Aëtiana V: An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts, Part 4. English Translation, Bibliography, Indices 9789004428379

1,085 50 1MB

English Pages VI+259 [266] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Aëtiana V: An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts, Part 4. English Translation, Bibliography, Indices

Table of contents :
‎Aetius Placita English Translation
‎User’s Guide to the English Translation
‎Book 1 The Principles of Nature
‎Book 2 Cosmology
‎Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth
‎Book 4 Psychology
‎Book 5 Physiology
‎Appendix. List of Chapter Headings in the Translation of Qusṭā ibn Lūqā
‎Index of Primary and Secondary Witnesses
‎Index of Name-Labels and Other Names
‎Index of Fragment Collections and Extant Sources
‎Index of Ancient and Modern Names

Citation preview


Aëtiana V Part 4

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 153/4

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 4 English Translation Bibliography Indices

Edited by

Jaap Mansfeld David T. Runia


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


Part 2 Sigla and Abbreviations


User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary


Book 2 Cosmology: Text and Commentary


Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth: Text and Commentary

Part 3 Sigla and Abbreviations


User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary


Book 4 Psychology: Text and Commentary


Book 5 Physiology: Text and Commentary


Part 4 English Translation of the Placita 2059 User’s Guide to the English Translation 2061 Book 1 The Principles of Nature 2063


vi Book Book Book Book


2 3 4 5

Cosmology 2089 Meteorology and the Earth Psychology 2120 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

Aetius Placita English Translation

User’s Guide to the English Translation The aim of this user’s guide is to assist the reader who wishes to consult and make use of the English translation of the Placita that we have prepared. It essentially repeats what was said in section 6.6 of the General Introduction. As we explained in the General Introduction, section 6.1, it was not possible on practical grounds to place the translation beside the Greek text of the edition. We decided to place it in Volume Four, which has two advantages, (1) that it can be collected together, and (2) that it can be consulted while the text and its apparatuses are being studied. The translation aims to give an accurate picture of the original Greek. It thus tends towards the literal side, while trying to avoid veering towards language that is artificial or unidiomatic. It is important that users of the translation note the following conventions and practices: (1) Words and phrases that have to be supplied in the Greek, when translated, are placed in parentheses. (2) Name-labels are rendered in the usual Latinate forms of the names. For collective names, e.g. schools and groups, we aim at a uniform translation. A footnote will be added when this is not possible. Note the following translations of standard Greek phrases: οἱ ἀπό τινος the successors of X τις καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ X and his successors οἱ περί τινα X and his followers. For multiple name-labels we follow the Greek and preserve all cases of asundeta, i.e. not using commas and only translating conjunctions when present in the original. This of course is quite unnatural in English, but helpfully conveys the telegram style of the Placita. (3) Conjectural additions to the transmitted text, when translated, are placed in angle brackets (just like in the text itself). Braces are also taken over from the text, indicating that we suspect that the text is not authentic or uncertain. An obelus (†) indicates a crux in the text, three asterisks a lacuna. (4) Although we aim as far as possible to achieve consistent one for one renderings of Greek terms in English, this is not always possible because of the polyvalent meanings of certain words in both languages. Occasionally we add an asterisked footnote to explain a particular case. (5) On some occasions it is best to use a transliterated equivalent of the Greek term. In such cases an English rendering of the term is added in parentheses, unless this is not needed, as in the case of the term pneuma.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_157


user’s guide to the english translation

(6) Only on rare occasions are alternative renderings supplied. These are placed in square brackets. (7) Similarly, transliterated equivalents of Greek terms, indicated in parentheses, are usually only given for etymologies or plays on words. (8) Greek adjectives with the suffix –ειδής are usually translated by the phrase ‘like a’ or with the suffix ‘-like’, e.g. σφαιροειδής ‘like a ball’, πυροειδής ‘firelike’. (9) Passages which are only preserved in the Arabic translation of Qusṭā ibn Lūqā are printed in italics. These are confined to chs. 1.21.2α and 5.27 & 29. As announced in the General Introduction, section 6.7, the authors are committed to producing an editio minor of the new reconstructed text as soon as will be practically possible. Its main feature will be the Greek text and English translation on facing pages, allowing quick and convenient consultation.

Book 1 The Principles of Nature AËTIUS ON THE VIEWS (OF THE PHILOSOPHERS) BOOK 1 in which the following chapter headings (are found):

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

[Proem] What ‘nature’ is In what way a principle and elements differ On principles, what they are How the cosmos was constituted Whether the All is unique From where human beings obtained a conception of gods Who the deity (is) On demons and heroes On matter On (the) idea On causes On bodies On minimal bodies On shapes On colours On cutting of bodies On mixing and blending On void On place On space On time On the substance of time On movement On coming to be and passing away On necessity On the substance of necessity On fate On the substance of fate On chance On nature

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_158


book 1 the principles of nature

[Proem] §1 Since our objective is to teach [or: hand down] the physical theory [or: theory of physics, account of nature], we believe it to be necessary to divide up the discipline of philosophy directly at the beginning, so that we may know what philosophy is and where in the order of its parts the detailed account of physics comes. (P1) §2 Now the Stoics said that wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human matters, while philosophy is the practice of an appropriate technique. There is (they say) just one virtue that is appropriate and supreme, while (below this) there are three virtues that are most generic, namely physical, ethical and logical (virtue). For this reason philosophy too consists of three parts: physics, ethics and logic. Physics is when we do research on the cosmos and the things within the cosmos, while ethics is the part that is thoroughly occupied with human life, and logic is the part concerned with discourse (logos), which they also call dialectic. (P2) §3 Aristotle and Theophrastus and almost all the Peripatetics divided philosophy as follows: the perfect man [or: complete human being] should both theorise about the things that are and perform the acts that must be done. This can also be understood from these considerations as well: when research takes place on whether the sun is a living being or not a living being, whether it is ⟨fire, whether it is just as large⟩ as it is seen to be, the person who does this research is theorising, for what is theorised about is nothing more than what is. Similarly research is done on whether the cosmos is infinite and whether there is anything outside the cosmos, for all these subjects are theoretical. On the other hand research is done on how one should live one’s life and look after one’s children and how to rule and how to legislate. All these matters are researched with a view to conduct, and the person who does this is a man of action. (P3)


What ‘Nature’ Is (P)

§1 Since our proposal is to study what belongs to nature, I consider it necessary to make clear what in fact nature is. For it is absurd to attempt to speak on the subject of nature but not to know this very thing, the meaning of ‘nature’. (P1) §2 Now according to Aristotle nature is the principle (arche) of movement and rest for the object in which it exists primarily and not incidentally. For all things that are visible, which are not the result of chance or necessity, are not divine and do not have such a (sc. divine) cause, are called ‘natural’ and have their own particular nature. Examples are earth, fire, water, air, plants, living beings. In addition there are also these occurrences: rains, hailstorms, thun-

book 1 the principles of nature


derclaps, tornadoes, winds. These phenomena have a certain origin (arche), for each of them does not exist from everlasting, but comes to be from a certain origin (arche). They too, just like living beings and plants, have a beginning (arche) of generation. In these objects, therefore, nature is the principle (archê) ⟨and⟩ what is primary (proton). It is the principle (arche) of movement, and not only of movement, but also of rest, for all objects that have obtained a beginning (arche) of movement can also obtain an end. For this reason, therefore, nature is the principle (arche) of movement and of rest. (P2)


In What Way a Principle and Elements Differ (P,S)

§1 Aristotle and Plato and their followers believe that a principle and elements differ (from each other). (P1,S1) §2 Thales of Miletus regards a principle and elements as the same thing. But there is an enormous difference between the two. For we say that the elements are composite, but that the principles are neither composites nor products. For example, we apply the term elements to earth, water, air and fire. But we speak of principles for this reason, (namely) that there is nothing prior (to them) from which they originate, since not this would then be a principle, but that from which it had originated. In the case of earth and water there is something from which they come to be, namely matter which is without shape or form, and also form which we call ‘entelechy’ and ‘privation’. Thales is therefore mistaken when he says that water is (both) an element and a principle. (P2,S2)


On Principles, What They Are (P,cf.S)

§1 Thales the Milesian declared water to be (the) principle of the things that exist—this man appears to have commenced (the pursuit of) philosophy and from him the Ionic school of thought took its name, for there have been quite a number of Successions of philosophy; after practising philosophy in Egypt, he came to Miletus as a senior person—; he is the one who says that all things take their existence from water and all things are dissolved into water. He supposes this firstly from the fact that semen is the principle of all living beings and is moist. Hence it is likely that all things also have their principle from what is moist. Secondly (he supposes this) because it is by moisture that all the plants are nourished and bear fruit, while if they lack moisture they dry out. Thirdly * On the translation of multiple name-labels see the User’s guide to the translation.


book 1 the principles of nature

(he supposes this) because the fire of the sun itself and of the heavenly bodies is also nourished by the exhalations of the waters, and this applies to the cosmos too. For this reason Homer too assumes this view on (the subject of) water (when he writes) Ocean, who was (the) origin for all things. (P1,S2) §2 Anaximander, the son of Praxiades, the Milesian says that the unlimited is the principle of the things that exist. For from this all things come into being and (back) to this all things perish. For this reason unlimited worlds are begotten and again perish (back) to that from which they originate. He also states the reason why it is without limit, namely that the underlying (process of) generation will never fail. He goes astray, therefore, when he declares matter (to be the principle), but neglects the efficient cause. For the unlimited is nothing else than matter. But the matter cannot be in a state of being actualised, unless the efficient (cause) has been postulated. (P2,S3) §3 Anaximenes, the son of Eurystratus, the Milesian declared air to be (the) principle of the things that exist, for from this all things come to be and (back) to it they are dissolved again. ‘Just as’, he says, ‘our soul, which is air, holds us together and dominates us, so also pneuma and air contain the entire cosmos’. (Air and pneuma are used synonymously). But this man too goes astray when he appears to compose the living beings out of simple and uniform air and pneuma, for it is impossible for matter to subsist as the single principle of the things that exist. Rather it is necessary also to postulate the efficient cause. For example, silver is not sufficient for the generation of the drinking cup, unless there is also the efficient (cause), namely the silversmith. And similarly in the case of bronze and wood and other (kinds of) matter. (P3,S6) §4 Anaxagoras, the son of Hegesibulus, from Clazomenae declared the homoiomereiai (‘things with like parts’, ‘uniform parts’) to be principles of the things that exist. For it seemed to him most puzzling how anything could come to be from the non-existent and perish (back) to the non-existent. For instance, we consume simple and uniform food such as the bread of Demeter, and when we drink water. From this food the nourishment occurs of hair, veins, arteries, flesh, tendons, bones and the remaining parts (of the body). Since this (nourishment) occurs, it must be agreed that all the things (that result) are (already) present in the food we consume; and from the things that are present all things will grow and in that food there are particles that generate blood and tendons and bones and the other (parts), particles that are (only) observable by reason. For it is not necessary to refer everything to sense-perception in saying that bread and water produce these things, but in them the particles observable by reason are present. Therefore from the presence in the food of particles

book 1 the principles of nature


similar to what is produced he called them homoiomereiai (‘things with like parts’) and declared them to be the principles of the things that exist. And the homoiomereiai are matter, while the efficient cause is the Intellect which brought all things to order. He begins (his treatise) as follows: ‘Together were all things, but Intellect divided and ordered them’, by ‘things’ meaning the realities (that exist). It must be admitted, therefore, that he coupled the artificer with the matter. (P4,S7) §5 Archelaus, the son of Apollodorus, the Athenian (says the principle of the things that exist) is unlimited air and the density and rarefaction associated with it; of these the one is fire and the other water. (P5,S8) §6 These are the men, therefore, who followed each other and comprised the above-mentioned Ionic philosophy (starting) from Thales. (P6,cf.S9) §7 We next have another beginning: Pythagoras son of Mnesarchus from Samos, the first to call philosophy by this name, (declared) that the numbers and the relationships between them, which he also calls harmonies, are the principles, while the compounds from each of these, the so-called geometricals, are the elements. [54] On the other hand (he places) the Monad and the Undeterminate Dyad among the principles. Of his principles, the one strives towards the efficient and formal cause, which is God the Intellect, the other towards the passive and material (cause), which is the visible cosmos. [62] As for the nature of number, (he says) it is the decad; for all the Greeks and all the barbarians count up to the ten, and when they reach it they return back to the monad. And again, as for the number ten, he says, its power consists in the four and the tetrad. The cause is that, if one departing from the monad were to posit the numbers by addition, by advancing to the four one completes the number ten. (If, however, one goes beyond the number of the tetrad, one will also fall outside the ten.) For instance, if one were to posit one and two and to add three, and four to those, one will complete the number ten. The result is that number according to the Monad (is located) within the ten, but according to its (generative) power within the four. For this reason the Pythagoreans made the following pronouncement, regarding the tetrad as their strongest oath: No, by him, who bestows on our soul the tetraktys, possessing the fount of ever-flowing nature and its root. [74] Our soul too, he says, is composed of the tetrad. For there are intellect, knowledge, opinion and sense-perception; from these every skill and every science originates, and (through them) we ourselves are rational. Now Intellect is


book 1 the principles of nature

the Monad. Intellect contemplates in terms of the Monad. For example, if you take the numerous human beings, the individuals cannot (all) be perceived or grasped and are unlimited (in number), but this very thing is what we intelligize, the single human being only, which no one (fully) resembles. Similarly we intelligize the single horse only, but the individual (horses) are unlimited (in number). All of these are the forms and genera in accordance with the monads. Hence in the case of each of these, they also formulate the definition and speak of a rational living being or a living being that neighs. For this reason, therefore, the Intellect, by which we intelligize these things, is the Monad, and the Indeterminate Dyad is knowledge, and this is quite likely. After all, every demonstration and every proof involving knowledge, and in addition every syllogism, deduces what is in dispute and effortlessly demonstrates something else from agreed premises. Knowledge is the understanding of these (factors) and so could be (equated with) the Dyad. Opinion, taking its starting point from understanding, is the triad, and this is quite reasonable too, because opinion deals with multiplicity. The triad is plurality, as in the case of the ‘thrice-blessed Danaans’. For this reason, therefore, he includes the triad. *** (P7,S12) §8 The school of thought of these men has been named ‘Italic’ because Pythagoras taught in Italy, for he moved away from his native land Samos after he became displeased with the tyranny of Polycrates. (P14) §9 Heraclitus and Hippasus from Metapontum (say that the) principle of all things is fire, for they state that all things originate from fire and all things terminate in fire; and when it is quenched, all things are formed into the cosmos. 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 becomes air. And then the cosmos and all the bodies (within it) are consumed again by fire in the conflagration. Principle (of the things that exist) therefore is fire, because all things (originate) from it; and it is the end as well, because all things are dissolved into it. (P8,S13) §10 But Diogenes of Apollonia (says that the principle of the things that exist) is unlimited air. (S15) §11 Xenophanes (says that the) principle of all things is the earth; for he writes in the work On Nature: From earth all things (come) and in earth all things terminate. (S5) §12 Philolaus the Pythagorean (says that the principles of the things that exist) are the limit and the unlimited. (S10) §13 Leucippus the Milesian (says that the) principles and elements (of the things that exist) are the full and the void. (S17)

book 1 the principles of nature


§14 Democritus (says that the principles of the things that exist) are the solids and the void. (S18,Tiv) §15 Metrodorus, the son of Theocritus, from Chios (says that the principles of the things that exist) are the undivisibles and the void. (S14,Tv) §16 Epicurus, the son of Neocles, the Athenian, who philosophised in the line of Democritus, said that the principles of the things that exist are bodies that are observable by reason, not containing any void, ungenerated, indestructible, unable to be crushed or have its parts modified or be qualitatively altered. These bodies are observable by reason; and they move with the void and throughout the void. The void itself is unlimited (in size), and the bodies are unlimited (in number). The bodies possess these three (characteristics), shape, size, weight. Democritus stated that there were two, size and shape, but Epicurus added to these a third, weight. ‘For it is necessary’, he says, ‘that the bodies are moved by the blow caused by weight, since they will not be moved (sc. otherwise)’. The shapes of the atoms are incomprehensibly many, but not unlimited in number. They cannot have the form of a hook or a trident or a bracelet, for these shapes are easily crushed, whereas atoms are impassible and unable to be crushed. They have their individual shapes, which are observable by reason. The term ‘atom’ is used, not because it is a smallest particle, but because it cannot be cut, being as it is impassible and not containing any void. As a result, when he speaks of an atom, he means what is uncrushable and impassible, not containing any void. That there is such as thing as an atom is clear. For there are elements that always exist, that is to say figures ⟨without void⟩, and the unit. (P9,S19, cf. Tvi) §17 Ecphantus of Syracuse, one of the Pythagoreans, (says that the principles) of all things are the indivisible bodies and the void, for this man was the first to declare that the Pythagorean monads were corporeal. (S20,Tvii) §18 Diodorus, with the surname Cronus, (says that the principles are) the unlimited partless bodies, those that are also called the least in size. They are unlimited in number, but bounded in size. (S23) §19 Empedocles, the son of Meton, from Agrigentum says that (there are) four elements, fire air water earth, and two principal powers, Love and Strife, of which the former is unifying, the latter divisive. He speaks as follows: Hear first about the four foundational roots of all things, clear-bright Zeus and life-bearing Hera and Aidoneus, and Nestis, who with her tears dampens the mortal wellspring. By ‘Zeus’ he means the seething heat and the ether, by ‘life-bearing Hera’ the air, by ‘Aidoneus’ the earth, and by ‘Nestis’ and the ‘mortal wellspring’ for example semen and water. (P10,cf.S1)


book 1 the principles of nature

§20 Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, the Athenian and Plato, the son of Aristo, the Athenian—after all, the opinions of each of them are the same on every matter—say that there are three principles: god, matter, idea, (these being equivalent to) by whom, out of which, towards which. The god is the Intellect of the cosmos, matter the primary substrate for generation and destruction, while (the) idea is an incorporeal substance in the conceptions and the perceptions of the god. (P11,S21,Tviii) §21 But Aristotle, the son of Nicomachus, from Stagira (says that the) principles are entelecheia or form, matter, privation, and the elements are four, but there is (also) a fifth which is an etherial and unchangeable body. The elements of generated things are, in terms of their qualities, hot, cold, wet, dry, while in terms of their essential natures, in which and concerning which these qualities exist, they are the four (sc. above-mentioned). (P12,S22,Tix) §22 Xenocrates (says that) the universe is constituted from the One and the ever-flowing [or: ‘negating unity’], with (the term) ever-flowing hinting at matter on account of its multiplicity. (S4,Tx) §23 Zeno, the son of Mnaseas, from Citium (says that the) principles are the god and matter, of which the former is the cause of action, the latter of passivity, while (the) elements are four (in number). (P13,S16,Txi) §24 Strato says (the) elements are ⟨(the) hot⟩ and (the) cold. (S11)


How the Cosmos Was Constituted (P)

§1 The cosmos therefore was constituted, configured with a curved shape, in the following manner. Since the indivisible bodies have a non-providential and random movement and are continually and at great speed moving towards the same place, many bodies manifesting a diversity of both shapes and sizes were for this reason collected together. As these bodies gathered together in the same place, those that were larger and heaviest settled down completely. But those that were small and round and smooth and mobile were squeezed out as the bodies collided and were carried upwards to the higher region. As then the force of the shock that had lifted them upwards lessened, the shock no longer bore them towards the higher region, but they were prevented from moving downwards and were pushed towards the places that were able to receive them. These places were on the periphery and it was against them that the mass of bodies were bent around. Entangling with each other in accordance with this bending, they gave rise to the heaven. The indivisibles that had the same nature were diverse, as has been said, and on being pushed out towards the higher region they produced the nature of the heav-

book 1 the principles of nature


enly bodies. But the mass of bodies that rose up in exhalations struck the air and compressed it. This then through its motion turned into wind and, taking up the heavenly bodies it led them along in its course, thereby preserving their present revolution on high. Then from the bodies that sunk downwards the earth arose, while from those that rose upwards the heaven, fire and air were formed. Since a considerable amount of matter was still contained within the earth and it was compacted by the pounding of the winds and the fiery rays (emanating) from the stars, the entire configuration of this matter with its small particles was compressed and produced the nature that is moist. Being in a fluid state, this matter travelled down to the places that were hollow and able to contain and hold it, or the water, deposited on its own, hollowed out the areas beneath it. (P1) §2 In this manner the most important parts of the cosmos were produced. (P2)


Whether the All Is Unique (P,S)

§1 The (philosophers) from the Stoa declared the cosmos to be unique, which, they said, is also (to be identified with) the All that is corporeal. (P1,S2) §2 Empedocles (says that) the cosmos is unique; (he says), however, that the cosmos is not all (that is material), but a small part of this ‘All’, the remainder being unworked matter. (P2,S1) §3 Plato bases his belief that the cosmos and the All are unique on three considerations: (1) from the fact that it would not be complete, if it did not contain all things (within itself); (2) from the fact that it would not be similar to the model, if it were not alone in its sort; (3) from the fact that it would not be indescructible, if there were anything exterior to it. But against Plato it must be stated (1) that the cosmos is not complete, and it need not be so even if it did contain all things; after all, the human being is complete (i.e. full-grown), but he does not contain all things. There are moreover many models, as in the case of statues and buildings and paintings. (2) How could he say ‘there is nothing outside it’, for (if that were the case) it could not be whirling around? (3) Moreover, it is not indestructible and cannot be so, since it has come into being. (P3,S4) §4 Metrodorus, the teacher of Epicurus, says that it is (equally) absurd that a single stalk should have sprung up on a large plain and that a single cosmos should have done the same in the Infinite. That the kosmoi are infinite in their multiplicity is clear from the fact that the causes are infinite in number. For if the cosmos is limited, while all the causes from which the cosmos originated are infinitely many, then necessarily (the kosmoi) are infinitely many. After all,


book 1 the principles of nature

where the causes are without limit, there the products [or: effects] are (infinite in number or without limit) also. (These) causes are either the atoms or the elements. (P4,S3)


From Where Did Human Beings Obtain a Conception of Gods (P)

§1 The Stoics define the substance of the divine as follows: it is an intelligent and fiery breath, which does not have a (specific) form, but changes to whatever things it wishes and assimilates itself to all things. [5] They obtained a conception of this (divine being) in the first place by taking as their starting-point the beauty of what becomes visible (in it). For nothing that is beautiful originates at random and by chance, but with the aid of a skill that works as a craftsman. The heaven is beautiful. This is evident from its shape, its colour, its size, and the variety of the heavenly bodies that adorn it. For heaven is spherical, (a shape) which takes the first place among all shapes, for it alone corresponds to its own parts, since it is round and so are its parts. (This is the reason according to Plato that the most sacred component (sc. of the human being), the intellect, has been established in the head.) Its (sc. the heaven’s) colour is beautiful too, for it has been coloured with blueness, which is darker than purple but still has the quality of brightness, and it is for this reason that with its intense colour it traverses so great a body of air and is visible at such large distances. It is also beautiful because of its size, for with all entities of a same species what surpasses them is beautiful, as with a living being or a plant. The following visible signs also contribute to bringing the beauty of the sky to perfection, for the ecliptic circle in heaven is decorated with a variety of graphic pictures [i.e. constellations]: In it there is Cancer, followed by Leo, and after it Virgo, and then the Claws and (after it) Scorpio himself, and Sagittarius and Capricorn, and after Capricorn Aquarius, and following him the two starry Pisces, and after them Aries, and next Taurus and Gemini. Countless other features he has created corresponding to similar twistings of the cosmos. Hence Euripides too says: and the star-faced brilliance of heaven, a beautiful embroidery of time, (the work) of a wise builder.

book 1 the principles of nature


[29] We also obtained a conception of God from the following: it is not the case that the sun and the moon and the remaining heavenly bodies, after pursuing their course under the earth, fail to rise again with the same colours, not varying in their sizes, in the same places, and at the same times. [33] Hence those people who have transmitted reverence for the gods have done so by means of three kinds of exposition, firstly through that of natural philosophy, secondly through the mythical (kind), and thirdly through the kind that takes its evidence from the laws [or: customs]. Natural philosophy is taught by the philosophers, the mythical kind by the poets, while what is lawful [or: customary] is established each time by the particular city. [38] The entire teaching (on the gods) is divided into seven kinds. The first is based on the visible signs and heavenly occurrences. They obtained a conception of God from the visible heavenly bodies, observing that these are the cause of a mighty harmony and have brought about the ordered state of day and night and winter and summer, risings and settings, as well as the births of living beings and plants produced by the earth. Hence it seemed to them that heaven had the role of father and earth that of mother. The former was father through the outpourings of rain that had the role of seeds, while the earth was mother by receiving these (seeds) and giving birth. When they saw that the heavenly bodies always followed their courses (aei theontas) and that the sun and moon were the cause of our ability to contemplate (theôrein), they called them ‘gods’ (theous). They divided the gods into a second and third category, namely that which harms and that which assists. Those who assist are Zeus, Hera, Hermes and Demeter, while those who cause harm are the Avengers, the Erinyes and Ares, whom they regard as holy even though they are responsible for hardship and violence. The fourth and fifth kinds they applied to states of affairs and feelings, such as (for the former) Eros, Aphrodite and Desire, and for states of affairs Hope [sic], Justice and Good Order. As a sixth category were added the fictions of the poets. For example, Hesiod wanted to create gods as fathers of the beings that came into existence and so introduced the following as their begetters, Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus. [57] For this reason the category is also called ‘mythical’. The seventh and final kind (of gods) was the one which was especially honoured for the beneficent contributions to the public good, but was born in human form, such as Heracles, such as the Dioscuri and such as Dionysus. The reason that they said that these (gods) were of human form is that the divine is the most excellent of all beings and the human being the most beautiful of living beings, and,


book 1 the principles of nature

adorned as he is with virtue especially through the formation of his intellect, also the most capable. Similarly they thought, therefore, that it was good ⟨to attribute the greatest beauty⟩ to those who excelled with the highest ability. (P1)


Who the Deity Is (P,S)

§1 Some of the philosophers, such as Diagoras of Melos and Theodore of Cyrene and Euhemerus of Tegea say that the gods do not exist at all. Euhemerus is also hinted at by Callimachus of Cyrene when he writes in his Iambi: Come hither to the temple in front of the wall, where the old man who fabricated the ancient bronze Zan scribbles his unrighteous books like the charlatan he is. These (books) are the ones on the subject that the gods do not exist. Euripides too, the tragic poet, though he did not wish to disclose this view for fear of the Areopagus, did make his position known in the following way. He introduced the character of Sisyphus as defender of this opinion, and so pleaded his cause by means of this man’s judgment: For there was a time, he says, when human life was disordered, beast-like, and at the mercy of violence. Then, he says, the lawlessness was dissolved through the introduction of laws. Since, however, the law was able to curb overt acts of injustice but many people continued to practise them in secret, at that point a wise man ordained that it was necessary ‘to blind the truth with a false account’ and persuade mankind how there is a deity flourishing with imperishable life, who hears and sees and takes good note of these (deeds). Let such poetic nonsense be done away with, he says, together with the words of Callimachus: if you recognize God, be aware that for the deity it is possible to achieve everything. For not even God can do everything. If the divinity indeed exists, let him then make snow black, fire cold, what is sedentary upright and vice versa.

book 1 the principles of nature


[27] And when the grandiloquent Plato says that ‘God formed the cosmos by looking at himself as model’, he reeks of archaic moonstruck nonsense, to use the language of the ancient comic poets. For how did he create while looking to himself? And how can he (Plato) say the deity is spherical in shape, humbler in status than man? Anaxagoras says that at the beginning the bodies were at rest, but the Intellect of God gave them an orderly arrangement, and brought about the births of all things. Plato on the other hand supposed that the primary bodies were not at rest, but moving in a disorderly fashion. Therefore, he says, the deity, ordaining that order is better than disorder, gave them an orderly arrangement. Both thinkers thus have this mistake in common, namely that they made the deity pay attention to human affairs or even have him create the cosmos for this reason. After all, the blessed and indestructible living being, who is replete with all good things and not receptive of any evil, being wholly focused on the maintenance of his felicity and indestructibility, is not involved with human concerns, for otherwise he would be wretched in the manner of a workman and a builder, burdened with care and fretting about the construction of the cosmos. [47] Another argument is that the god of whom they speak either did not exist in the previous age when the bodies were either at rest or in disorderly movement, or he was asleep or he was awake, or neither of these. The first option is unacceptable, for the deity is eternal. The second too is unacceptable. If God were sleeping from eternity, he would be dead, since eternal sleep is (tantamount to) death. But God is also not receptive of sleep, for God’s immortality and a state close to death are separated by a great distance. If, however, God was awake, either there was a deficiency in his felicity or he was wholly fulfilled in his blessedness. But neither according to the first option is he blessed, because a deficiency in felicity is incompatible with blessedness, nor (is he blessed) according to the second option, because then, though in no way deficient in happiness, he would embark on deeds that were to no purpose. [52] How does it happen then, if the deity indeed does exist and human affairs are administered through his forethought, that what is fraudulent flourishes and what is noble suffers the opposite fate? Agamemnon, for example, was both an excellent king and a mighty warrior, but he was overpowered and murdered by an adulterer and an adulteress. And this man’s relative, Heracles, who had cleaned up many of the evils that infest human life, fell prey to the sorcery of Deïanira and was murdered. (P1,T:bits from P)


book 1 the principles of nature

§2 Thales (says that) the deity is the Intellect of the cosmos, and that the universe is ensouled and at the same time full of demons. In addition the divine power also pervades the elementary moist (substance) and causes it to move. (P2,S1) §3 Anaximander (says that) the unlimited [or: infinitely many] heavens are gods. (P3,S2) §4 Anaximenes (says that the deity is) the air. Statements such as these [sc. as those of Anaximenes] should be understood as referring to the powers that pervade through all parts of the elements or the bodies. (S3) §5 Archelaus (says that) the deity is air and Intellect, but the Intellect does not make the cosmos. (S4) §6 Anaxagoras (says that) the deity is an Intellect that makes the cosmos. (S5) §7 Democritus (says that) the deity is an Intellect that resides in fire with spherical form. (P4,S6) §8 Diogenes and Cleanthes and Oenopides (say that the deity is) the soul of the cosmos. (S7) §9 Pythagoras (says that) of the principles, the Monad is the deity and the Good, which is the nature of the One and identical to the Intellect, but the Undetermined Dyad is a daemon and what is evil, around which the plurality of matter resides, and is also the visible cosmos. (P5,S8) §10 Posidonius (says that the deity is) an intelligent and fiery Spirit, which does not have (a single) form, but changes into what it wishes and assimilates itself to all things. (S9) §11 Speusippus (says that the deity is) the Intellect, which is not identical to either the One or the Good, but has a nature of its own. (S10) §12 Critolaus and Diodorus of Tyre (say that the deity is) an Intellect (derived) from impassive ether. (S11) §13 Heraclitus (says that the deity is) the (eternally) recurrent everlasting fire, while fate is reason (logos), producer of the things that exist by turning in contrary directions. (S12) §14 Zeno the Stoic (says that the deity is the) fiery Intellect of the cosmos. (S13) §15 Mnesarchus (says that the deity is) the cosmos, which derives its primary existence from spirit. (S14) §16 Boethus (says that) the ether is God. (S15) §17 Parmenides (says that the deity is) the unmoved and limited spherical (being). (S16) §18 Melissus and Zeno (say that the deity is) the One and All and solely everlasting and unlimited. (S17)

book 1 the principles of nature


§19 ⟨Empedocles (says that) the elements and the principles and⟩ the One (are gods), and that the One is necessity, but that its matter is the four elements, while its forms are Strife and Love. He also calls the elements gods, and the mixture of these the ⟨Sphere⟩, and (says that) the ⟨cosmos⟩ will be dissolved into this uniform entity. He also thinks that the souls are divine, and that those ‘pure ones’ who share in them ‘purely’ are divine as well. (S18) §20 Polemon (says that) the cosmos is God. (S19) §21 Xenocrates the son of Agathenor from Chalcedon (says that) the Monad and the Dyad are gods, the former as male having the rank of Father and ruling in heaven, which he also calls Zan and odd and Intellect, who for him is the first god, the latter as female having the role of Mother of the gods, presiding over the region under the heaven, who for him is the soul of the universe [?]. He says too that the heaven is a god and that the fiery stars are Olympian gods, as well as other sublunary demons, which are invisible. It is also his view that there are divine powers, and that these penetrate the material elements. Of these the one which passes through the invisible (aeides) air he calls ‘Hades’, the one which passes through the moist (substance) ‘Poseidon’, and the one that passes through the earth ‘plant-sowing Demeter’. These doctrines he bequeathed to the Stoics, but the views (described) earlier he took from Plato and reformulated. (S20) §22 Socrates and Plato (say that the deity is) the One, the single-natured, the monadic, the true Being, the Good. All such names immediately refer to the Intellect. The deity, then, is an Intellect, (that is,) a separate Form; by ‘separate’ let that be understood which is free of all matter, not entwined with any of the bodily entities, and also not sharing affection with anything in nature that is passible [or: subject to affection]. Of this (God) as Father and Maker the other intelligible divine beings (the so-called intelligible cosmos) are the descendants, and they are the models for the visible cosmos. In addition to these there are ethereal powers (these are incorporeal logoi), and powers that inhere both in air and in water, as well as the sense-perceptible descendants of the first god, sun, moon, stars, earth and the all-embracing heaven. (P6,S21) §23 Aristotle (says that) the highest god is a separate form, mounted on the sphere of the universe, which is the ethereal body, also called by him the fifth (element). This body is divided into spheres that are contiguous in reality but separated by reason. Each of these spheres he regards as a living being composed of body and soul. Of these the body is ethereal and moves in a circular fashion, whereas the soul is unmoved reason and cause of movement in actuality. (P7,S22) §24 The Stoics declare that God is intelligent, a designing fire which proceeds methodically to the generation of the cosmos, encompassing all the seminal logoi according to which each thing comes to be in accordance with fate. It


book 1 the principles of nature

is also a Spirit which pervades the whole cosmos, taking on the names that correspond to the alterations of the matter through which it has passed. In addition (they regard as) gods the cosmos, the heavenly beings, and the earth, and the Intellect in the aether at the summit of everything is a god, too. (P8,S23) §25 Epicurus (says that) the gods are human in form, and are all observable by reason (only) because of the fine particles of which the nature of their images consists. The same (philosopher says there are) four other classes of natures that are indestructible: the indivisibles, the void, the infinite, and the similarities; these (natures) are called homoiomereiai (‘having similar parts’) and elements. (P9,S24)


On Demons and Heroes (P)

§1 Appended to the account ‘On the gods’ we must record the one ‘On demons and heroes’. (P1) §2 Thales Pythagoras Plato the Stoics (say that) demons are psychic beings; (they also say that) the heroes too are souls that have been separated from their bodies; and they (sc. the demons) are good if (the souls are) good, but wicked if (the souls are) wicked. (P2) §3 But Epicurus admits none of these (as demonic). (P3)


On Matter (P,S)

§1 Matter is the substrate for all generation and destruction and the other (kinds of) changes. (P1,S1) §2 The successors of Thales and Pythagoras, I mean those [sc. philosophers] going down to the Stoics together with Heraclitus, (say that) matter is wholly and completely changeable and alterable and mutable and fluid. (P2,S2,T1) §3 The successors of Democritus (say that) the first things are impassible, i.e. the atom and the incorporeal void. (P3,S3,T2) §4 Plato (says that) matter is body-like, without figure, ‘without form’, fully shapeless, without quality as far as its own nature is concerned, but by receiving the forms it became like a ‘nurse’ and a ‘mould’ and a ‘mother’. (P4,S4,T3) §5 But Aristotle (says that it is) corporeal. (P4,T4) §6 But those who state that matter is water or fire or air or earth no longer regard it as without figure, but as body, (P5,S5) §7 whereas those who say it is the partless (particles) and the atoms (say that it is) without figure. (P6,S6) §8 (But) the Stoics declare matter to be body. (S7,T5)

book 1 the principles of nature



On (the) Idea (P,S)

§1 The idea is an incorporeal substance. It is itself the cause that makes things (to be) such as they are and the model of the existence of the natural senseperceptibles. It exists by itself, but makes the formless materials into images (of itself) and becomes a cause of their arrangement, occupying a father’s position towards the sense-perceptibles. (P1,S1) §2 Socrates and Plato understand the ideas as substances separate from matter, existing in the conceptions and perceptions of God, that is to say, the intellect. (P2) §3 Pythagoras placed the so-called forms and the ideas in the numbers and their harmonies and what are named the geometricals, (regarding them as) inseparable from the bodies. (S2) §4 Aristotle preserved the forms and ideas, but as not in fact separated from matter, (thereby) placing himself outside (the view that they) are (put into matter) by God. (P3) §5 The Stoics who were the successors of Zeno (say) that the ideas are our own conceptions. (P4)


On Causes (P,S)

§1 A cause is (that) through which the effect (is completed) or through which something occurs; for a descriptive definition suffices. (P1,S1) §2 Plato (understands) the cause in three ways, for he says ‘by which’, ‘out of which’, ‘towards which’. But more properly (he regards) the ‘by which’ (as the cause). This is the agent, i.e. Intellect. (P2,S2) §3 Pythagoras Aristotle (say that) that there are first causes which are incorporeal, and there are causes by participation in or as property of the corporeal subsistence, with the result that the cosmos is body. (P3,S3) §4 The Peripatetics (say that) of the causes some are sensible and others intelligible. (S6) §5 The Stoics (say that) all the causes are corporeal, for they are pneumata [i.e. currents of warm air]. (P4) §6 Thales and his successors declared that the first cause is unmoved/unchanging. (S4) §7 The Stoics defined the first cause as movable/changing. (S5)

2080 1.12

book 1 the principles of nature

On Bodies (P,S)

§1 A body is that which extends in three directions, width, depth and length. Or it is a mass that of itself is resistant. Or it is that which occupies a place. (P1,S1) §2 Plato (says that body) is something neither heavy nor light by nature when it in fact exists in the place proper to it. But when it has come to be in an alien place, then it obtains inclination, and from this inclination there is a turning either to heaviness or lightness. (P2,S2) §3 Aristotle (says that) earth is the heaviest (body) in absolute terms, and fire is the lightest, while air and water differ (in weight) according to circumstances. (He also says that) fire by nature never moves in a circular fashion, but (that) only the fifth body (does this). (P3,S3) §4 The Stoics (say that) two of the four elements are light, fire and air, and that two are heavy, water and earth. For light by nature is that which inclines away from the own centre (sc. of the cosmos), whereas heavy is that which moves to (the) centre. In addition the light (sc. of the sun etc.) on earth moves in a straight line, whereas the etherial (variety) moves in a circle. (P4,S4) §5 Epicurus (says that) the bodies are inconceivably many [or: inconceivable (in number)], and that the first (bodies), which are simple, as well as all the bodies that are composites of these, possess heaviness. (He also says that) the atoms at one time move perpendicularly, at another time with a swerve. But (the bodies that) move upwards do so through impact or rebounding. (P5,S5) §6 Democritus says that the first bodies (these are the solid bodies) do not have heaviness, but move by reciprocal impact in the infinite (space). (He also says that) it is possible that an atom of cosmic proportions exists [or: (that) it is ⟨absurd⟩ that one of cosmic proportions exists]. (S6) §7 Strato (says that) natural heaviness attaches to bodies, and that the lighter ones float on the surface of the heavier ones, like stones (in fruit) that are squeezed out. (S7)


On Minimal Bodies (P,S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) prior to the four elements (there are) minimal fragments, like elements before elements, (which elements are) homoiomere (i.e. things with similar parts), i.e. ‘round’. (P1,S1) §2 Heraclitus, as some believe, introduces little filings prior to the one (sc. element). (P2,S2)

book 1 the principles of nature


§3 Xenocrates and Diodorus defined the minima as partless (entities). (S3) §4 (But) Heraclides (defined them as) fragments. (S4)


On Shapes (P,S)

§1 A shape is a surface and an outline and a limit of a body. (P1,S1) §2 Pythagoras and his followers (say that) the shapes of the four elements are spherical, and that only the very highest (element,) fire, is cone-like. (P2,S2) §3 Anaxagoras (says that) the homoiomere (‘things with like parts’) are of many shapes. (S3) §4 The successors of Leucippus (say that) the atoms are of many shapes. (S4) §5 Cleanthes alone of the Stoics declared that the (element) fire is cone-like. (S5)


On Colours (P,S)

§1 Colour is the quality of a body that is primarily visible. (P1,S1) §2 The Pythagoreans called colour the surface of the body. (P2,S2a) §3 Empedocles declared colour to be what is fitting for the passages of sight. And there are four, equal in number to the elements: white, black, red, ochre [i.e. yellow]. (P3,S3) §4 Plato (says that colour is) a flame (emanating) from the bodies, which has particles commensurate with (the organ of) sight. (P4,S4) §5 Aristarchus of Samos the astronomer, disciple of Strato, (says that) colour is light falling on what it falls upon. (S5) §6 Zeno the Stoic (says that) the colours are first configurations of matter. (P5,S6) §7 The successors of Pythagoras (say that) the kinds of the colours are white and black, red, ochre [i.e. yellow]. The differences between the colours (come) from the qualitative blendings of the elements, and those of the living beings from the variations of the foodstuffs and the airs (they breathe). (P6,S2b) §8 Democritus (says that) no colour exists by nature, for the elements are without quality, being the solids [i.e., atoms] and the void. But the compounds formed from these are coloured by ‘inter-contact’, by ‘rhythm’ and by ‘turning’, of which the first results in order, the next shape and the last position. For it is on the basis of these that the impressions (on the senses arise). Of these col-


book 1 the principles of nature

ours that relate to the impression (on the senses) there are four differentiations: white, black, red, ochre [i.e. yellow]. (S7) §9 Epicurus and Aristarchus (say that) the bodies in the dark do not have colour. (S8) §10 Aristotle (says that colour is) a limit in bounded transparency, that the transparent is filtered matter that is pure and unmixed, and that colour exists as that which moves this (matter). In the dark bodies have colour potentially, but never actually. There is, however, a great difference between not having (colour) and (colour) not being seen. (S9) §11 Other (thinkers say that) the elements are naturally coloured, (S10) §12 others (say) that the primary homoiomere (‘things with like parts’) participate in quality, (S11) §13 and yet others (say) that all the atoms taken together are without colour, and they indicate that the visible qualities arise from (entities) without quality that are observable by reason. (S12)


On Cutting of Bodies (P,S)

§1 The successors of Thales and Pythagoras (say that) the bodies are passible and divisible to infinity. And all (of the following) are continuous: line, surface, solid [i.e. three-dimensional] body, place, time. (P1,S3) §2 Those thinkers who introduce the atoms (say that) the cutting stops at the partless (entities) and that there is no cutting to infinity. (P2,S2) §3 Aristotle (says that the cutting of bodies occurs) potentially to infinity, but in actuality never. (P3,S1)


On Mixing and Blending (P,S)

§1 Thales and those following him (say that) the mixings of the elements occur through alteration. (P1,S1) §2 Anaxagoras and Democritus and their successors (say that they occur) through juxtaposition. (P2,S2) §3 Empedocles and Xenocrates combine the elements out of smaller masses, which are least in size and as it were elements of elements. (P3,S3) §4 Plato (says that) the three bodies—for he does not wish them to be or be called elements in the proper sense—are convertible to each other, namely fire, air and water, but that earth cannot be changed to any of these. (P4,S4)

book 1 the principles of nature



On Void (P,S)

§1 All physicists from Thales up to and including Plato rejected the void in the real sense of the word. (P1,S1) §2 Empedocles: ‘and of the All nothing is empty or superfluous’. (P2,S2,T2) §3 Leucippus Democritus Demetrius Metrodorus Epicurus (say that) the atoms are infinite in number, and the void infinite in size. (P3,S3,T1) §4 Strato (says that) there is no void outside the cosmos, but that it is possible for it to occur inside. (S4,T4) §5 Zeno and his successors (say that) inside the cosmos there is no void at all, but outside it (sc. the cosmos) it is infinite. (P4,S6,T3) §6 Aristotle (says that) that the void outside the cosmos is exactly large enough for the heavens to breathe into it; for inside there is a fiery place. (P5, cf.S5)


On Place (P,S)

§1 Plato (says place is) what partakes of the forms, like a sort of ‘wet-nurse’ and ‘recipient’. (By this) he has metaphorically denoted matter. (P1,S2) §2 Aristotle (says it is) the outermost of what surrounds that connects with what is surrounded. (P2) §3 Strato (says it is) the interval between what surrounds and what is surrounded. (S1)


On Space (P,S)

§1 Zeno and his successors (say) that void, place (and) space differ; thus void is vacancy of body, place what is occupied by a body, space what is partially occupied, as in the case of a jar of wine. (P1,S1) §2 Epicurus (says that) all these terms are to be used interchangeably: void, place, space. (S2)


On Time (P,S)

§1 Pythagoras (says that time is) the sphere of that which encompasses. (P1,S1) §2 Plato (says that time is) a moving image of eternity, or the dimension of the motion of the cosmos. (P2,S3)


book 1 the principles of nature

§2α Aristotle (says that time is) the number of the motion of the heavenly sphere. (PQ3) §3 Eratosthenes (says that time is) the course of the sun. (P3,S2)


On the Substance of Time (P,S)

§1 Plato (says that the) substance of time is the motion of the heaven. (P1,S9) §2 The Stoics (say that it is) motion itself. (P2,S1) §3 Xenocrates (says it is) a measure of what is generated, and (also) everlasting motion. (S3) §4 Hestiaeus of Perinthus, the natural philosopher, (says it is the) motion of the heavenly bodies in relation to each other. (S4) §5 Strato (says it is) the quantitative in motion and rest. (S5) §6 Epicurus (says it is) a concomitant, that is an accompaniment of motions [or: changes]. (S6) §7 Antiphon and Critolaus (say that) time is a concept or measure, and not something that exists on its own. (S7) §8 And the majority (of philosophers say that) time is ungenerated, (P3,S2) §9 But Plato (says that it is) generated in thought. (P4,S8)


On Motion (P,S)

§1 Pythagoras Plato: motion is a difference or alteration in matter qua matter. This is the shared definition of every (form of) motion. (P1,S1) §2 Aristotle: (motion is) entelechy of the movable. (P2,S10) §3 Democritus: (there is) one kind of motion, that which (occurs) through vibration. (P3,S2) §4 Epicurus (says there are) two kinds of motion, that which (occurs) perpendicularly and that which (occurs) through deviation. (P4,S3) [a lemma on three kinds of motion seems to have fallen out] §5 But there are some who introduce a fourth kind, that which (occurs) substantially, i.e. that which (occurs) in terms of coming to be. (S4) §6 Yet others add intellectual (motion) as well, so in fact they have advanced up to the (number) five. (S5) §7 Diodorus Cronus (says that) things have moved to some extent, but that nothing is moving (sc. in actuality). (S6) §8 Heraclitus removed rest and standing still from the whole of things, for this belongs to corpses; to everlasting things he assigned everlasting motion and to perishable things (he assigned) perishable (motion). (P6,S7)

book 1 the principles of nature


§9 Herophilus (says that there is) motion that is observable by reason and (there is) motion that is sense-perceptible. (P5,S8) §10 (But) Asclepiades declared that all motion is sense-perceptible. (S9)


On Coming To Be and Passing Away (P,S)

§1 Parmenides Melissus Zeno abolished coming to be and passing away because they held that the All is unmoved. (P1,S1) §2 Empedocles Anaxagoras Democritus Epicurus and all those who make a cosmos through aggregation of bodies composed of fine particles introduce combinations and separations, but not comings to be and perishings in the true sense. For these do not come to be according to quality from alteration, but according to quantity from aggregation. (P2,S2) §3 Pythagoras and all those who assume that matter is passive (say that) coming to be and passing away occur in the true sense. For through (qualitative) alteration of the elements and (their) turning and dissolution there takes place coming to be and passing away, juxtaposition and mixing, blending and fusion. (P3,S3)


On Necessity (P,S)

§1 Thales: necessity is the strongest (of all things), for it rules over the universe. (P1,S1) §2 Pythagoras said that necessity embraces the cosmos. (P2,S2,T2) §3 Parmenides and Democritus (say that) all things (happen) in accordance with necessity and that it is the same as fate and justice and providence and that which makes the cosmos. (P3,S3,T1,3) §4 Leucippus (says that) all things (happen) in accordance with necessity and that it is the same as fate. For he states in the On Intellect, ‘nothing happens at random, but all things (happen) both for a reason and by necessity.’ (S4) §5 Plato ascribes some things to providence, other things to necessity. (P4,S5b)


On the Substance of Necessity (P)

§1 Empedocles (says that) the substance of necessity (is) a cause that is able to make use of the principles and the elements. (P1, S2)


book 1 the principles of nature

§2 Democritus (says that the substance of necessity is) the resistance and motion and blow of matter. (P2) §3 Plato (says that the substance of necessity is) sometimes matter and sometimes the disposition of the maker towards matter. (P3,S1)


On Fate (P,S)

§1 Heraclitus (says that) all things (occur) in accordance with fate, and that it (fate) and necessity are the same. Indeed he writes, ‘for it (sc. necessity) is fate in every respect’. (P1,S2b,T1) §2 Plato recognises (the role of) fate in relation to human souls and lives, but along with it he also introduces the cause that relates to us. (P2) §3 The Stoics, agreeing with Plato, say that necessity is an invincible and compelling cause, while fate is an ordered nexus of causes. In this nexus there is also the element that relates to us, so that some things are fated (for us) and others not fated. (P3) §4 Chrysippus (says that) what has been necessitated does not differ from is fated, and that is an everlasting, continuous and ordered movement in accordance with an articulated nexus of its parts. (S1,T2) §5 Zeno the Stoic (says) in his On Nature (that fate is) a force that moves matter in the same respect and in the same way. It makes no difference (he adds) to call it providence and nature. (S5,T3) §6 Antipater the Stoic declared that fate is a god. (S6)


On the Substance of Fate (P)

§1 Heraclitus (says that) the substance of fate is the logos that passes through the being of the All. It is the etherial body, seed of the coming-to-be of the All and measure of (its) ordered revolution. (P1,S2a) §2 Plato (says that it is) everlasting logos and everlasting law of the nature of the All. (P2,S3) §3 Chrysippus (says that it is) a pneumatic force that is administrative for the ordering of the All. And again in On Definitions: ‘fate is the logos of the cosmos, or logos of what is administered by providence in the cosmos, or logos in accordance with which what has happened happened, what is happening happens, and what will happen will happen’. (P3,S7,T4) §4 The other Stoics (say that it is) a concatenation of causes, that is an inviolable ordering and linking together. (P4,T5)

book 1 the principles of nature


§5 Posidonius (says that it is) third in line from Zeus; for first (he says there is) is Zeus, second (there is nature), third (there is) fate. (P5,S4)


On Chance (P,S)

§1 Plato (says that chance is) an accidental cause in the realm of the voluntary, as well as an adventitious consequence and fortuitous event, and it is a substituted attitude of the voluntary with regard to the envisaged purpose. (P1,S2,T1) §2 Aristotle (says that chance is) an accidental cause that is unclear and unstable in the realm of what occurs according to an impulse towards some end.—There is a difference, (he says) between chance and the spontaneous. For what occurs by chance and (also) spontaneously are (both) certainly in the realm of action, but what is spontaneous (only) does not occur by chance, for it is in the realm outside action. In addition chance belongs to rational beings (only), whereas the spontaneous occurs in the case of rational and irrational living beings and unsouled bodies. Also chance occurs through the exercise of will, the spontaneous without it; and the former occurs when there is somebody (who has decided), but the latter (occurs) without the intervention of reason, without anything having been decided externally. (P2,S3–S1,T2) §3 Epicurus (says that chance is) a cause that is unstable in relation to persons, times and places, ⟨and that all things occur⟩ by necessity, through choice, and by chance. (P3,S4–S5) §4 Anaxagoras and Democritus and the Stoics (says that chance is) a cause that is unclear to human reasoning. For (they say) there are things (that occur) by necessity, (that occur) by fate, (that occur) by chance and (that occur) spontaneously. (P4,S6,T3)


On Nature (P,cf.S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) there is no such thing as nature (physis), but (only) mixing and separation of the elements. For in the first book of the Physics [i.e. physical poem] he writes as follows: But I shall tell you something more: there is no nature of all that is mortal, nor is there an end consisting of wretched death, but only mixing and separation of what has been mixed, and ‘nature’ is what it is called by human beings. (P1)


book 1 the principles of nature

§2 In the same way Anaxagoras (says that) nature is a combination and separation, which is coming-to-be and passing away. (P2)

Book 2 Cosmology AËTIUS ON THE VIEWS (OF THE PHILOSOPHERS) BOOK 2 in which the following headings (are found):

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ⟨5a. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

[Proem] On the cosmos On the shape of the cosmos Whether the cosmos is ensouled and administered by providence Whether the cosmos is indestructible Where the cosmos obtains its nourishment from Where the cosmos has its regent part⟩ From what kind of first element the god began to make the cosmos On the order of the cosmos What the cause of the cosmos having been tilted is On what is outside the cosmos, whether there is a void What the right (parts) of the cosmos are and what the left On the heaven, what its substance is On the division of heaven, into how many circles it is divided What the substance of the heavenly bodies is, (both) planets and fixed stars On the shapes of the stars On the ordering of the heavenly bodies On the conveyance and movement of the heavenly bodies From where the heavenly bodies obtain their illumination On the stars called the Dioscuri On signs of the seasons produced by the heavenly bodies On the substance of the sun On the size of the sun On the shape of the sun On the turnings of the sun On the eclipse of the sun On the substance of the moon On the size of the moon On the shape of the moon On the illuminations of the moon

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_159

2090 29. 30. 31. 32.

book 2 cosmology

On the eclipse of the moon On its appearance and why it appears (to be) earthy On the distances of the moon On the year, how great the time of (the revolution of) each of the planets is, and what the Great year is

[Proem] Having thus completed my account of the principles and elements and what is closely associated with them, I shall turn to the account concerned with the products, starting with the most comprehensive of all things. (P)


On the Cosmos (P,S)

§1 Pythagoras was the first to call the container of all things ‘cosmos’ on the basis of the order present in it. (P1,S5) §2 Thales Pythagoras Empedocles Ecphantus Parmenides Melissus Heraclitus Anaxagoras Plato Aristotle Zeno (say that) the cosmos is unique. (P2,S6,T1) §3 Anaximander Anaximenes Archelaus Xenophanes Diogenes Leucippus Democritus Epicurus and his teacher Metrodorus (say that there are) infinite kosmoi in the infinite space throughout the entire surrounding area. (P3,S7,T2) §4 Of those that declare there to be infinite kosmoi, Anaximander (says that) they are at an equal distance from each other, (S8) §5 whereas Epicurus (says that) the distance between the kosmoi is unequal. (S9) §6 Empedocles (says that) the revolution of the sun is the perimeter of the cosmos’ limit. (P4,S1) §7 Seleucus from the Red Sea and Heraclides from Pontus (say that) the cosmos is infinite. (P5,S2) §8 Diogenes and Melissus (say that) the universe is infinite, but the cosmos is limited. (P6,S3) §9 The Stoics (say that) the universe and the whole differ, for the universe is the cosmos together with the infinite void, whereas the whole is the cosmos apart from the void; as a result the whole and the cosmos amount to the same. (P7,S4) * On the translation of multiple name-labels see the User’s guide to the translation.

book 2 cosmology



On the Shape of the Cosmos (P,cf.S)

§1 The Stoics (say that) the cosmos is like a ball [i.e. spherical], (P1,S1,T1) §2 but others (say that it is) like a cone, (P2,cf.T2) §3 while yet others (say that it is) like an egg [i.e. ovoid]. (P3,cf.T2) §4 Leucippus and Democritus (say that) the cosmos is like a ball. (S2,T2) §5 Epicurus, however, (says that) it is possible that the kosmoi are like a ball, but that it is possible that they make use of other shapes as well. (P4)


Whether the Cosmos Is Ensouled and Administered by Providence (P,S)

§1 All other (philosophers say that) the cosmos is ensouled and administered by providence. (P1,S1,T1) §2 But Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus (say that) it is constituted out of atoms by an unreasoning natural force. (P2,S2,T2) §3 Ecphantus (says that) the cosmos is constituted out of atoms, but is (nevertheless) administered by providence. (S3) §4 Aristotle (says that the cosmos is) neither ensouled through and through, nor is it endowed with sense-perception or rational or intellective or administered by providence. For the heavenly realm shares in all these (characteristics), as it contains ensouled spheres which are endowed with life. The earthly realm, however, shares in none of them, but shares in its well-ordered state contingently, not primarily. (P3,S4)


Whether the Cosmos Is Indestructible (P)

§1 Pythagoras Heraclitus (say that) the cosmos is generated in thought, but not in time. (S10–11,T1) §2 The Stoics (say that) ⟨the cosmos has come into being⟩ through the agency of God. (P1) §3 Epidicus (says that) the cosmos has come into being through the agency of nature. (S12) §4 Archelaus (says that) the cosmos was constituted through the agency of warmth and ensoulment. (S13) §5 Xenophanes Parmenides Melissus (say that) the cosmos is ungenerated and everlasting and indestructible. (P3,S3,T2,4) §6 But there are those who say that its ordering is eternal, yet (also) say that there are periodic times in accordance with which all things come into being in


book 2 cosmology

exactly the same way and preserve the same disposition and ordering of the cosmos. (S4) §7 Anaximander Anaximenes Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes Leucippus (say that) the cosmos is destructible. (S5,T3) §8 The Stoics too (say that) the cosmos is destructible, but (this occurs) in the conflagration. (S6,cf.P1) §9 Plato (says that) the cosmos is destructible as far as its nature is concerned, for it is sense-perceptible—since it is also corporeal—, but that through the providence and supervision of God it will certainly not be destroyed. (P1,S1) §10 Aristotle (says that) the part of the cosmos below the moon is passible, in which also the things on earth perish. (P4,S2) §11 Empedocles (says that) the cosmos is destroyed in accordance with the successive dominance of Strife and Love. (S7) §12 Democritus (says that) the cosmos is destroyed when the larger (one) overcomes the smaller one. (S8) §13 Epicurus (says that) the cosmos is destroyed in a multitude of ways, for example as an animal and as a plant and in numerous other ways. (P2,S9)


Where the Cosmos Obtains Its Nourishment from (P,S)

§1 Aristotle: if the cosmos obtains nourishment, it will also be subject to destruction; but it is certainly not in need of any nourishment; for this reason it is everlasting as well. (P1,S2) §2 Plato (says that) the cosmos itself provides nourishment for itself from that which perishes through transformation. (P2) §3 Philolaus (says that) there is a double (form of) destruction, in the one case from heavenly fire that has rushed (down), in the other case from moonwater that has been poured forth by the conversion of the air; and the exhalations of these are nourishment for the cosmos. (P3,S1,3)


Where the Cosmos Has Its Ruling Part⟩ (S)

§1 Plato (says) the ruling part of the cosmos in the heaven. (S1) §2 Cleanthes the Stoic (says it is) in the sun. (S3) §3 Archedemus (says it is) in the earth. (S4) §4 Philolaus (says it is) in the innermost fire, which the craftsman god first set under the sphere of the universe like a keel. (S2)

book 2 cosmology



From What Kind of First Element the God Began to Make the Cosmos (P)

§1 The physicists and the Stoics (say that) the genesis of the cosmos started from the earth as from the centre; the starting-point of a sphere is (its) centre. (P1,S1) §2 Pythagoras (says that the genesis of the cosmos started) from fire and the fifth element. (P2,S2) §3 Empedocles (says that) first the ether was separated out, second fire and after it the earth. When the earth was excessively constricted by the rush of its revolution, water spouted forth. From it the air was exhaled and the heaven came into being from the ether, the sun from fire, while the earthly regions were condensed from the other (elements). (P3) §4 Plato (says that) the visible cosmos came into being in relation to the model of the intelligible cosmos. But of the visible cosmos the soul is prior, and after it there is the corporeal part, consisting of fire and earth first, of water and air second. (P4,S4) §5 Pythagoras says that, since there are five solid shapes, which are also called ‘mathematical,’ the earth came into being from the cube, fire from the pyramid, air from the octahedron, water from the icosahedron, and the sphere of the universe from the dodecahedron. (P5,S3) §6 Plato pythagorizes in these matters too. (P6)


On the Order of the Cosmos (P,S)

§1 Parmenides says there are bands interwoven one around another, the one made up of the rare, the other of the dense, while others between these are mixed from light and darkness. And that which surrounds them all is solid in the manner of a wall, below which there is a fiery band. And the most central (part) is also (solid), around which there is again a fiery band. Of the mixed bands the most central is both the ⟨origin⟩ and the ⟨cause⟩ of all motion and coming into being for all the others, which he also calls ‘governing daimon’, ‘holder of the lots’, ‘Justice’ and ‘Necessity’. And air is a secretion from the earth which is vaporized through the earth’s stronger condensation, while the sun and the Milky Way are the exhalation of fire. The moon is a mixture of both air and fire. The ether encircles above everything else, below which the fiery (part) which we call heaven is disposed, and below it again the earthly regions have their place. (P1,S2) §2 Leucippus and Democritus stretch around the cosmos in a circle a cloak and a membrane woven together by means of hook-shaped atoms. (P2,S5)


book 2 cosmology

§3 Epicurus (says that) of some kosmoi the limit is rare but of others it is dense, and of these (limits) some are in motion, while others are unmoved. (P3,S6) §4 Plato (says that there is) first fire, then ether, followed by air, after which there is water, and earth is last. But sometimes he connects ether with fire. (P4) §5 Aristotle (says that) impassible ether is first, which is indeed a fifth body. After it (follow) the passible (elements) fire, air, water, and earth is last. And of these circular motion is given to the heavenly (regions), whereas in the case of the (elements) below them, upward (motion is given) to the light ones and downward (motion) to the heavy ones. (P5,S3) §6 Philolaus (says that there is) fire in the middle around the centre, which he calls the universe’s hearth and Zeus’ house and the gods’ mother, altar and continuity, and measure of nature. And again there is another highest fire, that which surrounds (the universe). The centre is first by nature, and around this ten divine bodies dance: the heaven, the ⟨five⟩ planets, after them the sun, under it the moon, under it the earth, under it the counter-earth, and after all of them there is fire, which has the position of the hearth in relation to the centres. Moreover, he calls the highest part of the surrounding (region) Olympus, in which he says the purity of the elements exists, while the (region) under the orbit of Olympus, in which the five planets together with the sun and the moon are positioned, (he calls) Kosmos. The sublunary and earthly part below these, in which the (realm) of change-loving generation (is located), (he calls) Heaven. In addition, (he says that) wisdom arises concerning what is ordered in the regions on high, whereas virtue arises concerning the disorder of what comes into being, the former being complete, but the latter incomplete. (S4) §7 Empedocles (says that) the locations of the elements are not completely fixed or determined, but all share in the locations of each other. (P6,S1)


What the Cause of the Cosmos Having Been Tilted Is (P)

§1 Diogenes Anaxagoras (say that) after the cosmos had been formed and had produced the animals from the earth, the cosmos somehow of its own accord was tilted towards its mid-day region; (this occurred) perhaps through the agency of providence, so that some of the cosmos’ parts are uninhabitable but others are habitable in virtue of chilling and excessive heating and a temperate climate. (P1,S1) §2 Empedocles (says that), when the air gave way through the onrush of the sun, the (north and south) poles were tilted, and the northern parts were lifted

book 2 cosmology


up but the southern parts were lowered, in accordance with which the entire cosmos was tilted as well. (P2,S2)


On What Is Outside the Cosmos, Whether There Is a Void (P)

§1 Pythagoras and his successors (say that) there exists a void outside the cosmos, into which and from which the cosmos breathes. (P1,S1) §2 But the Stoics (say that) there exists a void into which the cosmos dissolves at the conflagration, (and it is) infinite. (P2,S2) §3 Posidonius (says that it is) not infinite, but (is present only) to the extent (that is) sufficient for the (cosmos’) dissolution. (P3,S3) §4 Plato Aristotle (say that) there is no void either outside the cosmos or inside it. (PEQ4,S4)


What the Right (Parts) of the Cosmos Are and What the Left (P)

§1 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle (say that) the right parts of the cosmos are the eastern regions, from which the movement has its origin, while the western regions are its left parts. {But they say that the cosmos has neither height nor depth in the sense that height is said to be the dimension upwards from below and depth is the dimension downwards from above. For, (they say), none of the dimensions understood in this way are relevant to the cosmos because it is established around its own centre, from which it is the same (distance) to every (part) and towards which it is the same from every (part).} (P1,S2) §2 Empedocles (says that) the regions at the summer solstice are the right parts (of the cosmos), whereas the regions at the winter solstice are the left parts. (P2,S1)


On Heaven, What Its Substance Is (P,S)

§1 Anaximenes and Parmenides (say that) the outermost periphery is of earth. (P1,S1) §2 Empedocles (says that) the heaven is solid, consisting of air that has been compacted together by fire in crystalline fashion, containing the fiery (element) and the airy (element) in each of the hemispheres. (P2,S2)


book 2 cosmology

§3 Anaximander (says that the heaven consists) of a hot and cold mixture. (P3,S3) §4 Parmenides Heraclitus Strato Zeno (say) that the heaven is fiery. (P3,S4) §5 Aristotle (says that the heaven consists) of a fifth body. (P3,S5)


On the Division of Heaven, into How Many Zones It Is Divided (P,S)

§1 Thales, Pythagoras and his successors (say that) the sphere of the entire heaven has been divided into five circles, to which they give the name ‘zones’. Of these (the first) is called ‘the arctic and always appearing’, (the second) ‘the summer tropic’, (the third) ‘the equatorial’, (the fourth) ‘the winter tropic’, and (the last) ‘the antarctic and invisible’. In relation to the three middle (circles) the so-called zodiac (circle) has been placed as a diagonal, touching the three of them. But the meridian cuts all of them at right angles from the arctic (regions) to its opposite. (P1,S1) §2 Pythagoras is said to have been the first to have recognized the tilting of the zodiac circle, which Oenopides of Chios appropriates as his own idea. (P2,S2)


What the Substance of the Heavenly Bodies Is, (Both) Planets and Fixed Stars (P,S)

§1 Thales (says that) the heavenly bodies are earthy but inflamed. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Empedocles (says that they are) fiery, (made) from fire-like (material), which the air enfolded within itself and squeezed out in the first separation. (P2,S2a) §3 Anaxagoras (says that) the surrounding ether is fiery in substance, but through the vigour of the whirling movement it snatched up rocks from the earth, ignited these and made them into heavenly bodies. (P3,S3,T2) §4 Diogenes (says that) the heavenly bodies are sponge-like, and he considers them to be the respiratory vents of the cosmos; they are also inflamed. (P4a,S4a,T4) §5 Democritus (says that they are) rocks. (S5,T3) §6 Archelaus (says that they are) clumps of iron, but inflamed. (S6) §7 Anaximander (says that they are) wheel-like condensations of air, filled with fire, partly expelling flames from vents. (S7,T5) §8 Parmenides and Heraclitus (says that they are) condensations of fire. (S8)

book 2 cosmology


§9 Anaximenes (says that) the nature of the heavenly bodies is fiery, but that it also includes some earthy bodies which are borne around with these and are invisible. (S9) §10 Diogenes, however, (says that) stones that are invisible and in addition nameless are borne around together with the visible heavenly bodies, but that often they fall to the earth and are quenched, just as in the case of the heavenly body in the form of a rock (i.e. meteorite) that descended in a fire-like manner at Aegospotami. (P4b,S4b,T6) §11 Empedocles (says that) the fixed heavenly bodies were stuck to the crystalline (heaven), but the planets were released. (P5,S2b) §12 Plato (says that the heavenly bodies are) for the most part fiery, but also partake in the other elements in the manner of glue. (P6,S10,T7) §13 Aristotle (says that they are made) from the fifth body. (S11,T8) §14 Xenophanes (says that they consist) of incandescent clouds, and that every day they are extinguished and (then) flare up again at night, just like coals; for the risings and settings (of the heavenly bodies) are (in fact) kindlings and quenchings. (P7,S12,T9) §15 Heraclides and the Pythagoreans (say that) each of the heavenly bodies exists as a cosmos which includes an earth, air and ether in the unlimited ether. These doctrines are reported in the Orphic (writings), for they (too) make each of the heavenly bodies into a cosmos. (P8,S13,T10) §16 Epicurus does not reject any of these (views), holding fast to what is possible. (P9,S14)


On the Shapes of the Stars (P,S)

§1 The Stoics (say that) the stars are spherical, just like the cosmos, the sun and the moon. (P1,S2,T1) §2 Cleanthes (says that they are) like a cone. (P2,S3,T2) §3 Anaximenes (says that they) have been affixed to the crystalline (heaven) in the manner of studs. (P3,S1) §4 But some (say that they) are fiery leaves, like pictures. (P4)


On the Order of the Heavenly Bodies (P)

§1 Xenocrates thinks that the stars lie on a single plane. (P1,S5) §2 But the others, the Stoics, (say that) the ones are placed in front of the others in height and depth. (P2,S6)


book 2 cosmology

§3 Democritus (orders) the fixed stars first, then after them the planets, followed by the sun, the light-bringer (i.e. Venus) and the moon. (P3,S1) §4 Plato after the placement of the fixed stars (arranges) first the star of Kronos called ‘the Shining one,’ second the star of Zeus (called) ‘the Radiant one,’ third the star of Ares (called) ‘the Fiery one,’ fourth the star of Aphrodite (called) ‘Dawn-bringer,’ fifth the star of Hermes (called) the ‘Gleaming one,’ sixth the sun, and seventh the moon. (P4,S4) §5 Of the astronomers* some (order the heavenly bodies) as Plato does, others (place) the sun in the middle of all (the planets). (P5,S7) §6 Anaximander and Metrodorus of Chios and Crates (say that) the sun has been ordered highest of all (the heavenly bodies), but after it the moon, and below them the fixed stars and the planets. (P6,S2–3) §7 Parmenides orders the Dawn-star, which is considered by him to be identical with the Evening-star, as first in the ether; after it the sun, beneath which he places the heavenly bodies [i.e. stars] in the fiery region, which he calls ‘heaven.’ (S8)


On the Conveyance and Movement of the Heavenly Bodies (P,cf.S)

§1 Anaxagoras Democritus Cleanthes (say that) all the heavenly bodies are borne from east to west. (P1,S1) §2 Alcmaeon and the astronomers* (say that) the planets are borne in an opposite direction to the fixed stars from west to east. (P2,S4) §3 Aristotle (says that the heavenly bodies are borne) by the spheres on which each of them is situated, (S5) §4 Anaximander (says that the heavenly bodies) are borne by the circles and the spheres on which each of them has mounted. (P3,S6) §5 Anaximenes (says that) the heavenly bodies whirl not beneath the earth but around it. (P4,S2) §6 Plato and the astronomers* (say that) the ‘gleamer’ [i.e. Mercury] experiences the same as the ‘dawn-bringer’ [i.e. Venus], and that they run a course equal to the sun and revolve together with it; and at one time it [i.e. Venus] appears when rising as the ‘dawn-bringer’, while at another time when setting it is called the ‘evening (star)’. (P5,S3) §7 Apollodorus in the second (book) of his On the Gods (says that) the view that the ‘light-bringer’ and the ‘evening (star)’ are the same (heavenly body) is Pythagorean. (S7) * The term here is μαθηματικοί, which can also be translated as ‘mathematicians’ or ‘scientists’ depending on the context; also in chs. 2.16, 2.29–31.

book 2 cosmology



From Where the Heavenly Bodies Obtain Their Illumination (P)

§1 Metrodorus (says that) all the fixed stars are shone upon by the sun. (P1,S4) §2 Strato too (says that) the stars are illuminated by the sun. (S5) §3 Diotimus of Tyre, the follower of Democritus, introduced the same opinion as these men. (P2,S1) §4 Heraclitus and the Stoics (say that) the heavenly bodies are nourished from the earthly exhalation. (P2,S1) §5 Aristotle (says that) the heavenly beings have no need of nourishment, for they are not perishable but everlasting. (P3,S3) §6 Plato (says that) the whole cosmos and the stars jointly obtain their nourishment from themselves. (P4,S2)


On the Stars Called the Dioscuri (P)

§1 Xenophanes (says that) that the star-like appearances on ships are cloudlets that light up according to the kind of movement that they have. (P1,S1) §2 Metrodorus (says that) they (i.e. the Dioscuri) are the flashing of eyes that gaze with fear and consternation. (P2)


On Signs of the Seasons Produced by the Heavenly Bodies (P,S)

§1 Plato (says that) the signs relating to winter and summer occur in accordance with the risings and settings of the heavenly bodies, namely the sun and the moon and the other planets and fixed stars. (P1,S2) §2 Anaximenes, however, (says that) through these (other heavenly bodies) none of these (signs occur), but through the sun only. (P2,S1) §3 Eudoxus Aratus (say that they occur) jointly through all the heavenly bodies, in (the verses in) which he (i.e. the latter) says: For he himself (i.e. Zeus) fixed the signs in heaven, marking out the constellations; and for the year he devised (those) heavenly bodies which especially would indicate the happenings ahead. (P3S3)

2100 2.20

book 2 cosmology

On the Substance of the Sun (P,S)

§1 Anaximander (says there) is a circle twenty-eight times the earth, similar to a chariot wheel with a hollow rim, filled with fire, revealing the fire in a particular part through an opening as through a blowtorch, and this is the sun. (P1,S3) §2 Xenophanes (says that the sun is formed) from incandescent clouds. (S1,T1,cf.P2b) §3 Anaximenes Parmenides (say that the substance of the sun is) fiery. (S4+5) §4 Antiphon (says that it is) fire encroaching on the moist air around the earth, and producing sunrises and sunsets by continually leaving the burning air (behind it) and in turn clamping onto the slightly dampened air (before it). (S6) §5 Xenophanes, ⟨as⟩ Theophrastus has written in his Physics, (says that it is formed) from firelets that are gathered together out of the moist exhalation and so gather together the sun. (P2,S2) §6 Heraclitus Hecataeus Cleanthes (say that the sun is) an intelligent ignited mass (formed) from the sea. (P3,S7+16) §7 Plato (says that it consists) of fire for the most part, but also has a share of the other elements. (P4,T6) §8 Anaxagoras, Democritus and Metrodorus (say that it is) an fiery clump or rock. (P5,S8+15(+4),T2) §9 Thales (says that it is) earthy. (S9,T3) §10 Diogenes (says that it is) pumice-like, and that rays from the ether fix themselves into it. (S10,T4) §11 Aristotle (says that it is) a sphere (made up) of the fifth body. (P6,T5) §12 Philolaus the Pythagorean (says that it is) glass-like, on the one hand receiving the reflection of the fire in the cosmos, on the other hand pushing the light and the heat through towards us, so that in a way there are two suns, both the fiery one in the heaven and the one derived from it which is fire-like through being mirror-like, unless someone will say that there is also a third, the beam spread out towards us from the mirror through reflection; for it is this which we call the sun, like an image of an image. (P7,S11,T7) §13 Empedocles (says that there are) two suns: (one) the original, which is fire in the one hemisphere of the cosmos and fills the hemisphere, always stationed opposite its own reflection; (the other) the visible sun, which is its reflection in the other hemisphere, namely the one filled with air mixed with heat, arising from the circular earth through a reflection onto the crystal-like Olympus [i.e. heaven], and revolving together with the motion of the fiery (element); to sum up briefly, the sun is a reflection of the fire around the earth. (P8,S12)

book 2 cosmology


§14 Epicurus (says that it is) an earthy concentration inflamed by the fire in its cavities in the manner of a pumice-stone or sponge. (P9,S13) §15 Heraclitus (says that it is) an ignited mass, which is kindled in the east and extinguished in the west. (PG7) §16 Parmenides (says that) the sun and the moon have been separated off from the circle of the Milky Way, the former from the more rarefied mixture which is hot, the latter from the denser (mixture) which is cold. (S14)


On the Size of the Sun (P,S,T)

§1 Anaximander (says that) the sun is equal to the earth (in size), and that the circle from which it has its vent and by which it is moved, is twenty-seven times the earth. (P1,S1,T1) §2 But Empedocles (says that it), namely the (sun) that appears in virtue of the reflection, (is) equal to the earth (in size). (S1,Tb2) §3 Anaxagoras (says that it is) many times (the size of) the Peloponnese. (P2,Ta2b3) §4 Heraclitus (says that it is) the breadth of a human foot. (P3,S2,Ta3b4) §5 Epicurus (says that it is) the size that it appears, or a just little larger or smaller. (P4,S4)


On the Shape of the Sun (P,S,T)

§1 Anaximenes and Alcmaeon (say that) the sun is flat, like a leaf. (P1,S1,3) §2 Heraclitus (says that it is) bowl-like, somewhat convex. (P2,S2,T2) §3 The Pythagoreans ⟨and⟩ the Stoics (say that it is) like a ball, like the cosmos and the stars. (P3,S4,T1) §4 Epicurus (says that) all the above-mentioned (shapes) are possible. (P4)


On the Turnings of the Sun (P,S)

§1 Anaximenes (says that) the heavenly bodies are pushed off course by condensed and resistant air. (P1,S1) §2 Anaxagoras (says that the turnings are caused) by the repulsion of the northern air, which it (the sun) by pushing makes strong as the result of the condensation (that occurs). (P2,S2)


book 2 cosmology

§3 Diogenes (says that) the sun is quenched by the cold that collides with the heat. (P4,S3) §4 Empedocles (says that the turnings are caused) by the sphere that surrounds it (the sun) and prevents it from continuing its course in a straight line, and by the solstitial circles. (P3,S4) §5 Democritus (says that they are caused) as the result of the whirling that carries it (the sun) around. (S5) §6 The Stoics (say that) the sun’s course is determined by the distance covered in accordance with the food available to it. This is the ocean or the earth, from which it consumes the exhalation. And (they say) the sun as it moves produces a concomitant spiral on the sphere, from the equinoctial (circle) to both the northern and the southern (tropics), which are the limits of the spiral. (P5,S6) §7 But others (say) that its movement makes a spiral in a straight line by doing this not on a sphere, but on a cylinder. (S7) §8 Plato Pythagoras Aristotle (say that they result) from the tilting of the zodiac circle, through which the sun moves with an oblique course, and in accordance with the guardianship of the solstitial circles. All these matters the sphere also demonstrates. (P6)


On the Eclipse of the Sun (P,S)

§1 Thales was the first to say that the sun undergoes an eclipse when the moon with its earthy nature proceeds perpendicularly in between (it and the earth); this is visible by means of reflection when the disc (of a mirror) is placed beneath. (P1,S5) §2 The Pythagoreans Empedocles ⟨hold a similar view⟩. (S4,6) §3 Anaximander (says that the sun is eclipsed) when the mouth through which the outpouring of fire occurs is blocked. (P2,S2) §4 Heraclitus (says that it undergoes an eclipse) in accordance with the turning of its bowl-like shape, so that the hollow aspect faces upwards and the convex aspect faces downwards in the direction of our vision. (P3,S3) §5 Xenophanes (says that it undergoes an eclipse) through quenching. And another sun occurs in the east. He has also recounted that there was an eclipse [i.e. failure] of the sun for an entire month, and moreover that a total eclipse took place, so that the day appeared as night. (P4,S1) §6 Some (thinkers say that it is) a concentration of clouds invisibly passing in front of the (sun’s) disk. (P5)

book 2 cosmology


§7 Aristarchus makes the sun stand still together with the fixed stars, while he moves the earth in the circle of the sun and (says that) it (the sun) is cast in shadow in accordance with the tiltings of this body [i.e. the earth]. (P6,S7) §8 Xenophanes says that there are many suns and moons in accordance with the latitudes of the earth and its sections and zones. But at a certain moment the (sun’s) disk falls into a section of the earth that is not inhabited by us, and in this way, as if treading on emptiness, discloses an eclipse. The same (thinker) says that the sun advances indefinitely, but seems to go in a circle because of the distance (away from us). (P7,S8)


On the Substance of the Moon (P,S)

§1 Anaximander (says that the moon is) a circle nineteen times the earth, resembling a chariot wheel, having a hollow rim and full of fire, like the (circle) of the sun, lying tilted, as that one [i.e. circle] does too, with a single blowhole, like a blowtorch; and it undergoes eclipse in accordance with the turnings of the wheel. (P1,S1) §2 Anaximenes Parmenides Heraclitus (say that) the moon is fiery. (S2– 3,T3) §3 Xenophanes (says that it is) an incandescent compressed cloud, (P2,S4,T1) §4 but Cleanthes (says that it is) fire-like. (P3,S14) §5 Posidonius and most of the Stoics, however, (say that it is) mixed out of fire and air. (S15) §6 Empedocles (says that it is) cloud-like compacted air, fixed by fire so that it forms a compound. (S12) §7 Plato (says that it is formed) for the most part from the fiery (material). (P4,S13) §8 Aristotle (says that it is formed) ⟨from the fifth body⟩. (cf. S13a) §9 Thales (says that it is) earthy. (S5,T2) §10 Anaxagoras Democritus (say that it is) an inflamed solid mass, which has in it plains and mountains and ravines. (P5,S6,T4) §11 Diogenes (says that it is) a sponge-like ignited mass. (S7) §12 Ion (says that it is) a body that is partly glass-like and transparent, partly opaque. (S8) §13 Berossus (says that it is) a half-inflamed sphere. (S9) §14 Heraclides and Ocellus (say that it is) earth surrounded by mist. (P6,S10,T6) §15 Pythagoras (says that it is) a mirror-like body. (P7,S11,T5)

2104 2.26

book 2 cosmology

On the Size of the Moon (P,S)

§1 The Stoics (say that the moon is) larger than the earth, as the sun is also. (P1,S3,T1) §2 Parmenides (says that it is) equal to the sun (in size), and indeed that it is illuminated by it. (P2,S1,T2) §3 Aristotle (says that it is) smaller (in size) than the earth, (S2,T3) §4 But others (say that it) has the diameter of a span. (T4)


On the Shape of the Moon (P,S)

§1 The Stoics (say that the moon) is like a ball [i.e. spherical], just like the sun. (P1,S5) §2 And it is shaped in many different ways, for it becomes full-moon and half-moon and gibbous and moon-like [i.e. crescent-shaped]. (S6) §3 Heraclitus (says that it is) bowl-like. (P2,S1) §4 Cleanthes (says that it is) hat-like. (S4) §5 Empedocles (says that it is) disc-like. (P3,S2) §6 But others (say that it is) cylinder-like. (P4,S3)


On the Illuminations of the Moon (P,S)

§1 Anaximander Xenophanes Berossus (say that) the moon has its own light. (P1,S1) §2 Aristotle (says that it has) its own (light), but it is somewhat thinner. (S2) §3 The Stoics (say that its light is) dim in appearance, for it is air-like. (S3) §4 Antiphon (says that) the moon has its own gleam, and the gleam that is hidden around it is dimmed by the approach of the sun, since it is natural for the stronger fire to make the weaker one dim, which indeed also occurs in the case of the other heavenly bodies. (P2,S4) §5 Thales was the first to say that it is illuminated by the sun. (P3,S5) §6 Pythagoras Parmenides Empedocles Anaxagoras Metrodorus (say) likewise. (S6) §7 Heraclitus (says that) the sun and the moon undergo the same experience: since they are heavenly bodies that are bowl-like in their shapes and receive their radiance from the moist exhalation, they light up in their appear-

book 2 cosmology


ance (towards us), the sun doing so more brightly because it moves in air that is purer, whereas the moon moves in murkier (air) and for this reason appears dimmer. (P4,S7)


On the Eclipse of the Moon (P,S,T)

§1 Anaximander (says that the moon is eclipsed) when the orifice on the wheel (of fire) is obstructed. (P1,S1) §2 Berossus (says that it is eclipsed) in accordance with the turning of the uninflamed part (of the moon) towards us. (P2,S2) §3 Alcmaeon Heraclitus Antiphon (say that it is eclipsed) in accordance with the turning of the bowl-like (shape of the moon) and its lateral motions. (P3,S3) §4 Some of the Pythagoreans according to the research of Aristotle and the assertion of Philip of Opus (say that it is eclipsed) through reflection and obstruction, sometimes of the earth and sometimes of the counter-earth. (P4,S4) §5 But among more recent thinkers there are some who are of the opinion (that an eclipse takes place) in accordance with the dissemination of a flame that slowly catches alight in an orderly manner until it produces the complete full moon, and (then) analogously diminishes again until the conjunction (with the sun), when it is completely extinguished. (P5,S5) §6 Xenophanes (says that) the monthly concealment too (takes place) by quenching. (S6) §7 Thales Anaxagoras Plato Aristotle the Stoics (and) the astronomers* agree in unison that it (the moon) produces the monthly concealments by travelling together with the sun and being illuminated by it, whereas it produces the eclipses by descending into the shadow of the earth which interposes itself between the two heavenly bodies, or rather when the moon is obstructed (by the earth). (P6,S7) §8 Anaxagoras, as Theophrastus says, (says that it is eclipsed) also when it happens that bodies (in the space) below the moon interpose themselves. (S8)

* On the term μαθηματικοί see the note to the translation of ch. 2.15.

2106 2.30

book 2 cosmology

On Its Appearance and Why It Appears (To Be) Earthy (P,S)

§1 Some of the Pythagoreans, of whom Philolaus is one, (say that) its earthy appearance is caused by the fact that the moon is inhabited, just like our earth, (but) with animals and plants that are larger and more beautiful. For (they say that) the animals on it are fifteen-fold in power and do not discharge any excrement, and that the day is the same in length [i.e. fifteen-fold]. (P1,S1) §2 But others (say that) the appearance in the moon is a reflection of the sea inhabited by us (which is located) beyond the circle of the Torrid zone. (S2) §3 Anaxagoras (says that it is caused by) unevenness of its composition on account of cold being mixed in together with the earthy (component), the moon having some parts that are high, others that are low, and others that are hollow. {Moreover, (he says that) the dark (component) has been mixed in with the fire-like (component), the effect of which causes the shadowy (colouring) to appear; for this reason the heavenly body is called ‘falsely appearing’.} (P2,S3) §4 Democritus (says that it is caused by) the shadow effects of the high areas in it; for it has glens and vales. (S4) §5 Parmenides (says that it occurs) on account of the dark (component) having been mixed in with the fire-like (component) in it; for this reason the heavenly body is called ‘falsely appearing’. (S5) §6 The Stoics (say that) on account of the air mixed in the substance its composition is not unblemished. (P3,S6) §7 Aristotle (says that) its composition is not unblemished because the ether, which he calls the fifth body, becomes aerated close to the earth. (S7) §8 The successors of the astronomers* regard its compositional unevenness as the cause. Just as in the case of clouds illuminated by the sun the thinner parts are brighter and the thicker parts are darker, so it happens in the case of the moon, which resembles a cloud-like compressed body and is illuminated by the sun. (S8) §9 Xenophanes (says that) the sun is useful for the generation and administration of the cosmos and the living beings in it, but the moon is redundant. (S9)


On the Distances of the Moon (P,S,cf.T)

§1 Empedocles (says that) the moon is double the distance from the sun that it is from the earth. (P1,S1,T1)

book 2 cosmology


§2 But the successors of the astronomers* (say that it is) eighteen times. (P2,S2) §3 Eratosthenes (says that) the sun is distant four hundred and eight myriads of stades from the earth, and that the moon is distant seventy-eight myriads of stades from the earth. (P3,S3,T2) §4 Empedocles (says that) the distension (of the heaven) in its breadth is greater than the height from the earth to heaven, which is its extension from us, the increased extent of the heaven having occurred for the reason that the cosmos is lying (on its side) in the manner similar to an egg. (S4) §5 But Boethus understands the extent as a matter of appearance, not of reality. (S5)


On the Year, How Great the Time of (the Revolution of) Each of the Planets Is, and What the Great Year Is (P,cf.S)

§1 A year for Saturn is a period of thirty years, for Jupiter it is twelve (years), for Mars two (years), for the Sun twelve months; and the same (months are the period) for Mercury and Venus, for they move at the same speed. (The period) of the moon is thirty days, for this is the complete month from its appearance to the conjunction (with the sun). (P1,S1) §2 But (they say that) the so-called Great year occurs whenever (the planets) reach the (same) locations from which they commenced their motion. (S2) §3 But as far as the Great year is concerned, some (thinkers) place it in the eighth year, (P2,S3) §4 others in the nineteenth year, (P3,S4) §5 others in the years that are a fourfold [i.e. in the 76th year], (S5) §6 yet others in the 60th year minus one, among whom are Oenopides and Pythagoras. (P4,S6) §7 But there are others who place it in the so-called starting-point of time, and this is the return of the seven planets on the same day of their movement from the beginning. (S7) §8 Heraclitus (says that the Great year consists) of 18000 solar years. (P5,S8) §9 Diogenes the Stoic (says that the Great year consists) of 365 years times what the (Great) year was according to Heraclitus. (P6,S9) §10 But others (say that the Great year occurs) every 7777 (years). (P7) * On the term μαθηματικοί see the note to the previous chapter.

Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth AËTIUS ON THE VIEWS (OF THE PHILOSOPHERS) BOOK 3 in which the following chapter headings (are found):

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5a. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

[Proem] On the circle of the Milky Way On comets and shooting stars and beams On thunders, lightnings, thunderbolts, firewinds and typhoons On clouds, mist, rains, dew, snow, hoar-frost, hail On the rainbow [formerly 18] On the halo On rods On winds On winter and summer On the earth, and what its substance is and how many there are On the shape of the earth On the location of the earth On the inclination of the earth Whether the earth is at rest or moves On the division of the earth, how many zones there are On earthquakes On the sea, how it came to be and how bitter it is How low and high tides occur

[Proem] §1 Having in the previous (Books) systematically and by way of an epitome gone through the account of the things in the heavens—of which the moon is the boundary—, I shall turn in the third (Book) to the things on high. These are situated from the orbit of the moon down to the position of the earth, which they believe to occupy the place of the centre in the circumference of the sphere. I shall begin from there [i.e. from the circumference]. (P)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_160

book 3 meteorology and the earth



On the Circle of the Milky Way (P,S)

§1 It is a cloud-like circle in the air, continually visible, called Milky Way because of its white colour. (P1,S1) §2 Some of the Pythagoreans said (that it) is the (result of the) scorching by a heavenly body which departed from its proper place, and the region through which it moved, this it burned in a circle at the time of the conflagration caused by Phaethon. (P2,S2) §3 But others (of the Pythagoreans) said that originally the sun’s orbit followed this route. (S3) §4 Some say, however, that it is an appearance, as in a mirror, of the sun, which bends back [i.e. reflects] its rays against the heaven, just as what happens both in the case of the rainbow and in that of the clouds. (S4) §5 Metrodorus (says that it occurred) through the passage of the sun, for this is the circle of the sun. (P3,S5) §6 Parmenides (says that) the whitish colour is the result of the mixture of the dense and the rare (element). (P4,S6) §7 Anaxagoras (says) that the shadow of the earth rests upon this section of the heaven (namely, where the Milky Way is visible), when the sun, having arrived under the earth, no longer illuminates everything. (P5,S7) §8 Democritus (says it is) the combined illumination of numerous and small and contiguous stars giving off light together, because of the density. (P4,S6) §9 Aristotle (says it is) an ignition of a large and continuous (portion) of the dry exhalation; thus (we have) a head of hair [i.e. the tail of a comet] (consisting) of fire, underneath the aether, lower than the planets. (P7,S9) §10 The Stoics (say it is) a loose-textured form of the aetherial fire, higher than the planets. (PG7) §11 Posidonius (says it is) a solid structure (consisting) of a fire that is rarer than a star but denser than the brightest light. (P8,S10)


On Comets and Shooting Stars and Beams (P,S)

§1 Some of the successors of Pythagoras* say that the comet is one of those stars which are not always visible, but at a certain time they periodically appear above the horizon. (P1,S1) §2 But other (successors of Pythagoras say that) it is the reflection of our vision upon the sun, similar to the images that are reflected in mirrors. (P2,S2)


book 3 meteorology and the earth

§3 Anaxagoras Democritus (say that) it is a conjunction of two or even more stars according to their giving off light together. (P3,S3) §4 Aristotle (says that) it is a fiery structure consisting of the dry exhalation from the earth. (P4,S4) §5 Strato (says that) it is the light of a star enclosed in a compact cloud, as is the case (with fire) in lanterns. (P5,S5) §6 Heraclides of Pontus (says that) it is a cloud high in the sky illuminated by a light high in the sky. He provides the same causal explanation for bearded star, halo, beam, pillar, and their ilk, just as of course all the Peripatetics do, namely that these (phenomena) arise according to the configurations of the clouds. (P6,S6) §7 Epigenes (says that) it is the ascent of inflamed pneuma mixed with earth. (P7,S7) §8 Boethus (says that) it is an appearance of ignited air. (P8,S8) §9 Diogenes (says that) the comets are stars. (P9,S9) §10 Anaxagoras (says) that the (phenomena) called shooting stars fall down from the aether like sparks, which is why they are also immediately extinguished. (P10,S10) §11 Metrodorus (says that) that a violent immission into the clouds of (the light of) the sun in the manner of a projectile often causes the emission of sparks. (P11,S11) §12 Xenophanes (says that) that all these (phenomena) are combinations or movements of ignited clouds. (P12,S12)


On Thunders, Lightnings, Thunderbolts, Firewinds (Presteres) and Typhoons (P,S)

§1 Anaximander (says that) all these [sc. five] result from the pneuma. For when air surrounded by a thick cloud bursts out, having forced its way owing to its being constituted of small particles and of its lightness, then the breaking forth produces the noise and the contrast with the blackness of the cloud the piercing brightness. (P1,S1) §2 Anaximenes agrees with him, citing in addition what occurs in the case of the sea, which flashes when split by the oars. (S2) §3 Metrodorus (says that) when pneuma falls upon a cloud, which has become frozen through its density, it produces the noise by breaking it up, flashes

* On the translation of multiple name-labels see the User’s guide to the translation.

book 3 meteorology and the earth


through the impact and the splitting, and throws off a thunderbolt through the velocity of its movement, also making use of the sun’s heat. But if the (resultant) thunderbolt is weak, it converts it into a firewind (prester). (P2,S3) §4 Anaxagoras (says that) when the hot falls onto the cold (that is, an aetherial portion into an air-like one), it produces thunder by its noise and lightning by its colour as set off against the blackness of the cloud; by the mass and size of its light (it produces) the thunderbolt; by fire containing a greater multitude of corpuscles the typhon; by fire mingled with a cloud the firewind. (P3,S4) §5 Archelaus says the same, citing in addition the effect of inflamed stones being submerged in cold water. (S5) §6 Xenophanes (says that) lightning arises when clouds start to shine forth because of their movement. (S6) §7 Empedocles (speaks of) light falling upon a cloud, shutting out the resisting air. Its quenching and destruction produce the crash and its flash the lightning. The thunderbolt is the lightning’s intensity. (S7) §8 Diogenes (speaks of) fire falling upon a wet cloud. By its quenching it produces thunder, by its flashing lightning. He also adduces the pneuma as an accessory cause. (S8) §9 Heraclitus (says that) thunder (results) from gatherings of winds and clouds and impacts of pneumata upon the clouds, lightnings when what is evaporated catches fire, and firewinds through the burnings and quenchings of clouds. (S9) §10 Leucippus (says that) the powerful escape of fire cut off inside very dense clouds produces thunder. (S10) §11 Democritus (says that) thunder results from a compound of uneven composition, which forces its way out of the cloud containing it in a downward motion. Lightning is a collision of clouds because of which the fireengendering particles are filtered through their quite empty interstices and are pushed through togethe while rubbing against each other. A thunderbolt occurs whenever the motion forces its way that is generated from fireengendering particles that are purer and finer, more even and ‘close-fitted’, as he writes himself. A firewind arises whenever compounds of fire containing much void, detained in quite empty places, assume a bodily form in the envelopes of their own membranes, and being composed of many ingredients acquire an impulse towards heaviness. (S11) §12 Chrysippus (says) lightning is the ignition of clouds being rubbed and ruptured by pneuma, and thunder is the sound of these. Thunder and lightning both arise in the air at the same time, but we apprehend the lightning sooner on account of vision being sharper than hearing. Whenever the pneuma’s motion becomes stronger and fiery, a thunderbolt is produced; whenever the pneuma


book 3 meteorology and the earth

escapes all together and is less inflamed, a firewind arises; and whenever the pneuma is even is less inflamed, a typhon. (S12) §13 Aristotle (says) that such things too result from the dry exhalation. When it encounters the moist (exhalation), it forces its way out, and the noise of the thunder is produced by the friction and the bursting, while the ignition of the dry (ingredient) brings about the lightning flash. (P5a,S13) §14 Strato (says that such things occur) whenever hot yields to cold, when it happens that it is forced out: thunder through the bursting out, the lightning flash through the light, the thunderbolt through the speed, firewinds and typhons through the excessive quantity of matter which each of them draws to itself, hotter (matter) in the case of the firewind, denser in that of the typhon. (P5b,S14) §15 The Stoics (say that) thunder (is a) collision of clouds, lightning an ignition through friction, thunderbolt a stronger flash, firewind a slower one. (P4, S15)


On Clouds, Mist, Rains, Dew, Snow, Hoar-Frost, Hail (P,S)

§1 Anaximenes (says that) clouds occur when air becomes more condensed, and (that) the rains are squeezed out when it becomes even more compacted; and hail (occurs) when water freezes during its downward course, and snow when a pneumatic ingredient is amalgamated with the moisture. (P1,S1) §2 Anaxagoras (says that) clouds and snow occur similarly (sc. as according to Anaximenes), but (that) hail is formed whenever some particles are ejected from the frozen clouds towards the earth, which form into balls as they become cold in their downward movement. (S2) §3 Metrodorus (says that) clouds are formed by the air from the watery updraught. (P2,S3) §4 Xenophanes (says that) atmospheric phenomena result from the heat of the sun as the preliminary cause. For when moisture is drawn up from the sea and its fresh part is separated off because of its fine-grained consistency, clouds accumulate as it becomes misty, rain is shed owing to condensation, and winds arise owing to evaporation. For he literally writes ‘source of water is the sea.’ (S4) §5 Epicurus (says that they accumulate) from atoms; and that hail is formed in round figures and rain gradually acquires its form in its lengthy descent. (P3,S5) §6 *** and that it (?) produces a pneuma by pushing the clouds to one side, rain by liquefying (them), hail by compressing (them), and snow by incorporating a bit of airy substance. (S6)

book 3 meteorology and the earth



On the Rainbow (P,S)

§1 Meteorological phenomena are of two sorts. Some, such as rain and hail, have a real subsistence, others (exist) only in appearance and do not have a separate subsistence. To give an example: when we are sailing the land appears to be in motion. The rainbow thus exists in appearance only. (P1,S1) §2 Plato says that human beings provided the rainbow with a descent from Thaumas, because they admired (thaumasai) it. Homer: ‘as he extends for mortals a lurid rainbow’. For this reason some also told the story that it has a head like a bull, by which it swallows up rivers. (P2,S2) §3 How, then, does the rainbow occur? We in fact look along lines that are straight or that are bent or that are refracted, lines that are hidden and (only) visible to reason and incorporeal. Looking along straight lines we see what is in the air and (what can be seen through) transparent stones and horn, for all these bodies have very fine particles. Bent lines we see occurring in water, for the visual ray is bent because the matter of water is denser. This is of course why from afar we see the oar bending in the sea. The third way of seeing (involves) what is reflected, such as images in mirrors. (P3,S3) §4 Well, the condition of the rainbow is of the last-mentioned sort. We should assume that the moist exhalation changes into a cloud, and in a short time from this (cloud) into small and moist droplets. When the sun is in the west, it will necessarily follow that the rainbow appears opposite to the sun, when the visual ray, impacting upon the droplets, is reflected, so that the rainbow occurs. (P4,S4) §5 The droplets are forms not of shape but of colour. The first (part) has a dark red, the second a sea-violet and purple, the third a dark blue and light green (colour). Possibly this dark red colour (comes about) because the splendor of the sun, falling upon (these droplets), and the sudden refraction of its brilliance produce the colour red and dark red. The second part, becoming turbid and more loosened from the brilliance because of the droplets, becomes sea-violet, for this is a looser form of the (colour) red. The outer (part), becoming even more turbid, changes into the (colour) green. (P5,S5) §6 Now this can be tested by experiment. If one, standing opposite the sun, takes water in one’s mouth and spits it out, and the droplets take on a reflection towards the sun, he will find that a rainbow occurs. Patients suffering from ophthalmitis have the same experience when they look into the lamplight. (P6,S6) §7 Anaximenes (says that) the rainbow occurs through the mirroring of the sun’s light upon a dense, thick, and black cloud, on account of the inability of the rays to collect together and penetrate to the other side. (P7)


book 3 meteorology and the earth

§8 Anaxagoras (says that the rainbow is) a reflection of the sun’s radiance from a dense cloud, and that it is situated directly opposite to the heavenly body that shows itself as in a mirror. He gives a similar causal explanation of the so-called mock-suns (parhelia), which occur around the Black Sea. (P8) §9 Metrodorus (says that) when the sun shines through the clouds the cloud becomes bluish-grey and the beams turn red. (P9)

3.5a [Formerly 18]

On the Halo (P,S)

§1 The halo is produced in the following way: between the moon or another heavenly body and (our organ of) vision there is situated a thick and misty (mass of) air. Then, when our vision is refracted and broadened in this (air) and next in this condition falls upon the orb of the heavenly body at its outer circumference, a circle seems to appear around the heavenly body (this apparent circle is called ‘halo’ because it resembles a ‘halos’ (‘round threshing-floor’)); the apparition seems to come to be in the place where the modification of our vision happened to occur. (P1)


On Rods (P,S)

§1 The phenomena that happen in the case of rods and counter-suns exist through a mixture of real subsistence and mere appearance, because what is seen are really clouds, not however with their own colour but with another one that shines forth through reflection. With all phenomena of this kind the properties (are) similar, both those that are according to nature and those that are acquired. (P1)


On Winds (P,S)

§1 Anaximander (says that) wind is a flow of air, the sun putting into motion or melting its subtlest and moistest parts. (P1) §2 The Stoics (say that) each draught (pneuma) is a flow of air, which however changes its appellation according to the differences of the places (from which it blows). Thus the Zephyr is named from the darkness and the west, the Apeliotes from the east and the sun, the Boreas from the north, and the Lips from the southern regions. (P2)

book 3 meteorology and the earth


§3 Metrodorus (says that) from a moist exhalation heated by the sun an onset of summer winds occurs. And the Etesian winds blow when the air that is more compacted in the north flows together with the sun when it recedes at the summer solstice. (P3) §4 Aristotle (says that) wind is the first updraught of the dry exhalation. There sometimes occurs a mixing of the dry exhalation with the wet. (S1)


On Winter and Summer (P)

§1 Empedocles and the Stoics (say) that winter occurs when the air prevails by its thickness and presses the sun upwards; and summer-time because fire (prevails), when it presses the sun downwards. (P1,S1) §2 Now I have described the things on high, the account will proceed to the things on earth. (P2)


On the Earth, and What Its Substance Is and How Many There Are (P,S)

§1 Thales and his successors (say) there is (only) one earth. (P1) §2 Hicetas the Pythagorean (says that) there are two, this one and the counter-earth. (P2) §3 The Stoics (say that) there is one earth, and that it is finite. (P3) §4 Xenophanes (says that) it is rooted ‘towards infinity’ on its nether part; and that it has been compounded from air and fire. (P4) §5 Metrodorus (says that) the earth is a sediment and dregs of the water, but the sun (is the same) of the air. (P5)


On the Shape of the Earth (P,S)

§1 Thales and the Stoics (say that) the earth is like a ball [i.e. spherical]. (P1) §2 Anaximander (says that) the earth resembles a column drum, ⟨with curved surfaces⟩. §3 Anaximenes (says that it is) like a slab. (P3) §4 Leucippus (says that it is) like a (kettle-)drum. (P4) §5 Democritus (says that it is) like a disk in breadth, but hollow at the centre. (P5)

2116 3.11

book 3 meteorology and the earth

On the Placement of the Earth (P,S)

§1 The successors of Thales (say) the earth (is) in the middle. (P1) §2 Xenophanes (says it is) first, for it is rooted in infinity. (P2) §3 Philolaus the Pythagorean (says that) the fire is in the middle (for this is the ‘hearth’ of the universe), that the counter-earth is second, and third the earth we inhabit, situated opposite the counter-earth and circulating along with it, which is why those in that one are not seen by those in this one. (P3)


On the Tilting of the Earth (P)

§1 Leucippus (says that) the earth slopes down towards the southern parts because of the loose texture in its southern (parts), since the northern (parts) are congealed because refrigerated by the frost, whereas the opposite (parts) have been ignited. (P1) §2 Democritus (says that) because the southern part of what is around it is weaker the earth becomes larger and is tilted in that direction; for the north is unmixed while the south is mixed; for this reason (the earth) has become heavy in that direction, where there is more of it because of the fruits (of the earth) and their increase. (P2)


Whether the Earth Is at Rest or Moves (P,S)

§1 The others (say that) the earth is at rest. (P1) §2 But Philolaus the Pythagorean (says that) it moves about the fire in an oblique circle in the same [or: a similar] way as sun and moon. (P2) §3 Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean cause the earth to move, though not from one place to another, but by revolution in the manner of a wheel upon an axle, from west to east about its own centre. (P3) §4 Democritus (says that) the earth originally wandered around because of its small size and lightness, but having become denser and heavier in time it came to a halt. (P4)


On the Division of the Earth, How Many Are Its Zones (P)

§1 Pythagoras (says that) the earth, in analogy to the sphere of the {whole} heaven, is divided into five zones: artic, antarctic, summer (tropic), winter

book 3 meteorology and the earth


(tropic), equatorial, of which that in between the summer and winter (zone) delimits the middle (part) of the earth, which for that reason [sc. because it occupies the middle section] is called scorched (zone); the inhabitable (zone) is ⟨the summer (tropic)⟩, which is one that is temperate. (P1) §2 Parmenides was the first to define the inhabited zones of the earth under the two tropic zones. (P2 = P3.11.4)


On Earthquakes (P,S)

§1 Thales and Democritus assign the cause of earthquakes to water, (P1) §2 whereas the Stoics say an earthquake is the moisture in the earth that is separated and bursts out into the air. (P2) §3 Anaximenes (says that) the dryness and wetness of the earth are the cause of earthquakes, the former of which is produced by droughts, the latter by heavy rains. (P3) §4 Anaxagoras (says that they are caused) by the striving of the air to get out, which when it hits the compactness of the surface is not able find a way out and so shakes what surrounds it with a tremor. (P4) §5 Aristotle (says that they are caused) by the enclosing from all sides ⟨of the hot⟩ by the cold, which presses on it both from below and from above; for the hot strives to get higher up, as it is light; for this reason, the dry exhalation, having become imprisoned, is agitated because of the obstruction and the convolutions. (P5) §6 Metrodorus (says that) no body which is in its proper place moves, unless one actually pushes it forward or drags it down; therefore the earth does not (move) either, as it is located in its natural place, though some places are collapsing because of the trembling. (P6) §7 Parmenides Democritus (say that the earth) remains in equilibrium because it is equidistant on all sides (sc. from the surrounding heavens); it has no ground for moving this way rather than that; because of this it is merely shaken, but it does not move. (P7) §8 Anaximenes (says it does not move) because of its broad surface being carried upon the air. (P8) §9 Others believe (that it is carried) upon the water, as boards and broad planks on waters [i.e. watery surfaces], and for this reason it moves. (P9) §10 Plato (says that) there are six directions of motion in all: up and down, to the right and to the left, forwards and backwards; it is not possible that the earth should be moved in any of these modes, for it is located at the most equal distance (sc. from the surrounding heavens); it remains immobile, since it does


book 3 meteorology and the earth

not have any preference causing it to incline in any direction more (than in any other); but it has places that shake because of its thinness. (P10,S1) §11 Epicurus (says) that it is possible that the earth moves when it is thrown upwards and as it were struck from beneath by thick and humid air that lies beneath it; but it is also possible that, as it is full of holes in its nether parts, it is shaken by the wind which is dispersed through its cavernous hollows. (P11)


On the Sea, How It Came To Be and How Bitter It Is (P,S)

§1 Anaximander says that the sea is the remainder of the primal moisture; the greatest part of which the fire dried up, and what is left altered its quality [i.e. became bitter] because of the great heat. (P1) §2 Anaxagoras (says that), when in the beginning water existed as a standing pool, it was scorched by the movement of the sun about it and the fattish part of the water was exhaled, (then) what was left turned to saltiness and bitterness. (P2) §3 Empedocles (says that the sea is) ‘sweat of the earth’ heated by the sun because of the greater compression [or: its closeness to the surface]. (P3) §4 Antiphon (says that the sea is) sweat of the hot, from which the moist remainder was separated, becoming salty by drying out, as happens with all sweat. (P4) §5 Metrodorus (says that the sea) by being strained through the earth acquired some part of its density, just as is the case with what is filtered through ashes. (P5) §6 The successors of Plato (say that) of the elemental water the part that comes together by cooling from air becomes sweet, but (the part) that is exhaled from the earth through heating and burning (becomes) salty. (P6)


How Do Low and High Tides Occur (P,S)

§1 Aristotle Heraclides (say the tides are caused) by the sun, which moves the majority of the winds and whirls them about; as these throw themselves upon the Atlantic sea, this is thrust forward and swells and produces the high tide; when they are ceasing the sea pulls back and subsides, which is the low tide. (P1,S1) §2 ⟨Dicaearchus⟩ of Messene, too, attributes the cause to the sun, which instigates flooding in whatever regions of the earth it reaches, but gradually

book 3 meteorology and the earth


draws them away with itself in whatever regions it happens to recede from. These events take place in relation to the morning and afternoon shifts. (S2) §3 Pytheas of Marseille (says that) the high tides occur through the waxing of the moon, the low tides through its waning. (P2,S3) §4 Posidonius (says) the winds are moved by the moon, and the seas in turn by these (winds), in which [i.e. the seas] the aforesaid effects [i.e. the tides] take place. (S4) §5 Plato attributes them to the oscillation of the waters. For there is a sort of natural oscillation that through a tunnel in the earth moves the reflux hither and thither; and by this reflux the seas surge back. (P3,S5) §6 Timaeus of Taormina gives as the cause those rivers that fall from the mountains of Celtic Gaul into the Atlantic. Upon their entering upon that sea, they violently press upon it, and so cause the high tide; but when they withdraw by their resting they produce the low tides as well. (P4,S6) §7 Crates the grammarian gives as the cause the reciprocal push and pull of the sea. (S7) §8 Apollodorus of Corcyra (gives as the cause) the refluxes from the Ocean. (S8) §9 Seleucus the astronomer*, who wrote against Crates (and) who, too, moves the earth, says that the revolution of the moon hinders its rotation (i.e. of the earth); as the wind between these two bodies (the earth and the moon) withdraws from or falls upon the Atlantic Ocean, correspondingly the sea produces its waves. (P5,S9) * On the term μαθηματικός here see the note to the translation of ch. 2.15.

Book 4 Psychology AËTIUS ON THE VIEWS (OF THE PHILOSOPHERS) BOOK 4 in which the following chapter headings (are found):

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ⟨7a. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

[Proem] On the rising of the Nile On the soul Whether the soul is a body and what its substance is On the parts of soul On the regent part and in which (part of the body) it is found On the motion of soul On the indestructibility of soul On intellect⟩ On sensation and sense-objects Whether sensations and impressions are true How many senses there are How the sensation and the conception and the reason [or: speech] that is internally placed occur In what respect impression, impressor, imagination, figment are different On sight, how we see On reflections in mirrors Whether darkness is visible On hearing On smelling On tasting On voice Whether voice is incorporeal and how echo occurs How the soul comes to be sentient and what its regent part is On respiration On bodily affections and whether the soul experiences pain along with these

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_161

book 4 psychology


[Proem] §1 The parts of the cosmos having now been treated systematically, I shall continue in the direction of the particular phenomena. (P)


On the Rising of the Nile (P)

§1 Thales believes that the Etesian (i.e., north-west) winds blowing opposite Egypt swell the volume of the Nile because its outflows are beaten back by the swelling of the sea that outflanks it. (P1) §2 Euthymenes of Massilia (is of the opinion) that the river is filled from the Ocean and from the outer sea, which according to him is sweet. (P2) §3 Anaxagoras (believes it is filled) from the snow in Aethiopia, which melts in summer but cools in winter. (P3) §4 Democritus (believes that), when the snow in the northern parts (of the earth) melts and dissolves at the times of the summer solstice, clouds are formed by compression from the (moist) vapours; and that these, when driven towards the south and †Egypt† by the Etesian winds, produce torrential rains, by which the pools and the river Nile are filled. (P4) §5 Herodotus the prose writer (says that the river) is borne from its springs in equal measure in winter and in summer, but seems to be less in winter because in that season the sun comes closer to Egypt and draws the streams up as vapour. (P5) §6 Ephorus the historian says that in the summer the whole of Egypt grows slack and as it were is sweating out the large stream. Arabia and Libya also contribute because of their loose-textured and rather sandy nature. (P6) §7 Eudoxus says that the priests state that (the cause of the flood is) rainwater corresponding to the reciprocal change of the seasons. For when it is summer for us who live under the summer solstice, then it is winter for those who live on the other side of the meridian under the winter solstice, which is from where the floodwater rushes down. (P7)


On the Soul (P,S,T)

§1 Thales was the first to declare that the soul is a nature that is ever-moving, or rather self-moved. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Alcmaeon (says that it is) a nature that is self-moved according to everlasting motion, and for this reason he assumes that it is immortal and resembles the divine beings. (S4,T2)


book 4 psychology

§3 Pythagoras (says that it is) a number moving itself; he takes number as denoting Intellect, (P2,S2,T3) §4 and similarly Xenocrates (says this) as well. (S3,T4) §5 Plato (says that it is) an intelligible substance, moved of itself, in motion according to a numerical harmony. (P3,T5) §6 Aristotle (says that it is) the first entelechy [i.e. ‘actuality’] of a body that is natural, organic, and potentially possessing life; and this entelechy must be understood to denote form and activity. (P4,S7,T6) §7 Dicaearchus (says that it is) a harmony of the four elements. (P5,S5,T7) §8 Asclepiades the doctor (says that it is) a common exercising of the senses. (P6,S6)


Whether the Soul Is a Body and What Its Substance Is (P)

§1 All those arrayed previously assume that the soul is incorporeal, saying that it is self-moved, and an intelligible substance, and the actuality of the natural organic (entity) which has life. (P1) §2 Anaximenes Anaximander Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes said that it is air-like and a body. (P2,S1,T1) §3 The Stoics (say that) it is an intelligent warm pneuma. (P3,S2,T2) §4 Parmenides and Hippasus and Heraclitus (say that) it is fire-like. (S3,T3) §5 Democritus (say that) it is a fiery compound of things which are observable by reason, having forms that are spherical but with the potency of fire; which is a body. (P4,S4) §6 Heraclides defined the soul as light-like. (S5,T5) §7 Leucippus (says that) the soul (consists) of fire. (S6) §8 Diogenes of Apollonia (says that) the soul (consists) of air. (S7) §9 Hippo (says that) the soul (consists) of water. (S8) §10 Xenarchus the Peripatetic and certain others of the same School (say that it is) the completion and entelechy [i.e. actuality] with respect to the form, existing per se while simultaneously being conjoined with the body. (S9) §11 Epicurus (says that it is) a mixture of four ingredients, (namely) of a fiery quality, an aerial quality, a pneumatic quality, and of a fourth quality that is nameless; this (last-mentioned), for him, is the perceptive part. Of these the pneuma brings about movement, the air rest, the warm (component) the per-

* On the translation of multiple name-labels see the User’s guide to the translation.

book 4 psychology


ceptible warmth of the body, while the anonymous (component) brings about the perception in us (humans), for perception is not present in any of the elements that have names. (P5,S10,T5) §12 Empedocles (says that it is) a blend of an aetherial and an aerial ⟨and a watery and an earthy⟩ substance. (T6) §13 Critias said that it is (a blend) of blood and [or: that is,] of moisture. (T7) §14 Heraclitus (says that) the Soul of the cosmos (is) an exhalation from the moistures (that are) in it (sc. in the cosmos), and (that) the soul in living beings (derives) from the exterior exhalation as well as from that which is within them (sc. the living beings), (and is) of the same kind. (P6)


On the Parts of Soul (P,S)

§1 Pythagoras Plato according to their most general definition (say that) the soul is bipartite, for it has a rational (part) on the one hand and an irrational on the other. But according to what is proximate and precise it is tripartite, for they divide the irrational into the spirited and the concupiscible. (P1,T1) §2 Xenocrates (says that) one (part) of the soul is perceiving, and the other rational. (T2) §3 Aristotle (said) there are five activities (of soul), the appetitive, the nurturing, the perceiving, the locomotive, the cogitating. (T3) §4 The Stoics say the soul consists of eight parts: five perceiving parts, (viz.) seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; as sixth the speaking (part); as seventh the seminal (part); as eighth the regent (part) itself, from which all these (other parts) are extended through their own organs, similarly to the tentacles of an octopus. (P2,T4) §5 Apollophanes ⟨says that the soul consists of nine parts⟩. (S1) §6 The Successors of Pythagoras, positing that the body is a blend of five elements—for to the four they added the aetherial (element)—, said the powers of the soul too are in respect of this accession [or: addition] equal in number, and these they called intelligence and understanding and knowledge and opinion and sensation. (T5) §7 Democritus Epicurus (say) that the soul is bipartite, having the rational (part) established in the breast, and the irrational (part) diffused through the whole compound of the body. (P3) §8 But Democritus says that all things participate in a sort of soul, even dead bodies, because they patently continue to participate in something warm and perceptive, though most (of this) is expired out of them. (P4,S2)

2124 4.5

book 4 psychology

What Is the Regent Part and in Which (Part of the Body) Is It Found (P,T)

§1 Plato Democritus (say it is) in the whole head. (P1,T1b) §2 Hippocrates (says it is) in the brain. (T1a) §3 Strato (says it is) in the part of the forehead between the eyebrows. (P2,T2) §4 Erasistratus (says it is) in the membrane enveloping the brain, which he calls epikranis (‘on the skull’). (P3,T3) §5 Herophilus (says it is) in the ventricle of the brain, which is also its basis (‘base’). (P4,T4) §6 Parmenides (says it is) in the whole chest; as also does Epicurus. (P5,T5) §7 Aristotle (and) all the Stoics (say it is) in the whole heart, or in the pneuma about the heart. (P6,T6) §8 Diogenes (says it is) in the arterial ventricle of the heart, which is pneumatic. (P7,T7) §9 Empedocles (says it is) in the compound of the blood. (P8,T6) §10 Some people (say it is) in the neck of the heart, (P9) §11 But others in the pericardium, (P10,T8) §12 And yet others in the midriff. (P11,T9) §13 Some of the later thinkers (say) that it extends from the head to the midriff. (P12) §14 Pythagoras (says that) the life-sustaining (part is) in the region of the heart, the rational and intelligent in the region of the head. (P13)


On the Motion of Soul (P,S)

§1 Plato (says that) the soul is ever-moving, but that the mind is unmoved with regard to locomotion. (P1,S2) §2 Aristotle (says that) the soul is unmoved because it is prior to all motion, but it does partake of accidental motion, just as do the shapes and boundaries and absolutely all the formal aspects that relate to bodies. (P2,S1)


On the Indestructibility of Soul (P,S)

§1 Pythagoras Anaxagoras Diogenes Plato Empedocles Xenocrates (say that) the soul is indestructible. (P1a,S1,T1)

book 4 psychology


§2 Heraclitus (says that) on departing from the body it returns to the Soul of the universe, i.e. to what is of the same kind. (P1b,T2) §3 The Stoics (say that) on departing from the bodies it is not yet destroyed; the weaker (soul), that is, that of the uneducated, ⟨is destroyed⟩ together with the compounds; but the stronger, such as the one attributable to the wise, lasts right up to the total conflagration of the universe. (P2,T3) §4 Epicurus Democritus Aristotle (say that) the soul is mortal, perishing together with the body. (P3,T4) §5 Plato Pythagoras (say that) the rational part is indestructible; for though the soul is not a god, it is the product of the everlasting God; but the irrational part is destructible. (P4,T5)


On Intellect (S)

§1 Pythagoras Anaxagoras Plato Xenocrates Cleanthes (say that) the intellect enters from outside [sc. as a separate component]. (S1,T1) §2 Parmenides and Empedocles and Democritus (say that) intellect and soul are the same thing. According to them no living being could be without reason in the true sense of the word. (S2)


On Sensation and Sense-Objects (P,S)

§1 The Stoics define sensation as follows: ‘sensation is perception or cognition via a sensor (sense organ)’—‘sensation’ is spoken of in several senses, for it is a condition as well as a faculty and an activity—; and the cognitive impression occurs via a sensor in the regent part; moreover, sensors also denote the intellectual breaths, stretched from the regent part from which they arise to the organs. (P1,S1) §2 Epicurus: ‘sense/sensation is the (bodily) part which is the faculty, and the sensory recognition which is the activity’; so it is spoken of by him in two ways: sense as the faculty, sensory recognition as the activity. (P2,S2) §3 Plato declares (that) sensation is the commonality of soul and body with regard to what is outside; for the faculty belongs to the soul, the organ to the body; together they are capable of apprehending what is outside via impression. (P3,S3) §4 According to the Peripatetics (sensation occurs) in four ways: from which is the regent part, through which the organ, that is, sense-organ, according to which the activity, and because of which the sense-object. (S4)


book 4 psychology

§5 Leucippus and Democritus (say) that the sensations and the thoughtprocesses are alterations of the body. (S5) §6 Aristotle (says) that sensation is an alteration of the sensing (part of the soul), and a mean (between the extreme properties) ⟨of the sense-object⟩; the sensus communis is the judge of the compounded forms. Towards it all the simple (senses) each (on its own) contribute their particular ⟨impressions⟩; (the sensus communis) in which (is located) the changeover from one form to the other, such as of shape and movement of a body; (which is) in between the rational and the non-rational, partaking of memory and intellect, extending even toward the non-rational animals insofar as these possess a certain amount of what is analogous to understanding. Common to sight and touch are: form, to sight and hearing: distance, and to all: motion and size and number. (S6) §7 ⟨The⟩ Stoics call this sensus communis ‘inner touch’, according to which we also perceive ourselves. (S7) §8 The Stoics (say) that sensations are of bodies. (S11) §9 The successors of the ancients (say that sensations are) of the incorporeal logoi about the bodies, which they at the same time call shapes. (S12) §10 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus (say) that sensation and thought arise from images that approach from outside, for neither of these can occur to anyone without the image falling upon him. (P4,S13) §11 Others (say that sensation and thought arise) through alteration of forms or shapes, or through imprinting in the soul; in any case through effluences rather than through images. (S14) §12 The Stoics (say) that each sensation is an assent and a cognition. (S15) §13 ⟨The⟩ Academics (say) that the sensations are neither cognitions nor assents. (S16) §14 The Peripatetics (say) that the sensations are not without assent, but are themselves not assents. (S17)


Whether Sensations and Impressions Are True (P,S)

§1 Pythagoras Empedocles Xenophanes Parmenides Zeno Melissus Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus Protagoras Plato (say that) the sensations are false. (S1) §2 The successors of the Academy (say) that (the sensations) are sound, because they believe that by means of them they grasp true impressions, though these are not precise. (S2) §3 Aristotle (says) that sensation does not err with regard to its proper object, but (it does err) with regard to what is incidental. (S3)

book 4 psychology


§4 The Stoics (say) that the sensations are true, but that of the impressions some are true and some false. (P1,S4) §5 Epicurus (says) that every sensation and every impression is true, but of the opinions some are true and some false; and the sensation gives us a false picture in one respect only, namely with regard to objects of thought; but the impression does so in two respects, for there is impression of both sense objects and objects of thought. (P2,S5) §6 Parmenides Empedocles Anaxagoras Democritus Epicurus Heraclides (say) that the particular sensations of their particular object occur in accordance with the matching-sizes of the pores, each of the sense objects corresponding to each sense. (P3,S6) §7 The Peripatetics (say that the particular sensations of their own objects come about) in relation to the faculties of the sense organs. (S7) §8 The others say that sense objects exist by nature. (S8) §9 But Leucippus Democritus Diogenes (say that they exist) by convention, that is because of our opinion and conditions; that nothing is real/ true or cognitive apart from the primary elements, i.e. the atoms and the void; for only these exist by nature, and those things which derive from them, differing from each other in position and order and shape, are incidental. (S9) §10 Those (who posit) the atoms and those (who posit) the homoiomere (‘things with like parts’) and those (who posit) the things without parts and those (who posit) the infinitesimals (say) that all sense objects are mixed in all (others), and that none of these (objects) exists in a pure state, and that they are called such or such in relation to what predominates and to the varieties of glittering. (S10) §11 Pythagoras Plato (say) that each of the sense objects proceeding (to us) from each element is pure [i.e., unmixed]. The aetherial is attuned to sight, and the pneumatic to hearing, and the fiery to smell, and the wet to taste, and the earthy to touch. (S11) §12 Epicurus (says) that the pleasures and pains actually belong with the sense objects. (S12) §13 The Peripatetics (say) that they belong with the objects of thought; for the same things do not appear pleasant or painful to all people the way that white and black things do. (S13) §14 Chrysippus (says) that the generic pleasant is an object of thought, but the individual and experienced is in fact a sense object. (S14) §15 Empedocles (says) that the pleasures come about for what is similar from what is similar, but in accordance with what is lacking for the fulfilment, so that the desire for the similar comes about through what is lacking; the pains


book 4 psychology

come about through what is dissimilar, for foreign to each other is what is different as to composition and the blend of the elements. (S15) §16 Anaxagoras (says) that each sensation occurs accompanied by stress. (S16) §17 ⟨The⟩ others (say) that pleasure, or stress, are supervenient and do not come about together (with the sensation). (S17) §18 The Stoics (say) the wise man can be grasped by sensation from his individual appearance by way of inference from a sign, (S18) §19 the Academics (that he) is knowable by reason, (S19) §20 Epicurus that the wise man (is knowable only) to (another) wise man. (S20)


How Many Senses Are There? (P,S)

§1 The Stoics (say) that there are five individual senses: sight hearing smell taste touch. (P1,S4) §2 Aristotle does not speak of a sixth (sense), but (mentions) the sensus communis, (which is) the judge of the compounded forms, (the sensus communis) towards which all the simple (sensations) each assemble their particular impressions; (the sensus communis) in which the act of moving from one to the other, as with shape and motion (occurs). (P2,S5) §3 †Pelles (says) that there are more (sc. than five) senses among the nonrational animals.† (S1) §4 Democritus (says) that there are more (sc. than five) senses among the non-rational animals and among the wise and among the gods. (P3, S6) §5 Democritus (says) that there are more senses than (kinds of) sense objects, but that this is hidden because the (number of the) sense objects fails to correspond with the greater number (of the senses). (S2) §6 But the others say that (the senses are) equally balanced (in number to the sense objects). (S6)


How the Sensation and the Conception and the Reason [or: Speech] That Is Internally Placed Occurs (P)

§1 The Stoics say: when a man is born he has the regent part of his soul like a sheet of papyrus well-prepared for making a transcript. On this he transcribes for himself each single one of his conceptions.

book 4 psychology


[6] The first [or: primary] manner of registration is through the senses. Suppose it is of a white something; when it has gone away, they have a memory of it. [8] But when many memories of the same sort have occurred, then we say that they have an experience. For an experience is nothing but the multitude of impressions of the same sort. [10] Some of these conceptions arise naturally in the aforesaid ways, and without technical elaboration; others are in the end produced by our teaching and instruction. The latter are just called conceptions, the former also preconceptions. [14] And [sc. interior] reason [or: speech], which entitles us to be called rational, is said to be completed from preconceptions at the age of seven years. [16] A conception is an apparition (phantasma) in the thinking faculty of a rational animal; for the apparition is only then called a conception (ennoëma) when it occurs in a rational soul, deriving its name from the mind (nous). [19] Accordingly, all the apparitions that occur to non-rational animals ⟨are merely apparitions⟩. But those that occur to the gods and to us are apparitions as to genus and conceptions as to species. Just as denarii and staters, if you consider them in themselves, are simply denarii and staters. But if you use them to pay for a boat trip they are not only called denarii, but a ‘boat fare’ as well. (P1)


In What Respect Impression, Impressor, Imagination, Figment Are Different (P,cf.S)

§1 Chrysippus says that these four are different from one another. An impression is an affection coming about in the soul, which within itself reveals also what produced it (i.e. its cause). Like when through sight we observe something white, the affection is what has come about in the soul through seeing; and it is ⟨on account of⟩ this affection that we are able to say that there is a white object that affects us. And similarly (when we are affected) through touch and smell. [9] The word impression (pha-ntasia) derives from ‘light’ (pha-os/phôs); just as light reveals itself and all the other things that are embraced in it, so too the impression reveals itself and what produced it [i.e. its cause]. [12] An impressor is what causes [or: produces] the impression, like the white or the cold or whatever is capable of affecting the soul, this is an impressor. [14] Imagination is an empty reflex, an affection in the soul that does not arise from any impressor, as when someone shadow-boxes or strikes his hand against thin air; for an impression has some impressor as its object, but the imagination has none.


book 4 psychology

[18] A figment is that to which we are attracted in an empty reflex of the imagination; it occurs in people who are melancholic and mad. When the tragic hero Orestes says Mother, I beg you, don’t urge upon me Those bloody-faced, snakelike maidens! Here they come leaping toward me, he says this because he is mad, and he sees nothing but only believes (that he does). That is why Electra also says to him Poor man, keep still in your bed! You don’t actually see anything you think you see! [28] Just as Theoclymenus in Homer. (P1)


On Vision, How We See (P,S)

§1 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus believe that the visual sensation is the result of the penetration of images. (P1,S1) §2 Timagoras, one of those who debased the Epicurean school on many issues, employs effluences instead of images. (S2) §3 Strato (says that) that colours travel from bodies and give their colour to the intermediate air. (S3) §4 Aristarchus (says that it is) shapes which (travel from bodies and) somehow give the air the same form as themselves. (S4) §5 Hipparchus (says that) rays stretching from each of the eyes deliver apprehension of external bodies to the visual faculty by fastening onto them with their extremities like the touch of hands. (P3,S5) §6 Some ascribe this doxa to Pythagoras as well, since he is an authority for mathematics, and in addition to him to Parmenides who shows this through his verses. (S6) §7 Plato (says that we see) through co-illumination, the light from the eyes streaming out over a certain distance into the congeneric air, while the light travelling from bodies is borne in the contrary direction, and the light in the air in between, which (sc. air) is easily diffused and flexible, extends itself together with the fiery element of vision. This is called Platonic co-illumination. (P4,S7) §8 Alcmaeon (says that we see) through the perception of the transparent. (S8)

book 4 psychology


§9 Aristotle (says) that we see according to the movement of what is actually transparent. (S9) §10 Some of the Academics (say that we see) through the effusion of certain ⟨rays⟩ that turn around again to the visual faculty after their contact with the underlying object. (S10) §11 Posidonius calls it (sc. this manner of seeing) a natural fusion of light rays. (S11) §12 Empedocles provides evidence both with regard to (the view that we see) through rays and with regard to (the view that we see) through images; but more in relation to the latter, for he accepts the effluences. (P2a,S12) §13 Hestiaeus of Perinthos combined the rays with the images, calling the result by synthesis ‘ray-image’. (P2b,S13)


On Reflections in Mirrors (P,S)

§1 Empedocles (says they come about) by the effluences that come together on the surface of the mirror and are compacted by the fiery stuff discharged from the mirror, which transports across with itself the air lying before it towards which the streams travel. (P1,S1) §2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus (say) the reflections in mirrors come about through the manifestations of the images, which move away from us but come to be on the mirror which sends them back. (P2,S2) §3 The successors of Pythagoras and of the mathematicians* (say they come about) by backwards reflections of vision. For (they say that) the visual beam is carried along and extends towards the bronze (mirror), but turns back on itself when it encounters a dense and smooth object and is repulsed, undergoing something akin to one’s stretching out a hand and then bending it back to the shoulder. (P3,S3) §4 One can apply all these summary statements to the question of how we see. (P4,S4)


Whether Darkness Is Visible (P)

§1 Sphaerus the Stoic (says that) darkness is visible, since a sort of beam of light is poured into it from the visual faculty. And the visual faculty does not * Here in contrast to elsewhere, e.g. in ch. 2.15, the term μαθηματικός should be translated ‘mathematician’ or perhaps ‘scientist’.


book 4 psychology

err, for in very truth it is seen that there is darkness. Misty rays proceed from the organ of vision; darkness somehow compacts and compresses and dulls our sight, while light delates our sight and guides it through the (intervening) air that is in between towards the things that are seen. This is why we do not see in the dark but only darkness itself. (P1,S1+G2) §2 Chrysippus (says) we see by the tension of the intervening air, when it is pierced by the visual pneuma that extends from the regent part to the pupil, and through projection towards the surrounding air stretches it (sc. the visual pneuma) in the shape of a cone, whenever the air is of the same kind as it. Fiery rays are poured forth from the visual faculty, not black and misty ones; which is why darkness is visible. (P2,S3)


On Hearing (P,S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) hearing occurs when pneuma falls against the cartilaginous body which he says is suspended inside the ear, and hangs and is struck in the manner of a ‘bell’. (P1,S1) §2 Alcmaeon (says) that we hear by means of the empty space which is inside the ear. For this is what reverberates when pneuma enters; for all hollow spaces reverberate. (P2,S2) §3 Diogenes (says that we hear) when the air in the head is struck and moved by the sound. (P3,S3) §4 Plato and his successors (say that) the air in the head receives a blow, and this (air) is reflected [i.e. bent back] onto the ruling parts, and so the perception of hearing arises. (P4,S4)


On Smelling (P,S)

§1 Alcmaeon (says that) the ruling part is in the brain; one then smells with this part when it draws in the odours through inhalation. (P1,S1) §2 Empedocles (says that) the odour is introduced together with the inhalations of the lung. But when breathing becomes heavy, one no longer smells due to hoarseness, as happens in the case of those who have colds. (P2,S2)


On Tasting (P,S)

§1 Alcmaeon (says) the flavours are distinguished by the moisture and warmth in the tongue as well as by its softness. (P1)

book 4 psychology


§2 Diogenes (of Apollonia says that) through the porousness of the tongue and its softness, and because the veins from the body are connected to it the flavours are diffused and attracted to the perceptive faculty and [or: i.e.] the ruling part, as from a sponge. (P2)


On Voice (P,S)

§1 Plato defines voice/sound as a pneuma (breath) directed from the intellect through the mouth, and as a blow by air through ears and brain and blood as far as the soul. (P1a,S1a) §2 The word ‘voice’ is used analogically of animals without reason and inanimate things, designating for example neighs and noises. (P1b,S1b) §3 But in its proper sense it is articulate (voice), as it illuminates what is thought. (P1c,S1c) §4 Epicurus (says) voice/sound is a stream sent out from things which speak, reverberate, or make noises. This stream is broken up into small particles of the same shape. Globular figures are called ‘of the same shape’ as globular figures, and irregular and triangular figures as figures of the same kind. When these fall upon the ears, the perception of voice results. This is clear from (a comparison with) the skins that let out (water) and the fullers who blow air into in garments. (P2) §5 Democritus says that the air too is broken up into corpuscles of the same shape, and these roll along with the small particles of voice/sound, ‘for jackdaw sits beside jackdaw’ and ‘God always brings like to like.’ Thus on beaches the same pebbles are seen in the same spots, the round ones in one place and the long ones in another. Also in the case of people using sieves similarly shaped things gather together to the same place, so that beans and lentils are separate.—But one could say in response to those (who hold this opinion): how do a few particles of breath fill a theatre that seats tens of thousands of men? (P3) §6 The Stoics say that the air is not composed of small particles but, having no empty space, is wholly continuous. Whenever it is struck by breath, it undulates endlessly in concentric circles until it fills the surrounding air, as whena diving-pool is struck by a stone. However, the diving-pool moves in circles whereas the air moves in spheres. (P4) §7 Anaxagoras (says) voice/sound occurs when breath encounters solid air and, reverberating because of the impact, is carried to the ears; in this manner the so-called echo also occurs. (P5)

2134 4.20

book 4 psychology

Whether Voice Is Incorporeal and How Echo Occurs (P,S)

§1 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle (say voice/sound is) incorporeal. For not the air but the shape around the air and its surface becomes voice/sound through a certain sort of striking. Every surface is incorporeal, for it moves together with the bodies, though it itself remains wholly incorporeal, just as when a cane is bent the surface is not affected, but it is the matter that is bent. (P1) §2 The Stoics say voice/sound is body. For everything that acts and causes is corporeal and the voice/sound causes and acts. For we hear it and perceive it hitting our hearing and moulding it like a ring (pressed) into wax. Moreover, everything that moves [sc. something else] and distresses is body, and good music moves us while bad music distresses us. Again, everything that is moved is body; the voice is moved and when encountering smooth places reverberates, like a ball thrown against a wall. Indeed in the pyramids in Egypt a single voice/sound released inside produces four to five echoes. (P2)


How the Soul Comes To Be Sentient and What Is Its Regent Part (P,S)

§1 The Stoics say that the soul’s highest part is its regent part, that which causes impressions, agreements, sensations and impulses, and this they call the power of reasoning. The soul has seven [sc. further] parts, which grow from the ruling part and stretch out towards the body like tentacles from an octopus. Of the seven parts of the soul five are sense organs: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch; [9] of these sight is pneuma extending from the ruling part to the eyes, hearing pneuma extending from the ruling part to the ears, smell pneuma extending from the ruling part to the nostrils, taste pneuma extending from the ruling part to the tongue, and touch pneuma extending from the ruling part to the (body’s) surface for sensitive touching of things which encounter it. [15] Of the remaining parts one is called seminal, which is itself also pneuma stretching from the ruling part to the testicles; the other, called the ‘vocal’ (part) by Zeno and which they also call speaking (part), is pneuma stretching from the ruling part to the trachea and tongue and its appropriate organs. [20] The ruling part itself, just as ⟨the god in the spherical⟩ heaven, dwells in our spherical head. (P1)

book 4 psychology



On Respiration (P,S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) the first breath of the first living being took place as the moisture that is in newborns was excreted and the outside air entered into the (slightly) opened vessels to fill the void. Right after this, as the innate heat squeezed up the air from below by rushing to the outside, the exhalation (took place), and its corresponding returning inside provided a complementary entrance to the air, the inhalation. As for the breathing that prevails now, when the blood moves towards the surface and forces the air up through the nostrils by its influxes, the exhalation occurs through the departure of the air, and when (the blood) runs back and the air enters in turn into the gaps left by it, the inhalation. He illustrates this in the passage with the example of the clepsydra (‘water clock’). (P1) §2 Asclepiades constructs the lung in the manner of a funnel. He supposes that the cause of respiration is the filter in the chest, towards which air flows in from outside, and which is cleaned because it is thick. It is pushed back again when the chest is unable to receive more or to sustain it. A small amount of fineness always remains in the chest (for it is not all excreted) and it is towards this, which remains inside, that ⟨the⟩ weighty mass from outside is brought back in again. He likens the process to what happens with cupping-glasses. Voluntary respiration he says takes place when the finest pores in the lung are contracted and the bronchial passages narrowed. For these obey our will. (P2) §3 Herophilus admits motor capacities for bodies in the nerves, arteries and muscles. He thus thinks that only the lung has a natural tendency for dilation and contraction, and the other parts (have this tendency) as a consequence. The drawing in of pneuma from outside, he says, is accordingly the activity of the lung, and it draws it in through the filling process, which occurs from without. Next, because of a second (natural) tendency, the thorax diverts the breath to itself, and when it is full and can no longer draw it in, it lets the excess flow back again into the lung, through which what is excreted passes outwards. The parts of the body are thus affected inversely to one another [i.e. one accepts air as the other emits it]. For now a dilation, ⟨then a contraction⟩ of the lung occurs, since filling up and emptying occur through reciprocal exchange, so that there are in fact four movements that occur in the lung: the first is the one by which it accepts air from outside, the second that by which the pneuma, which it has received from outside, changes its flow internally towards the thorax; the third that by which it receives again into itself the contracted pneuma from the thorax, the fourth the one by which it evacuates to the outside that which is in it after the turn-around. Of these motions, he says, two are dilations, one from the outside and one from the thorax, and two contractions,


book 4 psychology

namely one when the thorax draws the pneumatic substance to itself, the other when the lung itself excretes (pneuma) into the external air. Only two motions, you see, occur in the thorax: dilation when it draws in (pneuma) from the lung, contraction when it delivers it back again to the lung. (P3)


On Bodily Affections and Whether the Soul Experiences Pain along with These (P,S)

§1 The Stoics (say that) the affections (are) in the places that have been affected, but the sensations (of them) are in the ruling part. (P1) §2 Epicurus (says that) both the affections and the sensations are in the places that have been affected, for the ruling part is free from affection. (P2) §3 Strato (says that) both the affections and the sensations exist together in the ruling part, not in the affected places. For in this place steadfastness is situated, just as in the case of terrible and painful circumstances, and just as in the case of brave and cowardly actions. (P3)

Book 5 Physiology AËTIUS ON THE VIEWS (OF THE PHILOSOPHERS) BOOK 5 in which the following chapter headings (are found): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

On divination How dreams occur What the substance of the semen is Whether the semen is a body Whether females too release semen How the conceptions occur How males and females are engendered How monstrosities occur Why a woman, although frequently having intercourse, does not conceive How twins and triplets occur Where resemblances to parents or ancestors come from How it occurs that those who are born resemble others and not their parents How it happens that women are infertile and men without offspring Why female mules are infertile Whether the embryo is a living being How embryos are nourished What is fully formed first in the womb Why seven-month babies are viable On the birth of living beings, how they were born as living beings and whether they are perishable How many kinds of living beings there are and whether they all possess sense-perception and reason In what length of time living beings are formed when they are in the womb Out of what elements each of the generic parts in us consists When and how a human being commences maturity How sleep and death occur Whether sleep and death pertain to the soul or the body How plants grew and whether they are living beings On nourishment and growth From where the appetites arise in living beings, and also pleasures

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_162


book 5 physiology

29. How fever occurs and whether it is an after-symptom 30. On health and disease and old age


On Divination (P)

§1 Plato and the Stoics admit divination in that it is sent by a god, which is its visionary (i.e. prophetic) element, and also because of the divinity of the soul, which is the element of divine possession; they also admit the interpretation of dreams, the divination of the stars, the inspection of birds and the inspection of sacrificial victims. These (latter thinkers [i.e. Stoics]) include the most parts of divination. (P1) §2 Xenophanes and Epicurus reject divination. (P2) §3 But Pythagoras excludes only the sacrificial aspect (as part of divination). (P3) §4 Aristotle and Dicaearchus introduce only the aspect of divine possession and dreams (as parts of divination), not regarding the soul as immortal, but as sharing in something of the divine. (P4)


How Dreams Occur (P)

§1 Democritus (says that) dreams occur through the manifestations of eidola (images). (P1) §2 Strato (says that they occur) by an irrational nature in the mind when during sleep it somehow becomes more sensitive, and through this very fact is affected by the cognitive element. (P2) §3 Herophilus (says that) of the (various kinds of) dreams those that are divinely inspired occur of necessity, whereas those that are natural occur when the soul forms an image of what is advantageous for itself and will subsequently happen, but those that are mixed occur spontaneously through the impact of images, whenever we see what we wish, as occurs in the case of those who see their lovers while sleeping. (P3)


What Is the Substance of the Semen (P)

§1 Aristotle: semen is that which is able within itself to move to the production of such a thing as that from which it was itself secreted. (P1) §2 Pythagoras (says that) the semen is foam from the most useful (kind of) blood, a residue of food, like blood and marrow. (P2)

book 5 physiology


§3 Alcmaeon (says that it is) a part of the brain. (P3) §4 Plato (says that it is) an effluence from the marrow in the backbone. (P4) §5 Epicurus (says that it is) a fragment of soul and body. (P5) §6 Democritus (says that) it comes from the bodies in their entirety and their most important parts, such as bones, tissues and sinews. (P6)


Whether the Semen Is a Body (P)

§1 Leucippus and Zeno (say that it is) a body, for (they say) it is a fragment of soul. (P1) §2 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle (say that) the power of the semen is incorporeal just like the mind that sets it in motion, but that the matter that is ejaculated is corporeal. (P2) §3 Strato and Democritus (say that) the power (of the semen) is a body as well, for it is pneumatic. (P3)


Whether Females Too Release Semen (P)

§1 Pythagoras and Epicurus and Democritus (say that) the female releases semen as well (as the male), for she has concealed testicles. For this reason she too has desire for sexual intercourse. (P1) §2 Aristotle and Zeno (say that) she releases moist matter just like sweat from doing exercise, but not semen that results from concoction. (P2) §3 Hippo (says that) females release semen no less than males. However, (he says), this (semen) does not contribute to conception of life because it falls outside the womb. Hence some females often release seed apart from males, and it is especially widows who do this. (P3a) §4 *** and the bones derive from the male but the flesh from the female. (P3b)


How the Conceptions Occur (P,cf.S)

§1 Aristotle (says that) the conceptions occur when the womb has been drawn forward through the (process of) purification [i.e. menstruation], and the men-

* On the translation of multiple name-labels see the User’s guide to the translation.


book 5 physiology

ses have brought along from the entire mass (of the body) a part consisting of pure blood, which the male seed (then) encounters. But (he says that) pregnancies fail to occur from the lack of purification of the womb [i.e. cessation of menstruation] or its inflation or fear or pain or through weakness of the women or through lack of condition of the men. (P1)


How Males and Females Are Engendered* (P,cf.S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) males and females come into being in relation to heat and cold. Hence it is recounted that the first males were born from the earth more in the east and the south, whereas the (first) females were born in the north. (P1) §2 Parmenides (has it) the other way around: the males grew in the north, for they share more in the dense element, the females in the south on account of their lightness. (P2) §3 Hippo (says that males and females are engendered) from the compacted and strong seed ⟨or⟩ from the fluid and weaker seed. (P3) §4 Anaxagoras Parmenides (say that males are engendered) when the seed from the right parts [i.e. testicle] is deposited on the right side of the womb and the seed from the left parts is deposited on the left side; but if the deposition is reversed, (then) females come into being. (P4) §5 Leophanes, who is mentioned by Aristotle, (says that) males (are engendered with seed) from the right testicle, females (with seed) from the left testicle. (P5) §6 Leucippus (says that males and females are engendered) through the differentiation of the parts, in accordance with which the male has a penis and the female has a womb. This is all that he says (on the subject). (P6) §7 Democritus (says that) the parts (held by males and females) in common derive from either (kind) as it happens, but the parts that are specific (to the two sexes) through dominance. (P7) §8 Hippo (says that) if the seed dominates, a male (is engendered), if the womb dominates, a female (is engendered). (P8)

* We translate γεννᾶται in the chapter heading with ‘is engendered’ since in English this verb can be used for both sexes, in contrast to ‘beget’ and ‘conceive’. In the text the verb is used only in the chapter heading (but understood in other lemmata). In §§1&4 the verb is γίνεσθαι, translated ‘come into being’.

book 5 physiology



How Monstrous Births Occur (P,cf.S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) monstrous births occur from excess of semen or from lack (of semen) or from the disturbance of movement (of the semen) or from the division into more (parts) or from the inclining away (of the womb). In this way he plainly anticipates almost all the causes (that can be given). (P1) §2 Strato (says that they occur) from addition (to the semen) or subtraction (from the semen) or transposition or inflation (of the womb). (P2) §3 Some of the doctors (say that they occur) from the womb twisting sometimes when it is inflated. (P3)


Why a Woman, Although Frequently Having Intercourse, Does Not Conceive (P,cf.S)

§1 Diocles the doctor (says that it occurs) because some women do not release any semen at all or less than is required, or because the semen is such that it is not productive of life, or through a lack of heating or cooling or moistening or dryness or through paralysis of the (bodily) parts. (P1) §2 But the Stoics (say that it occurs) through a slanting of the penis, which is unable to project the seed in a straight line, or from the disproportion of the parts (i.e. testicles) in relation to the distance of the womb. (P2) §3 Erasistratus (says that it occurs) because of the womb, whenever it has tumors or fleshy growths or is feebler or smaller than what is natural. (P3)


How Twins and Triplets Occur (P,S)

§1 Empedocles thinks that twins and triplets occur as the result of multiplication and division of the semen. (P1) §2 Asclepiades (says that they occur) from the difference of the semen, as in the case of barley with double and triple stalks. For (he says) there are highly productive kinds of semen. (P2) §3 Erasistratus (says that they occur) through superfetations, as occurs in the case of the irrational animals. For (he says) that whenever the womb is in a state of having been purified, then it admits superfetation. (P3) §4 The Stoics (say that they occur) on account of the locations in the womb; for whenever semen settles in a first and a second (location), then (they say) additional conceptions occur and [or: i.e.] twins and triplets. (P4)

2142 5.11

book 5 physiology

Where Does Resemblance to Parents and Ancestors Comes from (P,cf.S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) similarity occurs in accordance with dominance of the seminal seeds, but that dissimilarity (occurs) when the heat in the semen has vaporised. (P1) §2 Parmenides (says that), whenever the seed is separated out from the right part of the womb, (resemblance) to the fathers (occurs), but whenever this happens from the left (part), (resemblance) to the mothers (occurs). (P2) §3 The Stoics (say that) the semen is conveyed from the entire body and the soul, and that the homoiomereiai (‘things with like parts’) form the outlines and the markings from the same kinds, as when a painter (forms) an image of what is seen from similar colours. But (they say that) the woman too releases semen; and if the semen of the woman dominates, the child that is born is similar to the mother, but if the semen of the man (dominates), (it is similar) to the father. (P3)


How It Occurs That Those Who Are Born Resemble Others and Not Their Parents (P,cf.S)

§1 The majority of the doctors (say that it occurs) by chance and spontaneously, whenever the seed—both that of the man and that of the woman— has become chilled, that the (resultant) children become dissimilar (to their parents). (P1) §2 Empedocles (says that) the babies are shaped by the imagination of the woman during conception. For often women fell in love with statues and images, and they gave birth to children who resemble these. (P2) §3 The Stoics (say that) the similarities to others occur by co-affection of the mind in accordance with penetrations of streams and rays ⟨or indeed⟩ of eidola. (P3)


How It Occurs That Women Are Infertile and Men without Offspring (P,cf.S)

§1 The doctors (say that) infertility occurs in women because of the womb, either from it being denser or lighter or rougher or from (having formed) calluses or fleshy growths, or from being small in size or from lack of nourishment or from being in poor condition or from its shape being twisted or through distension. (P1)

book 5 physiology


§2 Diocles (says that) men do not have offspring from the fact that some of them do not emit seed at all or less than is required, or from the infertility of their seed or from the paralysis of the organs or from the slanting of the penis, which is unable to offer the seed straight passage, or from the disproportion of the (bodily) parts in relation to the distance of the womb. (P2) §3 The Stoics determine as cause the incompatibility of the powers and qualities of each of the partners with each other; when it happens that they (sc. women) have been separated from their partner and joined up with others (sc. men) with whom they are compatible, (then) the natural process has prevailed and a fetus is brought to completion. (P3)


Why Female Mules Are Infertile (P,cf.S)

§1 Alcmaeon (says that) of the mules the males are infertile because of the thinness of the ‘sperm’ (thore), i.e. of the semen, and its coldness. In the case of the females it is from the wombs not ‘gaping wide’ (anachaskein), which means opening up their entrance. For this is how he himself has spoken of it. (P1) §2 Empedocles (says that it occurs) through the small size and low position and narrowness of the womb, which has reversed and grown next to the belly, with the result that neither does the seed have a direct passage to it, nor, even if it were to reach it, does the womb accept it. (P2) §3 But Diocles bears witness to him [i.e. the view of Empedocles] when he says: ‘in the dissections we have often observed the womb of mules like this’; and (he adds that) it is possible that women too are infertile for reasons of such a kind. (P3)


Whether the Embryo Is a Living Being (P,S)

§1 Plato (says that) the embryo is a living being. For (he says) it both moves in the womb and is nourished and grows. (P1) §2 The Stoics (say that) it is a part of the womb, not a living being. For (they say) just as fruits are parts of plants and when they have ripened they fall off, so the same happens with the embryo. (P2) §3 Empedocles (says that) the embryo is not a living being but exists without breathing in the womb. The living being’s first breath occurs (he says) at the time of the birth, when the moisture in the new-born babies* is excreted * βρέφος in Greek can mean both ‘fetus’ and ‘new-born baby’


book 5 physiology

and in the space (thus) vacated entry of the external air occurs in the vessels that have opened up. (P3) §4 Diogenes (says that) that the new-born babies are conceived without life, but do possess heat. For this reason, when the new-born baby is delivered, the innate heat draws the cold into the lung. (P4) §5 Herophilus grants the fetuses natural movement, but not movement that is pneumatic. The tendons are the causes of (their) movement. They become living beings at the moment when they are delivered and take in some of the air. (P5)


How Embryos Are Nourished (P,cf.S)

§1 Democritus and Epicurus (say that) the embryo is nourished in the womb through the mouth. For this reason as soon as it is born it moves with its mouth to the breast. For (they say) in the womb too there are nipples and mouths through which it is fed. (P1) §2 The Stoics (say that the embryo is nourished) through the placenta and the navel. For this reason the midwives immediately bind it up and open up the (baby’s) mouth, so that another method of nourishment may occur. (P2) §3 Alcmaeon (says that the embryo) is nourished from the body in its entirety. For (he says) it takes up the nourishing elements from the food, just like a sponge does. (P3)


What Is Fully Formed First in the Womb (P,S)

§1 The Stoics (say that) it occurs all together as a whole. (P1) §2 Aristotle (says that) the loins (are) first (formed) like the keel of a ship. (P2) §3 Alcmaeon (says that) the head (is first formed), in which the ruling part resides. (P3) §4 The doctors (say that) the heart (is first formed), in which the veins and the arteries (have their source). (P4) §5 But others (say that) the large toe of the foot (is first formed). (P5) §6 And yet others (say that) the navel (is first formed). (P6)

book 5 physiology



Why Are Seven-Month Babies Viable (P,S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) when the human race was first generated from the earth, because of the slow movement of the sun the day was the same in length of time as ten months now. As time advanced, the day became the same in length as seven months now. For this reason both ten-month and seven-montholds are viable, the nature of the cosmos having ensured that the baby will grow to maturity (in the womb) in a single day and night of that time. (P1) §2 Timaeus says that some twelve-month-olds too are conceived beyond the cessation of the menstrual periods that occurred before the conception. And seven-month-olds may be considered in the same way, not really (in fact) being seven-month-olds. For even after the conception a number of purgings take place. (P2) §3 Polybus Diocles the Empiricists say that the eighth-month-old can be viable too, but is less viable somehow on account of many of them perishing through their poor condition. In general terms, (he says,) no one wishes to rear the eight-month-olds, but (nevertheless) many eight-month-olds have become full-grown men. (P3) §4 Aristotle and Hippocrates and their followers say that, if the womb reaches its full term in seven months, then those (babies) that emerge and are born are viable. But if it (the baby) emerges but is not nourished, because the umbilical cord had grown weak on account of its secretion having become difficult, then as embryo it is malnourished. But if it remains the (full) nine months in the womb, then it emerges as a complete being. (P4,S1) §5 Polybus (says that) that one hundred and eighty two and a half days are required for embryos to be viable. This is a six-month period, (he says) because the sun too moves from solstice to solstice in this length of time. But they are called seven-month-olds through the addition of the remaining days of this month to make up the seven. The eight-month-olds do not live, since the baby emerges from the womb but the umbilical cord is excessively strained. It (the baby) is not nourished, since the umbilical cord is the cause of its nourishment. (P5) §6 But the astronomers* [i.e. astrologers] (say that) eight month periods are incompatible with all generation, but seven months are compatible. The incompatible zodiacal signs occur if they obtain [i.e. result in] predominant heavenly bodies [sc. that are malevolent]. For if any of these should allot the life and span (of any persons), they signify that they [i.e. those persons] will be * On the term μαθηματικός see the notes to chs. 2.15 and 4.14. Here the context points to ‘astronomers’, as in Book 2.


book 5 physiology

unfortunate and untimely. The incompatible zodiacal signs are numbered by eight, i.e. Aries is incompatible with Scorpio, Taurus is incompatible with Sagittarius, Gemini with Capricorn, Cancer with Aquarius, Leo with Pisces, Virgo with Aries. For this reason (they say) both the seven-month and the ten-montholds are viable, but the eight-month-olds perish because of their incompatibility with the cosmos. (P6)


On the Birth of Living Beings, How They Were Born as Living Beings and Whether They Are Perishable (P,cf.S)

§1 According to those thinkers (who say that) the cosmos is generated, living beings are generated and perishable. (P1) §2 ⟨But⟩ according to those who (say that) the cosmos is ungenerated, the living beings are born as the result of change from each other. For (they say that) these are parts of the cosmos. (P2) §3 As both Anaxagoras and Euripides (have said): None of those things which come into being ever dies, but the one distinguished in relation to the other revealed different forms. (P3) §4 Anaximander (says that) the first living beings were born in the moist substance and were covered with spiky bark. But as they got older (he says), they moved away to the drier part and, when the bark had broken up, they lived a different life for a short time. (P4) §5 Democritus and Epicurus (say that) the living beings have come into being in a composition of (elements) lacking in form when the moisture first gave birth to life. (PGQ5) §6 Empedocles (says that) the first generations of the living beings and plants certainly did not occur in their complete form, but they were disjoined with their parts not grown together. The second generations, which did have parts grown together, were like dream-images, while the third generations did consist of beings that had grown as wholes. The fourth generations were no longer (generated directly) from the elements such as earth and water but now from each other, in the one case [e.g. plants] when their nourishment became solid, in another case [i.e. human beings] when the shapeliness of the women caused the seminal movement to be stimulated. The species of all the living beings were separated out according to the various kinds of mixture, the more moist ones having an impulse towards the water, others flying up to the air,

book 5 physiology


namely those in which the fiery element predominates, while the heavier ones (went) to the earth, but those with a more balanced mixture were in harmony with all the (different) environments. (P6)


How Many Kinds of Living Beings There Are and Whether They All Possess Sense-Perception and Reason (P,S)

§1 Plato and Aristotle (say that there are) four kinds of living beings: those living on land and in the water, those that fly (in the air) and those that inhabit the heavens. In addition the heavenly bodies and the cosmos are stated to be living beings, and also the god, a living being who is endowed with reason and is immortal. (P1,S1) §2 Democritus and Epicurus ⟨do not include⟩ the heavenly beings (as living beings). (P2) §3 Anaxagoras (says that) all the living beings possess the active logos, but their equivalent of the intellect does not have the logos that gives utterance (prophorikos), the so-called interpreter of the intellect. (P3) §4 Pythagoras Plato (say that) the souls of the so-called irrational living beings are rational too, but that they do not exercise reason on account of the poor mixture of their bodies and because they do not have the ability to speak, as (we see) in the case of monkeys and dogs; for these think but do not speak. (P4) §5 Diogenes (says that) they (sc. irrational living beings) share in the intelligible and air, but because some do so with a dense nature and others with a surfeit of moisture they neither think nor perceive (properly), but their condition resembles those (human beings) who are deranged because their ruling part has stumbled. (P5)


In What Length of Time Are the Living Beings Formed When They Are in the Womb (P,cf.S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) in the case of human beings the articulation (of the parts in the womb) begins from the thirty-sixth (day) and is completed for the constituent parts from the forty-ninth day. (P1) §2 Asclepiades (says that) in the case of males because of their greater heat the articulation occurs from the twenty-sixth day, and quite often even earlier within (that period), and that for the constituent parts it is fulfilled within the fiftieth day. But in the case of the females they are articulated in a two month


book 5 physiology

period and are not completed till the fourth month because of a lack of heat. As for the irrational living beings, however, they become complete depending on the mixtures of the elements. (P2)


Out of What Elements Does Each of the Generic Parts in Us Consist (P)

§1 Empedocles (says that) the fleshy parts are generated from the four elements in an equal mixture, but the sinews (are generated) from fire and earth with a double amount of water mixed in. The nails that living beings have are generated when the sinews insofar as they meet up with the air are cooled all around. The bones (are generated) from two parts of water, the same parts of earth and four parts of fire when these are mixed together ⟨within the earth⟩. Perspiration and tears occur when the blood melts and flows more easily from being thinned. (P1)


When and How a Human Being Commences Maturity (P)

§1 Heraclitus and the Stoics (say that) human beings commence their maturity around the second hebdomad [i.e. period of seven years], at the time that the seminal fluid starts to move. Trees by way of comparison attain maturity at the time that they begin to produce their seeds, whereas the immature ones are without both blooms and fruits. (P1) §2 But Aristotle (says that human beings commence maturity) at the first hebdomad, at the time that understanding of things both good and disgraceful originates and there is a beginning of instruction (on such things). (P2) §3 Other thinkers, however, (say that) we become mature in the third hebdomad, when we develop beards and are at full strength. (PG3)


How Sleep and Death Occur (P,S)

§1 Alcmaeon says that sleep occurs by withdrawal of the blood to the veins that flow with blood, while waking up is the pouring forth (of the blood back again); but the complete withdrawal (of the blood) is death. (P1) §2 Empedocles (says that) sleep occurs through a commensurate cooling of the heat in the blood, but if the cooling is incommensurate and total, it (sc. sleep) announces (the occurrence of) death. (P2)

book 5 physiology


§3 Diogenes (says that), if the blood expands, it completely fills the veins and pushes the air contained in them to the breast and the stomach lying beneath it, (then) sleep will have occurred and the chest is quite warm; but if all that is airy departs from the veins, (then) this is when death takes place. (P3) §4 Strato the Stoics (say that) sleep occurs by the remission of the sensory spirit, not through a slackening, as in the case of ⟨drunkenness⟩, but when it is borne along to the regent part ⟨or⟩ what is in between the eyebrows. But when there is a total relaxation of the sensory spirit, then death has occurred. (P4)


Whether Sleep and Death Pertain to the Soul or the Body (P,S)

§1 Aristotle (says that) sleep is common to body and soul. Its cause is the moist exhalation (that rises) from the chest to the regions in the head from the nourishment located below, or the heat in the heart that has been chilled. But death (he says) is complete chilling. Death, however, is of the body only, not of the soul, for of this (latter) death does not exist. (P1) §2 Anaxagoras (says that) sleep occurs through tiredness resulting from bodily activity, for the affection is somatic and not psychic. But of the soul too there is death, namely its separation (from the body). (P2) §3 Leucippus (says that sleep) occurs not only through tiredness of the body, but (also) by a secretion of the light-particled (substance) that is greater than the influx of the psychic heat, and that the excess (of this secretion) is the cause of death. These are affections of the body and not of the soul. (P3) §4 Empedocles (says that) death has occurred (as) the separation of ⟨the earthly and the watery and airy and⟩ the fiery (elements), out of which the human composition has been established. So in accordance with this (he says) death is common to body and soul. But sleep occurs (as) separation of the fiery (element only). (P4)


How Plants Grew and Whether They Are Living Beings (i.e. Animals) (P,S)

§1 Plato Thales (say that) plants too are living beings with a soul. This is evident from the fact that they move to and fro and hold their branches extended, and also that they yield when they are gathered together and then powerfully loosen again, so that they even pull up weights. (P1,S1)


book 5 physiology

§2 Aristotle (says that) they have souls, but are not in fact living beings [i.e. animals]. For (he says) living beings have impulses and sense-perception, and some are also endowed with reason. (P2,S2) §3 But the Stoics and Epicureans (say that) they do not have souls. For (they say that) some (living beings share in) the impulsive and desiderative soul, and some also in the rational soul. But the plants move spontaneously somehow in a way not involving soul. (P3) §4 Empedocles says that the plants, as first of the living beings, sprung up from the earth, before the sun(light) was spread around and before day and night had been separated. Because of the commensurability of their mixture (he says) they contained the structure of the male and the female (within themselves). They grow from the heat that has been separated out in the earth, so that they are parts of the earth, just like embryos in the belly too are parts of the womb. The fruits are superfluities of the water and the fire in the plants. Some have a lack of moisture, and after it has evaporated in the summer, lose their leaves, while others that have more (moisture) remain as they are and continue to be in bloom with leaves, as is the case for the laurel, the olive and the palm. But the differences in flavours (result from) the variation of the particles ⟨of earth⟩ and of the plants, which draw varieties (of flavours) from the homoiomereiai (‘things with like parts’) of that which nourishes them, as in the case of vines. For it is not the differences in the vines that make serviceable wine, but differences in the terrain that nourishes them. (P4)


On Nourishment and Growth (P,S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) the living beings are nourished by the settling down of the moisture and they grow through the presence of heat, whereas they diminish and perish through the failure of each of these. But the present-day human beings, compared to those who were first, have the status of infants. (P1) §2 Anaxagoras (says that) the living beings are nourished through the moisture which each of them supplies to their organs through digestion and in the (process of ) nutrition. They grow when much nutrition reaches them, but they become weak and sickly when there is much in them which decomposes. (PBQ2)

book 5 physiology



From Where the Appetites Arise In Living Beings, and Also Pleasures (P,S)

§1 Empedocles (says that) the appetites occur in the living beings in accordance with the deficiencies of the elements required to complete each of them, but that pleasures occur from moisture through the motions involving increase of things that are similar in kind, whereas annoyances occur through the combinations and mixtures of things that are opposite (in kind). (P1) §2 Parmenides Empedocles declare that the appetite arises from a deficiency of food. (S1)


On How Fever Occurs and Whether It Is an After-Symptom (P)

§1 Erasistratus defines fever as follows: fever is a motion that occurs involuntarily when blood is diverted into the vessels of the pneuma. For just as in the case of the sea it is at rest when nothing stirs it, but when a violent wind blows contrary to what naturally occurs, it is then all churned up, in the same way in the body too, when the blood has been moved, it then plunges into the vessels of the pneuma, heats up the entire body and makes it enflamed. He is also of the view that fever is an after-symptom, for it occurs as the result of a swelling, which appears in the vessels of the pneuma together with the nourishment which flows into them. (PBQ1) §2 Diocles says: the appearances are the sight of what is unclear. The appearances in which fever is seen to occur as an after-symptom are wounds, boils and swollen glands. Consequently one must unconditionally state that the fever arises from some thing (i.e. cause) or other, even if these are concealed, namely from a swelling or a ( form of ) nourishment or another hot body. (PBQ2) §3 Herophilus refuted this (view) and believed that the hot swelling does not precede the fever, but the fever precedes. This is how fever usually arises. Frequently it arises without a cause for it being apparent. Its cause triggers the movements of chronic (?) diseases and the growth of enflamed boils. (PQ3)


On Health and Disease and Old Age (P,S)

§1 Alcmaeon (says that) the sustaining (cause) of health is the equilibrium of the powers, (namely) the wet, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest; but predominance among these is productive of disease, for predominance of either (opposite) produces destruction. (P1a,S4)


book 5 physiology

§2 Herophilus (says that) diseases occur when the agent cause is an excess of heat or cold, the material cause is an abundance or lack of food, and the location where it takes place is the blood or the marrow or the brain. It can also happen through the agency of external causes, such as the (bad) quality of water, or locality or stresses or necessity or factors similar to these. But health (occurs as the) balanced mixture of qualities. (P1b,S1) §3 Diocles (says that) most diseases occur through a variability of the elements in the body and of the constitution of the air. (P2,S2) §4 Erasistratus (says that) diseases (occur) through an abundance of food, and through indigestion and corruption (of food), but health is a well-ordered regimen and sufficiency (of food). (P3,S3) §5 Parmenides (says that) old age occurs from the deficiency of heat. (S5) §6 The Stoics and the doctors are in agreement that old age has occurred on account of the insufficiency of heat; for those who have a greater amount of heat live to a more advanced old age. (P4) §7 Asclepiades says that Ethiopians become old quickly at the age of thirty years because their bodies are overheated when they are burnt by the sun. In Britain people live to the age of one hundred and twenty through their localities being chilled and the protection of the fiery element in themselves. The bodies of Ethiopians are in fact thinner because they are distended by the sun, whereas those of the dwellers in the northern regions are stockier, and so for this reason they also live longer. (P5)


List of Chapter Headings in the Translation of Qusṭā ibn Lūqā The oldest of the three mss. of Q used by Daiber in his edition, Ẓāhirīya (Damascus) 4871, dated to 1161 ce, contains a translation of the indices of the five books. Unlike in the Greek mss. all the headings have been assembled together in a single list and are not distributed at the beginning of the individual books. Daiber did not include this initial list in his edition and translation of Q, but he has kindly provided the editors with a translation, which we print in this Appendix. Dies ist das Buch des Plutarchos über die naturwissenschaftlichen Ansichten, welche die Philosophen vertraten. Es sind fünf Abhandlungen. Die erste Abhandlung. 30 Kapitel. 1. Was ist die Natur? 2. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen dem Prinzip und dem Element? 3. Über die Prinzipien und was sie sind? 4. Wie entstand die Festigkeit der Welt? 5. Ist das Ganze eins? 6. Wie tritt in die Gedanken der Menschen (das Bewusstsein um) die Existenz Gottes? 7. Was ist die Gottheit? 8. Über die hohen Kräfte, welche die Griechen „Daimones“ und „Heroes“ nennen. 9. Über die Materie. 10. Über die Form. 11. Über die Ursachen. 12. Über die Körper. 13. Über die kleinsten Dinge. 14. Über die Gestalten. 15. Über die Farben. 16. Über die Teilung der Körper. 17. Über die Zusammenballung und die Mischung. 18. Über den leeren Raum. 19. Über den Ort.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_163

2154 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.


Über den Raum. Über die Zeit. Über das Wesen der Zeit. Über die Bewegung. Über das Werden und das Vergehen. Über die Form. Über das Wesen der Form. Über das Geschick. Über das Wesen des Geschicks. Über den Zufall. Über die Natur.

Die zweite Abhandlung. 31 Kapitel. 1. Über die Welt. 2. Über die Gestalt der Welt. 3. Ist die Welt beseelt und durch die Führung geleitet? 4. Ist die Welt unvergänglich? 5. Wovon wird die Welt ernährt? 6. Aus welchem ersten Element begann Gott—erhaben und mächtig ist Er—die Schöpfung der Welt? 7. Über die Anordnung der Welt. 8. Was ist die Ursache, weswegen die Welt sich neigt? 9. Gibt es ausserhalb ein Vakuum? 10. Was ist die rechte und die linke Seite der Welt? 11. Über die Substanz des Himmels. 12. Über die Einteilung des Himmels. 13. Was ist die Substanz der Sterne? 14. Über die Gestalten der Sterne. 15. Über die Anordnung der Sterne. 16. Über die Fortbewegung der Sterne. 17. Woher werden die Sterne erleuchtet? 18. Über das was „Dioskoroi“ genannt wird. 19. Über die (Wetter-) Konstellationen der Jahreszeiten. 20. Über die Substanz der Sonne. 21. Über die Grösse der Sonne. 22. Über die Gestalt der Sonne. 23. Über die Sonnenwende. 24. Über die Sonnenfinsternis. 25. Über die Substanz des Mondes. 26. Über die Grösse des Mondes.

list of chapter headings in the translation of qusṭā ibn lūqā

27. 28. 29. 30. 31.


Über die Gestalt und die Erleuchtung des Mondes. Über die Mondfinsternis. Über die Erscheinung des Mondes und weshalb ⟨er⟩ erdartig ⟨erscheint⟩. Über die Entfernungen des Mondes. Über die Jahre, wie lange die Zeit jedes einzelnen von den Planeten währt.

Die dritte Abhandlung. 18 Kapitel. 1. Über die lichterfüllte Himmelssphäre. 2. Über die beschweiften Sterne. 3. Über den Blitz, den Donner, die Blitzschläge und das, was „Prester“ und „Typhon“ genannt wird. 4. Über die Wolken, Regen, Schnee und Hagel. 5. Über den Regenbogen. 6. Über das, was sich in dem „Ruten“ genannten Licht zeigt. 7. Über die Winde. 8. Über den Winter und den Sommer. 9. Über die Erde. 10. Über die Gestalt der Erde. 11. Über die Position der Erde. 12. Über die Neigung der erde. 13. Über die Bewegung der Erde. 14. Über die Einteilung der Erde. 15. Über die Erdbeben. 16. Über das Meer, wie sein Zustand ist und auf welche Weise es bitter ist. 17. Wie entstehen Flut und Ebbe? 18. Wie entsteht der Hof um den Mond? Die vierte Abhandlung. 23 Kapitel. 1. Über die Zunahme des Nils. 2. Was ist die Definition der Seele? 3. Ist die Seele ein Körper und was ist ihr Wesen? 4. Über die Teile der Seele. 5. Über den leitenden Teil unter den Seelenteilen. 6. Über die Bewegung der Seele. 7. Über das Fortleben der Seele. 8. Über die Sinnesempfindungen und die Sinnesobjekte. 9. Sind die Sinnesempfindungen und die Einbildungen wahr? 10. Wieviel Sinne gibt es? 11. Wie werden die Sinnesempfindungen, der Gedanke und die Logik des Denkens?



12. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen der Einbildung und dem Eingebildeten? 13. Wie sieht der Gesichtssinn? 14. Über die Bilder, welche in den Spiegeln gesehen werden. 15. Ist die Finsternis sichtbar? 16. Über das Hören. 17. Über das Riechen. 18. Über den Geschmack. 19. Über den Laut. 20. Ist der Laut ein Körper und wie entsteht das Echo? 21. Wie nimmt die Seele wahr und was ist ihr führender Teil? 22. Über das Atmen. 23. Über die körperlichen Affektionen und ob die Seele sie weiss? Die fünfte Abhandlung. 30 Kapitel. 1. Über die Wahrsagekunst. 2. Wie entsteht der Traum? 3. Was ist das Wesen des Samens? 4. Ist der Same ein Körper? 5. Wird aus den Weibchen ein Same hervorgeschickt? 6. Wie geschieht die Empfängnis? 7. Wie geschieht die Erzeugung des Männchens und des Weibchens? 8. Wie entstehen die (Geburts-)Geschädigten? 9. Warum wird die Frau trotz häufigen Beischlafs nicht schwanger? 10. Wie entstehen die Zwillinge und die Drillinge? 11. Wie entsteht die Ähnlichkeit mit den Vätern und Vorfahren? 12. Wie werden viele von den Geborenen anderen Leuten ähnlich und nicht ihren Vätern? 13. Wie werden die Frauen unfruchtbar und die Männer steril? 14. Warum sind die Maultiere unfruchtbar? 15. Ist der Embryo ein Lebewesen? 16. Wie ernähren sich die Embrya? 17. Was ist das erste, was im Mutterleib geschaffen wird? 18. Warum (können) die in sieben Monaten Geborenen aufgezogen werden, aber die in acht Monaten (Geborenen) nicht aufgezogen werden? 19. Über Werden und Vergehen der Lebewesen. 20. Über die Arten der Lebewesen, sind sie alle empfindsam und vernünftig? 21. In welcher Zeit werden die Lebewesen gebildet, wenn sie im Mutterleib sind? 22. Aus welchen Elementen besteht jeder der Gattungsteile, die in uns sind?

list of chapter headings in the translation of qusṭā ibn lūqā


23. Wie beginnt der Mensch mit der Vollendung? 24. Wie entsteht der Schlaf und bedeutet er einen Tod für die Seele und den Körper? 25. Ist der Schlaf ein Tod für die Seele oder für den Körper? 26. Wie werden die Pflanzen hochgezüchtet und sind sie Lebewesen? 27. Über die Ernährung und das Wachstum. 28. Wie entstehen die Begierden und Freuden in den Lebewesen? 29. Wie entsteht das Fieber und ist es eine Erzeugung? 30. Über die Gesundheit, die Krankheit und das Greisenalter.

Bibliography We present here the literature that we have consulted and/or referred to in the course of our study. The most important and often recherché primary literature is cited under the name of the editor(s), with cross-references given under the name of the ancient author. Commonly used editions for well-known authors are not cited. References to these editions can be found via the TLG Canon or the Brepols Library of Latin Texts. For abbreviations used in the text see Sigla and Abbreviations, printed at the beginning of Parts One to Three. See also for Journals and Series the lists of abbreviations in the repertory L’Année Philologique and the SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd ed. (Atlanta 2014). Aa.Vv. (1542), Hesiodi Ascraei poetae vetustissimi ac sapientissimi opera … Item, Ioannis Grammatici cognomento Tzetzis … Scholia Graeca in eadem omnia Hesiodi opera, Basel Aa.Vv. (1902), Festschrift Theodor Gomperz dargebracht zum siebzigsten Geburtstage am 29. März 1902, von Schülern, Freunden, Collegen, Vienna Abel, K. (1966), review Flashar (1962), Gnomon 38, 229–236 Abel, K. (1974), ‘Zone’, RE Supp. Bd. XIV, 989–1188 (also separately, Stuttgart 1974) Accatino, P.–Donini, P. (1996), Alessandro di Afrodisia: l’Anima, traduzione e commento, Bari Achard, M. & alii eds. (2012), Plotin: Œuvres complètes. T 1.1, Introduction à l’œuvre de Plotin–Traité 1 (1 6), Paris Achilles see Di Maria (1996) Acquafredda, M.R. (2015), Un documento inesplorato: il pinax della Biblioteca di Fozio, Bari Adam, J. (1902), The Republic of Plato. 2 Vols., Cambridge Adamson, P. (2006), ‘Vision, light and color in al-Kindī, Ptolemy and the ancient commentators’, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16, 207–236 (repr. in: Pormann, P.E. ed. 2010, Islamic Medical and Scientific Tradition, London, 1.17–42) Adamson, P. (2010), ‘The last philosophers of Late Antiquity in the Arabic tradition’, in: Goulet–Rudolph eds., 1–38 (discussion 39–43) Adamson, P. (2012), ‘Galen and al-Razī on time’, in: Hansberger, R. & alii eds., Medieval Arabic Thought. FS Zimmermann, London, 1–14 Adamson, P. (2016), Philosophy in the IslamicWorld: A History of Philosophy without any Gaps. Vol. 3, Oxford Adamson, P.–Pormann, P.E. eds. (2012), The Philosophical Works of al-Kindī, Karachi Adamson, P. & alii eds. (2014), Philosophical Themes in Galen, London



Adorno, F. & alii eds. (1989), Corpus dei Papiri filosofici Greci e Latini, P. I: Autori Noti. Vol. 1*, Florence (abbreviated CPF) Adorno, F. & alii eds. (1992), Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini, P. I: Autori Noti. Vol. 1**, Florence Adorno, F. & alii eds. (1999), Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini, P. I: Autori Noti. Vol. 1***. 2 Vols., Florence Adorno, F. & alii eds. (2005), Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini, P. III: Commentari, Florence Aelius Theon see Patillon–Bolognesi (1997) Aghad, R. ed. (1898), M. Terenti Varronis Antiquitatum rerum divinarum libri I XIV XV XVI, Leipzig (repr. New York 1975) Agnellus of Ravenna see Westerink & alii (1981) al-Fārābī see Zimmermann (1981) al-Kindī see Adamson–Pormann (2012) Alberti see Sinisgalli (2006) Albino, D. (1962–1963), ‘La divisione in capitoli nelle opere degli antichi’, ALFN 10, 219– 234 Albinus see Reis (1999) Alcinous see Invernizzi (1976), Whittaker (1990) Alessandrelli, M. (2013), Il problema del λεκτόν nello Stoicismo antico. Origine e statuto di una nozione controversa, Florence Alesse, F. (2007), ‘Il concetto di ουσια nel pensiero metafisico e cosmologico di Posidonio: alcune considerazioni su F 92 e 96 EK (= 267 e 268 Th.)’, in: Ioppolo, A.-M.– Sedley, D.N. eds., Pyrrhonists, Patricians, Platonizers. Hellenistic Philosophy in the Period 155–86BC, Naples, 143–185 Alesse, F. (2012), ‘L’Epinomide e la Stoa’, in: Alesse–Ferrari eds., 201–261 Alesse, F. ed. (1997), Panezio di Rodi. Testimonianze, edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples Alesse, F. ed. (2008), Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, Leiden Alesse, F.–Ferrari, F. eds. (2012), Epinomide. Studi sull’opera e la sua recezione, Naples Alexander Aphrodisiensis see Bruns (1892), Moraux (1942), Ruland (1976), Todd (1976), Moraux (1979b), Sharples (1982), Sharples (1983), Zierl (1995), Accatino–Donini (1996), Fazzo (1998), Barnes (1999), Sharples (2008), Bergeron–Dufour (2008), Rashed (2011), Groisard (2013) Alexander Lycopolitanus see Brinkmann (1895) Alexander the Sophist see Jouanna (2008) Alexander, L. (1993), The Preface to Luke’s Gospel. Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1, Cambridge Algra, K. (1993), ‘Posidonius’ conception of the extra-cosmic void: the evidence and the arguments’, Mnemosyne 46, 473–505



Algra, K. (1995), Concepts of Space in Greek Thought, Leiden Algra, K. (2000), ‘The treatise of Cleomedes and its critique of Epicurean cosmology’, in: Erler–Bees eds., 164–189 Algra, K. (2001), Epicurus en de zon, Amsterdam Algra, K. (2003a), ‘Stoic theology’, in: Inwood ed., 153–178 Algra, K. (2003b), ‘Zeno of Citium and Stoic cosmology: some notes and two case studies’, Elenchos 24, 9–32 Algra, K. (2009a), ‘Stoic philosophical theology and Roman religion’, in: Salles ed., 224– 251 Algra, K. (2009b), ‘Stoics on souls and demons: reconstructing Stoic demonology’, in: Frede–Reis eds., 359–387 Algra, K. (2014), ‘Plutarch and the Stoic theory of providence’, in: D’Hoine–Van Riel eds., 117–135 Algra, K. (2015), ‘Place: M. 10.1–36’, in: Algra–Ierodiakonou eds., 184–216 Algra, K. (2018), ‘Arius Didymus as a doxographer of Stoicism: some observations’, in: M–R 4.53–102 Algra, K. & alii eds. (1996), Polyhistor: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy. FS Mansfeld, Leiden Algra, K. & alii eds. (1999), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge (repr. 2005) Algra, K.–Ierodiakonou, K. eds. (2015), Sextus Empiricus and Ancient Physics, Cambridge Alhacen (ibn al-Haytham) see Schoy (1925), Sabra (1989), Smith (2001), Ziedan (2002), Smith (2006), (2010), Raynaud (2016) Allan, J. (2005), ‘The Stoics on the origin of language and the foundations of etymology’, in: Frede–Inwood eds., 1–13 Alt, K. (1973), ‘Zum Satz des Anaximenes über die Seele. Untersuchung von Aetios ΠΕΡΙ ΑΡΧΩΝ’, Hermes 101, 129–164 Alt, K. (1996), Gott, Götter und Seele bei Alkinoos, SBAkMainz, Stuttgart Althoff, J. (1999), ‘Aristoteles als Medizindoxograph’, in: Van der Eijk ed., 57–94 Altmann, A.–Stern, S.M. (1958), Isaac Israeli. A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century. His Works Translated with Comments and an Outline of his Philosophy, Oxford (repr. Westport 1979) Amand, D. (1945), Fatalisme et liberté dans l’antiquité grecque. Recherches sur la survivance de l’argumentation morale antifataliste de Carnéade chez les philosophes grecs et les théologiens chrétiens des quatre premiers siècles, Louvain (repr. Amsterdam 1974 sub nomine Amand de Mendieta, E.) Amand de Mendieta, M.–Rudberg, S.Y. eds. (1997), Basilios von Caesarea: Homilien zur Genesis, GCS NF 2, Berlin Amato, E. ed. (2010), Favorin d’Arles: Œuvres T. 3: Fragments, Paris



Ambrosiaster see Von Queis (1972), Bussières (2007) Amigues, S. ed. (2012), Théophraste: Les causes des phénomènes végétaux Livres I et II, Paris Ammonius see Busse (1891), Wallies (1899) Amyot, J. (1574), ‘Des opinions des philosophes,’ in Œuvres Meslees de Plutarque. Vol. 2.1, Paris, 207–257 Anastassiou, A. (2007), ‘Zum Enkephalos-Abschnitt der hippokratischen Schrift De morbo sacro (Kap. 14–17)’, in: Boudon-Millot, V. & alii eds., La science médicale antique: nouveaux regards. FS Jouanna, Paris, 35–40 Anastassiou, A.– Irmer, D. eds. (2006), Testimonien zum Corpus Hippocraticum. Teil I: Nachleben der hippokratischen Schriften bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Unter Einschluss des Caelius Aurelianus sowie der Kompilatoren Oreibasios, Aetios aus Amida, Alexandros aus Tralleis und Paulos aus Aigina, Göttingen Anatolius of Laodicea see Heiberg–Tannery (1901) Andrieu, J. (1949), ‘Procédés de citation et de raccord’, REL 26, 268–293 Annas, J. (1990), ‘Stoic epistemology’, in: Everson ed., 184–203 Annas, J. (1992), Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, Berkeley Annas, J.–Betegh, G. eds. (2016), Cicero’s De finibus: Philosophical Approaches, Cambridge Anonymi medici see Daremberg–Ruelle (1879) 601–610, Garofalo (1997) Anonymus Bruxellensis see Wellmann (1901) 209–234 Anonymus De Nilo see Gambetti (2012), Aubert (2014), Beullens (2014) Anonymus in Theaetetum see Bastianini–Sedley (2005) Anonymus Londiniensis see Diels (1893a), Manetti (2011), Ricciardetto (2014) Anonymus medicus De generatione et semine see Ideler (1841a), 294–296 Anonymus Photii, in: Thesleff (1965), 237–243 Antinoopolis Papyri see Barns–Zilliacus (1960–1967) Antiochus see Luck (1953) Antiphon Sophista see Decleva Caizzi & alii (1989), Pendrick (2002) Antisthenes see Prince (2015) Aphthonius see Rabe (1926), Patillon (2008) Apuleius see Beaujeu (1973), Moreschini (1991), Stover (2016) Aragione, G.–Norelli, E. eds. (2011), Des évêques, des écoles et des hérétiques. Actes du colloque international sur la “Réfutation de toutes les hérésies” Genève, 13–14 juin 2008, Prahins Arcesilaus see Mette (1984) Archytas see Huffman (2005) Arethas Caesariensis see Share (1994) Areválo, F. ed. (1850), Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum libri XX, MPL 82, Paris, 9–728 (originally Rome 1813, MPL 82 repr. Turnhout 1979)



Aristides Quintilianus see Winnigton-Ingram (1963) Aristocles Messanius see Chiesara (2010) Ariston Alexandrinus see Mariotti (1966) Ariston Ceus see Wehrli (19682), Fortenbaugh–White (2006), Stork, Dorandi, Fortenbaugh and Van Ophuijsen (2006) Aristophanes Byzantinus see Lambros (1885), Slater (1986) Aristotle see Ideler (1834–1836), Prantl (1849), Foerster (1893), Fobes (1918), Drossaart Lulofs (1947), Ross (1955), Flashar (1962), Longo (1962), Jannone–Barbotin (1966), Düring (1969), Balme (2002), Rashed (2005a), Primavesi (2012) [see also ps.Aristotle] Aristoxenus see Wehrli (19672), Kaiser (2010) Arkoun, M. (1982), L’humanisme arabe au 4e/10e siècle: Miskawayh, philosophe et historien, Paris Armisen–Marchetti, M. ed. (2001–2003), Macrobe: Commentaire sur le Songe de Scipion. Texte établi, traduit et commenté. 2 Vols., Paris Arnobius see Marchesi (19532) Arnzen, R. ed. (1998), Aristoteles’ De anima. Eine verlorene spätantike Paraphrase in arabischer und persischer Überlieferung. Arabischer text nebst Kommentar, Quellengeschichtlichen Studien und Glossaren, Leiden Arnzen, R. (2003), ‘De anima. Paraphrase arabe anonyme’, DPhA Supplém. 359–365 Arrianus Fragmenta de rebus physicis, in: Roos–Wirth eds. (1968), 186–195 Arrighetti, G. (1969), ‘La structure de la lettre d’Épicure à Pythoclès’, Ass. Guillaume Budé, Actes du VIIIe congrès 1968, Paris, 236–252 (ital. trans. in: Arrighetti 19732, 691– 705) Arrighetti, G. (1971), ‘L’opera «Sulla natura» di Epicuro’, CErc 1, 41–56 (repr. in: Arrighetti 19732, 706–732) Arrighetti, G. ed. (19732), Epicuro: Opere. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note, Turin (1st ed. 1960) Arrighetti, G. (1975), ‘L’opera «Sulla natura» e le lettere di Epicuro a Erodoto e a Pitocle’, CErc 5, 39–51 Arsenius see Von Leutsch (1851) Artemidorus see Pack (1963) Asclepiades see Vallance (1993) Asclepiodotus see Poznanski (1992) Asmis, E. (1984), Epicurus’ Scientific Method, Ithaca Asmis, E. (1999), ‘Epicurean epistemology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 260–294 Asmis, E. (2008), ‘Lucretius’ new world order: making a pact with nature’, CQ 58, 141–157 Asmis, E. (2009), ‘Epicurean empiricism’, in: Warren, J. ed., The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, Cambridge, 84–104 Asper, M. (1998), ‘Zur Struktur und Funktion eisagogischer Texte’, in: Kullmann, W. & alii eds., Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, Tübingen, 309–340



Asper, M. (2007), Griechische Wissenschaftstexte. Formen, Funktionen, DifferenzierungsGeschichten, Stuttgart Assmann, J. (19972), ‘Griechenland und die Disziplinierung des Denkens’, in: Asmann, J., Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen, Munich, 259–292 (esp.: ‘3. Hat Denken Geschichte? Geistesgeschichte als hypoleptischer Prozeß’, 289–292); trans. ‘Greece and disciplined thinking’, in: Asmann, J. (2012), Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination, Cambridge, 234–267 (esp. ‘Does thought have history? Intellectual history as a hypoleptic process’, 263–267) Astrologica see Kunze (1899) Athenaeus see Kaibel (1887–1890) Athenagoras see Marcovich (1990), Pouderon (1992), Marcovich (1990a), (2000) Aubert, J.-J. (2014), ‘Aristoteles (646)’, in: Worthington, I. ed., Brill’s New Jacoby, http:// dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/10.1163/1873‑5363_bnj_a646 Aucher, J.B. ed. (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 per J.B. Aucher, Venice Augustine see Zycha (1894), Goldbacher (1895–1923), Dombart–Kalb (1955), Dekkers– Fraipont (1956), Mountain–Glorie (1968), Jackson–Pinborg (1975), Weber (1998) Aujac, G. (1966), Strabon et la science de son temps, Paris Aujac, G. (1975a), La géographie dans le monde antique, Paris Aujac, G. ed. (1975b), Géminos Introduction aux phénomènes, Paris Auvray-Asseyas, C. (1991), ‘Le livre I du De natura deorum et le traité De signis de Philodème: problèmes de théologie et de logique’, REL 69, 51–62 Auvray-Asseyas, C. (1996), ‘Les constructions doxographiques du De natura deorum et la réflexion cicéronienne sur la physique’, in: Lévy ed., 67–83 Auvray-Asseyas, C. (1999), ‘Existence et providence des dieux dans la théologie stoïcienne: remarques sur l’ordre de l’exposé du De natura deorum (livre 2) d’après la tradition manuscrite’, EPh 1, 91–104 Avicenna see Horten–Wiedemann (1913), Van Riet (1967–1972) Avotins, I. (1980), ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias on vision in the Atomists’, CQ 30, 429–454 Ax, W. ed. (1933), M. Tullius Cicero De natura deorum, Leipzig Ax, W. (1986), Laut, Stimme und Sprache. Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie, Göttingen Ax, W. (1995), ‘Disputare in utramque partem: Zum literarischen Plan und zur dialektischen Methode Varros in De lingua latina 8–10’, RhM 138, 146–177 (repr. in: Ax, W. 2000, Lexis und Logos: Studien zur antiken Grammatik und Rhetorik, Göttingen, 140– 163) Aydin, S. ed. (2016), Sergius of Reshaina: Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories,



Addressed to Philotheos. A Syriac Text with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Leiden Baeumker, C. (1890), Das Problem der Materie in der griechischen Philosophie. Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung, Münster (repr. Francfort 1963) Bailey, C. ed. (1926), Epicurus: The Extant Remains. With Short Critical Apparatus, Translation and Notes, Oxford (repr. Hildesheim 1989) Bailey, C. ed. (1947), Titi Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex, Edited with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and Commentary. 3 Vols., Oxford (repr. 1966) Bakhouche, B. (2005), ‘La théorie de la vision dans Timée (45b2–d2) et son commentaire par Calcidius (ive s. de notre ère)’, Electronic Journal of the International Plato Society 5, 14 pp. Bakhouche, B. (2008), ‘Écriture, réécriture, doxographie: la théorie de la vision dans quelques textes latins’, in: Péretz, B.–Griffe, M. eds., Grammairiens et philosophes dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine, Montpellier Bakhouche, B. ed. (2011), Calcidius: Commentaire au Timée de Platon. Édition critique et traduction française (avec la collaboration de Brisson. L. pour la traduction). 2 Vols., Paris Bakhouche, B. (2012–2013), ‘Les citations d’Empédocle chez Calcidius’, Ítaca 28–29, 45– 62 Bakhouche, B. (2014), ‘Calcidius, witness to Greek medical theories: Eye anatomy and pathology’, in: Maire, B. ed., ‘Greek’ and ‘Roman’ in Latin Medical Texts: Studies in Cultural Change and Exchange in Ancient Medicine, Leiden, 119–136 Bakhouche, B.–Luciani, S. eds. (2009), Lactantius Lucius Caelius Firmianus: De opificio Dei = La creation de Dieu, texte établi, traduit et annoté, Turnhout (no critical apparatus) Bakker, F. (2013), ‘Aëtius, Achilles, Epicurus and Lucretius on the phases and eclipses of the moon’, Mnemosyne 66, 682–707 Bakker, F. (2016), Epicurean Meteorology. Sources, Method, Scope and Organization, Leiden (rev. vers. of diss. Utrecht 2010) Bakoš, J. ed. (1930), Grégoire Aboulfaradj dit Barhebraeus: Le candélabre des sanctuaires, éditée et traduite en français, in: PO 22.4, Paris Bakoš, J. ed. (1948), Psychologie de Grégoire Aboulfaradj dit Barhebraeus d’après la huitième base de l’ouvrage Le candélabre des sanctuaires, éditée et traduite en français, Leiden Balme, D.M. ed. (1982), Aristotle De partibus animalium I and De generatione animalium I (with passages from II. 1–3), trans. with notes; with a report on recent work and an additional bibliography by Gotthelf, A. Balme, D.M. (1985), ‘Historia animalium book ten’, in: Wiesner, J. ed., Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung. Bd. 1, Aristoteles und seine Schule. FS Moraux, Berlin, 191–206 Balme, D.M. ed. (2002), Aristotle: Historia Animalium. Vol. 1: Books I–X: Text, Cambridge



Balsamo, J. & alii eds. (2007), Montaigne Les Essais, Bibl. de la Pléiade, Paris Baltes, M. (1972), Timaios Lokros Über die Natur des Kosmos und der Seele, Leiden Baltes, M. (1976), Die Weltentstehung des platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten. T. 1, Leiden Baltes, M. (1978), ‘Die Zuordnung der Elemente zu den Sinnen bei Poseidonios und ihre Herkunft aus der alten Akademie’, Philologus 122, 183–196 (repr. in: Baltes 1999, 33– 50) Baltes, M. (1988), ‘Zur Theologie des Xenokrates’, in: Van den Broek & alii eds., 43–68 (repr. in: Baltes 1999, 191–222) Baltes, M. (1994), ‘Idee (Ideenlehre)’, RAC 17, 213–246 (repr. in: Baltes 1999, 275–302; rev. repr. as Baltes, M.–Lakmann, M.-L. 2005, ‘Idee (dottrina delle idee)’ in: Fronterotta, F.–Leszl, W. eds., Eidos–Idea. Platone, Aristotele e la tradizione platonica, Sankt Augustin, 1–23) Baltes, M. (1999), ΔΙΑΝΟΗΜΑΤΑ. Kleine Schriften zu Platon und zum Platonismus, Stuttgart–Leipzig Baltes, M. (2000), ‘Zur Nachwirkung des Satzes τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον’, in: Erler–Bees eds., 93–108 (repr. in: Lakmann, M.-L. ed.: Baltes, M., ΕΠΙΝΟΗΜΑΤΑ. Kleine Schriften zur antiken Philosophie und homerischen Dichtung, Munich 2005, 27–48) Baltes, M. see also Dörrie, H.–Baltes, M. Baltussen, H. (1993), Theophrastus on Theories of Perception. Argument and Purpose in the De sensibus, diss. Utrecht Baltussen, H. (2000a), ‘Plato in the Placita (Aëtius Bk. IV): A Dielsian blind spot’, Philologus 144, 227–238 Baltussen, H. (2000b), Theophrastus against the Presocratics and Plato: Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus, Leiden (rev. ed. of Baltussen 1993) Baltussen, H. (2002a), ‘Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: the physical fragments from Simplicius’, in: Bodnár–Fortenbaugh eds., 127–156 Baltussen, H. (2002b), ‘Theophrastean echoes? The De sensibus in the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition’, in: Fortenbaugh–Wöhrle eds., 39–58 Baltussen, H. (2003), ‘Early reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus’, in: Sharples, R.W.–Sheppard, A. eds., Ancient Approaches to Plato’s Timaeus, London, 49–71 Baltussen, H. (2005), ‘The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research’, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 6, 1–26 Baltussen, H. (2006), ‘An Empedoclean ‘hearing aid’? Fragment B99 revisited’, Methexis 19, 7–20 Baltussen, H. (2007), ‘Playing the Pythagorean: Ion’s Triagmos,’ in Katsaros, A.–Jennings, V. eds., The World of Ion of Chios, Leiden, 295–308 Baltussen, H. (2008), Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator, London



Baltussen, H. (2015a), ‘Ancient philosophers and the sense of smell’, in: Bradley ed., 30– 45 Baltussen, H. (2015b), ‘Strato of Lampsacus as a reader of Plato’s Phaedo: his critique of the soul’s immortality’, in: Delcomminette & alii eds., 37–62 Baltussen, H. (2018), ‘§162. Simplikios’, in: Riedweg & alii eds. Vol. 5/3, 2060–2084, 2174– 2181 Bandy, A.C. (2013), On the Months (De mensibus): Three Works of John Lydus 1, Lewiston. Barbotin, E. (1954), La théorie aristotélicienne de l’intellect d’après Théophraste, Louvain Barchiesi, A. & alii eds. (2005), Ovidio: Metamorfosi. Vol. 1: Libri I–II, Milan Barhebraeus see Bakoš (1930), (1948), Takahashi (2004), Schmitt (2016) Barnes, J. (1979 and later repr.), The Presocratic Philosophers, London Barnes, J. (1989), ‘The size of the sun in antiquity’, Acta Classica Univ. Scient. Debrecen 25, 29–41 (repr. in Mantissa: Essays in Ancient Philosophy IV, Oxford 2015, 1–20) Barnes, J. (1990a), The Toils of Scepticism, Cambridge Barnes, J. (1990b), ‘Pyrrhonism, belief and causation. observations on the scepticism of Sextus Empiricus’, ANRW II.36.4, 2608–2695 Barnes, J. (19942), Aristotle: Posterior Analytics Translated with Notes, Oxford (1st ed. 1975) Barnes, J. (2003), Porphyry: Introduction, Translated, with a Commentary, Oxford Barnes, J. & alii eds. (1991), Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle Prior Analytics 1.1–7, London Barnes, J.–Mignucci, M. eds. (1988), Matter and Metaphysics, Naples Barnes, J.–Jouanna, J. eds. (2003), Galien et la philosophie, Vandœuvres Barnes, T.D. (1981). Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge MA Barney, R. & alii eds. (2012), Plato and the Divided Self, Cambridge Barns, J.W.B.–Zilliacus, H. eds. (1960–1967), The Antinoopolis Papyri, with Translation and Notes, Pts. 2–3, London Barsanti, G. (1992), La scala, la mappa, l’albero. Immagini e classificazioni della natura fra Sei e Ottocento, Florence Bartsch, S. (2006), The Mirror of the Self. Sexuality, Self-Knowledge and the Gaze, Chicago Basilius Caesariensis see Pruche (1968), Naldini (1990), Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg (1997) Bastianini, G.–Long, A.A. eds. (1992), ‘Hierocles’, in: Adorno & alii eds., 268–451 Bastianini, G.–Sedley, D.N. eds. (2005), Commentarium in Platonis Theaetetum, in: Adorno & alii eds., 227–562 Baumgarten, H. ed. (1962), Galen Über die Stimme. Testimonien der verlorenen Schrift Peri phones, Pseudo-Galen De voce et anhelitu, diss. Göttingen Baumstark, A. (1897), ‘Ζητήματα βαρβαρικά’, in: Philologisch-historische Beiträge Kurt Wachsmuth überreicht zum 60. Geburtstage, Leipzig, 145–154 Baumstark, A. (1900), Aristoteles bei den Syrern vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert: syrische Texte



herausgegeben, übersetzt und untersucht. Bd. 1, Syrisch-arabische Biographien des Aristoteles. Syrische Kommentare zur ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ des Porphyrios herausgegeben und philosophisch untersucht, Leipzig (repr. Aalen 1975) Baumstark, A. (1905), ‘Griechische Philosophen und ihre Lehren in syrischer Ueberlieferung. Abschnitte aus Theodoros’ bar Kônî „Buch der Scholien“, OC 5, 1–25 Baumstark, A. (1958), Comparative Liturgy rev. ed. by Botte, B., English ed. by Cross, F.L., London (= Liturgie comparée: principes et méthodes pour l’étude historique des liturgies chrétiennes, rev. ed. by Botte, B. 19533, Chevretogne) Baur, L. ed. (1903), Dominicus Gundissalinus: De divisione philosophiae, Münster, Bausi, A. (2009), ‘The so-called ‘Traditio apostolica’: preliminary observations on the new Ethiopic evidence’, in: Grieser, H.–Merkt, A. eds., Volksglaube im antiken Christentum. FS Baumeister, Darmstadt, 291–321 Bausi, A. (2011), ‘La ‘nuova’ versione etiopica della Traditio apostolica: edizione e traduzione preliminare’, in: Buzi, P.–Camplani, E.A. eds., Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. FS Orlandi, Rome, 19–69 Bazou, A. ed. (2011), Galen Quod animi mores corporis temperamenta sequantur (The Soul’s Dependence on the Body), Athens Beare, J.I. (1906 and later repr.), Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle, Oxford Beatrice, P.F. (2002), ‘The word “homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity’, ChHist 71, 243–272 Beatrice, P.F. (2005), ‘L’union de l’âme et du corps. Némésius d’Émèse lecteur de Porphyre’, in: Boudon-Millot, V.–Pouderon, B. eds., Les Pères de l’Église face à la science médicale de leur temps, Paris, 252–285 Beaujeu, J. ed. (1973), Apulée. Opuscules philosophiques (Du Dieu de Socrate, Platon et sa doctrine, Du monde) et fragments, texte établi et commenté, Paris Beck, C.D. ed. (1787), Plutarchi De physicis philosophorum decretis libri quinque, Leipzig Beda Venerabilis see Jones (1975) Beekes, R.S.P. (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 Vols., Leiden Bees, R. (2004), Die Oikeiosislehre der Stoa. I. Rekonstruktion ihres Inhalts, Würzburg Beierwaltes, W. (20105), Plotin Über Ewigkeit und Zeit (Enneade III 7), Übersetzt, eingeleitet und kommentiert, Francfort (1st ed. 1967) Beit-Arié, M. (1993), ‘Transmission of texts by scribes and copyists’, BRL 75, 33–51 Bélis, A. ed. (1986), Aristoxène de Tarente et Aristote: Le traité d’harmonique, Paris Belting, H. (2011), Florence and Baghdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science, Cambridge MA Benakis, L.G. ed. (2008), Michael Psellos Kommentar zu Physik des Aristoteles. Editio princeps, Athens Bénatouïl, T. (2005), ‘Cléanthe contre Aristarque’, ArchPhilos 68, 207–222



Bénatouïl, T. (2007), ‘Le débat entre platonisme et stoïcisme sur la vie scolastique: Chrysippe, la Nouvelle Académie et Antiochus’, in: Bonazzi–Helmig eds., 1–21 Bénatouïl, T. (2009), ‘Θεωρία et vie contemplative du stoïcisme au platonisme: Chrysippe, Panétius, Antiochus et Alcinoos’, in: Bonazzi, M.–Opsomer, J. eds., The Origin of the Platonic system: Platonisms of the Early Empire and their Philosophical Contexts, Leuven, 3–31 Bénatouïl, T.–Bonazzi, M. eds. (2012), Theoria, Praxis and the Contemplative Life after Plato and Aristotle, Leiden Bendz, G.–Pape, I. eds. (1990–1993), Caelii Aureliani Pars 1 Celerum passionum libri III. Tardarum passionum libri V. Teil 1: Akute Krankheiten I–III, Chronische Krankheiten I–II. Teil 2: Chronische Krankheiten II–V, CML 6.1–2, Berlin (repr. 2014) Beretta, M. & alii eds. (2012), Seneca e le scienze naturali, Florence Bergdolt, K. (1991), ‘Der Sehvorgang als theologisches Analogon: Augenanatomie und -physiologie bei Roger Bacon’, Sudhoffs Archiv 75, 1–20 Bergdolt, K. (1994), ‘Die Erfindung und Verbreitung der Brille im Spätmittelalter’, MHJ 29, 111–120 Berger, H. ed. (1880), Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes neu gesammelt und besprochen, Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1964) Berger, H. (19032), Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen, Leipzig (repr. Berlin 1966) Bergeron, M.–Dufour, R. eds. (2008), Alexandre d’Aphrodise: De l’âme, Paris Bergsträsser, G. ed. (1918), Neue meteorologische Fragmente des Theophrast arabisch und deutsch, mit Zusätzen vorgelegt von Boll, F., SBAkHeidelberg Phil.-hist.Kl. 1918.9, Heidelberg Bernabé, A. ed. (2004–2005), Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. 2 Vols., Munich Bernadakis, G.N. ed. (1893), Placita philosophorum, in: Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia. Vol. 5, Leipzig, 264–372. Bernard, A. (2003), ‘Comment définir la nature des textes mathématiques de l’antiquité grecque tardive? Proposition de réforme de la notion des ‘textes deuteronomiques’’, Revue d’histoire des mathématiques 9, 131–173 Bernhardy, G. (1822), Eratosthenica, Berlin (no more recent ed.) Berossos see De Breucker (2012) Berryman, S. (1998), ‘Euclid and the sceptic: a paper on vision, doubt, geometry, light and drunkenness’, Phronesis 43, 176–196 Berthelot, M.–Ruelle, C.E. eds. (1888), Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. 3 Vols., Paris (repr. Osnabrück 1967) Berti, E. (19972), La filosofia del primo Aristotele, Milan (1st ed. Padova 1962) Berti, E. (2008), ‘L’origine dell’anima intellettiva secondo Aristotele’, in: Alesse, F. & alii eds., Anthropine Sophia. Studi di filologia e storiografia filosofica in memoria di Gabriele Giannantoni, Naples 2008, 295–328



Bertier, J. (1978), ‘Une hénadologie liée au Stoïcisme tardif dans le Commentaire d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise à la Métaphysique d’Aristote (990b9)’, in: Brunschwig ed. (1978), 41–54 (repr. in: Brunschwig ed. 20062, 369–387) Bertrand, E., Compatangelo, and Soussignan, R. eds. (2015), Cycles de la nature, cycles de l’histoire. De la découverte des météores à la fin de l’age d’or, Bordeaux Betegh, G. (2003), ‘Cosmological ethics in the Timaeus and early Stoicism’, OSAPh 24, 273–302 Betegh, G. (2007), ‘On the physical aspect of Heraclitus’ psychology’, Phronesis 52, 3–32 Betegh, G. (2010), ‘The transmission of ancient wisdom: texts, doxographies, libraries’, in: Gerson ed., 1.25–38 Betegh, G. (2013), ‘Socrate et Archélaos dans les Nuées. Philosophie naturelle et éthique’, in: Laks, A.–Saetta-Cottone, R. eds., Comédie et philosophie: Socrate et les présocratiques dans les Nuées d’Aristophane, Paris, 1–19 Betegh, G. (2015), ‘Body: M. 9.359–440’, in: Algra–Ierodiakonou eds., 130–183 Betegh, G. (2016), ‘Archelaus on cosmogony and the origin of social institutions’, OSAP 51, 1–40 Bethe, E. ed. (1900), Pollucis Onomasticon … denuo edidit et adnotavit fasc. 1, Leipzig Bethe, E. (1905), ‘Dioskuren’, RE Bd 5. 1087–1123 Bett, R. (2015), ‘God: M. 9.13–194’, in: Algra–Ierodiakonou eds., 33–73 Betz, H.D. (1985), ‘Matt. 6:22–23 and ancient Greek theories of vision’, in: Betz, H.D., Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, Philadelphia, 71–87 Betz, O. (1973), ‘φώνη κτλ.’, ThWNT. Bd. 9, Stuttgart, 272–294 Beullens, P. (2011), ‘De overstroming van de Nijl’, TF 73, 513–535 Beullens, P. ed. (2014), ‘Facilius sit Nili caput invenire: Towards an attribution and reconstruction of the Aristotelian treatise De inundatione Nili’, in: De Leemans, P. ed., Translating at the Court: Bartholomew of Messina and Cultural Life at the Court of Manfred, King of Sicily, Leuven, 303–329 (w. ed. of the treatise) Bicknell, P.J. (1967), ‘Xenophanes’ account of solar eclipses’, Eranos 65, 73–77. Bicknell, P.J. (1968), ‘Seneca and Aetius on Anaximander’s and Anaximenes’ accounts of thunder and lightning’, Latomus 27, 181–184 Bicknell, P.J. (1982), ‘Melissus’ way of seeming?’, Phronesis 27, 194–201 Bien, C.G. (1997), Erklärungen zur Entstehung von Missbildungen im physiologischen und medizinischen Schrifttum der Antike, Stuttgart. Bienert, W.A. ed. (1972), Dionysius of Alexandrien: Das erhaltene Werk / Dionysiou Leipsana, eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen, Stuttgart Bienert, W.A. (1978), Dionysius von Alexandrien: zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert, Berlin Bignone, E. ed. (1916), Empedocle. Studio critico, traduzione e commento delle testimonianze e dei frammenti, Turin (repr. Rome 1963) Bion Boristhenita see Kindstrand (1976)



Birt, T. (1913), Kritik und Hermeneutik nebst Abriß des antiken Buchwesens. Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Bd. 1.3, Munich Bischoff, B. (1958), ‘Eine verschollene Einteilung der Wissenschaften’, AHMA 25, 5–20 (repr. in: Bischoff, B. 1966, Mittelalterliche Studien. Vol. 1, Stuttgart, 273–288) Blank, D.L. (1998), Sextus Empiricus: Against the Grammarians (Adversus Mathematicos I), Translated with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Blum, H. (1969), Die antike Mnemotechnik, Tübingen Blum, R. (1934), Manilius’ Quelle im ersten Buche der Astronomica, diss. Berlin Blum, R. (1991), Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Madison WI (trans. of Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen, Francfort 1977) Blumenthal, H.–Robinson, H. eds. (1991), Aristotle and the Later Tradition, OSAPh Supp. Vol., Oxford Bobzien, S. (1998), Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, Oxford Bobzien, S. (1999), ‘Chrysippus’ theory of causes’, in: Ierodiakonou, K. ed., Topics in Stoic Philosophy, Oxford, 196–242 Bobzien, S. (2015), ‘Time: M. 10.169–247’, in: Algra–Ierodiakonou eds., 275–323 Bodéüs, R. (1995), ‘L’influence historique du Stoïcisme sur l’interprétation de l’œuvre philosophique d’Aristote’, RSPh 79, 553–586 Bodnár, I.M. (2008), Oenopides of Chius: A Survey of the Modern Literature with a Collection of the Ancient Testimonia, Berlin Bodnár, I.M.–Fortenbaugh, W.W. eds. (2002), Eudemus of Rhodes, New Brunswick NJ Boer, Æ. ed. (1958), Pauli Alexandrini Elementa Apotelesmatica, Leipzig Boeri, D.–Salles, R. eds. (2014), Los Filosofos Estoicos: Ontología, Lógica, Física y Ética. Traducción, Comentario Filosófico y Edición Anotada de los Principales Textos Griegos y Latinos, Sankt Augustin Boethius see Meiser (1880), Brandt (1906), Magee (1998) Boissonade, J.F ed. (1838), Psellus De operatione daemonum, Nürnberg (repr. Amsterdam 1964) Böker, R. (1958), ‘Winde: Die geophysischen Windtheorien im Altertum’, RE Bd. VIIIA/ 16, 2215–2265 Böker, R. (1962a), ‘Wetterzeichen §11. Ῥᾶβδοι’, RE Supp. Bd. IX, 1684–1685 Böker, R. (1962b), ‘Wetterzeichen §12. Der Regenbogen’, RE Supp. Bd. IX, 1686–1688 Böker, R. (1962c), ‘Wetterzeichen Abt. B. Halo- und Irisphänomene’, RE Supp. Bd. IX, 1654–1672 Boli, T. ed. (2004), Olympiodorus (Diaconus Alexandrinus) Kommentar zum Ekklesiastes: eine kritische Edition, Heidelberg Boll, F. (1908), Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum. Vol. 7: Codices Germanici, Brussels Boll, F. (1909), ‘Fixsterne’, RE Bd. 6, 2407–2431



Bollack, J. ed. (1965–1969), Empédocle I: Introduction à l’ancienne physique; II: Les Origines. Édition et traduction des fragments et des témoignages; III.1–2: Les Origines. Commentaire, Paris (repr. 1992) Bollack, J.–Laks, A. eds. (1978), Épicure à Pythoclès: Sur la cosmologie et les phénomènes météorologiques. Édition critique avec introduction et commentaire, Lille Bollack, M. (1978), La raison de Lucrèce. Constitution d’une poétique philosophique avec un essai d’interprétation de la critique lucrétienne, Paris Bollansee, J. (1999a), Hermippos of Smyrna and his Biographical Writings. A Reappraisal, Leuven Bollansee, J. ed. (1999b), F. Jacoby: Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Continued Pt. IV: Schepens, G. ed., Biography and Antiquarian Literature, IVA: Biography. Fasc. 3 ed. Bollansee, J., Hermippos of Smyrna, Leiden Bonazzi, M. (2011), ‘Il Platonismo nel secondo libro dell’Anthologicum di Stobeo: il problema di Eudoro’, in: Reydams-Schils ed., 441–456 Bonazzi, M. (2013), ‘Eudorus of Alexandria and the ‘Pythagorean’ pseudepigrapha’, in: Cornelli & alii eds., 385–404 Bonazzi, M. (2015), À la recherché des idées: Platonisme et philosophie hellénistique d’Antiochus à Plotin, Paris Bonazzi, M. (2018), ‘Plato systematized: Doing philosophy in the imperial schools. A discussion of Justin A. Stover ed., A New Work by Apuleius’, OSAPh 53, 215–236 Bonazzi, M.–Helmig, C. eds. (2007), Platonic Stoicism–Stoic Platonism. The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity, Leuven Bonelli, F.–Russo, L. (1996), ‘The origin of modern astronomical theories of tides: Chrisogono, de Dominis and their sources’, BJHS 29, 385–401 Bonitz, H. (1870), Index Aristotelicus, Aristotelis opera. Vol. 5 (repr. Graz 1961) Bonneau, D. (1964), La crue du Nil. I: Ses descriptions, ses explications, son culte, Paris Borleffs, J.W.P. ed. (1929), Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Ad nationes libri duo, Leiden Borleffs, J.W.P. ed. (1953), Q.S.F. Tertulliani Ad nationes libri 2, in: Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani opera P. 1: Opera Catholica, Adversus Marcionem, CC Ser. Lat. 1, 1, Turnhout, 9–75 Bos, A.–Ferwerda, R. eds. (2008), Aristotle On the Life-Bearing Spirit (De spiritu). A Discussion with Plato and his Predecessors on Pneuma as the Instrumental Body of the Soul. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Leiden Bossier, F.–Steel, C. (1972), ‘Priscianus Lydus en de In De anima van Pseudo(?)Simplicius’, TF 34, 761–822 Boter, G. (1989), The Textual Tradition of Plato’s Republic, Leiden Botte, B. (19842), Hippolyte de Rome. La Tradition apostolique d’après les anciennes versions. Introduction, traduction et notes, Paris Botte, B. (19895), La Tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte. Essai de reconstruction, rev. ed. by Gerhards, A.–Felbecker, S., Münster



Bottler, H. (2011), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009, Gymnasium 118, 285–287 Bottler, H. (2014), Pseudo-Plutarch und Stobaios: Eine synoptische Untersuchung, Göttingen Boudon-Millot, V. ed. (2000), Galien T. 2: Exhortation à l’étude de la médecine. Art médical, texte établi et traduit, Paris Boudon-Millot, V. (2002), ‘La théorie galénique de la vision: couleurs du corps et couleurs des humeurs’, in: Villard ed., 65–75 Boudon-Millot, V. ed. (2007), Galien T. 1: Introduction générale. Sur l’ordre de ses propres livres. Sur ses propres livres. Que l’excellent médecin est aussi philosophe, texte établi, traduit et annoté, Paris Boudon-Millot, V. (2012), ‘Vision and vision disorders. Galen’s physiology of sight’, in: Horstmanshoff, M. & alii eds., Blood, Sweat and Tears—The Changing Concepts of Physiology from Antiquity to Early Modern Europe, Leiden Boudon-Millot, V.–Pietrobelli, A. eds. (2005), ‘Galien ressucité: édition princeps du texte grec du De propriis placitis’, REG 118, 168–213 Bouffartigue, J. (1998), ‘La structure de l’âme chez Philon: terminologie scolastique et métaphores’, in: Lévy ed., 59–75 Bouffartigue, J.–Patillon, M. eds. (1979), Porphyre: De l’abstinence Livres II et III, Paris (repr. 2003) Bowen, A.C. (2002), ‘Eudemus’ history of early Greek astronomy: two hypotheses,’ in: Bodnár–Fortenbaugh eds., 307–322 Bowen, A.C. (2015), ‘Problemata 15: Its title and agenda’, in: Mayhew ed., 214–225 Bowen, A.C.–Todd, R.B. (2004), Cleomedes’ Lectures on Astronomy. A Translation of The Heavens with an Introduction and Commentary, Berkeley Bowen, A.C.–Wildberg, C. eds. (2009), New Perspectives on Aristotle’s De caelo, Leiden Boyancé, P. (1936), Études sur le Songe de Scipion. Essais d’histoire et de psychologie religieuse, Paris Boyancé, P. (1948), ‘Xénocrate et les Orphiques’, REA 50, 218–231 Boyancé, P. (1967), review Giusta 1964, Latomus 26, 246–249 Boyancé, P. (1971), ‘Cicéron et les parties de la philosophie’, REL 49, 127–154 Boyer, C.B. (1946), ‘Aristotelian references to the law of reflection’, Isis 36, 92–95 Boyer, C.B. (1956), ‘Refraction and the rainbow in Antiquity’, Isis 47, 383–386 Boyer, C.B. (1959), The Rainbow from Myth to Mathematics, New York (new ed. with new color ills. and commentary by Greenler, R. 1987, Basingstoke NH) Boys-Stones, G.R. (2003), ‘The Stoics’ two types of allegory’, in: Boys-Stones ed., Metaphor, Allegory and the Classical Tradition. Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions, Oxford, 189–216 Boys-Stones, G.R. (2007), ‘Physiognomy and ancient psychological theory’, in: Swain ed., 19–124 Boys-Stones, G.R. (2009), ‘Cornutus und sein philosophisches Umfeld: Der Antiplatonismus der Epidrome’, in: Nesselrath ed., 141–161



Boys-Stones, G.R. (2013), ‘Seneca against Plato: Letters 58 and 65’, in: Long ed., 128– 146 Boys-Stones, G.R. (2018), Platonist Philosophy 80BC to AD250. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation, Cambridge Boys-Stones, G.R. (2019), L. Annaeus Cornutus: Greek Theology, Fragments and Testimonia, Atlanta Bradley, M. (2009), Colour and Meaning in Ancient Rome, Cambridge Bradley, M. ed. (2015), Smell and the Ancient Senses, London Bradshaw, P.F. (1993), ‘Liturgy and “living literature”’, in: Bradshaw, P.F.–Spinks, B. eds., Liturgy in Dialogue. FS Ronald Jasper, Collegeville, 138–153 Bradshaw, P.F., Johnson, M.E. and Phillips, L.E. eds. (2002), The Apostolic Tradition. A Commentary, Minneapolis (also contains most of the textual evidence in English translation) Brandis, C.A. ed. (1836), Scholia in Aristotelem, Berlin (repr. in: Gigon, O. ed. 1961, Aristotelis opera e recensionis Immanuelis Bekkeri ed. altera. Vol. 4, Berlin) Brandt, S. (1891), ‘Über die Quellen von Laktanz’ Schrift De opificio Dei’, WS 13, 255– 292 Brandt, S. ed. (1906), Boethius In Porphyrii Isagogen commentorum editio prima, CSEL 48; editio secunda, CSEL 48, Vienna 1906, 3–132 & 135–348 (repr. New York 1966) Bremmer, J.N. (1998), ‘Aëtius, Arius Didymus and the transmission of doxography’, Mnemosyne 51, 154–160 Bremmer, J.N. (2003), ‘Canonical and alternative creation myths in Ancient Greece’, in: Van Kooten ed., 73–96 Bremmer, J.N. (2006), ‘Atheism in Antiquity’, in: Martin ed., 11–26 Brenk, F. (1986), ‘In the light of the moon: demonology in the early Imperial period’, ANRW II.16.3, Berlin, 2068–2145 Brind’amour, P. (1969), ‘Note sur Anaximène, Diels Frg. 13 a 14 (Aetius, II, 14, 3)’, RPh 43, 96–97 Brinkmann, A. ed. (1895), Alexandri Lycopolitani Contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio, Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1989) Brinkmann, A. (1902), ‘Ein Schreibgebrauch und seine Bedeutung für die Textkritik’, RhM 57, 481–497 (repr. in: Daniel, R.W. 1991, Two Greek Magical Papyri in the Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, Opladen, 83–96) Brinkmann, A.–Herter, H. (1923), ‘Die Meteorologie Arrians I’, RhM 73, 373–401 Brinkmann, A.–Herter, H. (1924), ‘Die Meteorologie Arrians II’, RhM 74, 25–63 Brisson, L., Congourdeau, M.-H., and Solère, J.-L. eds. (2008), L’Embryon: formation et animation. Antiquité grecque et latine, traditions hébraïque, chrétienne et islamique, Paris Brittain, Ch. (2005), ‘Common sense: concepts, definition and meaning in and out of the Stoa’, in: Frede–Inwood eds., 164–209



Brittain, Ch.–Palmer, J. (2001), ‘The New Academy’s appeals to the Presocratics’, Phronesis 46, 38–72 Brodersen, K. (2006), ‘Euthymenes of Massalia’, Brill’s New Pauly, Brill online Broggiato, M. ed. (2001), Cratete di Mallo: I frammenti. Edizione, introduzione e note, La Spezia Brox, N. (1990–2001), Irenaeus Lugdunensis: Epideixis/Darlegung der apostolischen Verkündiging; Adversus haereses/Gegen die Häresien, Griechisch, Lateinisch, Deutsch, übersetzt und eingeleitet. 5 Vols., Freiburg (text of Haer. is that of Rousseau– Doutreleau) Browne, G.M. (1990), ‘Ad Aetium Arabum’, OCP 59, 333–334 Brownson, C.D. (1981), ‘Euclid’s Optics and its compatibility with linear perspective’, AHES 20, 165–194 Bruna, F.J. (1972), Lex Rubria. Caesars Regelung für die richterlichen Kompetenzen der Munizipalmagistrate in Gallia Ciscalpina, Leiden Bruno, V. (1977), Form and Color in Greek Painting, New York Bruns, I., ed. (1892), Alexandri Aphrodisiensis praeter commentaria scripta minora: Quaestiones De fato De mixtione, CAG Supplem. Arist. 2.2, Berlin Brunschwig, J. (1983), ‘Aristote et le statut épistémologique de l’arc-en ciel’, in: Gerson, L.P. ed., Graceful Reason. FS Owens, Toronto, 115–134 Brunschwig, J. (1988), ‘La théorie stoïcienne du genre suprême et l’ontologie platonicienne’, in: Barnes–Mignucci eds., 19–127 Brunschwig, J. (1999), ‘Introduction: the beginnings of epistemology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 229–259 Brunschwig, J. ed. (20062), Les Stoïciens et leur logique, Paris (1st ed. 1978) Bryan, J.–Warren, J. eds. (2108), Authorities and auctoritas in Ancient Philosophy, Cambridge Buffière, F. (1956), Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque, Paris Buffière, F. ed. (1962), Héraclite. Allégories d’Homère, Paris Bühler, W. ed. (1982–1999), Zenobii Athoi proverbia vulgari ceteraque memoria aucta. 3 Vols., Göttingen Bürgel, J.C. (1967), ‘Averroes contra Galenum: Das Kapitel von der Atmung im Colliget des Averroes als ein Zeugnis mittelalterlicher-islamischer Kritik an Galen. Eingeleitet, arabisch herausgegeben und übersetzt’, Nachr.Ak.Göttingen Phil.-hist. Kl., 263–340 Burgess, R.W. (1999), Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography, Stuttgart Burgess, R.W. (2005), ‘A common source for Jerome, Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and the Epitome de caesaribus between 358 and 378, along with further thoughts on the date and nature of the Kaisergeschichte’, CPh 100, 166–192 Burgess, R.W.–Kulikowski, M. (2013), Mosaics of Time: the Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD. Vol. 1: A Historical Introduction to the Genre from its Origins to the Middle Ages, Turnhout



Burguière, P. & alii eds. (1988–2000), Soranos d’Éphèse Maladies des femmes, Texte établie, traduit et commenté. T 1 Livre 1, T 2 Livre 2, T 3 Livre 3, T 4 Livre 4 Index général, Paris Buriks, A.A. (1948), ΠΕΡΙ ΤΥΧΗΣ: de ontwikkeling van het begrip tyche tot aan de Romeinse tijd, hoofdzakelijk in de filosofie, diss. Leiden Buriks, A.A. (1950), ‘The source of Plutarch’s Περὶ τύχης’, Phoenix 4, 59–69 Burkert, W. (1960), ‘Platon oder Pythagoras? Zum Ursprung des Wortes ‘Philosophie’’, Hermes 88, 159–177 (repr. in: Graf, F. ed. 2008, Walter Burkert Kleine Schriften III: Mystica, Orphica, Pythagorica, Göttingen, 217–236) Burkert, W. (1972), Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, Cambridge MA (rev. trans. of Weisheit und Wissenschaft. Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon, Nurnberg 1962) Burkert, W. (1977), ‘Air-imprints or eidola: Democritus’ aetiology of vision’, ICS 2, 97–109 (repr. in: Szlezák, Th.A.–Stanzel, K.H. eds. 2008, Walter Burkert Kleine Schriften VII: Philosophica, Göttingen, 43–54) Burkert, W. (1983), ‘Apokalyptik im frühen Griechentum: Impulse und Transformationen,’ in Helholm, D. ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, Tübingen Burkert, W. (1999), ‘Diels’ Vorsokratiker. Rückschau und Ausblick’, in: Calder III, W.M.– Mansfeld, J. eds., Hermann Diels (1848–1922) et la science de l’antiquité, Vandœuvres, 169–204 Burkert, W. (2005), ‘Divination: Mantik im Griechenland,’ in Aa.Vv. (ed.), Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, Los Angeles, 3.1–51. Burkert, W. (2009), ‘Die Entdeckung der Nerven. Anatomische Evidenz und Widerstand der Philosophie’, in: Brockmann, C., Brunschön, W., and Overwien, O. eds., Antike Medizin im Schnittpunkt von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften, Berlin, 31–44 Burkert, W. (20112), Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, Stuttgart (1st ed. 1977, trans. of 1st ed. Greek Religion, Archaic and Classical, Oxford 1985) Burkert, W. (2013), ‘Nochmals: Thales und die Sonnenfinsternis’, Rheinisches Museum 156, 225–234 Burkert, W. ed. (1969), Hermann Diels Kleine Schriften zur antiken Philosophie, Darmstadt Burkhard, G. (1967), ‘Pneumatik und Kosmologie’, Philologus 111, 1–20 Burnett, Ch. ed. (1985), Pseudo-Bede: De mundi celestis terrestrisque constitutione. A Treatise on the Universe and the Soul, London Burnyeat, M.F. (1987), ‘The sceptic in his place and time’, in: Popkin, R.H. & alii eds., Scepticism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Wiesbaden, 13–43 (repr. in: Burnyeat, M.F. 2012, Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy. Vol. 1. Cambridge, 316–345) Burnyeat, M.F. (2002), ‘De anima II 5’, Phronesis 47, 28–90



Burnyeat, M.F. (2005), ‘Archytas and optics’, Science in Context 18, 34–54 Burnyeat, M.F. (2017), ‘‘All the world’s a stage-painting’: scenery, optics, and Greek epistemology’, OSAP 52, 33–75 Busch, P.–Zangenberg, L.K. eds. (2010), Lucius Annaeus Cornutus: Einführung in die griechische Götterlehre. Herausgegeben, eingeleitet und übersetzt, Darmstadt Busse, A. ed. (1891), Ammonius In Porphyrii Isagogen sive quinque voces, CAG 4.3, Berlin Busse, A. ed. (1900), Eliae In Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias commentaria, CAG 18.1, Berlin Busse, A. ed. (1902), Olympiodori Prolegomena et In Categorias commentarium, CAG 12.1, Berlin Busse, A. ed. (1904), Davidis Prolegomena et In Porphyrii Isagogen commentarium, CAG 18.2, Berlin Bussières, M.-P. ed. (2007), Ambrosiaster Contre les païens (Question sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament 114) et Sur le Destin (Question sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament 115). Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, Paris Butterfield, D. (2013), The Early Textual History of Lucretius’ De rerum natura, Cambridge (esp. ch. 3, ‘The capitula of De rerum natura’, pp. 136–202; Appendix I, ‘Capitula Lucretiana’, pp. 274–285) Caelius Aurelianus see Drabkin (1950), Drabkin–Drabkin (1951), Bendz (1990–1993) Calcidius see Waszink (1962), Bakhouche (2011) Callahan, J.F. (rev. ed. 1979), Four Views of Time in Ancient Philosophy, Westport CT (1st ed. Cambridge MA 1948) Callimachus see Pfeiffer (1949–1953) Calzolari, V. (2016), ‘The transmission and reception of the Greek cultural heritage in late antique Armenia: The Armenian translations of the Greek Neoplatonic works’, in: Gazzano, F., Pagani, L. and Traina, G. eds., Greek Texts and Armenian Traditions: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Berlin, 47–70 Calzolari, V.–Barnes, J. eds. (2009), L’œuvre de David l’Invincible et la transmission de la pensée grecque dans la tradition arménienne et syriacque. Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca–Davidis Opera. Vol. 1, Leiden Camassa, G. (2011), Scrittura e mutamento delle leggi nel mondo antico. Dal Vicino Oriente alla Grecia di età arcaica e classica, Rome Cambiano, G. ed. (1986), Storiografia e dossografia nella filosofia antica, Turin Cameron, A. (2004), Greek Mythography in the Roman World, Oxford Campbell, D.J. (1942), C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae Liber Secundus, Aberdeen Campbell, G. (2003), Lucretius on Creation and Evolution. A Commentary on De rerum natura Book Five, Lines 772–1104, Oxford Canivet, P. (1958a), Histoire d’une entreprise apologétique au 5e siècle, Paris Canivet, P. ed. (1958b), Théodoret de Cyr Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques. 2 Vols., Paris



Cantarella, R. ed. (1931), S. Massimo Confessore. La Mistagogia ed altri scritti. Florence Capelle, W. (1905a), ‘Der Physiker Arrian und Poseidonios’, Hermes 40, 614–635 Capelle, W. (1905b), Die Schrift Von der Welt. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der griechischen Populärphilosophie, Leipzig Capelle, W. (1908), ‘Erdbeben im Altertum’, Neue Jbb. klass. Alt. 21, 603–633 Capelle, W. (1910), ‘Auf Spuren alter ΦΥΣΙΚΟΙ’, Hermes 45, 321–336 Capelle, W. (1913), ‘Zur Geschichte der meteorologischen Literatur’, Hermes 48, 321– 358 Capelle, W. (1914), ‘Die Nilschwelle’, Neue Jbb. klass. Alt. 33, 317–361 Capelle, W. (1924), ‘Erdbebenforschung’, RE Supp. Bd. IV, Stuttgart, 344–374 Capelle, W. (1935), ‘Meteorologie’, RE Supp. Bd. VI, Stuttgart, 315–358 Capelle, W. (1958), ‘Farbenbezeichnungen bei Theophrast’, RhM 101, 1–41 Cardauns, B. ed. (1976), M. Terentius Varro Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum T. 1: Die Fragmente, T. 2: Kommentar, Wiesbaden Cardullo, R.L. (2011), ‘Empedocle πυθαγορικός. Un’ «invenzione» neoplatonica?’, in: Palumbo, L. ed., Logon didonai. FS Casertano, Naples, 817–839 Carman, C.C.–Evans, J. (2015), ‘The two earths of Eratosthenes’, Isis 106, 1–16. Carneades see Mette (1985) Carriker, A.J. (2003), The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Leiden Casevitz, M.–Babut, D. eds. (2002), Plutarque: Œuvres Morales. T. XV, 2e partie: Traité 72. Sur les notions communes contre les Stoïciens, Paris Castagnoli, L. (2013), ‘Democritus and Epicurus on sensible qualities in Plutarch’s Against Colotes 3–9’, Aitia 3, 1–72 Caston, V. (1997), ‘Epiphenomenalisms: ancient and modern’, PhR 106, 309–363 Caston, V. (1999), ‘Something and nothing: the Stoics on concepts and universals’, OSAPh 17, 145–213 Caston, V. (2001), ‘Dicaearchus’ philosophy of mind’, in: Fortenbaugh–Schütrumpf eds., 175–193 Caston, V. (2005), ‘The spirit and the letter: Aristotle on perception’, in: Salles ed., 245– 320 Cataldi Palau, P. (1987), ‘Complemento a Doxographica aus Basiliusscholien di G. Pasquali’, RHT 17, 347–351 Cato see Mazzarino (1962) Cavagnaro, E. (1994), ‘Aristotele dossografo in Physica, IV, 10’, La Cultura 32, 227–250 Cavagnaro, E. (2002), Aristotele e il tempo. Analisi di Physica, 4, 10–14, Bologna (1st ed. diss. VU Amsterdam 1995) Cavalieri, M.C. (2002), ‘La rassegna dei filosofi di Filodemo: scuola eleatica ed abderita (PHerc. 327) e scuola pitagorica (PHerc. 1508)?’, in: Capasso, M. ed., PapLup 11, 2002, 17–53 Censorinus see Sallmann (1983)



Centrone, B. ed. (1990), Pseudopythagorica ethica. I trattati morali di Archita, Metopo, Teage, Eurifamo. Introduzione, edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples Centrone, B. ed. (2011), Studi sui Problemata physica Aristotelici, Naples Centrone, B.–Macris, C. (2005), ‘Modératus de Gadès’, DPhA 4, 545–548 Chanet, A.-M. (1983), L’ellipse dans la tradition rhétorique grecque, Histoire épistémologie langage 5, 17–22 Charles-Saget, A. (1997), ‘Jamblique. Doxographie et philosophie dans le Traité de l’âme’, in: Blumenthal, H.-J.–Finamore, J.F. eds., Iamblichus the Philosopher, Iowa City, 121–128 (repr. 2002) Charles, D. (2000), Aristotle on Meaning and Essence, Oxford Charles, D. ed. (2010), Definition in Greek Philosophy, Oxford Charlton, W. (1987), ‘Aristotle on the place of mind in nature’, in: Gotthelf, A.–Lennox, J.G. eds., Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge, 408–423 Chase, M. (2005), ‘Némésius d’Émèse’, DPhA 4, 625–654 Chatelain, L. (1909), ‘Théories d’auteurs anciens sur les tremblements de terre’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome 29, 87–101 Chemla, K. (1999), ‘Commentaires, éditions et autres textes seconds: quel enjeu pour l’histoire des mathématiques? Réflexions inspirées par la note de Reviel Netz’, Revue d’histoire des mathématiques 5, 127–148 Cherniss, H. (1935), Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, Baltimore (repr. New York 1983) Cherniss, H. (1944), Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy, Baltimore (repr. New York 1962) Cherniss, H.F, (1951), ‘Notes on Plutarch’s De facie in orbe lunae’, CPh 46, 137–158 Cherniss, H.F. ed. (1976), Plutarch Moralia. Vol. 13.1, Pt. 1: Platonic essays; Pt. 2: Stoic essays, LCL, Cambridge MA (repr. 1993) Cherniss, H.F.–Hembold, W. eds. (1957), Plutarch Moralia. Vol. 12, Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb of the Moon. On the Principle of Cold. Whether Fire or Water is more Useful. Whether Land or Sea Animals are Cleverer. Beasts Are Rational. On the Eating of Flesh, LCL, Cambridge MA Chiaradonna, R. (2007), ‘Platonismo e teoria della conoscenza Stoica tra II e III secolo d.C.’, in: Bonazzi–Helmig eds., 209–241 Chiaradonna, R. (2009), ‘Le traité de Galien Sur la démonstraton et sa postérité tardoantique’, in: Chiaradonna–Trabattoni eds., 43–77 Chiaradonna, R. (2013), ‘Platonist approaches to Aristotle: from Antiochus of Ascalon to Eudorus of Alexandria (and beyond)’, in: Schofield ed., 28–52 Chiaradonna, R. (2014), ‘Galen on what is persuasive (pithanon) and what approximates to truth’, in: Adamson & alii eds., 61–88 Chiaradonna, R. (2017), ‘Galeno e le dispute dei filosofi: la generazione del cosmo’, MedSec 29, 861–878 Chiaradonna, R. ed. (2005), Studi sull’anima in Plotino, Rome



Chiaradonna, R.–Trabattoni, F. eds. (2009), Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism, Leiden Chiaradonna, R. & alii eds. (2013), ‘A rediscovered Categories commentary’, OSAPh 129– 194 (repr. in: Sorabji ed. 2016a, 231–262) Chiesa, C. (1991), ‘Le problème du langage intérieur chez les Stoïciens’, RIPh 45, 301–321 Chiesara, M.L. ed. (2010), Aristocles of Messene: Testimonia and Fragments. Edited with Translation and Commentary, Oxford Christol, A. (2005), ‘Vision et agentivité: la syntaxe comme révélateur’, in: Villard ed., 7–19 Chroust, A.H. (1947), ‘Philosophy: its meaning and essence in the ancient world’, PhR 56, 19–58 Chroust, A.H. (1972), ‘Late Hellenistic “textbook definitions” of philosophy’, LThPh 28, 15–25 Cicero see Ax (1933), Soubiran (1972), Giomini (1975), Sharples (1991), Reinhardt (2003), Dyck (2003), Masi (2014) Císař, K. (2001), ‘Epicurean epistemology in Lucretius’De rerum natura IV 1–882’, LF 124, 1–54 Classen, C.-J. ed. (1986), Probleme der Lukrezforschung, Hildesheim Clausen, M. (2008), Maxima in sensibus veritas? Die platonischen und stoischen Grundlagen der Erkenntniskritik in Ciceros Lucullus, Francfort Clay, D. (1983), Lucretius and Epicurus, Ithaca Clay, D. (1998), Paradosis and Survival: Three Chapters in the History of Epicurean Philosophy, Ann Arbor Cleary, J.J. ed., Traditions of Platonism. FS Dillon, Aldershot Clemens Alexandrinus see Stählin (1906), (1909), Mondésert (1949), Marcovich (1995), Marcovich–Van Winden (2002) Cleomedes see Todd (1976), Bowen–Todd (2004) Cobet, C.G. ed. (1850), Diogenis Laertii De clarorum philosophorum vitis, dogmatibus et apophthegmatibus libri decem, Paris (repr. 1878) Cole, T. (1967), Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology, Cleveland OH Congourdeau, M.-H. (2007), L’embryon et son âme dans les sources grecques (VIe siècle av. J.-C.–Ve siècle apr. J.-C.), Paris Congourdeau, M.-H. & alii (2012), Porphyre: Sur la manière dont l’embryon reçoit l’âme: études d’introduction par Congourdeau, M.-H. & alii. Texte grec révisé par Dorandi, T. Traduction française par Brisson, L. & alii. Traduction anglaise par Chase, M., Paris Copernicus, Nic. (1543), De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri vi, Nuremberg Corcilius, K.–Perler, D. eds. (2014), Partitioning the Soul. Debates from Plato to Leibniz, Berlin Cornelli, G. & alii eds. (2013), On Pythagoreanism, Berlin Cornford, F.M. (1934), ‘Innumerable worlds in Presocratic philosophy’, CQ 28, 1–16



Cornford, F.M. (1937 and later repr.), Plato’s Cosmology. The Timaeus of Plato Translated with a Running Commentary, London Cornutus see Lang (1881), Ramelli (2003), Nesselrath (2009), Busch (2010), Torres (2018) Corpus Hippocraticum see Hippocrates Corpus Parisinum see Searby (2007) Corpus paroemiographorum see Schneidewin–Von Leutsch (1839) Corradi, M. (2018), ‘L’aporie de Protagoras sur les dieux: Le Peri theon et sa tradition’, PhilosAnt 18, 71–103 Corsinus, E. ed. (1750), Plutarchi De placitis philosophorum libri V, Florence Corti, A. (2014), L’ Adversus Colotem di Plutarco: storia di una polemica filosofica, Leuven Couprie, D.L. (1995), ‘The visualization of Anaximander’s astronomy’, Apeiron 28, 159– 181 Couprie, D.L. (2009), ‘Anaxagoras and the size of the sun,’ in Close, E. & alii eds., Greek Research in Australia: Proceedings of the Biennial International Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University June 2007, Adelaide Couprie, D.L. (2011), Heaven and Earth in Ancient Greek Cosmology: From Thales to Heraclides Ponticus, New York Couprie, D.L. (2018), When the Earth was Flat: Studies in Ancient Greek and Chinese Cosmology, Cham CH Couprie, D.L. (2020), ‘The spiral movement of the sun on an imaginary cylinder according to Empedocles and Anaximander’, forthc. in Philol.Class. 15 Courcelle, P. (19482), Les lettres grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore, nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, Paris Courtney, E. ed. (1993), The Fragmentary Latin Poets Edited with Commentary, Oxford Coutant, V.–Eichenlaub, V.L. eds. (1975), Theophrastus De ventis. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Notre Dame Coxon, A.H. ed. (1986), The Fragments of Parmenides. A Critical Text with Introduction and Translation, the Ancient Testimonia and a Commentary, Assen (rev. and expand. ed. w. new trans. by McKirahan, R. & new pref. by Schofield, M., Las Vegas, 2009) Craik, E.M. ed. (2006), Two Hippocratic Treatises: On Sight and On Anatomy, Leiden Crates Malleotes see Broggiato (2001) Crego, P. (1993), A Translation and Commentary on Theodoret of Cyrus’ Graecarum Affectionum Curatio Book Five: On Human Nature, diss. Boston College Crivelli, P. (2010), ‘The Stoics on definition’, in: Charles ed., 359–423 Crönert, W. (1906), Kolotes und Menedemos: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philosophenund Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1965) Cronin, P. (1992), ‘The authorship and sources of the Peri sêmeiôn ascribed to Theophrastus,’ in: Fortenbaugh–Gutas eds., 307–345 Crusius, O. (1887, 1895), Plutarchi De proverbiis Alexandrinorum, Tübingen (repr. as No.



iiia–b in: Latte, K. ed., Corpus Proemiographorum Graecorum: Supplem., Hildesheim 1991) Cufalo, D. ed. (2007), Scholia graeca in Platonem, 1: Scholia ad dialogos tetralogiarum i–vii continens, Rome Curd, P. ed. (2010), Anaxagoras of Clazomenae: Fragments and Testimonia, a Text and Translation, Toronto Curd, P.–Graham, D.W. eds. (2008), The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy, Oxford Curnis, M. (2008), L’ Antologia di Giovanni Stobeo: una biblioteca antica dai manoscritti alle stampe, Alessandria Curnis, M. (2011–2012), ‘Il capitolo Peri rhetorikes dell’Anthologion di Giovanni Stobeo’, Incontri di filologia classica 11, 105–118 Cusset, C. ed. (2003), La météorologie dans l’antiquité entre science et croyance, SaintÉtienne Cyrillus Alexandrinus see Riedweg (2016), Kinzig (2017) D’Ancona, C. (2006), ‘À propos du De anima de Jamblique’, RSPh 90, 617–640 D’Ancona, C. (2012), ‘The textual tradition of the Graeco-Arabic Plotinus. The Theology of Aristotle, its ‘ru’us al-masa’il’, and the Greek model of the Arabic version’, in: Van Oppenraay–Fontaine eds., 37–71 D’Ancona, C. (2013), ‘Greek sources in Arabic and Islamic philosophy’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/arabic‑islamic‑greek/ D’Ancona, C. (2017), Plotino: L’immortalità dell’anima IV 7[2]. Plotiniana Arabica (pseudo-Teologia di Aristotele, capitoli I, III, IX), Pisa D’Hoine, P.–Van Riel, G. eds. (2014), Fate, Providence and Moral Responsibility in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought. FS Steel, Leuven Dahlmann, H.–Heisterhagen, R. (1957), Varronische Studien, 1: Zu den Logistorici, Wiesbaden Daiber, H. (1968), Die arabische Übersetzung der Placita philosophorum, diss. Saarbrücken Daiber, H. ed. (1975), Ein Kompendium der Aristotelischen Meteorologie in der Fassung des Hunain ibn Ishaq, Amsterdam–Oxford Daiber, H. ed. (1980), Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung, Wiesbaden Daiber, H. (1985), ‘Ein vergessener syrischer Text: Bar Zo‘bi über die Teile der Philosophie’, OC 69, 73–80 Daiber, H. (1990a), ‘Doxographie und Geschichtsschreibung über griechische Philosophen in islamischer Zeit’, Medioevo 15, 1–21 Daiber, H. (1990b), ‘Qusṭā ibn Lūqā (9 Jh.) über die Einteilung der Wissenschaften’, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 6, 93–129



Daiber, H. ed. (1992), ‘The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation’, in: Fortenbaugh–Gutas eds., 166–293 Daiber, H. (1994), ‘Hellenistisch-kaiserzeitliche Doxographie und philosophischer Synkretismus in islamischer Zeit’, ANRW II.36.7, Berlin, 4974–4992 Daiber, H. (2012), ‘§2. Die syrische Tradition in frühislamischer Zeit’, in: Rudolph ed. (2012a), 40–54 Dällenbach, L. (1977), Le récit spéculaire: essai sur la mise en abyme, Paris Dalsgaard Larsen, B. (1972), T. 1 Jamblique de Chalkis, exégète et philosophe; T. 2 Jamblique de Chalkis, exégète et philosophe: Appendice, testimonia et fragmenta exegetica, Aarhus Damascius see Westerink (1976–1977), Van Riel (2008) Damastes see Parker (1999) Damianus see Schöne (1897) Damschen, G.–Heil, A. eds. (2014), Brill’s Companion to Seneca, Philosopher and Dramatist, Leiden Dancy, R.M. (1991), ‘Ancient non-beings: Speusippus and others’, in: Dancy, R.M., Two Studies in the Early Academy, Albany, 36–119, 146–178 Danieli, M. (1984), Zum Problem der Traditionsaneignung bei Aristoteles. Untersucht am Beispiel von ‘De anima’ I, Königstein/Ts. Darbo-Peschanski, C. ed. (2004), La citation dans l’antiquité, Grenoble Daremberg, C.–Ruelle, C.É. eds. (1879), Œuvres de Rufus d’Éphese, Paris (repr. Amsterdam 1963) Daroca, J.C. (1994), ‘Bérose de Babylone,’ in: DPhA 2, 95–104 Darrigol, O. (2102), A History of Optics fron Greek Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century, Oxford David the Invincible see Busse (1904), Topchyan (2010), Gertz (2018) De Boer, W. ed. (1937), Galeni De propriorum animi cuiuslibet affectuum dignotione et curatione. De animi cuiuslibet peccatorum dignotione et curatione. De atra bile, CMG V 4.1.1, Leipzig De Breucker, G.E.E. ed. (2012), De Babyloniaca van Berossos van Babylon. Inleiding, editie en commentaar, diss. Groningen De Caesaris, G.–Horky, Ph.S. (2018), ‘Hellenistic Pythagorean epistemology’, in: Verde– Catapano eds., 221–262 De Falco, V. ed. (1922), [Iamblichi] Theologumena arithmetica, Leipzig (repr. ed. by Klein, U., Stuttgart 1975) De Falco, V. ed. (1923), L’Epicureo Demetrio Lacone, Naples De Groot, J. Christensen (1983), ‘Philoponus on De anima II.5, Physics III.3, and the propagation of light’, Phronesis 28, 177–196 De Groot, J. (1991), Aristotle and Philoponus on Light, London De Jonge, C.C. (2005), ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the method of metathesis’, CQ 55, 463–480



De Jonge, P. (1977), Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XVII, Groningen De Lacy, P.H. ed. (1978–1984), Galen On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato (De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis), Edition, Translation and Commentary, CMG V 4.1,2,3, Berlin De Lacy, P.H. ed. (1992). Galen On Semen. Edition, Translation and Commentary, CMG V 3,1, Berlin De Lacy, P.H. ed. (1996), Galen On the Elements according to Hippocrates. Edition, Translation and Commentary, CMG V 1,2, Berlin De Lacy, P.H.–De Lacy, E.A. eds. (1941), Philodemus: On Methods of Inference. A Study in Ancient Empiricism, Philadelphia (rev. ed. repr. Naples 1978) De Lacy, P.H.–Einarson, B. eds. (1959), Ps.Plutarch: On Fate (De fato), in: Plutarch Moralia. Vol. 7, Cambridge MA, 303–359 De Nardi, M. (1992), ‘Aristotelismo e doxografia (ancora sul Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως)’, Geographia Antiqua 1 (1992), 89–108 [non vidimus] De Nardi, M. (2008), ‘Aristotelian corpus On the flood of the Nile’, in: Keyser, P.T.–IrbyMassie, G. eds., Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists. The Greek Tradition and its Many Heirs, London, 146–147 De Paolis, P. (1991), ‘L’edizione di testi tramandati in excerpta: una questione di metodo’, in: Hamesse, J. ed., Les problèmes posés par l’édition critique des textes anciens et médiévaux, Louvain-la-Neuve, 57–71 De Sanctis, D. & alii eds. (2015), Questioni epicuree, Sankt Augustin De Smet, D. (1998), Empedocles Arabus. Une lecture néoplatonicienne tardive, Brussels De Vivo, A. (2012), ‘Seneca e i terremoti (Questioni naturali, libro VI)’, in: Beretta & alii eds., 93–106 De Vogel, C.J. (1953), ‘On the Neoplatonic character of Platonism and the Platonic character of Neoplatonism’, Mind 62, 43–64 De Wedel, C. (1905), Symbola ad Clementis Alexandrini Stromatum librum viii interpretandum, diss. Berlin Dean-Jones, L.–Rosen, R.M. eds. (2016), Ancient Concepts of the Hippocratic, Leiden Debru, A. (1996), Le corps respirant. La pensée physiologique chez Galien, Leiden Debru, A. (1999), ‘Doctrine et tactique doxographique dans l’Anonyme de Bruxelles: une comparaison avec l’Anonyme de Londres’, in: Van der Eijk ed., 453–471 Debru, A. (2008), ‘Physiology’, in: Hankinson (2008a), 263–282 Decleva Caizzi, F. (1988), ‘La «materia scorrevole». Sulle trace di un dibattito perduto’, in: Barnes–Mignucci eds., 425–470 Decleva Caizzi, F. & alii eds. (1989), ‘17: Antipho’, in: Adorno & alii eds., 176–236 Deichgräber, K. (1930a), review E. Wenkebach, Beiträge zur Textgeschichte der Epidemien-Kommentare Galens (Berlin 1928), Gnomon 6, 368–375 Deichgräber, K. (1930b), Die griechische Empirikerschule, Berlin (rev. ed. 1965)



Dekkers, E.–Fraipont, J. eds. (1956), Sancti Aurelii Augustini Enarrationes in Psalmos. 3 Vols., CCL 38–40, Turnhout Del Corno, D. ed. (1969), Graecorum de re onirocritica scriptorum reliquiae, Milan Del Corno, L. (2012), ‘Il libro e il logos’, Quaestio 11, 3–34 Delatte, A. ed. (1939), Anecdota atheniensia et alia. T. 2: Textes relatifs à l’histoire des sciences, Liège–Paris Delattre, C. (2006), ‘L’ordre généalogique, entre mythographie et doxographie’, Kernos 19, 145–159 Delattre, D. (1996), ‘Aperçus sur l’épicurisme de Philodème de Gadara. A propos du livre IV du De musica et de la distinction stoïcienne entre sensation naturelle et sensation savante’, in: Lévy ed., 85–108 Delattre, D. (1997), ‘Les titres des œuvres philosophiques de l’épicuréen Philodème de Gadara et des ouvrages qu’il cite’, in: Fredouille & alii eds., 105–126 Delattre, D. ed. (2007), Philodème de Gadara. Sur la musique livre iv, texte établi, traduit et annoté. 2 Vols., Paris Delcomminette, S. & alii eds. (2015), Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo, Leiden Dell’Era, A. (1979), ‘Gli Scholia Basileensia a Germanico’, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie 8.23, 301–379 (also separately, Rome) Del Mastro, G. (2014), Titoli e annotazioni bibliologiche nei papiri greci di Ercolano, Naples Delvigo, M.L. (2011), ‘Servio e la filosofia della scienza’, in: Bouquet, M.–Méniel, B. eds., Servius et sa réception de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Rennes Demetrius Laco see De Falco (1923), Puglia (1988), Santoro (2000) Demoss, D.–Devereux, D. (1988), ‘Essence, existence, and nominal definition in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics II 8–10’, Phronesis 33, 133–154 Den Boeft, J. (1970), Calcidius On fate: his Doctrine and Sources, Leiden Den Boeft, J. (1977), Calcidius On demons (Commentarius ch. 127–136), Leiden Den Boeft, J. & alii (1987), Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XX, Groningen Den Boeft, J. & alii (2005), Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXV, Leiden Den Dulk, W.J. (1934), ΚΡΑΣΙΣ. Bijdrage tot de Grieksche Lexicographie, Leiden Denniston, J.D. (1954), The Greek Particles, Oxford (repr. 1959, 1st ed. 1934) Denyer, N.C. (1981), ‘The atomism of Diodorus Cronus’, Prudentia 13, 33–45 Des Places, É. (1955), ‘Le Platon de Theodoret. Les citations des Lois et de l’Epinomis’, REG 63, 172–184 Des Places, É. ed. (1973), Numénius fragments, Paris Desbordes, F. (1983), ‘Le schéma «addition, soustraction, mutation, métathèse» dans les textes anciens’, Histoire épistémologie langage 5, 23–30 Desclos, M.-L. (2004), Structure des traités d’Aristote, Paris



Desclos, M.-L.–Fortenbaugh, W.W. eds. (2011), Strato of Lampsacus. Text, Translation, and Discussion, New Brunswick NJ Deslauriers, M. (2007), Aristotle on Definition, Leiden Destrée, P. & alii eds. (2014), What is Up to Us? Studies in Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy, Sankt Augustin Detel, W. (1993), Aristoteles Analytica posteriora übersetzt und erläutert. 2 Bde., Berlin Deufert, M. (2017), Prolegomena zur editio teubneriana des Lukrez, Berlin (esp. ‘Lukrezische Paratexte und ihre Darbietung in der Edition’, 108–122) Deuse, W. ed. (1973), Theodoros von Asine. Sammlung der Testimonien und Kommentar, Wiesbaden Deuse, W. (1993), ‘Celsus im Proömium von ‘De medicina’: römische Aneignung griechischer Wissenschaft’, ANRW II.37.1, Berlin, 819–841 Devine, A.M. (1989), ‘Aelian’s manual of Hellenistic military tactics. A new translation from the Greek with an introduction’, AncW 19, 31–64 Dewitt, N.W. (1939), ‘Epicurus, Περὶ φαντασίας’, TAPhA 70, 414–427 Di Gregorio, L. ed. (1975), Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Theogoniam, Milan Di Lello-Finuoli, A.L. (1967), ‘Il florilegio Laurenziano’, QUCC 4, 139–173 Di Maria, G. ed. (1996), Achillis quae feruntur astronomica et in Aratum opuscula: De universo, De Arati vita, De Phaenomenorum interpretatione, Palermo Diagoras Melius see Winiarczyk (1981) Diaz y Diaz, C. ed. (1972), Liber De ordine creaturarum, Santiago de Compostela Dicaearchus Messenius see Wehrli (19672), Mirhady (2001) Dickey, E. (2007), Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period, New York Dickey, E. (2014), ‘A catalogue of works attributed to the grammarian Herodian’, CPh 109, 325–345 Dickey, E. (2015), ‘The sources of our knowledge of ancient scholarship’, in: Montanari & alii eds., 459–514 Dickey, E. (2017), Stories of Daily Life from the Roman World. Extracts from the Ancient Colloquia, Cambridge Dickson, K. ed. (1998), Stephanus the Philosopher and Physician Commentary on Galen’s Therapeutics to Glaucon, Leiden Diekamp, F. ed. (1907), Doctrina patrum de incarnatione Verbi: ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts (2nd ed. 1988, mit Korrekturen und Nachträgen von Basileios Phanourgakis) Diels, H. (1870). De Galeni historia philosopha, diss. Bonn Diels, H. (1875), ‘Eine Quelle des Stobäus’, RhM 30, 172–181 Diels, H. (1878), ‘Atakta’, Hermes 13, 1–9 Diels, H. ed. (1879 and later repr.), Doxographi graeci, Berlin (abbreviated DG)



Diels, H. (1881), ‘Stobaios und Aëtios’, RhM 36, 343–350 Diels, H. (1885), ‘Seneca und Lucan’, Abh.Ak.Berlin Phil.-hist. Kl. iii, 6–32 (repr. in: Burkert 1969, 379–408) Diels, H. ed. (1893a), Anonymi Londinensis ex Aristotelis Iatricis Menonis et alias medicis eclogae, Supplem.Arist. 3.1, Berlin Diels, H. (1893b), ‘Über die Exzerpte von Menons Iatrika in dem Londoner papyrus 137’, Hermes 28, 407–443 Diels, H. (1893c), ‘Über das physikalische System des Straton’, SB.Preuß.Ak.Phil.-hist.Kl., Berlin, 101–127 (repr. in: Burkert 1969, 239–265) Diels, H. ed. (1897), Parmenides Lehrgedicht, Griechisch und Deutsch. Mit einem Anhang über griechische Thüren und Schlösser, Berlin (repr. Sankt Augustin 2003) Diels, H. (1899), Elementum. Eine Vorarbeit zum griechischen und lateinischen Thesaurus, Leipzig Diels, H. ed. (1901a), Poetarum philosophorum fragmenta, Berlin (repr. Hildesheim 2000) Diels, H. ed. (1901b), Herakleitos von Ephesos, Griechisch und Deutsch, Berlin (rev. ed. 1909) Diels, H. ed. (1903), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin (rev. ed. 1906, 1912, 1922) Diels, H. ed. (1916), Philodemos Über die Götter. Erstes Buch, Griechischer Text und Erläuterung, Abh.Pr.Ak. 1915, Phil.-hist. Kl. 7, Berlin (repr. Leipzig 1970) Diels, H. ed. (1917a), Philodemos Über die Götter. Drittes Buch, I. Griechischer Text, Abh.Pr.Ak. 1916, Phil.-hist. Kl. 4, Berlin (repr. Leipzig 1970) Diels, H. ed. (1917b), Philodemos Über die Götter. Drittes Buch, II. Erläuterung des Textes, Abh.Pr.Ak. 1916, Phil.-hist. Kl. 6, Berlin (repr. Leipzig 1970) Diels, H. ed. (1923–1924), T. Lucretius Carus De rerum natura Lateinisch und Deutsch. 2. Bde., Berlin Diels, H.–Kranz, W., eds. (19515 and later repr.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin Dietz, F.R. (1834), Scholia in Hippocratem et Galenum. Vol. 2.205–235: text of Joannes, Commentarii in Hippocratis librum De natura pueri, Königsberg (repr. Amsterdam 1966) Dietz, J. (1896), ‘Die mythologische Quellen für Philodemos’ Schrift Περὶ εὐσεβείας’, Fleckeisens Jahrbücher 42, 218–226 Dihle, A. (1996), ‘Die theologia tripertita bei Augustin’, in: Cancik, H. & alii eds., Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion. FS Hengel. Bd. 2, Griechische und römische Religion, Tübingen, 183–202 Diller, H. (1932), ‘Opsis adelon ta phaenomena’, Hermes 67, 14–42 (repr. in: Newiger, H.-J.–Seyffert, H. eds. (1971), Kleine schriften zur antiken Literatur, Munich, 119– 143) Dillon, J.M. (1977), The Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism 80B.C. to A.D.220, London (rev. repr. 1997)



Dillon, J.M. (1986), ‘Xenocrates’ metaphysics: fr. 15 (Heinze) re-examined’, AncPhil 5, 47– 52 (repr. as Study VII in: Dillon, J. 1990, The Golden Chain. Studies in the Development of Platonism and Christianity, Aldershot) Dillon, J.M. (1993), Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Dillon, J.M. (2003a), ‘The Timaeus in the Old Academy’, in: Reydams-Schils ed., 80–94 Dillon, J.M. (2003b), The Heirs of Plato: A Study of the Old Academy (347–274BC), Oxford (repr. 2005) Dillon, J.M. (2007), ‘John of Stobi on the soul’, in: Scourfield, J.H.D. ed., Text and Culture in Late Antiquity: Inheritance, Authority and Change, Swansea, 247–260 Dillon, J.M. (2010), ‘Speusippus and the ontological interpretation of the Parmenides’, in: Turner–Corrigan eds., 67–78 Dillon, J.M. (2011), ‘The ideas as thoughts of God’, Études Platoniciennes 8, 31–42 Dillon, J.M. (2014), ‘Pythagoreanism in the Academic tradition: the Early Academy to Numenius’, in: Huffman ed., 250–273 Dillon, J.M.–Polleichtner, W. eds. (2009), Iamblichus of Chalkis: The Letters, Edited with a Translation and Commentary, Atlanta Dindorf, W. ed. (1853), Harpocrationis lexicon in decem oratores Atticos, Oxford (repr. Groningen 1969) Diogenes Laertius see Cobet (1850), Marcovich (1999), Dorandi (2013) Diogenes Oenoandensis see Smith (1993), (2003), Hammerstedt–Smith (2014) Dionysius Alexandrinus see Bienert (1972), Fleischer (2006) Doctrina patrum see Diekamp (1907) Dod, B.G. (1996), ‘Eclipses and thunderstorms: the argument of Aristotle Posterior Analytics II.1–10’, C&M 37, 123–135 Dodson, D.S. (2003), ‘Philo’s De Somniis in the context of ancient dream theories and classifications’, PRSt 30, 299–312 Dolcetti, P. ed. (2004), Ferecide di Atene. Testimonianze e frammenti. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento, Alessandria Dománski, B. (1900), Die Psychologie des Nemesios, Münster Dombart, B.–Kalb, A. eds. (1955), Sancti Aurelii Augustini De civitate Dei libri XXII. 2 Vols., CCSL 47–48, Turnhout Donini, P.-L. (1970), ‘L’anima e gli elementi nel De anima di Alessandro di Afrodisia’, Atti Turin 105, 61–107 Donini, P.-L. (1979), ‘Le fonti medioplatoniche di Seneca: Antioco, la conoscenza e le idee’, in: Donini, P.-L.–Gianotti, G.F., Modelli filosofici e letterari. Lucrezio, Orazio, Seneca, Bologna, 275–295 (repr. in: Donini 2011, 297–313) Donini, P.-L. (1980), ‘Motivi filosofici in Galeno’, PP 35, 333–370 Donini, P.-L. (1988), ‘La connaisance de dieu et la hiérarchie divine chez Albinos’, in: Van den Broek & alii eds., 118–131 (repr. in: Donini 2011, 423–436)



Donini, P.-L. (1994), ‘Testi e documenti, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i metodi della filosofia in età postellenistica’, ANRW II.36.7, 5027–5100 (repr. in: Donini 2011, 211–281) Donini, P.-L. (2008), ‘Psychology’, in: Hankinson (2008a), 184–209 Donini, P.-L. (2010), Aristotle and Determinism, Louvain-la-Neuve Donini, P.-L. (2011), Commentary and Tradition. Aristotelianism, Platonism and PostHellenistic Philosophy ed. Bonazzi, M., Berlin Donini, P.-L.–Accatino, P. (1994), ‘Alesssandro di Afrodisia, de An. 90.23sqq., a proposito del νοῦς θύραθεν’, Hermes 122, 373–375 Doody, A. (2001), ‘Finding facts in Pliny’s encyclopedia: the summarium of the Natural History’, Ramus 30, 1–22 Doody, A. (2010), Pliny’s Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History, Cambridge Dorandi, T. ed. (1991), Filodemo: Storia dei filosofi. Platone e l’Academia (PHerc. 1021 e 164), Naples Dorandi, T. ed. (1994), Filodemo: Storia dei filosofi. La Stoà da Zenone a Panezio. (PHerc. 1018). Edizione, traduzione e commento, Leiden Dorandi, T. (2010), ‘Diogene Laerzio, Epicuro e gli editori di Epicuro e Diogene Laerzio’, Eikasmos 21, 273–301 Dorandi, T. ed. (2013), Diogenes Laertius: Lives of the Eminent Philosophers Edited with an Introduction, Cambridge Dorandi, T. (2013b), ‘Diogene Laerzio e la storia della filosofia antica. Con qualche considerazione di un editore’, in: Rossitto, C. & alii eds., Aristotele e la storia, Padua, 185–203 Dorandi, T. (2016), ‘The ancient biographical tradition of Aristotle’, in: Falcon ed., 277– 298 Dorandi, T. (2018), ‘Philosophie-Geschichtsschreibung, Doxographie und Anthologie’, in: Riedweg & alii eds. Vol. 5/1, 457–486 Döring, K. ed. (1972), Die Megariker: Kommentierte Sammlung der Testimonien, Amsterdam Döring, K. (2013), ‘Eukleides aus Megara und die Megariker’, in: Flashar, H. & alii eds., Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 2.1, Sophistik Sokrates Sokratik Medizin, Basel, 207– 237 Dorotheus of Sidon see Pingree (1976) Dörrie, H. (1959), Porphyrios’ «Symmikta Zetemata», Munich Dörrie, H. (1969), ‘Präpositionen und Metaphysik: Wechselwirkung zweier PrinzipienReihen’, MH 26, 217–228 (repr. in: Dörrie, H. 1976, Platonica Minora, Munich, 124– 136) Dörrie, H.–Dörrie, A. eds. (1987), Der Platonismus in der Antike. Bd. 1, Die geschichtlichen Wurzeln des Platonismus, Stuttgart Dörrie, H.–Baltes, M. eds. (1996), Der Platonismus in der Antike. Bd. 4. Die philosophische



Lehre des Platonismus: Einige grundlegende Axiome / Platonische Physik (im antiken Verständnis) I, Stuttgart Dörrie, H.–Baltes, M. eds. (1998), Der Platonismus in der Antike. Bd. 5, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus: Platonische Physik (im antiken Verständnis) II, Stuttgart Dörrie, H.–Baltes, M. eds. (2002), Der Platonismus in der Antike. Bd. 6.1–2, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Von der »Seele« als der Ursache aller sinnvollen Abläufe, Stuttgart (Dörrie, H.–Baltes, M.), Pietsch, C., and Lakmann M.-L. eds. (2006), Der Platonismus in der Antike. Bd. 7.1, Theologia Platonica, Stuttgart Dositheus Magister see Tolkiehn (1913) Doxapatres, Prolegomena in Aphthonii Progymnasmata, in: Rabe ed. (1931), 80–155 Dowel, J. (1909). ‘Sentiments concerning nature with which the philosophers were delighted,’ in Plutarch’s Essays and Miscellanies. Vol. 3, Boston, 104–193 (first publ. 1684–1694) Drabkin, I.E. (1950), Caelius Aurelianus On Acute Diseases and On Chronic Diseases edited and translated, Chicago Drabkin, M.F.–Drabkin, I.E. eds. (1951), Caelius Aurelianus Gynaikeia. Fragments of a Latin version of Soranus’ Gynaikeia from a thirteenth century manuscript, Baltimore Drachmann, A.B. ed. (1903–1927), Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina. 3 Vols., Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1966–1969) Dragona-Monachou, M. (1976), The Stoic Arguments for the Existence and Providence of the Gods, Athens Drossaart Lulofs, H.J. ed. (1947), Aristotelis De insomniis et De divinatione per somnum. A New Edition of the Greek Text with the Latin Translation. Vol. 1: Preface, Greek Text, Leiden Drossaart Lulofs, H.J. (1957), ‘Aristotles Περὶ φυτῶν’, JHS 77, 75–80 Drossaart Lulofs, H.J. (1987), ‘Das Prooimion von Περὶ φυτῶν’, in: Wiesner, J. ed., Aristoteles—Werk und Wirkung: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben. FS Moraux, Berlin, 2.1–4 Drossaart Lulofs, H.J.–Poortman, L.E.J. eds. (1989), Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis. Five translations, Amsterdam Dubarle, E. ed. (1825), Histoire du droit romain de Sextus Pomponius, traduction nouvelle avec des éclaircissements historiques et critiques, Paris Dubischar, M. (2016), review Bottler 2014, Plekos 18, 93–97 Dueck, D. (2012), Geography in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge Duffy, J.M. ed. (1983), Stephanus the Philosopher Commentary on the Prognosticon of Hippocrates. Edition and Translation, Berlin Duffy, J.M. ed. (1992), Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora. Vol. 1: Opuscula logica, physica, allegorica, alia, Leipzig



Duhem, P. (1913–1914), Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines de Platon à Copernic. T. 1–2, La cosmologie hellénique, Paris (repr. 1954–1955) Dührsen, N.C. (1998), ‘Ananke in der Heraklit-Doxographie’, RhM 141, 112–119 Dummer, J. (1978), ‘Ein naturwissenschaftliches Handbuch als Quelle für Epiphanius von Constantia’, Klio 55, 289–299 Dunn, F.M. (1996), ‘Antiphon on time (B 9 D–K)’, AJPh 117, 65–69 Dupré, S. (2012), ‘Kepler’s optics without hypotheses’, Synthese 185, 501–525 Düring, I. ed. (1969), Aristoteles: Protreptikos. Einleiting, Übersetzung, Text und Kommentar, Francfort Dyck, A.R. ed. (1983–1995), Epimerismi Homerici. 2 Vols., Berlin Dyck, A.R. (1987), ‘The glossographoi’, HSCP 91, 119–160 Dyck, A.R. (1993), ‘Aelius Herodian: recent studies and prospects for future research’, in: ANRW II.34.1, 772–794 Dyck, A.R. ed. (2003), Cicero De natura deorum Book I [with introd. and comm.], Cambridge Dyck, A.R. (2010), ‘Cicero’s abridgement of his speeches for publication’, in: Horster– Reitz eds., 369–374 Dyroff, A.–Bickel, E. (1939), ‘Der philosophische Teil der Encyclopädie des Cornelius Celsus’, RhM 88, 7–18 Dyson, H. (2009), Prolepsis and Ennoia in the Early Stoa, Berlin Dyson, H. (2013), ‘Is there a lacuna in ps.Plutarch 4.11.1–4? Two accounts of concept formation in Hellenistic philosophy’, CQ 63, 734–742 Dzielska, M. (1995). Hypatia of Alexandria, Cambridge MA Eastwood, B.S. (1981), ‘Galen on the elements of olfactory sensation’, RhM 124, 268–290 Eastwood, B.S. (1982a), ‘Kepler as historian of science: precursors of Copernican heliocentrism according to De revolutionibus, I, 10’, PAPhS 126, 376–394 Eastwood, B.S. (1982b), The Elements of Vision: The Micro-Cosmology of Galenic Visual Theory according to Hunain ibn Ishaq, TAPS 72.5, Philadelphia (repr. as Study XIV in: Eastwood, B.S. 1989, Astronomy and Optics from Pliny to Descartes: Texts, Diagrams and Conceptual Structures, London) Eastwood, B.S. (1992), ‘Heraclides and heliocentrism: texts, diagrams, interpretations’, JHA 23, 233–260 (repr. as Study IX in: Eastwood, B.S. 2002, The Revival of Planetary Astronomy in Carolingian and post-Carolingian Europe, Aldershot) Edelstein, L.–Kidd, I.G. eds. (1972), Posidonius. Vol. 1: The Fragments, Cambridge (2nd. ed. 2005) Edgeworth, R.J. (1983), ‘“Darkness visible” and Aeneid 7’, CJ 79, 97–99 Edmunds, L. (1972), ‘Necessity, chance and freedom in the Early Atomists’, Phoenix 26, 342–357 Effe, B. (1970), Studien zur Kosmologie und Theologie der Aristotelischen Schrift Über die Philosophie, Munich



Egenolff, P. (1900), ‘Zu Lentz’ Herodian’, Philologus 59, 238–255 Egger, V. (1871), Disputationis de fontibus Diogenis Laertii particulam de successionibus philosophorum, diss. Bordeaux Eichberger, A. (1935), Untersuchungen zu Lucan: der Nilabschnitt im zehnten Buch des Bellum civile, diss. Tübingen Elfassi, J. (2015), ‘Connaître la bibliothèque pour connaître les sources: Isidore de Séville’, AntTard 23, 59–66 Elias see Busse (1900), Gertz (2018) Eliasson, E. (2008), The Notion of that which Depends on Us in Plotinus and its Background, Leiden Elter, A. (1880), De Ioannis Stobaei codice Photiano, Bonn Empedocles see Bignone (1916), O’Brien (1969), Bollack (1969), Martin–Primavesi (1999), Inwood (20012), Primavesi (2008) Endress, G. (1987), ‘Die wissenschaftliche Literatur’, in: Gätje, H. ed., Grundriss der arabischen Philologie. Bd. 2, Literaturwissenschaft, Wiesbaden, 400–506; and in: Fischer, W. ed. (1992), Bd. 3, Supplement, Wiesbaden, 3–132 Endress, G. ed. (2006), Organizing Knowledge. Encyclopedic Activities in the Pre-Eighteenth Century Islamic World, Leiden Endress, G.–Kruk, R. eds. (1997), The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism. Studies on the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences. FS Drossaart Lulofs, Leiden Engberg-Pedersen, T. (1990), The Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: Moral Development and Social Interaction in Early Stoic Philosophy, Aarhus Enmann, A. (1884), Eine verlorene Geschichte der römischen Kaiser und das Buch De viris illustribus urbis Romae. Quellenstudien, Philologus Supp.Bd. 4, 335–501 (publ. 1883) Epicurus see Usener (1887), Usener–Wotke (1888), Von der Mühl (1922), Bailey (1947), Arrighetti (19732), Bollack–Laks (1978), Verde (2010), Leone (2012), Heßler (2014) Epiphanius see Holl (1915–1933) Erasistratus see Garofalo (1988) Eratosthenes see Bernhardy (1822), Berger (1880), Powell (1925), Roller (2010), Pàmias i Massana–Zucker (2013) Erbse, H. ed. (1969–1988), Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera). 7 Vols., Berlin Erbse, H. ed. (1995), Theosophorum graecorum fragmenta. Textus Theosophiae Tubingensis, Stuttgart (repr. Berlin 2012) Erler, M. (1994), ‘Epikur–Die Schule Epikurs–Lukrez’, in: Flashar, H., ed., Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 4.1, Die Hellenistische Philosophie, Basel, 29–490 Erler, M. (2007), Platon = Flashar, H. ed., Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 2.2, Basel Erler, M.–Bees, R. eds. (2000), Epikureismus in der späten Republik und Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart



Erler, M.–Schorn, S. eds. (2007), Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit, Berlin Ermerins, F.Z. ed. (1869), Soranou Efesiou Peri gunaikeion pathon; Sorani Ephesii Liber de muliebribus affectionibus, Utrecht Ermerins, F.Z. (1872), Epistola critica ad Soranum a se editum, Utrecht Ernout, A.–Robin, L. (1925–1928), Lucrèce De rerum natura. Commentaire exégétique et critique. 3 Vols. Paris (repr. 1962) Ernst, W. (1910), De Clementis Alexandrini Stromatum libro viii qui fertur, diss. Göttingen Erotianus see Nachmanson (1918) Esser, G. (1893), Die Seelenlehre Tertullians, Paderborn Essler, H. (2011a), ‘Cicero’s use and abuse of Epicurean theology’, in: Fish–Sanders eds., 129–151 Essler, H. (2011b), Glückselig und unsterblich. Epikureische Theologie bei Cicero und Philodem. Mit einer Edition von PHerc. 152/157, Kol. 8–10, Basel Essler, H. (2014), ‘Zum Fragment aus Chrysipps De divinatione (PHerc. 152–157, Kol. 7, 26–Kol. 8, 5)’, CErc 44, 117–128 Etymologicum magnum see Gaisford (1848) Euclid see Ver Eecke (1938) Eudemus Rhodius see Wehrli (19692), Bodnár–Fortenbaugh (2002) Eudoxus Cnidius see Lasserre (1966) Euhemerus Messenius see Winiarczyk (1999) Eusebius see Mras (1954–1956) Eustathius see Van der Valk (1971–1989) Eutocius see Heiberg (1915) Evans, J.–Berggren, J.L. (2006), Geminos’s Introduction to the Phenomena. A Translation and Study of a Hellenistic Survey of Astronomy, Princeton Everson, S. (1990b), ‘Epicurus on the truth of the senses’, in: Everson ed., 161–183 Everson, S. (1997), Aristotle on Perception, Oxford Everson, S. (1999), ‘Epicurean psychology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 542–559 Everson, S. ed. (1990a), Epistemology, Cambridge Everson, S. ed. (1994), Language, Cambridge Évieux, P. (1997–2000). Isidore de Péluse Lettres Tome I Lettres 1214–1413; Tome II Lettres 1414–1700, SC 422, 454, Paris Falcon, A. (2001), Corpi e movimenti. Il De caelo di Aristotele e la sua fortuna nel mondo antico, Naples Falcon, A. (2005), Aristotle and the Science of Nature: Unity without Conformity, Cambridge Falcon, A. (2010), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009, BMCR 2010.04.08 Falcon, A. (2011), Aristotelianism in the First Century BCE: Xenarchus of Seleucia, Cambridge Falcon, A. ed. (2016), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle, Leiden



Favonius Eulogius see Van Weddingen (1957) Favorinus see Mensching (1963), Amato (2010) Fazzo, S. ed. (1998), Alessandro di Afrodisia. La provvidenza. Questioni sulla provvidenza. Traduzione dal greco di Fazzo, S., traduzione dall’arabo di Zonta, M. Testi arabo e greco a fronte, Milan Fazzo, S. (2002), Aporia e sistema. La materia, la forma e il divino nelle Quaestiones di Alessandro di Afrodisia, Pisa Fear, A. (2016), ‘Putting the pieces back together: Isidore and the De natura rerum’, in: Fear, A.–Wood, J. eds., Isidore of Seville and his Reception in the Middle Ages. Transmitting and Transforming Knowledge, Amsterdam, 75–92 Fehling, D. (1985), ‘Das problem des griechischen Weltmodells vor Aristoteles’, RhM 128, 195–231 Fehling, D. (1994), Materie und Weltbau in der Zeit der frühen Vorsokratiker. Wirklichkeit und Tradition, Innsbruck Feke, J. (2018), Ptolemy’s Philosophy: Mathematics as a Way of Life, Princeton Felten, J. ed. (1913), Nicolai Progymnasmata, Leipzig Ferrari, F. (1996), ‘Dio: padre e artefice. La teologia di Plutarco in Plat. quaest. 2’, in: Gallo, I. ed., Plutarco e la religione, Naples, 395–409 Ferrini, M.F. ed. (1999), Pseudo Aristotele De coloribus. Edizione critica, traduzione e commento, Pisa Festugière, A.-J. (1945), ‘Les Mémoires Pythagoriques cités par Alexandre Polyhistor’, REG 81, 1–65 (repr. in: Festugière 1971, 371–435) Festugière, A.-J. (1949–1953), La révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. T. 1, L’astrologie et les sciences occultes, Paris 1949; T. 2, Le Dieu cosmique, Paris 1949; T. 3, Les doctrines de l’âme, Paris 1953; T.4, Le dieu inconnu et la gnose, Paris 1954 (nouv. éd. en un volume, revue et corrigée, augmentée d’indices p. Roudet, N., Paris 2014) Festugière, A.-J. (1958), ‘Les trois vies’, in: Acta congressus Madvigiani 2.117–156 (repr. in: Festugière 1971, 131–178) Festugière, A.-J. (1966–1968), Proclus Commentaire sur le Timée. T. 1–5, Paris Festugière, A.-J. (1971), Études de philosophie grecque, Paris Fiedrowicz, M.–Barthold, C. (2011–2012), Origenes Contra Celsum Gegen Celsus. Eingeleitet und kommentiert von M. Fiedriowicz, übersetzt von C. Barthold. 5 Bde., Freiburg Filius, L.S. (1997), ‘The theory of vision in the Problemata physica: a comparison between the Greek and Arabic versions’, in: Endress–Kruk eds., 77–83 Finamore, J.F.–Dillon, J.M. eds. (2002), Iamblichus De anima. Text, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden Finkelberg, A. (1986), ‘The Cosmology of Parmenides’, AJPh 107, 303–317 Finkelberg, M. (2006), ‘Regional texts and the circulation of books: the case of Homer’, GRBS 46,231–248.



Fish, J.–Sanders, K.R. eds. (2011), Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition, Cambridge Fisher, E.A. ed. (1994), Michael Psellus Orationes hagiographicae, Leipzig (repr. Berlin 2013) Flamant, J. (1977), Macrobe et le Néo-Platonisme latin à la fin du ive siècle, Leiden Flashar, H. (1983b), ‘Aristoteles’, in: Flashar ed., 175–457 Flashar, H. (19914), Aristoteles Problemata physica übersetzt und erlaütert, Berlin (1st ed. 1962) Flashar, H. ed. (1983a), Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 3, Ältere Akademie–Aristoteles– Peripatos, Basel Flashar, H. ed. (1994), Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 4.1–2, Die Hellenistische Philosophie, Basel Flashar, H. & alii eds. (2006), Aristoteles: Fragmente zur Philosophie, Rhetorik, Poetik, Dichtung übersetzt und erläutert, Berlin Flashar, H. & alii eds. (2013), Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 1.1–2, Frühgriechische Philosophie, Basel Fleischer, K. (2014), ‘All we have is from the first book—second thoughts regarding Dionysius of Alexandria’s De natura (On nature)’, AAntHung 54, 445–451 Fleischer, K. ed. (2016), Dionysius von Alexandria, De natura (περὶ φύσεως). Übersetzung, Kommentar und Würdigung. Mit einer Einleitung zur Geschichte des Epikureismus in Alexandria, Turnhout Fobes, F.H. ed. (1918), Aristotelis Meteorologicorum libri quattuor, Cambridge MA Foegen, Th. (2005), Antike Fachtexte = Ancient Technical Texts, Berlin Foegen, Th. (2009), Wissen, Kommunikation und Selbstdarstellung. Zur Struktur und Charakteristik römischer Fachtexte der frühen Kaiserzeit, Munich Foerster, R. ed. (1893), Scriptores physiognomonici graeci et latini. Vol. 1: Physiognomonica Pseudoaristotelis, graece et latine. Adamanti cum epitomis graece, Polemonis e recensione Georgii Hoffmanni arabice et latine continens, Leipzig Föllinger, S. (1996), Differenz und Gleichheit. Das Geschlechterverhältnis in der Sicht griechischer Philosophen des 4. bis 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Stuttgart Fontaine, J. ed. (1960), Isidore de Séville, Traité de la nature suivi de L’épitre en vers du roi Sisebut à Isidore, Bordeaux Fontaine, J. (1983), Isidore de Seville et la culture classique dans l’Espagne Wisigothique, 2ième éd. revue et corrigée. 3 Vols., Paris Fontaine, R. (1995), ‘Why is the sea salty? The discussion of salinity in Hebrew texts of the thirteenth century’, Arab Science and Philosophy 5, 195–218 Fontaine, R. (1999), ‘Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation of the Arabic version of Aristotle’s Meteorology’, in: Endres–Kruk eds., 85–100 Fortenbaugh, W.W. ed. (1983), On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus, New Brunswick NJ (repr. 2002) Fortenbaugh, W.W. & alii eds. (1985), Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work, New Brunswick NJ



Fortenbaugh, W.W.–Gutas, D, eds. (1992), Theophrastus: his Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings, New Brunswick NJ Fortenbaugh, W.W., Huby, P., Sharples, R.W.–Gutas, D. eds. (1992–1993), Theophrastus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. 2 Vols., Leiden Fortenbaugh, W.W.–Schütrumpf, E. eds. (2000), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick NJ Fortenbaugh, W.W.–Schütrumpf, E. eds. (2001), Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion, New Brunswick NJ Fortenbaugh, W.W.–Wöhrle, G. eds. (2002), On the Opuscula of Theophrastus, Stuttgart Fortenbaugh, W.W.–White, S.A. eds. (2006), Aristo of Ceos: Text, Translation, and Discussion, New Brunswick NJ Fortenbaugh, W.W.–Pender, E. eds. (2009), Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion, New Brunswick NJ Fortenbaugh, W.W. ed. (2018), Arius Didymus and Peripatetic Ethics, Household Management, and Politics, London Fowler, R.L. (2000), ‘P.Oxy. 4458: Poseidonius’, ZPE 132, 133–142 Fowler, R.L. ed. (2000–2013), Early Greek Mythography. I Text; II Commentary, Oxford Fowler, R.L. (2011), ‘Mythos and logos’, JHS 131, 45–66 Fraistat, N.–Flanders, J. eds. (2012), The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship, Cambridge Frampton, M. (2008), Embodiments of Will: Anatomical and Physiological Theories of Voluntary Animal Motion from Greek Antiquity to the Late Middle Ages, 400B.C.– A.D.1300, Saarbrücken Frede, D. (1997), Platon Philebos. Übersetzung und Kommentar, Göttingen Frede, D. (2012), ‘The endoxon mystique: what endoxa are and what they are not’, OSAPh 43, 185–216 Frede, D.–Laks, A. eds. (2002), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, Leiden Frede, D.–Inwood, B. eds. (2005), Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Era, Cambridge Frede, D.–Reis, B. eds. (2009), Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy, Berlin Frede, M. (1980), ‘The original notion of cause’, in: Schofield & alii eds., 217–249 (repr. in: Frede 1987, 125–150) Frede, M. (1987), Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Minneapolis Frede, M. (1990), ‘An empiricist view of knowledge: memorism’, in: Everson ed., 225– 250 Frede, M. (1999a), ‘Stoic epistemology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 295–322 Frede, M. (1999b), review Mansfeld–Runia 1997, Phronesis 44, 135–149 Frede, M. (2003), ‘Galen’s theology’, in: Barnes–Jouanna eds., 73–126 (discussion: 127– 129)



Frede, M. (2009), ‘Aristotle’s account of the origins of philosophy’, in: Curd–Graham eds., 501–529 Frede, M. (2011), A Free Will. Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought, ed. Long, A.A., with foreword by Sedley, D.N., Berkeley Freedman, H. (1939), Genesis Rabbah, in: Freedman, H.–Simon, M. (1939), Midrash Rabbah. 10 Vols., London (repr. 19833) Fredouille, J.-C. & alii eds. (1997), Titres et articulations du texte dans les œuvres antiques, Paris Freeland, C.A. (1990), ‘Scientific explanation and empirical data in Aristotle’s Meteorology’, OSAPh 8, 67–102 Freund, S. ed. (2009), Laktanz Divinae institutiones Buch 7: De vita beata. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Berlin Friderici, R. (1911), De librorum antiquorum capitum divisione atque summariis, diss. Marburg Fridh, Å.J. (1952), Les theories de l’océan chez Pline l’Ancien (Hist. nat. 2.65, 161–164), Göteb.Handl. Följd. 6, ser. A Bd. 4 no. 5, Göteborg (repr. in: Fridh, Å. 1985, Opera minora, 1–20) Fridh, Å .J.–Halporn, J.W. eds. (1973), Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Variarum libri XII, De anima, CCSL 96. Turnhout Fruyt, M. (1997), ‘Sémantique et syntaxe des titres en latin’, in: Fredouille, J.-C. & alii eds., 9–34 Fuhrmann, F. (1960), Das systematische Lehrbuch, Göttingen Funghi, M.S.–Sassi, M.M. eds. (1999), ‘Theophrastus (?) 4, De aquis (?)’, in: Adorno & alii eds., 844–851 Furley, D. (1967a), ‘Aristotle and the Atomists on infinity’ (repr. in: Furley 1989b, 103–114) Furley, D. (1967b), ‘Study I: indivisible magnitudes’, in: Furley, D., Two Studies in the Greek Atomists, Princeton 7–158 Furley, D. (1976), ‘Aristotle and the Atomists on motion in a void’ (repr. in: Furley 1989b, 77–90) Furley, D. (1985), ‘Strato’s theory of the void’ (repr. in: Furley 1989b, 149–160) Furley, D. (1987), The Greek Cosmologists. Vol. 1: The Formation of the Atomic Theory and its Earliest Critics, Cambridge Furley, D. (1989a), ‘The dynamics of the earth: Anaximander, Plato, and the centrifocal theory’ (repr. in: Furley 1989b, 14–26) Furley, D. (1989b), Cosmic Problems, Cambridge Furley, D. (1993), ‘Democritus and Epicurus on sensible qualities’, in: Brunschwig, J.– Nussbam, M.C. eds., Passions and Perceptions. Studies in Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge, 72–94 Furley, D. (1999), ‘Cosmology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 412–451 Furley, D.J.–Wilkie, J.S. eds. (1984), Galen On Respiration and the Arteries. An Edition



with English Translation and Commentary of De usu respirationis, An in arteriis natura sanguis continetur, De usu pulsuum, and De causis respirationis, Princeton 1984 Gabrielsson, J. (1906), Über die Quellen des Clemens Alexandrinus, Uppsala Gaiser, K. (1963a), Platons ungeschriebene Lehre. Studien zur systematischen und geschichtlichen Begründung der Wissenschaften in der platonischen Schule, Stuttgart Gaiser, K. ed. (1963b), ‘Testimonia Platonica. Quellentexte zur Schule und mündlichen Lehre Platons’, in: Gaiser (1963a), 441–557 Gaiser, K. (1968), ‘Quellenkritische Probleme der indirekten Platonüberliefering’, in: Gadamer, H.G & alii eds., Idee und Zahl, Heidelberg, 31–84 (repr. in: Gaiser 2004, 205–263) Gaiser, K. (1988), ‘Platons esoterische Lehre’, in: Koslowski, P. ed., Gnosis und Mystik in der Geschichte der Philosophie, Zürich, 13–40 (repr. in: Gaiser 2004, 317–340) Gaiser, K. (2004), Gesammelte Schriften ed. Szlezák, Th.A., Sankt Augustin Gaisford, T. ed. (1823), ‘Scholia ad Hesiodum e codd. mss.’, in: Gaisford, T. (1823), Poetae minores Graeci. 5 Vols., Leipzig, 2.3–447 Gaisford, T. ed. (1839), Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, Oxford Gaisford, T. ed. (1848), Etymologicum magnum, Oxford (repr. Amsterdam 1967) Galen see Helmreich (1894), Kalbfleisch (1896), Helmreich (1904), (1907–1909), Mewaldt & alii (1914), Meyerhof–Schacht (1931), Schöne (1933), Schröder (1934), Wenkebach (1936), De Boer (1937), Walzer (1944), Wenkebach (1951), Wenkebach–Pfaff (19562), Baumgarten (1962), Kieffer (1964), Kollesch (1964), Lyons (1969), Garofalo– Vegetti (1978), De Lacy (1978–1984), Otero–Ramírez Trejo (1982), Furley–Wilkie (1984), De Lacy (1992), De Lacy (1996), Hankinson (1998a), Nutton (1999), BoudonMillot (2000), Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli (2005), Boudon-Millot (2007), Johnston– Horsley (2011), Bazou (2011), Nutton–Bos (2011), Garofalo–Lami (2012), Vegetti (2013), Wilkins (2013), Perilli (2017) Gambetti, S. ed. (2012), ‘Anonymus, On the Nile (647)’, in: Worthington, I. ed., Brill’s New Jacoby, http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/10.1163/1873‑5363_bnj_a64 Ganson, T.S. (2002), ‘A puzzle concerning the Aristotelian notion of a medium of senseperception’, in: Fortenbaugh–Wöhrle eds., 65–74 Ganson, T.S. (2004), ‘Third-century Peripatetics on vision’, in: Fortenbaugh, W.W.– White, S.A. eds., Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes: Text, Translation, and Discussion, New Brunswick N.J., 355–362 Ganson, T.S. (2005), ‘The Platonic approach to sense-perception’, HPhQ 22, 1–15 Garofalo, I. ed. (1988), Erasistrati fragmenta collegit et digessit, Pisa Garofalo, I. ed. (1997), Anonymi medici De morbis acutis et chroniis edited with commentary by Garofalo, I, trans. by Fuchs, B., Leiden Garofalo, I.–Vegetti, M. (1978), Opere scelte di Galeno, Turin



Garofalo, I.–Lami, A. eds. (2012), Galeno L’anima e il dolore; De indolentia; De propriis placitis. Testo greco a fronte, Milan Gärtner, H.A., ‘Pytheas [4]’, Brill’s New Pauly, Brill online, http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.acu .edu.au/10.1163/1574‑9347_bnp_e1016010 Gärtner, H.A., ‘Zetema’, Brill’s New Pauly, Brill online, http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.acu .edu.au/10.1163/1574‑9347_bnp_e12216680 Garvie, A.F. (2001), ‘Aeschylus: when to emend and when not to emend’, Lexis 19, 1–13 Gasparrotto, G. ed. (2004), Isidoro di Siviglia Etimologie libro XIII De mundo et partibus, Paris Gauly, B.M. (2004), Senecas Naturales quaestiones. Naturphilosophie für die römische Kaiserzeit, Munich Gautier, P. ed. (1989), Michaelis Pselli Theologica. Vol. 1, Leipzig Gawlick, G.–Görler, W. (1994), ‘Cicero’, in: Flashar ed., 991–1168 Gee, E. (2007), ‘Quintus Cicero’s Astronomy?’, CQ 57, 565–585 Gee, E. (2013), Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition, Oxford Gelinas, L. (2006), ‘The Stoic argument ex gradibus entium’, Phronesis 51, 49–73 Gemelli Marciano, M.L. (1991), ‘L’ “atomismo” e il corpuscolarismo empedocleo: frammenti di interpretatione nel mondo antico’, Elenchos 12, 5–37 Gemelli Marciano, M.L. (1998), review Mansfeld–Runia 1997, MH 55, 252–253 Gemelli Marciano, M.L. ed. (2007–2010), Die Vorsokratiker. Bd. 1, Thales Anaximander Anaximenes Pythagoras und die Pythagoreer Xenophanes Heraklit. Bd. 2, Parmenides Zenon Empedokles. Bd. 3, Anaxagoras Melissos Diogenes von Apollonia Die antiken Atomisten: Leukipp und Demokrit. Griechisch-lateinisch-deutsch, Düsseldorf Geminus see Manitius (1898), Aujac (1975b), Evans–Berggren (2006) Genette, G. (1987), Seuils, Paris Genette, G. (1988), ‘Structure and functions of the title in literature’, Critical Inquiry 14, 692–720 (trans. from Genette 1987 by Crampé, B.) Gercke, A. (1886), ‘Eine platonische Quelle des Neuplatonismus’, RhM 41, 226–291 Gerlach, W. (1937–1938), ‘Das Problem des „weiblichen Samens“ in der antiken und mittelalterlichen Medizin’, Sudhoffs Archiv 30, 177–193. Germanicus Caesar see Le Boeuffle (1975) Gersh, S. (1986), Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. The Latin Tradition. 2 Vols., Notre Dame Gerson, L.P. ed. (2010), The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. 2 Vols., Cambridge Gertz, S. (2011), Death and Immortality in Late Neoplatonism. Studies on the Ancient Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo, Leiden Gertz, S. (2015), ‘From ‘immortal’ to ‘imperishable’: Damascius on the final argument in Plato’s Phaedo’, in: Delcomminette & alii eds, 240–255 Gertz, S. (2018), Elias and David: Introductions to Philosophy with Olympiodorus: Introduction to Logic, London



Geurts, P.M.M. (1941), De erfelijkheid in de oudere Grieksche wetenschap, Nijmegen Geus, K. (2002), Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Munich Giannantoni, G. ed. (1990), Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae collegit, disposuit, apparatibus notisque instruxit. 4 Vols., Naples Giannattasio Andria, R. ed. (1989), I frammenti delle «Successioni dei filosofi», Naples Giardina, G.R. ed. (1999), Giovanni Filopono matematico tra neopitagorismo e neoplatonismo. Commentario alla Introduzione aritmetica di Nicomaco di Gerasa. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e note, Catania Giardina, G.R. ed. (2003), Erone di Alessandria. Le radici filosofico-matematiche della tecnologia applicata. Definitiones. Testo, traduzione e commento, Catania Giardina, G.R. (2014), ‘Sensazione e alterazione in Aristotele, De anima, II, 5’, DSTradF 25, 29–66 Gibson, C.A. (2008), Libanius’s Progymnasmata: model exercises in Greek prose composition and rhetoric, translated with an introduction and notes, Atlanta Gigante, M. ed. (1977), Polemonis Academici fragmenta, Naples Gigon, O. (1969), ‘Die ἀρχαί der Vorsokratiker bei Theophrast und Aristoteles’, in: Düring, I. ed., Naturphilosophie bei Aristoteles und Theophrast, Heidelberg, 114–123 Gigon, O. ed. (1987), Aristoteles Opera. Vol. 3: Librorum deperditorum fragmenta colligit et adnotationibus instruxit, Berlin Gilbert, O. (1907), Die meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1967) Gildenhard, I. (2013), ‘Of Cicero’s Plato: fictions, forms, foundations’, in: Schofield ed., 225–275 Gill, M.L.–Pellegrin, P. eds. (2006), Blackwell’s Companion to Ancient Philosophy, Oxford 2006 Gilliam, J.F. (1980), ‘Rostovtzeff’s obituary of Enmann’, Bonner Historia-AugustaColloquium 1977/1978, Bonn, 103–113 Gioè, A. ed. (2002), Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.C., testimonianze e frammenti: Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples Giomini, R. ed. (1975), Cicero Marcus Tullius De divinatione, De fato, Timaeus, Leipzig Gioseffi, M. (1991), Studi sul commento a Virgilio dello Pseudo-Probo, Florence Gisinger, F. (1921), Die Erdbeschreibung des Eudoxos von Knidos, Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam 1967) Giussani, C. ed. (1896–1898), T. Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libri sex. Revisione del testo, commento e studi introduttivi. 4 Vols., Turin (rev. repr. by Stampini, E., Turin 1921– 1923; earlier ed. repr. New York 1980) Giusta, M. (1964–1967), I dossografi di etica. 2 Vols., Turin Gladigow, B. (1967a), ‘Zum Makarismos des Weisen’, Hermes 95, 404–433



Gladigow, B. (1967b), ‘Pneumatik und Kosmologie’, Philologus 111, 1–20 Glidden, D. (1985), ‘Epicurean prolepsis’, OSAP 3, 175–217 Goetz, G. ed. (1929), M. Terenti Varronis Rerum rusticarum libri tres, Leipzig Goetz, G.–Schoell, F. eds. (1910), M. Terenti Varronis De lingua latina quae supersunt. Accedunt grammaticorum Varronis librorum fragmenta, Leipzig Goldbacher, A. ed. (1895–1923), Augustinus Hipponensis Epistulae. 5 Vols., CSEL 34.1–2, 44, 57, 58, Vienna (repr. New York 1961–1970) Goldin, O. (2009), Philoponus(?), On Aristotle Posterior Analytics 2, London Goldschmidt, V. (1953), Le système Stoïcien et l’idée de temps, Paris Golitsis, P. (2008), Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d’Aristote. Tradition et Innovation, Berlin Gomperz, H. ed. (1866), Philodem Über Frömmigkeit, Leipzig Gomperz, Th. (1890), Die Apologie der Heilkunst: eine griechische Sophistenrede des fünften vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts, bearbeitet, übersetzt und eingeleitet, Vienna (2nd ed. 1910) Goodyear, F.R.D. ed. (1965), Incerti auctoris Aetna. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge Goold, G.P. (1977), Manilius: Astronomica, LCL, Cambridge MA Göransson, T. (1995) Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus, Göteborg Görler, W. (1994), ‘Älterer Pyrrhonismus, jüngere Akademie, Antiochos aus Askalon’, in: Flashar ed., 717–989 Goswell, G. (2009), ‘Early readers of the Gospels: the kephalaia and titloi of Codex Alexandrinus’, JGRChJ 6, 134–174 Goswell, G. (2010), ‘Ancient patterns of reading: the subdivision of Acts of the Apostles in Codex Sinaiticus’, JGRChJ 7, 68–97 Gottheil, R. (1886–1887), ‘A synopsis of Greek philosophy by Bar ‘Ebrâyâ’, Hebraica 3, 249–254 Gottling, K. (1822), Theodosiii Alexandrini Ars grammatica, Leipzig Gottschalk, H.B. (1964), ‘The De coloribus and its author’, Hermes 92, 59–85 Gottschalk, H.B. (1968), ‘The De audibilibus and Peripatetic acoustics’, Hermes 96, 435– 460 Gottschalk, H.B. (1980), Heraclides of Pontus, Oxford Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. (1982), ‘L’arriére-plan scolaire de la Vie de Plotin’, in: Brisson, L. & alii eds., Porphyre: La Vie de Plotin. Vol. 1, Paris, 229–327 Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. ed. (1999), Diogène Laërce. Vies et doctrines des philosophes illustres, Paris Goulet, R. ed. (2003), Macarios de Magnésie. Le Monogénès. Édition critique et traduction française. T. 1, Introduction générale; T. 2, Édition critique, traduction et commentaire, Paris Goulet, R. (2005), ‘Les principes stoïciens sont-ils des corps ou sont-ils incorporels?’, in: Dillon, J.M.–Dixsaut, M. eds., Agonistes. FS O’Brien, Aldershot, 157–176



Goulet, R. (2007), ‘La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs’, in: D’Ancona, C. ed., The Library of the Neoplatonists, Leiden, 29–41 (rev. vers. online https://www.academia.edu/2328606/) Goulet, R. ed. (1989–2018), Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques. 7 Vols. and Supplément, Paris (abbreviated DPhA) Goulet, R.–Rudolph, U. eds. (2010), Entre Orient et Occident: La philosophie et la science gréco-romaines dans le monde arabe, Vandœuvres Gourevitch, D. (1987), ‘Se mettre à trois pour faire un bel enfant, ou l’imprégnation par le regard’, Évolution psychiatrique 3, 559–563 Gourinat, J.-B. (2005), ‘Le traité de Chrysippe Sur l’âme’, RMM 110, 557–577 Gourinat, J.-B. (2008), ‘L’embryon végétatif et la formation de l’âme selon les Stoïciens,’ in: Brisson & alii eds., 59–77. Gourinat, J.-B. (2009), ‘The Stoics on matter and prime matter: ‘corporealism’ and the imprint of Plato’s Timaeus’, in: Salles ed. 46–70 Gourinat, J.-B. (2011), ‘Aëtius et Arius sources de Stobée’, in: Reydams-Schils ed., 143–201 Gourinat, J.-B. (2018), ‘Diels’ whodunit: the reliability of the three mentions of Aëtius in Theodoret’, in: Mansfeld–Runia eds., 17–52 Grafton, A. & alii eds. (2010), The Classical Tradition, Cambridge MA Graham, D.W. (2003), ‘Philosophy on the Nile: Herodotus and Ionian research’, Apeiron 36, 291–310 Graham, D.W. (2006), Explaining the Cosmos: The Ionian Tradition of Scientific Philosophy, Princeton Graham, D.W. ed. (2010), The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics. 2 Vols., Cambridge Graham, D.W. (2013), Science Before Socrates: Parmenides, Anaxagoras and the New Astronomy, Oxford Graham, D.W. (2014), ‘Philolaus’, in: Huffman ed., 46–68 Greene, W.C. (1937), ‘The Platonic Scholia’, TAPhA 68, 184–196 Greene, W.C. ed. (1938), Scholia Platonica, Haverford PA Gregoric, P. (2011), ‘Aristotle’s common sense in the doxographic tradition’, OSAPh 40, 111–131 Gregory of Nyssa see Jaeger (1960), Spira (2014) Gregory, A. (2013), The Presocratics and the Supernatural. Magic, Philosophy and Science in Early Greece, London Grensemann, H. ed. (1968a). Die hippokratische Schrift Über die heilige Krankheit, Berlin Grensemann, H. ed. (1968b), Hippokrates Über Achtmonatskinder. Über das Siebenmonatskind (unecht), CMG I 2,1, Berlin Grensemann, H. (1968c), Der Arzt Polybos als Verfasser hippokratische Schriften, Wiesbaden



Grensemann, H.–Weisser, U. (1997), Iparchus Minutiensis alias Hipparchus Metapontinus. Untersuchungen zu einer hochmittelalterlichen lateinischen Übersetzung von Nemesios von Emesa, De natura hominis. Kapitel 5: De elementis, Bonn Gritti, E. (2011), ‘Dossografia sulla percezione nell’Anthologium di Giovanni Stobeo’, in: Reydams-Schils ed., 203–246 Groeneboom, P. ed. (1952), Aeschylus’ Eumeniden, met inleiding, critische noten en commentaar, Groningen Groisard, J. ed. (2013), Alexandre d’Aphrodise Sur la mixtion et la croissance (De mixtione), Paris Gronau, K. (1914), Poseidonios und die jüdisch-christliche Genesisexegese, Berlin Gross, N. (1989), Senecas Naturales quaestiones. Komposition, naturphilosophische Aussagen und ihre Quellen, Stuttgart Guardasole, A. ed. (1997), Eracide di Taranto: Frammenti, Naples Guérard, M.-G. ed. (1994), Nil d’Ancyre. Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques, SC 403, Paris Gundel, W. (1910), ‘Galaxias/Γαλαξίας’, RE Bd. VII/13, 560–571 Gundel, W. (1914), Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Begriffe Ananke und Heimarmene, Gießen Gundel, W. (1922), ‘Kometen’, RE Bd. XI/21, 1143–1193 Gundel, W. (1929), ‘Sternschnuppen’, RE Bd. IIIA/6, 2439–2446 Gutas, D. (1982), ‘The present state and future tasks of Graeco-Arabic studies: Remarks apropos H. Daiber’s Aetius Arabus’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1, 113–123 Gutas, D. (1983), ‘Paul the Persian on the classification of the parts of Aristotle’s philosophy: A milestone between Alexandria and Bagdad’, Der Islam 60, 231–267 (repr. as ch. IX in: Gutas, D. 2000, Greek Philosophers in the Arabic Tradition, Aldershot) Gutas, D. (1985), ‘The starting point of philosophical studies in Alexandrian and Arabic Aristotelianism’, in: Fortenbaugh & alii eds., 115–123 Gutas, D. ed. (2010), Theophrastus On First Principles (known as his Metaphysics). Greek Text and Medieval Arabic Translation, Edited and Translated with Introduction, Commentaries and Glossaries, as well as the Medieval Latin Translation, and with an Excursus on Graeco-Arabic Editorial Technique, Leiden Gutas, D. (2012a), ‘The letter before the spirit: still editing Aristotle after 2300 years’, in: Van Oppenraay–Fontaine eds., 11–36 Gutas, D. (2012b), ‘3. Die Wiedergeburt der Philosophie und die Übersetzungen ins Arabische’, in: Rudolph ed. (2012a), 55–91 Guthrie, W.K.C. (1962–1981), A History of Greek Philosophy. 6 Vols., Cambridge Haake, M. (2007), Der Philosoph in der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Rede über Philosophen und Philosophie in den hellenistischen Poleis, Munich Haake, M. (2013), ‘Illustrating, documenting, making-believe: the use of psephismata in



Hellenistic biographies of philosophers’, in: Liddel, P.–Low, P. eds., Inscriptions and their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford, 79–124 Haas, A.E. (1907), ‘Griechische Lichttheorien’, AGPh 13, 345–386 Haase, F.G.H.C. ed. (1853), L. Annaei Senecae opera quae supersunt. Vol. 3, Leipzig (repr. 1895; contains fragments) Hadas-Lebel, M. (1973). De providentia I et II, Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 35, Paris Habets, A.C.J. (1983), Geschiedenis van de indeling van de filosofie in de Oudheid, diss. Utrecht Hadot, I. ed. (1990), Simplicius: Commentaire sur les Catégories, Traduction commentée. Fasc. I: Introduction, première partie (pp. 1–9, 3 Kalbfleisch), traduction de Hoffmann, Ph. (avec la collaboration de Hadot, I. et P.), commentaire et notes par Hadot, I., Leiden Hadot, I. (1991), ‘The role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the teaching of philosophy according to the prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories’ in: Blumenthal–Robinson eds., 175–189 Hadot, I. (2015), Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato, Leiden Hadot, P. (1957), ‘De lectis non lecta conponere (Marius Victorinus, adversus Arrium II 7): Raisonnement théologique et raisonnement juridique’, in: Aland, K.–Cross, F.L. eds., Studia Patristica. Vol. 1, Berlin, 209–220 (repr. in: Hadot 2010, 53–63) Hadot, P. (1971), Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses œuvres, Paris Hadot, P. (1979), ‘Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans l’Antiquité’, MH 36, 202–223 (repr. in: Hadot 1998, 125–158, and Hadot 2014, 25–53) Hadot, P. (1981), Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique, Paris (nouv. éd. augmentée Paris 2002) Hadot, P. (1990), ‘La logique, partie ou instrument de la philosophie?’, in: Hadot, I. ed., 183–188 Hadot, P. (1991), ‘La figure du sage dans l’Antiquité gréco-latine’, in: Gadoffre, G. ed., Les sagesses du monde, Paris, 9–26 (repr. in: Hadot 1998, 233–257, and in: Hadot 2014, 177–198) Hadot, P. (1998), Études de philosophie ancienne, Paris Hadot, P. (2004), Le voile d’Isis. Essai sur l’histoire de l’idée de nature, Paris Hadot, P. (2010), Études de patristique et d’histoire des concepts, Paris Hadot, P. (2014), Discours et mode de vie philosophique. Préface, textes réunis et présentés par Pavie, X., Paris Hagedorn, D. ed. (1973), Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian, Berlin Hagen, H. ed. (1881), Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina Commentarii. Vol. 3.2: Appendix Serviana. Ceteros praeter Servium et Scholia Bernensia Vergilii commentatores continens, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1961)



Hägg, T. (2012), The Art of Biography in Antiquity, Cambridge Hahm, D.E. (1977), The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, Columbus OH Hahm, D.E. (1978), ‘Early Hellenistic theories of vision and the perception of color’, in: Machamer, P.K.–Turnbull, R.G. eds., Studies in Perception. Interrelations in the History of Philosophy and Science, Columbus OH, 60–95 Hahm, D.E. (1982), ‘The fifth element in Aristotle’s De philosophia: a critical reexamination’, JHS 102, 60–74 (repr. in: Anton, J.P.–Preus, A. eds. 1983, Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy II, Albany, 404–428) Hahm, D.E. (1983), ‘The diaeretic method and the purpose of Arius’ doxography’, in: Fortenbaugh ed., 15–37 Hahm, D.E. (1990), ‘The ethical doxography of Arius Didymus’, ANRW II.36.4, 2935– 3055 & 3234–3243 Hahm, D.E. (1992), ‘Diogenes Laertius VII: On the Stoics’, ANRW II.36.6, 4076–4182 & 4404–4411 Haidenthaller, M. (1942), Tertullians zweites Buch Ad nationes und De testimonio animae. Übertragung und Kommentar. Paderborn Halbwachs, M. (2002), La mémoire collective. É d. critique ed. Namier, G., Paris (1st ed. 1950) Halbwachs, M. (2004), Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire, Paris (1st ed. 1925) Halfwassen, J. (1993), ‘Speusipp und die metaphysische Deutung von Platons Parmenides’, in: Hagemann, L.–Glei, L. eds., ΕΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΛΗΘΟΣ. Einheit und Vielheit. FS Bormann, Altenberge, 339–373 Hall, J.J. (1977), ‘Seneca as a source for earlier thought (especially meteorology)’, CQ 27, 409–436 Halton, T. (1989), ‘The five senses in Nemesius, De natura hominis, and Theodoret, De providentia’, Studia Patristica 20, 94–101 Hammerstedt, J.–Smith, M.F. (2014), The Epicurean Inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda. Ten Years of New Discoveries and Research, Bonn Hani, J. ed. (1980), Plutarque Œuvres morales T. 8, Du destin–Le démon de Socrate–De l’exil–Consolation à sa femme, Paris Hankinson, R.J. (1996), ‘Cicero’s rope’, in: Algra & alii eds., 185–205 Hankinson, R.J. (1998), Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought, Oxford Hankinson, R.J. ed. (1998a), Galen. On Antecedent Causes. Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge. Hankinson, R.J. (1999), ‘Explanation and causation’, in: Algra & alii eds., 479–512 Hankinson, R.J. (2002), Simplicius On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.1–4, London Hankinson, R.J. (2003), ‘Stoic epistemology’, in: Inwood ed., 59–84 Hankinson, R.J. (2008b), ‘Epistemology’, in: Hankinson ed. (2008a), 157–183 Hankinson, R.J. (2008c), ‘Philosophy of nature’, in: Hankinson ed. (2008a), 210–241 Hankinson, R.J. (2013), ‘Lucretius, Epicurus, and the logic of multiple explanations’, in: Lehoux, D. & alii eds., Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science, Oxford, 69–97



Hankinson, R.J. (2015), ‘Motion: M. 10.37–15.68’, in: Algra–Ierodiakonou eds., 217–274 Hankinson, R.J. ed. (2008a), The Cambridge Companion to Galen, Cambridge Hanson, A.E. (1987), ‘The eight months’ child and the etiquette of birth: “obsit omen”’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 61, 589–602 Hanson, R.P.C.–Joussot, D. eds. (1993), Hermias Satire des philosophes païens, SC 388, Paris Harder, R. ed. (1926), ‘Ocellus Lucanus’. Text und Kommentar, Berlin (repr. Dublin 1966) Harder, R. (1957), ‘Quelle oder Tradition?’, in: Les Sources de Plotin, Vandoeuvres– Genève, 327–332, discussion 333–339 Harder, R. & alii (1967), Plotins Schriften Bd. IVb: Die Schriften 39–45 in chronologischer Reihenfolge: Anmerkungen, Hamburg Harpocration see Dindorf (1853) Harrill, J.A. (2010), ‘Stoic physics, the universal conflagration, and the eschatological destruction of the ‘ignorant and unstable’ in 2Peter’ in: Rasimus, T. & alii eds., Stoicism in Early Christianity, Peabody MA, 115–140 Harte, V.–Lane, M. eds. (2013), Politeia in Greek and Roman Philosophy. FS Schofield, Cambridge Hartmann, R. (1911), De Senecae Naturalium quaestionum libro septimo, diss. Münster Haslam, M.W. ed. (1999), ‘Plato 50: P.Oxy 1017’, in: Adorno & alii eds., 254–273 Hasse, D.N. (2000), Avicenna’s De anima in the Latin West. The Formation of a Peripatetic Philosophy of Soul 1160–1300, London Hatzimichali, M. (2011), Potamo of Alexandria and the Emergence of Eclecticism in Late Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge Hatzimichali, M. (2013), ‘The texts of Plato and Aristotle in the first century BC’, in: Schofield ed., 1–27 (repr. as ‘The texts of Plato and Aristotle in the first century BCE: Andronicus’ canon’, in: Sorabji ed. 2016a, 81–102) Hatzimichali, M. (2016), ‘Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus’, in: Falcon ed., 81–100 Havrda, M. (2012), ‘Categories in Stromata viii’, Elenchos 33, 197–225 Havrda, M. (2015), ‘The purpose of Galen’s treatise On Demonstration’, Early Science and Medicine 20, 265–287 Havrda, M. (2016), The so-called Eighth Stromateus by Clement of Alexandria. Early Christian Reception of Greek Scientific Methodology, Leiden Havrda, M. (2017), ‘Body and cosmos in Galen’s account of the soul’, Phronesis 62, 69–89 Heath, M. (1995), Hermogenes On Issues: Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric, Oxford Heath, M. (2002), ‘Theon and the history of the Progymnasmata’, GRBS 43, 129–160 Heath, T. (1913), Aristarchus of Samos, The Ancient Copernicus. A History of Greek Astronomy to Aristarchus together with Aristarchus’ Treatise On the Sizes and Distances of the Moon, Oxford (most recent repr. 1997)



Heck, E.–Wlosok, A. eds. (1994), Lucius Firmus Lactantius Epitome Divinarum Institutionum, Stuttgart Heck, E.–Wlosok, A. eds. (2005–2011), Lucius Firmus Lactantius Divinarum Institutionum libri septem. 4 Vols., Munich Hecquet-Devienne, M. (2004), ‘A legacy from the library of the Lyceum? Inquiry into the joint transmission of Theophrastus’ and Aristotle’s Metaphysics based on evidence provided by manuscripts E and J’, HSCP 102, 171–189 Heeren, A.H.L. ed. (1792–1801), Ioannis Stobaei Eclogarum Physicarum et Ethicarum libri duo. 2 Vols., Göttingen Heiberg, I.L. ed. (1915), Archimedis Opera omnia cum commentariis Eutocii. Vol. 3, Leipzig (2nd ed. Heiberg, I.L.–Stamatis, E.S. eds., Stuttgart 1972) Heiberg, I.L., Boll, F., Lammert, F., and Boer, Æ. (1898–1952), Claudii Ptolemaei opera quae exstant omnia. 3 Vols. in 5 Parts, Leipzig. Heiberg, I.L.–Tannery, P. eds. (1901), Anatolius Sur la decade et les nombres qu’elle comprend, Annales internationales d’histoire: Congrès de Paris, 5e section, Histoire des sciences, Paris, 25–57 (also separately 1901, Paris) Heidel, W.A. (1910), ‘Περὶ φύσεως. A study of the conception of nature among the PreSocratics’, Daedalus 45, 97–133 (repr. in: Tarán, L. ed. 1980: Heidel, W.A., Selected Papers, New York) Heil, C. (2000), ‘Arius Didymus and Luke-Acts’, NT 42, 358–393 Hein, C. (1985), Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie. Von der spätantiken Einleitungsliteratur zur arabischen Enzyklopädie, Francfort Heinze, R. ed. (1892), Xenokrates. Darstellung der Lehre und Sammlung der Fragmente, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1965) Heitsch, E. ed. (1983), Xenophanes: Die Fragmente, herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert, Munich Helmig, C. (2012), Forms and Concepts: Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition, Berlin Helmreich, G. ed. (1894), ‘Galeni περὶ τῶν ἑαυτῷ δοκοῦντα fragmenta inedita’, Philologus 52, 431–434 Helmreich, G. ed. (1904), Galeni De temperamentis libri iii, Leipzig Helmreich, G. ed. (1907–1909), Galeni De usu partium libri xvii. 2 Vols., Leipzig Helmreich, G. ed. (1911), ‘Pseudo-Galenus De causa affectionum’, in: Handschriftliche Studien zu Galen, Programm Ansbach 1911, 5–19 Henderson, J. (2007), The Medieval World of Isidore of Seville: Truth from Words, Cambridge Henrichs, A. (1972), ‘Towards a new edition of Philodemus’ treatise On Piety’, GRBS 13, 67–98 Henrichs, A. (1974), ‘Die Kritik der stoischen Theologie im PHerc. 1428’, CErc 4, 5–32 Henrichs, A. (1975), ‘Two doxographical notes: Democritus and Prodicus on religion’, HSCP 79, 93–123



Henrichs, A. (1976), ‘The atheism of Prodicus’, CErc 6, 15–21 Henry, R. ed. (1959–1977), Photius: Bibliothèque. 8 Vols.; with Champ, J. ed. (1991) Vol. 9: Index, Paris Hense, O. ed. (1894–1912 and later repr.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo posteriores. 3 Vols., Berlin Hense, O. (1916), ‘Ioannes Stobaios’, RE Bd. IX, 2549–2586 Heraclides Ponticus see Wehrli (19692), Schütrumpf (2008) Heraclitus Allegoricus see Buffière (1962) Heraclitus Ephesius see Diels (1901b), Marcovich (1978), Kahn (1979), Mouraviev (1999– 2002), Marcovich (2001a), Lévy (2004) Hermagoras see Matthes (1962), Woerther (2012) Hermann, G. ed. (1812), Draconis Stratonicensis Liber de metris poeticis. Ioannis Tzetzes Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem, Leipzig Hermias Alexandrinus see Lucarini–Moreschini (2013) Hermias Christianus see Hanson–Joussot (1993) Hermippus Smyrnaeus see Wehrli (1974), Bollansée (1999b) Hermogenes see Rabe (1913), Patillon (2009), (2012) Herodianus, Aelius see Lentz (1867–1868) Herophilus see Von Staden (1989) Herren, M.W. (2012), ‘The graeca in the tituli of Lucretius: what they tell us about the archetype’, WSt 125, 107–124 Herz, M.–Keil, H. eds. (1855–1859), Priscianus: Institutiones grammaticae libri xviii, in: Grammatici graeci. Vols. 2–3, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1961) Hesiod see West (1966), (1978) Heßler, J.E. ed. (2014), Epikur: Brief an Menoikeus. Edition, Übersetzung, Einleitung und Kommnentar, Basel Heurgon, J. ed. (1978), Varron: Économie rurale. Livre premier, texte établi, traduit et commenté, Paris Heylbut, A. ed. (1892), Eustratii et Michaelis et anonyma in Ethica Nicomachea commentaria, CAG 20, Berlin Hierocles Stoicus see Bastianini–Long (1992), Ramelli–Konstan (2009) Higbie, C. (2010), ‘Divide and edit: a brief history of book divisions’, HSCPh 105 (2010) 1–31. Hillgruber, M. (1994–1999), Die pseudoplutarchische Schrift De Homero. T. 1, Einleitung und Kommentar zu den Kapiteln 1–73; T. 2, Kommentar zu den Kapiteln 74–218, Stuttgart–Leipzig Hine, H.M. ed. (1981), An Edition with Commentary of Seneca Natural Questions, Book Two, Salem NH (repr. 1984) Hine, H.M. ed. (1996), L. Annaei Senecae Naturalium quaestionum libros, Stuttgart Hine, H.M. (2002), ‘Seismology and vulcanology in Antiquity?’, in: Tuplin–Rihll eds., 56–75



Hine, H.M. (2009–2010), ‘Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones 1960–2005 (Part 1)’, Lustrum 51, 253–329; ‘(Part 2) with addenda covering 2006’, Lustrum 52, 7–160 Hine, H.M. (2010), Seneca: Natural Questions translated, Chicago Hine, H.M. (2012), ‘Originality and independence in Seneca Natural Questions Book 2’, in: Beretta & alii eds., 31–47 Hippolytus see Wendland (1916), Dix (1968), Botte (19682), Marcovich (1986), Litwa (2016) Hippocrates see Grensemann (1968a), (1968b), Joly (1970), West (1971), Jouanna (1975), Craik (2006), Potter (2012) Hirzel, R. (1877–1882), Untersuchungen zu Cicero’s philosophischen Schriften. I. De natura deorum. II. De finibus. De officiis. III. Academica priora. Tusculanae disputationes, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1964) Hoche, R. ed. (1866), Nicomachi Geraseni Pythagorei Introductionis Arithmeticae libri ii, Leipzig Hoerschelman, G. (1874), De Dionysii Thracis interpretibus veteribus commentationis particula I, Lipsiae Holl, K. ed. (1915–1933), Epiphanius: Ancoratus und Panarion. 3 Vols., GCS 25, 31, 37, Leipzig (3rd ed. Bergermann, M.–Colatz, C.-F. Vol. 1 Berlin 2013; Vol. 2 Berlin 1980; Vol. 3 Berlin 1985) Holub, R. (1995), ‘Reception theory: school of Constance’, in: Selden, R. ed., The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 8: From Formalism to Poststructuralism, Cambridge, 347–374 Holwerda, D. (1960), Jo. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem Fasc. II Commentarium in Nubes, Groningen Homer see West (1998–2000), (2017) Hood, J. (2010), ‘Galen’s Aristotelian definitions’, in: Charles ed., 450–466 Horn, H.-J. (1969), ‘Fieber’, RAC 7, 877–909 Hornblower, S.–Matthews, E. eds. (2000), Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence, Oxford Horster, M.–Reitz, C. eds. (2010), Condensing Texts–Condensed Texts, Stuttgart Horten, M.–Wiedemann, E. (1913), ‘Avicennas Lehre vom Regenbogen nach seinem Werk al-Schifa’, Meteorologische Zeitschrift 30, 533–544 (repr. in: Wiedemann, E. 1984, Gesammelte Schriften zur arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Bd. 2, Francfort, 733–744) Hoven, R. (1971), Stoïcisme et stoïciens face au problème de l’au-delà, Liège Hoyland, R. (2007), ‘A new edition and translation of the Leiden Polemon’, in: Swain ed., 329–463 Hubler, J.N. (2010), ‘Moderatus, E.R. Dodds and the development of Neoplatonist emanation’, in: Turner–Corrigan eds., 115–128 Huby, P.M. (1997), Priscian on Theophrastus on Sense-Perception, London



Huby, P.M. (2001), ‘The controversia between Dicaearchus and Theophrastus about the best life’, in: Fortenbaugh–Schütrumpf eds., 311–328 Huby, P.M.–Neal, G. eds. (1989), The Criterion of Truth. FS Kerferd, Liverpool, esp. for Claudius Ptolemaeus, On the Kriterion and Hegemonikon (with text, and notes, ed. by the Manchester–Liverpool Seminar on ancient Greek philosophy, 179–230) Huby, P.M.–Gutas, D. (1999), Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. Commentary. Vol. 4: Psychology, Leiden Huffman, C.A. ed. (1993), Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and Presocratic, Cambridge Huffman, C.A. (2001), ‘The Philolaic method: The Pythagoreanism behind the Philebus’, in: Preus, A., ed., Essays in Ancient Philosophy VI: Before Plato, Albany N.Y, 67–85 Huffman, C.A. ed. (2005), Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King, Cambridge Huffman, C.A. (2007), ‘Philolaus and the central fire’, in: Stern-Gillet–Corrigan eds., 57– 94 Huffman, C.A. (2013a), ‘Plato and the Pythagoreans’, in: Cornelli, G., McKirahan, R. and Macris, C. eds., On Pythagoreanism, 237–270 Huffman, C.A. (2013b), ‘Reason and myth in Early Pythagorean cosmology’, in: Kahn, Ch.H.–McCoy, J. eds., Early Greek Philosophy: The Presocratics and the Emergence of Reason, Washington D.C., 55–76 Huffman, C.A. (2013c), ‘Alcmaeon’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2013/entries/alcmaeon/ Huffman, C.A. (2014a), ‘Pythagoreanism’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr2015/entries/pythagoreanism Huffman, C.A. (2014b), ‘Pythagoras’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2014/entries/pythagoras Huffman, C.A. (2014c), ‘The Peripatetics on the Pythagoreans’, in: Huffman ed., 274–295 Huffman, C.A. (2016), ‘Philolaus’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2012/entries/philolaus Huffman, C.A. ed. (2014d), A History of Pythagoreanism, Cambridge Hugonnard-Roche, H. (1997), ‘Comme la cigogne au désert. Un prologue de Sergius de Res‘ayna à l’étude de la philosophie aristotélicienne en syriaque’, in: De Libera, A. & alii eds., Langage et philosophie. FS Jolivet, Paris, 79–97 (repr. in: Hugonnard-Roche 2004a, 165–186) Hugonnard-Roche, H. (2000), ‘Le traité de logique de Paul le Perse: une interprétation tardo-antique de la logique aristotélicienne en syriaque’, in: DSTradF 11, 59–82 (repr. in: Hugonnard-Roche 2004a, 233–254)



Hugonnard-Roche, H. (2004a), La logique d’Aristote du grec au syriaque: études sur la transmission des textes de l’ Organon et leur interprétation philosophique, Paris Hugonnard-Roche, H. (2004b), ‘Sergius de Res‘ayna: Commentaire sur les Catégories (à Théodore). Livre premier’, in: Hugonnard-Roche, H. (2004a), 187–231 Hugonnard-Roche, H. (2014), ‘La question de l’âme dans la tradition philosophique syriaque’, Studia graeco-arabica 4, 17–64 Hülser, K. ed. (1987–1988), Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. Neue Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentar. Bd. 1–4, Stuttgart (abbreviated FDS) Hunink, V. (2012), ‘The Epinomis and Apuleius of Madauros’, in: Alesse–Ferrari eds., 283–293 Husson, S. (2018), ‘Les atheismes de Bion de Borysthène’, PhilosAnt 18, 193–215 Iamblichus see Dalsgaard Larsen (1972), Pistelli–Klein (1975), Finamore–Dillon (2002), Dillon–Polleichtner (2009), Taormina–Piccione (2010), Vinel (2014), Martone (2014) Ibn al-Haytham see Alhacen Ideler, J.L. (1832), Meteorologica veterum Graecorum et Romanorum. Prolegomena ad novam Meteorologicorum Aristotelis editionem adornandam, Berlin Ideler, J.L. ed. (1834–1836), Aristoteles Meteorologicorum libri iv cum commentariis, excerptis et prolegomenis. 2 Vols., Lipsiae Ideler, J.L. ed. (1841a), Physici et medici graeci minores. Vol. 1, Berlin (repr. Amsterdam 1963) Ideler, J.L. ed. (1841b), Ps.Alexander Problemata, in: Ideler (1841), 3–80 Ideler, J.L. ed. (1841c), Ps.Alexander De febribus, in: Ideler (1841), 81–106 Ierodiakonou, K. (1993), ‘The Stoic division of philosophy’, Phronesis 38, 57–74 Ierodiakonou, K. (2004), ‘Empedocles and the painters’, in: Cleland, L. & alii eds., Colour in the Ancient World, Oxford, 91–95 Ierodiakonou, K. (2005a), ‘Empedocles on colour and colour vision’, OSAPh 29, 1–37 Ierodiakonou, K. (2005b), ‘Plato’s theory of colours in the Timaeus’, Rhizai 2, 219–233 Ierodiakonou, K. (2014), ‘On Galen’s theory of vision’, in: Adamson & alii eds., 235–247 Ierodiakonou, K. (2015), ‘Hellenistic philosophers on the phenomenon of changing colours’, in: Holmes, B.–Fischer, K.-D. eds., The Frontiers of Ancient Science. FS Von Staden, Berlin, 227–250 Ierodiakonou, K. (2016), review Kalderon (2015), Notre Dame Review of Books (http:// ndpr.nd.edu/news/63901‑form‑without‑matter‑empedocles‑and‑aristotle‑on‑color ‑perception/) Ilberg, J. (1910), ‘Die Überlieferung der Gynäkologie des Soranos von Ephesos’, Abh.Sächs.Ges. Phil.-hist. Kl. 18.2, Leipzig Ilberg, J. ed. (1927), Sorani Gynaeciorum Libri IV. De signis fracturarum. De fasciis. Vita Hippocratis secundum Soranum, Leipzig Ingenkamp, H.G. (1966), Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen, Wiesbaden



Ingenkamp, H.G. (1971), ‘Zur stoischen Lehre vom Sehen’, RhM 114, 240–246 Ingremeau, C. ed. (1982), Lactance: La Colère de Dieu, SC 289, Paris Ingremeau, C. ed. (2007), Lactance: Institutions divines, Livre 6, SC 509, Paris Inowlocki, S. (2006), Eusebius and the Jewish authors. His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context, Leiden Invernizzi, G. ed. (1976), Il Didaskalikos di Albino e il medioplatonismo. 1. Saggio introduttivo; 2. Traduzione e commento del Didaskalikos, Rome Inwood, B. (1991), ‘Chrysippus on extension and the void’, RIPh 3, 245–266 Inwood, B. (1999), ‘Oikeiôsis and primary impulse’, in: Algra & alii eds., 678–682 Inwood, B. ed. (20012), The Poem of Empedocles. A Text and Translation with an Introduction, rev. ed. Toronto (1st ed. 1992) Inwood, B. ed. (2007), Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters, Oxford Inwood, B. (2009), ‘Why physics?’, in: Salles ed., 201–223 Inwood, B. ed. (2003), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, Cambridge Ioannes medicus see Dietz (1834) Ioannes Sardianis see Rabe (1928) Ioppolo, A.M. (1980), Aristone di Chio e lo Stoicismo antico, Rome Ioppolo, A.M. (1990), ‘Presentation and assent: a physical and cognitive problem in Early Stoicism’, CQ 40, 443–449 (repr. in: Ioppolo 2013, 137–157) Ioppolo, A.M. (1994), ‘Il concetto di causa nella filosofia ellenistica e romana’, ANRW II.37.7, Berlin, 4491–4545 (repr. in: Ioppolo 2013, 17–67) Ioppolo, A.M. (2013), Dibattiti filosofici ellenistici: Dottrine delle cause, Stoicismo, Accademia scettica, a.c.d. Centrone, B. & alii, Sankt Augustin Irby-Massie, G.L.–Keyser, P.T. eds. (2002), Greek Science in the Hellenistic Era, London Irenaeus see Rousseau–Doutreleau (1965–1982), Brox (1900–2001) Irigoin, J. (1997), ‘Titres, sous-titres et sommaires dans les œuvres des historiens grecs du Ier siècle avant J.-C. au Ve siècle après J.-C.’, in: Fredouille & alii eds., 127–134 Isidore of Pelusium see Évieux (1997–2000) Isidore of Seville see Arévalo (1850), Lindsay (1911), Vega (1940), Fontaine (1960), Marshall (1983), Gasparotto (2004) Isnardi Parente, M. (1974), Opere di Epicuro, Turin (cited from rev. ed. 19832) Isnardi Parente, M. (1989), Stoichi antichi. 2 Vols., Turin Isnardi Parente, M. (1990), ‘ΥΛΗ ΡΕΥΣΤΗ’, PP, 277–284 Isnardi Parente, M. (1991), ‘Appendix Stoicorum’, SCO 41, 235–278 (addenda, index locorum, corrigenda, errata for Isnardi Parente 1989) Isnardi Parente, M. ed. (1980), Speusippo Frammenti: Edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples Isnardi Parente, M. ed. (1982), Senocrate Ermodoro Testimonianze e frammenti: Edizione, tradizione e commento, Naples (cited from rev. ed. with modified numbering of texts by Dorandi, T., Pisa 2012)



Isnardi Parente, M. ed. (1997–1998), Testimonia Platonica. Per una raccolta dei principali passi della tradizione indiretta riguardante i λεγόμενα ἄγραφα δόγματα. A. Le testimonianze di Aristotele; B. Testimonianze di età ellenistica e di età imperiale, Rome Jachmann, G. (1923), ‘Vergils sechste Ekloge’, Hermes 58, 288–304 Jackson, B.D.–Pinborg, J. (1975), Augustine De dialectica. Trans. with introduction and notes by Jackson, B.D. from the text newly edited by Pinborg, J., Dordrecht Jackson, G. (2013), Commento a Lucrezio De rerum natura libro V 1–280, Pisa Jacob, C. (2004), ‘Questions sur les Questions: Archéologie d’une pratique intellectuelle et d’une forme discursive’, in: Volgers–Zamagni eds., 25–54 Jacobi, R.–Luppe, W. (2000), ‘P.Oxy. 4458 col. I: Aristoteles redivivus’, ZPE 131, 15–18 Jacoby, F. & alii (1923–), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin & Leiden (and later repr., also Brill online) Jaeger, W. (1914), Nemesios von Emesa Quellenforschungen zum Neuplatonismus und seinen Anfängen bei Poseidonios, Berlin Jaeger, W. (1928), ‘Über Ursprung und Kreislauf des philosophischen Lebensideals’, SB.Preuß.Ak. Phil.-hist.Kl. 25, Berlin (repr. in: Jaeger 1960, Scripta minora 1, Rome, 347–393; and trans. in: Jaeger 21948, Aristotle, Oxford, 426–461) Jaeger, W. ed. (1960), Contra Eunomium, in: Gregorii Nysseni opera 1.1.3–409+2.2.3–311, Leiden Jahn, Th. (1987), Zum Wortfeld ‘Geist-Seele’ in der Sprache Homers, Munich Jan, K. ed. (1895), Musici scriptores graeci, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1962) Janáček, K. (2002), Indice delle Vite dei filosofi di Diogene Laerzio, Florence Janko, R. ed. (2011), Philodemus: the Aesthetic Works. Vol. 1.3, Philodemus, On Poems Books 3–4, with the Fragments of Aristotle, On Poets, Oxford Jannone, A.–Barbotin, E. (1966), Aristote: De l’âme, texte établi par Jannone, A., traduit et annoté par Barbotin, E., Paris (repr. 42009) Janson, T. (1964), Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions, Stockholm Jas, M. ed. (2018a), Nicolaus Rheginus als Übersetzer der pseudo-Galenischen Schrift De historia philosopha: Ein Beitrag zur lateinischen Überlieferung des Corpus Galenicum, Wiesbaden (rev. vers. of diss. Munich 2015) Jas, M. (2018b), review Bottler 2014, https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeumdok.00004084 (viewed 7 August 2019) Jas, M. (2018c), ‘Towards a better text of ps.Plutarch’s Placita philosophorum: fresh evidence from the Historia philosopha of ps.Galen’, in: M–R 4.130–155 Jaulin, A. (2011), ‘Straton et la question du temps comme nombre du mouvement’, in: Desclos–Fortenbaugh eds., 353–366 Jeremiah, E. (2018), ‘Statistical explorations of the Placita of Aëtius’, in: M–R 4.279–373 Jeunet-Mancy, E. ed. (2012), Servius. Commentaire sur l’ Énéide de Virgile, livre VI, Paris John Chrysostom see Wenger (19702) John of Damascus see Kotter (1969)



Johansen, T.K. (1998), Aristotle on the Senses, Cambridge Johansen, T.K. (2004), Plato’s Natural Philosophy. A Study of Timaeus–Critias, Cambridge Johnson, M.R. (2009), ‘The Aristotelian explanation of the halo’, Apeiron 42, 325–357 Johnson, M.R. (2019). ‘Aristotle on kosmos and kosmoi,’ in: Horky, Ph.S. ed., Cosmos in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 74–107 Johnson, W.A. (2004), Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Toronto (repr. 2013) Johnston, I.–Horsley, G.H.R. eds. (2011), Galen Method of Medicine. 3 Vols., LCL, Cambridge MA Joly, R. (1956), Le thème philosophique des genres de vie dans l’antiquité classique, Brussels Joly, R. ed. (1970). Hippocrate T. XI: De la generation. De la nature de l’enfant. Des maladies IV. Du fœtus de huit mois, Paris Jones, A. (1994), ‘Peripatetic and Euclidean theories of the visual ray’, Physis 31, 47–76 Jones, A. ed. (2001), ‘Pseudo-Ptolemy De speculis’, Sciamus 2, 145–186 Jones, Ch.W. ed. (1975), Beda venerabilis De natura rerum liber, in: Bedae venerabilis opera, Pars vi: Opera didascalica I, Turnhout, 173–234 Jones, R.M. (1926), ‘The ideas as the thoughts of God’, CPh 21, 317–326 (repr. in: Tarán, L. ed. 1980: Jones, R.M., The Platonism of Plutarch and Selected Papers, New York) Jouanna, J. (1969), ‘Le médecin Polybe est-il l’auteur de plusieurs ouvrages de la collection Hippocratique?’, REG 82, 552–562 Jouanna, J. ed. (1975 and later repr.), Hippocrate: La nature de l’homme, édité, traduit et commenté, CMG I 1,3, Berlin Jouanna, J. (1999), Hippocrates, Baltimore Jouanna, J. (2003), ‘Sur la dénomination et le nombre des sens d’Hippocrate à la médecine impériale: réflexions à partir de l’énumération des sens dans le traité hippocratique Du Régime, c. 23’, in: Boehm, I.–Luccioni, P. eds., Les cinq sens dans la médecine de l’époque impériale: sources et développements, Lyon, 9–20 Jouanna, J. (2007), ‘La théorie de la sensation, de la pensée et de l’âme dans le traité hippocratique du Régime: ses rapports avec Empédocle et le Timée de Platon’, Aion 19, 9–38 Jouanna, J. (2008), ‘La posterité de l’embryologie d’Hippocrate dans deux traités pseudo-hippocratique de la médecine tardive: Sur la formation de l’homme et Sur la génération de l’homme et la semence. Avec, en annexe, une nouvelle édition du Sur la génération de l’ homme et la semence et une editio princeps d’Alexandre le Sophiste, Sur la génération de l’homme’, in: Brisson & alii eds., 15–41 Jouanna, J. (2013), ‘Médecine et philosophie: la reception de la science aristotélicienne chez Galien’, in: Lehman, Y. ed., Aristoteles Romanus. La réception de la science aristotélicienne dans l’Empire gréco-romain, Turnhout, 159–181 Journée, G. (2011), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009, PhilosAnt 11, 247–250



Journée, G. (2012), ‘Lumière et nuit, feminin et masculin chez Parménide d’Élée: quelques remarques’, Phronesis 57, 289–318 Journée, G. (2014), ‘Diogène d’Apollonie et Diogène de Smyrne au sein des lignées philosophiques’, Aristeas 10, 29–60 Journée, G. (2018), ‘Aétius et le problème des sources de Théodoret: à propos de GAC 4.12’, in: M–R 4.196–224 Julianus Arianista see Hagedorn (1972) Justinianus see Krüger (1877) Kahn, Ch.H. (1960), Anaximander and the Origins of Geek Cosmology, New York (3rd ed. w. revisions Indianapolis 1994; pp. 166, 178–193 repr. as ‘Anaximander’s fragment: the universe governed by law’, in: Mourelatos, A.P.D. ed. 1974, The Presocratics. A Collection of Critical Essays, Garden City N.Y, 2nd rev. ed. Princeton 1992, 99– 117) Kahn, Ch.H. (1979), The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary, Cambridge (repr. 1981) Kahn, Ch.H. (1983), ‘Arius as a doxographer’, in: Fortenbaugh ed., 3–11 Kaibel, G. ed. (1887–1890), Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistarum libri x. 3 Vols., Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1965–1966) Kaiser, S.I. (2010), Die Fragmente des Aristoxenos aus Tarent neu herausgegeben und ergänzt, erläutert und übersetzt, Hildesheim Kalbfleisch, C. ed. (1896), Galeni Institutio logica, Leipzig Kalderon, M.E. (2015), Form without Matter: Empedocles and Aristotle on Colour Perception, Oxford Kalligas, P. (2005), ‘Plotinus against the corporealists on the soul. A commentary on Enn. IV 7[2], 8.1–23’, in: Chiaradonna ed., 95–112 Kalligas, P. (2014), The Enneads of Plotinus. A Commentary. Vol. 1, Princeton Kallis, A. (1978), Der Mensch im Kosmos. Das Weltbild Nemesios’ von Emesa, Münster Kannicht, R. ed. (2004), Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Bd. 5, Euripides. 2 Bde., Göttingen Karpp, H. (1934), ‘Sorans vier Bücher Περὶ ψυχῆς und Tertullians schrift De anima’, ΖΝΤW 33, 31–47 Kassel, K. (1912), ‘Galens Lehre von der Stimme’, Zeitschrift für Laryngologie, Rhinologie und ihre Grenzgebiete 4, 243–248 Kassel, R.–Austin, C. eds. (2001), Poetae Comici Graeci. Vol. 1, Comoedia Dorica, Mimi, Phlyaces, Berlin Kayser, C.L. ed. (1871), Epistulae et dialexeis, in: Flavii Philostrati opera 2.225–260, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1964) Kember, O. (1971), ‘Right and left in the sexual theories of Parmenides’, JHS 91, 70–79 Kendall, B.–Thompson, R.W. (1983), Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy by David the Invincible Philosopher, Chico CA



Kendall, C.B.–Wallis, F. (2010), Bede: On the Nature of Things and On Times. Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, Liverpool Kennedy, G.A. (2003), Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Translated with Introductions and Notes, Leiden Kerferd, G.B. (1978), ‘The problem of synkatathesis and katalêpsis’, in: Brunschwig ed. (2006), 109–130 (w. add. by Bénatouïl, T.) Kerferd, G.B. (1991), ‘Aristotle’s treatment of the doctrine of Parmenides’, in: Blumenthal–Robinson eds., 1–7 Kermode, F. (1979 and later repr.), The Genesis of Secrecy: on the Interpretation of Narrative, Cambridge MA Kerschensteiner, J. (1959), ‘Zu Leukippos A1’, Hermes 87, 441–448 Kerschensteiner, J. (1962), Kosmos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu den Vorsokratikern, Munich Kessels, A.H.M. (1969), ‘Ancient systems of dream classification’, Mnemosyne 22, 398– 424. Keyser, P.T. (1993), ‘Cicero on optics (Att. 2.2.3)’, Phoenix 47, 67–69 Keyser, P.T. (1994), ‘On cometary theory and typology from Nechepso-Petosiris through Apuleius to Servius’, Mnemosyne 47, 625–651 Keyser, P.T. (2001), ‘The geographical work of Dicaearchus’ in: Fortenbaugh–Schütrumpf eds., 353–372 Keyser, P.T. (2009), ‘Heliocentrism in and out of Heraclides’, in: Fortenbaugh ed., 205– 236 Keyser, P.T. (2011), ‘Elemental qualities in flux: A reconstruction of Strato’s theory of elements’, in: Desclos–Fortenbaugh eds., 293–312 Keyser, P.T.–Scarborough, J. eds. (2018), The Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World, Oxford Khatchadourian, H.–Rescher, N. (1965), ‘Al-Kindi’s Epistle on the concentric structure of the universe’, Isis 56, 190–195 Kheirandish, E. (2003), ‘The many aspects of ‘appearances’: Arabic optics to 950AD’, in: Hogendijk, J.P.–Sabra, A.I. eds., The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perspectives, Cambridge MA, 53–83 Kidd, D.A. ed. (1997), Aratus Phaenomena, Cambridge Kidd, I.G. (1978), ‘Philosophy and science in Posidonius’, A & A 24, 7–15 Kidd, I.G. (1988), Posidonius. Vol. 2: The Commentary: (i) Testimonia and Fragments 1– 149, (ii) Fragments 159–293, Cambridge Kidd, I.G. (1992), ‘Theophrastus’ Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius’, in: Fortenbaugh–Gutas eds., 294–306 Kidd, I.G. (1999), Posidonius. Vol. 3: The Translation of the Fragments, Cambridge Kieffer, J.S. (1964), Galen’s Institutio Logica. English translation, Introduction, and Commentary, Baltimore



Kiel, N. (2016), Ps-Athenagoras De resurrectione: Datierung und Kontextualisiering der dem Apologeten Athenagoras zugeschriebenen Auferstehungsschrift, Leiden Kiessling, A.–Heinze, R. (19596), Q. Horatius Flaccus Briefe erklärt, Berlin Kiessling, Th. ed. (1826), Ioannis Tzetzae Historiarum Variorum Chiliades, Leipzig Kindstrand, J.F. ed. (1976), Bion of Borysthenes: a Collection of the Fragments with Introduction and Commentary, Stockholm Kindstrand, J.F. (1980), ‘The date and character of Hermias’ Irrisio’, VC 34, 341–357 Kindstrand, J.F. ed. (1990), [Plutarchus] De Homero, Leipzig King, R.A.H. ed. (2006), Common to Body and Soul. Philosophical Approaches to Explaining Living Behaviour in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Berlin Kingsley, P. (1994), ‘Empedocles and the four-elements doxography’, Phronesis 39, 235– 254 Kingsley, P. (1995), Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, Oxford Kinzig, W. ed. (2017), Kyrill von Alexandrien I: Gegen Julian. Teil 2: Buch 6–10 und Fragmente, GCS NF 21, Berlin Kirchner, H. (1923), ‘Dikaiarchos über Anziehung?’, Philologus 79, 322 Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E. and Schofield, M. (2nd ed. 1983 and later repr.), The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge Klein, U. (1972), Aristoteles De audibilibus, Berlin (also publ. as Aristoteles Über das Hörbare, diss. Tübingen) Kleingünther, A. (1933), ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung, Leipzig Kleve, K. (1978), ‘The philosophical polemics in the history of Epicurean criticism’, in: Gigon, O. ed., Lucrèce, Vandoeuvres, 39–76 Kloppenborg Verbin, J.S. (2008), Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus, Louisville KY Knorr, W.R. (1986), The Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems, Boston (repr. 2012) Knorr, W.R. (1993), ‘Arithmêtikê stoicheiôsis: On Diophantus and Hero of Alexandria’, Historia mathematica 20, 180–192 Knorr, W.R. (1996), ‘The wrong text of Euclid: on Heiberg’s text and its alternatives’, Centaurus 38, 208–276 Koch, H.-A. (1921), Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zu Nemesius von Emesa, Berlin Koch, I. (2011), ‘Le destin et «ce qui dépend de nous»: sur les causes de l’impulsion’, in: Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. ed., Études sur la théorie stoïcienne de l’action, Paris, 367–449 Köchly, H.A.T & alii eds. (1855), Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller Griechisch und Deutsch mit kritischen und erklärenden Anmerkungen. 2. Theil: Die Taktiker, Leipzig Köckert, C. (2009), Christliche Kosmologie und kaiserzeitliche Philosophie. Die Auslegung des Schöpfungsberichtes bei Origenes, Basilius und Gregor von Nyssa vor dem Hintergrund kaiserzeitlicher Timaeus-Interpretationen, Tübingen



Koenen, M. (1995), In luminis oras. De verklaring voor optische problemen in Lucretius DRN IV en de antieke opvattingen over het zien en over spiegels, diss. Leiden Koenen, M. (1999), ‘Lucretius’ explanation of hearing in De rerum natura IV 524–562’, Mnemosyne 52, 434–463 Koenen, M. (2004), ‘Loca loquuntur. Lucretius’ explanation of the echo and other acoustic phenomena’, Mnemosyne 57, 698–724 Koetschet, P. (2017), ‘Abū Bakr al-Razī on vision’, in: Adamson, P.–Pormann, P.E. eds., Philosophy and Medicine in the Formative Period of Islam, London, 170–189 Koetschet, P. ed. (2019), Abu Bakr al-Razī Doutes sur Galien: Introduction, Édition et Traduction, Berlin Kollesch, J. ed. (1964), Galen Über das Riechorgan. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert, Berlin Kollesch, J. (1966), ‘Zur Geschichte des medizinischen Lehrbuchs in der Antike’, in: Blaser, R.–Beues, H. eds., Aktuelle Probleme aus der Geschichte der Medizin, Basel, 203–208 (repr. in: Kollesch 2019, 41–45) Kollesch, J. (1967), ‘René Chartier—Herausgeber und Fälscher der Werke Galens’, Klio 48, 183–198 (repr. in: Kollesch 2019, 187–202) Kollesch, J. (1973), Untersuchungen zu den pseudogalenischen Definitiones medicae, Berlin Kollesch, J. (2019), Kleine Schriften zur antiken Medizin, Berlin Koniaris, G.L. ed. (1995), Maximus Tyrius Philosophoumena–Διαλέξεις, Berlin König, J.–Woolf, G. eds. (2013), Encyclopedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Cambrdige König, R.–Winkler, G. eds. (1974), C. Plinius Secundus d. Ä. Naturkunde lateinisch– deutsch. Buch II: Kosmologie, Munich Konstan, D. (2011), ‘Epicurus on gods’, in: Fish–Sanders eds., 53–71 Kotter, B. ed. (1969), Die Schriften des Johannes Damascenus. Vol. 1: Institutio elementaris. Capita philosophica (Dialectica). Als Anhang: Die philosophische Stücke aus Cod. Oxon. Bodl. Auct. T. 1.6, Berlin Kotzia-Panteli, P. (2000), ‘ΕΝΝΟΗΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ und ΟΥΣΙΩΔΗΣ ΛΟΓΟΣ als exegetisches Begriffspaar’, Philologus 144, 45–61 Kouloumentas, S. (2018), ‘Prodicus on the rise of civilization. Religion, agriculture, and culture heroes’, PhilosAnt 18, 127–152 Köves-Zulauf, Th. (1970), ‘Die Ἐπόπτιδες des Valerius Soranus’, RhM 113, 323–358 Krämer, H.-J. (1964), Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Platonismus zwischen Platon und Plotin, Amsterdam (repr. 1967) Krämer, H.-J. (1971), Platonismus und hellenistische Philosophie, Berlin (repr. 2012) Krämer, H.-J. (1982), Platone e i fondamenti della metafisica. Saggio sulla teoria dei principi e sulle dottrine non scritte di Platone con una raccolta dei documenti fondamentali in edizione bilingue e bibliografia, Milan



Krämer, H.-J. (1983), ‘Die ältere Akademie’, in: Flashar ed., 1–174 Kranz, W. (1912), ‘Die ältesten Farbenlehren der Griechen’, Hermes 47, 126–140 (repr. in: Kranz 1967, 247–257) Kranz, W. (1938), ‘Kosmos als philosophischer Begriff in frühgriechischer Zeit’, Philologus 93, 430–448 (repr. in: Kranz 1967, 197–209) Kranz, W. (1967), Studien zur antiken Literatur und ihrem Fortwirken, ed. Vogt. E., Heidelberg Kraus, W. (1957), ‘Dioskuren’, RAC Bd. 3, 1122–1138. Kraut, R. (1997), Aristotle Politics VII and VIII, Oxford Krenkel, W. (1959), ‘Zu den Artes des Celsus’, Philologus 103, 114–129 Krische, A.B. (1840), Die theologischen Lehren der griechischen Denker. Eine Prüfung der Darstellung Cicero’s, Göttingen Kristeller, P.O. (1989), Die Ideen als Gedanken der menschlichen und göttlichen Vernunft, SB.Heidelb.Ak. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1989.2, Heidelberg Kroll, W. (1930), Die Kosmologie des Plinius, Abh.Schles.Ges., Geistesw. R. 3. H., Breslau Kronenberg, A.J. (1941), ‘Ad Plutarchi moralia (continued)’, Mnemosyne 10, 33–47 Krüger, P. ed. (1877), Codex Iustinianus, Berlin (repr. Goldbach 1998) Kuhrt, A. (1987), ‘Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia’, in: Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. eds., Hellenism in the East. The Interaction of Greek and nonGreek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, London, 32–36 Kühn, H.-J.–Fleischer, U. & alii eds. (1986–1999), Index Hippocraticus, Göttingen Kullmann, W. (2007), Aristoteles Über die Teile der Lebewesen, übersetzt und erlaütert, Berlin Kullmann, W. (2014), Aristoteles als Naturwissenschaftler, Berlin Kunze, R. (1899), ‘Die anonyme Handschrift (Da 61) der Dresdner königlichen Bibliothek: ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΤΑ ΖΩΝΩΝ’, Hermes 34, 345–362 Kupreeva, I. (2009a), ‘Heraclides’ On Soul (?) and its ancient readers’, in: Fortenbaugh ed., 93–138 Kupreeva, I. (2009b), ‘Stoic themes in Peripatetic sources?’, in: Salles ed., 135–170 Kurfess, H. (1911), Zur Geschichte der Erklärung der aristotelischen Lehre vom sog. νοὐς ποιητικός und παθητικός, diss. Tübingen (repr. in: Aristotle and his Influence: Two Studies, New York 1987) Kuriakou, P. (1994), ‘Empedoclean echoes in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautika’, Hermes 122, 309–319 Kytzler, B. ed. (1982), M. Minucius Felix Octavius, Leipzig La Penna, A., Pascucci, G. and Timpanaro, S., eds. (1986), G. Pasquali: Scritti Filologici. 2 Vols., Florence Lacaze, G. ed. (2018), Turba Philosophorum: Congrès Pythagoricien sur l’art d’Hermès. Édition critique, traduction et présentation, Leiden



Lachenaud, G. (1998), ‘Le De placitis philosophorum manifeste-t-il une visée encyclopédique?’, in: Burkert, W. & alii eds., Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike, Göttingen, 41–61 Lachenaud, G. ed. (1993), Plutarque Œuvres morales T. 12.2, Opinions des philosophes, Paris Lachenaud, G. ed. (2010), Scholies à Apollonios de Rhodes traduites et commentées, Paris Lactantius see Monat (1973–1992), Perrin (1974), Ingremeau (1982), Perrin (1987), Heck– Wlosok (1994), (2005–2011), Ingremeau (2007), Bakhouche–Luciani (2009) Lakmann, M.-L. (1995), Der Platoniker Tauros in der Darstellung des Aulus Gellius, Leiden Lakmann, M.-L. ed. (2017), Platonici minores 1. Jh. v. Chr.–2. Jh. n. Chr.: Prosopographie, Fragmente und Testimonien mit deutscher Übersetzung, Leiden Laks, A. (1990), ‘The more and the full. On the reconstruction of Parmenides’ theory of sensation in Theophrastus De sensibus, 3–4’, OSAPh 8, 1–18 Laks, A. (1997a), ‘Du témoignage comme fragment’, in: Most, G.W. ed., Collecting Fragments–Fragmente Sammeln, Göttingen, 237–272 (repr. in: Laks 2007, 27–55) Laks, A. (1997b), review Mansfeld–Runia 1997, RMM 102, 570–571 Laks, A. (1999), ‘Soul, sensation, and thought’, in: Long ed., 250–270 Laks, A. (2007), Histoire, doxographie, vérité: Études sur Aristote, Théophraste et la philosophie Présocratique, Louvain-la-Neuve Laks, A. ed. (2008), Diogène d’Apollonie. Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages, 2ième éd. revue et augmentée, Sankt Augustin (1st ed. Lille– Paris 1983) Laks, A. (2009), ‘Une doxographie d’Aristote (Métaphysique, Nu 4,1091a33–91b15) et le sens d’un καί (Phérécyde, 7A7 DK, F81 Schibli)’, REG 122, 635–643 Laks, A. (2013a), ‘Sur quelques modalités de la raison pratique dans les cosmo-ontologies présocratiques’, in: Rossi, G. ed., Nature and the Best Life: Exploring the Natural Bases of Practical Normativity in Ancient Philosophy, Hildesheim, 15–41 Laks, A. (2013b), ‘The Pythagorean Hypomnemata reported by Alexander Polyhistor in Diogenes Laertius (8.25–33): a proposal for reading’, in: Cornelli & alii eds., 371–383 Laks, A. (2014), ‘Diogenes Laertius’ life of Pythagoras’, in: Huffman ed., 360–380 Laks, A. (2015), ‘Sommeils Présocratiques,’ in Leroux, V., Palmieri, N. and Pigné, C. eds., Le sommeil: approches philosophiques et médicales de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Paris, 29–50 Laks, A. (2018), ‘Destructible worlds in an Aristotelian scholion (Alexander of Aphrodisias’ lost Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, frag. 539 Rashed)’, Elenchos 39, 403–420 Laks, A. (forthc.), ‘How Preplatonic Worlds became Ensouled,’ in: Salles, R. ed., World and Soul in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford Laks, A.–Louguet, C. eds. (2002), Qu’est-ce que la philosophie Présocratique, Villeneuve d’Ascq



Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016a), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 1: Introductory and Reference Materials. Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016b), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 2: Beginnings and Early Ionian thinkers, Pt. 1, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016c), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 3: Early Ionian Thinkers, Pt. 2, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016d), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 4: Western Greek Thinkers, Pt. 1, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016e), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 5: Western Greek Thinkers, Pt. 2, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016f), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 6: Later Ionian and Athenian Thinkers, Pt. 1, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016g), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 7: Later Ionian and Athenian Thinkers, Pt. 2, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016h), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 8: Sophists, Pt. 1, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016i), Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. 9: Sophists, Pt. 2, Cambridge MA Laks, A.–Most, G.W. eds. (2016j), Les débuts de la philosophie. Des premiers penseurs grecs à Socrate, Paris Lambros, S.P. ed. (1885), Aristophanis Historiae animalium epitome, CAG Supplem. 1, Berlin Lammer, A.–Jas, M. eds. (forthc.), Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World, Leiden Lammert, F. (1917), ‘Ptolemaios Περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ und die Stoa’, WS 39, 249– 258 Lammert, F. (1922), ‘Zur Erkenntnislehre der späteren Stoa. Zu Ptolemaios Περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ 10.11–13.13 H.’, Hermes 57, 171–188 Lammert, F.–Boer, Æ. eds. (1961), Claudii Ptolemaei Opera quae exstant omnia. Vol. 3.2: Περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ De iudicandi facultate et animi principatu, Leipzig (1st ed. 1952) Land, J.P.N. ed. (1875), Pauli Persi Logica, in: Anecdota Syriaca T. 4: Otia Syriaca, Leiden Lang, C. ed. (1881), Cornuti theologiae graecae compendium, Leipzig Lang, P. ed. (1911), De Speusippo academici scriptis, accedunt fragmenta, diss. Bonn (repr. Francfort 1964) Langenberg, G. ed. (1959), M. Terenti Varronis Liber de philosophia. Ausgabe und Erklärung der Fragmente, diss. Cologne Laqueur, R. (1908), ‘Die literarische Stellung des Anonymus Argentinensis’, Hermes 43, 220–228



Laqueur, R. (1911), ‘Ephoros 1. Die Proömien’, Hermes 46, 161–206 Lasserre, F. ed. (1966), Die Fragmente des Eudoxus von Knidos, Berlin Lasserre, F. ed. (1987), De Léodamas de Thasos à Philippe d’Opunte, témoignages et fragments. Edition, traduction et commentaire, Naples Lasswitz, K. (1890), Geschichte der Atomistik vom Mittelalter bis Newton. Bd. 1, Die Erneuerung der Korpuskulartheorie, Hamburg (repr. Darmstadt 1963) Le Boeuffle, A. ed. (1975), Germanicus: Les Phénomènes d’Aratos, texte établi et traduit, Paris Lebedev, A.V. (1979), ‘ΨΗΓΜΑ ΣΥΜΦΥΣΩΜΕΝΟΝ. Новый фрагмент Гераклита (реконструкция металлургической метафорики в космогонических фрагментах Геркалита), Part I’, in: Вестник древней истории 1979.2. С. 3–23 (English summary pp. 22–23) Lebedev, A.V. (1980), ‘ΨΗΓΜΑ ΣΥΜΦΥΣΩΜΕΝΟΝ, Part II’, in: Вестник древней истории 1980.1. С. 29–48 (English summary pp. 47–48) Lebedev, A.V. (1984), ‘Φύσις ταλαντεύουσα: Neglected fragments of Democritus and Metrodorus of Chios’, Proceedings of the 1st International Congress on Democritus, Xanthi, 1.13–18 Lebedev, A.V. (1988), ‘Did the doxographer Aetius ever exist?’, in: Cauchy, V. ed., Philosophie et Culture. Actes du XVIIe Congrès Mondial de Philosophie, Montréal, 3.813–817, text in PDF online under name of author Lebedev, A.V. (1990), ‘Aristarchus of Samos on Thales’ theory of eclipses’, Apeiron 23, 77–85 Lebedev, A.V. (2016), ‘The origin and transmission of the doxographical tradition Placita philosophorum (Arius Didymus, Ps.-Plutarch, Stobaeus, Theodoret, Nemesius, Porphyrius)’, in: Kazansky, N. ed., Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology, St. Petersburg, 573–633 Lee, M.-K. (2005), Epistemology after Protagoras: Responses to Relativism in Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus, Oxford Leesen, T. (2010), Gaius meets Cicero: Law and Rhetoric in the School Controversies, Leiden Lefebvre, D. (2011), ‘Straton sur le poids: Fragments 49 et 50A, B, C, D Sharples’, in: Desclos–Fortenbaugh eds., 313–352 Lehmann, Y. (1997), Varron théologien et philosophe romain, Brussels Lehoux, D. (2007), ‘Observers, objects, and the embedded eye; or, seeing and knowing in Ptolemy and Galen’, Isis 98, 447–467 (repr. as ‘The embeddedness of seeing’, in: Lehoux 2012, What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry into Science and World-Making, Chicago, 106–132) Lehoux, D. (2011), ‘Myth and explanation in Manilius’, in: Green, S.J.–Volk, K. eds., Forgotten Stars: Rediscovering Manilius’ Astronomica, Oxford, 45–56 Leibniz see Robinet (1954)



Leith, D. (2009), ‘The qualitative status of the ogkoi in Asclepiades’ theory of matter’, OSAPh 36, 283–320 Leith, D. (2012), ‘Pores and void in Asclepiades’ physical theory’, Phronesis 57, 164–191 Leith, D. (2014), ‘Causing doubt: Diodorus Cronos and Herophilus of Chalcedon on causality’, CQ 64, 592–608 Leith, D. (2015), ‘Elements and uniform parts in early Alexandrian medicine’, Phronesis 60, 462–491 Lejeune, A. (1948), Euclide et Ptolémée: deux stades de l’optique géométrique grecque, Louvain Lejeune, A. ed. (1956), L’ Optique de Claude Ptolémée dans la version latine d’après l’arabe de l’émir Eugène de Sicile. Édition critique et exégétique, Louvain Lejeune, A. (1957), Recherches sur la catoptrique grecque d’après les sources antiques et médiévales, Brussels Lejeune, A. ed. (1989), L’Optique de Claude Ptolémée dans la version latine d’après l’arabe de l’émir Eugène de Sicile. Édition critique et exégétique augmentée d’une traduction française et de compléments, Leiden Lennox, J.G. (1984), ‘Aristotle on chance’, AGPh 66, 52–60 (repr. in: Lennox, J.G. 2001, Aristotle’s Philosophy of Biology: Studies in the Origins of Life Science, Cambridge, 250–258) Lennox, J.G. (1994a), ‘The disappearance of Aristotle’s biology: a Hellenistic mystery’, Apeiron 29, 7–24 Lennox, J.G. (1994b), Aristotle On the Parts of Animals. Translated with a Commentary, Oxford Lentz, A. (1867–1868), Grammatici Graeci P. 3, Herodiani technici reliquiae collegit disposuit emendavit explicavit praefatus est. 2 Vols., Leipzig 1868 (repr. Hildesheim 1979) Leo, F. (1904), ‘Didymos Περὶ Δημοσθένους’, NachrGesGöttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., Göttingen, 254–261 (repr. in: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Vol. 2: Zur römischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit, zur griechischen Literatur, Rede zur Säcularfeier Karl Lachmanns, ed. Fraenkel, E., Rome 1960, 387–394) Leonard, W.E.–Smith, S.B. eds. (1941), T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Madison (repr. 1979) Leone, G. ed. (2012), Epicuro. Sulla natura libro II. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples Leone, G. (2015), ‘Epicuro e la forza dei venti’, in: De Sanctis & alii eds., 157–178 Leone, P.A.M. ed. (1968), Joannis Tzetzae Historiae, Naples Lesher, J.H. ed. (1992 and later repr.), Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments. A Text and Translation, with Commentary, Toronto Lesky, E. (1948), ‘Die Samentheorien in der hippokratischen Schriftensammlung’. FS Neuburger, Vienna, 302–307



Lesky, E. (1951), Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihre Nachwirkung, Abh.Ak.Mainz 1950.19, Wiesbaden Lesky, E. (1952), ‘Alkmaion bei Aetios und Censorinus’, Hermes 80, 249–255 Lesses, G. (1998), ‘Content, cause, and Stoic impressions’, Phronesis 43, 1–25 Leszl, W. (2002), ‘Problems raised by an edition and translation of Democritus, with comparisons with other Presocratics’, in: Laks–Louguet eds., 141–182 Leszl, W. (2009), I primi atomisti. Raccolta dei testi che riguardano Leucippo e Democrito. I testi in traduzione italiana, con CD allegato, Florence Lettinck, P. (1999), Aristotle’s Meteorology and its Reception in the Arab world. With an Edition and Translation of ibn Suwar’s Treatise on Meteorological Phenomena and ibn Bajja’s Commentary on the Meteorology, Leiden Lettinck, P. (2015), ‘Aristotle’s ‘physical’ works and the Arabic tradition’, in: Alwishah, A.–Hayes, J. eds., Aristotle and the Arabic Tradition, Claremont, 105–120 Levet, J.-P. (2003), ‘Anémologie et philosophie dans le traîté De ventis de Théophraste’, in: Cusset ed., 331–344 Lévy, C. (1996b), ‘Doxographie et philosophie chez Cicéron’, in: Lévy ed. (1996a), 109–123 Lévy, C, (2012), ‘Michelangelo Giusta et la doxographie du souverain bien: esquisse de bilan’, in: Bona, E. & alii eds., Vestigia notitiai: scritti in memoria di Michelangelo Giusta, Alessandria Lévy, C. ed. (1996a), Le concept de nature à Rome. La physique, Paris Lévy, C. ed. (1998), Philon d’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie, Turnhout Lévy, C.–Saudelli, L. eds. (2014), Présocratiques latins: Héraclite, Paris Leyden, W. von (1964), ‘Time, number, and eternity in Plato and Aristotle’, PhilosQ 14, 35–52 Lieberg, G. (1973), ‘Die theologia tripertita in Forschung und Bezeugung’, ANRW I.4, Berlin, 63–115 Lieberg, G. (1982), ‘Die theologia tripartita als Formprinzip antiken Denkens’, RhM 125, 25–53 Liebeschuetz, W. (2014), ‘Theodoret’s Graecarum affectionum curatio: defending Christianity in Christian Syria’, MediterAnt 17, 455–470 (repr. in: Liebeschuetz, W. 2015, East and West in Late Antiquity: Invasion, Settlement, Ethnogenesis and Conflicts of Religion, Leiden, 389–407) Lindberg, D.C. (1967), ‘Alhazen’s theory of vision and its reception in the West’, Isis 58, 321–341 Lindberg, D.C. (1971), ‘Alkindi’s critique of Euclid’s theory of vision’, Isis 62, 469–489 Lindberg, D.C. (1976), Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler, Chicago Lindsay, W.M. (1903), The Ancient Editions of Martial, with Collations of the Berlin and Edinburgh mss., Oxford (repr. 1985) Lindsay, W.M. ed. (1911), Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX. 2 Vols., Oxford



Liner, C.L. (1997), Greek Seismology. Being an Annotated Sourcebook of Earthquake Theories and Concepts in Classical Antiquity, online Littlewood, A.R. ed. (1985), Michaelis Pselli Oratoria minora, Leipzig Litwa, M.D. ed. (2016), Hippolytus Refutation of all Heresies Translated with an Introduction and Notes, Atlanta [Greek text without apparatus criticus] Lloyd Jones, H.–Parsons, P. eds. (1993), Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin (repr. 2011, abbreviated SH) Lloyd, G.E.R. (1962), ‘Right and left in Greek philosophy’, JHS 82, 56–66 Lloyd, G.E.R. (1966), Polarity and Analogy. Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Cambridge Lloyd, G.E.R. (1970), Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle, London (repr. 2012) Lloyd, G.E.R. (1972), ‘Parmenides’ sexual theories. A reply to Mr Kember’, JHS 92, 178– 179 Lloyd, G.E.R. (1973), Greek Science after Aristotle, London (repr. 2013) Lloyd, G.E.R. (1975), ‘Alcmaeon and the early history of dissection’, Sudhoffs Archiv 25, 113–147 (repr. in: Lloyd 1991, 164–190) Lloyd, G.E.R. (1978), ‘Saving the appearances’, CQ 28, 202–222 (rev. vers. in: Lloyd 1991, 248–277) Lloyd, G.E.R. (1983), Science, Folklore and Ideology. Studies in the Life Sciences in Ancient Greece, Cambridge (repr. Bristol 2000) Lloyd, G.E.R. (1991), Methods and Problems in Greek Science, Cambridge Lloyd, G.E.R. (2014), The Ideals of Inquiry: An Ancient History, Oxford Lo Presti, R. (2008), In orma di senso. L’encefalocentrismo del trattato ippocratico Sulla malattia sacra nel suo contesto epistemologico, Rome Lolos, A.C. ed. (1981), Der unbekannte Teil der Ilias-Exegesis des Ioannes Tzetzes (A 97– 609), Königstein Long, A.A. (1975–1976), ‘Heraclitus and Stoicism’, Filosofia 5, 133–156 (repr. in: Long 1996b, 35–57) Long, A.A. (1977), ‘Chance and natural law in Epicureanism’, Phronesis 22, 63–88 (repr. in: Long 2006, 157–177) Long, A.A. (1988), ‘Ptolemy On the Criterion: An epistemology for the practicing scientist’, in: Dillon, J.M.–Long, A.A. eds., The Question of “Eclecticism”. Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, Berkeley, 176–207 (repr. 1997); also in: Huby–Neal eds., 151–178 Long, A.A. (1995), ‘Cicero’s Plato and Aristotle’, in: Powell ed., 37–61 Long, A.A. (1996a), ‘Theophrastus’ De sensibus on Plato’, in: Algra & alii eds., 345–362 Long, A.A. (1996b), Stoic Studies, Cambridge Long, A.A. (1996c), ‘Hierocles on oikeiôsis and self-perception’, in: Long (1996b), 250–263 Long, A.A. (1998), ‘Theophrastus and the Stoa’, in: Van Ophuijsen–Van Raalte eds., 355– 383 Long, A.A. (1999b), ‘Stoic psychology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 560–584



Long, A.A. (1999c), review Mansfeld–Runia 1997, JHPh 37, 523–524 Long, A.A. (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus, Oxford Long, A.A. (2008), ‘Philo on Stoic physics’, in: Alesse ed., 121–140 Long, A.A. (2011), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009, Phronesis 56, 79–81 Long, A.A. (2013), ‘The eclectic Pythagoreanism of Alexander Polyhistor’, in: Schofield ed., 139–159 Long, A.A. (2018), ‘Aëtius, Stoic physics, and Zeno’, in: M–R 4.432–451 Long, A.A. ed. (1999a), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, Cambridge Long, A.A.–Sedley, D.N. (1987 and later repr.), The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 Vols., Cambridge Long, A.G. ed. (2013), Plato and the Stoics, Cambridge Longo Auricchio, F. ed. (1988), Ermarco Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples Longo, O. ed. (1962), Aristotele De caelo. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note, Florence Longrigg, J. (1985), ‘A seminal ‘debate’ in the fifth century B.C.?’, in: Gotthelf, A. ed., Aristotle on Nature and Living Things, FS Balme, Pittsburgh, 277–287 Longrigg, J. (1993), Greek Rational Medicine, London (and later repr.) Lonie, I.M. (1981), The Hippocratic Treatises On Generation, On the Nature of the Child, Diseases IV: A Commentary, Berlin Lorimer, W.L. ed. (1933), Aristotelis qui fertur De mundo, Paris Louguet, C. (2012), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009–2010, RPhL 110, 161–164 Lucarini, C.M.–Moreschini, C. eds. (2012), Hermias Alexandrinus in Platonis Phaedrum scholia, Berlin Luccioni, P. (2003), ‘Le traîté Sur les vents d’Adamantios: quelques remarques’, in: Cusset ed., 437–454 Luck, G. ed. (1953), Der Akademiker Antiochos, Bern Lück, W. (1932), Die Quellenfrage im 5. und 6. Buch des Lukrez, diss. Breslau Lucretius see Giussani (1896–1898), Diels (1923–1924), Leonard–Smith (1942), Bailey (1947), Smith (1992) Luiselli, R. (2015), ‘Hellenistic astronomers and scholarship’, in: Montanari & alii eds., 1216–1234 Lulofs, H.J. (1930), Aristoteles over de zee. Specimen van antieke hydrografie, Utrecht Luria, S.Y. ed. (2007), Democrito. Raccolta dei frammenti, interpretazione e commentario. Testi greci e latini a fronte. Versione russa in appendice, Milan (introd. by Reale, G., trans. by Krivushina, A. of Lurje, S. 1970, Demokrit. Teksty, perevod, issledovaniya / Democritea. Collegit emendavit interpretatus est S.L., Leningrad), with Girgenti, G., ‘Bibliografia democritea’ (Engl. trans. by Taylor, C.W.W. 2016, Democritus. Texts, Translations, Investigations, online)



Lydus, Ioannes see Wachsmuth (1897), Wuensch (1898), Bandy (2013) Lyons, M. ed. (1969), Galen On the parts of medicine. On Cohesive Causes. On Regimen in Acute Diseases in Accordance with the Theories of Hippocrates. First Edition of the Arabic Versions with English Translation (includes reeditions of the Latin versions of Part.Art.Med. and CC), Berlin Maass, P. (1881), ‘Das Vatikanische Verzeichnis der Aratcommentatoren’, Hermes 16, 385–392 Maass, P. ed. (1898), Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae collegit recensuit indicibus instruxit, Berlin (repr. 1958) Macarius Magnes see Goulet (2003) MacCoull, L.S.B. (1998), ‘The Anaximander saying in its sixth-century (C.E.) context’, Philosophy and Theology 11, 85–96 (repr. as Study XV in: MacCoull, L.S.B. 2011, Documenting Christianity in Egypt, Sixth to Fourteenth Centuries, Farnham) MacCoull, L.S.B. (2007), ‘Philosophy in its social context’, in: Bagnall, R.S. ed., Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700, Cambridge, 67–82 Macrobius see Regali (1983–1990), Armisen–Marchetti (2001–2003) Magee, J. ed. (1998), Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De divisione liber. Critical Edition, Translation, Prolegomena and Commentary, Leiden Magnaldi, G. (2017), review Stover 2016, ExClass 21, 1–10 Maisano, R. ed. (1995), Discorsi di Temistio, Turin Manetti, D. (1999), ‘‘Aristotle’ and the role of doxography in the Anonymus Londiniensis (PBrLibr Inv. 137)’, in: Van der Eijk ed., 95–151 Manetti, D. ed. (2011), Anonymus Londiniensis De medicina, Berlin Manetti, D. (2015), ‘Medicine and exegesis’, in: Montanari & alii eds., 1127–1215 Manitius, C. ed. (1898), Geminus Elementa astronomiae, Leipzig Mannebach, E. ed. (1961), Aristippi et Cyrenaicorum fragmenta, Leiden Männlein-Robert, I. (2002), ‘»Wissen um die göttlichen und menschlichen Dinge«. Eine Philosophiedefinition Platons und ihre Folgen’, WJA 26, 13–38 Männlein-Röbert, I. (2005), ‘Longin und Plotin über die Seele. Beobachtungen zu methodischen Differenzen in der Auseinandersetzung platonischer Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. mit Epikur und Stoa’, in: Chiaradonna ed., 223–250 Mansfeld, J. (1971), The Pseudo-Hippocratic Tract ΠΕΡΙ ἙΒΔΟΜΑΔΩΝ and Greek Philosophy, Assen Mansfeld, J. (1975), ‘Alcmaeon: physikos or physician?’, in: Mansfeld, J.–de Rijk, L.M. eds., Kephalaion. FS De Vogel, Assen, 26–38 Mansfeld, J. (1978), ‘Zeno of Citium. Critical observations on a recent study’, Mnemosyne 31, 134–178 Mansfeld, J. (1979), ‘Providence and the destruction of the universe in early Stoic thought’, in: Vermaseren, M.J. ed., Studies in Hellenistic Religions, Leiden, 129–188 (repr. as Study I in: Mansfeld 1989c)



Mansfeld, J. (1981), ‘Bad world and demiurge: a ‘Gnostic’ motif from Parmenides and Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo’, in: Van den Broek, R.–Vermaseren, M.J. eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. FS Quispel, Leiden, 261–314 (repr. as Study XIV in: Mansfeld 1989c) Mansfeld, J. (1985), ‘Aristotle and others on Thales, or the beginnings of natural philosophy (with some remarks on Xenophanes)’, Mnemosyne 38, 109–129 (repr. in: Mansfeld 1990b, 126–146) Mansfeld, J. (1986a), ‘Aristotle, Plato and the Preplatonic doxography and chronography’, in: Cambiano ed., 1–59 (repr. in: Mansfeld 1990b, 22–83) Mansfeld, J. (1986b), ‘Diogenes Laertius on Stoic philosophy’, Elenchos 7, 295–382 (repr. in: Mansfeld 1990b, 343–482) Mansfeld, J. (1987), ‘Theophrastus and the Xenophanes doxography’, Mnemosyne 40, 286–312 (repr. in: Mansfeld 1990b, 147–173) Mansfeld, J. (1989a), ‘Chrysippus and the Placita’, Phronesis 34, 311–342 (repr. in: M–R 3.125–157) Mansfeld, J. (1989b), ‘Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?’, in: Fortenbaugh, W.W.–Steinmetz, P. eds., Cicero’s Knowledge of the Peripatos, New Brunswick NJ, 133–158 (repr. in: Mansfeld 1990, 238–263) Mansfeld, J. (1989c), Studies in Later Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism, London Mansfeld, J. (1990a), ‘Doxography and dialectic: the Sitz im Leben of the Placita’, ANRW II.36.4, 3076–3229 Mansfeld, J. (1990b), Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy. A Selection of Papers and one Review, Assen Mansfeld, J. (1992a), ‘Physikai doxai and problemata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and beyond)’, in: Fortenbaugh–Gutas eds., 63–111 (amplif. repr. in: M–R 3.33–97) Mansfeld, J. (1992b), Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus’ Elenchos as a Source for Greek Philosophy, Leiden Mansfeld, J. (1992c), ‘ΠΕΡΙ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ. A note on the history of a title’, VC 46, 391–411 Mansfeld, J. (1992d), ‘A Theophrastean excursus on God and nature and its aftermath in Hellenistic thought’, Phronesis 37, 314–335 Mansfeld, J. (1993), ‘Aspects of Epicurean theology’, Mnemosyne 46, 172–210 Mansfeld, J. (1994a), Prolegomena. Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text, Leiden Mansfeld, J. (1994b), ‘Epicurus Peripateticus’, in: Alberti, A. ed., Realtà e ragione. Studi di filosofia antica, 29–47 (repr. in: M–R 3.237–254) Mansfeld, J. (1996), ‘Aristote et la structure du De sensibus de Theophraste’, Phronesis 41, 158–188 (repr. in: M–R 3.203–235) Mansfeld, J. (1997), Review of Naddaf (1993), Mnemosyne 50, 754–758 Mansfeld, J. (1998), Prolegomena Mathematica from Apollonius of Perga to Late Neoplatonism (with an Appendix on Pappus and the History of Platonism), Leiden



Mansfeld, J. (1999a), ‘Sources’, in: Long ed., 22–44 Mansfeld, J. (1999b), ‘Sources’, in: Algra & alii eds., 3–30 Mansfeld, J. (1999c), ‘Theology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 452–478 Mansfeld, J. (1999d), ‘Parménide et Héraclite avaient-ils une théorie de la perception?’, Phronesis 44, 326–346 Mansfeld, J. (1999e), ‘Alcinous on fate and providence’, in: Cleary ed., 139–150 Mansfeld, J. (2000a), ‘Physical doxai in the Phaedo’, in: Kardaun, M.–Spruyt, J. eds., The Winged Chariot. Collected Essays on Plato and Platonism. FS De Rijk, Leiden, 1–17 (repr. in: M–R 3.203–236) Mansfeld, J. (2000b), ‘Cosmic distances: Aëtius 2.31 Diels and some related texts’, Phronesis 45, 175–204 (also in Canto-Sperber, M.–Pellegrin, P. eds. 2002, Le style de la pensée. FS Brunschwig, Paris, 429–463; repr. in: M–R 3.447–514) Mansfeld, J. (2001), ‘Chrysippus’ definition of cause in Arius Didymus’, Elenchos 22, 99– 109 Mansfeld, J. (2002a), ‘Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, the Peripatetics, the Stoics, and Thales and his followers «On causes»’, in: Brancacci, A. ed., Antichi e moderni nella filosofia di età imperiale, Naples, 17–68 (repr. in: M–R 3.375–413) Mansfeld, J. (2002b), ‘Aëtius, Aristotle and others on coming-to-be and passing-away’, in: Caston, V.–Graham, D.W. eds., Presocratic Philosophy. FS Mourelatos, Aldershot (repr. in: M–R 3.415–445) Mansfeld, J. (2002c), ‘Deconstructing doxography’, Philologus 146, 277–286 (repr. in: M– R 3.161–172) Mansfeld, J. (2005a), ‘From Milky Way to halo: Aristotle’s Meteorologica, Aëtius, and passages in Seneca and the Scholia on Aratus’, in: Brancacci, A. ed., Philosophy and Doxography in the Imperial Age, Florence, 23–58 (repr. in: M–R 3.476–514) Mansfeld, J. (2005b), ‘‘Illuminating what is thought’. A Middle Platonist placitum on ‘voice’ in context’, Mnemosyne 58, 358–407 Mansfeld, J. (2011a), ‘Anaximander’s fragment: another attempt’, Phronesis 56, 1–32 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 136–166) Mansfeld, J. (2011b), ‘Nicomachean Ethics 1145b2–6’, in: Natali, C. ed., Aristotle: Metaphysics and Practical Philosophy. FS Berti, Louvain-la-Neuve, 165–176 Mansfeld, J. (2011c), ‘Hermann Diels (1848–1922)’, in: Primavesi, O.–Luchner, K. eds., The Presocratics from the Latin Middle Ages to Hermann Diels, Stuttgart, 389–420 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 368–406) Mansfeld, J. (2012), ‘‘Will and free will in Antiquity’. A discussion of M. Frede, A Free Will. Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought’, OSAPh 42, 351–368 Mansfeld, J. (2013a), ‘Detheologization: Aëtian chapters and their Peripatetic background’, Rhizomata 1, 330–362 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 6–39) Mansfeld, J. (2013b), ‘Ps.Plutarchus/Aëtius Plac. 4.11. Some comments on sensation and concept formation in Stoic thought’, Mnemosyne 67, 613–663



Mansfeld, J. (2013c), ‘The body politic: Aëtius on Alcmaeon on isonomia and monarchia’, in: Harte–Lane eds., 78–95 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 262–285) Mansfeld, J. (2014), ‘Doxographical reverberations of Hellenistic discussions on space’, in: Ranocchia & alii eds., 181–199 Mansfeld, J. (2015a), review Flashar, H. & alii eds. (2013), Mnemosyne 68, 331–343 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 318–331) Mansfeld, J. (2015b), ‘Alcmaeon and Plato on soul’, Études Platoniciennes 11, 1–8, http:// etudesplatoniciennes.revues.org/699 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 251–261) Mansfeld, J. (2015c), ‘Heraclitus on soul and super-soul: Aët. 4.3.12 and 4.7.2 in context. With an afterthought on the afterlife’, Rhizomata 3, 62–93 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 218–250) Mansfeld, J. (2015d), ‘Aristotle in the doxographical tradition (but not Aristotle alone)’, in: De Leemans, P. ed., Florilegia from Antiquity to the Renaissance. The Question of Authenticity, Leuven, 95–107 Mansfeld, J. (2015e), ‘Parmenides from right to left’, Études Platoniciennes 12, http:// etudesplatoniciennes.revues.org/699 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 185–202) Mansfeld, J. (2016a), ‘Aristotle in the Aëtian Placita’, in: Falcon ed., 299–318 Mansfeld, J. (2016b), ‘“Das verteufelte Lastschiff”: Philolaus fr. 44B12 DK’, Mnemosyne 69, 298–299 (repr. in: Mansfeld 2018d, 294–295) Mansfeld, J. (2016c), ‘Melissus between Miletus and Elea’, in: Pulpito, M. ed.: Mansfeld, J. & alii eds., Melissus between Miletus and Elea, Sankt Augustin, 71–112 Mansfeld, J. (2016d), ‘Doxography of Greek Philosophy’, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato .stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/doxography‑ancient Mansfeld, J. (2017a), ‘Aristotle’s disciplines’, in: Liebersohn, Y.Z. & alii eds., For a Skeptical Peripatetic. FS Glucker, Sankt Augustin, 101–121 Mansfeld, J. (2017b), ‘Ancient philosophy and the doxographical tradition’, in Perilli, L.– Taormina, D.P. (eds.), Ancient Philosophy: Historical Paths and Explorations, London 2017, 41–64 Mansfeld, J. (2018a), ‘Theodoret as a source for the Aëtian Placita’, in: Mansfeld–Runia eds., 174–195 (slightly rev. vers. of ‘Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Therapy of Greek Diseases as a source for the Aëtian Placita’, SPhiloA 28 2016. FS Runia, 151–168) Mansfeld, J. (2018b), ‘Archai lists in doxographical sources: Ps.Plutarch, Stobaeus, Theodoret, and another ps.Plutarch’, in: M–R 4.225–278 Mansfeld, J. (2018c), ‘Parmenides on sense perception in Theophrastus and elsewhere’, in: Mansfeld 2018d, 203–217 (repr. in: Pulpito, M. ed., Ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι–Ways to think. FS Cordero, Campobasso, 173–186) Mansfeld, J. (2018d), Studies in Early Greek Philosophy, Leiden Mansfeld, J. (2018e), ‘Anaximenes’ soul’, in: Mansfeld 2018d, 167–176 (amplif. English trans. by author of ‘De ziel van Anaximenes’, NTT 69. FS Van der Horst, 187–194)



Mansfeld, J. (2018f), review Laks–Most eds., Mnemosyne 71, 515–536 Mansfeld, J. (2019a), ‘Il faut que vous soyez instruits de toutes choses …’, Études platoniciennes 15, online Paris Mansfeld, J. (2019b), “Pythagoras’ and ps.Archytas On Principles’, Elenchos 40, 123–136 Mansfeld, J. (2019c), ‘Lists of principles and lists of gods’ in: Vassallo ed., 609–630 Mansfeld, J. (2020a), ‘The complete philosopher’, forthc. in: Min-jun Huh ed. Introduction générale à la philosophie chez les commentateurs néoplatoniciens, Turnhout Mansfeld, J. (2020b), ‘Echoes of Theophrastus’De Sensibus in Books 4 and 1 of the Aëtian Placita’, Rhizomata, 7, 146–157 Mansfeld, J. (2020c), ‘The end of the world in ancient philosophy’, forthc. in Eranos Jahrbuch Mansfeld, J. (2020d), ‘Helping the reader: The paratextual elements in the Placita in the framework of its genre’, forthc. in: Lammer–Jas eds. Mansfeld, J.–Primavesi, O. eds. (2011), Die Vorsokratiker. Griechisch / Deutsch. Ausgewählt, übersetzt und erläutert, Stuttgart (repr. 2012) Mansfeld, J.–Runia, D.T. (1997), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer. Vol. 1: The Sources, Leiden (abbreviated M–R 1) Mansfeld, J.–Runia, D.T. (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 (abbreviated M–R 2) Mansfeld, J.–Runia, D.T. (2010), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer. Vol. 3: Studies in the Doxographical Traditions of Greek Philosophy, Leiden (abbreviated M–R 3) Mansfeld, J.–Runia, D.T. eds. (2018), Aëtiana. Vol. 4: Towards an Edition of the Aëtian Placita: Papers of the Melbourne Colloquium on Ancient Doxography, Leiden (abbreviated M–R 4) Manuli, P. (1981), ‘Claudio Tolomeo: Il criterio e il principio’, Rivista critica di storia della filosofia 36, 64–88 Manuli, P.–Vegetti, M. (1972), Cuore, sangue e cervello. Biologia e antropologia nel pensiero antico, Milan Manuwald, A. (1972), Die Prolepsislehre Epikurs, Bonn Marcellinus see Schöne (1907) Marchesi, C. ed. (19532), Arnobii Adversus Nationes libri vii, Turin Marcianus see Müller (1855) Marcinkowska-Rosól, M. (2014), Die Prinzipienlehre der Milesier: Kommentar zu den Textzeugnisssen bei Aristoteles und seinen Kommentatoren, Berlin Marcovich, M. (1966), ‘Zu Aët. 5,23’, Hermes 94, 121–122 Marcovich, M. ed. (1978), Eraclito Frammenti. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Florence Marcovich, M. ed. (1986), Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium, Berlin



Marcovich, M. ed. (1990a), Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis, Berlin Marcovich, M. ed. (1990b), Ps.Iustinus Cohortatio ad Graecos. De monarchia. Oratio ad Graecos, Berlin Marcovich, M. ed. (1995), Clementis Alexandrini Protrepticus, Leiden Marcovich, M. ed. (1999), Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum. Vol. 1: Libri I–X; Vol. 2: Excerpta Byzantina, Stuttgart Marcovich, M. ed. (2000), Athenagorae qui fertur De resurrectione mortuorum, Leiden Marcovich, M. ed. (2001a), Heraclitus: Greek Text with a Short Commentary. Second Edition Including Fresh Addenda, Corrigenda and a Select Bibliography (1967–2000), Sankt Augustin (1st ed. Merida Venezuela 1967) Marcovich, M. ed. (2001b), Origenes Contra Celsum libri viii, Leiden Marcovich, M.–Van Winden, J.C.M. eds. (2002), Clementis Alexandrini Paedagogus, Leiden Marenghi, G. ed. (1962), Aristotele. Problemi di fonazione e di acustica, Naples Marg, W. ed. (1972), Timaeus Locrus De natura mundi et animae. Überlieferung, Testimonia, Text und Übersetzung, Leiden Mariotti, I. ed. (1966), Aristone d’Alessandria, Bologna Mariotti, I. ed. (1967), Marii Victorini Ars grammatica. Introduzione, testo critico e commento, Florence Marius Victorinus see Stangl (1888), Mariotti (1966), Pronay (1997), Riesenweber (2013) Markschies, C. (1999), ‘Wer schrieb die sogenannte Traditio Apostolica? Neue Beobachtungen und Hypothesen zu einer kaum lösbaren Frage aus der altkirchlichen Literaturgeschichte’, in: Kinzig, W. & alii eds., Tauffragen und Bekenntnis. Studien zur sogenannten „Traditio Apostolica“, zu den „Interrogationes de fide“ und zum „römischen Glaubensbekenntnis“, Berlin, 1–74 Markschies, C. (2000), ‘Epikureismus bei Origenes und in der origenistischen Tradition’, in: Erler–Bees eds., 190–217 (repr. in: Markschies, C. 2007, Origenes und sein Erbe: Gesammelte Studien, Berlin, 127–154) Markschies, C. (2014), ‘Wie wurde antike christliche Bibelexegese überliefert und wie soll sie folglich ediert werden?’, in: Brockmann, C. & alii eds., Handschriften- und Textforschung heute, Wiesbaden, 147–159 Marshall, P.K. ed. (1983), Isidorus Hispalensis Etymologies Book 2, Rhetoric, edited and translated with comments, Paris Martelli, M. (2011), Pseudo-Democrito: Scritti alchemici. Con il commentario di Sinesio. Edizione critico del testo greco, traduzione e commento, Paris Martin, A.–Primavesi, O. eds. (1999), L’Empédocle de Strasbourg (P.Strasb.Gr. Inv. 1665– 1666). Introduction, édition et commentaire, Strasbourg Martin, J. ed. (1974), Scholia in Aratum vetera, Stuttgart Martin, M. ed. (2007), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge Martone, L.I. (2012), ‘La struttura del De anima di Giamblico’, Studia graeco-arabica 2, 99–128



Martone, L.I. ed. (2014), Giamblico, De anima. I frammenti, la dottrina, Pisa Masi Guadalupe, F.–Maso, S. eds. (2013), Fate, Chance and Fortune in Ancient Thought, Amsterdam Masi, F. (2016), ‘La definizione Aristotelica di movimento e la critica ai predecessori Arist. Phys. III 2, 201b16–202a3’, Lexicon Philosophicum 4, 66–94 Maslowski, T. (1974), ‘The opponents of Lactantius [Inst. 7.7–13]’, ClAnt. 7, 187–213 Maso, S. ed. (2014), Cicerone Il Fato. Introduzione, edizione, traduzione e commento, Rome Matranga, P. ed. (1850), Anecdota graeca. 2 Vols., Rome (repr. Hildesheim 1971) Masselink, J.F. (1956), De Grieks-Romeinse windroos, Utrecht (diss. Leiden) Matthen, M. (2009), ‘Why does the earth move to the center? An examination of some explanatory strategies in Aristotle’s cosmology’, in: Bowen–Wildberg eds., 119–138 Matthes, D. ed. (1962), Hermagorae Temnitae testimonia et fragmenta, adiunctis et Hermagorae cuiusdam discipuli Theodorei Gadarei et Hermagorae Minoris fragmenta, Leipzig Mau, J. (1954), Zum Problem des Infinitesimalen bei den antiken Atomisten, Berlin Mau, J. (1960), Galen: Einführung in die Logik. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar mit deutscher Übersetzung, Berlin Mau, J., ed. (1971), Plutarchi Moralia. Vol. 5.2.1: X oratorum vitae; Placita philosophorum, Leipzig Maximus Confessor see Cantarella (1931) Maximus Tyrius see Trapp (1994), Koniaris (1995) Mayhew, R. ed. (2011a), Prodicus the Sophist. Texts, Translations, and Commentary, Oxford Mayhew, R. ed. (2011b), Aristotle Problems. Vol. 1: Books 12–19; Vol. 2: Books 20–38, Cambridge MA Mayhew, R. (2012), ‘The title(s) of [Aristotle], Problemata 15’, CQ 62, 179–183 Mayhew, R. (2015a), ‘Problemata 26 and Theophrastus De ventis: A preliminary comparison’, in: Mayhew ed., 294–310 Mayhew, R. ed. (2015b), The Aristotelian Problemata Physica. Philosophical and Scientific Investigations, Leiden Mayhew, R. ed. (2017), Theophrastus of Eresus On Winds, Leiden Mayhoff, C. ed. (1892–1909), C. Plinii Secundi Naturalis historiae libri xxvii, 6 Vols., Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1967–1970) Mazzarelli, C. ed. (1985), ‘Raccolta e interpretazione delle testimonianze e dei frammenti del medioplatonico Eudoro di Alessandria’, RFN 77, 197–209, 535–555 Mazzarino, A. ed. (1962), M. Porci Catonis De agri cultura ad fidem florentini codicis deperditi edidit, Leipzig McConnell, S. (2012), ‘Cicero and Dicaearchus’, OSAPh 42, 307–349 McConnell, S. (2014), Philosophical Life in Cicero’s Letters, Cambridge



McCracken, G.E. (1949), Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Newly Translated and Annotated. 2 Vols., Westminster MD McDiarmid, J.B. (1953), ‘Theophrastus on the Presocratic causes’, HSCP 61, 85–156 McKirahan, R. (1994), Philosophy Before Socrates. An Introduction with Texts and Commentary, Indianapolis McKirahan, R. (1996), ‘Epicurean doxography in Cicero De natura deorum Book I’, in: Giannantoni G.–Gigante, M. eds., Epicureismo greco e romano, Naples, 2.865– 878 McKirahan, R. (2010), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009, CR 60, 409–411 McKirahan, R. (2011), review Mansfeld–Runia 2010, CR 61, 437–430 McKirahan, R. (2013), ‘Aristotle on the Pythagoreans. His sources and his accounts of Pythagorean principles’, in: Sider–Obbink eds., 53–120 McKirahan, R. (2018), ‘The downside of doxography’, in: M–R 4.472–501 Méhat, A. (1966), Étude sur les Stromates de Clément d’Alexandrie, Paris Mehl, D. (1999), ‘The intricate translation of the Epicurean doctrine of ψυχή in Book 3 of Lucretius’, Philologus 143, 272–287 Meijering, E.P. (2000), ‘Irenäus zum zeitlichen Anfang der Welt’, VC 54, 1–11 Meineke, A. ed. (1855–1857), Ioannis Stobaei florilegium. 4 Vols., Leipzig Meiser, C. ed. (1880), Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius patricius In librum Aristotelis Peri hermeneias commentarii (editio secunda), Leipzig Meissner, B. (1999), Die technologische Fachliteratur der Antike. Struktur, Überlieferung und Wirkung technischen Wissens in der Antike (ca 400 v. Chr.–ca 500 n. Chr.), Berlin Mejer, J. (1978), Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background, Wiesbaden Mejer, J. (1992), ‘Diogenes Laertius and the transmission of Greek philosophy’, ANRW II.36.5, 3556–3602 Mejer, J. (2000), Die Überlieferung der Philosophie im Altertum. Eine Einführung, Copenhagen Mejer, J. (2002), ‘Eudemus and the history of science,’ in Bodnár–Fortenbaugh eds., 243–261 Mejer, J. (2006), ‘Ancient philosophy and the doxographical tradition’, in: Gill–Pellegrin eds., 20–33 Mejer, J. (2007), ‘Biography and doxography. Four crucial questions raised by Diogenes Laertius’, in: Erler, M.–Schorn, S. eds., Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit, Berlin, 431–441 Menn, S. (2012), ‘La sagesse comme science des quatre causes?’, in: Bonelli, M. ed., Physique et métaphysique chez Aristote, Paris, 39–68 Menn, S.–Wisnovsky, R. eds. (2012), ‘Yahiya ibn Adi On the four scientific questions concerning the three kinds of existence. Editio princeps and translation’, Mélanges de l’Institut dominicain d’études orientales du Caire 29, 73–96



Mensching, E. ed. (1963), Favorin von Arelate. Der erste Teil der Fragmente: Memorabilien und Omnigena Historia, Berlin Mercurialis, Hieronymus (or Mercuriale, Geronimo) (1590), Tractatus de compositione medicamentorum. De oculorum affectibus praelectiones, Venice (ed. Colombo, M.) Merker, A. (2002), ‘Aristote et l’arc-en-ciel: enjeux philosophiques et étude scientifique’, AHES 56, 183–238 Merker, A. (2003), La vision chez Platon et Aristote, Sankt Augustin Mette, H.J. (1936), Sphairopoiia. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Krates von Pergamon, Munich Mette, H.J. ed. (1952), Pytheas von Massilia, Berlin Mette, H.J. ed. (1984), ‘Zwei Akademiker heute: Krantor von Soloi und Arkesilaos von Pitane’, Lustrum 26, 8–94 Mette, H.J. ed. (1985), ‘Weitere Akademiker heute: von Lakydes bis zu Kleitomachos’, Lustrum 27, 39–148 Mette, H.J. ed. (1986–1987), ‘Philon von Larissa und Antiochos von Askalon’, Lustrum 28–29, 9–63 Metzger, B.M.–Ehrman, B.D. (20054), The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, New York Metzler, K. (2010), Origenes Die Kommentierung des Buches Genesis, Origenes Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung 1.1, Berlin Mewaldt, J. & alii eds. (1914), Galeni In Hippocratis De natura hominis. In Hippocratis De victu acutorum. De diaeta Hippocratis in morbis acutis, Leipzig Meyer, H. (1969), Das Corollarium de tempore des Simplikios und die Aporien des Aristoteles zur Zeit, Meisenheim am Glan Meyer, M.F. (2013), ‘Aristoteles’ Theorie der Atmung in De respiratione’, Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption 23, 31–59 Meyerhof, M. (1928), The Book of the Ten Treatises on the Eye Attributed to Hunain ibn Is-Haq (809–877 A.D.). The Earliest Existing Systematic Text-Book of Ophthalmology. The Arabic Text edited from the only two known Manuscripts, with an English Translation and Glossary, Cairo Meyerhof, M.–Schacht, J. eds., (1931), Galen Über die Verschiedenheit der medizinischen Namen, Abh.Preuß.Ak. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1931.3, Berlin Miller, J. ed. (2018), Diogenes Laertius: Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans. Mensch, P., Oxford Minucius Felix see Kyzler (1982) Mirhady, D.C. ed. (2001), ‘Diacearchus of Messana: The sources, text, and translation’, in: Fortenbaugh–Schütrumpf eds., 1–142 Moatti, C. (2015), The Birth of Critical Thinking in Republican Rome, Cambridge Modrak, D. (2011), ‘Physicalism in Strato’s psychology’, in: Desclos–Fortenbaugh eds., 383–397



Mommsen, Th. ed. (1895), C. Iulii Solini Collectanea rerum mirabilium, Berlin (repr. 1958) Monat, P. ed. (1973–1992), Lactance: Institutions divines: Livre 1 (1986, repr. 2006), SC 326; Livre 2 (1987), SC 337; Livre 4 (1992), SC 377; Livre 5, T. 1, introduction, texte et traduction, SC 204 (1973, repr. 2000); T. 2, commentaire et index, SC 205, (1973, repr. 2006), Paris Mondésert, M. ed. (19492), Clément d’Alexandrie: Le Protreptique, introduction, traduction et notes, SC 1, Paris Montaigne see Balsamo & alii eds. (2007) Montana, F. (2015), ‘Hellenistic scholarship’, in: Montanari & alii eds., 60–183 Montanari, F. & alii eds. (2015), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. 2 Vols., Leiden Montarese, F. (2012), Lucretius and his Sources. A Study of Lucretius De rerum natura I 635–920, Berlin Morani, M. (1979). ‘La tradizione manoscritta della Graecarum affectionum curatio di Teodoreto di Ciro’, Rivista di Studi Classici 27 (1979) 225–246. Morani, M. ed. (1987), Nemesius De natura hominis, Leipzig Morani, M.–Regoliosi, G. (2018), Nemesio di Emesa La natura dell’uomo: testo critico, introduzione, traduzione, note, bibliografia e appendice, Bologna Moraux, P. (1942), Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Paris (also contains fragments) Moraux, P. (1949), ‘L’exposé de la philosophie d’Aristote chez Diogène Laérce (V, 28– 34)’, RPhL 47, 5–43 Moraux, P. (1963), ‘Quinta essentia’, RE Bd. XLVII.1, 1171–1263 Moraux, P. (1967), ‘Le Parisinus graecus 1853 (ms. E) d’Aristote’, Scriptorium 21, 17–41 Moraux, P. (1973), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Bd. 1, Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1.Jh. v. Chr., Berlin Moraux, P. (1979a), ‘Ein unedierter Kurzkommentar zu Porphyrios’Isagoge’, ZPE 35, 55– 98 Moraux, P. ed. (1979b), Le commentaire d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux Seconds Analytiques d’Aristote, Berlin Moraux, P. (1980), ‘Anecdota graeca minora I: Anonyme Einleitung zu Aristoteles Metaphysik’, ZPE 40, 59–75 Moraux, P. (1984), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Bd. 2, Der Aristotelismus im 1. und 2. Jh. n. Chr., Berlin Moraux, P. (1986), ‘Diogène Laërce et le Peripatos’, Elenchos 7, 245–294 Moraux, P. (2001), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Bd. 3, Alexander von Aphrodisias, ed. Wiesner, J., Berlin Morel, P.-M. (1996), Démocrite et la recherche des causes, Paris Morel, P.-M. (2011), ‘Cardiocentrisme et antiplatonisme chez Aristote et Alexandre d’Aphrodise’, in: Bénatouïl, T. & alii eds., Plato, Aristotle, or Both? Dialogues between Platonism and Aristotelianism in Antiquity, Hildesheim



Morel, P.-M. (2015), ‘Esperienza e dimostrazione in Epicuro’, in: De Sanctis & alii eds., 131–148 Moreschini, C. ed. (1991), Apuleius De philosophia libri, Stuttgart Moreschini, C. ed. (1997), Plutarco L’E di Delphi, Naples Morrison, J.S (1955), ‘Parmenides and Er’, JHS 75, 59–68 Mosshammer, A.A. (1979), The Chronicle of Eusebius and the Greek Chronographic Tradition, Lewisburg Most, G. (1989), ‘Cornutus and Stoic allegoresis’, ANRW II.36.3, 2014–2065 Most, G. (2018), ‘Éditer les premiers philosophes grecs: hier, aujourd’hui, demain’, PhilosAnt 2018, 247–267 Most, G. ed. (1998), Editing Texts / Texte edieren, Göttingen Motta, B. (2010), ‘Nemesius of Emesa’, in: Gerson ed., 509–519 Mountain, W.J.–Glorie, Fr. eds. (1968), Sancti Aurelii Augustini De trinitate libri XV. 2 Vols., CCSL 50–50A, Turnhout Mouraviev, S.N. ed. (1999–2003), Heraclitea II: Traditio A.1–4 (Ab Epicharmo usque ad … Petrarcam). 4 Vols., Sankt Augustin Mourelatos, A.P.D. (2005), ‘The ancients’ ‘meteorology’: forecasting and cosmic natural history’ (review Taub 2003), Rhizai 2, 279–291 Mourelatos, A.P.D. (2008). ‘The cloud-astrophysics of Xenophanes and Ionian material monism,’ in: Curd–Graham eds., 134–168 Mras, K. (1933), ‘Macrobius’ Kommentar zu Ciceros Somnium. Ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.’, SB.Preuß.Ak. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1933.6, Berlin Mras, K. (1955), ‘Ariston von Keos (in einem zweiten Bruchstück von Plutarchs Stromateis)’, WSt 68, 88–98 Mras, K. ed. (1954–1956), Eusebius Werke VIII.1–2, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, GCS 43.1– 2, Berlin (rev. repr. ed. Des Places, É., 1982–19832) Mudry, Ph. (1982), La préface du De medicina de Celse. Texte, traduction et commentaire, Rome Mueller-Jourdan. P. (2007), Une initiation à la philosophie de l’antiquité tardive: Les leçons du Pseudo-Elias, Paris Mueller, I. (1992), ‘Heterodoxy and doxography in Hippolytus’Refutation of all Heresies’, ANRW II.36.6, 4309–4374 Mueller, I. (1999), review Mansfeld–Runia 1997, CPh 94, 111–114 Mueller, I. (2005), Simplicius on Aristotle On the Heavens 2.10–14, London Mugler, Ch. (1953), Deux themes de la cosmologie grecque: devenir cyclique et pluralité des mondes, Paris Mugler, Ch. (1963), ‘L’invisibilité des atomes. A propos d’un passage d’Aristote (De gen. et corr. 325 a 30)’, REG 76, 397–403 Mugler, Ch. (1964), Dictionnaire historique de la terminologie optique des Grècs. Douze siècles de dialogues avec la lumière, Paris



Müller, C.-W. (1965), Gleiches zu Gleichem: Ein Prinzip frühgriechischen Denkens, Wiesbaden Müller, G. (1960), ‘Probleme der aristotelischen Eudaimonielehre’, MH 17, 121–143 Müller, I. von (1897), Ueber Galens Werk vom wissenschaftlichen Beweis, Abh.Bay.Ak. 20.2, Munich, 403–478 Müller, K. ed. (1855a), ‘Agatharchides, De mare Erythraeo’, in: Geographi graeci minores, Paris, 1.111–194 (repr. Hildesheim 1965) Müller, K. ed. (1855b), ‘Marcianus, Periplus maris exteri’, in: Geographi graeci minores, Paris, 1.515–562 (repr. Hildesheim 1965) Müller, K. ed. (1861), ‘Agathemerus, Geographiae informatio’, in: Geographi graeci minores, Paris, 2.471–487 (repr. Hildesheim 1965) Mussies, G. (1988), ‘Identification and self-identification of gods in Classical and Hellenistic times’, in: Van den Broek & alii eds., 1–18 Mutschmann, H. (1911), ‘Inhaltsangabe und Kapitelüberschrift im antiken Buch’, Hermes 46, 93–107 Nachmanson, E. ed. (1918), Erotiani Vocum hippocraticarum collectio cum fragmentis, Göteburg Naddaf, G. (1992), L’origine et l’evolution du concept grec de physis, Lewiston Naddaf, G. (2005), The Greek Concept of Nature, Albany NY (rev. ed. of Naddaf 1992) Nagle, D.B. (2002), ‘Aristotle and Arius Didymus on household and ΠΟΛΙΣ’, RhM 145, 198–223 Naldini, M. ed. (1990), Basilio di Cesarea Sulla Genesi (Omilie sull’Esamerone), Milan Natali, C.–Viano, C. eds. (2014), Aitia II: Avec ou sans Aristote. Le débat sur les causes à l’âge hellénistique et imperial, Louvain-la-Neuve Natorp, P. (1905), ‘Diogenes 44) von Sinope 44’, RE Bd. 5, 765–777 Nemesius see Morani (1987), Morani–Regoliosi (2018) Nesselrath, H.-G. & alii (2009), Cornutus: Die griechischen Götter. Ein Überblick über Namen, Bilder und Deutungen, Tübingen Netz, R. (1998), ‘Deuteronomic texts: Late Antiquity and the history of mathematics’, Revue d’histoire des mathématiques 4, 261–288 Netz, R. (2002), ‘Greek mathematicians: a group picture’, in: Tuplin–Rihll eds., 196–217 Netz, R. & alii eds. (2011), The Archimedes Palimpsest. Vol. 1: Catalogue and Commentary; Vol. 2: Images and Transcriptions, Cambridge Neugebauer, O.E. (1975), A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 Vols., Berlin Newmyer, S.T. (2015), ‘Animals in Plutarch’, in Beck, M. ed., A Companion to Plutarch, Chichester UK, 223–234 Nicolas, C. ed. (2006), ‘Hos ephat’, dixerit quispiam, comme disait l’autre … Mécanismes de la citation et de la mention dans les langues de l’Antiquité, Grenoble Nicolaus Sophista see Felten (1913)



Nicomachus of Gerasa see Hoche (1866), Jan (1895), De Falco (1922) Nilus of Ancyra see Guérard (1994) Ninci, M. (1977), Aporia ed entusiasmo. Il mondo materiale e i filosofi secondo Teodoreto e la tradizione patristica greca, Rome Nolle, J. ed. (1914), Ps.Archytas Fragmenta, diss. Tübingen Norden, E. (19746), Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede, Darmstadt (1st ed. Leipzig 1913) Nörr, D. (1972), Divisio und Partitio. Bemerkungen zur römischen Rechtsquellenlehre und zur antiken Wissenschaftstheorie, Berlin Nörr, D. (1976), ‘Pomponius oder „Zum Geschichtsverständnis der römischen Juristen“’, in: ANRW II.15, 497–604 Numenius see Des Places (1973) Nutton, V. ed. (1999), Galen On My Own Opinions. Edition, Translation and Commentary, CMG 5 3,2, Berlin Nutton, V. (2004), Ancient Medicine, London Nutton, V.–Bos, G. eds. (2011), Galen On Problematical Movements Edited with an Introduction and Commentary by Nutton, V., With an Edition of the Arabic Version by Bos, G., Cambridge O’Brien, D. (1968), ‘The relation of Anaxagoras and Empedocles’, JHS 88, 93–113 O’Brien, D. (1969), Empedocles’ Cosmic Cycle. A Reconstruction from the Fragments and Secondary Sources, Cambridge O’Brien, D. (1981a), Pour interpréter Empédocle, Leiden O’Brien, D. (1981b), Theories of Weight in the Ancient World. Vol. 1: Democritus: Weight and Size: An Exercise in the Reconstruction of Early Greek Philosophy, Leiden O’Brien, D. (1984), Theories of Weight in the Ancient World. Vol. 2: Plato: Weight and Sensation, Leiden O’Brien, D. (1997), ‘La definition du son dans le Timée’, in: Joyal, M. ed., Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. FS Whittaker, Aldershot O’Brien, D. (2000), ‘Hermann Diels on the Presocratics: Empedocles’ double destruction of the cosmos (Aëtius ii 4.8)’, Phronesis 45, 1–18 O’Hara, R. (1996), ‘Trees of history in systematics and philology’, Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano 27, 81–88 O’Meara, D.J. ed. (1989), Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora. Vol. 1: Opuscula psychologica, theologica, daemonologica, Leipzig Obbink, D. ed. (1996), Philodemus On Piety. Critical Text with Commentary. Vol. 1, Oxford Obbink, D. (2001), ‘Le livre I du De natura deorum de Cicéron et le De pietate de Philodème’, in: Auvray-Assayas, C.–Delatttre, D. eds., Cicéron et Philodème. La polemique en philosophie, Paris, 203–226 Obbink, D. (2002), ‘‘All gods are true’ in Epicurus’, in: Frede–Laks eds., 281–316 Obrist, B. (1997), ‘Wind diagrams and medieval cosmology’, Speculum 72, 233–284



Obrist, B. (2004), La cosmologie médiévale. Textes et images. I. Les fondements antiques, Florence Ocellus Lucanus see Harder (1926) Oder, E. (1899), Ein angebliches Bruchstück Demokrits über die Entstehung unterirdischer Quellen, Leipzig Oder, E. ed. (1901), Claudii Hermeri Mulomedicina Chironis, Leipzig Oikonomopoulou, K. (2011), ‘Peripatetic knowledge in Plutarch’s Table Talk’, in: Klotz, F.–Oikonomopoulou, K. eds., The Philosopher’s Banquet: Plutarch’s Table Talk in the Intellectual Culture of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 105–130 Oikonomopoulou, K. (2013), ‘Plutarch’s corpus of quaestiones and imperial Greek encyclopaedism’, in: König–Woolf eds., 129–153 Olajos, T. (1988), Les sources de Théophylacte Simocatta historien, Leiden Oliver, R.P. (1951), ‘The first Medicean ms of Tacitus and the titulature of ancient books’, TAPhA 82, 232–261 Olympiodorus the Alchemist see Berthelot–Ruelle (1888) 2.69–106 Olympiodorus Diaconus see Boli (2004) Olympiodorus Platonicus see Busse (1902), Westerink (1976), Gertz (2018) Oniga Farra, F. ed. (1985), H. Diels: Doxographi graeci. Supplementum, Treviso Opelt, I. (1962), ‘Epitome’, RAC Bd. 5, Stuttgart, 944–973 Opsomer, J. (1996), ‘Ζητήματα: structure et argumentation dans les Quaestiones platonicae’, in: Fernández Delgado, J.A.–Pordomingo Pardo, F. eds., Estudios sobre Plutarco: Aspectos formales, Madrid, 71–83 Opsomer, J. (2005), ‘Demiurges in Early Imperial Platonism,’ in Hirsch-Luipold, R. (ed.), Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch. Götterbilder–Gottesbilder–Weltbilder, Berlin, 51– 99 Opsomer, J. (2011), ‘Arguments non-linéaires et pensée en cercles. Forme et argumentation dans les Questions platoniciennes de Plutarque’, in: Brouillette, X.–Giavatto, A. eds., Les dialogues platoniciens chez Plutarque: stratégies et méthodes exégétiques, Leuven, 93–116 Opsomer, J. (2014), ‘The Middle Platonic doctrine of conditional fate’, in: D’Hoine–Van Riel eds., 137–167 Oribasius see Raeder (1933) Origen see Marcovich (2001b), Metzler (2010), Fiedrowicz–Barthold (2011–2012), Perrone (2015b) Orion of Thebes see Sturz (1820) Osborne, C. (1987), Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy: Hippolytus of Rome and the Presocratics, London Oser-Grote, C.M. (1997), ‘Das Auge und der Sehvorgang nach Aristoteles und der hippokratischen Schrift De carnibus’, in: Kullmann, W.–Föllinger, S. eds., Aristotelische Biologie. Intentionen, Methoden, Ergebnisse, Stuttgart, 333–349



Oser-Grote, C.M. (2004), Aristoteles und das Corpus Hippocraticum. Die Anatomie und Physiologie des Menschen, Stuttgart Otero, M.–Ramírez Trejo, R. eds. (1982), Galeno: Iniciación a la dialéctica. Introducción de Otero, M., versión y notas de Ramírez Trejo, R., Mexico City Otto, A. (1890), Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1962) Otto, J.C.T. ed. (18803), Ps.Justinus Martyr Confutatio dogmatum quorundam Aristotelicorum, in: Corpus apologetarum Christianorum saeculi secundi, 4.100–222, Jena Overwien, O. (2019), Medizinische Lehrwerke aus dem spätantiken Alexandria. Die Tabulae Vindobonenses und Summaria Alexandrinorum zu Galens De sectis, Berlin Ovid see Barchiesi & alii (2005) Owen Wallace, E. (1938), The Notes on Philosophy in the Commentary of Servius on the Eclogues, the Georgics and the Aeneid of Vergil, New York Pack, R.A. (1963), Artemidori Daldiani Onirocriticon libri v, Leipzig (repr. Berlin 2011) Pajón Leyra, I. (2013), ‘The Aristotelian corpus and the Rhodian tradition: new light from Posidonius on the transmission of Aristotle’s works’, CQ 63, 723–733 Palmer, J. (2001), ‘A new testimonium on Diogenes of Apollonia, with remarks on Melissus’ cosmology’, CQ 51, 7–17 Palmer, J. (2009), ‘Classical representations and uses of the Presocratics’, in: Curd– Graham eds., 530–554 Palmer, J. (2014), ‘The Pythagoreans and Plato’, in: Huffman ed., 204–226 Pàmias i Massana, J.–Zucker, A. eds. (2013), Ératosthène de Cyrène: Catastérismes, Paris Panaetius see Van Straaten (1952), Alesse (1997) Papathomopoulos, M. ed. (2007), Ἐξήγησις Ἰωάννου Γραμματικοῦ τοῦ Τζέτζου εἰς τὴν Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάδα, Athens Paramelle, J. ed. (1984), Philon d’Alexandrie: Questions sur la Genèse II 1–7: texte grec, version arménienne, parallèles latins, Geneva Park, D. (1997), The Fire within the Eye. A Historical Essay on the Nature and Meaning of Light, Princeton Parker, D.C. (1997), The Living Text of the Gospels, Cambridge Parker, D.C. (2012), Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, Oxford Parker, H.N. (1999), ‘Greek embryological calendars and a fragment from the lost work of Damastes, On the Care of Pregnant Women and of Infants’, CQ 49, 515–534 Parker, H.N. (2007), Censorinus The Birthday Book, Chicago Parmenides see Diels (1897), Tarán (1965), Coxon (20092) Parroni, P. ed. (1984), Pomponii Melae De chorographia libri tres. Introduzione, edizione critica e commento, Rome Parroni, P. ed. (2002), Seneca: Ricerche sulla natura, Milan Partsch, J. (1909), Des Aristoteles Buch «Über das Steigen des Nil». Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Erdkunde im Altertum, Abh.Sächs.Ges.Wiss. 1909.14, Leipzig



Parvum lexicon stemmatologicum (PLS), online via AWOL Pasquali, G. (1910), ‘Doxographica aus Basiliosscholien’, NachrGesGöttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., Göttingen, 194–228, repr. in La Penna (1986), 1.539–574 Patillon, M. ed. (2008), Corpus Rhetoricum T. 1: Anonyme, Préambule à la rhétorique; Aphthonios, Progymnasmata; en annexe: Pseudo-Hermogène, Progymnasmata, Paris Patillon, M. ed. (2009), Corpus Rhetoricum T. 2: Hermogène, Les états de cause, Paris Patillon, M. ed. (2012a), Corpus Rhetoricum T. 3.1: Pseudo-Hermogène, L’invention / Anonyme, Synopse des exordes, et T. 3.2: Scolies au traité sur L’invention de PseudoHermogène, Paris Patillon, M. ed. (2012b), Corpus Rhetoricum T. 4: Prolégomènes au De ideis / Hermogène, Les catégories stylistiques du discours (De ideis) / Synopse des exposés sur les Ideai, Paris Patillon, M. ed. (2014), Corpus Rhetoricum T. 5: Pseudo-Hermogène, La méthode de l’habileté / Maxime, Les objections irréfutables / Anonyme, Méthode des discours d’adresse, Paris Patillon, M.–Bolognesi, G. eds. (1997), Aelius Théon: Progymnasmata, texte établi et traduit, Paris Patillon, M.–Brisson, L. eds. (2001), Longin Fragments. Art rhétorique. Paris Patzer, A. (1986), Der Sophist Hippias als Philosophiehistoriker, Munich Paulus Alexandrinus see Boer (1958) Paulus Persa see Land (1875) Pease, A.S. ed. (1920–1923 and later repr.), M. Tullii Ciceronis De divinatione, Urbana Pease, A.S. (1941), ‘Caeli enarrant’, HThR 34, 163–200 Pease, A.S. ed. (1955–1958 and later repr.), M. Tullii Ciceronis De natura deorum. 2 Vols., Cambridge MA Pearse, R. (in progress), Capituli: some notes on summaries, chapter divisions and chapter titles in ancient and medieval manuscripts, accessible http://www.tertullian.org/rpea rse/manuscripts/chapter‑titles.htm Pellacani, D. (2012), ‘Le piene del Nilo. Nota bibliografica’, in: Beretta & alii eds., 81– 92 Pellegrin, P. (1988), ‘L’imaginaire de la fièvre dans la médicine antique’, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 10, 109–120 Pelosi, F. (2010), Plato on Music, Soul and Body, Cambridge Pendrick, G.J. ed. (2002), Antiphon the Sophist. The Fragments, Cambridge Penella, R.J. (2000), The Private Orations of Themistius Translated, Annotated, and Introduced, Berkeley Pépin, J. (1964), Théologie cosmique et théologie chrétienne (Ambroise, Exam. I 1, 1–4), Paris Perilli, L. (2001), ‘Alcmeone di Crotone tra filosofia e scienza. Per una nuova edizione delle fonti’, QUCC 69, 55–79



Perilli, L. ed. (2017), Galeni Vocum Hippocratis Glossarium edidit, in linguam italicam vertit, commentatus est, CMG V 3,1, Berlin Perrin, M. ed. (1974), Lactance L’ouvrage du Dieu créateur, T. 1: Introduction, texte critique, traduction; T. 2: Commentaire et index, SC 213–214, Paris Perrin, M. (1981), L’homme antique et chrétien: L’anthropologie de Lactance, Paris Perrin, M. ed. (1987), Lactance Épitomé des Institutions divines, introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes, SC 335, Paris Perrone, L. (2015a), ‘Doctrinal traditions and cultural heritage in the newly discovered Homilies of Origen on the Psalms’, Phasis 18, 191–212 Perrone, L. ed. (2015b), Origenes Werke, Bd. 13: Die neuen Psalmenhomilien. Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314, GCS N.F. 19, Berlin Pertusi, A. ed. (1955), Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et dies, Milan Peters, E. (1984), ‘What was God doing before He created heavens and earth?’, Augustiniana 34, 53–74 Petit, C. (2014), ‘What does Pseudo-Galen tell us that Galen does not? Ancient medical schools in the Roman empire’, in: Adamson & alii eds., 269–290 Petit, C. ed. (2009), Galien T. 3: Le médecin. Introduction, texte établi et traduit, Paris Petit, F. (1996), ‘La chaîne grecque sur la Genèse, miroir de l’exégèse ancienne’, in: Schöllgen–Scholten eds., 243–253 Petitmengin, P. (1997), ‘Capitula païens et chrétiens’, in: Fredouille & alii eds., 491–507 Petrucci, F.M. (2009), ‘Un equivoco filologico: il «De partibus philosophiae» dello Pseudo-Galeno, i «Prolegomena philosophiae» di Davide e il ms. Vaticano Greco 2253’, Boll.Class. Ser. 3a.30, 85–98 Petrucci, F.M. ed. (2011), Teone di Smirne: Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium, introduzione, traduzione, commento, Sankt Augustin Pfeffer, F. (1976), Studien zur Mantik in der Philosophie der Antike, Meisenheim am Glan Pfeiffer, R. ed. (1949–1953), Callimachus. 2 Vols., Oxford (repr. Salem NH 1988) Pherecydes of Athens see Dolcetti (2004) Pherecydes of Syros see Schibli (1990) Philippson, R. (1920a), ‘Zu Philodems Schrift Über die Frömmigkeit’, Hermes 55, 225– 278 Philippson, R. (1920b), ‘Zu Philodems Schrift Über die Frömmigkeit iv. Die Philosophenkritik’, Hermes 55, 364–372 Philippson, R. (1937), ‘Zur Psychologie der Stoa’, RhM 86, 140–179 Philippson, R. (1939), ‘Die Quelle der epikureischen Götterlehre im ersten Buche De natura deorum’, SO 19, 15–40 (repr. in: Philippson 1983, 249–274) Philippson, R. (1983), Studien zu Epikur und den Epikureern ed. Classen, C.J., Hildesheim Philistion see Wellmann (1901) Philo Alexandrinus see Wendland (1897), Hadas-Lebel (1973), Terian (1981), Paramelle (1984), Siegert (1988), Runia (2001), Terian (2016)



Philodemus see Gomperz (1866), Diels (1916–1917b), De Lacy-De Lacy (1941), Henrichs (1974), (1975), Schober (1988), Santoro (2000), Obbink (2001), Delattre (2007), Janko (2011), Vassallo (2015a), (2015b), (2016a) Philoponus, John see Reichardt (1897), Rabe (1899), Giardina (1999), Goldin (2009), Scholten (2009–2011) Philostratus see Kayser (1871) Photius see Henry (1959–1991) Piazzi, L. (2005), Lucrezio e i presocratici. Un commento a De rerum natura 1, 635–920, Pisa Pichon, R. (1912), Les sources de Lucain, Paris Pietrobelli, A. (2013), ‘Galien agnostique: un texte caviardé par la tradition’, REG 126, 103–135 Pietruschka, U. (1984), ‘Ein arabisches Exzerpt aus den Placita Philosophorum’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Halle. Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe (G) 33, H. 6, 17–21 Pietsch–Lakmann see Dörrie–Baltes Pingree, D. ed. (1976), Dorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum. Interpretationem arabicam in linguam anglicam versam una cum Dorothei fragmentis et graecis et latinis, Leipzig Pingree, D. (1992), ‘Hellenophilia versus the history of science’, Isis 83, 554–563 (repr. in: Pingree, I. & alii eds. 2014, Pathways into the Study of Ancient Sciences. Selected Essays by Pingree, D., TAPhS 104.3, 3–15) Pistelli, H.–Klein, U. eds. (1975), Iamblichi In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem liber, Stuttgart Plantzos, D. (1997), ‘Crystals and lenses in the Graeco-Roman world’, AJA 101, 451–464 Plessner, M. (1975), Vorsokratische Philosophie und griechische Alchemie in arabischlateinischer Überlieferung: Studien zu Text und Inhalt der Turba philosophorum, Wiesbaden Plinius see Mayhoff (1892–1909), König–Winkler (1974) Plotinus see Harder & alii (1957), Sandbach (1969), Beierwaltes (20102), Achard (2012), D’Ancona (2017) Plutarch see Crusius (1887), (1895), Cherniss–Helmbold (1957), Cherniss (1976), Moreschini (1977), Hani (1980), Rescigno (1995), Casevitz (2002) Podolak, P. (2010a), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009, Prometheus 36, 94–96 Podolak, P. ed. (2010b), L’anima: introduzione, traduzione e note (text: Waszink 1947), in: Moreschini, C.–Podolak, P. eds. (2010), Tertulliano, Opere dottrinali: L’anima–La resurrezione della carne–Contro Prassea, Rome, 15–247 Podolak, P. (2010c), ‘Questioni pitoclee’, WJA 34, 39–80 Podolak, P. ed. (2011), Soranos von Ephesos, Περὶ ψυχῆς. Sammlung der Testimonien mit Kommentar und Einleitung, Berlin



Pohlenz, M. (1940), Grundfragen der stoischen Philosophie, Göttingen 1940 (repr. in: Tarán, L. ed. 1980, Stoicism, New York) Polemon of Laodicea see Hoyland (2007) Polemon of Athens see Gigante (1977) Polito, R. (1994), ‘I quattro libri sull’anima di Sorano e lo scritto De anima di Tertulliano’, RSF 49, 423–468 Polito, R. (2003), ‘Sextus on Heraclitus on sleep’, in: Wiedemann, T.–Dowden, K. eds., Sleep, Bari, 53–70 Polito, R. (2004), The Sceptical Road: Aenesidemus’ Appropriation of Heraclitus, Leiden Polito, R. (2006), ‘Matter, medicine and the mind: Asclepiades vs. Epicurus’, OSAPh 30, 285–335 Polito, R. (2007), ‘Frail or monolithic? A note on Asclepiades’ corpuscles’, CQ 57, 314–317 Polito, R. (2013), ‘Asclepiades of Bythinia and Heraclides Ponticus: medical Platonism?’, in: Schofield ed., 118–138 Polito, R. ed. (2014), Aenesidemus of Cnossos: Testimonia, Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge Poljakov, T. (1982–1983), ‘The unpublished doxographical scholia on St. Basil’s Hexaemeron’, RHT 12–13, 367–369 Pollux see Bethe (1900) Pomponius Mela see Parroni (1984), Silberman (1988) Pontani, F. ed. (2007), Scholia Graeca in Odysseam, Scholia ad libros γ–δ. Vol. 2, Rome Pontikos, I.N. ed. (1992), Anonymou Philosophika symmeikta = Anonymi Miscellanea philosophica: A Miscellany in the Tradition of Michael Psellos (Codex Baroccianus 131), critical ed. and introduction, Athens Porphyry see Von Harnack (1916), Sodano (1964), Bouffartigue–Patillon (1979), Segonds (1982), Smith (1993), Congourdeau & alii (2012), Raffa (2016) Posidonius see (Edelstein–)Kidd (1972–1999), Theiler (1982) Possekel, U. (1999), Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, Leuven Postl, L. (1970), Die Bedeutung des Nils in der römischen Literatur: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der wichtigsten griechischen Autoren, Vienna Potter, P. ed. (2012), Hippocrates. Vol. 10: Generation, Nature of the Child, Diseases 4, Nature of Women and Barrenness, Cambridge MA Pouderon, B. ed. (1992), Athénagore. Supplique au sujet des Chrétiens et Sur la resurrection des morts. Introduction, texte et traduction Paris Pouderon, B. & alii eds. (2009), Pseudo-Justin. Ouvrages apologétiques: Exhortation aux Grecs (Marcel d’Ancyre?), Discours aux Grecs, Sur la monarchie. Introduction, texte grec, traduction et notes, Paris Pourkier, A. (1992), L’Hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine, Paris Powell, J.G.F. ed. (1995), Cicero the Philosopher. Twelve Papers, Oxford



Powell, J.U. ed. (1925), Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford Poznanski, L. ed. (1992), Asclépiodote Traité de tactique, texte établi et traduit, Paris Prantl, C. (1849), Aristoteles Über die Farben. Erläutert durch eine Übersicht der Farbenlehre der Alten, Munich (repr. Aalen 1978) Prantl, C. (1851), Über die Probleme des Aristoteles, Abh.Bay.Ak. 1851.6, Munich, 339–377 Prantl, C. (1855), Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande. Bd. 1, Leipzig (repr. Graz 1955) Praxagoras see Steckerl (1958) Préaux, C. (1973), La lune dans la pensée grecque, Brussels Prehn, K. (1925), De Epicuri Ad Pythoclem epistula, diss. Greifswald Primavesi, O (2001), ‘La daimonologia della fisica empedoclea’, Aevum(ant) N.S. 1, 3–68 Primavesi, O. (2002), ‘Lecteurs anciens et byzantins d’Empédocle. De Zénon à Tzétzès’, in: Laks–Louguet eds., 183–204 Primavesi, O. ed. (2008), Empedokles Physika I. Eine Rekonstruktion des zentralen Gedankenganges, Berlin Primavesi, O. ed. (2011), ‘Empedokles’, in: Mansfeld–Primavesi eds., 392–563 Primavesi, O. ed. (2012), ‘Aristotle, Metaphysics Α. A new critical text with an introduction’, in: Steel ed., 387–516 Primavesi, O. (2013), ‘Empedokles’, in: Flashar & alii eds., 667–739 Primavesi, O. (2014), ‘Aristotle and the “so-called Pythagoreans”: from lore to principles’, in: Huffman ed., 227–249 Primavesi, O. (2016), ‘Empedocles’ cosmic cycle and the Pythagorean tetraktys’, Rhizomata 4, 5–29 Primavesi, O. (2018), ‘Aristotle and the doxographical tradition on Pythagorean cosmology’, in: M–R 4.103–129 Prince, S.H. ed. (2015), Antisthenes of Athens: Texts, Translations, Commentary, Ann Arbor Priscian see Hertz–Keil (1855–1859) Proclus see Rabe (1899), Ritzenfeld (1912), Festugière (1966–1968), Steel (2007), Steel & alii (2007–2009), Steel–Opsomer (2012) Prodicus see Mayhew (2011) Pronay, A. ed. (1997), Victorinus Gaius Marius Liber de definitionibus: Eine spätantike Theorie der Definition und des Definierens, mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Francfort Pruche, B. ed. (19682), Basile de Césarée: Sur le Saint Esprit, SC 17bis, Paris Ps.Archytas see Thesleff (1965), Szlezák (1972), Ulacco (2017) Ps.Alexander see Ideler (1841b), (1841c), Usener (1859), Sharples (1998a) Ps.Aristotle see Prantl (1849), Rose (1863), Rose (1875), Rose (1886), Foerster (1893), Lorimer (1933), Marenghi (1962), Klein (1972), Daiber (1975), Gigon (1987), Flashar (1991), Roselli (1992), Wöhrle (1999), Arnzen (1998), Ferrini (1999), Schoonheim (2000), Bos–Ferwerda (2008), Mayhew (2011b), Gambetti (2012), Aubert (2014), Beullens (2014), Thom (2014)



Ps.David see Kendall–Thompson (1983) Ps.Elias see Westerink (1967), Mueller-Jourdan (2007) Ps.Eudoxus see Boll (1908) Ps.Galen see Diels (1870), Westenberger (1906), Helmreich (1911), Wagner (1914), Kollesch (1973), Baumgarten (1962), Petit (2009), Walbridge (2014), Perilli (2017), Jas (2018a) Ps.Hermogenes see Patillon (2008), (2012a), (2014) Ps.Iamblichus see De Falco–Klein (1975) Ps.Justin see Otto (18803), Marcovich (1990b), Riedweg (1994), Pouderon & alii (2009) Ps.Plutarch see Amyot (1574), Corsinus (1750), Beck (1787), Bernadakis (1893), De Lacy– Einarson (1959), Mau (1971), Hani (1980), Kindstrand (1990), Valgiglio (1993), Lachenaud (1993) Ps.Valerius Probus see Hagen (1878) Ps.Zeno see Stone–Shirinian (2000) Psellus see Boissonade (1838), Westerink (1948), Littlewood (1985), O’Meara (1989), Gautier (1989), Duffy (1992), Fisher (1994), Westerink–Duffy (2002), Benakis (2008) Ptolemy see Heiberg & alii (1898–1952), Lejeune (1956), Lammert–Boer (1961), Huby– Neal (1989), Smith (1999a), Stückelberger–Graßhoff (2006) Puglia, E. ed. (1988), Demetrio Lacone. Aporie testuali ed esegetiche in Epicuro (PHerc. 1012). Edizione, traduzione e commento. Precedono testimonianze su Demetrio Lacone ordinate da Gigante, M., Naples Pytheas Massiliota see Mette (1952) Rabe, H. ed. (1899), Ioannes Philoponus De aeternatate mundi contra Proclum, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1963) Rabe, H. ed. (1913), Hermogenis opera, Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1985) Rabe, H. ed. (1926), Aphthonii Progymnasmata, Leipzig Rabe, H. ed. (1928), Ioannis Sardiani Commentarium in Aphthonii Progymnasmata, Leipzig Rabe, H. ed. (1931), Prolegomenon sylloge, Leipzig (repr. Berlin 2011) Raeder, I. (1900), De Theodoreti Graecarum affectionum curatione quaestiones criticae, diss. Hauniae (Copenhagen) Raeder, I. (1902), ‘Analecta Theodoretiana’, RhM 57, 449–459 Raeder, I. ed. (1904), Theodoreti Graecarum affectionum curatio, Leipzig (repr. Suttgart 1969) Raeder, J. ed. (1933), Oribasii Collectionum medicarum reliquiae, CMG 6.2.2, Leipzig. Raffa, M. ed. (2016), Porphyrius Commentarius in Claudii Ptolemaei Harmonica, Berlin Rakoczy, T. (1996), Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter: eine Untersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur, Tübingen Ramelli, I, ed. (2003), Anneo Cornuto. Compendio di teologia greca. Testo greco a fronte, saggio introduttivo e integrativo, traduzione e apparati, Milan



Ramelli, I.–Konstan, D. eds. (2009), Hierocles the Stoic. Elements of Ethics, Fragments and Excerpts, Atlanta Ramelli, I.–Lucchetta, G. (2004), Allegoria. Vol. 1: L’età classica, Milan Rand, E.K. & alii eds. (1946), Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum editio Harvardiana I. In Aeneidos libros I et II explanationes, Lancaster PA Ranocchia, G. & alii eds. (2014), Space in Hellenistic Philosophy. Critical Studies in Ancient Physics, Berlin Rapp, Chr. (2013a), ‘Zenon’, in: Flashar & alii eds., 532–572 Rapp, Chr. (2013b), ‘Melissos’, in: Flashar & alii eds., 573–598 Rashed, M. (2000), ‘Alexandre d’Aphrodise lecteur du Protreptique’, in: Hamesse, J. ed., Les prologues médiévaux, Turnhout, 1–37 (repr. in: Rashed, M. 2007, L’héritage Aristotélicien. Textes inédits de l’Antiquité, Paris, 178–215) Rashed, M. (2005a), ‘The structure of the eye and its cosmological function in Empedocles: Reconstruction of fragment 84 D.–K.’, in: Stern-Gillet–Corrigan eds., 21–37 Rashed, M. ed. (2005b), Aristote De la generation et la corruption. Texte établi et traduit, Paris Rashed, M. (2008), ‘De qui la clepsydre est-elle le nom? Une interpretation du fragment 100 d’Empédocle’, REG 121, 443–468 Rashed, M. ed. (2011), Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Commentaire perdu à la Physique d’Aristote (Livres IV–VIII): Les scholies byzantines. Édition, traduction et commentaire, Berlin Rashed, M. ed. (2012), ‘Les definitions d’Aquilius’, BICS 55, 131–172 Rathmayr, R. (2000), Zwillinge in der griechisch-römische Antike, Vienna Ratzinger, J. (1954), Volk und Haus Gottes in Augustins Lehre von der Kirche, Munich 1954 (repr. in: Müller, G.L. ed. 2011: Ratzinger, J. Gesammelte Schriften. Bd. 1, Freiburg) Rau, W. (1982), Die Brennlinse im alten Indien, Abh.Ak.Mainz, Geist.-Sozw. Kl. 1982.8, Wiesbaden Raven, J.E. (1948), Pythagoreans and Eleatics. An Account of the Interaction between the Two Opposed Schools during the Fifth and Early Fourth Centuries B.C., Cambridge Raynaud, D. ed. (2016), A Critical Edition of ibn Al-Haytham’s On the Shape of the Ellipse: the First Experimental Study of the Camera Obscura, Cham CH Reale, G.–Bos, A.P. eds. (1995), Il trattato Sul cosmo per Alessandro attribuito ad Aristotele. Monografia introduttiva, testo greco con traduzione a fronte, commentario, bibliografia ragionata e indici, Milan Rechenauer, G. (2009), ‘Demokrits Seelenmodell und die Prinzipien der atomistischen Physik’, in: Frede–Reis eds., 111–142 Reesor, M.E. (1989), The Nature of Man in Early Stoic Philosophy, London Reeve, M.D. (2011a), Manuscripts and Methods. Essays on Editing and Transmission, Rome Reeve, M.D. (2011b), ‘Shared innovations, dichotomies, and evolution’, in: Reeve (2011a), 55–103



Regali, M. ed. (1983–1990), Macrobio: Commento al Somnium Scipionis Libro I–Libro II. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento, Pisa Regen, F. (1971), Apuleius philosophus platonicus. Untersuchungen zur Apologie (De magia) und zu De mundo, Berlin Regenbogen, O. (1940), ‘Theophrastos 3)’, RE Supp.Bd. 7, 1354–1562 Regenbogen, O. (1950), ‘Πίναξ’, RE Bd. 22.2, 1408–1482 Rehm, A. (1936), ‘Nilschwelle’, RE Bd. XVII/33, 571–590 Rehm, B.–Paschke, F. (1994), Die Pseudoklementinen. II Rekognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung, GCS 51, Berlin Reichardt, G. ed. (1897), Joannis Philoponi De opificio mundi libri vii, Leipzig Reinhardt, K. (1910), De graecorum theologia capita duo, Berlin Reinhardt, K. (1921), Poseidonios, Munich (repr. Hildesheim 1976) Reinhardt, K. (1926), Kosmos und Sympathie. Neue Untersuchungen über Poseidonios, Munich (repr. Hildesheim 1976) Reinhardt, K. (1954), Poseidonios von Apameia der Rhodier genannt, Stuttgart (separatum of ‘Poseidonios 3’, in: RE Bd. XXII.I 1953, 558–826) Reinhardt, T. ed. (2003), Marcus Tulliius Cicero Topica Edited with a Translation, Introduction and Ccommentary, Oxford Reis, B. ed. (1999), Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogenannter Prologos, Wiesbaden Reitzenstein, E. (1924), Theophrast bei Epikur und Lukrez, Heidelberg Reitzenstein, R. (1919), ‘Zur Geschichte von Alchemie und Mystizismus’, Nachr.Ges. Wiss.Göttingen Phil.-hist. Kl., 1–37 Repici, L. (1988), La natura e l’anima. Saggi su Stratone di Lampsaco, Turin Repici, L. (2011a), ‘Dans l’atelier de la vie: l’âme et la respiration chez Aristote’, in: Rossitto, C. ed., La psychologie d’Aristote, Paris, 165–184 Repici, L. (2011b), ‘Strato’s aporiai on Plato’s Phaedo’, in: Desclos–Fortenbaugh eds., 423– 442 Repici, L. ed. (2013), Teofrasto Metafisica. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Rome Rescigno, A. ed. (1995), Plutarco: L’eclissi degli oracoli, Naples Rescigno, A. (2011), ‘Su Aezio 1 5, 3’, Elenchos 32, 121–162 Rex, F. (1966), Chrysipps Mischungslehre und die an ihr geübte Kritik in Alexanders von Aphrodisias De mixtione: mit einer vollständigen Übersetzung von Alexanders Schrift Über die Mischung und das Wachstum, diss. Francfort Reydams-Schils, G. (1999), Demiurge and Providence. Stoic and Platonic Readings of Plato’s Timaeus, Turnhout Reydams-Schils, G. (2006), ‘Simplicius on soul and body’, in: Feichinger, B. & alii eds., Körper und Seele. Aspekte spätantiker Anthropologie, Munich, 95–113 Reydams-Schils, G. (2013), ‘The Academy, the Stoics and Cicero on Plato’s Timaeus’, in: Long ed., 29–58 Reydams-Schils, G. (2016), ‘Teaching Pericles: Cicero on the study of nature’, in: Wil-



liams, G.D.–Volk, K. eds., Roman Reflections: Studies in Latin Philosophy, Oxford, 91–128 Reydams-Schils, G. ed. (2003), Plato’s Timaeus as Cultural Icon, Notre Dame Reydams-Schils, G. ed. (2011), Thinking through Excerpts. Studies on Stobaeus, Turnhout Reynolds, L.D. ed. (1965 and later repr.), L. Annaei Senecae Epistulae. T. 1: libri 1–xiii, T.2: libri xiv–xx, Oxford Reynolds, L.D. ed. (1977), L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum libri duodecim, Oxford Reynolds, L.D.–Wilson, N.G. (20134), Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford (1st ed. 1968) Ricard, D. (1844). ‘Les opinions des philosophes,’ Œuvres morales de Plutarque. Vol. 4, Paris, 261–362 Ricciardetto, A. ed. (2014), L’Anonyme de Londres (P.Lit.Lond 165, Brit.Libr. inv. 137). Édition et traduction d’un papyrus médical grec du Ier siècle, Liège Rich, A.N.M. (1954), ‘The Platonic ideas as the thoughts of God’, Mnemosyne 7, 123–133 Richter, G. (1964), Die Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos. Eine Untersuchung des Textes nach seinen Quellen und seiner Bedeutung, Ettal Richter, G. (1982), Johannes von Damaskos. Philosophische Kapitel, Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit Erläuterungen versehen, Stuttgart Riedweg, C. (1990), ‘The ‘atheistic’ fragment from Euripides’ Bellerophontes (286 N2)’, ICS 15, 39–53 Riedweg, C. ed. (1994), Ps.-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?) Ad graecos de vera religione (bisher “Cohortatio ad Graecos”). 1: Text, 2: Kommentar, Basel Riedweg, C. (2002), Pythagoras: Leben, Lehre, Nachwirkung: eine Einführung, Munich (trans., Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching, and Influence, Berlin 2005) Riedweg, C. & alii eds. (2016), Kyrill von Alexandrien I: Gegen Julian. Teil 1: Buch 1–5, GCS NF 20, Berlin Riedweg, C. & alii eds. (2018), Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 5.1/3, Die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike, Basel Riesenweber, Th. ed. (2013), C. Marius Victorinus Commenta in Ciceronis Rhetorica. Accedit incerti auctoris tractatus de attributis et negotio, Berlin Rieth, O. (1933), Grundbegriffe der stoischen Ethik. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Berlin Riggsby, A.M. (2007), ‘Guides to the wor(l)d’, in: König, J.–Whitmarsh, T. eds., Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire, Cambridge, 88–107 (repr. 2013) Ringshausen, K.W. (1929), Poseidonios–Asklepiodot–Seneca und ihre Anschauungen über Erdbeben und Vulkane, diss. Munich Rist, J.M. (1969), Stoic Philosophy, Cambridge (repr. 1977) Ritter, H.–Preller, L. eds. (19139), Historia philosophiae graeco-romanae ex fontium locis contexta, ed. Wellmann, E., Gotha (repr. 1934) Ritzenfeld, A. ed. (1912), Procli Diadochi Lycii Institutio physica, Leipzig



Robinet, A. ed. (1954), G.W. Leibniz: Principes de la nature et de la grace fondés en raison. Principes de la philosophie ou Monadologie. Publiés intégralement d’après les manuscrits de Hanovre, Vienne et Paris et présentés d’après les lettres inédites, Paris Robinson, J.M. & alii eds. (2001), The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English, with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas, Leuven Robinson, R. (1950 and later repr.), Definition, Oxford Rocca-Serra, G. (1980), Censorinus Le jour natal, traduction annotée, Paris Rocca-Serra, G. (1987), ‘Parménide chez Diogène Laërce’, in: Aubenque, P. ed. (1987), Études sur Parménide T. 2: Problèmes d’interprétation, Paris, 254–273 Rolke, K.-J. (1975), Die bildhaften Vergleiche in den Fragmenten der Stoiker von Zenon bis Panaitios, Hildesheim Roller, D.W. (2005), ‘Seleukos of Seleukia’, AC 74, 111–118 Roller, D.W. ed. (2010), Eratosthenes’ Geography: Fragments Collected and Translated, with Commentary and Additional Material, Princeton Romana Berno, F. (2003), Lo specchio e la virtù. Studio sulle Naturales quaestiones di Seneca, Bologna Romana Berno, F. (2015), ‘Exploring appearances: Seneca’s scientific works’, in: Bartsch, S.–Schiesaro, A. eds., The Cambridge Companion to Seneca, Cambridge, 82–92 Römer, F. (1987), ‘Zum Vorwort des Scribonius Largus: Literarischer Schmuck einer Rezeptsammlung’, WSt 100, 125–132 Romeyer Dherbey, G.–Gourinat, J.-B. eds. (2005), Les Stoïciens, Paris Rommevaux, S., Djebbar, A, and Vitrac, B. (2001), ‘Remarques sur l’histoire des Éléments d’Euclide’, AHES 55, 221–295 Ronconi, F. (2012a), ‘Le corpus aristotélicien du Paris. gr. 1853 et les cercles érudits à Byzance. Un cas controversé’, Studia graeco-arabica 2, 201–225 Ronconi, F. (2012b), ‘Le silence des livres. Manuscrits philosophiques et circulation des idées à l’époque byzantine moyenne’, Quaestio 11, 169–207 Roos, A.G. ed. (1907), Flavii Arriani quae extant omnia. Vol. 2: Scripta minora et fragmenta, Lipsiae (corr. repr. ed. Wirth, G. 1968) Roscher, W.H. (1913), Die hippokratische Schrift Von der Siebenzahl in ihrer vierfachen Überlieferung zum erstenmal herausgegen und erläutert, Paderborn (repr. New York 1967) Rose, V. ed. (1863), Aristoteles pseudepigraphus, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1971) Rose, V. (1875), ‘τακικόν–ταράκιον’, Hermes 1875, 119–121 (w. ed. of ἐρωταποκρίσεις φιλοσόφου Ἀριστοτέλους) Rose, V. ed. (1886), Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig (repr. 1967) Roselli, A. ed. (1992), [Aristotele] De spiritu, Pisa Roseman, C.H. (2005), ‘Reflexions of philosophy: Strabo and geographical sources’, in: Dueck, D. & alii eds., Strabo’s Cultural Geography: The Making of a Kolossourgia, Cambridge, 27–41



Rosenthal, F. (1937), ‘Arabische Nachrichten über Zenon den Eleaten’, Orientalia 6, 21– 67 (repr. as Study I in: Rosenthal, F. 1990, Greek Philosophy in the Arab World: A Collection of Essays, Aldershot) Rösler, W. (1971), ‘ΟΜΟΥ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΗΝ’, Hermes 99, 246–248 Rösler, W. (1973), ‘Lukrez und die Vorsokratiker. Doxographische Probleme im I. Buch von De rerum natura’, Hermes 101, 1973, 48–66 (repr. in: Classen ed. 1986, 57–73) Ross, W.D. ed. (1924), Aristotle’s Metaphysics. A Revised Text with Intoduction and Commentary. 2 Vols., Oxford (repr. 2008) Ross, W.D. ed. (1955), Aristotelis Fragmenta Selecta, Oxford (repr. 1963) Rossi, P. (2012), ‘Le piene del Nilo nelle Naturales quaestiones di Seneca’, in: Beretta & alii eds., 69–80 Rossitto, C. ed. (2011), La psychologie d’Aristote: textes réunis, Paris Rothschild, C.K.–Thompson, T.W. eds. (2014), Galen’s De indolentia, Tübingen Roueché, M. (1990), ‘The definitions of philosophy and a new fragment of Stephanus the philosopher’, JÖByz 40, 107–128 Roueché, M. (1999), ‘Did medical students study philosophy in Alexandria?’, BICS 43, 153–169 Roueché, M. (2011), ‘Stephanus the Alexandrian philosopher, the kanon and a seventhcentury millennium’, JWI 74, 1–30 Roueché, M. (2016), ‘A philosophical portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher’, in: Sorabji ed., 541–563 Rousseau, A.–Doutreleau, L. & alii eds. (1965), Irénée de Lyon Contre les heresies Livre IV, Édition critique T. I, Introduction, notes justificatives et tables; T. II, Texte et traduction, SC 100, Paris Rousseau, A.–Doutreleau, L. & alii eds. (1969), Irénée de Lyon Contre les heresies Livre V, Édition critique T. I, Introduction, notes justificatives et tables; T. II, Texte et traduction, SC 152–153, Paris Rousseau, A.–Doutreleau, L. eds. (1974), Irénée de Lyon Contre les heresies Livre III, Édition critique T. I, Introduction, notes justificative et tables; T. II, Texte et traduction, SC 210–211, Paris Rousseau, A.–Doutreleau, L. eds. (1979), Irénée de Lyon Contre les heresies Livre I, Édition critique T. I, Introduction, notes justificatives ettables; T. II, Texte et traduction, SC 263–264, Paris Rousseau, A.–Doutreleau, L. eds. (1982), Irénée de Lyon Contre les heresies Livre II, Édition critique T. I, Introduction, notes justificative et tables; T. II, Texte et traduction, SC 293–294, Paris Rouveret, A. (1989), Histoire et imaginaire de la peinture ancienne (Ve siècle av. J.-C–Ier siècle ap. J.-C.), Rome Rowett, C. (2013), ‘Philosophy’s numerical turn. Why the Pythagoreans’ interest in numbers is truly awsome’, in: Sider–Obbink eds., 3–31



Royse, J.R. (2018), ‘The text of Stobaeus: the manuscripts and Wachsmuth’s edition’, in: M–R 4.156–173 Rubarth, S. (1999), review Mansfeld–Runia 1997, AncPhil 19, 186–191 Rudolph, K. (2011a), ‘Democritus’ perspectival theory of vision’, JHS 131, 67–83 Rudolph, K. (2011b), review Mansfeld–Runia 2010, BMCR 2011.01.13 Rudolph, K. (2012), ‘Democritus’ ophthalmology’, CQ 62, 496–501 Rudolph, K. (2015), ‘Sight and the Presocratics: approaches to visual perception in early Greek philosophy’, in: Squire, M. ed., Sight and the Ancient Senses, London, 36– 53 Rudolph, K. (2018), ‘Theophrastus and the authority of the De sensibus’, in: Bryan– Warren eds., 139–161 Rudolph, U. (1989), Die Doxographie des Pseudo-Ammonios. Ein Beitrag zur neuplatonischen Überlieferung im Islam, Stuttgart Rudolph, U. (1990), ‘Christliche Theologie und vorsokratische lehren in der Turba philosophorum’, OC 32, 97–123 Rudolph, U. (2005), ‘La connaissance des Présocratiques à l’aube de la philosophie et de l’alchimie islamiques’, in: Viano ed., 155–170 Rudolph, U. (2010), ‘Die Deutung des Erbes: Die Geschichte der antiken Philosophie und Wissenschaft aus der Sicht arabischer Autoren’, in: Goulet–Rudolph eds., 279– 315 (discussion 316–320) Rudolph, U. (2012), ‘§1. Der spätantike Hintergrund’, in: Rudolph ed. (2012a), Philosophie in der islamischen Welt. Bd. 1, 8–10. Jahrhundert, Basel, 3–39 Ruland, H.-J., ed. (1976), Die arabischen Fassungen von zwei Schriften des Alexander von Aphrodisias: Über die Vorsehung und Über das liberum arbitrium, diss. Saarbrücken (with German trans.) Runia, D.T. (1981), ‘Philo’s De aeternitate mundi: The problem of its interpretation’, VC 35, 105–151 (repr. as Study VIII in: Runia 1990, Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies in Philo of Alexandria, Aldershot) Runia, D.T. (1986), Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Leiden Runia, D.T. (1989a), ‘Festugière revisited: Aristotle in the Greek Patres’, VC 43, 1–34 Runia, D.T. (1989b), ‘Xenophanes on the moon: a doxographicum in Aëtius’, Phronesis 34, 245–269 Runia, D.T. (1992), ‘Xenophanes or Theophrastus? an Aëtian doxographicum on the sun,’ in: Fortenbaugh–Gutas eds., 112–140 Runia, D.T. (1996a), ‘Atheists in Aëtius’, Mnemosyne 49, 542–576 (repr. in: M–R 3.343– 374) Runia, D.T. (1996b), ‘Additional fragments of Arius Didymus on physics,’ in: Algra & alii eds., 363–381 (repr. M–R 3:313–332) Runia, D.T. (1997), ‘Lucretius and doxography’, in: Algra & alii eds., Lucretius and his Intellectual Background, Amsterdam, 93–103 (repr. in: M–R 3.255–270)



Runia, D.T. (1999a), ‘The placita ascribed to doctors in Aëtius’ doxography of physics’, in: Van der Eijk ed., 191–250 (repr. in: M–R 3.515–575) Runia, D.T. (1999b), ‘A brief history of the term κόσμος νοητός from Plato to Plotinus’, in: Cleary ed., 151–171 Runia, D.T. (1999c), ‘What is doxography?’, in: Van der Eijk ed., 31–55 Runia, D.T. (2001), Philo of Alexandria On the Creation of the Cosmos: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Leiden Runia, D.T. (2002), ‘The beginnings of the end: Philo of Alexandria and Hellenistic theology’, in: Frede–Laks eds., 183–221 Runia, D.T. (2003), ‘Plato’s Timaeus, first principle(s), and creation in Philo and Early Christian thought’, in: Reydams-Schils ed., 133–151 Runia, D.T. (2008a), ‘The sources for Presocratic philosophy’, in: Curd–Graham eds., 27–53 Runia, D.T. (2008b), ‘Philo and Hellenistic doxography’, in: Alesse ed., 13–52 (repr. in: M–R 3.271–312) Runia, D.T. (2009), ‘Aëtius, or what’s in a name?’, Mnemosyne 62, 464–470 (repr. in: M–R 3.173–182) Runia, D.T. (2017), ‘From Stoicism to Platonism: The difficult case of Philo’s De Providentia I,’ in Engberg-Pedersen, T. ed., From Stoicism to Platonism: the Development of Philosophy, 100BCE to 100CE, Cambridge, 159–178. Runia, D.T. (2018), ‘Epicurus and the Placita’, in: M–R 4.377–431 Runia, D.T. (2019), Ancient Doxography, in: Clayman, D. ed. Oxford Bibliographies in Classics, New York, accessible online at DOI 10.1093/OBO/9780195389661-0227 Runia, D.T. (2020) ‘Irreducible texts: the implications for an edition of the Aëtian Placita,’ in: Lammer–Jas eds. Rüpke, J. (2005), ‘Varro’s tria genera theologiae: religious thinking in the late republic’, Ordia Prima 4, 107–130 Rüsche, F. (1930), Blut, Leben und Seele. Ihr Verhältnis nach Auffassung der griechischen und hellenistischen Antike, der Bibel und der alten Alexandrinischen Theologen: eine Vorarbeit zur Religionsgeschichte des Opfers, Paderborn (repr. New York 1968) Ruska, J. (19702), Turba philosophorum: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Alchemie, Berlin (1st ed. 1931) Russell, G.A. (1996), ‘The emergence of physiological optics’, in: Rashed, R. ed., Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science. Vol. 2: Mathematics and the Physical Sciences, London, 672–715 Russo, L. (1995), ‘Seleuco, Galileo e la teoria della gravitazione’, QUCC 49, 143–160 Russo, L. (2004), The Forgotten Revolution. How Science was Born in 300B.C. and Why it had to be Reborn, Berlin Sabra, A.I. (1976), ‘The physical and the mathemathical in ibn al-Haytham’s theory of



light and vision’ (repr. as Study VII in: Sabra 1994, Optics, Astronomy and Logic: Studies in Arabic Science and Philosophy, Aldershot) Sabra, A.I. (1989), The Optics of ibn al-Haytham. Books I–II–III: On Direct Vision. English Translation and Commentary. 2 Vols., London Sachs, E. (1917), Die fünf platonischen Körper: zur Geschichte der Mathematik und der Elementenlehre Platons und der Pythagoreer, Berlin (repr. New York 1976) Salati, O. (2012), ‘Mitografi e storici in Filodemo (De pietate, pars altera)’, CErc 42, 209– 258 Salles, R. ed. (2005), Metaphysics, Soul, and Ethics in Ancient Thought: Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji, Oxford Salles, R. ed. (2009), God and Cosmos in Stoicism, Oxford Sallmann, N. ed. (1983), Censorini De die natali liber ad Q. Caerellium, Leipzig Sallmann, N. (1988), Censorinus’ Betrachtungen zum Tag der Geburt, Leipzig Salvadore, M. ed. (1999), M. Terenti Varronis Fragmenta omnia quae extant. Pars I Supplem., Hildesheim Sambursky, S.–Pines, S. (1971), The Concept of Time in Late Neoplatonism. Texts with Translation, Introduction and Notes, Jerusalem Sandbach, F.H. ed. (1969), Plutarch Moralia. Vol. 15, Fragments, Cambridge MA Sandbach, F.H. (1971), ‘Ennoia and prolepsis in the Stoic theory of knowledge’, CQ 24 (1971), 44–51 (rev. repr. in: Long, A.A. ed. 19962, Problems in Stoicism, London, 22– 37) Sandbach, F.H. (1985), Aristotle and the Stoics, Cambridge Sanders, K.R. (2011), ‘Strato on microvoid’, in: Desclos–Fortenbaugh eds., 263–276 Santoro, M. ed. (2000), [Demetrio Lacone] [La forma del dio] (PHerc. 1055). Edizione, traduzione e commento, Naples Sanz, P. (1946), Griechische literarische Papyri christlichen Inhaltes: Biblica, Väterschriften und Verwandtes, Baden bei Wien Sassi, M.M. (1978), Le teorie della percezione in Democrito, Florence Sassi, M.M. (2018), ‘L’art subtil d’Euripide de critiquer les dieux sur la scène’, PhilosAnt 18, 169–191 Saudelli, L. (2011), ‘Hermann Diels: le savoir des Anciens et la science de l’antique’, Revue germanique internationale 14, 187–208 Saudelli, L. (2012), Eraclito ad Alessandria: studi e ricerche intorno alla testimonianza di Filone, Turnhout Sauvé Meyer, S. (2009), ‘Chain of causes: what is Stoic fate?’, in: Salles ed., 71–90 Sayili, A.M. (1939), ‘The Aristotelian explanation of the rainbow’, Isis 30, 65–83 Scalas, G. (2015), ‘«Le anime sono sangue» (Ref. I 22,5 = 340 Usener). Una testimonianza ‘ippolitea’ sulla psicologia di Epicuro’, Lexicum Philosophicum 3, 198–226 Scarano Ussani, V. (1997), L’ars dei giuristi: considerazioni sullo statuto epistemologico della giurisprudenza romana, Turin



Scarano Ussani, V. (2012), Disciplina iuris e altri saperi. Studi sulla cultura di alcuni giuristi romani fra tarda repubblica e secondo secolo d.C., Naples Schallenberg, M. (2008), Freiheit und Determinismus. Ein philosophischer Kommentar zu Ciceros Schrift De fato, Berlin Schedler, M. (1916), Die Philosophie des Macrobius und ihr Einfluss auf die Wissenschaft des christlichen Mittelalters dargestellt und philosophiegeschichtlich untersucht, Münster Schenk, A. (1909), De Isidori Hispalensis De natura rerum libelli fontibus, diss. Jena Schenkl, G., Downey, G., and Norman, A.F. eds. (1965–1974), Themistii orationes quae supersunt. 3 Vols., Leipzig Schenkeveld, D.M. (1990), ‘Studies in the history of ancient linguistics; iii. The Stoic τέχνη περὶ φωνῆς’, Mnemosyne 43, 86–108 Scherbenske, E.W. (2009), Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum, diss. Chapel Hill, https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:fd42b36 7‑9437‑4910‑9f75‑87aad75bca10 Schibli, H.S. ed. (1990), Pherekydes of Syros, Oxford Schibli, H.S. (1993), ‘Xenocrates’ daemons and the irrational soul’, CQ 43, 143–167 Schindler, K. (1934), Die stoische Lehre von den Seelenteilen und Seelenvermögen insbesondere bei Panaitios und Poseidonios und ihre Verwendung bei Cicero, diss. Munich Schironi, F. (2012), ‘Greek commentaries’, Dead Sea Discoveries 19, 339–441 Schmalzriedt, E. (1970), Περὶ φύσεως. Zur Frühgeschichte der Buchtitel, Munich Schmekel, A. (1892), Die Philosophie der Stoa in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange dargestellt, Berlin (repr. Hildesheim 1974) Schmidlin, B. (1976), ‘Horoi, pithana und regulae—Zum Einfluß der Rhetorik und Dialektik auf die juristische Regelbildung’, in: ANRW II.15, 101–130 Schmidt, E.G. (1995), ‘Philosophische Polemik bei Cicero’, RhM 138, 222–247 Schmidt, P.L. (1988), ‘Lachmann’s method: On the history of a misunderstanding’, in: Dionisiotti, A.C. & alii eds., The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays, London, 227–236 (repr. in: Schmidt, P.L. 2000, Traditio Latinitatis: Studien zur Rezeption und Überlieferung der lateinischen Literatur, Stuttgart, 11–18) Schmitt, J.O. ed. (2016), Barhebraeus: Butyrum Sapientiae, Physics. Introduction, Edition, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden Schmitz, P. (2016), review Bottler 2014, BMCR 2016.03.11 Schneider, J.G. ed. (1818–1821), Theophrasti Eresiii quae supersunt opera et excerpta librorum quattuor tomis comprehensa. T 1, Textum graecum continens, Leipzig 1818 Schneidewin, F.G.–Von Leutsch, E.J. eds. (1839), Corpus paroemiographorum. 2 Vols., Göttingen (repr. Hildesheim 1965) Schober, A. ed. (1988), ‘Philodemi De pietate libelli partem priorem restituit A. Schober’, CErc 18, 67–125 (diss. ined. Königsberg 1923)



Schoedel, W.R. (1959), ‘Philosophy and rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus’, VC 13, 22–32 Schoedel, W.R. ed. (1972), Athenagoras Legatio and De Resurrectione, Oxford Schofield, M. (1975), ‘Doxographica anaxagorea’, Hermes 103, 1–24 Schofield, M. (1980a), An Essay on Anaxagoras, Cambridge Schofield, M. (1980b), ‘Preconceptions, argument and god’, in: Schofield & alii eds., 283– 208 Schofield, M. (1986), ‘Cicero for and against divination’, JRS 76, 47–65 Schofield, M. (1999), ‘Academic epistemology’, in: Algra & alii eds., 323–351 Schofield, M. (2013), ‘Writing philosophy’, in: Steel, Cath. ed., The Cambridge Companion to Cicero, Cambridge, 73–87 Schofield, M. & alii eds. (1980), Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, Oxford Schofield, M. ed. (2013), Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century. New Directions in Philosophy, Cambridge Scholia Basileensia in Germanicum see Dell’Era (1979) Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem see Erbse (1969–1988) Scholia Graeca in Odysseam see Pontani (2007) Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera see Wendel (1935) Scholia in Aratum vetera see Martin (1974) Scholia in Aristophanem see Holwerda (1960) Scholia in Aristotelem see Brandis (1836) Scholia in Basilium see Pasquali (1910), Poljakov (1982–1983), Cataldi Palau (1987) Scholia in Platonis Phaedrum see Lucarini–Moreschini (2012) Scholia Platonica see Greene (1938), Cufalo (2007) Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Opera et dies see Aa.Vv. (1542), Gaisford (1823), Pertusi (1995) Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Theogoniam see Aa.Vv. (1542), De Gregorio (1975) Scholia vetera in Pindarum see Drachmann Scholten, C. (1996a), Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrift »De opificio mundi« des Johannes Philoponos, Berlin Scholten, C. (1996b), ‘Titel–Gattung–Sitz im Leben. Probleme der Klassifizierung antiker Bibelausleging am Beispiel der griechischen Hexaemeronschriften’, in: Schöllgen–Scholten eds., 254–296 Scholten, C. (2003), ‘Ein unerkannter Quaestioneskommentar (Exc.Theo. 4F) und die Deutung der Verklärung Christi in frühchristlichen Texten’, VC 57, 389–410 Scholten, C. (2005), ‘Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische Nachrichten in der Schrift De aeternitate mundi des Johannes Philoponos’, RhM 148, 202–219 Scholten, C. ed. (2009–2011), Johannes Philoponos. De aeternitate mundi—Über die Ewigkeit der Welt, Übersetzt und eingeleitet. 5 Vols., Turnhout Scholten, C. (2012), ‘Die Funktion der Häresienabwehr in der alten Kirche’, VC 66, 229– 268



Scholten, C. ed. (2015), Theodoret De Graecarum affectionum curatione—Heilung der griechischen Krankheiten. Übersetzt, eingeleitet und mit Anmerkungen versehen, Leiden Schöllgen, G.–Scholten, C. eds. (1996), Stimuli. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. FS Dassmann, Münster Schönbeck, G.L.J. (1998), Sunbowl or Symbol: Models for the Interpretation of Heraclitus’ Sun Notion, Amsterdam Schöne, H. ed. (1907), ‘Marcellinos’ Pulslehre. Ein griechisches Anekdoton’, Festschrift zur 49. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner, Basel, 455–471 Schöne, H. ed. (1933), Galenos’ Schrift Über die Siebenmonatskinder, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und Medizin 3.4, 127–130 Schöne, R. ed. (1897), Damianos Schrift Über Optik. Mit Auszügen aus Geminos, Berlin Schönegg, B. (1999), Senecas Epistulae Morales als philosophisches Kunstwerk, Bern Schoonheim, P.L. (1999), ‘Die arabisch-lateinische Überlieferung der aristotelischen Meteorologie’, in: Endress–Kruk eds., 239–258 Schoonheim, P.L. ed. (2000), Aristotle’s Meteorology in the Arabico-Latin Tradition. Critical Edition of the Texts, with Introduction and Indices, Leiden Schoonheim, P.L. (2003), ‘Méteorologiques. Tradition syriaque, arabe et latine’, DPhA Supplém. 324–328 Schorn, S. ed. (2004), Satyros aus Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente und Kommentar, Basel Schoy, C. (1925), Abhandlung des Schaichs iIbn ‘Alî al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haitham über die Natur der Spuren (Flecken) die man auf der Oberfläche des Mondes sieht, Hannover Schreckenberg, H. (1964), Anagke: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Wortgebrauchs, Munich Schrijvers, P.H. (1976), ‘Le sommeil (DRN IV 907–961, Scolie ad Epicure, Ep. ad Her. 66)’, in: Bollack, J. ed., Études sur l’Épicurisme antique I, Lille, 231–259 (repr. in: Schrijvers 1999, 119–145) Schrijvers, P.H. (1977), ‘La classification des rêves selon Hérophile’, Mnemosyne 30, 13– 27 Schrijvers, P.H. (1980), ‘Die Traumtheorie des Lukrez’, Mnemosyne 33, 128–151 (repr. in: Schrijvers 1999, 146–166) Schrijvers, P.H. (1992), ‘Lucrèce et les sceptiques’, in: La langue latine, langue de la philosophie, Rome, 125–140 (repr. in: Schrijvers 1999, 167–182) Schrijvers, P.H. (1999), Lucrèce et les sciences de la vie, Leiden Schröder, B.-J. (1999), Titel und Text. Zur Entwicklung lateinischer Gedicht-Überschriften, mit Untersuchungen zu lateinischen Buchtiteln, Inhaltsverzeichnissen und anderen Gliederungsmitteln, Berlin Schröder, H.O. ed. (1934), Galeni In Platonis Timaeum Commentarii fragmenta collegit disposuit explicavit; appendicem arabicam addidit Kahle, P., Leipzig



Schroeder, S. (2001), review Lachenaud 1993, Gnomon 73, 389–398 Schroeder, F.M.–Todd, R.B. (1990), Two Aristotelian Commentators on the Intellect: The De intellectu attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius’ Paraphrase of Aristotle’s De anima 3.4–8, Toronto Schubert, C. (2017), ‘Die Arbeitsweise Plutarchs: Notizen, Zitate und Placita’, RhM 160, 43–57 Schulte, J. (1904), Theodoret von Cyrus als Apologet. Ein Beitrag zu Geschichte der Apologetik, Vienna Schultz, C.E. (2014), A Commentary on Cicero De divinatione I, Ann Arbor Schulze, Chr. (1999), Aulus Cornelius Celsus–Arzt oder Laie? Autor, Konzept und Adressaten der De medicina libri octo, Trier Schütrumpf, E. ed. (2008), Heraclides of Pontus. Texts and translation (trans. by Stork, P., Van Ophuijsen, J., and Prince, S.), New Brunswick NJ Schwabl, H. (1962), ‘Weltschöpfung’, RE Supp. Bd. IX, 1433–1589 Schwabl, H. (1964), ‘Anaximander. Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im vorsokratischen Denken’, ABG 9, 59–72 Schwabl, H. (1966), ‘Anaximenes und die Gestirne’, Wiener Studien 79, 33–38 Schwartz, E. (1909), ‘Überschriften und Kephalaia’, in: GCS Bd. 9.3, Eusebius Werke. Bd. 2. Die Kirchengeschichte, 3. T.: Einleitungen, Übersichten und Register, Leipzig, cxlvii– cxliii (2nd ed. GCS NF. Bd. 6.3 m. einem Vorw. von Winkelmann, F., Berlin 1999) Schwartz, E. ed. (1933), Aetna, Berlin Sconocchia, S. ed. (1983), Scribonii Largi Compositiones, Leipzig Scribonius Largus see Sconocchia (1983) Searby, D.M. ed. (2007), The Corpus Parisinum. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text with Commentary and English Translation. (A Medieval Anthology of Greek Texts from the Presocratics to the Church Fathers, 600B.C.–700A.D.). 2 Vols., Lewiston NY Searby, D.M. (2011), ‘The intertitles in Stobaeus: condensing a culture,’ in: ReydamsSchils ed., 23–70 Sedley, D.N. (1976), ‘Epicurus and the mathematicians of Cyzicus’, CErc 6, 23–54 Sedley, D.N. (1977), ‘Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic philosophy’, PCPhS 23, 74–120 Sedley, D.N. (1982), ‘Two concepts of vacuum’, Phronesis 27, 175–193 Sedley, D.N. (1985a), ‘The Stoic theory of universals’, Southern Journal of Philosophy 23, Supplem. Recovering the Stoics, 87–92 Sedley, D.N. (1985b), ‘Three notes on Theophrastus’ treatment of tastes and smells’, in: Fortenbaugh & alii eds., 205–207 Sedley, D.N. (1989), ‘Epicurus on the common sensibles’ in: Huby–Neal eds., 123–136 Sedley, D.N. (1992), ‘Empedocles’ theory of vision and Theophrastus’ De sensibus’, in: Fortenbaugh–Gutas eds., 20–31 Sedley, D.N. (1998a), ‘Theophrastus and Epicurean physics’, in: Van Ophuijsen–Van Raalte eds., 331–354



Sedley, D.N. (1998b), Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom, Cambridge Sedley, D.N. (1999), ‘Hellenistic physics and metaphysics’, in: Algra & alii eds., 355– 411 Sedley, D.N. (2002), ‘The origins of Stoic God’, in: Frede–Laks eds., 41–83 Sedley, D.N. (2005), ‘Les origines des preuves stoïciennes de l’existence de dieu’, RMM 4, 461–487 Sedley, D.N. (2007), Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity, Berkeley Sedley, D.N. (2011), ‘Epicurus’ theological innatism’, in: Fish–Sanders eds., 29–52 Sedley, D.N. (2013), ‘The atheist underground’, in: Harte–Lane eds., 329–348 Sedley, D.N. (2015a), ‘Marcus Aurelius on physics’, in: Van Ackeren, M. ed., A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, Oxford, 396–407 Sedley, D.N. (2015b), ‘Varieties of definition’, in: Ebrey, D. ed., Theory and Practice in Aristotle’s Natural Science, Cambridge, 187–198 Segonds, A.-Ph. (1982), ‘Les fragments de l’Histoire de la philosophie’, in: Des Places, É. ed., Porphyre: Vie de Pythagore, Lettre à Marcella, Paris, 162–197 Seneca see Haase (1853), Reynolds (1965), (1977), Hine (1981), (1996), (2010), Vottero (1989), (1998), Parroni (2002), Inwood (2007) Sergius of Reshaina see Hugonnard-Roche (2004b), Aydin (2016) Servius see Thilo (1877), Rand (1946), Stocker (1965), Jeunet-Mancy (2012) Setaioli, A. (1988), Seneca e i Greci: Citazioni e traduzioni nelle opere filosofiche, Bologna Sextus Empiricus see Blank (1998) Sextus Pomponius see Dubarle (1825) Seyr, F. (1937), ‘Die Seelen- und Erkenntnislehre Tertullians und die Stoa’, Commentationes Vindobonenses 3, 51–74 Shackleton Bailey, D.R. (1952), ‘Echoes of Propertius’, Mnemosyne 5, 307–333 Shackleton Bailey, D.R. ed. (1999), Cicero Letters to Atticus. Vol. 4, Cambridge MA Shalev, D. (2006), ‘The role of εὑρήματα in the Lives of Diogenes Laertius, and related literature’, Hermes 134, 309–337 Share, M. ed. (1994), Arethas of Caesarea’s Scholia on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories (Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 35). A Critical Edition, Paris Sharpe, W.D. (1964), Isidore of Seville: The Medical Writings. An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary, TAPhS 54 pt. 2, Philadelphia Sharples, R.W. (1981), ‘Necessity in the Stoic doctrine of fate’, SO 55, 81–97 Sharples, R.W. (1982), ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias on time’, Phronesis 27, 58–81 (w. trans. of Alexander of Aphrodisias On Time) Sharples, R.W. ed. (1983), Alexander of Aphrodisias On Fate: Text, Translation and Commentary, London Sharples, R.W. (1985), ‘Theophrastus on tastes and smells’, in: Fortenbaugh & alii eds., 183–204 Sharples, R.W. ed. (1991), Cicero: On Fate (De fato), Boethius: The Consolation of Philo-



sophy (Philosophiae consolationis) IV.5–7, V. Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentaries, Warminster Sharples, R.W. (1994), Alexander of Aphrodisias Quaestiones 2.16–3.15, London Sharples, R.W. (1995a), ‘Counting Plato’s principles’, in: Ayres, L. ed., The Passionate Intellect. FS Kidd, New Brunswick, 76–82 Sharples, R.W. (1995b), ‘Causes and necessary conditions in the Topica and De fato’, in: Powell ed., 247–271 Sharples, R.W. (1998a), ‘Alexander and Pseudo-Alexanders of Aphrodisias, Scripta minima. Questions and Problems, Makeweights and Prospects’, in: Kullmann, W. & alii eds., Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, Tübingen, 383–403 Sharples, R.W. (1998b), Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. Commentary. Vol. 3.1: Sources on Physics (Texts 137–223), Leiden Sharples, R.W. (2001a), ‘Dicaearchus on the soul and divination’, in: Fortenbaugh– Schütrumpf eds., 143–173 Sharples, R.W. (2001b), ‘Schriften und problemkomplexe zur Ethik’, in: Moraux (2001), 511–650 Sharples, R.W. (2002a), ‘Aristotelian theology after Aristotle’, in: Frede–Laks eds., 1–40 Sharples, R.W. (2002b), ‘Eudemus’ physics: change, place and time’, in: Bodnár–Fortenbaugh eds., 107–126 Sharples, R.W. (2005), ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias on the nature and location of vision’, in: Salles ed., 345–362 Sharples, R.W. (2007a), ‘Peripatetics on fate and providence’, in: Sorabji–Sharples eds., 2.595–605 Sharples, R.W. (2007b), ‘Peripatetics on soul and intellect’, in: Sorabji–Sharples eds., 2.607–620 Sharples, R.W. (2007c), ‘The Stoic Background to the Middle Platonist discussion of fate’, in: Bonazzi–Helmig eds., 169–188 Sharples, R.W. ed. (2008), Alexander Aphrodisiensis De anima libri mantissa. A new edition of the Greek text with introduction and commentary, Berlin Sharples, R.W. (2009a), ‘The Hellenistic period: what happened to hylomorphism?’, in: Van Riel, G.–Destrée, P. eds., Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle’s De anima, Leuven, 155–166 Sharples, R.W. (2009b), ‘Fate, prescience and free will’, in: Marenbon, J. ed., The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge, 207–227 Sharples, R.W. (2010), Peripatetic Philosophy 200BC to 200AD. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation, Cambridge Sharples, R.W. ed. (2011a), ‘Strato of Lampsacus: The sources, texts and translations’, in: Desclos–Fortenbaugh eds., 5–229 Sharples, R.W. (2011b), review Mansfeld–Runia 2009, Gnomon 83, 682–685 Sharples, R.W.– Van der Eijk, P.J. (2008). Nemesius On the Nature of Man, Liverpool



Shields, C. (2016), ‘Aristotle’s Psychology’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archi ves/win2016/entries/aristotle‑psychology Sider, D. (1997–1998), review Mansfeld–Runia 1997, CW 91, 441–442 Sider, D.–Brunschön, C.W. eds. (2007), Theophrastus of Eresus: On Weather Signs, Leiden Sider, D.–Obbink, D. eds. (2013), Studies on Heraclitus and Pythagoras, Berlin Siebert, H. (2014a), Die ptolemäische Optik in Spätantike und byzantinischer Zeit. Historiographische Dekonstruktion, textliche Neuerschließung, Rekontextualisierung, Stuttgart Siebert, H. (2014b), ‘Transformation of Euclid’s Optics in Late Antiquity’, Nuncius 29, 88–126 Siegert, F. ed. (1988), Über die Gottesbezeichnung “wohltätig verzehrendes Feuer” (De deo) von Philon von Alexandrien: Rückübersetzung aus dem Armenischen, deutsche Übersetzung und Kommentar, Tübingen Signes Codoner, J. (2014), ‘Towards a vocabulary for rewriting in Byzantium’, in: Signes Codoner, J.–Pérez Martín, I. eds., Textual Transmission in Byzantium: Between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung, Leuven, 61–90 Šijakovič, B. (2001), Bibliographia Praesocratica. A Bibliographical Guide to the Studies of Early Greek Philosophy in its Religious and Scientific Contexts with an Introductory Bibliography on the Historiography of Philosophy, Paris Silberman, A. ed. (1988), Pomponius Mela Chorographie, Paris Sillitti, G. (1980), Tragelaphos: storia di una metafora e di un problema, Naples Simon, G. (1988), Le regard, l’être et l’apparence dans l’optique de l’antiquité, Paris 1988 Simon, G. (1994), ‘La notion de rayon visuel et ses conséquences sur l’optique géométrique grecque’, Physis 31, 77–112 Simon, G. (2001), ‘Optique et perspective: Ptolémée, Alhazen, Alberti’, RHS 54, 325– 350 Singer, P.N. & alii (2014), Galen: Psychological Writings, Cambridge Siniossoglou, N. (2008), Plato and Theodoret: The Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance, Cambridge Sinisgalli, R. ed. (2006), Il nuovo De pictura di Leon Battista Alberti, Rome Siouville, A. (1928), Hippolyte de Rome, Philosophumena ou Réfutation de toutes les heresies. Première traduction française, avec une introduction et des notes. 2 Vols., Paris (repr. Milan 1988) Slater, W.J. ed. (1986), Aristophanis Byzantini fragmenta post A. Nauck collegit testimoniis ornavit brevi commenti instruxit, Berlin Small, J.P. (1997), Wax Tablets of the Mind. Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity, London Smith, A. ed. (1993), Porphyrius fragmenta, Stuttgart



Smith, A. (1996), ‘Eternity and time’, in: Gerson, L.P. ed., The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, Cambridge, 196–216 Smith, A.M. (1981), ‘Saving the appearances of the appearances: the foundations of classical geometrical optics’, AHES 24, 73–99 Smith, A.M. (1982), ‘Ptolemy’s search for a law of refraction: a case-study in the classical methodology of ‘saving the appearances’ and its limitations’, AHES 26, 221– 240 Smith, A.M. (1988), ‘The psychology of visual perception in Ptolemy’s Optics’, Isis 79, 188–207 Smith, A.M. (1996), Ptolemy’s Theory of Visual Perception: An English Translation of the Optics with Introduction and Commentary, Philadelphia Smith, A.M. (1999), Ptolemy and the Foundations of Ancient Mathematical Optics: A Source Based Guided Study, Philadelphia Smith, A.M. ed. (2001), Alhacen’s Theory of Visual Perception. A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three books of Alhacen’s De aspectibus, the Medieval latin Version of ibn al-Haytham’s Kitab al-manazir. Vol. 1: Introduction and Latin Text. Vol. 2: English Translation, Philadelphia Smith, A.M. ed. (2006), Alhacen on the Principles of Reflection: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of Books 4 and 5 of Alhacen’s De aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of ibn al-Haytham’s Kitab al-manazir. Vol. 1: Introduction and Latin Text; Vol. 2: English Translation, Philadelphia Smith, A.M. ed. (2008), Alhacen on Image-Formation and Distortion in Mirrors: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of Book 6 of Alhacen’s De aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of ibn al-Haytham’s Kitab al-manazir. Vol. 1: Introduction and Latin Text; Vol. 2: English Translation, Philadelphia Smith, A.M. ed. (2010), Alhacen on Reflection. A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of Book 7 of Alhacen’s De aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of ibn al-Haytham’s Kitab al-manazir. Vol. 1: Introduction and Latin Text; Vol. 2: English Translation, Philadelphia Smith, A.M. (2011), ‘Alhacen and Kepler and the origins of modern lens-theory’, in: Van Helden & alii eds., 147–165 Smith, A.M. (2015), From Sight to Light: The Passage from Ancient to Modern Optics, Chicago Smith, M.F. ed. (1992), Lucretius: On the Nature of Things, Cambridge MA Smith, M.F. ed. (1993), Diogenes of Oenoanda. The Epicurean Inscription Edited with Introduction, Translation and Notes, Naples Smith, M.F. ed. (2003), Supplement to Diogenes of Oenoanda. The Epicurean Inscription, Naples Smyth, H.W. (19562), Greek Grammar, rev. ed. by Messing, G.M., Cambridge MA Snell, B. (1964), ‘Vita activa and vita contemplativa in Euripides’ Antiope’, in: Snell, Scenes



from Greek Drama, Berkeley, 70–98 (German trans. in: Snell, Szenen aus griechischen Dramen, Berlin 1971, 76–103) Sodano, A.R. (1963), ‘Quid Macrobius de aeternitate mundi senserit quibusque fontibus usus sit’, AC 32, 48–62 Sodano, A.R. ed. (1964), Porphyrius: in Platonis Timaeum commentariorum fragmenta collegit et disposuit, Naples Sodano, A.R. (1974), Porfirio: I frammenti dei commentari al Timeo di Platone, Portici Solinus see Mommsen (1895) Solmsen, F. (1929), Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik, Berlin (repr. 1975) Solmsen, F. (1960), Aristotle’s System of the Physical world. A Comparison with his Predecessors, Ithaca NY (repr. New York 1970) Solmsen, F. (1961), Aisthesis in Aristotelian and Epicurean Thought, Med. KNAW Lett. 24, Amsterdam (repr. in: Solmsen 1968, Kleine Schriften. Bd. 1, Hildesheim, 612–633, and in: Classen ed. 1986, 151–172) Sonderegger, E. (1982), Simplikios: Über die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore, Göttingen Sorabji, R. (1974), ‘Body and soul in Aristotle’, Philosophy 49, 63–89 (repr. as Study I in: Sorabji 2013) Sorabji, R. (1980a and later repr.), Necessity, Cause and Blame: Perspectives on Aristotle’s Theory, London Sorabji, R. (1980b), ‘Causation, laws, and necessity’, in: Schofield & alii eds., 250– 282 Sorabji, R. (1983 and later repr.), Time, Creation and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, London Sorabji, R. (1988 and later repr.), Matter, Space and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and their Sequel, London Sorabji, R. (2003), ‘The mind-body relation in the wake of Plato’s Timaeus’, in: ReydamsSchils ed., 156–162 (repr. as Study II in: Sorabji 2013) Sorabji, R. ed. (2004), The Philosophy of the Commentators 200–600AD. A Sourcebook. Vol. 1: Psychology; Vol. 2: Physics; Vol. 3: Logic and Metaphysics, London Sorabji, R. (2013), Perception, Conscience and Will in Ancient Philosophy, Farnham Sorabji, R. (2016), ‘Introduction: Seven hundred years of commentary and the sixth century diffusion to other cultures’, in: Sorabji ed., Aristotle Re-interpreted: New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators, London 1–80 Sorabji, R.–Sharples, R.W. eds. (2007), Greek Philosophy 100BC–200AD. 2 Vols., London Soranus see Ilberg (1927), Burguière & alii (1988–2000), Podolak (2011) Soubiran, J. ed. (1972), Cicéron: Aratea, fragments poétiques, texte établi et traduit, Paris Speusippus see Lang (1911), Isnardi Parente (1980), Tarán (1981)



Spies, O. ed. (1937), ‘Al-Kindi’s treatise On the cause of the blue colour of the sky’, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 13, 7–19 Spira, A. ed. (2014), Gregorii Nysseni, De anima et resurrectione, Leiden. Spoerri, W. (1959), Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter. Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Sizilien, Basel Spoerri, W. (1970a), ‘Zur Kosmogonie in Virgils 6. Ekloge’, MH 27, 144–163 Spoerri, W. (1970b), ‘Antike Virgilerklärer und die Silenkosmogonie’, MH 27, 265–277 Stahl, W.H. (1964), ‘The systematic handbook in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’, Latomus 23, 311–321 Stählin, O. ed. (1906), Clemens Alexandrinus II: Stromata I–VI, GCS 15, Leipzig (rev. repr. by Treu, U., Berlin 19854) Stählin, O. ed. (1909), Clemens Alexandrinus III: Stromata Buch VII und VIII, GCS 17, Leipzig (rev. repr. by Früchtel, L. 19702, GCS 52, Berlin) Stählin, O. (19142), Editionstechnik. Ratschläge für die Anlage textkritischer Ausgaben, Leipzig Stangl, Th. ed. (1888), Tulliana et Mario-Victoriana, Munich Steckerl, F. ed. (1958), The Fragments of Praxagoras of Cos and his School, Edited and Translated, Leiden Steel, C. (2002), ‘A Neoplatonic Speusippus?’, in: Barbanti, M. & alii eds., Unione e amicizia. FS Romano, Catania, 469–476 Steel, C. (2007), Proclus Diadochus On Providence, London Steel, C. (2009), ‘The divine earth: Proclus on Timaeus 40BC’, in: Chiaradonna–Trabattoni eds., 259–281 Steel, C. (2012a), ‘Plato as seen by Aristotle (Metaphysics Α 6)’, in: Steel ed., 167–200 Steel, C. (2012b), ‘Maximus Confessor on theory and praxis. A commentary on Ambigua ad Johannem VI(10)1–19’, in: Bénatouïl–Bonazzi. eds., 229–257 Steel, C. ed. (2012c), Aristotle’s Metaphysics Alpha, Oxford Steel, C. & alii eds. (2007–2009), Procli in Platonis Parmenidem commentaria. 3 Vols., Oxford Steel, C.–Opsomer, J. (2012), Proclus Diadochus Ten Problems concerning Providence, Bristol Steinmetz, P. (1964), Die Physik des Theophrastos von Eresos, Bad Homburg Steinmetz, P. (1994), ‘Die Stoa’, in: Flashar ed., 495–716 Stephanus of Alexandria see Duffy (1983), Dickson (1998) Sternbach, L. ed. (1887–1889), ‘Gnomologium vaticanum e codice vaticano graeco 743’, WS 9, 175–206, WS 10, 1–49, WS 11, 43–64 (repr. w. new pag. Berlin 1963) Stern-Gillet, S.–Corrigan, K. eds. (2007), Reading Ancient Texts. Vol. 1: Presocratics and Plato. FS O’Brien, Leiden Stevens, W.M. (1980), ‘The figure of the earth in Isidore’s De natura rerum’, Isis 71, 268– 277



Stobaeus see Heeren (1792–1801), Meineke (1855–1857), Wachsmuth (1884), Hense (1894–1912) Stocker, A.F. & alii eds. (1965), Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum editio Harvardiana II. In Aeneidos libros III–V explanationes, Oxford Stokes, M.C. (1971), One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy, Cambridge MA Stone, M.E.–Shirinian, M.E. eds. (2000), Pseudo-Zeno: Anonymous Philosophical Treatise, Leiden Stork, P.–Van Ophuijsen, J.M., and Dorandi, T. eds. (2000), ‘Demetrius of Phalerum: the sources, text and translation,’ in: Fortenbaugh–Schütrumpf, eds. (2000), 1–310 Stork, P., Dorandi, T., Fortenbaugh, W.W., and Van Ophuijsen, J.M. eds. (2006), ‘Aristo of Ceos: the sources, text and translation,’ in Fortenbaugh–White, eds. (2006), 1–177 Stothers, R. (1979), ‘Ancient aurorae’, Isis 70, 85–95 Stothers, R. (2009), ‘Ancient meteorological optics’, CJ 105, 27–142 Stover, J.A. ed. (2016), A New Work by Apuleius: The Lost Third Book of the De Platone, Oxford Strange, S.K. (1994), ‘Plotinus on the nature of eternity and time’, in: Schrenk, L.P. ed., Aristotle in Late Antiquity, Washington DC, 22–53 Strato Lampsacenus see Wehrli (19692), Sharples (2011) Stratton, G.M. (1917), Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology before Aristotle, London (w. text and trans. of De sensibus, repr. Amsterdam 1964) Strickland, L. (2016), Leibniz’s Monadology. A New Translation and Guide, Edinburgh Strobel, B.–Wöhrle, G. eds. (2018), Xenophanes von Kolophon, Berlin Stroh, V. (1998), ‘De vocis definitione quadam Stoica’, in: Baumbach, M. & alii eds., Mousopolos Aner. FS Görgemanns, Heidelberg, 443–452 Strohm, H. (1937), ‘Zur Meteorologie des Theophrast’, Philologus 92, 249–268, 403–428 Strohm, H. (1953), ‘Theophrast und Poseidonios’, Hermes 81, 278–295 Strohm, H. (1977), ‘Beiträge zum Verständnis der Naturales quaestiones Senecas’, in: Latinität und alte Kirche. FS Hanslik, Vienna, 309–325 Strohm, H. (19843), Aristoteles: Meteorologie. Über die Welt, Berlin Strohmaier, G. (1998), ‘Bekannte und unbekannte Zitate in den Zweifeln an Galen des Rhazes’, in: Fischer, K.-D. & alii eds., Text and Tradition. Studies in Ancient Medicine and its Transmission. FS Kollesch, Leiden, 263–287 Struck, P.T. (2009), Divination and Human Nature: a Cognitive History of Intuition in Classical Antiquity, Princeton Struycken, P. (2003), ‘Colour mixtures according to Democritus and Plato’, Mnemosyne 56, 273–305 Stückelberger, A. (1965), Senecas 88. Brief: über Wert und Unwert der freien Künste. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Heidelberg Stückelberger, A. (1984), Vestigia democritea: die Rezeption der Lehre von den Atomen in der antiken Naturwissenschaft und Medizin, Basel



Stückelberger, A.–Graßhoff, G. & alii eds. (2006), Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie. Einleiting und Buch 1–4, Basel Sturz, F.W. ed. (1820), Orionis Thebani Etymologicum, Leipzig (repr. Olms 1973) Sudhaus, S. ed. (1898), Aetna erklärt von S. Sudhaus, Leipzig Svenbro, J. (2008), ‘Grammata et stoikheia. Les scholies à La grammaire de Denys le Thrace’, Kernos 21, 197–210 Swain, S. ed. (2007), Seeing the Face, Seeing the Soul. Polemon’s Physiognomy from Classical Antiquity to Medieval Islam, Oxford Symeon Seth, Conspectus rerum naturalium, in: Delatte ed., viii–89 Symeon Seth, De utilitate corporum caelestium, in: Delatte ed., 90–127 Szlezák, Th.A. ed. (1972), Pseudo-Archytas Über die Kategorien. Texte zur griechischen Aristoteles-Exegese herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert, Berlin (repr. 2011) Szlezák, Th.A. (2010), ‘The indefinite dyad in Sextus Empiricus’ report (Adversus mathematicos 10.248–283) and Plato’s Parmenides’, in: Turner–Corrigan eds., 79–91 Taft, R.F. (2001), ‘Anton Baumstark’s comparative liturgy revisited’, in: Taft, R.F.–Winkler, G. eds., Comparative Liturgy: Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872–1948), Rome, 191–232 Takahashi, H. ed. (2004), Aristotelian Meteorology in Syriac. Barhebraeus Butyrum Sapientiae, Books of Mineralogy and Meteorology, Leiden Takahashi, H. (2005), Barhebraeus: a bio-bibliography, Piscataway NJ Tannery, P. (1886), ‘Aristote. Météorologie, livre iii, ch. v’, in: Heiberg, J.-L. ed. (1929): Mémoires scientifiques T. IX: Philologie 1880–1928, Toulouse, 51–61 Tannery, P. (1887), Pour l’histoire de la science hellène, Paris, rev. ed. 1930 (repr. 1990) Taormina, D.T.–Piccione, R.M. eds. (2010), Giamblico. I frammenti delle Epistole. Introduzione, testo e commento, Naples Tarán, L. ed. (1965), Parmenides: a Text with Translation, Commentary and Critical Essays, Princeton NJ Tarán, L. ed. (1975), Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the pseudo-Platonic Epinomis, Philadelphia Tarán, L. ed. (1981), Speusippus of Athens: A Critical Study with a Collection of the Related Texts and a Commentary, Leiden Tarán, L. (1987), ‘Proclus and the Old Academy’, in: Pépin, J.–Saffrey, H.D. eds., Proclus lecteur et interprète des anciens, Paris, 227–276 (repr. in: Tarán 2001, Collected Papers (1962–1999), Leiden, 564–622) Tarán, L.–Gutas, D. eds. (2012), Aristotle Poetics. Editio Maior of the Greek Text with Historical Introduction and Philological Commentaries, Leiden Tardieu, M. (1975), ‘ΨΥΧΑΙΟΣ ΣΠΙΝΘΗΡ. Histoire d’une métaphore dans la tradition platonicienne jusqu’à Eckhart’, REAug. 21, 225–255 Tarrant, H. & alii eds. (2016), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity, Leiden



Tarrant, R. (2016), Texts, Editors and Readers. Methods and Problems in Latin Textual Criticism, Cambridge Tatum, W.J. (1984), ‘The Presocratics in Book 1 of Lucretius’De rerum natura’, TAPhA 114, 187–189 (repr. in: Gale, M.R. ed. 2007, Lucretius, Oxford, 132–145) Taub, L. (2003), Ancient Meteorology, London Taub, L. (2009), ‘Cosmology and meteorology’, in: Warren, J. ed., The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism, Cambridge, 105–124 Taub, L. (2015), ‘‘Problematising’ the Problemata: The Problemata in relation to other question-and-answer texts’, in: Mayhew ed., 413–436 Taub, L.–Doody, A. eds. (2009), Authorial Voices in Greco-Roman Technical Writing, Trier Taylor, A.E. (1928), A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Oxford Taylor, C.C.W. (1990), ‘Aristotle’s epistemology’, in: Everson ed., 116–142 Taylor, C.C.W. ed. (1999), The Atomists Leucippus and Democritus. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary, Toronto Tchernetska, N.–Wilson, N.G. (2011), ‘The palimpsest in context’, in: Netz & alii eds., 1.253–257 Teisserenc, F. (2018), ‘Le dieu de la loi. Athéisme et politique de la religion d’Euripide à Platon’, PhilosAnt 18, 37–69 Teixidor, J. (2003), Aristote en Syriaque: Paul le Perse, logicien du VIe siècle, Paris Terian, A. ed. (1981), Philonis Alexandrini de Animalibus: the Armenian text with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Chico CA Terian, A. (1984), ‘A Philonic fragment on the decad’, in: Greenspahn, F.E. & alii eds., Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, Chico CA, 173–182 Terian, A. ed. (2016), ‘Philonis De visione trium angelorum ad Abraham: a new translation of the mistitled De deo’, SPhiloA 28, 77–107 Tertullian see Borleffs (1929), Haidenthaller (1942), Waszink (1947), Borleffs (1953), Waszink (1956), Podolak (2010b) Theiler, W. (1930), Die Vorbereitung des Neoplatonismus, Berlin (repr. 1964, 2001) Theiler, W. (1946), ‘Tacitus und die antike Schicksalslehre’, in: Gigon, O. & alii eds., Phyllobolia für P. von der Mühl, Basel, 35–90 (repr. in: Theiler 1966, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, Berlin, 46–103) Theiler, W. (1964), ‘Einheit und unbegrenzte Zweiheit von Platon bis Plotin’, in: Mau, J.–Schmidt, E.G. eds., Isonomia. Studien zur Gleichheitsvorstellung im griechischen Denken, Berlin, 89–109 (repr. in: Theiler 1970, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur, Berlin, 460–483) Theiler, W. ed. (1982), Poseidonios: Die Fragmente. Bd. 1, Texte; Bd. 2, Erläuterungen, Berlin Themistius see Schenk, Downey, and Norman (1965–1974), Maisano (1995)



Theodoret see Gaisford (1839), Raeder (1904), Canivet (1958b), Scholten (2015) Theodorus Cyrenaeus see Winiarczyk (1981) Theodorus of Asine see Deuse (1973) Theodosius of Alexandria see Göttling (1822) Theon Smyrnaeus see Petrucci (2011) Theophrastus see Schneider (1818–1821), Usener (1855), Stratton (1917), Bergsträsser (1918), Coutant–Eichenlaub (1975), Funghi (1990), Daiber (1992), Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples & Gutas (1992–1993), Sider–Brunschön (2007), Gutas (2010), Amigues (2012), Repici (2013), Mayhew (2017) Théry, G. (1926), Autour du décret de 1210, II: Alexandre d’Aphrodise: aperçu sur l’influence de sa poétique, Kain Thesleff, H. ed. (1965), The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period Collected and Edited, Åbo Thibodeau, Ph. (2016), ‘Ancient optics: Theories and problems of vision’, in: Irby, G.L. ed., A Companion to Science, Technology and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, Hoboken NJ, 130–144 Thiel, D. (2006), Die Philosophie des Xenokrates im Kontext der Alten Akademie, Munich–Leipzig Thilo, G. ed. (1878–1881), Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii. Vol. 1: Aeneidos librorum I–V commentarii; Vol. 2: Aeneidos librorum VI–XII commentarii; Vol. 3.1: Qui feruntur in Bucolica et Georgia commentarii, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1961) Thom, J.C. ed. (1995), The Pythagorean Golden Verses. With Introduction and Commentary, Leiden Thom, J.C. ed. (2014), Cosmic Order and Divine Power. Pseudo-Aristotle, On the Cosmos, Tübingen Thraede, K. (1960), ‘Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich)’, RAC 5, 1191–1278 Tieleman, T.L. (1991). ‘Diogenes of Babylon and Stoic embryology: Ps.Plutarch, Plac. V 15.4 reconsidered’, Mnemosyne 44, 106–125 Tieleman, T.L. (1996), Galen and Chrysippus On the Soul. Argument and Refutation in the De placitis, Books II–III, Leiden Tieleman, T.L. (2003a), Chrysippus’ On Affections: Reconstruction and Interpretation, Leiden Tieleman, T.L. (2003b), ‘Galen and Genesis’, in: Van Kooten ed., 125–145 Tieleman, T.L. (2003c), ‘Galen’s psychology’, in: Barnes–Jouanna eds., 131–161 (discussion: 162–169) Tieleman, T.L. (2007), ‘Onomastic reference in Seneca: The case of Plato and the Platonists’, in Helmig, C.–Bonazzi, M. eds., Platonic Stoicism–Stoic Platonism, Leuven 2007, 133–148 Tieleman, T.L. (2008), ‘Methodology’, in: Hankinson (2008a), 49–65



Tieleman, T.L. (2014), ‘Galen, De placitis books iv and v: questions, options and authorities’, in: López Férez, J.A. ed., Galeno: Lengua, composición literaria, léxico, estilo, Madrid, 93–108 Tieleman, T.L. (2018), ‘Galen and doxography’, in: M–R 4.452–471 Tihon, A. (1976), ‘Notes sur l’astronomie grecque au Ve siècle de notre ère’, Janus 63, 167–184 Timaeus Locrus see Marg (1972) Timotin, A. (2012), La démonologie platonicienne. Histoire de la notion de daimon de Platon aux derniers néoplatoniciens, Leiden Tod, M.N. (1954), ‘Letter-labels in Greek inscriptions’, ABSA 49, 1–8 Todd, R.B. (1974), ‘ΣΥΝΕΝΤΑΣΙΣ and the Stoic theory of perception’, Grazer Beiträge 2, 251–261 Todd, R.B. ed. (1976), Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic physics: a Study of the De mixtione, with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation, Leiden Todd, R.B. (2000), ‘Géminos’, DPhA 3, 472–477 Todd, R.B.–Bowen, A.C. (2009), ‘Heraclides on the rotation of the earth: texts, contexts, continuities’, in: Fortenbaugh ed., 155–183 Tolkiehn, J. ed. (1913), Dosithei Ars grammatica, Leipzig Topchyan, A. ed. (2010), David the Invincible Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Old Armenian Text with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes, Leiden Torallas Tovar, S. (2014), ‘Philo of Alexandria’s dream classification’, ARG 15, 67–82 Tornau, C. (2000), ‘Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatos von Gades’, RhM 143, 197–220 Torraca, L. (1961), I dossografi greci, Padua Torrente, L. (2015–2016), Dossografia, dialettica e teorie della percezione nel De sensibus di Teofrasto, diss. Turin, online Torres, J.B. ed. (2018), Lucius Annaeus Cornutus Compendium de graecae theologiae traditionibus, Berlin Torstrik, A. (1875), ‘ΠΕΡΙ ΤΥΧΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΟΥ’: Aristot. Phys. В 4–6, Hermes 9, 425–470 Totelin, L. (2015), ‘Smell as sign and cure in ancient medicine’, in: Bradley ed., 17–29 Toulouse, S. (2005), ‘Les sciences et l’âme chez Posidonius: Remarques sur une definition de l’âme conservée dans Plutarque et sur le statut de l’astronomie et des mathématiques dans sa philosophie’, in: Romeyer Dherbey–Gourinat eds., 153–172 Taylor, A.E. (1928), A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Oxford (repr. 1962) Trachsel, A. (2009), ‘Astronomy in mythology and mythology in astronomy: the case of Eratosthenes’, in: Harder, M.A. & alii eds., Nature and Science in Hellenistic Poetry, Leuven, 201–225 Trapp, M.B. ed. (1994), Maximus Tyrius: Dissertationes, Stuttgart Trapp, M.B. (1997), Maximus of Tyre: The Philosophical Orations, Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, Oxford



Traversa, A. ed. (1952), Index Stoicorum Herculanensis, Genua Treadgold, W.T. (1977), ‘The preface of the Bibliotheca of Photius: text, translation, and commentary’, DOP 31, 343–349 Trendelenburg, F.A. (1967), Notwendigkeit und Freiheit in der griechischen Philosophie: Ein Blick auf den Streit dieser Begriffe, Darmstadt (repr. from: Beiträge zur Philosophie. Bd. 2, Berlin 1855, 112–187) Trzaskoma, S.M. (2005), ‘Apuleius, Apologia 15.12–14: ut Stoici rentur?’, Mnemosyne 58, 583–590 Tsouni, G. (2018), ‘The emergence of Platonic and Aristotelian authority in the first century BCE’, in Bryan–Warren eds., 263–277 Tuplin, C.J.–Rihll, T.E. eds. (2002), Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture, Oxford Turner, J.D.–Corrigan, K. eds. (2010), Plato’s Parmenides and its Heritage. Vol. 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism, Atlanta Tzetzes see Aa.Vv. (1542), Hermann (1812), Gaisford (1823), Kiessling (1826), Leone (1968), Lolos (1981), Papathomopoulos (2007) Ulacco, A. (2017), Pseudopythagorica Dorica: I trattati di argumento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attributi ad Archita e Brotino, Berlin Uri, H. (1914), Cicero und die epikureische Philosophie. Eine quellenkritische Studie, diss. Munich, Borna Urmson, J.O. (1992), Simplicius. Corollaries on Place and Time. Annotated by Siorvanes, L., London Usener, H. (1858), Analecta theophrastea, diss. Bonn, cited from Kleine Schriften. Bd. 1, Leipzig 1912, 50–87 (repr. Osnabrück 1965) Usener, H. ed. (1859), Alexandri Aphrodisiensis quae feruntur Problematorum liber iii et iiii, Jahresbericht über das Königl. Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium, 1.37 Usener, H. ed. (1869), M. Annaei Lucani Commenta Bernensia, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1967) Usener, H. ed. (1887), Epicurea, Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1966) Usener, H. (1903), ‘Dreiheit’, RhM 58, 1–47, 161–208, 321–364 Usener, H. (1977), Glossarium Epicureum, ed. Gigante, M.–Schmid, W., Rome Usener, H.–Wotke, K. eds. (1888), ‘Epikurische Spruchsammlung’, WS 10, 175–201 (repr. in Von der Mühl 1922, 60–69, Bailey 1926, 106–119, Arrighetti 1973, 144–157, Marcovich 1999, 1.815–826, and elsewhere) Valgiglio, E. ed. (1993), Plutarco Il fato. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento, Naples (1st ed. Rome 1964) Vallance, J.T. (1990), The Lost Theory of Asclepiades of Bithynia, Oxford Vallance, J.T. (1993), ‘The medical system of Asclepiades of Bithynia’, ANRW II.37.1, 693– 727 Vallat, D. (2012), ‘Le Servius de Daniel: introduction’, Eruditio Antiqua 4, 89–99



Vallat, D. (2016), ‘Les métamorphoses d’un commentaire: «Servius» et Virgile’, Rursus 9 (en ligne) Vallauri, G. (1960), Origine e diffusione dell’euemerismo nel pensiero classico, Turin Van Ackeren, M. ed. (2012), A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, Maiden MA Van den Berg, R. (2009), ‘As we are always speaking of them and using their names on every occasion. Plotinus, Enn. III.7[45]: Language, experience and the philosophy of time in Neoplatonism’, in: Chiaradonna–Trabattoni eds., 101–120 Van den Broek, R. & alii eds. (1988), Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden Van der Eijk, P.J. (1994), Aristoteles De insomniis. De divinatione per somnum, Berlin Van der Eijk, P.J. ed. (2000–2001), Diocles of Carystus: A Collection of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary. 2 Vols., Leiden Van der Eijk, P.J. (2005), ‘The heart, the brain, the blood and the pneuma: Hippocrates, Diocles and Aristotle on the location of cognitive processes’, in: Van der Eijk, Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity. Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease, Cambridge 2005, 119–135 (orig. publ. in Dutch, 1995) Van der Eijk, P.J. (2010), ‘Doxography’, in: Grafton & alii eds., 282–284 Van der Eijk, P.J. ed. (1999a), Ancient Histories of Medicine: Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity, Leiden Van der Eijk, P.J. (1999b), ‘On Sterility (‘HA X’), a medical work by Aristotle?’ CQ 49:490– 502 Van der Horst, P.W. (1972), ‘A wordplay in 1John 4:12?’, ZNTW 63, 280–282 Van der Horst, P.W. (1978), ‘Seven month’s children in Jewish and Christian literature from antiquity’, Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 54, 346–360 (repr. in Van der Horst, 1990, 233–247) Van der Horst, P.W. (1990a), ‘Sarah’s seminal emission. Hebrews 11:11 in the light of ancient embryology’ (repr. in: Van der Horst 1998, 187–220) Van der Horst, P.W. (1990b), ‘“The elements will be dissolved with fire”: the idea of cosmic conflagration in Hellenism, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity’ (repr. in: Van der Horst 1998, 271–292) Van der Horst, P.W. (1990c), Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity, Göttingen Van der Horst, P.W. (1998), Hellenism–Judaism–Christianity: Essays on their Interaction. 2nd ed., Leuven Van der Horst, P.W. (2012), ‘Bitenosh’s orgasm (1QapGen 2:9–15)’, JSJ 43, 613–628 Van der Horst, P.W. (2018), ‘Early Jewish knowledge of Greek medicine,’ in Satlow, M.L. ed., Strength to Strength: Essays in Appreciation of Shaye J.D. Cohen, Providence RI, 103–113 Van der Horst, P.W.–Mansfeld, J. (1974), An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism: Alexander of Lycopolis’ Treatise ‘Against the Doctrines of Manichaeus’, Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, Leiden



Van der Valk, M. ed. (1971–1987), Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes. 4 Vols., Leiden Van der Waerden, B.L. (1952), ‘Das große Jahr und die ewige Wiederkehr’, Hermes 80, 129–152 Van Groningen, B.A. (1963), Traité d’histoire et de critique des texts grecs, Med.KNAW N.R. 70.2, Amsterdam Van Helden, A. & alii eds. (2011), The Origins of the Telescope, Amsterdam Van Kooten, G.H. ed. (2003), The Creation of Heaven and Earth. Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity and Modern Physics, Leiden Van Ophuijsen, J.M.–Van Raalte, M. eds. (1998), Theophrastus. Reappraising the Sources, New Brunswick NJ Van Oppenraay, A.M.I.–Fontaine, R. eds. (2012), The Letter before the Spirit: The Importance of Text Editions for the Study of Aristotle, Leiden Van Riel, G. ed. (2008), Damascius. Commentaire sur le Philèbe de Platon, Paris Van Riel, G. (2013), Plato’s Gods, Farnham Van Riet, S. ed. (1967–1972), Ibn Sina (Avicenna): Liber de anima seu Sextus de naturalibus, éd. critique de la trad. latine médiévale; introduction sur la doctrine psychologique d’Avicenne par Verbeke, G. (Avicenna Latinus. 2 Vols.), Louvain Van Straaten, M. ed. (1952), Panaetii Rhodii fragmenta collegit iterumque edidit, Leiden Van Unnik, W.-C. (1949), ‘De la regle Μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτε ἀφελεῖν dans l’histoire du canon’, VC 3, 1–36 (repr. in: Van Unnik, W.-C., Sparsa Collecta Pt. 2: 1.Peter–Canon– Corpus Hellenisticum–Generalia, Leiden, 123–156) Van Wageningen, J. (1921), Commentarius in M. Manilii Astronomica, Amsterdam Van Weddingen, R.E. ed. (1957), Favonius Eulogius Disputatio de Somnio Scipionis, édition et traduction, Brussels Van Winden, J.C.M. (1959), Calcidius on Matter: His Doctrine and Sources, a Chapter in the History of Platonism, Leiden (repr. w. supplem. notes 1965) Van Winden, J.C.M. (1997), ‘Frühchristliche Bibelexegese. ‘Der Anfang’’, in: Den Boeft, J.–Runia, D.T. eds., Arche: A Collection of Patristic Studies by Van Winden, J.C.M., Leiden, 3–48 Vanagt, K.L. (2011), ‘Suspicious spectacles. Medical perspectives on eyeglasses, the case of Hieronymus Mercurialis’, in: Van Helden & alii eds., 115–127 Vander Waerdt, P.A. (1985a), ‘The Peripatetic interpretation of Plato’s tripartite psychology’, GRBS 26, 238–302 Vander Waerdt, P.A. (1985b), ‘Peripatetic soul-division, Posidonius, and Middle Platonic moral psychology’, GRBS 26, 373–394 Vander Waerdt, P.A. (1987), ‘Aristotle’s criticism of soul-division’, AJPh 108, 627–643 Varro see Aghad (1898), Goetz–Schoell (1910), Goetz (1929), Langenberg (1959), Cardauns (1976), Heurgon (1978), Salvadore (1999)



Vasiliu, A. (1997), Du diaphane. Image, milieu, lumière dans la pensée antique et médiévale, Paris Vasiliu, A. (2012), Images de soi dans l’antiquité tardive, Paris Vassallo, C. (2015a), ‘Testimonianze su Anassagora e altri Presocratici nel libro iv della Retorica di Filodemo. Praesocratica Herculanensia V’, Lexicon Philosophicum 3, 81– 143 Vassallo, Chr. (2015b), ‘Supplemento papirologico alle recenti edizioni dei Milesii. Praesocratica Herculanensia vii’, APF 61, 276–316 Vassallo, Chr. (2016a), ‘A catalogue of the evidence for Presocratics in the Herculaneum papyri’, APF 62, 135–165 Vassallo, Chr. (2016b), ‘Parmenides and the “first god”: doxographical strategies in Philodemus’ On Piety; Praesocratica Herculanensia VII’, Hyperboreus 22, 29–57 Vassallo, Chr. (2018), ‘Persaeus on Prodicus on the gods’ existence and nature. Another attempt based on a new reconstruction of Philodemus’ account’, PhilosAnt 18, 153– 167 Vassallo, Chr. (forthc.), ‘Philodemi De pietate [Praesocraticorum philosophorum de deis opiniones] P.Herc. 1428, coll. 318–333 (olim frr. 7–19)’ Vassallo, Chr. ed. (2019), Presocratics and Papyrological Tradition, Berlin Vega, A.C. ed. (1940), Isidorus Hispalensis Liber de haeresibus, El Escurial Vegetti, M. (1998), ‘Il corso e il trattato. Pertinenza disciplinare e costruzione della tradizione in Aristotele’, in: Galuzzi, M. & alii eds., Le forme della comunicazione scientifica, Milan, 27–40 Vegetti, M. (2000), ‘De caelo in terram. Il Timeo in Galeno (De placitis, Quod animi)’, in: Brancacci, A. ed., La filosofia in età imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche, Rome, 69–84 Vegetti, M. ed. (2013), Galeno. Nuovi scritti autobiografici. Introduzione, (testo greco), traduzione e commento, Rome Vegetti, M. (2015), ‘Galeno, il “divinissimo Platone”, e i Platonici’, RSF 70, 447–471 Vegetti, M. (2018), Scritti sulla medicina ippocratica, Pistoia Vendryes, J.J.B.M. (1936), ‘Sur les verbes qui expriment l’idée de «voir»’, in: Vendryes, J.J.B.M., Choix d’études linguistiques et celtiques (Paris 1952), 155–126 Ver Eecke, P. (1938), Euclide. L’optique et la catoptrique. Œuvres traduites pour la première fois du grec en français avec une introduction et des notes, Paris Verde, F. (2010a), ‘Ancora su Timasagora epicureo’, Elenchos 31, 285–317 Verde, F. ed. (2010b), Epicuro Epistola a Erodoto, Rome Verde, F. (2013), Elachista: la dottrina dei minimi nell’Epicureismo, Leuven Verde, F.–Catapano, M. eds. (2018), Hellenistic Theories of Knowledge (Lexicon Philosophicum, special issue), Rome Verdenius, W.J. (1948), ‘Empedocles’ doctrine of sight’. FS Vollgraff, Amsterdam, 155–164 Verdenius, W.J. (1949), ‘κάλλος καὶ μέγεθος’, Mnemosyne 2, 494–498



Versnel, H.S. (2011), ‘God: the question of divine omnipotence’, ch. 5 of Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Leiden, 379–438 Viano, C. (1995a), ‘Olympiodore l’alchimiste et les présocratiques: une doxography de l’unité (De arte sacra, §18–27)’, in: Kahn, D.–Matton, S. eds., Alchimie: art, histoire et mythes, Paris, 95–150 Viano, C. (1995b), ‘Quintiliano e la storia della filosofia: l’uso delle quaestiones philosopho convenientes’, Rhetorica 13, 193–207 Viano, C. (1996), ‘La doxographie du De anima (I, 2–5) ou le contre-modèle de l’âme’, in: Rhomeyer-Derbey, G. ed., Corps et âme. Sur le De anima d’Aristote, Paris, 51–79 Viano, C. ed. (2005), L’alchémie et ses racines philosophiques: la tradition grecque et la tradition arabe, Paris Viano, C. & alii eds. (2013), Aitia I: Les quatre causes d’Aristote: Origines et inspiration, Leuven Viarre, S. (1990), ‘Les commentaires antiques de la 6e Bucolique de Virgile’, AC 59, 98– 112 Villard, L. ed. (2002), Couleurs et vision dans l’antiquité classique, Rouen Villard, L. ed. (2005), Études sur la vision dans l’antiquité classique, Rouen Vinel, N. ed. (2014), Iamblique. In Nicomachi Arithmeticam. Introduction, texte critique, traduction française et notes de commentaire, Pisa Vitek, T. (2001–2006), Empedoklés. I Studie; II Zlomky; III Komentár, Prague Vitrac, B. (2002), ‘Note textuelle sur un (problème de) lieu géométrique dans les Météorologiques d’Aristote (III.5 375b16–376b22)’, AHES 56, 239–283 Vitrac, B. (2012), ‘The Euclidean ideal of proof in The Elements and philological uncertainties of Heiberg’s edition’, in: Chemla, K. ed., The History of Mathematical Proof in Ancient Traditions, Cambridge, 69–134 Vivo, A. de (1992), Le parole della scienza: sul trattato De terrae motu di Seneca, Salerno Vogt, K. ed. (1999), Aristoteles Physiognomonica übersetzt und kommentiert, Berlin Volgers, A.–Zamagni, C. eds. (2004), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-andAnswer Literature in Context, Leuven Von Arnim, H. (1898), Leben und Werk des Dion von Prusa mit einer Einleitung: Sophistik, Rhetorik, Philosophie in ihrem Kampf um die Jugendbildung, Berlin Von Arnim, J. (1903–1924), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. 3 Vols., Leipzig; Vol. 4 Indices by Adler, M., Leipzig 1928 (4 Vols. repr. Stuttgart 1978) Von Arnim, H. (1921), ‘Kleanthes’, RE Bd. 11.1, 558–574 Von der Mühl ed. (1922), Epicuri Epistulae tres et Ratae sententiae a Laertio Diogene servatae. Accedit Gnomologium Epicureum Vaticanum, Leipzig (note that this Gnomologium is a repr. of Usener–Wotke 1888, ‘Epikurische Spruchsammlung’, repr. Berlin 1966) Von Harnack, A. ed. (1916), Porphyrius Gegen die Christen, 15 Bücher. Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate, Berlin



Von Ivánka, E. (1954), ‘ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΑ. Eine byzantinische Literaturform und ihre antiken Wurzeln’, ByzZ 47, 285–291 Von Kienle, W. (1959), Die Berichte über die Sukzessionen der Philosophen in der hellenistischen und spätantiken Literatur, Diss. Berlin Von Leutsch, E. ed. (1851), Corpus paroemiographorum graecorum T. II: Diogenianus, Gregorius Cyprius, Macarius, Aesopus, Apostolius et Arsenius Mantissa proverbiorum, Göttingen (repr. Hildesheim 1958) Von Queis, D. ed. (1972), Ambrosiaster Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Quaestio 115 De fato Einleitung–Text/Übersetzung–Kommentar, Basel Von Scala, R. (1898), ‘Doxographische und stoische Reste bei Ammianus Marcellinus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der allgemeinen Bildung des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.,’ in: Festgaben zu Ehren Max Büdinger’s von seinen Freunden und Schülern, Innsbruck, 117–150 Von Staden, H. ed. (1989), Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria, Cambridge Von Staden, H. (1999), ‘Rupture and continuity: Hellenistic reflections on the history of medicine,’ in Van der Eijk ed., 143–187 Von Staden, H. (2000), ‘Body, soul, and nerves: Epicurus, Herophilus, Erasistratus, the Stoics, and Galen’, in: Wright, J.P.–Potter, P. eds., Psyche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment, Oxford Von Staden, H. (2012), ‘La théorie de la vision chez Galien: la colonne qui saute et autres énigmes,’ PhilosAnt, 12, 115–156 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1881), Antigonos von Karystos, Berlin (repr. 1965) Vottero, D. (1987–1988), ‘Fonti e dossografia nelle Naturales quaestiones di Seneca’, RAAN 61, 5–42 Vottero, D. ed. (1989), Questioni naturali di Lucio Anneo Seneca, Turin (repr. 1998) Vottero, D. ed. (1998), Lucio Anneo Seneca. I frammenti, Bologna Wachsmuth, C. (1860), Die Ansichten der Stoiker über Mantik und Daemonen, Berlin Wachsmuth, C. (1882), Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien, Berlin Wachsmuth, C. ed. (1884 and later repr.), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo priores qui inscribi solent Eclogae physicae et ethicae. 2 Vols., Berlin Wachsmuth, C. (1895), Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte, Leipzig Wachsmuth, C. ed. (1897), Ioannis Laurentii Lydi Liber de ostentis et Calendaria graeca omnia, Leipzig Wachtler, J. ed. (1896), De Alcmaeone Crotoniata, Leipzig (with commentary) Wagner, H. ed. (1914), Galeni qui fertur libellus εἰ ζῶιον τὸ κατὰ γαστρός, diss. Marburg Waiblinger, F.P. (1977), Senecas Naturales quaestiones. Griechische Wissenschaft und römische Form, Munich Wakelnig, E. (2008), ‘Al-Amiri on vision and the visible. Variations on traditional visual



theories’, in: Akasoy, A.–Raven, W. eds., Islamic Thought in the Middle Ages: Studies in Text, Transmission and Translation. FS Daiber, Leiden, 413–430 Walbridge, J. (2014), The Alexandrian Epitomes of Galen. Vol. 1: On the Medical Sects for Beginners; The Small Art of Medicine; On the Elements According to the Opinion of Hippocrates, Provo UT Wallies, M. ed. (1899), Ammonius in Aristotelis Analyticorum priorum librum I commentarium, CAG 4.6, Berlin Walz, C. ed. (1832–1836), Rhetores graeci. 9 Vols., Stuttgart (repr. Osnabrück 1968) Walz, C. ed. (1833a), Syriani, Sopatri et Marcellini scholia ad Hermognis Status (Scholia ad Hermogenis librum Περὶ στάσεων), in: Rhetores graeci 4.39–846, Stuttgart (repr. Osnabrück 1968) Walz, C. ed. (1833b), Sopater: Scholia ad Hermogenis Status, in: Rhetores graeci 5.1–211, Stuttgart (repr. Osnabrück 1968) Walzer, R. (1934), Aristotelis dialogorum fragmenta, Florence Walzer, R. (1944) Galen On Medical Experience. First ed. of the Arabic Version with English Translation and Notes, London (repr. 1947) Wardle, D. (2006), Cicero on Divination: De divinatione Book I Translated with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford Wareh, T. (2012), The Theory and Practice of Life: Isocrates and the Philosophers, Cambridge MA Warren, J. (2003), ‘Sextus Empiricus and the tripartition of time’, Phronesis 48, 313– 343 Warren, J. (2007), ‘Anaxagoras on perception, pleasure and pain’, OSAPh 33, 19– 54 Warren, J. (2015), ‘Coming-to-be and passing-away: M. 10.310–351’, in: Algra–Ierodiakonou eds., 365–402 Warren, J. (2019), review Mansfeld–Runia eds. 2018, Phronesis 64, 524 Waszink, J.H. (1940), ‘Die sogenannte Fünfteilung der Träume bei Chalcidius und ihre Quellen’, Mnemosyne 9, 65–85 Waszink, J.H. ed. (1947), Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani De anima, Amsterdam (repr. w. add. Leiden 2010) Waszink, J.H. ed. (1956), Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Adversus Hermogenem liber, Utrecht–Antwerpen Waszink, J.H. ed. (1962), Timaeus a Calcidio trans. commentarioque instructus; in societatem operii coniuncto P.J. Jensen, London (rev. repr. 1975) Węcowski, M. (2016), ‘Pseudo-Democritus, or Bolos of Mendes (263)’, in: Worthington, I. ed., Brill’s New Jacoby, http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/10.1163/1873‑5363 _bnj_a263 Weber, D. ed. (1998), Augustinus De Genesi ad litteram, CSEL 91, Vienna Webster, C. (2018), ‘Optics and vision’, in: Keyser–Scarborough eds., 481–517



Wehrli, F. ed. (19672), Dikaiarchos, Basel Wehrli, F. ed. (19672), Aristoxenos, Basel (repr. 2005) Wehrli, F. ed. (19682), Demetrios von Phaleron, Basel Wehrli, F. ed. (19682), Lykon und Ariston von Keos, Basel Wehrli, F. ed. (19692), Eudemos von Rhodos, Basel (repr. 2005) Wehrli, F. ed. (19692), Herakleides Pontikos, Basel Wehrli, F. ed. (19692), Hermippos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine Schüler, Rückblick: Der Peripatos in vorchristlicher Zeit, Register, Basel Wehrli, F. ed. (19692), Klearchos, Basel (repr. 2005) Wehrli, F. ed. (19692), Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes, Basel–Stuttgart Wehrli, F. ed. (19692), Straton von Lampsakos, Basel (repr. 2005) Wehrli, F. ed. (1974), Hermippos der Kallimacheer, Basel Wehrli, F. ed. (1978), Sotion, Basel Wehrli, F. (1983), ‘Der Peripatos bis zum Beginn der römischen Kaiserzeit’, in: Flashar ed., 459–599 Weidmann, C. (2002), ‘Zur Struktur der Enarrationes in Psalmos’, in: Prommer, A. & alii eds., Textsorten und Textkritik, Vienna Weidmann, C. (2011), ‘Augustinus als Organisator von Texten’, in: Bochet, I. ed., Augustin philosophe et prédicateur, FS Madec, Paris 2012, 507–522 Wellmann, E. ed. (1882), Galeni qui fertur De partibus philosophiae libellus, Progr. Königstädtischen Gymnasiums Ostern 1882, Berlin Wellmann, E. ed. (1901), Die Fragmente der sikelischen Ärzte Akron, Philistion und des Diokles von Karystos, Berlin (repr. Hildesheim 2003) Wendel, C. ed. (1935), Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera, Berlin Wendel, C. (1948), ‘Tzetzes,’ RE Suppl. VII, 1959–2011. Wendland, P. (1888), ‘Posidonius’ Werk Περὶ θεῶν’, AGPh 1, 200–210 Wendland, P. (1897). ‘Eine doxographische Quelle Philos’, SB.Preuß.Ak. Phil.-hist. Kl., 1074–1079 Wendland, P. ed. (1916), Hippolytus Werke. Bd. 3: Refutatio omnium haeresium, Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1977) Wenger, A. ed. (19702), Jean Chrysostome: Huit catecheses baptismales, SC 50bis, Paris Wenkebach, E. ed. (1936), Galeni In Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum iii Commentaria iii, CMG V 10.2.1–2, Berlin Wenkebach, E. ed. (1951), Galeni Adversus Lycum et Adversus Iulianum libelli, Berlin, CMG V 4.1 Wenkebach, E.–Pfaff, F. eds. (19562), Galeni In Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum vi Commentaria vi, CMG V 10.2.3, Berlin Wenskus, O. (2009), review Zhmud (2006), Gnomon 2009, 297–300 West, M.L. ed. (1966 and later repr.), Hesiod Theogony Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Oxford



West, M.L. (1971), ‘The cosmology of ‘Hippocrates’De hebdomadibus’, CQ 21, 365–388 (w. ed. of the Greek text, repr. in: West 2013, 148–186) West, M.L. (1973), Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique, Stuttgart West, M.L. ed. (1978), Hesiod Works and Days with Prolegomena and Commentary, Cambridge West, M.L. (1992), ‘The eternal triangle: the curious cosmology of Petron of Himera’, in: Apodosis. FS Cruikshank, London, ii + 105–110 (repr. in: West 2013, 134–143) West, M.L. ed. (1998–2000), Homeri Ilias. 2 Vols., Munich–Leipzig West, M.L. (2013), Hellenica: Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought. Vol. 3: Philosophy, Music and Metre, Literary Byways, Varia, Oxford West, M.L. ed. (2017), Homeri Odyssea, Berlin Westenberger, J. ed. (1906), Galeni qui fertur De qualitatibus incorporeis libellus, diss. Marburg Westerink, L.G. ed. (1948), Michael Psellus: De omnifaria doctrina with Critical Text and Introduction, Utrecht (also diss. Nijmegen) Westerink, L.G. ed. (1961), ‘Elias on the Prior Analytics’, Mnemosyne 14, 126–139 Westerink, L.G. ed. (1967), Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David). Lectures on Porphyry’s Isagoge. Introduction, Text and Indices, Amsterdam Westerink, L.G. ed. (1976–1977), The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo. Vol. 1: Olympiodorus; Vol. 2: Damascius, Amsterdam Westerink, L.G. (1990), ‘The Alexandrian commentators and the introductions to their commentaries’, in: Sorabji, R. ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence, London, 325–348 (rev. vers. of Westerink ed. 1960, Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, Amsterdam, x–xxxii. French trans. in: Westerink & alii eds. 1990, x–xlii) Westerink, L.G. & alii eds. (1981), Agnellus of Ravenna: Lectures on Galen’s De sectis, Buffalo Westerink, L.G. & alii eds. (1990), Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon, Paris Westerink, L.G.–Duffy, J.M. eds. (2002), Michaelis Pselli Theologica. Vol. 2, Leipzig Westman, R. (1955), Plutarch gegen Kolotes. Seine Schrift «Adversus Colotem» als philosophiegeschichtliche Quelle, Helsinki White, J. (1956), Perspective in Ancient Drawing and Painting, London White, M.J. (2015), ‘Cause: M. 9.195–330’, in: Algra–Ierodiakonou eds., 74–104 White, S. (2002), ‘Opuscula and opera in the catalogue of Theophrastus’ works’, in: Fortenbaugh–Wöhrle eds., 9–38 White, S. (2007), ‘Posidonius and Stoic physics’, in: Sorabji ed., 35–76 Whitmarsh, T. (2015), Battling the Gods. Atheism in the Ancient World, London Whitmarsh, T. (2016), ‘Diagoras, Bellerophon and the siege of Olympus’, JHS 136, 182– 186 Whittaker, J. (1989) ‘The value of indirect tradition in the establishment of Greek philo-



sophical texts or the art of misquotation’, in: Grant, J.N. ed., Editing Greek and Latin Texts, New York, 63–95 Whittaker, J. (1997), ‘Platonic philosophy in the early centuries of the empire’, ANRW II.36.1, Berlin, 81–123 Whittaker, J. (1998), ‘How to define the rational soul?’, in: Lévy ed., 229–253 Whittaker, J. ed.–Louis, P. (1990), Alcinoos. Enseignement des doctrines de Platon, Paris Wieacker, F. (1960), Textstufen klassischer Juristen, Abh.Ak.Gött. Phil.hist. Kl. 45, Göttingen Wiesner, J. (1989), ‘Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios’ Physikkomentar’, Hermes 117, 288–203 Wigodsky, M. (2004), ‘Emotions and immortality in Philodemus On the Gods 3 and in the Aeneid’, in: Amstrong, D. & alii eds., Vergil, Philodemus and the Augustans, Austin TX, 211–228 Wigodsky, M. (2007), ‘Homoiotetes, stoicheia and homoiomereiai in Epicurus’, CQ 57, 521–542 Wilberding, J. (2008), ‘Porphyry and Plotinus on the seed’, Phronesis 53, 406–432 Wilberding, J. ed. (2009), Plotinus’ Cosmology. A Study of Ennead II.1 (40), Text Translation and Commentary, Oxford Wilberding, J. (2011), Porphyry On how Embryos are Ensouled and On what is in our Power, London Wildberg, C. (1990), ‘Three Neoplatonic introductions to philosophy: Ammonius, David and Elias’, Hermathena 149, 33–51 Wildberg, C. (2016a), ‘John Philoponus’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta, URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ spr2016/entries/philoponus Wildberg, C. (2016b), ‘Elias’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta, URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entri es/elias Wildberg, C. (2018a), ‘Olympiodorus’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta, URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2018/entries/olympiodorus Wildberg, C. (2018b), ‘David’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 ed.), accessible Edward N. Zalta, URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018 /entries/david Wildberger, J. (2006), Seneca und die Stoa: Der Platz des Menschen in der Welt. 2 Bde., Berlin Wilkins, J. ed. (2013), Galien T. 5: Sur les facultés des aliments, texte établi et traduit, Paris Willi, A. (2006), Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (8.–5. Jh. v. Chr.), Basel Williams, G.D. (2005), ‘The art of anemology in Natural Questions 5’, AJPh 126, 417–450



Williams, G.D. (2006), ‘Greco-Roman seismology and Seneca on earthquakes in Natural Questions 6’, JRS 96, 124–146 Williams, G.D. (2008), ‘Reading the waters: Seneca on the Nile in Natural Questions, Book 4A’, CQ 58, 218–242 Williams, G.D. (2012), The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca’s Natural Questions, New York Wilpert, P. (1956), ‘Aristoteles und die Dialektik’, Kant Studien 48, 247–257 Wilson, M. (2008), ‘Hippocrates of Chios’ theory of comets’, JHA 39, 141–160 Wilson, M. (2009), ‘A somewhat disorderly material: unity in Aristotle’s Meteorology I–III’, Apeiron 42, 60–88 Wilson, M. (2013), Structure and Method in Aristotle’s Meteorologica. A More Disorderly Nature, Cambridge Wilson, N.G. (1996), Scholars of Byzantium, London–Cambridge MA (rev. ed., 1st ed. 1983) Winiarczyk, M. (1976), ‘Der erste Atheistenkatalog des Kleitomachos’, Philologus 120, 32–46 Winiarczyk, M. ed. (1981), Diagorae Melii et Theodori Cyrenaei reliquiae, Leipzig Winiarczyk, M. ed. (1991), Euhemeri Messenii reliquiae, Stuttgart Winiarczyk, M. (2002), Euhemeros von Messene. Leben, Wirk, Nachwirkung, Munich Winiarczyk, M. (2013), The Sacred History of Euhemerus of Messene, Berlin Winnigton-Ingram, R.P. ed. (1963), Aristidis Quintiliani De musica libri tres, Leipzig Witt, C. (1992), ‘Dialectic, motion and perception: De anima, Book I’, in: Nussbaum, M.C. –Oksenberg-Rorty, A. eds., Essays on Aristotle’s De anima, Cambridge (repr. 1995) Wity, F.J. (1984–1987), ‘Reference books in Antiquity’, The Journal of Library History 9, 101–119 Woerther, F. ed. (2012), Hermagoras. Fragments et témoignages, textes edités, traduits et commentés, Paris Wöhrle, G. (1993), Anaximenes aus Milet. Die Fragmente zu seiner Lehre, Stuttgart Wöhrle, G. (1995a), ‘Wer entdeckte die Quelle des Mondlichts?’, Hermes 123, 244– 247 Wöhrle, G. (1995b), Hypnos der Allbezwinger. Eine Studie zum literarischen Bild des Schlafes in der griechischen Antike, Stuttgart Wöhrle, G. (1999), Aristoteles De coloribus übersetzt und erlaütert, Darmstadt Wöhrle, G., ed. (2009), Die Milesier: Thales, Berlin (also The Milesians: Thales. Translation and Additional Material by McKirahan, R., Berlin 2014) Wöhrle, G., ed. (2012), Die Milesier: Anaximander und Anaximenes, Berlin Wolfsdorf, D. (2009), ‘Empedocles and his ancient readers on desire and pleasure’, OSAPh 36, 1–71 Wollock, J.L. (1997), The Noblest Animate Motion: Speech, Physiology and Medicine in Pre-Cartesian Thought, Amsterdam



Wolska-Konus, W. (1989), ‘Stéphanos d’Athènes et Stéphanos d’Alexandrie: essai d’identification et de biographie’, REByz 5–89 Wottke, K. ed. (1888), ‘Epikurische Spruchsammlung’, WS 10, 175–198 Wright, M.R. ed. (1981), Empedocles: the Extant Fragments, New Haven Wright, M.R. (1995), Cosmology in Antiquity, London Wright, M.R. (2008), ‘Presocratic Cosmologies,’ in Curd–Graham eds., 413–433 Wuensch, B. ed. (1898), Ioannis Lydi Liber de mensibus, Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1967) Xenocrates see Heinze (1892), Isnardi Parente (1982) Yli-Karjanmaa, S. (2015), Reincarnation in Philo of Alexandria, Atlanta Yu, A.E. (2007), ‘Chrysippus on nature and soul in animals’, CQ 57, 97–108 Yu, A.E. (2009), ‘Stoic and Posidonian thought on the immortality of the soul’, CQ 59, 112–124 Zamagni, C. (2004), ‘Existe-t-il une terminologie technique dans les Questions d’Eusèbe de Césarée?’, in: Volgers–Zamagni eds., 81–98 Zeegers-van der Vorst, N. (1972), Les citations des poètes grecs chez les apologistes du IIe siècle, Louvain Zeller, E. (18764), Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Bd. 1, Allgemeine Einleitung. Vorsokratische Philosophie, Leipzig Zeller, E. (1877), ‘Ueber die Benützung der aristotelischen Metaphysik in den Schriften der älteren Peripatetiker’, AbAkBerlin Phil.-hist. Kl., 145–167 (repr. in: Leuze, O., ed. 1910, Eduard Zellers Kleine Schriften. Bd. 1, Berlin, 191–214) Zeller, E.–Nestle, W. (1919–1920), Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Bd. I.1–2, Allgemeine Einleitung, Vorsokratische Philosophie, Leipzig (repr. Darmstadt 2006) Zeller, E.–Wellmann, E. (1909), Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Bd. III.1, Die nacharistotelische Philosophie, erste Hälfte, Leipzig (repr. Darmstadt 2006) Zervos, S. ed. (1901), Aëtius Iatricorum liber xvi, in: Gynäkologie des Aëtios, 1–172, Leipzig Zhmud, L. (2006), The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity, Berlin Zhmud, L. (2013a), ‘Die doxographische Tradition’, in: Flashar & alii eds., 1.150–174 Zhmud, L. (2013b), ‘Pythagorean number theory in the Academy’, in: Cornelli, G. & alii eds., 323–344 Zhmud, L. (2015), ‘Phaenias’ work On the Socratics,’ in Hellmann, O.–Mirhady, D.C. eds., Phaenias of Eresus: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick NJ, 273–288. Zhmud, L. (2017), review Bottler 2014, Classical World 110, 424–426 Ziedan, Y. ed. (2002), Ibn al-Haytham: The Trace on the Moon’s Face / Les traces sur la face de la lune / Über die Natur der Spuren (Flecken), die man auf der Oberfläche des Mondes sieht, Alexandria Zierl, A. (1995), Alexander von Aphrodisias Über das Schicksal, Übersetzt und kommentiert, Berlin



Zimmermann, F.W. ed. (1981), Al-Fārābī’s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle’s De interpretatione, London (repr. Oxford 1987) Zucker, A. (2011), ‘Quest-ce qu’une paraphrasis? L’enfance grecque de la paraphrase’, Rursus-Spicae 6, online http://journals.openedition.org/rursus/476 Zucker, A. (2012), ‘Qu’est-ce qu’épitomiser? Étude des pratiques dans la Syllogé zoologique byzantine’, Rursus-Spicae 7, online http://journals.openedition.org/rursus/961 Zuntz, G. (1945), The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, London Zycha, J. ed. (1894), Aureli Augustini De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, ejusdem libri capitula. De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber. Locutionum in Heptateuchum libri septem, CESL 28, Vienna (repr. New York 1970)

Index of Primary and Secondary Witnesses This index contains references to all the witnesses listed at the beginning of every chapter of the Compendium. For full details of editions referred to see the list of Sigla at the beginning of Parts 1–3 and the Bibliography elsewhere in Part 4. Achilles, De universo, ed. Di Maria 3 1.3 4 1.12, 1.14, 2.7, 3.9, 3.11, 3.15 5 1.5, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.11 6 1.10, 2.2, 2.6 7 2.6 8 1.18, 2.1, 2.9 11 2.13 12 1.14, 2.14 14 1.11 16 2.15, 2.28 18 2.32 19 2.8, 2.20, 2.22, 2.24, 2.32, 3.12 20 2.21 21 2.25, 2.27, 2.29 22 3.1 24 3.5 28 2.10, 3.11 29 3.14 31 3.14 32 3.proœm., 3.7 33 3.7 34 3.proœm., 3.2–4, 3.5a(18) 35 2.10 36 1.23 Aelius Herodianus De orthographia, ed. Lentz 2.443.10–11 1.titulus et index De prosodia Catholica, ed. Lentz 1.119.35–120.6 1.titulus et index Aratea, Commentaria in Aratum, ed. Maass Anon. I 3 2.1, 2.9 Anon. I 5 2.12 Anon. I 6 2.16 Anon. II 8 3.proœm.

Arsenius, Apophthegmata, ed. Von Leutsch 8, 100c 1.10 Athenagoras, Legatio, ed. Marcovich 4.2 1.6 6.2–4 1.7 7 1.7 7.2 1.10, 2.1 16.1 1.6 18.3–4 1.3 22.1 1.3 23.2–3 1.7, 1.8 Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum, ed. Riedweg 1.38–39 1.7 2.14 1.titulus et index, 2.titulus et index, 2.1 2.15 2.2–4 2.16 2.1, 2.3–4 2.22 1.titulus et index, 1.6 2.52 1.6 Epiphanius, De haeresibus, ed. Holl Vol. 3 p. 508 4.7 Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, ed. Mras 7.11.13 1.7, 2.4, 2.20 7.12.1 1.3 14.13.9 1.titulus et index 14.14.1–6 1.3 14.15.11 1.titulus et index 14.16.1 1.7 15.22.69 1.titulus et index 15.23 2.20 15.24 2.21 15.25 2.22 15.26 2.25 15.27 2.26 15.28 2.27


index of primary and secondary witnesses

Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, ed. Mras (cont.) 15.29 2.28 15.30 2.13 15.31 2.14 15.32 1.4 15.32.8 1.5, 1.8–9, 2.4–5, 2.8–9, 2.11 15.32.8–10 1.titulus et index 15.32.10 3.proœm., 3.8, 4.titulus et index, 4.2 15.32.6–18 2.titulus et index 15.33 1.5 15.34 2.3 15.35 2.4 15.36 2.5 15.37 2.6 15.38 2.7 15.39 2.8 15.40 2.9 15.41 2.10 15.42 2.11 15.43 1.8 15.44 1.9 15.45 1.10 15.46 2.15 15.47 2.16 15.48 2.17 15.49 2.18 15.50 2.24 15.51 2.29 15.52 2.30 15.53 2.31 15.54 2.32, 3.proœm., 3.8 15.55 3.9 15.56 3.10 15.57 3.11 15.58 3.proœm., 3.8, 3.12– 13 15.59 3.16 15.60 4.4 15.61 4.5 Hermias, Irrisio, ed. Hanson 2 4.2, 4.7a 2–3 4.3 3 4.7

6 10–16 11 18

1.24 1.3 1.7 1.5, 2.1

Ioannes Lydus, De mensibus, ed. Wuensch 2.9 1.3 3.12 2.25, 2.28, 2.31 4.81 1.25–28 4.83 3.17 4.84 5.8 4.116 3.2 4.135 5.2 De ostentis, ed. Wachsmuth 4 3.2–3, 3.15 Ioannes Stobaeus, Eclogae physicae, ed. Wachsmuth 1.1.29b 1.7 1.4.7ac 1.25–26 1.5.15 1.27–28 1.6.17ac 1.29 1.7.9a 1.29 1.8.40b,45 1.21–22 1.8.42b 3.8 1.8.42c 2.32 1.10.11a 1.3 1.10.12 1.3 1.10.14, 16ab 1.3 1.10.16b 1.2 1.11.1,3,5b 1.9 1.12.1a 1.10 1.13.1abd 1.11 1.14adfh 1.12 1.14bgi 1.16 1.14.1k 1.13 1.15.3b,6a 1.14 1.15.6b 2.2 1.15.6cd 2.8 1.15.6d 2.7 1.15.6de 2.10 1.16.1 1.15 1.17.1 1.17 1.18.1abd 1.18 1.18.1b 1.19 1.18.1d,4a 1.20 1.18.4bc 2.9 1.18.4c 1.19 1.19.1 1.23

index of primary and secondary witnesses 1.20.1ad 1.20.1cf 1.20.1g 1.21.3ab,6c 1.21.3c,6ab 1.21.6bd 1.21.6c 1.21.6cf 1.21.6de 1.22.1abde 1.22.3ad 1.22.3bcd 1.22.3f 1.23.1–2 1.23.3 1.24.1a–g,i–o 1.24.1k,2d 1.24.1eghl,2abe 1.24.1ck,2bc,5 1.24ilm,3 1.24.1n 1.24.1kl,4 1.25.1a–g,3a–g,i 1.25.1c,e–g 1.25dghi 1.25.1d,3acehi 1.25.1acgi,3bek 1.26.1a–g,k 1.26.1bhk 1.26.1cfik 1.26.2 1.26.3 1.26.4 1.26.5 1.27.1–8 1.28.1a 1.29 1.30.1a 1.31.1–5 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36.1 1.37 1.38 1.41 1.42 1.42.2

1.24 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5a 2.7 1.5 2.1 2.6 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.9, 3.11 3.10 3.13 3.15 3.16 3.17 1.30 5.19 5.6

1.42.4 5.17 1.42.5 5.7 1.42.6 5.8 1.42.7 5.11 1.42.8 5.12 1.42.9 5.14 1.42.10 5.10 1.42.11 5.11 1.42.12 5.16 1.42.13 5.18 1.43 5.20–21 1.44 5.24–25 1.45.1–2 5.26 1.46 5.27–28 1.48.7 4.7a 1.49.1a 4.2 1.49.1b 4.3 1.49.7a 4.4 1.49.1b–c 4.6 1.49.7c 4.7 1.50.1–2a 4.8 1.50.3–6 4.8 1.50.7–9 4.10 1.50.10–16 4.8 1.50.17–24, 26–35 4.9 1.50.25 5.28 1.51.2–4 4.10 1.52.1–8, 10–13 4.13 1.52.14–16 4.14 1.52.17–18 4.15 1.53.1–4 4.16 1.54.1–2 4.17 1.55 4.18 1.57 4.19–21 1.58 4.12 1.60 4.22–23 ed. Meineke IV p. 232 4.8 Florilegium, ed. Hense 4.36.29–31 5.30 4.37.2 5.30 4.50.30 5.30 ms. Laurentianus index capitum Γ 10 5.4–5 index capitum Γ 11 5.21–23 pinax 5.9, 5.13



index of primary and secondary witnesses

Ioannes Tzetzes, Exegeseis in Iliadem, ed. Papathomopoulos 1.4.1 1.8 1.5.29 1.3 Exegeseis in Hesiodum, ed. Aa.vv., Gaisford p. 66.7–8 5.26 Isidore of Pelusium, Epistulae, ed. Évieux & MPG 2.273 2.11, 2.15, 2.27, 2.31, 3.10–11 1435 2.13 Julianus Arianista, Commentarius in Job, ed. Hagedorn p. 269 3.4–5 p. 272 3.2 pp. 272–273 3.6 p. 273 3.3 pp. 273–274 2.12 Michael Psellus, De omnifaria doctrina, ed. Westerink 15 1.7 18 2.6 19 1.6 57 1.1 82 1.2 83 1.3 84 1.10 85 1.8 86 1.9 87 1.11 88 1.14 89 1.15 90 1.17 91 1.24 92 1.12 93 1.13 102 1.21 103 1.23 104 1.25 105 1.27 106 1.29 108 4.13–14, 4.17– 19 110 5.5–6 111 5.7

112 5.9 113 5.10 114 5.11–12 115 5.15–16 116 5.2 117 5.21, 5.30 121 2.11 122 2.12 123 3.1 126 2.20 127 2.21, 2.25 128 2.24 129 2.29 131 2.13 132 2.16 133 2.14 134 2.15 135 2.17 136 2.19 137 2.32 138 2.18 139 3.2 140–141 3.4 142 3.5 143 3.5a(18) 144 3.6 146 3.7 147 3.3 149–150 3.3 151 1.4 152 1.5 153 1.18 154 1.19–20 156 2.3 157 2.4 158 2.5 159 2.7 160 2.8 162 2.10 164 3.15 166 3.16 176 4.1 Epiluseis, ed. Boissonade pp. 66–67 5.30 Philosophica minora 1, ed. Duffy 16 5.8 23 3.5–6 24 3.1–3, 3.17 26 3.15


index of primary and secondary witnesses 27–28 3.3 29 3.15 Theologica opuscula, ed. Gautier 6 1.3 61 1.3 Nemesius, De natura hominis, ed. Morani 1 4.7a, 4.19 2 1.12, 1.16, 1.27, 4.2–3, 4.6–7, 4.23 3 1.19 5 1.3, 1.17 6 4.8, 4.12, 4.16, 4.18– 19 7 3.5, 4.8, 4.13 9 4.18 10 4.16 11 4.17 12 4.12, 4.21 15 4.4, 4.10, 4.21 19 4.21 28 4.22 35 1.27 37 1.28 38 1.27–28 39 1.1, 1.25–26, 1.29 41 1.proœm. Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 & 213, ed. Barns– Zilliacus fr. 1 verso 2.23 fr. 1 recto 2.25 fr. 2 verso 3.7 fr. 2 recto 3.11 fr. 3 recto 3.15 fr. 3 verso 3.15–16 fr. 4 verso 4.8 fr. 4 recto 4.11 fr. 5 verso 4.22–23 fr. 5 recto 5.3–4 fr. 6 verso 5.1 fr. 6 recto 5.5 fr. 7 recto 5.7 fr. 7 verso 5.9–10 fr. 8 verso 5.13 fr. 8 recto 5.15 fr. 9 verso 5.20 fr. 9 recto 5.23

fr. 9a recto fr. 9b verso

5.21 5.24

Philo Alexandrinus, De providentia, ed. Aucher 1.22 (interpolatus) 1.3, 1.5 Photius, Bibliotheca c. 167, ed. Henry p. 112a36 1.25 p. 112a38 1.27 p. 112a39 1.29 p. 112a40 1.22 p. 112a42 1.2–3 p. 112b1 1.9–12 p. 112b2 1.12–14, 1.16 p. 112b3 1.14–15, 1.17– 18 p. 112b4 1.18–20, 1.23 p. 112b5 1.24, 2.1, 2.3 p. 112b6 2.3, 2.5a p. 112b7 1.5, 2.5, 2.7 p. 112b8 1.5, 2.11–14, 2.16 p. 112b9 2.13–14, 2.16, 2.19 p. 112b10 2.19–23 p. 112b11 2.23–28 p. 112b12 2.25–28 p. 112b13 2.29–30 p. 112b14 3.1–3.2 p. 112b15 3.2–3 p. 112b16 3.3, 3.5 p. 112b17 3.5–6 p. 112b17–19 3.4 p. 112b19 3.7, 3.9 p. 112b20 3.9 p. 112b21 3.10–11, 3.13 p. 112b22 3.13, 3.15–17 p. 112b23 3.17 p. 112b24–25 1.30 p. 112b25 5.19 p. 112b26 5.19–20 p. 112b27 5.20, 5.24–27 p. 112b28 5.27 p. 112b29 4.2, 4.7a–8 p. 112b30 4.8–10 p. 112b31 4.10, 4.13 p. 112b32 4.13–14, 4.16–18 p. 112b33 4.17–19 p. 112b34 4.20


index of primary and secondary witnesses

Photius, Bibliotheca c. 167, ed. Henry (cont.) p. 112b35 4.12 p. 112b36 4.22–23 Pseudo-Aristoteles, Erotapokriseis, ed. Rose p. 119 n. 1 2.11 Pseudo-Athenagoras, De resurrectione, ed. Marcovich 20 4.7 Pseudo-Clemens Romanus, Recognitiones, ed. Rehm–Paschke 8.15.1–3 1.3 Pseudo-Galenus, Historia philosopha, ed. Diels/Jas 16 1.7 19 1.11 20 1.1, 1.30 21 1.2 25 1.10 26 1.13 27 1.15 28 1.14 29 1.17 30 1.18 31 1.19 32 1.5 33 1.4 34 1.6 35 1.7 36 1.8 37 1.21 38 1.22 39 1.24 40 1.25 41 1.26 42 1.28 43 1.29 44 2.1 45 2.2 46 2.3 47 2.4 48 2.5 49 2.6 50 2.7 51 2.8

52 53 54 55 56 56a 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 67a 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32, 3.proœm. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 4.1 4.8 4.9 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17

index of primary and secondary witnesses 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.29 5.30 5.30

Pseudo-Justinus, Cohortatio ad Graecos, ed. Marcovich 3.2–4.1 1.3 5.2 1.7 5.4–6.1 1.3 6.1 1.7 6.2 4.2, 4.4, 4.6– 7 7.2 4.2–3 31.1 1.7 36.3 1.7


Pseudo-Plutarchus, Epitome, ed. Mau/ Lachenaud passim Qusṭā ibn Lūqā, translation of ps.Plutarch Epitome, ed. Daiber passim Scholia in Aratum, ed. Martin Proleg. 17 2.20, 2.21, 2.25 Proleg. 19 2.31 Proleg. 20 2.12 231 3.1 462 3.1 469 3.1 786 3.7 811 3.proœm., 3.2, 3.5a(18), 3.6 829 3.5 845 3.7 877 3.5a(18) 881 3.6 940 3.5 924 3.3 926–927 3.2 927 3.3 1091–1093 3.2 Scholia in Basilium I, ed. Pasquali 1–3 1.3 4 1.24 21 3.11 22 2.11 23 2.2 26 3.13, 3.15 Scholia in Basilium II, ed. Poljakov 4 3.9, 3.11, 3.15 5 3.13 Scholia in Platonica, ed. Greene ad Remp. 498a 2.22, 2.24 Scholion ad Ptolemei Alm. 5.1, ed. Heiberg p. 1.350 2.31


index of primary and secondary witnesses

Symeon Seth, Conspectus rerum naturalium, ed. Delatte 1 praef. 1, 4.titulus et index 1.3 3.10 1.6 3.11 1.7 3.9 2.14 3.16 2.15 3.3–4 2.17–18 3.4 2.19 3.3 2.20 3.15 2.23 3.2 2.24 3.7 2.25 3.5 2.26 3.5a(18) 3.27 2.1 3.28 2.2 3.29 2.3 3.30 2.4 3.31 2.5 3.32 2.7 3.33 2.8 3.34 2.9 3.35 2.10 3.36 2.11 3.38 2.12 3.39 2.13 3.40 2.14 3.41 2.16 3.44 2.17 3.45 2.19 3.46 2.21, 2.22 3.49 2.24 3.50 2.25, 2.27, 2.28 3.54 2.29 4.56 1.9, 4.titulus et index 4.58 1.10 4.59 1.1, 1.30 4.62 1.19 4.65 1.21 4.68 4.2

4.71 4.75 4.77 4.79 4.83

4.13 4.16 4.17 4.18–19 4.7a

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Graecarum affectionum curatio, ed. Raeder 1.63 2.4, 4.7 1.96 2.31 1.97 2.21 2.95 1–5.titulus et index 2.112–113 1.7 3.4 1.7 4.8 2.1 4.11–12 1.3 4.14 1.18 4.15 2.1 4.16 2.2–4 4.17–20 2.13 4.20 2.14 4.21 2.20, 2.25 4.22 2.21–22 4.23 2.25–26 4.24 2.27, 2.29, 2.31 4.31 1–5.titulus et index 5.16 1–5.titulus et index 5.17–18 4.2 5.18 4.3 5.19–21 4.4 5.22 4.5 5.23–24 4.7 5.24–25 5.26 5.28 4.7a 6.3–4 1.25, 1.27, 1.29 6.6 1.7 6.13 1.25 6.13–14 1.27 6.14 1.28 6.15 1.29

Index of Name-Labels and Other Names This index primarily contains all the name-labels in the Placita. It secondarily includes other non-mythical names of persons not functioning as name-labels, indicated in each case with an added asterisk. Ethnicons used to distinguish between homonyms are placed in brackets if not explicitly indicated in the text. For expressions involving ‘followers’ and ‘successors’ see the User’s Guide to the Translation above in Part 4 under sub-section (3). A general guide to the subject matter of the doxai is provided for each author. More detailed indications can be gained by combining this index with the tables of contents of the separate books at the beginning of Parts 1–3. Numbers at the end indicate the sum total of doxai for each name-label (or descriptive category). Academics Psychology: 4.8.13, 4.9.19, 4.13.10 (3) Academy, successors of Psychology: 4.9.2 Alcmaeon Cosmology: 2.16.2, 2.22.1, 2.29.3; Psychology: 4.2.2, 4.13.8, 4.16.2, 4.17.1, 4.18.1; Physiology: 5.3.3, 5.14.1, 5.16.3, 5.17.3, 5.24.1, 5.30.1 (14) all others Cosmology: 2.3.1 (1) all who assume matter is passive Foundational Concepts: 1.24.3 (1) all who create a world through aggregation Foundational Concepts: 1.24.2 (1) all who propose atoms and void Cosmology: 2.3.2 (1) Anaxagoras Introduction: 1.3.4, 1.7.1*, 1.7.6; Foundational Concepts: 1.14.3, 1.24.2, 1.29.4, 1.30.2; Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.4.7, 2.8.1, 2.13.3, 2.16.1, 2.20.8, 2.21.3, 2.23.2, 2.25.10, 2.28.6, 2.29.7, 2.29.8, 2.30.3; Meteorology: 3.1.7, 3.2.3, 3.2.10, 3.3.4, 3.4.2, 3.5.8; Earth and Sea: 3.15.4, 3.16.2; Nile: 4.1.3; Psychology: 4.3.2, 4.7.1, 4.7a.1, 4.9.1, 4.9.6, 4.19.7; Physiology: 5.7.4, 5.19.3, 5.20.3, 5.25.2, 5.27.2 (39) Anaxagoras and successors Foundational Concepts: 1.17.2 (1) Anaximander Introduction: 1.3.2, 1.7.3; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.11.3, 2.13.7, 2.15.6, 2.16.4, 2.20.1, 2.21.1, 2.24.3, 2.25.1, 2.28.1, 2.29.1; Meteorology: 3.3.1, 3.7.1; Earth and Sea: 3.10.2, 3.16.1, Psychology: 4.3.2, 5.19.4 (21) Anaximenes Introduction: 1.3.3, 1.7.4; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.4.7, 2.11.1, 2.13.9, 2.14.3,

2.16.5, 2.19.2, 2.20.3, 2.22.1, 2.23.1, 2.25.2; Meteorology: 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.7; Earth and Sea: 3.10.3, 3.15.3, 3.15.8; Psychology: 4.3.2 (20) ancients, successors of Psychology 4.8.9 (1) anonymi Foundational Concepts: 1.15.11– 13, 1.23.5, 1.23.6; Cosmology: 2.2.2–3, 2.4.6, 2.14.4, 2.23.7, 2.24.6, 2.26.4, 2.27.6, 2.30.2, 2.32.2, 2.32.3, 2.32.4–7, 2.32.10; Meteorology: 3.1.4; Earth and Sea: 3.13.1, 3.15.9; Psychology: 4.3.1, 4.5.10– 12, 4.8.11, 4.9.8, 4.9.17, 4.10.6, 4.13.6; Physiology: 5.17.5–6, 5.19.1–2, 5.23.3 (38) Antipater Foundational Concepts: 1.27.6 (1) Antiphon Foundational Concepts: 1.22.7; Cosmology: 2.20.4, 2.28.4, 2.29.3; Earth and Sea: 3.16.4 (5) Apollodorus (the Athenian) Cosmology: 2.16.7 (1) Apollodorus the Corcyraean Earth and Sea: 3.17.8 (1) Apollophanes Psychology: 4.4.5 (1) Aratus Cosmology: 2.19.3 (1) Archedemus Cosmology: 2.5a.3 (1) Archelaus Introduction: 1.3.5, 1.7.5; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.7, 2.13.6; Meteorology: 3.3.5; Psychology: 4.3.2 (8) Aristarchus Foundational Concepts: 1.15.5, 1.15.9; Cosmology: 2.24.7, Psychology: 4.13.4 (4) Aristotle Introduction: 1.proem. 3, 1.1.2, 1.3.21, 1.7.23; Foundational Concepts: 1.9.5, 1.10.4, 1.11.3, 1.12.3, 1.15.10, 1.16.3, 1.18.6, 1.19.2, 1.21.2a, 1.23.2, 1.29.2;


index of name-labels and other names

Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.3.4, 2.4.10, 2.5.1, 2.7.5, 2.9.4, 2.10.1, 2.11.5, 2.13.13, 2.16.3, 2.17.5, 2.20.11, 2.23.8, 2.25.8, 2.26.3, 2.28.2, 2.29.4*, 2.29.7, 2.30.7; Meteorology: 3.1.9, 3.2.4, 3.3.13, 3.7.4; Earth and Sea: 3.15.5, 3.17.1; Psychology: 4.2.6, 4.4.3, 4.5.7, 4.6.2, 4.7.4, 4.8.6, 4.9.3, 4.10.2, 4.13.9, 4.20.1; Physiology: 5.1.4, 5.3.1, 5.4.2, 5.5.2, 5.6.1, 5.7.5*, 5.17.2, 5.20.1, 5.23.2, 5.25.1, 5.26.2 (59) Aristotle and followers Introduction: 1.2.1; Physiology: 5.18.4 (2) Asclepiades Foundational Concepts: 1.23.10; Psychology: 4.2.8, 4.22.2; Physiology: 5.10.2, 5.21.2, 5.30.6 (6) astronomers (mathematikoi) Cosmology: 2.15.5, 2.16.2, 2.16.6, 2.30.8, 2.31.2; Physiology: 5.18.6 (6) atomists Foundational Concepts: 1.9.7, 1.16.2 (2) Berossus Cosmology: 2.25.13, 2.28.1, 2.29.2 (3) Boethus Introduction: 1.7.16; 2.31.5; Meteorology: 3.2.8 (3) Callimachus Introduction: 1.7.1* Chrysippus Foundational Concepts: 1.27.4, 1.28.3; Meteorology: 3.3.12; Psychology: 4.9.14, 4.12.1, 4.15.4 (6) Cleanthes Introduction: 1.7.8; Foundational Concepts: 1.14.5; Cosmology: 2.5a.2, 2.14.2, 2.16.1, 2.20.6, 2.25.4, 2.27.4; Psychology: 4.7a.1 (9) Crates Cosmology: 2.15.6; Earth and Sea: 3.17.7, 3.17.9* (2) Critias Psychology: 4.3.13 (1) Critolaus Introduction: 1.7.12; Foundational Concepts: 1.22.7 (2) Demetrius Laco Foundational Concepts: 1.18.3 (1) Democritus Introduction: 1.3.14, 1.3.16*, 1.7.7; Foundational Concepts: 1.12.6, 1.15.8, 1.18.3, 1.23.3, 1.24.2, 1.25.3, 1.26.2, 1.29.4; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.2.4, 2.3.2, 2.4.12, 2.7.2, 2.13.5, 2.15.3, 2.16.1, 2.17.3*, 2.20.8, 2.23.5, 2.25.10, 2.30.4; Meteorology: 3.1.8, 3.2.3, 3.3.11; Earth and Sea:

3.10.5, 3.12.2, 3.13.4, 3.15.1, 3.15.7; Nile: 4.1.4; Psychology: 4.3.5, 4.4.7, 4.4.8, 4.5.1, 4.7.4, 4.7a.2, 4.8.5, 4.8.10, 4.9.1, 4.9.6, 4.9.9, 4.10.4, 4.10.5, 4.13.1, 4.14.2, 4.19.5; Physiology: 5.2.1, 5.3.6, 5.4.3, 5.5.1, 5.7.7, 5.16.1, 5.19.5, 5.20.2 (56) Democritus and his successors Introduction 1.17.2 (1) Democritus, successors of Foundational Concepts: 1.9.3 (1) Diagoras of Melos Introduction: 1.7.1* Dicaearchus Earth and Sea: 3.17.2; Psychology: 4.2.7, 5.1.4 (2) Diocles Physiology: 5.9.1, 5.13.2, 5.14.3, 5.18.3, 5.29.2, 5.30.2 (6) Diodorus Cronus Introduction: 1.3.18; Foundational Concepts: 1.13.3, 1.23.7 (3) Diodorus of Tyre Introduction: 1.7.12 (1) Diogenes of Apollonia Introduction: 1.3.10, 1.7.8; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.1.8, 2.4.7, 2.8.1, 2.13.4, 2.13.10, 2.20.10, 2.23.3, 2.25.11; Meteorology: 3.2.9, 3.3.8; Psychology: 4.3.2, 4.3.8, 4.5.8, 4.7.1, 4.9.9, 4.16.3, 4.18.2; Physiology: 5.15.4, 5.20.5, 5.24.3 (23) Diogenes the Stoic Cosmology: 2.32.9 (1) Diotimus Cosmology: 2.17.3 (1) doctors Physiology: 5.8.3, 5.12.1, 5.13.1, 5.17.4, 5.30.6 (5) Ecphantus Introduction: 1.3.17; Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.3.3; Earth and Sea: 3.13.3 (4) Empedocles Introduction: 1.3.19, 1.5.2, 1.7.19; Foundational Concepts: 1.13.1, 1.15.3, 1.17.3, 1.18.2, 1.24.2, 1.26.1, 1.30.1; Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.1.6, 2.4.11, 2.6.3, 2.7.7, 2.8.2, 2.10.2, 2.11.2, 2.13.2, 2.13.11, 2.20.13, 2.21.2, 2.23.4, 2.24.2, 2.25.6, 2.27.5, 2.28.6, 2.31.1, 2.31.4; Meteorology: 3.3.7, 3.8.1; Earth and Sea: 3.16.3; Psychology: 4.3.12, 4.5.9, 4.7.1, 4.7a.2, 4.9.1, 4.9.6, 4.9.15, 4.13.12, 4.14.1, 4.16.1, 4.17.2, 4.22.1; Physiology: 5.7.1, 5.8.1, 5.10.1, 5.11.1, 5.12.2, 5.14.2, 5.15.3, 5.18.1, 5.19.6, 5.21.1, 5.22.1, 5.24.2, 5.25.4, 5.26.4, 5.27.1, 5.28.1, 5.28.2 (61) Empiricists Physiology: 5.18.3 (1) Ephorus Nile: 4.1.6 (1)

index of name-labels and other names


Epicureans Psychology: 4.13.2*; Physiology: 5.26.3 (1) Epicurus Introduction: 1.3.16, 1.5.4*, 1.7.25; Foundational Concepts: 1.8.3, 1.12.5, 1.15.9, 1.18.3, 1.20.2, 1.22.6, 1.23.4, 1.24.2, 1.29.3; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.1.5, 2.2.5, 2.3.2, 2.4.13, 2.7.3, 2.13.14, 2.20.14, 2.21.5, 2.22.4; Meteorology: 3.4.5; Earth and Sea: 3.15.11; Psychology: 4.3.11, 4.4.7, 4.5.6, 4.7.4, 4.8.2, 4.8.10, 4.9.5, 4.9.6, 4.9.12, 4.9.20, 4.13.1, 4.14.2, 4.19.4, 4.23.2; Physiology: 5.1.2, 5.3.5, 5.5.1, 5.16.1, 5.19.5, 5.20.2 (43) Epidicus Cosmology: 2.4.3 (1) Epigenes Meteorology: 3.2.7 (1) Erasistratus Psychology: 4.5.4; Physiology: 5.9.3, 5.10.3, 5.29.1, 5.30.3 (4) Eratosthenes Foundational Concepts: 1.21.3; Cosmology: 2.31.3 (2) Eudoxus Cosmology: 2.19.3; Nile: 4.1.7 (2) Euhemerus of Tegea Introduction: 1.7.1* Euripides Introduction: 1.7.1*; Physiology: 5.19.3 (1) Euthymenes Nile: 4.1.2 (1)

Hippo Psychology: 4.3.9; Physiology: 5.5.3, 5.7.3, 5.7.8 (4) Hippocrates Psychology: 4.5.2 (1) Hippocrates and followers Physiology: 5.19.4 (1) Homer Introduction: 1.3.1* homoiomere, those who posit Psychology: 4.9.10 (1)

Hecataeus Cosmology: 2.20.6 (1) Heraclides Foundational Concepts: 1.13.4; Cosmology: 2.1.7, 2.13.15, 2.25.14; Meteorology: 3.2.6; Earth and Sea: 3.13.3, 3.17.1; Psychology: 4.3.6, 4.9.6 (9) Heraclitus Introduction: 1.3.9, 1.7.13; Foundational Concepts: 1.9.2, 1.13.2, 1.23.8, 1.27.1, 1.28.1; Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.4.1, 2.11.4, 2.13.8, 2.17.4, 2.20.6, 2.20.15, 2.21.4, 2.22.2, 2.24.4, 2.25.2, 2.27.3, 2.28.7, 2.29.3, 2.32.8, 2.32.9*; Meteorology: 3.3.9; Psychology: 4.3.4, 4.3.14, 4.7.2; Physiology: 5.23.1 (27) Herodotus Nile: 4.1.5 (1) Herophilus Foundational Concepts: 1.23.9; Psychology: 4.5.5, 4.22.3, 5.2.3, 5.15.5; Physiology: 5.29.3, 5.30.2 (7) Hestiaeus Foundational Concepts: 1.22.4; Psychology: 4.13.13 (2) Hicetas Earth and Sea: 3.9.2 (1) Hipparchus Psychology: 4.13.5 (1) Hippasus Introduction: 1.3.9; Psychology: 4.3.4 (2)

majority, the Foundational Concepts: 1.22.8 (1) materialists Foundational Concepts: 1.9.6 (1) mathematicians (mathematikoi), successors of 4.14.3 (see also astronomers) (1) Melissus Introduction: 1.7.18; Foundational Concepts: 1.24.1; Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.1.8, 2.4.5; Psychology: 4.9.1 (6) Metrodorus Introduction: 1.3.15, 1.5.4; Foundational Concepts: 1.18.3; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.15.6, 2.17.1, 2.18.2, 2.20.8, 2.28.6, 3.1.5; Meteorology: 3.2.11, 3.3.3, 3.4.3, 3.5.9, 3.7.3; Earth and Sea: 3.9.5, 3.15.6, 3.16.5; Psychology: 4.9.1 (19) Mnesarchus Introduction: 1.7.15 (1) more recent thinkers Cosmology: 2.29.5; Psychology: 4.5.13 (2)

infinitesimals, those who posit Psychology: 4.9.10 (1) Ion Cosmology: 2.25.12 (1) Leophanes Physiology 5.7.5 (1) Leucippus Introduction: 1.3.13; Foundational Concepts: 1.18.3, 1.25.4; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.2.4, 2.3.2, 2.4.7, 2.7.2; Meteorology: 3.3.10; Earth and Sea: 3.10.4, 3.12.1; Psychology: 4.3.7, 4.7.1, 4.7a.1, 4.8.5, 4.8.10, 4.9.1, 4.9.9, 4.13.1, 4.14.2, 4.19.7; Physiology: 5.4.1, 5.7.6, 5.25.3, 5.20.3 (25) Leucippus, successors of Foundational Concepts: 1.14.4 (1)

Ocellus Cosmology: 2.25.14 (1) Oenopides Introduction: 1.7.8; Cosmology: 2.12.2*, 2.32.6 (2) Parmenides Introduction: 1.7.17; Foundational Concepts: 1.24.1, 1.25.3;


index of name-labels and other names

Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.4.5, 2.7.1, 2.11.1, 2.11.4, 2.13.8, 2.15.7, 2.20.3, 2.20.16, 2.25.2, 2.26.2, 2.28.6, 2.30.5; Meteorology: 3.1.6; Earth and Sea: 3.14.2, 3.15.7; Psychology: 4.3.4, 4.5.6, 4.7a.2, 4.9.1, 4.9.6, 4.13.6; Physiology: 5.7.2, 5.7.4, 5.11.2, 5.28.2, 5.30.4 (30) Peripatetics Introduction: 1.proem. 3, 1.11.4; Meteorology: 3.2.6; Psychology: 4.8.4, 4.8.14, 4.9.7, 4.9.13 (7) Philip of Opus Cosmology: 2.29.4* Philolaus Introduction: 1.3.12; Cosmology: 2.5.3, 2.5a.4, 2.7.6, 2.20.12, 2.30.1; Earth and Sea: 3.11.3, 3.13.2 (8) physicists Foundational Concepts: 1.18.1; Cosmology: 2.6.1 (2) Plato Introduction: 1.3.20, 1.5.3, 1.7.1*, 1.7.22; Foundational Concepts: 1.8.2, 1.9.4, 1.10.2, 1.11.2, 1.12.2, 1.15.4, 1.17.4, 1.18.1, 1.19.1, 1.21.2, 1.22.1, 1.22.9, 1.23.1, 1.25.5, 1.26.3, 1.27.2, 1.27.3*, 1.28.2, 1.29.1; Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.4.9, 2.5.2, 2.5a.1, 2.6.4, 2.6.6, 2.7.4, 2.9.4, 2.10.1, 2.13.12, 2.15.4, 2.15.5*, 2.16.6, 2.17.6, 2.19.1, 2.20.7, 2.23.8, 2.25.7, 2.29.7; Meteorology: 3.5.2*; Earth and Sea: 3.15.10, 3.17.5; Psychology: 4.2.5, 4.4.1, 4.5.1, 4.6.1, 4.7.1, 4.7.5, 4.7a.1, 4.8.3, 4.9.1, 4.9.11, 4.13.7, 4.19.1, 4.20.1; Physiology: 5.1.1, 5.3.4, 5.4.2, 5.15.1, 5.20.1, 5.20.4, 5.26.1 (61) Plato and followers/successors Introduction: 1.2.1; Psychology: 4.16.4 (2) Plato, successors of Earth and Sea: 3.16.6 (1) Polemon Introduction: 1.7.20 (1) Polybus Physiology: 5.18.3, 5.18.5 (2) Polycrates Introduction: 1.3.8* Posidonius Introduction: 1.7.10; Foundational Concepts: 1.28.5; Cosmology: 2.9.3, 2.25.5; Earth and Sea: 3.1.11, 3.17.4; Psychology: 4.13.11 (7) Protagoras Psychology: 4.9.1 (1) Pythagoras Introduction: 1.3.7, 1.3.8*, 1.7.9; Foundational Concepts: 1.8.2, 1.10.3, 1.11.3, 1.21.1, 1.23.1, 1.24.3, 1.25.2; Cosmology: 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.4.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.5, 2.10.1, 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.23.8, 2.25.15, 2.28.6, 2.32.6; Earth and Sea: 3.14.1; Psychology: 4.2.3, 4.4.1, 4.5.14, 4.7.1,

4.7.5, 4.7a.1, 4.9.1, 4.9.11, 4.13.6, 4.20.1; Physiology: 5.1.3, 5.3.2, 5.4.2, 5.5.1, 5.20.4 (37) Pythagoras and followers Foundational Concepts: 1.14.2 (1) Pythagoras and successors Cosmology: 2.9.1, 2.12.1 (1) Pythagoras, successors of Foundational Concepts: 1.9.2, 1.15.7, 1.16.1; Meteorology: 3.2.1–2; Psychology: 4.4.6, 4.14.3 (7) Pythagoreans Foundational Concepts: 1.15.2; Cosmology: 2.13.15, 2.22.3, 2.24.2, 2.29.4, 2.30.1; Meteorology: 3.1.2–3 (8) Pytheas Earth and Sea: 3.17.3 (1) Seleucus Cosmology: 2.1.7; Earth and Sea: 3.17.9 (2) Socrates Introduction: 1.3.20, 1.7.22; Foundational Concepts: 1.10.2 (3) Speusippus Introduction: 1.7.11 (1) Sphaerus Psychology 4.15.1 (1) Stoics Introduction: 1.proem. 2, 1.5.1, 1.6.1, 1.7.24; Foundational Concepts: 1.8.2, 1.9.2, 1.9.8, 1.10.5, 1.11.5, 1.11.7, 1.12.4, 1.14.5*, 1.22.2, 1.27.3, 1.28.4, 1.29.4; Cosmology: 2.1.9, 2.2.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.8, 2.6.1, 2.9.2, 2.14.1, 2.15.2, 2.17.4, 2.22.3, 2.23.6, 2.25.5, 2.26.1, 2.27.1, 2.28.3, 2.29.7, 2.30.6; Meteorology: 3.1.10, 3.3.15, 3.7.2, 3.8.1; Earth and Sea: 3.9.3, 3.10.1, 3.15.2; Psychology: 4.3.3, 4.4.4, 4.5.7, 4.7.3, 4.8.1, 4.8.7, 4.8.8, 4.8.12, 4.9.4, 4.9.18, 4.10.1, 4.11.1, 4.19.6, 4.20.2, 4.21.1, 4.23.1; Physiology: 5.1.1, 5.9.2, 5.10.4, 5.11.3, 5.12.3, 5.13.3, 5.15.2, 5.16.2, 5.17.1, 5.23.1, 5.24.4, 5.26.3, 5.30.5 (68) Strato Introduction: 1.3.24; Foundational Concepts: 1.12.7, 1.15.5*, 1.18.4, 1.19.3, 1.22.5; Cosmology: 2.11.4, 2.17.2; Meteorology: 3.2.5, 3.3.14; Psychology: 4.5.3, 4.13.3, 4.23.3; Physiology: 5.2.2, 5.4.3, 5.8.2, 5.24.4 (16) Thales Introduction: 1.2.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.6*, 1.7.2; Foundational Concepts: 1.8.2, 1.11.6, 1.18.1, 1.25.1, 2.1.2, 2.12.1, 2.13.1, 2.20.9, 2.24.1, 2.25.9, 2.28.5, 2.29.7;

index of name-labels and other names Earth and Sea: 3.10.1, 3.15.1; Nile: 4.1.1; Psychology: 4.2.1; Physiology: 5.26.1 (20) Thales and his followers/successors Foundational Concepts: 1.17.1; Earth and Sea: 3.9.1 (2) Thales, successors of Foundational Concepts: 1.9.2, 1.11.6, 1.16.1; Earth and Sea: 3.11.1 (4) Theodore of Cyrene Introduction: 1.7.1* Theophrastus Introduction: 1.proem. 3, Cosmology: 2.20.5*, 2.29.8* (1) Things without parts, those who posit Foundational Concepts: 1.9.7; Psychology: 4.9.10 (2) Timaeus Earth and Sea: 3.17.6; Physiology: 5.18.2 (2) Timagoras Psychology: 4.13.2 (1) Xenarchus Psychology: 4.3.10 (1) Xenocrates Introduction: 1.3.22, 1.7.21; Foundational Concepts: 1.13.3, 1.17.3,


1.22.3; Cosmology: 2.15.1; Psychology: 4.2.4, 4.4.2, 4.7.1, 4.7a.1 (10) Xenophanes Introduction: 1.3.11; Cosmology: 2.1.3, 2.4.5, 2.13.14, 2.18.1, 2.20.2, 2.20.5, 2.24.5, 2.24.8, 2.25.3, 2.28.1, 2.29.6, 2.30.9; Meteorology: 3.2.12, 3.3.6, 3.4.4; Earth and Sea: 3.9.4, 3.11.2; Psychology: 4.9.1; Physiology: 5.1.2 (20) Zeno (the Eleatic) Introduction: 1.7.18, 1.24.1; Psychology: 4.9.1 (2) Zeno the Stoic Introduction: 1.3.23, 1.7.14; Foundational Concepts: 1.9.8*, 1.15.6, 1.27.5; Cosmology: 2.1.2, 2.11.4; Psychology: 4.21.1, 5.4.1; Physiology: 5.5.2 (9) Zeno and his successors Foundational Concepts: 1.18.5, 1.20.1 (2) Zeno, the successors of Foundational Concepts: 1.10.5 (1) †pelles Psychology: 4.10.3 (1)

Index of Fragment Collections and Extant Sources This index lists the references to fragment collections and extant writings contained in the first apparatus to the text of the Compendium. For full details of editions referred to see the Bibliography elsewhere in Part 4. Alcmaeon, ed. Diels–Kranz 24A4 2.16.2, 2.22.1, 2.29.3 24A6 4.16.2 24A8 4.17.1 24A9 4.18.1 24A10 4.13.8 24A12 4.2.2 24A13 5.3.3, 5.17.3 24A17 5.16.3 24A18 5.24.1 24B3 5.14.1 24B4 5.30.1 Anaxagoras, ed. Diels–Kranz 59A46 1.3.4 59A48 1.7.1, 1.7.6 59A51 1.14.3 59A54 1.17.2 59A63 2.1.2 59A65 1.24.2, 2.4.7 59A66 1.29.4 59A67 2.8.1 59A71 2.13.3 59A72 2.20.8, 2.21.3, 2.23.2 59A77 2.25.10, 2.28.6, 2.29.7–8, 2.30.3 59A78 2.16.1 59A80 3.1.7 59A81 3.2.1 59A82 3.2.10 59A84 3.3.4 59A85 3.4.2 59A86 3.5.8 59A89 3.15.4 59A90 3.16.2 59A91 4.1.3 59A93 4.3.2, 4.7.1, 4.7a.1 59A94 4.9.16 59A96 4.9.1 50A101 5.20.3 59A103 5.25.2

59A106 59A111 59A112 59B12 59B17

4.19.7 5.7.4 5.19.3 1.7.1 1.30.2

—, ed. Gemelli Marciano fr. 78 5.27.2 Anaximander, ed. Diels–Kranz 12A14 1.3.2 12A17 1.7.3, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.4.7 12A17a 2.11.3 12A18 2.13.7, 2.15.6, 2.16.4 12A20 2.20.1 12A21 2.21.1, 2.24.3 12A22 2.25.1, 2.28.1, 2.29.1 12A23 3.3.1 12A24 3.7.1 12A25 3.10.2 12A27 3.16.1 12A29 4.3.2 12A30 5.19.4 Anaximenes, ed. Diels–Kranz 13A10 1.7.4, 2.1.3 13A13 2.11.1 13A14 2.13.9, 2.14.3–4, 2.16.5, 2.19.2 13A15 2.20.3, 2.22.1, 2.23.1 13A16 2.25.2 13A17 3.3.2, 3.4.1 13A18 3.5.7 13A20 3.10.3, 3.15.8 13A21 3.15.3 13A23 4.3.2 13B2 1.3.3 13B2a 2.14.3 —, ed. Wöhrle 121



index of fragment collections and extant sources Antipater, ed. Von Arnim SVF vol. 3 35 1.27.6

Aristophanes Nub. 398

Antiphon, ed. Diels–Kranz 87B9 1.22.7 87B26 2.20.4 87B27 2.28.4 87B28 2.29.3 87B32 3.16.4

Aristotle Cael. 1.1 269a15–b6 Cael. 1.2 269a31

—, ed. Pendrick F9 F26 F27 F28 F32

1.22.7 2.20.4 2.28.4 2.29.3 3.16.4

Apollophanes, ed. Von Arnim SVF 1.405 4.4.5 Apollodorus, ed. Jacoby FrGH 244F91 2.16.7 Aratus, Phaenomena 10–12 545–549

2.19.3 1.6.1

Archedemus, ed. Von Arnim SVF vol. 3 15 2.5a.3 Archelaus, ed. Diels–Kranz 60A7 1.3.5 60A12 1.7.5 60A13 2.1.3 60A14 2.4.4, 2.4.7 60A15 2.13.6 60A17 4.3.1 60A16 3.3.5 Archytas, ed. Huffmann 25A 25B

4.14.3 4.13.5–6

Aristarchus at Strato fr. 7 Sharples 1.15.5 p. 305 Heath 2.24.7 De magnitudinibus, ed. Heath p. 352 2.30.2

Cael. 1.3 270b1–5 Cael. 1.3 270b22 Cael. 1.8 Cael. 1.9 278b23–24 Cael. 1.9 279a6–7 Cael. 1.9 279a14–15 Cael. 1.10 279b32–280a2


1.12.3 2.11.5, 2.13.13, 2.20.11, 2.25.8 2.17.5 2.7.5 2.1.2 2.9.4 2.9.4 1.21.2a

1.22.9 Cael. 2.2 2.10.1 Cael. 2.3 285a29 2.3.4 Cael. 2.3 286a9–12 2.3.4 Cael. 2.8 289b30–34 2.16.3 Cael. 2.14 297b29 2.29.7 Cael. 4.4 310b7–8 1.18.2 Cael. 4.4 311a15–b27 1.12.3 Cat. 10 12b40–41 1.7.1 de An. 1.2 404b21–24 4.4.6 de An. 1.3 405b32-–406a20 4.6.2 de An. 1.3 406b30–31 4.6.2 de An. 2.1 412a27–b 4.2.6 de An. 2.2 413a21–b10 5.26.2 de An. 2.2 413b11–13 4.4.3 de An. 2.3 414a31–32 4.4.3 de An. 2.4 415b24 4.8.6 de An. 2.6 418a11–12 4.9.3 de An. 2.7 418a31–b3 1.15.10 de An. 2.7 418a31–b10 4.13.9 de An. 2.8 419b4–420a2 4.20.1 de An. 2.11 424a4–5 4.8.6 de An. 3.1 424b22–23, 425a14–16 4.10.4 de An. 3.1 425a13–15 4.8.6 de Philosophia fr. 22 Ross 5.20.1 De Pythagoreis fr. 16 Ross 2.29.4–5 Div.Somn. 1 463b12–14 5.1.4 EE 2.1 1220a5 1.proœm. 3 EE 7.1 1235a6–9 4.19.5 EN 2.1 1103a14–15 1.proœm. 3


index of fragment collections and extant sources

Aristotle (cont.) fr. 201 Rose3 1.18.6 fr. 210 Rose3 2.29.7 fr. 738 Gigon 2.29.7 GA 1.19 727a27–30 5.5.2 GA 2.1 735a14–15 5.17.2 GA 2.3 737a7–12 5.4.2 GA 2.4 738a34–b4 5.5.2 GA 2.4 739a26 5.6.1 GA 3.11 761b23 2.30.7 GA 4.1 765a21–25 5.7.5 GA 4.1 766b12 5.3.1 GA 4.10 777b17–778a2 3.17.1 GC 1.2 316b20–23 1.16.3 GC 1.4 320a2–4 1.9.1 GC 1.5 320b23 1.9.5 GC 2.1 329a9–10 1.9.5 HA 7.1 582a33–34 5.23.3 HA 7.4 584b2 5.18.4 HA 9.2 582b11 5.6.1 Iuv. 3 469a4–7, 469a33–b1 4.5.7 Iuv. 4 469b13–20 5.25.1 Met. α.1 993b19–23 1.proœm. 3 Met. Δ.1 1012b34 1.2.1 Met. Δ.1 1013a4 5.17.2 Met. Δ.3 1014a26 1.2.1 Met. Κ.8 1065a30–1065b4 1.29.2 Met. Λ.1 1069b32–34 1.3.21 Met. Λ.4 1.11.3 Met. Λ.4 1070b23 1.2.1 Met. Λ.7 1.11.3 Met. Λ.8 2.16.3 Met. Λ.8 1073a34 2.17.5 Mete. 1.7 344a8–15 3.2.4 Mete. 1.8 345b31–346b6 3.1.9 Mete. 2.1 354a5–8 3.17.1 Mete. 2.4 360a12–13, 361b1 3.7.4 Mete. 2.8 365b21–29 3.15.5 Mete. 2.8 366a18–20 3.17.1 Mete. 2.9 369a10–b11 3.3.13 Mete. 3.2 371b18–24 3.5a.1 Mete. 3.3 373a21–22 3.5a.1 Mete. 3.4 373b32–34 3.5.4 Mete. 3.4 374a8–11 3.5.5 Mete. 3.4 374b32–375a1 3.5.5

Mete. 3.4 373b2–10 Mete. 3.4 374a22–24 PA 3.4 665b18–23 Phys. 2.1 192b8–193a8 Phys. 2.5 197a5–10 Phys. 2.6 197a33–b32 Phys. 3.2 202a7–8 Phys. 4.4 211b10–12 Phys. 4.11 219b1–2 Phys. 4.14 223b21–23 Phys. 8.5 257b8–9 Pol. 7.17 Rhet. 1.11 1371b16–17 Sens. 2 438b2–5 Sens. 3 439b11–12 Somn.Vig. 1 454a8–11 Somn.Vig. 3 456b17–29

3.5.6 3.5.6 4.5.7 1.1.2 1.29.2 1.29.2 1.23.2 1.19.2 1.21.2a 1.21.2a 1.23.2 5.23.2 4.19.5 4.13.9 1.15.10 5.25.1 5.25.1

Arius Didymus, Epitome Fr.Phys. ed. Diels fr. 9 (Aristotle) 2.3.4 fr. 32 (Aristotle) 2.23.8 Asclepiades, list Vallance ANRW p. 721 5.10.1, 5.21.2 p. 724 4.2.8, 4.22.2 p. 725 5.10.1, 5.21.2, 5.30.7 p. 726 1.23.10, 4.2.8 Berossus, ed. Jacoby FGH 680F19 2.25.13, 2.28.1, 2.29.2 —, ed. De Breucker F21

2.25.13, 2.28.1, 2.29.2

Boethus, ed. Von Arnim SVF vol. 3 2 1.7.16 9 2.31.5 Callimachus, ed. Pfeiffer 191.9–11 1.7.1 586 1.7.1 Chrysippus, ed. Von Arnim SVF 2.81 4.9.14 2.886 4.15.2 2.913 1.28.3


index of fragment collections and extant sources 2.916 2.703

1.27.4 3.3.12

Cleanthes, ed. Von Arnim SVF 1.498 1.14.5 1.499 2.5a.2 1.501 2.20.6 1.506 2.27.4 1.507 2.16.1 1.508 2.14.2, 2.23.6 1.523 4.7a.1 1.532 1.7.8 Corpus Hippocraticum Carn. 19 Morb.Sacr. 14, 17 Oct. 1–2, 10

5.18.4 4.5.2 5.18.4–5

Crates Mallotes, ed. Mette F5a 2.15.6 F7 3.17.7 —, ed. Broggiato 136


Critias, Sisyphus, ed. Diels–Kranz 88B25 1.7.1 88B25.33–34 1.6.1 —, ed. Kannicht 1.33–34 19

1.6.1 1.7.1

Critolaus, ed. Wehrli 16


Demetrius Laco, ed. De Falco 19–20 1.18.3 —, ed. Gigante test. 3


Democritus, ed. Diels–Kranz 67A29 4.13.1 67A31 4.14.2 68A46 1.3.14 68A47 1.12.6, 1.23.3 68A48 1.16.2 68A66 1.26.2

68A74 68A84 68A85 68A86 68A87 68A89 68A90 68A91 68A93 68A94 68A95 68A96 68A97 68A99 68A102 68A105 68A109 68A115 68A116 68A117 68A125 68A128 68A136 68A139 68A141 68A142 68A143 68A144 —, ed. Luria 4 23 54 68 95 187 193 214 243 341 352 353 379 385 387 403 436 437 514

1.7.7 2.4.12 2.13.5 2.15.3 2.20.8 2.23.5 2.25.10, 2.30.4 3.1.8 3.3.11 3.10.5 3.13.4 3.12.2 3.15.7 4.1.4 4.3.5 4.4.7, 4.5.1 4.7.4 4.10.5 4.10.4 4.4.8 1.15.8 4.19.5 5.2.1 5.19.5 5.3.6 5.4.3, 5.5.1 5.7.7 5.16.1

3.15.7 1.25.3, 2.3.2 4.9.1 4.8.5, 4.8.10 4.9.9 1.18.3 1.9.3 1.9.3 4.9.9 1.17.2 2.1.3 2.4.7 3.15.7 2.2.4 2.16.1 3.15.7 4.8.5, 4.8.10 4.9.6 5.19.5


index of fragment collections and extant sources

—, ed. Luria (cont.) 547 589

5.20.2 1.25.3, 2.3.2

Diagoras, ed. Winiarczyk T 47 1.7.1 Dicaearchus of Messene, ed. Wehrli 12a–c 4.2.7 13b 5.1.4 114 3.17.2 —, ed. Mirhardy 21A 30B 127

4.2.7 5.1.4 3.17.2

Diocles, ed. Van der Eijk 24 42 43 48 51 56

5.14.3 5.9.1 5.13.2 5.18.3 5.30.3 5.29.2

Diodorus Cronus, ed. Döring 117A 1.3.18 117B 1.13.3 121 1.23.7 —, ed. Giannantoni I F8 II F8 II F11

1.3.18 1.13.3 1.23.7

Diodorus of Tyre, ed. Wehrli 2 1.7.12 Diogenes of Apollonia, ed. Diels–Kranz 64A7 1.3.10 64A8 1.7.8 64A10 2.1.3, 2.1.8, 2.4.7 64A11 2.8.1 64A12 2.13.4, 2.13.10 64A13 2.20.10, 2.23.3 64A14 2.25.11 64A15 3.2.9 64A16 3.3.8 64A20 4.5.8, 4.7.1

64A21 64A22 64A23 64A28 64A29 64A30 —, ed. Laks T3b T5b T5c T9 T10 T23d T30 T31a S2 S3

4.16.3 4.18.2 4.9.9 5.15.4 5.24.3 5.20.5

1.3.10 4.3.2&8 4.7.1 4.16.3 4.18.2 2.4.7 3.2.9 3.3.8 4.5.8 4.9.9

Diogenes of Babylon, ed. Von Arnim SVF vol. 3 28 2.32.9 30 4.5.8 31 1.7.8 Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1.13 1.3.6 3.70 (Plato) 1.7.1 3.72 (Plato) 1.7.1 8.1 (Pythagoras) 1.3.6 8.32 (Pythagoras) 1.8.2 Diotimus of Tyre, ed. Diels–Kranz 76.1 2.17.3 Ecphantus, ed. Diels–Kranz 51.2 1.3.17 51.3 2.1.1 51.4 2.3.3 51.5 3.13.3 Empedocles, ed. Diels–Kranz 31A32 1.7.19 31A33 1.3.19 31A43 1.13.1, 1.17.3 31A44 1.24.2 31A45 1.26.1 31A47 1.5.2 31A49 2.6.3


index of fragment collections and extant sources 31A50 31A52 31A53 31A54 31A56 31A58 31A59 31A60 31A61 31A63 31A65 31A66 31A70 31A72 31A74 31A75 31A77 31A78 31A81

31A82 31A83 31A85 31A88 31A90 31A92 31A93 31A94 31A95 31A96 31A97 31B6 31B8 31B13 31B55 31B110.10

2.1.6, 2.10.2, 2.30.4 2.4.11 2.13.2 2.13.11 2.20.13, 2.21.2 2.8.2, 2.23.4 2.24.2 2.25.6, 2.27.5, 2.28.6 2.31.1 3.3.7 3.8.1 3.16.3 1.29.4. 5.26.4 5.19.6 4.22.1, 5.15.3 5.18.1 5.27.1 5.22.1 5.7.1, 5.8.1, 5.10.1, 5.11.1, 5.12.2 5.14.2 5.21.1 5.24.2, 5.25.4 4.14.1 4.9.6, 4.13.12 1.15.3 4.16.1 4172 4.9.15, 5.28.1– 2 4.7a.2 4.5.9 1.3.19 1.30.1 1.18.2 3.16.3 4.7a.1

Empirici, ed. Deichgräber fr. 133 5.18.3 Ephorus, ed. Jacoby FrGH 70F65c 4.1.6 Epicurus, ed. Usener 29

248 259 261 267 271 275 280 293 294 301 301a 302 303 305 308 309 312 315 317 318 320 321 329 330 332 336 342 343 344 345 349 350 355 361 375 380 382 386 393 395

4.9.5 4.8.2 4.9.11 1.3.16 1.20.1 1.12.5 1.12.5, 1.23.4 1.18.3 1.22.6 2.1.3 2.1.5 2.2.5 2.7.2 2.4.13 1.4.1 5.26.3 4.4.7, 4.5.6 4.3.11 4.23.2 4.13.1 4.14.2 4.18.4 5.3.5 5.5.1 5.16.1 4.7.4 5.20.2 2.20.14 2.22.4 2.21.5 3.4.5 3.15.11 1.7.25 1.7.1 1.29.3 1.29.3 2.3.2 2.7.2 1.8.3 5.1.2

Letter to Herodotus D.L. V.P. 10.49 4.9.6 D.L. V.P. 10.66 (scholion) 4.4.7 Letter to Pythocles D.L. V.P. 10.90 n. Usener




index of fragment collections and extant sources

Kuriai doxai 1


Erasistratus, ed. Garofalo 40 57 58 168 195

4.5.4 5.9.3 5.10.3 5.30.4 5.29.1

Eratosthenes, ed. Bernhardy fr. I 40 2.31.3 fr. V 6 1.21.3 Eudoxus of Cnidos, ed. Lasserre F142 2.19.3 F288 4.1.7 Euhemerus, ed. Winiarczyk T1a 1.7.1 T16 1.7.1 Euripides Orestes 255–259 fr. 839 Kannicht

4.12.1 5.19.3

Euthymenes, ed. Jacoby FGH 647F2 4.1.2 Hecataeus, ed. Diels–Kranz 73B9 2.20.6 Heraclides, ed. Wehrli 98a,d 104 112 113 114 116 117 121 122a —, ed. Schütrumpf 46A&D 62 63A,B 65B 74

4.3.6 3.13.3 2.1.7 2.13.15 2.25.14 3.2.6 3.17.1 1.13.4 4.9.6

4.3.6 1.13.4 4.9.6 3.13.3 2.1.7

75 76 77 78

2.13.15 2.25.14 3.2.6 3.17.1

Heraclitus, ed. Diels–Kranz 22A5 1.3.9 22A6 1.23.8 22A8 1.7.13, 1.27.1, 1.28.1 22A10 2.1.2, 2.4.1, 2.11.4 22A11 2.13.8, 2.17.4 22A12 2.20.6, 2.22.2, 2.24.4, 2.27.3, 2.28.7, 2.29.3 22A13 2.32.8 22A14 3.3.9 22A15 4.3.14 22A17 4.7.2 22A18 5.23.1 22B3 2.21.4 22B137 1.27.1 —, ed. Mouraviev T403–405 T410–411 T437 T446 T460 T595

1.13.2 1.9.2 2.20.15 2.25.2 4.3.4 2.20.15

Herodotus, Histories 2.24–25


Herophilus, ed. Von Staden 137a 4.5.5 142 1.22.9 143b 4.22.3 202 5.15.5 217 5.29.3 226 5.2.3 Hesiod, Theogony 134


Hestiaeus, ed. Lasserre F3 F4

1.22.4 4.13.13


index of fragment collections and extant sources Hicetas, ed. Diels–Kranz 50.2 3.9.2 Hippasus, ed. Diels–Kranz 18.7 1.3.9 18.9 4.3.4 Hippo, ed. Diels–Kranz 38A13 38A14

5.5.3 5.7.3, 5.7.8

Hippocrates, ed. Diels–Kranz 42.6 3.1.4 See also Corpus Hippocraticum Homer, Iliad 3.178–179 14.246 17.547

1.7.1 1.3.1 3.5.2

—, Odyssey 5.306 17.218 20.350–358

1.3.7 4.19.5 4.12.1

Ion, ed. Diels–Kranz 36A7


Leophanes at Arist. GA 4.1 765a21–25 5.7.5 Leucippus, ed. Diels–Kranz 67A12 1.3.13 67A15 1.18.3 67A22 2.2.4, 2.3.2, 2.4.7 67A23 2.7.2 67A24 1.4.1 67A25 3.3.10 67A26 3.10.4 67A27 3.12.1 67A28 4.3.7 67A29 4.13.1 67A30 4.8.5, 4.8.10 67A31 4.14.2 67A32 4.9.9 67A34 5.25.3 67A35 5.4.1 67A36 5.7.6

68A43 67B2

1.14.4 1.25.4

Melissus, ed. Diels–Kranz 30A9 2.1.2, 2.4.5 30A12 1.24.1 30A13 1.7.18 30A14 4.9.1 Metrodorus, ed. Diels–Kranz 70A2 1.3.15 70A6 1.5.4 70A7 2.1.3 70A9 2.15.6, 2.17.1 70A10 2.18.2 70A11 2.20.8 70A12 2.28.6 70A13 3.1.5 70A14 3.2.11 70A15 3.3.3 70A17 3.5.9 70A18 3.7.3 70A19 3.16.5 70A20 3.9.5 70A21 3.15.6 70A22 4.9.1 Ocellus, ed. Harder T9


Oenopides, ed. Diels–Kranz 41.6 1.7.8 41.7 2.12.2 41.9 2.32.6 41.10 3.1.3 Orphics, ed. Bernabé fr. 30 F


Parmenides, ed. Diels–Kranz 28A29 1.24.1 28A31 1.7.17 28A32 1.25.3 28A36 2.1.2, 2.4.5 28A37 2.7.1 28A38 2.11.4 28A39 2.13.8 28A40 2.15.7 28A41 2.20.3


index of fragment collections and extant sources

Parmenides, ed. Diels–Kranz (cont.) 28A42 2.25.2, 2.26.2, 2.28.6 28A43 2.20.16 28A43a 3.1.6 28A44 3.15.7 28A44a 3.14.2 28A45 4.3.4, 4.5.6, 4.7a.2 28A46a 5.30.5 28A47 4.9.6 28A48 4.13.6 28A49 4.9.1 28A50 5.28.2 28A53 5.7.2, 5.7.4 28A54 5.11.2 28B1.14 2.7.1 28B8.30 2.7.1 28B12.3 2.7.1 B8.14 1.25.3, 2.28.6 B12 2.7.1 B12.3 1.25.3 B21 2.30.5 Philip of Opus, ed. Tarán 10 2.29.4–5 —, ed. Lasserre F32–33


Philolaus, ed. Diels–Kranz 44A9 1.3.12 44A15 2.6.5 44A17 2.5a.4, 3.11.3 44A18 2.5.3 44A19 2.20.12 44A20 2.30.1 44A21 3.13.2 Plato Dörrie–Baltes B113.2 Dörrie–Baltes B156.1 Leg. 10.904c Lys. 214a–b Phd. 109a, 111d–e Phd. 111e–112a Phdr. 244b–c Phdr. 245b–c Phdr. 245c Phlb. 34a

Resp. 4 439d–e Sph. 263e Tht. 155d Tht. 184d Tht. 206d Tim. 28a–29a Tim. 28a–b Tim. 28b–c Tim. 29e Tim. 30a Tim. 30b Tim. 30b–c Tim. 30c Tim. 30c–31b Tim. 31a Tim. 31b–32c Tim. 33a–d Tim. 33c–d Tim. 33c Tim. 34a Tim. 34b–c Tim. 35a–36b Tim. 36e–37c Tim. 37d Tim. 38c–d Tim. 39e–40a Tim. 40a

1.3.20 4.2.4 1.27.2 4.19.5 3.15.10 3.17.5 5.1.1 4.6.1 4.2.5 4.8.3

Tim. 40b–d Tim. 40c–d Tim. 41a–b Tim. 41d Tim. 43c Tim. 44c Tim. 44d–e Tim. 44d Tim. 45b–46a Tim. 45b–c Tim. 46c–e Tim. 46c Tim. 47e–48a Tim. 48b–c Tim. 49a Tim. 49b–d Tim. 50a–d Tim. 50b–d Tim. 50c–d Tim. 52d Tim. 53a

4.4.1 4.19.2 3.5.2 4.5.2 4.19.1 1.11.2 2.6.4 2.4.9 1.7.1 1.7.1 4.7.5 1.25.5 1.7.1 1.5.3 2.1.2 2.6.4 1.5.3 2.5.2, 2.17.6 2.9.4 3.15.10 2.6.4 4.2.5 2.5a.1 1.21.2, 1.22.1 2.15.4, 2.16.6 2.23.8 2.13.12, 2.20.7, 2.25.7, 5.20.1 3.15.10 2.19.1 2.4.9 4.2.5 4.8.3 1.25.5 4.5.2 1.6.1 4.13.7 4.9.11 1.11.2 4.8.3 1.25.5, 1.26.3 1.2.1 1.9.4, 1.19.1 1.17.4 1.19.1 1.9.4 1.11.2 1.9.4 1.19.1


index of fragment collections and extant sources Tim. 53e–55c Tim. 54b–d Tim. 58a Tim. 62c–63e Tim. 65c–d, 66d, 67b Tim. 67a–c Tim. 67a–b Tim. 67b–c Tim. 67c Tim. 68e–69a Tim. 69c–e Tim. 71e Tim. 74a Tim. 77a–c Tim. 91d Polemon, ed. Gigante 121

2.6.6 1.17.4 2.9.4 1.12.2 4.9.11 4.19.2 4.16.4 4.20.1 1.15.4 1.26.3 4.7.5 5.1.1 5.3.4 5.26.1 5.15.1


Posidonius, ed. Edelstein–Kidd F 84 2.9.3 F97 2.9.3 F101 1.6.1, 1.7.10 F103 1.28.5 F122 2.25.5 F129 3.1.11 F138 3.17.4 F194 4.13.11 —, ed. Theiler 298b 301 302 317 349 364 382a 395

3.1.11 2.25.5 2.9.3 3.17, 3.17.4 1.6.1 1.6.1, 1.7.10 1.28.5 4.13.11

Ps.Aristotle, De mundo 2 392a5–b17 2 392a32–35

2.7.5 2.4.10

—, Magna moralia 2.11.2


Ps.Plato Definitiones 411c 414c

4.2.5 4.8.3

Pythagoras/Pythagoreans, ed. Diels–Kranz 14.21 2.1.1 44A18 n. 2.13.15 44A20 2.20.1 44A21 3.13.1 58B3 1.21.1 58B15 1.3.7 58B36 2.29.4–5 58B37c 3.1.4–6 58B42 1.15.2 Dörrie-Baltes B156.1 4.2.3 Pytheas, ed. Mette 2


Seleucus of Babylon, ed. Russo test. 5 2.1.7 test. 6–7 3.17.9 Socrates Dörrie-Baltes B113.2


Solon, ed. West fr. 27.5–6


Speusippus, ed. Lang 38


—, ed. Isnardi-Parente 89


—, ed. Tarán 58


Sphaerus, ed. Von Arnim SVF 1.627 4.15.1 Stoics, ed. Von Arnim SVF 2.35 2.72 2.78 2.83 2.149 2.150 2.324 2.338 2.340 2.360 2.387

1.proœm. 2 4.8.12 4.9.4 4.11.1, 4.12.1 4.11.1 4.21.1 1.9.2, 1.9.8 1.11.7 1.11.5 1.10.5 4.20.2


index of fragment collections and extant sources

Stoics, ed. Von Arnim SVF (cont.) 2.419 1.15.11 2.425 4.19.6 2.504 1.20.1 2.506 2.25.5 2.514 1.22.2 2.522 2.1.9 2.530 1.5.1 2.547 2.2.1 2.571 1.12.4 2.575 2.4.2 2.581 2.6.1 2.585 2.4.8 2.597 2.4.6 2.609 2.9.2 2.647 3.9.3 2.648 3.10.1 2.654 2.22.3 2.658 2.23.6 2.666 2.26.1 2.667 2.27.1–2 2.669 2.30.6 2.670 2.28.3 2.671 2.25.5 2.676 2.29.7 2.681 2.14.1 2.689 2.15.2 2.690 2.17.4 2.696 3.8.2 2.697 3.7.2 2.705 3.3.15 2.707 3.15.2 2.708 5.26.3 2.749 5.11.3 2.750 5.10.4 2.751 5.9.2 2.752 5.13.3 2.753 5.12.3 2.754 5.16.2 2.755 5.17.1 2.756 5.15.2 2.764 5.23.1 2.767 5.24.4 2.769 5.30.6 2.779 4.3.3 2.810 4.7.3 2.827 4.4.4 2.836 4.21.1 2.838 4.5.7

2.850 4.8.1 2.851 4.8.8 2.852 4.8.7 2.853 4.10.1 2.854 4.23.1 2.917 1.28.4 2.966 1.29.4 2.976 1.27.3 2.1009 1.6.1 2.1101 1.7.24, 1.8.2 2.1190 5.1.1 See also Chrysippus, Cleanthes, Zeno etc. Strato, ed. Wehrli 45 51 55 78 84 85 86 87 94 99 110 113 119a,b 128 130

1.3.24 1.12.7 1.18.3, 1.19.3 1.22.5 2.11.4 2.17.1 3.2.5 3.3.14 5.4.3 5.8.2 4.23.3 4.13.3 4.5.3 5.24.4 5.2.2

—, ed. Sharples 26B 33 42 43 46 50A 51 52 57 63A 64 66 68 70 74

1.18.3, 1.19.3 1.22.5 2.11.4 2.17.1 1.3.24 1.12.7 3.2.5 3.3.14 4.5.3 4.23.3 4.13.3 5.24.4 5.2.2 5.4.3 5.8.2


index of fragment collections and extant sources Thales, ed. Diels–Kranz 11A11 11A13 11A13a 11A13c 11A15 11A16 11A17a 11A22a 11A23 —, ed. Wöhrle 146 148 150 151 152 153 154 159 160 161 163 341 343 344 345 347 348 350 356 357 359 395 405 488

1.3.1 2.1.2 1.17.1 2.12.1 3.11.1 4.1.1 2.13.1, 2.20.9, 2.24.1 4.2.1 1.7.2

1.2.2 1.3.6 1.8.2 1.9.2 1.16.1 1.18.1 1.25.1 2.28.5, 2.29.7 3.9.1 3.10.1 3.15.1 1.25.1 1.2.2 1.3.6 1.2.2 1.11.6 1.16.1 1.18.1 2.25.9 2.28.5, 2.29.7 5.26.1 1.25.1 5.26.1 1.18.1

Theodore of Cyrene, ed. Winiarczyk T 35 1.7.1 Theophrastus, ed. Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples & Gutas 232 2.20.5 236 2.29.8 479 1.proem. 3 Timaeus, ed. Jacoby FrGH 566F73 3.17.6

Xenocrates, ed. Heinze 15 28 40 50 51 57 60 69 70 74

1.7.21 1.3.22 1.22.3 1.17.3 1.13 2.15.1 4.2.4 4.7a.1 4.4.2 4.7.1

—, ed. Isnardi Parente2 F21 F68 F71 F79 F82 F90 F125 F126 F130 F133

1.3.22 1.13.3 1.17.3 1.22.3 2.15.1 4.2.4 4.7a.1 4.4.2 4.7.1 1.7.21

Xenophanes, ed. Diels–Kranz 21A36 1.3.11 21A37 2.1.3, 2.4.5 21A38 2.13.14 21A39 2.18.1 21A40 2.20.2, 2.20.5 21A40 2.24.5 21A40a 2.24.8 21A42 2.30.9 21A43 2.25.3, 2.28.1, 2.29.6 21A44 3.2.12 21A45 3.3.6 21A46 3.4.4 21A47 3.9.4, 3.11.2 21A49 4.9.1 21A52 5.1.2 21B20.1 3.4.4 21B27 1.3.11 21B28.3 3.9.4 Zeno of Elea, ed. Diels–Kranz 29A23 4.9.1 29A30 1.7.18


index of fragment collections and extant sources

Zeno the Stoic, ed. Von Arnim SVF 1.65 1.10.5 1.85 1.3.23 1.91 1.15.6 1.95 1.20.1 1.97 2.1.2 1.101 1.12.4

1.116 1.128 1.129 1.157 1.176 1.204

2.11.4 5.4.1 5.5.2 1.7.14 1.27.5 4.9.18

Index of Ancient and Modern Names This selective index lists the more important references to ancient writers and modern scholars as cited and discussed in the General Introduction and Commentary. Excluded are references which are covered by the other indices, namely: (1) primary and secondary witnesses to Aëtius’ compendium (see index 1); and (2) ancient thinkers whose names and views appear in the Aëtian text (see index 2). An exception to the second excluded group are ancient writers who, apart from being holders of philosophical views, also played a significant role in their transmission. So, for example, Aristotle is not indexed for his doxai and philosophical doctrines, but for the role he played in developing the method of the Placita and as a source for the structure and contents of its books and chapters. Note further the following: (1) page references may also refer to footnotes on those pages (in the General Introduction only); (2) page numbers separated by a dash may indicate references on separate pages, not necessarily a continuous discussion; (3) index entries referring to ancient authors in sections B and E of the Commentary, i.e. relating to proximate traditions and the sources, should be further pursued throughout the entire chapter in question (this does not apply to very long chapters such as Plac. 1.3 and 1.7); (4) in order to facilitate consultation, lists of references longer than about 15 items are divided into sections corresponding to the main divisions of the edition, i.e. the General Introduction (abbreviated G.I.) and the five Books (abbreviated Bk.). Abbahu see Rabbi Abel, K. 900, 1296 Achilles 108–109, 267, 1135, 1160 Adamson, P. 1637 Aelianus Tacticus 123–125 Aelius Herodianus 120 Aelius Theon 142, 735, 784 Aenesidemus 996, 1430 Aëtius (name) 120 Aëtius of Amida 1753, 1870, 1873 al-Bitriq 1155, 1161, 1226 Alberti, Leon Battista 1637 Albinus 117 Alcinous 109–110, 257, 401, 472–473, 491, 613, 737, 744, 840, 853, 934, 1626, 1693 Alexander of Aphrodisias G.I. 75, 85; Bk.1 110, 143, 453, 520, 567, 674, 705; Bk.2 737, 759, 786–787, 806, 932, 941, 994, 1008, 1015, 1099; Bk.3 1154, 1160, 1224, 1323; Bk.4 1362, 1431, 1509, 1626, 1658; Bk.5 2037 Alexander of Lycopolis 984 Alexander Philalethes 117 Alexander Polyhistor 254, 1482, 2013 Algra, K.A. 40, 579, 583, 866, 870–871 Alhacen 1098, 1223, 1626 Allan, J. 1597

Alt, K. 247–249 Ambrose of Milan 75, 109, 234, 799 Ammonius Hermeiou 140 Anatolius 1059 Anonymus Bruxellensis 1750, 1786, 1846, 1918, 1922, 1926 Anonymus Londiniensis 75, 1749, 1889, 1970–1971, 1973, 2047, 2051 Anonymus Parisinus 1476, 1750, 2037 Apollonius of Perga 124 Apollonius of Rhodes 1045 Apuleius 447, 737, 1068, 1637, 1656 Aratea 1135, 1153, 1193, 1219, 1242 Aratus 267, 351, 960, 1120 Archimedes 530, 995 Aristarchus 997, 1051 Aristo of Ceos 2048 Aristophanes of Byzantium 1839, 1846, 1908 Aristotle G.I. 23–24, 71–72, 78–82; Bk.1 110– 111, 133–134, 144, 257, 260, 387, 446, 452, 489, 500, 517, 537, 556, 584, 592, 609, 650, 705, 713; Bk.2 737, 751, 799, 821, 827, 840, 878, 887, 908, 922, 930, 941, 951, 958, 995, 1015, 1059, 1081, 1093, 1106, 1122; Bk.3 1133–1138, 1146, 1153–1161, 1173–1175, 1187–1189, 1206, 1219–1222, 1224–1226, 1237, 1243, 1248–1249,

2310 Aristotle Bk.3 (cont.) 1261–1262, 1266, 1274, 1285, 1305–1307, 1323, 1325, 1333; Bk.4 1359, 1362–1363, 1377–1378, 1398, 1401, 1405, 1429, 1434, 1458, 1478, 1496, 1498, 1507, 1509–1510, 1528, 1532, 1543, 1545, 1564, 1569, 1585, 1600, 1629, 1668, 1680, 1685, 1692, 1705, 1714, 1724, 1727; Bk.5 1743, 1749–1752, 1765, 1774, 1787, 1805, 1809, 1819–1820, 1823, 1826, 1831, 1839, 1846, 1853, 1862, 1870, 1878, 1886, 1899, 1905, 1908–1909, 1938, 1952, 1961, 1964, 1970–1973, 1980, 1983, 1992, 1994, 2001, 2012, 2047– 2048 Arius Didymus G.I. 75; Bk.1 108, 117, 120, 445, 472, 580, 629, 691–692; Bk.2 729, 734, 827, 836, 880, 930, 945, 979, 1008, 1071; Bk.3 1219, 1238, 1243; Bk.4 1362, 1630, 1675; Bk.5 1761, 1797, 2039 Arnobius of Sicca 75, 109, 144, 887, 1068 Arrian 123, 1134, 1172, 1193, 1248 Artemidorus 1776, 1779 Asclepiodotus 124 Aspasius 110, 1008 Asmis, E. 1603 Athenaeus of Attalia 1961–1962 Athenagoras 108–109 Atticus 110, 401, 505 Aucher, J.B. 53 Augustine 70, 75, 109, 234, 265, 735, 783, 1068, 1122, 1597, 1779, 1847 Aulus Gellius 1704, 1748, 1918, 1960, 1963 Avotins, I. 1657 Ax, W. 84, 1545, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1693, 1694 Babut, D. 1598 Bailey, C. 1053 Bakker, F. 773, 1072, 1083–1084, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1192, 1304, 1306 Balaudé, J.-F. 1404 Balme, D. 1839 Baltes, M. 93, 255, 400, 804, 1458, 1459, 1569, 1588, 1953 See also Dörrie–Baltes Baltussen, H. 84–85, 1044, 1400, 1404, 1545, 1570, 1627, 1635, 1676, 1724, 1956 Barhebraeus 70, 234, 268 Barnes, J. 995, 1405, 1567

index of ancient and modern names Barns, J. 45, 1842 Basil of Caesarea 75, 109, 735, 887, 1274, 1285, 1322 Bastianini, G.–Long, A.A. 1551 Baumgarten, H. 1725 Bergsträßer, G. 1136 Bernabé, A. 93 Bernadakis, G. 57 Berti, E. 1532 Betegh, G. 266, 1434 Bethe, E. 960 Beullens, P. 1377–1378 Bicknell, P. 226, 332, 1029 Bien, C.G. 1833 Bobzien, S. 607–609, 679 Bodnár, I.M. 1119–1120 Boethus the Peripatetic 1110, 1396, 1404 Boethus the Stoic 1109–1110 Boissonade, J.F. 2047 Bollack, J. 88, 880, 1193, 1879, 1889, 2016 Bonitz, H. 1189, 1224, 1507, 1544 Bottler, H. G.I. 13, 39; Bk.1 116, 119, 121–122, 235, 241, 610; Bk.2 755–756, 805, 839, 862, 880, 910, 979, 999, 1007, 1053, 1060–1061, 1081, 1105, 1117 Boudon-Millot, V. 1138 Bowen, A.C. 914 Boys-Stones, G.R. 347, 786 Bremmer, J. 16, 119 Brind’Amour, P. 925 Brinkmann, A. 1295, 1549 Brisson, L. 1887 Broggiato, M. 1337 Bühler, W. 93 Burkert, W. 256, 804, 822, 851, 899, 1029, 1119, 1158, 1286, 1399, 1433, 1458, 1511, 1657, 1953 Caelius Aurelianus 110 Calcidius G.I. 75, 77; Bk.1 109–110, 234, 267, 434, 446, 659, 681, 694, 705; Bk.2 878, 1106; Bk.3 1219, 1224; Bk.4 1435, 1476, 1626, 1637, 1665; Bk.5 1775, 1779 Callimachus 269, 1399 Callipus 1120 Canivet, P. 63 Capelle, W. 822 Carman, C.C. 1109 Carneades 1767

index of ancient and modern names Caston, V. 1406 Celsus 110, 140, 265, 1750, 1757, 2024 Censorinus G.I. 74; Bk.2 735, 1116, 1119–1122; Bk.5 1748, 1785–1786, 1805, 1819, 1845, 1853, 1857, 1892, 1898, 1905, 1917–1918, 1927, 1937, 1942, 1960, 1980, 1984 Cherniss, H. 804, 1131, 1040, 1098, 1635 Chrysippus G.I. 72; Bk.1 144, 251; Bk.2 736, 773, 930; Bk.3 1138; Bk.4 1363, 1369, 1455, 1478–1479, 1482, 1599, 1616; Bk.5 2047 Cicero G.I. 17, 22, 70, 73–74, 89; Bk.1 108, 110, 133, 139, 142, 145, 234, 250, 342, 385, 404, 503, 640, 679; Bk.2 734–735, 738, 770, 783, 799, 827, 849, 914, 930, 951, 997, 1030, 1039, 1050, 1068, 1116; Bk.3 1153, 1262, 1274, 1285; Bk.4 1364, 1398, 1400, 1426, 1476, 1482, 1506, 1564, 1570; Bk.5 1748, 1761, 1766–1767, 1774, 1952, 2000, 2047 Clearchus 1096 Cleidemus 958 Clement of Alexandria G.I. 75; Bk.1 109– 110, 342, 453; Bk.2 1059; Bk.4 1508, 1601; Bk.5 1749, 1885, 1892, 1918, 1922, 1927, 1941, 2011, 2053 Cleomedes 529, 738, 878, 934, 951, 996, 1051, 1059, 1070, 1098, 1119, 1266, 1275 Cobet, C.G. 1267 Columella 123 Congourdeau, M.-H. 1420, 1886 Copernicus, Nic. 1286 Cornford, F.M. 758 Cornutus 251 Corpus Hippocraticum G.I. 70; Bk.1 260, 541; Bk.4 1476; Bk.5 1751, 1787, 1805, 1846, 1853, 1862, 1886, 1906, 1908, 1918, 1921, 1927, 1960, 1963–1964, 1982, 2024, 2030 Corsinus, E. 1834, 1995 Couprie, D.L. 758, 778, 943–945, 983, 998, 1017, 1071, 1086, 1110 Coxon, A.H. 1567 Cronin, P. 964 Curd, P. 1953 D’Ancona, C. 1659 Damianus 1223 Daiber, H. G.I. 54–55, 57, 88; Bk.1 115–116, 606, 640; Bk.2 985, 999, 1098, 1108;

2311 Bk.3 1136, 1141, 1161, 1219, 1226; Bk.4 1349, 1367, 1542; Bk.5 1872, 1955, 2005, 2049 Damastes the doctor 1919, 1927, 1964 Daroca, J.C. 1072 David 140–141 De Breucker, G. 1044, 1055, 1073 De Lacy, P. 1825 De Nardi, M. 1378 Deichgräber, K. 1825 Delatte, A. 57 Demetrius of Phalerum 2047 Derveni papyrus 995, 999 Demetrius the Cynic 1847 Demonax 783 Des Places, E. 1507 Di Maria, G. 66 Dickey, E. 122 Diels, H. 28–34 and passim Dillon, J.M. 397, 400, 839 See also Finamore, J.F.–Dillon, J.M. Dio Chrysostom 353 Diodorus Siculus 123, 125, 900, 1941 Diodotus 146 Diogenes of Babylon 251 Diogenes Laertius G.I. 24, 73, 75, 77; Bk.1 108–110, 116, 134, 140, 445; Bk.2 734– 735, 738, 827, 930, 941, 976, 1008, 1027, 1059, 1081, 1092; Bk.3 1134, 1138, 1147, 1158, 1255, 1266; Bk.4 1361, 1363, 1528, 1594, 1602, 1695; Bk.5 1750, 1823, 2012, 2026 Diogenes of Oenoanda 109–110, 503, 738, 977, 1021 Dion of Naples 1122 Dionysius of Aegae 1749, 1786 Dionysius of Alexandria 754 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 124–125 Donini, P.-L. 1431 Dorandi, T. 61, 954, 1050, 1267, 1695 Dörrie, H. 93, 1436, 1460 Dörrie, H.–Baltes, M. 1405, 1407, 1430, 1509, 1570 Doxapatres 1918–1919 Drossaart Lulofs, H.J. 2013 Duffy, J.M. 56 Duhem, P. 1333 Dührsen, N.C. 662, 679 Dyson, H. 1598

2312 Edelstein, L. 87 Edgeworth, R.J. 1667 Effe, B. 821, 954 Elias 140–141 Elter, A. G.I. 61; Bk.1 216, 229; Bk.2 836, 1040; Bk.3 1336; Bk.4 1452, 1542, 1587; Bk.5 1798, 1805, 1920, 1940, 1962, 1972 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 1551, 1599 Epictetus 783 Epicurus G.I. 72, 74; Bk.1 353, 385; Bk.2 735, 737, 773, 964, 1015, 1020, 1027, 1072; Bk.3 1135, 1139, 1176, 1192, 1208, 1305; Bk.4 1361, 1477, 1602; Bk.5 1750, 1752, 1787, 1864, 1991 Epiphanius 75, 109, 234, 267 Eratosthenes 995, 1108 Ermerins, F.Z. 124 Euclid 530, 1224, 1635, 1655, 1666 Euctemon 964 Eudemus 388, 736, 900, 930, 1051, 1071, 1106 Eudorus 255 Eudoxus 1051, 1120 Euripides 146, 1616, 1937 Eusebius of Caesarea 124, 1141, 1146, 1368 Eutocius 506 Evans, J. 1109 Évieux, P. 69 Falcon, A. 892, 1431 Favorinus 977 Ferrari, F. 1511 Festugière, A.-J. 1361 Finamore, J.F.–Dillon, J.M. 1531 Flashar, H. 1943 Fowler, R.L. 1378 Frede, M. 13, 23, 63, 395, 1527, 1600 Funghi, M.S. 1326, 1496, 1529 Furley, D. 751, 771, 860, 1018 Galen G.I. 75; Bk.1 109–110, 142, 146, 453, 541, 630; Bk.2 735, 751, 783, 798, 867, 994, 1050, 1106; Bk.3 1138, 1224, 1267, 1274; Bk.4 1362, 1407, 1457, 1626; Bk.5 1726, 1753, 1787, 1807, 1820, 1822, 1824, 1853, 1885, 1906, 1909, 1960–1961, 1971, 2040, 2047 Ganson, T.S. 1634 Garofalo, I. 2053 Gassendi, P. 2016

index of ancient and modern names Gemelli Marciano, M.L. 33, 252 Geminus 933–934, 964, 1059, 1070, 1119, 1223, 1266, 1275, 1626, 1637, 1659 Gigon, O. 85, 1846 Gilbert, O. 924, 1267 Giussani, C. 1668 Glidden, D. 1603 Goethe, J.W. von 539, 1633, 1637, 1668 Gorgias 70, 264, 751 Gottschalk, H. 914 Goulet, R. 1110 Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. 1404, 1659 Gourinat, J.-B. 13, 120, 1527, 1632 Graham, D.W. 33, 751, 1071, 1084 Greene, G.C. 54 Gregory, A. 1188 Gregory of Nyssa 887, 1059, 1070 Grensemann, H. 1918, 1921–1922, 1925 Griesbach, J.J. 22 Groeneboom, P. 1808 Gross, N. 1376 Gundel, H. 1040, 1175 Gutas, D. 640 Guthrie, W.K.C. 839, 853, 925, 943, 1029, 1405, 2004 Haas, A.E. 1625 Hadot, P. 136 Hagedorn, D. 51 Hahm, D.E. 984, 1020, 1226, 1668 Hall, J.J. 1308 Hanson, A.E. 1922 Hanson, R.P.C. 67 Haslam, M.W. 1403, 1499 Havrda, M. 1885 Heath, T.L. 738, 1030, 1337 Heeren, A.H.L. 804, 660, 900, 1030, 1550 Hein, C. 1544 Henry, R. 61 Heraclides of Pontus 255 Heraclitus the Allegorist 75, 260, 265 Hermagoras 142, 735, 994 Hermogenes 982, 1885 Herodian see Aelius Herodianus Herodotus 1027, 1364, 1377, 2040, 2050 Heron Mechanicus 1224, 1635 Hesiod 57, 71, 435, 964–965, 1992 Hicetas 914 Hillgruber, M. 262


index of ancient and modern names Hine, H.M. 1135, 1376 Hipparchus 1051 Hippias 70, 2015 Hippocrates 1906, 1981, 2048 Hippolytus G.I. 75, 77; Bk.1 108, 260, 401; Bk.2 734, 850, 908, 930, 941, 967, 976, 1007, 1015, 1027, 1081, 1092, 1106; Bk.3 1134, 1266, 1285, 1323; Bk.5 1749, 1937, 2024 Homer 8, 57, 71, 787, 878, 934, 1459, 1750, 1992 Huffman, C.A. 821–823, 840, 853, 1086, 1096, 1099, 1889 Huna see Rabbi Hunayn ibn-Ishaq 1161 Hypatia 69 Iamblichus 75, 77, 680, 1099, 1362, 1460, 1496, 1531 ibn al-Haytham see Alhacen Ideler, I.L. 78, 1153–1154, 1192, 1219, 1237 Ilberg, J. 124 Ingenkamp, H.G. 1668, 1693 Inwood, B. 1598 Irenaeus 75, 109, 124, 1068 Isidore of Pelusium 735, 922 Isidore of Seville 75, 735 Isnardi Parente, I. 34 Isocrates 71, 260 Jaeger, W. 1613 Jas, M. G.I. 49–50, 88; Bk.2 866, 871, 999, 1050, 1053, 1059; Bk.5 1763, 1791, 1801, 1824, 1917, 2016 Jeremiah, E.T. G.I. 18, 26; Bk.1 103, 121–122; Bk.2 733; Bk.3 1134, 1152, 1172, 1190, 1248; Bk.4 1360, 1396, 1401, 1498, 1630; Bk.5 1742 Jesus 1918 Joly, R. 1918 Jones, A. 1224, 1635, 1655 Jouanna, J. 1919, 2024 Journée, G. 220, 229, 232, 242, 933 Kahn, Ch. 758, 943 Kannicht, R. 1942 Kant, I. 1337 Karpp, H. 1359 Kessels, A.H.M. 1776, 1778

Keyser, P.T. 914 Kidd, D.A. 967 Kidd, I.G. 87, 871, 1159, 1336, 1377, 1636 Kirk, G.S. 913, 925, 1029 Koenen, M. 1658 Kollesch, J. 123, 1786 Kranz, W. 32, 87, 256, 1807 Kraus, W. 960 Kraut, R. 1983 Kronenberg, A.J. 1873 Kuhrt, A. 1072 Kullmann, W. 1363, 1434, 1600 Kurfess, H. 1533 Lacaze, G. 967 Lachenaud, G. 57–59, 235, 866, 913, 960, 1098, 1716, 1954, 1974, 2036 Lachmann, K. 21, 76 Lactantius G.I. 75; Bk.1 144; Bk.2 887, 932, 1059, 1506; Bk.4 1691; Bk.5 1748, 1785, 1805, 1808, 1813, 1819, 1853, 1906, 1909, 1937 Laks, A. G.I. 88; Bk.1 254; Bk.2 755, 786– 787, 806, 913, 1017, 1086; Bk.3 1325; Bk.4 1568, 1676, 1686; Bk.5 1888–1889, 1891, 1953, 1955, 1992, 1994, 2004 Laks, A.–Most, G. 1627, 1943, 1974 Lammert, F. 1602 Laqueur, W. 124 Lebedev, A. 15, 39, 120, 449, 520, 1029 Leith, D. 2051, 2053 Lejeune, A. 1634, 1657 Lesky, E. 1787, 1789–1790, 1853–1856 Leszl, W. 235, 610, 755 Lettinck, P. 1161, 1226 Lloyd, G.E.R. 925, 1879, 1899 Long, A.A. 1594, 1598, 1694 See also Bastianini, G.–Long, A.A. Long, A.A.–Sedley, D.N. 1597, 1601 Longrigg, J. 2023 Lonie, I. 1889, 1961, 1963 Lucan, Scholia to 1774 Lucian of Samosata 75, 750, 961, 1039, 1092 Lucretius G.I. 72–73; Bk.1 109, 234, 342, 386, 640; Bk.2 735, 738, 941, 977, 1021, 1027, 1053, 1072, 1081; Bk.3 1134, 1135, 1219, 1153, 1189, 1193, 1205, 1256, 1304, 1322; Bk.4 1361, 1545, 1551, 1565, 1693, 1626, 1692; Bk.5 1750, 1752, 1805, 1834, 1839,


index of ancient and modern names

Lucretius Bk.4 (cont.) 1853, 1870, 1937, 1953, 1974, 2002, 2015, 2050 Luria, S. 773 Lydus, Ioannes 958, 1208, 1337, 1376

Nicolaus of Rhegium 42, 50, 866, 877, 1059, 1107, 1801, 1917 Nicomachus of Gerasa 1059, 1982 Numenius 401, 1779

Maass, P. 66, 1010 Macrobius 75, 735, 934, 995, 1106, 1153, 1159, 1362, 1398, 1462, 1499, 1775, 1779 Manilius 933, 960, 1134, 1153, 1160, 1268 Mansfeld, J. 21–28, 86 and passim Manuwald, A. 1603 Marcellus of Ancyra 48 Marcovich, M. 49, 65, 1050, 1982, 1985 Marcus Aurelius 783 Marius Victorinus 454, 735, 798, 1226 Martianus Rota 1362 Martin, J. 66–67 Mary 1918 Mau, J. 46, 57–58, 557, 866, 1030, 1098, 1549, 1926, 1954, 1974, 2036 Maximus of Tyre 659 McKirahan, R.D. 33, 405 Méhat, A. 1659 Meineke, A. 638, 804 Mejer, J. 930 Meno 1749, 1971 Mercuriale, Girolami 1635 Merker, A. 1225 Meton of Athens 1120 Metzler, K. 1856 Morani, M. 63, 68 Moraux, P. 786, 839, 891, 1406, 1431, 1532, 1533, 2012 Morel, A. 69 Morel, P. 1901 Moses 1918 Most, G. 88, 1086 See also Laks, A.–Most, G. Mouraviev, S.N. 1029, 1983 Mourelatos, A. 757, 914, 960, 983, 1044 Mras, K. 48, 259, 933 Mugler, Ch. 1631, 1657 Mutschmann, H. 123

O’Brien, D. 805, 853, 1071, 1085, 1636, 1920, 2025 Obbink, D. 405 Olympiodorus 75, 140–141, 1160, 1377 Oniga Farra, F. 30, 1920 Opelt, I. 1695 Oribasius 1753, 1899–1900, 1962 Origen 75, 1116, 1856

Nemesius 108–109, 268, 681, 696, 1362, 1436, 1626, 1804, 1807–1808, 1909, 2011 Newton, I. 1337 Nicolaus of Damascus 2012, 2014

Palmer, J. 332 Panaetius 136, 139, 1767 Papathomopoulos, M. 57 Parker, H.N. 1919–1923, 1927 Parroni, P. 1616 Paschke, F. 69 Pasquali, G. 65, 69, 915 Pease, A.S. 94, 1510, 1767 Pellegrin, P. 2040 Pendrick, G.J. 984, 1070 Perilli, L. 1635 Perrin, M. 1809 Petron of Aegina 2047 Petron of Himera 754 Philip of Opus 996, 1187 Philippson, R. 1457 Philistion 2047, 2051 Philo of Alexandria G.I. 74, 89; Bk.1 108, 110, 613; Bk.2 734–735, 750, 754, 783, 798–802, 819, 821, 840, 868, 878, 886–887, 908, 930, 941, 951, 954, 958, 963, 994, 1015, 1039, 1059, 1068, 1081, 1092, 1097; Bk.3 1134, 1153, 1160; Bk.4 1398, 1426, 1476, 1482; Bk.5 1748, 1886, 1909, 1937, 1940, 1954, 1980, 1983, 2000 Philodemus 72–74, 89, 109, 251, 265, 342, 385, 404–406, 738, 1767, 1775, 1778 Philoponus 140, 447, 737, 771, 878, 887, 994, 1099, 1222, 1404, 1431 Philoxenus the grammarian 1691 Photius 116, 804, 1242, 1336, 1357, 1805, 1819, 1825, 1920 Pietrobelli, A. 1138


index of ancient and modern names Plato G.I. 71; Bk.1 110, 260, 476; Bk.2 751, 823, 878, 930, 977, 1068; Bk.4 1370, 1364, 1403, 1476, 1628; Bk.5 1743, 1751, 1761, 1774, 1787, 1907, 1951–1952, 1973, 2000, 2047 Pliny the Elder Bk.1 108, 123, 125, 140; Bk.2 964, 1106; Bk.3 1134, 1193, 1248, 1266, 1274, 1309, 1324; Bk.4 1458, 1599; Bk.5 1757, 1846, 1921 Plotinus 453, 614–615, 783 Plutarch of Chaeronea G.I. 45; Bk.1 614, 714; Bk.2 735, 754, 783, 819, 823, 891, 951, 1009, 1039, 1045, 1050, 1068, 1093, 1106; Bk.3 1337; Bk.4 1616; Bk.5 1941, 1954, 1994, 2016 Podolak, P. 1479 Pohlenz, M. 1598 Polemon of Laodicea 124–125 Poljakov, Th. 69 Polybius 124–125, 1294 Porphyry G.I. 77; Bk.1 434, 452, 575; Bk.2 1106; Bk.4 1362, 1460, 1659; Bk.5 1779, 1885, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1909, 1926, 1961 Posidonius 139, 251, 342, 1107, 1133, 1193, 1248, 1336, 1765, 1775, 1778 Préaux, C. 1040, 1333 Primavesi, O. 34, 50, 88, 541, 581, 584, 871, 1636, 1761–1762, 1973, 1776–1777 Proclus 681, 827, 878, 934, 952, 964, 1137, 1924, 1962 Propertius 144 Protagoras 10 Psellus 252, 1131 ps.Alexander 518, 529, 941, 1431, 1919 ps.Archytas 254 ps.Aristotle Inund.Nili 1364, 1377 ps.Aristotle Mu. 541, 934, 1134, 1172, 1219, 1248, 1250, 2052 ps.Aristotle MXG 714 ps.Aristotle Probl. 1325, 1434, 1696, 1944 ps.Eratosthenes 960 ps.Galen An.ut. 1887, 1899 ps.Galen Def.Med. G.I. 75; Bk.4 1533, 1680; Bk.5 1748–1749, 1785–1786, 1797, 1805, 1813, 1819, 1831, 1838–1839, 1846, 1853, 1870, 1886, 1891, 1898, 1905, 1917, 1927, 1991, 2023, 2030, 2037, 2046 ps.Galen HPh 108, 123, 140, 267–268, 390, 520, 1172, 1349, 1364, 1396

ps.Galen Intro. 1750, 2037 ps.Hermagoras 142 ps.Iamblichus Theol.Ar. 840, 1962 ps.Justin 108, 265, 1397, 1425 ps.Plutarch De fato 659, 678, 694, 705 ps.Plutarch Hom. 75, 108, 260 ps.Plutarch Strom. 75, 108, 221–224, 234, 265, 267, 734, 850, 889, 976, 1263, 1481 ps.Soranus 1750, 2023, 2037 ps.Valerius Probus 75, 234 Ptolemy 930, 964, 995, 1155, 1223, 1263, 1266, 1275, 1597, 1602, 1627, 1984 Pythagoreans 234–235, 1133 Quintilian 109, 123, 133, 142, 265, 735, 783, 798, 994, 1059 Rabbi Abbahu 1918 Rabbi Huna 1918 Raeder, J. 63, 1376, 1527 Rashed, M. 759, 806, 1631, 1636, 1696, 1727 Rathmayr, R. 1846, 1848 Raven, J.E. 913, 925, 1029 Regenbogen, O. 123 Rehm, A. 1381 Rehm, B. 69 Reinhardt, K. 1336 Reinhardt, O. 1337 Reitzenstein, R. 1136 Rhazes 758 Riedweg, Chr. 48, 52, 757 Rist, J.M. 629 Robin, L. 1135, 1189, 1193, 1208, 1219, 1304, 1403 Rocca-Serra, G. 1121, 1567, 1786 Rolke, K.-J. 1599 Roller, D.W. 1337, 1380 Rose, V. 1378, 1814, 1846, 1952 Ross, W.D. 1905, 1953 Rota see Martianus Rota Royse, J.R. 61, 1734 Rudolph, U. 967 Rufinus 69 Rufus of Ephesus 1880, 1899–1900 Runia, D.T. 21–28, 86 and passim Russo, L. 758, 1338 Sassi, M.M. 126, 1326 Scalas, G. 1432

2316 Schofield, M. 913, 925, 1029 Scholten, C. 63, 1527, 2017 Schönbeck, G.L. 995 Schoonheim, P.L. 1161, 1226 Schopenhauer, A. 257 Schrijvers, P. 1361, 1400, 1778 Schröder, B.J. 123 Schubert, C. 217, 1616 Schütrumpf, E. 915 Schwabl, H. 925 Schwartz, E. 123 Scribonius Largus 123 Sedley, D.N. 602, 751, 1071, 1135, 1551 See also Long, A.A.–Sedley, D.N. Seleucus Grammaticus 1691 Seneca G.I. 75; Bk.1 108, 145, 260, 352; Bk.2 735, 738, 887, 908, 932, 958, 995; Bk.3 1133, 1135, 1138, 1146, 1153, 1173, 1176, 1193, 1205, 1208, 1219, 1226, 1237, 1242, 1248, 1256, 1274, 1304; Bk.4 1374, 1379, 1656; Bk.5 1847 Servius (incl. Auctus) 75–76, 234, 267, 798, 1116 Setaioli, A. 1193 Sextus Empiricus G.I. 25, 75–76; Bk.1 108– 109, 123, 265–267, 342, 452, 505, 517, 592, 600, 609, 640, 650; Bk.2 735, 958, 1120; Bk.3 1287; Bk.4 1528, 1594, 1602, 1695; Bk.5 1761, 1954 Sextus Pomponius 265 Sharples, R.W. G.I. 34, 67, 87; Bk.1 607, 629, 679; Bk.2 954; Bk.3 1136, 1137, 1233, 1323; Bk.4 1378, 1406, 1436, 1509, 1626, 1657; Bk.5 1765, 1778, 1909, 1995–1996 Siebert, H. 1627, 1635 Simon, G. 1628 Simplicius G.I. 29, 83; Bk.1 110, 140, 195, 592, 615, 630; Bk.2 737, 758–759, 853, 878, 930, 1061, 1099, 1106; Bk.3 1136, 1268, 1287 Smith, A.M. 1223 Socrates 1015, 1040 Solmsen, F. 110, 446, 1223, 1598 Solon 1750, 1980, 1983–1984 Sopater the rhetor 783 Soranus G.I. 75; Bk.2 1061; Bk.4 1361, 1398, 1406, 1426, 1452, 1476; Bk.5 1750, 1753, 1815, 1834–1835, 1919, 1991 Sotion 73, 227, 234, 243, 260

index of ancient and modern names Staseas the Peripatetic 1981 Steinmetz, P. 980, 984 Stoics G.I. 72, 87; Bk.1 110–111, 452; Bk.2 737; Bk.3 1134, 1158; Bk.4 1358, 1364, 1594, 1714; Bk.5 1750, 1761, 1787 Stothers, R. 1243 Strabo 770, 1138, 1294, 1333 Strato 234, 784 Strickland, L. 1588 Sturz, F.W. 805 Synesius 69 Tacitus 659 Tarán, L. 1822 Tardieu, M. 1511 Taurus, Calvenus 83, 85 Taylor, A.E. 1120 Tertullian G.I. 76; Bk.1 108; Bk.2 735, 798, 804; Bk.3 1135; Bk.4 1361, 1398, 1436, 1452, 1455, 1476, 1530; Bk.5 1748, 1774, 1886, 1891, 1980, 1983–1984, 1991 Theiler, W. 87, 1176, 1193, 1248, 1333, 1337, 1482 Themistius 76, 144, 2015 Theon of Alexandria 1295 Theon of Smyrna 827, 900, 1119, 1962–1963 Theophilus 76 Theophrastus G.I. 22, 29, 76, 82–85; Bk.1 110, 117, 125, 195–196, 257, 260, 536–538, 704, 713; Bk.2 736, 758, 799, 850, 852, 899, 931, 960, 964, 976, 984, 1015, 1071, 1106; Bk.3 1135, 1136–1137, 1153, 1173, 1187, 1192, 1206, 1219, 1238, 1249, 1262, 1305, 1323, 1326; Bk.4 1363, 1364, 1432, 1481, 1497, 1528, 1531, 1543, 1545, 1547, 1550, 1564, 1568, 1587, 1627, 1631, 1635, 1657, 1667, 1676, 1680, 1684, 1692; Bk.5 1750, 1823, 1937, 1955, 1973, 2030 Thesleff, H. 1635 Thrasyllus 269 Tieleman, T.L. 1616, 1753, 1889, 1891 Tihon, A. 1161 Timaeus Locrus 744, 840, 934 Todd, R.B. 914 Torraca, L. 59, 62, 1030, 1549, 1716, 1926, 1955 Trypho the grammarian 1694 Turba philosophorum 967 Tzetzes 109, 1920


index of ancient and modern names Usener, H. 21, 76, 78, 83, 195, 980–981, 1050, 1154, 1528, 1568, 1774 Van der Eijk, P.J. G.I. 67; Bk.4 1480; Bk.5 1787, 1839, 1843, 1873, 1879– 1881, 1909, 2023, 2037, 2039, 2052– 2053 Van der Horst, P.W. 1805, 1826, 1918 VanderWaerdt, P.A. 1457 Varro G.I. 73–74, 89; Bk.1 109, 251, 391, 434; Bk.2 734, 799, 1122; Bk.5 1748, 1774, 1786, 1808, 1813, 1819, 1853, 1906, 1918, 1960, 1963, 1980 Vassallo, Chr. 404, 852 Vegetti, M. 1457 Verde, F. 1634 Verdenius, W.J. 1631 Vergil 8, 146 Vindicianus 1786 Vítek, T. 88, 1975 Vitrac, B. 1225 Vitruvius 76, 140, 964, 1068, 1250 Von Arnim, H. G.I. 87; Bk.2 838, 924, 1015, 1110; Bk.4 1510, 1531, 1549, 1668, 1691; Bk.5 1765, 1891, 1996, 2053 Von Baer, K.A. 1808 Von Staden. H. 1775, 1778, 2039, 2051 Vottero, D. 1616 Wachsmuth, C. G.I. 60–62; Bk.1 229; Bk.2

868, 1040; Bk.3 1208, 1274, 1337; Bk.4 1400, 1452, 1496, 1506, 1542, 1543, 1584, 1585, 1654, 1658, 1694, 1714; Bk.5 1798, 1991 Walzer, R. 1953 Waszink, J.H. 1224, 1361, 1434, 1457, 1479, 1664, 1779, 1921, 1980 Webster, C. 1658 Wehrli, F. 87, 821, 954, 1096, 1778, 1995 Wellmann, M. 1879 Wendland, P. 348, 886, 1398, 1426, 1476 West, M. 754, 1460, 1631 Westerink, L.G. 56 Wigodsky, M. 403 Wildberger, J. 348, 436 Williams, G.D. 1304, 1376 Wilson, M. 821, 1136, 1188, 1206, 1222, 1225, 1249 Wöhrle, G. 33, 891, 913, 925, 983, 1027, 1071 Wolfsdorf, D. 2012, 2023–2026, 2030, 2032– 2033 Wright, M.R. 985, 1939 Wuensch, R. 53 Xenocrates 435, 853, 1092 Xenophon 71, 260, 751, 977 Zeller, E. (& Nestle, W.) 78, 226, 332, 1405, 1735 Zhmud, L. 754, 930, 1029, 1528