτων T: deest in P §8 [18] Ἀναξαγόρας … Μητρόδωρος PBE : Ἀναξαγόρας (δὲ add. T) καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Μητρόδωρος PGT ‖ μύδρον … διάπυρον PBEGST : al. Q und Mydron (ex μύδρον!) glaubten, daß der Sonnenkörper wie ein glühenden Felsen ist (ἢ omissum susp. Daiber) §9 [20] γεώδη S : τὸν ἥλιον add. S verisimiliter §11 [23] post σώματος add. T ξυνεστῶσαν §12 [24] ὑαλοειδῆ PB(I,III)GST : δίσκον ὑαλοειδῆ PE : ὑελλοειδῆ PB(II) : add. τὸν ἥλιον S ‖ [25] πυρὸς PT : πρὸς S corr. Heeren ‖ ἀνταύγειαν (εὐαγίαν PG) διηθοῦντα PB(I,III)EGST : ἔλλαμψιν πέμποντα PB(II) ‖ [25–26] τό τε … ἀλέαν ST : τὸ φῶς P

10

15

20

25

972

liber 2 caput 20

ἀλέαν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ διττοὺς ἡλίους γίγνεσθαι, τό τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πυροειδὲς κατὰ τὸ ἐσοπτροειδές, εἰ μή τις καὶ τρίτον λέξει, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐγήν· καὶ γὰρ ταύτην προσονομάζομεν ἥλιον οἱονεὶ εἴδωλον εἰδώλου. (P7,S11,T7) §13 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, ἀεὶ κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον· τὸν δὲ φαινόμενον ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τῷ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ θερμομιγοῦς πεπληρωμένῳ, ἀπὸ κυκλοτεροῦς τῆς γῆς κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν ἐγγιγνομένην εἰς τὸν Ὄλυμπον τὸν κρυσταλλοειδῆ, συμπεριελκομένην δὲ τῇ κινήσει τοῦ πυρίνου· ὡς δὲ βραχέως εἰρῆσθαι {συντεμόντα}, ἀνταύγειαν εἶναι τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν πυρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. (P8,S12) §14 Ἐπίκουρος γήινον πύκνωμα κισηροειδὲς καὶ σπογγοειδὲς ταῖς κατάτρήσεσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς ἀνημμένον. (P9,S13) §15 Ἡράκλειτος ἄναμμα, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς τὴν ἔξαψιν ἔχοντα, τὴν δὲ σβέσιν ἐν ταῖς δυσμαῖς. (PG7) §13 Empedocles 31A56 DK; §14 Epicurus fr. 343 Usener; §15 Heraclitus T437, 595 Mouraviev [26–27] ὥστε … ἐσοπτροειδές S, cf. Ach : ὥστε προσεοικέναι ἡλίῳ τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες τό τε δὴ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσοπτροειδές PB (ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ⟨πυρῶδες⟩ Diels) : ὥστε προσεοικέναι ἡλίου τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες PE : al. PG ὥστε τρεῖς εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ διαφοράς· τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες, τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πυροειδές PG, cf. Daher gibt es drei Sonnen: die eine von ihnen, welche im Himmel ist; sie ist feurig. Die zweite (ist diejenige,) welche aus ihm (dem Himmel) in der Art des Spiegels entsteht Q ‖ [27–29] εἰ μή … αὐγήν S : καὶ τρίτον τὴν … αὐγήν PB : τῇ … διασπειρομένῃ … αὐγῇ PE : al. PG τρίτον τὴν ἀπὸ τούτου ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς : cf. Die dritte ist die Rückstrahlung, welche zu uns reflektiert wird, und das Licht, welches sich deswegen über uns ausbreitet Q ‖ [29–30] καὶ … εἰδώλου PBE, cf. PQT : desunt in PGS ‖ [29] προσονομάζομεν PB(I,II)E : προσαγοπεύομεν PB(III) §13 [31–33] τὸν … τὸν] τὸ … τὸ PE corr. Mras, PG ‖ [31] ἀρχέτυπον] ἄριστον PG ‖ [31–32] πῦρ … τὸ om. PG ‖ [31] πῦρ PBE : πῦρ ὂν S prob. Primavesi R2 ‖ [32] πεπληρωκὸς PB : πεπληρωκότος PES corr. Diels ‖ [32–33] ἀεὶ … τεταγμένον om. PG ‖ [33] τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ PBT : τῆς ἀνταυγείας PE ‖ [34–38] τῷ … ἥλιον om. PG ‖ [35] γῆς PBES : ⟨αὐ⟩γῆς Bernadakis Mau ‖ Ὄλυμπον Mansfeld R1 ex PQ prob. Primavesi R2, Laks–Most (cf. somit den Berg füllen, welcher “Olympos” genannt wird Q) : ἥλιον PBES Diels Mau Lachenaud Vítek ‖ [36] συμπεριελκομένην PB(II,III)S : συμπεριπλεκομένην PΒ(Ι), δὲ add. S Primavesi R2 ‖ [37] βραχέως PBS : διὰ βραχέος PE ‖ συντεμόντα PBES ret. Laks–Most (συντεμόντι coni. Meineke prob. Wachsmuth), dub. Diels DG, secl. VS, del. Primavesi R2 ‖ [37–38] ἀνταύγειαν … πυρὸς PBS : πῦρ εἶναι PE ‖ [37] γῆν] αὐγὴν PB(III:Laur.31,37) (cf. l. 35) §14 [39] πύκνωμα PBES : κύκλωμα PG ‖ post πύκνωμα add. S τὸν ἥλιόν φησιν εἶναι ‖ κισηροειδὲς καὶ σπογγοειδὲς PE : κισηροειδῶς καὶ σπογγοειδῶς S : κισηροειδῆ καὶ σπογγοειδῆ PG : κισηροειδῶς PB(I–II) : κισσηροειδὲς PB(III) ‖ [40] ὑπὸ … ἀνημμένον PBES : ἐνημμένον PG ‖ post hoc lemma hab. G Ἡράκλειτος ἄναμμα, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς τὴν ἔξαψιν ἔχοντα, τὴν δὲ σβέσιν ἐν ταῖς δυσμαῖς §15 hab. PG solus, damn. ut additamentum Diels ‖ [41] ἄναμμα Diels : mss. ἄναμα, ἀνάμματα ‖ ἔχοντα sc. τὸν ἥλιον de titulo, cf. §3

30

35

40

liber 2 caput 20

§16 Παρμενίδης τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι, τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀραιοτέρου μίγματος, ὃ δὴ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυκνοτέρου, ὅπερ ψυχρόν. (S14) §16 Parmenides 28A43 DK §16 [44] τὸν : τὸ SFP corr. Canter

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.21 4.21.1 (~ §2) καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ὁ Ξενοφάνης νέφη εἶναι πεπυρωμένα φησίν· 4.21.2 (~ §8) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Μητρόδωρος μύδρον ἢ πέτρον διάπυρον· 4.21.3 (~ §9) Θαλῆς δὲ γεώδη, 4.21.4 (~ §10) κισηροειδῆ δὲ Διογένης· 4.21.5 (~ §11) ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης σφαῖραν εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος ξυνεστῶσαν· 4.21.6 (~ §7) ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ πυρός, μετέχειν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σωμάτων· 4.21.7 (~ §12) Φιλόλαος δὲ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ, δεχόμενον μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πυρὸς τὴν ἀνταύγειαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τό τε φῶς καὶ τὴν ἀλέαν, εἰδώλου τάξιν ἐπέχοντα· 4.21.8 καὶ ἕτεροι δὲ ἕτερα ἄττα περὶ τούτου ἐδόξασαν, ἃ περιττὸν οἶμαι λέγειν, ἵνα μὴ τῆς αὐτῆς μεταλάχω τερθρείας. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia graeca, cf. c. 1.7.1) τῶν δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας (sc. θεούς) εἶναι φασκόντων, οὓς καὶ μύδρους τυγχάνειν διαπύρους (~ P5) ἥλων καὶ πετάλων δίκην ἐμπεπηγότας τῷ οὐρανῷ (cf. c. 2.14.4). ps.Galenus HPh c. 62 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἡλίου (text Diels) 62.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸν κύκλον αὐτοῦ εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς ἁρματείῳ τροχῷ τὴν ἁψῖδα παραπλησίως ἔχοντα, κοίλην καὶ πλήρη πυρὸς κατὰ μέρος διὰ στενοῦ τὸ πῦρ ὡς δι᾽ αὐλοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐκπέμπεσθαι. 62.2 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάσσης. 62.3 (~ P4) Πλάτων ἐκ πλείστου πυρός. Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Μητρόδωρος πέτρον ἢ μύδρον διάπυρον. 62.4 (~ P7) Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ δεχόμενον τοῦ ἐκ κόσμου πυρὸς τὴν εὐαγίαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς, ὥστε τρεῖς εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ διαφοράς· τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες, τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πυροειδές, τρίτον τὴν ἀπὸ τούτου ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς. 62.5 (~ P8) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸ μὲν ἄριστον ἡμισφαίριον, τὸ δὲ φαινόμενον ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ.

973

45

974

liber 2 caput 20

62.6 (~ P9) Ἐπίκουρος γήινον κύκλωμα, κισηροειδῆ καὶ σπογγοειδῆ ταῖς κατατρήσεσιν ἐνημμένον. 62.7 (deest in P) Ἡράκλειτος ἄναμμα, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς τὴν ἔξαψιν ἔχοντα, τὴν δὲ σβέσιν ἐν ταῖς δυσμαῖς. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 126 Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου (~ tit.), καὶ εἰ πολλοὶ εἰσὶν ἥλιοι Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 27.1 Περὶ ἡλίου (~ tit.) p. 27.5–19 τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν τοῦ ἡλίου Πλάτων περιέργως ἐκ πυρὸς εἶναί φησι (~ §7), τινὲς δὲ τῶν φυσικῶν ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως γῆς καὶ νεφῶν αὐτὸν εἶναι (~ §5, §2). Ἀναξαγόρας μύδρον αὐτὸν εἶπε (~ §8), Φιλόλαος δὲ τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ διαυγὲς λαμβάνοντα ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς πρὸς ἡμᾶς πέμπειν τὴν αὐγὴν διά τινων ἀραιωμάτων, ὥστε κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τρισσὸν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, τὸ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρός, τὸ δὲ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου πεμπόμενον ἐπὶ τὸν ὑελοειδῆ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενον ἥλιον, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ τοιούτου ἡλίου πρὸς ἡμᾶς πεμπόμενον (~ §12). Ἐπίκουρος δὲ κισηροειδῆ αὐτὸν ἔφη ἐκ πυρὸς διὰ τρημάτων τινῶν τὸ φῶς ἐκπέμποντα (~ §14). τινὲς δέ, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος, φασὶ πέμπειν αὐτὸν τὸ φῶς σχῆμα ἔχοντα τροχοῦ· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ τροχῷ κοίλη ἐστὶν ἡ πλήμνη, ἔχει δὲ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἀνατεταμένας τὰς κνημῖδας πρὸς τὴν ἔξωθεν τῆς ἁψῖδος περιφοράν, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸν ἀπὸ κοίλου τὸ φῶς ἐκπέμποντα τὴν ἀνάτασιν τῶν ἀκτίνων ποιεῖσθαι καὶ ἔξωθεν αὐτὰς κύκλῷ φωτίζειν (~ §1). τινὲς δὲ ὡς ἀπὸ σάλπιγγος ἐκ κοίλου τόπου καὶ στενοῦ ἐκπέμπειν αὐτὸν τὸ φῶς ὥσπερ πρηστῆρας (~ §1). cf. §2 p. 9.2–8 Εὔδωρος ὁ φιλόσοφός φησι Διόδωρον τὸν Ἀλεξανδρέα μαθηματικὸν τούτῳ διαφέρειν εἰπεῖν τὴν μαθηματικὴν τῆς φυσιολογίας, ὅτι ἡ μὲν μαθηματικὴ τὰ παρεπόμενα τῇ οὐσίᾳ ζητεῖ, πόθεν καὶ πῶς ἐκλείψεις γίνονται, ἡ δὲ φυσιολογία περὶ τῆς οὐσίας, τίς ἡλίου φύσις, πότερον μύδρος ἐστὶ κατὰ Ἀναξαγόραν (~ §8) ἢ πῦρ κατὰ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς (~ §6) ἢ κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλην πέμπτη οὐσία μηδενὶ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων ἐπικοινωνοῦσα, ἀγέννητός τε καὶ ἄφθαρτος καὶ ἀμετάβολος (~ §11). Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.18–20 ιζʹ Ἥλιος. τὸν δὲ ἥλιον οἳ μὲν ὡρίσαντο {τὸ} πῦρ (~ §3), οἳ δὲ μύδρον αὐτὸν, ὡς Ἀναξαγόρας (~ §8), κυκλοτερῆ ὄντα ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον εἶναι τῆς γῆς. Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.11 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία; et vide textus citatos ad 2.11. A 2.21 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου. A 2.22 Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου. A 2.23 Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου. A 2.24 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου. quaestio A 1.proœm. 3 ζητεῖται εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος, εἴ π⟨ῦ⟩ρ, ⟨εἴ τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος⟩ ὁρᾶται· ὁ τοῦτο δὲ ζητῶν θεωρητικός ἐστιν. §1 cf. A 2.25.1 (de luna) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς κτλ. §2 cf. A 2.13.13 (de astris), 2.25.3 (de luna).

liber 2 caput 20

975

§3 Anaximenes cf. A 2.13.9 (de astris), 2.25.2 (de luna); Parmenides cf. A 2.11.4 (de caelo), 2.13.9 (de astris), 2.25.2 (de luna). §4 cf. A 2.28.4 Ἀντιφῶν ἰδιοφέγγῆ τὴν σελήνην, τὸ δ᾽ ἀποκρυπτόμενον περὶ αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τῆς προσβολῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀμαυροῦσθαι, πεφυκότος τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου πυρὸς τὸ ἀσθενέστερον ἀμαυροῦν· ὃ δὴ συμβαίνειν καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα. §5 cf. A 2.29.8 (de luna) Ἀναξαγόρας, ὥς φησι Θεόφραστος κτλ. A 1.3.1 (de Thalete) ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων ταῖς τῶν ὑδάτων ἀναθυμιάσεσι τρέφεται καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος. §6 cf. A 2.25.11 (de luna) Διογένης κισηροειδὲς ἄναμμα. A 2.23.6 (Stoici) οἱ Στωικοὶ κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς διέρχεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον· ὠκεανὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ γῆ, ἧς τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐπινέμεται. A 2.28.7 Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασι τοὺς ἀστέρας, δεχομένους δὲ τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως αὐγὰς, φωτίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν, λαμπρότερως μὲν τὸν ἥλιον, ἐν καθαρωτέρῳ γὰρ ἀέρι φέρεσθαι, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐν θολωτέρῳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀμαυροτέραν φαίνεσθαι. cf. A 1.3.1 cit. ad §5 (de Thalete) §7 cf. A 2.13.11 (de astris), 2.25.7 (de luna), 1.7.22 (de deis, text. cit. ad 2.13.11). §8 cf. A 2.13.3, 5 (de astris), 2.25.10 (de luna). §9 cf. A 2.13.1 (de astris), 2.25.9 (de luna). §10 cf. A 2.13.10 (de astris), 2.25.11 (de luna). §11 vid. text. cit. ad 2.11.5 (de caelo). §12 cf. A 2.7.6 (de mundo). §13 A 2.21.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ἴσον τῇ γῇ τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν. cf. A 2.11.2 (de mundo), A 2.13.2 (de astris). A 4.14.1 (de repercussu in speculis) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς κατ᾽ ἀπορροίας τὰς συνισταμένας μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κατόπτρου … A 5.26.4[2] … πρὶν τὸν ἥλιον περιαπλωθῆναι … §15 A 2.13.14 (de Xenophane de astris) Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων, σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας· τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις. A 3.3.9 (de ventis igneis) Ἡράκλειτος … πρηστῆρας δὲ κατὰ νεφῶν ἐμπρήσεις καὶ σβέσεις. §16 A 3.1.6 Παρμενίδης τὸ τοῦ πυκνοῦ καὶ ἀραιοῦ μῖγμα γαλακτοειδὲς ἀποτελέσαι χρῶμα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The chapter is well-attested in all three witnesses. (1) In the P tradition the three witnesses PBEQ preserve nine lemmata, of which G retains six, with an extra lemma at the end (Heraclitus) not found in

976

liber 2 caput 20

the other witnesses. The various strands of the tradition show considerable textual variation. (2) S continues to use a very different method, coalescing A’s five chapters relating to the sun in a single massive exercise in coalescence (= 1.25), with a title that combines material from all five titles (Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου καὶ μεγέθους σχήματός τε καὶ τροπῶν καὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ σημείων καὶ κινήσεως; the final two nouns do not correspond to anything in P). S clearly found this a challenging exercise and seven doxai present in the five chapters in P are not included (see M–R 1.233–236). 16 lemmata can be identified as derived from the present chapter. Of those in P all but P4 (Plato) and P6 (Aristotle) are found in S. The latter is replaced by AD. S no doubt intended to replace the former with either a quote from Plato himself (e.g. Tim. 40a) or another source, but he did not carry out his intention. (3) T starts somewhat confusingly by citing Xenophanes on the sun and the moon, but then gives six further lemmata on the substance of the sun only (he returns to the moon at 4.23), before indicating in a concluding statement that there are others which he passes over. The ones selected are mainly the shorter views, with the Philolaic doxa considerably compressed. T includes the doxai of Plato and Aristotle which S left out. His other five doxai are all found in S. (4) On the close parallels in Achilles and the Aratea see below sections B and D(e). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Important parallels to the material in this chapter are located in the collections of doxai relating to individual Presocratic philosophers in Diogenes Laertius, Hippolytus and ps.Plutarch Stromateis. See below section E(a) on Xenophanes, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. The doxai on Xenophanes in the other ps.Plutarch are particularly interesting because he records parallels to both the doxai found in this chapter (§§2, 5, cf. Ach). Our chapter indicates that the source for the latter view (also found in Hippolytus) was Theophrastus. It is clear that there is a shared background for these texts and the Placita. Diels’ conclusion at DG 217, however, that the reference to Theophrastus (augmented by another at 2.29.8) proves that the Peripatetic was the ultimate source for all the parallels in these texts and for most of the material on the Presocratics in the Placita, is unjustified. On this question see M–R 2.21–22, 133, 220–224. A safer conclusion is to say that the material of this chapter will for the most part have been drawn from a plurality of earlier doxographical traditions. It is not so clear how the doxa attributed to Epicurus relates to these traditions. In Lucretius three alternatives are given to explain how such a small

liber 2 caput 20

977

object can emit so much heat. One of these is found in Diogenes of Oenoanda (texts below under section E(b)§14). For the single view in A (also found in Ach) there is no parallel in Epicurus’ writings. It most resembles the view of Diogenes of Apollonia. Even closer parallels to our chapter are found in Ach and the Aratea. These are more fully discussed below in section D(e). These texts have incorporated material from sources very close to those drawn on by A. (2) Sources. Quotes preserved from the poems of Parmenides (B11) and Empedocles (B38, B44) are direct evidence—if such be required—that there was extensive discussion of the nature of the sun and how it produces its heat in Presocratic authors, starting already with Anaximander and his famous theory of the sun as a hoop or cartwheel of fire. The second cent. ce sophist Favorinus reports that Democritus discussed Anaxagoras’ views on the sun (and the moon) and disputed their originality (see below section B(b)§8). There is no separate treatment of the nature of sun in either Plato’s Timaeus or Aristotle’s De caelo. They both prefer to discuss it in conjunction with the other heavenly bodies. Plato refers to the view of Anaxagoras in his version of Socrates’ Apology (26d), as does Xenophon in the Memorabilia (4.7.7). It is noteworthy that theological aspects of views on the sun, which are prominent elsewhere—whether pro (e.g. Stoics in Cicero ND) or contra (e.g. Anaxagoras in Philo, Lucian, Origen etc.)—are wholly missing in A’s chapter and scarcely mentioned in the chapter on God, 1.7 (only a single reference in the lemma on Plato, 1.7.22). Aristotle in his Meteorology ridicules the earlier view (Heraclitus) that the sun feeds on earthly moisture, but this did not deter the Stoics from taking it over (text below section E(b)§6). C Chapter Heading As we have already seen in the parallel chs. 2.11 and 2.13 on the substance of the heaven and the stars respectively, the witnesses reveal considerable variation in their headings. The heading Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου of the usual umbrella type is witnessed by PQ and the Planudean tradition of PB, and is also presumed by S. It is almost certainly correct. The shorter title in PEG fails to mention the key term οὐσία that is found in all the headings in parallel chapters (2.11, 2.13, 2.25, 3.9). Two key manuscripts of PB have the addition καὶ ὅτι (καὶ) δύο καὶ τρεῖς εἰσίν, which is clearly based on the doxai of Empedocles and Philolaus and also has found its way into the index at the beginning of the Book. Most likely it will have been added at some stage in the long tradition, although as a parallel can be adduced 3.9 Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι. It thus adds a question in the category of quantity, but this is only a minor theme in the chapter.

978

liber 2 caput 20

Psellus converts this statement into a question (εἰ πολλοὶ εἰσὶν ἥλιοι) and in the body of his brief chapter discusses it. But the second and third sun that he postulates relate to a Platonist theory of divine creation and not the multiple suns attributed to Philolaus and Empedocles in P. As we have already seen, for his ch. 1.25 on the sun S puts together a very long heading, combining the titles of 2.20–24 as well as adding two more topics (signs and movement) not treated as such by A. The role of the sun in providing signs is mentioned in A 2.19, but S places the excerpts from that chapter in his 1.24, not here. D Analysis a Context This chapter and the next four (20–24) treat the most prominent of the heavenly bodies, the sun. The sequence of topics are, as so often in the Placita, reminiscent of the Aristotelian categories. The first chapter thus treats the οὐσία (substance) of sun, taken in a material sense. As is the case in the parallel chapters on the heavenly bodies (§13) and the moon (§25), this first of the five chapters is longer than the others and is one of the longest chapters in the Placita. In Book 1.proœm. 3 the quaestio εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος is given as an example of a theoretical, as opposed to a practical, topic. This subject is not touched on in chs. 2.20–24 (and the sun is also not specfically mentioned in Ach §13). On the possibility that there may have been a lost chapter on the subject of whether the heavenly bodies are alive or not see the Commentary Book 1.proœm. A(3). b Number–Order of Lemmata The chapter is well-attested, with the three chief witnesses supplying nine, sixteen and seven lemmata respectively. There is thus every likelihood that it has been fully preserved. Yet not a single witness records every single lemma. The challenge is thus to reconstruct the exact number and the original order of the lemmata. Although the basic order is very similar in all three witnesses, there are various discrepancies which can only be explained if we take into account the different methods which they used. This Diels failed to do adequately, so that his reconstruction is quite unconvincing (on this see further M–R 2.520). The chapter can be reconstructed in nine steps, which will now be presented in outline (for a fuller analysis see ibid. 520–524). (1) Starting towards the end, we note that the sequence Philolaus–Empedocles–Epicurus is the same in P and S (P7–9, S11–13), that Philolaus occurs as last doxa in T (T7) and that Ach testifies to the sequence Philolaus–Epicurus.

liber 2 caput 20

979

(2) The following doxa in S (S14) on Parmenides is surprising because it speaks about the sun and the moon originating in the Milky Way. A parallel is found in ch. 28, where another doxa on the sun and the moon is certainly placed last in the chapter. A often places doxai that fit in less well or add additional material at the end of his chapters, and that is likely to have happened here. (3) A next significant correspondence between our witnesses occurs in the case of the sequence Anaxagoras–Thales–Diogenes in S8–10 and the sequence Anaxagoras + Democritus + Metrodorus–Thales–Diogenes in T2–4. That the triple name-label in T2 was already present in A is confirmed by P5. S repeats the doxa with Democritus’s name-label in S15 and coalesces with a doxa from ch. 2.23, but then omits the name-label of Metrodorus. It is misguided to conclude that T made direct use of P rather than A in this instance, as argued by Bottler (2014) 512 (he could have done so via E, but if he consulted E he did so only for A 1.7.1; see Mansfeld 2016e = M–R 4.176–184). S often splits up conjoined names in the process of coalescence: there are two other examples in this same chapter in the way he treats the multiple name-labels in §§3 and 6. On the mistake that S most likely made in relation to Metrodorus see (7) below. (4) In both P and T a doxa attributed to Aristotle follows the group just discussed. It is missing in S because it has been replaced by a long extract from AD (1.25.4 = fr. 10 Diels, cited below section E(a)§11). We note that AD’s formulation at the beginning of the account is equivalent to that of A, but differs in terminology (οὐσίας instead of σώματος). (5) It is clear from P and T that the chapter contains a Platonic lemma which S dropped, no doubt because he was going to replace it with an extract from the Timaeus. But this in fact does not take place (he may have later discovered that Plato does not speak explicitly of the nature of the sun). It is best to place it in the order found in P (P4). T will have first left it out and then decided to include it after the Aristotelian view (T6), perhaps because it moves from a single elemental substance to a combination. The formulation of the doxa itself is slightly more elaborate in T than in P. T may have added this extra information from his own knowledge, but it is safest to include it in our text. (6) Preceding the Platonic lemma in P is a doxa attributed to the Stoa (= P3), the sun as ‘an intelligent ignited mass from the sea’. Omitted by T, it corresponds to two doxai in S, S7 and S 16 (where the doxa apart from the name-label is almost identical). It is easy to reconstruct what has happened. S will have split up a single doxa to suit his separation into clusters of views of individual philosophers. P has recognized the doxa as basically Stoic and so has simplified the three names in S, Heraclitus–Hecataeus–Cleanthes, to the single label ‘the Stoics’.

980

liber 2 caput 20

(7) Next there are three lemmata in S which are not found in the other two witnesses, S4–6. It is striking that S4 and S5 have exactly the same content, and it might be suspected that originally they formed a single lemma with again three conjoined name-labels. However, S’s inclusion of the name-label Metrodorus and its coupling with Parmenides conflicts with the evidence of P and T, where his view is added to that of Anaxagoras and Democritus. This is almost certainly a mistake on S’s part (the coupling of Democritus and his pupil Metrodorus is anyway more likely than the latter with the Eleatic Parmenides). (8) The most difficult part of the chapter is its beginning. The evidence can be summarized as follows: P1 Anaximander P2 Xenophanes I + II

S1 Xenophanes (cf. P2b) S2 Theophrastus (cf. P2a) S3 Anaximander

T1 Xenophanes

The first problem concerns the name-labels. Does the second lemma in S introduce the view of Theophrastus, or is the Peripatetic reporting on Xenophanes’ doctrine, as is suggested by the joining up of the two views in P? Despite the views of some scholars (see esp. Steinmetz (1964) 334–351), we side with Usener and Diels in attributing both doxai to Xenophanes (see further the lengthy discussion in Runia (1992), and also M–R 2.523). But this does not necessarily mean that they were linked together in A. It is reasonably common in the Placita for more than one doxa to be ascribed to a particular philosopher in the same chapter (see for example Diogenes in ch. 2.13 and Xenophanes again in ch. 2.24), the reason being that the doxa is of greater importance for the doxographer than the name-label attached to it. The possibility must be entertained, therefore, that either P or S or both have coalesced these two doxai. In our view S’s procedure makes it very likely that they were originally separate. He would not have separated the two doxai on the sun’s οὐσία with a doxa on its eclipse if they had not been originally distinct. It should be noted too that both doxai are given quite separately in ps.Plu. Strom. 4 (see texts below section E(a)§2, §5). Moreover, given the strong link of the second Xenophanean doxa with the ‘Stoic’ view of Heraclitus–Hecataeus–Cleanthes, it is plausible that it preceded the latter, as indeed occurs in P (where the other Xenophanean view is appended). It also makes a smooth connection with the preceding view of Antiphon which also involves the moist air. The second problem is how the chapter starts. Does it commence with the view of Anaximander as in P, or does it start with Xenophanes as in S and T? Both views can be defended. In an early treatment we gave the preference to S (Runia 1992). But since then we have changed our mind (M–R 2.524), because

liber 2 caput 20

981

we recognized that in the long chapters on the οὐσία of the stars, sun and moon (2.13, 20, 25), a privileged position was given to the Milesian philosophers—no doubt connected with the role that the very early philosophers and the successions play in the Placita (on this see further M–R 2.73–96). The parallel with the chapter on the moon (2.25) is particularly impressive. Therefore, it is more likely that P has preserved the original beginning of the chapter. Why then did S commence with Xenophanes? A possible explanation is that he was attracted to the pithy expression of Xenophanes’ view, in contrast to Anaximander’s doxa with its idiosyncratic position that the sun is in fact a circular hoop. He then added the second Xenophanean doxa before writing out the longer doxa of Anaximander. (9) One final problem remains: the additional lemma in G recording the view of Heraclitus. Diels DG 16, noting that it doubles up on the earlier lemma P3 = §6, regarded it as an attractive addition, but in his own words ‘did not dare to add it to P in the absence of S’ and does not even mention it in the apparatus to the text of P. Revising our view in M–R 2.524 we now argue that there are good grounds for including it. (a) As noted above on §§2 and 5 there are other cases of name-labels being repeated in a single chapter. A may have wished to repeat it because the additional information was not attributable to the other two namelabels in §6. (b) There are cases where G contains additional information not found elsewhere in the tradition of P; see M–R 1.150 and examples at chs. 5.19 (where confirmed by Q) and 5.23. (c) As Diels noted, the extra information is likely to be authentic; cf. fr. 22B30 DK ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα, ch. 3.3.9 (on firewinds) and the scholion on Plato Resp. 498a; a similar doctrine for the sun is attributed to Metrodorus of Chios at ps.Plut. Strom. 11 = 70A4 DK and for the stars to Xenophanes at A 2.13.14. It is best placed towards the end of the chapter, as indeed suggested by its location in G. Like §16 it records additional information of an unusual nature. It may be concluded, therefore, that the chapter has sixteen lemmata and that its original order is well reflected in P, except that he has coalesced the two Xenophanean doxai that stood apart in A, and to a lesser extent also by S and T. The sequence of doxai in our reconstruction is plausible and, as we shall now see, is reinforced by the rationale that can be given for the chapter’s structure as a whole. It cannot, however, be considered certain in all respects. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The basic structure of the chapter is determined by the antithesis between the view that the sun consists of fire (§§1–3) and the view that it is basically an inflamed earthy rock (§§8–10). The antithesis, which is also dominant in the parallel chapters 2.13 and 2.25, fits in well with the evidence of doxographical-

982

liber 2 caput 20

dialectical parallels. The rhetor Hermogenes (?) gives as an example of a θέσις the subject εἰ ὁ ἥλιος πῦρ. No alternative is given, but it is implied that one exists. In the traditio secunda there are two texts in the Aratean tradition which give prominence to this antithesis (texts above). In the example of a quaestio on the nature of the sun in Achilles §2 the view of Anaxagoras that it is a clump of rock (μύδρος) is opposed to the Stoic view that it is πῦρ, with the Aristotelian quintessence added as a third view. In the very brief chapter on the sun in the Isagoge the view that it is fire is placed first (as in A), with the view of Anaxagoras that it is a μύδρος opposed to it. In between the two basic positions there are four lemmata (§§4–7) which link the sun’s fiery substance to the intermediate elements air (§4), water (§§5– 6) or all three (§7). This group clearly has a bridging position. The final five views (§§11–15) form a less homogenous group of additional and exceptional views. It might be thought that the Aristotelian doxa (§11) would have been better placed after the fiery views. A has perhaps seen a (not very pertinent) link with the mention of the αἰθήρ in the previous Diogenes lemma. The next two lemmata, both involving multiple suns, clearly form a contrasted pair. The placement of the next lemma, §14 attributed to Epicurus, seems at first sight a puzzle. Its contents are little different to the view of Diogenes in §10 and seem based on it. In other chapters in Book 2 Epicurus’ views are often placed at the end (cf. chs. 2.2, 2.4, 2.13, 2.22, also 3.15) because of his espousal of the theory of multiple explanation, on which see ch. 2.2 Commentary D(c). Apart from the parallel doxa in Ach the only surviving evidence on Epicurus’ own view is the general account on the heavenly bodies in D.L. 10.90, in which the alternatives ‘pneumatic or fire-like or both’ are given. But other texts in the Epicurean tradition suggest that originally more specific alternatives were given on the nature and role of the sun; cf. Lucretius DRN 5.597–613; Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 13 Smith—note that it begins with the key term ἐνδέχεται; see the texts below under section E(b)§14. It is likely, therefore, that at an early point in the tradition—already witnessed by Ach—just one of the explanations offered by Epicurus became fixed as his (single) position, even though that was counter to his general view on our knowledge of the heavenly bodies. The second Heraclitean lemma §15 repeats the substance of the sun from §6 in a condensed form and, as argued above in section D(b)(9), adds material specific to this Presocratic philosopher. The final lemma §16 is unusual in two respects. It involves a comparison between the sun and the moon. The latter planet has so far not been mentioned in the chapter and will not become the focus of attention until ch. 2.25. There is also a cosmogonical reference, which harks back to chs. 6–7 and seldom occurs in chs. 11–32. It is logical that this doxa should be placed at the end of the chapter.

liber 2 caput 20

d

983

Further Comments Individual Points §1 It is surprising that S has left out the illustrative image ὥσπερ διὰ πρηστῆρος αὐλοῦ, whereas he retains it in the parallel doxa on the moon (A 2.25.1). Since the final phrase in P is also not found in S, it may be suspected that a line of text has dropped out. The image in Ach is that of a trumpet, but the mention of a πρηστήρ is retained. We return to this image below. The other image of the chariot wheel recurs in the parallel doxa on the moon at A 2.25.1. There is also a possible reference to the cartwheel movement of the cosmos in a chapter on the cosmos’ motion that may have dropped out of P; see the Appendix to the Commentary on ch. 2.2. The interpretation of the phrase just cited (οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν at A 2.25.1) is difficult and the problems it raises are perhaps insoluble. Couprie (2011) 145–151 rightly points out that the meaning of πρηστήρ as a set of bellows as postulated by Diels DG 25–26 is not well attested. He argues that Q’s Arabic translation ‘wie die Blitze erscheinen’ points us in the right direction and that the phrase should be translated ‘like through a stream of lightning,’ πρηστήρ having something like its usual meaning of ‘fire-wind’ as in ch. 3.3 and in the passage in Ach. According to Couprie αὐλός here means a spurt or a jet; he is followed by Graham (2010) 59 who translates ‘jet of fire’. But this meaning too is rare. It seems better to adhere to the basic meaning of a ‘tube’ or ‘pipe’, or perhaps in this context a ‘vent’, with πρηστήρ retaining its usual meaning of ‘fire-wind’. A suitable translation, with reference to a modern equivalent, might be ‘like a blowtorch’, since this instrument also involves a pipe that channels a hot flame. One would expect a parallel with the phrase that the image is supposed to illustrate διὰ στομίου τὸ πῦρ, i.e. διὰ αὐλοῦ πρηστῆρας, as we find with modification in Ach, so there may be a problem with the text. Wöhrle (2012) 53 translated fairly literally ‘Glutwindröhre’; see further his list of translations at n. 6, to which can be added Mansfeld R2 ‘Lötrohr’. Couprie’s interpretation poses an interesting methodological problem. He suggests (p. 151) that the phrase in A 2.25.1 may be the original one and that ‘Aëtius no longer fully understood what Anaximander had meant with οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν’. But our task, as we have often stated, is to determine and interpret what A wrote and not what might have stood in the original source. §2 The formula used to describe the sun’s nature, ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων, is the same as that in 2.13.14, in contrast to the doxa on the nature of the moon, for which an identification as a νέφος εἶναι πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον is given (on the text see below on A 2.25.3). Mourelatos (2008) 149 argues persuasively that the phrase ἐκ + genitive should be read constitutively rather than generatively (his terminology). His philological note at n. 33 is vitiated, however, by a

984

liber 2 caput 20

failure to take the evidence of S into account. His solution, based on Q, that the text read συναθροιζόντων δὲ ⟨ἢ⟩ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ νέφος πεπυρωμένον is not persuasive because it is most likely that P has coalesced two separate doxai. We follow him in translating πεπυρωμένον as ‘incandescent;’ see Mourelatos (2008) 148. §4 The Greek of this doxa is difficult. Differently from M–R 2.2.531, we now take the subject of the two infinitival clauses in the second part of the lemma to be the sun (as fire) and not the air. This is also the intepretation of Pendrick (2002) 147. The image is perhaps of a fire moving through a forest. The source of Antiphon’s view here may well have been Heraclitus, as argued by Pendrick ibid. 295, who points to A 2.29.6 where the name-labels are linked together. Five doxai are attributed to an Antiphon in the Placita, who certainly is Antiphon the Sophist: A 1.12.6 (on time); 2.20.4 (sun); 2.28.4 (moon); 2.29.6 (moon); 3.16.3 (sea). The last four on cosmological subjects are taken from Book 2 of Περὶ ἀληθείας; see further Pendrick (2002) 34–36. §5 There has been much debate about the reference ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς. Diels followed his teacher Usener in attributing it to Theophrastus’ Φυσικῶν δόξαι (as they called this work) and so placed it as fr. 16 in his collection of fragments with that title at DG 492. We firmly believe, however, that this work was called Φυσικαὶ δόξαι. On the title see M–R 2.1.160, with further references to the scholarly discussion, and also our discussion above in the General Introduction, section 5.2. Since there is no reason to question the accuracy of the reference, it most likely refers to a cosmological discussion in his Physics, as argued by Steinmetz (1964) 336 (but as we saw above, he errs in arguing that Theophrastus is presenting his own doctrine in this fragment). §6 The theory that the heavenly bodies are nourished by exhalations from the earth, and in particular its oceans, has already been attributed to Heraclitus and the Stoics at 2.17.4 (and in a different version for the entire cosmos to Philolaus at 2.5.3). The proponents of the view are regarded as ‘ridiculous’ by Aristotle at Mete. 2.2 353b33–34, but this did not stop the Stoics from turning his arguments on their head and using the theory as a critical component in their doctrine of the cosmic conflagration. For Zeno it is implicit in his argument preserved by Alexander of Lycopolis (not in SVF). It is specifically referred to by Cleanthes, as quoted in Cic. ND 2.40 and ascribed to the Stoics in general at ND 2.118. See the texts below and the discussion at Mansfeld (1978) 147–151, Hahm (1977) 151 (on Cleanthes). §7 On the formulation of the Platonic doxa see the note on ch. 2.13.11. §8 Amusingly the word μύδρον (clump) has become a name-label in the Arabic translation. §12 The doxa on Philolaus is difficult, both with regard to the text and its interpretation. There is a valuable treatment of the doxa in Huffman (1993)

liber 2 caput 20

985

266–270, but he does not address the differences between P and S in any detail and favours the alternative version in Ach for his interpretation. The lemma in its fullest form is found in P and consists of three parts: (a) a statement of the sun’s basic nature, i.e. ὑαλοειδής (glass-like, i.e. crystalline), followed by a description of its workings by means of two present participles; (b) a consecutive clause showing how the two elements of its operation resemble the sun, leading on to a third element that results from the first two; (c) a final brief summary indicating that what we call the sun is actually the third element. In S and Ach only the first two parts are found. In S there is almost no divergence from P in part (a), with only the mention of warmth (ἀλέα) added (the formulation in Ach is quite different). S’s formulation of (b) differs markedly from P and is also much clearer, because it immediately mentions the two ‘suns’. The formula introducing the third ‘sun’, however, is less clear (εἰ μή τις καὶ τρίτον λέξει) than in P. Ach also has a consecutive clause and states the complex doctrine even more clearly by immediately stating that the sun is ‘triple’ (τρισσόν). The text preserved in G and Q also suggest that the final clause in (b) began with a reference to the number of suns (they both mention three straight away). Neither S nor Ach have the brief final part (c), but its presence in A is confirmed by T. It may be concluded that all three reports show striking similarities and clearly derive from the same tradition. We adopt S’s text because of its greater clarity. We thus now agree with Huffman and DK (against our text in M– R 2.2.530 where we preferred P’s version), although they give no reasons for their preference. §13 Remarkably Q preserves the reading Ὄλυμπον, which has degenerated into ἥλιον in the other witnesses. As Daiber ad loc. notes, this must be the right reading because it corresponds to an authentic fragment (Pyth.Or. 400B = 31B44 DK) preserved by Plutarch (note also that ἀνταύγεια in A recalls the verb ἀνταυγεῖ in that fragment). Mansfeld was right in emending the text in his Reclam edition (1983–1986, 2.100), followed by Primavesi in the revised version (2011, 528) and now taken over by Laks–Most (Empedocles D156 = 2016, 5.476). The theory of the two suns, which is well-attested—in addition to the passage in Plutarch cited above, see also ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (texts below E(a)§13, (b)§13)—has challenged the ingenuity of the interpreters; see, for example, Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.193; Burkert (1972) 343. For a much more critical approach see, for example, Wright (1981) 201–202, who regards it as ‘absurd’ and dismisses it on the grounds inter alia that ‘confusions have often crept into the doxography by the time of Aetius and the Stromateis’. We note, finally, that Empedocles is prominent in A’s chapter which explains how reflections in mirrors occur; see A 4.14.1 and our Commentary ad loc., and also 3.5.1–6 on the rainbow (no name-label).

986

liber 2 caput 20

e Other Evidence Ach’s chapter 19 Περὶ ἡλίου has a substantial doxography on the substance of the sun. The term οὐσία is not included in the title, but it is placed prominently at the beginning when the author turns to the subject after some preliminary comments on Aratus and previous writers. The seven doxai reveal significant parallels to A. Plato is brought to the forefront in the first lemma. The next doxa on Xenophanes remarkably appears to combine in a very compact form both doxai in A, first parallel to §5, then parallel to §2. The doxa on Anaxagoras leaves out the adjective διάπυρος found in A and most parallels. The next two on Philolaus and Epicurus clearly derive from the same tradition as A, but are formulated quite differently, with only a limited resemblance in terminology. The last two showing similarities to the doxa of Anaximander in A, but again without precise verbal correspondences. There is also, in the earlier chapter on the difference between natural philosophy (φυσιολογία) and astronomical science (μαθηματική), a reference to the question of the sun’s φύσις which refers to a selection of three views. As noted above when discussing the rationale of A’s chapter in section D(c), these form a limited diaeresis of key views. A shorter version of the same doxography is found in another very brief introductory manual to the Aratea. On this text see further M–R 1.306. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Her. 247 see on ch. 2.11. Galen Inst.Log. 2.1 ⟨τῶν δὲ προτάσεων⟩ ἔνιαι μὲν ὑπὲρ ἁπλῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀποφαίνονται, … , ἔνιαι δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς ποιότητος ‘ὁ ἥλιος ⟨φύσει θερμός ἐστιν· ὁ ἥλιος⟩ οὐκ ἔστι φύσει θερμός’, ἔνιαι δὲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ⟨πρός⟩ τι ‘μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης· ⟨οὐ μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης᾽⟩ … Ambrose of Milan Exam. 2.3.14, tantum autem inest illis impugnandae veritatis studium, ut solem ipsum negent calidae naturae esse; eo quod albus sit, non rubicundus, aut rutilus in speciem ignis. et ideo aiunt quod nec ignitus natura sit, et si quid habet caloris, ferunt ex nimio motu conversionis accidere. Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25.6–7, p. 1.214.4–11 Εὐριπίδης (fr. 772 Kannicht) πῦρ εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον—Ὅμηρος μὴ εἶναι πῦρ τὸν ἥλιον, ἀλλὰ φῶς καθαρώτατον … Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana. 5.596 De calore solis, cf. 5.621 Democriti de sole. Scholia Platonica Resp. 600a1–10 Greene (on Thales) καὶ περὶ ἡλίου μεγέθους καὶ φύσεως. §1 Anaximander: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.1 (on Anaximander, 12A1 DK) ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον … καὶ καθαρώτατον πῦρ. §2 Xenophanes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach, on Xenophanes 21A32 DK) τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιόν φησι καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐκ τῶν νεφῶν γίγνεσθαι. §3 Anaximenes Parmenides: Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.4 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) see on ch. 2.13.9. differently ps.Plutarch Strom. 3 (fr. 179 Sandbach) on

liber 2 caput 20 Anaximenes (13A6 DK) ἀποφαίνεται γοῦν τὸν ἥλιον γῆν, διὰ δὲ τὴν ὀξεῖαν κίνησιν καὶ μάλ᾽ ἱκανῶς θερμότητα κίνησιν λαβεῖν. §5 Xenophanes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach, on Xenophanes, 21A32 DK) φησὶ δὲ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ μικρῶν καὶ πλειόνων πυριδίων ἀθροίζεσθαι. Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.3 (21A33 DK) τὸν δὲ ἥλιον ἐκ μικρῶν πυριδίων ἀθροιζομένων γίνεσθαι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. §6 Heraclitus Hecataeus Cleanthes: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.10 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) λαμπροτάτην δὲ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου φλόγα καὶ θερμοτάτην (see further on 2.13.8). Arius Didymus fr. 33 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.5 Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.652) τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι τὸ ἀθροισθὲν ἔξαμμα νοερὸν ἐκ τοῦ τῆς θαλάσσης ἀναθυμιάματος, σφαιροειδῆ δὲ εἶναι τῷ σχήματι. cf. fr. 21 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.10.16c (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.413) ὁ γὰρ ἥλιος πῦρ ἐστιν εἱλικρινές. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.145 (on Stoics, SVF 2.650) τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης θαλάττης νοερὸν ὄντα ἄναμμα. cf. 7.144 εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον εἰλικρινὲς πῦρ, καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ Περὶ μετεώρων (F 17 E.-K., 312 Theiler), continuation at ch. 2.21 section E(b) General texts, and see on A 2.22.3. Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. Ἣλιος p. 241.42 Sturz (on Zeno, SVF 1.121) ἔστι γὰρ κατὰ Ζήνωνα τὸν Στωϊκὸν ἄναμμαν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ θαλάσσης. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam p. 121.12–13 Uhlig (Schol. Vaticana) ὥσπερ οἱ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.656) ὁριζόμενοι τὸν ἥλιον λέγουσιν ὅτι ἥλιός ἐστιν ἄναμμα νοερὸν θαλασσίων ὑδάτων. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.4.3 φέρε οὖν προβεβλήσθω ὁ ἥλιος τοὔνομα. φασὶν οὖν οἱ Στωικοὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλαττίων ὑδάτων. Anonymus Londiniensis col. xxx.19–22 Manetti (on the sun) οὗτος [γὰρ τῶι ἄναμ-] | μα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάσ[σης εἶναι ἀπὸ] | τοῦ νοστίμου τοῦ κατὰ τὴν θ[άλασσαν] | τρέ[φ]εται. Porphyry Antr. 11 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄναμμα μὲν νοερὸν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ θαλάσσης. §7 Plato: See on ch. 2.13.11. §8 Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.8 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) οὗτος ἔλεγε τὸν ἥλιον μύδρον εἶναι διάπυρον. cf. 2.12 (59A1 DK) Σωτίων μὲν γάρ φησιν ἐν τῆι Διαδοχῆι τῶν φιλοσόφων ὑπὸ Κλέωνος αὐτὸν ἀσεβείας κριθῆναι, διότι τὸν ἥλιον μύδρον ἔλεγε διάπυρον. Harpocration Lexicon Α 119 s.v. Ἀναξαγόρας, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν ἥλιον μύδρον εἰπὼν διάπυρον. cf. Scholia in Pindarum Ol. 1 91a.26–28 (59A20a DK) περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου οἱ φυσικοί φασιν ὡς λίθος καλεῖται ὁ ἥλιος· καὶ Ἀναξαγόρου δὲ γενόμενον τὸν Εὐριπίδην μαθητὴν πέτρον εἰρηκέναι τὸν ἥλιον … Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.6 (59A42 DK) ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα λίθους εἶναι ἐμπύρους. Favorinus of Arles fr. 44 Mensching at D.L. 9.34 Φαβωρῖνος δέ φησιν ἐν Παντοδαπῇ ἱστορίᾳ λέγειν Δημόκριτον (68A1 DK) περὶ Ἀναξαγόρου (59A5 DK) ὡς οὐκ εἴησαν αὐτοῦ αἱ δόξαι αἵ τε περὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης, ἀλλὰ ἀρχαῖαι, τὸν δ᾽ ὑφῃρῆσθαι. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 47 cited ch. 2.13 section E(b) General texts. Josephus Ap. 2.265 Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ Κλαζομένιος ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι νομιζόντων Ἀθηναίων τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι θεὸν ὅδ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔφη μύδρον εἶναι διάπυρον … Lucian Icar. 20, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανὰ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἃ περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρήκασι τοῦ ἡλίου, λίθον αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ μύδρον διάπυρον. Origen CC 5.11, p. 328.14–16 Marcovich καὶ οὐκ ἀτιμάζοντές γε τὰ τηλικαῦτα

987

988

liber 2 caput 20

τοῦ θεοῦ δημιουργήματα οὐδ᾽ Ἀναξαγορείως μύδρον διάπυρον λέγοντες εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ ἀστέρας τοιαῦτά φαμεν περὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἀστέρων. Augustine C.D. 18.41.33–34 Dombart–Kalb unde miror cur Anaxagoras reus factus sit, quia solem dixit esse lapidem ardentem negans utique deum. ps.Plutarch Strom. 7 (fr. 179 Sandbach, on Democritus, 68A39 DK) ἡλίου δὲ καὶ σελήνης γένεσίν φησι· κατ᾽ ἰδίαν φέρεσθαι ταῦτα μηδέπω τὸ παράπαν ἔχοντα θερμὴν φύσιν μηδὲ μὴν καθόλου λαμπρότητα, τοὐναντίον δ᾽ ἐξωμοιωμένην τῇ περὶ τὴν γῆν φύσει· γεγονέναι γὰρ ἑκάτερον τούτων πρότερον ἔτι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ὑποβολήν τινα κόσμου, ὕστερον δέ, μεγεθοποιουμένου τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον κύκλου, ἐναποληφθῆναι ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ πῦρ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.33 (doxography on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) καὶ πάντα μὲν τὰ ἄστρα πυροῦσθαι διὰ τὸ τάχος τῆς φορᾶς, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀστέρων ἐκπυροῦσθαι. differently 9.44 (doxography on Democritus, 68A1 DK) τόν τε ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοιούτων λείων καὶ περιφερῶν ὄγκων συγκεκρίσθαι. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 498b Wendel Ἀναξαγόρας (59A72 DK) δὲ μύδρον εἶναι τὸν ἥλιόν φησιν, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι. διὸ καὶ Εὐριπίδης γνώριμος αὐτῷ γεγονώς φησι (Or. 983) χρυσέαν βῶλον τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι. Olympiodorus in Mete. 17.19 on Anaxagoras (DK59A19) cited on ch. 2.13.3. §9 Thales: Scholia Platonica Resp. 600a p. 272 Greene Θαλῆς (11A3 DK) … καὶ μικρὰν ἄρκτον αὐτὸς ἔγνω καὶ τὰς τροπὰς πρῶτος Ἑλλήνων, καὶ περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ φύσεως. §11 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 10 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.4 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτης οὐσίας τὸν ἥλιον. πυροῦσθαι δὲ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ σφόδρα γίνεσθαι θερμὸν ἀνίσχοντός τε τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ πλησιάζοντος ἡμῖν οὐ διὰ τὸ πύρινον εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς κινήσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα παράτριψιν, ὑποβεβλημένον αὐτοῦ τῇ φορᾷ καὶ περικείμενον· οὔτε δὲ τὸν ἥλιον οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων ὁτιοῦν πῦρ εἶναι. ps.Plutarch Hom. 105 Kindstrand καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὁ Ζεὺς αὐτὸν παρακαλεῖ ‘Ἡέλι᾽, ἦ τοι μὲν σὺ μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισι φάεινε | καὶ θνητοῖσι βροτοῖσιν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρουραν’ (Od. 12.385–386) ἐξ ὧν δηλοῖ ὅτι οὐ πῦρ ἐστιν ὁ ἥλιος ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρα τις κρείσσων οὐσία· ὅπερ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπέλαβεν, εἴ γε τὸ μὲν πῦρ ἐστιν ἀνωφερὲς καὶ ἄψυχον καὶ εὐδιάλειπτον καὶ φθαρτόν, ὁ δ᾽ ἥλιος κυκλοφορητικὸς καὶ ἔμψυχος καὶ ἀίδιος καὶ ἄφθαρτος. §13 Empedocles: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.77 (31A1 DK) καὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιόν φησι πυρὸς ἄθροισμα μέγα. ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (fr. 179 Sandbach: on Empedocles, 31A30 DK) ὁ δ᾽ ἥλιος τὴν φύσιν οὐκ ἔστι πῦρ ἀλλὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἀντανάκλασις ὁμοία τῇ ἀφ᾽ ὕδατος γιγνομένῃ. §15 Heraclitus: ps.Plutarch Strom. 11 (fr. 179 Sandbach) on Metrodorus of Chios (70A4) χρόνῳ δὲ πυγνυσθαι τῷ ξηρῷ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ λαμπροῦ ὕδατος ἀστέρας, νύκτα τε καὶ ἡμέραν ἐκ τῆς σβέσεως καὶ ἐξάψεως, καὶ καθόλου τὰς ἐκλείψεις ἀποτελεῖν. Scholia Platonica on Resp. 498a Greene (fr. 58b3 Marcovich) Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος, φυσικὸς ὤν, ἔλεγεν ὅτι ὁ ἥλιος ἐν τῇ δυτικῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐλθὼν καὶ καταδὺς ἐν αὐτῇ σβέννυται, εἶτα διελθὼν τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν καὶ εἰς ἀνατολὴν φθάσας ἐξάπτει πάλιν, καὶ τοῦτο αἰεὶ γίγνεται.

liber 2 caput 20

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Apol. 26d–e (Socrates on Anaxagoras) ὦ θαυμάσιε Μέλητε, ἵνα τί ταῦτα λέγεις; οὐδὲ ἥλιον οὐδὲ σελήνην ἄρα νομίζω θεοὺς εἶναι, ὥσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι; μὰ Δί᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐπεὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον λίθον φησὶν εἶναι, τὴν δὲ σελήνην γῆν. Ἀναξαγόρου οἴει κατηγορεῖν, ὦ φίλε Μέλητε; καὶ οὕτω καταφρονεῖς τῶνδε καὶ οἴει αὐτοὺς ἀπείρους γραμμάτων εἶναι ὥστε οὐκ εἰδέναι ὅτι τὰ Ἀναξαγόρου βιβλία τοῦ Κλαζομενίου γέμει τούτων τῶν λόγων; καὶ δὴ καὶ οἱ νέοι ταῦτα παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ μανθάνουσιν, ἃ ἔξεστιν ἐνίοτε εἰ πάνυ πολλοῦ δραχμῆς ἐκ τῆς ὀρχήστρας πριαμένοις Σωκράτους καταγελᾶν, ἐὰν προσποιῆται ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι, ἄλλως τε καὶ οὕτως ἄτοπα ὄντα; Phd. 111c (on the blessed souls) καὶ τόν γε ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ ἄστρα ὁρᾶσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν οἷα τυγχάνει ὄντα. Aristotle Phys. 2.1 193b26– 30 εἰ γὰρ τοῦ φυσικοῦ τὸ τί ἐστιν ἥλιος ἢ σελήνη εἰδέναι, τῶν δὲ συμβεβηκότων καθ᾽ αὑτὰ μηδέν, ἄτοπον, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι φαίνονται λέγοντες οἱ περὶ φύσεως καὶ περὶ σχήματος σελήνης καὶ ἡλίου. Cael. 2.7 289a11 περὶ δὲ τῶν καλουμένων ἄστρων ἑπόμενον ἄν εἴη λέγειν, ἐκ τίνων τε συνεστᾶσι … Cael. 2.12 293a11–14 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν τὴν ἐγκύκλιον φερομένων κίνησιν ἄστρων εἴρηται ποῖ’ ἄττα κατά τε τὴν οὐσίαν ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸ σχῆμα, περί τε τῆς φορᾶς καὶ τῆς τάξεως αὐτῶν. Stoics at D.L. 7.144 (SVF 2.650) εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον εἰλικρινὲς πῦρ, καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ Περὶ μετεώρων (F 17 E.-K., F312 Theiler)· … πῦρ μὲν οὖν εἶναι, ὅτι τὰ πυρὸς πάντα ποιεῖ. Chapter heading: Aristotle see texts cited under General texts. Posidonius see on ch. 2.11. Hermogenes(?) Prog. 11, p. 25.8 Rabe εἰ ὁ ἥλιος πῦρ (example of a θέσις). Isidore of Seville Nat. 15 de natura solis. Ioannes Tzetzes in Nubes 102 see on ch. 2.13. §6 Heraclitus Hecataeus Cleanthes: Aristotle Mete. 2.2 354b33–345a18 διὸ καὶ γελοῖοι πάντες ὅσοι τῶν πρότερον ὑπέλαβον τὸν ἥλιον τρέφεσθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ. καὶ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔνιοί γέ φασιν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς τροπὰς αὐτόν· οὐ γὰρ αἰεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς δύνασθαι τόπους παρασκευάζειν αὐτῷ τὴν τροφήν· ἀναγκαῖον δ᾽ εἶναι τοῦτο συμβαίνειν περὶ αὐτὸν ἢ φθείρεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ τὸ φανερὸν πῦρ, ἕως ἂν ἔχῃ τροφήν, μέχρι τούτου ζῆν, τὸ δ᾽ ὑγρὸν τῷ πυρὶ τροφὴν εἶναι μόνον,—ὥσπερ ἀφικνούμενον μέχρι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον τὸ ἀναγόμενον τοῦ ὑγροῦ, ἢ τὴν ἄνοδον τοιαύτην οὖσαν οἵανπερ τῇ γιγνομένῃ φλογί, δι᾽ ἧς τὸ εἰκὸς λαβόντες οὕτω καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ὑπέλαβον. τὸ δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅμοιον· ἡ μὲν γὰρ φλὸξ διὰ συνεχοῦς ὑγροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ μεταβαλλόντων γίγνεται καὶ οὐ τρέφεται (οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ οὖσα διαμένει οὐδένα χρόνον ὡς εἰπεῖν), περὶ δὲ τὸν ἥλιον ἀδύνατον τοῦτο συμβαίνειν, ἐπεὶ τρεφομένου γε τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοί φασιν, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἥλιος οὐ μόνον καθάπερ Ἡράκλειτός φησιν, νέος ἐφ᾽ ἡμέρῃ ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ νέος συνεχῶς. ἔτι δ᾽ ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀναγωγὴ τοῦ ὑγροῦ ὁμοία τοῖς θερμαινομένοις ἐστὶν ὕδασιν ὑπὸ πυρός· εἰ οὖν μηδὲ τὸ ὑποκαόμενον τρέφεται πῦρ, οὐδὲ τὸν ἥλιον εἰκὸς ἦν ὑπολαβεῖν, οὐδ᾽ εἰ πᾶν θερμαίνων ἐξατμίσειεν τὸ ὕδωρ (continuation quoted on A 2.17.4–6) Cicero ND 2.40 (citing Cleanthes, SVF 2.504) ‘ergo’ inquit ‘cum sol igneus sit, Oceanique alatur umoribus’ (quia nullus ignis sine pastu aliquo posset permanere), ‘necesse est aut ei similis sit igni quem adhibemus ad usum atque victum, aut ei qui corporibus animantium continetur. atqui hic noster ignis, quem usus vitae requirit,

989

990

liber 2 caput 20

confector est et consumptor omnium idemque quocumque invasit cuncta disturbat ac dissipat; contra ille corporeus vitalis et salutaris omnia conservat alit auget sustinet sensuque adficit’. negat ergo esse dubium horum ignium sol utri similis sit, cum is quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant et in suo quaeque genere pubescant. quare cum solis ignis similis eorum ignium sit qui sunt in corporibus animantium, solem quoque animantem esse oportet, et quidem reliqua astra quae oriantur in ardore caelesti qui aether vel caelum nominatur. See further texts cited on A 2.17.4. Αlexander of Lycopolis c.Manich. 19.18–22 Brinkmann καλῶς γὰρ δὴ πρὸς τὸν Ζήνωνος (not in SVF) τοῦ Κιτιέως εἴρηται λόγον, ὃς ‘τὸ πᾶν ἐκπυρωθήσεται’ λέγων ‘πᾶν τὸ καῖον ἔχον καύσῃ ὅλον καύσει, καὶ ὁ ἥλιος πῦρ ἐστιν καὶ ὃ ἔχει οὐ καύσει;’ ἐξ οὗ συνήγετο, ὡς ᾤετο, τὸ πᾶν ἐκπυρωθήσεσθαι. §7 Plato: Plato Tim. 40a see on ch. 2.13.12. ps.Plato Def. 411a ἥλιος πῦρ οὐράνιον. §8 Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus: Xenophon Mem. 4.7.7 (Socrates on Anaxagoras, 59A73 DK) ἐκεῖνος γὰρ λέγων μὲν τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι πῦρ τε καὶ ἥλιον ἠγνόει, … φάσκων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον λίθον διάπυρον εἶναι καὶ τοῦτο ἠγνόει … §11 Aristotle: see on ch. 2.13.13. §13 Empedocles: Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.48.3 ἄμεινον δὲ ἐκδέχεσθαι τὸν αἰθέρα πάντα συνέχοντα καὶ σφίγγοντα, καθὰ καὶ ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φησιν (31B38 DK, text Primavesi)· εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε τοι λέξω πρῶθ᾽ ἀρχήν Ἠελίοιο, / ἐξ ἧς δὴ⟨λ᾽⟩ ἐγένοντο τὰ νῦν ἐσορῶμεν πάντα, / γαῖά τε καὶ πόντος πολυκύμων ἠδ᾽ ὑγρὸς ἀὴρ | ἠδ᾽ αἰθὴρ Τιτὴν σφίγγων πέρι κύκλον ἅπαντα. Plutarch Pyth.Or. 400B ὑμεῖς δὲ τοῦ μὲν Ἐμπεδοκλέους (31B44 DK) καταγελᾶτε φάσκοντος τὸν ἥλιον περὶ γῆν ἀνακλάσει φωτὸς οὐρανίου γενόμενον αὖθις ‘ἀνταυγεῖν πρὸς ὄλυμπον ἀταρβήτοισι προσώποις’ … §14 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep. Pyth. at D.L. 10.90 see on A 2.13.15. Lucretius DRN 5.597–613 nam licet hinc mundi patefactum totius unum / largifluum fontem scatere atque erumpere lumen, / ex omni mundo quia sic elementa vaporis / undique convenient et sic coniectus eorum / confluit, ex uno capite hic ut profluat ardor. /… est etiam quoque uti non magno solis ab igni / aera percipiat calidis fervoribus ardor / … forsitan et rosea sol alta lampade lucens / possideat multum caecis fervoribus ignem / circum se … Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 13 III 13–IV 10 Smith ἐνδέχεται τοιγαροῦν τὸν ἥλιον ἀνθρακώδη τινὰ κύκλον [εἶναι καὶ] λεπτὸν ἄκρως, [ὑπό τε τῶν] πνευμάτων αἰω[ρούμενων] πηγῆς τε ἐπέχ[οντα τρό]πον, τοῦ μὲν ἀ[πορέοντος] ἐξ αὐτοῦ πυρὸ[ς, τοῦ δὲ εἰσ]ρέοντος ἐκ τοῦ [περιέχον]τος κατὰ μεικρ[ομερεῖς] συνκρίσεις διὰ [τὴν τούτου] πολυμιγ[είαν οὕτω δ᾽ ἐ]παρκεῖν αὐ[τομάτως πέφυ]κε τῷ κόσμῳ̣ [ἢ τοῦ περι]χοντος εὐε[μπρήστου] τυνχαν[οντος] (including some conjectures by Bailey 3.1414) §15 Heraclitus: cf. Heraclitus fr. 22B30 cited by Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.104.1–2 (on the eternity of the cosmos, cf. A 2.4.1) σαφέστατα ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (fr. 22B30 DK) ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δόξης, τὸν μέν τινα κόσμον ἀίδιον εἶναι δοκιμάσας, τὸν δέ τινα φθειρόμενον, τὸν κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν εἰδὼς οὐχ ἕτερον ὄντα ἐκείνου πως ἔχοντος. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως

liber 2 caput 20 ποιὸν κόσμον ᾔδει, φανερὸν ποιεῖ λέγων οὕτως· ‘κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθπώπων ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.’ same text cited at Plutarch An.Procr. 1014A. §16 Parmenides: see on A 2.11.1, 3.1.6 (fr. 11 28B11 DK).

991

Liber 2 Caput 21 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 890C; pp. 351a3–352a3 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.24, p. 401.11–17 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 63; p. 626.13–17 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 156–157 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 127, p. 67 (titulus solus)—cf. PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.46, p. 50.1 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25, p. 207.13 (tit.) + 1.25.1c, p. 208.8–11 + 1.25.1g, p. 209.9–10 + 1.25.3e, p. 211.1 + 1.25.3f, p. 211.6–7; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b10 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 1.97 p. 27.25–28.4; 4.22, p. 106.1, 4–7 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 20, p. 29.7–9 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.19–20 Martin

Titulus καʹ. Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου (P,S,T) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἴσον εἶναι τῇ γῇ, τὸν δὲ κύκλον, ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὴν ἐκπνοὴν ἔχει καὶ ὑφ᾽ οὗ φέρεται, ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ἴσον τῇ γῇ τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν. (S1,Tb2) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας πολλαπλασίονα Πελοποννήσου. (P2,Ta2b3) §4 Ἡράκλειτος εὖρος ποδὸς ἀνθρωπείου. (P3,S2,Ta3b4) §5 Ἐπίκουρος τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος φαίνεται, ἢ μικρῷ τινι μείζω ἢ ἐλάττω. (P4,S4) §1 Anaximander 12A21 DK; §2 Empedocles 31A56 DK; §3 Anaxagoras 59A72 DK; §4 Heraclitus 22B3 DK; §5 Epicurus fr. 345 Usener titulus S vid. app. ad c. 2.20 §1 [2] Ἀναξίμανδρος PBEGQST (4.22) : Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης T (1.97) ‖ ἴσον εἶναι τῇ γῇ PEGS : ἴσον τῇ γῇ εἶναι PB ‖ κύκλον] πόλον PG ‖ [2–3] ἀφ᾽ οὗ … καὶ deest in PQ, καὶ … φέρεται in PG ‖ [3] ἐκπνοὴν PBGS : πνοὴν PE ‖ ὑφ᾽ οὗ PES Diels Laks–Most : ἐφ᾽ οὗ PBQ ‖ φέρεται PBE : περιφέρεται S ‖ ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα PBE1QT(bis) : τοῦ προειρημένου μεγέθους S, i.e. ut in capite priori, sed illic ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα : ὀκτω και εἰκοσαπλασίω PE2 : ἑπτάκις καὶ εἰκοσαπλασίονα PG §2 non hab. P ‖ [5] τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν S : om. T §3 non hab. S ‖ [6] πολλαπλασίονα PBEQG1S : πολυπλάσιον PG2 : μείζονα T(bis) ‖ Πελοποννήσου PBET(bis): γῆς PG, cf. von jener (Grösse der Erde) Q §4 non hab. PG ‖ [7] Ἡράκλειτος PBEST(bis) : al. Q Epikuros und Herakleitos §5 [8] post nomen hab. PBQ πάλιν (om. Q) φησὶν ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα ἢ, secl. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ τηλικοῦτον] τοιοῦτον PG ‖ ἡλίκος PBS : ἡλίκος καὶ ὁποῖος PE : οἷος PG ‖ ἢ] om. PB ‖ μικρῷ τινι S : μικρῷ τι PE : μικρῷ PB, ⟨τινι⟩ add. Diels Mau Lachenaud : μικρῷ PG ‖ μείζω ἢ ἐλάττω corr. edd. : μείζων ἢ ἐλάττων PBE1S, μείζον ἢ ἐλάττον PE2, μείζον᾽ ἢ ἐλάττω PG

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 1.97, 4.22 1.97.0 (cf. tit. c. 2.20) καὶ αὖ πάλιν περὶ ἡλίου λογομαχία παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις πολλή.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_062

5

liber 2 caput 21 1.97.1 (~ §1) Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς τοῦτον ἔφασαν εἶναι, 1.97.2 (~ §3) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ Πελοποννήσου μείζονα, 1.97.3 (~ §4) Ἡράκλειτος δὲ ὁ Ἐφέσιος ποδιαῖον. 4.22 (tit.) καὶ μεγέθους δὲ πέρι καὶ σχήματος πολλὴ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς διαμάχη … (cf. c. 2.22) 4.22.4 (~ §1) καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίω τῆς γῆς τοῦτον ἔφησεν εἶναι, 4.22.5 (~ §2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ἶσον τῇ γῇ, 4.22.6 (~ §3) ὁ δὲ Ἀναξαγόρας Πελοποννήσου μείζονα 4.22.7 (~ §4), Ἡράκλειτος δὲ ποδιαῖον. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 63 (~ tit.) Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου (text Diels) 63.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἴσον εἶναι τῇ γῇ, τὸν δὲ πόλον ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὴν ἐκπνοὴν ἔχει ἑπτάκις καὶ εἰκοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς. 63.2 (~ P2) Ἀναξαγόρας πολυπλάσιον τῆς γῆς. 63.4 (~ P4) Ἐπίκουρος τοιοῦτον, οἷος φαίνεται, ἢ μικρῷ μείζον᾽ ἢ ἐλάττω. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 127 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.46 Περὶ μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος ἡλίου (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 20, p. 29.7 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου (~ tit.) p. 29.8–9 μέγεθος ἡλίου μεῖζον γῆς φασιν. καὶ οἳ μὲν ποδιαῖον (§4), οἳ δὲ ὀκταπλασίονα, οἳ δὲ ἐννεακαιδεκαπλασίονα. Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.19–20 Martin κυκλοτερῆ ὄντα ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον εἶναι τῆς γῆς. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.26 Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης §1 A 2.26.1 (de luna) οἱ Στωικοὶ μείζονα τῆς γῆς ἀποφαίνονται ὡς καὶ τὸν ἥλιον. §2 cf. A 2.20.13 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, ἀεὶ κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον· τὸν δὲ φαινόμενον ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ … §5 A 1.proœm. §3 ζητεῖται … ὁ ἥλιος, … ⟨εἴ τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος⟩ ὁρᾶται.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

993

994

liber 2 caput 21

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The four witnesses to the tradition of P all record four doxai, with the exception of G, who deletes the view of Heraclitus that comes third in the others. A significant variant is found in the final Epicurean doxa. PB and Q record a longer version consisting of two views joined by ἤ. E and G have shortened versions containing only the second alternative. In addition Q is alone in placing the name-label Epicurus in front of that of Heraclitus in the third doxa. (2) S includes A’s heading in the composite title for his chapter on the sun (1.25). When the coalesced doxai are disentangled, it emerges that he too records four doxai, those of Anaximander, Heraclitus, Empedocles (not in P) and Epicurus (in the shorter version). For the second of these doxai, the doxa on size is subsumed under the double name-label Heraclitus and Hecataeus, which is obviously taken over from A 2.20.6. Interestingly the doxa on size is placed last in the cluster, after doxai from ch. 22 and 24. Similarly in his collection of Empedoclean doxai too S does not preserve A’s order (chs. 20, 23, 21 and 24). The doxa of Anaxagoras is omitted at S 1.25.3a, no doubt because of an oversight. (3) Unusually (but cf. ch. 2.4) T utilizes this chapter twice. In both cases he explicitly mentions that its subject is the cause of much contention (1.97 λογομαχία, διαφωνία, 4.22 διαμαχή). In the former three doxai are cited, with the name-label of Anaximander in the first doxa expanded with that of Anaximenes. In the latter there are four doxai, with the Empedoclean doxa added to those in 1.97 (but the additional name-label Anaximenes is dropped). In both texts the doxai are considerably altered and in some cases compressed compared with P and S. It is noteworthy that T leaves the Epicurean doxa out of consideration in both texts. (4) On the close parallels in Achilles and the Aratea see below section B and D(e). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Many texts show that from the Hellenistic period onwards the subject of the sun’s size was a standard example of a θέσις or a quaestio infinita that could be discussed by rhetors and philosophers alike (Hermagoras in Cicero, Quintilian). Later, Galen, Alexander and Philoponus use it as an example in discussions of logical questions. An important text at Philo Somn. 1.53—no doubt from the same source as the texts discussed on chs. 2.11 and 2.13—shows that by the first cent. BCE the question had also become part of the doxographical tradition and was treated in a standard way involving

liber 2 caput 21

995

comparison with the earth. Interesting use of this tradition is made by Achilles and another Aratean text (see Testes secundi above). The evidence in these two texts differs from A in that numbers are used (8, 19 and 18 times the earth), and two of these numbers recur in texts in Cicero (Luc. 82, 18 times) and Macrobius (8 times); see the texts below section E(a) General texts. This will have been part of the doxographical tradition that A chose not to use (the differing numbers may relate to the inside and outside rings). It brings to mind the distinction put forward by Seneca in Ep. 88.27: the philosopher asserts that the sun is large, the astronomer how large it is. The numbers given in these texts may derive from earlier astronomical material, but they differ completely from the calculations found in the texts of the astronomers Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, Archimedes and Ptolemy (see for example the text of Archimedes with four different measurements in terms of a comparison with the diameter of the moon). The brief chapter is one of the most interesting in A’s compendium because there is such a large amount of comparative material. It allows us to see how the doxographical tradition relates to the philosophical tradition (not just physics, but also epistemology and even logic), and also to the scientific and rhetorical traditions. See the fine analysis of philosophical and astronomical aspects in Barnes (1989), but with very little on the doxographical tradition (mainly on p. 31). The epistemological problems raised by the Heraclitean and Epicurean view that its size equated to how it was perceived was a stock topic which occurs frequently in Cicero, but also in many other authors. For this material see Pease (1920–1923) on Cic. Div. 2.10–11; Pease (1958) on Cic. N.D. 2.92; and the treatment of Barnes (1989) with a focus on the text in PHerc. 1013. Heraclitus’ doxai on the sun have been extensively studied in the widest possible cultural and philosophical context in Schönbeck (1998), with an idiosyncratic edition of the present chapter and its various witnesses at 349–350. (2) Sources. The limited evidence indicates that the question of the sun’s size was discussed by philosophers in the Ionian tradition, beginning with Anaximander and continuing in the writings of Anaxagoras and Democritus. The earliest speculations will have been cosmological, comparison with the earth forming a very approximate standard of measurement. However, already in Heraclitus (fr. 22B3 DK) epistemological considerations may have entered the discussion: the sun is the size of a human foot, as it appears (this addition is attested in the words of Heraclitus himself at Pap. Derveni col. 4.6–7, see below section E(b)§4). Aristotle refers to the size of the sun as an astronomical question at Mete. 1.8 345b1 (note the comparison with the size of the earth), but the question is far removed from his interests in the De caelo. He does refer to the epistemological aspect three times in his psychological writings, each time alluding to the Heraclitean text with the signature term ποδιαῖος (texts

996

liber 2 caput 21

below in section E(b)§4). A similar emphasis is found in a text in the Epinomis of Philip of Opus. After Aristotle it remains a standard example of the difference between appearance and reality and recurs in the tropes of Aenesidemus as recorded in Diogenes Laertius. The Heraclitean doctrine is continued in Epicurus and it gives rise to a standard debate between Epicureans and Stoics which is treated at great length in Cleomedes. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is of the usual umbrella type (Περὶ x) and denotes a topic in the category of quantity. There are no variations in relation to its formulation. It is clear from S’s composite title that he read the same heading in A. T’s introductory sentence at 4.22 also contains a reference to the heading. D Analysis a Context As in the case of the stars in chs. 2.13–19, after discussing the sun’s nature (οὐσία), A turns to other questions relating to the sun. The first of these is its size. This was discussed for the cosmos as a whole in terms of whether it was limi